Chris Theis Takes Blake
MINNEAPOLIS, Minn. — The Blake School’s forty-sixth annual John Edie Holiday Debate Tournament drew top competition from across America and ended with a final round that featured top debaters from the state of Minnesota. Apple Valley High School’s Chris Theis bested Edina High School’s David McNeil on a 3-2 decision to win the tournament.
The final round was adjudicated by Joe Vaughan, Aaron Timmons, Fred Robertson, Adam Torson, and Jon Posner. Timmons and Posner dissented.
The tournament drew over one hundred and forty Lincoln-Douglas debaters and over one hundred and sixty policy debate teams from a large number of states.
Chris is coached by Pam Cady Wycoff, Cherian Koshy, and Tim Hogan; David is coached by Jake Gelfand.
LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE
PARTIAL TRIPLES
(1) Apple Valley CT advances without debating
(2) Edina DM advances without debating
(3) Scarsdale KH advances without debating
(4) Greenhill DS advances without debating
(5) Scarsdale MH advances without debating
(6) Millburn TM advances without debating
(7) Edina BH advances without debating
(8) Lakeville South CK advances without debating
(9) Walt Whitman BL advances without debating
(10) Bronx Science MD advances without debating
(11) Strake Jesuit PT advances without debating
(12) Saint Louis Park CT advances without debating
(13) Pace AZ advances without debating
(14) Walt Whitman DW advances without debating
(15) Walt Whitman EM def. (50) Strake Jesuit CW (Chris Wang)
(Adam Torson, Wesley Craven, Sam Duby)
(16) Apple Valley MK def. (49) New Trier AC (Andrew Chesley)
(Adam Torson, Wesley Craven, Sam Duby)
(17) Walt Whitman CS def. (48) Eagan WC (Will Cox)
(Courtney Erickson, Jessica Bailey, Jeremy Schifberg)
(47) Scarsdale MM def. (18) Saint Louis Park MP (Michael Prideaux)
(Courtney Erickson, Jessica Bailey, Jeremy Schifberg)
(19) South Eugene BS vs. (46) Edina SWF (Silas Wallen-Friedman)
(Nick Tourville, Michael O’Connell, Ernie Rose)
(20) Wayzata FP def. (45) Glenbrook North PD (Patrick Donovan)
2-1 (Nick Tourville, Michael O’Connell, *Ernie Rose)
(21) Hopkins CD vs. (44) Eagan JG (James Gage)
2-1 (Tim Hogan, Barbara Bryan, Joe Miller)
(43) Bronx Science MR def. (22) Lakeville North TC (Tom Caruso)
2-1 (Tim Hogan, *Barbara Bryan, Joe Miller)
(42) Apple Valley JS def. (23) Coon Rapids RS (Robyn Sellman)
(Stu Campbell, Paul Magyar, Alex Stephenson)
(24) Bronx Science AS def. (41) Potomac JM (James McElwain)
Forfeit (Stu Campbell, Paul Magyar, Alex Stephenson)
(25) Valley AL def. (40) New Trier CC (Chris Conway)
(Jessie Stellmach, Anjan Choudhury, Julian Switala)
(39) Hopkins EM def. (26) Carnegie Vanguard RV (Rachel Vogel)
(Jessie Stellmach, Anjan Choudhury, Julian Switala)
(38) Bronx Science CC def. (27) Walt Whitman JK (Jane Kessner)
(Jon Posner, Gary Johnson, Dan Jennis)
(28) Harvard-Westlake SN def. (37) Arthur L. Johnson AG (Alex Grajewski)
(Jon Posner, Gary Johnson, Dan Jennis)
(29) Marquette University SH def. (36) Apple Valley KG (Kevin Granlund)
(Liz Scoggin, Joe Vaughan, Abbie Gudmundson)
(30) Walt Whitman RU def. (35) Saint Louis Park LS (Leah Shapiro)
(Liz Scoggin, Joe Vaughan, Abbie Gudmundson)
(34) Scarsdale ET def. (31) Walt Whitman SR (Stefanie Rohde)
(Matt Wilson, Charlie Furman, Ari Parker)
(33) Valley MK def. (32) Atholton NK (Nikhil Karnik)
(Matt Wilson, Charlie Furman, Ari Parker)
DOUBLES
Strake Jesuit PT def. Bronx Science MR (Matt Ross)
3-0 (Matt Wilson, Jon Posner, Alex Stephenson)
Scarsdale MM def. Walt Whitman EM (Emily Massey)
(Matt Wilson, Jon Posner, Alex Stephenson)
Marquette University SH def. Greenhill DS (Danielle Smogard)
(Ernie Rose, Paul Magyar, Beena Koshy)
South Eugene BS def. Walt Whitman DW (David Winer)
(Ernie Rose, Paul Magyar, Yatesh Singh)
Bronx Science MD def. Apple Valley JS (Jon Slater)
3-0 (Jessica Bailey, Gary Johnson, Nick Tourville)
Pace AZ def. Wayzata FP (Francesca Parente)
(Jessica Bailey, Gary Johnson, Nick Tourville)
Edina DM def. Scarsdale ET (Eric Thurm)
(Jeremy Schifberg, Courtney Erickson, Anjan Choudhury)
Walt Whitman CS def. Apple Valley MK (Michelle Keohane)
(Jeremy Schifberg, Courtney Erickson, Sam Duby)
Millburn TM def. Bronx Science CC (Carolyn Clendenin)
3-0 (Tim Hogan, Jennie Keohane, Katie Whillock)
Bronx Science AS def. Walt Whitman BL (Ben Lewis)
3-0 (Tim Hogan, Jennie Keohane, Katie Whillock)
Apple Valley CT def. Valley MK (Matt Kawahara)
(Adam Groner, Charlie Furman, Julian Switala)
Lakeville South CK def. Valley AL (Anna Lyons)
(Adam Groner, Charlie Furman, Julian Switala)
Edina BH def. Hopkins EM (Eli Mallon)
(Michael O’Connell, Ari Parker, Wesley Craven)
Hopkins CD def. Saint Louis Park CT (Catherine Tarsney)
(Michael O’Connell, Ari Parker, Wesley Craven)
Scarsdale KH def. Walt Whitman RU (Rachel Umans)
(Dan Jennis, Adam Torson, Liz Scoggin)
Harvard-Westlake SN def. Scarsdale MH (Matt Hershey)
(Dan Jennis, Adam Torson, Liz Scoggin)
OCTAS
Apple Valley CT def. Walt Whitman CS (Caroline Sherrard)
(Wesley Craven, Sam Duby, Joe Vaughan)
Bronx Science MD def. Edina BH (Ben Holguin)
2-1 (Gary Johnson, Ari Parker, *Zach Prax)
Edina DM def. Scarsdale MM (Marcus Moretti)
(Jon Posner, Matt Wilson, Jeremy Schifberg)
Harvard-Westlake SN def. Hopkins CD (Connor Doherty)
(Tim Hogan, Beena Koshy, John Scoggin)
Lakeville South CK def. Bronx Science AS (Adam Silver)
3-0 (Dan Jennis, Jennie Keohane, Seth Halvorson)
Pace AZ def. Marquette University SH (Samuel Hope)
(Adam Torson, Dave McGinnis, Julian Switala)
Millburn TM def. Strake Jesuit PT (Paul Tyger)
(Nick Tourville, Jessica Bailey, Liz Scoggin)
Scarsdale KH def. South Eugene BS (Ben Schifberg)
(Charlie Furman, Ernie Rose, Anjan Choudhury)
QUARTERS
Apple Valley CT def. Lakeville South CK (Christian Keil)
Edina DM def. Bronx Science MD (Matt Dunay)
Scarsdale KH def. Millburn TM (Tess McNulty)
Harvard-Westlake SN def. Pace AZ (Alex Zhang)
SEMIS
Apple Valley CT def. Harvard-Westlake SN (Sean Nadel)
3-0 (John Scoggin, Liz Scoggin, Charlie Furman)
Edina DM def. Scarsdale KH (Ken Hershey)
3-0 (Jon Posner, Matt Wilson, Julian Switala)
FINALS
Apple Valley CT def. Edina DM (David McNeil)
3-2 (Joe Vaughan, *Aaron Timmons, Fred Robertson, Adam Torson, *Jon Posner)
PRELIMS
Round 1
Round 2
Round 3
Round 4
Round 5
Round 6
POLICY DEBATE
PRELIMS
Round 1
Round 2
Round3
Round 4
Round 5
Round 6
Round 7
Popularity: 18% [?]
test
Posted from: 96.242.12.41
December 19th, 2008 11:45
team hassin’s plane was eaten by a snow monster, so we are not attending.
tess mcnulty and avi jayaraman will defeat the competition in our stead.
Posted from: 12.20.33.10
December 19th, 2008 11:59
Saboor Sheerazi and Seth Teleky, along with Taarini Vohra and two of our policy debaters, met a similar fate. The rest of Team Bronx Science is here.
Posted from: 71.215.210.227
December 19th, 2008 12:44
Where is the prelim schedule for round 2 of LD?
Posted from: 162.97.118.86
December 19th, 2008 13:38
Pairings are being posted on JOT
http://www.joyoftournaments.com/mn/blake/info.asp
just click on the tabs labeled for pairings.
Posted from: 75.0.187.2
December 19th, 2008 17:50
all four of the scarsdale boys are 3-0
Posted from: 69.17.54.218
December 19th, 2008 20:31
scarsdale records:
matt, ken, and marcus are 4-0
thurm is 3-1
keep it up guys!
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
December 19th, 2008 20:58
No one cares patick.
Posted from: 24.102.132.114
December 19th, 2008 21:38
GO AVI, SPREAD THAT JELLY ROLL
Posted from: 162.97.118.86
December 19th, 2008 21:43
from alj
alex g is 3-1
and alex c and chris judd are 2-2
Posted from: 12.20.33.10
December 19th, 2008 21:50
all of sdale is 4-0 except for thurm who is 3-1
Posted from: 12.20.33.10
December 19th, 2008 22:21
Blake PO is undefeated
Posted from: 71.142.84.13
December 19th, 2008 23:08
does anyone know how Edina is doing?
Posted from: 12.20.33.10
December 19th, 2008 23:43
matt –
i know through 3 rds, Ben and David were 3-0. Jack was 2-1, Jimmy was 1-2 or 2-1, and Anders was 1-2. I know both Silas and Hannah are 2-2.
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
December 20th, 2008 07:52
David is presumably 3-1 because in round 5 he’s debating Leah Shapiro from SLP, who was 3-1.
Round 5 pairings are up on JoT.
Catherine was also 3-1 after day 1, St Louis Park MP was 2-2, and the others from SLP were 1-3.
Posted from: 12.20.33.10
December 20th, 2008 08:26
Actually, David is 4-0 with perfect speaks I believe
Posted from: 71.215.210.227
December 20th, 2008 08:40
Bronx Science MD def. Edina BH in round 5, making Matt 5-0 and Ben 4-1
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
December 20th, 2008 08:54
“Actually, David is 4-0 with perfect speaks I believe”
Wow. So much for my inference – does that mean SLP LS was a pull-up in round 5?
Posted from: 162.97.118.86
December 20th, 2008 10:15
Yes, Leah got pulled up.
Posted from: 162.97.118.86
December 20th, 2008 12:06
alex g is 4-2
alex c is 3-3
chris j is 3-3
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
December 20th, 2008 12:24
SLP CT 5-1
SLP LS 4-2
SLP MP 4-2
Posted from: 71.142.84.13
December 20th, 2008 13:32
good job David and Ben! There are so many great debaters coming from Minnesota this year.
Posted from: 70.56.1.219
December 20th, 2008 15:39
this bracket is not correct.
for instance, matt kawahara is debating chris theis in doubles.
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
December 20th, 2008 15:47
Catherine will be debating Conor in doubles.
Leah and Michael (SLP) both dropped.
Posted from: 12.20.33.10
December 20th, 2008 16:14
The bracket has since been corrected; everything was in seed order on the pairings except, it turns out, for the bottom three pairings. Enjoy!
Posted from: 69.120.236.84
December 20th, 2008 16:17
There are two 29s
Posted from: 12.20.33.10
December 20th, 2008 16:30
(50) Strake Jesuit JL (Jason Lee) is actually Chris Wang. Jason Lee is in Houston.
Posted from: 12.20.33.10
December 20th, 2008 16:32
Somebody didn’t do a name change at registration. :o)
Posted from: 24.164.191.184
December 20th, 2008 19:05
well done tess, ck, ben, paul, matt, alex, pat, matt r, tc, adam, rachel, carolyn, sean, alex g, and thurm
Posted from: 141.155.109.5
December 20th, 2008 19:20
Go Bronx!
Posted from: 72.67.167.46
December 20th, 2008 19:49
Let’s go Sean!!
Posted from: 76.174.76.120
December 20th, 2008 20:29
Awesome job Sean. Hard work pays off.
Posted from: 75.72.59.118
December 20th, 2008 21:09
Congrats to Eli and Conor.
Posted from: 66.41.102.44
December 20th, 2008 21:12
Congrats to Eagan sophomores Will Cox and James Gage for the impressive break and then to Francesca and Tom for the super great outround debating.
Good luck to Christian & David!
Posted from: 76.113.213.176
December 20th, 2008 21:18
Big congrats to Leah and Michael on another outrounds appearance–you guys are on a roll!
Posted from: 76.219.139.225
December 20th, 2008 21:23
Huge congrats alex zhang!
Posted from: 74.36.129.5
December 20th, 2008 21:50
Big congrats to Christian Keil on another fantastic out-rounds showing! Also to Tom Caruso for breaking!
Posted from: 72.56.27.115
December 20th, 2008 21:53
congrats to the pace crew – alex and matt
congrats to sean and bietz
Posted from: 162.97.118.86
December 20th, 2008 22:02
Judges for tomorrow:
Round starts at 830am.
