Jump to content

DarthYoshi

Member
  • Content Count

    350
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

19 Good

About DarthYoshi

  • Rank
    Evil Imaginary Dinosaur
  • Birthday 01/24/1986

Profile Information

  • Name
    Eric Atcheson
  • School
    Lewis & Clark College
  • Biography
    When I was four years old, I jumped headfirst off of my bed and had to have fifteen internal stitches above my left eye. I've never been quite the same since.
  • Location
    Portland, Oregon
  • Interests
    Eating, sleeping, and otherwise being horrendously lazy
  • Occupation
    LO/MG, Extemp Bitch

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    DarthYoshi888
  • MSN
    anarchist@democrat.com
  1. If you actually study the NPTE model off of which Annaleigh is basing her idea, you'll notice there are numerous measures in there to prevent cherry-picking (such as giving more points to teams that do well at larger tournaments, and capping the number of tournaments that count for points, so you can't just go to a ton of small ones). And in practice, such measures have generally worked--the teams that end up qualifying to the NPTE uniformly deserve to be there. I'm not sure if a point system would work better than a bid system or not, I'm willing to wait and see what happens, but I do think Annaleigh's idea does have a lot of merit based on its empirical success.
  2. As an aside, the institution of such a system like this sorta encourages making KS policy debate year round, to help avoid potential conflicts like this one. Just a thought. Not trying to hijack the thread in this direction, but if we are really going to go with a system like this, it should be something to consider.
  3. Fair enough on both counts, T is generally zero risk for the Neg...somehow that didn't enter my muddled brain when I made my last post, but in any case, both of you are right on that one. I stand by everything else I've said.
  4. What is the difference between throwing a disad out there, hoping that the Aff botches their response, and throwing a T shell out there, hoping that the Aff botches their response? Functionally, not a whole lot. Besides (and I know this sounds harsh), an Aff team that screws up arguing a routine T violation probably doesn't deserve to win anyways.
  5. Aren't standards (and voters) reasons "why the judge should take your argument (eg, the T violation) seriously?" I really don't see why a Neg team shouldn't be encouraged to run T in order to protect their disads. I see timesuck T all the time as a judge, and I understand the frustration with it, but if my kids were to see a risk of the Aff abusively spiking out of a disad (or whatever), I think running T is justified. They have a right to protect their offcase. Another way to take the teeth out of the RVI is to make your last rebuttal solely about T--it has the same effect (you are staking the whole round on it). Like I said, I think this is something that should be encouraged. Brett--I think there is still some point to at least offering clash against a case, no matter how non-T it is. For some kids, it is a matter of personal pride, they want to be able to muster at least some defense. For others, they are justifiably worried about putting all their eggs in one basket because of the prevalence of judges who don't like T. If a judge says they don't like T, it would make perfect sense to a competitor to either not run it or have a plan B rather than making it the sole strat from the get-go, and I honestly couldn't blame such a team for doing just that.
  6. Question--when you say your kids run T as the only position in the round, does that include running a dummy disad or something for the Aff to no-link and prove abuse, or just the T shell itself? I'm just curious. I've told my kids that if they're going to go for a procedural, then they should make it their only argument in the final rebuttal. I sort of see that as a fitting compromise, since my kids have sometimes felt the need to run procedural challenges in order to protect their offcase, which I don't have much of a problem with either. But then again, I kinda like T.
  7. I think there are a couple of incorrect assumptions here-- First, it isn't that speaker points are meaningless to judges like myself. I still put thought into them. To a judge like myself, there is a clear difference between a 27 speaker point performance and a 28 speaker point performance, or even a 28 versus 28.5 performance. Such speaks aren't "identitcal," and as others have said, I think that constructive orals and written comments are preferable in setting a context for a kid's speaker point rating. I also think that emphasizing z-score so much would also simply validate the subjectivity we're seeing over how speaker points should be awarded...it is already a terribly subjective and arbitrary measure to begin with, I'm not terribly keen on validating that.
  8. I think judges trying to be as tab ras as possible is very admirable, it is something I strive towards myself (with varying degrees of mediocrity). I do think the cliche that true tab ras isn't possible is ultimately correct, which was what I was referring to. But insomuch as one can be tab ras and tries to do so, that is a good thing. Heg good is always easy to vote for when it is impacted out to Khalilzad 95! Kidding.
  9. Sorry...we were busy trying to find a harmonious balance for the frequency of topicality in debate. By posting this, I'm probably making your headache worse by putting my yin-yang avatar up again. My apologies.
  10. Fair enough, I can definitely see why DADT would probably be a generic case where a judge is more likely to give weight to T on. I probably just entertain my naive belief in tab ras judging a little more than I should.
  11. I've seen it happen too. I think most judges and coaches have. I've probably been guilty of it as a competitor. These kids are JV, though, I might be inclined to cut them a bit of slack, but regardless, it is a pretty dumb mistake to make. It really does emphasize the need for adapation skills for debaters, and the importance of such skills. One thing, though, that I'm curious about, is the statement "this is the one case I will entertain T on." I totally respect not liking T, but to me, that statement seems pretty arbitrary--I mean, I'm guessing you don't tell the Neg, "Here's a list of cases that you should run T on," so it can make for some hard decisions for the Neg. There have been times as a competitor where I'll ask a judge for a paradigm, they say they really don't like T and to only run it when truly necessary. But then, after the aff case is read, my partner and I start worrying over whether or not this constitutes a "truly necessary" time to run T. We don't run T, and afterwards, the judge's ballot reads, "Why didn't you run T? I would've voted on it here!" Reading a ballot like that can be pretty infuriating. I've seen this phenomenon on panels that I've judged on as well (during orals after the round). I'm not saying you do this at all--but as a judge, I really don't like putting those sorts of constraints on debaters.
  12. Am I the only one who sees a pedagogical issue with likening speaker points to an A/B/C/D/F scale? People here are lamenting about how point fairies give the equivalent of a 90 to a C student, well, what constitutes an F student in debate? Short of saying something truly offensive, I can't think of a reason why a kid should "flunk" debate, to use the metaphor that the un-point fairies are using. Debate is supposed to be an open forum, and I'd be very reluctant to give an "F" "grade" to a kid who sacrificed his/her weekend and spare time to dress up and engage in a substantive issue in front of me. To me, at least, that sort of goes against my belief of debate being an open forum. Using the criteria being offered in this thread, I'm probably a point fairy. I don't think I've ever given a 30 in almost three years of judging, and the number of 29.5's I've given I can probably count on one hand, but I still use 27 as a rough average. I averaged out the speaker points I've given this year, it comes out to around 26.5. My speaker scale is roughly about the same as slcathena's, 'cept my scale bottoms out at 24, not 25. And I'm fine with that. Are speaker points inflated? Probably, but I'm not going to be able to change this norm on my own, nor am I terribly interested in doing so, so why should some random kids get punished because they randomly drew me as a judge and I happen think speaker points are inflated?
  13. The Africa topic is a lot broader than that and the res doesn't necessarily have anything to do with disease prevention. "Public health" can mean damn near anything. The whole geography thing (ie, is sub-Saharan Africa specific enough or not) isn't as much of a concern as the wording of the rest of the res.
  14. While I'm hoping that Africa will allow for some new international relations debate, I can't say I'm thrilled about it because of how broad the topic is. I love the idea, but I don't really like the wording of the res.
×
×
  • Create New...