Jump to content

STADB9

Member
  • Content Count

    846
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by STADB9

  1. One of the last things that many debaters learn--and the best debaters learn it even later than most--is that the discursive practices of a debate round have very little to do with the way people are persuaded in the rest of the world. Debate presumes a judge who aggressively seeks to disregard his or her pre-round assumptions in order to evaluate arguments with an open mind. But in the real world, there are no "tab" judges, and CERTAINLY there are no "tab" judges in environments in which you are explicitly trying to change people's opinions or behavior. In such a situation, "winning" an argument makes no sense, because the minute the person you're trying to persuade thinks you're in an argument against them, you have lost it. Think in terms of your own lives. How many times have you been in a fight in which one party voluntarily concedes that they've lost and that they need to alter their way of thinking accordingly? When I say that the conservative portion of the Kansas debate community reacts defensively to the arrogance of many disclosure proponents, I am not defending that mindset. I am not making assertions of any kind about moral authority. Rather, I am describing a fact that anyone seeking to change the practices of Kansas debate should take into account when crafting their appeal. Doubling down with analogies to commercial whaling and homophobia is as counter-productive a strategy as I can imagine. You don't have to like these people, but whether you like them or not, they are the audience you are trying to persuade. A line-by-line approach is not going to help you; nor will hitting them in the head with a hammer.
  2. It took us three days to get to the point at which non-Kansans joined the thread, asserting that half of the state's coaches are "glorified babysitters" because they don't engage in the preferred practice, and to assert that members of the judging pool ought to impose universal mandatory disclosure via their decisions in rounds. Kansans: do you remember when I put forth the argument that many opponents of disclosure are driven away from the practice just because they don't want to be like, or be influenced by, the people who practice it? Whether you agree with that argument or not, do you understand it a bit better now? And can you understand how attempting to "win" a debate in this way can produce the exact opposite of the changes you seek?
  3. Assist students in developing the skills to do these things on their own. Two clarifications are necessary at this point. First, Keith and Mason are not an example of a team which represents the ethic of disclosure in an arrogant or dismissive way, and I did not intend to lump them in with those teams in my presentation of the argument. Mason's post at the top of this thread is a pretty good example of how to present a reform to the community in a way that honors the sovereignty of those who disagree. Second: I was apparently unclear in my presentation of the three anti-disclosure arguments as to my personal position on disclosure. I don't particularly have one; I think it can be a positive thing when practiced by consenting teams. For this reason, efforts to build a constituency for disclosure are best focused on other debaters as opposed to authority figures--if the participants WANT to disclose it's likely to happen whether the coaches are big on the idea or not, and everybody will get a lot more out of it than if it's a compulsory practice into which debaters enter reluctantly. I presented the arguments against disclosure because Mason specifically asked for some, not because I necessarily endorse them. Mr. Volen is a better example of an honest opponent of the practice than I am, so it's probably his arguments you ought to be thinking about.
  4. "Because we believe we can out-think you in a heads-up argument, but we don't think the college debater(s) your school has hired as assistant coach(s), and we're not especially interested in trying." (Best when coupled with a proviso that the team will disclose if both teams are sequestered from their coaching staffs until the round begins) "Because we're breaking new." "Because the practitioners of disclosure are so disrespectful of the rest of us when pursuing this issue that we're refusing to disclose just in order to deny them control over our behavior." Feel free to argue back against the reasons listed above if you feel like it. For the record, my own teams have my permission to disclose or not as they see fit; if they choose not to disclose they are not permitted to seek disclosure by other teams, and they are not permitted to scout wiki sites unless they post their own cases to them. I don't much care about the issue either way; on the list of factors restricting the educational value of Kansas debate, lack of pre-round disclosure is about seventeenth.
  5. So ? was allowed both to debate for Manhattan and to judge the round? I have to assume she squirreled.
  6. SMS is one of the varsity finalists. Fled before the other semi was over.
  7. It is probably OK to un-pin this now.
  8. Could use first names for the tracker if you've got 'em.
  9. Mr. Stanfield is too polite to mention himself as part of that SME run, but he wasn't bad either.
  10. TTNFL may possibly be set this Wednesday; KCKSCFL possibly 9/9.
  11. I don't think Jennings actually ever won 123A state in debate; as I recall he lost in finals as a senior. So clearly he wasn't at all good at the activity.
