Jump to content

Lamp

Member
  • Content Count

    897
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Lamp


  1. Of all of the posts in the thread, I disagree with this one the most. Having established debate coaches discuss the future of our activity on an open forum is actually one of the most productive things I've seen on this website. I know a lot of these people in this thread (Les Lynn, Les Phillips, Tara Tate, Tim Alderete, many more) dedicate their entire lives to debate, fundraising, and helping the future of the activity. I'm sure you do a lot for debate - I try to as well, although lab leading at a UDL camp and writing UDL core files isn't nearly the commitment a lot of people here have really given - but I don't think it's fair to say that they are wasting their time defending in a public manner the way they contribute to debate.

     

    I really don't think the time commitment is too outrageous. There is no way anyone has spent more than three or four hours typing out posts in this thread... fundraising obviously takes a ton more time than that, just ask people in this thread like Les Lynn who have spent the better part of fifteen years creating urban debate leagues that expand access to thousands of students. Would that time be more productive spent securing funds or planning leagues? Arguably.

     

    But I don't think any of these coaches are really clocking hours on their jobs posting on cross-x, I think they're dedicating their free time to defend their particular instructional methods on this website. I know the time I would have spent writing out my two or thre posts in this thread is time that would have been spent watching TV or playing video games or going on another website on the internet. The same is probably true for a lot of the people posting in the thread. I also know that I have a lot more insight into the debate community and the thought processes and various positions that coaches of the community find themselves in thanks to reading this thread, so I am glad that they have dedicated their time accordingly to discussing this on an open forum.

     

    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.

    • Downvote 1

  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. Why do you even care? Look around the Kansas forum, some people posted where they are going already.

     

     

     

    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.

    • Downvote 1

  4. Mapes! If I didn’t know better I would think you are trying to goad me into a debate that we’ve had before and can’t be won due to personal feelings! All I’m going to say is that I’m not a fan of the culture that you are referring to. For me to attack it would be to attack anyone who has embraced that culture, and I don’t want to do that because those people are still good people, just that I disagree with them.

     

    That being said, I disagree that going to camp automatically makes TOC your top priority. 1st, obviously it matters the camp. UMKC, KU, KSU, and Rockhurst do not instill TOC as the goal because they understand their region’s interests. 2nd, Kansas is not the only state that has travel restrictions and does not go to TOC. I’m sure kids from other areas go to camp and aren’t allowed to TOC and thus it is not an option for a goal. 3rd, Harvard is not an option either, but I bet kids at camp talk about going to it. Or MBA, or any of the other tournaments that are more than 500 miles away. 4th, every year when my kids come back from camp we talk about goals. And my kids go to the big name camps too. Never has a kid come back and said their goal is TOC. You know why? It isn’t an option. They knew that going to camp, they told their friends at camp, and they knew it coming back. Have I had some kids interested? Absolutely! And if they could have gone, we would have taken them. But it wasn’t ever their goal because they knew it would be a self defeating goal.

     

    And when the Hell did I become an older coach???? Aaaaaahhhhhh!

    I hate using Bricker as an argument. The dude deserves better than that and he is a person who more than can speak for himself. However, let me point some things out. Bricker did debate the “champ” division in Kansas, which means you can be successful by debating in Kansas. Second, ask some of the “older coaches”, there have been several other very successful debaters in college who came out of Kansas and some of them even debated for top programs. But most of all, Bricker didn’t go to TOC. All of which shows that you don’t have to go to TOC or do anything more than go to the DCI bid tournaments, and you can be very successful.

     

    And I don’t think I’m changing Patrick’s point. Major programs do not evaluate kids solely based on winning TOC. They look at a variety of factor. And I would venture to guess most programs know of the strength of debate in Kansas, and if they didn’t then people like Bricker are opening their eyes (all without changing the SQ)

     

    No joke. I think you’d be surprised by the number of kids in Kansas that have no interest in circuit style debate. I’ve had kids threaten to quit debate because they thought we were going to ask them to debate circuit style and they preferred more traditional. I’m dead serious when I contend that the number of kids who embrace the “Kansas culture” greatly outnumbers the number of kids who pick up and embrace the circuit culture that you talk about. Note, I'm not saying you or anyone else is wrong, just outnumbered and haven't taken other perspectives into mind.

     

    too long to respond to. too tired. corporate world blows but pays.


  5. To highlight the sarcasm of my earlier post, I offer you the following:

     

    From your KS threads.....

     

    Facist because of No TOC-April 2008

    http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=983410

     

    We are Doomed—No TOC---November 2007

    http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=979134

     

    Champ Debate is Dead---September 2007

    http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=977787

     

    Deskboy Banter about the 500 mile rule turns even more ridiculous---August 2007

    http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=977120

     

    A discussion on judge adaptation, and why KS debate is dying---November 2006

    http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=967912

     

    Funding Spec is killing debate (not relevant, just funny) October 2006

    http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=966778

     

    Oh holy crap, no laptops---April 2006

    http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=962043

     

    Another nat circuit discussion---November 2005

    http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=958244

     

    Gasp another 500 mile Rule thread---August 2005

    http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=953684

     

    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.


