Stephen Hess is TOC Champion
David Weeks and Stephen Hess' / align=
Stephen is coached by Eric Palmer, Navot Tidhar, and Kiwi Camara. David is coached by Toby Whisenhunt, Greg Miaskiewicz, and Navot Tidhar.
–
RUN-OFF ROUND
Dulles DJ def. Mayde Creek JD (Jeremy Dudley)
3-0 (Wesley Craven Beena Koshy, Tara McLellan)
Highland Park [MN] KP def. Edina ES (Liz Scoggin)
3-0 (Jon Cruz, Chetan Hertzig, Ryan Lawrence)
OCTAS
(1) St. James MM def. (16) Highland Park [MN] KP (Katie Poulos)
3-0 (Anjan Choudhury, Tom Evnen, Thomas Brugato)
(15) Dulles DJ def. (2) Berkeley Carroll JL (Jacob Levi)
3-0 (Tim Hogan, Dean Rhoads, Matt Scarola)
(3) Mountain View SH def. (14) Strake Jesuit PM (Patrick Mahoney)
3-0 (Anthony Berryhill, Paul Schiano, Stacy Thomas)
(4) Apple Valley RT def. (13) Hockaday LD (Lindsay Dolan)
2-1 (*Mike Bietz, Josh Anderson, Tara McLellan)
(5) Mountain View PR def. (12) Houston-Memorial JL (John Lewis)
2-1 (Jon Cruz, *Max Stevens, Tommy Clancy)
(6) Highland Park [TX] CC def. (11) Lynbrook TB (Tripti Bhattacharya)
2-1 (Dan Meyers, Chetan Hertzig, *Jim Menick)
(7) Hockaday AM def. (10) Westlake RC (Ryan Cooper)
2-1 (Joe Vaughan, Toby Whisenhunt, *Ryan Lawrence)
(9) Highland Park [TX] DW def. (8) Scarsdale MS (Matt Shields)
2-1 (Larry McGrath, *Scott Robinson, Dave McGinnis)
QUARTERS
(9) Highland Park DW def. (1) St. James MM (Michael Mangus)
2-1 (Dan Meyers, Paul Schiano, *Eric Palmer)
(15) Dulles DJ def. (7) Hockaday AM (A.J. Motgi)
3-0 (Dave McGinnis, Chetan Hertzig, Ryan Lawrence)
(3) Mountain View SH def. (7) Highland Park CC (Corbin Cass)
3-0 (Anjan Choudhury, Tommy Clancy, Larry McGrath)
(5) Mountain View PR def. (4) Apple Valley RT (Ronni Toledo)
3-0 (Tom Evnen, Steve Schappaugh, Max Stevens)
SEMIS
(3) Mountain View SH def. (15) Dulles DJ (Douglas Jeffers)
5-0 (Chetan Hertzig, Tim Hogan, Ryan Lawrence, Josh Anderson, Tom Evnen)
(9) Highland Park [TX] DW def. (5) Mountain View PR (Prashant Rai)
3-2 (Anjan Choudhury, *Stacy Thomas, *Tommy Clancy, Paul Schiano, Larry McGrath)
FINALS
(3) Mountain View SH def. (9) Highland Park [TX] DW (David Weeks)
5-4 (*Jason Baldwin, *Paul Bellus, Wesley Craven, Lexy Green, *Victor Jih, Jim Miller, Scott Robinson, Joe Vaughan, *Scott Wunn)
TOC CHAMPION
(3) Mountain View SH (Stephen Hess)
–
TOP SPEAKERS
1. Jacob Levi (Berkeley Carroll School, NY) [Walter Alan Ulrich Award]
2. A.J. Motgi (Hockaday School, TX)
3. Stephen Hess (Mountain View High School, CA)
4. Ronni Toledo (Apple Valley High School, MN)
5. Matt Shields (Scarsdale High School, NY)
6. David Weeks (Highland Park High School, TX)
7. Ryan Cooper (Westlake High School, TX)
8. Prashant Rai (Mountain View High School, CA)
9. Michael Mangus (St. James School, AL)
10. Jay Bhatnagar (College Preparatory School, CA)
Popularity: 6% [?]
test
361 Responses to “Stephen Hess is TOC Champion”
Leave a Reply
Most Popular Posts
- Stephen Hess is TOC Champion
- Caitlin Halpern is NCFL Champion
- 2006 NFL National Resolution Announced
- Live from the TOC: The Semifinals
- Good Luck to Those Competing at the NCFL!
- TOC 2006 Video #3: Quarterfinals - Jeffers v. Motgi
- TOC 2006 Video #2: Semifinals - Rai v. Weeks
- What's Your Debate Soundtrack?
- Coaches for Hire
- NFL Forms LD Rules and Recommendation Committee
Posted from: 205.167.47.1
May 1st, 2006 12:13
prai lost 3-2
Posted from: 24.155.128.7
May 1st, 2006 12:14
haha first comment! prashant wins. MV closeout fo sho
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
May 1st, 2006 12:14
I am going to be very upset if there is no finals video
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
May 1st, 2006 12:14
Scratch that. Go David.
Posted from: 169.232.95.179
May 1st, 2006 12:16
for those who dont know, stephen hess is an incredibly smart debater who is capable of adapting. he has won mlk and was in semis of cali state; as for his tech skills he won vbt harker and rr . good blend of intelligence and strategy, i hope he wins.
Posted from: 207.80.127.250
May 1st, 2006 12:16
I wonder if Stephen did cap good first and then cap bad second, or vice versa.
If Mountain View Closes out im going to shoot myself.
Posted from: 67.11.130.26
May 1st, 2006 12:17
DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN!
Posted from: 207.28.99.97
May 1st, 2006 12:18
PF results?
Posted from: 207.80.127.250
May 1st, 2006 12:19
Im happy P. Rai lost.
However, Weeks-Hess is really an un-expected TOC final round.
Posted from: 128.101.248.165
May 1st, 2006 12:21
wow, this is a completely unexpected final round. weeks v. hess?? not in a mean way, both debaters are completly awesome and way better than ill ever be, but odd. i expected something like mangus v. sheilds. o well. good luck!
Posted from: 152.163.100.197
May 1st, 2006 12:22
Good Job david win the round
Posted from: 38.117.182.130
May 1st, 2006 12:22
It is strange how reality is so illegitimate.
Congratulations to all of the debaters who participated in TOCs, and congrats to all who walked away with hardware. I hope that the final round is a strategic game, er, I mean educational, er I mean both…
Posted from: 24.160.102.84
May 1st, 2006 12:22
Go texas
Posted from: 66.171.221.32
May 1st, 2006 12:23
I dont understand why people keep saying “the people in semis (now finals) are odd, I didnt expect this.” Why not? TOC has the best judging and the best debaters get to the final rounds. Hess, Weeks, and Prashant (have not seen Douglas in a couple years) are the best debaters I’ve seen this year.
go hess.
Posted from: 207.80.127.250
May 1st, 2006 12:24
Greg Jeffers is my favorite little umpa-lumpa
Posted from: 24.160.107.84
May 1st, 2006 12:25
Isnt it spelt oompa loompa? Or are we trying not to break copy right infringments?
Posted from: 68.19.96.150
May 1st, 2006 12:27
When are we going to be able to watch the videos?
Posted from: 140.247.73.223
May 1st, 2006 12:29
Come on, Mumper, don’t you know that reputation matters?
Congrats Hess and Weeks – I want to see this throwdown when it comes out.
Posted from: 69.86.149.198
May 1st, 2006 12:30
good luck stephen!!!! if u win i’ll call u by ur right name ;)
Posted from: 152.163.100.197
May 1st, 2006 12:30
I love the fact the finals are a upset. It makes it fun. Weeks and Hess both kick ass.
Posted from: 207.80.127.250
May 1st, 2006 12:36
A list of people who deserve to be TOC Champions or at least TOC finalists:
Shane O’Neal
Aj. Motgi
Lindsay Dolan
Corbin Cass
David McGough
Nathan Abell
Craig Gilbert
Tripti B
Jeremy Dudley
Adwait Parker
Seamus Donovan
Micheal Mangus
Peter Damrosch
Quinn Olivarez
The List goes on
Posted from: 152.163.100.197
May 1st, 2006 12:37
what was the ballad on hess vs. jeffers.
Posted from: 207.80.127.250
May 1st, 2006 12:37
Sean Douglas, New rule:
Think Before you speak. :)
Posted from: 207.80.127.250
May 1st, 2006 12:38
why did hess beat jeffers?
Posted from: 24.195.1.253
May 1st, 2006 12:39
I dont think people mean disrespect towrds hess or weeks its just that they arent as well known and most would expect that people with records like cass or mangus as more likely to be in finals than hess or weeks. I also dont think anyone implies that the rounds were illegit, i certainly dont, the fact that the results are so diff from what i expected makes me eager to view the rounds.
Posted from: 69.118.227.165
May 1st, 2006 12:40
This:
“wow, this is a completely unexpected final round. weeks v. hess?? not in a mean way, both debaters are completly awesome and way better than ill ever be, but odd. i expected something like mangus v. sheilds. o well. good luck!”
Although not very offensive, was not me.
Posted from: 207.80.127.250
May 1st, 2006 12:40
Phil Wiggins has the strength of a thousand lions.
Phill Wiggster ‘08
Posted from: 152.163.100.197
May 1st, 2006 12:41
why do people want to impersonate me i qualled and i didn’t attend. my life sucks.
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
May 1st, 2006 12:43
I feel for you Will… you’re a really good debater.
Posted from: 24.206.71.37
May 1st, 2006 12:44
TOC Champion: TEXAS D.W… Pt.2!
Posted from: 207.80.127.250
May 1st, 2006 12:46
Please excuse any posts under the Names: Brian Kwik, Anish Bavishi or Todd Liipfert.
A freshman of ours seems to find it very entertaining to make snide comments about fellow team members.
Posted from: 129.120.243.85
May 1st, 2006 12:47
my god fool JT I KNEW YOU COULD DO IT I LOVE YOU MAN REMEMBER WHEN I TOLD YOU ALL MY MONEY WAS ON YOU FOOL? YOU ARE GONNA WIN THIS THING I KNOW IT
i believe in you fool since day one
Posted from: 67.15.183.3
May 1st, 2006 12:49
These rounds were so muddled, which is good, because it forced me to intervene, although I was going to anyway.
Posted from: 130.64.139.106
May 1st, 2006 12:51
PREISS / SHINE CLOSEOUT. YEEESSSSSSS
Posted from: 128.101.248.165
May 1st, 2006 12:54
yay david! i love you!
Posted from: 67.83.98.233
May 1st, 2006 12:55
Who are the judges?
Posted from: 152.163.100.197
May 1st, 2006 12:58
Im not leiter.
Posted from: 152.163.100.197
May 1st, 2006 13:02
he won the VBRR so hes don something stop dishing him until you get to TOC finals.
Posted from: 69.165.219.190
May 1st, 2006 13:02
DAVID WEEKS IS HOT.
Posted from: 12.216.108.171
May 1st, 2006 13:03
why is debate filled with such jackass haters
be happy that hess and dweeks did fantastically, not surprised
Posted from: 205.222.248.208
May 1st, 2006 13:07
Congratulations, Hess!
Posted from: 24.155.128.3
May 1st, 2006 13:07
WIN DAVID. TEXAS TOC II.
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
May 1st, 2006 13:11
Does the same Navot Tidhar coach both of them?
Posted from: 65.4.55.12
May 1st, 2006 13:12
hmmm… thought Mangus was gonna go all the way.
Posted from: 169.232.95.179
May 1st, 2006 13:13
no there are two people named navot tidhar in the debate community…..cmon (sarcasm)
Posted from: 69.249.68.171
May 1st, 2006 13:13
I read about some drama going down (something involving hate speech, crits etc.) at Yale involving a Kiwi Camara. Is this the same person?
Posted from: 136.152.129.186
May 1st, 2006 13:13
the one and only
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
May 1st, 2006 13:14
Jeez, that’s got to be awkward to be Navot. I wonder who he’s rooting for.
Posted from: 69.249.68.171
May 1st, 2006 13:18
actually maybe it was Harvard. Is this the same guy?
Posted from: 152.163.100.197
May 1st, 2006 13:21
does it really matter who Navot’s rooting for. He has to be phyched either way two of his debators made it to finals how many people can make that claim.
Posted from: 69.19.14.40
May 1st, 2006 13:22
yea, same guy
run a wikipedia search and you’ll see an article about it
Posted from: 152.163.100.197
May 1st, 2006 13:23
im not at the TOC but has the round started
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
May 1st, 2006 13:24
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Alejandro_Camara
Posted from: 69.165.219.190
May 1st, 2006 13:25
did i mention that DAVID WEEKS IS HOT?
Posted from: 152.163.100.197
May 1st, 2006 13:26
Which finals round are they taping?
Posted from: 205.167.47.1
May 1st, 2006 13:27
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1877145940412831719&q=kiwi+camara&pl=true
mmhmm.
Posted from: 152.163.100.197
May 1st, 2006 13:31
i wasn’t aware there could be 2 final rounds.
Posted from: 67.122.210.163
May 1st, 2006 13:36
Hess is a great debater and such a nice guy! GO SHESS!
Posted from: 38.117.182.130
May 1st, 2006 13:37
As funny as his contracts notes…
Posted from: 207.80.127.250
May 1st, 2006 13:37
Hess is a noob. Weeks is an Elite hacker and my level 8 Wizard. I banish everyone else. Patronus!
Posted from: 152.163.100.197
May 1st, 2006 13:39
Weeks is going to kick S. Hess’s ass
Posted from: 68.203.166.146
May 1st, 2006 13:42
When does the round go off, or, perhaps more accurately, when did the round go off?
P.S. Congrats to Stephen, David, and everyone else in outrounds…awesome jobs all!
Posted from: 69.115.223.185
May 1st, 2006 13:45
Hess wins. Congrats to everyone!
Posted from: 68.193.73.203
May 1st, 2006 13:47
are you serious nuhveen
Posted from: 66.92.163.42
May 1st, 2006 13:48
Why are we talking about the coach of the debater?
Does attacking his character in an ad-hominem manner make you feel better?
Seriously, unless you were in the situation or have met him and had some experience to tell you otherwise, it’s more telling of you than him when you make rash judgements on the internet posted under an anonymous name.
Posted from: 69.115.223.185
May 1st, 2006 13:49
Ummmm that wasn’t me…idk what the new obsession with impersonating everyone is…
Posted from: 24.160.102.84
May 1st, 2006 13:51
weeks won on a 4-3
Posted from: 24.160.102.84
May 1st, 2006 13:52
are you serious
Posted from: 129.115.221.132
May 1st, 2006 13:53
how about we believe the results when Jon reports them
Posted from: 24.160.102.84
May 1st, 2006 13:54
good plan
Posted from: 207.80.127.250
May 1st, 2006 13:58
wise words. but who says Jon is right?
Anyway, debate is harmful for educational
Debate entices the individual into a vacuum. It is addicting, and an overdose can harm grades, a social life, and personality.
Posted from: 71.141.183.166
May 1st, 2006 13:58
This is kind of dumb, but I choked up when I heard that Stephen was in finals.
Congrats – what a beautiful way to end the year.
Also, big ups to everyone who qualled.
Posted from: 69.249.68.171
May 1st, 2006 13:58
I definitely didnt mean to instigate any trouble by inquiring as to whether somebody I had read about in the news was the same person as somebody I knew through debate.
The Yale contraversy raises some interesting issues as to the changing nature of hate speech, the responsibilities of academic administraters, and whether morally questionable private behavior should effect one’s professional public life. All interesting issues that warrant discussion….a discussion that should not take place on VBD.
Posted from: 152.163.100.197
May 1st, 2006 13:58
who is judging finals
Posted from: 70.254.89.132
May 1st, 2006 14:04
Ok, so the long awaited comes to an end. On a 4-3 decision, David Weeks from the Highland Park School in Texas won the tournament. I don’t remember the judges who were on the top or the bottom. The round just ended and the judges are still talking. I will post a header later. Major Congratulations to all of this years participants.
Posted from: 70.216.241.177
May 1st, 2006 14:05
I did not post that (though I can’t confirm or deny it) — I am currently in the airport.
Posted from: 169.232.95.179
May 1st, 2006 14:05
Two years in a row a David W. from Texas wins it!
Posted from: 70.254.89.132
May 1st, 2006 14:05
Sorry I meant to say the long awaited TOC Final Round comes to an end. My mistake.
Posted from: 38.117.182.130
May 1st, 2006 14:07
No one deserves to have her or his reputation tarnished because of the reputation of the coach, and this discussion should not mar the incredible accomplishments of the debaters he has coached; however, it is relevant, it should be discussed on public forums, just maybe not today…
The forces that position themselves to influence this activity and educate children deserve critical examination.
Posted from: 68.252.234.76
May 1st, 2006 14:07
5-4 for hess according to roytman.. congrats to SHESSSSS
Posted from: 140.247.73.223
May 1st, 2006 14:08
Dean Fleyzor confirmed – 5-4 Hess.
Congrats
Posted from: 169.232.95.179
May 1st, 2006 14:09
To stephen hess, an incredible performance!
Posted from: 205.173.47.254
May 1st, 2006 14:09
congratulations to Stephen Hess on doing a great job at the TOC. CALI PRIDE!
Posted from: 71.141.183.166
May 1st, 2006 14:09
asdfasjdfk;lasdkfa;jlsdkfja;lsdkfj;asdlkf;asldkfjasdf
:) :) :)
(: (: (:
Go Shess.
Posted from: 65.11.49.31
May 1st, 2006 14:10
congrats to hess and weeks.
Posted from: 152.163.100.197
May 1st, 2006 14:10
no way. David lost. this sucks
Posted from: 64.191.160.34
May 1st, 2006 14:10
congrats shess!!!!!
Posted from: 205.173.47.254
May 1st, 2006 14:10
shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess shess
Posted from: 152.163.100.197
May 1st, 2006 14:10
no way. David lost. this sucks big balls.
Posted from: 69.19.14.40
May 1st, 2006 14:12
So when are the videos going to be up?
Congratulations to Stephen Hess.
Posted from: 24.13.109.40
May 1st, 2006 14:12
Nice job, David. A great accomplishment.
SDH
Posted from: 68.19.96.150
May 1st, 2006 14:12
Sweetness. Now when do we get videos?
Posted from: 129.115.221.132
May 1st, 2006 14:13
next week
Posted from: 169.232.95.179
May 1st, 2006 14:14
does anyone know who was on top and bottom and what the rfds were?
Posted from: 24.174.68.106
May 1st, 2006 14:15
Does anyone know when they are goin to post the vids?
Posted from: 209.66.200.61
May 1st, 2006 14:15
Which quarters and semis round was taped?
Posted from: 24.13.109.40
May 1st, 2006 14:15
UGH, this half baked web platform….? Mike? er uh?
Steven, excellent work. What a wonderful cap to a great career. Best to you both.
SDH
Posted from: 169.229.89.144
May 1st, 2006 14:16
that Eric Palmer… what a flash in the pan
congrats everyone! SHess you’re amazing
Posted from: 152.163.100.197
May 1st, 2006 14:16
judges and the way they voted please?
Posted from: 24.206.71.37
May 1st, 2006 14:17
go texas, half the field in every outround!
Posted from: 24.160.107.84
May 1st, 2006 14:18
Congrats to both :)
…and to everyone who even attended the TOC!
It takes a lot of skill to get there in the first place! So congrats everyone!
But a special congrats to Dweeks and Shess for making it to finals!
Posted from: 71.235.233.113
May 1st, 2006 14:19
yo stephen, give your sister a call. love.
Posted from: 67.122.210.163
May 1st, 2006 14:22
Congratulations Steven! Palo Alto’s proud of you!
Posted from: 24.206.73.9
May 1st, 2006 14:23
I agree with Sean. Everyone who got to the TOC worked really hard to make it there. Congrats to Stephen and David.
Posted from: 24.160.102.84
May 1st, 2006 14:24
they taped doug vs A.J. for quarters and Prai vs weeks for semis
Posted from: 24.6.139.100
May 1st, 2006 14:26
Congrats Stephen! You’ve earned it.
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
May 1st, 2006 14:27
agh.. I take it Shields wasn’t taped.
Posted from: 64.191.160.34
May 1st, 2006 14:31
shields was taped in octas
Posted from: 128.42.163.18
May 1st, 2006 14:40
congrats to david
Posted from: 163.1.231.29
May 1st, 2006 14:44
shesss! so happy for you, and prai, and ericcc
katie: if there were still a star board, i think you’d get 984329 extra for breaking, forget the speaks. nice work
Posted from: 129.120.243.114
May 1st, 2006 14:45
i always believed in you fool
and i always will
Posted from: 216.103.211.238
May 1st, 2006 14:45
Kiwi and I called it from the start…Go Stephen!!!
Posted from: 67.83.98.233
May 1st, 2006 14:53
Congrats to Hess.
Posted from: 64.131.145.158
May 1st, 2006 15:04
I was only able to see Stephen Hess debate a couple of times at NDF this summer, but he was so impressive, and I really loved his style. Very legit. Congratulations!!
Posted from: 169.229.32.136
May 1st, 2006 15:16
Awesome work Stephen! Bringing the title back to where it rightfully belongs.
Posted from: 71.135.43.153
May 1st, 2006 15:22
if i looked up the word “beast” in the dictionary, i’d see a picture of stephen hess.
congrats to david weeks too, beating shields, mangus, and prai is amazing.
Posted from: 63.193.118.145
May 1st, 2006 15:27
YAY STEPHEN! youre a starrr
Posted from: 69.86.149.198
May 1st, 2006 16:12
CONGRATS STEPHEN aka PROFESSOR!!!!!!!!!!! (only cuz you won i’ll call u ur true name)
…and you thought you weren’t good….. HELLO you won the TOC!!!!!!!!!!
Posted from: 24.167.23.144
May 1st, 2006 16:14
I think Hess is cute.
Posted from: 69.181.76.65
May 1st, 2006 16:16
PRASHANT RAI YOUR THE SHIITT MUDDA FUKKAA
STEPHEN YOU ARE TOOO
BOTH OF YOU GUYS TOOK DOWN THE WHOLE TOURNAMENTT
Posted from: 71.141.7.57
May 1st, 2006 16:25
major congratulations to shess, prai, corbin, and dweeks. you guys rocked. im so frickin happy for you all right now.
Posted from: 24.16.191.158
May 1st, 2006 16:28
I [heart] Shess. You rock majorly dude.
West Coast Love.
Posted from: 24.195.1.253
May 1st, 2006 16:54
Im really looking forward to the videos :)
Posted from: 205.222.248.208
May 1st, 2006 16:59
Congrats, Hess!
Posted from: 151.118.33.55
May 1st, 2006 17:06
Yo Steven Hess is one crunk playa’. Nuthin’ but love for my homeboy Hess-Dizzle.