  12. Culver won the '83 final with the "ground glass" speech. He beat a Texas extemper named Bill Robinson who had won the previous year as a sophomore and who won the subsequent year as a senior, and who would probably have a lock on the "best ever" designation had Culver not wrecked his party.
  13. Brad Young of Hutchinson ('83?) would be on the short list of great Kansas debate/forensics competitors: national champion in Congress, national NFL point leader by a substantial margin as a senior. I'll also make the case for Hutch's Eric Switzer, who was a two-time 6A state champion and an NFL finalist in Extemp. Nunns and Walker are probably the top of the list for the Salt Hawks, though. Did you know that Courtney Nunns still teaches English at Olathe North? Hutch also had a team in the NFL National Final at some point in the 1930s; there are still only three schools in Kansas that can make that claim. Richard Young, I have been told, won more state championships than any coach in Kansas. He is the only coach in the history of the state (and very possibly the nation) to qualify debate teams to NFL Nationals from five different schools, and is the only Kansas coach to have qualified a team to nationals from a 1A high school. I've often wished that we had records of teams from prior to the dawn of the DCI era. Even the early 80s is largely apocryphal, and most of what was achieved prior to then is a matter of rumor.
  14. Prior to 1986, certainly. The NFL finals were relatively fast even in the late 1970s, so it can't have been much later than that.
  15. Thread participants: the "legends" section of the Ad Astra website was intended to provide a permanent memorial to the accomplishments of Kansas' elite debate and forensics competitors. If any of you want to turn these commentaries into posts in that forum, nobody would be better pleased than I.
  16. I can speak to the late 80s and early 90s, albeit only from my own perspective as a competitor and as an assistant coach. The kritik was effectively introduced into debate by Bill Shanahan's Texas teams at the UNI season-opener in Fall 1991, so I would say arguments of that sort didn't really penetrate to Kansas until later in the decade. I would say that spreading was more tactical in that era--for a portion of the time period we're talking about, rebuttals were still four minutes long, so it wasn't so much in the interest of the aff to get out lots of offense in the 1AC--they had to make strategic decisions about what to include from the very beginning. "New in the 2" was less frowned on as well, so there was a real incentive for the negative block to make the 1ARs life as difficult as possible. I think the other major difference is that it was more possible even in what were then "contemporary" rounds for the negative team to win with defense. As solvency had more utility, counterplans had less--with other means of reducing the advantage in play, it was less important to moot it with a CP. I also recall the topical CP being frowned upon even at the elite levels. Arguments that were less ubiquitous early in the decade include heg--we probably WERE the hegemon as early as 1989, but nobody was really contemplating alternatives to it. "Debate bad" arguments were made in a famous New Republic essay of that decade but were generally laughed at by the community. China was still gearing up as an economic power; I remember Russian nationalism being the big bogeyman of choice, as the situation there under Yeltsin was very unstable and power cards were being written about a lot of specific figures with a lot of very weird agendas. Population malthus had a lot more currency as an argument in that era than in this; there were also some proto-kritiks flitting about in DA form, notably Ophuls "rights malthus" argument, the original Mary Ann Glendon "rights talk" variant, and DAs speculating on the effects of the plan on the environmental and feminist movements. Politics DAs were less about specific agenda items and political capital and more about elections and the ability of factions to use the plan to build a power base; in fact, it was none other than the aforementioned Mike Gottlieb at Northwestern who many credit as the pioneer of the approach to politics DAs that predominates today. But that's just how I remember it, and I only saw so many rounds. Curious as to how Fowler and others saw things.
  17. Good list. Some additional data and a couple of suggestions for added teams: -Gottlieb and Francisco were indeed in the top 10 at NFL Nationals twice. The kicker on this accomplishment for me is that Lawrence HS was a three year high school--so they were top 10 in their second year as debaters. -Either WaRu AR or WaRu HS were the only Kansas team to be last undefeated at nats; I don't remember which. -Don't forget that Olathe NW EP were top ten at NFL Nats as juniors. In 2007, ONW EP didn't qualify to nationals and Kansas STILL put three teams on stage; one of the great "what ifs" in the state's history asks what might have happened if they'd been in the field alongside the rest. Of the Kansas teams that competed at the TOC, they had the best record at 3-3. Two more NFL National finalists: Topeka High Katherine Menendez/David Kensinger 1989; Shawnee Mission West Holly Bartling/Steve Dvorske 1985. Bartling and Dvorske came closer to winning a title than any Kansas team, losing to GBN by a single ballot, and there are coaches around who will still say some very angry things about that decision if you ask them. My list would also include Taylor Nichols and Josh Dean, who as juniors and seniors were as dominant within the state as any of the above-listed teams, and pulled down 2nd and 3rd speaker at NFL as well.
  18. STADB9