Duby
Furman
Hogan
Koshy, B
Pinto
Scoggin, J
Scoggin, L
Switala
Torson
Vaughan
Wilson
Posted from: 76.168.59.61
December 20th, 2008 22:06
Congrats Sean!
Posted from: 12.20.33.10
December 20th, 2008 22:41
semis =
theis (aff) v nadel
hershey v mcneil
Posted from: 166.134.78.213
December 20th, 2008 22:41
i know ken v mcneil is one of the semis rounds
Posted from: 63.224.4.8
December 20th, 2008 22:42
AV CT beats Lakeville CK
Edina DM won his round and so also advances
Posted from: 98.195.66.198
December 20th, 2008 22:47
congrats sean, win this shit
Posted from: 69.105.30.19
December 20th, 2008 22:50
S E A N
N A D E L!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted from: 71.105.71.153
December 20th, 2008 22:57
SEAN NADEL LADIES AND GENTLEMAN!!!
Posted from: 12.20.33.10
December 21st, 2008 01:13
Hey guys I started my own debate site that has made VBD obsolete.
Check it out at phebd.com
(pronounced FEE-BEE-DEE)
Posted from: 12.20.33.10
December 21st, 2008 01:20
un-phucking-believable, pwneill is the president
phuck em, phuck em, phuck em, even if they celibate
Posted from: 58.137.137.33
December 21st, 2008 01:23
GOOOOOOOOOOO SEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNN
Posted from: 32.146.227.162
December 21st, 2008 06:19
Scoggin, shut up
Posted from: 162.97.118.86
December 21st, 2008 07:02
congrat, shea.
Posted from: 162.97.118.86
December 21st, 2008 07:53
Theis (locked aff) vs. Nadel (Scoggin 2x, Furman)
McNeil (aff) vs. Hershey
Posted from: 24.164.191.184
December 21st, 2008 08:39
go sean
Posted from: 12.20.33.10
December 21st, 2008 09:59
finals is mcneil v. theis.
mcneil beat me on a 3-0 (posner, wilson, switala).
Bietz and the rest of the Blake staff did an exceptional job running this tournament, but I would like to comment that I think MJP is useless when you have to give 47 judges 1′s out of a pool of about 65 judges (I think most people agreed with me on this one). For the future of this tournament, it would just be better if debaters had more strikes without MJP.
Posted from: 32.150.191.140
December 21st, 2008 10:19
theis wins on a 3-2. Vaughan, Robertson, torson, *timmons, *posner
Posted from: 75.73.219.166
December 21st, 2008 11:34
dmac is my h
Posted from: 98.112.164.45
December 21st, 2008 11:49
SEAN NADEL!!!!!!!!!!
Posted from: 162.97.118.86
December 21st, 2008 11:56
The Blake School would like to acknowledge a mistake on our part. Potomac JM –James McElwain should not have forfeited the round in Triples. Somehow a early round “List of Elimination round qualifiers” was taken from our tab room and posted in the coaches room. The Potomac folks saw this and thought it was accurate and therefore did not attend their Triples round. I am not sure how this happened but I know with certainty it was not LD tab staff (Bietz and Robertson). I am afraid one of my staff may have thought they were posting information that should have been posted. James McElwain thus lost that round by error of our tournament. I welcome all suggestions about our tournmament — we hope everyone had a good time and will strive to do better each year that teams attend this tournament. Thank you Shane Stafford (Director of Forensics/Tournament Director – The Blake School)
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
December 21st, 2008 12:02
That sucks for James…
Posted from: 71.106.8.149
December 21st, 2008 12:54
Sean Nadel, you are my hero. Congrats buddy!
Posted from: 24.245.28.7
December 21st, 2008 13:12
I agree with Ken.
Posted from: 67.128.143.66
December 21st, 2008 13:49
Coach Stafford’s post #57 is a class move. I’m one of James’ coaches, and, while he has missed the chance to debate in elims because of the error, it sure helps to know that the Blake tournament is run by folks with the integrity to acknowledge and apologize for the mistake. Everyone in this world makes mistakes — great people own up to them and work to correct them. We at Potomac salute the folks at Blake, who are plainly made of strong stuff.
Posted from: 69.253.230.13
December 21st, 2008 14:15
congrats to chris for the win; christian, tom, danielle, alex (FSD!), and tess for being awesome; and whitman and bronx for great showings (as always!) :)
Posted from: 76.17.167.243
December 21st, 2008 14:33
As someone on the Blake staff I can say that we’re grateful that you’re willing to forgive us for admitting to committing honest mistakes. It’s reassuring to be given a second chance :)
——–
Shout out to Samuel Hope on being unbelievably close to a well deserved major breakout, as well as the impressive performances by the edina, AV, and scarsdale contingencies
Posted from: 206.48.20.86
December 21st, 2008 14:47
Congrats to Thurm and Matt for doubles, to Marcus for octas and to Ken for semis!
Posted from: 58.137.137.33
December 21st, 2008 16:57
yay sean
Posted from: 24.118.55.215
December 21st, 2008 17:15
congrats chris!
jon slater, way to represent.
Posted from: 98.218.230.121
December 21st, 2008 17:51
Congrats to all the usual suspects – AV, Edina, the Scarmy – for strong showings again, but major props to Sean and Tess for repping the Shadow Lab!
On behalf of Whitman, we really enjoyed Blake and are really thankful for all the work of Shane and the whole squad. We look forward to returning next year. As an aside, I agree with Ken and Cherian.
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
December 21st, 2008 18:14
Hey, was James ever compensated for his unfortunate loss?
Posted from: 74.63.75.229
December 21st, 2008 18:58
In the spirit of Christmas, I think James should be compensated in the form of a bid.
Anyone agree with me?
Posted from: 24.90.84.59
December 21st, 2008 19:04
Congrats to the Bronx team for a great performance as always.
Posted from: 12.145.225.25
December 21st, 2008 19:42
I honestly do not understand how a VBI debater can legitimately beat an NSD debater (the Ken v. David round in sems). I mean, it makes sense for NSD debaters to lose, but only if he or she is debatering against Daniel Moerner but the problem is that Moerner was not in the state of Minnesota this year, let alone competing at Blake. Can someone who watched the round please tell me what happened? I am thoroughly confused.
THANKS GUYS :D
P.S. I do not mean to insult david in anyway whatsoever. David is a good debater and all but come on. Against an NSD debater!?
Posted from: 76.186.244.15
December 21st, 2008 19:48
So Mr…..Truth. As a debater who attended NSD last year and has spent time debating members of both camps in late outrounds of national tournaments, i can safely say that you are completely wrong. Not only is it completely untrue that anyone from NSD can beat anyone from VBI, actually you know what…this does not even deserve a full response. Simply put, i hope that was a joke.
Posted from: 75.36.146.160
December 21st, 2008 20:06
I think Ryan Bennett just got trolled hard
Posted from: 75.73.219.166
December 21st, 2008 20:06
I agree with The Truth, this is quite troubling. . .
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
December 21st, 2008 20:14
The Truth is a lie. And if not in the spirit of Christmas, in the spirit of fairness. I agree, 69
Posted from: 208.54.83.65
December 21st, 2008 20:15
Great Job Sean Nadel!! way to rep Shadow Lab and Traber Evnen Wright
Posted from: 75.72.79.154
December 21st, 2008 20:22
Truth –
You are so wrong. NSD debaters are garbage all they do is argue theory and other dumb arguments. VBI debaters are smart and run arguments that are dumb. I heard that @ NSD if you turn in an AC that doesn’t have 5 minutes of theory args, you get sent home.
Additionally, how could you not want to vote for David over Ken? David is the most awesome debaterer ever to debate Lincoln-Douglas Debate at the John Edie Debate Tournament or at any other debate tournament except for the legend himself, Chris Theis.
P.S. I do not mean to insult david in anyway whatsoever. David is a good debater and all but come on. Against an NSD debater!?
Posted from: 71.60.209.85
December 21st, 2008 20:22
60 percent of the time, NSD wins every time.
I think it’s time for another troll vs. debate community conflict.
Posted from: 75.72.79.154
December 21st, 2008 20:28
Mr. Gooderham, that’s because NSD kids cheat and make sure that when they have to face one of the far superior vbi debaters that they get an illegit judge who will make the wrong decision
Posted from: 74.227.246.92
December 21st, 2008 20:39
re: post 69 – do we *really* want to do *that* again?
Posted from: 69.118.137.26
December 21st, 2008 20:40
you gotta pay the troll toll…
Posted from: 69.120.236.168
December 21st, 2008 20:45
And how about those debaters that don’t go to camp?
Posted from: 69.118.137.26
December 21st, 2008 20:46
Can I ever win or lose a round without being criticized for attending NSD? Just a thought…
Posted from: 69.118.137.26
December 21st, 2008 20:48
no…don’t be ridiculous
Posted from: 76.113.135.99
December 21st, 2008 20:56
The Truth raises a problematic conundrum: a quandary wrapped in an enigma lodged in a riddle embedded in a burlap sack of indecisiveness. Irregardlessly, there are three responses:
Number wonderful, I bribed the judges. I offered them all books about Gilles de Rais from my extensive library of rare tomes involving historical serial killers.
Secondly, David’s value was that of justice, and his criterion was that of Locke’s social contract. I don’t care if you’re debating someone from NSD, or VBD, or VBI, or STD, or LSD, or PCP, or Jesus H. Christ on a cracker Himself–that of justice and that of Locke’s social contract kick ass and take names (even if those names include Princess Knappenburger and/or Ivana Beveridge).
Three, I have one word for you: shit analytics.
Posted from: 75.72.79.154
December 21st, 2008 20:59
jake ftw
Posted from: 71.247.188.116
December 21st, 2008 21:16
This is so disappointing.
Posted from: 74.227.246.92
December 21st, 2008 21:35
im glad jake is still rockin the gilles de rais jokes after all these years
Posted from: 75.72.79.154
December 21st, 2008 21:52
mr. ben, i’m not aware as to what you find disappointing.
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
December 22nd, 2008 07:48
I think it’s sick that people try to steal credit from those who received it. This whole VBI vs. NSD argument is ridiculous. It’s discrimination. David won. Deal with it.
Posted from: 69.118.137.26
December 22nd, 2008 08:35
How is anyone trying to steal credit? Let me quote myself from an earlier post (53):
“finals is mcneil v. theis. mcneil beat me on a 3-0 (posner, wilson, switala).”
Note further that nowhere on this thread or any other thread did I or anyone else complain about the decision in my round against David.
I did contest the decision in round by asking the judges questions. That is my right as a competitor at the Blake tournament, and I am fairly certain that I am not the only person who ever does this.
Insinuating the idea that I questioned the decision because David went to VBI is fundamentally retarded. I questioned the decision because I thought I won; it has absolutely nothing to do with camp affiliation. Do you honestly believe that had a similar situation occurred in a round against Moerner that I would not have questioned the decision because he went to NSD?
The old camp wars are dead. I consider myself good friends with many people who go/went to VBI, and I certainly think that I am capable of losing to VBI debaters. Note that on both this thread and the Glenbrooks thread the camp issue was resurrected by anonymous strugs with absolutely no credibility instead of the debaters who were actually in the rounds.
Posted from: 70.241.114.188
December 22nd, 2008 09:16
can we please stop feeding the troll?
Posted from: 68.91.110.253
December 22nd, 2008 11:16
congrats alex, matt, and adam!
Posted from: 74.63.75.229
December 22nd, 2008 13:26
mangus,
insofar as a precedent has been set for awarding kids who get screwed at bid tournaments with bids, i don’t think its unreasonable to “do *that* again.” it doesnt seem fair to give some students who don’t get to participate in elims due to tab error a bid and not give other kids this same opportunity.
Posted from: 99.147.134.35
December 22nd, 2008 13:41
Three things:
1. VBI-NSD bar fight?
2. Post 75 writes: “I agree, 69″ huhuhuhuhuhuh
3. wtf is a troll?
Posted from: 69.114.115.68
December 22nd, 2008 15:22
anon- if the precedent was set incorrectly/unjustly or w/e term you want to use then it should not be followed. I’m pretty sure Mangus is aware of the precedent which is why he said “again”
Posted from: 75.161.224.27
December 22nd, 2008 15:48
Apparently the powers that be prevent me from posting. Finally, after all the hours of waiting, here is my response now that I was able to post it. Thanks for waiting patiently.
In the sagacious words of Eminem:”Guess who’s back. Back again. Truth is back. Tell a friend. Guess who’s back, guess who’s back, guess who’s back, guess who’s back, guess who’s back, guess who’s back…”
Unfortunately my Internet went out at my house so I am currently at the Mall of America at the Apple store posting from one of the many awesome iPhones/Macbooks that are free to use. I think that Apple equipment goes to show just how much better VBI debaters are than NSD debaters. Most VBI people have top of the line consumer friendly product (such as Apple), while most NSD people I come across have products from Dell, Windows, Toshiba, etc. Anyways, I have noticed a couple of developments that require my response.
Firstly of all, I want to thank Jake Gelfand for substantively responding to what I have to say. Unlike Ken Hershey, Jake actually took the time to addressed the heart of what I was getting at. Also, he analyzed my post and discovered what I was truly saying. Thank you for being so incisive!
I think this goes to prove EXACTLY what I was saying. Ken, although you went to NSD, a highly credible and prestigious camp with many of the finest minds in the debate community, you failed to be responsive while Jake, a loving and caring coach who sends his debaters to VBI, was directly on point and insightful with his remarks. Could you please read my post before responding?
Now Ken, this is not to say that I do not think you raised important points and provided significant contributions to the discussion at hand; it is just that they were non-sequitur and irrelevant. I agree with every single claim you make, but the conclusions you draw are unfounded and I disrespectfully disagree with them.
I never said anything negative about NSD debaters (see my comment about Moerner). BUT TO BE HONEST, WHY WILL NO ONE ADDRESS MY QUESTION!? Forget the VBI vs. NSD war. That is over and there is no need to open old wounds. VBI is the best.
