Jump to content

Hartman

Member
  • Content Count

    210
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by Hartman

  1. Not mine, but I got a chuckle out of this one while browsing Glenbrooks ballots on JoT. The only comment on the ballot:
  2. This is the only part of your post I disagree with. I've empirically had pretty good success with these "Lay, flay, flow" panels, but they're the most random way possible to decide a debate round. While I have no qualms with lay judges or their numbers at the qualifier tournaments, there needs to be some organization in terms of what types of judges are on each panel. For instance, I had a panel this weekend that consisted of two college debaters and some kid's mom. We prayed the Lord would forgive us for the horror we were about to subject the mother to, and proceeded to speed each of our speeches, winning the round on a 2-1. Not only does the inconsistency of this panel make the round difficult for the debaters, I highly doubt that the mother will ever judge again. This problem only becomes worse when the panel is "lay, flay, flow" instead of "lay, flow, flow". Winning this sort of round is not as simple as slowing down without sacrificing substance (as you posit). Each judge (especially the experienced ones) will carry some sort of bias with them into the round. Although there are ways to attempt to strategically manipulate each judge into voting for you, chances are you're going to piss off one or more of them by not adapting specifically to their paradigm. As alluded to above, these inconsistent panels create two problems: 1. Difficulty of adapting/randomness of decisions 2. Alienation of judges In order to at least quell the effects of these problems I suggest the following: 1. As Mr. Dubois suggested, bring the type of judges you want to be judged by. If you desperately want to be judged by college debaters, don't bring your grandmother. Also, don't try to cheap-shot other schools by bringing judges who are known for making erratic decisions. (Yes, this is a problem.) 2. Perhaps the judges could be organized using some sort of tier system (based on experience/number of rounds judged). Each panel would be comprised of three judges from the same tier. This virtually eliminates bizarre panels while preserving the importance of skills like speaking to lay judges. Thoughts?
  3. We seem to be ignoring the most urgently needed rule change: allowing cell phone use between rounds. My mom really enjoys getting frequent updates.
  4. I'd really love some generic link cards in future TFs. Overall, though, I like it.
  5. I think novice debates are the one place judges should virtually never call for evidence, considering there's about a 96% chance the novices didn't cut that evidence themselves. I'd hate for a round to come down to the quality of a card a novice was given by an advanced debater or coach.
  6. With some notable exceptions, JV is generally home to second- and third-year debaters who didn't go to camp and/or don't invest as much time in debate as you probably do. Step one is calming down and realizing that you can beat these fellas. After that, Razorscale2's advice suffices. Get your generics nailed down, and then tackle more specific arguments.
  7. Hartman

    Op Wins?

    On a more serious note, "Opp Wins" is the total number of wins your opponents had. It's generally used as the second tiebreak (after speaks).
  8. Regardless as to whether or not the term "Lay Debater" makes a lot of sense (it doesn't), it has existed forever (at least, it has on the Kansas circuit). It generally refers to a debater who prefers the slow style of debate and debating for lay judges. That's not equivalent to "debating with low logical intensity".
  9. Buhler BS wasn't too shabby either: CFL finalists, DCI runners up, 4A State Champs, and 1st & 3rd speakers at NFL. And of course, Manhattan PW's 11 bids and 4 tournament wins deserve the highest of praise as well.
  10. Does anyone have access to the results packet? If so, could you please post it here?
  11. Hartman

    Waru Results

    1. Hutch BS 2. SMS Monaghan/Owen 3. Hutch CK 3. S. Heights CL 5. SME Murphy/Tulp 5. SME KW 5. BVN ?? 5. SMW Lekie/Purohit --Receiving Bids-- 9. ONW Hartman/Walberg 10. SMNW Bhatla/Cook 11. STA Bertels/Ruisch 12. SMW Duncan/Rodgers 13. SME Mitchell/Myers 14. BV BC 15. Maize AY 16. SME Ramaswami/Throckmorton
  12. Check out the policy debate finals on the sidebar. Their plan text is literally 35 seconds long (starts at 5:55). My, how times have changed.
  13. Hartman

    Nfl Nationals

    Congratulations to Shawnee Heights Eskilson/Hermann, who is undefeated heading into Round 12 at NFL Nationals. This guarantees them a spot in Round 13 as well, meaning they'll be one of the final eight teams in the tournament. Also: Tony Trent, Lauren Pauls, and Sam Sumpter advanced to Congress semifinals. Anyone else have updates on other events? Update: Linda Pei is in IX Finals!
  14. Buhler is in Finals! Go Crusaders!
  15. This was your 3,000th post, Chaos. Congratulations. I'm glad you made it about posts.
  16. When he was in high school, my uncle (now in his 40s) was on the yearbook staff, and he managed to sneak that one into the Debate page on the yearbook. Turns out the problem is more widespread than I initially thought.
  17. "The URL contained a malformed video ID. Sorry about that."
  18. Anyone joining me at two-week?
  19. Seriously though, I love how every debater's first reaction when a new topic comes out is "To what extent can I twist the resolution toward an entirely different meaning and still get away with it?" Debaters these days...tsk tsk.
  20. I................like you too?
  21. If I'm understanding what you're saying correctly, I recently had a similar idea: since the resolution merely calls for us to invest in transportation infrastructure, could we invest in destroying/dismantling it? That basically leaves the aff with advantages like Security, and it leaves the neg scratching their respective heads and saying "Oh s**t, that turns all of our DAs." EDIT: That makes the De-Dev aff pretty blatantly topical, too....Crap.
  22. Ima transport people's souls to Jesus.
×
×
  • Create New...