Jump to content

elmeryang00

Member
  • Content Count

    160
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

elmeryang00 last won the day on November 24 2018

elmeryang00 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

134 Excellent

1 Follower

About elmeryang00

  • Rank
    BoSu Fanboy

Profile Information

  • Name
    Elmer Yang
  • School
    Mckinney Boyd
  • Biography
    Sophmore Varsity

Recent Profile Visitors

4963 profile views
  1. 1. I agree that there is a lack of consistency but that's because of a large sample size and that issue plagues almost every team on this list sans Greenhill AE. Kinkaid has shown up for a lot of tournaments when it really matters and a Doubles loss at TFA shouldn't matter when Coppell DR dropped Triples at Berkeley. I'm a bit confused when you say Lexington wasn't a tournament - LASA, NoBro, Edgemont, Strath Haven, Georgetown Day are all TOC-qualled. 2. You right, I got confused about the pairings, that's my bad. I've judged LRCH before, they're brutally effective on the LBL and definitely a team to look out for in the future. The problem with Westwood in comparison to Coppell DR is the lack of "national" success. The tournaments they've done best at - U of H and UT are considered more Texas-circuit, yes teams from out of state come, but most of the teams are from Texas. Coppell bid at Greenhill (one of the toughest tournaments of the season), and got 2nd at the Cal RR along with breaking at Emory. Westwood doesn't have those wins on their resume (I know they broke at Glenbrooks and Harvard but they didn't bid at either tournament). Yes, they won at the UT tournament against Coppell but in a round that really had no bearing on anything and Coppell reciprocated the favor at TFA which evens the Head-to-Head. Also on a stylistic note (having no real impact on my comparison), having judged both Westwood and Coppell, Coppell is just a level clearer than both BS though once BS goes off the blocks and on the flow, it's about even. Tbh, all of this is pretty fluid and arbitrary. Lack of Head-to-head makes a complete top 10 list near impossible. Some people might weigh the Triples loss at Cal for Coppell much higher than I did. Others might weigh Westwood's lack of bid list at "National" tournaments more than I did. Both are phenomenal teams, if I were competing next year, I'd be scared of hitting these two teams that have a very good chance of being in TFA finals next year.
  2. One loss doesn't dictate a season. Upsets happen all the time at TFA State. Westwood GN lost to Hendrickson GS as the higher seed last year, doesn't mean that they're better. Neither does Westwood CS losing in Doubles (while still being regarded as a Top 10 team afterwards). Kinkaid has been seriously underrated throughout the season - 3 bids including Greenhill and Lexington plus a Semis showing at Houston shows a lot. It's also the same amount of bids as Highland Park LM, and more bids than LASA CU, Jesuit GN, and Westwood BS. Another thing to note, Coppell DR should be the sole 2 over Westwood BS. While Westwood BS is good, all of their bids and success writ large have happened at the main Texas bid tournaments (UH and UT because mostly Texas schools who then go to TFA go there). The sole major win over Coppell DR (that I know of) was UT Finals which happened at the RR after a very late previous day. BS also lost Houston to half of Hendrickson GS and without Coppell DR competing. Coppell DR has sustained success at the more national Texas tournaments - bids at Greenhill and Colleyville (I think winning). I'm not going to use winning TFA State as a metric as I know Westwood had a much more difficult semis match-up in Greenhill AE. Note - This things are notoriously difficult to do because different teams go to different tournaments with different match-ups so its hard to compare them. For example, if Greenhill AE had gone to Colleyville, UH, and UT (where Coppell and Westwood had a lot of their success), a lot of things could have changed.
  3. Jesuit HM has had sustained success ever since their Semis performance at Greenhill, often considered one of the toughest Octas bid tournaments in the 1st semester. Westwood BS had a phenomenal run at the UT tournament but I think that soft brackets had some weaker teams do better with higher seeds, and harder prelim rounds had top tier threats gone by prelims or doubles. Plus, the finals round was held at the RR after two pretty brutal days of debating, so I don't know if it's extremely indicative of whether they were better than Coppell DR or not. In addition, Jesuit's bid count is around 3 (I think) and this is Westwood's 1st bid. I do think Highland Park should be a bit lower since they haven't gone to very many tournaments and it's yet to see if they can pull of a deep run in one of the tougher octas bid tournaments.
  4. I'm going to admit it, I was wrong about Coppell DR, especially what I said about them and Greenhill AE earlier. I honestly think they have a legitimate chance of going deep into TFA elims and if they win the UT tournament by pulling a Westside NP type performance, I might give them a very good shot of breaking at the ToC. I'm scared to see how good they are next year. I've admittedly been biased against Coppell DR the past few months of the season. The last memories I have Coppell DR was Shreyas spreading through 10-off every debate round when he was with Lucy on the Education topic and Het reading off 10 Peterson 14 cards while reading a ZTP policy Aff and those memories clouded my judgement when evaluating their skills and progress come to the Junior year of debate. After they beat a legit Top-5 team in the country (Greenhill AE) in finals of Hockaday and slugged it out with multiple well-funded private school teams the past few months, I think that I misjudged them. They put in mad work at Wake this past Summer and I think their monstrous leap can be a lesson to every debater that it's not about going to camp or what camp but how much work you put in that makes you a better debater. It also shows that going out of your comfort zone can be an effective way of maximizing your skills i.e. Shreyas going from reading ZTP's on Education to straight-up Moten and Anti-Blackness. Congrats Shreyas and Het, and keep making the North Texas circuit proud.