  6.  

    This was equally entertaining. Patrick! Seriously, you pick the year in which home-grown kids win NDT to make this argument? That is hilarious! Are you really contending that there are major college debate programs that kids are being excluded from due to TOC not being sanctioned?

     

    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.

     

     

    But, today, if TOC is the goal of any student(s) in the state of Kansas (especially if there are tons), well that student(s) really should reevaluate their priorities. It is against the rules. Whether you agree with them or not, I would suggest doing everything you can to be successful within the rules. You can push to change the rules, but until the rules are changed, please don’t make your ultimate goal something that isn’t an option. That would be like me making it my lifelong goal to win the gold medal in softball. Even if I lost more weight than Jared and actually got good at softball (or if it was an Olympic sport anymore), I can’t be on the team because it is against the rules.

     

    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.

     

    Does it say something that there are only 12 kids interested in circuit style in the area but there are 200 kids interested in a more traditional style? I think that might be democracy in motion, just that some of you don’t like it.

     

    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.


  7. Dumb arg, with strategic benefits. But 2 ways the surprised aff should be able to create offense.

     

    1. More likely, less link to the net benefit, is heg good. We need to be consider the united states, the nation, the ruler of the world. And imperialism good and that shit. The aff, if it links to the net benefit, probably has a productive goal that would be furthered by an exceptionalist understanding of the United States. Also, you could frame it as the US or the EU, read some EU heg bad, and try to put some spin.

     

    2. Grammar. I don't think you can say US without the "the," and impact that. Given that your opponents won't be able to win uniqueness or a sizable link to their net benefit, and you control the 2AR impact calculus, you just need to phrase the grammatical impact of not using the definite article. Harder to generate and explain the impact though. You could try to make this a plan flaw arg too.

     

    A friend of mine was hit with this while running a big-stick heg aff. He said the first one, but I forget what the other team's response was.

     

    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

     

    B) 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.


  8. Also, unlike the actual k the CP doesn't even attempt to solve for the implication of geopower, all it does is avoid a link meaning the NB is non-unique/inevitable so ANY risk of a solvency deficit or ANY risk of offense on the cp is a reason to vote aff.

     

    can you actually even articulate a solvency deficit and/or offense though??

     

    doubt it.

     

    if you can, i'm impressed. let's hear it.


  9. heres my email: reid_wald (@) yahoo . com

    educate me

    im positive that we can get it done and im putting myself on the line here cant you keep me from falling. like whats the worst that will happen: theyll say no and we are in the same position. plus think how awesome it would be to storm kshaa with 100 people

     

    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.

     

    B) 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.

    • Upvote 1

  10. Clearly you've never been to the Gartner Expo :)

     

    I echo Bryan's words here, the only way to change the community is to go out there and be a part of it. You will encounter difficult people in all aspects of your life, but that doesn't mean you should never go outside. It is easy to talk the talk, the hard part is driving to Winfield 6AM on a Saturday morning so you can actually walk the walk.

     

    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.


  11. I think that being able to compete at the ToC is only an incentive if you believe that you will be allowed to compete at that tournament, which I understand was the case in your instance.

     

    I know tons of kids the opposite way. So while it is not a universal motivator, for many it is.

     

    To your point about the billionaires, I would propose that if they could not communicate their ideas to a lay person, that they would not have been successful and would not have made the money that they did (which you claim is the end goal for them). If they were only computer geniuses, they would not have been successful.

     

    I totally agree. That is why everyone should be exposed to all sorts of debating.

     

    All I have are the rumors that I have heard about the "social aspect" of that tournament that I would not want to expose high school students to.

     

    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.

     

    Seriously? If one of my debaters would have posted that while I was coaching, they would not be traveling to any tournament anywhere. There was a 100 mile rule when I debated. I never debated outside of Kansas. I worked my ass off to be the best debater I could possibly be. Why would exclusion of the TOC be a reason for you to try less hard?

     

    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.

     

    Going along with this line of reasoning: My current employer does not have a travel budget in this hard time. I really wanted to go to the Gartner IT Expo this year. Should I not try my best at my job now?

     

    /bd

     

    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.


  12. They will only allow competition beyond 500 miles at tournaments that the HS Principal's Association sanctions. NFL and CFL are sanctioned. ToC is not. Your issue should be with the ToC not getting that sanctioning.

     

    That's exactly what my proposal is. Change that. Thanks for the clarification.

     

    However, I don't believe that being unable to compete at the ToC creates a ceiling for that style of debate.

     

    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 will openly maintain that to be successful at NFL Nats, CFL Nats, or at State, students must be proficient in all types of debate, from lay to traditional to circuit.

     

    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?

     

    The teams that have been successful at either national tournament were only able to do so because of their experiences in slower rounds in KS, as well as in faster rounds at Circuit 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.


  13. Who cares about St Marks and Greenhill? We can't go to the TOC, they are functionally irrelevant tournaments. NFL and CFL are what we have and we should continue to focus on being competitive there.

     

    THIS NEEDS TO BE CHANGED.

