Jump to content

micfields2000

Member
  • Content Count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About micfields2000

  • Rank
    Registered User
  1. this calander thing... just remember heg is good
  2. (almost) every regulation GA adds to control entry into various levels in an attempt to ensure fairness has led to a variety of unintended consiquences. Middleschool debate is by highschool standards rediculous, everything about it is so restricted that it can be quickly outgrown. I understand that these limits are important to facilitate learning, but a bright kid who puts some time and energy in can master middleschool debate in a year. They need somewhere to go. Why not let them debate highschool? More debaters should only enhance the activity, and the extra experience should only increase the overall level of debate when these kids get older. If people can't deal with the zombie cp, the answer isn't through banning 8th grades, but getting better at debate. This fairness argument makes little sense. Within a round, everything should be done to ensure fairness, but there is no way to regulate what happens outside of a round. That is to say that some schools will be better prepared no matter what, banning middle school debate doesn't suddenly level the playing field. Debate isn't supposed to be flipping a coin; the object isn't to garentee an exactly equal chance for each team. Instead of trying to handicap teams that have middleschoolers ready to "go pro", why not just encourage that level of involvement more schools? So some novices get crushed. I'm fine with that; everyone gets crushed a few times, and a higher level of overall debate will only enhance these youngsters in the long run. Attempts to keep every level perfectly fair for every debater leads to restrained and ultimately boring debates. We shoud loosen entry restrictions and encourage kids who are able to jump ahead and test thier abilities. And Judge, being as for now middle schoolers often debate in high school, your decisions should be based (I would think) soley on your kids ability and and dedication. Good luck to your team.
  3. I'm surprised at how radical some of the opinions here are. Cellphones are not evil, using them to cheat is. I have never taken outside help in a round, but often my phone is on silent and I will recieve a call or text, once in a while i'll text a friend back during a down moment to tell them i'm away for the weekend. Cellphones can be a critical communication link to family for one thing, and sometimes a necessary timer for another, and shouldn't be dismissed from a round on pains of a ballot. On the other hand, if a judge said something to me you better believe it would dissapear for a while. In terms of suspecting a team of cheating via text messages, that is some heavy stuff. Honestly if the round was going strongly your way, I would let it slide and just take the win on the substance, becuase you can't be positive and you don't want to make a scene, especially if you are wrong. You might say something to the team afterwards, and depending how certain you are, talk to thier coach as well as the teams hitting your opponents in subsiquent rounds. Only if i was near positive the cheating had occured and that it would influence the outcome of the round would i take action durring the round.
  4. NOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo but i'm the Juggernaut
  5. I'll admit i'm a little biased here, (and also don't follow GA JV as closely as when i was a participant), but I think the pace team deserves some recognition. Thier in state record is amazing, they have dropped very few rounds to anybody. Even on the national record they are debating around 500 in the varsity division. I know there are alot of good teams out there, but I godda give a little publicity to the pace teams...
  6. I think this discussion is part of a larger one that has been stressing GA debate and will continue to do so into the future. It is a question of the nature of debate. There are those schools who can afford to travel, get expensive news services, hire part time or even full time outside coaching and card cutters. I am fortunate enough to be at one of these schools, and I have really enjoyed all of these benefits. On the other hand are the schools who have for any one of a number of reasons less money to throw at debate. This creates a growing divide as: 1) The more experienced (which often correlate to the more funded) schools complain about weak local judging and the hassle of cordinating three local tournaments while trying to spend as much time nationally as possilbe. 2) The less funded (and sadly often less experienced) schools complaining about the evolution of debate into a speedreading contest and who can hire the best evidence cutters contest. This is unfortunate. I personally like speed reading because there is nothing that can be done. There is no way to limit the speed of a team, and if team A can make one more arg by speaking a little faster, then they will, and if team B can get one more than that by going a little faster, then they will etc. At the national level clarity and speaker points puts a natural check on speed, but at the local level its more of a question of judge adaptation. And i'm comfortable with that, except when oposing teams complain. I can adapt to judges, but I hate to hear grumbles that all debate has become is speed reading. The simple truth is that its an aquired skill; anyone who reads 10 min a night can become fairly fast and clear, and you can train you ear to comprehend at those speeds. Regardless of funding and other issues, I cannot feel bad for those who just haven't practiced enough to aquire that skill. Hired coaching is more questionable. Rather, hired coaching is clearly a good thing, but how about hired evidence cutters? Again, the fundamental issue is that there is no check. How could these people ever be banned? I tend to think that even here hired evidence cutters only do so much, a prepared could prep one aff to the teeth, and say one