Jump to content

cieraf

Member
  • Content Count

    53
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

cieraf last won the day on May 1 2015

cieraf had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

17 Good

About cieraf

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday August 9

Profile Information

  • Name
    Ciera Foreman
  • School
    University of Kansas
  1. Also I do realize I spelled 'institute' wrong twice, please still vote!
  2. Hey everyone! If you aren't aware of and haven't already voted for the Women's Debate Institute in the KIND campaign to win $10,000 please consider doing so as today is the last day to vote and they are winning by less than 100 votes. The WDI is a great non-profit organization that sends high school girls to camp for free (also if you are a high school girl you should apply and go, I will be there this summer!) and hopes to expand their initiatives to close the gender gap in debate and make it a welcoming community for women with the money they could win in this competition. Here is the link and you can vote four times by also sharing the link via twitter, email, and facebook: https://causes.kindsnacks.com/cause/womens-debate-institute/ Thanks!
  3. I think one thing that could be done first to make the quality of judging better is make sure experienced debaters/judges are being used to their full commitment. This means not only college debaters, but also recently graduated judges who debated in high school, parents who have been judging debate for years, older judges who debated in high school and/or college when they were younger. I think/hope everyone can agree these kind of judges are preferable to a parent who is judging a debate for the first time. Even the best lay debaters, I think, would prefer a parent who has debate experience over one who has none. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a first time parent and I am not advocating they should be eliminated from judging at every tournament; but at an important tournament like national qualifiers, I think trying to maximize judges with more experience/exposure to debate would be a good thing. I understand it can be difficult to identify these kinds of judges but I think you can to a certain extent. I only judged 4 (and was originally only on the parings for 3) debates this weekend but was willing and capable of judging all of them. I know of at least 6 other experienced judges who didn't judge all the rounds they were capable of and I think at least one of the coaches in the tabroom could identify them as past/present debaters. I know that recruited judges get paid so them coming out to judge and not being used is certainly not a waste of their time, but it just seems like if schools are required to recruit a certain number of judges and go to the trouble of bringing more qualified judges that we should go to the trouble of using them. You know, some of these people actually like judging too (I'd much rather judge a debate than sit around playing brick breaker). I totally understand the reason for this is the computer randomly assigns judges but perhaps in the future there is a way to make sure judges are used to their full commitment? Maybe not, worth thinking about. This is a great discussion and I particularly agree with Amanda's comment urging debaters to think about how to actualize these ideas.
  4. What are the reasons eliminating the novice and/or JV/Open division at certain DCI bid tournaments would be a bad idea?
  5. Often times I think this forum lacks input and discussion from current KS debaters who really are the ones that this forum should be for, especially in this instance when you’re talking about an award directed at them. While the input from coaches and former debaters is valuable because they contribute opinions based on experiences they’ve had with high school and college debate on all sides and also out of the state, student opinions are also necessary and should be carefully consider just like any other’s because it really is about what we want since this is an activity, just like any other extracurricular, whose purpose is to better the student in some capacity. So while I am graduating this year I think I can still lump myself with the high school debater crowd for a couple more weeks and want this post to speak for the current debaters of Kansas because I know that I do share the same sentiment as the majority of debaters in this state that I know and probably more who I am not acquainted with. And if not, then hopefully this will provoke them to participate in the discussion as well. As I said in my first, brief post I fully support the idea of another incentive for teams to preform and work hard consistently throughout the season but just don’t believe the proposed models, if left unchanged, would work. I however, do support Rubaie’s six tournament choice system. I don’t want to comment on the merits of this particular way of determining the Team of Year Award versus a different formula, rather I want to defend the idea of this award in any similar capacity (read as: DCI bid leader/winner/state champs doesn’t count), from the perspective of a current high school debater, since none of you participating in this discussion can really claim that, and hopefully bring a different angle to the discussion. Ciera’s reasons why team of the year award would be good for Kansas (these all overlap and basically have the same point which is DCI is in no way an authority on who the best team in KS is): 1. Like Rubaie said, offense v. defense- this could ONLY encourage people to work harder. I honestly don’t see any logic in the arg that this would devalue other accomplishments such as winning state or DCI (it’s STATE and DCI, those will always be important) and I don’t think anyone else does either, besides Phil, so there’s no disad to doing this. It’s simple, the prospect of being named team of the year based on your body of work rather than your luck at a tournament like State or DCI incentivizes teams to consistently work hard. Maybe that’s non-unique but it would be nice to recognize those people. 