Jump to content

Hartman

Member
  • Content Count

    210
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by Hartman

  1. An assistant coaching job I thought I had lined up fell through at sort of the last minute, so I'm available for hire as an assistant coach for the 2014-2015 season. I offer four years of competitive experience on the Kansas circuit, a year of collegiate experience, a penchant for finding clever ways to win [f]lay judges, and way too much love for debate (I volunteer-judged 28 policy rounds last season). I realize that not many head coaches regularly check this forum, so if you're a current debater or assistant coach and your squad happens to have an open assistant coaching spot, I'd really appreciate it if you could send me a message (via Cross-X, Facebook, or at lukehartman3[at]gmail[dot]com). Thanks!
  2. From a totally objective point of view, this is the best Thursday File of all-time.
  3. Best all around team (Speed/Lay): BVSW Hegna/Super - it's gotta be the team that won KCKCC, won State, and qualified for both CFL and NFL Best Squad: Toss-up between BVSW and SME - both are remarkably deep Coach of the year: Kyle Klucas - this dude cares about his team more than anyone I know Best speed-style team: BVSW Hegna/Super, SME Ramaswami/Throckmorton, and WaRu Katz/Rattan are all top-notch Best lay team: ONW Luman/Walberg - they ran the lay judge gauntlet at EKNFL and came out on top Best Affirmative Team: BVN Lindsey/Ramasamy - I've never seen anyone manage to win so many debates with an aff that doesn't actually have a solvency advocate. Definitely a testament to their skill as debaters/ability to spin evidence. Best Negative Team: SME Ramaswami/Throckmorton Prettiest Speaker: Sahil Rattan or Ali Dastjerdi Fastest Debater: Mady Womack Most Annoying Debater: The guy at Aquinas who thought it would be a good idea to kick T in the 1NR after his partner covered it in the 2NC Best 1A: Alaina Walberg Best 2A: Katie Super Best 1N: Yash Kamath Best 2N: Ada Throckmorton Most likely to do well next year in high school: SME Dastjerdi/Walter, Vijay, Khalif, Yash, ONW Michie/Smith, WaRu Nicolae/Wu, Hutch, BVSW, and multiple other SME teams Best Judge(s): The Skoglunds Most underrated team: Silver Lake, WaRu Miller/Nelson Best K debater: Yash Kamath Best Politics Debater: Sahil Rattan Most likely to be NDT champion: Ada Throckmorton or Sahil Rattan Nicest debater to chat with outside of rounds: Will Katz, the entire Silver Lake squad, Jamie and Robert Best evidence: It's still Morgan 9 Best argument: China DA Worst argument: That ridiculous "police officers are destroying America" card Officer Tom read in front of me that wasn't even relevant to the rest of the debate Best K: Borders Best aff: Mexico Microfinance Best excuse for losing a round: Can't argue with the seizure Best tournament for between-rounds hanging out: State Best human being: Ollie Tahmasiyan Best police officer: This guy
  4. I don't think it's available online. This question has been asked before, and no one was able to find it. The NFL removed all of the 2013 recordings from their Livestream page.
  5. I guess I'm a little late to this party, but I currently have a MacBook Air as well, and I believe I'm going to purchase this laptop to replace it. The Best Buy employees always told me that "once you go Mac, you never go back", but you can sure get much better bang for your buck when you buy a PC instead of a MacBook. The Asus I linked to above is about $500 cheaper than my low-end MacBook Air was when I bought it, and its hard drive is ~630GB larger, its screen is 2" bigger, and it has 2 more GB of RAM. Plus, I miss the added element of customizability that is present in PCs (but not Macs); a fair amount of software (such as Verbatim) has limited functionality on Mac OS X or isn't available at all for said OS.
  6. Hartman