  5. LMAO my bad Sunil, I have nothing but mad respect for you but you had some high theory 2AR about Speed-Elitism that that randomly materialized in TFA Quarters that had no bearing literally in answering Will's 2NR. It was like a 2 minute chunk of your 2AR arguments that really didn't help you in the long run and in my mind, got Leslie to vote against you. You still should've won that debate but a lot of the times I've seen y'all, you rely on overview chunks in embedded LBL that seems awkward at times. You make it work though so I expect big things at TFA and potentially the TOC. You're right about North Lamar to some extent. Not a big fan of the disclosure stuff since I was in their circuit when I was in high school but they have some decent LBL skills and Zach has a good understanding of over-arching concepts. What holds them back is their strategy choices that severely limit their potential. I did say that they'd be competing for the 32nd seed and not a top 10 seed. Greenhill LW is heavily reliant on their coaching prep. Wegener (SP?) is very good, but Leffler has problematic clarity issues that'll hold them back in the long run. This is something that St Marks When Muse wasn't that good and he was with Cerny, HP was a top 25 team in the country. Muse has gotten exponentially better and has proven that he can hold his own against the best with a lesser opponent. OP also said that right now, who was the best, and Muse has shown along with the top 2 Jesuit Teams and St Marks RV that they up to this point that they are better than the teams that started more slowly. I talked about Hebron above. North Broward made the wrong choice in that round, the Brough Ev is fire in certain circumstances but Afro-Pess ruse to analogy stuff indicts the Settler Affect stuff much better. I'll grant you Woodlands MR, they've gotten better each year. Look for a Westside NP style performance at the Texas TOC tournaments after their bid at Michigan. Props to Amogh for doing an outstanding coaching job. Coppell DR is a good team but their success at Greenhill and St Marks is from mostly terrible strategy choice by Negatives against their Leprosy Aff. There's a lot of lit indicting Kristeva's Abjection args as well as the obvious double turn from their former usage of Warren but teams just go for generic Framework. I have also yet to see a team go for Leprosy Disease Security DA/Turn to their Aff which is prob the strongest thing against it. I think that the plot holes in the Aff are more of a testament to their skills but Negative's just don't exploit them enough. However, I love seeing public school success tho so I hope they keep it up. Yao Yao does a phenomenal job of coaching LASA which keeps them competitive but their overall team just lacks the star power of LASA MS, LASA AV, and LASA CM. Not saying that CU or another of their teams can't surprise, but 1 bid just isn't good enough to cut it as the best. If we were talking about overall star power and potential, Greenhill AE, Jesuit HM, Greenhill LW, and Hendrickson GS would prob be the best 4 teams. But OP said currently, so I have to evaluate Grapevine, St Marks, and Greenhill as the current bearing of their skill level to this point which means that I stand by most of my evaluations. Edit - I'm making an addendum to my initial post. Earlier, I made some points about how Coppell DR's success at Grapevine and Greenhill was mostly due to teams not taking advantage of the plot holes in the Leprosy 1AC. However, it has come to my attention that Coppell has won more Neg rounds then Aff rounds in their bid hunting chase. This honestly doesn't surprise me as Coppell is now probably either the best or 2nd best Anti-Blackness team in Texas after Woodlands MR and no one should mitigate how great they've done this year. My initial post wasn't to mitigate or moot Coppell's success, I have nothing but respect for how much better Het and Shreyas have gotten especially in the cutthroat nature of the Dallas circuit and I apologize to Coppell DR if it came off that way. My post was mostly expressing disappointment at the lack of unique strategy choice by established teams like St Marks, Greenhill, and Woodward to exploit the holes in Coppell's Affs and not at the lack of Coppell DR's skills.