2. It doesn’t punish teams for engaging in certain styles of debate, like I believe DCI does, in turn promoting teams to experience new styles. a. Teams who wish to debate outside the state (something I support) can contend for this award equally with teams who do not. Lay debate tournaments would not have an advantage over national circuit tournaments outside the state. Example: This year Reid and I didn’t have a shot at being the bid leaders because we wanted to debate at tournaments outside the state. b. To get bids for DCI you have to engage in the style of DCI which isn’t necessarily the best. With this award, a team that excels at their particular style, no matter what it is, could have a shot. This award awards teams for being great at what they do best and doesn’t force them to engage in a kind of debate they neither want to do, nor are good at, whether it be open debate or national circuit debate, or a nice conflation of the two. This award doesn’t prioritize the institution of DCI over all other kinds of debate. Example: Many teams would have preferred to go SME this year because they believed it was more conducive to their style of debate and enjoy it more but were compelled to go to Newton instead because it was the bid tournament, sacrificing the opportunity to practice the type of debate they prefer. To be clear, I’m not saying Newton was a bad tournament, I am saying that it is different than SME and teams shouldn’t have to mold to a type of debate they don’t enjoy just because of the pressure from the accepted norm that DCI is the ultimate achievement. (sorry if this hardnumbering is too obnoxious, can you tell I’m a 2A? lol) 3. I don’t believe DCI champ/bid leader is a sufficient way to determine the best team in Kansas. a. DCI bid leader only accounts for DCI bid tournaments, obviously, leaving out other tournaments of equal or greater caliber such as Shawnee Mission East or tournaments outside the state. Example: Glenbrooks is a freaking difficult and competitive tournament; I want some credit for going 5-2 and being the 35th seed! I want my octo-final finish at Valley to count for something! Is that wrong of me? I really don’t think this is me being narcissistic; I just want some kind of recognition for my successes just like any other competitive person does. b. Frankly, I think DCI is a bad tournament. Or perhaps a better way to say it would be- a bad tournament considering how good it is supposed to be. I don’t mean to offend, it’s just an opinion. Read this next part carefully because I don’t want there to be any misunderstanding about this distinction I’m about to make. When I go to any tournament in Kansas I expect there to be moms and I intend on adapting for them. I expect to be judged on speaking style and I expect that I will lose some rounds for reasons that make no sense. I expect that the judges won’t understand what a policy debate is and I don’t expect them to flow or carefully consider and adjudicate the round. I have learned many things from tournaments like this and DO VALUE THEM. However, when I go to a tournament that is purported to be a competition between the best teams in the state with the best judging in the state I expect that judges will flow, carefully decide the round, and have the same if not better basic understanding of debate that I do. I do not mean I expect them to be ok with critiques, or topical counterplans, or even conditionality. I mean I expect them to know what stock issues are, to understand the concept of offense and defense, to be able effectively evaluate a round in which I go for a disadvantage. Is that unreasonable? DCI is put on a pedestal and commonly considered the best tournament when it really isn’t. I don’t have a problem with DCI existing, I just don’t think it should be as unwarrantedly inflated as it is and I would be happy to see an alternative achievement (ie team of the year award) more sought after and valued. Example: There’s no logical explanation for how I could get 6th speaker at KCKCC and like 60th at DCI if they are supposed to be so similar. 4. Luck can be a bitch sometimes. A comprehensive award isn’t as subject to instances of unluckiness that individual tournaments are. So you got really tough presets one tournament, or you got judges for octos that aren’t jiving with your style? That could be overlooked with this award whereas it is the end all at DCI or state. Example: I’m writing from the perspective of someone who considers herself a good debater, so if you disagree with that then you will totally disagree with this anecdote. I lost 3 rounds in a row the first day of state this year and I absolutely believe (and have support for this belief) that at least two of them were totally out of my and my partner’s control. We had shitty luck that no amount of skill or preparation could overcome and for that I was automatically out of contention for State Champs. It sucked and I wish there had been an award like this so I wouldn’t have ended my senior season with nothing to claim, or if I had I at least wouldn’t have felt shafted. I likely won’t post again on this issue because this took way too long and I generally find there’s nothing to respond to. It would be nice if this post wasn’t met with as much undue hostility as my posts normally incite. I would challenge debaters and coaches alike to try and bring more class to these discussions not only to protect your credibility, but also the state’s as a whole. Which, by the way, contrary to popular belief I do care about tremendously and only want to see improved because of the love I have for the activity.
  6. Someone from BVN can post it on Monday. Newton got the bid tournament over SME for the fourth year in a row.
  7. Lawl maybe if you weren't a huge jackass, didn't want to exterminate people who make less than $1,000,000 a year, and didn't have the worst reputation in Kansas and possibly even the whole national circuit this would be a legitimate inquiry. heartz, your ex-debate partner
  8. El Dorado is hosting a DCI Bid Tournament next year. I believe that is in Southern Kansas. Is your high school gilded?
  9. cieraf