Posted from: 151.118.33.55
May 1st, 2006 17:08
OMG! OMG! STEVEN HESS I WANT YOUR BOD LIKE NONE OTHER!
Posted from: 67.161.35.149
May 1st, 2006 17:09
hess TOTALLY deserves it. id say he’s definitely my favorite debater after watching him at berkeley against corbin and watching him handle spirtos’ cool video case really well. the difference between hess and many “spreaders” is even when hess “spreads”, he actually thinks. certainly a well deserved win. an MV closeout woulda been awesome but even so, david weeks CERTAINLY deserved it. beating shields, mangus, and prai consecutively is not an easy thing to do and still he only dropped on a 5-4 to hess. It shows how close the round was i cant WAIT for the video. good job to every1 else to went.
Posted from: 151.118.33.55
May 1st, 2006 17:10
Congrats to DWEEKS and SHESS on the close out. You guys are my heroes!!
Posted from: 68.127.166.223
May 1st, 2006 17:12
congrats hess
Posted from: 24.174.68.106
May 1st, 2006 17:13
when are the videos going to be posted
Posted from: 70.137.154.15
May 1st, 2006 17:20
Congratulations to Stephen and Prashant! Your success today is a reflection of your enduring teamwork. What a friendship! Congratulations, too, to Kiwi, Eric, Navot, and Karen Keefer for believing in them. And, many thanks to Sheila McKay and Voices for always cheering them on!
Posted from: 207.200.116.132
May 1st, 2006 17:21
congrats to you both! such stars you are!!!
Posted from: 141.161.120.55
May 1st, 2006 17:22
Shess you’re absolutely insane, congrats man…that’s definitely quite a leap from the novice I debated at SCU 3 years ago. Your hard work and skill definitely paid off, and you’ve made Cali proud.
Posted from: 24.91.211.134
May 1st, 2006 17:24
Who affirmed and who negated in finals?
Posted from: 24.31.11.247
May 1st, 2006 17:28
Will VBD cover student congress at nationals???
Posted from: 66.64.221.35
May 1st, 2006 17:30
Go Katie Poulos. You’re fabulous. One of the best students I have or could ever imagine working with.
Tripti Bhattacharya is brilliant. It’s been a pleasure to be a part of your senior year.
Douglas Jeffers brings a level of intelligence and creativity to the activity of debate that is completely unique. He is far and away the most entertaining competitor I’ve watched in the last few years.
David Weeks gave a spectacular performance in the round I saw today, with a spectacular blend of sophisticated arguments, technical skill, and thoughtful clarity.
What a great TOC!
Posted from: 65.103.59.23
May 1st, 2006 17:37
Since leiter wasnt there, that means weeks beat the top three juniors from the TOC last year. That’s amazing.
Posted from: 69.165.219.190
May 1st, 2006 17:55
HOLLER IF U THINK D.WEEKS IS HOT
Posted from: 71.139.203.241
May 1st, 2006 18:21
MOUNTAIN VIEW FOOL
Posted from: 169.229.118.138
May 1st, 2006 18:24
anon–
plenty have.
Posted from: 199.5.172.2
May 1st, 2006 18:32
I’d like to echo what everyone else says about how cool it is that TOC was so unpredictable this year. It’s a testament to how many great debaters there are in this community. Congrats to Weeks and Hess. I remember debating Hess at Stanford when we was a sophomore, and I knew that he had a bright future ahead of him. Can anyone post the decision (i.e. which judges picked up Hess, which voted for Weeks). Thanks.
Posted from: 67.141.60.105
May 1st, 2006 18:36
j. meah is legit.
Posted from: 70.234.97.49
May 1st, 2006 18:48
david weeks is my gentleman lover
Posted from: 67.141.60.105
May 1st, 2006 18:48
I was really happy about the final pairing. Stephen and David are awesome people and really good debaters.
Joe Allen: The decision (I believe) was: Jim Miller, Lexy Green, Wes Cravin, Scott Robinson, Joe Vaughan, *Scott Wunn, *Paul Bellus, *Victor Jih, *Jason Baldwin.
Posted from: 67.141.60.105
May 1st, 2006 18:49
Also, I didn’t have either debater lose in my pre-tournament predictions (both were coached over in quarters, actually; my predicted seeding didn’t really work out), so I disagree that the pairing was unexpected.
Posted from: 71.132.154.106
May 1st, 2006 18:50
¡Felicitaciones a Stephen Hess!
¿Qué es el altavoz superior que gane la concesión de Walter Alan Urich?
P.S. ¡Vivan los inmigrantes! Bush es una perra.
Posted from: 70.241.64.213
May 1st, 2006 18:55
As per tradition, the finalists were both students at VBI. (Even the seminfinalists were)
Posted from: 69.118.137.245
May 1st, 2006 18:58
FIRST, THERE WAS: JEWTOWER
——
THEN CAME: SHESS
————-
NOW, HE IS ONLY KNOWN AS: HESS, THE GREAT COMMUNICATOR
—————————–
I agree that David Weeks is intense. I also lament for those who have not experienced the John Lewis (suffice it to say, Prashant has, and lived to tell the story). Congrats to all.
Posted from: 209.233.23.164
May 1st, 2006 19:12
Ardevan forgot Jack Blew, hess will know
And just that Mountain View kicked ass
Posted from: 64.12.116.197
May 1st, 2006 19:13
congrats to everyone who even qualified to the toc’s… they are all amazing debaters… except for my coach Zach Aberman… who ran a chuck norris kritik
Posted from: 63.197.0.78
May 1st, 2006 19:24
good job hess! bay area prideee
Posted from: 69.231.45.0
May 1st, 2006 19:25
Congratulations to Hess and Weeks for making it to the finals of the TOC.
Some quick observations…
(1) Jason Baldwin voted for DWeeks in the finals. After having judged Mr. Weeks, I have to say that I wouldn’t have expected such a thing, but major ups to DWeeks for being able to pick up such an eclectic range of judges, which also included VJih, Bellus, and the Wunnster.
(2) Stephen Hess pimped this topic. He tore up so many different tournaments with the craziest ranges of judges ever — from VBT to MLK, from Harker to the CA state tournament, from the MV RR to the TOC… Hess just, well… wow. I have to say that Hess was one of the most improved debaters I’ve seen in a long time.
Congrats to the TOC finalists. Getting there and getting it done in this round is incredible.
Michelin Massey
Posted from: 67.141.60.105
May 1st, 2006 19:31
well mr baldwin voted for meah round 6 off a T violation.. heh
Posted from: 67.141.60.105
May 1st, 2006 19:37
Todd Liipfert is illegit
Posted from: 69.165.219.190
May 1st, 2006 19:37
to michael o’connor –
IM JEALOUS HOOK ME UP!
Posted from: 69.3.28.108
May 1st, 2006 19:47
hess is my hero.
Posted from: 66.64.221.35
May 1st, 2006 20:28
if you want beef, bring on the rawkus because shess aint nothing to fuck with
Posted from: 165.123.147.111
May 1st, 2006 20:41
For all those who don’t just care about Loser Debate, I just heard (not confirmed yet) that Greenhill won the TOC in policy. AT gets another ring.
Congrats Hess!
Posted from: 64.12.116.197
May 1st, 2006 20:46
Congrats to all those who cleared especially Ryan, Jeremy, Doug, Matt, Tripti and Jacob
Posted from: 165.123.147.111
May 1st, 2006 20:46
Confirmed by Mr. Timmons himself, Greenhill wins another TOC in policy. For all the fact seekers out there, they didn’t drop a ballot.
Congrats again to Stephen and the Mountain View crew
Posted from: 12.216.108.171
May 1st, 2006 21:36
“if you want beef, bring on the rawkus because shess aint nothing to fuck with ”
aiy Diehl word is bond you gotta ask the Wu before postin that shit
all in all this tournament was like bomb bomb, and it just goes to show that at the TOC ya best protect ya neck
Congrats to Hess, the verbal assassin
and congrats to Dweeks, the postmodern swordsman
Posted from: 69.151.203.122
May 1st, 2006 21:39
the same man who came back from a disastrous storm in new orleans to start a new life in dallas also manages to fight through the storm of genius debaters to take 2nd at TOC
Posted from: 69.151.203.122
May 1st, 2006 21:40
6/8 NSDs in quarters
Posted from: 128.12.119.228
May 1st, 2006 22:40
A few people really deserving props:
Congrats Katie Poulos on breaking; you rock and really deserve it.
Congrats Tripti on what is also a really well-deserved break – you’re one of the smartest people I’ve seen in this activity and it’s been awesome debating you/watching you over the past few years.
Congrats Stephen and David for getting to finals, and especially Hess for holding it down for Cali.
And props to Ryan Cooper for being one of the chillest people I’ve met in this activity. It’s good to see someone with a really healthy perspective on everything.
Posted from: 128.164.212.156
May 1st, 2006 22:43
WU TANG IS FOR THE CHILDREN.
Congratulations to some amazing debaters and major props to Dweeks and Shess, both of whom I have had the pleasure of judging or watching this year. Its funny because both of those debaters were in my labs when they were a year younger than I was (and great then), and now they make it to finals of TOC! Congratulations to all who cleared as well.
HOLLABACK
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
May 2nd, 2006 00:27
Congratulations to Minnesotans in outrounds–Katie and Ronni, and Liz for reaching the runoff round. Also to DWeeks on an awesome performance–I enjoyed watching you in prelims. Further, congrats to Craig Gilbert, for qualing as a freshman! Lastly, congrats to Hess for winning it all!
Posted from: 66.92.163.42
May 2nd, 2006 04:28
Yeah, I know this question will spark probably zero productive discourse, but I’ll throw it out there…
Is Mr. Baldwin still at Notre Dame doing his PhD work in Philosophy?
I know he’s not the most popular person here, but I figured someone talked to him and would know.
Posted from: 216.103.211.238
May 2nd, 2006 06:35
I think the VBT RR just got told…
Posted from: 38.117.182.130
May 2nd, 2006 07:26
A wikipedia editor Big P (who has received the “Forensics Protector” award) attempts to delete the entry discussed before. Coincidentally I am sure, this attempted deletion occurred on May 2. And strangely, it was marked for “speedy deletion”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kiwi_Alejandro_Camara
It is relevant. It may be uncomfortable truths, but if this community is to take itself seriously as an academic institution, this should not be hidden from view. Whoever attempted to censor this entry should be ashamed.
Posted from: 128.135.151.128
May 2nd, 2006 08:44
Congrats to Hess and Weeks on your finals appearance. Also want to give props to Ryan Cooper on an awesome year. I know this all had to do with your time spent in Preiss/Shine ;) I mean, what else could it have been? We all know that each of you lacks any innate ability and never does any work.
Anytime you hear how unexpected your success was, just kick back and do what no one else can…admire your trophy. Oscar and I knew that you were too good for our lab way back in the day, and this only confirms it. Congratulations to each of you.
-
Adam
Posted from: 72.29.87.158
May 2nd, 2006 08:52
These are the seeds after prelims. The bubble round winners were actually the lower seeds, and dweeks was the 9th seed getting to finals. Interesting?
1. Michael Mangus
2. Jacob Levi
3. Stephen Hess
4. Ronni Roledo
5. Prashant Rai
6. Corbin Cass
7. AJ Motgi
8. Matt Shields
9. David Weeks
10. Ryan Cooper
11. Tripti Bhattacharya
12. John Lewis
13. Lindsay Dolan
14. Patrick Mahoney
15. Jeremy Dudley
16. Liz Scoggin
17. Katie Poulos
18. Douglas Jeffers
Posted from: 68.214.12.18
May 2nd, 2006 09:45
Jeffers was 5-1 going into round 7, he wasn’t a bubble round winner…
Mahoney was also 5-1, and lost too.
Posted from: 152.163.100.197
May 2nd, 2006 10:04
Congrats Hess for winning. To paine: the chuck norris case was really funny (u knew about it ahead of time loser)…i kill u on wednesday…
Posted from: 72.29.87.158
May 2nd, 2006 10:09
Shohn-you are completely incorrect.
Doug def. Jeremy in the bubble round.
Katie def. Liz also in the bubble round.
Posted from: 70.220.105.130
May 2nd, 2006 10:20
“More Info” — you’re both using different definitions of a “bubble round.” (I personally use Shohn’s definition; you’re referring to a run-off round, while he’s referring to a prelim round which will determine who clears.)
Congratulations to Stephen and David on an excellent weekend. I was very impressed by Stephen’s adapative abilities at Greenhill last year and by David’s strong performance in the Bronx Round Robin earlier this year. (Not to mention his VBRR win — I wish I had been there this year to see it!)
I’m very proud of Jacob for claiming the Walter Alan Ulrich Award; he, Max Stevens, and Jim Shapiro deserve a tremendous amount of respect for this accomplishment. I’m glad to see that “Jacob Levi” will be listed in perpetuity with some of the other great names in the activity.
Finally, congratulations to Douglas on an incredible weekend and for once again showing everyone how a lot of hard work, strong skills, and pure intelligence can get you very far. Bronx Science is looking forward to working with you again at a variety of tournaments next season.
Posted from: 68.214.12.18
May 2nd, 2006 10:23
Victory Briefs is correct, I used Bubble Round as the round 7 pairings of 4-2s to determine who cleared…
I didn’t think Bubble Round would be meaning Run-off, in the way you used it, as it’s obvoius that the lower seeds are those in the run-off… that’s how it’s designed.
Posted from: 12.226.91.74
May 2nd, 2006 10:45
Shess. Amazing. Good work sir.
Posted from: 205.196.188.155
May 2nd, 2006 11:04
how was ronni toledo in quarters of the toc?
how was corbin out in quarters?
how did stephen hess win the toc?
Posted from: 69.2.220.250
May 2nd, 2006 11:12
props to:
Malis for running an amazing tournament
hess for winning that shit, david for winning a quarters round when it actually counts and for showing the community what your made of, Post for being Post, Levi for being top speaker, and Jamer for going 7-0.
The haters. Without you I couldnt be sure if hess was the true champion
Posted from: 63.225.144.143
May 2nd, 2006 12:04
if after prelims, katie was a higher seed than douglas, why did she have to debate mangus (the top seed) in octas??
Posted from: 134.84.153.16
May 2nd, 2006 12:12
A few noteworthy performances deserve particular props:
(1) Mountain View: Being one ballot away (on five-person panel) from the second closeout in TOC history is ridiculously impressive. Congrats to Hess and Prashant.
(2) Weeks: There can’t have been many times that someone’s made it to finals of TOC in their first year at the tournament. Add to that what was probably the toughest position in the outrounds bracket (having to go through Shields, Prashant, and Mangus, the three returning quarterfinalists from last year, to get to finals), and you have one of the strongest individual performances in recent years.
(3) The senior class in general: Last year, there were five non-seniors in outrounds and four in quarters. This year, there were two in outrounds and none in quarters. Anyone who fought their way into outrounds was doing so against one of the most competitive fields in years.
(4) Lindsay Dolan: The last time a sophomore was in outrounds, it was Will Leiter. Be afraid, be very afraid.
(5) Craig Gilbert: It’s been said already, but just being at TOC (and winning rounds) as a freshman is incredible. ” ” ” ” “.
Posted from: 146.115.115.110
May 2nd, 2006 12:12
Because you become the seed you beat.
Posted from: 71.14.139.12
May 2nd, 2006 12:19
how was corbin out in quarters?
how did stephen hess win the toc?
(hint: It could be because hess beat me in quarters…then beat jeffers on a 5-0…)
Posted from: 71.14.139.12
May 2nd, 2006 12:24
Oh and I cannot think of two people that more deserved to be in finals of TOC, I know david worked his ass of for this tournament and I am glad it payed off.
Posted from: 70.241.64.213
May 2nd, 2006 12:24
“if after prelims, katie was a higher seed than douglas, why did she have to debate mangus (the top seed) in octas??”
Because since Doug beat me, he took my seed. Kaite beating liz took liz’s seed. Since liz’s seed was lower than mine, Doug didn’t have to hit the top seed.
Posted from: 205.167.47.1
May 2nd, 2006 12:47
shess and prai are beasts. there’s no denying it.
Posted from: 68.38.212.63
May 2nd, 2006 12:47
major congrats to jacob
Posted from: 69.21.249.83
May 2nd, 2006 12:52
I just want to echo Corbin’s statement: David and Stephen are really deserving of their finals appearance. Congrats to two really nice guys, who are both extremely intelligent and gave ridiculously impressive performances this weekend.
Congratulations to everyone in outrounds, but especially to those who were there for the first time (and yay to Lindsay and Patrick for being underclassmen!) Special congratulations to Katie, who finally got a long-deserved spot in outrounds after three years.
Posted from: 65.29.19.243
May 2nd, 2006 14:38
I just want to say congratulations to everyone who did well at the TOC. I came and watched alot of rounds and the people who i saw were amazing! Allison Huberlie, doug jeffers, hess, Prai, Weeks,Corbin, Andy Warner, AJ, Ryan Cooper, Mangus, Tim walsh, patrick mahoney, and Catlin Halpern showed amazing skills and taught me alot for next year. You all were well deserving of being at the TOC! congrats! and special congrats Hess who has amazing skills in every aspect of debate! And Liz and Katie, who did very well and are two of the best girl debaters ive ever seen.
Posted from: 67.167.22.255
May 2nd, 2006 14:53
posted on a thread prior, what happened to these people/what were the circumstances:
I had these 4 people doing very well:
Alison Huberlie – Quarters Greenhill, Champion skyway rr
Ari Parker – Semis berkeley and emory
Andy Werner – Champion Blake and TFA State
Jon Gordon – 6 toc bids
Of course there were others, namely daniel cory and tim walsh, but I was wondering about those 4 above imparticular
Posted from: 65.81.143.113
May 2nd, 2006 15:18
1. shess shess shess shess shess
2. props to dweeks for not looking like he was about to vomit as the finals decision was announced (sorry shess, cant say the same for you)
3. liz did really well and im glad (go team!)
4. i love reilly t dunn
Posted from: 130.64.148.131
May 2nd, 2006 15:52
Thanks to everybody this weekend for reminding me that there was actually a reason why i came out of the void to rant and rave at the jurassic park set and the children again. Sorry for terrifying people, im really not that scary when you get to know me. I would appreciate if anybody who i was fortunate enough to see this weekend would shoot me an email or something…reilly.dunn@duke.edu should work, but if you want to gchat, grandhustlertd@gmail.com will work nicely too.
Special shout out goes to the HATERS–I think Navot said it best–for those of you at home, you can tell that this years championship round burned slow like ether for a lottttttttttt of people. It took a while, but we finally went into the belly of the beast and beat the dark side at their own little circle jerk. No disrespect meant to the many friends and educators who are intellectually honest and hardworking, and give up an irationally caring amount of their time; but, let the record show, that at the 2006 bloodsport, a couple good guys won. The machines were smashed, the fossils were flamed, and the HATERS: SERVED. I think Nas said it best: ‘ask me if im tryin to kick knowledge? nah, im tryin kick that shit you need to learn slow, that ether, that shit that makes your SOUL BURN SLOW’.
David Weeks, in particular, i would like to thank for not only being a MOTHERFUCKING BALLER (i have the photo evidence to prove that, yes, the Highland/Mountainview squads are repping this like its 1988–you havent seen dope dealer swagger till you have seen Sess with full cane, fitted hat, and Muhammed Ali throwback….takes a champion to dress a champion) but also being able to defeat what i heard from the man himself, a VERY scary draw of both debaters AND judges. While i dont think corbin and david understand, the 45 total minutes of pep talk/psychotic rally speech/judge adaptation lecture/’prep’ (whatever the hell THAT means) that the highland park gentleman allowed me to force upon them throughout quarters-to-finals of that tournament, were the only instance of teaching in three years post-competition where i have ever felt truly connected with a team that was not my own. David Weeks, Corbin Cass, Greg the Pollack, and Toby Bob Thornton, were the first, last, and ONLY competitors this weekend, who ‘trusted’ or even BOTHERED to offer me a quick look-see at their cases and argumentation. The only kids who listened to what i had to say about judge adaptation. I was offering people for about…oh, a month, in addition to every waking second that was my whirlwind of insanity this weekend…my knowledge, and because of various reasons, most of which have now been shown to me (by people who absolutely know what they are talking about) to be COMPLETELY political/trust based, not only would people not hire me, they wouldnt even take what i had to say FOR FREE. When i was coming up to them WITHOUT THEIR HAVING TO DO THE WORK OF SEARCHING AND ASKING. Sure, its annoying and a bit presumptious for anybody, myself or otherwise, to just run up and start demanding things like ‘hey, if you want, id really like to help you before this round, want to go talk about some arguments?’ or ‘hey, heres what i think you should do to pick up this judge(s) against this {INSERT IMPOSSIBLY FAMOUS FEARED AND RESPECTED ‘NAME’ DEBATER OF YOUR CHOICE} want to prepare a 1ar strategy?’ but you know what? i wasnt trying to hurt anybody. really. i wasnt. i had heard from MULTIPLE sources this weekend, ‘yeah, wed really like you to help us, but well…i/we/they dont really feel comfortable because of your relationship with…..’. Took me a while to learn what that was codespeak for: ‘you work with/hang out with people that i fear competitively and intellectually, so if i let you see my arguments, then you will immediately go run off and begin prepping other people against me. also, my coach told me that he is way smarter than you, and that you are just going to warp my precious little mind with Boys Club EVVVVVVVVVVVVVIL’.
Well, david weeks and corbin cass didnt care. That meant alot to me. And although corbin allowed his inner fire to burn a little too brightly against hess, he still ‘got it’, and david weeks…….well, david weeks had a lightbulb above his head that went off so bright that i got third degree burns. I didnt know what it meant to be ‘coachable’ until i had the privilige to work with david weeks for those 45 total minutes. This isnt just a silly debate thing either, i have literally never had a student of ANYTHING i attempt to ‘teach’ understand everything that i was trying to do, and execute it so flawlessly, under pressure circumstances, IN MY LIFE. at ANYTHING. basketball, poker, sat’s, it doesnt matter, i have had the fortune to corrupt young minds at a bunch of activities, and in 45 minutes, david weeks taught me what i want in a student. he was respectful. he listened, but asserted himself and SPOKE UP when he either didnt understand, or was seeking to apply a concept. and he EXECUTED. hoooooooooooooooooly crap did he execute!
someplace, david weeks and sess knew that they had the talent to be the champion of this nutty little tournament. what seperated them from their other perhaps more ‘accomplished’ and highly qualified competitors, was their willingness to listen to and trust their intellectual peers–ask eric palm about sess as a student, and get ready to hear a slob-job. i will always remember working with david and corbin, even if i dissapear like a ninja into that black night for another 3 years; going into those later outrounds, i saw before my very eyes david weeks transform himself from a kid who THOUGHT that he really could be a motherfucking champion, and somebody who truly KNEW that he DESERVED to be a champion. Thanks to corbin, thanks to dweeks, thanks to toby, thanks to greg (who is definitely one of my bestest bestest friends), thanks to prash, thanks to sess, thanks to palm, thanks to kiwi. you guys actually made me care for 3 hours again about this stupid, broken game.
