Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by FlashMaster

  1. File Name: Virilio K

    File Submitter: FlashMaster

    File Submitted: 25 Feb 2014

    File Category: Critiques

    Resolution: Oceans


    Very strategic and simple kritik. It links to almost any aff and has good turns case arguments. Contains block overviews and answers to the generic answers most people will make.

    This is a good file to have in your back pocket. You can catch people off-guard or use it as a generic critique when you have nothing else to say.

    Table of Contents
    Virilio K.. 1

    1NC Shell [1/2] 2
    1NC Shell [2/2] 3

    ****LINKS****. 4
    Link: Extinction. 5
    Link: Disaster Representations. 6
    Link: Communications. 7
    Link: Communications. 8
    Link: Deterrence. 9
    Link: Military Technology. 10
    Link: Military Technology. 11
    Link: Hegemony. 12
    Link: Hegemony. 13
    Link: Economics. 14
    Link: Ecology. 15
    Link – Terrorism... 16

    *****Impacts*****. 17
    Impact – Extinction. 18
    Impact – Nuclear War 20
    Impact – Totalitarianism... 21
    Impact – Ethics. 22
    Impact – Value to Life. 23

    *****Alternative*****. 24
    Alt Solvency – Eschatology. 25
    Alt Solvency – Ethics. 26
    Alt Solvency – Resistance. 27

    2NC/1NR Overview.. 28

    *****Other Business*****. 29
    AT: Perm... 30
    AT: Perm...31
    AT: Perm... 32
    AT: Realism... 33
    AT: Cede the Political 34
    AT: Nuke War Outweighs. 35
    AT: We Solve War 36


    Click here to download this file

  2. I would be interested in picking up a temporary coaching job for a Kansas school going to NFL or CFL. I can do your politics file, on-site coaching and fulfill judging commitments (if possible).


    Email me at jarednelson@ku.edu

    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 1

  3. That was my mistake, I meant to bold the entirety of that sentence. 


    Regardless, why does it matter if judges helping debaters occurs via a ballot or an oral critique? Ballots get misplaced, are hard to read, and also slow down tournaments. 


    Why can't judges write down the 5-10 most pressing comments on the ballot so coaches have a recollection of what the debaters should work on and then also give an oral critique? You can also record the oral critique with a video camera, webcam, or simple audio recording software that is available on nearly all computers. 

    • Downvote 2



    Let me be clear, most coaches very much appreciate that the judge wants to help make the students better.  While it may not be their primary job, it is a great sentiment to have.  My point isn’t that judges shouldn’t help.  It is that they should not attempt to replace the coach.  It is the coach’s job to make the kids better.  The judge should not assume the coaching responsibility and shut the coach out of doing their job.  The best thing the judge can do is to assist the coach in making them better.  When you give oral critiques and shut the coach out, you take the coach’s place and give them no opportunity.  That was my point.  Thank you for taking interest in making kids better!! 



    If judges shouldn't help, why write anything on the ballot at all? It's a different medium to accomplish the same goal as an oral critique. Except one is inefficient and inadequate while the other is educational. 


    Also, why is an oral critique mutually exclusive with writing a couple comments on the ballot as the round is occurring. My problem with what happened at KCKCFL is that oral critiques were explicitly banned, not that writing comments on the ballot isn't also educational.


    Recording oral critiques/students taking notes achieves the same purpose as writing comments on the ballot except it allows for questions to be asked and clarifications to be made. It also has the added benefit of a coach potentially being able to stand in and listen, as well as ask questions. Maybe I'm in the minority here but I try to do this for the kids I coach. 

    I also just don't think it slows down a tournament. at KCKCFL, there was consistently 30+ minutes between rounds because they have to be powermatched. This leaves ~10min for each judge to give an oral critique which seems like more than enough time for a fairly comprehensive oral critique. 


    • Downvote 5

  5. The first response to a rule that is less than satisfactory shouldn't be to not go to the tournament, especially one that people tend to place above others in terms of importance. The notion that community norms and traditions shouldn't be challenged because people worked hard to put on the tournament and thus it would be "rude" to question their authority is just ludicrous. There's no reason why productive discussions can't be had.

    I'll forward two args here about oral critiques:

    First, how would you feel about a tournament where oral critiques are mandatory and had to last at least 10 minutes? I feel like you (as well as myself) would object to this rule as it's just silly. Dictating exactly how judges handle post-round decisions and disclosures is dumb on both ends of the spectrum. 


    Secondly, the decisions of judges should absolutely be questioned. You seem to think that a judges opinion is infallible and accurate. How then do you explain 2-1 decisions? You were on a panel last year with Amanda Gress at the KCKCFL qualifier last year and you clearly disagreed with her opinion. Which one of you is right? You certainly can't both be infallible. I feel like the ability to ask each of you questions is extremely educational, as you both probably had thought-provoking things to say.