    Regionals

    Which region are you in? Which class (6A, 5A, etc.)?
  7. The "problem" you point out with this resolution is essentially the same one that exists with the current college rez: While both resolutions probably should have made use of the phrase "one or more", only the most absurdly literal interpretation of each resolution would force the affirmative to deal with multiple oceans (or restrictions). I feel like it would be pretty easy for the aff to win that the lit base for multi-ocean affs is unreasonably small. Unfortunately, the "T-plural" argument does exist; observe this shell from the K-State wiki: A. INTERP AND VIOLATION: [“restrictions†on] is a plural and countable noun – plan effects a single restriction, which is sub-topical. http://www. macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/restriction [COUNTABLE] [OFTEN PLURAL] a rule, action, or situation that limits or controls someone or something trade/travel/speed/parking restrictions restriction on: The county faces restrictions on the use of water for irrigating crops. impose/place restrictions (on): The judge had imposed further restrictions on the reporting of the case. lift/remove restrictions (on): We are asking the government to lift all restrictions on food shipments. Thesaurus entry for this meaning of restriction a. [uNCOUNTABLE] the act of limiting or controlling someone or something The restriction of press freedom is seen as an abuse of human rights. B. VOTE NEG: 1. Jurisdiction – grammar delineates the scope of the ballot – T is a rule and outweighs everything – hasty generalizations do not suffice 2. Neg ground – PICs with topic lit are hardwired into the resolution – our standard is also key to neg ‘link uniqueness’ 3. Aff limits – abstract treatment of plural nouns cannot preserve a concrete cap on total plans, only count-ability begets a stable case list and aff mechanisms Yeah, I feel like an Oceans topic would lead to a fair increase in the number of teams running anthro.
  8. I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with the above conversation, but KSHSAA has [most of] the same rules, and everyone ignores them, except at State when we begrudgingly (and selectively) adhere to their nonsense. Also, I found the IDC's instructions on "How To Flow A Policy Debate" hilarious: The IDC does actually list kritiks as an allowable negative strategy, but the only time the word "kritik" appears in the document (pg. 8 in case you're interested), the authors were so baffled by it that they panicked and inserted a pair of unnecessary colons immediately following the word. I understand why my Idahoan teammate debated almost exclusively on the Washington circuit.
  9. Ah yes, this was something I intended to touch on in my previous post, but it seems I forgot. I more or less agree. I think that in lay debates, counterplans are most strategic when framed as justification arguments. Example: "The resolution states that the affirmative team must defend that [insert paraphrasing of resolution here]. However, the affirmative team has not justified that the United States federal government should be the one to implement their plan. Here is a piece of evidence from Gondi in 2012 that describes why the private sector, not the government, is the best option when it comes to developing electric vehicle technology." Framing "counterplans" this way (and making these arguments on case) functionally allows you to run several counterplans in a way that makes sense to the judge without doing anything that seems theoretically objectionable.
  10. Most of Colin's post is spot-on, but I would make one slight modification to it: never run a CP in front of a lay judge. I have seen a LOT of very good teams get dropped by lay judges after going for the CP in rounds where they were way ahead. I'm not saying it's impossible to win a lay judge's ballot with a CP, but from what I've seen, trying to do so is a death sentence for the negative around 90% of the time. Just this past weekend, I was on a semifinal panel with two lay judges and sat on the bottom of a 2-1 decision. The negative team had gone a perfect 5-0 with 15 speaks in prelims, and they wiped the floor with the aff in this debate - of all 23 rounds I've judged this year, I think that was the fastest I've turned in a ballot. The aff conceded that the CP solved the entire case and had exactly one nonsensical, defensive response to the net benefit. When the decision was announced as a 2-1 for the aff, there were a couple seconds of stunned silence before the obligatory clapping began. Why did the neg lose? Suppose there's a businessman of above-average intelligence judging his first debate. He understands that his job is to determine whether or not the theoretical world of the aff's plan is comparatively better than the status quo, but the introduction of a CP doesn't make a lot of sense to him. Why does the negative team get their own plan? Isn't their job to negate what the affirmative proposes? In the world of flow debate, we bypass all of these questions by default, but lay judges have never pondered any of these issues before, so they are often hesitant to consider CPs a reason to vote negative (absent an extremely thorough explanation of opportunity cost, etc. by the negative). Thus, the opposite of Colin's argument is true; a vast majority of lay judges subconsciously hold the negative to a high standard of explaining why they should get a CP at all, even if they're less likely to find an "Agent CPs Bad" block persuasive.
  11. Hartman

    Hauntology

    I debated a hauntology aff at Wake last weekend. It was 2spooky4me. Here are a few cards.
  12. It looks like the NFL deleted the contents of their Livestream account. That's pretty silly. Edit: Confirmed.
  13. Find ways to creatively abuse the other team. For example: my sophomore year, when teams asked for a copy of our 1AC in lay debates, my partner and I handed them a backup copy that was stapled all the way down the side (so that it opened up like a book). We also used to only read disads and T in the 1NC, dump on case in the 2NC ("it's a constructive!"), and watch the 1AR flounder. These weren't exactly wacky strategies (or ones that would get us in trouble with our coach), but they made debates more enjoyable.
  14. These might be the best panels I've ever seen at a non-DCI qualifier tournament (in Kansas).
  15. Hartman

    The New Tyrant

    I lost an election to Officer Tom
  16. My mistake - I attempted to include the link in my original post, but it appears as though I inadvertently deleted it. I've edited the post to include it.
  17. In this regard, there is functionally no difference between the proposed system and the status quo. With a point requirement of four, a team must make it to finals to qualify for DCI in one tournament. (And in the status quo, a finals appearance is enough to qualify a team for DCI.)
×
×
  • Create New...