Daniel Khalessi Wins CPS
OAKLAND, Cali. — The College Preparatory School Invitational — the last TOC-qualifying tournament of 2007 — came to an end on Sunday night. On a 3-2 decision, Mountain View’s Daniel Khalessi defeated Rancho Bernardo’s Cameron Baghai to emerge as the victor. (Earlier in the evening, Daniel had won the John McKay Voices Award for placing as top speaker.) Adam Nelson, Siddarth Satish, and Alex Smith made up the majority; Jay Bhatnagar and Jennie Savage dissented. Congratulations to Daniel and Cameron, and also to the finalists in the novice division. In said division, Palo Alto’s Avi Arfin defeated James Logan’s Diana Brooks on a 3-0. (Coaching credits follow; extended results are forthcoming.)
Daniel is coached by Eric Palmer and Stephen Hess; Cameron Baghai is self-coached. Avi is coached by Jennie Savage and Daniel Sheehan. Diana is coached by Tommie Lindsey, Jr. and Justin Hinojoza.
Popularity: 3% [?]
test
Posted from: 162.84.208.228
December 21st, 2007 14:31
Good luck Cameron
Posted from: 67.117.146.251
December 21st, 2007 16:25
Good luck to the Monta Vista crew.
Posted from: 205.134.251.132
December 21st, 2007 21:36
[...] CPS: Jennie Savage will provide reports from the College Preparatory School Invitational. [...]
Posted from: 24.23.145.81
December 21st, 2007 21:40
Good luck TONY WANG! Please allow for our Miramonte team to have some representation and respectability in the future. I know you can do it!
PS Please don’t go crazy with the strikes just because it’s new and interesting
Posted from: 69.142.68.195
December 21st, 2007 22:47
Victor Yu is 2-0 and will continue to dominate.
Posted from: 66.75.62.231
December 21st, 2007 22:54
CAMERON AND TARA GOOD LUCK!!!
Cameron your 2-0 woooooooo hoooooooo
Tara i think your 2-0 WOOOOOOO HOOOOOO
just watch, my president and debate captain are gonna represent
Posted from: 69.109.126.80
December 22nd, 2007 00:07
Alex Ackroyd, Rui Shu, Jujhaar Singh, and Avi Arfin of Palo Alto are all 2-0.
Posted from: 71.135.36.155
December 22nd, 2007 00:17
Go Cal Novices! you rock
Posted from: 67.168.66.202
December 22nd, 2007 00:57
Good luck Tony Wang (too bad I think of the alternate pronunciation of your last name every single time I think of your last name ever since you told me about your campaign thing)! and if you actually read this, I hope your senior year is going well, too! =D
Posted from: 75.30.245.174
December 22nd, 2007 07:21
Yeeeee. go Cal.
And seriously, the rest of you too.
THE DEBATE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE.
And yay for disclosure!
Posted from: 74.70.112.133
December 22nd, 2007 10:38
How are Rohit Ramkumar and Rahul Ramakrishnan doing?
Posted from: 68.48.175.11
December 22nd, 2007 10:52
How big is the field?
Vivian is undefeated going into Round 4.
Posted from: 74.0.39.211
December 22nd, 2007 15:56
67 in Varsity, down to 66 now w/ a drop due to illness.
Posted from: 66.75.62.231
December 22nd, 2007 16:14
do they break to doubles or just octo?
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
December 22nd, 2007 16:52
good luck rohit
Posted from: 71.139.189.76
December 22nd, 2007 18:00
gl DFK, jing, rahul, rohit, & whomever i forgot. but mv ftw yeeee
Posted from: 74.0.39.211
December 22nd, 2007 18:55
Jackie Rossiter and Rahul Ramakrishnan from Paly will clear.
Posted from: 68.48.175.11
December 22nd, 2007 20:10
Vivian advanced without debating in the partials round. She also mentioned that Rahul, DFK, Bilal, all advanced. Sorry, don’t have the full break list.
Posted from: 75.73.219.151
December 22nd, 2007 20:53
YEA RAHUL!!
Posted from: 98.194.153.57
December 22nd, 2007 21:23
Bilal is the man
Posted from: 74.0.39.211
December 22nd, 2007 22:02
Here are the brackets for Varsity and Novice, inc. the first elim.
http://www.college-prep.org/Program/forensics/hosting/2007%20Bracket/view
Posted from: 71.167.181.109
December 22nd, 2007 22:28
rahul will win but not be able to read for a week
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
December 22nd, 2007 22:33
Rahul, you got this
Posted from: 67.117.146.251
December 22nd, 2007 22:48
Monta Vista OA and YH broke to partial doubles–Monta Vista OA advanced to octas.
Congrats Monta Vista crew! :)
Posted from: 69.109.126.80
December 22nd, 2007 22:49
Congratulations to all Paly debaters, particularly #1 speaker and top novice seed Avi Arfin, #4 speaker and #3 seed Jujhaar Singh, octas winner Rui Shu, #9 speaker Michelle Chung, #8 open speaker Rahul Ramakrishnan, and to Jackie Rossiter — the birthday girl — for making it to partial doubles. You are the best!
Posted from: 71.135.36.155
December 22nd, 2007 22:53
Congrats to Cal novices! Especially Alex for getting 10th speaker at your first tournament! Good job!
Congrats to paly debaters too. Jujhaar, Rui, Avi, Rahul, Jackie, Michelle and all! Way to rep my old team!
Posted from: 24.215.130.4
December 22nd, 2007 22:56
Good luck to Cameron and Rahul in octas tomorrow! Also, congratz to Sasha and Daniel Means on clearing.
Posted from: 83.145.225.26
December 23rd, 2007 01:09
Yay Cameron. Congrats also to Rahul and Yichao for clearing. Good luck tomorrow.
Posted from: 63.197.0.78
December 23rd, 2007 03:17
congrats anna bilal khalessi rahul and nadia!!! awesome job guys
and congrats on the speaker award khalessi!
Posted from: 24.113.184.231
December 23rd, 2007 06:45
can you gimme a r and a b cuz tara noris and cameron baghai are representing, take it all the way guys!!!! you guys practically live eat talk and sleep debtae, congrats and finsih it!
Posted from: 74.70.112.133
December 23rd, 2007 07:45
Rahul Ramakrishnan and Rohit Ramkumar will fuck people up
Posted from: 69.109.126.80
December 23rd, 2007 07:47
Welcome to the national circuit California High School! You guys are so lucky to have Zhuchen as your coach and Anthony as your advisor. We look forward to seeing much more of you in years to come. Hopefully you can make it to VBT!
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
December 23rd, 2007 08:31
GO RAHUL and congrats to Khallesi on top speaker
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
December 23rd, 2007 08:31
and Rohit
Posted from: 68.117.67.167
December 23rd, 2007 10:55
DFK IS THE MAN
Posted from: 74.0.39.211
December 23rd, 2007 11:23
Rahul picks up on a 3-0; Avi picks up on a 2-1, Jujhaar picks up on a 3-0.
Posted from: 74.0.39.211
December 23rd, 2007 11:25
Independent CB wins in a 3-0
Monta Vista OA wins in a 3-0
Mountain View DK wins in a 3-0
Posted from: 74.0.39.211
December 23rd, 2007 11:27
Quarters will be:
Logan XX vs El Cerrito SW
Lynbrook GG vs Independent CB
Independent TN vs Los Altos JW
Palo Alto RR vs Monta Vista OA
Posted from: 74.0.39.211
December 23rd, 2007 11:27
James Logan BM advances without debating
Posted from: 74.0.39.211
December 23rd, 2007 11:30
Novice quarterfinals were:
Palo Alto’s Avi Arfin def El Cerrito MW
(Pandey, Xu, Cowperthwaite*)
Logan DB def Palo Alto Rui Shu
(Kwan, Tidhar, Rai)
Palo Alto’s Jujhaar Singh def Monte Vista BM
(Pandey, Xu, Cowperthwaite)
Logan SN advances over Logan RY
Posted from: 74.0.39.211
December 23rd, 2007 11:31
Novice Semi’s will be:
Logan SN vs. Palo Alto Avi Arfin
Palo Alto Jujhaar Singh vs Logan DB
Posted from: 74.0.39.211
December 23rd, 2007 11:42
Results through Varsity Octos & Novice Quarters:
http://www.college-prep.org/Program/forensics/hosting/CPS%20LD%20Results/view
Posted from: 75.2.134.24
December 23rd, 2007 11:50
im confused. why does the packet and jennie say that bial advanced to semis without debating when it says he was defeated by el cerrito. is that in fact a typo and bilal won that debate? also how can dfk win on a 3-0 but be listed as being defeated by logan xx? sorry, maybe im reading this wrong, but some clarification would be great.
Posted from: 75.2.134.24
December 23rd, 2007 11:50
*bilal
Posted from: 74.0.39.211
December 23rd, 2007 12:11
I dropped to Sally on a 2-1. Shahbaz (Logan XX) dropped to Mountain View DK. Sally is debating Mountain View DK right now.
Sally ftw.
Posted from: 71.34.187.228
December 23rd, 2007 12:53
RAHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
also, go rohit and dfk
Posted from: 68.196.117.93
December 23rd, 2007 13:38
Tara Norris will win. It’s a fact.
Posted from: 64.203.51.202
December 23rd, 2007 13:38
any results???
Go cam and tara!
Posted from: 74.0.39.211
December 23rd, 2007 13:51
Patrick —
Thanks for pointing that error out. There was a TRPC malfunction that keeps listing Bilal as having advanced. He did indeed drop to Sally.
Posted from: 74.0.39.211
December 23rd, 2007 13:55
Quarterfinal results:
Mountain View DK (neg) def El Cerrito SW
(Bhatnagar,Lawrence, Hinojoza)
Independent CB (aff) def Lynbrook GG
(Peiris, Case*, Nelson)
Independent TN (neg) def Mountain View JW
(Savage, Zhou, Sullivan)
Palo Alto RR (Neg) def Monta Vista OA
(Rai, Kwan*, Surano)
Posted from: 74.0.39.211
December 23rd, 2007 13:56
Semifinals — starting now
Independent CB advances over Independent TN
Mountain View DK vs Palo Alto RR
(Jain, Peiris, Nelson)
Posted from: 74.0.39.211
December 23rd, 2007 13:59
Novice Semis results:
Palo Alto Avi Arfin def James Logan SN
(Hess, Tidhar, Pandey)
James Logan DB def Palo Alto Jujhaar Singh
(Prince, Satish, Jain*)
Posted from: 74.0.39.211
December 23rd, 2007 14:00
Novice Finals
Logan DB vs Palo Alto Avi Arfin
(Lawrence, Smith, Bhatnagar)
Posted from: 12.208.215.81
December 23rd, 2007 14:04
Is the bid at finals or semis?
Posted from: 64.203.51.202
December 23rd, 2007 14:06
finals bid
Posted from: 74.0.39.211
December 23rd, 2007 14:08
Bid is at finals. Congratulations to CB on his bid!
Posted from: 75.25.130.115
December 23rd, 2007 14:18
I assume that both Independent kids bid (TN gets ghost).
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
December 23rd, 2007 14:20
are independent entries allowed bids at all?
Posted from: 76.17.228.152
December 23rd, 2007 14:23
huge congratulations to cameron! it was a pleasure to have you in lab kiddo.
Posted from: 69.249.94.148
December 23rd, 2007 14:24
congrats cameron!
Posted from: 68.196.117.93
December 23rd, 2007 15:08
Congrats to Tara on the ghost bid!!!
Posted from: 76.17.171.188
December 23rd, 2007 15:14
DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK DFK
Posted from: 76.17.171.188
December 23rd, 2007 15:14
YOU CAN FLY
Posted from: 24.215.130.4
December 23rd, 2007 15:41
Sweet job Cameron! yeeea
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
December 23rd, 2007 16:55
i’ve heard dfk won on a 3-2
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
December 23rd, 2007 16:57
huge congrats to dfk for repping delta force and to rahul on sems
also congrats to rohit on octs
Posted from: 69.180.210.210
December 23rd, 2007 17:03
congrats to dfk and rahul. ballin
Posted from: 63.164.145.198
December 23rd, 2007 17:51
The overbearing lab leader asks, “what’s your name?” The student replies in a humbled tone, “Daniel Fucking Khalessi.” The lab leader replies, “I can’t hear you! What’s your name?” The student speaks up and says in a slightly more confident tone, “Daniel Fucking Khalessi.” The lab leader is still unsatisfied and says, “what’s your name?” Finally, with a confident roar, the student screams, “Daniel Fucking Khalessi!” Satisfied, the lab leader replies, “well, then act like it.”
