Jump to content

fish114

Member
  • Content Count

    241
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by fish114

  1. The inevitable implication to unclear speaking is that the argument does not get flowed, or at best the judge does not completely understand the argument as the debater wanted it to be understood. Unclear speaking itself may warrant lower speaks, but again if you are not being understood then the biggest implication is that your argument is not being interpreted correctly by the judge, if it even being flowed at all.
  2. I've got a pretty solid flow, send me an email (fish114 at comcast.net) and I will send it to you. The 1NC was vagueness, transdip, china, solvency, and the 1AC framework. They went for framework, solvency, and china. I am surprised there no complaints (yet)!
  3. The Panel was Bob from Mech (now Delone), Jon Lang from Meyers, and three older people who I did not recognize. Jeff, what does DNP mean?
  4. La Salle d. Cathedral Prep on a 5-0. Great round!
  5. Just a couple quick comments about the location of NFL qualifiers. The reason it is at La Salle is because it is during the weekday, and no other public school will cancel school for two days in order to have a qualifier tournament. If you would rather host the tournament, and think you can get school canceled for two days to do it, I am pretty sure many many people would be more than willing to entertain that request, and while I do not speak for La Salle, they would probably be pretty happy with that as well. Hosting a tournament is a lot of work, just ask Jeff. Also, a sidenote, you are aware that Br. Rene was the lead moderator of forensics since like 1990 when he became the president? He left the school in 2005, took a sabatical (rumors indicate it was in the Amazon), and now he is at Delone. Finally, while I have never judged qualifiers, La Salle offers judges lounges and whatnot generously. La Salle offers up the school, and its services for two weekdays. Because this is not an invitational, I would not get too angry with a poorly stocked judges lounge. And heat, well, is that such a big deal?
  6. fish114

    PHSSL Quals

    Dude calm down. I highly doubt that Ankur has any predisposed notions about you (In fact, Ankur has perhaps one of the LEAST interventionist paradigms out there. If anything, we should be arguing about whether that is a good thing!) I would also encourage you to read the archives of this forum for the past five years or so, and understand the history behind this kind of discussion. It isn't the old boys club by any means. In fact, the people on this forum have outright rejected the old boys club that had existed. What school do you go to by the way?
  7. fish114

    PHSSL Quals

    Ankur, I understand what you are saying, but I am not so sure everyone else does, judging by the response.
  8. Policy Debate Qualifiers are on the 6th and 7th at La Salle College High School in Wyndmoor. I would imagine you ought to contact individual coaches about judging, I don't think the tournament hires judges.
  9. fish114

    PHSSL Quals

    you are right, I guess my comments were more directed at Ricky: and Ankur: Whether or not you intend, its pretty clear from the response that these guys don't appreciate you saying that they aren't up to snuff
  10. fish114

    PHSSL Quals

    Shawn – I am not so sure students are responsible for the terrible judging in central PA. I think the major problem with PA is that you have got students who are just as dedicated as Truman/PBury/La Salle/Cath Prep students, but they just don’t have the coaching to be competitive at the level everyone else is. So naturally, they suffer. But its not their fault. It’s the coaches who are okay with putting together a half-assed judging pool, and bringing it to tournaments where people like you and I are equal in that seem pool, that’s where the problem is. Its not with students who don’t know the rules, they really want to know the rules (look at how John really wanted to come to Pennsbury this year, it wasn’t his dedication that prevented them from coming, it was the coach). Of course you probably know this already. Rick – I have a lot of respect for you and all, you are a phenomenal debater, but is there a reason to degrade a high school student on a public forum? Wannabeacoch – you are right. But realize that people aren’t saying that it’s your fault you guys don’t do so well. Without getting too critical, it’s your coaches who have something “against” our style of debate, and are too involved with the teachers union to do anything more than what they are contractually obligated to do to help you guys succeed. Frank – take a chill pill man. This isn’t the end all be all, its high school debate. John – did you qualify to states this year?
  11. Actually Shawn, according to The Communicator, internet access is permitted in round:
  12. yea it was La Salle B v La Salle C and I was the only judge, not exactly an amazingly important round, but it was interesting nonetheless
  13. Ok I am sorry I did not explain this well enough. The 2nr goes for t and the k, drops the cp and answers the theory. I get absolutely no analysis of which one outweighs, the most I get is by the neg extending the "drop the argument, don't drop the team," which gets answered by the aff with in-round abuse (they run statism and a consult EU cp). I buy it, and it becomes in independent voter. But they completely butcher t from the getgo, they don't meet the neg def and dont even meet their own counterinterp (as you can tell not exactly the best round ever). Thus, the neg wins t through and through. I never get any analysis on which theory to prefer, just that they are both voting issues, but one is never preferred more than the other, other than the drop the argument not the team which is successfully answered.
  14. Neg wins t, Affs wins conditional cps bad with an independent voter. Who wins the round?
  15. La Salle closes out varsity, Pennsbury in 3rd (both 4-1, La Salle RS breaks on speaks, and La Salle MM 5-0 in prelims) Unionville over Pennsbury in Novice Final on a 3-0
  16. fish114

