Jump to content

CLHSDebater

Member
  • Content Count

    108
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-26 Unreal troll

About CLHSDebater

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 07/02/1992

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    lawlruschang
  1. CLHSDebater

    UIL State 2008

    Yeah, I realize they were doing their job. I wasn't insulting them in any way or form.
  2. CLHSDebater

    UIL State 2008

    I'm sorry that you misconstrued my comment. My comment was NOT directed toward the tournament directors in any way, but at the UIL rules of "no prompting." The statement "UIL Nazis" underlines the over-regulative system of rules that are in the UIL constitution which are enforced at the expense of the activity and those who participate in it. I am adamant that I believe (though others may not) many of the UIL rules are counter-intuitive, and there are many other debaters and coaches who agree with me. There is no reason the prompting rule cannot be similar to the spreading rule. There is nothing wrong with docking speaker points, but disqualification for saying a single word is simply ridiculous. The opinion which I am expressing is that it is unjust for a team to be stripped of their medals which they worked toward simply because a debater said "no" during their partner's speech. Not only that, but the losing team did not receive an automatic win, meaning that the round became a double loss. If UIL believes that prompting causes an unfair advantage, then shouldn't the win be considered illegitimate? It does not seem that the Deer Park team was aware of the rules, and it was at best a slip of the tongue. I commend Mrs. Riggins and Mr. Edwards for their enforcement of the rules. It would be a violation of their duties to not enforce the rules. I am fully aware of the duties which running a tournament entails, and understand that organizing the tournament was by no means a small task. If you still feel that the intent of my comment was to insult Mrs. Riggins or Mr. Edwards, feel free to private message myself or Mr. Klein. My comment was not an insult in any way, and I'm prepared to defend my original statement.
  3. CLHSDebater

    Eisenhower

    *Sighs* Everyone on here has to be so defensive. Can it not be that I am attempting to defend my integrity and NOT be attempting to project myself as an awesome debater. Of course not. I am so overtly cocky, there's absolutely NO way I'm only defending myself. *sarcasm*
  4. CLHSDebater

    Eisenhower

    I got 2nd at Tom C. Clark in San Antonio, thanks I'm pretty sure you know what I'm talking about in terms of Houston's judging at least.
  5. CLHSDebater

    Eisenhower

    No it doesn't, anyone who's debated in the Houston circuit in the past few years knows that the judging is quite inconsistent. And I'd appreciate if you didn't attack the statements of my Eisenhower partner, if anyone is being "overcocky" that's me, no need to pull others into it. The only validity which is lacking is the fact that you're unwilling to reveal your identity and continue firing attacks on something which you have nothing to do with. Please enlighten me with a functional alternative interpretation.
  6. CLHSDebater

    Eisenhower

    You're thinking about Oliver Chen, who quit and is a senior, I'm a sophomore. See ya at state. Sorry for any kind of misunderstanding with the "only triple-qualled team" thing. Chill out, I couldn't think of another way of wording it, and I didn't have the time to search through all of the school reports on TFA. I could not state "one of the triple-qualled teams" because I had not seen any, so it would have been an equally false statement to make, and as you've said, the better teams like St. Marks and Kinkaid are out getting bids, not so much in Texas. The purpose of my statement was not that I am better than other teams who have only single- or double-qualled, but that I have at least an inkling of what I'm talking about. Nathan, I wasn't attempting to as you say "discourage discussion" until I was told to "Don't bitch" and told that I "deserved to lose." I had already given reasons as to why the loss in round was not attributed to judge adaptation. Perhaps not on the Austin circuit, but in the Houston circuit there are occasionally some rounds which simply can't be won. It's really appalling how much people go by the ballot on cross-x. Even though I've beaten better teams like Shikhar on a fluke, I don't claim that I'm better than them, because I know that Shikhar has more experience and skill than I. At the same time, I can evaluate which teams I lost to illegitimately and realize that judges are often subjective. You might want to examine things objectively before judging others. I'm sure that if I beat you we would still both agree that you're the better team, because ballots aren't what decide who's the better debater. Thanks.
  7. CLHSDebater

    Eisenhower

    I actually keep my flows on the computer. We spent about 2 minutes in the 2AC on inherency. The health workers that the omnibus bill refers to are COMPLETELY different from CHWs. Why do you think that the African Health Capacity Investment Act emphasizes indigenous solutions so much? And flow judge? LOL. She flowed about 4 arguments from each speech. She's family friends with my friend from my school, and he knows that she's not a good CX judge. For IEs she's great, but not for CX. I recall her paradigms. I remember what she said verbatim "Make sure your plan has inherency." I'm not sure about your interpretation of inherency, but you have to prove that our act has passed in order to win, otherwise any of your arguments are only impact mitigation. I think I know what I'm talking about. Even "old school" judges don't vote on inherency anymore. It's almost as laughable as significance. Win a tournament or two, and then we'll talk.
  8. If the K links to the plan, it links to the team, because the team is the one advocating and presenting the plan. Example : plan = kill Indians. If you advocate the plan, you are racist. Now you can still garner no links by arguing that it's not BECAUSE they're indians, simply that a ot of indians live in one area or some sort of thing, but other than the discourse of the 1AC, there's not much else that can be Ked in the 1NC
  9. CLHSDebater

    Eisenhower

    I completely agree with you.. except for the fact that we knew the judge cared about inherency. They ran 2 off and case and we spent 3 minutes on it in the 2AC and 2 minutes in the 1AR. I knew that inherency was going to be an issue, the reason why I'm frustrated is because the judge chose not to flow our arguments. As for judges reading cross-x, I'm simply expressing my displeasure and I don't mind at all if the judge knows.
  10. CLHSDebater

    Eisenhower

    Oh. sorry Nathan, forgot to look at Hays when skimming over TFA
  11. CLHSDebater

    Eisenhower

    epic fail, shikhar. We were talking about ADAPTATION, which would mean bad judges and bad tournaments.
  12. CLHSDebater

    Eisenhower

    I'm aware of your deleted post. I'm also aware that I'm the one of the only triple-qualled CXers in texas, so I don't think credibility is an issue. //edited
  13. no idea what that is, but I'll take a copy too lol lawlruschang@gmail.com
  14. you're only supposed to go for one or two arguments in the 2NR
×
×
  • Create New...