All I wanted was an explanation of what happened in round and everyone failed to help me out here. In an attempt to discuss the educational merits of a decision you people (except for Jake), decided to go on rants about VBI and NSD. Thanks for nothing Ken. I asked what the RFD, and your reason for dissent, was about. NOT what the RFD, and your reason for dissent, was not about. I agree that it would be dumb to mention those things in an RFD, but LOOKIE HERE NOW –> “I am not retard.” Please be responsive and tell me what the decision was; not what the decision was not.
Will someone please come forward and tell me what happened in the round? For the sake of the debater community and beyond.
One last thing. People keep calling me a troll, but I must say that that is unbelievably insulting. I wear cologne and typically sport a Puma jacket with either an Abercrombie & Fitch or Hollister shirt underneath (just to complement the flashy lack). Also I take pride in the fact that I regularly groom my eyebrows and pluck my nose hairs. Last I checked I am pretty sure that trolls do not that. Lastly of all, you are committing the fallacy of negative existentiality. I cannot prove the non-existence of trolls just like you cannot rule out the existence of a responsive VBD comment since even if you search for one everyone on VBD and Earth, you cannot rule out the possibility that one exists someone else in the universe. (I think the highest chances of finding such a post would be in the
Ursa Minor galaxy, in the constellation Coma Berenices, or on Cloud 9.)
In closing, I feel none is more appropriate than Brother Ali when he once remarked to a screaming crown of white gangster rappers that: “The Truth is here, The Truth is here. The Truth is here, The Truth is here.”
Posted from: 75.161.224.27
December 22nd, 2008 15:51
Should read – “flashy look”*. NOT “flashy lack.”
Excuse me.
Posted from: 75.73.219.166
December 22nd, 2008 15:58
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRwR-li5t_A
Posted from: 71.139.23.60
December 22nd, 2008 15:58
“I think that Apple equipment goes to show just how much better VBI debaters are than NSD debaters.”
“I never said anything negative about NSD debaters (see my comment about Moerner).”
You had several hours to generate a response, and that was the best you could come up with?
I miss Westman.
Posted from: 75.72.79.154
December 22nd, 2008 16:17
i won’t let you down moerner.
NSD debaters are stupid. All they do is cheat with their stupid theory arguments, and act all serious like they’re the shit. Remind me again who won the TOC last year? Oh, that’s right CHRIS MO’FUCKING THEIS. And where did he go to camp? THE GREATEST CAMP IN THE WORLD, VBI. People like you moerner think you can be the shit and skip minnesota all together. Remind me when was the last time you won an Octas bid tournament? I recall Nebel, Theis, and Ben winning Greenhill, St. Marks, Apple Valley, and Glenbrooks this year, and Chris winning Blake. YOU GOT NOTHIN ON US NSD.
We got Jake who’s willing to admit that he’s the shit and back it up, and ben Holguin who’s hittin up youtube to pwn you NSD n00bs.
VBI teaches ppl real arguments. NSD teaches people how to whine. VBI had all 3 natl champs last year. NSD had 0 octas bid tournament victories.
GAME, SET, MATCH MR. MOERNER
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
December 22nd, 2008 16:44
Oh come on!! Are we really gonna argue over which camp is better? How stupid!
Posted from: 67.184.55.189
December 22nd, 2008 16:51
The Real Truth–
You realize the purpose of theory in debate is to check cheating… If people use theory arguments in a way you think is absurd, you really shouldn’t be this bothered by those applications, and instead you should just learn how to answer them.
It’s pretty easy to be insulting to a large portion of the debate community and one of the best debaters on the country (someone who’s much better than you i’m sure) when you’re doing it anonymously.
Posted from: 74.227.246.92
December 22nd, 2008 16:53
YOUR IRRATIONAL AND ANONYMOUS CLAIMS WILL BE VANQUISHED BY THE BLINDING LIGHT OF LOGIC AND REASON!
Posted from: 76.113.135.99
December 22nd, 2008 16:55
To add some holidazzle to this f’ntastic thread:
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/sandra-lees-cocktail-tree/3937994370/?icid=VIDLRVENT03
Posted from: 71.247.126.222
December 22nd, 2008 16:58
Wait, seriously guys? You really should heed the no feeding signs at the zoo, it is quite clear the annoyance than ensues otherwise.
Posted from: 70.138.99.19
December 22nd, 2008 16:58
“the real truth” should reveal himself/herself. you would get a ton of rep.
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
December 22nd, 2008 17:42
I used to be a troll, then I realized that it’s more fun being a point fairy.
Posted from: 76.117.189.67
December 22nd, 2008 18:04
Ok, so this years top people have been mentioned. They have lives and you mentioned them in the third person, so I assume you are not one of those mentioned….so who are you?
I think we now know why you weren’t worth mentioning
Posted from: 75.72.79.154
December 22nd, 2008 18:45
Who am I? I’m you motherfuckin conscious
Posted from: 71.169.50.36
December 22nd, 2008 18:55
gary, try searching truths ip on the toc post. theres hundreds of posts on there. youll find out who it is ;)
Posted from: 69.120.236.168
December 22nd, 2008 18:59
After searching on the TOC post, I realized who the culprit was… RED HERRING!
Posted from: 71.169.50.36
December 22nd, 2008 19:01
lol fisch not who i was going for… doubt anyones gonna get that joke btw
Posted from: 75.42.197.54
December 22nd, 2008 19:18
Sean Nadel, you are the MAN!! beast it up, major congrats!
Posted from: 74.227.246.92
December 22nd, 2008 19:36
lets use this as a useful demonstration so people stop posting LOLZ OMG UR ANONYMOUS WHO R U?
using a google search for “site:victorybriefsdaily.com” and the IP is the easy way to find the answer for most anonymous posters. it works pretty quickly in this case. but thats too simple – IP addresses do change over time and i’m the sporting type. so, behold the power of traceroute, the utility that can actually do what most of you seem to think whois does:
traceroute to 75.72.79.154 (75.72.79.154), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
[...irrelevant hops omitted...]
21 te-2-1-ur02.crosstown.mn.minn.comcast.net (68.86.232.6) 140.551 ms 142.775 ms te-2-1-ur01.martin.mn.minn.comcast.net (68.86.232.34) 138.347 ms
22 te-2-3-ur02.martin.mn.minn.comcast.net (68.86.232.162) 138.480 ms 139.073 ms te-2-1-ur01.martin.mn.minn.comcast.net (68.86.232.34) 137.236 ms
23 te-2-1-ur01.minnetonka.mn.minn.comcast.net (68.86.232.38) 136.574 ms te-2-3-ur02.martin.mn.minn.comcast.net (68.86.232.162) 137.554 ms te-2-1-ur01.minnetonka.mn.minn.comcast.net (68.86.232.38) 139.597 ms
24 68.85.164.114 (68.85.164.114) 143.653 ms 144.721 ms te-2-1-ur01.minnetonka.mn.minn.comcast.net (68.86.232.38) 142.714 ms
25 * 68.85.164.114 (68.85.164.114) 143.326 ms 141.358 ms
networks past that dont respond, but that’s typical (and good from a security standpoint). so someone – whose writing style happens to be very particular, by the way – needs to purify himself in the waters of lake minnetoka.
see, wasnt that more fun than making indignant posts?
Posted from: 76.219.139.225
December 22nd, 2008 19:51
mangus > anon & ip noobz
Posted from: 189.164.88.166
December 22nd, 2008 20:02
congrats zhang on the break out
ps: camps suck
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
December 22nd, 2008 20:04
Mangus ftw!
Posted from: 74.39.73.93
December 22nd, 2008 20:12
nice. prince / apollonia reference.
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
December 22nd, 2008 20:21
Bietz, when are those briefs comin out?
Posted from: 69.118.137.26
December 22nd, 2008 20:38
Ok, “the truth” – you brought this upon yourself:
1. Don’t even pretend that you were legitimately asking about the decision in my round. Could your “question” about the RFD have been asked without referring to the camps that David and I went to and making obviously sarcastic back-handed compliments to NSD?
2. Also don’t pretend that I am the one who started the rants about VBI and NSD. On BOTH of the two most recent “flame wars” the camp discussions were started by anonymous idiots who claimed that camp affiliations had to do with either decisions or dissatisfaction, which was true in neither case. By the way, who has sustained these rants after the primary discussion was over?
3. You protest that you “are not a retard.” You are. You are not intelligent. You are not clever. You are not good at debate. You are not funny. Most importantly, you are not a spokesperson for VBI or anyone else in the debate community. I am breaking this news to you now so that it will not come as a shock to you when you are informed of it on a later date.
I am about to leave my house (I, unlike you, do have a life outside of these petty internet discussions), but I promise that I will (even though I probably shouldn’t) answer your request later by explaining what the disagreement was in the decision for that round.
Posted from: 68.194.98.113
December 22nd, 2008 20:39
This whole thing would settle quickly if people just invoked the power of the one word argument known as “SCOREBOARD”
Posted from: 69.224.115.168
December 22nd, 2008 20:47
I don’t think I’ve made a comment longer than congrats in a while, but I’m not sure I’ve ever been this angry.
Truth, please do this somewhere else. Your fellow debaters who, I’m sure, have worked incredibly hard to do well at Blake aren’t being recognized due to your desperate plea for attention. These threads are supposed to be primarily for congratulations/recognition of success and potentially substantive discussion (e.g., if you actually wanted to know about the RFD in Ken and David’s round).
So, please Truth save it for another time so we can actually recognize and support the kids who put effort into their achievements. If you have any dignity you would just stop posting. If you really want to continue with this inane thread, I took 3 minutes to create you your own blog!
http://thetruthscommentsoncamp.blogspot.com/
ENJOY!!!
For real, SEAN NADEL BABY!!! Congrats, you legit deserve it more than anyone I know.
Posted from: 206.251.74.247
December 22nd, 2008 20:57
[...] Blake — Finals: Apple Valley’s Chris Theis defeated Edina’s David McNeil on a 3-2 decision. College Prep — Finals: Mountain View’s Daniel Garber defeated Meadows’s Jordan LaMothe on a 3-0 decision. [...]
Posted from: 24.164.191.184
December 22nd, 2008 21:00
SEAN NADAL. nice job man
Posted from: 71.63.142.165
December 22nd, 2008 21:06
See Chris! Apparently you can do well north of the Mason-Dixon!
Congrats!
Posted from: 98.195.66.198
December 22nd, 2008 21:11
if you don’t mind me asking, who was aff and who was neg in chris and david’s round?
Posted from: 70.135.203.237
December 22nd, 2008 21:20
trolls on vbd are hilarious. as are ppl who end up spending time responding to them.
congrats to ctheis for an excellent performance this weekend and to everyone else who ended up clearing to outrounds.
2 things: 1. isn’t kinda cool that the 1 and 2 seed ended up debating each other in finals? 2. who was on the panel in finals and which way did they vote?
Posted from: 70.135.203.237
December 22nd, 2008 21:23
also, plus one to mangus. i haven’t been reading these posts bc they’re kinda annoying but the chappelle’s show reference was most hilarious.
Posted from: 75.4.155.170
December 22nd, 2008 22:18
@127 – David was aff, Chris was neg. Pretty fun round to watch, too.
Posted from: 69.151.157.217
December 22nd, 2008 22:20
nice job matt ross, leah, silas, alex, and sean.
Posted from: 199.224.105.53
December 22nd, 2008 22:25
http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2008/05/05/chris-theis-wins-the-toc/
theres 7 posts that use the same IP address as “the truth,” however they have names instead of a clever alia….i dont like to make accusations but…..
Posted from: 199.224.105.53
December 22nd, 2008 22:25
clever alias*****
Posted from: 69.229.240.103
December 22nd, 2008 22:35
Wow.
Nice job Real Truth, covering up your tracks that so we wouldn’t know who you were.
Try to not be a frequent commenter and then try to be anonymous.
Posted from: 98.195.66.198
December 22nd, 2008 22:46
Just say it…the ip addresses are phelan/pwneill’s
Posted from: 24.90.20.221
December 22nd, 2008 22:46
phelan, at this point you are actually the laughing stock of the entire debate community.
Posted from: 63.224.4.8
December 22nd, 2008 22:53
hahahaha +1 to shagrin on the blog creation/alternative. lets hope The Truth moves there although i doubt thatll happen
kamil: the finals panel was (torson, robertson, vaughn, timmons*, and posner*). if im not mistaken david was aff and chris was neg
=======
more substantively, since ken is going to give the reason for disagreement between him and the panel (myself, posner, wilson) ill briefly sketch out what my reasoning was behind my decision and since i think it was a more than fair and reasonable rfd to contest.
the ultimate issue at hand was this: is it legitimate for a judge to vote off of an argument that lacks meaningful content, even when the terminal impact of the argument is clear, uncontested, and technically won? all the judges answered this question in the affirmative, at least in the context of the round, and i am confident that i am willing to answer this question in the affirmative in virtually all cases imaginable. ken – if im misinterpreting the round feel free to clarify, though im pretty sure that this was the issue at hand and your primary reason for contesting the decision.
what happened:
the arguments that were voted off of (in favor of david) were extension of a couple arguments from the AC. these arguments were definitely won and no one contested that fact. in the 1AR david impacted these arguments to ken’s value of governmental legitimacy, since ken contested in the round that david cant win due to the fact that he lacked a framework to evaluate argz (neither a criterion nor value nor burden etcetera were present), and said that they were reasons to vote for him.
in the NR ken neither contested the legitimacy of the extensions themselves (to the point where there was a sufficient amount of defense, either quantitatively or qualitatively, to rule them out) nor their impact to the value (and especially the claim made by david that said impact was reason to vote for him). additionally, if i remember correctly there was no weighing made by ken as to the level of justifiability between his arguments and the arguments advanced by david. these issues, among a few other minor issues in the round, made the panel vote the way they did.
kens arg in the rfd was based on two issues. (1) you (the judge) dont know what the nebulous concept of governmental legitimacy means. absent there being any meaningful content to the term “governmental legitimacy you (the judge) cant reasonably vote off of it.
