Andy Werner Wins the Blake Edie Holiday Tournament
MINNEAPOLIS, MN - Congratulations to Andy Werner of Strake Jesuit College Preparatory School and Liz Scoggin of Edina High School for advancing to the final round of the 2005 Blake Edie Holiday Classic. On a 9-2 decision, Andy Werner won the Blake title.
Andy is coached by Jerry Crist, Murvin Auzene, and Gary Johnson. Liz is coached by Jake Gelfand.
TRIPLES
Auburn BL advances without debating
Lynbrook TB advances without debating
Highland Park [MN] KP advances without debating
Lynbrook PD advances without debating
Highland Park [TX] CC advances without debating
Valley EL advances without debating
Strake Jesuit AW advances without debating
Hockaday AM advances without debating
Hollis-Brookline AH advances without debating
Niwot MA advances without debating
Berkeley Carroll JL advances without debating
Edina TB over Edina CF (Charlie Furman)
David Weeks def. Hopkins DJ (Dan Jennis)
Archer DV def. Lakeville North LK (Lindsay Kubina)
Strake Jesuit PM def. Millard West LB (Lacey Bodnar)
Valley GB def. Rosemount DJ (Dan Johnson)
Edina MG def. Benilde-St. Margaret El (Emily Ingalls)
Lakeville South AG def. Brainerd TS (Taylor Stevenson)
Brentwood EM def. Lakeville South BR (Bailee Rasmussen)
Eagan PM def. Bettendorf TB (Tom Blaser)
Ames MG def. Lakeville North KE (Kelsey Erickson)
Valley SK def. Robbinsdale Cooper RC (Rob Cegla)
Archer CKG def. Eagan MF (Matt Fink)
Highland Park (MN) DN def. Eagan AS (Alex Stephenson)
W.T. Woodson CH def. Bronx Science PP (Peter Phillips)
Edina ES def. Archer MS (Melissa Schall)
Lynbrook JK def. Celebration KA (Kelsey Averill)
Mountain View SH def. Greenhill KT (Katherine Thompson)
Edeen Prairie MB def. Edina LS (Lavanya Srinivasan)
Apple Valley RT def. Pine Crest PB (Pam Brown)
St. Louis Park NT def. Apple Valley TG (Tim Greenfield)
Lynbrook SM def. Harker SS (Siddarth Satish)
DOUBLES
Lynbrook TB def. Edina TB (Tommy Bodeau)
Brentwood EM def. Lakeville South AG (Abbie Gudmudson)
Hollis-Brookline AH def. Lynbrook JK (Jon Kwan)
Edina ES def. Niwot MA (Michael Arnold)
Highland Park CC def. St. Louis Park NT (Nick Tourville)
Strake Jesuit PM def. Valley SK (Scott Koslow)
Apple Valley RT def. Valley EL (Elyse Lyons)
Archer DV over Archer CKG (Caitlin Kelly-Garrick)
Highland Park [TX] DW def. Highland Park [MN] KP (Katie Poulos)
Edina MG def. Eagan PM (Paul Magyar)
Hockaday AM def. Mountain View SH (Stephen Hess)
Berkeley Carroll JL def. W.T. Woodson CH (Caitlin Halpern)
Lynbrook PD over Lynbrook SM (Sonya Mehta)
Valley GB def. Ames MG (Matt Grotheer)
Strake Jesuit AW def. Eden Prairie MB (Matthew Byrne)
Auburn BL def. Highland Park [MN] DN (Dylan Nelson)
OCTAS
Lynbrook TB def. Brentwood EM (Elisa McEntee)
Edina ES def. Hollis-Brookline AH (Allison Huberlie)
Highland Park CC def. Strake Jesuit PM (Patrick Mahoney)
Apple Valley RT def. Archer DV (Darby Vickers)
Edina MG def. Highland Park [TX] DW (David Weeks)
Berkeley Carroll JL def. Hockaday AM (A.J. Motgi)
Valley GB def. Lynbrook PD (Patrick Diehl)
Strake Jesuit AW def. Auburn BL (Bryan Leonard)
QUARTERS (TOC Bid)
Berkeley Carroll JL forfeited to by Edina MG (Mihir Gupta)
Highland Park CC def. Apple Valley RT (Ronni Toledo)
3-0 (Josh Anderson, Adwait Parker, Jake Gelfand)
Edina ES def. Lynbrook TB (Tripti Bhattacharya)
2-1 (*Zach Prax, Jennie Keohane, Anjan Choudhury)
Strake Jesuit AW def. Valley GB (Grant Brown)
3-0 (Fabien Thayamballi, Tim Hogan, Steve Schappaugh)
SEMIS
Strake Jesuit AW def. Berkeley Carroll JL (Jacob Levi)
Edina ES def. Highland Park CC (Corbin Cass)
FINALS
Strake Jesuit AW def. Edina ES (Liz Scoggin)
CHAMPION
Strake Jesuit AW (Andy Werner)
–
TOP SPEAKERS
1. Tripti Bhattacharya (Lynbrook High School, CA)
2. Andy Werner (Strake Jesuit College Preparatory School, TX)
3. Katie Poulos (Highland Park High School, MN)
4. Anjali Motgi (Hockaday School, TX)
5. Allison Huberlie (Hollis-Brookline High School, NH)
6. Michael Arnold (Niwot High School, CO)
7. Patrick Diehl (Lynbrook High School, CA)
8. Elizabeth Scoggin (Edina High School, MN)
9. Caitlin Halpern (W.T. Woodson High School, VA)
10. Jacob Levi (Berkeley Carroll School, NY)
–
PRELIMS
Prelim Packet
Round 1
Round 2
Round 3
Round 4
Popularity: 5%
test
Posted from: 71.160.56.34
December 16th, 2005 11:40
Good luck to all back in the ‘Soter.
Keep warm! I’m doing that here in LA today with 62 degrees of fahrenheit.
Michelin Massey
Posted from: 65.2.46.181
December 16th, 2005 11:42
good luck to jewtower and jkwan.
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
December 16th, 2005 11:47
Choose well, SLP-ers!
Posted from: 66.92.163.42
December 16th, 2005 12:18
Good luck….. debaters.
Keep warm - pneumonia sucks. Getting pneumonia while in Arizona is just God hating you. It’s a nice 45 degrees here in DC.
Posted from: 206.165.129.10
December 16th, 2005 13:14
While Jon is out and ill - here are round one schedules if anyone wants them:
http://www.cooperdebate.com/site/article.php?story=20051216152655488
DJ
Posted from: 206.165.129.10
December 16th, 2005 14:05
And round #2:
http://www.cooperdebate.com/site/article.php?story=20051216161758372
Posted from: 12.217.25.145
December 16th, 2005 15:32
gah I want to be there so badly
Posted from: 152.163.100.203
December 16th, 2005 16:36
Good luck Ting Ting, Sarah and Peter! Bronx represent : )
Posted from: 71.107.58.193
December 16th, 2005 16:50
GOOD LUCK ARCHER BRENTWOOD! Darby…break for me ok?
