Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RAStevens

  1. Hi all, Registration is now open for Debate Central's Fall 2014 debate workshops! There will be two sessions: August 9th and September 20th. Both will be held on the UTD campus, 10am-4pm. Attendance includes top-notch coaching assistance, free evidence starter packets, and lunch... all for absolutely FREE! Teaching staff includes some of Texas's best debate minds, like Louie Petit, Scott Herndon, Jason Sykes, Kris Wright, and Derek Ziegler. Attendance is open to any coach or student at any experience level. We will offer labs for policy/CX, LD, and PF, so your whole team can come with you! For further information or to register, visit debate-central.ncpa.org/register-now-for-our-free-debate-workshops/ or email Rachel (DOT) Stevens (AT) ncpa.org We look forward to working with you!
  2. Hi all, Please consider entering this scholarship contest. All you have to do is submit a 1,200 word essay. Your essay should engage with the readings (short; only a few pages), but it does not need to agree with them. Three winners will be selected, winning up to $5,000 each and a free trip to Dallas to receive your award. The deadline is December 31, 2013. It should only take you a very little while to write this essay, so the potential pay-off is huge! more information and submission instructions at: debate-central.ncpa.org/yp14
  3. It was cool, when we did it. Four years ago. Mine is forthcoming.
  4. This is an example of why i need to check cross-x more often, apparently. I was under the impression we had a page on the wiki, so this is news to me. I don't keep digital copies of my debaters' stuff, so I can't change it now. But make us a page and I'll make them put it up tonight. Sorry to everyone that it's not already up. I'm about as big of a proponent of informative, robust wikis as anyone can be, so I understand the frustration. It's going to get fixed.
  5. Lincoln High will have the monstrous hybrid team of Arron Johnson and Derrick Stevens running monstrous hybrid arguments. I, tragically, will not be there because I will be debating in Springfield, MO instead. So someone else is going to have to adjudicate the wipeout debates this weekend. Sad.
  6. Ryan and I want to cut you a politics disad.
  7. Oh, yay, a new thread. This is the perfect place for me to say that I NEED A JOB and see if anyone is in the market for an assistant coach. I have no life which means I cut lots of cards. Hit me up.
  8. I think its an example of high school debate trying to mirror college debate. Lots of college resolutions (2 out of the last 3) have "one or more of the following" clauses. Also, its supposed to keep the topic more narrowly focused and decrease the amount of vagueness about what is and is not topical, I guess. Whether or not it actually does either of those things is up for debate.
  9. Remind me not to go home that weekend if the Kearney tournament is pants-optional. Holy shit that mental image is upsetting. In other news, I'm officially transferring to UNL next semester and am going to be looking for a job. If anyone is in the market for an assistant coach, hit me up.
  10. Wow, it's been a suuuuper long time since I've posted on cross-x. Anyway, just wanted to congratulate everyone involved with LSW. I was beyond impressed with all of the rounds I saw. Definitely a good start to the year.
  11. What weekend is LSW and does anyone need a judge for it?
  12. The first thing I thought when I read this post was "I bet this is about Uighurs." Lo and behold...
  13. I'm planning on being at KCKCC if anyone wants to hire me as a judge. I'm more than willing to help out whoever hires me with coaching and/or card-cutting as well. Let me know. Looking forward to reconnecting with the Nebraska community for the weekend.
  14. I'd like to judge some tournaments when I'm not out debating myself. Hit me up.
  15. Not that I disagree that the NDI is a good choice for ya'll, but if you like cheap camps with surprisingly good-quality lab leaders you should check out UMKC also. Most of our lab leaders are extremely successful college debaters and coaches who have won hella rounds at the NDT. Plus there's a very low student-to-instructor ratio, you will get skills work (not just be an evidence machine like at some larger camps) and its fairly close to Nebraska so you won't have to buy a plane ticket or whatever. For less than the price of just about any other camp in the country you could go to UMKC and NDI. I think its possible to go to both because I don't think they overlap, but I don't know that for sure because I haven't checked. Also, if you're going to be a junior or a senior and are looking to debate in college and get scholarships for it, its a good place to go because Vega recruits people who succeed at the camp pretty hard, that's how John and I ended up at UMKC. You can also get 3 hours of transferable college credit in communication studies for attending. The food sucks, though. I won't lie. http://umkcsdi.com/
  16. RAStevens

    UMKC Debate Camp

    Oh snap son. But seriously, you don't need warrants when you're priviledged by the structure of debate like me.
  17. RAStevens

