Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


djersen last won the day on November 23 2018

djersen had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

173 Excellent

About djersen

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 11/14/1980

Profile Information

  • School
    Omaha Westside
  • Location
    Omaha NE
  1. It is also worth noting that Ryan and Elijah didn't have a chance to win the Copeland due to the circumstances of their season. If they had debated the whole season together who knows? All we do know is that they debated all comers at CEDA/NDT and won both. So...watch the throne...or the crowns...or whatever. Plus not attending CEDA only means you are insulated from the people. Ryan and Elijah showed tremendous diversity in their run to unite the crowns. In my opinion they are the GOAT (greatest of all time). Then again I am about as biased as a person can be...so take this grain of salt for what it is worth.
  2. djersen


    Watch CEDA finals from this year. It is never made explicit but Emporia is essentially going for optimism and WestGa is taking on the pessimist position. It is an awesome debate! Unite the Crowns!
  3. Millard South did this as did Westside. Millard South used the essay Immortality with a variety of other evidence and cut up the plan. Westside mostly used this argument on the aff. They used a Burroughs company adding machine as a prop and read several pieces from the Nova trilogy which was basically produced using a variety of cut up techniques. They claimed to turn the adding machine into a control panel for space travel...it even worked a few times! So, yeah Burroughs works in debate. Any person who is as powerful a social critic and brilliant a writer as Burroughs will generally work in debate. There is a sweet book you should like read called "Wising up the Marks."
  4. djersen

    I Wrote A Song.