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
December 16th, 2005 17:25
Round 3 pairings? Was round 3 powered?
Posted from: 206.165.129.10
December 16th, 2005 17:38
And round 3 schedules. I was busy watching rounds - so a little late. Buy, yes, powered.
http://www.cooperdebate.com/site/article.php?story=20051216195100879
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
December 16th, 2005 17:51
Thanks - it’s so nice of you to post these.
Posted from: 206.165.129.10
December 16th, 2005 19:03
live from the lynbrook crew
me, jkwan, and trips are 3-0
sonya is 2-1
and gaurav and ashwin are 1-2
Posted from: 71.141.136.203
December 16th, 2005 19:50
Lynbrook pwnage, baby. Way to represent :)
Posted from: 65.25.226.156
December 16th, 2005 21:25
ASHWIN RADHAKRISHNAN!?!?! NICE.
Posted from: 72.129.115.138
December 16th, 2005 21:44
Good luck BxSci! Jon, I knew that was an automated message; I was being… clever. As if finals aren’t making me feel stupid enough.
Cold climes are going to do nothing for your health; join me in LA once the tourney’s over, it’s quite balmy out here. =D
Posted from: 64.60.245.244
December 17th, 2005 00:04
Despite Darby ditching me at CPS, I love you and congrats on being 3-0!!!! Good luck to Melissa as well and the rest of the archer squad.
Posted from: 206.165.129.10
December 17th, 2005 05:29
Thank you so much to the Robbinsdale Cooper crew for helping out with the pairings! I’ve never been as sick as I was yesterday. Fortunately, I’m feeling better, and once I feel good enough to go downstairs, regular coverage will resume. :o)
Thanks!
Posted from: 66.92.163.42
December 17th, 2005 05:47
You know, Jon, I’ve heard Taco Bell can do wonders for cleaning out your GI system ;)
Posted from: 206.165.129.10
December 17th, 2005 07:06
Jon,
No problem on helping out and thankfully you are feeling better.
DJ
Posted from: 67.53.145.10
December 17th, 2005 07:12
good luck Appleton East’s Corey and Emily and all the SLP debaters
Posted from: 68.90.224.173
December 17th, 2005 10:53
is allison huberlie down 3 since she got the bye round 4?
Posted from: 65.81.133.239
December 17th, 2005 11:11
no ali was 3-1 after 4, the kid she was supposed to debate didn’t show up
Posted from: 71.105.73.142
December 17th, 2005 12:07
Good Luck Archer and Brentwood! Stay warm!
Posted from: 206.165.129.10
December 17th, 2005 12:52
Patrick “The Real” Diehl finishes 6-0 in his first varsity LD tournament. w00t
Posted from: 65.101.92.209
December 17th, 2005 13:02
Does anyone have the other two pairings, or outrounds if they are out, or whatever is going on there?
Posted from: 71.96.167.224
December 17th, 2005 13:03
gl jkwan/jt
Posted from: 71.82.121.153
December 17th, 2005 14:20
When will out rounds be posted?
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
December 17th, 2005 15:07
I believe triples are in progress, and that’s about all I know.
Posted from: 70.241.124.84
December 17th, 2005 15:34
“is allison huberlie down 3″
I ask myself that very same question at each tournament ali is at.
Posted from: 65.2.46.181
December 17th, 2005 15:51
stephen hess is hitting katherine thompson in trips right now.
Posted from: 71.33.22.198
December 17th, 2005 16:24
Come on people. I’m going crazy with nerdy sentiment. I need some results. Trips are out, or so the previous post would indicate. I need some results.
Posted from: 4.252.23.132
December 17th, 2005 17:16
Trips, if not already posted by the time I finish.
Auburn BL byes
Edina TB walks over Edina CF
David Weeks beats me on a 3-0
Tripti byes
Katie P byes
Lynbrook PD byes
Corbin byes
Elyse byes
Andy Werner byes
Hockaday AM byes
Allison byes
Niwot MA byes
Jacob Levi byes
Archer DV v. Lakeville North LK
Strake PM v. Millard West LB
Valley GB v. Rosemount DJ
Edina MG v. Benilde El
Lakeville South AG v. Brainerd TS
Brentwood EM v. Lakeville South BR
Eagan PM v. Bettendorf TB
Ames MG over Lakeville North KE (2-1)
Cooper RC v. Valley SK
Eagan MF v. Archer CK
Highland Park (MN) DN v. Eagan AS
W.T. Woodson CH v. Bronx Science PP
Edina ES v. Archer MS
Lynbrook JK v. Celebration KA
Greenhill KT v. Mountain View SH
Edeen Prairie MB v. Edina LS
Pine Crest PB v. Apple Valley RT
Apple Valley TG v. SLP NT
Harker SS v. Lynbrook SM
Posted from: 71.198.176.41
December 17th, 2005 17:19
Good Luck Stephen and CFL kids!)
Posted from: 66.41.128.87
December 17th, 2005 17:20
Triples Results?!?!?!?!
Posted from: 4.252.23.132
December 17th, 2005 17:21
Trips, if not already posted by the time I finish.
Auburn BL byes
Edina TB walks over Edina CF
David Weeks beats me on a 3-0
Tripti byes
Katie P byes
Lynbrook PD byes
Corbin byes
Elyse byes
Andy Werner byes
Hockaday AM byes
Allison byes
Niwot MA byes
Jacob Levi byes
Archer DV v. Lakeville North LK
Strake PM v. Millard West LB
Valley GB v. Rosemount DJ
Edina MG v. Benilde El
Lakeville South AG v. Brainerd TS
Brentwood EM v. Lakeville South BR
Eagan PM v. Bettendorf TB
Ames MG over Lakeville North KE (2-1)
Cooper RC v. Valley SK
Eagan MF v. Archer CK
Highland Park (MN) DN v. Eagan AS
W.T. Woodson CH v. Bronx Science PP
Edina ES v. Archer MS
Lynbrook JK v. Celebration KA
Greenhill KT v. Mountain View SH
Edeen Prairie MB v. Edina LS
Pine Crest PB v. Apple Valley RT
Apple Valley TG v. SLP NT
Harker SS v. Lynbrook SM
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
December 17th, 2005 18:12
St Louis Park NT (Nick Tourville) won his triples round.
Posted from: 66.41.128.87
December 17th, 2005 19:16
What I know:
Mihir won on a no show
Dan Johnson lost on a 3-0 (but is still awesome!)
Toommy over Charlie
Anything else or any corrections on my second hand info, PLEASE POST!