Posted from: 130.64.148.131
May 2nd, 2006 15:55
note: i said ’slow’ twice in the nas card. it should read ‘im tryin kick that shit you need to learn though’
Posted from: 130.64.148.131
May 2nd, 2006 16:15
ALSO:
byron and brugato and thogggggan actually also allowed me a brief peek at the naughty bits. byron is a GREAT junior, and probably should have broken. he had the light bulb go off, although, i only got to yell at him before one round……
so the trust/rodney dangerfield rant doesnt apply entirely to him/his fine coaches.
in fact i hope it was the beginning of a good relationship this summer and beyond.
Posted from: 24.167.23.144
May 2nd, 2006 16:16
This is a SERIOUS QUESTION:
Is it a Strake Jesuit Heg or a Mountain View Heg?
Posted from: 151.118.33.55
May 2nd, 2006 16:25
Mountain View Heg for sure
Posted from: 24.195.1.253
May 2nd, 2006 16:41
Can someone summarize Mr.Dunns Post, its too ghetto my brain cant handle it
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
May 2nd, 2006 17:23
highland park and mountain view people own, but mainly david weeks
Posted from: 208.54.95.129
May 2nd, 2006 17:27
Reilly is not only one of the smartest person ive ever met (in both an academic and debate sense) hes also an absolute mother fucking baller. Everyone and anyone should be honored to have the privilege to throw money at the man and beg him to coach them.
What a true playa
Posted from: 71.141.7.169
May 2nd, 2006 17:28
mr dunn is a G
’nuff said
Posted from: 152.163.100.197
May 2nd, 2006 17:42
COngrats to Hess and Weeks on the final round. Sorry i had to jet before the the RFD’s. Jim Miller was going to give a summary of my decision. If there were any unfinished questions, feel free to email me and I’d be more than happy to answer. I know my handwriting is terrible so my ballot is probably incomprehensible.
Posted from: 71.70.246.134
May 2nd, 2006 18:02
reilly, if VBD is the only way to reach you, so be it. call me, we gots isht to do
Posted from: 24.167.23.144
May 2nd, 2006 18:29
I would disagree on the heg. Strake Jesuit is #1 according to the NDR, but their showing wasnt as good as Mountain View’s at the TOC; “Nick” I wouldn’t be to hasty in being so sure.
Posted from: 24.167.23.144
May 2nd, 2006 18:31
Strake Heg i would say. overall.
Posted from: 66.137.131.37
May 2nd, 2006 20:04
I want to thank Mr. Dunn for helping my very deserving teammate to reach the finals for the FUCKING TOC. BOth david and mr. hess are fabulous debaters, and it was awsome for them to get to finals.
I also want to thank Mr. Dunn from reminding everyone that debate isnt about just winning rounds and consouling kids who lost outs after rounds. Your sir are a pimpz.
I also want to thank Mr. Menick for being seemingly completely cool about the fact that I did not in any way shape or form attempt to pick up his ballot in octos. I think its cool that a judge can see why it is unstrategic to always go for every judge, down you but not attempt to enforce their conception of debate upon you.
Posted from: 67.172.54.237
May 3rd, 2006 04:48
To Stephen and David:
When I hung out with you guys at VBT all weekend in January, I knew you guys were smart and hard-working enough to be champions. You deserve this. I probably will congratulate you every time I talk to you for the next month to the point where you hate me.
Regardless of any questions of desert (I can think of at least 3 other names who worked just as hard, were as smart, and deserved to be there), what impresses me more about you guys is that you are some of the nicest, most respectful and open-minded people I have met, period. Everyone–I mean, everyone–in the debate community [especially the youngins] should take a cue from these two. They ought to be–and I hope already are–role models for other debaters. They are more than champion debaters.
What makes this so memorable is that, to be honest, David and Stephen rose above the tournament they were at, which, as always goes down at this over-hyped, high-rollin tournament, was full of the usual bullshit, politics and drama.
I can name two incidents (without naming names) that highlight why the do-it-behind-the-scenes and we-know-better-than-you attitude taken by the administrators of the tournament is a bad idea:
1. A judge was subbed into one of my debater’s outrounds, even though the judge previously named was available to judge–when it heavily favored the style of my debater’s opponent. The judge that was subbed in had already dropped my debater in prelims. This was done with no input from the coach of either debater. My debater still picked up (on a 2-1, dropping the judge who we knew we had no chance of picking up), but, this creates a huge potential for abuse. The judge even stated that there was no point in him/her being in the back of the room.
2. It was painfully obvious that a few of the judges who were in finals (there were some RFDs in there that everyone respected and were far from disgraceful) did not actually listen to the case that the debaters presented. I knew both cases, having read/heard both of them, and it was rather clear that there was an enormous disconnect between whatever the judges said and what the case actually read. A not-to-be-named judge said about David’s case: ” You have some, uh, half-assed one-sentence definition of metaphysics in your case.” David’s case has 2 sentences that deal explicitly with a definition of metaphysics, that is taken directly from the standard definition used in classical philosophy. This is then extrapolated upon, and clarified by contradistinction with the procedural standard used in the case in 3 sentences. At least one of the judges in the room–Wes Craven–had 5 lines on his flow for this. I could name other examples of condescending things said about either David or Stephen’s cases that were not based on an understanding remotely related to what the cases actually said.
To preempt criticism, the above comments were made by a judge who voted for my debater. My concerns are not about who won, but about education. At the end of the roundtable discussion, it was hard to tell who was more laughable (in terms of education): the bad RFDs in favor of my debater or the bad RFDs against my debater. I’d lean towards the former though.
[This is not a reflection on all of the judges' RFDs on the finals panel, just a few.]
This attitude is absolutely disgusting. I find it ironic that such people call themselves educators and have started something called the “Lincoln Douglas Education Project.” As educators, you have the responsibility to show a basic respect to debaters: listen to the claims that they make in the round that you judge. Any judges who do not do this frighten coaches and debaters with their massive intellectual insecurities. My debater almost peed his pants and gave up all hopes for the round (incident #1 above) after, 10 minutes before the round, having a random judge in the back, with no idea how to adapt or a clear decision calculus to expect. Some of the finals panel judges were rightfully laughed at by people in the room because they didn’t even listen to anything that happened in the room. Instead, they chose to mouth off about how they are much smarter than the debaters. I wanted to vomit during some of the RFDs, and so did the finalists, who uniformly struck them to avoid having to experience such glaring disrespect and mistreatment. If anything, this goes to show exactly why MJP needs to come back, and why the people who back the LDEP are dead wrong when they presumptuously assume that debaters are merely trying to avoid criticism when they don’t want some of the old heads in debate in the back of the room during high profile rounds. There’s a reason that debaters will always prefer people like Reilly and I more than you–because we show them respect. We take their intellectual capacities seriously. We do not presume that we know better.
If the LDEP cared about criticism, they would have open membership and input–even to the circuit coaches that they absolutely disagree with. Instead, they close themselves off to any input from the outside and run things like a shadow government. If something doesn’t change, the debate community is going to implode. For the time being, David and Stephen beat them at their own [broken] game.
I know that some factions in the debate community will respond to this by starting a flame war. Of course, I will be told that the judges I criticized are all actually really smart and great people who care about the activity. All I can say is, such actions are intolerable and counter to everything an “educator” should be doing. Frankly, they are lucky that they weren’t called out in public during the round table discussion that followed the round–such actions deserve to be shamed. For all intents and purposes, no one should care about the result of this round–what matters is that two awesome, smart and great debaters rose above the stupid bullshit that goes down at TOCs every year. Until the system reforms, we can’t hope for a better result.
Posted from: 67.172.54.237
May 3rd, 2006 05:18
And now the shout outs…
David:
I’ve got nuttin’ but respect for you. You were under-rated by everyone all year. But, when the real deal came around, the muthaf**kin’ TOCs, you showed everyone why those hatin’, underachievin’ punks ain’t gettin’ nowhere. Congrats.
Hess:
You never let success get to your head and are a real person first (not some uber-obsessed debate junkie). I can’t think of anyone besides David who I’d want to be champion more than you.
Prai and Corbin:
You guys dropped earlier than you’d hoped, but, I love that you guys both were giddy and happy about your teammates. It shows that, behind all the debate frontin’, you guys are great friends to your colleagues in the activity (including me). I appreciate it.
Reilly Dunn:
TOCs – Reilly = Debate hell
TOCs + Reilly = TOTALLY FUCKIN PIMP
If he doesn’t scare the fuck out of debaters, he makes them exponentially better in 10 minutes.
TB and Ryan:
Thanks for letting me crash in your room. It was fun chillin’ w/ y’all this weekend.
Kiwi and Toby:
You are the coolest coaches I have met in this activity. I’m glad I got to know you guys this weekend.
Carlos Ochoa:
You gave the most clear and smart theory argument I’ve seen in many years. You also run Foucault. You’re going to rock the circuit next year.
Byron Ruby:
It sucks things went down the way they went down. Just come back fighting next year. You can bring back the championship belt to Cali, solidifying the recent hegemony (what would it be then–3 of 5 years?).
To everyone else:
Thanks for putting up with my and my cohorts’ insanity this weekend, pimp cane, krunkness and rants n’ all.
Posted from: 65.117.146.2
May 3rd, 2006 05:47
I also wanta say, I love Mr. Stephen Hess and as our adventure to waffle house will show you, he likes waffles. That is pretty politically relevant I think…cause like I like waffles too, even if like they might have too much syrup on them.
David Weeks makes me giddy like an eleven year old girl with his amazing ability to pick up judges ballots that he STRUCK, like sir baldwin.
My only real problem with the tournament was that david and hess were rushed to start a final round with a panel of judges neither of them wanted to be juding…and that probably was like bad for thee round. This is like also bad for for the coaches and stuff there, cause they changed their flights and stuff, to judges kids that didnt want them judging them?
Who is that good for? What does that do? and I think Ryan Cooper is really really pretty.
I also want to give a shout out to Mr. Matt Sheilds, who although pissed about getting knocked out earlier, told me how to make people look dumb without raging and let me have one of his cases which i thought was straight up brilliant in terms of arguementation and i think will influence to a degree how I try to coach kids next year.
Also, ari parker and pawl, for caring and for working and for just straight up having passion and caring…i mean how many coaches punch a wall because they care about their kids that much?
And congrats to Mr. Eric Palmer for being a pimp of a coach with a semi and finalist at the TOC.
And congrats to Mr. Jeffers for making me laugh in the bubble round and having amazing in round charisma.
And thanks to Dudley for being a straight up baller and giving one of the coolest come back speaches i have ever seen, in the bubble round.
And thanks to Tim Hogan for dealing with John Gordon.
and we are at War with Cherian
Crobin
Posted from: 24.195.1.253
May 3rd, 2006 06:04
Good speach Corbin, but mispelling yer name at the end took away a little from its gangsta-ness.
Posted from: 65.117.146.2
May 3rd, 2006 06:09
um…’crobin’ is a joke cause the Berkely tournament miss spelled it, and thus my friends call me that. spirtos, WHO is a kid who has a shit load of potential to be great and has done amazing this year, made the arguement that you couldnt vote for me cause the ballot said Crobin rather than Corbin.
Sorry for the confusion.
Posted from: 38.117.182.130
May 3rd, 2006 06:34
Congrats Greg for beating the LDEP, and reminding us what this activity is really about!!!
10 points!
Posted from: 65.117.146.2
May 3rd, 2006 06:38
What do you do Mr. Pashler?
( i mean this in no disrespect, it just is intersting)
And, I think greg deserves 15 pts.
Posted from: 67.172.54.237
May 3rd, 2006 06:38
And one last shout out, to Crobin and DWEEEEEKZ:
To give credit where credit is due to my debaters, I don’t claim responsibility for their success. I’ve been impressed with them ever since I started working with them after Glenbrooks.
I gave them a reading list in December of some ungodly amount of books of a ridiculous complexity. They read things I struggled to read through for my philosophy thesis and turned them into debate cases. If nothing else, they deserve the respect of their peers for their intellectual ability, a million times over.
Posted from: 38.117.182.130
May 3rd, 2006 06:49
It is most distinctly uninteresting, I assure you.
Most of the time I post to VBD, and worry about why former lab students of mine who I know are brilliant, I know somewhere deep down are nice, who I know have interesting things to say and value to add to this world, act like rage-filled adoloscents against people who disagree with them about the style of high school debate rounds.
Posted from: 65.117.146.2
May 3rd, 2006 06:56
I KNOW THE ANSWER…why do kids rage…hm because as Greg said…nobody has respect for a bunch of brilliant kids who usually know a hella of alot more about the topic than old people…maybe its cause we don’t want RFDs that say, your arguement didnt gel in my head…maybe its because the apple valley war mashine has too many tanks and we cannot defeat them with simply water guns…or maybe its because when the older generation shows NO respect for kids, its hard for us to show respect back?
RAGE RAGE RAGE RAGE RAGE RAGE RAGE
Oh and rage is bad, it will make you lose TOC rounds, so don’t rage…or you will LOSE and then YOUR LIFE WILL BE OVER BECAUSE YOU LOST A HIGH SCHOOL DEBATE ROUND AND YOU WILL HAVE A SMALLER TROPHY AND THEN NOBODY WILL BE YOUR FRIEND.
Posted from: 38.117.182.130
May 3rd, 2006 06:58
Right…it worries me.
Posted from: 70.224.44.100
May 3rd, 2006 07:13
I’m sorry to digress from the main purpose of this thread, which is, rightly, to celebrate the achievements of the TOC finalists. About those finalists, I will say here what I have told several people privately–that they are to be commended for confronting the resolution head-on and attempting to adapt to their audience (which clearly was not a complete mystery to them).
But the finalists aside, I think it is important to supplement Greg Miaskiewicz’s possibly misleading comments above about the LDEP. First, the judge who objected to the affirmative’s characterization of metaphysics is not a member of the LDEP. Second, the LDEP had no control over the composition of the final panel. Third, membership in the LDEP is open to any coach who pledges commitment to our vision statement. Fourth, the LDEP is keen to receive thoughtful input from anyone inside or outside the organization; we did receive some excellent ideas from non-members at the TOC, and our website (www.hws.edu/ldep) includes email links to the organization and to each of its board members. (For the record, my own attempt to engage G.M. via private email about some of his past criticisms met with no response.) Fifth, the LDEP is not a “shadow government” or any other kind of government; we simply try to generate good ideas and persuade people to adopt them. Obviously, anyone who disagrees with us is free to do the same.
I can think of one judge in the TOC final round whose comments were a bit more aggressive than those I’d be comfortable making. But it seemed to me that the panel’s comments were generally balanced and impersonal, and I think it’s unfair to characterize them as “glaring disrespect and mistreatment.” In the interest of time, different critics directed their comments and different aspects of the debate. But to suggest that any members of the panel “didn’t even listen to anything that happened in the room” is seriously misguided. It is just a fact about debate that intelligent, open-minded critics will sometimes be impressed by different considerations; disagreeing with Greg Miaskiewicz is not a mark of stupidity or willful ignorance.
Jason Baldwin
jbaldwin@nd.edu
Posted from: 65.117.146.2
May 3rd, 2006 07:27
OMG BALDWIN YOU SPREAD HIM THE FUCK OUT. HOW WILL HE COVER THAT IN THE 1 AR…and I am glad you liked my case…we thought it would be sexy if Mr. Baldwin voted for us.
Perhaps Greg is merely critiquing the mission statement of the LDEP…and its notion of education…maybe we can make another organization…
Would anybody like to formulation the DELF, DEBATE EDUCATION LIBERATION FRONT…?
I personally will be joining what i just created…
Any other takers? then we could have dialoge with the ‘old people’ from the ‘not so old people’ about what education is BUT IT WOULD BE instutionalized.
DELF could have a mission statement, something along the line of…we think kids should get to explore their intellectual interests within debate while allowing it to be a compeditive activity without imposing our own conception of the good; coaches exist as regulatory agents who assist kids in exploring these interests without making them ‘docile bodies’ who just appear to be productive members of society.
We could have a website? Any ideas…any suggestions…anyone want to help?
Posted from: 38.117.182.130
May 3rd, 2006 07:50
Do you really believe in such neutrality, Corbin? I would think it was rather obvious that everyone imposes their conception of the good; the question being, not whether a conception should be imposed, but who has got the good right…
We are talking about judging debate rounds, right?
How are we supposed to reconcile statements like “You gave the most clear and smart theory argument I’ve seen in many years. You also run Foucault. You’re going to rock the circuit next year,” with statements like, “we think kids should get to explore their intellectual interests within debate while allowing it to be a compeditive activity without imposing our own conception of the good; coaches exist as regulatory agents who assist kids in exploring these interests without making them ‘docile bodies’ who just appear to be productive members of society.”
Why does a coach of a TOC finalist and one of the most successful competitors this year (who I am told even by people he insults that he is smart and decent) have such a sense of persecution? It is your activity, you own it, the matrix is of your own making…
Posted from: 67.172.54.237
May 3rd, 2006 07:51
Show respect n’ you get respect. Make kids and the college students dedicated to this activity feel stupid and the coach of the TOC runner-up [and a quarterfinalist] shows up to finals dressed like a coke dealer, drinkin’ a 40.
And don’t lie Mr. Baldwin. I know more than a few coaches who have stated that they responded to the initial call for interest in participating the LDEP–who then never heard anything back. Barring some freak occurrences, and knowing the background of these coaches that were not asked to participate despite their desire to join the organization, I doubt that there wasn’t a selection bias in who the LDEP chose to involve. Then the LDEP lays out its program, Bolshevik Revolution style, and tries to dictate what goes down in debate (including arbitrarily changing the judging format at TOCs–don’t tell me your opinion doesn’t pull some weight with J.W.). Except you ain’t got the guns. Or the Dunns.
Peace.
Posted from: 67.172.54.237
May 3rd, 2006 07:57
He ran Foucault well. Forgot to put the qualifier. The round right before I judged him I flat out told a debater that he mis-interpreted the Foucault card he had and that it was mis-cut.
I know the perception is that I vote for anything pomo or theory or some stupid shit, but, honestly, most K debaters should not want me in the back of the room–I know the arguments too well and I subconsciously hold them to a much higher standard. I am probably the biggest hater on bad theory ever; I’ve had my debaters run confirmation holism w/ formal logic proofs against theory arguments. Anyone who actually reads cases I work on with my kids knows I am committed to introducing complex, well explicated argumentation into debate.
Generalizations about types of arguments are silly–bad arguments are bad arguments, and there are good theory arguments and moronic ones (99% of them).
Posted from: 38.117.182.130
May 3rd, 2006 08:02
Greg – e-mail me; bpashler@gmail.com. Thanks.
Posted from: 65.117.146.2
May 3rd, 2006 08:05
thanks to toby, miask, crobin, navot, reilly, and tb for coaching or helping me well at some time or another in the past year or two. it was tite. I owe doing well to each of your help.
SHESS SHESS SHESS SHESS SHESS SHESS SHESS SHESS SHESS SHESS SHESS SHESS SHESS SHESS.
much love, I couldn’t think of a kinder, more honest, and deserving TOC champion.
btw, Jason Baldwin responsiveness is key to competitive equity, which is key to EDUCATION, which is key to being a debater before your a human, which enables an objective evaluation of the round.
j/k
flamewars are outweighed by waterwars, which we are currently engaged in with Cherian Koshy. FEAR THE WETNESS OF OUR WATERGUNS, which is the essence of moisture, which is the essence of beauty.
Posted from: 167.206.203.14
May 3rd, 2006 08:13
I’m a bit worried that the vulgarity on this thread is alienating people from participating in what is an important and productive conversation, and distracting them from celebrating Stephen and David’s considerable accomplishments this weekend.
Anyway.
Greg — in fairness, the decision to switch to a strike system was not “imposed” by Jason or the LDEP or anyone. It was made by J.W. after consulting considerably with his advisory committee.
Posted from: 65.117.146.2
May 3rd, 2006 08:22
Ok, so straight up I never really had a coach who taught me how to debate or anything right… I had a regulator someone who booked shit and had political power. Stephen Babb tried to coach me but I was uncoachable as a softmore and as a junior cause I was too BIG of an ass and too arrogant.
Perhaps I should explain what I mean. The imposition of a conception of the good I am talking about has NOTHING TO DO WITH JUDGES, judges always have a set metric that creates how they evaluate rounds and such. My arguement and my analysis is that COACHES and TOURNAMENTS should not be imposing a conception of the good. what good debate is or how we ought to debate on other people. IF you cannot answer a blip storm, perhaps you should learn how…I lost to the blip storm in quarters of TOC which would probably happen with the panel I had? What should I do about that, rage about how that kind of debate is bad, even if I hate it or congraduate my opponent and friend Mr. Hess for having a good strategy to beat me. (The making me rage strategy is very strategic) It just makes hess smarter than me in a different way, because he adapted to his panel better than I did.
The difference between that and a Judge who says ‘this arguement did not gel in my mind’ and one who cannot answer questions about what should have been done differently in the round, is that there IS NO WAY TO ADAPT TO SOMEONE WHO HAS THAT KIND OF PARADIGM. You can try to adapt, you can try to be persuasive, but when it comes down to it, you HAVE NO CLUE why you lost the debate round…which sucks.
The sense of persecution probably comes from being vilified for being Honest? maybe its teenage hormones that make me rage uncontrollably? maybe its the fact i didnt rage after losing quarters and that confused everyone? maybe its that i don’t understand why being agressive in A DEBATE is the same as BEING AN ASSHOLE. maybe i don’t understand why chetan gave an RFD that told my opponent that he was sorry he couldnt vote for her? maybe its the fact that i have seen dozens of kids idolize figures like Mike Bietz only to go to VBI and think that they are retarted because Bietz does not haver a great conception of debate. Maybe it is because Joe Vaughan was a dick to Jeremy Dudley in doubles of emory when Dudley is very Studley even if he didnt debate how Mr Vaughan wanted him to…maybe its because i exploded in finals of the stanford RR after seth halverson attempt to prove how much smarter he was than me by saying the most non-sensical rant about Heidegger and Kant I have ever heard against a case, that Mr. Miask, whom is very very knowledge able about Heidgger helped me write…maybe its the fact that most of the debate community gives up on kids with passion because they are not quite like Ryan Cooper and Tripti…maybe its because when I got to talk to Stacy Thomas she told me that most of her friends and the people she knew said that she should never talk to me (I am very thankful that she did, she is a great coach). Maybe its the fact that VBI posted who they hired right after the TOC finalists which probably should have stayed the front page at least for a little while…maybe its the fact there are coaches that root against kids…maybe its the fact that my old Coach Mr. Dave Huston was happy I lost in finals of emory…maybe its the fact i got made fun of by the rest of the ‘boy’s club’ for thinking Jeffers is a great debater…maybe its the fact that Mangus’ coach dropped me at stanford because she wanted to show us bad bad bad boys that running confusing stuff even if you try to explain it is just straight up NOT acceptable…maybe its the fact that her rfd at the TOC made ari parker cry… or perhaps it is because I have escaped from the awful debate matrix and stopped giving a shit about winning the TOC before it had started?
