Jump to content

rook

Member
  • Content Count

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Okay

About rook

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 07/08/1989

Profile Information

  • Name
    Kevin Boydston
  • School
    Carthage High School
  • Location
    Carthage
  1. driving is gonna be soooo expensive. i don't know if you should trust your evidence with some one who's crazy enough to do it. just sayin'.
  2. CX names are: Neosho A: Cagle/Jemes Neosho B: Kellogg/Cumming Carthage: Johns/Boydston I'm not positive about the Neosho A team names, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
  3. rook

    Ozark MSHSAA/NFL

    did you qualify 2 or 3? if three, who was the third?
  4. rook

    Joplin 2008

    yeah... because we're definitely going to suck it up because i didn't know who took second at NFL nats last year... when/where are we going to work tomorrow?
  5. rook

    Joplin 2008

    i've seen the school list and they're not going to be there. regardless; i've never even heard of them... why would they be in for a surprise?
  6. rook

    LOST

    i'm trying to write the shell, but i don't know where to look for uniqueness and link cards.... any ideas?
  7. rook

    MEDFLAGS cost?

    Generally, then biggest offense on an F-spec argument is generated from the abuse story: "The aff has undercut neg ground by denying us specific spending links to disadvantages." Or, the offense is generated from a solvency press: "Absent a funding mechanism, plan has no implementation, and thus no solvency." Both of these obstacles are easily overcome. First, just specify normal means, then allow the neg to define what normal means are (deficit spending, Pay-go, tax, etc.). This does two things: first, it checks back the abuse story because you grant them the link to any spending DA they want. Second, by allowing them to specify for you, you still hold solvency. If the offense on F-spec is generated from the abuse story, you can use the above tactic or another, simpler, tactic: What reason would any affirmative team have to specify their funding, OTHER than to spike out of specific/generic disadvantages? Can you really think of one? Maybe to get plan specific advantages that stem from spending a certain way, which is equally abusive. The argument is simply that specifying is far more abusive than not specifying.
  8. did you mean to spell empowerment Encorrectly, jacob? just wondering...
  9. carthage will have boydston/johns as our only champ entry. aren't you co-hosting, nick? just wondering...
  10. rook

    Liberty

    clarification boydston/johns will be the only champ entry for carthage.
  11. rook

    Liberty

    carthage will be attending. Christian Johns/Kevin Boydston PATHWAY Sarah Goolsby/Haley Sawyers ___ ?/? (i'm fairly sure we'll have three, i just don't know the third)
  12. rook

    Hillcrest

    no, that wasn't the point... true, i probably wouldn't have struck him otherwise, but i'm not placing blame with anyone other than myself. it was my decision.
  13. rook

    Hillcrest

    I haven't been really involved in this discussion, but here's my take: i could very easily explain to everyone, that the reason i struck christian, was because matt price walked up to me and said "dude, christian is stoned, and drunk... you're fucked." i could also spend my time trying to explain to will, the strategy christian and i utilized in the round we had. i don't think it would be difficult to argue about the implications of christian's original post. but, before doing any of those things, i think it would be better for me to determine how constructive those things would be. christian johns taught me most of what i know about debate, and one of the first things he told me was that i was always right. because as soon as i started believing some one else made a good point, i had lost the round. i think that everyone in this community has a very similar mentality, and because of that no one is going to give up any ground in this argument. i can't see us producing anything positive from continuing this discussion. i think this entire debate is just giving us reasons to dislike one another. even if we aren't trying to be hostile, i think that in a debate environment, where everyone is trying to prove a point, things are viewed as hostile. because of that, it's very easy to dislike each other. that brings me to nick's posts. he keeps saying that the community needs to work towards removing these "divides", and i agree with him whole heartedly. arguing about things like why we should, or shouldn't dislike each other isnt' going to do us any good, it's only going to further whatever existing problems there are. so, why not just give it up? i'm sure that if a C-X round lasted until one team had convinced the other they were right, there would be no point in attending a tournament. nick is right. this isn't the kind of community we should be encouraging. i want other schools to like carthage, and i don't feel that christian and i behave in a manner that gives schools reason to dislike us (at least until the point when we argue about why we are/aren't liked). if a school/ person decides to dislike us regardless of that, then i guess there really isn't anything else we can do. i propose a fresh start. i know that a lot of the community doens't know me, but that's alright. if anything, it makes this easier: "hi, my name's kevin and i'm from carthage high school." if i meet you at a tournament, and behave in a manner that gives your reason to dislike me, then i encourage you to act on the impulse and dislike me. however, know that christian and i are not going to purposely do anything at a tournament to make people mad.
  14. rook

    Hillcrest

    where do you see a complaint in "hillcrest made me sad :-(" ?! i'm pretty sure that christian made it perfectly clear that the meaning of that post was, he would miss debating at hillcrest, especially because it was the first tournament he won. if anything, he was complaining about not being able to debate at that tournament anymore... if you still don't get this, then i give up. will, what are you talking about? manning up? i don't think we made the excuse that we lost the round becuase of the judges we had. i'm sorry for thinking you struck the same judge (even though i could have swore you told me you did...) i think christian made it perfectly clear that nixa deserved the win in that round. in every aspect. they were just better than us... how are we fueling people's hatred for us? what reason have we given anybody to hate us? maybe, just maybe will pearson has reason to hate us, because christian told him that he "deserved a big fuck you"... maybe, i don't know... does the "debate community" really have a big problem with us?
×
×
  • Create New...