Posted from: 65.81.133.239
December 17th, 2005 19:30
ali is affirming against liz in octas and hess beat katherine in triples; i dunno anything else
Posted from: 66.142.168.31
December 17th, 2005 20:04
aj motgi beat hess in doubles & is hitting jacob levi in octos. mahoney and corbin are also hitting in octos. that’s all i know. (thanks rachel!)
Posted from: 65.81.133.239
December 17th, 2005 20:30
liz beats ali (gary johnson, christian tarsney, tim hogan*). also, andy werner beats bryan leanord (sorry i think i spelled that wrong).
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
December 17th, 2005 21:34
“liz beats ali (gary johnson, christian tarsney, tim hogan*). ”
Gary was actually the squirrel in that round (which, incidentally, was pretty damn intense).
Posted from: 209.23.170.139
December 17th, 2005 21:40
i watched the hess v. thompson trips round and wow. I loved the statement she made about hess’ style and stratagy. actually in the elevator a judge said she would have gotten the ballot if she had just not conceded but still said what she did. i totally agree with what she said.
Posted from: 207.224.71.199
December 17th, 2005 21:40
Jacob picked up octas against AJ.
Posted from: 65.81.133.239
December 17th, 2005 21:53
to “?????”:
there is a reason you were watching that round rather than participating.
sincerely,
mm
Posted from: 207.224.71.199
December 17th, 2005 21:57
corbin over mahoney 2-1
Posted from: 68.126.200.152
December 17th, 2005 21:58
does anyone know how harker ss is doing? and congrats to everyone that cleared =]
Posted from: 65.81.133.239
December 17th, 2005 21:58
ps: thats not supposed to be an attack on katherine. i really like her and respect her as a debater.
Posted from: 68.126.200.152
December 17th, 2005 21:59
does anyone know how harker ss is doing? and congrats to everyone who cleared =]
Posted from: 206.165.129.10
December 17th, 2005 22:06
To ????
I’d like to hear why specifically you believed that my strategy was particularly offensive.
Posted from: 70.241.124.84
December 17th, 2005 22:19
Jacob Levi in semis
Posted from: 209.23.170.139
December 17th, 2005 22:31
to clairify i didnt think anything was particulaly offensive about what hess did. i wasnt trying to make some statment that would lead to a bunch of arguments about whether this style or that style is bad for debate. all i was saying is that i dont like it. i repect people who do, i see their point. but i have the right to think what i please,as due they. i dont think its a good thing but thats just me. and to mangus i wasnt competeing at all in the tourny. again dont make this into more than it is i wasnt trying to personally attack anyone.just saying i agreed with katherine
Posted from: 71.139.49.58
December 17th, 2005 23:05
yeahhhhhh tripti sonya and jkwan
and PATRICK DIEHL. holy crap. i’m hella proud of you man
Posted from: 69.231.71.218
December 17th, 2005 23:56
Did Michael Mangus not attend the tournament or did he not clear? His name is not in the elimination bracket anywhere.
Posted from: 24.107.11.25
December 18th, 2005 01:00
He stayed home for this one I believe. So what happened in the Greenhill KT/Mountain View SH round that led to the anger on here? Or more specifically what was unique or different about Hess’s or Katherine’s advocacy/responses?
Posted from: 71.33.22.198
December 18th, 2005 01:12
What comments did Katherine make about Hess’s strategy in their round? And what’s wrong with it if he won?
Posted from: 134.84.99.148
December 18th, 2005 01:14
Michael Mangus went 0-6.
Posted from: 66.92.163.42
December 18th, 2005 02:36
Alright, ignoring what’s been posted because it doesn’t really touch on the issue… And even though I’m not particularly looking forward to another debate on what’s wrong with debate today (yes, us young people don’t know how easy we have it, in the old days, LD debaters would have to walk uphill in the snow both ways to persuade judges who were deaf in both ears…)…
What was the subject of discussion in the Hess/Thompson round regarding an offensive strategy being used? I don’t particularly care what the impact of the complaint was or it’s legitimacy (so I’m not here to attack Hess or Katherine or the judges), I’m just curious as to what was labeled as an “offensive” strategy (and I assume not in the strategic sense but in the more morally repugnant sense). Anyone care to elaborate?
Posted from: 66.92.163.42
December 18th, 2005 04:19
Yeah, Duby’s double post so wasn’t there when I last refreshed. Nor was Mr. Allen’s post. So I did not mean ignore them, I just meant ignoring the fact that there’s already been argumentation about the argumentation between ??????? and Mr. Hess and some sort of resolution to that conflict.
Posted from: 66.92.163.42
December 18th, 2005 07:28
Why the concession?
Posted from: 70.241.124.84
December 18th, 2005 07:29
Gelfand/Anderson 05 Semis Closeout baby.
Posted from: 206.165.129.10
December 18th, 2005 08:04
I guess I’ll clarify because no one else wants to. The order of the NC was negative case, a k, a theory issue (which was fully structured with an interp, violation, 3 standards and a voter) and then a spread against the AC, which included some nuke war scenarios. The links on both the k and the theory issue were solid and relevant to the AC and her explanation of her position in CX. In the 1AR, Katherine asked the judges to sign the ballots and then stated that she was disgusted by the way I approached the round. I admit I may have been unnecessarily agressive in the round so I apologize if I lost control a little bit.
Posted from: 206.165.129.10
December 18th, 2005 08:19
This seems to be common occurrence.
Male debaters will bully and be rude to female opponents in CX. Proceed to debate in an aggressive style. Then judges will vote for them, but upset that they have to do so. The male debater apologizes for being a jerk. But since he won, the temptation to do the same thing exists. wet, wash, rinse, repeat. I hope coaches who let their students attend an institute directed by a coach who condones this behavior (or at least washes his hands of it) can sleep at night.
Will the NSD Sponsored Mountain View Debate Theory Institute be teaching this strategy too?
Posted from: 66.191.154.4
December 18th, 2005 08:22
yeah exactly, i went but didn’t break. i can’t win a balllot in the midwest, yknow?
i love stephen hess and his style.
Posted from: 67.190.146.70
December 18th, 2005 08:29
Congrats to Michael on breaking and being 6th speaker.
Colorado represent. <3
Posted from: 206.165.129.10
December 18th, 2005 08:39
Dear Parent,
Eric slept very well.
I think it would be naive (and largely sexist) of us to treat women with some different standard when engaging them in an intellectual event. I feel that to be incredibly demeaning to women like Katherine. She is incredibly smart and I have doubts that she could have engaged me in that round if she had wished to do so. Everyone who wasn’t in the round can speculate as much as the want but my actions were in no way egregious - a bit aggressive but nothing to lose sleep over.
Posted from: 66.191.154.4
December 18th, 2005 08:44
liz v andy in finals
Posted from: 206.165.129.10
December 18th, 2005 08:53
I was on the panel in that round.