    Nfl Qualifiers

    Cool! I'm finding out that my student is dropping out of NFL Nationals on cross-x.com.
  19. STADB9

    Nfl Qualifiers

    That would explain it, I suppose.
  20. STADB9

    Nfl Qualifiers

    Three Trails was specifically told by the NFL National Office that debate entries were prohibited from entering in any other two-person event this year--not just debate QUALIFIERS, but any student who had ENTERED policy debate in the fall. Several teams, my own among them, had to change their forensics entry as a result of this ruling. I am curious as to what other schools and districts may have been told by the NFL along these lines.
  21. STADB9

    Nfl Qualifiers

    THREE TRAILS POLICY 1. Sarah Evans/Jenny Phillips, BVN 2. Pavan Kota/Ross Marine, BVSW 3. Lauren Arney/Katie Super, BVSW PFD 1. Sydney Crow/Tucker Paine, BVW 2. Kurtis Engel/Jared Jacobsen, BVW DUO 1. Max Agadoni/Annalise Dimas, BVN 2. Sofia Belhouari/Steven Miles, BVN SEN 1. Taylor Ruisch, STA 2. Danielle Sartain, BVW HOU 1. Archana Vasa, BV 2. Thomas Cox, BVW LD 1. Ideen Saiedian, BVW 2. Spencer Yeamans, BVW IX 1. Ajay Subramanian, BV 2. Jean Song, BVNW DX 1. Tina Wei, BVN 3. Vijay Ramasamy, BVN OO 1. Danny Theissen, BV 2. Mac Phromanny, Spring Hill DI 1. Clayton Shuttlesworth, BVN 2. Mark Carlson, STA HI 1. Jocelyn Manning, BVN 2. Alexander Ohler, OE
  22. 10 of 60 debaters in 2-Octs, 7/32 in Octos, 4/16 in Quarters. Always a point of pride.
  23. STADB9

    Kcksncfl Qualifiers

    POLICY: *1st: Reed Norman/Lauren Scanlan, SMW *2nd: Sarah Evans/Jenny Phillips, BVN *3rd: Chris Birzer/Ideen Saiedian, BVW *4th: James Brower/Stephanie Shull, BV *5th: Chris Carey/Michael Hill, SME *6th: Pavan Kota/Ross Marine, BVSW PFD: *1st: Spencer Jones/Christine Hruska, SMW *2nd: Maddi Duncan/Grace Rogers, SMW *3rd: Swini Tummala/Tristan Locke, BVSW *4th: Ryan Kelly/Anthonyh Stapleton, Seaman *5th: Owen MacDonald/Spencer Yeamans, BVW *6th: Jared Jacobsen/Sean Price, BVW LD: *1st: William Ashley, Topeka *2nd: Dillon Fuchsman, SMW *3rd: Cole Feldman, St. James *4th: Emmett Rogers, BV *5th: Fernando Cardenas, Sumner *6th: Zach Hills, BVW CONGRESS: *1st: Dara McGreal, SMS *2nd: Taylor Ruisch, STA *3rd: Archana Vasa, BV *4th: Radwan Dayib, Emporia *5th: Matt Herndon, BVNW *6th: Blake Staley, BV EX: 1st: William Ashley, Topeka *2nd: Sierra Lekie, SMW *3rd: Julie Chang, BVNW *4th: Vijay Ramasamy, BVN *5th: Tina Wei, BVN *6th: Hunter Cook, Tonganoxie *7th: Lucas Ryan, Topeka OO: *1st: Grant Waters, Seaman *2nd: Jayden Robert, SME *3rd: Molly Kaup, Seaman *4th: Danny Theisen, Blue Valley 5th: Sierra Lekie, SMW *6th: Barbara Haynes, Emporia *7th: Clayton Covington, BVN DP: 1st: Joe Rothschild, Topeka *2nd: David Cline, BV *3rd: Michael Christensen, Tonganoxie *4th: Shakayla Holliday, Sumner 5th: Deonte Minor, Sumner *6th: Rachel Kennedy, Royal Valley *7th: Mark Carolson, STA *8th: Avery Davis, Topeka OIL: 1st: Josh Whisler, Seaman 2nd: John Williams, Seaman *3rd: Jada DeDonder, SMW *4th: Jhon Huachaca, Emporia *5th: Vincente Perez, Sumner *6th: Maggie Boone, STA *7th: Hannah Roenfanz, Lansing 8th: Maddie Duncan, SMW *9th: Mason Shields, Seaman ODEC: *1st: Natalie Bjorklun, SMW *2nd: Conrade Kabus, Seaman *3rd: Jessica Parks, Emporia *4th: Caitlyn Lambrecht, Seaman *5th: Alex Smith, BVNW *6th: Riley Brennan, SMS DUO: *1st: Deonte Minor/Kalen Allen, Sumner *2nd: Joe Rothschild/Rachel Tolbert, Topeka *3rd: Erin Davis/Zack Leon, Sumner *4th: Mac Crider/Matt DuPuis, Topeka *5th: Josh Whisler/John Williams, Seaman *6th: Sydney Main/Dallas Schafer, Emporia SWEEPS: 1st: SMW Special thanks to Jayden Robert of SME, whose quick thinking and assertiveness saved me from making a catastrophic mistake at the awards assembly.
  24. I am entirely convinced. I pledge that, following any PFD rounds I am forced to judge, I will disclose the entirety of both the affirmative and negative cases on this forum. You may be sure that I will make this pledge clear to the tournament director as well, so as to further generate support for this movement.
×
×
  • Create New...