Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Aady last won the day on September 9 2012

Aady had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

298 Excellent

About Aady

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 10/15/1990
  1. Aady


    Any ya'll South Dakota people still alive out there, lurking Cross-X? I just bought my plane ticket and I plan on making it to my 10th Bell Tournament. Wows and stuff.
  2. After your last post it seems that you only have a chip on your shoulder because you didn’t get a trophy. I do not understand where you’ve been personally wronged. Your posts refer to illegitimate round decisions but I don’t really see where they come from. Debaters are egotists by nature and I understand disagreeing with outcomes but not every loss had something to do with politics. You didn’t lose very often and the rounds you refer to are easily explained by poor judging. Surprise! Everyone has to deal with that. Personally, I wouldn’t have opted to be neg with the panel at Warrior. Seems to me that it was pretty decent to allow you to be aff without a coin flip. What I don’t get is how you can’t entertain the notion that you actually lost a round or why you can’t just dismiss it to not being a good judge for you. Not every judge will vote for everything, something you have to deal with. Some folks are so extreme that it’s a real challenge to adapt but you can still pick them up. Other people are just bad judges. You seem to think that everyone hates Lincoln and post a tirade that makes it hard to love you. I enjoy judging the Lincoln teams and I like it when you’re at the tournaments. We get a tough debate and I get a chance to use a little more ink in my pen. That said, the attitude that’s employed when you’re around is tiring. I had great hopes for you two seasons ago when you debated Roosevelt. They were being obnoxious and you didn’t jump into the mess. It disappointed me to hear about your behavior in the final round after I gave you some sound advice earlier that same tournament not to be condescending or arrogant in round. It’s annoying and people aren’t going to vote for you- that doesn’t have much to do with politics-it’s an easy fix and likable teams win more. Getting along is good strategy and being likable is an essential facet to being persuadable. I don’t think it’s fair to complain about politics and pretend that Lincoln is innocent at all. Frankly, I don’t like your coach and if you really think that it affects decision making I’d never have voted for you. My “Lincoln Bias†is actually pretty huge- I had it at something like 30-3 at some point. The basis for your wins comes from being better in that debate-same as the losses. I truly believe that most judges feel the same way. You act like people banded together to hate on Lincoln but you still enjoyed a great deal of success. What annoys me is that your coach will walk into a room as soon as the round is done and we’ll get a loss back without a real explanation as to why. It was pretty public that Vermillion was going to lose every round this year because of the final round decision. That’s why Kenyon had a comical Vermillion code next to his name all season. I’m tired of going to tournaments and having someone act like an upset toddler at a loss or try to badger people about their decisions. I volunteered to talk to Frank and Ana at the end of quals-at 1:00am when I still needed to drive back to Brookings. Everything I said was challenged by Kenyon even though it wasn’t addressed to him and he wasn’t in the round. Also, I was on the in and had a matching decision with the other judge. The judge who sat was your coach’s partner. I wonder if that seems political to anyone? It annoys me that you dismiss the level of tolerance that people have had for such antics. They degrade the educational aspects of the activity and wouldn’t be tolerated in other activities. Neither Jimmy nor I had any interest in judging Southern Quals as a result my experience my freshman year. Seeing as you get a lot of wins from us it was probably to your disadvantage.
  3. Cross-X is intergrated with facebook now! I miss the old forums where it seemed like Kerpen invented the internet. (A facebook link lead me here) The purpose of this post was only to make a post......I haven't done so in at least a year.
  4. Cool. I go to a SDSU. I'll take this as an opportunity to pretend that we have a policy program.
  5. the impression I got was that the Evason file was really just the free file on Cross-x.....
  6. Happy Birthday!

  7. Everyone remember to vote tomorrow! Due to Gerrymandering it seems that I don't have anything to vote for tomorrow. (I'm in the same district as Mr. Tschetter even though I live a mile from Brookings)
  8. I saved money in a similar way but I'm sure most economists would cringe at the way I raised taxes to pay for social spending.
  9. you'd read evidence that the plan is "a hard, long fight."
  10. Yay! Exciting! Jackrabbity! Also, this is new.....
  11. Isn't it marvelous?