(2) claiming that an impact to the value is sufficient to affirm is not a good reason to vote. this is because the value is contextualized throughout the round through the negative criterion of constitutionality. given this, you cant vote off said argument.
the judges said that both (1) and (2) are required to be in the NR for them to enter consideration since the claim made by david that “these argz that impact to the value are reasons to affirm” went uncontested. we said that even though me may not know what “governmental legitimacy” ‘means,’ that the burden was on ken to bring this issue (of meaningful content) to our attention and that the terminal impact actually had meaningful content (that you vote off of the impact to the value; regardless of what the value actually is).
id say more but i need to leave my computer and i probably seem like a total nerd for expounding on this… personally i think this is one of the most important issues confronting judges when thinking about their paradigm – probably because im willing to give ANY opinion a fair hearing – so ill be adding a more substantiated defense of my position in my paradigm shortly.
Posted from: 24.164.191.184
December 22nd, 2008 22:54
haha pwneill strikes again
Posted from: 63.224.4.8
December 22nd, 2008 22:55
oh also, if there are any questions i can simply answer them here (but actually my schedule over break wont allow me to until a few days from now)
Posted from: 69.118.137.26
December 22nd, 2008 23:54
I agree mostly with julian’s analysis. I have a few reservations:
1. David asked me in CX what governmental legitimacy was. My answer was “when a government follows the contract it has with its citizens, hence the Constitution.” That definition was never contested.
2. David never defended an alternate framework for evaluating state legitimacy.
3. I think you give too much credit to how well the argument itself was developed.
My disagreement with the judges can be summed up as follows: The judge needs to make a decision. Absent an explicitly labeled “a priori,” they look to a framework (in this case value/criterion). Judging from what that framework means (contextualization, e.g. standard rhetoric/definitions/clarifications of intent), they see which arguments are best impacted to that framework. My argument is that impacts should be judged primarily by whether or not they meet the framework. Once they do meet that framework, they can be compared by weighing or by strength of link (as julian and the other judges preferred). A contested (but not in the 2AR) and not weighed argument that links to the framework should be valued above an uncontested, weighed, and unsubstantiated argument that does not link to the framework, in my opinion. This is why (I think) even if one debater is weighing the shit out of his arguments to a standard that has been lost, he still can lose (if his opponent meets the other standard)–note that this may in itself be an abuse of the wording of the VC if both standards are ends-based, but that was not an issue in this round. I understand that this case is not 100% analogous, but it’s close enough to compare.
I also really believe that you cannot claim to solve a real-world impact with a hypothetical court, which also came up in the round.
I do not mean to be abrasive in any way, and I congratulate David on his win. I agree that it is an interesting topic for the community to address.
Posted from: 75.36.124.147
December 23rd, 2008 11:53
Shagrin, you are a G for making that blog. And I completely agree let’s just use these forums for congratulating debaters and for talking about fun rounds.
Posted from: 76.117.189.67
December 23rd, 2008 13:25
I think there is a lack of congratz for theis.
congradulations!
Posted from: 76.117.189.67
December 23rd, 2008 13:27
*congratulations
Posted from: 12.10.39.57
December 23rd, 2008 15:10
Briefly to Moerner: You need to stop fronting. Don’t wear Westman nostalgia on your sleeve like it’s the new fashion. You were not in the debate community in any way whatsoever when Westman had many of its most memorable moments occurring. Also, you severely failed to read between the lines. I do not understand why you think I was advocating “VBI is better than NSD.” Once again I want to thank Jake Gelfand for being the only person who substantively answered my post.
Thank you very much guys (Ken and Julian)! I am infinitely appreciative that you guys were willing to answer my question. I sincerely apologize for any flack or hatred that my initial posts may have spawned against me and I hope we can end this feud right here.
However there are two few things that disturb me; primarily in Julian’s (and apparently the other two judges’ on the panel) RFD. Firstly of all, your prioritization of weighing is absurd. I actually agree with Ken on this one but unlike him (I’m assuming) your reasoning is unfounded, irresponsible, and a disgrace to the community as a whole which is trying to get past such reasons for decisions since they fail to increase the intellectual credibility and educational effects of arguments in debate.
Second, you continue to prove to me, and a number of other people in the debate community, that you rep out for your friends and award them with inflated speaks. I have looked at the results of many tournaments and this continues to be a trend. Voting for people like Ross Brown, Matt Kawahara, Christian Keil, Daniel Moerner and the rest of MVLA, Ken Hershey, Marcus Moretti, Chris Theis, Ben Holguin, David McNeil, Narayan and Rohit from Lynbrook and debaters when you are good friends with their coaches (see Spirtos with Meadows/Analy, Wade Houston with Oak Mountain, et. al.), is infinitely unfair. It is obvious from my experience with you that you are an intelligent and overall a fun person to be around, depending on the circumstances, but you seriously need to reevaluate how you make decisions because you definitely have the ability, given your bogus paradigm, to justify a decision for either debater in any round.
I know you want to say “I’m not going to respond to this troll. That only feeds what he or she is saying.” Go for it. Even if you do not convince me with your (lack of a) response you still would not convince other people in the area who are too pussy enough to not bitch about it.
Respectfully,
The Truth
Posted from: 75.35.210.38
December 23rd, 2008 15:19
“respectfully”
Posted from: 70.173.180.114
December 23rd, 2008 15:42
to the truth:
Thanks for bringing up the issue of inflated speaks. while you lack any substantive reasoning about the speaks in ld it is an issue that needs to be addressed. when kids get top speaker in ld by having 4 or 5 30′s and then a policy top speaker maybe has 1 and a top speaker in policy would barely be 14th in ld, there is a huge problem.
that’s all
on a happy note
congrats to theis, i know av doesn’t normally do well at blake
and major props to alex z. the bid was coming eventually. im glad you got it
Posted from: 69.118.137.26
December 23rd, 2008 16:35
Truth:
1. still not funny.
2. why are you still posting under your idiotic (and very unfitting) alias when everyone knows who you are?
3. funny thing – Anjan and I had a conversation about this my quarters round, and we actually agree with you that judges inflate speaker points for debaters with “rep” (some people were getting 30s like 5/6 rounds). Of course, this is tempered by the fact that the debaters with “rep” are usually better and deserving of higher speaks (“rep” doesn’t emerge from nowhere after all, the problems associated with “rep” only occur when it gets entrenched). The extent to which these repeat winners’ speaker points are “undeserved” (e.g. based on “rep” or friendships, as you claim) is really unknowable, and, to be honest, probably minimal.
Posted from: 76.113.213.176
December 23rd, 2008 16:35
“Voting for people like Ross Brown, Matt Kawahara, Christian Keil, Daniel Moerner and the rest of MVLA, Ken Hershey, Marcus Moretti, Chris Theis, Ben Holguin, David McNeil, Narayan and Rohit from Lynbrook and debaters when you are good friends with their coaches (see Spirtos with Meadows/Analy, Wade Houston with Oak Mountain, et. al.), is infinitely unfair.”
I agree with The Truth on this one, which is why I’m officially recusing myself from judging any of these people the rest of the year (I’m not totally sure who’s coaching Lynbrook at the moment, but if I’m sure if I knew him, we’d be great friends, so including Rohit and Narayan on the list makes sense just in case). I may pay a price for standing on principle like this, perhaps might never ha–I mean, get to judge past octos again for the rest of the season, but that’s just the sort of ethical person I am.
I also want to thank The Truth for giving exposure to one of my absolute favorite debate-isms, ‘infinitely unfair’. It’s important that we not mistake this problem of judges judging students of people they’re friends with, or other similarly pressing problems like affirmatives trying to prove the resolution true and negatives trying to prove it false, for mere finite inequities like Japanese internment or Jim Crow laws. Those things only inflicted a finite amount of arbitrary harm on a finite number of people for a finite period of time, unlike getting hacked against in a debate round or losing to an argument you don’t like, which transcend time and space and destroy the very concept of fairness itself.
(Incidentally, the next big step in theory argumentation, which SLP will be introducing next semester, is to outweigh infinite unfairness with uncountable unfairness–’And, this makes the round unpredictable to the cardinality of the reals. And if he tries to kick and says that solves the abuse, that would violate reciprocity to the cardinality of the class of all sets. And putting new answers here in the 2AR would skew ground to the cardinality of the hyper-hyper-hyper-class of all hyper-hyper-classes.’ I’d say ‘be prepared,’ but that’s impossible.)
Posted from: 69.118.137.26
December 23rd, 2008 16:47
hahahaha–see, Christian is actually funny. you should take lessons, “truth.”
Posted from: 98.218.230.121
December 23rd, 2008 17:04
Since my name popped up, I’ll throw in my 2 cents:
I continue to believe that there should be a required login on this site, as there is on comparable forums concerning debate, because there is no way to have a true “community” discussion in a world of anonymous shadow boxing. Maybe this is what people mean by “truth-testing” :-)
Posted from: 12.226.34.198
December 23rd, 2008 17:17
I am still a hack
Posted from: 24.7.71.153
December 23rd, 2008 17:58
hacks 4 lyfe
Posted from: 24.245.28.7
December 23rd, 2008 18:52
I agree with Anjan. Also, I agree with Spirtos: congrats to Chris on finally getting a bid at Blake. After four tries, this is quite the accomplishment! Batting .250 isn’t *that* bad, buddy.
Of course, any discussion of point inflation is particularly relevant when Theis is taking home first place speaker awards.
To the girl on the 14th floor during round five who responded to her colleague’s statement, “Maybe you’re the next Chris Theis” with “Maybe I am,” I don’t know who you are but I seriously hope you aim higher.
And to all a happy holiday and to all a good night.
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
December 23rd, 2008 19:02
Whats higher than that? He seems like a pretty high ranking person to emulate…
Posted from: 24.245.28.7
December 23rd, 2008 19:15
Dufus. You shouldn’t want to be another high school debater. That’s super-creepy and kinda lame. I’m positive that Theis wasn’t like, “I’m gonna be the next X.”
All I’m sayin is that you won’t be Chris Theis…nor should you want to be someone else. If that’s where you’re at, quit debate immediately and get therapy.
Posted from: 74.227.246.92
December 23rd, 2008 19:16
the world wide web – making literal readings look foolish since 1990
Posted from: 76.113.213.176
December 23rd, 2008 19:18
Good thing you posted that anonymously. If I were ever going to make a post implying anything as controversial as that Chris Theis is a good debater, I’d definitely want to keep my name a secret too.
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
December 23rd, 2008 20:04
You can post anonymous for other reasons than to avoid criticism of character, you know.
Posted from: 98.218.230.121
December 23rd, 2008 20:48
And yet, I continue to maintain that (1) if you believe you need anonymity, then don’t post other places non-anonymously, and (2) forum registration could solve.
Take, for example, poster 158 with the IP address 72.213.162.95. This is the same anon IP who posted at 7, 58, 68, 75, 90, 102, 108, 118, 120, 154, and 158 on this thread.
1. Not surprisingly, this same person posted here: http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2008/08/15/breaking-news-septoct-ld-resolution-released/ at 146,175, 186, and 188 among others. On those posts, he notes his email as rkrboi@gmail.com
2. Now, to the forum point, anyone who also goes to Forensics Online (a mostly speech site) will instantly recognize Rkrboi who has almost 500 posts there under his registered name because that site requires registration.
3. And, in fact, on Rkrboi’s registered public profile, he even links his NFL points profile:
http://www.nflonline.org/points_application/studentprofile.php?id=10044125
Easy as 1, 2, and 3. Thanks for playing. (Preemptively, the time spent doing this could certainly have been used playing my new American Idol karaoke game. But there are only so many times I can sing “Somewhere Over the Rainbow”).
Also, before anyone starts feeling sorry for these largely innocuous posts, check out another great from 72.213.162.95 on last year’s TOC thread — the final post number 716:
http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2008/05/05/chris-theis-wins-the-toc/
Posted from: 71.202.183.149
December 23rd, 2008 20:54
In response to the truth- Julian judged rohit and I twice this season. He dropped me in dubs of Valley in which he was on top of a 2-1 and he picked Rohit up at apple valley on a low-point win. None of this indicates to me that Julian somehow hacks for either of us. Julian and I are friends(I can’t lie about that), but I think he has enough integrity to keep his friendship and judging separate which I greatly respect him for.
Posted from: 208.54.83.63
December 23rd, 2008 20:58
Why aren’t they dressed up?
Posted from: 76.113.135.99
December 23rd, 2008 20:58
http://www.wlwt.com/news/17589970/detail.html
Posted from: 68.94.120.171
December 23rd, 2008 21:39
Re 162: Isn’t that Conrad’s suit from TFA circa 2003?
Posted from: 70.118.127.70
December 23rd, 2008 22:15
Re: Cherian (155) – Chris Theis always wanted to be the next Cherian Koshy.
In other news, congrats to Confederate warriors Chris, David, and Ken. Congrats to Sean Nadel on semis, and a big congrats to Alex Zhang on the well-deserved bid.
Posted from: 68.104.1.44
December 23rd, 2008 22:51
Anjan = my hero. A true advocate for justice in many ways.
Rod, it’s good that you represent OK so well. I’m sure your coaches would be happy to know you’re such a wonderful contributor to the community.
+1 to registration for posting
Posted from: 75.173.165.190
December 23rd, 2008 23:05
Michael Mangus’ leet IP haxing clearly shows us that the troll is posting from Minnesota. I’d say all of this has been Christian’s plot to throw the online debate world into disarray because few debaters know how to properly deal with the likes of internet trolls, as evidenced by these comments.
Also, there was a blatantly obvious homage to OJ from Christian: “If I were ever going to make a post implying anything as controversial as that Chris Theis is a good debater, I’d definitely want to keep my name a secret too.”
