Jump to content

Hartman

Member
  • Content Count

    210
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Posts 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. 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

    • Upvote 5

  3. Does anyone know where I can find a video of the National Forensic league finals from last year? (GBS vs. GBN) I can't seem to find it on google or Youtube. 

     

    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.


  4. Hi,

     

    I just joined this forum right now lol. I am a novice debater (freshman in High School) and want to buy a computer for debate. In my school we use paperless debate so Word with verbatim. Right now I have a Macbook Air but without word but would rather buy a new one for debate and just to use for school. What computers do you guys suggest to get? What do you have? Where should i buy it? What brands are good and bad? I have hear lenovo computers are pretty good and so are acers. What do you guys think I should get??

     

    Thanks!!

     

    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.

    • Upvote 3

  5. Jut a curious question, with the wording of the oceans resolution, would the plan have to involve:

    a. All of Earth's oceans

    b. 1 or more of Earth's oceans

    c. more than 1 of Earth's oceans

     

    Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military exploration and/or development of the Earth’s oceans.

     

    The "problem" you point out with this resolution is essentially the same one that exists with the current college rez:

     

    RESOLVED: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase statutory and/or judicial restrictions on the war powers authority of the President of the United States in one or more of the following areas: targeted killing, indefinite detention, offensive cyber operations, or introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities.

     

    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

     

    I'm hoping anthro will be big next year - tired of ks of economics.

     

    Yeah, I feel like an Oceans topic would lead to a fair increase in the number of teams running anthro.


  6. The Idaho Debate Code also bans oral critiques and disclosing (along with flowing, tag teaming, 2NC counterplans, and depending on how you read the text, Kritks).  Several tournaments in Idaho have solved this by flat-out rejecting the IDC.

     

    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:

     

    IInuiZa.png

     

    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.


  7. With lay Counterplans, I see it as the exact opposite actually....

     

    In my opinion, most lay judges don't know that the negative's job is to prove the aff is a bad idea. Sure, they understand that the AFF must defend a policy, but I think it's very persuasive to say "there's something other than the affirmative plan that is beneficial to the US in the terms of solving <advantages>." It's a framing issue. You don't want to frame it as "WE HAVE A COUNTERPLAN OMG," but rather as "why do the affirmative plan when there's something more beneficial?"

     

    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.

    • Upvote 2

  8. These two things make me think you're an idiot.

     

    Do what your coach tells you to do, but also talk to him and be like "there are different args." No one is going to give a damn about him kicking you off the team, you'd have no leverage against him. It's always easier to play nice and wait until college.

     

    The best advice in this thread is:

     

     

    Use the judge's ignorance against the other team.

     

    I do think CP's are great with lay judges as well because theory kind of isn't a thing in that situation.

     

    Also, small talk with lay judges, especially mommy judges. When they think debate, they think like presidential debates. They think the more personable and better speaking team wins. I can't think of one lay judge round I had in high school where I've dropped because I played the judge like that.

     

    Ultimately, make lay debate fun by winning. Adapt more than the other team and have fun from them being pissed that they lost even though you dropped something or another and can talk better or have fun from their frustration about you being abusive.

     

    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.

    • Upvote 1

  9. My partner and I used to read 8 min of neolib every round, even on the lay, and it would be a challenge for us to explain it well enough that we could persuade the judge. Our coach found out and is now one step away from us no longer debating. Basically, we can't read K's, CP's or politics because they are "college debate." Pretty much all fun from debate has been stripped, and now we are left with very few options. What else can make lay debate fun?

     

    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.

    • Upvote 5

  10.  

    Quarters - Varsity

    [8] BVW BM (A) Vs. [1] BVNW CH 

    Judges: Schille, Cook, Owen

     

    [2] Shawnee Heights LC Vs. [7] Sumner TG

    Judges: Goh, Miles, Gonzaba

     

    [3] ON SG Vs. [6] OE AM

    Judges: Carey, Mapes, Birzer

     

    [4] LFS BC Vs. [5] BV SJ

    Judges: Harris, Stenger, Hampton

     

    If anyone wants results for other divisions, just ask.

     

     

    These might be the best panels I've ever seen at a non-DCI qualifier tournament (in Kansas).


  11. Thank you for posting this here, Luke.

     

    I would encourage anyone interested in posting thoughts/comments to do so on the ad astra thread so as to keep discussions together and in a central location. (By all means, post them here too, if you like.)

     

    The link is:

    http://z3.invisionfree.com/Ad_Astra/index.php?showtopic=126&st=0&do=findComment&comment=22010508

     

    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.


  12. Keep in mind that allowing some teams to qualify earlier would disincentivize going to additional DCI tournaments, for the national circuit or otherwise, opening up more bid opportunities for other teams. This would potentially lead to an increase in qualifying teams. This is a small downside, but could also easily be solved by requiring "points" at 2 separate tournaments.

     

    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.)


  13. A couple hours ago, Mr. Dubois posted the following DCI reform proposal on Ad Astra. For what it's worth (which isn't much), I think the idea is brilliant.

     

    Comments/thoughts/concerns should be voiced on Ad Astra so that the discussion is centralized.

