Jump to content

mbareddog

Member
  • Content Count

    201
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

mbareddog last won the day on October 25 2004

mbareddog had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

41 Good

About mbareddog

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 09/18/1988

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • AIM
    mbareddog

Profile Information

  • Name
    Jamie
  • Biography
    debate, singing
  1. that's exactly what we want you to think. little do you know that ditching kyle has been the plan all along...
  2. mbareddog

    Harvard

    It's kind of funny how wrong the schools are for some people on that latest list. Burlington, Centerville...
  3. Point well taken. I think I did a little bit of a better job that night at the student party; it's tough to get people worked up at 8am in a Sunday morning, especially when the person singing is wearing a coat and tie. Maybe next time. Jamie
  4. mbareddog

    G BROOKS

    hahaha, i hope you know i was kidding
  5. I'm afraid I must take issue with most of what's been posted here so far. I was in the Michigan 7 Weeks Juniors lab a couple years ago, and was at DDI this past year (Serrano/Strange lab). Overall, I would have to say, while I certainly became a better debater during 7 weeks, the DDI experience was, for me, everything one would possibly want in a camp. First of all, the DDI lab leaders are unparalleled. Every one of them. Regardless of what lab one is in (and I mean that), you are guaranteed lots of one-on-one time with teachers who really care about your development as a debater. I can honestly say that every round at the camp tournament was a challenging one. Furthermore, everyone at the institute gets a lot of time with every lab leader, not just their own. The seminar-style electives allow debaters to pick what subject matters interest them the most and then receive more intimate instruction from a lab leader who specializes in that area (compare this with Michigan's preference for either large, generic lectures for the entire camp or smaller, yet equally impersonal lectures solely from one's own lab leaders). There is never more than one lab leader in college (a senior). Most of the lab leaders have been attending the DDI for years or even decade(s) - their annual decision to return speaks a lot both to their commitment to teaching and how strongly they feel that the DDI is the best camp around. I have never felt at another camp that I have received anywhere near the personal attention that I got at DDI. Secondly, the general atmosphere of DDI could not be more antithetical to the "evidence mill" idea. In most labs, cutting cards is prohibited during lab time in order to increase the level of discussion about the arguments (the emphasis is on thinking and unique argument development, not just cutting the cards for what lab leaders told you was a good idea). Library time is slotted for research, while post-lab time is usually spent just hanging out or working on rebuttal redoes or speed drills with lab leaders who come in and help until midnight at the dorm. I think this tag would be far more appropriate for Michigan, where a vast majority of lab time is spent researching (time not in lab is normally time to be in the library, again researching). Constant discussion in labs facilitates both a very broad and a very deep understanding of all the year's arguments, not just a few select ones. Thirdly, I think the claim that Michigan annually produces "better debaters" is more than a little off the mark. I agree with Stas - debaters who are self-motivated will be successful wherever. If they are friends, they will tend to congregate at the same camp, often producing a horse-follow-the-cart situation where the apparent successes of one camp's graduates were not a direct result of the camp, but rather an incidental statistic. This phenomenon produced an incredibly "successful" (in terms of post-graduation results) 7 weeks Juniors lab the year I was there (it is shocking what a large proportion of the top debaters in the country this year were in that lab). The next year, only 3 or 4 of the 30-or-so debaters in that lab decided to return (most decided to go to DDI, some to Northwestern). Year in and year out, Dartmouth has the top debaters in the country - if not at the beginning of the institute, certainly by the end. Finally, while the camp is vigorous, I had a fantastic time in Hanover (so fantastic that I decided to apply to Dartmouth early decision). There is ample free time to either kick Jon Karlin's ass in video game soccer or get your ass kicked by CMac in real soccer. Everyone was really close (even those who didn't know each other well before the camp) and had plenty of Hanover activities to indulge in. Honestly, as much as I learned at Michigan, I think this one is a no-brainer.
  6. sounds like a sweet tournament - hope i can go
  7. Finals: GBN vs. Damien
  8. Semis: Pinecrest v. Damien GBN v. New Trier
  9. mbareddog

    New Trier

    yep - i was pretty devastated. i don't know how that team wins neg rounds. jamie
  10. mbareddog