Posted from: 24.245.28.7
December 23rd, 2008 23:09
Hahaha…he’s way too shaggy to be the next me. He does creep me out sometimes though and wow, what a low threshold to surpass he set for himself if that were the case!
I love Anjan and still agree with him. At FOL, we require registration because we believe you need to be accountable for whatever you post online. It’s no different from whether you’re speaking in a high school cafeteria or online. This isn’t a rebuke of VBD, just the rationale for why we do the things we do.
No one, including Rod, should post anonymously. He, like most anonymous posters treat people much differently under the veil of anonymity. When he’s emailed me personally, he’s been very respectful. I’m sure he’s now embarrassed that he’s been outed and I think it would be appropriate to post an apology. However, it’s sad that kids or coaches feel like they need to create this kind of ridiculousness. It important for those who think about saying something anonymously to really evaluate whether it actually needs to be said. If you need to be anonymous, it most likely does not.
In particular, I feel like you have to have a thick skin to be part of “circuit” debate but you should not be expected to have a thick skin. Obviously, Ken, David, Daniel, Chris, et al can and do defend themselves but that hasn’t and won’t always be the case. At the end of the day, and concurrent with posts 153/155, it’s high school debate. Get over yourself.
Again, happy holidays and if you haven’t seen Slumdog Millionaire, hit it up.
Posted from: 74.227.246.92
December 23rd, 2008 23:29
registration – really? there are probably some decent reasons to not have to tie your name to something, even if it might mean that this kind of thing goes down every once in awhile. privacy is good – i dont even like that IPs are publicly displayed here (especially given that the router at my apartment in pittsburgh has some ports open). and i mean honestly, isnt it kinda fun to expose anonymous posters? the community is 2/2 as far as that goes on this thread.
Posted from: 12.226.34.198
December 23rd, 2008 23:40
I feel like I’m in an episode of scooby doo. Congratulations, adults, for catching some high school student no one should really be sweating and then congratulating each other for it.
Really? Big victory. Scoreboard.
Posted from: 24.245.28.7
December 24th, 2008 00:17
Scooby Doo was fantastic. I will not hear any arguments to the contrary.
Also, relevantly, the kids weren’t dressed up because we just anticipated that it would be four kids and two rounds on Sunday morning. So, while everyone was dressed up for the tournament (well, everyone except Ben!) there wasn’t any real need to get gussied up.
Posted from: 98.218.230.121
December 24th, 2008 01:19
1. I agree with Michael that online sleuthing is a little fun, though it probably would be comparably better to lose that fun if online trolling were a minimum.
2. Ernie, you would make a great Velma – get in the van! How can anyone know who should be “sweated” or not when you have no idea who is speaking?
3. The point, of course, as it was made by Cherian, is that people can and do act differently when they can use a veil of anonymity.
Happy Holidays. I made my point.
Posted from: 70.135.203.237
December 24th, 2008 01:33
honestly, I hate feeding trolls, but there are a couple of things that “truth” touches on that I’ve really been noticing a lot at the few tourneys I do go to.
1. spkr pnts are insanely inflated. I try to avg 27-28 and don’t really think that a 30 should be given unless a performance was spotless. Spirtos makes a very good point on how policy spks are done. I really would like to hear some community input on that.
2. Hacking. yes, we all laugh and criticize the truth for it but its really something that should be taken seriously by the debate community. There are real precedents for it and examples that I won’t list so as not to embarrass ppl… I don’t mean to say that I agree with truth about those spec debaters, but I do know that ppl do hack in rounds and have huge problems with it. There is definitely a political component to db8 and it really disgusts me. I don’t know how other ppl feel about it, but that’s just something that I’ve noticed and I’m very welcome to ppl correcting me if I’m wrong. I’m not talking about some huge conspiracy theory bull, but rather that in a few isolated cases kids are treated unfairly by judges who only vote for the team that they’re homies with.
one last thing… Cherian said “All I’m sayin is that you won’t be Chris Theis…nor should you want to be someone else. If that’s where you’re at, quit debate immediately and get therapy.” Now, I agree with him that we shouldn’t idolize debaters bc they’re just HS students. But part of the problem is the culture that’s created by it. We constantly tell war stories at camps and encourage debaters to watch specific debaters who are good (now, this is educational but you can see how it can get over-done). There’s also an element of the VBD culture that has been created. I’m not really proposing that all of this is really evil or anything, but it seems to make sense that kids idolize the debaters that are older than them just like freshman look up to seniors in any HS. So don’t go being insensitive and saying ‘go get therapy’ but rather its important to temper comments and simply let kids know that its one thing to look up to older debaters who are better and its another thing entirely to idolize them.
i dunno, maybe I’m just making a stupid rant that most of you are going to ignore. I just think that these are a couple of issues that deserve a little more community discussion even if all my opinions are incorrect and unfounded.
Posted from: 70.135.203.237
December 24th, 2008 01:38
oh, plus 1 to Ernie, the true voice of reason.
also, i kinda agree with mangus that its nice to be able to post anonymously sometimes. and it really isn’t a problem as long as ppl don’t feed trolls like they usually do.
Posted from: 70.135.203.237
December 24th, 2008 01:59
sorry for triple post, but doesn’t anyone else think that P4nd4 needs to make a return to VBD?
Posted from: 72.213.165.80
December 24th, 2008 09:45
You can post anonymously and not be a troll. And isn’t a little embarrassing, to both the debate community and the posters, to have your information posted on a site, without your permission? My point is, it seems silly to expose people who wish to be anonymous if they are not posting degrading (or trolling) comments.
Posted from: 98.14.255.196
December 24th, 2008 10:23
Post #716 on the TOC thread seems to me to be a textbook case of trolling. Just throwing that out there.
Posted from: 71.60.209.85
December 24th, 2008 11:25
Re: 175
The idea that the person who identifies trolls should be embarrassed (rather than the person who makes rude claims to instigate ridiculous discussions) seems a bit absurd to me.
I am also interested in hearing why anonymous statements that make unwarranted attacks on debaters, debate styles, camps, etc. do not constitute trolling.
Then again, I went to NSD.
; )
Posted from: 72.213.165.80
December 24th, 2008 12:04
That makes sense, of course, but it seems that the “troll patrol”, if you will, is spread out rather arbitrarily. By this I mean that mean anonymous trollers get ignored, while others face high scrutiny, etc. And also, does it makes sense that perhaps we should forgive and forget, in the spirit of Christmas, if nothing else?
Just a thought.
Posted from: 193.200.150.189
December 24th, 2008 12:30
I don’t think you are going to win that you are a victim of people uncovering anonymous posters, Rod. And I think that if you apologized, you might gain a little more credit.
In other news, I agree with Anjan, Cherian, etc. about requiring log-ins.
Posted from: 72.213.165.80
December 24th, 2008 12:32
Well yes. I do apologize, and am ready to move on. That was in the past, this is now. And now is the time for kindness, so please forgive me.
Posted from: 72.213.165.80
December 24th, 2008 12:33
Oh and JP, just to clarify, I am not “The Truth.” Any trolling I did was on other threads, in the past.
Posted from: 12.226.34.198
December 24th, 2008 14:09
I, too, think that people should log in. I just don’t think its that exciting to call them out for “trolling” or whatever the hell its called. I think “true justice” is working towards, for example, eliminating inequity in debate and not busting some kid in oklahoma and publicly shaming him. This isn’t a shot at anjan, but rather a growing dislike for the online debate community itself. I’m not even sure it was really that ridiculous for him to do it. Its more about what we aren’t doing. There is one place we really talk about debate. No one starts discussions except on some shitty side board that no one reads and doesn’t really function that well. The substantive threads are few and far between and tend to get much less attention than silly ones. We started another board and it died because of spam–why did that board get attacked so quickly? I know nothing about websites so I am genuinely curious. I worry about the sustainability of multiple camps if there is only one place people go for news. I also wonder if having one camp dominate is good for this activity. This isn’t me acting on behalf of nsd or anyone. This is me concerned about what happens in the next five years in ld.
I’m tired of hearing people seriously engage camp wars on both “sides” (did yall forget there are more than two camps?) Big Johnson informed me this weekend that there are a long list of nsd hacks (which, apparently, i am on) and i’ve heard the same comments about vbi from others. For those of you who are hacks, get a life. Those who accuse anyone who drops their kids of being a hack (I’m not excluding my own actions in the past here) get a life. I’d like to think everyone has a little more integrity than that. If not, I’m not really interested in being apart of this community anymore.
I guess what I’m saying is, lets all judge rounds fairly, stop moaning and bitching about every meaningless thing on the internet, and address some real problems this community faces–gender inequity, wealth inequity, etc. I’m done posting on this site. You can email me at the address above if you are interested in having a serious discussion about something that matters.
Posted from: 68.81.159.124
December 24th, 2008 16:03
Ernie brings up an interesting point about educational threads on this site being few and far between. I haven’t been around very long, so i’m not sure if this has been attempted, but why doesn’t LD have a community-moderated discussion site like cross-x.com for policy, in which debaters can post legitimate questions about arguments or concepts in debate? This is not to say that VBD would be rendered obsolete, but VBD would act more like a news site with tournament results on which successful debaters can be congratulated. Just a thought…
Posted from: 72.154.175.177
December 24th, 2008 18:48
I just wanted to voice the opinion of the entire ALJ team when I say that Blake was by far the best tournament we (as individuals and as a team) have experienced. From the top-notch judging to the amazing hotel rooms the tournament to the great food in the judges lounge, the tournament was great for everyone. Im certain that ALJ will attend it once again next year!
Posted from: 69.118.137.26
December 24th, 2008 19:49
Anjan, Michael, et. al. who attempted to identify the poster should not feel bad about what they have done at all. I don’t know why anyone is sympathizing for these people who have now been “unfairly exposed” or “shamed.” Does the fact that they are not well-known debaters make a difference? Bottom line: no matter who you are, you cannot post stupid shit about other people on this website and expect to be shielded by anonymity. I agree with Ernie in the sense that this exposure is not “perfect justice” and that there are more important issues facing the debate community, but I do not think the insult that these anonymous posters cause to the people they attack should be disregarded entirely.
As Michael correctly points out, there are some legitimate reasons to post anonymously (e.g. to raise a substantive issue for discussion without facing political backlash). However, flaming random debaters/camps, accusing judges of hacking, and making bad jokes are not included in this category.
Posted from: 74.227.246.92
December 24th, 2008 21:35
for the record, i gave an account of a process rather than a definitive answer for a reason – i think theres a little bit of fun in the process, but really couldnt care less about the answer in this case. also, some recent posters seem to not realize that there is more than one anonymous person at work on this thread (the truth, the real truth, and other generally tame anons).
Posted from: 69.118.137.26
December 24th, 2008 22:23
to all the anons: if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say it at all…
Posted from: 12.216.111.70
December 24th, 2008 22:24
All I want for Christmas is peace on VBD :(
Posted from: 12.216.111.70
December 24th, 2008 22:26
We gotta start makin’ changes,
learn to see me as a brother instead of 2 distant strangers
Posted from: 69.118.137.26
December 24th, 2008 22:27
I realize that there are multiple posters. I just lump them all in the same category. Also, as far as I know, only one of them was actually “exposed.” I’m still not even sure who this person is…I don’t really care either, I just think they should stop anonymously insulting others.
Posted from: 98.109.41.141
December 24th, 2008 22:35
Tupac Shakur for every single award debate has to offer.
We under, I wonder what it takes to make this,
One better place, lets erase the wasted.
Posted from: 98.195.66.198
December 24th, 2008 23:00
its too bad i can’t run tupac in my AC anymore :(
Posted from: 76.17.167.243
December 24th, 2008 23:24
there are several issues here i feel like im personally invested in so i split them up conveniently for people who want to skip certain issues they dont care about (hopefully all of them, theyre all pointless and have no need to be discussed in my honest opinion, but id rather write something substantive here than discuss with my grandparents upstairs the new potpourri bowls they bought)
====The Truth====
ok, its pretty obvious to me who you are. youve given away numerous clues: (1) although youve capitalized, used correct punctuation and grammar, more or less, and have writen well without using words/phrases you normally would youve referenced several rappers’ lyrics both implicitly and explicitly, (2) the fact that you only listed people who im friends with is (a) somewhat creepy and (b) very telling. why didnt you list jake nebel (who from what i hear is really tight, nullus homosexualis)? given your list he seems like someone i would hack for. (3) you say “in the area” and continue to post from local twin cities IPs AND say that youve talked to me: “you [uncle juju] are intellgent and funny.” SO… given all of this im willing to withhold embarassing you publically as long as you stop posting anonymously on this thread.
====Accusations====
i wouldnt normally respond to these but he (yes, The Truth is male) claims that many other people hold some beliefs about me.
(1) “I hack for my friends.” if anyone believes this then youre a moron. offense. i definitely wont hold it against you or take action by dropping your kids if i find out you believe this, but i take it personally. i am more than willing and will gladly drop my friends to an unknown debater if s/he lost. ross and matt – sure, i was on the bottom of a 4-1 at berkeley finals in his favor and regularly pick them up, but guess what, ive been on a 5 drop losing streak with them in important prelims and outrounds. christian – i recently played a 5 hour game of Risk with him and i also dropped him at valley on a 2-1 (me, meyers, hogan*). dont really see the need to go over the others… narayan – thanks for defending me. ill be sure to pick you up with at least a 29 next time i judge you. i promise :)
(2) “I give high speaks, especially for my friends.” im sorry that my friends are good debaters. im also sorry that my friends know me enough to know what to do to get good speaks. im also sorry that there is a collective action problem in LD which prevents judges (at least myself) from giving debaters lower than a 29 if they do an exceptional job. personally, i think its hard not to give a 30 in LD. if a good debater is up against a n00b, puts turns, takeouts, well-warranted args, and everything else on case and definitively wins every arg, by what other standard can you judge how well the debater did? what warrants an “80%” grade in that instance (if a 28 were given for said performance).
