Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


KatieFred last won the day on April 22 2008

KatieFred had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

43 Good

About KatieFred

  • Rank
    Longtime Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  1. I must spread reputation around before giving some to Brad Bolman again it was going to be positive i swear, and accompanied with something like a "lolz" because i really did laugh. Bcam i should tell you that my car doesn't handle weather well (or at all- it weighs like 5 pounds so when there is ice or snow, it just slides around mostly), so the prospects of me getting over there Friday don't look great, depending on the road situation- saturday should be better though. i'll text you when i know for sure, k beezy?
  2. Missouri State has a great political science program, with its own graduate school in Fairfax, Virginia that is slighted toward Defense and Strategic Studies. Lots of great polisci teachers and a GREAT debate program.
  3. KatieFred


    Myra/Ben d. Alan
  4. KatieFred


    Myra and Dan won finals. I know that the top three speakers were 1-Myra, 2-Dan, and 3-Ben, but I don't know others. Congrats to all!
  5. Want cred? Stop using words like "fag" "gay" and "retard(ed)" This is an incredible thread, btw. I've never heard of a debate school in LA- perhaps I am wrong.
  6. Katie Frederick likes this thread. Congrats to all!
  7. I spotted Sarah reaching the double-octofinals round of NCFLs... That's where she is.
  8. KatieFred


    Don't forget the pre-nationals prep day that Missouri State is doing for those of you that qualified! Here is the blurb from the website: (http://debate.missouristate.edu/camp.htm) Saturday, May 30, 2009. 10am-7pm. $50. A chance to work with Missouri State coaches before NFL Nationals! We have a later start time to encourage people from distant NFL Districts to head down for the day as well! Practice Rounds, strategy sessions, speech redos, video, and targeted research are among the options available.
  9. Mike, how often do you go fishing for compliments and come up dry? If I remember correctly (which I do, because I just went back and checked the thread) Louie wrote you guys a wonderful, long congratulatory post about nationals last year (after everyone else in the community congratulated you on breaking) and you spit it back in his face by saying "mehhhr he didn't really prep us that much". People say congratulations to Greenwood and Pembroke a lot because they do great on the national circuit. Getting bids and being in bid rounds is no small feat. People haven't congratulated you on nationals in the last couple of months because it was last summer and it seems kind of strange. I'm not saying that you have to do well on the national circuit to be respected as a debater. Teams like Central and Parkview are also well respected, and they don't travel out of the state much either. Even Greenwood (back in the day) didn't travel. Fuck, both Greenwood and Pembroke also own at Missouri tournaments. These teams do great at tournaments, but I don't see them parading around demanding respect. I don't know anything about your season or you except you qualified to nationals (you had to tell everyone 10 times) again this year. Seriously, congratulations. I only did it once so doing it twice (or more, again, I don't know) is... twice as good? Just an FYI- you did great at nationals last year, but you know what? Greenwood did better. I haven't seen a single post from Sarah or I demanding to be recognized for such. If you need someone to stroke your ego, do it in a way that at least doesn't put other teams down. P.S. I heart Wes Rumbaugh- MO State FTW.
  10. Framework is a good strat against someone who doesn't affirm the res. Jeff- Towson was aff and read their critical pedagogy arguments, FW was neg and read framework and case (some stuff to hedge against Towson's DelGado evidence that impact turns fairness.) It was a 3-2 decision with Olsen, Garner, and DeLong on top, and Murillo/Lacy on the bottom. All judges said it was a very close debate. Among FW's prelim wins were Emory SW (first round), USC JL (first round) and Northwestern MS. Their two losses were Wake CC and Cal BP, and they were the 6th seed.
  11. The separation of debate lives from personal lives was not a comment on talking about personal issues in debate but rather an argument against debaters disrespecting each other outside of debate because of the types of arguments they read. I'm not sure how to explain that better, but I understand how the context was confusing.
  12. Oh my God, I wanted to stay out of this. But I feel it necessary to draw attention to Keegan's post, which brings up a necessary point, yet goes largely ignored. Arguing about whether or not there is sexism in debate will get you no further than a "yes there is" "no there isn't" discussion. It is not surprising to me that the "yes there is" comes from people who understand and relate to the issue well and the "no there isn't" comes from a staunch group of people who feel like these types of arguments ruin policy debate. Yes, there are exceptions, and please notice I did not draw a woman/man line, don't accuse me of doing so. My name has been thrown around all too often in these discussions. Yes, Carrick, Sarah, Spencer, Jon and I wrote this aff 2 years ago on the national service topic. Our observations were framed around the metaphor of women in combat for women in debate. Women are not permitted to fight in military combat zones. Women are often excluded from the war-type style of debate. Unfortunately, I did not go to nationals that year in Policy, but instead in Oratory, where I used a similar idea, comparing women in political discussions to women in debate and speech activities. To be fair, my observations on what the aff burden is in a debate and my stances on performative affs has changed quite a bit in the last year and a half. No one should be offended or taken aback by Pembroke's strategy in quarterfinals. Framework and some type of alternative/counterplan to solve the aff is a tremendous strategy, and not one I could say I wouldn't use. Which brings me to the next point in the conversation. The way to react to this is not to make the readers of this argument feel isolated and wrong. It is not to question whether or not they have encountered sexism in debate. You will at the very least go nowhere, at the very most you will be taken down by an entire community who will one day learn to separate their debate lives from their personal lives. If you think this argument doesn't belong in debate, cut better framework arguments. If you think the issue is societal rather than debate-related, read Cap or a similar K that has an alt that solves the aff. The point of the aff is to, yes, increase inclusion and participation and retainment (I think that is correct) of women in the policy debate community. It is to realize that when you are in situations on your team, in a debate, or outside of a debate, that attitudes about a woman's "role", their successes in the debate community, and the language you use all have a bigger effect than you might think. Just as men do not "belong" in policy debate or extemp, women do not "belong" in PuF or LD or HI and should be able to be as assertive as they wish in a debate. Recruiting is good. Discussion is good. But please, open your minds. No one reacts to a new Wind aff as "ZOMG that's totally not true" if they don't like it. They cut cards about it. Do your thing, and debate it. Questioning the verity of statements will get you nowhere. I might have more to say later, my thoughts are jumbled. But I will leave you with this. I have never seen more un-readable posts than those in this thread. EDIT and SPELLCHECK (now someone will come find 18 grammatical errors in my post and I will cry)
  13. KatieFred


    Who is hank scorpio? Is it jacob walden? Either way, LOL. Remember that time you overreacted and thought you'd tell a cool story anyway using the word "discourse"? P.S. you do answer to sarah godwin. FYI, Neg rep ("Remember that time you weren't a bitch? I certainly don't.")- I have my assumptions of who this was- I, in fact, can remember several occasions on which I have not been "a bitch". I make rare exceptions in "bitchiness" for smart people who respond well to jokes, sarcasm, and props to BFFLs instead of immediately becoming defensive by name-calling. K sick.
  14. KatieFred


    i've been told to correct this whole situation via a small grammar lesson. "Red-head" is a type of person with red hair. Had you meant the comment to refer to her hair, you would have said "Sarah, a girl with beautifully luscious red hair". Joel believes that this comment is meant to hit on Sarah because you instead used "beautifully luscious" to modify "red-head", not to refer to her hair. p.s. Joel is no longer a neocon and can point out the creepers with the best of them.
  • Create New...