    PA States

    Laptops actually reduce the gap between the rich and the poor - thats one of the reasons the NFL decided to allow it. These days, laptops are getting much cheaper (you can get one off ebay for like 400$), but paper evidence still costs a lot, and so does printing stuff out. If you can cut 5 or 6 tubs down to 1 or 2 you can literally save a couple hundred bucks. Plus, with FTPs now quite common you can literally get 10 gbs of evidence for each topic, and they are typically just as easy for poor schools as rich schools to access, and you don't want to print every page out its nice to have them on the computer. A lot of FTPs (including mine) opened up to new schools - this actually reduces the barriers to entry because it makes it much easier to access. Jeremy, I think that you think open cx leaves the door open for the speechmaker to literally not say a word during cx, but in practice this almost never happens. And when it does, its a really bad strategy just because it sets up poor time allocation because the person who is now answering questions ought to be busy using that was free "prep time." Plus, cx is often used for clarification, so why should one partner write their question on a piece of paper and give it to their partner to read when they can just ask it. Its a waste of time. Generally, in varsity, you would like to assume that debaters know their case well enough to answer questions, but sometimes there are little things that both partners might not understand. When one person does all the talking there are bigger issues then speaker points.
  17. How about a requirement like judged/participated in 20 rounds in the past 3 years or something like that-it still checks back against new judges but at the same time it prevents schools who pull from a large pool of judges from being penalized. Its better than the waiver because PHSSL isn't the NDT. Meaning, considering the PHSSL board's previous history, how much scrutiny do you think they will evaluate "less qualified" judges with? It is probably very different from how some of us might evaluate those judges.
  18. Hey, so I have been out of debate for at least pretty much all of this last year, but I've been to camp and I'd like to think I have a pretty good working knowledge of whats going on - at least enough to teach a Novice or JV lab or something like that. I could do Varsity but there are more qualified people out there to do that. So if you need a lab leader or judges or something like that I am more than willing to help out. I can also help with logistics or planning or anything in that department. I think the camp ought to be at least 2 weeks, any less and I am not sure that you can do it right. Marketing this camp will be really important, and it should start 2 weeks ago. Its really important to get people from middle-PA involved just because they have established programs that could be expanded, as opposed to the coasts which either have established programs or none at all. You could also run a coaches clinic, again especially for the middle-PA teams who probably have coaches they just don't know enough about cx anymore to coach their teams. I debated for a while and I had a lot of fun with it-I kind of got burnt out at the end, but now thinking back I really enjoyed it. Looking back, its a fun activity and Mike I am more than willing to help if you need it. Oh, and Ricky-are you going to PSU next year?
  19. So I have complained about bad judging in the years past, and now I am on the other end-so I think I have kind of a unique perspective. I like the idea of a qualification system, but I'm not sure that there ought to be a minimum round requirement. It ought to be based on technical knowledge and not experience in that specific year. Many schools, like La Salle, have a bunch of alumni that they call on to judge tournaments. Thus, theres only a few (typically only Veit) that have actually judged 15 rounds in that year. But at the same time, we have a boatload of what I would argue are qualified judges who know the rules of the game. Just because you haven't judged 15 rounds in a year doesn't mean that you aren't qualified. And, even if you have judged 15 rounds in a year, that doesn't necessarily qualify you. Lots of schools have coaches or other people who have judged for them that I wouldn't want judging me. Granted, judges ought to have some experience with a topic, but I wouldn't quantify it. I also think that in a state like PA, CPJ can backfire. Well, in order for it to work right, judge sheets would need to be filled out before the pref system is created. And even then, some of the schools from middle-of-no-where might band together and throw high ranks at their own judges. Unqualified judges could still get put in rounds that matter. I think MPJ is probably a better system because we aren't at St. Marks where schools are paying shitloads to get there and generally have at least reasonably qualified judges. Whats the negative to MPJ here anyway? (other than the fact that the PHSSL board might not like it - but they also might not like CPJ, so why not go for the gold instead of settling for silver?) Oh, and how is PHSSL tabbed? Do they do it on a computer yet? Because if not, that might be something to add to the letter... I don't know considering I haven't been there in a few years.
  20. fish114

    PA States

    Holy shit, stop the presses. Brother Rene has email?
  21. I thought only 2 teams for each district go?
  22. fish114

