Jump to content

dropk2day

Member
  • Content Count

    146
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-51

About dropk2day

  • Rank
    El Colombiano
  • Birthday 04/18/1991

Profile Information

  • Name
    Name
  • Location
    TX
  1. the oil makes my hair look really cool after swimming.
  2. congratulations to Max Birnbaum from Winston Churchill in San Antonio, TX for getting top speaker, 2 more chances to do it again. also, (this has been said) congratulations to Whitney Young for winning the whole thang. as for offense-defense and claim-warrant, personally, i agree with ankur, but that's probably an anti-qualification, cuz im "not good at debate." more than anything, though, i think that's a debate that should be had in the round (instead of the stupid k vs policy framework debates that seem like a waste of time, this would take two stones with one bird (the other way around is just as stupid of a saying, if you can hit one bird with a stone you're a good amongst men), as it would lead directly into either risk comparison (offense-defense and "policy") or warrant mitigation and subsumption (claim-warrant and "k"), without having to say philosophy or ks or realism are good or bad even once). lol, that's at lead one thing LD has policy beat on, they have claim-warrant-impact set, while we're discussing it in a forum that infrequents like myself or people that are far too frequent (no offense, but if you have thousands of posts in a couple years it's a bit much).
  3. in my opinion, it all depends on your point paradigms. for example, mine are that i want to be persuaded, spoken to clearly, and for the kids to be nice and have fun. i dont think the speaker award method is good because i dont think it's our job as judges to decide that, but it should be the debaters that truly shined that tournament that earn the award. but i think that you need to create a general philosophy for points regardless of tournament. like what's the use of speaking a million words a minute if half are repeats of the previous word, a quarter are stutters, and the other quarter is slurred together, but the cards make pretty compelling arguments when you read them after the round. the only other factor that i agree with you on is round context. like "in this round, was that a "30 speech"?" type of thing. if it was a good debate in their style id give the 29.5, not the 26.
  4. assuming that could have been done, they would have debated and been top seed (as in either they get byes, allowing for averaging, or they debate and the entire bracket is different because roundrock would likely not be 3, and rd 6 would be a toss up of who they hit...) anyone know what happened? they get sick or something? hope nothing too bad
  5. http://www.nflonline.org/points_application/studentprofile.php?id=10038743 she was an alright public forum debater, but she cleaned up in speech.
  6. i have two, both oral: "i voted for the team that gave me less bullshit" (good thing there was a panel) "i vote neg on the disad" (there was no disad in the round... at all)
  7. statistically speaking isnt it the same thing? either way the trend is about the same, there's still going to be a normal distribution (bell curve, roughly) with 68% of the data being within one standard deviation from the mean and 95% within 2. anyone who does better than that would have still gotten the same speaker awards, breaks would be roughly the same. i dont see what the point is.
  8. pretty heavy heidegger links to this biznaz. i believe the matrix is the best example of technology being loss of meaning to life, though i guess that could all be impact turned by the dude who was like "i know what i am eating now is not actually steak and i know that i am not actually tasting it, but..." you know, the one on the crew who wanted back in. though the internal link is that you know that you are losing meaning to life anyway. that would mean it all goes back to the old heidegger vs nietzsche debate. though i think that would be best used as a case turn with t, social means talking, people only think they're talking when in the matrix, but their physical bodies are silent. maybe a kills debate pun otherwise, this is the panoptican, so just cut some power answers and you're clean but again, this can all be taken care of by impact turns, and perhaps the fact that t links to degger, but id have a way out, of course. presumably though, the idea wouldnt be too bad because that means that we could all have superpowers...as long as we didnt cross the agents, or whetever. though id like to be one, that would make me happy
  9. this reminds me of the art is bad impact turns we have somewhere in our backfiles, though sadly, i cant remember where on the second thing, humans are the ones that make those "crises." the reason there is a status quo is because of human fuckups. cap bad now that im done outlining impact turns, arguably, death is bad because people are afraid of dying because it presents the unknown. there are no axioms for the study of death beyond what can be understood through life. at the base level, there isnt really anything wrong with death. you die, get buried, become fertilizer for the nearest tree, live on through that tree or whatever animals (presumably worms) that consume your corpse. as for the relevance to debate, death being bad is a starting point, it is an axiom for which argumentation can be based, though impact turning it is always fun and generally successful because they are generally not well answered beyond "...but, but we have cards saying poeple die"
  10. 1) yes 2)k affs, criticisms, you might also cut a DA or a counterplan, framework, yeah, all of it. it's probably the most balanced lab, they also teach you to strategically go for das and whatnot if you're know for going for ks (haha, they wont see it coming) 3) there's one early, then i think there was one more before the tounament (6 rounds, breaks to octos), but you can always just have a debate after lab or whatever, sometimes the ras might debate against you if you ask (zack did last year) 4) top lab and k lab are both extremely good, but all of them have something to learn from (the staff is really good, even in "lower labs" you'll have extremely skilled coaches and college debaters (only the best) 5)yes, libraries=lots of lit, lab leaders= backknowledge on lots of lit that might be able to help you if you find it.
  11. scotty p missed the point on style though, lab leaders can help you go from a sloppy style to a very good one in like a week. that isnt necessarily done in practices because you dont necessarily know which points to hit. the rest seems fine though, im not going to talk to you about your round, cuz i could just say "so what, you probably suck ass" but i have no idea as to the validity of that, so instead ill say this: scotty p is right, camp is only good for you if you are disciplined. it is up to you to get better and to learn from your lab leaders, the people who do that the most will probably get the best tradeoff. and at camp, the files arent better for anyone, so the fact that you got waxed just means that they have better skills regardless, UNT is great in all of these categories (their libraries are beautiful)
  12. i disagree, id take (my) skills over greenhill backfiles any day. not having premade answers is where being "good at debate" comes in handy. also, dont cite teams that you dont seem to have any idea about, i doubt you've ever seen these teams in a (close) debate, simply because if you had it would be clear that it is not the "specific" counterplan that wins the round, but how they comparatively extend it and the analysis that comes on top of knowing the warrants in their evidence and being able to defend them better than the other TEAM (not their backfiles).
  13. dropk2day

