Jump to content

Teddy Ruxpin

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Teddy Ruxpin last won the day on February 7 2009

Teddy Ruxpin had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

117 Excellent

About Teddy Ruxpin

  • Rank
    #1 Threat: Robot Bears!!!
  • Birthday 05/02/1980

Profile Information

  • Name
    Joshua W.
  • School
    Capitol Debate
  • Biography
    Coach with Capitol Debate (Teacher - Junior High Intro to Debate; Lab Leader - Junior High PF; Lab Leader - H.S. Local Team; Asst. Coach - National Circuit Team)

    Cap Debate is comprised of Centennial, River Hill, Oakland Mills, Glenelg, Mt. Hebron
  • Location
  • Occupation
    Fed Gov Contractor IT/IM
  1. The plan is for all rounds to be streamed live to the interwebs via Scott Brown's EDebate website.
  2. Presently, our discussions are placing it on May 30-31 -- the two days immediately following NCFL Nationals which is nearby in Washington, D.C.
  3. Awesome! Ben totally just got a new nickname! Looking forward to seeing you in class on thursday, Hawto-FF-FF!!!
  4. Uh, there's not a judge in the world who's gonna vote on that as written unless it's cold dropped. And even then a lot of judges still wouldn't b/c it doesn't even have a voting issue attached to it. This is exactly why you hear a lot of judges say "I don't like theory debates" but then they'll sit in a judge's lounge and chat with me about "how debate ought to be" and "what we should be teaching our students" as though those conversations aren't the exact definitions of debate theory. That's also how you should approach theory. Every theory argument should revolve around an interpretation of what debate should be. Then explore all the aspects of why that version of debate is good or bad and all the reasons you can think of are your theory args! Any theory arg that doesn't look like that can probably be answered in very few seconds, won't get voted for often (or ever, probably) and even really limits the kind of speaker points you'll get. I probably wouldn't go above a 27.5 for a debater making answers like that.
  5. Hey, everybody. This is pretty cool. I'm sitting here with Scott Brown in my office who's just had a successful test run of all the software and hardware necessary to get this thing running. It turns out, it takes a lot of resources to run these streams, but I think it's gonna be pretty awesome. It looks like, right now, we have waivers from all of the debaters in at least one debate each round. Several rounds we've got two. If we get back enough of the waivers, we have the capability of streaming three rounds at a time thanks to Ross Garret volunteering to run the third stream courtesy of Cross-X.com. The rounds are gonna be hosted by UStream and embedded on Debate Tub along with a live chat where those watching can comment on the action. The first round starts at 9am. I hope you all are as excited about this as I am. This is a pretty cool collaboration between Debate Tub, Cross-X.com and Capitol Debate and an awesome test run of some of our ToC coverage ideas!
  6. Basically, a "terminal impact" is the final event in a chain of events. Usually, in a debate sense, it's the terrible, big, impressive impact that happens as a result of smaller impacts. Examples include things like US economic decline leading to war. While a recession or depression might be a big enough impact to hold weight to a congressperson or even a voter, to a debater it's usually easier to weigh impacts with a body count. "Why should I care about a recession? Oh, it's gonna lead to everybody dying? Okay, now I care!" A common one on the current resolution is east- or central-Asian conflict. While even "small" wars between countries are obviously bad in the real world in debate we go ahead and tack on that the US or other "great powers" would get sucked into the war and it would go global and nuclear. East-Asian war might be an impact, but global nuclear war becomes the terminal impact and the regional war effectively gets treated as an internal link.
  7. 'I have to make these claims b/c I'm pro" is the intellectual derivative of "what you're doing is against the rules." It generally makes sense to the kind of lay-judges (teachers and parents who volunteer or get suckered into it) that, in order for there to be a debate, there have to be boundaries of what you're supposed to talk about. "You can't say that" doesn't sound right when the resolution basically says "say this!" PF resolutions are phrased very narrowly and this one is basically "Wikileaks is a threat" vs. "it's not." If everyone who says it's a threat has to lose, then your interp of what the debate should be is going to be very unappealing to a lay-judge. Please bear in mind that these judges aren't going to automatically leap to the conclusion that this is fair and should be voted on because lay judges don't think, like we do: "come on, dude, just answer the friggen K!" Then you've got the other extreme of PF die-hards who are gonna know that your K is against the rules and may not even care whether the other team makes that argument. I've heard people say they just won't vote for stuff like that (CP's & K's) b/c they're preserving what they perceive as the sanctity of their activity and you can't just think "I'm a policy debater - I know how to REALLY debate, so I should be able to walk in and kick ass at this." There actually have been a fair few policy debaters who do just that, but they pretty much do it by adapting.
  8. See, you can do the first half, but the second half is harder. You'd be better off making the claim that the media making a big deal out of wikileaks is bad rather than that the Pro team doing it is uniquely bad. Two reasons both of which are round-winners in PFistan... 1: "But it's the resolution and I have to make these claims because I'm on the Pro side!" and 2: "You can't talk about my discourse! That's a Kritik! That's against the rules!"
