Jump to content

bRubaie

Member
  • Content Count

    574
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

bRubaie last won the day on November 2 2011

bRubaie had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

262 Excellent

About bRubaie

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 11/23/1987

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.utdallas.edu/orgs/debate/new/

Profile Information

  • Name
    Brian
  • School
    Niles North HS
  • Location
    Chicago, IL
  1. I know people don't like the inelegant "and/or" but it would have improved the Latin America resolution. An Aff that engages with Cuba will confront a large Venezuela "alternate cause" and vice-versa. Saying "and/or" would've left the Aff a choice; broadening the scope of engagement would strengthen your solvency and advantage claims but you'd be vulnerable to PICs. Maybe the Aff would choose to strictly engage one or the other but I don't see any downside in affording them that choice. The original author's resolutions all included "one or more of the following." Can anyone with knowledge of the deliberations explain why this was modified? The EC topic resolves this by saying "one or more of the following." The list provides a limiting function while preserving Aff flexibility. The paradox of this is that the advantages Affs will claim in EC are more likely to be compartmentalized (specific to the country in question) while the advantages to Latin America Affs will likely be broad (trade/protectionism, etc.) I wish it were possible to flip flop which resolution allowed the Aff flexibility and which locked the Aff into a specific area. I'll be excited to work on either topic but initially favor Export Control.
  2. I think this is a great idea and just took part. I think the concerns voiced so far are reasonable but are not as strong as the reasons favoring the poll's existence. This information exists for other HS activities (namely, sports) and other forms of debate accomplishment (season-long performance, the Baker.) I agree that it's a little odd to rank HS kids but I think the downside here is minimal. The possibility of misinformed voting makes a lot of sense. I think this is the biggest concern. However, consider two counter-arguments; a. Direct observation is useful but so is evaluating the statistics. Many of these teams have attended 3+ tournaments and have a record. Many of them have won very tough debates, won several elimination rounds, etc. I tried to base my rankings on raw accomplishment (with some arbitrary judgment therein, admittedly) more than on direct observation. b. Look at the NCAA's top 25 Coaches poll for college football. The coaches vote even though 100% of their time is spent watching their own tape or that of direct opponents. The Coaches' poll isn't perfect, nor is the BCS, nor is the AP. The existence of all 3 provides a variety of opinions that recognize hard work and achievement. This poll helps to achieve the same effect for high school. The upside, meanwhile, is considerable. This is a great way to help programs demonstrate their success to their administration. Travel costs are difficult to sustain, particularly for public schools. Schools are more willing to accept these costs if they can boast about possessing a top-25 team. Very few schools in the country (by definition) are top-25 in ANY activity. This could help to cement school pride in a program and, more importantly, funding and support for hard-working programs and coaches. I agree that "rep" is stupid but it is also inevitable and it should be shaped by merit/performance rather than school name. Could you ever have envisioned a world where CK McClatchy (shout out to former labbie Spurlock) was ranked ahead of multiple-TOC champion Greenhill? On the flip-side, being ranked outside the top 10 didn't seem to stop Greenhill from charging to the finals of St. Mark's (and possibly winning, I haven't heard the result.) There is nothing objective about your rank in a poll. It doesn't speak to your potential, only to your performance so far. Performance can be measured without making a statement on potential.
  3. What's the net benefit? It's either the status quo and doesn't solve the case or it's an increase in funding and links to politics, spending, etc.
  4. My vote is for Eric Suni/Andrew Ardinger and Brian Nye/Scott Stinson from SME. They were the first to close out the 6A state finals (state championships seem like the most important barometer) and the only set of teams to qualify to the TOC from the same school in the same year. I'm not sure how they finished at DCI but part of that was by design (SME didn't attend DCI for a number of years due to ideological differences.) A little bit of extra love for my old college debate partner Andrew Baker for being top speaker at NFL in addition to being a finalist. What's more remarkable is that they only had three days to prepare (a duo from SME dropped out at the last minute.) Other names that merit (more) attention; -- Dylan Keenan of BVN: 2nd at NFL in extemp (and only because of a busted microphone), NDT Semifinalist and top speaker at college's biggest invitational (Wake.) -- Nate Johnson and Brad Hall of Manhattan: NDT Champion and NDT Finalist. -- Brett Bricker of Wichita SE: NDT Champion after never attending debate camp in the past. -- Andrew Jennings on Silver Lake: State champion in both Policy and Extemp, incredibly talented college debater.
  5. bRubaie

    "investment"