You just did it, DFK. Big win for you and for Delta Force. Congratulations.
Michelin Massey
Posted from: 71.139.20.124
December 23rd, 2007 17:56
Daniel Khalessi is coached by Stephen Hess and Eric Palmer, not Prashant Rai.
Posted from: 24.6.135.182
December 23rd, 2007 18:13
Thanks Vineet.
The last round was intense. There was so much CO2 in the room I had to walk out several times for fresh air.
Posted from: 76.17.171.188
December 23rd, 2007 18:46
congratu-fucking-lations
Posted from: 75.73.208.213
December 23rd, 2007 19:26
congrats DFK, Rahul, Bilal, Rohit, and everyone else who broke.
Posted from: 64.203.51.202
December 23rd, 2007 19:31
great jobs cam and tara for their bids!!
Posted from: 71.135.36.155
December 23rd, 2007 19:42
Huge congrats to Avi
1st at cps novice!
Posted from: 75.58.79.97
December 23rd, 2007 19:48
congrats DFK!
Posted from: 71.198.40.174
December 23rd, 2007 19:53
first, props to om for quarters and yh for breaking
and then of course to cameron baghai
for a legendary final round
i think this will spur discussion over the community
congratulations on your bid
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
December 23rd, 2007 19:56
Would anyone care to elaborate on the final round discussion?
Posted from: 69.115.223.185
December 23rd, 2007 20:00
congrats cameron!
Posted from: 74.68.51.212
December 23rd, 2007 20:40
yea im interested in what happened in finals too…
Posted from: 24.242.71.57
December 23rd, 2007 20:43
Congrats to Cameron
Posted from: 75.25.130.115
December 23rd, 2007 20:49
props to Daniel!!!
btw how do independent entries work?
Posted from: 72.66.67.125
December 23rd, 2007 20:57
Congrats to Vivian on octos and to Cameron on finals!!
Posted from: 70.162.251.240
December 23rd, 2007 21:16
big congrats to DFK, reppin delta
Posted from: 68.125.207.113
December 23rd, 2007 21:21
having debated both CB and TL, I want to say good job on case writing for being self-coached
also, good job to khalessi for the qual/not freaking out too craaz at that weird-awk final
Posted from: 71.202.108.208
December 23rd, 2007 21:43
I just want to say that it was a good tournament and heavy congrats to khalessi for finishing the qual.
He has always been a good friend and a good guy as shown in the way he showed himself in finals, and is always fun, challenging, and exciting to debate.
Posted from: 66.68.159.27
December 23rd, 2007 22:31
Well done, Cameron. Way to represent!
Posted from: 74.68.51.212
December 23rd, 2007 22:39
What happened in finals!
Posted from: 71.141.248.56
December 23rd, 2007 23:05
Yeah, a story about finals would be cool.
Posted from: 75.80.137.244
December 23rd, 2007 23:08
Congrats Ilya and Vivian!
Posted from: 24.176.254.44
December 23rd, 2007 23:33
Sexy as hell Cameron.
Posted from: 66.27.96.17
December 23rd, 2007 23:58
Hey, to all those from camp (friends, staff, basically everyone)–I wouldn’t have done half as well if it wasn’t for you guys. You were amazing–thanks.
Also want to say thanks to all my judges (especially in the last round, which I know was probably frustrating).
Awesome job Daniel–a well deserved win.
As far as the final round, I think someone else could give a more objective account of it…although I may comment on it later
Posted from: 38.99.84.53
December 24th, 2007 00:40
Heres what happened (at least from my interp, I can def be misinterpretting this, or screwing it up)
He started by getting Jay Bhatnagar to time the round, then DFK flipped to go neg. He slammed his policy-esque tub on the table, and pulled out about six expandos, and setting them on the table. Then he flipped open his laptop onto the empty tub and started spreading comically, and insanely fast. Then, when it was recognized that nobody could flow that quickly, he started with the phrase “circuit debate is a fucking joke.”
The AC was a well organized rant about how debate has become nothing more than reading off coaches blocks rather than your own, or about how debaters don’t learn from the way the activity is progressing. He was tired of how people who have coaches have an unequal advantage in rounds, and how an economically disadvantaged debater can’t fly to all over the place to bid etc.
He ended the AC by saying that we instead should turn the round into a forum for communication about the problems prevalent in debate, saying that coaches, debaters, and anyone in the room could participate, and saying that the judges could vote for whoever they want to, he didn’t care. This obviously caused some commotion, but the discussion was really enlightening either way, and if anyone who did speak up wants to do so now, it would probably be better because I don’t want to butcher anyones words.
In the end, 2 judges abstained, Jennie voted aff, Jay flipped a coin and voted aff, and Satish voted neg, but commotion about the decision caused Cameron to tell both the abstain judges to just reclaim their ballots and vote neg.
Before anyone questions his intentions (whatever they were, though I think they were noble and he proved just as much), I just want to mention how freaking amazing it is to see an independent debater without a coach get to finals of a tournament and throw the round to actually talk about debate. I have a ton of respect for you Cameron.
Also, I apologize if I zcrewed up the “objective” account, but that is a general synopsis of what happened.
Posted from: 24.176.254.44
December 24th, 2007 01:35
Cameron, buddy, I love you. Way to speak out for the little man.
P.s. this is coming from a kid with no debate funding so I finance all of my exploits myself, write all of my own blocks, and am ostensibly self-coached as mine is extremely traditional and local oriented among other things – which don’t equate to much on the national circuit. That and Cameron is a friend, so I might be bias here. But major props.
Posted from: 24.165.9.37
December 24th, 2007 03:36
i thought the affirmative’s performance in finals was remarkable and highlighted a lot of important issues regarding accessibility and the fetishization of line-by-line debate. it was a tremendous opportunity to discuss some serious problems that i thought was sadly (and ironically) compromised by the fact that everyone took the discussion and the win so personally.
Posted from: 205.134.251.132
December 24th, 2007 06:14
[...] CPS: Mountain View’s Daniel Khalessi defeats Rancho Bernardo’s Cameron Baghai on a 3-2. [...]
Posted from: 67.180.63.248
December 24th, 2007 08:55
As one of the judges who originally abstained, I just wanted to take the opportunity to reiterate my comments following the round.
I certainly agree with Alex, but I was definitely frustrated by Cameron’s decision to not explicitly close the competitive space when he decided to open a space for discussion. I think that made truly open and meaningful dialogue difficult, as evidenced by the way the discussion progressed from there.
Let me be clear that I don’t blame or otherwise judge Cameron for that decision. I think his willingness to engage in that discussion, especially during the final round, was admirable and encouraging. I just think the lesson to take away from this experience is that those who seek to open these spaces for dialogue should probably more explicitly close the competitive space first, probably by openly forfeiting the ballot at some point during their first opportunity to speak.
I know this may be a controversial stance, given the Louisville Project and other developments in policy debate. And, given my relative lack of familiarity with that project, I’d certainly be open to discussion of the relevant issues. But this is how I feel right now.
Posted from: 68.48.175.11
December 24th, 2007 10:12
This is all very interesting and thanks to Om for the thorough account of the Aff position. Can someone recount the Neg response, as it is not really clear to me what happened during the commotion? That said, it seems like a really interesting round and I would love to learn more from and about it.
Posted from: 74.68.51.212
December 24th, 2007 10:29
this is awesome.
Posted from: 24.6.135.182
December 24th, 2007 10:51
(this is only what I saw, if I missed something I’m sorry in advance).
Cameron said he didn’t really care about the ballots in his initiatl speech, so someone shouted “grab the ballots” and Daniel grabbed them (3 or 4? out of 5). Then they started talking. Daniel initially made some jokes (he started spreading and then kep saying “and and and and and and and” in a quick pace). He wasn’t confident to sign the ballots through, and they continued to talk for for time, with Daniel’s coaches urging for a real round to continue and talking about how the discussion was ridiculous, saying it should come after the round. Someone said if there’s no decision from the judges to decide a winner there was no bid, so Daniel worrying.
So then the arguments went on, and Daniel walked out of the room with his coach/mvla associates (Hess/Rai/Navot) who were apparently telling him what to say when he came back in.
So he went back into the room and talked about how pitiful he was, how he was overshadowed by Garber and Moerner, and how he worked really hard for this tournament, and how Cameron was ridiculing the activity and his hard work by denying him a final round (and potentially the champion title), and urged for a negative ballot and said his criticism of Cameron functioned outside of Cameron’s “K” or something like that. He also accused Cameron of forming a conspiracy against him, and how everyone in the room knew Cameron and was already prepared to laugh and ridicule Daniel, etc.
That’s all I know because after that I left the room because I needed some fresh air. Next thing I know Cameron’s champion on a 2-1 decision, but then later the abstainees decided to vote so it went to Daniel, and then people left.
Posted from: 216.220.216.158
December 24th, 2007 11:08
I just want to say, that’s not exactly how it went down.
Cameron said, “I don’t care,” but then he proceeded to let the judges “do what they want.” Right there is the problem, because if the judges choose who they want to win, or what “side” they want to win, then there arises suspiscion of the judges motivations, and the round becomes personal.
Also, the “K” would have meant something if it WAS a K, but since it was an “invitation for discussion” followed by Cameron repeatedly saying “I’m not condemning any of these practices (blocks, spreading, extending, cross-applying), I just don’t know how to debate. I think we need to talk about it,” that doesnt really do anything. And even if it is good to reflect on what debate has become, people seem to forget that it was not only Cameron’s round, or the coach’s round, or the spectators’, but it was also Daniel’s round, and he deserves, if he wants, to have a real debate about the topic or at least about something. Cameron put him in a tough position because either a) Daniel chooses to excercise his right to debate and looks like a jerk (regardless of Cameron’s intentions) for doing something which Cameron kindof-criticised or b) he chooses to just discuss and risks looking like/falling into Cameron’s trap, to wich Cameron could just say “I’m not criticizing anything, I’m not trying to prove anything wrong so you Can’t disprove me and legitimately win, you must discuss, and then I did the better debating since I wooed you all, Ha!”
He didn’t “pity” himself since he does actually kindof have a tough time with craaz good people in the “spot light,” and his perhaps lack of self-confidence is understandable with everyone yelling and agreeing with Cameron or pressuring him to do something he was def unsure about.
Posted from: 66.108.95.205
December 24th, 2007 11:35
Congratulations to Daniel and Cameron! Both are seriously hard-working debaters and have always been unfailingly polite in my interactions with them. This is a nice breakout for both of you.
This sounds like it was an interesting round, too. I’m confused about something, though — the discussion with the coaches took place during the round itself?
Posted from: 66.27.96.17
December 24th, 2007 12:06
Just to clarify, I really didn’t do this for the ballot. I think that there are some important issues that need to be discussed more in the debate community.
Thanks Jon. To answer your question, Jay Bhatnagar said that Daniel could stop time and go take a walk to think things over (or something along those lines) which is when he talked to his coaches. But many people (spectators, judges, etc.) were interjecting during the round as well.
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
December 24th, 2007 12:21
not to knock anyone (DFK, you know i gots mad love) but isn’t it a little ironic that the response to a critique of debater’s being overcoached and whatnot was coached by at least 3 people?
Posted from: 207.200.116.74
December 24th, 2007 12:37
Look guys…the final round was awesome, and should have been even better if people could have gotten over the immediate issue and onto the important one. I was there when cameron thought about it, and we put together some of the logistics. It wasn’t a “pure” K or performative AC or anything. It was what he said it was: an invitation for discussion about something that was prevelent during the ENTIRE tournament. cameron DID NOT DO IT for the win. the reason he didn’t say “sign your ballots neg” in the beginning was because the ballot wasn’t supposed to be a part of the discussion. this was bigger than the ballot. but (and i’m paraphrasing from a long conversation on the plane ride home) maybe one problem with debate is that it is always going to be linked to the ballot.
As for the round itself…This kid (DFK? I don’t know him at all, but nothing against him, he seemed nice) was apparently all for the discussion in the beginning. After the “AC” cam said VERY CLEARLY “It’s all yours, man” and sat down, waiting for him to do whatever he wanted. Then he bought into the idea…he was pretty clearly critiquing absurd blippy spreading with his “performance” (andandandandandand…) it wasn’t until his coaches spoke up (and he realized that cameron was turning the ballots into the judges’ hands, rather than in the debaters’, which is where all “flow” debate aspires to put them) that he changed his position and started saying that cam was “ridiculing” the final round. I understand that what cameron did could have been confusing, but he didn’t do it for the ballot or the trophy. This is a real problem, and he gave up a win at a national circuit tournament (and, i say this with complete bias, he would have won in a “normal” round) to talk about it.