    Now, your "Coaches will quit" arg is based on a false premise. Oral critiques cannot slow down a tournament if they are used within reason. No, a post-round RFD for a prelim debate should not last 45 minutes but if a judge turns in the ballot and then uses the ~30+ minute window of power matching to discuss the round, the tournament should feasibly run on time. In fact, if no one had to write comments on the ballot, it could even save ~5 minutes because ballots would get turned in faster and power matching could occur quicker. 


    As a first year judge in a community where the debaters are often just as smart (if not, smarter) than myself, I also value post-round RFDs so I can better understand arguments being made. I might even come to the realization that I've made the wrong decision in a debate. Whereas the alternative is me blissfully unaware of my incorrect decision. Maybe you like this scenario, but my personal opinion is that ignorance is not bliss. 


    I will say that this mentality is destructive to the activity as a whole.  



    If the students don’t like the rules, by all means they don’t have to attend.


    Oral critiques would hurt the activity more than students quitting. Got it. 

    • Upvote 4

  7. As an aside, I believe that KSHSAA does not permit Sunday competition at high school tournaments.


    My understanding is that non-KSHSAA schools can do whatever they want, and they typically call their Sunday rounds "exhibition rounds" to allow Kansas (and other states) to attend. While KSHSAA hasn't taken a firm stand on KS kids doing Sunday rounds at colleges and out-of-state tournaments, it would probably intervene quickly if a member school (like the DCI host) had any level of competition on Sunday, regardless of what they called it. Administrators would also likely prevent this from happening.


    How do these nazis get elected?

    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 1


    I think that raising entry fees is not feasible. Schools are already pressed on budgets, and raising entry fees would just crowd people out of these tournaments because they cannot afford it. That said, I think that the MPJ system needs to change. I already articulated my views on this when I posted in January (see the link that Luke included), but the way that the MPJ system worked this past year was not sufficient to be called an MPJ system. A better solution, in my opinion, would be to reach out to the college community for help. I know that Chief has a good understanding of the MPJ system and runs it well at his tournament without using the expensive Joy of Tournaments option, and I would be willing to bet that he would at least help the Kansas community know what the financial options are for that kind of thing.


    As much as I agree that MPJ is part of the issue it is only a small part. Size is a much larger issue. There are already a limited number of qualified judges in the pool which means that even if there is a complete MPJ system, too many teams are left being judged by inexperienced judges.



    I agree that the tournament should be shrunk, but it seems clear that a majority of coaches either favor an inclusive tournament, or are incapable of compromising on a mechanism(s) by which to shrink the pool.


    There does however seem to be some shared sentiment that MPJ can be useful. The price of the MPJ software offered by joyoftournaments.com for 1-249 entries is $150. With 11 DCI tournaments with at least (based on 2012) 48 entries would raise the price of an entry fee $.28 per entry. This means a school sending 4 teams has to pay $1 more. 


    I agree MPJ treats a symptom not the problem itself, but anything that improves the tournament should be considered and there's certainly no reason why both can't be accomplished. 



    EDIT: I misread the website, it is actually $125 for one copy of the software licence. 

    • Upvote 1

  9. Let me start this quick post by saying I agree with almost everything that has been proposed by proponents of DCI reform.

    That being said, MPJ is the real problem. Raise the entry fees for DCI tournaments, place a "tax" if you will on all money a school makes on entry fees and save all of it from each tournament, and buy the software. It is available to be purchased, and it works much better than the "Rank your top 5 '1s', top 75 '3s', and top 625 '5s'" system that was used this year. If you buy it from joyoftournaments you can allow teams to set their prefs the night before the tournament (instead of the 3 and 1/2 minutes before round 1) and it makes scheduling easier.That (to me) was more attributable to certain teams success (or lack thereof) than the size of the tournament. 


  10. Now I will answer the only argument that I have heard so far in favor of a larger tournament which is that the team that got second place only got two octos bids. No one will deny that SME TR is a great team destined for even more success but I would argue that it was more of a fluke that they only ended up with two octos bids and that there are fundamental inconsistencies between regular season results and DCI results that should substantiate some of my claims about the dilution of the judging pool. The following are true:


    I also think this is partially true because they opted to travel to a couple of TOC tournaments as opposed to debating solely in Kansas tournaments that they, in all honesty, could easily have won.


    I think the solution to the larger vs. smaller tournament could perhaps be found in the way the NDT qualifiers are sorted out in college. For example, the first (pick a number) entries could be decided on a "first-round" coaches choice similar to the way the application process used to work for DCI. In fact, the "first-rounders" could be determined by traditional DCI bids as they function now. After that, there could be a designated qualifying tournament (either one or several by region, county, etc.) that qualifies (pick a number) additional entries. This checks back for the scenario of a good team not getting two (or ideally three) bids, while still qualifying a specific number of teams.


