Jump to content

KCalderwood

Member
  • Content Count

    1889
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by KCalderwood

  1. Marquette Kiriakos/Calderwood... and we were one of the first teams besides KCC to go to larger national circuit tournaments like the glenbrooks. granted we got our asses kicked... but we ran heg good every round on the neg, and PMCs on the aff. I know some schools like Oak Park go to Dowling, but I'm fairly certain they go CP/DA. I'm not trying to create a dichotomy but national circuit policy debate (i.e. straight up, not critical, whatever you want to call it) is much different than straight up policy debate in Missouri. It's not just the speed, but different kind of arguments are made/more accepted, included but not limited to politics disads (for the most part looked down upon in Missouri, even called a "critique" at a novice tournament by the tournament itself this year), indepth counterplan theory, and multiple stratagies, such as a K, CP/DA combo, and then disads that link to the CP and the K. It's just a completely different world. EDIT: Greenwood also ran both policy and critical arguments when they were on the circuit this year. They didn't just read a "project" every round, they just tried to have fun and learn a lot. And surprisingly enough, there is a lot to run from both critical and policy arguments.
  2. Turn off the system and open a window, rtfm.
  3. Right on. I agree that a lot of it is getting old. Whenever I watch Season 1, I skip all the stuff with Kim and Terri because it is so boring and overly dramatic. Season 2, I still think is the best season, but the seasons after it have taken so many things from it. It's really sad. When I watch the new seasons/episodes I just pretend like I haven't seen the others, heh.
  4. I suppose we agree, only on the fact that they shouldn't complain because most college critics vote on smart arguments. I'm not saying the arguments are easy to make to split the panels, I'm saying a college critic voting on case arguments is not unheard of. How can you make these assumptions without knowing the critics in the pool at state. If you actually look to what college critics/debaters say is that we like to hear SMART arguments. I'm not sure why you think even top level critics just don't like hearing case debates. Every judge in the pool that was hired (and I know all of them)' date=' I can almost say without a doubt that they would rather vote on a good case debate then a stupid T argument. What this is supposed to prove is that it is definitely possible to pick up a coach judge and a flow critic. There is no reason to think that a college judge wil not vote on case turns if they are negative. Solvency + a disad wins this tournament. If the affirmative can't access huge imapcts, what does it matter if the negative doesn't? But I guess i would rather vote on shoe color (which is actually something a lay judge might vote on, appearance that is...) First, I have not heard a good probability argument this year in high school debate, either the circuit tournament I judged, or the local tournaments I judge here in Missouri. Second, again I think you are just wrong here because the affirmative will not be able to go for apocalyptic styles anyways. The problem is not the college flows. It is the inability of coaches to accept counterplans that force people to have humongous imapcts. I'm not sure where you think you know the college critics in the pool better than me- since I debated on the same team as about half of them.
  5. As for policy numbers- I cannot speak for other regions, but Eastern Missouri's numbers are decreasing like crazy. My freshman year the district qualified four teams to nationals, and was thriving. This was six years ago. We had a strong GSL showing, and were very competitive. This year, the district qualified three teams (just barely reaching the 30 or 31 teams required, with tons of fill teams), and only had TWELVE teams start debating at GSL! This number fell to NINE for the rest of the GSLs, which means ONLY ONE team did not advance to GSL finals. It is ridiculous, then, to think that policy numbers are ok. Oh, and I didn't mention this, but I think Ramsey did- The fact that not a SINGLE negative team won an outround at state proves why this modest proposal is effing stupid. Counterplans are just basic economic theory of opportunitiy costs and comparative advantages. --- I voted negative all four times in prelims.
  6. Just to clarify on season 4... the visit was not unplanned, it was just not on the official schedule of the Secretary of Defense. If you remember, Heller's son was having relations with someone the terrorists paid to find out when the Secretary of Defense would be around... or something like that. So it wasn't as spontaneous as you think...
  7. And I guess you didn't read my entire about how most of the college judges will vote on solvency + a disad w/ a realistic impact. The "expert" judges at the state tournament, as you call them, were just as likely to vote on an indepth T position then on case arguments. The problem people have with picking up expert judges on case arguments or disads w/ "realistic" imapcts is they dont' weigh args.
  8. I didn't read Nick's post, but we talked about this a lot this weekend, and seemed to agree. It doesn't surprise me that our posts were similar. hah
