Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Hartman

  1. If this is part of your strat...I suggest you change your strat.
  2. I could be mistaken, but I think that was Mason's point. When a debater frustrated with the inconsistency and subjectiveness of lay judges' decisions whines about these things, those who advocate lay judge participation often blame the debater's dissatisfaction on their inability to "adapt". While that notion is true to an extent, Mason seemed to be pointing out that there are some situations (such as my unfortunate run-in with my PMC pal) where the judge's bias has determined the outcome of the round before it has even started.
  3. Hartman

    Neg Strats

    Are you a relative of nathan_debate?
  4. My sophomore year (on the military topic), I ran a PMC aff. This PMC aff had a human rights advantage, the thesis of which was something along the lines of "Private military contractors are not subjected to the same laws/regulations that the average soldier is, which empirically results in human rights abuses." My partner and I traveled to a local tournament one weekend. Second round, we were slated to be affirmative with an inexperienced judge. I was the 2A, so I was able to observe the judge's reaction to the 1AC very closely. From the start, I knew something was up with this guy -- he was making exaggerated facial gestures and scribbling furiously on his notepad. His strange behavior only worsened as the round wore on; he began interrupting [both teams'] cross-examinations and speeches with loud, forced chuckles and exclamations such as "That's not true!" Despite the judge's bizarre actions, I was pretty confident upon the conclusion the round that my partner and I had secured a victory. That confidence was short-lived. After writing a few final comments on the ballot, the judge stood up and strutted to the front of the room. Still picking up our files (we debated using paper back in those days), all four debaters stopped what they were doing and looked up, slightly confused. "Lemme tell ya, this round really pissed me off." The color began draining from our respective faces. For the next minute or so, he berated both teams, growing more and more furious and animated as he continued his tirade. "And YOU--" (he pointed at me) "YOU said all PMCs are terrible people and are human rights abusers! Lemme tell ya, I was a PMC for TWENTY-FIVE YEARS, and I never committed any human rights abuses!!" Oh God. "I'm really sorry sir, but that's not quite what I--" "NO. I wrote it here...right here! YOU said ALL PMCs abuse people!" "Sir, I don't believe I said that, and I certainly don't believe that all PMCs commit human rights abuses. I'm sorry it came across that way. My point was merely that there are fewer laws governing the behavior of PMCs." "Well, that's what you f**kin' said, so I don't want to hear excuses..." He continued on for another ten minutes, ripping apart seemingly every word uttered during the round by any of the four of us. This included a segment where he stated that the hunting jacket hanging from the back of his chair should have clued us into the fact that he was a military man. ("You gotta use stuff like that to figure out stuff about your judge!") I felt bad for giving him the impression that I thought he was a war criminal, but my attempts to apologize were swiftly slapped down by a barrage of expletives. We lost.
  5. Looks like we have four judges, so I suppose I'll make it five. I was going to type up a paradigm, but mine would be virtually identical to Mr. Katz's, so just refer to his.
  6. This. I gave several crappy lay 1ARs this year because I tried to go line-by-line after the neg read a bunch of new arguments (and even new off-case) in the block and ran out of time.
  7. The best advice I can give for lay rounds is to not adhere to the traditional structure of Policy Debate. I had a lot of trouble winning lay judges' ballots for a season or two because I was too focused on the line-by-line; eventually, I learned to step back, focus on the big picture, and speak persuasively. Think of it this way: instead of intently focusing on your flows and giving the speech you're used to giving, pretend like you're giving an oration. Remember, the judge's preconceived notion of Policy Debate is probably (as the documentary Resolved puts it) "a clean-cut boy in a blazer speaking eloquently and persuasively", so the judge is likely weighing presentation and argumentation roughly equally. And as mentioned before, do your best to keep your impacts to a level the judge can relate to (I've found that impacting Warming out to disease outbreaks, for instance, can be quite helpful).
  8. Shawnee Mission West Lekie/Purohit
  9. *clarification: this was not me
  10. My partner and I debated [what appeared to be] a first-time Varsity team with a former debater judging. Our opponents read a Roundabouts aff (their advantages were "saving time, saving money, and saving the environment") and specified a funding mechanism, so we ran extra-T. They mishandled the T arg (and just about everything else), so we won the round. The judge's oral critique, however, contained the following words: "And, um, on their funding mechanism....You guys should have run O-SPEC. They linked hard into O-SPEC." The ballot: I also debated a team at camp a couple years ago whose 2AC on T consisted of two "we meet" args. At camp. Where your 2ACs are written out for you.
  11. Update: BVW BY 4-0 BVW MN 3-1 BVN EJ 3-1 ON MP 3-1 WaRu CR 3-1 BVSW LS 2-2 Emporia HS 2-2 Wichita East JK 2-2 Campus WY 1-3
  12. College: K-State Major: [Tentatively] Electrical Engineering Debating: Yep
  13. Hartman