Or maybe I am going to hell…
Posted from: 160.39.253.107
May 3rd, 2006 08:27
The judging at the TOC was worse than most of the qualifying tournaments I attended this year (hell, even worse than a non-qualifying tournament I was at).
I thought the strike system would not end up being much different from last year’s MJP system, but it was. It meant that there were a lot of situations where judges who were the last to be not-struck (and 15 strikes, by the way, was definitely insufficient for a pool that was so dilluted by the excessive judging requirements) — judges who would have been 3s or 4s for instance — were judging debaters for whom they would be 1s. And dumb luck decided who got their 1 judge.
Also, the assignment of ‘A’ judges for important prelim rounds (like down 2 rounds in 6th and 7th rounds) looked indistinguishable from a purely random assignment.
Posted from: 160.39.253.107
May 3rd, 2006 08:33
Oh yeah, and as far as the final round panel is concerned, I think it’s great that so many respected members of the community went out of their way to judge the round. I don’t think the panel itself was a problem — either in terms of quality or fairness; because the panel was advertised far in advance of the tournament, the debaters knew what to expect; the predictability was key.
Separating the final panel from the panels of the previous round, however, seems a little problematic because there might be vast gaps in how the quarters/semis panels evaluate rounds and how the finals panel does, and that means that the debaters who advance into finals are less likely to prefer the finals round panel then if they were more integrated (I believe the majority of the panel had not judged other outrounds, maybe ony 2 or 3 had).
I don’t think that anyone in particular is responsible for these problems (and I don’t have any conspiracy theories about them either). Because the way judges are ranked and assigned has changed pretty much from year to year in recent years, the results are not going to very predictable before the fact. But, I think that future changes should look into how strikes vs MJP and other decisions changed the tournament.
Posted from: 38.117.182.130
May 3rd, 2006 08:36
Corbin:
Thank you for this. I think you have given voice to what a lot of people feel. The fact that it is personal for you makes it no less important, something I hope that the people you name remember before taking offense. The fact that you feel the way you feel right now is important for everyone who participates in this activity, and it should not be dismissed because of its personal nature.
The notion that arguments about political philosophy (or anything) is capable of objective adjudication such that people should expect there to be competitive fairness is a destructive one – it is subjective, subjective, subjective, which doesn’t make it feel any less frustrating when we so want is objectivity…and ostensibly, at least, we are concerned with making claims that go to greater truths…
I think there is a question is whether we can ever really achieve objectivity; whether attempts to achieve objectivity necessarily fail; and if at the end of day, we would even want objectivity.
I would also appreciate it if you backchannel me at bpashler@gmail.com ; while it is doubtful you will learn much from dialogoue with me, there is at least a chance, and I am positive I would learn from you…
Posted from: 70.224.44.100
May 3rd, 2006 08:51
Everything I wrote above is accurate to the best of my knowledge. If anyone knows of coaches who have applied to the LDEP and not heard back, I would be grateful if he or she would contact me privately so that I can follow up.
Jason Baldwin
jbaldwin@nd.edu
Posted from: 69.118.224.29
May 3rd, 2006 09:26
Congratulations to Stephen Hess (I already congratulated you online, but I’ll say it again cause it’s just so amazing) and to David Weeks for just flat out dominating as well as to all the other amazing debaters who competed this weekend at what was all in all a pretty great tournament.
“maybe its that i don’t understand why being agressive in A DEBATE is the same as BEING AN ASSHOLE. maybe i don’t understand why chetan gave an RFD that told my opponent that he was sorry he couldnt vote for her?…maybe its because when I got to talk to Stacy Thomas she told me that most of her friends and the people she knew said that she should never talk to me (I am very thankful that she did, she is a great coach).”
MAYBE if you reflected on why many people think you’re an asshole, why Chetan wanted to drop you in that round and why many of Stacy Thomas’ friends didn’t think she should talk to you before continuing you might understand. There IS a difference between being aggressive in a debate round and being an asshole, but many of the things you do fall into the latter category (go watch the video of yourself in the demo round of the Stanford RR against Prashant). Throwing things at other debaters in rounds, levying personal insults and cursing at other debaters (ALL things I have seen you do) are just straight up examples of behavior that is innapropriate and characteristic of someone who has behavioral issues, not examples of aggression. People like Chetan, Tommy Clancy and members of the LDEP who believe the activity is valuable rightfully oppose such behavior because it makes people not want to participate(many people over the last couple of years have quit before the end of their senior year or chosen not to come back as coaches and judges) which destroys the activity.
“maybe its the fact that Mangus’ coach dropped me at stanford because she wanted to show us bad bad bad boys that running confusing stuff even if you try to explain it is just straight up NOT acceptable”
I don’t know the specifics of what happened in that particular round, but I do think this highlights an interesting issue. While many of the so-called “traditionalists” are criticized for seeking to exclude educational subject matter by limiting debate to issues pertaining directly to the resolution, I don’t think that such a criticism is fair. While the LDEP has pronounced that debates should be limited to issues pertaining directly to the resolution, I’m not sure this is necessarily what they really desire, so much as what they feel is the only way to have the pendulum swing back the other way and create a brightline. What I mean by that is I think that many of the people on the LDEP and otherwise who have voiced criticism of some of the recent trends of kritiks and whatnot aren’t necessarily opposed to such in theory, so much as in practice. The problem with kritiks and much of the other so-called progressive trends is that they are exclusive. That is, they tend to be run in such a way that makes them comprehendable to only a select group of people. When debaters consider what case to run and how fast to speak they too often make such decisions only in consideration of the judge as opposed to also considering their opponent. The result is that often the round is not enjoyable for the opponent because while the judge and one debater might know what’s going on the opponent doesn’t. To make an analogy, you probably wouldn’t be too happy if upon learning that your judge could speak German, your opponent decided to debate the round in German. While they could probably read the critical theorists and learn to speak fast and be able to flow people speaking fast, you too could learn how to speak German (and it would be educational for you to do such), but would probably not consider it worthwhile and would just go do some other activity. Actions like these not only prevent rounds from being educational, but again cause people to quit the activity. When so-called “traditionalists” then speak of debate as a communicative activity they are doing so then not necessarily for themselves but out of consideration for others in the activity.
SPARKNOTES VERSION: When thinking about what sorts of principles should be in place in debate, why others are proposing certain principles and when thinking of how to conduct themselves, debaters need to reflect not only on themselves but on the affect that such decisiosn will have on others and the activity as a whole.
Posted from: 204.58.32.254
May 3rd, 2006 09:28
>
Corbin, I thought I made it clear in my RFD that your behavior in the CXes of that round bothered me enormously, and that it made me actively not want to vote for you (though I ultimately did because I thought you won the round and chose not to let your in-round attitude affect my decision). After my RFD, you indicated that you understood what I’d said; you spoke to me later (after semis) and apologized for your behavior in the round. Given all of this, I’m puzzled by the comment I quoted above.
If you have any questions about what I said in my RFD, please feel free to e-mail me at chertzig at gmail.com.
Congrats and best wishes,
Chetan
Posted from: 65.117.146.2
May 3rd, 2006 09:51
I send you an email, chetan. thanks.
Posted from: 65.117.146.2
May 3rd, 2006 09:53
Gordon, how were you educational and how do you think we could make debate more educational by being like John Gordon?
Posted from: 134.173.92.61
May 3rd, 2006 10:28
I plan to post something more in depth later, but I just want to say that I find it hilarious that this website, which is ostensibly dedicated to LD news, immediately buried the LD TOC results under congress results and staff announcements. It’s hard to even find the TOC results unless you know to what post they’re linked. So much for decrying the corporatization of the media. Shame on y’all.
This is directed at the people who buried TOC results and who didn’t even post Stanford RR results, not VBI staff writ large. Much love to them.
Posted from: 199.189.10.29
May 3rd, 2006 10:59
Regardless of an MJP or strike system, judges must be cognizant that the only way debaters can adapt to their preferences is thru their paradigm. This point was brought-up in the meeting with the final round panel in the post-round discussion. It’s imperative that judges share their views on debate honestly, instead of attempting to appease one system of debate or appear “legit.” For example, I was 0-3 with Jim Miller, but I wouldn’t strike him because he always followed his paradigm regardless of whether I attempted to adapt to it. Adapting to Jim was my obligation, not his. I think this is the crucial distinction in any system of judging – it must be reasonably predictable for both debaters, and the foundation starts with the judge’s preferences.
As an aside, after contemplating quitting after a tough loss at the Glenbrooks, Shess must be one of the most remarkable comeback stories since Remember the Titans. Every time I’ve watched or we’ve debated, I’ve been extremely impressed. It speaks volumes that Steven could have such a difficult first semester, then win the TOC. It proves that as bad as one tournament(s) may be, if you keep trying, good things will come about. Congratulations, Jewtower!
Posted from: 205.221.233.32
May 3rd, 2006 11:02
At NFL Nationals last year I signed up to join the LDEP. After discussions with Kate Hamm and Dean Rhoades I felt like it would be worth my time to engage in a discussion about these issues. NEVER ONCE did I receive anything from this organization — why, I do not know.
To be completely fair and honest … at TOC Mr. Timmons, Ms. Hamm, Ms. Woodhouse, Ms. King and others were having a discussion about tournament policies for removing yourself from a round. They were very welcoming and listened to my input.
I have so much respect for so many members of the LDEP — Rhoades, King, Wycoff, Timmons, etc. We need guiding figures in this activity and we need role models for younger coaches. What we do not need is the exclusion of younger coaches. Like I’ve said before — I would like to see the LDEP help younger coaches with issues like liability, hotel reservations, etc etc. I would not be where I am today without the assistance of so many great people in the activity. Thankfully they embraced my eagerness to be involved.
I think there is so much good about this activity and I’d like to see less anger, hostility, politics, exclusion, etc.
I enjoyed watching the couple rounds I judged. I enjoyed seeing debaters from different schools, different debate camps, etc. allow us to videotape their rounds for educational purposes.
Congrats to all who did so well this weekend. Very happy and proud for too many debaters to write it out.
Posted from: 65.117.146.2
May 3rd, 2006 11:24
I love Dean Rhoades, he has a sense of humor.
Mangus, if you want to bitch at me in public thats cool, but like I will actually be willing to listen to me if you would like to send me an email about how I should live my life? My email is RichardNixon47 at gmail.com
Posted from: 65.117.146.2
May 3rd, 2006 11:25
*listen to you. and like we are friends so like…you can do that…or you could call me…cause its not really related to me and debate but how you think I conduct myself.
and in dallas on the way back from the airport; weeks and I discovered the urban sprawl.
Posted from: 65.117.146.2
May 3rd, 2006 12:16
Cruz…can you like fix that…please…I will stop cursing… or is it to distract from the fact that the winners are NSD and not VBI staff members, if so thats cool cause VBI needs to make money to have a website to make debate a spectacle.
Posted from: 38.117.182.130
May 3rd, 2006 12:35
Reilly?
Hope things are well…
Posted from: 69.118.224.29
May 3rd, 2006 12:37
“Gordon, how were you educational and how do you think we could make debate more educational by being like John Gordon?”
Corbin, I never professed to be very educational, nor did I suggest people should be more like me. In fact, I really hope that people aren’t like me. I think alot of what I did was absolutely terrible and I even knew it as I was doing it (the awareness of such grew especially as the year progressed). Despite, that I certainly never behaved like even 1/100th as much of an ass as you did in most of your rounds. I think a certain person (who I won’t name because I haven’t asked his permission) put it best when he said to me last night “I mean you were a god compared to most of these shits, but I still couldn’t stand watching/ listening to you debate.” But I digress – my point was that one thing I’ve witnessed over the years is that people seem not to think of the affect of their actions on others and that the debate community could be a much better place if people did such. With that paradigm in mind I think one would conclude that individuals certainly shouldn’t behave extremely poorly in round (note: you seemed astounded that Chetan, Stacy Thomas et all could somehow be really angry at you for doing innapropriate things such as throwing things at opponents, levying personal insults at opponents and cursing in rounds) and perhaps even with such a paradigm it might be possible to understand the LDEP’s agenda of trying to make LD once again a more communicative activity (I suggested that reading Heidegger really fast with very dense language incomprehensible to an opponent not familiar with Heidegger in front of a judge who is very familiar with Heidegger simply because the opponent isn’t familiar with Heidegger makes the round not enjoyable for the opponent and not particularly educational – I suggested that someone thinking of doing such should consider whether they’d be happy if their opponent upon discovering the judge speaks German decided to debate the round in German. I further clarified that this isn’t to say Heidegger et all have no place in LD, simply that: 1) people should consider adapting to their opponents as well as their judges so everyone can enjoy the activity and it really can be educational [saying it will make them go read Heidegger doesn't answer this because you could go learn German, but probably wouldn't consider it worthwhile and would just quit] and 2) the LDEP probably isn’t against Heidegger et all so much as against the (ab)use of such. That is to say it would be fine if used in appropriate situations [against opponents familiar with such] or if individuals running such were to slow down and actually explain the argument so that someone nto as familiar with the author as them could understand it).
Getting back to Corbin’s post – I would actually say if anything that people should be more like Matt Shields. While I suppose I could be somewhat biased since Matt was my teamate I’d say that Matt perhaps exemplified everything that is good about debate – he always tried to engage the substance of his opponents’ positions, never sought to beat people with tricks and I doubt anyone ever came out of a round with him feeling that he did something questionable to win. As I said previously I never professed to be very educational because I don’t think I necessarily was. Though I really would have liked to do things differently, I did what I needed to do to win – I wasn’t willing to put myself at a disadvantage (and still wouldn’t be and don’t really think it’s a problem that peopel aren’t). Frankly, I think that there are probably more people who would like to see a change but who aren’t willing to put themselves at a disadvantage and for that reason I think that any change needs to come from judges rather than expecting compettitors to disadvantage themselves because few people will be willing to do such voluntarily.
Sorry to participate in shifting the focus away from the amazing accomplishments of Hess and Dweeks and Prashant and Jeffers and hell everyone who was there. Awesome job!
Posted from: 24.14.34.159
May 3rd, 2006 12:40
Michael-
to quote another unnamed great one ‘his [jamer's] post just implies that she’s incompetent and tried to correct for herself.
I’m increasingly disgusted with the judging/coaches decisions to actively and explicitly intervene in rounds. I don’t care if these are 4-2 rounds at the TOC (which I am again disgusted with how many critiques began with ‘i intervene’) or 0-6 rounds. I am always willing to take as long as possible to decide unclear rounds strictly on the flow, but perhaps deciding in coherence with in-round argumentation has become obsolete. In an educational activity, it is disturbing that older coaches (you know of the 3 I speak) have decided to EXPLICTLY vote for positions they like, agree with, or to decide they have the jurisdictional authority to reject advocacies or styles.
at the toc of all places, where more preparation, emotion, and history is valued than anywhere else, i am baffled that educators (head coaches, high school teachers, the ldep, etc.) have decided that THEY have the right to make decisions that in no way correspond with what happened in the debate. If this trend continues, we’ll soon be handing these judges the text of 1ac’s and 1nc’s and asking them to pick the argument they like and tell us why it’s a voter in there mind.
i don’t care if you’re old or young. there are bad young judges and bad old judges, just like there are incredible young judges fresh into college and incredible older judges on there death bed. this activity isn’t for the coaches, the teachers, or the elderly that feel they’re becoming disenfranchised and who’s services are no longer necessary outside of administrative work. this is an activity for the students. i don’t mean they should have absolute control (i.e, mr baldwin’s physics class example, which i see no correlation to a debate setting); rather, I implore you not to take this activity away from kids. let them do what they want. i may be seen as a young progressive judge, but i’m just as ready to vote on a great big picture debate as a great spread. we as judges must be accountable to students that spend they’re own/district money, spend countless hours working, and pour immense amounts of emotion into their debate.
this level of accountability means being objective in the way we evaluate rounds. i am not criticizing politics, camps, or any other macro-institution at large. i am advocating that arbitrators have an obligation to the students, without whom this activity would die (not the other way around for you coaches who think you are the cornerstones of the activity). if you aren’t willing to be objective in your judging, please stop robbing debaters of titles, wins, or detaching them from the work and emotion they have dedicated to themselves, their coaches, and the activity
Posted from: 169.231.12.193
May 3rd, 2006 12:44
I think Paul expresses the sentiments of an incredibly large number of competitors and coaches perfectly.
Posted from: 38.117.182.130
May 3rd, 2006 12:47
Yes, objectivity and an immediate ceasing of stealing tropies, that is what we need!!!
Posted from: 38.117.182.130
May 3rd, 2006 13:16
Everyone is so angry these days…
Posted from: 65.117.146.2
May 3rd, 2006 13:25
I don’t think its fair to compare my raging to Bryce being productive…
Posted from: 66.108.92.164
May 3rd, 2006 13:37
“Cruz…can you like fix that…please…I will stop cursing… or is it to distract from the fact that the winners are NSD and not VBI staff members, if so thats cool cause VBI needs to make money to have a website to make debate a spectacle.”
Actually, Corbin, it wasn’t to distract from anything. It was because your vulgarity was making people uncomfortable.
The results of the TOC are still on the front page, and I don’t think announcing our staff members is a way of distracting anyone from seeing that the TOC winner and runner-up are not on our staff, given that they’re not listed among the names listed. Besides which, I worked pretty hard to get the coverage going all weekend, so the last thing I would want to do is totally bury it. :)
Congratulations again on your success this weekend. I’ve been impressed with how you’ve done all year. (*ALERT* Despite anger and sarcasm and whatnot on this thread, that’s a perfectly genuine comment.)
Posted from: 66.108.92.164
May 3rd, 2006 13:43
Eric — to clarify two things:
The LD results are still on the front page. We had to keep the page on the low-intensity version for a while (which only had two stories on the front page, to my chagrin) because of the traffic we were receiving. But now we’re back to the normal design, and they are still there, and actually will be bounced up shortly since a more active discussion is happening on the thread. (I’ve bumped up other threads like that before.)
Regarding the Stanford Round Robin, I wasted more cell phone minutes than I care to count trying to get in contact with several people who were at the tournament. To be entirely honest, I did neglect to eventually put the results up.
That was no slight against the people in it, but a mistake on my end. (I also neglected to post two state tournaments that were sent my way this year.) If the implication of your post were true, I’d only post results that feature VBI people. I don’t. I spend a lot of time working on this web site so people can have a place to congratulate friends, view results, and discuss the activity. I respect Corbin and Prashant a tremendous amount. I was happy to see Corbin in finals of the Bronx Round Robin and I tried to work pretty hard with Prashant and his mother to enable him to come to the tournament. (It unfortunately didn’t work out.) You can fault me for not posting the results — and it is my fault — but it was not a result of a secret agenda.
A post will be made soon linking to a new VBD interview (with a non-VBI staff member), which will necessarily drop the TOC results down. It is still higher up since the conversation there is long and active, and if it continues by the time it drops to the bottom of the most recently-read articles, a link will be put on the side of the page to direct readers to that page, as I have done in the past.
Anyway, sorry for the long ramble. I just wanted to clarify both things, not only because I want to clear any misconceptions about the operating principles behind VBD, but because I specifically (and understandably) was called out.
Back to the discussion!
Posted from: 69.231.45.0
May 3rd, 2006 13:56
One of the things that make Bryce’s arguments sensible in my mind is his understanding of how communication works. When people understand each other fundamentally, they are more apt to find what they hear persuasive.
I think that there are some judges who are better than others. We all do. However, I don’t think that it’s reasonable to say that judges don’t listen; that they don’t care; that they don’t try to “get” the information with that they are presented.
Ideas reach us in subjective ways. That is one of the bases of post-modernism: ideas do not ruminate in the minds of people universally. A critique to which I have not seen much great reply is that there’s great tension between advocating objectivity in debate decision-making while arguing in favor of positions that plead for subjectivity.
In a debate that happened in the TOC three years ago, I voted against Paul Schiano in a 4-2 round that was quite famous to everyone who knew him (and maybe others). He lambasted me in his blog, which people felt compelled to send me links to, pretty intensely. Rumor has it that his hotel room looked worse than I did in the blog! I voted against him because his argument did not make sense to me. I recounted the position, as I construed it, to many people (Eric Palmer being one of them) and they agreed that the arguments were pretty tough to reconcile. I still don’t know what it means to make genocide “ontologically impossible.”
Even though my decision was made because of a communicative disconnect (which is a fairly simple explanation), the decision itself was a difficult one. It was tough because I agree that, in principle, students should be able to express arguments even if it’s in an untraditional sort of way. I think that students should not be punished for intellectual pursuits. [I tried my hardest to make a good decision in that debate, which to me, meant that I needed to make a decision about what I understood].
However, some times it doesn’t work out because what you’re saying is lost on the judge. In this way, judging is a lose-lose proposition: either you’re an idiot when you are bold enough to confess when you don’t understand what’s going on; or, you’re an idiot when you try to understand, but the meaning is still lost on you. As reasonably intelligent people, judges don’t want to be insulted. No one wants to be insulted. At a base level, though, in a communicative game that rewards people with wins and losses from other people, we have to acknowledge that our biases and levels of understanding are subjective.
This is one thing that Hess began to embrace in his final semester of debate. How was he able to win the VBT and the MLK tournament in back to back weekends? How was he able to get in the deep elimination rounds at the CA state tournament and win Harker? It’s because he found a way in important debates to reach out communicatively to his judges. No matter what, even if the judge was a Logan parent, Michelin Massey, Larry McGrath, or Joe Vaughan, he found a way to get it done.
One of the greatest minds I’ve met in this activity was Liz Rogers. She won a ton of tournaments in her day. About her wins, she once told me, “I wasn’t one of the most technically savvy debaters. But, what I said made sense to the judges. Maybe it was something in the way I talked or how I caught a glimpse in their eyes. I just connected with them.”
Posted from: 38.117.182.130
May 3rd, 2006 13:56
I think there has been a lot of released emotions recently on this thread – to the degree I instigated any of it, I apologize.
Michael: it is undoubtedly a fair criticism of me that I spend too much time posting on VB – sometimes my work is light, and I spend time surfing blogs and posting comments. I also apologize if you took my comment about objectivity and trophies to be rude – I intended it to be funny (it obviously wasn’t) – to the degree it had a serious point, it is that, as someone has pointed out about the use of the term “educational”, saying that judges should be “objective” is in the eye of the beholder…obviously some people are going to think a certain decision was “objectively” correct, and others are going to disagree…using the word “objective” doesn’t really mean anything, is in the eye of the beholder, and more importantly, is going to ultimately frustrate participants in this activity when they find out there is no objectivity… saying we need more objective judges is going to ultimately frustrate people, when that promise will never, never, never be delivered upon…I said that I think a lot of Corbin’s frustrations with the activity he expressed come, in part, from a desire/expectation for objective outcomes/predictable behavior of judging. While I am sympathetic to this desire, I don’t think it will happen, and I am not sure it should.
