Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Bruce_Najor last won the day on November 15 2010

Bruce_Najor had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

37 Good

About Bruce_Najor

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 02/27/1986
  1. The semi-finals featured the last two remaining "TOC teams" debating against each other, I believe. In fact those 2 teams debated each other at the TOC round 4. The skills you learn to qualify for the TOC are not easily transferable to the NCFL. Unfamiliar judges and judging styles with no MPJ, very little pre and in round prep time, Post round evidence rules, as well as unfamiliar competition, and not to mention post TOC burnout factor after a long season drastically levels the proverbial playing field between local and national circuit teams. Don't interpret the above as casting a pedagogical judgment on the tournament, because I certainly am not (although I'm sure that is coming by someone sometime soon), my point is to congratulate those teams who have been both successful on the national circuit as well as at the NCFL as it shows a very awesome amount of versatility in a debater and it shows a team who understands it's not just about the logos, the ethos and pathos elements of the game matter too. Congratulations to all elimination participants!
  2. team 217 is Brother Rice CH
  3. I think (s)he used lucky and privileged synonymously And you also have to be privileged to compete at the NFLs you have to be privileged to compete in debate period
  4. Hello everyone, I have two judges with up to 14 rounds to sell at the TOC. They have housing and transportation taken care of. Contact me if you are interested. My email is BruceNajor[at]gmail[dot]com Thank you and best of luck with the end of the season preparation
  5. This has the potential to be inaccurate b/c the quarters pairing and the doubles results posted on planetdebate.com dont jive, but this is an unofficial effort to reconcile the two based off limited knowledge from folks at the scene. --Doubles-- (1) Georgetown Day KL d (32) Roosevelt AC (2) Baltimore Talent WR d (31) Berkley Prep GX (3) Chattahoochee DI d (30) University High BH (4) Brother Rice CH d (29) Bishop Guertin SV (5) Kinkaid RD d (28) Univ of Chi SR (6) Edgemont JK d (27) Head Royce SK (7) Henry Grady BC d (26) Tampa Prep LW (8) Dallas Jesuit GM over (25) Dallas Jesuit KM (24) Head Royce MR d (9) Chattahoochee VS (10) Univ of Chicago RH d (23) Bronx FT (11) Chattahoochee KK d (22) Bronx BK (21) McDonogh GF d (12) St. Johns CC (13) Kinkaid BB d (20) National Cathedral SS (14) Georgetown HS d (19) Damien MM (18) Edgemont MX d (15) Metropolitan Core AE (16) Dexter CH d (17) NFA CS --Octos-- (16) Dexter CH d (1) GDS KL (2) Baltimore Talent WR d (15) Edgemont MX (14) GDS HS d (3) Chattahoochee DI (4) Brother Rice CH d (13) Kinkaid BB (5) Kinkaid RD d (21) McDonogh GF (6) Edgemont JK d (11) Chattahoochee KK (10) Univ of Chicago RH d (7) Henry Grady BC (8) Dallas Jesuit GM d (24) Head Royce MR --Quarters-- (16) Dexter (Flip) Vs (8) Dallas Jesuit GM (2) Baltimore Talent WR (Flip) Vs (10) Univ of Chicago RH (14) GDS HS (Flip) Vs (6) Edgemont JK (4) Brother Rice CS (Flip) Vs Kinkaid RD
  6. As the season is fast approaching its climax, I would like to make a call for more info on the caselist. If you have a caselist on the NDCA website, it would be great if you could link it. If you don't, it would be great if teams could start putting a little more info up. If you've debated a team who has nothing up on the caselist, just putting a thesis of their plan up would be solid (If you can't remember the plan text). But a lot of teams have nothing, which is disappointing so late in the season
  7. Congratulations to a couple Michigan teams for an impressive showing at the Wake Forest tournament! Dexter HS Lukas Hosford and Brandon Canniff reached the octofinal round where they lost a close debate on a 2-1 decision. Lukas was also the 4th individual speaker of the tournament! Brother Rice HS Evan Hebert and Michael Crowe reached the quarterfinal round where they received the first of two legs needed to qualify for the Tournament of Champions. Evan was also the 9th individual speaker! Congratulations to both teams!