     

    Members of the Kansas debate community:

    There has been a great deal of discussion and debate over the mechanics of the DCI. The challenges posed by an expanding field, and by the logistics of hosting the tournament alongside an ever-larger Novice State event, have made the duties of the tournament host and the DCI bid committee progressively more difficult. This year we have the added difficulty of having lost our awards supplier to a fire. The committee is asking for the community’s support in making rules adjustments to make the process of putting DCI together more manageable.

    Central to our difficulties is the unpredictable nature of the tournament field. The coaches have collectively expressed a preference for an inclusive approach to DCI qualification as opposed to an exclusive one. This principle, however, has produced an environment where the size of the field is wildly variable and subject to chance. It has become nearly impossible to budget for awards, arrange for meals, or set aside an appropriate block of rooms. It is not necessary to make the tournament radically smaller to solve these problems; it IS necessary to establish criteria that place the number of potential qualifiers within a narrower range.

    The committee has discussed many possible approaches to this problem. In our collective opinion, raising the threshold of the number of bids required to attend the tournament is not particularly helpful—the data suggest that doing so would shrink the tournament substantially without providing any significant degree of predictability. It has been impossible to establish a clear consensus of what form of bid “tiebreaker†would be least arbitrary. Proposals that a fixed number of teams should qualify (as opposed to however many teams meet a fixed standard) run afoul of the same tiebreaker problems. Nor does the committee support the elimination of the bid system in favor of either admission by coach vote or a hybrid system involving a coach vote; we feel that objective rules for qualification will always be better than subjective decisions made by interested parties.

    The committee has come to a tentative proposal that we feel would provide for a reasonable degree of predictability while still preserving an inclusive approach. We would like to see this proposal discussed and possibly modified with an eye towards an eventual vote at the DCI coaches’ meeting and possible implementation in 2014.

    Under our proposed system, the present system of bid assignment would be adjusted to a system in which bid points are awarded. The champion of a DCI bid tournament would receive 5 bid points; the runner up, four points; losing semifinalists, three points; losing quarterfinalists, two points; non-advancing octofinalists with a .500 or better record in prelims, one point. A bracket closeout would afford both teams with the points that the winner of the round would have received. Qualification from an NFL or CFL qualifying tournament would be worth two points. The majority opinion of the committee is that debaters who received four bid points over the course of the year would be considered qualified for the DCI. This is not the universal sentiment of the committee; below, we present data for your consideration as to how both a four-point threshold and a three point threshold would affect the size of the qualified field.

    A four-bid threshold means that a debater could qualify to DCI with a single finals appearance at a DCI invitational; a three bid threshold would allow a semifinalist to auto-qualify. Under either standard, qualification to both national tournaments would be sufficient, but a team qualifying to only one national tournament would need to earn points elsewhere.

    The primary category of debaters included under the old system but excluded under the new would be debaters who currently qualify as non-advancing octofinalists at multiple tournaments. The number of qualifiers in this category varies wildly from year to year and is the principle source of the field predictability problem; we expect this unpredictability to increase now that there are a far larger number of octofinals bids in play. While there are no doubt many good arguments to be made as to whether one team or another in this category “deserves†to go to DCI, the fact of the matter is that it is unmanageable to include all such teams and engage in reasonably accurate event planning.

    Seen from this perspective, we see the points system as the least worst option. The proposed system places a premium on winning elimination rounds at bid events; unlike the current system, it does not treat a team that finishes 3-2 with poor speaks but slips into 15th place as the equivalent of a top seed which drops on a 2-1 in semifinals. We feel that the new system rewards teams for excellence at Kansas tournaments and provides all teams, regardless of geography, style, or travel preferences, with a fair opportunity to attend Kansas’ premier tournament.

    We invite discussion of this proposal, as well as suggested alterations. We will try to make available data on the affects alternate proposals would have on the size and predictability of the DCI field. We do ask that all discussion participants make their identity known in their post. The forum moderators will not look leniently on posters who decline to do so.

    -Steve DuBois for the DCI Committee

     

    FOUR POINT THRESHHOLD

    2008 – 33 teams (smaller by 3 teams)
    2009 – 32 teams (smaller by 6 teams)
    2010 – 39 teams (smaller by 4 teams)
    2011 – 31 teams (smaller by 10 teams)
    2013 – 37 teams (smaller by 19 teams)

    THREE POINT THRESHHOLD
    2008 - 37 (+1)
    2009 - 44 (+6)
    2010 - 42 (-1)
    2011 - 43 (+2)
    2012 - 46 (-10)

    Thanks to Eric Skoglund for crunching the numbers.

    • Upvote 1

  14. I'm in the same situation as Mason. I'll almost certainly be judging at KCKCC, it's just a question of whom I will be judging for; the school I was going to judge for no longer needs me. I debated for ONW for four years, finished 5th at DCI, currently debate at K-State, and will be available for all rounds.

     

    If you need a judge who is slightly less qualified than Mason, feel free to contact me at lukehartman3[at]gmail[dot]com. 

    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 1
×
×
  • Create New...