    Envious Of Ks

    There's no such thing as "financial difficulty" when you have TCox managing your fundraisers.
  14. I think this was my favorite speech of the year. "And, charging stations *burp* don't solve warming; they actually *pfffff* increase emissions..." Pretty sure Sahil was the only one increasing emissions that round.
  15. You're too kind. All credit goes to Nate, my partner for one tournament as we successfully rerouted the Mississippi. Nah, man. Georgetown AM's repeating this spring.
  16. Best all around team (speed and open styles): BVW Birzer/Yeamans Best Squad: SME or WaRu - Each sent several teams to DCI and broke all four at State. Coach of the year: Jared Zuckerman Best speed-style team: BVW Birzer/Yeamans Best lay team: Hutchinson Blake/Sain Best Affirmative Team: WaRu Christensen/Rattan Best Negative Team: BVW MacDonald/Nelson Prettiest Speaker: Sarah Evans Fastest Debater: Spencer Yeamans Best 1A: Chris Birzer Best 2A: Sarah Evans Best 1N: Jared Nelson Best 2N: Birzer or OMac Most likely to do well next year in high school: SME Ramaswami/Throckmorton, SME Walter/Walter, WaRu Rattan/?, ONW Walberg/Luman, and a few other teams from BVSW and WaRu (I'm not positive who is graduating from those schools) Person most likely to graduate and judge: Liam Murphy Best Judge: Tim Quinn Most underrated team: SMNW Bhatla/Cook Best K debater: Hunter Jones (Heidegger) and Wes Miller (Cap) Best Politics Debater: Jared Nelson Best T Debater: Not sure - I only saw one T 2NR all year. Most likely to be NDT champion: Baylor Birzer/Evans Best place to eat at the tournament: It's a toss-up between the DCI luncheon and KCKCC's dinner. I enjoyed both. Nicest debater to chat with outside of rounds: All of the Silver Lake guys Best evidence: Morgan 09 - Warming outweighs everything Best argument: Prolif good Best K: Security Best aff: Rerouting the Mississippi River. Just kidding - I'd go with Dredging or Charging Stations. Best excuse for losing a round: "We were at NFL" Best pen: Turquoise G2 .5mm Best medium for flowing: Legal paper Best tournament for between-rounds hanging out: DCI Best human being: Cody Christensen
  17. Agreed. For instance, although my partner and I were 5-1 entering seventh round, we were under the impression we were 4-2. In no way did this change our strategy or approach to the round. Either way, the round was massively important, and we did the best debating we could (even though it wasn't enough ). Believing in the importance of every round is indeed one of the things that make DCI special. Not knowing your record until the ceremony is torture, but the anticipation it creates, the importance it assigns to each round, and the payoff at the end of the tournament all make it worth it.
  18. Just curious: Why are words (in topic titles) not allowed to have more than one capital letter? For instance, if you venture over to the Kansas forum, you'll notice "KS" is automatically changed to "Ks", and in the camps forum, camp names such as "DDI" become "Ddi".
  19. I lost it at about 9:30 of the 2AC video. "This ain't no bulls--t like 'I accept your theory...'"
  20. I agree with Carpe that there is an absence of an offensive reason to establish such a poll, coaches actually see relatively few teams debate, and even if those arguments are untrue, there's no way this idea will gain traction. However, I think it could be fun to do a Cross-X-based Top 25 Poll (where everyone can vote) in conjunction with the annual "Best of Kansas" thread.
  21. Ah, yes. I remember reading that thread as well. Seemed a little less hostile than the one I linked to.
  22. The way in which one qualifies for DCI was indeed modeled after that of the TOC: each weekend, there is one tournament where each of the top 16 teams receive one DCI bid (teams that advance to finals get two). In order to qualify for DCI, a team must collect two bids. As far as the structure of the tournament itself, there are seven rounds (no out-rounds) with direct power matching all the way through (with the exception of the first two rounds, which are matched high-high and high-low based on each team's number of bids). The tab room is kept closed to coaches and teams throughout the tournament, so no one finds out how well they did until the awards ceremony.
  • Create New...