Posted from: 66.27.96.17
December 24th, 2007 12:38
Another clarification–I’m not critiquing anything, I just think that we should discuss the issue. There are definitely advantages and disadvantages to extensive coaching and the other issues I was talking about.
Posted from: 24.24.161.27
December 24th, 2007 12:47
I want to say a few things first. The reason that this round was such a mess was because Cameron didnt do the necessary prep work that is involved in a discussion round. At the stanford RR we agreed to split the 2 ballots and just discuss. But cameron’s constant “I dont care” just served to create confusion and chaos as to what really should have occurred in the round.
I didnt get a chance to see the AC or the NC, but I’m pretty annoyed at how this went down. I was told by prai that cameron was showing off this position, making jokes, and collecting a crew to “discuss” in that round. DFK essentially walked into that round at not just a prep disadvantage, but also a perceptual disadvantage. You have smitty grandstanding about how debate is a simulcron and jennie nodding profusely, what was Khalessi supposed to do.
I have a problem with what Cameron did for so many reasons. That round proves the reason why would shouldnt have discussion rounds. The reason we have time limits and judges who shouldnt interact with debaters is because it leads to all sorts of chaos and judge intervention. As shess and prai pointed out, the judges in the back were forced to intervene, not only because they had no idea what to do with the ballots, but also because of how they felt about the nature of the activity. I think these reasons show why that round was wrong forum for this discussion.
More importantly I think the performance of that discussion was ridiculous. All I could think about during is what a joke the final round had become, and how it was denigrating to lexy and her tournament. The final round is meant to be a showcase of the best debaters at the tournament and what got them there. For Khalessi it was a goal that had wanted to reach.
To the discussion of the actual arguments of the AC i think are ridiculous and performatively contradictory. The nature of debate is competitive and top down, if you want to be the best you have to work the hardest. And this dude, who rolls up with a tub, has the nerve to be like, man it is so unfair that I have work hard and spend money time and resources to get there, and literally has the most prep of all the kids is ridiculous. And most paid coaches nowadays arent proffessionals, theyre alums who are willing to help their teams. RB, dont act like you dont have access to people like Sumeet or Kevin, and I know you got your neg K from Yoav.
I also think this position elucidates, but really downplays the achievements of independant teams. Kevin Pratt qualled independant, me, granada hills, la jolla, MSJ, tons of schools do the independant thing. The AC does show why qualling independant is a difficult thing, but to claim that the situation needs to be changed is somewhat ridiculous. The competitive nature promotes not only the person with the most resources, but the best debaters. Its more that resources make it easier to compete, not that a lack thereof makes it impossible. And so what? Its not like were fighting robots that need tech and capital, words and knowledge are free things, theres no such thing as plagarism in debate. And those debaters who dont need to spread or run tons of whacky positions to win are rewarded when they beat those kids. LD doesnt have nearly the research burden that policy does.
Let me tell you, i have much love for independant teams that work their way up the national circuit ladder. Im more willing to work with those kids, and get greater enjoyment out of doing so. But asking that debate be reduced to the lowest common denominator, every talks the same speed, has the same amount of prep, etc is simply ridiculous. The reason debate is such an educational and valuable activity is because it has such a burden of prep. Being forced to buy and read books is a good thing. Think about if every just sat around and discussed every round, telling people their opinions, what a joke that actvity (public forum) would be. So if you, like the NFL committee, think thats the ideal conception of debate, then quit, save ur arms from carrying tubs and expandos and engage in some grand crossfire.
I want to conclude by saying Cameron’s intentions may have been good but they were not executed in such a way as support the goals of his position. The activity can and will not be changed from the bottom up, the only top down solutions have been to create new activities. And lemme say when i judged him in semis you were good man, and I think you could, like many other indies, serve as a model for how the lower class of debaters can rise to the top. See you all at VBT.
Posted from: 75.26.159.0
December 24th, 2007 12:50
Cameron, you never fail to amaze me. You are a straight baller.
Posted from: 76.173.173.211
December 24th, 2007 12:55
Badass! If I wasn’t economically disadvantaged, I so would’ve went to this tournament. Let the discussion begin!
Posted from: 71.141.248.56
December 24th, 2007 13:11
Post 103:
“not to knock anyone (DFK, you know i gots mad love) but isn’t it a little ironic that the response to a critique of debater’s being overcoached and whatnot was coached by at least 3 people?”
at first it does seem ironic. but from what the recount of the round sounded like, it seems like the kid talked about what was really important to him, and maybe his coaches wanted to get that out of him. since all of those people probably knew him, maybe they just talked instead of prepped? but who knows what happens inside closed rooms, or out of them, rather.
Posted from: 69.180.210.210
December 24th, 2007 13:41
While it’s interesting there’s an outpouring of opinions on disparities in debate, current LD practices, and the proper forum for such discussions, I don’t understand why more people aren’t willing to have these discussions at tournaments outside of rounds. We as community members seem to express a desire to discuss these issues, yet I think many individuals would forgo a such a meeting at an actual tournament in favor of prepping for the next round or ensuring they get an early flight home.
While I’m not completely opposed to the idea of discussion rounds, they do seem to fall victim to the conflict between genuine discourse and the pursuit of the ballot like many performative arguments. Also, like others have stated, I think rounds like this one rob the second debater who actually wants to debate the topic. Of course, debaters should have to deal with certain (non-topical) criticisms, but responding to those criticisms often requires answering the framework for the criticism. A simple delivery of the AC, followed by a “Let’s discuss” doesn’t seem like a clear enough framework. Perhaps the only way to discuss these issues is outside rounds, when they’re not tainted by competitive goals. I’m not sure how feasible such a dicussion would be, but hopefully people will be willing to participate in one in the future.
Posted from: 207.200.116.74
December 24th, 2007 14:13
Ok, to clarify, if you didn’t see the AC or the NC, all you saw was the sad result of what cam tried to make happen in that round. I think your source is pretty biased if he says cameron was “cracking jokes” (which he wasn’t…he very intentionally swore three times during the AC, and some people giggled). He didn’t “show off” the position; people kept coming up to him, being like, Cam, good luck man, what are you going to do, and he was like, “Thanks. Just know, I really believe what I’m saying.” He actually said that to DFK before the round. Lastly, he had no “crew” to “discuss”. I’m one of three people who knew in general some of the things that were going to happen, and they knew because they were around when he started thinking about it. I knew what would happen because we’re teammates and good friends, so we spent our would-be sems round prepping.
and we haven’t talked to sumeet or kevin in months. no one’s talked to yoav in years plural, i think.
Maybe cameron should have given up the ballot before the discussion started. However, consider why he didn’t: he thought the activity could rise above it. he wanted to learn something even more than he wanted the trophy. Cam clearly isn’t complaining about the amount of time he puts in; the kid LIVES for it. He loves fast technical debate; he just felt genuinely confused about whether or not it was the best thing. And the opportunity to get everyone’s opinion was one that would maybe not come again.
the immediate NC response (not the post-coached one) was immersion into the discussion. I thought it was pretty clearly an agreement to Cameron’s concerns (not criticisms, concerns). If it was meant to do something else, by all means, let me know.
and though we’d love to have discussions like this in the future, everyone was like “stay after the round” after this final round, and guess what? six people stayed in that room after teh decisions was finalized and the vbd picture taken.
Posted from: 207.200.116.74
December 24th, 2007 14:15
with that last part in mind, actually, is anyone still interested in getting a room at vbt? i want to; I think cameron does too. That would be cool.
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
December 24th, 2007 14:51
beyond pointing out the superficial irony anon, i was not criticizing whatsoever anyone in that round, not having seen it.
This is exactly the problem with many critiques of debate that aren’t widely accepted/specifically targeted and frameworked in a way that works in a debate round. I know DFK probably does really want to do well, we all do. He shouldn’t have a fair round taken away from him. At the same time, is it really fair that the only way to win is to wholesale accept the activity’s norms? Just a paradox with in round criticism i guess. There has to be a middle ground and a way to actually deal with this.
Posted from: 69.181.76.100
December 24th, 2007 15:07
First of all I would like to express my appreciation to Lexy and College Prep for all she has done for debate, for under represented programs, for urban league, for talent from small programs and for under- funded debaters. Her spirit has been a personal inspiration and her patience , and wise words at the end of the round are something I hope will reach us beyond the debate forum. Although she was kidding when she said I would get out my ruler- I do believe we are all measured by our words, our actions and our attitudes.
Since we all debate with an eye toward the idea l what ought to be – it is difficult to be drawn back to what is.
My personal problem was not the subject in general but how fast it became personal . So what was NOT said in round….or after.
I personally love this tournament because it is” early on the topic” – you can’t buy notes before it occurs, most college coaches and teachers are in finals and students frequently use it to try out creative ideas which may or not work out in future rounds. I think on a scale of fairness, opportunity and open minded judging it would rank high. I also think the individuals on the final panel have integrity and a clear appreciation for different styles of debate, so to have them screamed at or told what they ought to do bothered me more than just a little.
I may know little else- but I do have appreciation for the dedication and work it takes for any student to make break rounds at this tournament -let alone reach the final round -and the dedication it takes for judges to stay until finals to work the tournament right before Christmas . I expect it takes more dedication to come from Southern California,
even more courage for the parent chaperones/judges assistant coaches to stay and to speak up in discussion after the round and nearly miss their plane. As a former parent as well as being a coach I certainly heard their pain and I do think they need a larger forum in which to raise it.
Debaters have always complained about judging, unfair fields , hard breaks etc- and a walk over the first time you meet ( and at least for me every time I meet it) is a real shock to the system.
I think the adult point of view after the round was they have incredible talent in the San Diego Area and very little opportunity to demonstrate it and their second point was somehow the venue of debate was unfair and they would like to do something about it. I may have heard that wrong their message may be there is incredible talent in many places in California which is not being challenged, therefore we as a debate community are should be reforming the forum and they challenge us to do it.
On the other side, although I do not know Daniel well as a person, I do know that he won a community service award last year based on local recommendations for what he had personally done to promote minority debate , and is the head of one of the local programs that is working to bring more underprivileged middle school debaters into high school debate. In fact, I think he has been accused of spending more time on social causes than on debate.
Cameron’s parent chaperones assured me Cameron is also a leader for social change and we can look forward to him making a difference in the real world as well as in the debate world.
So the effect is something like running a rape K against a
female debater and fixing it so she can either “defend rape” say rape is not topical – and any topicality argument pales by degrees/ perhaps trivializes the topic – becuase then in the 2Ar you say my opponent trivialzes this topic by trying to fit within the normal perimeters of debate…. or accept your inviation to discuss what the community should do about rape – or a race argument by a black team- is that what that movie is about…?
Secondly – of course, every student, coach, visiting parent and team chaperone loves debate and loves to argue.
Who else would spend three days plus travel time right before the holidays at one of these shin digs.
Ask them to argue/ discuss ANYTHING and they will ; however the spirit of debate is to raise issues and leave bad feelings at the door to be raised in another forum ( my preference ) or another round ( probably the reality since the room was full of eager debaters looking to the example of the champions. )
The irony that THESE contentions/charges were made at THIS tournament in this round- certainly did not escape me, nor did the fact the judges openly said in round they felt these issues were important and Needed to be discussed ( or debated) or that most of the audience felt these issues were more important than even HAVING a final TOC round-
talk about apriori…….
I expect they will ALL receive mutiple invitations to sit on committees working on these issues.
I hope both students will familiarize themselves with the efforts of College Prep, the Oakland area , TOC and NFL to answer some of the questions raised in round and the efforts of the urban leagues and the problems they ran into.
I hope some students will consider that given the discrepancy of leagues in many parts of the country TOC may actually offer some kids as fair a forum as NFL and just because your friends ( Or I) tell you something does mean it is warranted- use your brains and check it out.
It is also not lost on me that civil disobedience is the po-fo topic and so teams that run po- fo will be visiting these issues. Are there consequences when you decide to protest?
( hint I was alive and in my 20’s during the Vietnam War and
teh Civil rights movement).
Since adults were asked to comment- I felt it was ok to
mention that part of the “wicked establishment or not” Cali schools have worked hard to get their place at TOC tournaments, and state what I believed the TOC rules to be – you had to debate ( whatever that is) the final round ( whatever that is) and depending how the round turned out ( dependig on what actually constitutes a ballot) perhaps the participants wanted to consider this fact. If this was out of line- my apologies to all concerned.