generic K. This presumably could be done with limitted resources and no outside help. If this hypothetical worked on thier technical skills they would be competitive with any team with high priced evidence cutters. Further, getting outside help brings more arguments into debate, and a higher level of evidnce, increasing education (as corny as that sounds.) It is unfortunate that these arguments tend to be given first to select shools, but dedicated debaters even from schools with less resources can can sites, very quickly getting a starting point with which to cut similar files and responses to the ones given to "richer" schools. This question aside, I feel a hard working debater from a school can make him/herself nearly unbeatable on a few arguments, and thats all it takes to be competitive in almost any round. Other schools may have a diversty of files, but if you know your K, or your aff better than them, doesn't matter how many DA's the "rich" school has. I do wish the judging pools were on average stronger. I have no problem with judge adaptation, but people unwilling to listen to a specific argument clearly are from a bygone age that no longer affects real debate. And it is a tradgedy if two teams both have the ability to go faster, make more sophisticated args etc but are unable to because of the judges. However, i have faith that judging quality will go on a slow and steady rise. It is sad that certain teams are charged with destroying GA debate simply by competing nationally. Frankly, i would prefer to attend a given national tournament than a GA one, but i feel there is room and a need for a mix of the two. However, the way the quality of debae in GA will improve is acceptance of new arguments and ideas, an increase in and respect not disgust with teams that spend much of thier time out of state. I think Chris's complaints are legitimate, and while in the short term GA is doing the best it can, the state needs to sort of culturally accept change in the activity. (And don't get me wrong, there are many peoplein GA working very hard to maintain and improve the activity) As much as is possible more expereinced judging shoudl be encouraged especially for championship events and argument diversity should be rewarded not rejected.
  7. I find this math argument to be completely irrelviant. In almost all cases people agree that fiat should be immediate, this is rarely contested. However to argue that fiat is instantanius is not the same as immediate. You will argue no brightline, and I would contend that fastest normal means is the best for debate. There is no abuse an aff can claim from passing plan tommorow rather than today, only if the aff dodges a link can there be an issue. Further, there is a barrier to any government action, getting the bill coppied, implimentation etc. If a plan did nothing (good or bad), you wouldn't do it simply based off the cost of the paperwork. Thus the resoultion is asking should a world exist with X policy is slightly different then should the federal governmetn pass X policy. The resolution demands that the aff defend the immediate passage of the plan as per normal means of the federal government. How could the neg get any links (the aff would be like "you don' get it, our plan happens instantaniously, means there is no budget trade off" etc.) My view is better for a few reaons (this is starting to look like a thoery block): 1st - Education - along with debating the merits of the plan we can learn about the government process which is proly better knowledge for a highschool student, or a lawyer, politician, activist, business dude etc. 2nd - Fairness - in the world where an team breaks a "squirl" aff that is off beat and the negative is unprepared for, your world reduces thier strategy to T and T only. My world allows for generics, specifically politics, along with T. 3rd - No downside, aff teams should proly be prepared for politics, means its not like they get skewed out of the round. Also, if my 2nd argument is true and affs do a little research to get ready for the PC debate, then there is more clash likely each round. Your topicality arguments are flawed. The link to TX is based off plan action, not any plank of the plan. When the rez asks should the fed gov pass this action - it spots the aff the groud of that passage, as well as defending the action of policy passage. If the effect of passing legistltion is good, that is a reason to do the plan. You don't really give a reason why this is extra T, you just assert it is. It all rests on wether the aff defends passage or not, which you haven't really stated where the rez says the aff shouldn't, or a reason why policy passage is bad. Also, there is no abuse in politics advantages or link turns, the negative can easily, easily, easily CP out of any kind of "politics advantage" and if the neg ran the position, turning the PC DA is no different or more abusive than turning any other DA
  8. micfields2000

    Debate in GA

    The more I think about it, the more I think there should be system for handling partner changes. I think this for two reasons: 1) Some schools use the practice of mixing it up more than others, meaning even good debaters have a lesser chance of being represented higher in the rankings. 2) Makes the rankings more representative of the actual strength of the team. If both you and your new partner got points before, then you two proly form a real decent team (thus one that should be ranked high). Maybe if the points of old partnerships were split and given to the new pairs? I guess that makes it alot harder to keep track off... but its just an idea.
  9. micfields2000

    Debate in GA

    Out of curiosity, how are partner switches handled? For example (little ego building here), I proly got some points as Pace AF, how does that affect the points of Pace CF
  10. micfields2000

    Westminster

    I appreciate it, but let’s give Simi some credit… Quarters and finals were aff rounds, all I did was read the 1AC
  11. I just wanted to remind everyone: I'm Rick James
×
×
  • Create New...