Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


kevinwy last won the day on April 17 2014

kevinwy had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

237 Excellent

About kevinwy

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 10/30/1991

Profile Information

  • Name
    Kevin Hirn
  • School
    Whitney Young/Wake/Michigan
  • Location
    Chicago/Ann Arbor
  1. kevinwy


    You're probably referring to Morgan Park Davis/Hamilton, who qualified to the TOC in 2005, and are now in the 'A' conference (because as far as I know, Payton, Whitney Young, and Northside are the only other CDL programs to qualify to the TOC). FWIW, they although they were technically in the 'A' conference at the time, that was once the top conference (containing Whitney Young and Lane Tech, among other programs) before the RCC's inception in 2006. Morgan Park was perhaps the most dominant CDL program between 1997-2005, although a chunk of that comes before the time Northside and Payton even existed. Aside from being an interesting bit of Chicago UDL history, I think Morgan Park's general trajectory illustrates the league's attempt at flexibility, in which programs could rise to the upper echelons of competitive success if they found the right combination of students, but aren't perennially forced to debate students with far greater resources if they don't want to.
  2. It wasn't all that popular last year (whereas it was exceedingly popular on the 08-09 topic), and you're not likely to find full files for any college topic (no camp files besides the ADI, and Heidegger wasn't one of their kritiks). It's possible I'm overstating the popularity of Heidegger on the HS topic and/or understating it in the college one, but I debated over 100 rounds on each of those and stalked case lists fairly intensely. You can still probably nab some cites and open source cards, to be sure, and you should certainly do that, but the only full Heidegger files you'll find are going to be high school files. There should also be some Heidegger files from the next few years of camp files (maybe not on military presence or LA, but certainly on space and possibly on TI and poverty)
  3. Full disclosure: I'm affiliated with the Detroit Urban Debate League (through an associated nonprofit, Detroit Urban Debate and Education) and my debate partner has coached Brooke for several years. BTW, her last name is Kimbrough, not Kimborough. This entire affair has been frustrating to watch unfold. First of all, it's strange how eager so many people are analyzing and reviewing the scores of a 17-year-old. Say what you will about personal responsibility blah blah blah, but this is a high school senior who is too young to vote, join the army, etc (although ironically, as a black person, she'd be exceptionally more likely to be tried as an adult than a white counterpart for the same crime). When I was a teenager, I was an orthodox Marxist writing articles for pro-Castro political parties. I'm not trying to condescend to Brooke and imply that she's going to "grow out" of her views, but I am saying that the level of incendiary vitriol that has been directed at Brooke (just check out the comment section on any news article about this) is absurd and disheartening. Second, Jen Gratz infuriates me. She's using this moment to steal the spotlight and desperately make people pay attention to her (shockingly, she hasn't accomplished all that much in life… I'm sure it was all because of Michigan's affirmative action policies), and she's publicly calling out a 17-year-old. Brooke accepted her challenge, and I'm fully expecting Gratz to back out like she did the last time she accepted a public debate challenge. Third, and most importantly, the reason Brooke disclosed her ACT score wasn't to brag, but rather because she doesn't think that her score is an accurate reflection of her intelligence or a relevant prediction of her future college success. Brooke's argument, which is being utterly lost in the press, is that standardized test scores themselves reflect racial biases. Several major universities, including some (like Wake Forest) that are ranked above Michigan, have made SAT/ACT reporting optional for this reason. This isn't an original proposition; study after study demonstrates that they're poor predictors of college success vis-a-vis high school grades, and that racial bias undergirds the construction and selection of questions. Racism is slippery; it has been so thoroughly internalized that people who imagine themselves to be free of biases, such as lawyers reviewing identical documents they were told were written by a black person vs a white person, find twice as many errors in the document they were told was written by a black person. Once you overlook the ACT score, Brooke's GPA (which averages out closer to a 3.6) is well within the standards for Michigan (I know many who have gotten into Michigan with less). Considering how much higher Brooke's ACT