Jump to content

Rowedan

Member
  • Content Count

    182
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Rowedan


  1. I tend to view topicality debates in an offense/defense paradigm. there are some pretty simple ways to get out of these criticisms of topicality without having to get into the warrants of their cards if you don't have better ones.

     

     

    Give an overview at the top of T that includes the following

     

    1. Case list

     

    2. Evaluate plan in a vacuum

     

    3. Topical version of their aff

     

    4. If there's no T version, it proves the aff is neg CP ground.

     

     

    3 and 4 offer you a reason why their K isn't offense because under your interp, you can talk about all the shit they say you silence, just either as a fair-er aff or when they're neg.

     

     

    A lot of these K's come down to quasi-education debates just like normal counterinterps. This is where you can say the following.

     

    1. Education is inevitable--i can learn about walrus poaching or whatever their aff is outside of the debate, but i can only learn HOW TO DEBATE it in the debate round.

     

    2. Make the distinction between "education" and debate education--This turns their K, because absent a fair way to engage their aff, they are creating a classroom environment in which they are TEACHING you and not debating you. This is a bad form or opressive education which their authors probably disagree with.


  2. Eric, i dont think you understand the point of HoustonMemorial. The point is that debate is not about students. Its about coaches, obviously, and we need to blindly trust whatever our coaches say because they are always right. period. So get over it all you "i debate to learn" hippies.

    • Upvote 2
    • Downvote 1

  3. Thanks everyone, Lots of teams have already submitted their cites. Just a reminder, there's a negative casebook too and they are separate, so you only get negative casebook if you send it neg cites and aff casebook for aff cites, etc.

     

    Also, please encourage people from houston and west texas to submit-- they make up a large portion of quallified teams and only a small portion of the cites submitted so far

     

     

    thanks,

     

    dan


  4. Yeah, I know that will probably be an issue. The way I'm setting this up is that the caselist will only go out to the exact email adresses that include affirmative cites. This doesn't really prevent Erialleb HS XX from sharing the caselist with Erialleb HS XZ, XY, etc.

     

    I don't want to have to resort to community enforcement and badgering of schools and individuals, but I'm hoping this won't be an issue as I hope most people understand that the goal of this caselist is full disclosure and I hope their aren't people out there who are scheming to get an advantage from it without offering the same in return to others.

     

    If you submit your cites and there are more schools from you're team who are qualified, please encourage them to send theirs in too. This is an entirely student directed process and I don't want malicious intent to foul things up for everyone else.

     

    So, everyone who has sent in their cites as of now will definitely get the casebook. But if there are multiple teams and multiple affirmatives from one school who are qualified and i only recieve one aff cite from that team, I don't think it would be fair to send out the caselist for that whole team to share if they didn't all contribute. This is a rule I will reluctantly enforce.

     

    Remember, disclosure is always mutually beneficial. I've already recieved entries from some of the larger schools and more competitive schools. If you are worried about larger schools getting info about you, they will get that information anyway. The only risk is that you get a leg up that you wouldn't normally have.


  5. Hey everyone. I'm well aware there are several national caselist wikis and spaces and threads that provide some methods of retrieving aff and neg cites for various Texas teams that have qualified for state this year, but these are problematic for a few reasons.

     

    1) They don't cover everyone, since some teams that are qualified didn't attend some of the tournaments that produced the major caselists.

     

    2) Many of the cites are inaccurate as many relied on third parties typing up or even paraphrasing tags and citations to the point that the original argument/cite is lost in translation.

     

    3) A lot of them don't have the newest affs a lot of us are running.

     

    In the past, there have been TFA state case-lists created by volunteers that basically put out an email address and a deadline. I'm going to attempt to organize such an endeavor. Its success depends on contributions from the community. Thats not to say that if i only get affs from three people that I won't send that case-list out to three people. The point is disclosure is helpful and cool.

     

    So, This is how it works. (Please read carefully, because the submission process will be key to getting this compiled in a timely fashion.)

     

    1) The email address is TFAstate2008caselist@gmail.com.

     

    2) Please send all submissions as attatchments as either word documents or Rich Text Format.

     

    Please send two separate emails for affirmative submissions and negative strategy submissions.

     

    In the subject line for Affirmatives, please follow this format:

     

    "SCHOOL XX AFFIRMATIVE" (XX=team code; please use the word affirmative spelled correctly so my gmail filter thing will work)

     

    For negatives:

     

    "SCHOOL XX Negative Strategy" ("negative strategy" needs to be in the subject line")

     

    If two teams have the EXACT SAME cites as another team, please send an email with the "SCHOOL XX AFFIRMATIVE" thing in the subject line, and just explain in the body of the email which team runs the same aff as you.