In no way do I represent TOC -College Prep- or have a clue what “debate means”. Nor am I any more qualifed than the debaters – and probably less qualified than their coaches and the round judges to interpret TOC rules.
TOC and the opportunity to do circuit debate helped the small progam at my school and a couple of debaters who basically coached themselves. In the spirit of the season I remain grateful .
I remain thankful for the opportunity the circuit provides to my kids many of whom will never leave the Bay Area and for my kids who do not wnt to try circuti debate to have other opportunities . I am old enough to know NOTHING is perfect – one persons’ cake will be another man’s poison – and debaters will always discuss, debate and argue but the best of us see the good in with the problems we are examining. You may have to make your own way- you may have to work to find a niche- but you may be better for it when opportunity does knock.
I was told yesterday as long as there is a ballot there is a debate. So there was debate! We have 3 new bids and at least one more competitor at TOC – am not sure if the others had a bid before this or not.
So given that -plus a new debate fiction movie out – I am expecting more of this and an interesting season.
I do NOT coach either of the participants ( probably luckily as I lost sleep over this round last night and I can assure you if I coached either of them I would lose sleep for more than a week). I personally support small programs and under represented debaters- but think you have to be careful casting stones at the long time coaches who have worked for years sometimes at great sacrifice -to build credible programs. . I am not “against ” letting debate to some extent be what students want it to be. I hope BOTH students will be advised that the TOC offers a discussion forum AFTER the meet and that they will be there to express their interesting points of view.
In the spirit of debate and for the love of argument I would like to thank the coaches and students alike who pointed out that I was ‘ wrong’ about what constitutes a round. Ok – next time I’ll know. TG for tournamnet directors and speed dial.
” there are no rules until you break them” – MAD slogan
and the irony of MAD ’s defintion in the new topic and that it also stands for Menlo Atherton Debate (My bears – is not lost on me either.)
Happy Holidays all- Sheila McKay
Posted from: 75.72.64.219
December 24th, 2007 15:09
what’s a lower-class debater?
Posted from: 69.131.99.141
December 24th, 2007 15:52
First of all, congratulations to Daniel. If your work ethic at camp is any indication of your work ethic during the year, this was an extraordinarily well deserved win.
While I wasn’t a part of the final round, this thread has intrigued me. I agree with a lot of the posts here, particularly Corey’s. Also, as a judge, I echo Ashan and Adam’s thoughts: these rounds are often a nightmare to decide and for that reason alone, I think that, if debaters are going to do something like Cameron did, they need to be absolutely explicit about the function of the ballot, even if they are trying to “rise above it.”
But I do want to say something from a different perspective. I agree, somewhat, with the substance of the criticism as I understand it. Debate does have a lot of problems that stem from money. Kids can’t afford to go to pricey tournaments, hire expensive coaches, or go to camps if the cash simply isn’t there. But ultimately, I think we can agree that most kids on the national circuit have more money than most.
This is why I think that what Cameron was criticizing doesn’t really get at the issue. The issue is that debate is SO expensive, it’s over the heads of kids who aren’t in the middle class. While kids in the upper-middle class can go to more tournaments than those on the lower end of the spectrum, I think we can all agree that if your family is making just barely enough to get by, you aren’t going to be an LD superstar. So, for example, while a debater may not get to go to Glenbrooks, the fact that they can go to CPS is promising. But if your family makes about $10,000 a year, you’ve probably never even heard of CPS…and you probably never will. This, to me, is absolutely depressing.
But what is honestly more depressing to me is that we sit around and criticize the socioeconomic problems in debate and literally do nothing about them. While I admire Cameron’s attempts to bring up these issues, and while I admire people like Lexy, Sheila McKay and Tommie Lindsey’s attempts to make the community more open, I can tell you from experience that these people are not the norm. Having volunteered for an organization (Perspectives Debate, Inc.) that tries to promote debate among kids that are VERY far from the middle class for two years, I have seen first hand that most people care, but do nothing. Lots of kids get excited about our organization, or other groups like the Voices Foundation, but then quickly get back to prepping for the next tournament. While I am so, so grateful for the people who have done things for me, and have volunteered for the projects I’ve needed help on, I’ll often e-mail hundreds of debaters asking for help on something simple, and get an average of seven responses.
So, to be honest, I think the issue that really needs to be discussed is this: why are we, as a community (and I am just as guilty of this as the next person) willing to sit and just criticize the fact that debate sucks when you’re part of the lower-middle class, but not do anything about the fact that it barely exists at all in the lower classes? But more than that, why are we just TALKING?
Let me be clear: I’m not trying to criticize anyone here. I get money from the debate community, too. But I think it’s time that we all started discussing why so many of us think that “giving back” is so often getting paid to coach, instead of volunteering for organizations like Perspectives, Urban Debate Leagues, Voices, etc.
The opportunities to help out exist, and if anyone is looking for one, I urge you to contact me. Talking is important, yes, but action is much more crucial.
Happy Holidays, everyone.
Posted from: 71.141.248.56
December 24th, 2007 16:17
i wasn’t accusing you of criticizing anyone, rebar, after reading your collection of writings on this website and others, i think you’re probably better than that.
however, my point was essentially the same as yours. maybe he went outside to actually talk to his coaches outside of the whole coach-debater relationship, more like a personal talk. dunno though.
in-round criticism sounds difficult to manage getting a real message through, given the mixed response on this site. i think that it is more than just recognizing that some debaters are advantged more than others. there are always advantages when it comes to the amount of money people can spend on flying and coaching. it will take more than some in-round criticism to fix stuff like that.
the problem arises when debaters are not debating, but are just becoming debate-a-bots, machines that read off the old blocks of coaches or new blocks entirely prepared by coaches. when a student can literally sit down with four of her coaches before a round and have them damn-near perform the rebuttal she has to give in the next round, what does the round really come to? how much “hard work” is she doing?
debate is not a game for robots.
Posted from: 98.195.65.171
December 24th, 2007 16:24
congrats daniel khalessi on a qualification.
i, of course, wasn’t at this tournament; however, after reading most (if not all) of the comments about this allegedly scandalous final round, i think it is a big waste of time to knock or criticize someone who did what he did in round. i don’t know the kid, but seriously, who are we to criticize whatever this kid does in round? ‘daniel should’ve gotten a fair final round,’ ‘this is ridiculous’, etc.
i personally find it the most problematic when students, judges, and coaches alike, actually berate each other for the way they debate, the arguments they make, or the way in which they make them. while there ought be restrictions on rude treatment and things of that nature, i think it is straight up dumb to give someone grief for stepping outside of the box, just a little. i personally find it refreshing when students take the time, effort, research, and/or dedication to spend time constucting a non-’stock’ debate position, and usually reward said debaters with 30 speaks.
that’s all i have to say, feel free to berate me now too.
ldscoreboard.blogspot.com
i’m updating it now, with these results, if i’m missing YOUR ghost bid, let me know! those are hard to keep track of
Posted from: 24.7.46.10
December 24th, 2007 17:03
Uhh yeah. As a member of MSJ/Escobar I find Cameron’s position kinda offensive (btw, I was the guy you hit 4th round where I TOTALLY strugged) since we’ve been basically independent forever (as far as I know). My teammates like the circuit style of debate, and are willing to cope with he fact that other people may have an advantage; we just beat them anyway :p. Saying that debate has become too biased is then a little nonsensical since it kinda degrades our team’s achievements as well as our aspirations.
Posted from: 75.72.64.219
December 24th, 2007 17:13
Victor – your logic makes no sense. How does it degrade your team to say that the debate community is expensive and that it is hard for independent debaters?
and it’s “offensive?” really? it’s “offensive” when you speak up when you find something to be wrong?
proper forum aside, i’m not sure how that is anyhow offensive to you or msj or any other team that is independent but was able to make it work.
Posted from: 75.25.130.115
December 24th, 2007 18:17
“i’m updating it now, with these results, if i’m missing YOUR ghost bid, let me know! those are hard to keep track of”
according to the above posts, it’s “Tara Noris”
btw, everybody agrees that programs without a coach and/or funding are at a disadvantage, but maybe I am just stupid, but after reading the thread, I didn’t catch what exactly was Cameron proposing that would fix the problem? prohibit coaching?
as for the “proper forum” to discuss the problem, I think it’s actually an online forum like VBD, because it allows only the people interested to be involved, rather than forcing people like Daniel to get involved at the cost of a legitimate final round performance. plus VBD has more people and is more flexible time-wise.
Posted from: 67.180.63.248
December 24th, 2007 18:25
Tara – I don’t know about anyone else, but I’d definitely be interested in continuing the discussion at VBT.
Merry Christmas everybody!
Posted from: 24.165.9.37
December 24th, 2007 19:50
the recurring demand for a “framework” highlights the blackmail of national circuit debate that the 1ac questions. we expect arguments to be framed in incredibly specific and technical ways that are specific to debate and alien to any other forum for discussion. what national circuit debate presents as a seemingly neutral demand for an evaluative decision calculus is itself a form of exclusion for those who are not trained in this methodology of argumentation. rather than impose these demands from outside, we as a community should engage the question of the 1ac and ask ourselves: “what have WE done to increase access to debate?”
Posted from: 76.227.19.140
December 24th, 2007 19:59
I’d like to congratulate om for his second quarters appearance this year+10th speaker award, yichao for breaking at his second circuit tournament ever, and tarun for being so close but always being a positive person (no worries..i have no doubts for the rest of this year). Good job Monta Vista
Also-though I only met them this weekend—I must extend major congrats to Tara and Cameron for performing against all the odds and coming out on top at the end. It is hard to come from a team with little administrative backing and no circuit coach and then having to go past judge biases and not getting out-repped because you hail from an unknown school, so that was quite a show at CPS from this duo.
I do have thoughts on the finals round (which I did watch from beginning to end)..I don’t have time to get those thoughts up here right now, but hopefully I will be able to later this week.
Posted from: 24.165.9.37
December 24th, 2007 20:00
to clarify: my argument is not that frameworks or framework debate is bad. my argument is that we need to be open to different methodologies of debating and different notions of the relation of the ballot to the debate, not impose some a priori conception of what a “framework” is on debaters who critique that very conception.
Posted from: 24.6.29.183
December 24th, 2007 23:50
Hey, so I deliberately was avoiding this discussion for a while, mostly because I didn’t feel I could approach my thoughts clearly right afterwards, but I think I may as well chip in now.
The most important principle, and the one I think people are missing all too often here, is that the 1AC can read any speech he wants too. That, I believe, is the reason why any arguments as to why DFK was at a prep disadvantage are irrelevant. If the AC had been a new, completely underheard of, but topical argument, we’d all be telling Khalessi to suck it up and debate. So there’s no way I blame the AC for choosing to run the arg. In fact, I commend him for one of the most MATURE handling of large amounts of emotion that I’ve seen from a debater in a long time.
Next, I want to emphasize that the biggest reason why the debate fell apart was that the DFK Failed badly at maintaining the debate after the AC. Cameron did indeed look at DFK and say, “its all yours”. At that point, all DFK had to do was try to CX, and the round would have stayed relatively structured. Instead, DFK grabbed all the ballots, and then jumped straight into a counter-performance (the mock-spreading). BOTH THESE ACTIONS FUNCTION TO REMOVE STRUCTURE, NOT MAINTAIN IT. I think that from DFK’s actions, it was easy for the crowd to get riled up (laughter at the counter-preformance, cat-calls etc.) I, and I think the other judges as well, were initially unwilling to force the structure back into the round, since, after all, the AC asked to not have structure, and DFK never even asked anyone to maintain structure.
The first attempt to even begin letting DFK have structured speech time was 5 minutes later when I looked at him (and everyone else was quiet for a moment) and told everyone, including DFK—“If Khalessi wants a structured round, he has the right to it, because he worked hard to get here. Khalessi, do you want an NC?” DFK failed to claim his speech time, failed to say he wanted it. I made the same request of DFK at least 3 other times, and even let him go outside to clear his mind and decide, and throughout the round, he failed to ask for it.
At that point, the competitive limbo about how the ballot functions is 100% as much Daniel’s fault as Cameron’s.
Posted from: 24.6.29.183
December 24th, 2007 23:57
I want to add one thing-
I totally understand why DFK acted the way he did. The crowd was riled up, and I think that any debater could easily be thrown off by the energy. I had plenty of trouble debating in the one final round I was in, and I totally understand.
Emotionally, I wanted to vote aff based on the complete lack of coherent response until no less than 40 minutes of discussion had passed (including several arguments being made by coaches and spectators for each side).
