Jump to content

dcollierd

Member
  • Content Count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Good

About dcollierd

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 08/25/1991

Profile Information

  • Name
    David
  • School
    Parkway South
  1. dcollierd

    GSL Finals

    1. Yeah I'm afraid I was Jack, but in the interest of full disclosure two of the internal links were analytical, and the impact was that quick action is key to saving people. Do you still love me? 2. I mean, we talked about this a lot, I know you guys like new in the 2, but you read two new DA's in the 2NC, and because we're in MO, we can't even go for theory, or impact turns. I remember talking to Phil about this kind of scenario and his response was something like, "How does a neg team lose a round in Missouri?" Still, I have, and will continue to apologize for the decision that round, I was as surprised as you guys. 3. I mean the only person who stuck around for the 1AR was Jason, and I'd like to hear his thoughts on the round anyway, I didn't get a chance to talk to him after the round for that long. You have to be crafty if you want to win rounds. But at the same time, and this is a problem I think STL has a lot of, there's not a lot of strategy in rounds here, our round against Zach and B.I. friday being a good example, ours was horrible/close to non-existent. What people weren't in the round to see was that solvency(case, not off-case) wasn't in the 2NR. Like, we had a lot offense on the heg. impact to NASA trade off, at that point even if there is a risk that parts of our plan might be stalled by Browne, you could vote aff solely because of a risk of the heg turns, or because a risk of genocide outweighs mitigated heg. You could also vote neg because with mitigated solvency, any risk of heg. decline and thus a power vacuum, terrorism, great power wars, etc. outweighs the mitigated genocide impact. That being said, congrats to Zach and B.I., the comment about strategy doesn't apply to them, they debated really well that round, and despite the above post there is strong chance I would have voted neg myself.
  2. I think the argument isn't that there are always explicit acts of sexism that occur in Sw. Mo (i.e. you don't understand your arguments because you're a woman, or I downed you because you're a woman), but rather that there are implicit reactions to women's participation in debate which are sexist. Hence the Warner 01 card in the 1AC: Also, they talk about how there are subconscious reactions to women's participation in debate as well. So...even if there are exceptions, which really isn't the point of the affirmative I think, and even if there aren't documented cases of sexism in your mind (I think Carthage and Marshfield would disagree) that doesn't mean that there isn't sexism. As for a solution to the problem, I think it's first to listen to their argument fully. Bolman's right that debate probably isn't the best forum for this argument to be decided, but you're talking about it now at least. You guys don't like it when cross-x threads digress into massive fights, so maybe this affords you guys an opportunity to have progressive discourse about the state of your circuit. On a much different note... At any level college, national circuit, or missouri, debate will never be completely fair. People will always get rep. ballots, some teams will always have more money, but that doesn't mean that debate shouldn't attempt to be as fair as possible
  3. I think the argument isn't that there are always explicit acts of sexism that occur in Sw. Mo (i.e. you don't understand your arguments because you're a woman, or I downed you because you're a woman), but rather that there are implicit reactions to women's participation in debate which are sexist. Hence the Warner 01 card in the 1AC: Also, they talk about how there are subconscious reactions to women's participation in debate as well. So...even if there are exceptions, which really isn't the point of the affirmative I think, and even if there aren't documented cases of sexism in your mind (I think Carthage and Marshfield would disagree) that doesn't mean that there isn't sexism. As for a solution to the problem, I think it's first to listen to their argument fully. Bolman's right that debate probably isn't the best forum for this argument to be decided, but you're talking about it now at least. You guys don't like it when cross-x threads digress into massive fights, so maybe this affords you guys an opportunity to have progressive discourse about the state of your circuit. On a much different note... At any level college, national circuit, or missouri, debate will never be completely fair. People will always get rep. ballots, some teams will always have more money, but that doesn't mean that debate shouldn't attempt to be as fair as possible
  4. To be honest, I was and still am pretty pissed with the outcome. Like, we hit Damien CG fourth round, and they had seven TOC bids and went to sems of the TOC. That's the only debate we legitly lost. But everything else was pretty sketchy. We had an easy draw, and in my opinion really should have pulled at least 8 ballots. The judging really wasn't that great, but to be honest we at least didn't hit anyone very good. I haven't seen the ballots yet, but I'm just kind of sceptical of the RFDs. Yeah, I don't know about Liberty, but I know that Blue Springs South, and they upped their first elim, downed 2-1 to Berkley Prep.