  12. Aady

    Karl Rove on Debate

    Rove spoke at Concordia College last fall and a member of the debate team asked him about his experience in debate. He referred people to his book where he discusses debate's impact on his life. I've only just remembered it and was lucky to find an excerpt where he mentions debate online. It's possible that the book mentions it further but I'm not about to buy it. The chapter is interesting and has the potential to serve as a decent framework card. Even if the wording isn't particularly powerful it serves to prove the argument that the Spanos email makes. As we settled into a modest house in Holladay in the fall of 1966, I entered Olympus High School in suburban Salt Lake City feeling lost. I didn't know anyone. I was a non-Mormon in a school where 90% or more of the students did follow that faith. I had no particular skill at sports or with girls. But I did have an ability: I could talk and argue. I was fortunate that at Olympus specifically, and in Utah generally, high-school debate was a big deal, an activity where a bookish boy could find affirmation. I joined the debate team, found my tribe, and was off. The coach, Diana Childs, paired me with Mark Dangerfield, who was a year ahead of me. Mark and I clicked right away. He had a great smile, a sharp mind, a competitive spirit and the ability to scrape away some of my rough edges. We turned out to be alike in many ways. For example, we were obsessive about preparation. We wanted better research and more of it than any of our competitors (a habit I still have to this day). We spent a small fortune on 4-by-6-inch cards on which we wrote our information in precise block lettering or typed it with a small manual typewriter we had scored at a secondhand sale. We then meticulously arranged the cards in giant boxes behind dividers that made possible the quick recovery of facts, quotes and authorities. I developed an elaborate color scheme to help us pluck just the right card at that special moment to confound the opposing pair of debaters. In high-school debate, you had to be ready to argue both sides of the question on a moment's notice. So we picked apart our own arguments, anticipated the counterarguments, and picked those apart, too. Gaming the debate out as many moves in advance as possible was great training for politics. Debate gave me the habit of examining the case of my candidate and that of his opponent. In a campaign, you need to think not just about what you want to say now, but how that train of arguments, and even events, will play out over time. It taught me that staying on offense was important and that once you were on defense, it was hard to regain control of the dialogue. Being fanatical about research, Mark and I came up with a favorite tactic. We'd quote authorities the opposition had never heard of, and when they rose to dismiss our source, we'd roll out their impressive title such as the "assistant secretary of defense for international security af fairs" and express astonishment that our worthy opponents had never heard of that significant policy leader. The debates were staged in high-school classrooms, generally in front of speech, history or world-affairs classes. They were often tough audi ences, uninterested in what we had to say but stuck in their seats and forced to listen to the scrawny guys in three-piece suits. If we got them to laugh or otherwise favorably respond, it was almost as good as getting the most points on a judge's score sheet. We became the only undefeated team in the statewide high-school speech and debate competition, and won an important Western regional meet as well. I had a front-row seat in a rare, memorable, and consequential year in American politics, all courtesy of a liberal high-school teacher who loved politics and his students. I was permanently bitten. I even became a candidate myself. In fact, for the first time I watched a savvy campaign manager (my world history teacher) pick a neophyte candidate (me), run a clever campaign, and produce a winner. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703625304575115600570451736.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
  13. From Doug Tschetter's facebook, unedited due to my laziness. "from Nothern SD, qualifiers were Lambrechts (Milbank) and Punt (AC). In the houses were Pence (AC), Grafsgard (Huron) and Weiszhaar (AC). Waiting to hear about Rushmore"
  14. Minnesota does. http://opencaselist.wikispaces.com/Minnesota+AS+(Amy+Anderson+%26+Rohan+Sadagopal)+Aff
  15. I forgot the tournament was doing them. What's the scale? I'll use a 30 Scale. Neg/29 Aff/26
  • Create New...