  9. Alright, I am going to refrain from posting too much here because I think everyone knows what I think on the matter, for the most part. Just a few things to echo and to add: First, I agree with the novice restrictions. A lot of states already haven novice caselists, and such. I think the NUMBER ONE problem with Missouri debate is that people DO NOT know the fundamentals of debate. It is important to learn these (and why camp is very important, because I'm unsure if even a majority of coaches know the fundamentals as I see them) to perform well in debate. Understandning why you should have to reconstrcut case advantages to go for them in the 2ar, having a complete disad story in the 2nr, and understanding simple strategy makes for better debates. These obviously are not all the fundamentals, but if we can teach them the fundamentals of good case/DA debate BEFORE we teach them critical/CP debate I think it is better for everyone. But, just so every coach knows, politics disads are not effing critiques. They are disads. So whatever tournament it was this year that banned politics disads in the novice division should just stop. They are legitimitely disads. Second, if counterplans and critiques are SOO bad for debate, why aren't they easy to beat? If people knew how to coach there debaters to BEAT these arguments then I guarantee there would be less of a fuss on whether or not they should exist in debate or not. Stop being lazy, and learn counterplan and critique theory. Read a book. Hell, they have camp for coaches. Do your students a favor, and give up three weeks of your summer to learn more about debate. I mean it is your PROFESSION. There's no reason why I am the first person people turn to for help (not only because I don't know debate as well as a lot of people give me credit for, but also because it is not my PROFESSION (yet)). Third, counterplans and critiques are essential for negative ground. Ramsey talked about this on the state's results thread, and JMac and I agree, that there is not enough negative literature on things like the senior corps and Americorps and such. If coaches read the literature, they would know this. It has hard to come up with offensive case arguments, or even good defense against a lot of these cases, especially when there is already such a huge urge to vote affirmative. I'm not sure why a criticism or the literature is that hard to read. Most of it is static over time. I don't mean to say that once you cut a critique you are done because that is certainly not true. However, the general idea of biopolitical control that Foucault talks about or the Real that Zizek talks about does not change over time. People may add to these ideas, but sit down, read Foucault, read a little Zizek, and learn how to coach these arguments. They really are just disads w/ counterplan alternatives (most of the time). I won't lie, these rules are really stupid. The contemporary/traditioanl split I think will kill policy debate in Missouri, and force people to run to the circuit, but I'm not for sure. The reason why I'm really not too worried about this is because I know they won't be passed. Although there is a large movement in Missouri debate against these arguments, I think a lot of coaches will be hesitant to be educationally violent and restrict the freedom of argumentation that debaters currently have. And if they are passed I can name several schools who will completely pack their bags for the circuit. The counterproposal is simple: Lift the travel ban, and let teams go to the TOC. Give us the circuit, and you can have your "safe haven" for "academic freedom". This is such a joke. Thanks, Kevin Calderwood SIU (These views do not express the views of Greenwood Debate. I speak for myself. )
  10. I agree, but will still watch. I think it was two epsidoes ago, was the best episode of the season. Good luck with heroes, craig.
  11. That appears to be what my argument has been the entire time...
  12. Will, Nothing got out of hand. I am just trying to explain myself so you don't think I am an interventionist, and I don't want to dislike you for no reason.. I am fine with your standards against judge intervention, and I am glad that you read every card in the debate... but sometimes this is not posssible. Simply skimming cards does not always work. But you shoudl also know, that I am not supporting what Eapen did (again, I didn't see the round, but would imagine what he did was ok because I trust Eapen.) The proposed instance where I would intervene is an extreme one, of course, and I think is justified to prevent cheating. Thanks, Kevin
  13. Hey, Contact me sometime this week. AIM: AFgolfer1987 Thanks, Kevin
  14. First of all, I am not being condescending. In fact, I told you I hate this discussion because I have a lot of respect for you. Be careful, Will... I am your friend, now, not your enemy... Second, I only repeat myself because you concede arguments. Aren't conceded arguments true arguments, or is it your understanding of debate that if it's conceded, I should do the work for you. Third, from the first post I told you why judges were ethically bound to do it- The reason why judge "intervention" is justified is because debaters should not have to read every card in the round. If they were, we would have a race to the bottom in ethics, where teams underline things out of context, cut entire cards out of context, and put things in unreadable font sizes that may or may not change the intention of a card. Do you really think it is educational to read the text out of every card? Or do you think debaters should be held to some level of standard? I prefer that they be held to some level of standard. I don't see why you have a problem with my specific example, unless you participate in this behavior, which I extremely doubt that you do. Since I did not see the round, I guess I will repeat myself again- I do not think any impropriety happend in the Central/Parkview round because I didn't watch it, and cannot shed light on it. What I will shed light on is what I imagine is a general consesnus in the judging community- taking cards out of context is entirely unjustified. Will, it might only take 3 seconds to make the "you cheated so you should lose argument", but it definitely takes longer to read through EVERY card to make sure people aren't cheating. Congrats again to everyone. ---Kevin