However, I didn’t feel comfortable dropping Khalessi for his emotional response. Indeed, I felt that abstaining was the best thing to do. However, the tournament and the round needed a decision, and the coin flip was my way of providing it through abstention.
Congrats to both debaters. You’re both extremely talented, and I loved judging you both earlier. I think you can both learn a lot from this debate.
Posted from: 74.70.112.133
December 25th, 2007 00:21
I think if he had conceded the ballot there wouldn’t have been a very intense or real discussion. People can be all “ya man debate needs to be fair etc” since they games already over but while the ballot is still something that can be won or lost you get to see whether the game or the issue came first.
This shouldn’t be taken as a crit of DFK or anyone. Just why I think its somewhat necessary for him to have not conceded at the very beginning.
Posted from: 67.117.131.193
December 25th, 2007 00:46
I want to thank Lexy for running a great tournament once again. I’ve been attending for four years and this tournament is still my favorite one. Good competition, great food, and even better hospitality.
In relation to the final round, it’s sad that Cameron’s goal was never met. The intended discussion quickly devolved into personal attacks, confusion, and a lot of anger.
Nonetheless, congratulations to Cameron and Daniel, two very amazing debaters.
Posted from: 24.176.254.44
December 25th, 2007 00:47
As much love as I have for Cameron (as seen above), I do think he should’ve conceded the ballot at the beginning.
I think it was pretty obvious by the fact Cameron wasn’t engaging the game (at least not in a traditional sense), and showed no particular preference concerning the ballot that the issue came first. I think DFK’s strategy shift from engaging the discussion to an emotional appeal (from what I hear, because I wasn’t there myself) showed for him the game came first. But overall, I don’t think priority should be the issue.
As long as the ballot was undecided anyone concerned with the game (DFK, coaches, etc.) wouldn’t be free to an honest discussion knowing whatever they said could potentially affect the ballot. If the ballot was decided neg during the 1AC there would be no need to alter positions because there would be no need for adaptation, which would allow for a totally honest discussion without the risk of offending a judge or something.
Posted from: 24.176.254.44
December 25th, 2007 00:51
One last thought on discussion rounds in general: I think they’re fine, but asking members of the debate community (who will obviously disagree on some things) to discuss the nature of activity is asking for conflict. It’s like going to a republican/democrat mixer and saying let’s talk about Iraq. It’s a nice thought, but in all likelihood won’t be pretty. That’s not to say the discussion shouldn’t take place, I just think it should happen in a structured format so that things don’t devolve into something unproductive or offensive.
Posted from: 24.176.254.44
December 25th, 2007 00:55
Actually, this is the one last thing.
Instead of disucssing the dicussion I think we should actually discuss the issues and substance of Cameron’s position not the delivery.
I’m curious, and fairly certain others are too, as to what people’s positions on things like disparities between coached/uncoached, poor/rich, etc. debaters.
Posted from: 24.176.254.44
December 25th, 2007 00:55
Sorry for the typo’s. I just re-read those posts.
Posted from: 204.210.185.134
December 25th, 2007 01:44
DFK
You are the man.
Posted from: 70.18.19.216
December 25th, 2007 07:55
First off, let me say congrats to the two finalists, esp DFK my former lab student now going to TOC (tear).
In terms of the discussion, so to speak, while I wasn’t at CPS, from what I hear, I would have certainly thrown a fit and if I were judging at the end of the AC my ballot would have been signed neg. Yes I said it, and here’s why:
I’ve seen many attempts to have such critiques in LD rounds and have seen the results of such “performances” in other arenas (parli, NDT, high school policy) and the result is usually the same: total disaster.
It’s usually disaster for the very reason that Ms. McKay brings up–the forum forces the other person into a very brutal position, to defend an advocacy that is a very deep personal attack, esp (as Ms. McKay notes by someone known for actually trying to DO SOMETHING about the problem.
As an example, it’s similar to my tremendous anger with the Louisville policy squad when they attack black students who debate in “the normal way” as not being “liberatory enough.”
(read cross-X the book, and you’ll see what I mean here) There’s a tendency to be very undemocratic in how one is supposed to perform/not-perform in order to be “sensitive” to such critiques . To the recipient of such it really is the most ironically unwarranted slap in the face to say “well you are the oppressor (despite every thing you personally do/believe to really solve this problem)
It’s very common (as on this thread) for people to say “well debate is for the kids/ its really cool and critiques the debate structure/ debaters can do whatever they want.” I’ve heard these responses over and over and over when such “rounds” happen. Guess what—they usually don’t go anywhere, people rant a bit about the “discussion” and then it gets forgotten. (and as Ali correctly points out, people end up doing nothing)
That’s my problem with “activism” in debate (and activism in general) it makes a nice ruckus, it provides catharsis to a community which feels like it is not as inclusive as it ought to be.
But where the real test is, is to encourage change in times its not so public and not so sexy. A critique in an AC about the socioeconomic barriers in debate can pull at a judge’s emotional strings to say LET ME SIGN THE BALLOT TO CHANGE DEBATE (mocking voice) as I’ve heard over and over, but it won’t lead to change. Change comes from the more micro-level interactions, the volunteering when no one knows you have done it, the times letting kids travel with you if they don’t have chaperones, or the times giving cards to/free advice to kids who don’t have formal coaching.
If someone came up to me and said that kind of AC to me suggesting that I’m not “doing enough to remove barriers” I’d personally slap them across the face (or would want to). It’s a very HUGE insult to say to someone “you aren’t doing enough” when they actually are. That’s why performance is such a dangerous thing in this context, and why the question “why should I lose for this problem” is damn fair. It kills any kind of real “protest” or sympathy for the cause when the ballot is used as some political statement/tool to increase access to barriers in debate.
Take the following hypothetical: Replace Khalessi with say an independent student who doesn’t have a full time coach. They debate Cameron and they are negating. The critique gets run, the judges say OMG I’M INCREASING ACCESS TO DEBATE. The neg loses. What has happened? The very victim of the problem the critique is talking about, gets punished for something they suffer for.
From the judge’s point of view, watching such rounds is excruciating. (I mean that LITERALLY, it is for me, physically and psychologically painful)
I DO NOT want to have to resolve these issues. I’m not being paid enough to do it. All I’m supposed to do frmo tab is to affirm or negate the topic, and while that may make me a dinosaur, for those 45 minutes I’m on “contract” to decide which debater defending their side of the topic. Is it “oppressive” to impose this conception (like so many people hate to do in debate) SURE. I really don’t care. I don’t see it as a problem to say that for a particular forum there are certain duties that you are expected to perform, otherwise, why not make debate a bunch of free form freestyle dances, and let the judges vote on “what they feel.” Oh wait, isn’t that what some silly LDers assert about public forum? Now while I tremendously oppose making fun of other activities, it is a bit of a performative contradiction for LDers to call other activities as not rigorous enough, and then to support ‘performance’ styles that link just as hard to such criticisms.
Further, a lot of these “discussions” end up being a kum-ba-ya fests of OMG let’s increase access, that lets the “elites” feel better about themselves BY MERE DISCUSSION. The ironic impact of cases like Cameron’s and the discussions thereof is that they mass the very problem it is trying to solve. The assumption that DISCOURSE SOLVES that precludes
the feeling that actual action needs to take place. Rhetoric of increasing access becomes an item in a toolbox, we can run performance to get our name out there, to get people to talk about what crazy crap we did, and others who want ballots then see that to win big rounds like a CPS final round, you have to push the performance button.
To this day, people who defend such practices, upon my query, haven’t told me what the recipient of such a critique like the one in the CPS final round is supposed to do. Especially under a very flow based panel, reading your case normally (about the freaking topic) is probably going to lead to a loss. You have no idea to figure out how the judges are reacting to such a situation, nor is there a script for how the round “should play out.” The pressure from the crowd to “engage” adds onto what’s already a pretty difficult situation to begin with. And further, those who defend such practices never ever tell debaters how they are supposed to answer such a position. It’s hard enough to prep on a card war topic about nuke prolif, but what coaches give lectures on “here’s how you handle yourself in a debate where you are being punished for lack of socioeconomic access in debate?” I try as much as I can at camps to arm kids (many of whom don’t have coaches to help them) with very specific information about what to do in these cases, but such lectures are few and far between.
If these practices were to continue, they would only make it tougher for the people who are the most vulnerable. I volunteer to coach a lot of people who don’t have a lot of money or resources or time. It’s hard enough just to prep people to the point of covering a topic, and students I have who work *multiple jobs* to do this activity do what they can just to keep up. The irony of such performances it that they make life harder on this group of people. Having to add a “A2 performance file” further strains the resources of people who don’t have much in the first place. The big name schools out there can have access to people who have read performance theory and have seen situations like this happen before. What are the rest of the people supposed to do?
That’s why I think debating in the framework given by the activity is such a good idea. It offers some platform by which all people can have access. Are there inequities to the “normal way” sure, but a free-for-all critique fest tends to favor the elites a lot more in the long term. (think: what lower-income person working 3 jobs have the time to cut the cards on the topic, and then the free time to read derrida and narrative theory?)
What we don’t ever talk about in these “discussions” is the importance and value of what people who work within the frameworks/structure do to solve such problems. That’s why from what I’ve heard DFK’s response was pretty damn appropriate. Such performances slap the faces of people who struggle (and it IS a struggle) to make chances from within that rarely get attention. By failing to talk about (or take seriously) the liberatory actions of those who operate in the status quo, we “otherize” their efforts as not being truly activist. As a result: such rounds end up as a disaster.
From the judges’ point of view, such actions make our lives difficult. If you don’t vote for the wacky silliness, you get called (quotes from my own past experience in this) “stupid, reactionary, conservative, etc etc.” Why do that to us judges? Why scare off those people who throw away good party weekends to judge LD rounds? I know people (I was almost one myself) who stopped wanting to judge (people who were damn well known LDers) because they were sick of debaters doing crazy things instead of talking about the topic. Add to that judges who feel intimidated that if they don’t vote for progression (esp by big name people), coaches will yell at them, and that other kids will crap-talk them. If the goal is to increase access in debate, excluding judges is perhaps a REALLY REALLY bad idea, and I don’t think people on this forum are aware just how many people have quit judging for this very fear–hell they IM me all the time still.
Be forewarned to those who have me as a judge, if you behave in such a way, I will sign my ballot against you. It will probably lead to under 20 points. Is that “cool and progressive” no. Am I imposing a conception of debate, absolutely. For the reasons, above though, I think that such impositions is quite justified.
I’d rather you find me online or by e-mail and ask me what you can do to increase access to debate (I’ve written ungodly amounts for perspectives to this effect). But in round faux-activism, I’ve found in the last few years of such “discussions” only further marginalize others, and just numb people from every wanting to do anything to solve the problem.
To those who are interested, watch NPTE final rounds where some people have these actual debates (google video “NPTE 2005″).
It’s a very simple calculation: “performances” that tick people off and make them hate the message, or people who work within the framework that actually increase access. I think it’s clear which side outweighs.
Anthony
Posted from: 67.180.63.248
December 25th, 2007 08:17
Every game expects its players to adhere to certain rules. And it takes time and expertise to master those rules. To this day, I know I don’t really understand all the rules of football, baseball, etc. I know the basic point of the games, but many of the penalties/fouls/whatever make no sense to me whatsoever.
Accordingly, debate has certain rules that we expect the players to adhere to. Some of them are obvious, and others are more arcane. So I don’t think the demand for debaters to offer a evaluative framework for judges who have to make a decision is per se unreasonable. It may be a bad rule, and we should certainly have that discussion. But let’s not reject the rule merely because it’s a rule debaters have to learn.
Posted from: 70.18.19.216
December 25th, 2007 08:40
I already typed too much, but I’d like to make one quick point. I get very very angry when people whine that the speed, use of evidence, etc. excludes people. I’d like to remind people that there are many many coaches/circuits (I needn’t na me names here, we all know who I’m talking about) who use these very monikers to intervene against independent/up and coming teams to keep them from doing the strategies, etc. to overcome a perceptual bias for a big-name squad.
When I coached MSJ, the idea of having non-full time teachers as coaches was virtually unheard of. When I judged local debate the coaches told my kids I wasn’t “a real coach.” As Ashan knows, as a nappy haired Stanford kid from the projects, with a razor kick scooter and airwalks, I was not by any definition who most people saw as a teacher of the activity.
Demands that using cards was SO POLICY and that the style we did at Msj was just A BUNCH OF ROBOTS spewing what the coaches were thinking were (and are still used by the way) by others to keep out “unrepped” debaters from being taken seriously. I’ve sat in rounds where judges enforce the status quo by using their ballot to drop the less well known debater.
