Jump to content

Once-Ler

Member
  • Content Count

    1153
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Once-Ler

  1. Once-Ler

    Grapevine

    I'll be there judging. scccrrrraaaatttcccchhhh.
  2. Once-Ler

    Coaching

    Everyone loses to their own game eventually. *shame*
  3. Oh hey Alex. I forgot that you even went to DDI man. We should talk sometime because I have another idea that only someone like you could pull off.
  4. Once-Ler

    Coaching

    Ha, thanks landon. Seriously, choose Alex OR myself. Choosing the two of us to both coach you would certainly be a plan destined to blow up in smoke.
  5. With an adventurous spirit and a bit of money, you can satisfy a lot of desires in downtown Wichita.
  6. BD smells like my grandmother. EDIT: Death.
  7. This information should be made available on this site. He's hidden behind his anonymity enough. Also, why this thread? Post it somewhere big.
  8. Once-Ler

    Coaching

    You should hire someone who won't undercut you and be a total douche. See one post above this kid's. Remember the name of the game is name recognition. I don't even know who this dude is! I also won't give you advice based on lame movie series archetypes or misspell transsexual with only one s. Imagine if that dude wrote your plan text. Chalk up one loss the the "Spell the plan correctly" CP. Ouch!
  9. I think your argument for breadth against depth, like mine in the reverse both have limits we are unwilling to admit. You are unwilling to admit that the presence of one amazing debater for four year can probably sustain a program for approximately a decade. Doing well at State, doing well at DCI, achieving positive press attention, etc. are really all a debater can do that administrations can understand and one good debater with a partner can easily do any of the above with hard work and dedication, even lacking but the basic institutional framework. I'm unwilling to realize that it take a somewhat equal division of coaching attention to ensure that these programs don't tank after that star leaves. Either way we're both kidding ourselves about just how important one debater or a stream of mediocre debaters can be to a squad (respectively). And while I realize that coaches can't zero in on their star team and put all their eggs in that basket, they should also realize that these teams have a lot more riding on debate than the kid who goes to a few tournaments and thinks high school debate is kinda fun. Both are necessary to keep programs alive, but these rules adversely affect the students who are most likely to continue debating into college. You'll probably say that it's not the job of HS programs to help their students get to college and get scholarships but you're kidding yourself if you think that isn't an important goal or achievement for most HS sports programs or any other activity that allows its continuation into college. The coaches job is to provide the best educational opportunities to a good-sized cross-section of his debaters. I contend that the "hardcore" debaters stand to get a lot more from debate and are hampered a lot more by these rules than anyone else. Few people who are apathetically in debate consider it to be a "life-changing" or equally significant part of their education. While these kids are necessary to justify a program to an administration (in raw terms of students interested, etc.) their needs should not be privileged over the few who stand to gain or lose so much by the way this debate community conducts itself. What makes your job more fulfilling as coaches? Seeing a handful of punks wander their way through a few mediocre wins and losses ultimately to gain a strange knowledge about 3 or 4 topics of policy or having a select few debaters who care about their craft and learn the in-and-outs of argumentative skills? *** Sure, water without current still supports basic growth but my argument is that the education potential (in terms of our example, genetic diversity) is hampered by the lack of exposure to change. You're right. West Kansas probably won't die if it never gets any faster or never learns new argumentative styles. Then again, it will probably never grow or change if these things don't happen either. It's more a question of can you settle for mediocrity or is change conducive to more potentials for education. I'm not saying debate should be a game for the elite but rather that we should look at the few people who these rules are affecting. Joe Debater, 2 years of policy and some forensics in the spring couldn't care less about a mile restriction and wouldn't know what to do with himself at a tournament like UT, etc. But think of the few KS teams who traveled this year. Almost all of us are debating in college and opening up the potential for travel could have very well led to new educational opportunities denied to us on a rule with little to no justification being presented. This may appear to you as a selfish, self-righteous rant but when those of us who give the most to debate (relative to other students, not coaches) are met with restrictions without justification, such response is inevitable. *** Your slippery slope argument makes no sense. You ask me the rhetorical question "why not the next place" as if the answer is obvious when this is the question I'm posing (seriously) to the Kansas debate community. Why shouldn't Bronx Science kids get to come and see what our tournaments are all about if they are willing to dedicate their resources to the journey? There is no compelling reason I can see as to why teams from beyond a certain limit should not be allowed to compete at our tournaments. It only increases the diversity of the styles and arguments presented while increasing interaction from across the nation. Seems pretty win-win to me. And if the Kansas teams can't hang with them with a 95% home crowd judging, then Kansas debaters should get better. But I don't think that is our real concern... *** All this being said, I have literally no vested interest in the continued evolution/expansion/change of the Kansas debate community. I will probably rarely if ever revisit this community and don't exactly plan on spending my college days checking cross-x to check its health. This should not be considered a flippant or uncaring remark. I hope that Kansas seeks to bring fresh winds of change into the backwaters and to introduce as many styles as possible to as many debaters as possible to increase its total health. It is equally possible that the current resistance to change will discourage enough interested youth from participating that Kansas debate may see a decline in the number of incredibly engaged and concerned youth in its community. Either way, change will occur and I'd like to see it change for the better. At this point, I wouldn't be shocked to hear of Kansas debate slowly becoming like Virginia debate: regionally mediocre, nationally mocked, totally irrelevant to almost everyone participating in it.
