Jump to content

TheDeaconofGroves

Member
  • Content Count

    219
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

45 Good

About TheDeaconofGroves

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 01/22/1991

Profile Information

  • School
    Wylie E. Groves High School
  • Biography
    This is my fourth year debating.

    I went to MNDI in 2006.
    I went to SDI (4 week) in 2007.
    I went to UMKC in 2008.
  • Location
    The Far Side
  • Interests
    Debate, Forensics, Hegemoney
  • Occupation
    World Hegemon
  1. Craig, Im not certain about this, but I believe MIFA has found conducting tournaments at University Campusses to be uneconomical, and has been moving away from them as a cost cutting measuer. I can only say this in the context of forensic, where for years the middle school tournaments were held at UofM Ann Aurbor, and regionals were held at a "big name" university. Recently (last 4 years) MIFA has moved away from these locations, hosting the middle school tournament in high schools, and regionals in lesser spots. The only explination I have ever heard for these changes was that they were designed to save money. While I would love to see debate state finals going down in some regal building atg UofM, MSU or any other public university in the state, I do beleive that the hotels MIFA has recently used have provided stellar accomodations and were wonderful places to debate at.
  2. clearly I should have started my previous post with a disclaimer: overall, I like how states is currently formatted and timed, the only two things I would like to see happen is fewer divisions and a minor revision in dates to conform to semesters and trimesters. I like states to be a three day tournament which takes place in a nice hotel with more rounds and judges. On the other hand, I would prefer an abridged states to no states. I think that there are a number of possible idea that have been offered (shorten tournament lenght, limit number of judges, change venue) which WILL detract from the quality of the event, but will also save money. Something clearly has to be done, and trade offs are going to happen, the question is only what compromises can be made. From everything I have heard, financially MIFA is not doing to well, and the state tournament is a major expense. Teams spend considerable sums to get hotel rooms and judges for the duration, and for these reasons I see a reduction in the number of days as one of the best money savers. If money were no object, would I support this idea? Absolutely not, but I think it is one of the best money savers for both MIFA and debate teams. Actually, I just remember another option I have heard suggested to "save" states: change the format so "partners" can enter instead of schools. That would both increase the amount of revenue for MIFA, and increase the level of competition with an increased number of debaters. The main objection to this I have heard is that it would unfairly benefit larger teams, which I think is both non unique, but also simply not true: a small team with only two highly talented individuals or one great coach will beat a massive, but mediocre team any day. And Craig: you don't want to know my opinions on the activity of policy debate. Nor do I want to share them in this forum.
  3. Sarah, personally, I completely agree with you about how fun States is as a three day tournament, I love it, and I wish it would never change. On the other hand, when looking at the big picture, the question is: would you like a 2 day states, or no states? That extra day is a huge expense to MIFA and individual teams, because it requires another night of hotel rooms for a team, as well as another days worth of renting meeting rooms. While 3 days clearly leads to a higher quality of debates to give each team an increased chance to prepare, I would be willing to give it up for the ability to still have a state finals. Combining the events is an interesting idea. The overlapping of novice and varsity finals of debate seems counter productive, though, and might actually increase costs. Our team has a long history of using our varsity debaters to coach & judge at novice state finals. By combining both novice and varsity "under one roof" so to speak, we would need to hire more coaches and judges, costing us more money. As far as the apparent "decline" of policy debate, Im not going there, nor will I say whether it is a good thing or a bad thing.
  4. After attending the policy debate state finals tournament for the last three years, I have some insight to share which seems relevant to this issue. Namely, it has become clear that the current format for state finals is no longer sustainable from either a monetary or logistical standpoint. As I'm sure many of you are aware, MIFA has been going through a fiscal crisis over the last several years, and is constantly looking for some way to save money. Schools' debate programs are also being pinched, and some eliminated do to budget constraints. Three days at a metro area hotel is simply to costly for some programs. Logistics I believe provide an even more compelling reason why states formatting needs to be changed. To run three different divisions with less then 15 teams in each seems almost laughable, especially when they break to quarter finals. The archaic judging qualification rules, while recently updated, still prevent a number of high quality individuals from judging because they are unable, or don't want to, participate in the certification. That being said, I believe that there are other, less drastic measures the MIFA board could have taken in regards to states. Note: I have absolutely no idea the actual financial outlook for the program, how much they needed to cut, etc. Reducing the number of divisions from 3 down to 2, or possibly 1, would be an easy money saver, simply by decreasing the number of trophies that would need to be purchased, and increase the level of competition. Changing the elimination rounds schedule to break at most half the field could also be a big time and money saver. Attempting to reformat the debates so it is only a 2 day tournament instead of 3 might also help.
  5. Can't you really run most things that you would normally say against nuclear, IFRs or ITER against this aff?
  6. I'll second that, I was in the same lab and it wad a great experience. For the price/time commitment it was an excellent camp. Regardless of what you may have heard/know about Kansas or Missouri debate, all the lab leaders and tournament judges are good college debaters and are knowledgeable about arguments competitive nationally.
  7. Brad, your right, but I thought I would try to change that. There just isn't any compelling reason not to do full aff dicloser. Everyone else: Groves has taken the time and trouble to post a full aff outline for everyone to see. As I pointed out previously, simply giving a two word summary of your aff is pretty much pointless. It would be great if you could give us more info (Plan text at minimum, tags and sites would be nice). I can't think of a single reason not to do this. I'm not asking for the world, new affs to be disclosed or 2ac sites, just what you have already broken. Thanks.
  8. It doesn't work, Long timeframe, Fusion will cause prolif, Fusion will explode, Russia and China will perceive fusion research as weapons research.
  9. OSPEC Fine, its not really a T argument, but here in Michigan its normally run as one.
  10. Thank you to everyone who has taken this thread seriously, but a minor request, could we start disclosing Aff outlines? Just giving a list of the affs you have run is essentially worthless, but full discloser (All tags, sites, first and last couple of words or all cards, complete plan text) is extremely helpful to prep for all schools, and increases the educational value of all debates. Example: Groves has run NIF. That is interesting, but irrelevant to someone who has no idea what NIF is, stands for or wants to know what advantages we claim, what our federal key warrants are coming out of the 1ac, what our terminal impacts are, etc. Thus we took the time to essentially provide anyone who wants it with a complete copy of our 1ac. It would be highly appreciated if other schools/teams took the time to do the same. Thanks.
  11. The teams which will field 4 person novice teams are: Cadillac Eisenhower Mona Shores Utica We are aware that because only four teams are signed up that we couldn't hold a full tournament of 4 person novice, so teams are going to hit each other twice, but with a different judge.
  12. As of now, we have 24 varsity teams signed up, 19 JV teams and 48 novice teams. We also have 4 novice 4 person team, and 38 legislative debaters. Remember, registration for the 2 person policy divisions starts at 2:30 tomorrow outside of Groves' Auditorium. Good luck to everyone who is competing.
  13. Pretty simple: 2 people are "aff" debaters and two people are "neg" debaters.
  14. It was actually posted under all the regions because we would be more then happy to help with arrangments for any teams traveling from out of state who wish to debate in Michigan.
×
×
  • Create New...