Hess’ NC strategy was indeed to deliver alot of different types of argumentation at a very rapid rate. That said, he *never* seemed disrespectful towards Katherine - he was merely trying to win a round with a certain strategy that he probably believed was best given the panel and his opponent. It was merely incidental that Katherine happened to be female. If he had been opposed to a male debater with a similar perceived skill set, I’m sure Hess would’ve acted and debated in the same manner. Had the round been fully debated with Hess prevailing, I would’ve had no qualms voting for him and I wouldn’t have condemned his behavior.
Posted from: 208.147.72.75
December 18th, 2005 08:55
Parent,
I think a little more research would reveal that every camp in the country has had students that committ the folly you’re complaining about and this happens with student have never attended camps as well. I don’t think there’s any reason to start pointing out camps as specifically endorsing anti-female rudeness or rudeness in general because those accusations will never be true. Nobody endorses that. I think, in general, you’ll find that a lot of people have moments in life when they are rude and those moments often occur in competative moments. Beyond that I think that if you were to talk to every male debater that has been accused of being a jerk in round to be many of the people that your son/daughter is being tought by at camp. It happens to the best of us. And most of the people involved in this activity are good, nice individuals.
Just something to consider about the nature of human beings…
DMeyers
Posted from: 68.237.234.81
December 18th, 2005 09:19
I like Stephen Hess.
Posted from: 65.101.92.209
December 18th, 2005 09:31
Why did Mihir forfeit?
Posted from: 71.250.27.167
December 18th, 2005 09:43
i like Stephen Hess too.
and go matt grotheer!
Posted from: 169.229.89.144
December 18th, 2005 09:44
Parent,
Girls can be incredibly rude and nasty in rounds as well - I certainly was and I know of plenty of others who were/are too. What’s more sexist than a boy being aggressive in a round against a girl? Assuming that all girls 1. can’t handle it and 2. can’t dish it right back. To say that boys should have to give us a handicap is awful.
Casey
Posted from: 169.229.89.144
December 18th, 2005 09:48
ps. congrats to sooo many people! especially: Matt Fink, Michael Arnold, Liz and Mihir
Posted from: 206.165.129.10
December 18th, 2005 10:25
Though I don’t agree with the fact that Katherine conceded or the idea that this was potentially a strike against a female debater simply for being female, I do applaud the message that Katherine sent and the comment made by the parent.
A lot of debaters have become increasingly frustrated with the rapid pace of LD and the blippy nature of the arguments being run. Further, I would say that running multiple “off case” arguments or kritiking and running a position or trying to make a bunch of theory and non-resolutional arguments is antithetical to the aim of a communication activity in general and especially the forum in which it is being introduced now. I am also frustrated by the turn LD is taking and the complacent attitude of the debaters with regards to this turn. IT’s no secret that I’m more of an “old school” judge and considered a dinosaur (at 25!) in the activity, but I will continue to maintain my position on persuasion, strategy and coherent, topical arguments which are more conducive to a solid, enjoyable debate. I would suggest to those who say that the rapid and less focused (more arguments instead of quality, well-developed arguments) debate that it is not only possible but more enjoyable and clear to watch a debate that is concentrated on making a few arguments which clearly address the quesiton of the resolution, affirm or negate based on the presented burdens and communicate these ideas in such a way that is more adaptable to a number of audiences. I enjoy judging Jacob Levi, Caitlin Halpern, Ari Parker, Liz Scoggin and a number of others because they attempt to adapt without sacrificing the argumentative nature of the activity. Debates can be more clear and, in some cases, much easier to win, if there is a better focus on actual communication instead of the monkeyhouse syndrome (tossing out a bunch of arguments to see what sticks to the judges).
With that in mind, flame me if you wish, but remember, you won’t always be able to strike or preference judges at tournaments and it would be far more beneficial and less worrisome if you work on communication, persuasion, focus and simplification now, instead of complaining about how screwed up judges are when they decide to start punishing you for not adapting or for abusing the time constraints by tossing out blippy arguments.
I look forward to judging at the Skyway Challeng LD Round Robin tomorrow. Good luck to those competing!
Posted from: 206.165.129.10
December 18th, 2005 10:26
9-2 for Andy Werner
Posted from: 24.242.195.141
December 18th, 2005 10:31
Congratulations to andy werner! much love <3!!
Posted from: 206.165.129.10
December 18th, 2005 10:31
Though I don’t agree with the fact that Katherine conceded or the idea that this was potentially a strike against a female debater simply for being female, I do applaud the message that Katherine sent and the comment made by the parent.
A lot of debaters have become increasingly frustrated with the rapid pace of LD and the blippy nature of the arguments being run. Further, I would say that running multiple “off case” arguments or kritiking and running a position or trying to make a bunch of theory and non-resolutional arguments is antithetical to the aim of a communication activity in general and especially the forum in which it is being introduced now. I am also frustrated by the turn LD is taking and the complacent attitude of the debaters with regards to this turn. IT’s no secret that I’m more of an “old school” judge and considered a dinosaur (at 25!) in the activity, but I will continue to maintain my position on persuasion, strategy and coherent, topical arguments which are more conducive to a solid, enjoyable debate. I would suggest to those who say that the rapid and less focused (more arguments instead of quality, well-developed arguments) debate that it is not only possible but more enjoyable and clear to watch a debate that is concentrated on making a few arguments which clearly address the quesiton of the resolution, affirm or negate based on the presented burdens and communicate these ideas in such a way that is more adaptable to a number of audiences. I enjoy judging Jacob Levi, Caitlin Halpern, Ari Parker, Liz Scoggin and a number of others because they attempt to adapt without sacrificing the argumentative nature of the activity. Debates can be more clear and, in some cases, much easier to win, if there is a better focus on actual communication instead of the monkeyhouse syndrome (tossing out a bunch of arguments to see what sticks to the judges).
With that in mind, flame me if you wish, but remember, you won’t always be able to strike or preference judges at tournaments and it would be far more beneficial and less worrisome if you work on communication, persuasion, focus and simplification now, instead of complaining about how screwed up judges are when they decide to start punishing you for not adapting or for abusing the time constraints by tossing out blippy arguments.
I look forward to judging at the Skyway Challeng LD Round Robin tomorrow. Good luck to those competing!
Posted from: 141.140.120.40
December 18th, 2005 10:34
I was on the Katherine/Hess panel with Derek and Jess Huynh. I can’t speak for Katherine, but, as I recall, she claimed in her 1AR that she didn’t want to sit through another round with blippy arguments that aren’t related to the resolution. I thought Hess gave a good (but, of course, not unbeatable) NC. The theory argument related to Katherine’s dodgy CX answers where she wouldn’t pin down her framework as deontological or teleological, which actually did skew Hess’s strategy. I didn’t think the NC contained blippy arguments, and there was specific, on-case debate.