  8. Copied and pasted from ... http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/earlybird/2008-bird/2010%20Varsity%20CX%20Earlybird.pdf Double Octafinal Round Results Georgetown Day HS (Aff) defeated Pennsbury SW 3-0 Weston, David Burch, Daryl Weingarten, Josh Georgetown Day KL (Neg) defeated University School of JR 3-0 Lamballe Alex Carlotti Mike Shklar Alexis Centennial LM (Aff) defeated Eleanor Roosevelt AC 2-1 King, Sam *Poapst Jackie Mulholland, Rob Montgomery Bell Acade SH (Neg) defeated McDonogh MG 3-0 Ramakrishnan, Va Shelton, Kurt Goren Sophia GACS AK (Aff) defeated River Hil GH 2-1 Min Richard Allan, Elizabeth *Zhang, Jeff Alpharetta High LI (Aff) defeated Beacon GG 2-1 *Sydnor, Jim Durkin, Tom Washington Melvi Centennial KP (Aff) defeated Lexington EB 2-1 *Sedelmyer, Chris Meloche, Brad Garrett Lincoln Brother Rice H.S CH (Neg) defeated Mountain Brook DS 3-0 Duffy, Cat Parke Logan Poole, Leah New Trier Township KC (Aff) defeated Marist MC 2-1 Lundeen, Geoff Gjerpen, Katie *Grellinger, Adam Lexington FC (Neg) defeated Westminster Schools XB 3-0 Schirmer, Abby Movens, Scott Struth Matt Little Rock Central PW (Neg) defeated Lexington GT 3-0 McLeod Jack Goche Alan Bencosme Francis Dunwoody GG (Neg) defeated Beacon SO 3-0 Hirn Kevin Brown, Scott Turnage Joshua Canton Central Cathol MK (Neg) defeated Johns Creek HZ 3-0 Selesner, Jeremy Turoff, Corey Diamond Joel Dexter HC (Neg) defeated Palo Alto CF 3-0 Kirsch, Sara Kyagaba, Ivan Jordan, Shunta North Side College Pr Ct (Aff) defeated Mt Hebron AD 3-0 Kirkman, Fernand Martin, Jeff Owens, Emily Cathedral Prep WH (Neg) defeated Henry W. Grady BC 3-0 Miller Ian Bailey Ken Quinn, Robbie Octafinal Round Results Georgetown Day HS (Aff) defeated Cathedral Prep WH 3-0 Gjerpen, Katie Burch, Daryl Mulholland, Rob Georgetown Day KL (Neg) defeated North Side College Pr Ct 2-1 *Quinn, Robbie Washington Melvi Kirkman, Fernand Centennial LM (Aff) defeated Dexter HC 2-1 *Ramakrishnan, Va Weston, David Jordan, Shunta Montgomery Bell Acade SH (Aff) defeated Canton Central Cathol MK 3-0 Duffy, Cat Lundeen, Geoff Garrett Lincoln GACS AK (Aff) defeated Dunwoody GG 2-1 Hirn Kevin *Allan, Elizabeth Bailey Ken Little Rock Central PW (Aff) defeated Alpharetta High LI 3-0 Struth Matt Kyagaba, Ivan Sydnor, Jim Centennial KP (Neg) defeated Lexington FC 2-1 *Bencosme Francis Selesner, Jeremy Sedelmyer, Chris Brother Rice H.S CH (Aff) defeated New Trier Township KC 2-1 Carlotti Mike Zhang, Jeff *Goren Sophia Quarterfinal Round Results Georgetown Day HS (Aff) defeated Brother Rice H.S CH 2-1 Gjerpen, Katie *Zhang, Jeff Sedelmyer, Chris Georgetown Day KL (Neg) defeated Centennial KP 2-1 Washington Melvi *Weston, David Hirn Kevin Centennial LM (Aff) defeated Little Rock Central PW 3-0 Selesner, Jeremy Miller Ian Poapst Jackie Montgomery Bell Acade SH (Aff) defeated GACS AK 3-0 Carlotti Mike Min Richard Semifinal Round Results Georgetown Day HS (Neg) defeated Montgomery Bell Acade SH 3-0 Burch, Daryl Miller Ian Malsin Mikaela Georgetown Day KL (Neg) defeated Centennial LM 2-1 Lamballe Alex Hirn Kevin *Carlotti Mike Final Round Results Georgetown Day KL Advances Over Georgetown Day HS
  9. Brother Rice (Aff) D. New Trier Congrats Bro Rice!
  10. Probably because most of those discussions dont start with: That was so out of line. Even if they are rich, elite programs (which they aren't, a point made by others), it's still out of bounds. Im unsure if I missed it, but you owe all 4 debaters, and their coaches an apology for such an ignorant statement. Then maybe if you wanted to continue this discussion you would be treated with more respect, and less name calling. Just saying...
  11. I would like if you listened to this discussion starting at 35:00 min about http://debatevideoblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/discussion-policy-debate-unger-and.html I find myself agreeing strongly with Parcher and Rollins. I would never call for evidence that I couldn't understand, but if I either conclude that failing to understand the card was my fault, or that i forgot something, I will call for the card. I do NOT feel that I judge in a way that putszero value on how the debate actually took place, I also do NOT feel I could make a decision if you handed me a flow, or a brief, and I didn't see the debate. This is where I compare it more to instant replay. Some judges reconstruct debates, sure, and I don't think many feel thats constructive or fair to the students. But for the majority of judges, calling for evidence serves to remember an evolution of the debate we forgot, missed on our fault, or was "too close to call" by just listening. I respect your position to not do it, teams should adapt to a judge who won't read cards just like they should adapt to a judge who will call for lots of cards.