is than her peers (and also considering that it's somewhat common for kids from the Upper Peninsula to get special preference and earn admission with similar scores), considering that Michigan is a state with a 14% black population and 4% representation at the University of Michigan, and considering that Brooke is the seventh ranked policy debate team in the country (having been part of the first black team to win the Berkeley tournament), it stands to reason that Michigan's admission preferences should be adjusted to let people like Brooke in (and perhaps, in line with literally every academic study that's been published in the last five years, Michigan should stop emphasizing the ACT as much as it does). Moreover, college isn't just about rewarding high school success; it's about picking the people who are most likely to work hard and succeed, and producing a campus environment that reflects the values and desires of society at large (of which diversity, especially in an affluent bubble like Ann Arbor so closely located to Detroit, should certainly be one). For all those who say affirmative action is racist, consider how much racial preference is weighted towards white people to begin with. Here's some information about the affirmative action policy ruled unconstitutional in Gratz' name: The University is almost certainly not going to let Brooke in; caving into public pressure would set a terrible precedent. Nonetheless, her struggle for affirmative action does not deserve the intense backlash it has produced. I don't think the public debate will happen: Gratz has a history of backing out, Brooke is busy prepping for the TOC and working over the summer, and I don't think either would really want to compromise on the terms for a debate (who is moderating, what is the format, what is the audience, who is paying for it etc etc). This episode will blow over, but I hope that this is able to at least steer the winds towards a more diverse future.
  4. Heidegger is definitely a good K to prep for the oceans topic, but he's not really known for environmental conservation. He does criticize the logic behind environmental managerialism, and an investigation of our ontological relationship to nature may have pertinence to the question of whether or not to develop the oceans. I would try to just do some online digging and find all of the Heidegger backfiles you can acquire (check the 08-09 high school energy topic -- old camp files are probably still on cross-x). The above advice from dancon25 is spot on: compile these, underline and highlight them yourself, write blocks for them, and add supplemental research (ideally about oceans, oil and natural gas drilling, etc). The classic secondary literature on the environmental question is Ladelle McWhorter's 1992 book Heidegger and the Earth (which has an insane amount of great debate cards), but Heidegger's relatively short text The Question Concerning Technology would be incredibly useful in helping you understand the vocab and concepts that undergird a lot of Heideggerian thinking. A lot of kritiks (including Heidegger) will inevitably have "security" elements, because ultimately, accepting a risk of the aff's impacts being true requires some defense of accepting (or even embracing) insecurity. The more you understand the philosophy behind your arguments, the more nuanced and persuasive your articulation of exactly what relationship debaters, scholars, academics, and/or policymakers should have with security (in both a material and an ontological sense, if indeed there is a distinction) will become. One last piece of advice I'll give is that, external to the theoretical grounding behind your kritik, you want to never lose sight of why you think you win the round. Typically, kritiks win rounds in one of two ways: (1) The role of the ballot should be something other than determining whether or not the hypothetical enactment of the plan is a good idea; for instance, Heidegger's critique may suggest that having some rounds decided on the basis of the affirmative's ontological positioning is a productive use of the two hours. When going for this style of argument, framework/pedagogy questions should be the main focus, and you should be exceedingly clear (which also will involve explaining why hegemony/policy actions like the plan/etc are not logical justifications that support whatever about the aff you're criticizing e.g. ontology) or (2) The plan is a bad idea relative to a competitive alternative. This is sort of tough when the aff gets the permutation/is making perm double-bind arguments (which nobody makes as much as they used to, but should/could), and will usually require you to win that the plan is net bad, or to at least cast severe doubts on the truth value of the affirmative. Often, this will require policy-level research, case negs, etc. Typically, you should leave both options for winning open in the 2nc, and condense down to one in the 2NR
  5. kevinwy