I don’t recall Katherine saying anything about Hess being mean, although I may be wrong and she may have felt that way. I didn’t personally think Hess was mean. I’m not insensitive to that behavior and I did ask another debater this weekend to cut that out (he was debating another male). But, “parent”’s insinuation that males exaggerate their normal aggression as a psychological strategy when debating females isn’t something I’ve seen occur much (if ever) in the last 7 years I’ve been involved with debate. Aggression is quite common among male and female debaters. I’d like it if people were nicer in general, but not because females are weak and can’t take it.
Posted from: 206.165.129.10
December 18th, 2005 10:50
so in semis it was
liz def corbin
andy werner def jacob levi
and then in finals
andy def liz on a 9-2 with anderson and prax dissenting.
(thayamballi, rose, shappaugh, gil, hogan, other peopleee, prax*, anderson*)
Posted from: 69.242.235.139
December 18th, 2005 10:58
Congrats Andy Werner. You are a badass.
Posted from: 66.41.46.46
December 18th, 2005 11:27
i wanted to add my opinion about the greenhil mountain view round. i share pretty similar opinions with kendra in that the NC was definitely debatable, but i do disagree with some of the comments written above.
although katherine didnt mention anything about stephens aggressive style (which he seems to be apologetic for) during her concession, i definitely felt that he didn’t treat her with the respect he should have. i think it was either the laughs under his breath about her confusion on some of his questions or maybe it was the snide commentary after her responses to his questions where he said “that ok, ill just run theory,” (which is fine to run…just not ok to threaten someone with). respect for competitors before and after the round isn’t enough.
there was nothing terribly abhorent about the nc strategy….but there is something disconcerting about a competitor that is condescending and disrespectful, even if it is only within the hour that they are in the room together. it may just be me, but this activity has an element of comraderie and mutual respeect, and it is the spirit of the activity that keeps me involved and the lack thereof that makes me rethink my decision.
the round just left a bad taste in my mouth. luckily, a majority of the rounds i adjudicated did not have the same tone.
on another note, andy, my man, congratulations! you are awesome!!!!! houston represent!
Posted from: 69.242.235.139
December 18th, 2005 11:51
mad props andy that’s baller
Posted from: 24.27.27.98
December 18th, 2005 12:02
i love andy werner, he might be the hardest working person i know, this is a well deserved win….
Posted from: 24.211.171.197
December 18th, 2005 12:13
I just want to echo what others have already said. Andy is without a doubt one of the hardest working, and nicest students in this activity. Congrats!
And also, as is usually the case, I agree with everything Cyndy says.
RJ
Posted from: 68.192.190.207
December 18th, 2005 12:43
Congrats to everyone who cleared/got a bid; and a bigger congratulations to Liz and Andy!
Also, here are some CPS outrounds (partial dubs):
El Cerrito AF over Monte Vista NV
El Cerrito JY advances w/o debating
Homestead VR over Mountain View DM
La Jolla ES over Meadows ZM
Logan BZ over Palo Alto AW
Logan EL vs. MSJ RR
Lynbrook CyC vs. HYHPY LG
Lynbrook KC bs La Reina CT
Monta Vista ST vs Meadows DD
MSJ SG vs. West NC
Spirtos advances without debating (word to this bitch)
Menlo BR advances without debating
Prashant advances without debating
Posted from: 68.192.190.207
December 18th, 2005 13:02
Whoops. That was uber fucked up. REDO:
Prashant advances without debating
El Cerrito JY advances without debating
Spirtos advances without debating
Menlo-Atherton BR advances without debating
MSJ SG vs. West NC
Monte Vista ST vs. Meadows DD
La Reina CT def. Lynbrook KC
Logan EL vs. MSJ RR
Logan BZ def. Palo Alto AW
La Jolla ES def. Meadows ZM
Imac AK def. Mountain View DM
Homestead VR def. El Cerrito AF
HYPHY LG def. Lynbrook CyC
El Cerrito AG def. Monte Vista NV
Octos will be out in like 20 minutes.
Posted from: 208.147.72.74
December 18th, 2005 13:33
Also,
mountain view DM def. Immac Heart AK
Meadows DD def. monta vista ST
West NC def. Ohsodef SG
bobby hoilly advance without debating,
Ohsodef RR def. Logan EL
Logan BM def Palo Alta AW
(BZ advance without debating)
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
December 18th, 2005 13:52
Congratulations to everyone who did well, especially Andy and Liz!
BTW, does anyone know where the dinner for the RR is happening tonight?
Posted from: 68.192.190.207
December 18th, 2005 13:53
Here are octos pairings:
Bellarmine BH vs West NC
Meadows DD vs. La Jolla ES
Logan BZ vs. El Cerrito AG
Prashant vs. HYPHY LG
Spirtos vs. Logan BM
Menlo-Atherton BR vs. La Reina CT
Homestead VR vs. Mountain View DM (yes this was wrong originally; thank you Spirtos for correcting me)
El Cerrito JY vs. MSJ RR
Posted from: 68.90.224.173
December 18th, 2005 13:57
congrats andy, don’t listen to ryan, he only pretends to love you while my love is genuine…
Posted from: 152.163.100.203
December 18th, 2005 13:59
Congrats Andy…
Posted from: 205.188.117.11
December 18th, 2005 14:06
has the rr started yet? how are ppl doing?
Posted from: 205.188.117.11
December 18th, 2005 14:09
has the rr started yet? How are people doing?
Posted from: 71.141.39.48
December 18th, 2005 14:11
Thanks for the news from CPS — anything more to report? Postings for octos, or results?
Posted from: 207.200.116.196
December 18th, 2005 14:14
Congrats to Archer/Brentwood, especially Darby, Caitlin, Elisa and Melissa (the socks/matchingness for sure worked) for breaking and Brian and Alex for technically tying for dessert.
Goodluck to Elisa and Darby in the round robin!
Posted from: 206.165.129.10
December 18th, 2005 14:15
Couple of things. First, congratulations to Andy and Liz, who were both debating really well this weekend. Additionally, congrats to Corbin and Jacob, who were both fantastic in semifinals. Thanks to Bietz and the Blake School directors for running a fantastic tournament with phenomenal judging.
As for the questions being asked. Christian–we have to meet in the tab room on the fifth floor at 5:45 tonight for dinner, and John–no, the round robin starts tomorrow, although there’s a dinner for everyone tonight.
Posted from: 65.35.15.199
December 18th, 2005 14:39
yay andy and princess liz!
Posted from: 69.180.137.54
December 18th, 2005 15:04
Nice job Andy! And Yaaaaaay for Liz too!!!!! Awesome job this weekend everybody. Nice job Paul, and you too Alex!