And of course judges endorse styles, language, etc. All judges do – they reward some styles and punish others. Judges that claim to be neutral either mean a more limited claim 1) they set aside feelings about the debater, her coach, or the ultimate truth or falsity of the resolution, or 2) are just wrong, they are not neutral, no one is…
Posted from: 128.135.173.63
May 3rd, 2006 14:01
just like every time i end up in a discussion, vbd’s spam filter has blocked me again. can someone please fix this problem for good?
The above message brought to you by Petey’s skillful bypass of the VBD spam filter.
Posted from: 66.108.92.164
May 3rd, 2006 14:02
Michael — I think I figured out the problem. You made three posts rapidly, and it must have triggered the spam filter. I am going to try to make it not automatically do that. Let me know if it works within an hour.
Posted from: 69.118.124.109
May 3rd, 2006 14:19
I originally had no intention of posting on this thread, but you get tired of preaching to the choir after a while and quite frankly I am more than a little bit aggrevated. Seeing as I have never really made any comments on this site in regards to the topics being discussed right now, it is important to know that I don’t consider myself to be on either side of this never ending and rarely substantive discussion. Quite frankly I haven’t been in the activity long enough to reach any conclusions, but I will say that my main problem with debate is this thread or rather a large collection of threads that so often come up on VBD. That being said, I will comment:
1) LDEP: I talked to the LDEP a lot this past weekend and Jim Menick is my coach, so I have a pretty good idea of what they are all about. The problem, as is clearly reflected by this thread, is that most don’t. Anyone can make sweeping generalizations about the LDEP and its members and saying that they are all out to get you (and you know who you are), but that isn’t going to get us anywhere. The LDEP is anything but a unified group, with Mr. Menick being the self-proclaimed rogue. They argue about almost everything and certainly analyze these issues a lot better than we do. They also rarely discuss what types of arguments should and should not be made, and rather talk about how tournaments should be run. Some members of the LDEP, including Mr. Menick, are very much in favor of postmodernism. The real conflict between the LDEP and a group that for all intense and purposes I will label, correctly or otherwise, the national circuit, is more values based than anything else. Apparently everyone loves to point out that the LDEP consists of a bunch of old geezers who lock themselves up in a tabroom plotting. This is only half true. The LDEP is old, but this isn’t some secret society that pulls the strings here and very few of them can actually directly influence the way debate tournaments are run, and those are the ones who run tournaments. Age matters, but not for the reasons that people seem to think. Most of the LDEP members have been and will continue to be in the activity for much longer than any of us will or want to be. Accordingly, they have to be concerned with the development of young debaters, the schools that allow us to fly all around the country and bicker for forty-five minutes at a time, the judging at LOCAL tournaments as well as national ones, and plenty of other things that I’m sure none of us ever think about. We, the all creme de la creme of this activity (or at least that is what we like to tell ourselves), are more or less concerned with winning. That difference is massive because we think of tournaments and how they should be run in completely different ways. Sure, ideally speaking, it would be great to have a gazillion *insert favorite judge here*s in the pool, but that just isn’t possible. Nor can we expect every single debater to read every article ever written by a french person. The LDEP, as far as I am concerned, more or less acts under the auspices that we infallible debaters are going to win regardless of who is in the back of the room. That doesn’t seem so extreme to me, aside from when we debate eachother at which point stylistically speaking we may run into some type of conflict, but I’m sure there are plenty of debaters who don’t want to see *insert cool hipster judge here* in the back of the room either. Again, ideally speaking, it would be great if we could have totally objective judges who cater to the needs of us all, but that isn’t possible and may actually take away just a bit of the fun. My favorite RFD of all time came from a woman who didn’t speak english. I guess my point is that both sides make legitimate claims and the question become “Who should tournament directors concern themselves with?” Is it the people who consistantly get to late outrounds or is it the kid who is never going to win the TOC but enjoys debate anyway? The latter group is certainly more numerous, but that certainly is not to say that the smaller and admittedly more succesful group should be ignored. Believe it or not, it is possible to have a meaningful discussion with LDEP members who are, and I can vouch for them, a lot more receptive than anyone who posts here seems to be willing to admit. Some may in fact be genuinely interested in what you have to say and might actually agree with you on some points. The last thing that we should let happen is for conversations that could generate some really fantastic results become “flame wars” where people aren’t remotely accepting of the opinions of others and incriminate rather than engage the person who said it.
2) The National Circuit: Before I start ranting about this and that, I just want to say that Ryan Cooper is the greatest debater to ever grace us with his presence. Among all the tension and stress this past weekend, Ryan spent his time making people laugh and enjoying the experience, as well as my sweaters. He did his best to make sure that all of his opponents weren’t nervous in the least, even if that meant honking and stealing expandos, and also made a little freshman like me smile in an environment that can get really ugly at times. Thanks Ryan, you are the man. Sorry for the tangent, but that boy deserves all the credit in the world. So where was I? Oh, right, the debaters. Debate has changed, which seems to be the only thing we all agree on. What are those changes? Well, I don’t know all of them, but there are some that are particularly note worthy. Lets start with the one that I think is the most positive contribution that this new generation has made to the activity: the expansion of the philosophical material. Unquestionably the more reading people do and the more material that circulates in an academic arena the better, even the old dinosaurs won’t disagree with us there. However, there are just a few short comings that I am sympathetic to. As I said before, it is unfair for us to create what could be considered a reading list in order to do well in this activity. Some kids want to listen to 50 cent and shake their booties as opposed to reading Butler, and while I am not one of those kids (nothing but showtunes and jazz for me), I understand where they are coming from. If you are going to run critical theory or *insert in vogue philosopher here*, you have to make sure that anyone can understand what you are saying or have the common decency to only run the cases against people you know will understand. Not such an unreasonable request. I agree, it is hard to explain Zizek and apply him to a given resolution in 6 minutes, or 3 if you are using him to negate, but please try your best. Maybe there needs to be a change in time limits to facilitate this new and incredibly productive expanision, or just to make for better debate. Not speech times obviously, that just will lead to more of the same, but certainly more prep time and CX to clarify, read, and respond to this stuff. Plus I am sure that all of you mind blowingly brilliant debaters out there are more than happy to explain your case and then have a substantive discussion about the arguments you have presented. If that is not the case then I urge you to quit the activity right now and never come back. Ok, now onto theory. I occasionally make theory arguments, not well, but I make them. That is because there is also a time and a place for them. We need theory to keep debate reasonable. Woe is us that theory is a double edged sword. In my humble opinion, theory shouldn’t be a tool to win rounds, rather, it should be a tool to make rounds better and more clear. Whether or not people are willing to admit it, theory is often abused and rarely substantive. That is obviously a problem and one that is not so easily solved. Maybe, and this is what I do when I make theory arguments, a theory argument shouldn’t be a reason to decide a round and instead be a reason to throw out arguments. A theory argument in this sense says “hey you all knowing judge in the back of the room, don’t pull the trigger, but recognize that this argument is bad for us and leave it out of your forthcoming and unquestionable evaluation of the round.” If my logic is somehow misguided, feel free to say so, but I am pretty sure that that makes sense and is something that even those senile social security beneficiaries will enjoy. Now onto speed. It is an unavoidable problem with any speaking activity that enforces time limits and will only not be a problem when the almost dead self-proclaimed educators who have too much arthritis to flow are in the back (I say that sarcastically of course). Lastly I will touch on the general attitude in the community. I go to a school where 99% of the kids need to be beaten with a rusted mining tool (thanks George) and most debaters are no different. We seem to lack any kind of perspective or tact that would make for a civilized community and I include myself in that statement. Debaters fly off to all parts of the country and argue in aims of winning trophies that only other debaters care about and in the process we make sure we read the most up to date and inaccesible philosophy (This one time I mentioned Foucault to a friend and she thought I cursed at her in French), speak faster than any normal human being can understand, shamelessly compliment people we secretly hate, and worst of all arrange ourselves in groups that even the Plastics would find elitist. We are some of the smartest kids in the country, don’t get me wrong, and I have met some amazing people during my short time in the activity, but we all need a reality check. Debaters exist in a very tiny bubble (A moving bubble filled with standards and impacts). This isn’t to say that you aren’t allowed to dislike people or have opinions, but it does demand a certain level of civility that the national circuit seems to be lacking. If I have to spend three more years flying around and saying a bunch of really esoteric things, then I at least want to be able to enjoy myself and not walk away worrying about whether or not the person I just talked to is about to turn to someone else and tell a hilarious tale about how he/she stuck my toothbrush in the toilet. This of course applies just as much if not more so to online threads such as this one. If you really hate someone, comment on their facebook, don’t publicly decry their very existence.
I am done talking now even though if I sat here long enough I’m sure I could thing of many more things to complain about. Debate at this point, sad is it may be, takes up a vast majority of my time and I have a lot invested in it, so that is the position I am coming from. Remember, this is not meant to target anyone or enforce any kind of agenda on anyone, these are just some hopefully polite musings on what I think we all consider to be an important subject. In conclusion, congratulations to Stephen and David who regardless of whether or not you have met or heard of before, worked hard and reaped the benefits.
Horace Man-The Superhero Without Any Superpowers
Posted from: 24.14.34.159
May 3rd, 2006 14:30
My coach and truly one of my best friends is Kandi King, so know your role little boy before you try to talk to a king.
Posted from: 71.14.139.12
May 3rd, 2006 14:36
The notion that I cannot win parents judges or that David cannot win parent judges is silly…I won Colleyville with the same Nietzsche K I ran a bunch…and a Baudrillard 1 AC about advertising…Weeks was from loussiana debate…hess won harker as mr Massey said and prai has just straight up AMAZING charisma…so does R cooper, but as R cooper will tell you…he hates local debate and never wins…But in my heart.
Michelin — Will you tell war stories?
Posted from: 24.14.34.159
May 3rd, 2006 14:37
To my favorite historian Michilin-
Your decision my junior year is in no way charateristic of what I’m talking about. You and I were still able to laugh about that even the next year at TOC (who were your other 2 strikes Paul?) and I continue to respect you as a judge and because of what you’ve continued to add to the activity. My indictment is the explict voting for arguements on the basis of “I just think that arguement is true” when there are, for example, two unanswered turns next to it. I have a problem with saying “I just agree with this position” “I liked the arguement” or “I liked the strategy or case you ran and so I vote for that”. These problems do not represent a disconnect with the arguement’s articulation and what occured in the judges mind; rather, they represent an enormous problem of judges feeling like they have the judrisdiction to vote on issues that in no way found their way into a debate round.
Posted from: 24.14.34.159
May 3rd, 2006 14:39
I’ll also be the first to critisize judges voting for positions they don’t understand to gain perceptual legitimacy, or because they’re insecure, but I can’t say I encountered any of that at this particular tournament.
Posted from: 68.99.137.49
May 3rd, 2006 14:48
when will toc videos/pictures be posted?
Posted from: 169.231.12.193
May 3rd, 2006 15:19
As an answer to Craig’s proposition on using theory to throw out arguments:
Thats highly problematic because often theory is run as preempt to in round abuse. This creates ground/time skew because the debater is forced to use valuable speech time to respond to the illegitimate practices of the other side.
For example, when the 1AR runs Conditional CP Bad, throwing out the CP is insufficient because the 1ar has already wasted time. Not to mention, that would just render the CP conditional.
Posted from: 69.118.124.109
May 3rd, 2006 15:24
If they are in fact illegitimate practices, what is the difference between not evaluating them because they are illegitimate as opposed to dropping them because of it? Time skew works both ways and there should probably be a disincentive to run the arguments if they won’t generate any offense. By allowing the judge to pull the trigger you are probably increasing the amount of theory in a given round when it isn’t justified because theory can now win ballots as opposed to just weeding out the illegitimate stuff. I don’t really know, it was just a thought and I don’t think I know nearly enough about theory or at least not nearly as much as you do, so I hope people take that and really my entire post as such. Glad to see you actually responded to me though.
Posted from: 69.118.124.109
May 3rd, 2006 15:28
Oh by the way, feel free to IM me at Wicket414 or e-mail me at liberalbiasT14@yahoo.com if you want to talk to me privately. I guess posting here means that there is no turning back. *sigh*
Posted from: 67.101.39.221
May 3rd, 2006 15:32
A few comments from an old (though non-member of the LDEP) fart.
1. I know that you believe that MJP will protect you from old judges who don’t want to hear your arguments. I don’t have my packet from last year, but I do know that elim panels included old farts similar to and including those you were sorry to see this year, as well as members of the dreaded LDEP. Here, for example, is quarters from 2005:
Wolfsh-Matt (Beena Koshy, Tim Case, Kate Hamm)
Hirsh-Mangus (John Fulweiler, Anjan Choudhry, Aaron Timmons)
Will-Bryan Cory (Chetan Hertzig, Paul Bellus, Cherian Koshy)
Adwait-Prashant (Vikrum Aiyer, Dave McGinnis, Andrew Garvin)
The composition of the final round panel was also nothing new. Peter Petraro posted this on lddebate.org about LAST YEAR’s panel:
“i don’t understand why mjp is important in all the rounds but the most important: finals
there are judges on the panel who haven’t judged in years, and nearly all of them have strict visions of the activity that are far different than the majority of debaters in late outrounds ”
Paul Schiano replied, “The finals round panel, 7, may be a diverse group of judger; however, I htink the prestigious of the tournament means that, while these aren’t judges that consistently adjudicate big circuit rounds, they’re at a point in their career where they deserve to be choosing who wins the national title. It’s pretty consistantly that way every year at toc, and i think those of us there last year and the year before will redily tell you how much better the judging, especially in elimination rounds, is this year. At least they aren’t as polarized based on affilliation as they were in last year’s final round.”
So…I’m not persuaded that judging was uniquely crappier/less debater friendly/more dogmatic than in past years. I’ve been playing this game since 1978 and folks have been bitching about their judges for a lot longer than that.
2. On argumentative choices, you have the right to argue whatever the heck you please. You do not, however, have the right to win. In policy, even with MJP, we often get judges who don’t like the arguments we’re best at. Sometimes it’s because the pool is small, or because there are not very many of the judges who share our taste in the pool. At other times it’s because our opponent prefers a very different flavor of judge. When this happens, assuming that we want to win, we make different arguments. We may call it bad luck to have gotten a judge who wouldn’t like our A strat, but we don’t call it unfair.
3. I have mixed feelings about the post final round discussion. I thought that it was a generally constructive, honest, and useful conversation. I think we need to have lots more conversations like it. I know Scott Wunn is interested in student input to the LD committee meeting at NFL in June. At the same time, I really regret the timing of this conversation. I feel bad that two debaters who were just in the finals of the TOC got hijacked for a two hour inquisition/forced justification of their argumentative preferences. I’m sure they wanted to go off and celebrate, and I’m sorry for any part I played in putting a damper on their enjoyment of an outstanding achievement.
Posted from: 71.14.139.12
May 3rd, 2006 15:55
“At the same time, I really regret the timing of this conversation. I feel bad that two debaters who were just in the finals of the TOC got hijacked for a two hour inquisition/forced justification of their argumentative preferences. I’m sure they wanted to go off and celebrate, and I’m sorry for any part I played in putting a damper on their enjoyment of an outstanding achievement.”
I think that is really true, everyone was waiting for Hess and for Weeks…because we love them and they are amazing for reaching finals.
Posted from: 24.195.1.253
May 3rd, 2006 15:55
Its ok if a judge doesnt get certain args, it takes alot to learn the stuff. However i dislike judges who ACTIVELY try to prevent certain argumentation styles or ignore arguments. Make an attempt for the students to grasp it.
With that said, I personaly dont run weird stuff but i do try to understand it and i think that matters. If a case is complex i ask for the explanation in simplified terms. The only prob is when cases are complex to prevent other from understanding and the debaters dont clearify the case.
Posted from: 67.167.22.255
May 3rd, 2006 16:32
The Policy ToC has the Julia Burke award, which was won by Will Sears of Lexington this year. It is supposed to exemplify friendship and kindness, and I’ve often wondered why a similar award wasn’t giving in L-D. It appears from discussion that there are nice people, namely I’ve read Ryan Cooper, Ari Parker, and Steven Hess, so if so, why isn’t there hardware awarded?
Posted from: 68.239.247.242
May 3rd, 2006 16:44
I’ve got more stress on my plate at the moment than I choose to share, however, I will make a few comments and I hope – at least some of my stress (though it isn’t necessarily debate related) – will go away.
First, – stop criticising John Sheffield. What the hell is everyone’s problem? He’s a brilliant guy that probably has a bigger heart than almost anyone I know. Additionally, yes – he has a life – he spends part of it teaching at an inner city school – he spends other parts of it talking through ideas with me – and then he spends the rest of his time busting his ass at harvard and loving his girlfriend. I challenge anyone to be half the man this guy is – because 99.9% of you will fail – because you just don’t get it.
I don’t understand how people don’t get it – this is an activity about growth of the mind and growth as a person – and one thing that doesnt entail is valorizing jerks.
Corbin – I like you – and I don’t know how much you care that I do – You’re a good guy at heart; I can tell (or so I think I can.) That said – lay off Sheffield. You are smart – he is smart. He loves the activity. You love the activity. The only distinction is that you traveled across the country and he was stuck in a scary area of NC. You got a picture on VBD – Sheff got the respect of his locals. However, at the end of the day, you are no smarter than he is and so I kindly ask you to stop acting like it.
Everyone is more than welcome to discern why the former is more important than the latter – but then I beg you to articulate it in a way that doesn’t strip you of some degree of self-respect.
Second -
at duby
May 3rd, 2006 15:03 49more importantly, 1. why didn’t anybody who went to unt last summer clear at toc, and 2. isn’t it interesting that none of the first-year out staff at unt this year cleared at toc?
seems like if you like, actually want to learn how to debate, you don’t need to give your money to the duby crew.
I don’t know who you are, but let’s make a couple things clear. UNT is a fantastic camp, but it is also new. The class of LDer’s it attracted floundered in work ethic this year and UNT is not to blame for that. It is a fact that more reputable camps such as VBI or NSD sent more kids to TOC *and had more kids break @ TOC – than kids from UNT* – however – that has ZERO to do with the quality of the institute.
A lot of the kids that went last year didn’t get as much as they could have out of the experience. It is a WORKSHOP – not a debate camp. If you won’t work, then stay home.
Aaron Timmons heads the workshop. If you know anyone else that knows how to win better than he does, then learn from them. If not, then go to UNT and figure out why Wolfish was one of the most successful debaters in the history of the activity – he’ll be more than happy to tell you.
Third, Craig is right on just about everything he said – listen to what he has to say.
Also, read Mr.Menick’s blog (jimmenick.com) – you’ll learn a lot about the activity and perhaps (ideally) you’ll laugh at your own immaturity as it is slowly brought to light. We are a very strange elitist group of snobs – this probably is as about as bad enough for us as it is for the activity that we enjoy so very much.
Posted from: 68.239.247.242
May 3rd, 2006 16:46
“Everyone is more than welcome to discern why the former is more important than the latter – but then I beg you to articulate it in a way that doesn’t strip you of some degree of self-respect.”
Sorry, my post was unclear – I meant why a picture on VBD for winning is more important than respect from one’s locals.
Posted from: 67.172.54.237
May 3rd, 2006 16:58
Foucault is incomprehensible? He is perhaps the clearest writer in the Continental tradition in, oh, 100 years or so. Only misguided American academics group Foucault with Derrida (who hasn’t written a book after ‘72), Baudrillard (who writes paranoid stoner rants about holograms and lasers), Deleuze and Guattari (who intentionally write incomprehensibly), etc. Foucault is not Derrida. Get that through yo’ headz kidz. He is rather heavily connected to the Kantian tradition in philosophy.
Posted from: 169.229.89.144
May 3rd, 2006 17:02
I’d just like to say that anyone who claims that these discussions aren’t substantive is dumb.
And, while I HATE it when people try to stop a discussion and “bring it back” to the “original purpose” of the thread, I think some hardcore congratulations need to be given to Eric Palmer for this year and last. Beyond just having an underclassman in TOC outrounds his first year coaching (freshman year of college, people) and a TOC champion his second, Eric has been a HUGE part of this push for debaters’ being able to try new things and for judges to avoid intervention, not pull rank, etc.
His debating skills, his coaching skills, and the F-ing debate camp he runs as a 20-year-old. I don’t think anyone has been referenced so many times in these discussions or deserved it more either.
So yay Eric for rocking so amazingly hard and doing what you think is right – and being good enough at that to get people to follow you.
Posted from: 169.229.118.148
May 3rd, 2006 17:03
lexy–
i agree that adaptation is a critical skill for debaters, but i don’t think that every round, especially a critical round at the TOC, should be an adaptation contest. i’m sure every debater at the TOC has done a bit of adapting to get there, and as an exhibition of the nation’s best and brightest young debate minds, i think that the TOC should be a place where debaters can consistently get judging that they are comfortable with so they can bring their A game to important rounds. i’m not a rabid mjp advocate–i think strikes are fine for prelims, for instance (though closer to, say, 25 would be nice). however, i think that in outrounds of the TOC, debaters should have more control over their judging so that they can run the arguments they’re best at (panel strikes in all outrounds with either 9-to-5 strikes or a mutually selected panel for finals, for instance).
Posted from: 67.101.39.221
May 3rd, 2006 17:05
The Policy ToC has the Julia Burke award, which was won by Will Sears of Lexington this year. It is supposed to exemplify friendship and kindness, and I’ve often wondered why a similar award wasn’t giving in L-D. It appears from discussion that there are nice people, namely I’ve read Ryan Cooper, Ari Parker, and Steven Hess, so if so, why isn’t there hardware awarded?
The Julia Burke Award is quite new (7 years old) and very unusual in that it does not focus on competitive success. I think it has done wonderful things for policy debate, helping us focus on the human elements that make debate the rewarding experience that it is. The reason that there is no Julia Burke Award for LD is simply that Julia was a policy debater. When she died her parents endowed the award in her memory. While I think a similar award in LD would be a wonderful way to promote kindness and civility in an inherently cutthroat activity, I hope that we never have the opportunity to create another such award.
Posted from: 169.231.12.193
May 3rd, 2006 17:10
OnticJew: anyway, im is more organic. we can just post the log afterward
Wicket414: sure
Wicket414: what is it you wanted to say?