  5. Yeah, we're coming. Sorry this is late, and by now pretty useless, but we spent the day driving here and thus didn't have a whole lot of spare time.
  6. One of our coaches has to do something for the school district that day, and the other is teaching summer school, so none of our coaches that know policy can go. How big of a problem is that?
  7. The way I started talking to you was hardly condescending, while I was verbally aggressive I wasn't dismissive of what you were saying without warranting it first. Also, this isn't the main part of my point, or at least it wasn't meant to be. One, I was critical of your response, and in doing so was hostile, but that isn't the same as being condescending. I gave a reason for rejecting your argument, I didn't just say, drink decaf or whatever, and pretend like you were inferior, that was you. Two, ok, assuming that your post is a call for clarification, I justify my pretense by saying that I thought the intent of the post was pretty obvious to anyone who speaks English. Second, I give a reason why I think you understand the meaning of the post, which is that you understand the thought he is making. I'm not just attacking anything you said because I’m out to get you, it just seemed like a pretty legit answer was given to which you were ignoring. One, just because he says that his statement wasn't clear, in no way means that it isn't understandable, but even you admit that the thought is clear, so what's the problem? Two, obviously the remark he makes about any position being "only" voted on is his, because he says it when he says, his ignorance. His sentence means, you can vote only, on any position. Three, obviously sticking the word only ambiguously into a sentence might throw off its clarity, but in this case when it's one, put in quotes, and two is obviously meant to make a point by using previously used terminology, you can probably decipher the sentence by looking at the previous post. I've never had this judge before, and thus can't really comment on the judging style, but it just seems like such a flawed philosophy. Sure, you evaluate all the arguments in a round, but then, you have a thing called framework, i.e. how you vote in the round. So, if the K comes first, and you win the K, then you win the round, because the K is most important. Next, of course one argument can win a round. Topicality and other procedurals are a great example of this. In most cases if you can either win abuse, or win the interpretation on topicality, then you can win the round. Also, of course defensive arguments win rounds. Under the most primitive paradigm of all, stocks, you can just read case defense on neg, or solvency mitagators, and win, because even if you prove the aff. can solve 99%, then they lose. Personally, I think reading case D the whole time is about the last thing I would ever do, but it could win a round in Missouri. I think the dumbest thing you could do, and largely what is wrong with Missouri debate, is making presumptions before rounds about what are and aren't voters. It’s the reason that one of the most popular arguments in the debate world, is largely abandoned in St. Louis. I agree words and the ones we use and how we use them are important, and I guess I should have clarified this better. In this particular forum, the argument about syntax seems pretty petty, I think the argument about judge pref. and voters is more important.
  8. Dude, I guess I'll use your words, so try again. Your attempt at condescending me instead of actually making a strong response to what I said is why you're still wrong. First, you never articulate why his thought isn't clear, only that it is unclear to you. Seriously, how doesn't that make sense? Second, I assumed that you weren't asking for clarification because I thought that what he said was pretty clear, but what I think what he is trying to say is that he is mocking your use of the word ignorance, by clarifying his argument in such a way that it could never seem like it was ignorant. He's trying to say that any argument is a voter by itself, not just certain ones. Specifically, why not vote on the K itself. Third, if he had a clear thought, that must mean that you would of had to understand it to know that it was clear, begging the question, why didn't you respond with an answer? "Try some decaf, grasshopper", seriously, you rely way too much on being condescending. Either way, arguing over syntax is pointless.
  9. When criticizing someone for having a supposed ignorance of a subject, it's usually a good idea to have a better response to their argument than, "I'm not sure what you mean here." You criticize J3ffr0 for a supposed ignorance but blatantly concede your own.
  10. Congrats to all who broke, hope you guys rep St. Louis well. But as a point of interest did anyone get some pretty sketchy RFDs on their ballots, I mean not that this is unusual, just wondering.
  11. South: No surprises it's just Hongbo and I again, hopefully next year we can get one or two more policy teams. And it will either be DDT or PATHWAY, pretty standard.
×
×
  • Create New...