    You are so cute Matty! "Its safe to say I need you!"
  5. Not shocked that Nebraska folks chimed in on this one first to disagree. Pretty typical haha! Especially lately we seem to like to attack our own..... First, if you say perm plan then the alt...and I say counter-perm alt then the plan that is a sequencing issue. Look, if your plan needs the existence of the alternative first to be desirable then your plan should not be rewarded with a ballot when the negative's revision to your advocacy is the only reason it can be adopted without major negative drawbacks (the impacts to the criticism...unless you outweigh them.) That is a sequencing issue. And yes this is a powerful argument but not an abusive one. You should either have to win defense against the alt, a no link argument, or an impact turn, terminal impact defense, or case outweighs argument to beat a criticism absent some other issue. Any of those would defeat this argument...that is what you should have to do to beat an argument. The perm as you have so kindly defined in bold has lead to some of the stupidest justifications for ballots of all time. "So yeah I think you link to capitalism, and I agree that capitalism is bad, but they have an alternative that if it were done as the same time as the plan would correct the evil nature of the plan in its original state and therefore solve all of the reasons why it contributes to the negative effects of capitalism." I think that is frankly bullshit. In my opinion any thinking person would see that as a reason to vote negative because it is the negative who wins every substantial issue in the debate and whose advocacy is responsible for the solution to the problems stated with the aff. The counter-perm is a litmus test for the question of the importance of the plan vs. the alternative. Like I said earlier this puts the links and alternative under a microscope which is super good for debate. In other words I think the counter-perm causes an evolution of debate away from your bold definition of a permutation in such a way that affords negative teams an equal control of their advocacy as the affirmative has of their plan. So therefore I would say if we can look at permutation debates a little differently then the textbook definition we would make for some better debates. I would say a permutation is an argument that includes part or all of the advocacy of the other team to determine the compatibility and relative importance of those advocacies. Now, I should say that this understanding of perm/counter-perm debate comes from a person who watches lots of method debates and debates about advocacy (I have lots of opinions on old school counterplan theory but I will leave that to those who patrol those streets if you will)...so haters are gonna hate. But I would also say that it isn't that hard to on the aff to say..."if you link, and you don't turn the impact or outweigh it then you are gonna have a real hard time winning this debate if they have any kind of functional alternative." In other words...if the team reading the criticism wins the link, impact, and the alternative I think they should win the debate over the head of the perm. I think the counter-perm is just another way to highlight with lots of contrast for the judge why this is true.
  6. I know this is likely to cause a shit storm but whatever. I think you can counter-perm any permutation. When the affirmative makes a permutation they get to offer a hybrid form of the plan that contains part or all of the alt...as long as it contains the whole plan you are good. The counter-perm makes a hybrid advocacy as well but one that contains all of the alt and part or all of the plan. I think the neg has to win that the alternative is a more pressing concern than the plan so I think the negative has to prove that the alternative must come first or that the entire from of the 1AC is bad and we should only use part of it. So one counter-perm might say "do the alternative and the plan text absent their problematic representations" (I think these are good to put magnification on the link portion of the debate.) Or, in the other case the counter-perm has to prove the alternative must come first so counter-perm do the alternative then the plan (not plan then the alt.) This allows you to make arguments about sequence of events. If I can win the alt must happen before the plan I think that means the judge should vote neg. The cool thing about these arguments is that in most cases they don't need to be advocated but can be used to prove how the link short circuits their perm, or about how the alternative must come first which are arguments that generally will win a negative ballot. This just allows you to make those arguments with more contrast and of course it allows you to advocate them if they don't make some theory or whatever. If you ever get to the point where you can advocate your counter-perm you are very likely going to win. Lots of judges hate them...lots of judges will still vote for them given the right explanation.
  7. I would echo Old School in congratulating BVW and in thanking Chief for such a great tournament. We have fun every year at this tournament and there is always great judging and competition. Kudos to Kansas for hosting/producing such a fine community of debaters and teachers!
  8. Just a quick note to everyone in Nebraska. If you haven't at this point (and I know I have to get a few of my kids to do this as well) please post your affs and negs on the wiki. I know that everyone uses this wiki to prep out the teams that are on there as a community norm for attending certain national circuit tournaments...I think this should be a community norm in Nebraska as well. Or at very least if you are not going to post your information please have the courtesy of not making use of information you are unwilling to give up yourself. This makes for better and more fair debates. Thanks, D
  9. I have eaten a turtle before...but that prolly makes me evil!
  10. Why is cops bad a troll argument?
  11. Yeah those are some must read works. LaPorte's book is a really interesting thing...somewhat gross at times but hell that is kinda the point. And, I couldn't agree more with the Artaud. This guy was really amazing...was a famous theater person and actor made a fair amount of money and fame, blew lots of money on drink and opium, lived in an asylum for a decade, got rescued by a few friends and then lived absolutely poor for most of the rest of his life. Oh and his writing is about as challenging as anything you will ever read. Not because it is hard to read but because it is so wild...he is a massive genius and I love his works. Oh...and the poem is the card I was speaking of...I guess I have a vulgar definition of what counts as a card haha. And, I believe that Dylan had a typo...he was referring to the Hugo card not Artaud. Excusable because they both pretty much rule!
  12. You really don't think that the 1AC is a confrontation with the scatological? Did you read the Artaud piece? I have never engaged in any form of revolutionary politics that is more scatological than that. Also, the 1AC sets our terms for debate...we invest in the sewers because the sewers are the place that is out of view...the place where things are thrown once they run out of use value or when they want to be hidden from sight. The Hugo evidence is pretty explicit about how sewers are places where we gain a certain type of knowledge production. He talks about how the powerful hide their ugly deeds in the sewers...washing the blood from their hands in some vulgar stream...it is the place where social sliding ends and all things are made to stand as they are. I don't understand why that isn't a reason to invest in sewers. He also says that sewers contain the detritus of the city from which we can recreate the city including the things about it that many would rather hide. Furthermore, the sewers contain actual shit...so when you invest in the sewers you are inherently affirming the space of shit. In taking shit out of the realm of the private/prive (another name for bathroom) and in the space of the public we are most definitely performing a political act. Again we will read some LaPorte evidence in the 2AC to carry this point out but again it is present in the 1AC. Also Chaos...am I lead to believe that if this aff only contained my Vietnam vet narrative you would find it acceptable? Really? Because if that is the case we can just trade that card in and move something else into the 2AC. Although, I find it a pretty hard standard for us to read every facet of the case into the 1AC in anything but the way we have. I think that for instance Hugo makes a very similar argument that the Vietnam vet does. He says that all of the corpses of those who have died for empire are thrown into the sewers and are stacked down there like cord wood...dead but even worse forgotten. Worse because their death is an implicit critique of the system that caused their death and yet we hide it from view just like that Vietnam Vet who we are willing to forget to death despite the fact that he risked his life for the very country that now ignores him. That is in the 1AC...in the evidence that we read. That would also be the justification for us reading the aff at a comparatively slow rate of delivery and with some space for passion and inflection (if done right). That way our argument cannot be reduced to a series of tags but must rather be dealt with as a complete thought.
