Jump to content

the lone bandido

Member
  • Content Count

    84
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

35 Good

About the lone bandido

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 10/23/1994

Profile Information

  • Name
    Michael Kennedy
  • School
    Shawnee Mission East
  1. I'm late getting to this but... Name: Michael Kennedy High School: Shawnee Mission East College: Xavier (Cincinnati) Major (planned):Psychology and Sociology Debating: No
  2. Officer Tom is the best example of fuck the cops
  3. for future reference what your asking for is called impact framing
  4. Well at least one of those wasn't a troll
  5. Sorry it took me a minute to get back to you, but for a case like that some cuomo cards (PM me if you want any of this stuff I'm talking about by the way) and you can also run a k of big impacts if you want or root cause type arguments about specific impact scenarios to assist you also. Nixon wrote a real good article about this and I'm sure there's some other ones that I haven't mentioned that weren't on the top of my head
  6. I'll start off by saying that my opinion has changed dramatically on this issue during my time debating. Why I feel like commenting I have no idea, but I'm going to throw my 2 cents out there nonetheless. I guess Wes deleted his post, although I'm not entirely sure why. What he says is 1. factually correct, although that is probably partially due to J-rod's post being after nfl and not wanting to discuss cfl changes. 2. Is pretty accurate on the whole, although I think it could be applied to many more people than just BVW. Instead of scapegoating him, and applying your holier than thou attitudes, it would be better to do something else, or at the very least, not be so condescending about it. I appreciate your genuineness, if that's a word, dude. Now for the substantive portion of this discussion Most importantly this^. If you recruit "better" judges there will be pressures exerted on those schools who aren't, so attempting to make people conform will only be easier as you yourself try to improve the judging pool for them. School X won't want to recruit good judges for you if you recruit "shitty" judges for them. Surprisingly, I agree a lot with sam about this idea of judging reform, specifically where I've noted. For me, the most annoying thing is having three judges with completely different experience levels; removing the ability for this to happen would greatly enhance the ability to adapt, and make the round engaging for all three judges. I think the idea that a judge needing to flow every word you said to know what's going on frankly laughable. Generally, the most open-minded people, as far as judging is concerned, are those who have no experience judging whatsoever. For example, I won a lay round on the spanos empire k my sophomore year, and have won other rounds on similarly counter-intuitive arguments. It can only help the activity if a greater portion of people have positive experiences with debate and are engaged with the activity, in terms of funding etc. I'd rather have this person than n00b debater who participated in open for two years, and hates large portions of arguments. The amount of experience someone has in debate really doesn't matter that much; If you're good at explaining arguments you should be able to convince anyone to vote for it, regardless of experience level. Furthermore, even though I think on average the debate community is pretty smart, there are some real idiots that call themselves "flow" yet may garbage decisions round after round. My point is that intelligence and readiness to vote on what is discussed in the round is the most important feature of judging rather than experience level. And to answer future posts, no, just because they haven't judged before doesn't mean someone will intervene, you once again should just explain why that practice is bad. So from ^this, it is simple to see that for me, there isn't a huge issue in this aspect. I'll cosign what Amanda is saying about first year-out judges, I think that distinction is really good when in the context of going to a national tournament and extending your season the stakes are much, much higher, and added perspective gained from not judging seems beneficial. As far as other judging restrictions, I think it should be the same as other tournaments, can't judge them if you were on the same team, coached them, etc. Changing the weekends of the qualifiers, though, is a pretty good idea, if you want to have the type of desired judges. I think a lot of you all are saying this because your pissed off because you didn't qualify, and that's fair, I wish you hadn't done it in public, but whatever I guess. Along the same lines, I really wish this discussion had been put off, so that some of the emotions people have from their weekends would dissipate, but unfortunately that's not the case.
  7. The argument is that the only reason why war happens is because we are primed for it because of a failure to categorize everyday forms of violence, (this is in the article), such as "radical social exclusion, dehumanization, depersonal- ization, pseudospeciation, and reification which normalize atrocious behavior and violence toward others." They make the argument that the distinction between peacetime crimes and wartime crimes should be done away with, for it is this distinction that enables us to think that a difference exists between these two, which they would say is false. Furthermore, these violent capabilities are inside us all, its just whether or not they are expressed, for we are guilty of one of the types of violence listed above nearly every day, so its not accepting these things that will enable an ending to wars. The conclusions they draw are completely logical. Why does war happen? It's because people's lives are removed of value in the eyes of the actor; violence itself is an inherent part of life when we ignore it, and thus we allow ourselves to become gradually less and less worried about the violence that we see, experience, and commit ourselves. These arguments are also empirically proven. Look at how propaganda is used in all modern wars as a method to lower the status of "the enemy" to a position where their lives 1). aren't productive and 2) are sub-human. Inside of debate, these arguments only actually make sense when you're making very broad claims about the root cause of the types of "everyday violence" listed above. Off the top of my head, cap or a violence k itself make the most sense, dng could definitely be spun easily. Out of curiosity, what argument where you think of running it with?
  8. Ayyyyyoooo Waddup cuzzzz

  9. Best all around team (speed and open styles: Shawnee Mission West Duncan/Purohit Best Squad: Blue Valley Southwest Coach of the year: Pam McComas Best speed-style team: ONW Trent/Depriest Best lay team: SME Kennedy/Werner Best Affirmative Team: St. Thomas Aquinas Goza/Watson Best Negative Team: SMNW Bhatla/Cook Prettiest Speaker: Mary Torrez Fastest Debater: Anna Zimmerman Best 1A: Maddi Duncan Best 2A: Jared Nelson Best 1N: Nels Carlson Best 2N: Fernando Cardenas Most likely to do well next year in high school: BV Person most likely to graduate and judge: Payton Cummings Best Judge: Devon Cantwell Most under-rated team: BVN Evans/Jones Best K debater: Max Werner Best Politics Debater: Mason Owen Best T Debater: Chris Carey/ TJ Blake Most likely to be NDT champion: The Beans Best place to eat at the tournament: McDonhons Nicest debater to chat with outside of rounds: Best evidence: Launius 10 Best argument: T Humans Best K: Give Back the Land Best aff: Cyborgs Best excuse for losing a round: I got spread out by the 2AC Best pen: Mechanical Pencil Best medium for flowing: Parchment Best tournament for between-rounds hanging out: Olathe South
  10. It's from Claire Colebrook in a book about Deleuze
×
×
  • Create New...