    Fem K reading

    If you're just getting into the literature, Judith Butler is a difficult starting point. She references a lot of high theory and psychoanalysis that is going to leave you with more questions than answers upon your first (and second, and third...) readings. I've had profs introduce Butler (writing about literature tropes) to classes of senior undergraduate English majors with a spiel along the lines of "this is going to be difficult and confusing". Butler's work on vulnerability is very well-suited for debate; and many of her specific disagreements with other leftists (Irigaray, Kristeva, etc) allow you to write fairly nuanced and specific critique positions... but as a catch-all gender kritik, I wouldn't start with Butler as my primary author. If you're looking for a primer that will have some good cards relevant to next year's topic, I'd recommend Karen Warren's 1990 article "The Power and Promise of Ecological Feminism". Aside from touching on a lot of the major themes of second- and third-wave patriarchal critiques of civil society, she couches it all in a pretty accessible and plain language, and also explains many areas of thought as "conceptual frameworks" in ways that are particularly palatable for constructing alternative/role of the ballot arguments. There are also great impact cards (patriarchy root cause of environment, root cause of war etc), which is arguably a criticism of her work (she overdetermines the role of gender in producing problems) but hey, you're cutting a fem K... PM me and I can send it to you, not sure if you can access without databases (although if you have access to any db system, you can almost certainly easily find this one).
  6. So, to answer my own question, yes, lowering the hostility meter was a bit too much to ask for. Should have known. Continue mocking high school students (although, I will admit, the more I see you write and argue, the less I am convinced that even high school students would take you seriously enough to be insulted... so perhaps I overestimated any potential the original post had to really insult anyone… my bad).
  7. If you're still genuinely confused over whether or not your tone in the OP was acceptable, why don't you just forward your post to Les Lynn or another CDL administrator and ask them if this is acceptable public discourse for a CDL coach and judge? I'm sure they'd be excited to see what you're saying about other CDL schools and their arguments! I'm sure they'd be particularly thrilled to hear you announce to the community at large that your goal as a Marshall high school coach is to get students to cut cards "half as good as you".
  8. Anyone with a cities caselist/preview knows exactly which cases you were targeting, and you said them in such a way that was demeaning and unnecessarily vitriolic, considering that you're an adult coach dealing with evidence produced by high schoolers. Cuba Nickel and Dolphins are not cases that were read at cities by schools with lots of institutional privilege or resources. "They got large chunks of this from open caselist" or "It actually was that terrible" are insufficient reasons to mock high school students (and it'd be one thing if you were in high school yourself; you're not, you're actively judging and coaching people this age). Anyone who takes a case off of open case list doesn't just plagiarize it; they do lots of work to familiarize themselves with the evidence, prepare it, and produce a defensible position. You obviously don't think it's very defensible; that's fine, and this is debate. The tone and manner with which you described the positions of high schoolers is nonetheless completely unnecesary. Why are you so defensive regarding your right to be rude? Does it make you feel important when you mockingly describe others arguments? My solution is simple - keep doing what you're doing but just tone down the hostility meter. Maybe that's too much to ask...
  9. Not sure who the original poster is (anonymity is always fun), but FYI, even though cross-x is a pale imitation of what it once was, lots of people in and around the high school debate community still see these posts. As you're a UDL coach, I hope you realize that most of this evidence you're condescendingly insulting and mocking is produced by UDL students who already are at a huge disadvantage when it comes to competition, or underpaid (frequently volunteer) and overworked coaches. Producing debate evidence is very difficult; getting berated for your attempts to do so wouldn't encourage me to try and help the UDL, or, if I was a UDL student, to continue my efforts to produce evidence. And, because you've name-dropped specific cases and schools, people get to feel directly and specifically insulted. Yay for sharing ev, but work on not being a dbag.
  10. There also are structural barriers to creating a Facebook group for high schoolers. Many coaches and teachers affiliated with high school debate wouldn't be able to participate in an open group with students for legal reasons (I remember this creating forcing the College and High School Debate Ladies pages to split), and active debaters are only a small percentage of the overall "contributors" to the NDTCEDA group, so it's hard to see how a similar forum would emerge. That being said, Steven's right that the last thing we need is another outlet for 14-year-olds affiliated with debate to embarrass both themselves and the activity publicly. I think the (relative) anonymity of a forum is more appropriate, just because a lot of people in high school would take a forum like that less seriously due to the comparatively small time investment they have put into the activity themselves.
  11. If the message you got from reading Cross-X by Joe Miller was "race, gender, and socioeconomic status are not major impediments to success in debate's national circuit b/c a KCKCC team defeated the odds and did incredibly well", you either have exceedingly poor reading comprehension or didn't read the book. Yes, there are some stories of teams defying the odds, but they have to work far harder than their counterparts just to have a chance to compete, much less succeed. It takes an extraordinarily dedicated coach (like a Jane Rinehart) who goes above and beyond the call of duty, debaters who are willing to face far more adversity than typical successful NC competitors, etc. And even then, most programs are barely able to get off of the ground due to the sheer number of barriers minority and/or socioeconomically-disadvantaged teams face. Some are primarily economic (yes, budgets, but also not being able to go to tournaments because you have to work a weekend job, not being able to afford camp, not being able to afford laptops for every kid (the digital divide), not having average reading levels up to grade level) because of a terrible educational environment). Some are primarily cultural (because debate is practiced by primarily wealthy programs in almost entirely-white areas, non-white vernacular and codes aren't viewed as legitimate as traditional modes of discourse). Don't get me wrong, I don't think that race and/or socioeconomic status are absolute impediments to success. I debated in a UDL and won two national championships, coach one of the most successful UDL teams of all time, lab led multiple UDL camps, and am currently an Executive Officer of a 501© nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting urban debate. However, there's a reason, and it has literally nothing to do with the work ethic of debaters. With regards to gender, there are fewer women participating in debate than men generally, female judges preferred less highly than male judges, and far fewer women than men reach the upper echelons of competitive success in debate. Why? It's a complicated answer, but this article by Whit Whitmore applies the concept of the glass ceiling and a statistical analysis of female success in debate to partially answer the question. This classic article is a bit older, but still incredibly pertinent to traditional debate. Once again, women clearly are fully capable of being great policy debaters, but a variety of socio-cultural reasons stand in their way. To answer the topic question, I joined my sophomore year in high school through taking a debate class. Policy is the only type of debate (or speech) our school offers. I was intrigued by the notion of a class that was primarily student-taught, thought it would be a pretty easy A, and I had a crush on somebody on the debate team (who ended up quitting the year I joined anyway), so a friend and I that always liked discussing politics decided to try it out together. I ended up falling in love with the activity after my first tournament, and have been hooked ever since.
