Jump to content

Al K. Seltzer

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Okay

About Al K. Seltzer

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 09/29/1989
  1. Anyway... I think there'll be plenty of good LDers (I won't mention any in particular at the risk of leaving some out). Besides, even if "all the good lders graduated" someone will still be relatively good when compared to their competion. Btw, what's the first topic?
  2. Ok then Ya that's what I just said. Moreover, as I also said above, it isn't a "maybe" it is known. The reason that it is known by me and anyone who followed you this year is because such things have already happened. Both you and your partner were forced to change your style and sometimes your arguments. You didn't quit (far from it you qualified to the national tournament) and I never saw you bang your head against a wall. You, from what I gathered, still had a great time in and out of rounds and brilliantly adapted to your judging panels. Absolutely, and I even commented on this fact saying "While you may have been talking of others...." I wish that we could get more kids interested and honestly feel that if they start participating most students will become hooked (that's how it was for me). However, how often do you hear of a novice team with killer speed or a unbeatable kritik or counterplan. The truth is that often times novice do very little adapting and focus more on developing and improving on fundamentals. Overall I don't think small or even moderate changes in expectations would impede on as you stated earlier "the ability to have fun" or result in as you also said earlier "the activity to literally come to a halt." In both your personal experiences and mine it had the exact opposite effect.
  3. Although I'm decidedly against speed and unrealistic impacts, I don't wish to get into the whole style argument (Though I am ready anytime to discuss my thoughts on the subject with anyone). However, I don't think "pressing for change" would impede on students "ability to have fun." dpron, you know as well as I do that our fun is isn't grounded in the "style" of debating and often it takes place outside of the rounds themselves. While you may have been talking of others, I KNOW you personally wouldn't stop having fun and wouldn't quit debating altogether if such things were to happen.
  4. I agree, dpron please stick with what you know. I'm interested to see how things turn out. Several juniors (and sophmores) did pretty well within the past one or two years. Theres so many that could put together impressive runs that its almost unfair to mention specific names. However, in addition to the above names and/or schools, you have Dorian Walker (he broke a few times), Lisa Johnson (qualed the year before this one), Blake Neff (had some good tournaments where he barley missed break rounds because of speaks), Collin Micheals (did very well and broke several times), Alicia Enterman (also very good and if not at the top she will certainly be dangerous to those who are) and several others (sorry I can't go on... the bell just rang and my teachers staring at me to close me comput...
  5. Dammit... you win and I apologize for contributing to the downfall of one of my favorite anitcs.
  6. Ok, how would have you told it? The only reason its "shit" now is because you just screwed it up.
  7. Nooooooooooooooooooo! By the way could you hold deez?
  8. I know that post count doesn't equal success, but no one is trying to say Wilcox was or wasn't saying that except you. That wasn't really the point of my post. Actually, I really don't mind you being my moderator. Disregard the last line.
  9. Who said this is what he was trying to do? However, Wilcox was trying to discredit m holkesviks experience with Brik and how he percieves Brik. Regardless or what Wilcox's true intent was he implied that you have to post alot on cross-x.com in order to support someone and tell others about whoever it is your backing. Brik simply responded by saying that although he hasn't posted much they know each other well. Why are you defending Wilcox? His comment sucked worse than playing marco polo with helen keller. And you might be my mod?...shit
  10. Ummm... No you don't know a guy who "specializes" in euthanasia.
  11. WHY?... Why would you ever start a thread like this, why would you ever respond to a thread like this, and why am I contradicting myself by replying. What is everyone trying to accomplish? Are you guys trying to "pwn" or "burn" people (If you wanted that you could have gone elsewhere... VPFritzMondale's latest post)? Perhaps you are simply responding to someone who "hurt your feelings" or questioned one facet of your style of debating (NOT the quality of the argumentation or the judging mind you)? The latter, might be legitimate reason, but I'm not buying the whole, "Oh, I just really bored waiting for my "friends" or sitting in class so I'm going to post a reply that took longer than the few minutes I would have been waiting for my "friends" or even longer than the whole class period itself to construct; In all honesty, my novel of a post really isn't that big deal to me." I know I've made a few people mad and I'm not saying arguing over the internet is always bad or unnecessary altogether (maybe crossx.com is your "Anti-drug" and keeps you out of trouble). I have no doubt that Martin Luther King Jr. or Ghandi would have had at least a website if they would had internet access. All I want of you is to ask yourself before you post: "What will this accomplish?" Maybe it is explaining a misconception, answering a question, providing comic relieve, or chastising people who are currently more older, powerful and knowledgeable about the subject than you are (much like I'm doing now). Whatever it is just make sure its there.
  • Create New...