OnticJew: why exactly do you think theory ought not be an offensive voting issue
OnticJew: like is it because you fear it being abused
Wicket414: pretty much
OnticJew: or because you dont think that it should legitimately be used to down people
Wicket414: I also think that debate rounds should be decided based on arguments about the resolution specifically instead of theory debates
Wicket414: although I am pro theory I just have a problem with the way it is run
Wicket414: people throwing out theory because they can think of one as opposed to an argument demanding one
Wicket414: I think the whole time skew thing is going to happen regardless
OnticJew: i think a world where theory cant be used to down people ends up in one of two scenarios. either A) people are forced to run full-fledged theory violations against theoretically illegitimate practices, without the ability to win the round on it. that would seem to encourage such illegitimate practices, because at worst they get thrown out at the expense of time from the other side
OnticJew: or B) people are allowed to make more assertive claims about theory
OnticJew: that appeal to a background conception of debate
OnticJew: as a mechanism to have the judge disconsider arguments they dislike
OnticJew: the former seems to encourage bad debate because their is no sufficient retributive mechanism that can check abusive practices. the latter encourages appeals to judge norms, unpredictable paradigms, and in a lot of ways intervention. at worst it harms the debater running the ‘theoretically illegitimate practice’ because they might think it to be legitimate (for example, conditional ac’s are cool in my opinion) without a chance at recourse against the violation since it just makes an appeal to an unquestionable nature of debate
OnticJew: like i agree that theory can and is run in horrendously shitty manner
Wicket414: I think that theory arguments when made properly will take out entire parts of the flow and have a huge impact on the round, so who wins should be able to pull things across on the flow to get the rest of the ballot
OnticJew: if the negative runs 3 silly a priori arguments that are warranted but absurd, the time tradeoff of running theory to exclude them is insufficient, because the 1ar loses the ability to respond substantively to other issues on the flow
OnticJew: like ive seen people undercover substantive turns because they spent time answering silly a prioris
OnticJew: with defensive arguments
OnticJew: the reason theory is beneficial is it allows debaters to make offensive claims against practices that are normally no-risk
Wicket414: I disagree
Wicket414: most arguments people run theory against in my experiences decide rounds because they are so one-sided
Wicket414: especially at the framework level
Wicket414: like there are problems with what I am proposing, I am just not sure which is worse
OnticJew: which types of arguments are you referring to, because it seems like there is a disjunction in the types of theory objections we are referring to
Wicket414: theory about framework mostly
Wicket414: abusive burdens etc
Wicket414: corbin made a theory response when Hess put out a bunch of generic turns that talked about mislabling arguments
Wicket414: things like that
Wicket414: conditionality too I guess
Wicket414: my main issue is that theory is allowing debaters to completely ignore the resolution as opposed to resolving a conflict regarding harmful argumentation and moving on to adress the topic
Wicket414: debaters should have to do both to win
Wicket414: that is really all I am saying
OnticJew: i think that will eventually resolve itself as it did in policy
OnticJew: like at ToC, the HP T violations were not framed offensively
Wicket414: HP?
Wicket414: oh
Wicket414: highland park
Wicket414: Corbin’s was
OnticJew: Topicality, not theory
Wicket414: oh\
Wicket414: T is most abused
OnticJew: he ran things like mis-labeled turns/ellipses bad
Wicket414: people T everything
Wicket414: it is nonsense
OnticJew: right, the T violations were reasons to prefer a counter-interpretation that implicated other arguments in the round without on-face rejecting the affirmative case
Wicket414: that is what I do
OnticJew: like the T-Justice was a reason to prefer the negative standards framework
Wicket414: exactly
OnticJew: and i think that is more conducive to substantivedebate. but some theory arguments necessitate offensive voting issues
OnticJew: like no-risk issue bad
Wicket414: not reject using a standard of fairness that supercedes the criterion
Wicket414: but anything can be framed that way
Wicket414: fairness voters are absurd
Wicket414: especially when the neg makes theory arguments
OnticJew: at some point in the development of the activity, theory will balance itself out. judges will stop voting on more absurd violations when people are able to respond to them, or start running rvis. that will encourage negatives not to run silly shit
Wicket414: I just have a problem with a set-up that allows debaters to not mention the resolution once and instead go for 4 or 6 minutes of theory
OnticJew: but to run it when it is called for
Wicket414: why should we have to wait?
Wicket414: I think that is a pretty big assertion to make
OnticJew: its empirically confirmed with policy debate
Wicket414: especially when theory exists in a very small sector of the debate world
Wicket414: Policy is dead in the northeast, so I guess we are coming from different backgrounds
OnticJew: im not sure how prevalent theory is in the northeast
Wicket414: it isn’t
OnticJew: i dont know how many outrounds of toc were won on theory
OnticJew: i dont think all that many
Wicket414: I remember Glenbrooks was bad
OnticJew: glenbrooks was pretty silly. but people shouldnt have run like multiple conditional cps. it is literally one of the most abusive practices
OnticJew: ever
Wicket414: I think that another issue I have with theory is that it is an excuse to not respond to arguments
OnticJew: fabien is a testament to that
Wicket414: if it is used on framework then we should just reject the framework
Wicket414: there is no other place where theory fits unless you choose not to respond
OnticJew: i think that type of argumentation can be advanced in round. like dont vote on T, reject my framework
Wicket414: I agree
OnticJew: but i dont think an external imposition of that view is prefferable
OnticJew: because it would prolly shut off dialogue as to what is/is not legitimate
Wicket414: I don’t see how theory is applicable outside a framework
OnticJew: to answer things like multiple conditional cps bad. or negative fiat bad on this topic
OnticJew: when negatives would randomly assert 3 different absurd usages of eminent domain
Wicket414: you say those are absurd uses and you reject the arguments
Wicket414: and can framework them out of the rounds usually
OnticJew: right but 1) those arent absurd because such practices are actually illegitimate and 2) that just feeds in the time skew argument
OnticJew: like you never saw fabien debate
OnticJew: and give an NC
OnticJew: that had like 3-6 counterplans
OnticJew: strewn about
OnticJew: like having that many advocacies makes debating literally impossible
Wicket414: you make a time skew response and say that means you reject the counterplans
Wicket414: stop fabien from killing debate and lets move on
OnticJew: that assumes that the counter-plan doesnt affect the way other arguments function in the round
Wicket414: and fabien was my lab leader, I saw his neg cases
Wicket414: the arguments affected are rejected as well
OnticJew: no like it implicates the way 1ar strategy functions
OnticJew: you dont know how everything will pan out
Wicket414: but if he makes other substantive responsesthen he can still win
Wicket414: you strategize with the theory response and then deal with what is left over
OnticJew: right but your ability to respond to those other arguments is altered
OnticJew: often significantly
Wicket414: you should realize the implications of your theory argument
OnticJew: that seems to presuppose that you’ll win it
OnticJew: like the judge cant just intervene and say yup throw those things out, as this would depriove the negatives ability to defend their nc
OnticJew: which they constructed under a set of assumptions
Wicket414: if you don’t win it then it doesn’t matter what impact the theory argument has in the round, you lost it
OnticJew: and it still takes time to make the theory argument in thee 1ar
Wicket414: that happens in both worlds
OnticJew: right
OnticJew: but the 30 seconds it takes for the 1ar to make multiple cps bad
OnticJew: alters their ability to cover other aspects of the flow
OnticJew: like they’re forced to undercover issues because they had to make theory
OnticJew: to check against abuse
Wicket414: you said it impacts other arguments in the round
Wicket414: regardless that is a spread issue and I am not willing to give debaters an easy way out by ignoring the flow and going for theory
Wicket414: you can cover a spread without theory you know
Wicket414: 30 seconds on the neg case seems pretty good if you ask me
Wicket414: I wish I covered neg cases in 30 seconds, let alone 6 arguments
OnticJew: the spread is large enough that you need the 30 seconds elsewhere
Wicket414: that spread is going to be there regardless of the illegitimate argument
OnticJew: right
Wicket414: why ignore the rest of the flow?
OnticJew: but the illegitimate arguments
OnticJew: put the aff in a double bind
Wicket414: are part of a shitty spread that can be handled
Wicket414: no it doesnt
OnticJew: run theory to reject arguments that are otherwise unanswerable
Wicket414: get rid of them and move on
OnticJew: and lose time that you need to answer more important arguments
OnticJew: like case turns
OnticJew: like i think your perspective might be skewed having not experienced what theoretically illegitimate practices can do
Wicket414: in your world we can just spend 4 minutes on the counterplans and ignore everything else
Wicket414: Jeremy Dudley went straight ref against me, I have an idea
Wicket414: I see prashant going for 4 minutes of theory just as illegitimate
Wicket414: but that is what making theory a voter does
Wicket414: Dudley’s theory eliminated all substance from the round and I was angry, but he wouldn’t do that if he couldn’t win off it
Wicket414: he would be forced to engage the substance of my case, and I promise you there was nothing abusive about it
Wicket414: he won with a technical trick I didn’t understand until the RFD
OnticJew: uhh you can make substantive arguments that are theoretically bankrupt
OnticJew: like if you concede that time skew happens when theoretically illegitimate practices occur, you inherently must concede that the time skew can alter the 1ars ability to answer other arguments
OnticJew: the aff should win because the illegitimate practice
OnticJew: could cost them the round without that offensive voting issue
Wicket414: no
Wicket414: because most people aren’t fabien and my criticism applies way more often
Wicket414: debaters can cover spreads
Wicket414: they do it all the time
Wicket414: I have never seen someone lose a round because they had to deal with illegitimate arguments
Wicket414: very few things are illegitimate, but lots of rounds have theory
Wicket414: so to be really debatery, I outweigh on magnitude
OnticJew: thats silly, because bad theory can be checked by good theory
Wicket414: and reversibility
Wicket414: but bad theory takes away from talking about the topic and wastes time because no one wants to deal with bad theory
Wicket414: if we can avoid bad theory all together I think we should
OnticJew: so you run theory against it. eventually bad theory stops winning
OnticJew: people will stop running it
Wicket414: you can’t just assert that that will happen
OnticJew: i have empirics on my side
Wicket414: no you don’t
OnticJew: yes i do
Wicket414: in one region and I have another region where bad theory killed the activity
Wicket414: and empirically in LD bad theory is harming us instead of helping
OnticJew: the national circuit policy is plenty healthy and not filled with bad theory every round
Wicket414: good for them
OnticJew: and its not dead in the NE- Bishop Guertin and other good teams
Wicket414: most of policy is theory, so I’d say they have no choice
OnticJew: the policy community evolved to deal with theory
Wicket414: theory is more common in policy
Wicket414: most LDers won’t learn about theory until they get to the national circuit
Wicket414: and by the time they can handle it, they graduate
Wicket414: you can’t let people make theory arguments for no reason other than that it can get them a ballot
Wicket414: your scenario is just extremely rare
OnticJew: i mean, that ignores the way communities evolve. the mountain view freshmans are able to handle theory because we taught them to
Wicket414: because you are frickin mountain view
OnticJew: so we hold a theory seminar that teaches others how to handle it
OnticJew: its not that difficult to learn thoery if you put in the time and effort. significantly easier than entering the world of postmodernism
Wicket414: you can’t expect that of everyone and it isn’t full proof
Wicket414: plus there arent enough people to teach theory
Wicket414: and not everyone will be able to understand it and run it properly
Wicket414: people bastardize other arguments as well
Wicket414: plus we all learn about theory from somewhere, so if anything good theory is the result of a good theory teacher and not something that is easily accesible
Wicket414: theory can’t just click in your head, you are good at it or you aren’t
OnticJew: prashant and i self-taught theory
Wicket414: *applauds*
Wicket414: do you really expect that of every debater in the country?
Wicket414: plus I’d say Prashant runs bad theory all the time
OnticJew: no. i expect that of debaters who want to do well on the national circuit. just like i expect them to learn to deal with speed and critical positions
Wicket414: but why make that necessary when you could just stop it at the core and not allow them to win off it?
Wicket414: why does everyone have to be Prashant?
OnticJew: not everyone has to be prashant. they can be jeffers, who beat theory arguments regularly
OnticJew: and, as far as i know, was self taught about it
OnticJew: as for why dont we stop it at its core
OnticJew: i said that at the very start of the discussion
OnticJew: either we permit blippy appeals to what debate is and allow judges to decide what is / is not theoretically illegitimate
OnticJew: harming debaters with no chance of contestation
OnticJew: or we force people running theory against abuse to provide full justifications
Wicket414: my point is that not everyone is as smart as jeffers or as determined as prashant and it is an unfair burden to place on EVERYONE for the sake of a slect few rounds at the national level
Wicket414: and perpetuate bad theory on a massive scale
OnticJew: biting the time skew arguments i articulated
OnticJew: i think thats the level we disagree without much chance of reconciliation
OnticJew: i think debaters should be obligated, if they want to succeed, to learn how to deal with it
Wicket414: and I am saying that even if they try many will fail and it is to the detriment of debate as a whole
OnticJew: that is true of anything that is ‘difficult’ to learn. many will try and fail to understand foucault and zizek
OnticJew: and leave the activity when they lose to the K
OnticJew: hell many will fail to understand the way deontology and utility interact
OnticJew: and will leave the activity
OnticJew: when they get crushed on the positive/negative rights debate
Wicket414: but theory is completely different
OnticJew: why?
Wicket414: it is far more esoteric and doesn’t apply nearly as often
OnticJew: why and why?
Wicket414: because as I said most arguments aren’t illegitimate to the extent where we couldn’t just take them out on a framework level and also I’d say that philosophy extends far beyond your debate career whereas debate theory goes away the second you stop caring about LD
Wicket414: like multiple counterplans just isn’t going to be something I care about when I am 30
Wicket414: Zizek is
OnticJew: as to the first, that doesnt answer the scenario i painted and as for the 2nd, so does a lot of stuff. like debate jargon, speed, etc
Wicket414: I don’t like speed and debate jargon either
OnticJew: right, so that is the level of structural disagreement where we can find no real resolution
Wicket414: well I just think that it is bad to have ot learn more things that are activity specific
OnticJew: which only implies that we should have multiple levels of debate (nfl and toc), rather than excluding the way a large amount of people want to debate
Wicket414: but you are granting that a lot theory is bad and that only a few arguments are abusive
Wicket414: theory isn’t a style, it is a tool
Wicket414: if it become a style then you bite into the theory for theorys sake
OnticJew: and i am saying that it will weed itself out, as it empirically has (its already started in LD)
Wicket414: why because fabien graduated?
Wicket414: you are still ruining debate on the local level
Wicket414: for the people who will never getr past bad theory
OnticJew: uhhh im pretty sure theory will never be run at the local level
Wicket414: people at the national level should be able to work under my framework and still win rounds
Wicket414: if they will in fact learn
Wicket414: I have seen it done
Wicket414: plenty times
OnticJew: didnt you say it wasnt prevalent in the NE
Wicket414: people run theory against me because they think they don’t have a chance if they engage me on the flow
OnticJew: operate in the paradigm, run an rvi. it is not hard to do, and people will learn not to run theory against you
Wicket414: it isn’t like texas or anything, but it exists
Wicket414: well it isn’t like I lose, but I always make sure that I win on the flow and on the theory
Wicket414: it isn’t as hard as you make it out to be
OnticJew: i mean, i dont think it is. im pretty sure anyone who runs theory a lot (like prashant) could prolly win on any number of other issues
Wicket414: so why not just have him win on those issues?
Wicket414: because prashant runs theory where he shouldn
OnticJew: thats violently non-responsive to the position im advocating. all im saying is that we cannot concieve of a coherent mechanism to externally limit theory. bad theory is bad, but is checked by communal evolution and good theory
Wicket414: bad theory is bad and should just not be allowed to have an impact on the round
Wicket414: good theory still will check bad theory
Wicket414: not everyone will get to the point where they can deal with it all the time
Wicket414: the potential for abuse is too high
Wicket414: the harms of limiting the impact is minimal
OnticJew: untrue. at least correlatively, the rise in theory has seen a decline in abusive spreadstorms. good theory under my paradigm will check bad theory much more significantly, because runnign bad theory will terminate in a loss (as it should). the potential for abuse of theory is checked back, and the harms of limiting it are high because there is neither a coherent mechanism to do so and it risks people running more abusive shit because they can
OnticJew: and know that the theoretical check has been castrated
Wicket414: I think that abusive arguments are just as prevalent
Wicket414: theory has created a new problem to deal with-bad theory
Wicket414: you are still just asserting that bad theory can be kept under control, which up until now it hasn’t been
OnticJew: theory has been around in ld for like…a year and a half
OnticJew: in its current form
Wicket414: so?
Wicket414: you have no time scale here
Wicket414: i’m not waiting until I graduate for bad theory to go away if it ever does
OnticJew: you arent responding to my arguments and i have to go to my TAs office hours soon
OnticJew: at least i dont think you are
OnticJew: you prolly feel the same way
Wicket414: I am though
OnticJew: i dont think so
OnticJew: i said a while back that we reached a point of incomensurability
Wicket414: I am saying that while your arguments are valid, I think that the other side of things has comparatively greater harms and are much more guaraneteed
OnticJew: so why dont we post this and let other people duke it out
Wicket414: I said early on that there are problems on both side
OnticJew: i think my side has problems to. i dont think that the solution of altering theory through external imposions is coherent
OnticJew: for a number of reasons ive articulated here
OnticJew: i have a lot more
Wicket414: I just don’t know whether or not I value the 2 rounds in my career where your offensive theory will be the difference between winning and losing and the rest of the time where I just have to deal with crap
OnticJew: your gona deal with crap for the next 3 years if you continue on the circuit. non-responsive blipstorms, silly theory, bad critiques, etc
Wicket414: and I want to do away with the theory
OnticJew: learn to deal with them if you want to succeed. alternatively you can stay on the local circuit
Wicket414: and cut my losses
Wicket414: I will
OnticJew: and engage in a type of debate
Wicket414: I am
OnticJew: that you seem to enjoy more
Wicket414: but I am thinking more universal and think time can be better spent learning about eminent domain than debate theory
Wicket414: like I am going to run theory my way, and we will see what happens
OnticJew: thats fair
OnticJew: actually thats prolly the most fair thing of all
OnticJew: run theory to exclude shit you dont like
OnticJew: and see if it catches on
Wicket414: right
OnticJew: it very well might cuz judges will like it more
OnticJew: mv helped introduce theory as its currently run
OnticJew: you can very easily alter that
Wicket414: hopefully my technical skills will allow me to overcome time skew
OnticJew: i think the mechanism you are talking about now is significantly better
OnticJew: than an external imposition (which is what you seemed to imply earlier)
Wicket414: no
Wicket414: I want to make theory responses to get rid of arguments and framework things out of the round
Wicket414: just not vote someone down because I made a fairness impact with my theory
Wicket414: the fairness “voter” only serves to kill the argument
OnticJew: then do so
OnticJew: its your activity
Posted from: 169.229.89.144
May 3rd, 2006 17:10
what about JMcKay? He was freakishly nice and definitely gave back to the community
Posted from: 169.229.118.148
May 3rd, 2006 17:14
sorry to double post so quickly but,
1) greg is right that foucault is much more accessible than other authors in the continental tradition. there’s also a shit ton of secondary writing about his work, a lot of which is really helpful (though some of it is kind of confusing, like dreyfus’s book on foucault, which ironically was a lot harder to get through than his commentary on being and time).
2) re: julia burke award–some people tossed around the creation of a john mckay award after his death last august. i don’t know if that ever panned out (though i know that harker and cps gave out awards in john’s memory), but i think it would be a fitting memory to a guy who brought a lot to our community and who i’m really sad i didn’t get to know better.
Posted from: 67.101.39.221
May 3rd, 2006 17:16
Alex-
I too would have liked to have more strikes. And I’m not anti-MJP. I was merely trying to demonstrate that judging at this year’s TOC was not markedly more controversial/dogmatic/retrograde/incompetent/pick your adjective than in years past. When we used MJP we still had lots of bitching about judging.
Perhaps this is because MJP is really tough to use in LD because w/ double flighting judges get conflicted out of rounds very rapidly (policy judges only see two teams per round, while LD judges see four). Even with MJP there will be situations with a limited entry and small judging pool where folks will have to see judges who are not 1s and 2s for them.
Posted from: 67.172.54.237
May 3rd, 2006 17:20
typo: Derrida hasn’t written a good* book since 1972
Posted from: 69.249.68.171
May 3rd, 2006 17:21
Last year David Wolfish posted the cases he ran at the TOC on LD debate. As a novice/jv debater who had never debated varsity or been to camp, these cases were tremendously educational. Mad people talk about education.
so…just to throw this out there…
It would be really nice (and educational) if maybe some of the debaters who cleared this weekend posted some of the cases that they ran.
Posted from: 69.249.68.171
May 3rd, 2006 17:28
Are you referring to Dissemination (1972)? If you understood that book i give you props cuz it is mad dense…
Limited Inc and Spectres of Marx are both very good, and much more (dare i say) readable. Both published after 1972
Posted from: 67.101.39.221
May 3rd, 2006 17:29
Casey T-S:
“what about JMcKay? He was freakishly nice and definitely gave back to the community”
Certainly. That would be great, but the choice is up to John’s family. They chose to focus on supporting Voices because it was John’s personal vision. The Burke Family has put tens of thousands of dollars into this award to endow it and guarantee its future. I don’t think it would be appropriate for us to ask that of John’s family. If, however, you know someone who has got a spare $50,000 to get something like this started, suggest this to them. The Burke Foundation and Burke Award Committee will have lots of helpful advice.
Posted from: 169.229.118.148
May 3rd, 2006 17:37
sorry to post YET again but
lexy–i have a feeling we’re like 99 percent in agreement. one solution to the problem of double-flighting is to have fewer subdivisions within MJP (ie have an A-C system, as the iowa rr did my junior year)–i would imagine that having a bigger range of available judges would ensure that judges could be easily placed in 2 flights, in addition to ensuring greater mutuality than a more subdivided system would.
jake–do you know of any good commentary on limited inc? i’m taking a class on it (along with j.l. austin’s how to do things with words, some book by searle, and wittgenstein’s philosophical investigations) this summer, and any good secondary reading on derrida’s essays in limited inc (or wittgenstein, for that matter), would be much appreciated.
Posted from: 67.172.54.237
May 3rd, 2006 17:46
To Alex and anyone: reading Foucault in the French is surprisingly really really easy. If you’ve taken 2 years of French classes and feel comfortable with identifying grammatical structures and verb tenses, it should be doable.
Posted from: 67.101.39.221
May 3rd, 2006 17:52
Alex-I’m sure we’re in pretty much the same place on MJP. Just remember, however, if we do MJP w/ fewer categories (say 3), you’re going to have to prefer (give a 1 or 2 to) at least 2/3 of the pool. With that and a handful (say 5) of outright strikes, I think debaters will still see plenty of the same judges they were cranky about this weekend. My point is not that the judging at the 2006 TOC was either great or terrible, it’s that it was what it always has been.
