Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Good

About Greyfield

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 09/18/1990

Profile Information

  • Name
    Ryan Shaffer
  • School
    Claremont McKenna College
  • Biography
  1. Plagiarism and fabrication. I consider that a significant credibility issue, especially for an "expert". This isn't intended to be a critique of the argumentation made in the round. It's merely an interest in pointing out a problem with a source. I recognize the best you can do attacking credibility here is take out the card, which doesn't do a whole lot, especially in the context of where the debate eventually went. I don't know why you think my purpose here is to make that kind of claim. And the claim isn't about his alleged native ancestry, it's about his expertise and credibility.
  2. Good debate. Interesting to watch, minus the chatter, and I really like Murray's approach to the resolution. Christian - I don't know where you found that Ward Churchill card; whether it's from a file or not, I suggest not running it, because Churchill, as anyone from Colorado will tell you, is not as much an authority as he lets on, needless to say. Just thought it had to be said.
  3. What's the word from the front lines?
  4. Cool. I'll probably be at at least Hell of the West, Golden Mullen, and/or Chop.
  5. Wow. Congratulations. At this point, it's a question of how many teams are participating this year and how many new teams start debating. Should be interesting to watch.
  6. I don't know how well my schedule will align with debate back in Colorado, but on the off chance it does, I figure it couldn't hurt to post one of these. My name is Ryan Shaffer, and I'm a freshman at Claremont McKenna College in CA, doing National Parliamentary debate, a form that has much in common in terms of argumentation with CX. I did debate at Creek for four years, doing LD for the last three. I have a great deal of experience with all three debate forms, however, and am well-versed in everything in CX. So: In general, I'll flow anything and vote off anything on the flow, although you have to meet the low, low standards of "your argument must make a modicum of sense, e.g. I won't accept 'Our plan is that Superman will run in a hamster wheel powering a turbine that will provide all American power needs'", and "you need to label your voters". I value impact calculus very highly when trying to determine harms-disads, but I can also vote off Ks and the like. If you make those your key argument, show how they are more important than the impact calculus. Not complicated. T - I will flow T and will (potentially) flow it, but I have a philosophical problem with the impacts of T arguments. Normally, T impacts fall back on "vote against b/c they kill debate". The problem with this is that the only way this impact makes sense is if it's impossible for you to fight back, but if you make even a single response, you're proving to me that you have room to maneuver in spite of the argument made to the contrary, which undermines your T. Same goes for Predictability. I'm of the opinion that there usually aren't enough warrants for arguments for educational merit that don't fall under the "can't debate" category, but if I see convincing ones, I'm all for that kind of T. If your opponents drop T, then obviously it's votable, but know that I'm willing to wash T fairly easily. Spec - I'm not looking for plans filled with specificity. Not being able to put a very specific dollar amount on your plan isn't a reason to vote against ("we're gonna need $24.45 billion dollars...") because it's unreasonable to expect that much from you. At the same time, I would like to know basics, e.g. implementation, funding source, etc. Money doesn't grow on trees, so pulling money out of thin air doesn't work. I don't want to know how much exactly it is, but it had better exist. DAs - Impact calculus. Make sure you meet a minimum burden of proof, and make sure your cards say what you say they say. CPs - Go ahead. Make sure you push the relative advantages, because that's your strongest front with a CP. Just saying "this is an alternative, therefore you can't go Aff" isn't good enough. CPs are first and foremost about opportunity cost, so you had better impact it. Ks - Sure, as long as you prove it, link it, and impact it. Theory - Your theory has to make sense. I'm open to all kinds of theory arguments, and creativity, while obviously not a reason to vote, gets you theoretical points in my book, provided it makes sense. In the same way, I'm not going to reject theory based simply on how unorthodox they are, how abusive they may be, etc. New in the 2 - I won't flow anything new in the 2AR on fairness. If it's new in the 2NR, you'd better make sure you're making it clear why you're going new in the 2NR. Speed/Timing - I'm fine with speed, so long as you're not slurring words. Enunciation is always helpful. If you're going too fast, I put my pen down. I also adopt the philosophy that there are no time extensions beyond speech length. You can keep talking all you want into the overtime, but I won't flow anything after time has elapsed. This is an issue of fairness - I've had plenty of stories of debates in which someone would purposefully talk into the overtime to get an edge. It bothers me immensely. CX - Don't flow it. I'm more than willing to call someone on it, but you need to mention it - I won't do your job for you. Or, "impacts or it didn't happen".
  7. Andrew - how many novices did the class end up getting?
  8. It's obviously impossible at the high school level (at least in the short term, outside the circuit), but it's a great idea that will probably catch on in the next few years as technology becomes so widespread and cheap. Deus: Not a bad idea, although if your judge is also using paper, you're calling your judge's thought-processes into question as well. Plus the fact that the tournament you're at probably posts with paper, etc. Bottom line is that hypocrisy always cuts both ways.
  • Create New...