  12. Sure. I would find any judge who refuses to vote for a style to be pretty interventionist. If a team argues successfully for a judge to adopt a stock issues paradigm, and the other team fails to adequately extend their "role of the ballot", be it policy making or something else, and the judge flat out intervened against "stock issues", that would be bad judging. Now, I said "more of a threat than reading ev", and I happen to find reading ev to be zero threat, so take that for what it means. To describe more accurately my POV I suppose I should say "refusing to vote for a winning argument is more damaging intervention to the students than reading evidence." Be it refusing to vote on Inh, or a dropped and well explained K. More to the point of my argument then, the choice to use "topical CPs" or "The K" as an example was to prove the point that we don't create rules to prevent other types of intervention when the judge intervenes to support a style of debate we enjoy hearing. Your question probably would have been "Would I support a rule that judges must be stock issues or policymakers?" if I had phrased my response as I phrased it above. The answer is obviously no, just like I wouldn't support a rule that judges must / can't read evidence You disagree?
  13. It seems, Mr. Volen, that you and I have reached a point where our disagreement is so deep that it is unlikely to be resolved. I think I've identified the main points of disagreement below, but I don't think "line by line" answering your points will prove to be very productive. You seem to believe debate at its heart is a communications activity. I couldn't disagree more, as I find I judge more on the content of the arguments in the round and care very little as to how that content is delivered (within reason). We seem to also disagree on the value of speedy debating, as I find it integral to the educational value. I'll stand by what I said, those who cite "speed" as the reason for quiting are really trying to say it's "too hard", and debate should be very hard. I'm not trashing those students, as policy debate is the hardest of all the competitive forensics events, and any student who is even moderately successful should be proud. I still don't believe you have made an argument for why there needs to be a rule as opposed to a personal preference. You believe the foundation of the activity is at stake, I believe that's a bit hyperbolistic. If two reasonable people can disagree on what constitutes the "foundation", it seems the choice to read evidence should be just that, a choice. I fail to see a difference between reading evidence and not voting for dropped arguments in terms of intervention. In fact, I personally believe judges who refuse to vote for "The K" or "Topical CPs" are more of a "threat" to the activity than judges who read cards. But I would also oppose a rule telling judges they must hold no bias toward topical CPs. I would be happy to supply you with several scholarly articles defending the rapid pace of policy debate in terms of improving reading comprehension and critical thinking, all which relate to higher SAT and ACT scores. You can PM your email and I will send them your way. I look at this debate a lot like the debate for instant replay in baseball. The purists refusing, arguing that it "undermines the human element of the game" and the other side wanting to "get it right". We shouldn't use replay for EVERY call, but on the real close ones, the ones that decide games, I'd like to be allowed to take a second look, make sure I heard and saw everything right, I don't think it will "destroy the game". And just like "instant replay", it's probably inevitable.
  14. Not real interested in this part of the debate. To be quite honest, not real interested in trying to convince you it's a bad rule because 1) I can't do it 2) it won't make a difference anyway and 3) I don't plan on going back to the NCFL (not because of the rules, just because its that time I move on from debate). That said, however, I'll be a gamer and have a fair discussion with you on the rule side of it. Like I said above, though, not interested in debating the "fairness" of reading evidence. I think its absolutely essential to read evidence to determine a winner and loser fairly, you do not. I respect that POV, its the rule I have issue with, so this part of your argument is kinda irrelevant. This is kinda an embarrassing argument to make. I don't think failing to provide the judge an adequate bribe is in the same league as reading evidence. We all know judges who read lots of evidence. Choosing to read poor evidence, or going for a disad despite having weaker cards, is probably poor adaption and you deserve to lose. Besides, you totally miss the point of my argument. You want to make the point "we need the rule to stop intervention". Im saying get off your high horse. You wouldnt support other rules to stop intervention like "dropped Reps Ks must come first" so why do you support this one? Because it supports a style of debate you enjoy, not for an altruistic attempt to prevent judges from taking rounds away from kids. And before you say my arguments are just trying to prop up a system of debate I enjoy, I am not ENCOURAGING judges to read cards. Im encouraging tab to not make it a rule so you are free to do as you see. Only one of us is trying to limit the activity sir. No sir, thats adaption to the tournament rule, not to me. And irrelevant to the point that it shouldn't be a rule My point exactly. I have a lower threshold, and the evidence is actually quite good. Or I have a high threshold and the evidence is quite poor. How about I have a threshold where I hold the burden to the 1AR to "call out" the evidence and i have a threshold where the 2NR defends the evidence, and if both of them are met, I can make a