Posted from: 208.147.72.76
December 18th, 2005 15:37
Here are the octo results that i know
El Cerrito AG over Logan BZ
Prashant over HYPHY LG(larry guo)
Spirtos vs. Logan BM i am currently watching this round
Menlo-Atherton BR(Byron) over La Reina CT
Posted from: 208.147.72.76
December 18th, 2005 15:50
El cerrtio JY over MSJ RR
Spiritos over logan BM
Posted from: 208.147.72.63
December 18th, 2005 16:46
Folsom Prison BH beat West NC in octas, debating El Cerrito JY in quarters right now
Posted from: 17.255.240.30
December 18th, 2005 17:05
as someone who watched the round between hess and kt i am willing to stick my head out on the chopping block and say that stephen was not in the wrong. some may view stephen’s style of speed and the use of technical debate as counter-productive to education or the activity itself. my opinion though is that it is rather elitest to make comments like “my style is correct, and you are ruining the activity”. I think debaters in general need to become more accepting to a variety of different strategies or techniques and attempt to reduce on the amount of bad mouthing towards “cheap debaters” like stephen. I feel upset that Katherine felt that way in round, and i respect her decision, but i do not think that we should all assume that this means stephen’s style of debate is “bad”.
Posted from: 24.16.112.123
December 18th, 2005 17:10
Folsom Prison BH
is this actually a prison/correctional facility or is it just the name of the location….?
Posted from: 69.249.50.38
December 18th, 2005 17:17
its an independent name…i think.
Posted from: 66.92.163.42
December 18th, 2005 17:22
Folsom Prison is independent name for Bellarmine.
Posted from: 206.165.129.10
December 18th, 2005 17:52
Racism is racism so im racism.
Posted from: 24.162.53.250
December 18th, 2005 18:22
Andy Werner is a badass.
Posted from: 65.2.46.181
December 18th, 2005 18:37
SPIRTOS TELL US WHAT IS HAPPENING
Posted from: 208.147.72.65
December 18th, 2005 19:02
Spirtos defeats Mountain View PR on a 3-0 on …
Posted from: 208.147.72.65
December 18th, 2005 19:03
Spirtos defeats Mountain View PR on a 3-0 on …
Posted from: 207.224.71.199
December 18th, 2005 19:06
I think that Andy Werner is a good debater.
Posted from: 71.139.167.37
December 18th, 2005 19:06
To E. Perelman: Spirtos cannot tell you much right since he is in the Semis vs. P.Rai. It might be over now.
Posted from: 208.147.72.65
December 18th, 2005 19:08
Spirtos on a 3-0 over Mountain View Pr
Posted from: 70.247.112.171
December 18th, 2005 19:22
Congratulations Andy. You are a mighty fine debater. And this is off topic, but congratulations Michelin Massey for being the first post!!!
Posted from: 70.247.112.171
December 18th, 2005 19:30
Congratulations Andy. You are a mighty fine debater. And this is off topic, but congratulations Michelin Massey for being the first post!!!
Posted from: 65.2.46.181
December 18th, 2005 19:31
spirtos wins on an ellipsis K, 3-0. what a beast. congrats to a REALLY deserving debater. much love to prashant as well, who probably won’t be hurt by this, but is absurdly amazing.
Posted from: 65.25.226.156
December 18th, 2005 19:39
SPIRTOS BEAT P. RAI?! I’m stunned.
And CONGRATULATIONS STEFFANY for being in the octuple poster club.
Posted from: 24.7.103.183
December 18th, 2005 19:43
in sems:
john vs. vinitha
prashant vs. spirtos
prashant was top speaker/john mckay memorial (the non travelling, travelling first speaker award is the nicest debate trophy i’ve ever seen.)
Posted from: 68.192.190.207
December 18th, 2005 19:48
I think the real question here is:
Now that Spirtos has a bid, how much time do we have before War, Famine, Pestilence and Death (and Dehumynization???) roll up?
Posted from: 70.114.156.213
December 18th, 2005 19:49
Congrats to Andy Werner on Jackie, Blake, and an overall fantastic year. :)
Posted from: 12.216.108.171
December 18th, 2005 19:59
MY BOY SPIRTOS BID
CONGRATS HOMIE
Posted from: 69.220.115.68
December 18th, 2005 20:07
Jordan stop being an asshole! Mike Spirtos works incred. hard and he doesn’t need you degrading his accomplishments. Congrats to:
Prai on Semis
MY ROOMATE SPIRTOS: ON HIS FIRST BID.
Vinitha- on finals
- LUMPY
Posted from: 67.161.25.118
December 18th, 2005 20:08
did vinitha final??
Posted from: 68.198.158.134
December 18th, 2005 20:09
spirtos just deterritorialized that all over the place
furthermore, stephen hess’ AIM conversations are equivalent to his neg strat
Posted from: 67.161.25.118
December 18th, 2005 20:15
did vinitha final??
Posted from: 208.147.72.76
December 18th, 2005 20:25
yes, vintha is affirming against spiritos
Posted from: 65.25.226.156
December 18th, 2005 20:41
I’m not hatin on Spirtos. I think ANYONE beating P. Rai is astonishing.
Posted from: 66.87.88.5
December 18th, 2005 20:46
Congrats to my bro Sameep for his breakout at CPS as a sophomore. Way to represent MV Independent. This is just the start. I forsee great things for him in debate coming up around the corner. Good Job Sameep!
Posted from: 208.147.72.76
December 18th, 2005 21:02
vinitha wins on a 2-1
oscar shine, mike dorsi, larry mcgrath*
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
December 18th, 2005 21:20
Did Spirtos actually win sems on elipses bad? If so, that is the approximately the coolest thing in the history of the universe.
Either way, congratulations on the bid!
Posted from: 70.251.78.205
December 18th, 2005 21:33
Congrats Andy! Well-deserved.
Posted from: 206.165.129.10
December 18th, 2005 21:38
oh dear.
Posted from: 65.25.226.156
December 18th, 2005 21:56
And where’s the hate on Naveen if mine was so bad?
Posted from: 206.165.129.10
December 18th, 2005 22:06
yay spirtos :)
Posted from: 216.100.32.10
December 18th, 2005 22:39
Congrats to vinitha and spirtos both on well-deserved bids.
Spirtos…ellipses bad? Oh. dear. I know you think it’s true and all…but oh. dear. Anyone with the courage to run that one in a bid round, and the skills to win on it, is officially intense (not as though I didn’t know that already, but hey…). Anyhow, good job, buddy.
Vinitha’s just awesome. Not much else that can be said. Congrats!
