Jump to content

Lamp

Member
  • Content Count

    897
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Lamp last won the day on August 18 2008

Lamp had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

95 Excellent

About Lamp

  • Rank
    Hoosier Daddy?
  • Birthday October 19

Profile Information

  • Name
    Danny
  • School
    SME/IU
  • Location
    KS/B-Town
  1. Many of the posts in this thread are with great merit. I respect the educators you listed out, and know a few of them quite well. Tara Tate was once my lab leader. But notice how most of the really productive posts are coming from them whereas a lot of the other posts are of questionable value. If you refer back to Tara's original post, notice how it was critical of this entire thread because it was an example of the debate community tearing itself down. Deliberation and discussion is important, but there comes a point when you need to just start doing. Even if an imperfect solution has been devised, sometimes you just need to act, instead of quibbling about whether or not cross-x reputation is a sound indicator of someone's credibility or not. My point is that this discussion has been hashed out again, and again, and again -- to the point of excess. I know firsthand (here's some background for you Les). I have been very vocal -- sometimes too much so -- on this topic. The inequity and other concerns related to the national circuit model of debate have been topics I've dealt with a great amount. I debated for four years at a high school in KS, qualifying to the TOC my junior and senior year. I attended the tournament my junior year (breaking the KSHSAA travel restriction rule) causing myself to be sanctioned by KSHSAA my senior year. This prevented me from debating in my state my senior year, and despite receiving three bids my senior year, I was prevented from attending the TOC my senior year because if I attended, then KSHSAA would issue a sanction on my school. Your bit about "if I wasn't posting on cross-x, then I'd be playing video games" drives home my point: it's not an either/or issue, maximize your time/energy, and instead of doing either of those, do something that can really result in positive change for the community that we both love so much.
  2. This entire argument/thread is so dumb. Not because it is a one-sided debate, or because any of the arguments are stupid; if anything, the arguments are too smart. The amount of time, effort, energy being put into this purposeless thread is outrageous. Think about the magnitude of the improvements to the debate community that could be accomplished in all of the wasted minutes arguing in circles on cross-x. Yes, debate is not structurally fair. Instead of spending your time criticizing someone online, go do something about it. That's what's truly fucked up about the debate community. You have brilliant people just doing a lot of things that really don't matter in the world; engaging in a lot of really time-intensive arguments about meaningful topics and putting their time into the argument rather than the act. Seriously, if this thread was deleted tomorrow, mid-argument, and this issue was never "resolved," the world would probably not bat an eye. And even worse, if this thread wasn't deleted tomorrow, and was eventually "resolved" after a bunch of long, well put together posts, the world probably wouldn't bat an eye either; nothing would change. Shouldn't we all talk less, do more?
  3. Lamp