Therefore, I get very very angry when I hear of debaters who make these appeals and call it a call to open access to debate.
People clearly don’t know their LD history when they do this. Back when I debated, college alums who wanted jobs at the big name debate camps at the time had almost ZERO chance if they didn’t win 2/3 bid tournaments, got in the MBA round robin, or werent’ alums of particularly well known high schools. It took quite a bit of arm twisting to get a job at places like SNFI and then eventually NDF, and so on. I feel for DFK–I was on a team my junior year where I was the “2nd” debater who didn’t amass 6 bids as a student. (and in terms of socioeconomic resources, suffice it to say I was a “scholarship kid” at newman, who thanks to my amazing coach, Greg Malis and others I had a chance to compete)
It took a lot of coaches who knew me personally to twist some arms for me to get any camp jobs whatsoever. If it weren’t for their efforts, lectures like “advanced argumentation” wouldn’t exist have happened, msj wouldn’t have had me as a coach in their formative year, etc etc. just because I just didn’t have the name, or the “persuasive style” that would get you a job. I was so certain that I was unemployable/unwanted as a teacher that my college counselor and I were talking about alternative internships I would have to do.
So I read the summary of Cameron’s critique of circuit debate with tremendous suspicion, and I can’t agree more with Ashan’s comments. It’s hilarious to bash the very methods that have been used to break into a circuit that once upon a time was entirely closed off to indepdent squads, or in my case, people who want to teach but aren’t considered “good enough” to be hired (or from a pedigree of a well establisehd school)
In this way, Cameron’s “discussion” perhaps represents the biggest example of shooting one’s self in the foot I’ve seen in a while. The alternative to what he complained about, is one I had when I was debating in 2000–that alternative = students like himself, teams like MV, MSJ, etc etc would never have had the college coaches or rep to even have had a chance to clear in a world where people didn’t allow the very things that the AC in that round was critiquing.
It may be harsh to come down this hard on people (and others who argue such things) but these kinds of arguments are serious in implication, and I don’t think people have thought carefully about when they run critiques like this.
As a dinosaur, I know the world that the AC seems to ask for and in that world neither of the teams in finals would have been “allowed” to make it to the bid.
Posted from: 24.6.29.183
December 25th, 2007 12:04
Cameron made no claims about the AC being a discourse voter in the classic sense. Our Ballot was never labelled as an instrument for change etc. That distinction does help the discussion. Also, the AC made no claims at all about DFK propogating bad debate, and didn’t claim that anyone hadn’t done enough. Indeed, the only person Cameron discussed personally in the AC was himself.
Finally, it takes a discussion or two to convince yourself to consciously take actions that help increase access to debate. I’m sure that real actions such as the ones Ali asks us to do above (comment 116 above) are much better, but that doesn’t seem to be a reason to reject Cameron’s position (which was not as superficial as many of Bhill’s examples of bad preformance).
Posted from: 70.18.19.216
December 25th, 2007 14:18
I’m not even sure if it is a position per se in whatever permutation it could have been. “do what you want with the ballot” is the kind of thing where I probably would have thrown my pen (adam’s nicer than I am).
No matter what form of debate you want to do, as a debater it is incumbent on you to explain what should happen, how it should happen, etc.
I’m not argumentative prude and I teach some of the wackiest stuff that exists. But it is irresponsible to do such things without clearly articulating what should happen ESPECIALLY in a big round like that.
Yes, it may have been cool to do it, but cross apply the stuff I said before, having to tell students I help to write an A2 prformance file makes their lives more difficult; judges have quit judging after dealing with rounds like these, etc etc etc.
Maybe all I can do is to say this: do such things with me as the judge, and I will autodrop you, probably with 0 points. Just debate the topic. That may not be cool to say for the westcoasters/progressives out there, but I won’t vote on movements, I vote on debate topics.
Posted from: 76.110.170.83
December 25th, 2007 14:19
sorry if this was already asked/answered, but was there any “text” of the AC and if so, would cameron mind posting it?
first let me say that the economic issues allison raises are probably the most important thing here. i think it would be very interesting and important to have a discussion with well researched statistics and viable alternatives on that issue alone.
with regard to the “mocking” of circuit debate through incomprehensible reading of cards, etc…. i’m mostly curious how accurate the portrayal of the circuit actually is (what an “indoctrinated” ex-debater might call the “links”). during my career, i found that the people who made the biggest deal about speaking quickly, running kritiks, over-coaching, etc. were those who hadn’t been very exposed to the “circuit” and had only heard secondhand a few war stories that served to caricature “circuit debate.”
during my junior and senior years, i remember one round (at toc junior year) that was simply too fast for me to understand, and the judge – a well-respected circuit judge who has been on finals pannels of octas bids – yelled “clear” twice and gave the other debater a loss with bad speaks. i can’t recall ever debating against a kritik in the “traditional” links-impacts-alternative sense. nor can i recall a prepout that seemed insurmountable.
i think that tactics that seem to some to reward those with extensive coaching and were clearly criticized by the ac:
a. aren’t as prevalent as they seem
b. can be beaten with intelligence
and c. are rejected even by “circuit” judges when they drift into the realm of absurdity
i realize i might look like a hypocrite saying all this coming from a school that is economically well-off and has access to excellent coaching both formally through the school and informally from past scarsdale grads. but still, it seems like one doesn’t fully have to embrace “circuit norms” to succeed, and based on what’s been said, cameron’s criticism hardly seems to allow for this possibility.
Posted from: 76.110.170.83
December 25th, 2007 14:25
sorry if that became unclear. my point is this:
the national circuit is definitely economically exclusive.
it is not as stylistically exclusive as it might seem.
we should not conflate these two issues, because the former seems of far greater importance and relevance than the latter.
Posted from: 68.117.67.167
December 25th, 2007 14:59
props to the novel writing on this thread
Posted from: 24.176.254.44
December 25th, 2007 16:54
Bhill, I’m not sure it’s appropriate or even correct to generalize ‘westcoasters’ with certain types of argumentation. I know plenty of fellow ‘westcoasters’ who a) haven’t run movement/discussion cases in round and/or b) don’t want to.
Posted from: 71.198.177.34
December 25th, 2007 20:18
There is a nonprofit organization, the Voices Foundation, dedicated to mitigating the financial barriers that make it difficult for some to participate in speech and debate. It was started by John McKay before his death. Its website:
http://www.voicesfoundation.org
is being redesigned and will include a student discussion board for topics related to making debate more inclusive, among other things; the new site should be up in a few days.
The foundation needs input and assistance from students.
Dave McKay, President
Voices Foundation
Posted from: 69.181.76.100
December 25th, 2007 23:32
Competitive Limbo is a great term for it….I will admit I was initiallly upset with BOTH kids ( and their main peanut galleries who were loudly offering oral suggestions to their friends mid round – ) -upset for different reasons… but in the end I felt both kids have alot going for them ( it takes talent to work a crowd- talent sadly needed in our national leaders so if under 20’s show a bit of it but not enough of it to retain control- well I guess we have some fostering of talent to do as a community) and the kids probably did the best they could given the crowd , the coaches, and the audience.
Bhill -knowing you- I can guarantee you would have thrown more than your pen – or stood up shouted for silence, thrown the audience out and told these kids what hardship really is and they should go pull sugar beets for half a day or something. (Assuming you did not get into it with one or more of the coaches bickering “quietly” in the back.)
I think the judges made a sincere effort- a bit late ( fair enough – they did not want to influence the open discussion forum or tell the debaters what to do- but in 20-20 hind sight maybe a bit a late-) , but in the end, a sincere effort- to control the room- and Jay was certainly in the spotlight here doing most of the work to try to regain control- I REALLY do want to commend him on his effort-it is never easy to play the questioner or to try to restore order to chaos – but in my opinion, it was just too many folks, too out of control.
LD is changing very rapidly-nothing like this – but rapidly- there were many styles at TOC last year-everything from classic rhetoric with hand gestures and eye contact moving to emphasize points to every word being read from behind a laptop, and none of the judges seemed to be penalizing for style unless they dropped a kid because they did not get something on their flow due to speed or lack of clarity or a moments blink or whatever….
LD could go either way- right now It is full of inconsistencies, so let’s get access for more kids, and then we can worry about where they would fit in best….style wise…..
so re- the disadvantaged or needy debate programs in San Diego….is Rancho Bernardo hoping to be at State this spring?
Voices website is under construction. Soon there will be a place for you to leave your constructive ideas for improving access to debate and access to personal development opportunities. If you email me at sheilamckay@yahoo.com
I will take each and every idea you have to the voices board.
It is my personal belief we are not talking about war funding here, a relatively small amount of money has the potential to do a lot of good, not only for kids today but for the adults they are going to become tomorrow. Those who are most disadvantaged need leaders and they need them ASAP. Debate, even brisk debate, can develop discussion and leadership skills.
Voices is meeting December 31 to discuss our plans for 2008. If you have specific ideas as to how we can improve the situation , we would appreciate your input.
Posted from: 24.6.29.183
December 26th, 2007 00:28
I think that the best way to increase access to circuit debate is to bring circuit-style tournaments to a local region. Right now, I think there aren’t many local invitationals in the bay area, which is sad given the strength of competition. 5 invitationals (Cal, Stanford, CPS, Harker, and James Logan) is not enough. Many debaters might be able to find a way to pay entry fees and judge fees for a local invitational, but aren’t able to pay $300 for plane, and more for Hotel and car. Those people need more invitationals locally. We should try to be more like Texas in terms of local debate.
Finally, I think that judging at locals is the single best way to increase accessibility. If you really believe that kids should have a chance to debate in front of experienced judges, go judge for free or at a discount. If you’re a coach, go beyond your commitment at local tournaments that need it. Honestly, I haven’t done these things myself, but I guess discussing what we can do is a start.
Posted from: 76.17.171.188
December 26th, 2007 01:23
It’s pure BS that someone can be financially disadvantaged and can’t change their situation. I was able to pay for nearly all my debate expenses throughout the year (registration, flights, hotel rooms) by working a $9/hour job during the summer and the school year.
Posted from: 12.208.215.81
December 26th, 2007 01:49
I’ll add to this discussion later, as someone who debated at a rather economically disadvantaged school. But just a few things for Julian–
Is it possible to support your own travel? Yes. Is it typical? No. I know you SLP folks love the libertarian arguments for everything, but not everything can be overcome. I think people in the midwest have a distinct advantage of being able to drive a billion different places to bid tournaments. I think you had an incredibly supportive coach/team that did a TON of work and minimized how much you had to work on debate. You had an administration that lets you travel, and a coach that travels with you (and thereby covers your judging obligation) every weekend. There are connections you made (through your teammates who obviously spend a lot of money on debate) with people who let you stay in their basement at any number of tournaments. From what I’ve heard, SLP has a pretty big budget. You competed on a TREMENDOUSLY successful and competitive local circuit that helped you develop your skills. The fact that the money you make working your job can go towards your debate expenses also says something in itself. A number of kids who I know spent their money to help support their family. I don’t mean to downplay your efforts, but I think you SEVERELY downplay the constraints on others by pretending that your situation is the norm.
Posted from: 76.17.171.188
December 26th, 2007 04:07
Thanks for trying to enlighten me, but I was already well aware that I have struck the lottery of birth jackpot. I do not take my winnings for granted or spend them frivolously for that matter. You should not believe that I am blind to this fact of my life because you would be wrong. You also should not believe that I cannot conceive of a life worse than mine because you would be wrong. I have no idea what the norm is because I do not think the 2000 United States (is it Mexico or America?!?) census was accurate. I am sorry for having made an assumption about what I thought the norm was (that people can change their circumstances).
All I was trying to say, albeit in a disrespectful and presumptuous manner, was that if I had not worked and made $3,000+ over the year (correction, it was actually $10/hour) I would have probably attended 6 tournaments, as opposed to 15-20. As a result all my lottery of birth fortune would have been wasted. At least I took advantage of my situation. That would have been truly acheronian: someone who has the means, but does not apply himself. Can I at least be given credit for having taken an initiative (I do not know if that is possible with determinism being true and all)?
I do not know a thing about the state of the local circuits in Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Illinois, Colorado, California, Oregon, Washington, Florida, New York, Alaska, or any other state because I have never been to tournaments over the entirety of a local circuit’s season in those states so I will defer to your authority as a coach and lab leader that they are not as successful or competitive as Minnesota’s. You should not pretend to know where my debate skills came from, though I honestly do not think I ever had any and I could probably find plenty of people who would agree. I never learned anything at local circuit tournaments my senior year (see Debate Dress K). I do not know if I can claim the supposed benefits of debating on the local circuit from my sophomore year since I did not debate throughout my junior year.