    Good post on this subject available here: http://utdebatecamp.com/2012/investment-in-the-infrastructure-topic/
  6. We went for politics against MSU here: http://www.debatevision.com/videos/24/quarters-wake-forest-2009-msu-lw-v-utd-br The only real thing I would tell you to take from my 1NR is not to cut the Peace Process DA lol
  7. Woodward wins the 2012 NDCA National Championship on a 3-0 decision. The level of applause revealed what a fantastically good debate this was. Congratulations to both teams on a fantastic debate and tournament run! 100 character version of decision: War turns structural violence/patriarchy, deterrence creates ontology security and Heg solves lashout. Thanks to everyone for following along, I hope you all enjoyed reading about the NDCA as much as I enjoyed the honor of getting to judge it.
  8. Woodward will affirm. The last two speeches will be given by the top two speakers at the tournament. Two notes: 1. Check out the Twitter address above (@Debate_Central) to receive live updates 2. We've rounded up a video and, assuming permission is granted by the participants to do so, will post the debate and decision on Debate Vision.
  9. Woodward will debate the winner of the Greenhill SU/St. Mark's BB debate in the finals. 2 ballots in the Greenhill SU/St. Mark's debate are in. Check Twitter to see the results as soon as they're announced!
  10. I did not sadly, sorry I can't be of more help!
  11. Finals pairing is available at http://goo.gl/Vpznt. Semifinals results are available at: http://goo.gl/Gp4qJ. Quarterfinal results are available at: http://goo.gl/VZAg1 Octos results are available at: http://debate-centra...=31&t=35842 Doubles results: CK McClatchy KS d. Little Rock Central WS on a 3-0. GBS SW d. Notre Dame BD on a 2-1 (Lee, Galloway, *Hardy) NOTE: Additional intel tidbits from debates I'm judging/results in a bit faster real-time available at https://twitter.com/.../Debate_Central NOTE: The Joy of Tournaments site has started updating the warm room -- more complete results (including the split/judge decisions in rounds) are up at http://www.joyoftour...e=2941&r=23&SE=
  12. I don't know if it is still useful to you all but I posted a fair bit of evidence on this subject at: http://debate-central.ncpa.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=35814
  13. Mead's a Senior Fellow at CFR I don't know if this is still useful to anyone but I spent way too long researching this topic and posted an analysis of it at: http://debate-central.ncpa.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=35815
  14. I've got a lot of love for PFD, but it doesn't require "more intellectual arguments." Instead, it requires more common-sense arguments. It doesn't require doing "twelve times as much research as policy debate" (even under this scenario it would require eight, or four in Kansas.) Instead, it often emphasizes analytical skills over research quality. Those are both arguably good things. PFD has come a long way since it was introduced in 2002-ish as Ted Turner debate in an attempt to model the CNN show "Crossfire." The topics (Wikileaks, College Costs, Aid to Pakistan, etc.) are often pretty neat. At the highest levels the students work incredibly hard and display great skill. In Kansas these issues aren't zero sum: CX and PF occur at different times, so why the fuss? I see where the disclosure idea comes from, but I don't agree with it for a few reasons: A) PFD predominantly caters to a crowd that is disenchanted with other forms of debate. It wouldn't want to model their norms. B. Disclosure is an evidence norm. It's for purposes of academic peer-review of the literature cited by student competitors. What makes PFD unique is that it doesn't require citing a volume of research or "cards." C) It would be burdensome. Teams would have to update it every month, and several times every month if they change their case.
  15. In a follow-up to the Reason-Roupe poll, there is a debate about whether traffic congestion is good or bad for American cities. Aff evidence/Traffic bad -- Traffic costs billions in lost employment and external costs -- destroys growth Staley, '12 -- Samuel, "Traffic Congestion and the Economic Decline of Cities," Reason Foundation -- Free market oriented think tank, 1-5, http://reason.org/news/show/traffic-congestion-and-the-economic. Neg evidence/Traffic good As a starting FYI: Some urban planners, however, say increased traffic congestion is good because it leads to people seeking alternatives like biking, public transportation etc. which has a positive effect on the environment. **NOTE -- I only cut the basic explanation but didn't underline this because this author is setting up a straw person -- he is just citing arguments he will later refute. I have included links to the authors he is citing beneath the card which *are* very useful to cut evidence from Staley, '12 -- Samuel, "Traffic Congestion and the Economic Decline of Cities," Reason Foundation -- Free market oriented think tank, 1-5, http://reason.org/news/show/traffic-congestion-and-the-economic. **Doig writes in an excellent Salon column available here: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/17/in_the_future_urban_bikers_go_faster_than_cars/. Among the highlights: ***King's cleverly named "20's plenty for us" group in the UK has a website -- perhaps not useful for cutting evidence outside of their 'myth-busting' section but an interesting read http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/Busting_the_myths.htm
×
×
  • Create New...