     

    3) Please submit all entries no later than february 21st. This gives you 10 days to submit and two weeks to use the caselist before state.

     

     

    Any comments about how to make this work better would be greatly apprieciated. Please spread the word to people who don't check this site much.


  6. I called the 2-1 for WW the second I heard the Panel. This is why I hate going to local tournaments...

     

     

    Great job Dan for nicely basically throwing that round with your big heart so the two Indian boys could qualify for state. That was really really awesome of you.

     

     

    dude... didnt throw the round!

     

    And Kirsch's (sp?) comments about me bickering on cross-x is kind of misdirected. the goal was not to "vent" seeing as i am not upset and have nothing to vent about. As murrell stated, The kicking in the face comment was in reference to the verbal battle/assault between me and a critic after the round, not the debaters. I approached them after the round and made it very clear taht whatever they did, they won the round, and i had no ill will towards them. I dont feel entitled to win debate rounds by any stretch.

     

    As much as the opposite may seem true, my beef wasnt so much with the decision the judge made (as proven by the lack of verbal altercation with judge number 3) but with the incoherent nonsense that poured out of his mouth during the kritik after the round. I think in almost any given round with three judges, you'll have some kind of split decision or a reason to have a split decision. Its not as if i felt i unconditionally deserved to win the debate round. The arguments in the 2ar were arguments that i and people much more talented than i have won multiple debate rounds on. with somewhere in the area of 30 state points, i honestly couldnt care less about the actual outcome of the round. I can handle losing debate rounds, i just dont like walking out of those rounds without any kind of reason i lost or any coherent suggestion from the judge about why to get better.

     

    Thus the plethora of personal attacks against the critic in questions. If all i cared about was bitching about the way he signed his ballot, brian, my questions to him would have been entirely different. As i understood no ballot change was possible, I merely wanted to take the oppurtunity to understand how his line of thinking led him to the decision he made so i could find out what to do in a similar situation if god-forbid he judged me again

     

    And then it just became too hilarious to stop, honestly. Anyone in the room knew i wasnt actually angry, as the nature of my questions became more and more rediculous. I just wanted a little concentration prize.

     

    So lets think about things before we say them a little bit more

     

    That being said, Homeboys won the debate round. Ultimately, the mark of a great debater is teh ability to win debate rounds, not to debate in a specific way; this includes adapting to your panel as best as you can. Ultimately, The judge is always right in the capital W win sense, but it doent mean i dont think people shouldnt be held accountable for their decisions.

     

    So,nothing ive said was meant to downplay the victory of the other team. Honestly i got much more satisfaction from the round than i ever could have had i won.

    so... relax everyone

     

     

    dan

    • Downvote 1

  7. Murrell, you realize you have always sat on panels in front of me. This is the first tournament EVER i've picked up one of your ballots, then we get the second when you squirell


  8. What was the T violation, the 2AR focus and the RFDs in the majority decision?

     

    The T violation was

     

    Public means owned by government

     

    Its modifies USFG

     

    PHA=provision of services

     

    Ipso facto since its modifies usfg, it has to be PHA provided by the US. The plan gives funding to "all african family planning organizations"(which means private ones, african government run ones, etc (the opposite of gov-to-gov basically))

     

    The 2ar had no focus. It consisted of three arguments. 1. Shoddy extension of counterinterp AFF must increase family planning. 2. Camps check abuse 3. "competing interpretations is a race to the bottom"

     

    Murrel's RFD was that we crushed them on topicality on multiple levels. They conceded it was a stock issue (2nr decision based on the panel) also, they were hosed on competing interps and major offense against their interp.

     

    Walter (?) did not give an RFD, which is understandable because i think he was a random akins ex-lder who was guided blindly into the debate round and given a brief explanation of what CX is by Mr. Trong. Its like learning how to win a being tall contest from dmul.

     

    Mr. Trong's RFD was an incoherent stream of semi-consciousness that was basically "since they use the words sub-saharan africa, they are topical"

     

    His lack of basic literacy and conversational skills made the ensuing conversation very interesting. Sarah went first. She asked him simple questions such as why you vote on zero offense and major concessions. He had no answer, again, lack of conversational skills and uttering coherent thoughts played a major role. Since sarah's totally a wuss and mast was telling her to stop, she just left.