Posted from: 69.118.137.245
May 3rd, 2006 18:26
Jake:
http://forums.lddebate.org/viewtopic.php?t=18507
Posted from: 151.202.52.236
May 3rd, 2006 18:58
Lexy,
Last year’s outrounds weren’t based on the MJP rankings (which were used in prelims), so that doesn’t affect my argument at all. My concerns were (1) the assingment of prelim judging, especially in important rounds, which WAS DIFFERENT from last year, and (2) the fact that the final panel was so distinct from other panels, which I thought was problematic independent of whether or not it had been done in the past.
Also, I was comparing the judging (my generalizations) from TOC this year and other tournaments this year, as well as the judging (mostly prelim judging) from this year to last. The assignment can be better and worse than at other tournaments without being absolutely good or bad, so the ‘people complain about judging every year’ doesn’t mean anything.
No one thinks MJP solves for everything. That doesn’t mean it can improve the way judges are assigned to at least some degree.
Posted from: 65.8.99.215
May 3rd, 2006 19:09
might as well add to the productive discourse here…
first i want to second ari’s comment about judges earlier. on a thread that seems mostly dedicated to arguing and flaming, decent, constructive stuff like that can get lost, and especially coming from ari, who has more of a reason than most to be bitching, I think its even more meaningful. this activity is ALWAYS going to have a level of subjectivity, and people are ALWAYS going to prefer different arguments. ultimately, we’re trying to communicate to our judges. I think everyone agrees that judges who try to set limits because “i was on the wording committee / I was around when debate started / I know better than you” are anti-educational and contradict the entire purpose of the activity, but its also slightly unfair to lump the more traditional, yet still smart, judges who might have higher thresholds in with them. Honestly, i have a bigger problem with judges who stray from their paradigms- when a supposedly tab judge starts off a round with “i have to intervene here and thow out these unanswered turns” its even more frustrating than getting an infamous “ldep” judge.
2) regarding craig and navot’s discussion on theory (which i’m sure will have more responses by the time i post). craig says “Wicket414: you can’t expect that of everyone and it isn’t full proof” idk, personally i think theory is one of the MOST accessible modes of argument in current debate. you don’t need to spend hours reading dense pomo (or pay a lot for a smart coach to explain it to you), and you dont need access to expensive research databases to get good cards, all you need is some logic and common sense. once you understand the basic structure of a theory argument, even my novices can come up with reasons why certain strategies are unfair or uneducational. granted, it does take some initial instruction, but, then again, so does the entire value structure stuff.
craig says theory won’t be valuable in the long run, but, honestly, are you really going to care about the minute details of eminent domain in 30 years? spending a few rounds having to think about something else wont destroy your educational experience. in fact, after struggling with our admin all year long, i’ve discovered that the skills and argumentative frameworking that i’ve developed from theory debate is immensely more useful. unfortunately, in the real world, you have to spend a lot of time justifying why you should or should not do certain things.
also- craig says, “Wicket414: theory can’t just click in your head, you are good at it or you aren’t” but, honestly, if you are incapable of learning to make certain types of arguments i dont know why that should prevent other people from running them. if you look the other way, a lot of people just CANT be persuasive speakers, either because they get nervous, or are just bad speakers. its much harder to teach someone to be a really good speaker than it is to teach them arguments.
As to why theory should be offensive if necessary- here’s a good example. Say the neg runs a uber short ‘no justice’ nc, then puts a shitload of ink on your flow. In the 1ar, you decide to go for theory against the nc (aka destroys debate, whatever). You know the neg is gonna be prepped on that, so you need more than a quick blip. If theory isn’t offensive- there’s absolutely no disincentive for negs to run that nc (which is bad, assuming your theory complaint is legit), since it just sucked up a lot of 1ar time and the nr can just kick it and go for turns. Now, craig, you may not mind wasting your time, but that’s the equivalent of taking like 1-2 min out of the nc and like at least 45 sec out of the ar. That leaves about 2 minutes of ar to cover 5 minutes of nc. But once again, my argument here impacts to fairness, and your own conceptions of debate and burdens and what a good debater should be obligated to do, and so probably wont convince anyone who disagrees.
Btw-I also dont understand why prai destroys debate… I’ve debated him 2 or 3 times this year, and they’ve honestly been my favorite rounds. *shrug*
3) within this thread, and on the other one, as well as at the tournament this weekend, there has been so much back-and-forth about camps. i just want to point out that debate camp represents TWO WEEKS of your year (maybe 3 wk nsd or 4 if you do session two). Some of my really good friends went to vbi, iowa, texas, ndf, whatever. some of my favorite judges/people teach at different camps. is it possible that this community can move beyond categorizing people in to what camp they went to and using camp affiliation to attack people and make insinuations?
most importantly, congrats to everyone who cleared this weekend. especially lindsey dolan, who is very cool, and mahoney for representing this year’s juniors. huge congrats to mv and highland park for having 2 amazing ppl in quarters.
Posted from: 64.12.116.197
May 3rd, 2006 19:17
Just a thought, but, shouldn’t you all be busy with APs this week? This whole thread is just a lot of superfluous thoughts and language which is hardly the “productive discourse” Pam refers to it as.
Part of the problem with national circuit debaters is that they shut a lot of ultra talented local debaters out by taking themselves so seriously. Perhaps the activity should be more about education, and not trying to establish intellectual superiority, or contend for the longest AIM conversation ever recorded.
Posted from: 169.231.12.193
May 3rd, 2006 19:23
I’m sorry for trying to create a productive dialogue. Here, let me make things educational:
I THINK DEBATE IS ABOUT EDUCATION AND IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH ME YOU MUST THINK DEBATE IS UNEDUCATIONAL!
Better?
Posted from: 70.137.154.15
May 3rd, 2006 20:28
Not to disrupt the current conversation, I just need to extend my love to all those who kept faith. Our team has come a long way, with many sleepless nights, trips to Denny’s and drops in doubles (that’s probably just me haha); I’m happy to think that Mountain View can end this season with few regrets. This is a little long I realize – sorry for that. I wasn’t able to give thanks after finals so hopefully this will suffice. I guess I looked like I was going to throw up when they announced the decision – that’s probably because a large part of my brain was in the same boat as the people who were posting “stephen’s gonna get KILLED” and “how the hell did shess win that?”
Aside from being my wingman in life, Prashant is the most ferocious competitor I’ve ever witnessed. P. Rai’s always been there to help me keep my shit straight – to strategize, to take hold of arguments, to deal with stress, drama, women and to unleash the ruckus when we needed to step up. Good job sir.
Eric, there’s too much love and respect to communicate meaningfully. I think on paper anyone can see that he’s already one of the most successful coaches in the history of the event at such a young age. I’m constantly humbled by his intellect and insight but more than anything, he’s helped me get through some really emotional and devastating tournaments. For anyone interested, I’ve never advanced farther than octo-finals at a tournament outside of California – except for TOC. Oops? At around December of this year, I was ready to give up but Eric wasn’t and I can’t thank him enough for that.
So, Kiwi really isn’t a racist, despite what Wikipedia says. He’s given us so much of his time and never asked for anything in return. Kiwi never competed in high school; he never went to high school. But still, I’ve never heard him complain about the most technical levels of debate. He’s really involved himself with our team, taking a legion of young debaters under his wing.
Oh yeah and I guess I should thank my parents for cutting the checks. I’m pretty sure they were convinced that I sucked balls at debate for a while, but they still trusted me – serious love. Similarly, Sheila McKay has constantly gone out of her way to help me and I have a feeling she’ll be doing the same for many debaters in the future.
ZE JEW. Navot is our insane war spirit. P. Rai and I had our first taste of debate from this guy. Although his actions occasionally seem to indicate otherwise, he means no harm to anyone and is truly passionate about this event. If you’re looking for a coach next year, give this man a ring.
Ari Parker is all that is good in the world. We all know, despite how TOC ended, that Ari was one of the finest of his year. He’s such a good friend and one of the best hugs around.
HP is definitely MV’s blood brother in this event. Corbin and D. Weeks know what’s up and what it’s like to be from a small school in an event dominated by a few schools. I’ve said this to a lot of people before but weeks and corbin (aside from the occasional raging) are two of the nicest and most straight up people I’ve ever met. I was introduced to Miask last year at TOC and since then, I’ve had the pleasure of reading cases and papers he’s written and decided to share with me. I don’t think I know anyone else who can unleash stories about Peruvian shamans and religious rituals that involve a contour pecking a bull to death.
Smitty smitty smitty smitty smitty smitty smitty I love you dawg. And Vinitha. I feel like I’ve known you since I was four. The party that was Cali debate would not have been nearly as fun without ballers like you two.
RDunn. Shit man. I’m so happy that you exist in the world. He predicted the decision of the final round like a PRO. Hella prophetic in every way possible. Word is bond.
To this website – I was initially upset about the results being buried but no hard feelings – it’s nothing new. I think this is the funniest example –
http://www.victorybriefsdaily.com/2006/01/08/stephen-hess-wins-vbtarcher/
Haha the devil wins and VBD decides not to post a picture or even a bracket of out-rounds for their OWN tournament.
Posted from: 70.137.154.15
May 3rd, 2006 20:34
(the post got cut off so…)
Posted from: 70.137.154.15
May 3rd, 2006 20:35
I can’t say I blame them though. I thought it was going to be great fun to sneak into VBD and change the TOC final panel a couple years back. Not so much. Sorry bout that.
I might post later on the more substantive issues raised by this thread but I feel generally content with what I was able to say at the tournament. I have a lot of respect for Dr. Patterson, Mr. Malis and the critics on the finals panel for listening to me, David and the others that entered the conversation. I’ll be around for a while as a coach, I think, so I’ll have the pleasure of conversing with many of you in the future.
Lastly, to the haters, much love. I couldn’t have done it without you.
Rest in peace John. Looks like you got it right.
- shess
Posted from: 70.137.154.15
May 3rd, 2006 20:36
oh also contour = condor
yeah that should be the end of this struggle of a quadruple post.
peace
Posted from: 69.151.203.122
May 3rd, 2006 21:15
random question…i don’t know where it should go. Who is reilly dunn?? I see his names all over, but I don’t know anything about him. If he was a recent debator, what all did he accomplish? And what exactly did he do to prepare dweeks or whatever?(I’m not calling him out, just wondering)
Posted from: 67.161.35.149
May 3rd, 2006 21:17
shess makes me say WOW. he’s the smartest debater ive EVER seen. well deserved and hoping to see you do a lot of judging on the circuit.
Posted from: 71.195.22.232
May 3rd, 2006 22:10
Wow…fall asleep for a few days and you miss a lot!
Obviously, huge congrats to David and Stephen. I think the most impressive thing I heard from some final round judges was how much they really enjoyed the final round debate and the discussion. Anytime Scott and Paul vote together is something to see!
A lot of senior congrats are necessary too: Michael, Corbin, Jacob, and Prashant on the one hand and Ryan, Tripti, Anjali, and Matt on the other, were absurd competitors this year and made coaching really a lot of work and fun. I’ve been really impressed by these so many seniors this year on both sides of the stylistic coin. I truly believe that the competitiveness of this TOC is entirely due to the fact that so many of these competitors come with their A game every week and any variation of them in the late elim rounds of the tournament would have been entirely possible. Special props to Ari who’s this year’s obvious choice for the “shoulda been there” award.
It’s been a fun year of seeing you grow into your own. Crobin may still come attack me with water grenades. Liz Scoggin will never be able to give a 1AR to save her life. Caitlin will discover handcart hotdogs in NYC and stop being a vegetarian (try the guy outside Grand Central!). PRai answered the turns! Jon Gordon stop being a monkey. Liz Mullins stop vomitting (generally and when you see Jon Gordon). I’m glad I won’t need to not flow and vote for all of you (especially Jammer) anymore!
I’ve had a really good time talking to all of you at tournaments and really believe that you’re all very talented, passionate people. I hope you all take some time for yourselves but also take some time to give something back to the activity whether it be through judging, coaching, or your own special way. You’ve made a huge impact on the activity thus far and I really hope that this isn’t the last that we’ve seen of you.
Congrats and best of luck,
CK1
Posted from: 136.152.146.208
May 3rd, 2006 22:57
not to speak for reilly or anything, but he was a pretty good debater in his own right–he got to toc sems as a junior in 02 and quarters in 03. he hung around the circuit for a little bit in early 03 (which reminds me…reilly, i still owe you 75 bucks for glenbrooks in 03, i’ll send a check with someone to NSD) but hasn’t been around much since. he’s a g, i’m happy he’s back (and with a vengeance, i hear).
Posted from: 66.108.92.164
May 4th, 2006 03:06
“Haha the devil wins and VBD decides not to post a picture or even a bracket of out-rounds for their OWN tournament.”
The only photos I received were a few crowd shots from a dying camera. No finalist photo was taken — and, as you might recall, I tried to take one at Emory (though I couldn’t find AJ when I was ready) — and no brackets were posted because I wasn’t at the tournament, because I was recovering from a stay in the hospital. This is also why the Blake coverage was so shoddy and why we had no real reports from MBA. None of this is really that unusual; sometimes, when I am not at a tournament, these do not get done. Since I was pretty much out of commission at that point, it didn’t get done afterwards as well. No hard feelings or messages were intended. I don’t think of you as “the devil” or anything like that. (Again, I think pretty highly of you, as do some of my own students who know you personally.)
Oh, and, by the way, actually, it was the Nationals final panel, which you changed to make it seem more like a “TOC final panel.” But I don’t hold it against you, despite the stress of trying to figure out what was going on. ;)
This is the last time I’m going to reply to this kind of post. The conspiracy theories are pretty off. But these kinds of accusations are also “nothing new.”
Once again, congratulations to all who competed and did well. To continue this happier note, I hope all graduating seniors take the time to read Chetan’s message and takes it to heart. The activity can only exist if people continue to support it through giving their time and energy to judge, assist, and continue to learn.
Posted from: 207.76.182.20
May 4th, 2006 05:35
Pam, my argument isn’t that theory is bad and I admit that it can be extremely useful and necessary at times. I just think that theory debate shouldn’t be the end all in a round because it opens up the space for abuse as opposed to having a theory discussion about what is and isn’t acceptable in a debate round and then moving on. People make really egregious arguments all the time, but people also make really egregious theory arguments. My proposal hopefully will check this abuse of theory as opposed to waiting for things to resolve themselves since Navot was really just saying that there be a time when the 30 seconds it takes to make a theory argument will screw the round because the aff no longer has time to cover. However, I don’t think that those problems are nearly as common as bad theory and certainly not as big of a problem. Simply put 4 minutes of theory in the 1AR for the sake of ignoring everything else on the flow is bad.
Posted from: 70.137.154.15
May 4th, 2006 06:46
oh true it was the nationals panel. and i do trust your word jon. i’m happy my doubts were unfounded; i just hope you can understand why one would be concerned with that type of anomaly.
Posted from: 172.191.117.186
May 4th, 2006 07:05
congrats to everyone that cleared. dweeks was a beast throughout and shess deserves big ups.
Posted from: 167.206.203.14
May 4th, 2006 07:25
Hey Stephen — I 150% understand. No hard feelings. :) I feel bad about the mistake on my own end.
Congratulations again, champion. The new TOC Scoreboard with the tournament history will be uploaded soon.
P.S. On this, the fourth of May in the year 2006, I, Jonathan Ross Cruz, broke the 300-post barrier on Victory Briefs Daily. ;)
Posted from: 167.206.203.14
May 4th, 2006 11:17
Bronx Science is so proud of our little Cruzy, its not even funny
Posted from: 167.206.203.14
May 4th, 2006 11:18
Cruz you better not delete that message
Posted from: 167.206.203.14
May 4th, 2006 11:22
Bronx Science has da right to da free da speech.
Posted from: 169.229.89.144
May 4th, 2006 11:29
ok, I’ll be the one to say it:
my lit teacher junior year taught me lots of really fucking cool and memorable stuff, and one thing that always stuck out was:
if it happens once, whatever. if it happens twice, perk up. if it happens three times, you can’t deny it.
and, while my teacher was talking about authors using metaphors or references, I think it totally applies in life.
three times, JCruz… Stanford RR, Emory, and now TOC.
As much as I like you and want to believe your reasonable-sounding excuses, there IS a trend.
Posted from: 169.229.89.144
May 4th, 2006 11:32
and by Emory I mean VBT… don’t know where Emory came from, sorry
Posted from: 65.117.146.2
May 4th, 2006 12:06
Why does VBI not delete my raging unproductive posts…do they just leave them to make me look bad…and yet delete other posts of say for example Mr. Dunn about how VBI plays mean girls.
Is VBI just a mean girl? that pretends to be nice but is really manipulative and lame? I am sure that comment itself with enrage alot of people…but why…why do people defend this spectacle with SUCH virulence…it strikes me as extreemly odd…even more odd than the fact that alot of the time I do not think before I post, and that I am actually pretty sure I get baited into raging because VBI staff members take stuff I say out of context…see the staff stage where originally all I tried to do was point out one thing the VBI staff lacked in its first year outs and was attacked which lead me to counter attack which led to much much hate.
Posted from: 134.173.92.61
May 4th, 2006 12:09
Jon,
Thanks for responding to my issue, but I’m still very confused since you offered two rationales which aren’t obviously consistent:
1)”Actually, Corbin, it wasn’t to distract from anything. It was because your vulgarity was making people uncomfortable.”
2)”The LD results are still on the front page. We had to keep the page on the low-intensity version for a while (which only had two stories on the front page, to my chagrin) because of the traffic we were receiving. But now we’re back to the normal design, and they are still there, and actually will be bounced up shortly since a more active discussion is happening on the thread. (I’ve bumped up other threads like that before.)”
Which of the two caused it? Corbin’s vulgarity didn’t change which makes the subsequent bump odd, and why is that sufficient reason to move the post down anyways? Shouldn’t you just have deleted his posts if they were the source of the problem? Reilly’s posts disappeared quickly enough. Why appeal to the low-intensity version of the website as the cause of the issue rather than taking the heat for moving it because people said Corbin was vulgar? Bietz was at VBT and apparently had the wherewithal to post every round until finals. Comments from posters basically yielded a complete bracket. You post old pictures of finalists at tournaments all the time (e.g. recent Cali state final of Bobby and Vinitha) Stanford RR results are on the SNFI website. You say Blake and MBA were shoddy, but they appear to have results posted. I don’t think you can pass this off as some kind of crazed conspiracy theory. There’s been a noticeable shift in the content and style of VBD over the last couple years. You seldom take pictures of people associated with other camps in any sense (working for, attended, etc.). That was far from the case when I was a debater. If there is a business rationale, you should just be open about it. I’m not trying to claim any kind of factual basis for an accusation here, but one can’t help but think it looks odd.
Again, this is not an attack on VBI staff in any sense. I just don’t get your explanation.
Posted from: 71.160.56.34
May 4th, 2006 12:31
VBT Coverage -
The Archer School for Girls has internet access, Brentwood did not. So the bad coverage actually started before outrounds. The reason it went into comments was for that reason… there was no way we could have kept up with people getting on their cell phones and calling people with results. By the end of the tournament all results were and comments. Keep in mind that Cruz was also bed-ridden during this time.
Apologies to everyone who was offended.
Bietz
Posted from: 66.108.92.164
May 4th, 2006 13:13
Hi Eric –
Sorry, I was unclear. I thought Corbin was just making a general comment about fixing his vulgarity in his posts. I see now why my post was unclear: I thought he meant that I should fix the vulgarity, and that I was pointing out the vulgarity as a means of distracting people. (That was a mistake on my end.)
Regarding your second issue —
I think, frankly, Eric, that you’re mischaracterizing the “shift” on VBD. Over the last few years, this site has become far more inclusive in its content, shifting away from a pure national circuit focus to one that includes as many people as possible. In fact, there was a point this year when I tried to take a picture of someone involved with the administration of your camp who declined, despite my prodding, and glancing over the tournaments this year one can see a good assortment of lots of kids. I think you’ll see when I post the photos from TOC that there’s a healthy mix of kids from many camps (or no camps at all).
There have been some people (not necessarily members of our staff, actually) who have questioned why I try to take photos of all kinds of kids from all kinds of camps when Victory Briefs, an organization that runs an institute, might only want to “promote” its own kids. I frankly wouldn’t do all of this if it were just to promote the camp — it takes up more time in my day than I’d care to admit, I already work a full-time job, and it would affect relatively few kids in the scope of things. I am the director of student life at VBI, but that’s not analagous to your position at NSD, so I don’t have as direct a benefit from “promoting” a “business,” though I realize that there are ways to look at all of this and assume I’m doing it for personal benefit. I do not get paid for any of the work I do on this site. I do it because I like giving back to the community that has given me so much.
I have already apologized for the confusion regarding the results of the Stanford Round Robin. Given that I’ve posted every other tournament in which Prashant and Corbin appeared in the final round, I don’t think there’s any concerted effort on my end to overshadow their accomplishments. No offense to John Lynch and the fine folks at SNFI, but winning the Stanford and Berkeley tournaments are probably more impressive accomplishments to most of the people who read this web site (the great bulk of which are not the “top debaters”). If I had really wanted to shut them out of the limelight, I wouldn’t have posted those results, or posted a more personal congratulations on the thread.
Anyway, if anything, over the past few years, we’ve received increased compliments for the amount of *inclusion* on this site. So, on that issue, I think you’re just plain wrong. If you think otherwise, so be it, and I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
I’m genuinely sorry if you feel that I have slighted you or any of your students at any point. I have always respected your passion for debate and their passion as well, because, despite any differences in “affiliation” or “camps” or “styles” or whatnot, it’s a genuine love of learning and care for debate that hopefully brings us all together in the end. I will try to work harder to make sure that any perceived slight doesn’t happen again, because I think a lot of these perceived rivalries hurt friendships and the community at large. So, again, I apologize for the errors caused in part by my inability to cover VBT, the posting issues surrounding TOC, and the very obvious mistake regarding the Stanford Round Robin.
Posted from: 69.231.45.0
May 4th, 2006 13:50
(1) Corbin — I don’t work for VB anymore. I just think that what you wrote about the current staff composition was unfair and incorrect — even if you were only describing the FYOs. I think that I made my arguments in a pretty neutral sort of way. I even went out of my way to clarify the source of my complaint in a posting on that thread. If you weren’t thinking when you initially posted or have since reconsidered your view, fine. That’s the nature of the game. You’re allowed to change your mind, especially when people make arguments to persuade you differently.
(2) Paul S — we did joke once about the strike thing, although I didn’t get the feeling you felt the way you described in the post. Thanks for responding in the way you did. It was very big of you.
(3) EPalm, CTS, etal. — In all fairness to !Jonathan! he has been a big force in resisting the temptation of making VBD a marketing machine for Victory Briefs LLC. Since he is the chief content person (and the best at uploading content, except for the interview with me ;-), when he’s not at a tournament, the content ain’t nearly as good. That’s just a fact. Does that mean that VB must have superior content for every tournament? It probably should, but that’s not always possible.