You are correct. Christian T. is a godsend, as ironic as that may be (his name be an anagram). My current activities within the debate ‘community’ have earned me the title, among many others, of being a “judge whore” because I am willing to judge a tournament for “$100 a pop.” I am not ashamed of this. It has enabled high schoolers to debate who otherwise would not have. You know what has influenced me the most to go to tournaments to judge? When you said that me not going to tournaments would screw over debaters who would not have a judge that knew what was going on in the round (check your AIM log).
Love,
Julian Switala, a.k.a. Uncle Juju, a. be k.a. Rafiki, a.k.a. Judge Whore
Posted from: 66.108.95.205
December 26th, 2007 06:49
“I think that the best way to increase access to circuit debate is to bring circuit-style tournaments to a local region.”
What does that mean specifically?
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
December 26th, 2007 09:43
i think what jay is talking about is tournaments with:
A. a high level of competition (IE, the open division has enough kids to hold octafinals or more outrounds legitimately)
B. judging from either experienced coaches or recently graduated debaters who know what they’re doing.
potential problems: well, that still doesn’t explain how we get tyrannically oppressive school districts to fund it/allow the kids to attend. also, a desire for “more circuit” style tournaments could alienate the old guard so to speak, of coaches who run local tournaments at considerable personal expense (in both time and money). and, even if all the above problems are remedied, how can we get enough people to attend to have it work out? nonetheless, i would prefer to have competitive rounds locally than not, and one of the hands down best tournaments in washington is the UPS tournament which is centrally located, has a big pool, and is the weekend all of the first year outs return from college, making it one of the best judged tournaments in washington. unfortunately, i have been able to attend for two years in a row now.
Posted from: 71.167.114.45
December 26th, 2007 11:21
Julian:
I think you overlooked a huge issue (though I agree with everything Ernie says):
Most of the kids I was speaking of in my post do work jobs. Do you know what that money pays for? Food. And clothes. And bills. When your family is making just barely enough to pay for housing, you do work, but you do so to keep your family afloat, because it’s often the most important thing. Debate can be a way out of those situations (helps kids get into college, etc–Perpsectives has several success stories of this that I’d be happy to share if asked), but in NO WAY can these kids put their own money (or their parent’s, obviously) towards debate. It just isn’t possible for them.
So, please, seriously consider these things before you call out other people’s ideas “BS”.
Posted from: 71.167.114.45
December 26th, 2007 11:24
I just realized that Ernie made the same point I did at the bottom of his post, so I apologize for repeating it. However, I think it’s still an issue worth raising.
Posted from: 24.6.29.183
December 26th, 2007 11:28
Rebar is essentially right about my point, and UPS seems like a good example (although I wouldn’t know). Bringing the Circuit to locals means finding schools (and this is obviously not easy) willing to host a tournament, as well as getting former debaters in the region to come out and judge. Also, this may not even be a issue of getting new tournaments. In the north bay (I.E. around CPS), existing league tournaments normally have 1 or 2 judges who are flowing. This kind of kills me considering there are at least 15 (probably much more) well-qualified judges who go to Berkeley.
Obviously, The finance problem is the clear issue. Schools are not paying to hire qualified judges, and bringing parents instead. To me this could be solved by a combination of
1. Judges doing some judging as charity
2. The community as a whole finding some way to subsidize the cost of hiring a qualified judge (ala an organization such as voices fundraising and then sponsoring a tournament by subsidizing hired judge fees)
3. A commitment from local programs to stop bringing unqualified judges (something that can be encouraged through discussions of these problems)
I have no idea if this is possible, and I’ll be the first to admit that I’m sort of just hoping. I’m just frustrated by the example of the northern bay area, where more judges are available than in most places, and yet local judging is worse than most regions.
Posted from: 24.6.29.183
December 26th, 2007 11:31
Also, one last thing- the stubborn school district problem is a tough one, but I think it’s probably a lot easier for a debater to convince the district to allow a nearby tournament than a travel tournament. So, I think the focus should still be on improving local tournaments.
Posted from: 68.164.169.15
December 26th, 2007 12:56
Rebar’s explanation is correct. Most of you folks are young, so even things that have happened in the last 5-10 years are ancient history to you. The teams you think of as perennial powers were not always so strong (or event extant). California’s strength in national circuit LD is relatively new (yes, there were some strong California programs that competed nationally, but not enough to make one think of California debate the way we think of Texas debate). One important thing to note is that those nationally competitive LD programs (like CPS under Mike Major) got that way because they were able to travel to tournaments with high competitive standards.
At the time that I started the CPS tournament, California didn’t have many opportunities for national circuit competition. Sure, we had Cal and Stanford, but they were both in February. For most of the year, California LDers were looking at tournaments with near 100% lay judging. To make matters worse, they were at a disadvantage at Cal, Stanford, and almost any national tournament they could get to, because the State Association (CHSSA) continues to insist that California use only 2 of each year’s topics. The current state of this mess is that California debates the Sept/Oct topic from September through January (yes, many are still debating the death penalty) and then picks up the March/April in February (so that NFL district tournaments will be on the required NFL topic). It used to be even worse–California used to write its own LD topics! This two topic situation means that for debaters who remain in state, Cal and Stanford are extra tough because they are debating the Jan/Feb topic for the FIRST time against competitors who have already debated it at Blake, Emory, and their own local tournaments. When I started the CPS tournament I chose to go with the Jan/Feb topic in order to give in state debaters a chance for rounds on the topic before Cal and Stanford.
In fairness, I should note that California’s two topic stance IS based on concerns about access. The worry is that coaches (who teach 5 non-debate classes each day in most cases) and students will be driven out of the activity if the preparation burden is too great. This is a great example of the complexity of the access issue, where an attempt to promote one kind of access trades off against another type of access.
Using experienced judges was another of our missions in the early days of the CPS tournament. I was tired of LD being treated as an afterthought at many of the TOC bid tournaments in the state. Long Beach and USC both had bids at one point, but tournaments hosted by college programs that do policy debate tend to take far more care with the policy judging pool, leaving LDers to be judges by whatever’s left after everyone who can flow has been assigned to the policy pool. While we do use some parent judges, we are vigilant about protecting the two down bracket.
The greatest challenge to the health of LD in California is older than LD itself–Proposition 13 took what was once the finest public education system on the nation and pretty much destroyed it. Since its passage, California schools have been forced to abandon rafts of wonderful programs. Pretty much the only things guaranteed funding are those mandated by law. Most school districts do not offer speech and debate classes. If there is a speech and debate team, it is generally administered by a teacher who is teaching 5 sections of English or History each day. The team generally receives no funding. My situation at Pinole Valley (where I taught ten years ago) is typical: zero budget, $1,400 coaching stipend for the entire year, and I had to pay my own substitutes when I missed school for tournaments. Ultimately, you’d have to be crazy to choose to coach under these conditions. As a result, most high schools in California have no speech and debate program and those that do often have coaches who, quite reasonably, are not willing to leave their families for 20+ weekends each year in exchange for an insulting stipend. It’s this reality which has fueled the rise of the independent entry.
Like CHSSA’s commitment using only two topics, independent entry is a complicated issue. Beyond the pragmatic questions (liability, communication regarding entries, responsibility for fees…), there’s the question of how best to promote access to debate. I have a great deal of sympathy for debaters whose schools do not have programs or coaches willing to attend tournaments. As a result, the CPS tournament has always been friendly to independent entries. At the same time, many argue (probably correctly) that so long as schools can have the benefit of a speech and debate program without being required to pay for one, there will never be funding for speech and debate programs. I tend to weigh the interests of debaters who cannot debate right now more heavily than the more speculative interests of debaters who may or may not be able to debate in the future, but that’s certainly not the only reasonable decision calculus.
Posted from: 76.17.171.188
December 26th, 2007 15:37
I apologize for my inconsiderate use of language.
Posted from: 68.230.67.224
December 27th, 2007 15:41
well if nothing else, at least cameron has succeeded in starting a good discussion on vbd
Posted from: 24.23.227.65
December 27th, 2007 23:20
haha the 1st place novice win wasn’t even legit when avi was suppose to be in varsity. it would actually be suprising if he dind’t take 1st place
Posted from: 74.36.137.22
December 27th, 2007 23:39
I’d really like to not get drawn into this discussion, so excuse me if I’m horribly wrong/offensive/dumb or whatever.
I agree with #158, even if we think what Cameron did in the round was a bad way to debate or whatever, I think that this discussion really shows what CAN come out of such “performances.”
This topic would be LONG gone had the final round been stock, and I think the fact that we’re still talking about this final round is at least worth noting by those who either criticize this type of debate, and really everyone should recognize that he did bring up an issue the community has (150 posts worth of) feelings about.
That’s my two cents.
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
December 28th, 2007 00:36
people should be congratulating the finals participants instead of dwelling on this round.
Congrats Khalessi, way to go.
Posted from: 66.27.96.17
December 28th, 2007 20:21
Hey,
To answer Matt’s question, there wasn’t a fully written text of the AC, but if someone wants an outline that’s pretty comprehensive, just email me: reader1writer1@gmail.com and I’d be happy to send it.
I’m really glad that some people have taken this as an opportunity to talk about the substance of case, and to those that have, thanks.
Just to throw my two cents in:
My biggest concern with the current LD trends (I don’t know how prevalent this was in the past) is the huge advantage a debater with a personal coach (or several) will have over others. While I think coaching is a great asset, and having a professional instructor in debate is an amazing thing, I also think that we cross the line when coaches will do the prep work for a student—whether that’s researching, writing cases, or writing blocks. It should be pretty obvious that these kinds of practices make it extremely difficult for independent schools to compete on the same level. Does that mean that extensive coaching is definitively bad? Not at all. However, I do think it’s something that should be, at the very least, questioned. In terms of how to “equalize” the competitive edge, there are a couple things that could be done. First, I totally agree with the idea of bringing “circuit” tournaments to a more local level. Even if it’s not possible for schools to host a circuit tournament, I think that the more fast paced practice coachless teams and individual debaters can get, the better. In that vein, non-school affiliated get-togethers could be really beneficial. Second, I think coaches have a responsibility to recognize the difference between coaching a debater and debating through that debater. What exactly that means, I don’t know. On the same hand, debaters have an obligation to make sure that they’re the ones doing the debating—even if you have a coach willing to write up blocks for you, that doesn’t mean you should use them. Third, a community attitude could do wonders to help independent debaters. What exactly does that mean? Well, instead of approaching tournaments as if everyone is an opponent, approach them eager to meet new people (regardless of what school they are from) and work with those people during and after the tournament. Yah, I realize that probably sounds really corny, but a big part of debate is knowing people—if you do all your prep-work alone, you won’t be exposed to the same number of arguments that debaters from big, competitive teams will be exposed to. A lot of debaters already have this “community attitude”, and I think it’s great. Finally, alumns, coaches, and tournament directors can bring about huge changes in the activity. For example, allowing independent entries gives a lot of teams access to tournaments that they wouldn’t otherwise have. A lot of these four things are already done, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t talk about them. To those who already do them, thanks, but by no means am I criticizing those that don’t.
Some people have discussed the issue of economically disadvantaged debaters who don’t have access to tournaments. I think some of the above suggestions could work well in this regard, but there are a few other things that could as well. First, there are a lot of programs out there (Voices foundation is one) that give a helping hand to the disadvantaged debater. Supporting those would definitely be good. Also, offering financial aid is something that a lot of tournaments/camps do that is a great practice.
Posted from: 207.200.116.74
December 28th, 2007 22:50
It’s funny – something I’ve noticed about debaters is that they get all excited about issues and problems, but they’re not very interested in solutions. It’s like they have this eternal “NEG debater” radar on for the a) inherent inconsistencies or b) solvency issues in any possible positive idea. So, now that we’ve outlined some of the major problems that contribute to debate inequalities: are there any ideas for ways to fix it?
I notice that this thread is dying down; that’s normal, I guess. People get all hyped up about stuff like this, but a week has gone by and it seems like no one’s that interested in continuing this. Since we all agreed that there is some kind of an inconsistency with debate (not that I’m saying that it needs to be fixed by establishment, but still, we agree that it’s easier for some kids to debate than others, which sucks. Even more than that, we see that kids from less well off areas lack the opportunity to debate – not that that is anything new), it’s absurd that we would avoid pointing out and trying to complete a course of action (any course, even a small one) to rectify the situation. Thus, I propose that we try to get five solutions to anything that’s causing a problem. Until we get these five, can no one point out any problems with the solutions proposed?