     

    Then it was my turn. My first questions largely reflected sarah's sentiments. After recieving no coherent response to questions based on debate, an obviously unfamiliar subject, i decided to ask why he even bothers to judge debates and told him never to waste my time like that again. He then referenced a dictionary, a thesarus and googled "clever responses" and surmised the best thing to say was "YOU CAN RUN DA'S CP'S WITH GOOD ADS AND DAS AND ON AND OFF. NEG IS ONLY ONE WASTING TIME BY RUNNING T."

     

    After one last "fuck you" in so little words, mast finally told me to stop. So i told him mast was motioning for him to stop and we agreed he was a bad judge.

     

    I like to say that i won meta-finals at this tournament. Before the round, a friend promised me support in any post-round verbal bashing i might smack down. I glanced over to him on several occasions but he didnt back me up. When i asked him why he didn't, all he said was "Dan, you're asking me to help you in a fight when he's on the ground and you're kicking his face."

     

    Satisfaction.

     

    I sincerely congratulate westwood for adapting better than i did, which is one of my biggest flaws. ( i honestly am not being sarcastic, i told yall in person im happy for you and not mad at you and what not) I

    • Downvote 1

  9. Semis was

     

    dan/temple vs. Natalie/Nathan. Natalie went for "its too cold at this school " in the 2nr and won on a 2-1. luke mcDowell squirrelled

     

     

    and

     

    Eli/Ricky Vs. Dmul/john baker they impact turned eli (not his arguments, his existence) and won on a 17-1 decision. hank sat

     

     

     

    Finals was n and n versus slightly shorter individuals. David and baker won.


  10. "Most minimum wage jobs pay higher than the minimum wage." Um.....WHAT?????

     

    There are jobs which pay minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage raises the cost to an employer of keeping such workers around/adding more of them. It's that simple. Your own example (McDonalds) proves that legislating wages is unnecessary, doesn't it? I know the loopy lefties think that every employer would pay 5 cents an hour if it weren't for the minimum wage, but I think the rest of us grasp that the market works a little better than that. Minimum wage workers are typically either unable to commit to full-time employment, or don't have the necessary skills to command a higher wage. You can't wish those limitations away. You can't make a person worth $7 an hour to an employer suddenly worth $9 an hour by legislative fiat. All that does is create incentives for employers to cut back on entry-level positions...

     

    it all makes sense now. At first i thought you were a sane individual.


  11. All i can speak from is experience. And in my experience on both the austin circuit and the national circuit, its rare that a team who reads only topicality wins many debates. However, it seems that we are approaching this discussion from different perspectives. I am approaching it as a debater who reacts to trends in the debate community that create good discussions and organic dialogue about the debate community. because of this, i think it is quite silly to read evidence from textbooks about debate as if it were an activity whose future is predetermined.

     

    I think Shuman has a flawed view of the nature of evidence and warrants and the way they interact in debate rounds. Evidence is not the end all be all of debate. If a team were to read a piece of evidence on any issue, such as US hegemony, and a debater were to make warranted claims that proved the claims of said evidence untrue, the analytical arguments would obviously win, and topicality is no exception.

     

    The issue of evidence in regards to voting issues is unique though, in the sense that as a senior in high school, my arguments against a warranted card about economic cycles would put me in an uphill battle. However, when it comes to arguments that shape the way my debate community is structured, i feel that we as debaters are just as qualified to comment on the topic and the activity as some ass-backwards debate coaches writing in text books.

     

    You have also failed to deal with a point brought up earlier in this thread that emphasizes this point. Debate rule-books once stated that there be separate debate divisions for boys and girls, and mandated things like closed CX, restricted verbal prompting, and limited the flexibility of debaters in terms of argumentation and rate of speaking.

     

    If we were to depend on what individuals who are entirely out of touch with the ever-changing nature of the debate community to shape our discussions in debate rounds, debate would still be the ideal vision of indignant hicks who thrive on closed CX, exclude the kritik, speak slower than conversational speed and think "that's un-american" is a debate argument.

     

    dan


  12. When i said i go for t 90 percent of my rounds i indeed meant that it was 90% of the rounds.

     

    In the hypothetical situation proposed by shuman, i would obviously let the team debate and would by no means seek a forfeit ( this has happened several times in my debate career)

     

    I also would like that T file. Its been a while since my team had a good laugh.

×
×
  • Create New...