~AM
Posted from: 68.7.197.22
December 18th, 2005 22:44
way to go spirtos!!! awesome job
Posted from: 71.139.168.102
December 18th, 2005 22:45
Jordan-yes i did beat him thanks for being kind :)
to everyone-the round was intesensly funny, i did winn off of a elipses K
…
…
…
=
bad
Posted from: 69.226.194.53
December 18th, 2005 23:03
Just as a note, The John McKay speaker award is actually going to be a traveling award, so congrats to Prai for getting a ginormous cup for the next year…
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
December 18th, 2005 23:44
“i did winn off of a elipses K”
Mike Spirtos = God (except that Spirtos exists)
Beating one of the best theory debaters in the country with one of the “best” (in the sense of “worst”) theory arguments in the cosmos = intense
“… = bad” = the title of the guest lecture Mike Spirtos should be invited to give at the MV theory workshop
Posted from: 209.178.134.19
December 18th, 2005 23:52
i <3 lizzy scoggin!!! I remember telling you to win the tournament…i’m sure that gave you some extra good luck ;)
Posted from: 71.96.167.224
December 19th, 2005 01:03
WHO IS LYING HERE DID CRAZY MONEY SPIRTOS GO CRAZY SMART?
Posted from: 71.96.167.224
December 19th, 2005 01:08
oh in the case that i dont get to talk to you for awhile because you disapeared to crazy greek isle mad love foool youre insane =)
Posted from: 140.247.73.54
December 19th, 2005 07:24
Mike, would you mind sending me that K? I would like to read it for entertainment/education purposes if you have no further use for it.
Posted from: 68.109.250.194
December 19th, 2005 07:32
SPIRTOSYESYESYESYES
Posted from: 24.90.9.11
December 19th, 2005 09:29
jacob’s a baller for getting his 6th bid
also congratulations to elisa for breaking/bid round, and same to darbux
Posted from: 24.126.168.38
December 19th, 2005 10:13
Calling the ellipses argument a K is kind of absurd. It is just an argument about how elipses are bad for debate. It had the violation, five reasons why it’s bad (author’s intent, education, etc.), and then a voting issue. It’s an interesting/strategic argument and Spirtos uses it all the time (I judged him first round and he ran it).
Congratulations to Spirtos an Vinitha and everyone else who did well at CPS!
Also, congratulations to everyone who cleared at Blake and Liz for getting to finals!
Posted from: 24.6.254.4
December 19th, 2005 10:45
The spirtos vs. prashant round was quite entertaing yet wack.
Posted from: 67.183.231.107
December 19th, 2005 10:47
What are ellipses/what is the ellipses K?
Posted from: 69.180.210.210
December 19th, 2005 11:01
rr results?
Posted from: 70.146.83.139
December 19th, 2005 11:53
YAY SPIRTOS.
and blake was super intense, congrats to every1 who broke/did well.
Posted from: 71.160.56.34
December 19th, 2005 12:36
vinitha is a beast… holdin it down for the 04 seiler-massey lab.
word up dancer gurl!
michelin massey.
Posted from: 68.199.28.97
December 19th, 2005 12:44
Ryan Hamilton tells me that Andy Werner picked up over Liz in finals. Andy was negating.
Congratulations to Andy and Liz on their success.
Posted from: 64.12.116.203
December 19th, 2005 13:11
yesssss!!!!!!
Posted from: 71.139.168.102
December 19th, 2005 13:34
Partial Doubles
Folsom Prison BH advances without debating
Prashant advances without debating
El Cerrito JY advances without debating
Meadows MS advances without debating
Menlo-Atherton BR advances without debating
Logan BZ advances without debating
Mountain View DM def. Immaculate Heart AK
Meadows DD def. Monta Vista ST
West NC def. Ohsodef SG
Ohsodef RR def. Logan EL
Logan BM def Palo Alta AW
La Reina CT def. Lynbrook KC
La Jolla ES def. Meadows ZM
Homestead VR def. El Cerrito AF
HYPHY LG def. Lynbrook CyC
El Cerrito AG def. Monte Vista NV
Octas
Bellarmine BH def. West NC
La Jolla ES def. Meadows DD
El Cerrito AG def. Logan BZ
Mountain View PR def. HYPHY LG
Meadows MS def. Logan BM 2-1 *Lin
Menlo-Atherton BR def. La Reina CT
Homestead VR def. Mountain View DM
El Cerrito JY def. MSJ RR
Quarters
Meadows Ms def. Menlo-Atherton BR 2-1 *Lin
Mountain View PR def. La Jolla ES
Homestead VR def.El Cerrito AG
El Cerrito JY def. Folsom Prison BH
Semis
Meadows MS def. Mountain View PR 3-0
Homestead VR def. El Cerrito JY
Finals
Homestead VR def. Meadows MS 2-1 *McGrath
Posted from: 70.111.217.39
December 19th, 2005 13:41
SPIRTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
congrats my friend congrats.
ps. i never thanked u for the dunkin donuts and chocolate milk at the airport. so thanks.
Posted from: 24.148.160.143
December 19th, 2005 14:19
no offense to mike, but i think ellipse bad is quite possibly one of the dumbest arguments i have heard yet. at least in the way i’ve heard it. the only way i could see it being run well, is if there is a real way you can point out through common knowledge that the author probably didn’t mean that. it seems like an attack on someones case just to be an extra attack not with any true merit behind it. i think to conflict between my views and most others is that i think we can presuppose that no one in the round is trying to do something illegitimate like intentionally misquote an author. so the burden for making the ellipse arg should remain on the opponent taking offense to “…”.
Posted from: 71.141.29.55
December 19th, 2005 14:20
Congratulations on the bid Mike.
Posted from: 71.139.168.102
December 19th, 2005 14:34
Well, to clay, elipses bad is a true argument, most people will agree it is true that they are bad for the standards i provide. BUT, it is a bad argument to run strategiclly. like it can conflict and thats your personal opiion, but when i run it i make sure, 2) judge is receptive to the argument being run, and b) opponent has elipses in case. like i agree it is like a little dumb. but whatever if i can pick up 4 rounds at one toruny, and 8 rounds this year, on that “dumb argument” lol, i feel inclined to run it.
Thanks, Mr. Rai, <3
Mike “…” Spirtos
Posted from: 70.146.83.139
December 19th, 2005 14:44
also, congrats to eric sefton from La Jolla for getting to quarters (at least im assuming its him).
I heart eric sefton.
Posted from: 68.198.236.197
December 19th, 2005 14:45
hahaha oh man
Spiritos + Ellipses bad = Performative Contradiction
seriously though, to quote Lumpy,
CONGRATS TO MY ROOMATE SPIRTOS ON HIS FIRST BID.
Posted from: 68.7.197.22
December 19th, 2005 15:03
i thought eric sefton graduated
Posted from: 66.26.40.201
December 19th, 2005 15:47
Good advice Mike. “Do whatever wins you rounds…..[ellipses]… no matter if it encourages debaters to make arguments that actually keep them from debating issues proposed by the resolution or encourages unethical argumentation.” I’ll take that to heart.