(3) My paradigm, specifically my fetish for weighing and impacts without contexualization, is bogus. suck my dick and shut the fuck up. if someone isnt winning the impact of their arg (i.e. its impact turned, the internal link to their impact is taken out, or the standard being impacted to is taken out) then the debater wont get access to their weighing analysis, no matter how sexy that analysis is. additionally, how i ajudicate rounds is entirely predictible. i state explicitly in my paradigm that i defer to strength of link weighing (i.e. i prefer args which arent contested over args which are better IF AND ONLY IF there is no direct comparison between the args themselves – in terms of how better warranted one is, or whatever, because judges shouldnt have the power to decide what they personally think is better warranted, or whatever, whereas whether an arg is responded to is readily observable and objective). its easy to get around this issue in my paradigm if you think its a problem, just weigh……. i dont really know how you can criticize my paradigm – i dont have one. i use whatever framework the debaters themselves set up (which i guess is a paradigm…). all i have is a default paradigm which is overridden at any instance of the args being advanced in the round coming into conflict with it. although i agree that values should be and usually are contextualize by standards i think that that needs to be said in your speech when someone is making another impact, either “pre-standards” or impacting to the value diectly, since s/he is implicitly saying “its legit to impact to values” and i think judges should set aside whatever the relevant portion of their default paradigm is in order to allow for some (in my case any) particurlarly odd/counterintuitive/unsual argument. having a crap filter is interventionist since its unpredictable, inexhaustible, unspecified, and opens the door for intervention when judges can claim that “i dont understand what that arg MEANS” or “this arg is stupid” or “this arg is X” blah blah blah. such claims are based on the assumption that the judge knows whats right for debate or what shouldnt be allowed. also i think judges cant ignore args based on whether they dont understand the warrant for an arg, or any other part of the arg (apart from its terminal impact – i.e. vote on this or not), since claiming that the judge knows what a good argument definitively “means” in the first place is absurd (see frege, larson & segel, kripke, et al). oh but thats bad for debate!!!!!!! yeah, well maybe the opponent who sucks too bad to point out that said arg is shitty is worse… im sure all of this makes me seem entirely unpredictable when judging rounds but your wrong. as long as i specify something before the round or in my paradigm then its entirely predictable (and i think that predictability/consistency in reaching decisions is the MOST important facet of a judge)
====Anonymity====
as far as anonymity is concerned, any type of login system (beyond one that asks for a birth certificate or any other highly credible source of identity verification) is NEVER going to solve. if people here are claiming that owning an email address is the source of all legitimacy, the problem is that people can create fake email addresses and verify that theyre real by logging in and clicking on the the “VBD membership confirmation” link or whatever. will we be able to identify accounts meant for trolling? yes, but only once they post such comments and at that point the person behind them can just create another account… either way, i think a forum is much better than the current thread-oriented setup because members would be able to create their own threads – plus admins could have exclusive powers to create threads about tournaments or whatever they think deserves such exclusivity. also a forum would/should get rid of the IP address concerns mangus brought up.
regarding phelan’s anonymous posts: consider a thought experiment. what if phelan had written all of those posts and listed his name as “Phelan” or “Pwneill” instead of “The Real Truth”? guess what, absolutely NO ONE would be up in arms about it because they would know that he was joking or being sarcastic. or, at the very least, people wouldve been like “OMG I HOPE UR JOKING” in which case a simple response from phelan like “yea, i was obviously joking…” wouldve sufficed. whether his posts were funny or not is not relevant to the discussion at hand. whether they are stupid or not is tangentially related, but the majority of people in the world are stupid (myself included), so get over it. also, im pretty sure that most people already have an opinion about him and if that opinion is negative his comments probably didnt change much and if those opinions are positive they probably are willing to realize that he wasnt being serious. relatedly, another reason i think a forum would be preferable is because it would prevent people from posting under the same name as someone else or from mocking their name – for instance, the forum admin could prevent someone with the name “THE PWNEILL 2008 EXPERIENCE” from receiving admittance to the forum. now, i will admit that the funniest comment(s) i have ever read were when there were a string of phelan impersonators and one said “im actually phelan. if youre relly me then whats my favorite sex position,” but i dont see why hilarity should be preferred over other concerns.
finally, i dont understand the aversion to anonymous posters simply because theyre anonymous (as evidenced by the thought experiment and other concerns). i mean, isnt that the whole reason why we dont think people in LD need evidence from qualified authors to establish nearly everything they say (as opposed to policy debate, which is probably a little different since theyre squo/empirically based)? something [should be] true or false REGARDLESS of who says it (ignoring relevant issues of agent relative meaning). which brings me to my next point. if phelan were to get on here and post “you guys are all ridiculous for freaking out. btwz im sorry for posting anonymously,” chances are most people wouldnt buy the sincerity in his post even though now he can go on, say “sorry,” agree with everything that i brought up, and no one would flip shit about him being insincere. (and no, i dont see the difference. and no, im not biased on this issue just because i coach blake).
============
anyways, i hope everyone has a splendid break :)
Posted from: 76.17.167.243
December 24th, 2008 23:24
p.s. im done with this thread forever
Posted from: 66.75.244.56
December 25th, 2008 00:00
80 percent should not be a 28. 80 percent should be a 24. DUCY?
–the stingiest judge at cps, apparently
Posted from: 76.17.167.243
December 25th, 2008 03:27
fans of theory of poker by sklansky are we? btw i take back my postscript if this thread turns into a poker discussion
Posted from: 98.194.191.107
December 25th, 2008 14:23
i have said this many times before: people who are hacks and/or awful judges should be called out. in real life. on message boards. wherever. there is good reason for this to be done anonymously online to avoid retribution. however, i have no problem telling you if i think you rep-out or you are an awful judge or if i strike you. i will tell you this in-person because i have little to lose from revealing this information – i can usually strike you.
ernie, repping is the biggest problem facing national circuit LD. we aren’t solving gender or wealth inequity anytime soon. we can diminish repping by calling people out, scrutinizing decisions more, and preventing certain people from judging certain rounds.
i think compiled judge rankings and strikes should be made public at every tournament.
Posted from: 70.56.1.219
December 25th, 2008 15:40
Gary-
Your last post makes it pretty clear that you think calling out hacks is very important. You also say that you can usually strike these hacks. Do you strike judges who rep for Strake? People who make terrible decisions in favor of your students?
Also, isn’t it possible that the reason judges vote for people from particular camps because of their paradigmatic beliefs? Do you really think that judges are so immoral that they will only vote for people who have more ‘rep,’ regardless of what happens in the round?
Posted from: 70.241.98.255
December 25th, 2008 16:01
+1 for what Ernie said
Posted from: 66.75.244.56
December 25th, 2008 16:06
in before gary’s list of hacks
Posted from: 189.164.155.142
December 25th, 2008 17:50
i agree with gary, but his point about just striking the person he calls out fails to take into account just how political ld is (i’m sure everyone has, at some point, wanted to say something to someone but didn’t because of the negative political consequences). the problem with telling judges that their decision was bad or that they hacked is that you are not only pissing off that person, but a whole slew of people affiliated with him/her. with one call out, one strike can become many.
i think “call outs” (or however you label it) of judges are a good thing. it’s at least some way to enforce accountability; no checks on bad decisions cause complacency. of course, this assumes that judges are able to hold their own and not take a high school kid or coach’s comments so personally that it affects their abilities to make future decisions, but i hope that no one views this as a lofty task. obviously i am not advocating the increase of explosions in public; a private email that isn’t a character assault would probably be more conducive than a berating right after an outround at a tournament anyway.
Posted from: 98.194.191.107
December 25th, 2008 19:32
(excuse the awkward 1st person)
re ross:
if your question is do i strike people that give me the win? absolutely not.
do i strike people that will probably give me the loss? absolutely.
debate, like life, isn’t fair. it’s not my job to ensure that debates i participate in are completely fair so long as the skew is in my favor. it is the judge’s job to make sure the round is fair and my opponent’s job to make sure the round is not skewed against them by using their preferencing/strikes as wisely as possible. (obviously to ever do this completely is impossible). a hypothetical: lets say a debater from camp X (not from TX) is debating me (not associated with camp X and from TX) and our judge from Texas is notorious for repping for TX. unless i cared about the fairness of an unfair activity more than winning, i would not strike this TX judge. my argument is that the burden to ensure fairness falls on the judge primarily to judge fairly. but second, the burden partially falls on the opponent from camp X to make sure that the TX hack is not judging a round with camp X student debating a TX person. as i said before, strikes/preferencing largely solve for this (with 7 strikes you can take out most of the TX hacks). similarly, i believe it is my burden as the TX debater not associated with camp X to strike judges who i think rep for camp X. this is largely how i believe most people do their strikes. we (i mean, EVERYONE) strike judges based on we think will rep against us. this is obviously unfortunate, but if my concern is winning, then i preference the person who i think will vote for me regardless of whether their decision will be coherent. one more time: I do NOT think this is a good thing, but the activity is inherently unfair.
in terms of my original argument (post 197), i think the judges who are repping for me NEED TO BE CALLED OUT BY MY OPPONENT AND HER COACH. i think tournament directors need to refuse to let horrible judges be allowed to fulfill judging commitments or put them in the 1-3 round. i think debaters need to strike these people if the rep-out is against them. i think everyone needs to put pressure on others not to rep (videotape RFDs and post it online). i think people like alex need to stop taking pride in the fact they are struck all the time. no one likes judging, but i don’t understand why some people high-five themselves when 50% of the pool strikes you.
—final issues—
1. “isn’t it possible that the reason judges vote for people from particular camps because of their paradigmatic beliefs?”
No. what is the difference in paradigmatic beliefs between judges who work only at vbi and judges who work only at nsd? on balance, NSD judges tend to like theory a little more? we’ve had this discussion many times before: there is overlap between all the camps that probably prevents a real paradigm difference between the camps. what’s the difference in the curriculum between the camps? one teaches theory a little more? my argument is that loyalty and friendships trump any sort of minor paradigm difference (if one even exists).
2. “Do you really think that judges are so immoral that they will only vote for people who have more ‘rep,’ regardless of what happens in the round?”
It is my opinion that in many elimination rounds at national circuit tournaments that rounds are close enough on paper to articulate a somewhat understandable decision either way. this is why judges that everyone likes split sometimes. my argument is rep is too often the deciding factor in rounds that are very close. for example, if the judge has the choice to vote on argument A or argument B and both are equal, then a hack will vote on argument A if the A debater has more rep. i would like to think that people who have been in the activity for 10 years value it enough where they won’t rep because they have a lot invested. i don’t think SOME first-year-outs or people who judge at 1-3 tournaments a year have that same level of accountability.
and i agree with all of maeshal in 201, especially the 1st paragraph.
Posted from: 75.73.198.30
December 25th, 2008 19:58
As a judge who could (and probably should) be critiqued by many a debater yet still gets put in those pesky down 2 rounds, I guess I should voice my ever important objection to the “call out” method of solving for judge hackery.
Remember when you were a student? And how freaking pissed you got when you lost rounds? Yeah, I do. My students (THATILOVEDEARLYDONTTAKETHISPERSONALLYGUYZ) remind me all the time how irrational and overemotional kids get about decisions. Having students freak out publicly about how bad a judge is just doesn’t seem like the right way to prevent judge intervention. In fact, it just seems like the judge will defend their decision (probably honorably… like Gary notes, many rounds can be bs’ed either way) and ask why they had to waste their time responding to some angsty unhappy teen. If I could call out my professors for giving me a terrible grade, my guess is the reaction would be similar. I just wonder if there isn’t a more responsible/respectful way to solve the problem.
The “put terrible judges in the 1-3 round” solution seems fine, but what constitutes a terrible judge? I guess my second problem with these “hack callouts” is that judges I have nothing but love for (not just because they voted for me or my kids but because I think they are great adjudicators) many people think suck. It seems silly to subject these judges to public shaming just because you or I don’t like the way they judge.
Honestly, I feel like if people are putting their best foot forward, that should be enough. Yeah, some people rep out, some people hack for Texas/MN/The Truth/whatever but for the most part, they probably aren’t trying to. Making people aware of the problem publicly seems fine, but targeting particular names is probably a job for strikes. Privately. And we all stay friends.
On another note, I hope everyone had the merriest of holidays. I just had a delicious meal that I am about to sleep off.
Sincerely,
Liz
Posted from: 71.142.61.47
December 25th, 2008 20:41
I think that in most cases, debaters won’t call out judges for repping whenever they are handed the loss. At CPS, I downed in the bubble round in what i thought was a close round. After listening to the RFD and examining the flow again, I found myself in complete agreement with Tim Case, and was 100% mad at myself for screwing up in the 2NR, not at him for dropping me. I now would be very happy to see him in the back of the room. In contrast, I have lost rounds in which the RFDs made no sense and in which I had clearly won on the flow. I have gotten extremely pissed at these judges.
I think people will not call out judges unless it is genuinely fair since as Maeshal pointed out, calling out a judge will have political implications and therefore will be used judiciously.
Posted from: 12.174.246.241
December 25th, 2008 21:19
“Calling out hacks” privately would seem (to me at least) to greatly mitigate the benefits of doing it in the first place. If I was “hacked” against I am clearly already aware that the judge is a hack. The benefit of “calling someone out” comes from dispersing this knowledge to other people and holding the judge accountable. Additionally, if it was always done privately, then we would have no way of identifying consistency/patterns which is the only real way to identify a “true hack”. I think a lot of the problems people have with public call outs have significant checks to prevent them. If you’re always calling people hacks, then no one is going to take you seriously. If you call someone out and you are just wrong, then the judge, opponent, and/or spectators have the ability to respond (especially if its in public). Every judge makes a bad decision (probably many) and one public call out won’t unfairly tarnish a judge’s reputation. The problem comes when a judge is doing it consistently and public call outs will be the most helpful in identifying consistent bad decisions.