    New Trier

    You're retarded. Best, Jamie
  11. Something tells me Bill Gerath is involved in this slander...
  12. The following is an interaction with Linda Devore (Copyeditor of novels, brochures, advertising copy, presentation programs, research papers, Websites, business proposals, employee manuals, product catalogs, legal materials, journals, family histories, and more Publisher and designer of Websites, journals, newsletters, brochures, and other materials in personal publishing business, DeVore Desktop Design, Copyeditor for National Humane Society publication Kind News for students, Copyeditor for MacGregor Publishing, Expert witness for grammatical interpretation at trials, Content Consultant for The English Pages, a Website for teachers and students to support, a line of English textbooks and to provide material in the fields of composition, literature, developmental skills, and technical writing, from publisher Addison Wesley Longman, Inc., Copyeditor for Kairos, an online journal, and Petopia.com, Copyeditor for HRS Journal, Copyeditor of management textbooks,Editor, English consultant, and typist for a National Science Foundation Study, Effects of Water Pollution Abatement on the Textile Industry in Alabama and Georgia, Presenter of two teaching seminars at Association of Christian Schools International, Doctoral Candidate at the University of South Florida, Masters in Arts and College Teaching from Auburn, Professor of English at the University of South Florida and Auburn). Her responses are in red. Question: I've got a question concerning the grammar of the national high school debate topic; it is the following: Resolved: The United States federal government should establish a policy substantially increasing the number of persons serving in one or more of the following national service programs: AmeriCorps, Citizen Corps, Senior Corps, Peace Corps, Learn and Serve America, Armed Forces. The crux of the question has to do with the word "increasing." The Mayfield Handbook of Technical and Scientific Writing states that "active participial adjectives are formed from the present participles of verbs. They describe nouns that are actively causing or participating in an action." We first must establish and agree on a point you have not made: that "policy" is an active concept and critical to the meaning of "increasing." See my final point below. With this definition to work with, the debate community has been embroiled in a discussion over what the function of the word "increasing" actually is in the resolution. The important part of this question is what kind of "policy," grammatically speaking, "increases" the number of people serving in those groups? Because "sitting" may be interpreted in two ways, there is no definitive grammatical answer to whether it means "causes an increase" (thus "causing an action") or "results in an increase" ("participating in an action" that leads to a result) in the number of people serving in those groups. Whether the word means "that increases" or "results in an increase," in my opinion, does not affect the intention of the policy. This argument has centered around whether or not there is a grammatical basis for an interpretation of "increasing" which holds that the "increase" must be a prima facie one. That is, does the grammar of this resolution mean that a policy must "on-face" increase the number of persons serving in those organizations, or can a policy be established whose RESULT is to increase the number of persons serving (or is there no definitive grammatical interpretation for either)? Again, I think the key is the word "policy," which is always enforceable by action; its purpose is to cause a result, either guaranteed or at least promoted by action. Take the following example: (To understand the example, a brief explanation of how debate works might be helpful. In each debate, there are two sides, an affirmative, and a negative. The affirmative's job is to defend a specific policy to be established (aka "plan"), and the negative's is to negate the necessity of that plan. This example has to do with what kind of plan falls within the bounds of this resolution.) Plan 1: The United States federal government should mandate that all American citizens under the age of 24 serve a 15 month term in the Armed Forces. Plan 2: The United States federal government should overturn "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." (This team would go on to argue that the existence of Don't Ask Don't Tell prevents some people from joining the armed forces, and as such, removing the policy would result in more people joining the armed forces). The question is: is there a grammatical basis within the resolution for saying that Plan 2 is not "a policy substantially increasing the number of persons serving..."? In a word, no. I do not think you can argue the negative in this way because the grammar does not support it. Plan 2 does result in the increase purposed by the resolution, regardless of whether the increase is cause or effect and regardless of whether the purpose of the policy is to cause an increase or something else (e.g. uniformity or like-mindedness necessary for a successful military). The policy actively yields an increase in the number in either case. Thanks, Jamie Berk Montgomery Bell Academy --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Linda M. DeVore
×
×
  • Create New...