  10. Jake: You strike me as quite the dousche. Stop bickering about the presence of the warrants in the particular card in this particular camp file. Fuck the cards, just for the time being and engage in the warrant debate of the claim being made "Abstinence Only Education is patriarchal" (this is for everyone, not just you). I believe this claim to have merit for many reasons, a few of which are these: - Abstinence-only education has been used for centuries to promote a double-standard for young men and women by indicating that the virginal woman represents purity and that if her virginity is not in-tact she has defied the local teachings/believes and can been said to have disrespected herself and her family, etc. The pressure on males is less extent not only because of the lack of any physiological proof of virginity but also because of (particularly African) society's belief that male sexuality is naturally aggressive and less problematic than a woman's. - By teaching the "Wait for marriage line" is also prevents persons from seeking testing/treatment if they have been sexually active. While this could affect the sexes equally, in places where the sexes are already very clearly treated disproportionately with regards to sexuality, women in Africa are FAR less likely than men to seek testing and/or treatment which means that diseases and social prejudice more specifically target women, especially younger women. - In many "tribal" societies, the punishments for a woman's infidelity are far graver and more certain than the risk of an STD or other sexual health issue. Married women are more willing to take their chances with spreading/contracting HIV than to face the certainty of death or social ostracization inevitable under their circumstances. - Condoms solved unwanted births. Rather than unsafe, tenuously performed abortions, condoms provide a preventative way to address unwanted births by unmarried and married couples decreasing both infant and maternal mortality. The pleas for "JUST DON'T DO IT" ignore this inevitability, treating pregnancy and birthing as a woman's problem, relegating it to the unseen portions of African politics and life. Abstinence-only education not only undermines the efficacy of proper condom use initiatives but also distribution efforts. Especially in a world when a limited number of actors provide a majority of reproductive health assistance to Africa meaning that the choices each of these actors makes effectively forecloses the opportunity for alternative methods of reproductive health care. Though, if the card does say what you say it says (religious right loves abstinence only, religious right is patriarchal, abstinence only=patriarchal) the logic certainly flawed and only promotes similarly idiotic criticisms against feminists (in your words, "feminists are getting even crazier", etc.).
  11. To be honest, all I expect to ever happen is working within KSHSAA. They do little to nothing for us as far as debate is concerned but they do a lot for the other activities so it makes sense that schools should want to stick with it, especially if the major complaints come from a few egg-headed debaters. I do think these rules are ridiculous (even more so in the context of debate) and that perhaps if enough coaches can recognize the negative effect it has on the potential of their student in debate and speak to KSHSAA about this, they will become more responsive than they have been to students who have attempted simlar measures.
  12. As Mr. Volen is the only person on the board really making an attempt to respond to the arguments I put forth, I will address his points. "find a partner and build a program". While this may help develop real-world education about using skills applicable to debate, there are a few reasons this isn't a workable/good option: First, as I said, the only other person interested in policy at her school quit. This means she has to try to convince someone to be in debate. And as many people, myself included, can attest, there is no greater displeasure and hindrance to education than debating with someone who did not want to debate in the first place. Second, she had received emails from some of the college directors at places she is intending on pursuing who have stated that attempting to "tool" someone through the local debate circuit would be a "waste of time and talent". Let me elaborate this argument. Debate is, at base level, a game that requires partner co-operation. While the amount of input between partners ranges (we've all seen the 100%/0% debate team and the ideal 50/50 team as well), the amount of fun and education derived from the activity tends to adjust accordingly. Those debaters who grow and learn with their partners will ALWAYS be better off than those debaters who are constantly telling/being told what is to be done in the debate round. When you become so heavily reliant on internal communication to conduct a round, it detracts your ability to focus on externally communicating your argument while simultaneously diminishing your ability to listen effectively. Having to bitch at/be bitched at by a partner only shuts down the communication both persons have with the other team and the judge. College programs want their recruits to come from the best possible pairing and to have the most expose to a competitive style of debate that is most similar to their own. You may say colleges will look for people who are dedicated to building the activity/their squads. While this is true, remember that scholarships are tied to the financial base of the institution which is determined (in a plethora of ways) to the quantitative success of the squad involved. Debate squads financially recruit debaters that will win debate rounds. Period. And while you may preach the benefits of building up your own squad or taking an active role in creation of a squad, remember that, as highschoolers, it is both impractical and