Posted from: 70.56.1.219
December 25th, 2008 21:21
Gary-
You maintain that there is a group of horrible judges that adjudicate important rounds at national circuit tournaments, and you make the argument that they should be ‘called out.’ You also say that you have no problem telling people if they are bad judges, so would you be willing to provide the community with a list of the people you feel are ‘hacks’ or ‘horrible judges?’ If what you’re saying is true, hacking is a huge problem on the circuit that needs to be addressed, and compiling a list of hacks would be the first place to start in terms of solving that problem.
“if your question is do i strike people that give me the win? absolutely not. do i strike people that will probably give me the loss? absolutely.”
It seems a bit disingenuous to say that repping out is the biggest problem facing the LD community, but to only address the issue if it doesn’t affect your team. I don’t understand how you can claim to solve any of the problems you talk about when you won’t strike people you have identified as hacks for your school. If someone hacks for your school, someone else is being hacked against. You claim that striking bad judges should be a burden placed on debaters. How are debaters supposed to know which judges are ‘bad’ unless there is a communal effort to call out every single hack and who these people hack for? It seems weird that debaters should have the burden to strike bad judges when the community hasn’t yet identified which judges are horrible, or what even constitutes a ‘horrible judge.’
I agree with you that RFDs should be posted online. Not only would this put pressure on judges to carefully consider their decisions, it would also be more educational for those watching the videos at home.
“No. what is the difference in paradigmatic beliefs between judges who work only at vbi and judges who work only at nsd?”
My argument isn’t that there is some huge discrepancy between the curriculums at NSD and VBI. Given that I’ve only attended one of these institutions, I couldn’t claim to know of a big difference between these two camps. However, I think the reason judges from a particular camp (or region) tend to vote for debaters from that camp (or region) is pretty simple. All judges have different paradigms. No two judges evaluate every argument in a debate round the exact same way. People from particular camps or regions are more familiar with the paradigms people from that camp or region have. When debaters adapt to these paradigms, they are more likely to win debate rounds. It only makes sense that debaters from a particular camp (or region) would be able to adapt to paradigms people in this camp (or region) have because they have more experience with these individuals. I know more about how judges from NSD evaluate rounds than I do about how judges from VBI evaluate rounds. When you give rebuttal redos in front of someone, and they tell you what you are doing wrong, they are generally not doing this because there is some ‘universal understanding’ that what you have done is wrong, but rather that this particular person paradigmatically dislikes something you have done. This is what adaptation is all about. You debate differently in front of different people based on their preferences. People who have more experience with particular judges are more capable of successfully adapting. Sure, everyone is required to post their paradigms online. But reading a half-page version of someone’s paradigm is not nearly as valuable as receiving one on one instruction from this person.
“for example, if the judge has the choice to vote on argument A or argument B and both are equal, then a hack will vote on argument A if the A debater has more rep.”
Maybe I’m just oblivious to how judges evaluate close rounds, but I really don’t think judges consciously decide to vote for debaters who have more rep. I don’t think judges think to themselves: “Well, argument A was made by someone with 5 bids, and argument B was made by someone with 0 bids. Therefore, I prefer argument A.” Given the precedent for giving RFDs, judges have to come up with some other explanation besides “I vote on rep.” Both you and Liz say that judges can BS either way, but I think that in most cases, this comes down to the judges paradigm. It comes down to quality of extension, weighing, etc. Julian would make his decision based on strength of link. Other judges would make their decision using some different standard. But also, if the round is so close that it can be BSed either way, and that even “good judges” disagree, I’m not sure that a “true” winner exists. If all decisions “good judges” make are perfect, and if these people disagree, maybe no one won really the debate round.
Moreover, if it’s true that RFDs can be BSed in close rounds, how is it possible to identify hacks in the first place? Can you explain how you know that ernie and smitty and whoever hack given that decisions can be BSed?
‘Repping out’ might be the way some debate rounds are decided. I just don’t think that most judges consciously decide to hack. Judges may subconsciously give more weight to a debater who appears on VBD every other weekend, but I don’t think judges are immoral enough to intentionally do this.
Posted from: 193.200.150.23
December 25th, 2008 21:24
I think that an important aspect of the “rep-out” discussion not being talked about concerns the idea of judges recusing themselves from rounds. While strikes are one check, Gary and Liz talk about how judges ought to enforce neutrality in the round but there is only reference to a strike sheet and not the conflict sheet.
I think that this subject at least deserves some discussion becuase of the utter lack of any community norm on the topic. Some people consider being a lab leader sufficient reason to recuse oneself from judging while others will judge students even on topics that they have coached them on. Just out of curiousity, does anyone have any input on what those standards should be?
Should judges refuse to judge labbies, friends, or those from their own rival schools? I mean some tournaments refuse to let first-years-outs from judging because of conflicts for understandable reason. Why is that so different from a coaching relationship at camp or time spent in the cafeteria?
Posted from: 66.75.244.56
December 25th, 2008 21:33
gary:
please post the rest of this list. i’m dying to see who else you think is a hack. fyi, i work as hard as i can to be objective and evaluate rounds pretty carefully, and i don’t really give two fucks about where people went to camp. i only joked about being struck at st. mark’s because i thought it was hilarious that eric palmer and i had virtually every round off while some people who i wouldn’t trust to judge novice rounds got tons of ballots. sorry i dropped your kid in octos, didn’t know you took it so personally.
Posted from: 24.164.191.184
December 25th, 2008 21:33
^note the *good* anon poster.
yay.
Posted from: 98.195.66.198
December 25th, 2008 21:40
i don’t want to get involved, but ross i think you are misconstruing what gary and maybe others means by rep outs in close rounds. its not that the judge thinks to go with debater a because he/she has more bids, but that its almost subconscious thinking that that debater tends to do better and usually would make better arguments so you would trust to vote for them if the judge couldn’t evaluate the better debater off of purely the round.
Posted from: 193.200.150.152
December 25th, 2008 21:44
Smitty,
You do realize that, per the results of the strikes at St. Marks, more people thought that you and Palmer were less trustworthy to judge any rounds than those that you don’t trust with even novice rounds, right? I mean, doesn’t it mitigate Gary’s “out to get you”-ness if its objectively verified that people don’t like you as a judge?
Posted from: 70.56.1.219
December 25th, 2008 21:48
Philip-
I actually agree that for the most part, when hacking occurs, its subconscious. The last part of my post makes this clear. Gary seems to think that judges intentionally vote for debaters with more rep. He talks about how people who have been in the activity a long time should have enough integrity to refrain from repping out. Given this, it seems pretty clear that he thinks judges consciously hack, because he argues that people with integrity have the ability to control the influence rep may have on their decisions.
Posted from: 66.75.244.56
December 25th, 2008 21:49
anon (211):
i don’t think gary is out to get me, i like the guy and i think he believes he’s doing a service to the community. i just think he’s wrong and way out of line.
Posted from: 75.72.79.154
December 25th, 2008 21:56
In what I promise will be my last post, I’d like to say that I am sorry for offending members of the community, many of which I respect and am friends with, and that I agree with Julian’s thoughts 100%. My anonymous posts were a poor attempt at humor/sarcasm. This was obviously not clear enough, and it led to a bad outcome. I do not think that NSD is just a camp for theory hacks or that VBI is the only legit camp. I was trying to mock “the truth”, and it went too far.
Once again, my apologies.
Phelan
Posted from: 75.73.219.166
December 25th, 2008 21:58
sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeit
Posted from: 75.73.220.221
December 25th, 2008 22:01
Merry Christmas!
Posted from: 76.113.135.99
December 25th, 2008 22:08
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgLICoFgb2s
Posted from: 12.216.111.70
December 25th, 2008 22:24
to anon 211: i think it just reflects that it was in Texas, where arguments of questionable theoretical legitimacy are fairly popular, and people did not think Smitty was the best judge to have in the back of the round if they planned on running those types of arguments. hes pretty honest about his evaluation of theory: he wants people to give reasons to prefer a counter-interpretation and he doesn’t want people to dump generic theory “turns” and 10 reasons why fairness is not a voter. given that it is difficult to give coherent reasons why strategies like multiple conditional worlds, a prioris, etc. are fair, striking Smitty is probably a good choice if you plan on running those arguments. (to all devoted truth-testers: i apologize, maybe there are arguments for why these strategies are fair, and I just haven’t seen them. I am just trying to make a point about the rationale of those who choose to strike smitty, i really don’t want to open the truthtesting vs. comparative worlds vs. whatever bag.)
this brings me to a more important issue. is it bad that Smitty openly states that he isn’t persuaded by ‘fairness is not a voter’? does that make him a ‘hack’ or a poor critic? absolutely not. i think that a lot of the problems being discussed here could be mitigated significantly if judges would be more aware of their own paradigmatic preferences and then broadcasted those preferences through their written paradigms and when debaters ask them explicitly prior to the round. the concept of ‘tabula rasa’ is a joke. yes, being as objective as possible is important but in a close round, 9 times out of 10, judges are forced to implement a specific framework for evaluating arguments which allows them to reconcile the debate. i would much rather be notified of these implicit evaluative frameworks prior to the round. i think that if judges were more honest about the way that the view particular strategies, it would clear up a lot of the accusations of hacking. and at least the judges who do hack would be bound to a particular method of evaluation, which would make it harder for them to come up with RFD’s in favor of the debater they want to hack for.
Posted from: 12.216.111.70
December 25th, 2008 22:42
only god can judge me
Posted from: 98.194.191.107
December 25th, 2008 22:44
ross, almost everything you said was very reasonable. we disagree on how much of a role rep plays in decisions. i get bored with vbd discussions very quickly and have no interest in having an online line-by-line debate. i think my position overall is pretty clear.
a few things though that stick out:
“You also say that you have no problem telling people if they are bad judges, so would you be willing to provide the community with a list of the people you feel are ‘hacks’ or ‘horrible judges?’”
-HAHA. I agreed with Maeshal (201) that there are big political repercussions for being too overt. I’m not posting a strike list on VBD for it to be taken out of context. Strikes change depending on the tournament location. We can talk about this at Emory. Just like I was with Ernie, I am open to discussing who I think reps. Ernie thinks certain TX people rep for TX. We all have opinions about who we think reps. I’ve heard that I rep for TX because I dropped Wade at Emory or something last year. This information only becomes valuable when there is a consensus on who reps. I don’t think a message board is the place to build that consensus. Please feel free to accuse me of repping for ____.
The time for the “call out” is either immediately after the round or online after the tournament. Didn’t Ken (in a nice way) “call out” Julian on this thread? Julian typed up some stuff that justified his decision. This is helpful. This is what should be happening. Call outs can be nice.
“How are debaters supposed to know which judges are ‘bad’ unless there is a communal effort to call out every single hack and who these people hack for?”
This information is readily accessible to everyone. Everyone has an opinion (true or not) who hacks for who. I am conceding I am being “disingenuous.” Winning > trying to solve the problems of the debate community on my own. If some judge drafts a pact that says we won’t give 30s and 29s out like candy and we will strike all people who rep (for or against us), I will be the John Hancock of that pact, but that’s not happening. My argument was that I make the best of a bad situation. If people implement the “strike the people who hack against us” system (everyone already does) then the hacking problem is mitigated because the hackers are struck a lot. I.e. a TX hack who hacks for me since I’m from TX will never judge a debate between you and I because you will have struck him. similarly, a camp X hack will never judge a debate between you and I because I will strike camp X hack if i didn’t attend camp X and you did.
“Moreover, if it’s true that RFDs can be BSed in close rounds, how is it possible to identify hacks in the first place? ”
I never said RFDs can be BSed. I said “many elimination rounds…are close enough on paper to articulate a somewhat understandable decision either way.” My opinion is that rep throws the balance off in favor of one debater sometimes. There is always a better decision and a worse decision, but usually i can understand the worse decision also provided the round is close. this is called perspective. in most cases of hacking, hacking sometimes causes the judge to make the worse (but still understandable decision). judging is not a science. for example, there are different opinions about how much work needs to be done on an argument or how good the weighing needs to be or how clear something is. these could be attributed to paradigmatic differences, but no one has a strict and consistent interpretation of how many words an extension needs to be. my argument is that some judges will cut corners to help the debater they want to vote for. in many rounds, the judge can choose to vote in one of many spots on the flow. there is no exact right answer. there are better answers and less good answers and hacks will sometimes choose the less good answer if it’s from the rep debater. none of what i am saying is novel?
proving that repping exists is not scientific. i have no idea what goes on in people’s head when they judge. i’m no psychologist, but i think it’s fair to say that some are thinking about more than just the ink on the flow when they judge.
Posted from: 98.194.191.107
December 25th, 2008 23:11
i think alex and ernie are both good people who i’ve known for a while. they have both done a ton for debate and are great coaches. my name-dropping of them is in response to their reference to me in their posts (182 and 200).
my posts are not call outs of anyone in particular. i don’t believe VBD is the place to broadcast the master list of who everyone thinks reps for who. my intention was to respond to post 182.
“i think it just reflects that it was in Texas, where arguments of questionable theoretical legitimacy are fairly popular”
haha
Posted from: 70.152.235.216
December 25th, 2008 23:12
I went to NSD
But the NSD staff still keeps on droppin me :’(
WHY WONT THEY HACK FOR ME???
-Salman “How the fuck do you spell anonymous” Syed
Posted from: 70.152.235.216
December 25th, 2008 23:58
O ma gawd
its tupac
Posted from: 98.27.222.187
December 26th, 2008 00:05
I don’t really want to argue with Gary. I want to indicate a very different way of thinking about strike sheets. The typical MVLA strike sheet basically has the following constitution:
- There is a set of judges who we think are particularly biased towards certain schools or debaters. This group is usually about 5% of our strike sheet at a tournament with a lot of strikes.