  9. K's are actually pretty much explicitly outside the rules of PF. You could make some K-like claims, but they must be within one step of the resolution. You can't really talk about the other team's in-round discourse and claim impacts off of that. Since there are really only two kinds of judges in PF (parents who don't know WTF is up at all and PF purists who, mostly, are militantly anti-policy debate) you'll risk losing rounds on both sides of the spectrum if you get too K-happy. On the other hand, I have a PFer who hates PF (can't wait until next year when he's in 8th grade and we start letting him do policy) and he's kritiking the resolution or even PF debate with the understanding that he'd lose a lot doing it... I'm all for it if you get that it won't be particularly welcome there.
  10. All - Our very large team is still short judges for this weekend. I can offer a very nice hotel room (Hotel Indigo) and $200 for a full judge commitment. If you're already going to be there with another team and have half a commitment free, I'll buy it for $100. Please let me know ASAP if you're interested. Thanks for your time, everybody. Joshua Weingarten Admin & Tech Director Capitol Debate Josh(at)Capitol-Debate(dot)com
  11. Bump... Still in need of judges. New idea: if you're a coach or judge for a team that only has one team entered, you're only in for half a commitment. I'll buy the other half of your commitment for $100. Email me ASAP. Thanks, all!
  12. I'd be curious about the external dimensions of both. Can you fit either of them comfortably in a standard rubbermaid debate tub? Also, from my experience, HP drivers are incredibly reliable and easy to find, update, set up print-servers with, etc. I don't recall any of the Cannon drivers I've used being particularly terrible, though, so I'm not sure if that's $20 worth of difference. One definite recommendation, though: avoid Xerox at all costs. Their drivers are the Zero-Point of the Holocaust. We got a giant Xerox printer-scanner-copier-fax for my office and it works well when it chooses to work. But any time the computer it's attached to gets rebooted or the printer itself gets turned off or unplugged, I have to reinstall all the drivers to the print server! Some day I'm gonna go all Office Space on that PoS. http://budgie-tube.com/view/602/office-space-printer-scene-original-hq/
  13. A few things: 1 - If you're spending 10 seconds reading a theory arg, I'm not likely to get much of it on my flow which makes it unlikely I would reject either the arg OR the team. That's really saying something because I'm a lot more amenable to theory args than a lot of judges. I think you should think about, and write out, theory args in complete sentences and paragraphs. Highlight it down later, but if you're thinking about it up front and actually including your best stuff in your front-line, then you're probably irrevocably in front in the theory debate because the other team's pre-written block isn't gonna come close to answering what you've said. Also, this saves you from having to reinvent the wheel every round when you go to expand on those points later. 2 - Neg fiat bad is probably usually a dumb arg. I think it springs from a lack of understanding of what fiat is. Anytime someone says "we should do something" they've "fiatted" it. That is, they've imagined what the world looks like with their plan. I don't know under what interpretation of debate it's a good idea to take away competitive policy options or the negative's ability to imagine things other than your plan and the status quo. 3 - It's usually best to occupy the theory middle-ground. Don't be too outlandish with what you're claiming. Maybe, instead of neg fiat bad, it's easier to claim that international fiat is bad or that no logical policy-maker in the real world could ever actually choose between your actor and the neg's actor or something like that. It's best to target the worst part of what they're doing and say that's bad rather than all going for "all counterplans are bad". Think about this just like you'd think about how it's easier to defend a "condo good" counter interp where you get one condo CP and one condo K alt that still agree with each other (no performative contradiction) rather than defending all of "multiple worlds good." In the same way, it's often a great idea to go with "reject the arg" rather than rejecting the team. Most people don't think about what that means. If the judge rejects the CP, then all you have to do is outweigh the net-benefit (which is probably easy - that's why they were running a CP with the NB rather than just the NB as a dis-ad). A lot of judges don't want a round (especially an important one) to come down to theory. Those same judges might be more willing to accept rejection of the CP and vote on the impact calculus of case vs. net-benefit rather than straight dropping a team b/c of your "CPs Bad" theory arg... I hope that helps. Feel free to email me if you'd like clarification on any of that. I'm writing while trying to finalize my team's Harvard entry so if it seems scattered, it's because I multi-task poorly! Joshua Weingarten josh(at)capitol-debate(dot)com
  14. Hey Chetan. Sorry I didn't see this earlier. I've scanned them and posted them to a google page I made for team forms. Here are the links: 2011 GMU Varsity Packet 2011 GMU JV Packet
  15. Harvard Judging Needed - We can pay $200 and can put you up in a room at the lovely Hotel Indigo for all three nights - we do expect to have teams debating on Monday. We prefer to do 2 judges per room, so get a friend to judge for us also! We're short about 6 judges right now. Please email ASAP if you can help. Thanks everyone! Joshua Weingarten Admin & Tech Director Capitol Debate josh (at) capitol-debate.com
  • Create New...