    Debate Camp

    Because aimlessly poking around a massive forum for random postings is more efficient than consolidating the information/discussion into a single thread? We'll agree to disagree. Not sure why you're being confrontational with someone who's trying to ask a very legitimate question. Knowing who goes to what camp allows someone to find a compatible camp roommate, carpool/travel together more efficiently, exchange ideas/lecture notes, initiate inter-camp scouting early, etc. Sounds like you've never leveraged any of these efficiencies though. That's a shame.
  4. http://www.familytentcamping.com/site/1406228/product/900-1100-000 Can you say, "long-term savings!??!"
  5. too long to respond to. too tired. corporate world blows but pays.
  6. You add zero value to this thread. Yes these discussions are recurring, but then again so are vacuous "deskboy" inside joke threads. How about you stay out of the discussion until you provide more than just unentertaining sarcasm? If you don't want to read this thread, then don't do it. I'd probably be happier if you didn't. This thread has actually, unlike all prior threads, facilitated action. I know this because I know someone who is actually in the processing on contacting many individuals regarding particular changes.
  7. Glenbrook North is a public school, but this discussion is tangential.
  8. You bastardized what Patrick was saying. His point was that colleges recruit based on the POTENTIAL for success in an NDT style debate. In the context of Kansas, they do not recruit based on how many Mommy's gave you unjustified 30's because that number would probably be through the roof. They are forward looking. Also, Bricker supports Patrick's argument. He competed in the "champ" division in many of the KS tournaments while also participating in traditional KS debate. This merely underscores the importance of "champ" debate. Plus, success stories like him probably would've won the NDT if they had not debated in KS. Allowing them to compete at the TOC only could've added value, not diminished any. Volen, what you are saying is very, very easy for an older coach to say, someone who is more of an academic on this issue, someone who is distinct from the national circuit culture. Because I don't know if you ever went to a debate camp, and if you did, I would imagine that they were very different then. Because nearly every debater who has gone to an out-of-state institute knows that EVERYONE there has one goal--go to the TOC. Every instructor at that institute has one goal for their squad--go to the TOC. Students gauge success based on one thing--performance at the TOC and/or TOC qualifiers. The entire national circuit culture is centered around the TOC. Once you become a part of that culture, there is no going back. Telling a kid not to worry about the TOC who goes to a camp geared towards steep improvement is like telling the Chiefs not to worry about the Super Bowl. This is a cultural difference. Pretty much everyone here who has reiterated their lack of understanding for why the TOC is so important has one thing in common--they haven't debated in years. This has got to be a joke. Democracy? How many coaches sit their whole squad down before a tournament and say, "So how many of you want to compete in the champ division and how many of you want to compete in the other divisions?" You really think that kids get to completely choose what division they can participate in? So you're telling me if you had a talented novice come up to you and say he wanted to try champ, you would let him!? No chance. Plus you should factor in how many of those participates in traditional debate actually are passionate about debate. If a kid just decides to take debate for 4 years so he can put something on his college application, do you think he will enter in the traditional or champ division? Yeah, the answer is obvious. That's why those numbers are flawed.
  9. Your grammar argument is wrong. There is nothing grammatically incorrect about saying USFG instead of The USFG. Running this argument against a hege aff is really stupid. The argument is hypernationalism bad, NOT borders bad (like someone in another post mentioned). Why would you run this CP vs a hege aff? You can just read a K with a hypernationalism link to hegemony which is a much stronger link story than the link to the word "the" and would have a better alternative. Yes, this argument is not necessarily TRUE but it is strategic in the same way that a consult CP is strategic. If you are a very good theory debater and love theory, I would STRONGLY suggest reading this counterplan because the best response to this argument is theory. By that I mean, a) exclusively textual competition bad -- cp must be both text and func --- justifies perm do the CP word pics are bad -- think of the way that you respond to the consult CP argument that it pics out of "resolved" and why that is absurd because it can be run on every topic -- same line of thinking here -- in my opinion, the arguments like "your net benefit is retarded" is only truly offense when coupled with these theoretical objections. proving the absurdity/trivial nature of the CP bolsters your theoretical claim. c) no solvency advocate -- yes even though the evidence for why "the nation" is bad is shockingly good, it doesn't prescribe the CP as being the solution yes, the very right wing impact turns are responsive but i do not think that these are positions that so obviously favor the affirmative in terms of truth value like the theoretical objections. if you dismiss this argument and are not prepared to debate it, you WILL lose. it is as simple as that. i have received multiple bids running this argument against very good teams. they may have been better than i am, but they were unprepared for this argument so do NOT be caught off guard. EDIT: much of my post overlaps with ziegler's post. my bad, his post had not appeared while i was posting. but he is correct.
  10. can you actually even articulate a solvency deficit and/or offense though?? doubt it. if you can, i'm impressed. let's hear it.
  11. I think everyone needs to drop the attacking of Reid. Instead of taking advantage of his vulnerability being a younger debater, you could actually engage him and assist in instructing him in the right direction. Reid: Here are the things that I think you should come away from this thread knowing: a) Improper grammar severely undercuts your credibility. You need to start change outside of KS. In the instance of the TOC, you should start with JW Patterson. You mentioned to me that you had been talking to people like David Heidt about getting outside help on this issue. This would be the best way to change things with Patterson. I would also recommend getting in touch with someone like Jon Sharp because I believe that he would be able to get through to JW. c) This is not a KSHSAA issue. d) Being radical is going to get you nowhere. You have to very much understand the other side of the coin. Embrace it, appreciate it, and incorporate it into your approach. This is a race to the middle, not to the extremes. You will get NOWHERE by saying National Circuit > Kansas. Let me know if you have any other questions. ** EDIT: e) Start working for the NDCA in addition to the TOC. That way if the TOC doesn't work out, you have another option.
  12. Haha you are correct. Maybe I should go. I agree with everyone who is saying that we need to begin to change the community through engaging it. If it was financially feasible for me to judge every weekend I would do it. But coming home from Bloomington runs me a few hundreds dollars so there is just no way. Sev's right, cross-x doesn't change anything. So with that I'm going to go back to work.
  13. I know tons of kids the opposite way. So while it is not a universal motivator, for many it is. I totally agree. That is why everyone should be exposed to all sorts of debating. Can you elaborate? I am not going to engage in an argument, I am just genuinely interested in the criticisms that you have heard just so that I can know what they are. Raise your hand if you are going to cut politics updates in early April if you are not going to the TOC.... Hm... No one would... That's only one example. I can give more. Yeah ok this is absurd. I think that a more appropriate analogy would be the discussion of bonuses in the investment banking world. Why would brilliant individuals work 110 hour weeks if they are only going to make $60K or so in a city with enormous living expenses like NYC? Answer: They aren't. That is why you have seen a tremendous brain drain away from TARP-receiving firms as well as the flight of many to european based firms which do not have to deal with compensation issues.
  14. That's exactly what my proposal is. Change that. Thanks for the clarification. Going to the TOC is a goal that drives many debaters, which ultimately facilitates greater education. We should be allowed to reward debaters for their achievements and talent by allowing them to compete. How would Bill Gates feel if he created Microsoft and got $0 in return? What about Michael Dell not getting anything return for his brilliance? Not rewarding our participants disengages many. What would happen to entrepreneurship in our country if no one was rewarded? It would cease to exist.. That is why not being allowed to go to the TOC raises the question "What's the point of even going to tournaments like Greenhill which are very expensive if they ultimately amount to nothing?" I can tell you from personal experience, the thought of "Wow I got a bid!!" isn't enough. I want to compete. I really don't understand why NFL, CFL, and State are the end all and be all of debate and the ToC is viewed as just another tournament. Why isn't the TOC included that list of the absolute most important tournaments? I agree. That's why students should be allowed to do both. Imagine what great preparation attending the TOC would be for NFL nationals? You would be exposed to TONS of new innovative arguments and cutting edge strategies that could be repackaged and adapted for NFL nationals? This would only make KS more competitive at these tournaments. ** I challenge someone to produce an offensive reason for why allowing students to attend the TOC would be BAD. Not that speaking skills debate is important. That's not responsive. I'm not changing the 500 mile rule here. Just that students should be allowed to go to ONE single tournament.
×
×
  • Create New...