unrealistic. As a highschooler who relied on debate to take me to college, I can certainly say that I viewed every decision I made with regards to the HS debate community by asking the question "How will this help get me where I want to be?" To ask highschoolers with only 4 years to prove themselves to any number of suitors to do anything else is to tell them to ignore their own best interests. "School Shopping": You're right. The rule does prevent that. But this is why I suggest reviewing with more sensitivity to the circumstance which prompt the application for exception. Now, I shrugged off Melissa's reiterations of other persons points but on this one she had a unique contribution worth addressing by saying it is impractical for KSHSAA to review each applicant's appeal. First, I don't think that either you or I know how many transfers there are (or would be) thus to say it is either most certainly impractical or practical is naive and useless. However, I think that given a proper system of judging the merit of a case, a system could be established which could evaluate the merit of a case for special consideration in a timely fashion. I tend to think there is a substantial difference between a program being shut down and a program not being "good enough", which seems to address the example you present Mr. Volen but also I think that students should be allowed to participate in extra-curricular activities where they are able to live in a positive environment proximal to the school they are attending. In the particular instance of my friend, Emporia was the only other viable living option for her. She did not desire to come to Emporia because Alex Bonnet is such an awesome debater (though he is) but because it was the only alternate living situation which she had available. When this was made clear to the individuals at KSHSAA, they refused to grant an appeal (and denied to explain their refusal). I'm not saying this should be a rubber stamp for acceptance, but rather that KSHSAA could certainly make a larger effort in understanding the circumstances which prompt such concerns amongst students and attempting to work more constructively to find solutions more in-line with their mission statement. Causality/500mile rule: Mr. Volen, I have a few problems with your response here: First, it supports my argument that a very limited number of teams have resources available to them to travel, and those who do can not very well do so exclusively. All of your "KS debate good" claims are resolved because all teams from the state will still have a few chances to debate those who can travel at several in-state tournaments. At the very least they are "non-uniqued" by regional diversity (i hate using debate jargon out of debates but sometimes it's easier). Think about which Kansas teams are considered "good" by the TOC-style standards? Most of them live within 15 miles of the Kansas City metro area. South Kansas is literally a cesspool of self-congratulating debaters who rarely, if ever leave the district to compete, simply recycling the same style of debate over and over. Hell, at our district tournament teams are still reading their new disads in the 2NC and reading plan planks. And I think West Kansas has become infamous for remaining similarly isolated. Secondly, your argument implies that affluence leads to higher quality of debating. While in the long term (decades of squad success, etc.) this may prove true, it is irrelevant to the experience of any given class of highschool debaters. Debate teams are made of 2 persons. If any 2 persons from a school with an even minuscule infrastructure work diligently enough, they can beat any affluent school, anyday. Examples? Think of the Woodlands LM. This team has virtually 0 institutional support. Semi-finalists at the TOC. 6 Bids. They are literally THE national example of why debate is so volatile when it comes to the importance of resources. The Woodlands doesn't exactly pump out champion debaters but those two debaters have devastated "dynasty" schools like St. Marks, GHill, Chattahoochee, etc. Hell, look around Kansas. Winfield hasn't couched itself on tons of financial resources (I shuold know) but Aaron and I worked hard and we'd like to think no one was really very excited about debating us. Point being, good debaters do not always come from affluent schools. Your argument conflates resources with natural talent for persuasion and logic. "KCCC is great": Yes, it is. It'd be even better with more teams from more states from further away. Why should we limit those we invite to 500-miles? It's simply ridiculous. If your intent is expose to different styles and levels of debate, then it doesn't make sense for you to simultaneously be against allowing literally anyone to compete. "Stay in your pond": This is the perspective of someone who is less itnerested in seeing teh debaters succeed than seeing the activity being experienced by as many people as possible. I'm tired of debate trying to be as inclusive and considerate of as many warm bodies as possible. Debate is a game and it will change and evolve naturally as ideas of those participating change but to attempt to water it down or constrain the expose of certain debaters from others does little to facilitate that openness. Nor does it actually better the development of communities. Does water without a current support change and growth in the greater ecosystem or does it create a stagnate cesspool where organisms are born and die? Sure, we could all stay in our pond but to what end? "There are a lot of kids out there losing out on the benefits of debate because everyone who is good is leaving." Those "good teams" experience the same lack of educational stimulation as the others would by missing the oppertunity to debate them. Why should they be condemned to stay somewhere where they can't find growth and development for the sake of others? Also, these teams are not in debate for the same reason at this point in their career. Most teams who traveled this year (I'm thinking: Winfield, ONW, SME, Emporia) have one or two members of each traveling team anticipating debating in college. Most policy debate teams in Kansas do not. These different interests means that these teams are out to seek the highest caliber of competition they can attain whereas locally, teams may be more concerned about the educational benefits derived from the exchange. In short, traveling teams travel to put themselves against