    LD Thread?

    that's absurd, it's not our fault they cant keep a site up, bandwidth is an issue, as well as the community. on bandwidth, i dont get it too buch, but i think i understand the basic concept, dont clog the pipes, right? if we're going to clog the pipes might as well be with literature and help for the novices and confused people, not with stuff for a vaguely related community on the community, at my school, policy and ld people are fairly tight, but we still seperate, as our style of interaction is different, meaning that there will be an inevitable gap in what we can talk about and whatnot. there's no point in being a forum that policy debaters wont get in a policy forum website, that just doesnt make sense to me. what's the problem with just letting them look into our forums and if they get it, need help on literature based arguments, or want to look in to shifting to policy, ask? there's no reason to exclude them, but i also dont think that giving them a section of the site is a good idea. props to new guy for starting a site, hope it goes well. people who started talking about ICC and whatnot, sorry, i feel some obligation to give you all neg rep, do that on another forum or blog or whatever, but know that i dont dislike LD, i just dont think it should control a non-ld website
  14. agreed on the persuasiveness and skills. although some quite sucessful schools/teams may object, debate isnt all about having the most tricked out nuke war impacts and whatnot, knowing your arguments and being able to explain them clearly and PERSUASIVELY are way more important, and are what i took away from UNT. generally, you're going to get more work than you'll care to do there, but it will be worth it. there's also a balance of the types of arguments you learn (haha, i remember nicole telling us (klab) to go for d/as, they'd never see it coming), and the staff is amazing, but just like most camps, it's up to you to access that staff (i made the mistake of not hounding my lab leaders for every bit of knowledge i could get from them, but it was chill). if you're looking for card quality, you dont find that at camps in general, but because of the slew of cards put out, this camp is by no means behind. id say roughly 30% (about 900 or so, some now outdated) of the cards cut at UNT are what id call "decent", less than 10% "good" (i think that's roughly 300 or so, maybe a few outdated, but these tend to last longer), but here the trick is to find those good cards (which seem to show up in files at a time), read the lit that surrounds them (UNT's libraries are some of the most beautiful i have ever seen), and find the base for them, whith which you will be able to cut more "good" cards from later. on the lab leader comment above, i somewhat disagree with this, all of the labs had at least one really good lab leader, and one passable one, some had 3, but all of them are, ultimately, at your disposal, meaning that even the "bottom" lab can get exponentially better here. i dont think any of the other lab leaders were ever not willing to help, so as long as you are able to get over the inherent human shyness and talk to everyone, you'll be golden, but even then, again, your lab will have at least one really good lab leader (note: not trying to say any were bad, just not my style, perhaps, or relatively removed). i was extremely impressed with nicole, julian, and zack, they were all there pretty much every day to help and share their experience. as i learned, most camps or even labs' leaders dont all go every time, and it's very helpful when one of them might not share your same style or argument preferences, there's the other one (or two) there. dug the food too, beanburgers, yum soda has water in it, as i learned, i didnt die (sorry jason sykes ) overall, i was thoroughly impressed
×
×
  • Create New...