judgement call on who did better research. Besides, irrelevant to making it a rule. How about you determine what threshold you enjoy, and I'll determine which I enjoy, and we can disagree on whos is more fair, but we can respect each others right to make a decision the way we know best. your $0.02, I disagree. Just to be clear, I can hear EVERY word the fastest debaters in the country read (so long as they are clear), I just don't have that good a memory. I don't read cards to MAKE arguments for teams, I read cards to help me remember what they said. But besides the point 1. You standing opposed to reading cards does not justify a rule... Again 2. The kids who quit because debate is "too fast" have other reasons in my experience, like its "too hard", and debate should be "hard" 3. Study after study have affirmed the positive benefits speaking fast has on memory and reading comprehension, which directly contribute to higher SAT and ACT scores Because I believe debate is a combination of RESEARCH and SPEECH. How can you honestly say my decisions at national tournaments comes down to "who has the best brief on the politics DA"? Its a fine line judges walk between rewarding good spin and rewarding good evidence. A rule only serves to allow debaters to get away with lazy research. They know the judges can't read cards, and they know they can sneak a card past the 2AC, and put enough pressure on the 1AR that they cant mount a serious enough attack on the evidence to make the judge dismiss it entirely. Your solution to this is "have a more lax policy on the 1AR calling out evidence". This encourages the 1AR to call every piece of evidence out and making a 2NR impossible. having a policy ALLOWING judges solves this. Having a policy PREVENTING judges from reading cards does nothing to encourage better debating. If anything it encourages worse debating for the above reasons. Also your argument that the rule is necessary to curb intervention is silly because you wouldnt support a rule forcing judges to vote on dropped arguments first, showing your position is not altruistic, but merely grandstanding. ALLOW judges to read cards who want to. ALLOW judges to refuse to read cards who don't want to. If your team does good research AND sounds good presenting it... They'll pick up a LOT of ballots. If they only do one of those things well, they will and should lose a fair # of ballots.
  15. I want to interject in this section of the argument because it is the only one of importance to me. I have no delusions that I will persuade anyone who has their minds made up on the terrible thing that is reading evidence, but its an important discussion to have nonetheless. I'm using this quote because it's the only one that kinda / sorta fits with my point. I have yet to hear a good argument for why there should be a RULE prohibiting evidence reading. I have heard arguments that suggest judges shouldn't read evidence. I disagree strongly with all of these arguments, but I respect the folks making them, and I respect that POV, and I am not interested in having that debate. But to have a rule telling judges they cant read evidence is just as misguided as forcing judges to read evidence after every debate. It's a judgement call for judges. Evidence reading judges want to rely on some combination of the work done before the round, and the work done during the round. There isn't an evidence reading judge I know that wants to do work for a team after the round. And those touting it as an effort to limit intervention are on a pretty high horse, and should join the rest of us down here. A judge can say "I hate the K". The neg can run a K. The aff can drop it. The judge can refuse to vote for it. I call that intervention. Others may call it "poor adaptation". Do I want a rule that says "judges must consider dropped Ks before they can decide the rest of the debate"? Absolutely not! I don't think anyone does. It's the same for reading evidence. If I say "I will not read cards" and you stand up in your 2NR begging me to read evidence, I should have ever right to refuse. If I say "I will read cards" and you beg me to just "trust you... the neg cards are real bad... vote aff" ... I should have every right to read evidence. Just like going for the K in front of a stock issues judge, going for bad evidence in front of an evidence reading judge should be considered "poor adaptation". And before anyone goes crazy, there is ABSOLUTELY a fine line between rewarding good spin vs rewarding good evidence. All judges dread those rounds where one team is undoubtedly controlling the spin on a particular issue, but the other has by far the superior evidence and continues to just extend it along passively. But thats not the kind of thing we need a rule to fix... thats the kind of thing 2-1s, and 3-2s are made of. A rule outlawing the reading of evidence to fix an otherwise subjective judgement call just opens the door for debaters to be lazy researchers. "Maybe we can trick a judge that this is a good card when it really says nothing" or "maybe we'll highlight this card enough to make an argument, but in context its just silly" is not really the kind of debate we should be encouraging. I mean I can sneak a couple cards past the aff when I know they only have 5 minutes of prep. I can put enough pressure in the 1AR so all they'll have time to say is our evidence is poor, not go in depth on several reasons. I can force the judge to consider a card I would otherwise be embarrassed to read. I mean if someone disagrees with the reading of evidence, they should refuse to do it, and debaters who know your policy and expect you to read cards are adapting poorly. But don't tell me I can't. It is a justifiable personal paradigm, and a hard judgement call, but it's just a silly silly silly "rule" My $0.02
  • Create New...