I know for certain that Mike Bietz did a lot more work at the VBT than I did and I was fucking exhausted. I can only imagine how wiped out he was! As he mentioned, the BWS doesn’t have wireless networking for public usage, so it was quite difficult for him to use the internet while working the tab.
Plus, there’s a lot more to Victory Briefs than just this website. While this website is a big part of what VB does, it ain’t the whole enchilada. There are other, important tasks that have to be performed on a daily basis that, if neglected, this website and VB ceases to exist altogether.
(4) Everyone — Listen, pretty much everyone on this thread has completely jocked Shess and Dweeks. I am disappointed that I couldn’t beeen at the TOC this season to be a part of the events because there are some debaters there this year who I thought were pretty darn good. One of those debaters happens to be the winner, Mr. Hess.
As I mentioned, he learned a lesson this semester that a lot of debaters never see; that you have to find a way to make your judges get you. This is why he won so many close decisions (and many not close ones). He made a commitment to explaining his arguments to the people who were judging him no matter who they were. That’s what wins debates.
You may not like your judges. You may think they suck. You may think they’re out to get you or hate on you. You may think they’re racist idiots. BUT, for the 45 minutes that they’re the one with the ballot and the power over your competitive success… you have to make them identify with what you’re saying.
Michelin Massey
Posted from: 128.12.119.218
May 4th, 2006 14:18
Not sure that this says anything substantive, but a fun fact none the less: the last time that the TOC champion debated in outrounds of St. Mark’s (either because of not clearing or not attending) was 2000 (Tom Pryor). For one of the biggest tournaments in the country, that’s pretty crazy.
Posted from: 140.247.155.138
May 4th, 2006 15:04
I will use absolutely no foul language in this post.
I will not post more than one other post in the next 30 minutes.
I am going to save the contents of this post independently, and time stamp them, or whatever.
I have a few questions.
despite the fact that i have posted my email address (two of them) accurately and in every post i make, and have made several completely acceptable (to the server, to jon cruz, to the mythical gnomes that serve to absorb all blame and actual accountability–you know, the things Jon or whoever SHOULD be aware of) posts over the last two weeks; several posts that were present on this website for periods of time ranging from 15-90 minutes have been mysteriously pulled, with no explanation whatsoever given. None. No emails to myself, no public explanations (despite now, by my count, no less than FOUR public discussions you responded to other aspects of), not even an excuse for myself and everybody else to snicker at. Nothing. Why? Could i get an explanation? Why cant i post things now, period? Why arent the posts that I allow others to GHOST POST (i.e. navot posting things i have attempted to put up) pulled down, when they have all of the same problems of foul language, grammar, public call outs, offense to religious idols, WHATEVER pansy excuse you have lamely put up to avoid having to give a straight answer? Whats your standard here? And when a post is pulled, where does it go? Could i have them back? Contrary to belief, i actually do put some thought into these little rants, so if nothing else, you owe me the decency to tell me where theyre going, right? Do you have the little VBD gnomes phone number some place? Is he busy?
The facts dont add up, as your friends and peers are now starting to speak up about (look to palm, mangus, corbin, whoever). Your half hearted, transparently cowardly abortion of an ‘expla-pology’ or whatever you want to call it, regarding where some posts are going and why some posters cant post, DOESNT ADD UP. If nothing else, give me my posts back. This is the most intellectually dishonest public education blog I have ever read in my life, and at the moment, its sort of my job to monitor the discourse. The victory briefs staff and their contributions to the discourse are top notch, and I myself have had nothing but praise for nearly each and every member of your staff and writing crew, as both teachers, coaches, judges, and peers….and that is exactly why the awful state of affairs around here is so troubling to the people in the community that have come to so value the work VBD does around here.
But whatever void is responsible for this little blog, is the shoddiest excuse for a production i have ever seen in my life, and maybe if its not that heated, you guys are burning some bridges quickfast.
An explination doesnt need to be public, so please, use either the address I have just given above (reilly.dunn@duke.edu) or my gmail account (grandhustlertd@gmail.com). That goes for anybody else who has issues of any sort, or just wants to get at me (bryce pashler and alex smith, for instance, i would LOVE to hear from yall types).
LOVE AND PEACE AND EMPATHY AND RESPECT
reilly thomas dunn
Posted from: 169.231.12.193
May 4th, 2006 15:08
At the request of Reilly:
I will use absolutely no foul language in this post.
I will not post more than one other post in the next 30 minutes.
I am going to save the contents of this post independently, and time stamp them, or whatever.
I have a few questions.
despite the fact that i have posted my email address (two of them) accurately and in every post i make, and have made several completely acceptable (to the server, to jon cruz, to the mythical gnomes that serve to absorb all blame and actual accountability–you know, the things Jon or whoever SHOULD be aware of) posts over the last two weeks; several posts that were present on this website for periods of time ranging from 15-90 minutes have been mysteriously pulled, with no explanation whatsoever given. None. No emails to myself, no public explanations (despite now, by my count, no less than FOUR public discussions you responded to other aspects of), not even an excuse for myself and everybody else to snicker at. Nothing. Why? Could i get an explanation? Why cant i post things now, period? Why arent the posts that I allow others to GHOST POST ( i.e. navot posting things i have attempted to put up) pulled down, when they have all of the same problems of foul language, grammar, public call outs, offense to religious idols, WHATEVER pansy excuse you have lamely put up to avoid having to give a straight answer? Whats your standard here? And when a post is pulled, where does it go? Could i have them back? Contrary to belief, i actually do put some thought into these little rants, so if nothing else, you owe me the decency to tell me where theyre going, right? Do you have the little VBD gnomes phone number some place? Is he busy?
The facts dont add up, as your friends and peers are now starting to speak up about (look to palm, mangus, corbin, whoever). Your half hearted, transparently cowardly abortion of an ‘expla-pology’ or whatever you want to call it, regarding where some posts are going and why some posters cant post, DOESNT ADD UP. If nothing else, give me my posts back. This is the most intellectually dishonest public education blog I have ever read in my life, and at the moment, its sort of my job to monitor the discourse. The victory briefs staff and their contributions to the discourse are top notch, and I myself have had nothing but praise for nearly each and every member of your staff and writing crew, as both teachers, coaches, judges, and peers….and that is exactly why the awful state of affairs around here is so troubling to the people in the community that have come to so value the work VBD does around here.
But whatever void is responsible for this little blog, is the shoddiest excuse for a production i have ever seen in my life, and maybe if its not that heated, you guys are burning some bridges quickfast.
An explination doesnt need to be public, so please, use either the address I have just given above (reilly.dunn@duke.edu) or my gmail account ( grandhustlertd@gmail.com). That goes for anybody else who has issues of any sort, or just wants to get at me (bryce pashler and alex smith, for instance, i would LOVE to hear from yall types).
LOVE AND PEACE AND EMPATHY AND RESPECT
reilly thomas dunn
Posted from: 66.108.92.164
May 4th, 2006 15:20
I can say honestly, and for the record, that I have not deleted any of the posts in question. We’ve been having some weird bugs on this site since we switched over to WordPress, and it hasn’t just affected NSD staffers. We do employ a spam filter and at first I thought it had to do with language, but that’s obviously not the case since plenty of vulgar posts have been put up, or perhaps from rapid posting, but that also doesn’t make sense because not all of the people who have had posts disappear have posted rapidly. (Bill Cooper is a case in point.)
This isn’t a “pansy excuse [I] have lamely put up to avoid having to give a straight answer,” but the total truth. I’m still looking into it, and have been trying my best. It likely has something to do with the spam filter settings. I work full time every day at Bronx Science so I haven’t had as much time to look into this at depth for long periods of time as I would like.
Please try it again later tonight. Also, if you can e-mail me your IP address, I’d appreciate it. (Michael did the same and I’m trying to see if there’s some issue with that.) My e-mail is jon@victorybriefs.com. Thanks.
Posted from: 66.108.92.164
May 4th, 2006 15:25
Hey Reilly — the post was caught in the spam filter and it is now visible.
Can you try posting again to see if it works now? If not, I’ll keep fiddling in its settings to see if I can get it to work. I’m not sure why your posts vanished (or Michael’s, or Bill’s, or others) but I’m trying my best to fix it.
Posted from: 71.48.13.252
May 4th, 2006 15:30
Yeah, VBD is not anti-NSD; VBD is anti-Arthur L. Johnson HS. I have lost posts too. That makes 2/3 of the coaches at ALJ.
Posted from: 71.160.56.34
May 4th, 2006 15:34
I’m looking at the SPAM KARMA filter and the way it works is if you use a lot of swears in previous posts or something like that, it will automatically stop the next one. it is called something like “retro-spanking”
Here is a report from Riley’s last comment and why it was stopped.
0.5: Comment has no URL in content (but one author URL)
2: Valid Javascript payload (can be faked).
0.5: Encrypted payload valid: IP matching.
-0.5: Commenter granularity (based on email): 1 old comment(s) (karma avg: 2.000000), 4 recent comment(s) (karma avg: 2.000000).
-1: Severity settings adjustment.
-4: Retro-spanking triggered by comment ID: 31480
-9: Retro-spanking triggered by comment ID: 31482
-16: Retro-spanking triggered by comment ID: 31485
-25: Retro-spanking triggered by comment ID: 31491
—
I have changed it so it is a little “nicer” and not so draconian. Hopefully that means you all can swear all you want and still be able to post constructive stuff later. :)
Keep in mind that Spam Karma comes from a central server. So if your IP has been banned on other sites it is likely to be banned here as well.
No conspiracy, folks. People just got really annoyed with the Pr0n Spam of the last version of this site.
Bietz
Posted from: 71.160.56.34
May 4th, 2006 15:36
You’ll also notice that it multiplies each time you get Retro-Spanked.
Posted from: 66.108.92.164
May 4th, 2006 15:38
Okay, I’ve removed all banned IP addresses as well. Let the posting begin again! :)
~ Jon
Posted from: 71.160.56.34
May 4th, 2006 15:39
Oh yeah. I guess that is why they call it karma. It should be noted as well that if someone puts a URL in the URL field and then swears up a storm, and someone else puts that URL in, they will likely not have their posts show up either. I suppose we would call that attaching yourself to someone else’s karma.
Posted from: 128.252.88.7
May 4th, 2006 15:47
I think on some level it\’s unfair to ask VBD to provide a forum for all types of discussion. If Victor is paying for the bandwidth, I feel like he or Jon or Mike should be able to say this is a company\’s website we can regulate the content. We don\’t have to allow things that are critical of our company and we don\’t have to allow discussions we feel are hurtful or inappropriate. Espn.com or Cnn.com don\’t allow all out banter. I do think a lot of the commnets should be heard but I think that just highlights the need for a message board that operates independently of a camp for the community as opposed to bringing those discussions on what is a private company\’s webspace.
Posted from: 66.108.92.164
May 4th, 2006 15:51
One other thing: if anyone else finds bugs on the page, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE e-mail me at jon@victorybriefs.com — a bunch are now cropping up as a result of us switching back and forth between formats during TOC. (The banner no longer rotates, for example, and I’m working on fixing that now.)
Posted from: 68.221.199.40
May 4th, 2006 16:11
re: bugs
recent comments no longer show up for me but that may be intentionally covered. ive also found that there is no way to review archives – you can pull up a month but usually only the last week or so of that month will show up on the front page and the rest is inaccessible
Posted from: 24.50.48.21
May 4th, 2006 16:21
So you’re permanently keeping the picture of Jacob and Doug up? Damn, that’s hot.
Posted from: 4.254.92.70
May 4th, 2006 16:29
I have spoken with Cruz and it is clear VBD is not blocking our staff from posting or anyone else for that matter. VBD is hard to manage, has tons of traffic, etc. I believe Jon when he says that the problems people have brought up are not planned or attempts at silencing people.
Let’s all get along and not swear, good rule of thumb probably!
Posted from: 71.160.56.34
May 4th, 2006 16:36
Now that we’re in the business of defending ourselves…
The rotating banner on top is being fixed. During the TOC I made some changes to the site and when I got home on Monday and started putting it back together on Wednesday, I had to start from scratch. I rebuilt this site in about 2 hours. Some things got pushed aside for more important functionality.
Michael: The recent comments thing is a casualty of the minor fixes. We had way too many MySql queries over the weekend. We will be moving VBD to a new host that will have more robust offerings so we can put that back up.
Please, everyone remember that JCruz basically does this for free. Even against doctors orders he did his best to update VBD from bed. I know he is personally affected by all the negative comments that are being directed at him. If you have a problem with it, please backchannel me directly. This public questioning, bashing and second-guessing is actually quite hurtful.
I will be putting up an FAQ about the site in the next few days to answer some of the issues raised in this thread.
I also want to give a hearty congratulations to Hess, Weeks, Eric P, Navot, Greg, etc who helped these guys during the year. The level of improvement was amazing. Hess put together a phenomenal second semester. So congrats to him. I also know that it can’t be done without a very good coach. Much respect to Eric P for helping Hess turn his season around. It’s one thing to be a card cutter for someone – it’s a complete different thing to take someone who felt as though his season was done and really dominate the state and toc the way you did. Congrats.
Bietz
Posted from: 24.195.1.253
May 4th, 2006 17:06
^LOL
Posted from: 24.195.1.253
May 4th, 2006 17:13
Crap intercepted, i meant at sheffield
Posted from: 138.89.154.107
May 4th, 2006 17:44
Foo is of course ignorable.
I have been repeatedly blocked by this software.
I believe that posters here should have to register, and also post under their own names. Failing that, all posts here should be traceable, in order to ensure that (a) people cannot post under other people’s names, and (b) spammage cannot occur herein.
I will state here and now that John Sheffield is a man of deep intelligence, sharp ability, and infinite integrity. Would that all three qualities could apply to everyone here.
BC
BC
Posted from: 24.195.1.253
May 4th, 2006 18:52
I wasnt saying anything against him i was laffing about his humor because his joke was funny
Posted from: 24.195.1.253
May 4th, 2006 18:55
Yeah, VBD is not anti-NSD; VBD is anti-Arthur L. Johnson HS. I have lost posts too. That makes 2/3 of the coaches at ALJ.
^ I thought he was being facetious in a way to poke fun at all the people discussing biases. I have no opinion on the matter since i dont know enough. But i will say that dont think Jon would do that
Posted from: 71.139.199.226
May 4th, 2006 20:39
i mean, i’m not really here to question the motives of vbd, but to add to the list of undercovered tournaments that did not include vbi affiliated debaters: stanford, and berkeley, the two biggest tournaments in california (where vbi is located), neither had a picture attached to the results, and pictures in general were close to none. again, your motives may be fine, but its still a disproportionate amount of undercoverage on tournaments that happen to not have vbi ppl in the final round.
Posted from: 128.12.119.218
May 4th, 2006 21:29
Just a guess, but I would think those tournaments had fewer pictures than others because Jon wasn’t at them, and he’s usually the person who takes the most pictures. I didn’t really do a comprehensive search, but I noticed that Blake – which had two VBI staff members in the final round – also had no picture of the finalists and few pictures in general.
All this stuff kind of reminds me of the conspiracy theories people would always come up last year about judging. You know, the ones that were like “AT dropped Fabien to X debater so that Fabien would be in this bracket and Y debater would hit Wolfish round 4 so Wolfish could be this seed so he’d hit Z debater in octofinals so that …” etc etc. If you guys honestly think that judges, coaches, and camp administrators think that deeply about or care that much about such trivial things as whether there are pictures of staff members from another camp on a website … you’re really paranoid or something. Most adults in the community have much better stuff to do with their time than conspire to win a “camp war” that doesn’t even really exist.
Posted from: 141.161.120.55
May 4th, 2006 22:07
Why is my name being used in examples so much? Like honestly…
Posted from: 128.12.119.218
May 4th, 2006 22:58
I love Fabien.
For those interested, Fabien is now in a frat. Yes, a frat.
Posted from: 24.19.103.57
May 5th, 2006 00:16
Reilley, you owe Cruz an apology. You came on pretty accusatory, insulting his integrity without any proof. Why didn’t you take your own advise and backchannel him?
Posted from: 138.89.154.107
May 5th, 2006 02:20
Foo,
Sorry…misread too quickly while distracted.
But my posts at leasts have bee blocked several times, even the ones which have a minimum of vitriol.
BC
Posted from: 66.108.92.164
May 5th, 2006 03:07
Ack! In attempting to figure out why some posts were still getting some level of “bad karma” I deleted my own post and at least two other people’s. Sorry. Human error on my end. We’re still working out the kinks. So, to my knowledge, as of now, Spam Karma is not deleting people’s posts: it was a mistake I made.
Anyway, my last response on this issue (for real) will be a direct response to Prashant:
I assure you no one is standing around at tournaments poised with a camera, only to store it away when they see who’s in finals. The bigger issue, as Dan and Bietz and Michelin have indicated, is that I’m usually the one who does that kind of stuff. To be honest, I’ve grown somewhat lax with making sure there are correspondents willing to do pictures as well as results at every tournament. We’ve been fortunate to have Brittany Esbenshade’s assistance in the Northwest and Pam Brown’s assistance in Florida. But I haven’t been as consistent with my ability to get photos taken everywhere. I will work harder on that.
To preempt the obvious response: I know VBI is located near the Cali tournaments you mention, so we had staffers “on the ground.” The issue, though, is that many people are just not interested in doing that level of coverage since it requires balancing time between competing obligations to coach and manage things. I’ve fallen under criticism from my own students in the past for having difficulty balancing these tasks. I’d like to think I’ve improved, but that experience is always in mind, and I understand why a lot of people are not interested in handling both.
These perceived issues are something I’ll be working hard to ensure do not happen again next season. Thanks for your input.
Posted from: 71.103.216.201
May 5th, 2006 04:36
congrats hess, you really made it happen this year
as a common debator without a record behind the name, i remember actually first learning ur name/debating you. i remember walking to round not recognizing ur name, but my friend obviously did. as the doors shut behind me, she had happened to mention the words
omg ur debating…!!!
i remember me thinking what??? debating what??
trapped behind doors like a white mouse, but u were still a nice guy. congrats again.
Posted from: 38.117.182.130
May 5th, 2006 05:44
None of this would happen if debaters had the proper agents, publicists, entourages…
Posted from: 65.117.146.2
May 5th, 2006 08:16
I am Mr. Hess’s agent. We will be fighting for his right to party.
Posted from: 38.117.182.130
May 5th, 2006 08:34
Well, he should get it, with no complaints for the ten percent off the top. Well deserved – it was quite an incredible accomplishment, and he should be proud, as should all the competitors. While a cliche it is useful to remember that the trophies will eventually be stored away in a box in the back of a closet somewhere, records will be forgotten, the thrill of victory and sting of defeat a distant memory, but hopefully a friend or two will remain…
Posted from: 69.173.19.180
May 5th, 2006 08:53
Congrats Stephen and David – I heard good things about the final round.
I wanted to give an special shout to to Michael Mangus – I thought you did a fantastic job in the round I saw you debate against Liz. You had a great run this year and I hope we can see you again in the activity.
Mad love to my man Shields too – in my opinion out too early in the competition.
And I hope Reilly D shows up to more tourneys -
Posted from: 24.6.251.224
May 5th, 2006 10:04
First off major props to Hess. I love you sooooo much man and I’ve always known you’re a star. It makes me really happy that I can say the TOC champion is a really nice person… I’m going to miss you…
Congrats to David. You are awesome. You went from not qualling as a junior, to beating prashant and mangus to get to the final round of toc as a senior. Honestly, that is just awesome.
Also congrats to Corbin, Prai, Jacob and Michael… four very smart and talented debaters who all obviously deserved to be in late elims of the toc. Also, congrats to Tripti who is an amazingly smart debater and an absolutely wonderful person. You are such an angel… I’m sad Georgetown is so far away. Also, shoutout to Ari Parker for definitely deserving to be in outrounds but also for being an all around good guy. Its people like you that make debate worthwhile. congrats to Byron… he ended with a winning record at TOC. Expect BIG things next year everyone…
I had a really great time at toc and will miss a lot of the people I met, hung out with, debated, etc…. :) **much love**
Posted from: 69.249.68.171
May 5th, 2006 15:04
Bill Cooper is my fave…
Posted from: 12.216.108.171
May 5th, 2006 15:11
VBI is responsible for 9/11
Posted from: 69.231.45.0
May 5th, 2006 15:13
Before I forget…
I want to also give huge shout-outs to the kids who were in the last lab I taught a couple of years ago with Joey Seiler. When I think about the kids from that group, I am so impressed with how far y’all have come. Some graduated last year (Kuo, Sam G, MBoyle, Josh P), that’s true. But, some superstars of this past year came from that lab — Vinitha, Miles, the Stud, Grant G, Jaclev…y’all have had wonderful senior campaigns. I am proud of you.
Happy that this has become a love fest yet again,
Michelin Massey
Posted from: 152.3.62.9
May 6th, 2006 18:48
I’d like to second Michelin’s observation. Upon observing outrounds (at TOC and the whole year), it was great to see Jeremy and Jacob make an apperance. Seiler/Massey (and Lawrence at the very end) has definitely been a force.
Posted from: 72.131.124.250
May 8th, 2006 15:35
Mainly in response to Navot, but open to anybody:
1) What constitutes bad theory? A blipspread of fairness, education, etc… a priori voters?
2) What constitutes good theory; especially if “good theory takes bad theory out of a round”?
Would like to know for a) clarification and b) learning.
Posted from: 62.177.160.90
May 3rd, 2007 06:34
Play Texas Hold Em Poker For Free…
quandary!stile autonomously,viscount …
Posted from: 82.114.190.251
July 2nd, 2007 10:24
order levitra brand online…
crashing tautologies sequentialized reproducibly …
Posted from: 219.168.112.52
October 30th, 2007 03:22
betting free picks com sports…
Aprils Pauling!Storeys precincts Weider,gelatine …
Posted from: 207.250.10.170
October 30th, 2007 05:08
chase sports bet…
commits!citadel rubout sectarian repulses …
Posted from: 195.229.242.154
January 28th, 2008 11:55
types of life insurance…
counselled.Yellowstone,expectation compellingly …
Posted from: 195.229.242.154
January 29th, 2008 15:18
federal bankruptcy…
defines misspell?covered …
Posted from: 80.71.249.147
July 19th, 2008 05:36
wild jack casino online…
tidings,pours?Gaulle:Quirinal?denotes?…
Posted from: 203.158.221.227
July 20th, 2008 15:42
grattis hasardspel hemsida…
aerating arboreal!supportable foremost eavesdrop …
Posted from: 218.201.40.117
August 8th, 2008 11:35
cazino…
blacklisted history:carting?admits newly …
Posted from: 67.205.59.174
June 26th, 2009 18:19
[...] | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | [...]
Posted from: 94.181.245.71
September 22nd, 2009 12:00
Prinymummom
Posted from: 70.85.110.234
October 31st, 2009 01:31
indemnity medical insurence savings account www gateway grand prairie texas…
honeymoons rosebush misrepresentations …