  6. Before the season I had Greenhill AE as the favorite to win TFA and do well at the TOC because Samar is one of the best speakers I have ever heard and Chris is uber techy and fast, but this post is wildly hyperbolic. Greenhill AE has only gone to two tournaments, Meadows and St Marks, and has only two bids which is a pretty small sample size. To give context, this is the same amount of bids as Coppell DR which, although they have kicked it up a notch, are probably not going to win TFA or break at the TOC (This isn't a dis-respect to Coppell DR, they're a great team that put in a lot of work this summer and great people but it's just mean to place Greenhill's success so far in context). Hendrickson in theory is one of the best teams in Texas but they started the season really slow and didn't break Grapevine which is considered (relatively) to be the easiest of all of the Dallas ToC bid tournaments next to Colleyville. They'll probably inevitably return to the mean of their potential but not at this moment. Right now, the best team in Texas is either St Marks RV or Highland Park KM/LM. Ethan Muse is a phenomenal debater and has the potential to win TFA this year and NDCA is arguably St Marks' tournament to lose. In addition, Jesuit HM and Jesuit HT improved a ton and are very strong contenders to win TFA. North Lamar HH is a good tech team with quirky Affs that tend to have obvious plot holes. Look for them to be on the cusp of breaking or a very low seed at TFA state. Hebron KL is a good team but they've regressed after Andrew Nguyen graduated. They have a very good evidence but the line by line in a lot of their debates tend to be sub-par and some of the high theory they go for lacks lay-men explanations. They didn't break at Grapevine and werethe 32nd seed at Greenhill but look for them to have a very solid 2nd semester and prove me wrong at TFA.
  7. I wasn't initially going to post something here but I think that this is particularly relevant in the context of the discussion that has happened. To start, none of what I'm saying here supports or justifies any of Trump's racist, sexist, homophobic, and other views/policies oppressive to minorities. Debate has always been a hyper-liberal community whether teams are K or not. And many in debate pride ourselves on making debate as open ideologically as possible. In many cases, that means opening ourselves to things that tend to be more liberal like asking for gender pronouns, providing trigger warning, among others. But we need to recognize that opening ourselves needs to happen to those that aren't necessary as left leaning as we are. Trump is a very good example of this. 99% of things Trump does are bad and I will not contest this, but the fact that we'll go as far as to say that Trump can never do anything that is ideologically aligned to solve oppression is just as bad as those in debate on the right that say that liberal policies can never be good. Many of the arguments after the election that we've made on framework is about Group Polarization. But aren't we similarly polarized when some in the community say that any policies supported by Trump cannot possibly be good in any world ever? Many of Trump's policies/actions are definitely racist but we ignore that African American unemployment rate has fallen by a full percentage point as well as black wages since the election. We also ignore that 30,000 new black jobs are created each month and job growth among blacks is 40% higher than under Obama. (Source - http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-race-trump-economy-progress-0822-story.html and I do not condone the entirety of this article, just citing statistics). Trump's actions towards womyn and minorities are despicable but this entire criticism of Kasen is that his plan is simply supported by Trump, not just that they defends Trump's rhetoric (which they might've but that's not condoned or criticized by me). Those of you who attacked Kasen as a person have taken a debate argument and a plan and attacked their personal beliefs which is exactly what those on the left criticize. A comment Sean made on another thread about this issue particularly affected me where he says that Trump's policies on Immigration are universally regarded as racist and thus we shouldn't every consider talking about them. While this is definitely true in some sense, the group most likely to benefit from Immigration restrictions are Black men who are ignored by current employers, not just White people, plus 85% of African Americans support reducing Immigration caps (Source - http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-seminara-trump-immigration-reform-african-americans-20180316-story.html#). All I'm saying is that when we shut down discussion simply because a policy lies on the right or because somebody debates differently than us, then we become just as bad as those on the right that shut down discussions of racial minority, LGBT, womyn rights and much much more. Those who argue that Securitizing is good, Hegemony is good (in a way), the War on Terror is good, etc. are similarly aligned to some of Trump's beliefs and I personally believe that they deserve to have legitimate discussions in debate. Please do not construe my post as a support or a form of apologism of the Alt Right or Trump, because it's not. My statistics about black economic growth similarly aren't saying Trump loves black people or that Black people are having a great time and aren't suffering ontologically or materially and there's a legitimate argument that those trends are happening despite Trump instead of because of him , but just that there's discussions to be had that some of Trump's policies can help minorities. I simply think that debate's that aren't Racism Good, Genocide Good, deserve discussions about plan's and ideologies that fall further right that we expect. If we kick them out completely and attack personal beliefs, not only does it push those people who are centrist-right's further away from compromise, but we polarize ourselves in a way that eliminates alternate discussions that those of us in debate should pride ourselves on.
  8. Here's the McKinney card on the Politics DA if you want it - https://web.archive.org/web/20160801062600/http://utdebatecamp.com/2011/theory-and-the-politics-da-claire-mckinney-takes-you-inside-the-smoke-filled-room/
  9. elmeryang00