    UMKC Debate Camp

    UMKC is obviously the best debate camp in the country and anyone who tells you differently is a fucking liar.
  18. Granted, I've never done PF and obviously don't know about it, but I think this resolution actually sounds pretty sweet (especially compared to some past PF topics, like the one about whether or not basketball players should have to wear uniforms or whatever the fuck assinine shit that was). Anyway, it seems to me that you could do a lot of cost/benefit analysis on this topic. For example, the value of freedom and civil liberties versus the value of security (very pertinent right now and definitely valuable to talk about). You could also talk about when/if violent rebellion against a corrupt government is justified, get into a lot of possibly interesting discussions about the constitution, etc. There might not be stats that straight up say "hay this is how many ppl civil disobedience helps kthnx", but if you dig a little deeper there's going to be a looot of people writing on both sides of the issue. Also, I don't think its necessarily bad for PF to get its feet wet in more philosophy/ethics based arguments. A lot of important questions can't be settled just with statistics.
  19. I was under the impression that PF was just meant to be a form of debate without the stylistic craziness and jargon of policy and LD so that anyone could follow them (hence the name public forum), and that put more emphasis on persuasion and rhetoric and "pretty talking" than other forms of debate. I though the resolutions were to be about current events and shit, which would not exclude civil disobedience. I wasn't aware that PF specifically excluded questions of morality. If I'm wrong, can someone more knowledgeable than me clarify exactly what PF is supposed to look like?
  20. I saw I am Legend. It was pretty well-done and entertaining. I think the ending is kind of a cop-out, though. I didn't read the book, but Alex tells me the movie departs from it pretty severely. Whatevs. Has anyone seen No Country for Old Men? It got really fantastic reviews and looks good to me, but lots of people have told me they hated it...I'd like more input. I want to see Lars and the Real Girl pretty badly, too...I'm home for Christmas, though, and I'm doubting that'll be playing in Kearney. Also, I'll second Lisa that Sweeney Todd and Charlie Wilson's War look worth seeing. There's a lot of potentially good stuff coming out now.
  21. A lot of really interesting issues have been brought up in this thread. I came into this a little late, but... First, as far as professionalism and whatnot goes, I have never considered policy debate (at least in Nebraska and most other states that aren't extremely "conservative") to be an exercise in presentation. It seems to be more of a discussion forum where the quality and strategic utility of one's arguments are valued waaay above one's personal appearance or rhetorical appeal. I don't think dress clothes and formality and whatnot are relevent, and to be honest I don't even notice what the debaters are wearing when I'm in the back of a room, except for to maybe think some girl's shoes are cute or whatever. I personally wouldn't debate in, say, sweatpants because I'd feel a little silly, but I certainly wouldn't penalize some debater for doing that. As far as the joking around and stuff goes, I think that has reached a pretty unique level in Nebraska, but outsiders need to understand that we're in a unique situation. Not only is the community small, its extremely close. Everyone talks to each other and, in a lot of instances, hangs out outside of debate. In any given nebraska circuit tournament, I can expect to judge my best friend, not to mention people I've gone to camp with, people I've partied with, people I chat with frequently, etc. I consider a lot of debaters to be my friends, or (as Dylan said), at least my peers. Most of the judging pool is in basically the same situation. It would be ridiculous to expect me to act like a hardass to a bunch of kids who I was just laughing and fucking around with a few minutes ago before the round started. If you're thinking that the close relationship between a lot of debaters and a lot of judges is inappropriate and/or potentially unfair, you might not be totally off-base, but in Nebraska we don't have a lot of alternatives. With the exception of coaches, the only people who ever seem to be around to judge are former debaters who already have existing friendships with current debaters, and even when new people join the pool they inevitably seem to start chatting with people and form some kind of bonds. I think most people are very conscientious, though, and really try not to let their friendships sway their decisions. It doesn't seem like its been a problem to me. Also, I can say as someone who's been on both sides of the ballot in Nebraska, having a friendship with the other people in the room makes both giving and getting advice a lot more comfortable, which creates better debaters. I'd contend it creates better judges, too, because when you have a relationship with the debaters, you want to make sure not to screw anyone over, so you take extra care to evaluate the flow extremely carefully. I'm not saying judges who don't know debaters well will make hasty or stupid decisions, but I do think there's extra pressure to be a good judge when you care about the people you're judging. Also, it just makes the whole process way more fun. Anyway, I do wish Nebraska debate was bigger and not in such danger of dying out, but the closeness and general friendliness of the community was always one of my favorite things about it. I don't really think that's worth trading for a little more "professionalism."
  22. Hey, Nebraska has all kinds of super-cool stuff. Like the arch!!! Right guys?! ...guys?
  23. You know, there's a reason why this website is called cross-x.com...
  • Create New...