  15. Will, You are starting to understand what I am saying. I have never once said that Eapen's decision was right. I have never once said that Eapne's decision was wrong. Because I didn't watch the round, and can't really tell what happened from the "RFD" he posted. What I am telling you is if the politics cards are BLATANTLY unethically underlined a judge is WARRANTED, and in my opinion, ethically bound, to thorw the cards out. I am not saying they should do this for powertagged cards, but for cards that say "would not" but underlined "would". This is really important to me because I respect both parties in this conversation. I like the Central debaters, and I think Eapen is one of the most qualified critics in the pool, and a friend. --- Tim, I think that you are right about a lot of things, and my ballot explains a lot of problems with the fundamentals people have in this state. However, I think that you are ultimately wrong on it being too hard to win a flow judge and a coach judge on the same panel. Yes, it is hard to be negative, and pick up a coach. But, if you are smart enough to pick up a coach on your negative positions, most likely you are smart enough to pick up the college critic. I have absolutely no problem voting on a solvency + a disad with a small impact. I don't like to, but I think that almost every hired critic at the tournament would vote on defense against case advantages and being weigh ahead on a disad. Also, I think that the prospect of needing big impacts is checked- the affirmative can't read them either, or the coaches will get mad at them. I think every judge in CX at state should be a hired, flow critic, but that is in some dream world. --- My RFD (I guess): I will post my "thoughts" (I wouldn't exactly call it a decision, per se, because I flowed little of the block, (but I think I can justify an affirmative ballot from what I have flowed, even though that sounds bad, I will admit it from the start). I would say this is more an analysis of what I think of the round, moreso than an actual RFD. Like I told Tim and Hassan this round was ridiculous hard to evaluate. It was literally DEVOID of impact analysis on both sides. This makes it impossible for a critic to evaluate the debate without intervention, so if my decision sounds interventionist so be it. On the officers disad- I would like to point out, first, that I think the disad from the start is non-unique. You are saying the officers are LEAVING now. The position needs to say "high number of officers", link- "plan kills officers". If not the position is non unique. On the actual argumentation, I think Parkview is light years ahead on this argument. Liberty makes the arguments that normal means allows for the officers to be bumped up from E8-E9. I think, first of all, Parkview's evidence assumes this argument. They are not saying that the system won't work with the correct number of officers, they are saying there aren't enough officers to fill that in the status quo. When they read evience saying that short term enlistments kills the officer corps because no one sticks around long enough, and people who would have gone to West Point just do short term enlistments instead. Also you concede the Edwards 2005 argument that says this produces worse soldiers. So, I am giving Parkview pretty much the entire weight of this position. This has two problems. First, you do not weigh the impacts of morale. In fact, you don't even extend the impact in the block. Second, you do not tell me why this turns the case. I don't see how "hurting the military" necessarily hurts CMR or national guardsman. Absent this analysis this position is simply meaningless to me. I don't know how it weighs into the debate, and it certainly does not outweigh the case impacts (which I will get to later). On the inflation disad- I really, really like this argument. I wasn't able to read the cards so I'm not sure if it is that great, but I think it makes perfect sense on this case. Liberty, you can say "how so?" to this disad. You WOULD CASE 250,000 people NOT to enter the labor market, or you don't have solvency for end strength- you are definitely in a double bind. However, technical issues and time allocation in the 2nr prevent this from being a winning position for several reasons. First, you do not extend the impact evidence at the end of the debate. I don't hold that against you in this instance because the case advantages, which go conceded, are my easy way out (we will get to that in a second). Second, you are conceding too many (although I consider them bad) defensive arguments. You are conceding to them that the impacts to the disadvantage are inevitable- the Social Security will inevitably crash the economy is a conceded argument in the 2nr. It is uncarded, but from what Liberty tells me the impact will happen in the next 5-10 years. Also, you concede that there is no timeframe on the argument, so the eventual drawout of the labor force to the military might happen after the 5 years are up. Third, you never tell me why economic depression is bad, just that it will be like the one in the 1930's. And this is where I will be forced to intervene. On the case debate. The only argument you go for in the 2nr is that it creates bad soldiers. The link debate on readiness is not that we need good soldiers, but that we need college recruits, and that we need to prevent the recruitment shortfalls. I think you are conceding to them that enough people will join the military to solve this advantage. So, in the end I am forced to weigh a POORLY extend advantage (Zain, why in the world did you not put an overview on this argument in the 2nc? If you are afraid of big impacts, why not just make the democratic peace theory arg, most people buy it! Democracies don't fight democracies (or so the theory goes)). Anyways, you need to be extendning this cards throughout the debate, especially the impact card. You would have gotten lucky that I would have had to do more work for them to vote for them, or it was an easy Parkview ballot. In the end, I think preventing violence and multiple scenarios of war solves the imapct to the 1930's style depression, and ultimately outweighs because more people die in war, and usually causes massive economic destruction in those other countires throughout the world. These are just my thoughts. Congratulations to both teams! Thanks, Kevin Calderwood SIU