others who are in it strictly to win. Local circuits can be designed with a lot more educational needs being met and de-emphasizing the caliber of competition. The rest of you are just mumbling one-sentence posts about 'if it ain't broke don't fix it'. To you, I say this: Your idea of presumption is against change ("Why should KSHSAA change its rules if local styles of working well for the masses?'). My perception of this issue is one of deregulation ('Why does KSHSAA have a compelling, justifiable reason to maintain this particular restriction?'). Of course things now are functioning (sometimes even well). The question should be "does de-regulation accomodate the needs of the students better?" Had I not left the state of Kansas to debate, my college plans would have been radically different. I would be amassing somewhere near 10K a year in debt. I caution all debaters to stop addressing highschool debate from the internal politics of their state, region, or squad and instead ask themselves how the actions being taken will benefit them in the long run and I suggest they act accordingly. P.S. Excuse the seemingly erratic nature of my organization. I read it after I posted it and it is apparent to me that I did this post in 4-300 sittings, obviously in different moods. EDIT: Deskboy, sure KCKCC is a great opportunity but why shouldn't someone like Marqutte be able to join us to make this great? Why should they have to mapquest a bunch of shady towns on the Kansas-Nebraska border to give all of the attending students a chance to debate their fine squad? The "it ain't borke, don't fix it" blurb above is for you.
  13. I assumed this was your point but I granted you the option of making it explicit in your own language. This type of logic is used to cover over a lot of things in a system that can be easily fixed. Simply because policy debate in Kansas is available to a lot of people in a lot of schools doesn't translate into a justification of KSHSAA's policies, especially in the absence of a causal relationship between the two. I'm very tired of most people on these forums saying "everywhere else debate is declining and we have strict rules so strict rules must keep debate going!" There should be a causal relationship proven beyond any doubt between a high-level of control over activities and the preservation of education within that activity before we all rush to look elsewhere and cling to the current model of doing things to prevent the ship from sinking. There are any number of things that affect student participation in debate and to claims that an arbitrary distance rule, transfer eligibility, or tournament limit are "key to maintain our forms of debate" is to display ignorance about the large amount of factors affecting participation. I highly doubt that in the absence of any one of these rules, Kansas would become the next Illinois, Iowa, or Nebraska. The rules about transferring for example are intended to prevent recruitment (not that great of a concern for debate, but justifiable, all the same) but instead of reviewing transfers on an activity-specific case-by-case application for permission, KSHSAA prefer to dogmatically stick to its rules. KSHSAA seems to always err on the side of too much control and too many generic guidelines which often work contrary to the students' best interests (and, in a bout of irony, it's own mission statements). A Kansas tournament wants to include as many diverse participants as possible. Does this truly threaten the educational benefits from the tournament or does it rather help students "gain a balanced preparation for life, work, and post-secondary education"? (taken from the KSHSAA mission statement) Does allowing an out-of-state transfer student the ability to debate (which affects her eligibility for post-secondary scholarship funding) really allow her to "[take] the place of a student in interscholastic competition who has met those requirements"? (KSHSAA, Rule 18) KSHSAA says of the transfer rule: But if the local situation of her activity prevents her from pursuing post-secondary education and, as most educational professional would probably agree, the highest degree of educational benefit comes from a well-rounded academic life coupled with a positive and familiar social environment (by which I mean to justify her moving with her friends of the family rather than any other school), I fail to understand why KSHSAA errs to the side of denying students educational opportunities. As soon as regulations contradict the mission statement of the association, they seem to prefer their regulations. This seems a very suspicious way of ensuring education for students, in my mind. I wasn't aware there were tons of high schoolers in Emporia clamoring to be a part of high school debate, but Mr. Bonnet just couldn't find the space for them all. Maybe he can contradict me here, but I'm willing to bet this more probably affects other activities where there is a more realistic risk of a trade-off in student attention. I have previously attack Reg Romine but it should also be noted that Gary Mussellman was also highly non-responsive and unhelpful in the series of email that my friends and I have shared with him in trying to find a solution to benefit everyone. These individual persons by-and-large contribute to the way KSHSAA decides to proceed on these issues and instead of talking about KSHSAA (a no-faced collection of people we assume to have a mind for petty nuances), we should stop bastardizing the organization and talk about the people we actually interact with (a ridiculous-faced collection of people who actually do have a mind for petty nuances).
  14. Ha. Sadly, I think that my description matches a lot of states, especially in the midwest and northeast parts of the US.
  15. Not at all. There are generally about 4 or 5 teams that reach what is considered a varsity-level of competition each year and they are struggling to fill spaces at their district tournaments at virtually every turn.
  16. She was from a different state in the MidWest but I am almost certain these same rules also apply to persons transferring schools in-state.
  17. Well, "shut down" is perhaps an improper term. There were only two policy debaters there (her and her partner) and her partner quit debate. There was also never any institutional support/recognition specifically for policy debate, they just traveled with the forensics kids and did their thing.
  18. Once-Ler

