Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Lamp

  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.
  15. THIS NEEDS TO BE CHANGED. I am not going to call out anyone in particular but I have seen tournament directors BARGE into oral critiques and start screaming at the judge because they were giving oral critiques. We need to change the tournament rules. Judges should be told by tournament directors that "staying post-round to offer advice to students is STRONGLY encouraged." This is going to become a matter of changing norms. Yes, maybe students have blank stares but that is just those students being dumb. If someone doesn't want to fix their mistakes, they probably aren't going to learn very much and be very good at debate.
  16. I very much respect your point and agree with your competing views of debate. But I think that ultimately the point that I'm trying to make is that WHY CAN'T WE HAVE BOTH IN KANSAS? And if anyone thinks the status quo is having both they are terribly wrong. As of right now it is prohibited to compete in the TOC. I qualified senior year for the 2nd time and if my partner and I had gone, we would have disqualified our entire school from participating in in-state competition for a considerable amount of time. If that is not mutual exclusivity, then I do not know what is. As of right now, debaters are forced to participate in debate in a very particular way. Yes, debaters may be allowed to go to tournaments like Greenhill and other 500 mile tournaments, but if you can't actually compete in the big dance at the end, what is the point? The pinnacle of experiences is being robbed from debaters. There is a ceiling to how far you can go if you choose to participate in the national circuit whereas there is none if you choose to prioritize speaking skills. I believe that competition is the LIFEBLOOD of this organization. It is what motivates individuals to push themselves well past their comfortable zone and ultimately gives them a greater purpose for their actions. Education is a by-product of competition. We should encourage competition -- anagonism, not antagonism though. No one is saying that the TOC is MORE educational. It is equally educational but in different ways. Fast paced thinking, research abilities, greater holistic strategic vision, and greater discussion of a wider array of issues (everywhere from semantic discussions to political issues to postmodern discussions). Individuals dive into the political ramifications of policy proposals. Sure, politics DA's are "contrived" and "stoopid" but I would like to note that many debaters who cut their own politics DA's are just as knowledge about the political realm as many analysts at think tanks. Shouldn't we encourage that RELEVANT education which manifests itself in a better democratic participation? I want KS to maintain a fierce competitive edge by being one of the few states which introduces its debaters to BOTH styles of debate. Someone who can philosophically comment on social structures and then simplify their arguments and present them to EVEN an everyday mom is someone who is going places in life. DON'T WE WANT THAT? Yes. I have a very specific vision. Amend the Kansas State rules to allow individuals who qualify for the Tournament of Champions to: a) participate in 3 additional tournaments in the debate "off-season" attend the ToC regardless of its geographic location This is NOT doing away with the 500 mile rule or changing the internal structure of KS tournaments. This is merely affirming the notion that YES the ToC is an educational experience. It is putting the ToC on the same level as NFL nationals. WHY SHOULDN'T IT BE? I'm going to say this right now -- anyone who says that the ToC doesn't have much to offer in terms of education never went. After going to nationals, and seeing plenty of KS debaters being honored for attending 3 and 4 years in a row, I hope one day KS debaters will be honored for repeat TOC appearances. Yes HONORED for repeat appearances. Not banned from them like what happened to me. So I'm ready. I want ANYONE and EVERYONE to take your best shot at this proposal. I want EVERYONE to play devil's advocate. Because, I am just THAT confident that taking this single action will GREATLY benefit Kansas debate as a whole and will not disrupt current practices.