  16. Congratulations to Liberty on finals. Had I been given a ballot, I would have voted affirmative as well. If anyone cares, I can justify this later. Also congratulations to Parkview for being in finals for the fourth STRAIGHT year. In each year, the final round has been decided on a split decision. The decision in the panel, obviously a 2-1 for Liberty, broke down like this. (Kopolow, Brady, Martin*). I am not sure on the RFDs in the debate. I think you should reassess how judges evaluate arguments- in the end, judges vote on the flow, but we have to assess arguments. Like I said earlier, I did not see the round, so I will not comment on this specific example. However, just because an argument is conceded does not mean a judge cannot challenge internal warrants for specific reasons (such as the card doesn't actually say what it says). Most of the time, especially in Missouri, when a card is conceded, there is NO analysis on why it is important or why it functions in the debate. A conceded no link on a disad, that is only supported on a tag line and no analysis, does not necessarily outweigh a 2-3 strong link arguments (as long as there is some analysis as to why their links are more important, argued by the debaters, and this is inevitable by most good debaters). I am confused as to why you think a conceded argument is a conceded argument. I still think you misunderstand my example. It would, under your interpretation be "intervention" if I allowed all new 2ar arguments in the debate (there is a check against this in Parli, but sadly, not in policy debate). However, you provide no warrant for why a conceded lie somehow becomes true. If your evidence says "does not" and you underline only "does" that is cheating. That's all there is to it. Congrats Again, Kevin Calderwood SIU
  17. Liberty is affirmative, running End strength w/ 15 short term enlistments. Also ends stop loss. Parkview's 1nc was a readiness disad (on the plan text for some reason ), inflation disad, and some solvency arguments.
  18. The for the Final Round of Policy Debate: (6) Parkview (Brooks/Rao) debates (8) Liberty (Backus/Pasha) The Panel: Tom Martin, Camdenton High School Jeff Kopolow, Ladue Horton Watkins High School Georgia Brady, Blue Springs South Just a note on the round, those are their seeds, not their school codes.
  19. An Example for Will Pearson: It is not judge intervention to read evidence after a debate round, even if the internal warrants are not questioned in the card, especially in Missouri where there is only 5 minutes preparation time. For example, if someone reads 15-20 cards in their speech (not likely in our glorious state), I probably do not have the time to read through every card. However, if I call for a card that is read, but the internal warrants are not questioned, and the card is underlined to say "PMCs would solve in X country", but literally says "PMCs would not solve in X country", you better believe that the card is getting thrown out of the debate, and that you will probably lose. People get away with a lot of slimy bullshit in this state, and judges should try and prevent it, even with the ballot, in extreme circumstances like posted above. /example done. With that said, I haven't read the evidence, and will not defend Eapen's RFD or his reading of the cards. Since I have done neither it would be wrong of me to shed light on this specific instance. Finally, I would like to say congratulations to everyone who cleared, and to Liberty and Parkview in finals. I have to say this, you wouldn't have cleared without me. Somehow Zain got me to vote on the worst T argument ever (Substantially = 20%), and Tim and Hassan got me to vote on a disad that didn't have impacts until the 2nc. Don't take either of those as insulting- I debated at this tournament twice, and know that the game is all about adaptation. Best of luck in finals! I would also like to send my deepest congratulations to Jon McIntosh, Spencer Harris, Carrick James, Katie Frederick, and the rest of the Greenwood team for an amazing showing this weekend. I know, i know, we didn't get where we were supposed too, but we were the top seed, with perfect speaks in prelims (and picked up the flow critic in quarters). This has been an amazing year for all of you, and I had an awesome time coaching, and just hanging out with you all. Good luck next year, and I will see you at a few of the circuit tournaments! Thanks, Kevin Calderwood Southern Illinois University
  20. (8) Liberty defeats (1) Greenwood on a 2-1 (Witt, Chrisman Coach, Duker*)
  21. KCalderwood

    fyi...

    Well then tell your home boy to learn that claim+warrant = good.
  22. KCalderwood

    fyi...

    Jason Bell: I think there is in the educational professions. Keegan: ...and I think you are wrong, because your distinction is arbitary. Jason Bell: While you may view it as a difference of semantics, I view it as significant. Keegan: Oh, so you are a moron and you have a right to be. That cool, I guess. I'm pretty sure Keegan's message is: NO WARRANT
  23. KCalderwood

    fyi...

    Why don't you try warranting some of your arguments, and Keegan will have something to respond to that is ad hom in nature. Saying, "there is a line" is not the same as justifying why "there is a line" or why "there is a difference".
×
×
  • Create New...