    NDT results

    Speaker Awards 17. Latoya Williams (she's actually from the Missouri side of Kansas City but I still thought it was worth mentioning) 16. Sean Kennedy 9. Andrew Baker 2. Alex Parkinson
  10. cieraf

    NDT results

    Kansas KP lost to UTD BR, sadface. KQ debates Northwestern FS in the morning.
  11. Semis: Kansas KP (Patrick Kennedy/Mat Petersen) vs. Towson CK Kansas State MZ (Beth Mendenhall/Derek Ziegler) vs. Liberty FH Kansas close out, yes?
  12. There use to be a thread with college results for Kansas grads, I thought it was interesting but it must have been deleted. Three teams from KS are in quarters right now: Kansas KQ (Sean Kennedy/Dyaln Quigley) vs. Towson CK Kansas KP (Patrick Kennedy/Mat Petersen) vs. Whitman HZ Kansas State MZ (Beth Mendenhall/Derek Ziegler) vs. North Texas SK I think it's really awesome that at least four of these very successful debaters still participate in the KS high school debate community as assistant coaches. RCJH!
  13. No, it is not a bid system. It is a point system where points can be attained at any tournament you go to. Read as: you do not need to attend national circuit tournaments to qualify.You need 300 points to qualify, here is an explanation of how. While no KS team has qualified to the TOC since, I believe, Danny Mapes and partner (perbeck?), many many teams have qualified to the NDCA. A lot of you have probably qualified and are not even aware of it.
  14. I am not sure what you mean by pre-approved but it is not as simple as just filling out paperwork and that's it. They must actually be approved by meeting whatever standards it is that the NASSP has for approving debate tournaments. It is different than getting an out of state tournament approved during the season, it is something that must be done very far in advance. Believe me, if it were as easy as just getting a school to fill out some paperwork there are a lot of debaters who have or will be graduating that would have tried to make that happen. I think one of the reasons many of these tournaments are difficult to get approved is they require debaters to miss some school- either a Friday or Monday and possibly more for travel. Another huge issue is liability. I guess the farther away a tournament is the greater the likelihood shenanigans will occur. One tournament I really think would be a great experience for debaters in Kansas to be able to have is the National Debate coaches Association Tournament the third weekend of April. I actually did attempt to get it approved last year. It was too late to get it approved for this year's season but Nicole Serrano, the woman in charge of the tournament logistics, did say she will look into getting it approved for next year. If there is anyone interested in continuing this cause you should email her soon to see if that's a real possibility. Or email me for more information.
×
×
  • Create New...