So, I think that we should get debate more attention. For one thing, CA should get off the two-topic stance. It’s not making debate more accessible. It makes it SLIGHTLY easier to teach, but ultimately, I know more kids who get bored with death penalty the WHOLE SEMESTER and drift on to other things than kids who would stop because we change topics more often (although maybe that’s just because we don’t go to enough tournaments for it to matter). However, getting us in line with the rest of the nation might serve to invigorate programs at schools. Can we start a letter-writing campaign to CHSSA to get the two-topic thing changed? I’m cool with doing the grunt work if people think that it’s worth doing; I’ll write the letters and stamp envelopes if people would be willing to sign names. Another way we can do this is through community activity. If we do something that links the debate team with a community, it gets people interested (and, once they know there is a debate team, no one in my experience has ever thought anything other than that it’s a really good thing for kids to do, and it should be supported). If we link it across several debate teams from different areas, it could be even stronger. If we start making changes (any changes), maybe people will notice. If we get noticed, teams get more (fill in the blank: funds, coaching, approval, etc.)
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
December 28th, 2007 22:56
I apologize to anyone who feels that the last glimpse of hope for “education” in the final round was lost when I misunderstood Cameron’s position as an adhom attack on my coaches and me.
In spite of my reaction, I feel that the final round of CPS was not the most appropriate forum for Cameron’s discussion. However, as Smitty mentioned in an earlier post, Cameron did highlight numerous important issues regarding accessibility that need to be readdressed.
I am very interested in holding a forum regarding these issues at an upcoming tournament (whether it’d be VBT, Stanford, Berkeley, etc.). I would be pleased to discuss these issues with a clearer mind as opposed to multi-tasking (focusing on winning a final round, engaging in the discussion, and attempting to appeal to an audience). Furthermore, as Ali (Huberlee) mentioned earlier, I think it will be more constructive to discuss ways to actually solve the problems associated w/ the national circuit’s current state as opposed to solely criticizing it and “dwelling on the final round of cps” (as Ken mentioned).
Although my opinions regarding these issues cannot be fully developed in a single post on victory briefs daily, here are some of them in a nutshell.
On the contrary to Cameron’s “biggest concern with the current LD trends,” my biggest concern is the enormous influence of socioeconomic situations on one’s debating career. As Ali said earlier, many debaters simply cannot afford to compete because the money isn’t there. Compare the number of opportunities a debater with a relatively large number of monetary outlets to that of a debater with barely any. (I am simply using a hypothetical example, please don’t take this as an adhom attack) The former can travel all over the country for bid tournaments, meet the “professionals” of the activity, buy the top-of-the-line laptops, pay off judging fees with ease, and finance endless summer institutions/workshops. Sadly, a debater with barely any money to devote toward debate may not even know that bid tournaments exist, or even if he/she did, he/she would be “lucky” to have the opportunity to attend even one. Unfortunately, this reality is not unique to debate; socioeconomic differences play too large of a role in almost all competitive activities, including sports (relatively wealthy tennis players can purchase multiple top-of-the-line rackets, hire professionals to coach them, and travel to play nationally).
We cannot fully alter an economic system that influences virtually every competitive activity in the United States; that is, we cannot take a “top-down” approach against the system. We cannot simply take away the coaches of those who have them and we cannot take away the money of the more fortunate debaters. And we cannot generalize debaters with coaches as “cheaters of the activity.” For instance, although MVLA has two former circuit debaters as coaches, we have a team of 10 debaters and we generally write our cases/blocks and then send them to our coaches for comments or revision. I am familiar with numerous teams who use this type of work ethic and they are by no means “cheaters of the activity” and their coaches by no means try to “debate through their debaters” as Cameron mentioned in his affirmative position and earlier post respectively.
However, we as a community can adopt a bottom up approach and reach out to those who are less fortunate. I commend the Voices Foundation (Mr. and Mrs. McKay), NSD, VBI/ the VBT tournament, Pinnacle, and Perspectives for reaching out to such debaters (via scholarships, competitive opportunities, etc.). Commending these institutions, however, doesn’t suffice. (Although I am probably not in the position to advise EVERYONE), I urge everyone in our debate community to donate to Voices, volunteer to help independent teams out at their meetings, volunteer to judge locally, and cordially reach out to those with less opportunities.
Posted from: 24.176.254.44
December 28th, 2007 23:56
I don’t think that Cameron’s argument was that all debaters with coaches are cheaters or that all coaches try to debate through their students – rather that some do. And that ’some’ is a huge problem.
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
December 29th, 2007 00:43
The generalization of debaters with coaches was specific to Cameron’s case in the final round (as opposed to his Posts), but I may have misinterpreted the case as such. Even if my interpretation is incorrect I do definitely agree that coaches’ debating through their students is an important issue to be discussed.
Posted from: 71.236.138.137
December 29th, 2007 01:10
I met several debaters at VBI who I knew wouldn’t be able to travel outside of their local circuit and who had effectively no coaching staff. So, like any good leftist who is distrusting of IP, I offered to send them the debate work I did.
I think as a group circuit debaters can “adopt” local debaters they know they won’t be competing against at all and help them out by sharing the benefits of their coaching. It sounds simple, but I think it has a lot of potential to help local districts that would otherwise never have access to circuit debate. It really doesn’t take that long to email the stock cases you wrote and spend 15 minutes on AIM explaining what to extend.
(I recognize this doesn’t solve socio-economic problems or debaters having prep-advantages, but I think it can help.)
Posted from: 76.17.171.188
December 29th, 2007 01:14
I agree with Mr. Khalessi from post number 164.
P.S. I think one solution to the problem could be to get a job. One drawback is that the people who do that may get cocky and think they are fully responsible for every success of theirs. Don’t point out flaws unless you want to be like a “NEG debater” who has their “radar on for the a) inherent inconsistencies or b) solvency issues in any possible positive idea.”
[Source Cite: Tara. Post #163. http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2007/12/23/daniel-khalessi-wins-cps/
Posted from: 76.17.171.188
December 29th, 2007 01:20
I didn’t mean to double post, but I had to get it off my chest. I particularly liked how Khalessi’s post draws attention away from criticizing debate’s problems and focuses on actual solutions.
Posted from: 12.146.92.44
December 29th, 2007 07:12
“It’s funny – something I’ve noticed about debaters is that they get all excited about issues and problems, but they’re not very interested in solutions. It’s like they have this eternal “NEG debater” radar on for the a) inherent inconsistencies or b) solvency issues in any possible positive idea. So, now that we’ve outlined some of the major problems that contribute to debate inequalities: are there any ideas for ways to fix it?”
YES! I realize that my post was largely ignored because I posted on Christmas Eve (and that’s my own fault), but in it I pointed out that there are SO many ways for debaters to let their actions speak louder than their words. I understand that talking is important, but it takes a community to fix a problem like this, and it’s going to necessitate action.
As I said in my post, I urge anyone who feels like they want to volunteer for debate to contact me. Perspectives Debate, Inc., the organization I volunteer for, is only around because of former debaters who were willing to forgo spending money in order to help out the less fortunate. We’ve got some of the most successful former debaters you can think of helping us out every day, but I personally take on lots of projects every year and always need help (as do the others in our organization). If you want to help out, I promise we can find out an opportunity for you!
Similarly, I know Mrs. McKay posted that Voices needs help as well. While I don’t know as much about the organization, I do know that it has a mission I definitely agree with.
Posted from: 71.139.15.49
December 29th, 2007 14:46
Dear “BeLegit” —
On behalf of Avi, (since he’s too humble to respond to your post, plus he’s away from his email as he’s spending his holiday in New Orleans helping Katrina victims,) I’ll accept the backhanded compliment. Avi sure does debate like he’s varsity, but in fact his first round ever was at the end of October 2007. Which was two weeks after his first practice ever.
Like you, I look forward to his career on the circuit. He’s not only a good debater and tremendously hard worker, he’s a kind person. I hope you take the chance to get to know him.
Posted from: 24.176.254.44
December 29th, 2007 15:26
To Khalessi on post 166: That’s fine, I thought you were generalizing from his post so I wasn’t sure. I don’t know if you misunderstood the actual AC or not, since I wasn’t there. But I would presume his post wouldn’t diverge from the what the AC advocated.
Posted from: 71.229.223.222
December 30th, 2007 01:12
Matt Aks makes an excellent point at post 140, but backs away from taking the position firmly because he worries that saying it while having debated for Scarsdale would make him seem like a jerk. I debated completely independently, learned LD from an extemper and never had an LD coach; I managed to have a solid if not amazing season the year I did circuit debate and the fact is that he’s completely right. I maintain (and will always maintain) that coaching is a luxury that – while somewhat useful – is VASTLY overemphasized in the current circuit environment. This is true for a few reasons (in roughly increasing importance):
1 – circuit techniques HELP independent debaters. The best way to win as an independent debater is to have unique positions that are deep, well-researched and that you understand. More tabula rasa judging, greater tolerance for creative positions and increased emphasis on evidence ALL make those skills more likely to succeed nationally rather than locally.
2 – intelligence will always beat coaching. Prep-outs can be daunting but smart and strategic debate will beat them more often than not. And arguments are just arguments, even if a coach comes up with them. They will still have warrants, they will still have a strategic function, and they can be beaten equally no matter who thinks of them.
3 – the Internet makes coaching almost entirely redundant. There are tons of TOC cases, video-taped debates, articles about theory, free evidence and access to MANY people willing to help out independent debaters experiencing the circuit pro bono (like me, for example; email me!). I wish that Westman were still available, but even without that there are many, many available resources.
4 – the differences between local and national debate really aren’t as great as they’re made out to be, and both circuit debaters and non-circuit debaters perpetuate this myth, in my opinion, for unique and interesting reasons. I’m actually toying with the idea of writing up my thoughts about this to send into VBD, so I don’t want to get into this too much, but I think that both groups have their own debate-ideologies furthered by emphasizing the differences between the two types of debate.
Of course, my argument isn’t that coaching is entirely useless, just way overrated and the lack of which can easily be overcome. Money is an entirely different story, which is why organizations like Voices, Perspectives and Urban Debate Leagues should be supported rigorously.
Posted from: 71.229.223.222
December 30th, 2007 01:16
Haha, that sentence should read “solid EVEN if not amazing season”. Though amusing, having the ambiguity potentially imply that my short circuit debate career was amazing would be pretty ridiculous.
Posted from: 75.33.138.188
December 30th, 2007 15:12
oh my god i want to vomit all over this thread
Posted from: 216.100.89.28
December 30th, 2007 15:38
Saad………
Posted from: 216.100.89.28
December 30th, 2007 15:38
…..I’m watching you……..
Posted from: 216.100.89.28
December 30th, 2007 15:42
Ha..rofl! Since when did matt discover this site?? Noo! No he’s going to screw it up….
Posted from: 216.100.89.28
December 30th, 2007 15:46
….hssssssssssssssssssss…………..7 days……………………hsssssssss…..
Posted from: 216.100.89.28
December 30th, 2007 15:50
…..yep, yep, yep…..ahyuck, yuck…..uhh…………..HI SAAD!!! Oh wait….that’s me……hyuck, yuck!
Posted from: 76.173.173.211
December 30th, 2007 18:24
MV, at least have the intelligence to mask your ip when you post as someone else.
Posted from: 71.104.246.208
December 31st, 2007 11:56
Esperanza ftl
Posted from: 75.42.0.167
December 31st, 2007 13:21
Unfortunately, I agree with you Fritz
Posted from: 75.56.210.46
January 1st, 2008 14:22
Then again……..aww……shyucks, I forgive you. I wonder ifeth Ieth needeth to masketh myeth ipeth addresseth??
Posted from: 75.56.210.46
January 1st, 2008 14:24
Sad, sad, sad, whatever are you talking about? I have no need for such things. Right sad? C’mon….buddy ol’ pal…………
Posted from: 75.56.210.46
January 1st, 2008 14:24
A-HYUCK!! THAT’S RIGHT!!!!!!
Posted from: 71.104.246.208
January 1st, 2008 17:36
foreth the loseth
Posted from: 12.145.154.226
January 7th, 2008 01:22
Im still confused as to why this round became so chaotic…
DFK was allowed to go outside during the round and discuss with coaches. What the hell. I don’t care if it’s ambiguous as to what’s going on with the ballots/what the proper strategy is, or if the position actually forces you to think, answer the position. Khalessi’s a bro, but this is just straight up dumb shit by everyone involved. I don’t really have an opinion on the substance of the discussion, but holy crap, that was bad.