But to be honest, I think that if I ever hit someone running an ellipses K, I would ask the judge to stop adjudicating the round since my opponent has ceased to discuss the resolution and sign the ballot for me because I wish to discuss the issues proposed by the resolution. However, I’ve heard that debaters even get dropped for that [asking judges to sign the ballot for them because their opponent has circumvented substantive debate] (i.e. Katherine Thompson). What is a debater [who wishes to substantively discuss the resolution] to do? I guess your answer is conform to whatever wins, because that’s debate after all, isn’t it?
Posted from: 71.139.168.102
December 19th, 2005 16:28
or, respond on a theory level, and had a substantive theory debate….but hey, idk kevin whatever u really want to do in a round is up to you
Posted from: 24.148.160.143
December 19th, 2005 16:41
dear “…”,
thats essentially what he did. theory arguments appeal to the judges notion of how the round out to play out, including debates over the rules, etc. kevin claims, which i think many judges agree with, that if you make silly semi-relevant arguments that require the judge to suspend any sense of how debate should be, then you ought to be dropped. debate needs to have some limits on it, i couldn’t just get up and make 10 million unwarranted claims and then extend the 9 million that weren’t addressed. (even if you try to claim that you could group them and then attack the fact they don’t have warrants, you’d be falling into the same trap you’re pointing out, when you claim something is unwarranted, you have to explain what needs a warrant then show how they don’t have one, then draw the implications of the lack of warrant). whether you claim you’re interventionist or not, the round should have some sort of guidelines. so even though i’ve somewhat gotten off topic, what i meant to say was that essentially kevins argument appeals to the judges sense of the round and thus is therefore a theory argument.
Posted from: 67.162.153.109
December 19th, 2005 16:43
Um… what? First, the ellipses arguement isn’t exactly unbeatable in round. Spirtos wins rounds with it, but it isn’t exactly “game over” the second he reads it.
More importantly, it isn’t hard to prevent him running against it you. Just don’t use ellipses. Or, failing that, have a full copy of the articles you card with you. Spirtos ran ellipses bad against me at Valley and since then I haven’t used ellipses in anything. Problem solved.
Posted from: 12.216.108.171
December 19th, 2005 16:49
kevin, the ellipses K points out that the affirmative is circumventing the debate by changing the intent of the authors being quoted. And please, verify the information you hear. Katherine did not ask the judges to vote for her as a way to stop Stephen’s style, she asked the judges to drop her as her form of protest.
Posted from: 66.26.40.201
December 19th, 2005 17:01
Dear God: I hope this is a joke.
To Mr./Mrs./Ms. “…”-
Look. There is nothing wrong with theory arguments. However there is something wrong with theory debates. We are asked to come into the round and discuss the resolution. If anyone comes into the round and runs an ellipses K, he/she is not prepared to do that. That debater is only prepared to get himself or herself out of actually debating anything that the resolution wanted us to discuss. I think that is grounds enough to drop someone. If my opponent comes into the round with a case that doesn’t discuss the resolution, specifically affirming or negating the resolution, then my opponent deserves to lose immediately and I will not hesitate to tell the judge in my next speech. And yes, whatever I want to do in a round is what I will do because if the judge wants me to make 30 responses to a case and extend one that wasn’t responded to because that is “good debate”, then I don’t think that I am gonna win that judge’s ballot anyways so I don’t care. Imagine, if you can at all, that winning is not my number one priority when I think about debate. It’s crazy, I know.
To Michae Arnold-
You’re right; it isn’t unbeatable. I have confidence that anyone who understands what someone who is running the ellipses K is trying to do, would be able to defeat that K. But more importantly, I don’t pay hundreds of dollars to travel across the country so that my opponent can kritik the fact that my cards are not whole. My coach could’ve done that for me hundreds of miles and dollars back. I would be completely pissed of if somebody ran an ellipses K against me at a national tourney because I spent good money to get to that tournament and discuss eminent domain or judicial activism substantively, and my opponent did the same to discuss proper/unproper citiation methods. That’s a waste of my f***ing time and it’s not debate. Furthermore, it’s ridiculous to expect pdebaters to not use ellipses in cards. Why not use them? I cut out crap that I don’t need to make my point that doesn’t affect the substance of my source/card. So sue me. For anyone to win with an ellipses K, they’d have to convince a reasonable person (the judge most of the time) that all ellipses in cards are bad for debate somehow. I don’t know if I’ve heard a more ridiuclous categorization. Its application might be bad sometimes because people ruin the integrity of the source, but that’s no reason to categorically say that “ellipses= bad”. I just don’t get it.
Michael and Mike, I don’t get the whole ellipses K thing. Either it’s as stupid as I made it out to be, or there is some super-secret argument in the K that I don’t get. If 2 judges that I bet wee smart smart people picked it up, then I am interested in seeing it because it must be persuasive and I am persuaded otherwise. Email me or just write back on here. Thanks
Posted from: 71.139.168.102
December 19th, 2005 17:09
Kevin-
The elipses K is true like the argument itself is true that they are bad. when you cut things out iof cards, dont delete minimize the font, therefore its not elipses. but ayway more than 2 judges picked it up during that tourny specifically. the judges that voted for it were, Navot Tidhar, Diane Checng, Landom M. , Thomas Burgato, Mike Dorsi, Alex Smith, so its not some random thing horrible judges vote off of. and it might be a bad argument, but true nonetheless
Posted from: 66.26.40.201
December 19th, 2005 17:13
To “Dont be a Bitch”-
umm, take your own advice asshole. But fine. Maybe I was wrong about the whole Katherine Thompson thing. Thats why I said “i hear…”. That doesn’t imply any sureness. But hey, you wouldn’t read into anything before you attack it. But that just makes me respect her more. The fact that she was willing to take a loss as a form of protest shows that 1) She won’t do anything to win [like, say, debate like shit] and 2) That she understands that there is a line that needs to be drawn for substantive debate to occur, and that either she should be dropped to show how ridiculous “winning debate” is today or she should be picked up because she wanted to discuss the resolution. Very honorable and the best choice given the situation to me.
But I still have a problem with the ellipses K. How does showing that one card with ellipses show that the entire case/framework/position is necessarily unwarranted and fallacious? I don’t see how it does. but AGAIN, I would need to see the ellipses K to understand whethere it covers that or not. So, stop telling others to stop bitching because you want to keep winning with shit like ellipses K’s and 50 independent responses to one case. You’re the real bitch if you can’t attach your real name/email to your post. It just shows that you know that what you’re saying is thoroughly retarded and so you don’t want people attaching it to your name. I, however, warrant everything I say, or say that what I’m saying is just what I’ve been pondering. Email me if you want to talk. Otherwise, keep your asshole remarks to yourself. Thanks
Posted from: 67.161.37.179</