    College Judging

    This reminds me, I will not judge forensics. Don't ask.
  19. Brother: I had a good friend this year who's policy program shut down (out of state) and who wanted to move in with family friends in Emporia and debate for her senior year with Alex Bonnet. I was helping her contact the association and sort through their guidelines for transfer eligibility and despite repeated communications with Reg Romine (a man I am convinced holds no interest in seeing that the goals sought by KSHSAA are achieved), they still denied her eligibility to come participate in an educationally beneficial activity because she was from another State AND denied her any chance of appeal or for special consideration. Particularly in this instance where there were no other feasible options to participate in this activity, Reg Romine and KSHSAA blindly followed the exact strict text of their rules rather than consider what moves would be in the best interest of the student. Anyway, that's my little short-story of one of the reasons that I dislike KSHSAA (and Reg Romine). Interesting KSHSAA regulation #1: Did you know that if your legal guardian is not your biological parent, as long as only ONE of them is alive, KSHSAA will refuse to recognize that person's authority for you?
  20. Once-Ler

    Food

    Coyote Canyon - Topeka. Burger Shack - Winfield Grinder Man - Ark City other than that, I like the huge chain resturants because I'm a tactless young male who enjoys pre-cooked food reheated professionally by angsty 20somethings.
  21. Could it be... Satan? Summers, you're probably right but remember that there are some coaches (*cough*) who simply can't conduct themselves in the fashion they see fit and leave others to their own business. Granted, I'm entirely on your side so there's that...
  22. On KSN news tonight at 6, Dr. Jef Jarmin, director of debate at Wichita State and CEDA officer (Secretary, I believe), was seen sporting a yellow bowtie to make Tucker Carlson look like a total bitch whilst explaining the impact and reason for the recent failed attempt to legalize casino gambling in Sedgwick County.
  23. I mean, it's true. It makes more sense to me. Then again, I'm left-handed and also flow right to left so...
  24. heh. I'm glad the consensus is that I'm a socially awkward, sexually charged youth. I'm really thrilled that this shit is in Dallas the day after I move to Waco. That owns.
×
×
  • Create New...