  12. Not necessarily- whether or not immigration reform is going to pass in the future has no bearing on whether or not the impact scenario is true or false. Certain arguments (like economy bad now arguments against an econ DA), but that's a component of the link or impact (i.e. link uniqueness or impact uniqueness) more than it is a component of issue-specific uniqueness. And it's in politics debates where "uniqueness controls link" args are made most commonly. That being said, both arguments are usually just vapid catchphrases that only have utility as tiebreakers at the margins of close debates (like the elections scenario Jake set up). Link and uniqueness arguments are true independently of the other.
  13. Do you really think people who do day of silence stuff "[think] that doing literally nothing is okay"? Who has "coerced" them? Themselves? Can you point to one person in the history of queer activism - a single person who isn't a figment of your imaginary strawperson - who seriously thinks that the Day of Silence is a such sufficent strategy to remedy homophobia that "doing literally nothing else is okay"? Day of Silence isn't a macro-political strategy. Not every meaningful or worthwhile queer activist strategy has to result in legislative or litigational approaches challenging heteronormativity. My problem isn't just that you have a problem with this: it's that I don't think you understand one of the reasons for why this approach could be viable, and you're opposing something that could help people without understanding it. What Day of Silence can do is show queer or questioning people (who are very frequently ostracized or marginalized growing up and going through school) that there are a lot of people who are willing to mark themselves as allies and attempt to empathize with their experience of being publicly silenced in a public space. It's no coincidence that lots and lots of people come out on the Day of Silence: days and events like give people confidence that they're not going to get excluded, insulted, or beaten up if they publicly express their sexuality, and that even if they will, they have a lot of people who are willing to back them up and support them. Have you talked to any queer people about the Day of Silence? Have you thought about what it's like to come out and the environments in which one would or would not want to? I'm glad you find your high school so progressive, but do you really think every queer or questioning individual feels that same comfort all the time? I find the phrase "openly anti-gay" interesting. It's like you're already admitting that there's hidden undercurrent of homophobia (but not so hidden that there's anyone who hasn't caught onto it). It's easy to not have to think about what it's like to be queer when you're not queer, but homophobia is about much more than avoiding "openly anti-gay" bigots spouting hate speech. The people who hate you behind your back, but aren't "open" about their bigotry and pretend to like you to your face are in some ways more difficult to confront, because they hide more easily. Although this line is very blurry: even in the very liberal places I've lived, like Ann Arbor and Chicago, I've seen friends and family members come home from bars or clubs with bruised and bloody faces because they were interested in someone of the same sex. One last comment: one of your (and this applies to lots of people in the thread) common themes is "oh, I agree with your message, I just disagree with your means". This reminds me of a quote from Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letter from a Birmingham Jail: It's fun to comment on everyone else's political struggles and strategies, but when you accuse people of "deliberately failing" or acting "as if they don't care" you are making borderline character indictments of people trying (which you admit you're not) to foment change for marginalized and oppressed people. Why trust your honest intentions as an ally, when you respond to my argument of 'this is something makes some people around you feel more comfortable' with 'but but but this isn't productive in creating change.' Why trust that you care when you admit you don't do anything? The reason queer (and many other marginalized groups of) people often feel like the world is against them is because there are so, so, so many people that don't do anything to show they care about and acknowledge the injustices they face, other than occasionally giving them empty words and having politeness of avoiding insulting them when they're in the same room. In fact, these people make every excuse they can to get other people not to do anything under the guise of "well, I'm not involved in the situation, I don't even have an advocacy, I just don't get what this produces or what this does." You are being one of these people. I would invite you to think about what it's like to not be in a position where you can be an agent, where your agency will be acknowledged and recognized by people around you, and where you are silenced by a sea of benign-but-uncaring people. Maybe not speaking for a day can help with that, maybe not. But I don't think you've said a damn thing that's "productive", and if you really do care about that, I make the suggestion as a friend that you should try to change that.
  14. If people who do the day of silence are so quiet, victimized, and anti-agency, how do you even know what this protest is? Did they communicate something without saying any words? If so... that sounds like an effective act of speaking out. There is little that will change the mind of a dedicated bigot. Events like these attempt to convey broad empathy and solidarity with people who are silenced into the closet. A lot of people I know have felt more comfortable with coming out and feeling accepted in a heteronormative world when they see a bunch of people make a visible, conscious gesture like this. I suppose speaking out can do that as well... but I don't see most of y'all whining about how silent this makes people doing that either. It's really hard to organize and popularize big activist events that lots of people across the country can get down with, so exerting effort arguing against them when you 1) agree with their goals and 2) don't think it does any harm seems like a profound waste of time. If you really are bothered by the lack of agency you think this promotes, organize a new event? If you have a day of speaking or whatever you think is better, I'll sign right up...
  15. kevinwy