  13. I am down with Rubaie on this one. I think he makes several good points and I think that most high school debaters are adult enough to handle some rankings. And, as stated every sport does this. Wrestlers (of which my brothers are both coaches) get ranked weekly in the paper inside of the state and have a running national ranking. Why should we as a community not do our best to hold up our best? I also think the point about administration support is critical. It is hard to describe national success to a principal...that is often why it is just easier to take a state championship to the admin because you can say...see we were first! I think once you can say here is the national ranking...these are the schools we are competing against...and this is how we define success you can give lay people a much better understanding of the scope of your program's success. If you just come back from a tournament like the Glenbrooks and say we got in the top 16! That might not sound as great if you cannot provide some context...and we all know that a top 16 finish at the Glenbrooks is pretty darn good.
  14. There are a couple of different affs we are running. The Steinbeck aff is about nomadism and the journey of the Joad's across America. Particularly Tom Joad...the wandering man. That aff was written by Mike. The scatological aff...The Commissioner of Sewers aff is the one I wrote on the topic. It should not be shocking that it starts with a Burroughs essay where he talks about not wanting to be president and rather having a desire to be commissioner of sewers...this I suppose is a governmental politics bad argument (yes this prolly makes us in an explicit sense untopical...however I think the aff is certainly part of the topic...even if it is an abject form of the topic.) Then the aff continues with a beautiful piece of evidence from Victor Hugo that basically makes an argument in favor of abject, excluded spaces as ideal places for a kind of knowledge production that has the ability to defrock power and see it for what it truly is. It takes on the space of the sewers as this zone of the abject. It furthermore talks about how excluded forms of politics find their rebirth in the sewers...madness, revolutionary tactics, and whatever else everyone doesn't want to count as political but informs and shapes the political. It ends with a crazy piece by Artaud...and for those of you who don't think some of our affs do anything...this certainly does...it recovers from Artaud a revolutionary ethic from a discussion of the importance of shit to being. Debate often tries to sanitize itself...make everything perfectly clean and fair...perfectly educational...a laboratory where ideas play out but have no bodies...or aren't embodied in the world...and certainly never shit. We think this kind of debate destroys being and casts out the abject. The point of the aff is to return the shit to the sacred. See, I think the issue that some of these other posters have is that they assume the aff occurs in a vacuum. The problem is that when confronted with the abject in the form of the 1AC the reaction of 90% or greater of the debaters is to read framework arguments that attempt to exclude the aff as a rule. This is sort of the point. We try to introduce this scatological mode of resistance and invest in the sewers as a space for knowledge production and debate after debate the solution is to drive these modes of knowledge further into the dark...to hide them away from the work of politics so that their shitty back room deals can go down in private and not in sight of the public where they might disgust us to the point of making meaningful revisions to the way we engage in the political. Also, make no mistake we will debate you on the state politics as constructed are bad arguments. If you stand up and say "Westside has not taken a chance to use government and therefore should lose"...we will have that debate. We have lots of reasons why the government as constructed now is bad...that is a debate we have and win plenty over the course of my career and obviously lose as well. Also, remember these are affs. There is nothing in the Commissioner of Sewers aff that says other folks can't read affs that talk about infrastructure (oh and we think sewers are a from of transportation infrastructure. I think you have a greater problem with our mode of investment perhaps?) Yes we think that those would be less desirable than our aff but that doesn't mean you can't read them, win an advantage, and win the debate. The point of the aff is not to get everyone to reason like us...not the point...the point is to introduce into debate that which it attempts to exclude as a way of forcing it to confront its own politics of power. It seems like there is this assumption that if you vote for an aff like this you have given up on traditional debate...not true. Finally, apparently the aff is being vague about the taboos it attempts to confront. Again I disagree. We think that the sewers are an under addressed side of the topic. We think that this metaphor functions to talk about lots of "undesirables" that are often excluded from the topic. For instance, we often would rather have discussions about transportation on the sunny side of the topic, talking about economic growth, military readiness and security, or other socially acceptable discussions. However, we less often want to talk about the people who live under that bridge your plan repairs (this would be why we might read narratives from a homeless veteran from Vietnam living in the sewers on a hegemony position...his understanding of hegemony is far different than Obama's...Obama sees America's greatness...this Veteran sees the way our wars abroad function to dispose of those who fought them and then exclude those same people from discussions in politics to secure more power for themselves...that is a pretty specific relation to a neg argument...we normally make these specific gestures in the 2AC. The 1AC is pretty long as it is)...or the exclusion of the ghetto from the topic (although I feel some "performance debaters" such as those from Millard South or Wayzata or Cuomo Park have done a nice job of talking about the exclusion of race from the desirable aspects of the topic)...or the exclusion of the abject queer body. The point of the aff is not to choose one excluded element and side with it but to rather say...look we are down with all of the people who have been made to feel down and out. And yes I know that sometimes these people have gross ideas but why do we fear gross ideas? They should be easily impeached. The truth is like the example of the Vietnam vet these discussion are cast out because they challenge the privilege of those in power and therefore the powerful make them disappear...just like that Vet...down into the sewers with you sir! You no longer belong in the discussion of politics...you already played your role as a pawn...now go and rot. We simply think that his viewpoint from the sewers has a hell of a lot to say about politics. As for the rest of the ideas I think the above posters bring up some pretty good arguments. I do understand that these affs are not immune to criticism...but which aff is? The point is to debate them out...I think these make for good debates...I think the above posters prove there is plenty so say and it shouldn't be too hard to predict at this point...
  • Create New...