    I think this is better for two reasons:

    1) Consistency.

    The number of teams remains constant year to year. Thus, judging requirements are the same and no matter where you fall on the large vs. small debate, the sample size of the population of Kansas debaters could be controlled for.

    2) Checks and Balances

    This system allows good teams who have had a bad year to still make it to DCI. For example, Owen and I could have feasibly had 0 bids this year because we went to 3 tournaments outside the state of Kansas. This system would either allow coaches to permit us into DCI, or allow us one final tournament to qualify.


    It's not perfect, but neither is the current format.

    • Upvote 2

  11. Best all around team (speed and open styles): BVN Evans/Jones

    Best Squad: WaRu

    Coach of the year: Mr. Dubois

    Best speed-style team: BVW Birzer/Yeamans

    Best lay team: WaRu Rattan/Christensen

    Best Affirmative Team: WaRu Rattan/Christensen

    Best Negative Team: BVW Birzer/Yeamans

    Prettiest Speaker: Sahil Rattan

    Fastest Debater: Spencer Yeamans

    Best 1A: Chris Birzer

    Best 2A: Sahil Rattan

    Best 1N: Sarah Evans

    Best 2N: Owen MacDonald

    Most likely to do well next year in high school: Sahil

    Person most likely to graduate and judge: Birzer

    Best Judge: Sean Stenger

    Most underrated team: SMNW Bhatla/Cook

    Best K debater: Who really cares?

    Best Politics Debater: Spencer Yeamans

    Best T Debater: Birzer

    Most likely to be NDT champion: Northwestern LV

    Best place to eat at the tournament: THE CORRAL

    Nicest debater to chat with outside of rounds: The SME Guys/Gals, Cody, Sahil, Amit, Mac, Hunter Jones.

    Best evidence: Parformak and Fritelli '7--Terrorists already have dirty bombs

    Best argument: Politics

    Best K: Politics

    Best aff: Bering Strait

    Best excuse for losing a round: OMac went for T against HSR

    Best pen: .5-.7 Pilot G2

    Best medium for flowing: Blue legal paper

    Best tournament for between-rounds hanging out: DCI

    Best human being: Cody Christensen

    • Upvote 2

  12. This year, the national circuit instituted a new ranking system that modeled the AP and Coaches poll for most collegiate sports. The way it worked is that every coach is allowed to fill out a ballot (via email) ranking their personal top 25 teams 1-25, giving their "first place" team a 25, and their 25th team a 1. These points were then averaged to create a top 25 list.


    I was wondering if anyone would be open to implementing this type of poll in Kansas.


    A couple of arguements--

    1. Accolades--It allows for coaches who are less than fortunate and perhaps can't win a state championship still champion an accomplishment to their adminstration. For example, telling your adminstration that you lost in quarters of 6A 2-speaker state sounds fairly disappointing, but it's plausible that the 3rd "best" team in the state simply had a tough out and lost early.


    2. Graduating Seniors--Unfortunately, Kansas Debate (although still respected by many higher institutions of learning) does not carry the same prestige as debating nationally. Similarly, only one team gets to win a state championship each year, and very good teams (perhaps even the overwhelming pre-tournament favorite to win) will not achieve this accolade. However, if they have the opportunity to say "We lost, but we were ranked 2nd throughout the year" it could help their chances of getting into college or perhaps allow them to recieve more scholarship money from debate programs.


    3. Elitists pre-empt--

    I know that a lot of coaches and debaters are often relucant to copy things from the national circuit, especailly something that is percieved as "elitist". But this type of ranking is done in almost every other KSHSAA sanctioned event, and allowing all Kansas coaches to participate should check back for any structural bias towards one "style" of debate.



    Lemme know what you think.

  13. No no, I apologize, I was talking about the reason for the beginning of the thread. I don't think those ideas are good for many reasons, but not favoring one type of school.


    I don't know how you think I acted at the qualifier, but I guess I wasn't enough of a graceful loser. If you have a problem with the suggestions I proposed, then post them. Don't blame it on my "behavior at the qualifier", because quite frankly, I didn't do anything and it doesn't matter.


    Coaches like Mr. Fowler, Mr. Skoglund, and Mr. Dubois, past debaters like Ciera, Amanda, Ideen, and Sam, and current debaters like Sarah, Zach, and myself are all offering suggestions that we think would make Kansas debate better. If you think allowing freshmen to judge, or implementing a strike system would have radically altered what happened at the qualifier this weekend, then say so. Don't make broad generalizations about what I did or didn't do at the qualifier.

    • Upvote 5
  • Create New...