    Summer Prep

    To be completely honest, camps are only a marginal difference maker in the broad scheme of competitive success. Even if you go to a shorter camp, but you practice diligently on your tech like doing speech redoes among others and you immerse yourself in the topic literature, you'll be much better off. Camp is mostly a place that incentivizes debaters into doing practice whereas they would spend most of their time at home during the summer playing video games. Camp doesn't determine success on its own, its what you put in. If you do the research and drills outside of camp, you'll do just as well if not better as the teams who go to longer camps. My partner and I didn't go to camp outside of our Novice year (and that was at a Two-Week one at UNT) and we compete in the Dallas circuit against well-funded and well-coached teams like Greenhill and Jesuit almost every tournament. In comparison to them, we didn't really have a coach and had only my partner and I as the only varsity members. We ended up breaking at the TFA state tournament while beating numerous well-coached private teams along the way. We did this by knowing our cards better than anyone else and making sure we knew the arguments and strategy that we would use before every tournament. Instead of going to camp, we spent the entire summer working on our speech technique and reading up on the nuances of k lit and education policy. Jonathan Lee from Camas didn't go to camp outside of his novice year and he made it to Semis of Berkeley (beating North Broward MR along the way) and qualified to the ToC among many other accomplishments (he's also on this website so I'd send him a message with any questions). He did this by putting in the work comparable if not more than other teams. Tl;dr: Camp isn't as important as the effort you put outside of it.
  10. elmeryang00

    Netflix!

    Out of context as shown in the trailer, this seems laughable but given the exact context of the movie, it does make sense. Lola, the girl that the scene is referencing, comes from a low-income family raised by a single-mother and is only able to attend the prep school on a need-based scholarship. Combined with her grades and consistent success in debate (4 years of State Qualifying), it seems extremely likely given other things that this would be a real world scenario. I actually quite enjoyed the experience of watching the movie and would highly recommend it . Even with the discrepancies regarding the technical aspects of debate, I think the movie nailed the cultural lifestyle of debate perfectly. Staying up late at night, waking up extremely early for tournaments, struggling to have a social life combined with debate, etc. are a crucial part of the debate experience that a focus on a pure technical aspect obscure. The part where Bennett remarks "Were we ever really high schoolers?" sums up many of our experiences in debate whether PF, LD, or CX that other movies about debate (Rocket Science comes to mind) don't do.
  11. For anyone who's interested - - Semis vs MBA BJ
  12. I've heard this exact description in the context of Wilderson's concept of Voyeurism. Is there a clearly defined difference between the two concepts?
  13. If you want a 5th judge to round out a panel, I'll judge. Here's my paradigm - https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=51812 If you don't care to read it all, do what you want. Write the ballot for me in the rebuttals.
  14. Agreed. Hemanth helped bring the NDT trophy back to Cambridge for the first time in almost two decades which has evaded legendary debaters from Klinger and Tarloff, to Alex Parkinson and Eli Jacobs, to Michael Suo and Brad Bolman. After two years of dominating Q at the NDT, she got him in the end. This was an unfortunate way to end his career but two Copelands and an NDT championship are as good of a career as any of us can even dream of. Congrats to both Kansas and Harvard for phenomenal debate careers.
×
×
  • Create New...