  17. Vehemently disagree. I would care to know what your definition of the "National Circuit" is. For me, it is the debate community that travels to TOC bid qualifying tournaments. KS has seen a decline in competiveness at these tournaments, such as Greenhill, St. Mark's, etc. Can you tell me the last time that a KS team was invited to the Greenhill Round Robin? Saying that KS does well at NFL and CFL is a non-sequitur to "KS is less competitive on the national circuit." Both NFL and CFL are home to many, many debates in front of judges that prioritize form over substance. It doesn't make sense to gauge our performance on the "national circuit" by NFL and CFL. These are not "national circuit" tournaments. They are just 2 tournaments that happen not to be in KS. While NFL and CFL are great tournaments, performance at the TOC should be the primary gauge given that the national circuit is entirely geared towards qualifying for this tournament. **** Something that Patrick alluded to, but didn't explicitly note which I think may be the single greatest shortcoming of KS debate is the inability for a team to ask the judge questions about their decision and about the round. Open dialogue between the judge and the team is where some of if not THE BEST learning takes place. I still have nearly all of my notes from judge's RFD's. Some of my conversations with judges post-round were more valuable than even camp lectures. Furthermore, immediate response ensures that adaptations are made. 15 minutes after the debate, you are still very much engaged in the debate and still in that mindset. Immediate feedback allows you to better understand your shortcomings or strong points. This shouldn't be viewed at as strictly a "champ" style habit. I can't tell you how many times I have wanted to ask a coach at an instate tournament how I could have presented my message better. But no.... instead of being able to ask a question and clarify and get feedback immediately, I had to wait a few days until after the tournaments so I could unsuccessfuly attempt to discern three scribbled sentences in the bottom portion of the ballot. This practice is ANTI educational to the absolute extreme. I anticipate the prevailing concern will be, "but what if kids argue with the judges!?" But coaches are able to teach their students decorum and even penalize bad behavior which would keep this practice in check. If a judge is unable to justify their decision to a team, then they have absolutely no business judging debate in the first place. So can someone please explain why debaters are denied post-round immediate learning?? Because I'm still baffled by this one.
  18. the answer here is yes, but to a degree. i have the absolute utmost respect for those debaters who can win both the TOC and NFL in the same year. but you have to allow individuals the ability to do both at the highest level. the truly best debaters should be allowed to compete at the TOC and NFL in the same year if they wanted to even if they were juniors, soph, etc. locking debaters into a single mode of debate is absolutely anti-educational. locking debaters into stricly champ is anti-educational just as locking debaters into stricly speaking skills debate. both styles of debate have an enormous amount that can be learned from them. a diversity of experiences should be encouraged. you and swanson are making the same argument. yes, judge intervention occurs at all levels. but you have to look at the likelihood of interventions. it is WAY more likely to occur in a nonchamp round. pretty much the rest of what sev said i agree with, but i, obviously, very passionately agree with patrick. i hope that swanson is correct and the KS community adapts. but if it is the case that adapation is inevitable, why not expedite the process?
  19. **Note: I did not read very much of this thread so if my answer overlaps with others, I am sorry. I think that you are framing this incorrectly. It is not severing immediacy. This permutation is intrinsic, because it adds on time between the plan and the counterplan. [insert reasons why intrinsic perms are bad]
  20. couldn't agree more. the amount of misinformation on cross-x is mind boggling, especially with regards to K's. if you are seeking outside advice, check these websites instead of cross-x: http://spdebate.blogspot.com/ http://rldebate.blogspot.com/ http://www.the3nr.com/
  21. This response is just ridiculous. It looks like this: You: The world is going to explode in 2012. Steve: That's a bold claim. Why is it going to explode? You: The First Amendment says that I am allowed to say whatever I want so you don't have to make me give any justification. No one was ever denying your legal right to say that Palin is "quasi-fascist." The point was that within debate's intellectual circle, individuals prefer a warrant to back a claim, especially an extreme claim. Someone who champions the First Amendment ought to understand the value of an open forum with regards to the search for truth. I would hope that your opinion is not so tenuous that it cannot withstand the criticism of others.
  22. Althouh I can't give a recommendation, just thought I would add that Sony announced within the past week that they will be releasing a new Netbook in August: http://www.techgadgets.in/laptop/2009/08/sony-vaio-w-series-mini-notebooks-available-for-pre-order/
  23. maybe Palin just has a "friend" that she wants to visit in Argentina more...
  24. Lamp

    NFL Nats updates

    That's great. Congratulations to ON. How many years in a row has KS had a team in the top 10?
  • Create New...