    HADL Pride

    HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA from someone who has debated under him for 3 years... what he doesn't know won't hurt you
  23. So yea rereading this post it is extremely disorganized, it was more a steam of consciousness that anything else So I've been monitoring this discussion to some extent, and I guess its time I put my two cents in. I guess coming from my perspective, there is a certain fear in PA debate that National Circuit debate is not educational and is somehow "bad." I think that this is a huge misconception. With that said, I think there is a huge superiority complex that exists (me included at one time) within us PA debaters who debate occasionally (or often) on the circuit. The fact of the matter is that these judges do exist, and there is nothing in the short run (at least by the time you all graduate) that can be done about improving the quality of judges. So the objective becomes adapting, and honestly if you asked me even a year ago what my definition of adapting was it was absolute crap. It would have meant talking slow and thats about it and not run kritiks (which I wouldn't do anyway but nonetheless). Mike - Also, I guess the issue with this round (which i saw none of) is unique. I think that as judges, we ought to come into the round with as little bias as possible in regards to what arguments we will vote on. As judges, its not our job to penalize teams that don't adopt what we think debate ought to be about. Thats the coaches job when the go to the PHSSL board and tell them there needs to be a change. As an arbiter, my job is to determine a winner and a loser- and nothing more, and the default way I will choose to evaluate that round is as a "policymaker." The interesting thing about debate, however (mike may not agree with this), but there really is no set of established rules (or rulebook) other than timelimits and speech order. There is no objective way to evaluate a debate round, there is no litmus test for what constitutes pass interference or a double dribble. we leave it up to the participants to make up all the rest of the rules for the round. So with THAT said, if a team decides to rap about how debate is unfair I've got no place to say this isn't what debate is about, because as an unbiased arbiter thats not my place. However, if the other team can make an effective argument criticizing that idea and its better than the other teams argument again I will evaluate that. At the theoretical level, in a round with a critical team and a policy team, there is no reason why the policy team can't win without engaging the critical line-by-line, but that approach is quite risky. I don't mean to make my high school seem amazing, but look at La Salle, TJ and mike would shoot themselves before they ever ran a K, but they can hands down debate when it gets run on them. What i think it comes down to is that most central PA teams don't devote the time it takes to debate to be able to debate the k at the level the other team would prefer to debate it at, hell they can barely handle a stock issues debate from a good policy team. I mean how many times do teams that aren't established actually break at states? And how many of them actually do well? Mike, no offense, but it sounds like you are justifying not forcing your debaters to do much out-of-round work researching these kinds of issues. I mean of course there is a corrolation between budget and the amount of success a team has, but there is also corrolation between the amount of work a team does and the success they have. If central PA teams competed more and more frequently, they eventually realize, EVEN IF THEY DON'T LIKE KRITIKS, how to beat kritiks. Look at Adam and Steve from Susquehannok a couple years ago. Instead of trying to organize a movement against the way debate is going, it might be more effective to work on beating these arguments. instead of putting together a 30-point block on why pre-fiat is bad, it might be more effective to do rebuttal redos on how the line-by-line was lost, and what can be done better next time to win the round. The way I see it, a good debater can win any argument against any judge (everyone else laughs and remembers me 2 years ago), not win a certain argument against a certain judge. This is a two-way street too, the "quasi-circuit" teams from PA ought to be able to win any argument against any judge too - and that means preparing for the stock issues judges. For central PA teams, that means finding out what kind of arguments are being run by the big teams, and finding out how to beat them. Instead of bitching about how you guys are consistently getting beaten (which you are - even in front of "stock" judges) because you don't commit enough time to the activity, start working. And yes I realize that having an experienced coach helps, but to be honest, when I debated Jon never cut cards for us or wrote our blocks or did anything like that. It was also us. When you start committing the time to the activity, then you guys will do well. This is not directed at any specific central PA team, however, so don't take this the wrong way. Kyle (from Delone) - you say that if you aren't familiar with a certain K it kills productivity. The solution is simple - find out what the hell the k is about and find a way to beat it. Don't bitch because you don't think it was unfair. (again everyone laughs and thinks of me 2 years ago). You also say that everyone wants a stock debate. Hell, everyone does enjoy a good "policy" debate (those are my favorite kinds to judge now), but not everyone does. Again, if a team runs critical lit on you, instead of bitching about how its not fair, you ought to be able to beat it. Find out what the kritik is saying as opposed to why it violates your perceived rules of debate - you will win against more judges that way. Finally, the traditional teams ought to be able to debate fast teams in front of "fast" judges and win. It takes work, but it can happen. And the fast teams ought to be able to beat the slow teams in front of a slow judge and win. Thats the mark of a good team. My two cents at least (a little late i guess)
  24. fish114

    PHSSL

    Sarah has a good point, but aside from the financial reasons to have the tournament at Susquehanna (free secretary, buildings, etc.), where would you have it? Alternate between Philadelphia and Pittsburg? It seems like unless you have a changing location, you have to have it in central PA just for logistical fairness. I don't know, thats how it seems to me at least.
  25. any idea when the 06 documentary is coming out? looks the the 05 documentary came out about a year and a month ago (sept. 23ish)
×
×
  • Create New...