    Strat Help?

    I live in the West because I was born here. My family, friends, realistic future opportunities all exist in the West (specifically, in the Midwest). There is no "monolithic "Western culture". The main group of people that continue to personify Western culture are cultural supremacists who want to sidestep discussions of racism, colonialism, and genocide by saying "but look- science!". The "West" doesn't do things, because the West is not a person. People do things in the name of the West. Sometimes these things have been good. Other times, these things have been bad. Historically, many if not most of the technological (paper, gunpowder, basic block printing, compass, astrolabe) and philosophical (algebra, the foundations of modern anatomy, etc) advances that pioneered Western science and innovation were taken from other countries. Read Black Athena and learn about how Greece stole a lot of their knowledge from Egypt. Many other advances developed in tandem with other cultures. There is lots of basic shit we see as scientific that was done thousands of years ago (The Indus Valley Civilization had plumbing). Different scientific and economic models have had lots of success in other countries (see: present-day Japan and China, leaping past the US in so many ways). Rationality, logic, common sense, etc have long been valued by lots of intellectual cultures. These are not Western values. The only people who insist on them being called Western values (as you hilariously do) are people who want their culture to be artificially superior to others. You even more hilariously try to "PIK" out of bad ones by embracing a "Western" culture . Why do that? Why not just have a universal culture that PIKs out of the bad parts (i.e. all the genocides and slaveries and colonial legacies of the West)? (The only coherent answer is cultural supremacy/racism). You derail every conversation in every thread about project teams, performances, or any non-traditional argument by saying "FRAMEWORK!" "YOU DON'T DEBATE LIKE HOW I WANT TO!" etc. This isn't even about your arguments. I've gone for framework at least ten times in debate this year. Hell, I've debated most of the top K teams in the country this year- Emporia WS, Oklahoma CL, Oklahoma LM, West Georgia DF, and West Georgia GM going for a lot of the arguments you espouse (even successfully oftentimes, because I had a combined 5-2 record against those teams). I believe in a lot of them. I worked for Obama in Michigan and Chicago this summer because I really think the political process has the ability to effectuate positive change for a lot of people. What I don't believe in is your method of "engaging". You write walls of text that list out presses and questions without responding to the thrust of what the other person is talking about. You write about what you want to talk about and get mad and play the victim when people don't feel like hearing another rant about reverse racism when that wasn't even the topic of discussion. You should make your own thread called "Sad Ballad of the White Man" where you can whine about every topic that pisses you off because it's not Western enough so you don't derail other people's conversations. Honestly, I'm not super offended by you. I'm just surprised and amused that, 4,000 posts in, you don't really understand how your conduct makes people on this site dislike you and not want to engage with you in conversations. @xliii- nobody wants to label nathan the scum of the earth. I have no idea why you're getting so defensive when people say they don't feel like talking to someone who, after people post basic shit re: not being racist over and over again, continues to derail conversation after conversation. In conversations about race, white people often jump to defense of other white people. Rashad Evans writes extensively about this in the context of debate rather persuasively. Stop acting like calling out someone for saying racist shit like the Emory camp sucks b/c there's too many black people and West is Best (particularly after post after unanswered post explaining why both of these and many other positions are super problematic) is even remotely what the word demonizes means. Reading through this thread makes me feel like I'm seventeen again, peach fuzz on my chin...
  • Create New...