     

    I completely agree about your point oral critiques and interacting with the judges. I was able to give an oral at any tournament I judged at except NFL District. DCI forbids post round disclosure (which I think should be changed) but the point is, this is not an institutional issue. Unfortunately (as an aside), when I ask "do you have any questions" at the end of my oral critique, I get blank stares about 68% of the time. And don't say "well their coaches don't prepare them for that"... you don't need any preparation for that question. How do we fix the lack of oral critiques? wait for it.... go out and judge.

     

    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.


  14.  

    For some, (I would imagine a majority who post on CX) debate is the most fun game they've ever played. It is an educational, competitive game. Debate is a social group in which some people feel included and special. Because kids are playing the game, and it is for them, they should make the rules, determine priorities, and in general the activity is all about them. The best judge is one who plays or played the game and thus gets the concepts.

     

    I’m really not trying to paint this as negative. It is a viewpoint. It is one, that at a time, I lived and breathed and 100% thought was fact.

     

    For some, debate is all of that, but to a much less extent. Debate is about lifeskills. Competition has its place, but that in general debate should be about communication, persuasiveness, and most importantly learning that even when you are stone cold right you might not win (a lesson I apparently never learned, but my boss teaches me at least once a week). The best judge is anyone, because in real life anyone might be the person you are trying to convince.

     

    Me, personally I’m in-between. I lean more to the second, but value the 1st very much so too.

     

    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.

     

     

    To say TOC is more educational is a fallacy until you back it up with a reason.

     

    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?

     

     

    And what is your actual plan to make this needed change? Seriously, policy debaters have plans of action. If you believe that Kansas is dying or at least being harmed, how do you plan to solve those harms? Come back and be one of the more liberal coaches? Lobby the Kansas legislature for a “no lay judge” rule? Bring a case before the courts to overturn the 500 mile rule? What is your plan?

     

    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"

    B) 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.


  15.  

    I don't agree that this is causing us to somehow become less competitive on the National Circuit, we had a team take 2nd at CFL and we had a team in 6th at NFL... that is a strong showing for what I would consider to be a down year. We need not be concerned with TOC "street cred". This year's NDT Champions were born in this system... Not to mention a ton of other competitive college teams and past national champions.

     

     

    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.


  16. i agree with you on several accounts, but i think operating within the system that you are placed in is in and of itself a part of technical proficiency in debate. i think that's where we may differ here. i understand that when you invest the kind of time and effort into debate that anyone that aspires to debate on the national circuit does--and especially you, because i know you worked your ass off at debate [and likely invested more time than i did during your career] and certainly should win the majority of rounds you debate, especially against others who didn't invest that same time. but we all make mistakes. and i think the mistakes that debaters who invest the kind of time you did in technical proficiency make most often are those of adaptation. so i feel your pain there, because it happened at an extremely inopportune time. but i don't know that it's the system's fault.

     

    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.

     

     

     

    this is where you have to toe the line gingerly, my friend. many an advanced, "high flow", "collegejudge" throws a ballot away due to dogma. it's happened in my favor before, as well as against my favor; in kansas and away from kansas [and in kansas but in a national tournament]. i don't think you can state that the dogmatic beliefs are solely a problem in the "lay judge" or "old school" judge world. in fact, and i have no evidence to back this up save personal anecdote, so i understand the weight of this will be extremely limited, but i'd contend that complete lay judges are far less dogmatic than the average college judge. i realize this isn't responsive to your claim whatsoever, but it is a thought that i think should be mulled over before leveling an indictment of the system as a whole. if dogma is the problem, are the old school coaches you discuss the keys to the problem? i seriously doubt it.

     

    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?


  17. Dave Arnett makes the argument that mechanical perms are legitimate.

    You don't have to do all the counterplan. Just all the plan.

     

    If you sever the immediacy of doing the counterplan immediately--this doesn't seem to be illegit.

     

    (although of course you're losing out on solvency of the c/p till then)

     

    Thoughts?

     

    **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]


  18. I thought everyone knew this but I read a couple threads tonight on various boards while I was bored and realized some don't.

     

    99% of all people on cross-x are morons. As such it is best to avoid taking advice from anyone on cross-x about debate and instead to consult your coaches, elder squad mates, assistant coaches, and trusted judges on debate issues.

     

    Additionally cut your own files and do your own research but if you feel you have to purchase it and are having trouble making decisions between authors look at their qualifications and determine them that way. More often than not it will indicate the better file.

     

    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/


  19. Steve:

     

    Please read the first post in this thread, and then read basic Constitutional law regarding the First Amendment.

     

    I (and everyone else responding to this thread - including you) was asked what I thought about Governor Palin's announcement; in other words, I was asked for my opinion.

     

    I do not have to"explain" and/or "justify" my opinion [either as to why I think Governor Palin is a "quasi-fascist," (a negative opinion) OR why I think she's "kinda hot" (a definitely positive opinion)].

     

    Nor do you have to "explain" and/or "justify" your opinions about Governor Palin, and neither does anyone else. That's what the First Amendment is all about... especially with respect to public officials.

     

     

    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.

    • Upvote 1
×
×
  • Create New...