Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

74 Excellent

About AK-47

  • Rank
    Mearsheimer Enthusiast
  • Birthday 04/25/1992

Profile Information

  • Name
  • School
    University of Iowa/Edina HS
  • Location
    Iowa City, IA
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. AK-47

    Nebraska 2012-2013

    Indeed, I would. If the Hawkeyes prevail, I want a picture of the entire Westside coaching staff in Iowa gear uploaded to this forum. If the Huskers win, I'll cut a file for Westside debate. Let me know if you agree or have a different set of terms in mind
  2. AK-47

    Nebraska 2012-2013

    Can't wait for Iowa to stomp Little Red on 11/23. Go Hawks!
  3. AK-47


    Still not in Iowa...
  4. I see a couple problems with the methodology of these rankings: 1. The number of entries at a tournament doesn't correspond to tournament difficulty. For instance, MBA has low entries yet is one of the most difficult tournaments in the country. While Berkeley is certainly a challenging tournament, its inflated entry pool doesn't necessarily make it a more difficult tournament than say, Emory. This is a situation where basing points on the bid level of a tournament makes more sense. 2. This ranking system rewards teams that go to a lot of tournaments and punishes those that selectively attend only a few bid tournaments. A more accurate ranking system would replicate what the Baker Award does, which is to only use a team's 5 best tournaments when evaluating them.
  5. Name: Trevor Aufderheide Affiliation: The University of Iowa, Edina High School I will be traveling with Edina to the TOC and I'm hiring out some rounds of judging. If you need any, email me at trevor.aufderheide@gmail.com. If you need to know my background/qualifications, I currently debate at the University of Iowa, where I've cleared at numerous tournaments, both regional and major. I debated at Edina in high school, where I qualified to the TOC and did other cool things. You can read my judge philosophy if you need to know more about me.
  6. AK-47

    2011 First Rounds

    Congrats to Georgetown DM, that's pretty beast for a frosh-frosh team
  7. I would suspect it's because aside from Nathan, who didn't post until the wee hours of this morning, you're the only person in this thread who both has an identifiable name and a decided-upon college destination (as opposed to being undecided). That, and Luke (the creator of this thread) is probably too busy simultaneously taking every girl in Wayzata out for Valentine's Day right now.
  8. This is a slightly better argument but it's still not very good. First of all, most of your examples are non-unique. When called into question, most cards from random blogs are disregarded. They come under the same measure of scrutiny that emails to an author should. Also, your reframing still links to my earlier criticism. Just because there are other practices of dubious ethicality doesn't mean we should condone another. Additionally, the example you provided at the end of your post doesn't really apply. Card clipping is an unethical distortion of an already accepted practice that can falsifiably be determined - one can objectively determine whether or not a debater is clipping. However, the above discussed practice presents a gray area. Like others have discussed, it's impossible to verify whether the debater disregarded emails containing unfavorable opinions.
  9. I don't have the time or energy to comment on the main discussion occurring here, but I just wanted to note the particular stupidity of this statement: This basically amounts to "we shouldn't stop specific instances of cheating because cheating happens elsewhere." This logic justifies judges not punishing card-clipping just because there are debaters elsewhere manufacturing evidence, among other examples. Your argument might be stronger if it was along the lines of "x justifies y because y is necessary to check x." However, there isn't really a justification of emailing authors for arguments you want other than sheer laziness. Just because there may be other negative trends in the community doesn't mean we should engage in this one or any others, for that matter.
  10. Partial octo: Dowling DS d. Marshfield JR 3-0 (Aufderheide, Clevenger, D. Miller) Quarters: Barlow OW over Barstow AL Millard South GS d. Dowling DS 3-0 (Aufderheide, Bolman, Royers) Barstow MC d. Millard South HM 3-0 (Thomas, D. Miller, Parke) Millard West BZ d. Dowling MN Semis: Barstow OW and Barstow MC Millard South GS d. Millard West BZ 2-1 (Aufderheide, D. Miller, *Thomas)
  11. Cute. Except that certain portions ^ aren't mutually applicable. I guess I can't expect much more than imitation from a White Sox fan... keep on taking the players that we no longer want (A.J., the Crainwreck, etc.)
  12. There have been threads on this issue before and my answer is always the same so I'll copy/paste one of my previous posts here, with a couple minor additions: DDI. I would greatly recommend it as a camp, for a multitude of reasons. First, the staff is excellent - Copeland winners, NDT finalists/champions, etc. and they're all chill people. Also, the labs are a very manageable size (about 20 students per lab) which allows for more personalized instruction and research. While research is obviously valued (as it should be), from what I remember, library time is pretty optional in that you can work at your own pace. Lastly, Dartmouth itself is a chill place to be - the campus is somewhat alive because of sophomores taking summer classes and free time is pretty flexible. DDI is the difference between not breaking at major national circuit tournaments and winning elims at them. As long as you've had a moderate amount of experience debating at a varsity level, I don't think selectivity should be an issue. Really? If you don't like cutting cards, I don't think debate is for you, period.
  13. EDIT: Nevermind, was hired hey, i'm interested in judging at the Omaha Westside tournament the weekend of the 14th-16th. Is there anyone in need of a judge? I can provide my own transportation and lodging. Trevor Aufderheide University of Iowa Contact me at trevor.aufderheide@gmail.com
  14. Inclusivity doesn't matter if the activity then has little to no educational value. The reason speed has developed as a norm is because it is a POSITIVE norm. It's positive competitively - allows teams to make more arguments and read more cards. It's positive educationally - the ability to make more arguments = more in-depth discussion and the ability to explore a wider variety of issues. Oh, and there's the whole issue of more arguments meaning that there are more interactions between positions to analyze. Speed may not be "essential," but it's certainly beneficial. More on this in the other Speed thread in the Theory forum.
  15. Your arguments are only indicative of bad debate, not fast debate. There is no reason why speaking quickly detracts from in-depth discussion. In fact, speed augments that - you can make more arguments and analyze a certain issue deeper than a slow speaker could. Speed also doesn't prevent effective "slow" communication. This is proven year after year when national circuit teams that are used to highly technical and fast debate dominate NFL Nationals, where they are required to adapt to a more traditional judging pool. You can "read 1000 words" and answer "objections." The salesman analogies and arguments about public communication don't make sense in the context of debate. It's not like speaking quickly in a debate setting means you can't communicate normally in the real world. Many debaters go on to succeed in law and other professions despite how quickly they spoke in debate. Highly technical debate fosters research and argumentation skills that are unparalleled by those provided by slow debate. More arguments in a round means there are many more interactions and intricacies to consider (better critical thinking) and it means there are many more arguments to do research on. It's not like you don't have to be persuasive either. Additionally, debate is different from many spectator activities because it is both a competitive AND an educational activity. Since fast debate leads to better education, molding debate to suit the preferences of an "audience" (since so many people want to go watch a debate on the weekend...) only hurts the growth of the debaters involved. Speed also has competitive value, since it allows debaters to make more and deeper arguments, so eliminating it would also detract from the competitive nature of the activity. Yes, that was a rather unorganized rant, but speed bad arguments are made by those who aren't good enough to succeed in the activity as it is or grumpy old men.
  • Create New...