- A large portion of our strike sheet then goes to people who we think favor styles of debate which are dramatically at odds with the way we want to debate (upwards of 40%). This includes:
(a) people who love abusive strategies: a prioris, “hidden standards” or “substandards”, conditional positions, etc,
(b) people who love so-called “critical arguments”. By this, I don’t mean people who listen to the usual French authors, or even people who prefer to hear arguments from those people. The group I’m pointing to are those who are left cold when they hear empirically driven arguments or arguments predicated on philosophy from the Anglo-American or German idealist traditions, or who think that you can’t answer “critical” arguments without “critical” arguments of your own.
(c) some people who demand what gets called “traditional debate” (I know this is vague, but I don’t really know of a better way to nail this category down)
(d) people who evaluate theory debates ways we consider nonstandard to a degree that would disable moves that are essential to our approach to strategy. Example: judges who think kicking your standard or a lot of the AC is abusive
- we strike some judges who we just don’t think have a very good approach to rounds
- then the list is rounded out by judges we’ve never heard of
I guess the upshot is: most of our strike sheet isn’t driven by fear of hacks. I could count the number of judges in the community I legitimately fear would vote based on camp loyalty on one hand. There are a few judges we think might really act on the sort of personal loyalty considerations Gary gives a lot of weight to, but this group is a minority. Most of our thought process goes into matchups: we don’t want judges who love critiques against Jake Nebel or the Edina crew, we don’t want people who are down with a prioris against a lot of debaters out of TX, etc.
Maybe that means we are dumb or don’t see the real causes behind the behaviors which lead us to strike certain judges. I don’t really know, I’m not a mind reader. I guess my basic point is: the idea that hacking is the biggest problem in debate is very foreign to me. When I disagree with decisions against MVLA students, my thought is usually “that person has a whack approach to debate” or “they screwed up the evaluation of this particular argument”, not that I think they were out to get the kids. And my question for Gary is, when Strake does a strike sheet, do you really think it through in a dramatically different way?
Posted from: 98.201.178.59
December 26th, 2008 01:26
why are lebron, kobe and superman able to get away with obvious traveling violations, fouls and goaltending? because they have rep. debate is a game, and rep is definitely something nice to have attached to your name.
rep, or lack thereof, definitely has a direct effect on how the round is evaluated [as a judge]. who likes to judge strug v. strug? no one. strug v. rep? even if the don’t get the win, it’ll probably still be a low point loss. if someone without rep impresses you, X debater without rep is probably given some rep via some nice speaks, a nice comment to others, etc. rep is accessible, not just built around camps or teams that are institutions in the activity. so is rep bad? probably not. does it make the activity unfair? probably. but who the fuck cares, this is not an activity predicated on fairness and anyone who strives to make rounds as fair as possible is boring. just play the game, and calling out, getting raw and thinking about what you’re doing [be it conscious or not] is all part of it.
Posted from: 98.201.178.59
December 26th, 2008 01:27
even if they**, high point loss**
Posted from: 189.164.155.142
December 26th, 2008 01:43
quinn,
are you serious? what the fuck are you talking about?
sincerely,
maeshal
Posted from: 141.150.87.188
December 26th, 2008 08:58
Anyone ever try eating rep? shits delicious!
Posted from: 70.118.127.70
December 26th, 2008 11:13
+1 to post 228. It tastes so good.
Posted from: 98.194.191.107
December 26th, 2008 11:45
re: eric
First, I don’t understand your percentages. If you acknowledge there are a group of judges that make biased decisions against you but you say this group only constitutes 5% of your strikes, then that would mean if you get 20 strikes, you only strike 1 person on the basis of them being a hack. If you get 40 strikes, you only strike 2 people on the basis of them being a hack? If there are a “set of judges” who hack, this has to be more than 1-2 people.
I’m not completely sure what the difference is between “people who we think favor styles of debate which are dramatically at odds with the way we want to debate” and “judges who we just don’t think have a very good approach to rounds.”
Second, my view on strikes is driven by eliminating people who I think will judge elims and will drop me in certain match-ups. If there are less than 15 strikes, I rarely strike people I’ve never heard of because it is unlikely these people will be judging elims. I am almost always preferencing bad TX judge over bad Cali judge. I am almost always preferencing bad judge I’m friends with over bad judge I don’t know. I’m almost always preferencing bad judge I’ve worked with in some capacity over random bad judge. Maybe these people do not rep. Maybe I am overestimating how much people rep. But if my choice is to eliminate Cali HEG judge who I think will be judging elims or eliminate some TX people I’m friends with, I’m striking the guy who posts about Cali HEG all the time. Do I think Cali HEG will vote for me under some circumstances? Yes. Do I think Cali HEG is overall a good judge? Maybe. Do I like my odds against Cali debater with Cali HEG judging? No.
My point is I don’t mind cali HEG judge as long as I’m not debating someone from cali. I don’t mind camp X judge as long as I’m not debating someone from camp X. If I am at Stanford, I am probably striking a higher percentage of cali people than TX or MN people even though people from every state rep because there are more cali debaters in the pool.
Maybe Cali debater can adapt to Cali HEG judge better for a variety of reasons. Maybe it has absolutely nothing to do with rep. But I don’t think paradigms are updated enough, clear enough, consistent enough, or formulaic enough to be the best indicator of how people judge. I think some people vote for their friends more than they should.
Eric, when you came to St. Marks (overwhelmingly a TX pool of judges), how many of your strikes were TX people? did you strike any cali or NSD people at st. marks? is this solely because TX apparently likes to vote on abusive strategies? or is it because you didn’t like your odds of random TX person judging MVLA against a TX debater coached by a friend of the TX judge?
Posted from: 65.119.155.2
December 26th, 2008 14:53
Jake Nebel is a huge hack.
Posted from: 69.118.137.26
December 26th, 2008 15:02
“this is not an activity predicated on fairness and anyone who strives to make rounds as fair as possible is boring.”
A lot of things went through my mind when I read this. I guess my most basic question is this: what is your vision of the activity? Do you actually think structural inequalities in debate are good? Do you think that these inequalities somehow make the activity more fun or more exciting? Is it good when debaters lose for arbitrary reasons that have nothing to do with what was said in round?
You say: “is rep a bad thing? Probably not. Does it make the activity unfair? Probably.”
This is what I don’t think you understand–the fact that rep makes the activity unfair is the reason why it is bad. Do you really think that undeserved wins are “just a part of the game” and not something that we collectively should seek to minimize?
Posted from: 68.89.168.30
December 26th, 2008 15:55
chocolate cake is better than rep
Posted from: 67.84.211.108
December 26th, 2008 16:25
I sort of find Ken’s post to be rather unconvincing(not intending to offend) but, Ken has a rep, so him just simply saying that reps are part of the game seems rather biased…since well…he’s Ken. You can never have fun in a game where you have a lower chance of winning simply because of who you are, or better yet, who you are not. Nevertheless I agree, with the other portion of Ken’s post, which i interpreted as, unfairness is a part of the game people just need to overcome that, but that is different than unfairness if good because it feeds into the concept of it being a game
Posted from: 12.174.246.241
December 26th, 2008 16:32
I’m pretty sure that’s not at all what Ken was saying
Posted from: 67.84.211.108
December 26th, 2008 16:39
I agree w/ ken i just disagree w/ the part i disputed about how a person who seeks to be fair is just being boring…I’m hoping for no backlash from my post, lol.
Posted from: 69.140.239.225
December 26th, 2008 16:41
The poster of 234 either completely misunderstood Ken or does not get the concept of quoting someone.
Posted from: 67.84.211.108
December 26th, 2008 16:52
If I did indeed misunderstand Ken, then I apologize, but I was speaking to what I felt was being addressed. My bad if I took what he said out of context.
Posted from: 67.84.211.108
December 26th, 2008 16:53
I just went to re-read the post and I see how I completely screwed up what he was saying, My bad!!
Posted from: 69.118.137.26
December 26th, 2008 16:54
Cartilo,
I appreciate your willingness to post legitimate criticism and attach your name to it. However, you misinterpreted my post completely. Quinn’s point is that rep is just part of the game. My point is that that is not true, and that judges should try to minimize the negative influence that rep has in rounds. You also misinterpreted my comment about fairness. My point is that debates should be fair, and seeking to make the activity does not “make it boring.” I was criticizing Quinn’s comment which implied that structural inequalities (e.g. rep vs. no rep) somehow make the activity “entertaining.” No backlash here, just read closer next time.
Posted from: 67.84.211.108
December 26th, 2008 16:57
Yea, I noticed, i happened to just read it without the quotations, as if you had written that, since i just kinda read through it…well then my post was made to Quinn’s post then, if you were quoting her, lol.
Posted from: 98.195.66.198
December 26th, 2008 17:13
ken–
i find it hard to believe that voting for the debater with rep is a fully conscious notion. i think that in situations where the judge can’t accurately evaluate the arguments presented on an equal plane field, the judge subconsciously is reminded that x debater makes the better arguments usually because they have had more success, thus if i(the judge) didn’t have a best way of adjudicating between the args i would vote for the one with more rep, as to especially minimize criticism from the debate world, etc.
my question for you ken is how do we minimize the negative influence of rep(i do agree its bad), whether it be a conscious thing or not?
Posted from: 71.155.236.146
December 26th, 2008 18:06
I have no rep. I’m sort of happy.
Posted from: 67.168.31.114
December 26th, 2008 18:52
Bow down to me, old ‘uns.
Posted from: 193.200.150.189
December 26th, 2008 19:14
Quinn,
While I think that I agree with what you are trying to say, that was probably not the best way to say it. “Rep exists, so deal.” However, as the best that anyone has to offer in terms of this discussion is Ken’s point that rep needs to be fixed, I have yet to see anyone step up with some sort of solution. First, its ironic that that is posted on a forum that every time one loads the page, one is reminded of a past performance and who won what. Second, there isn’t ever going to be a sure fire way to evaluate a debate round, and “rep” is part of an indivisible remainder of intervention, as its entirely subjective.
I think that there is a point to be made in what Quinn is saying though because the only way to deal with it is to realize that debate isn’t math. There isn’t always a correct answer, especially with the lack of weighing that goes on, that every judge is going to vote for. The activity is premised on persuasion, so whenever a judge changes, you have to adapt. There is no objective debate standard to win as evidenced by the obvious difference between Gary and Smitty’s paradigms. Strike the differences as best you can, and adapt to the rest.
So yeah, rep exists in the way that Matt Kawahara describes it and yes there is a possibility that similar styles of debate are going to make it an uphill battle for some. I don’t see why people are still arguing about this stupid topic.
find something else to blame losses on.
Posted from: 74.63.75.131
December 26th, 2008 20:49
Quinn: Are you high?
PS: I have rep.
Posted from: 69.153.199.137
December 26th, 2008 21:21
ken-
i don’t think what i said legitimizes structural inequalities; i thought i made that at least marginally clear when i said that rep can be developed in some cases, and isn’t always handed over to someone prior to entering the activity. take andrew cockroft, who didn’t have any team-established rep. he came to tournaments and was one of the last kids left at most of them. he didn’t have rep prior to his senior year, he made his rep.
can rep be the reason you lose a close round? only if you let it be; like i said in my original post, there’s reason you can’t criticize their rep or the potential of voting for it in a given round. in fact, that act has a couple potential results: either you get the judge to look at things a little more closely in round, or they feel uncomfortable voting for the one with rep as to not look like a hack, or some people are watching the round and you calling out your opponent earns you some rep of your own. rep isn’t particularly good or bad because its influence can be challenged, and it’s accessible. subsequently, i don’t think it can be referred to as some sort of structural inequality impossible of overcoming in-round.
Posted from: 189.164.155.142
December 26th, 2008 22:43
this discussion is totally unproductive. how the fuck is there a solution to debaters having rep? are we supposed to gather all the judges across the country and say, “ok, so rep disadvantages people and that is unfair. pretend like it doesn’t exist. now go adjudicate!!!” give me a fucking break.
if people want to talk about how to lessen the unfairness of being a debater without “rep”, isn’t it kind of funny that most, if not all, of the debaters in this discussion are people with “rep”?
this thread just seems like a way for people to lament about HOW UNFAIIIIR debate is and to pretend like they actually give a shit. nothing will happen and everyone is going to move on, either to prep for mba or emory, with the feeling of satisfaction knowing that they really tried to help debaters without rep by talking about it on vbd in the blake comments.
rep exists, there’s no way around it, all we can do is acknowledge it and hope that judges legitimately try to not let it cloud their judgments. if it does, then bring it up to them. liz disagreed with the whole “call out” thing, but she was emphasizing the importance of not having massive public explosions, something i already talked about in my earlier post. there are civilized, calm, productive ways of dealing with judges who consistently rep out or make bad decisions or whatever.
Posted from: 70.56.1.219
December 26th, 2008 22:57
would there be any way to implement the ‘hack a shaq’ strategy into a debate round?
Posted from: 12.192.201.199
December 26th, 2008 23:05
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/49358
Posted from: 76.219.139.225
December 26th, 2008 23:21
Beserk-a-Dirk
Posted from: 76.219.139.225
December 26th, 2008 23:23
*Berserk
Posted from: 76.186.244.15
December 26th, 2008 23:33
Solution, every one is now anjan, we all have the same rep.
Posted from: 76.186.244.15
December 26th, 2008 23:33
Solution, every one is now anjan, we all have the same rep.
Posted from: 69.118.137.26
December 26th, 2008 23:33
I’ll address Quinn and Maeshal’s posts.
Quinn:
I agree with you on one thing–rep does not come from nowhere. Of course, debaters do well and work themselves up the ladder. There’s nothing wrong with that. It only becomes bad when past performances begin to affect the results of present rounds. At that point, rep is no longer “accessible” or “easily challenged,” since once a sufficient number of debaters are past the point of no return, they can coast on rep and new debaters who are even better don’t have a legitimate shot.
To say that rep is easy to challenge in round is blatantly false. Does it really make you a likable debater to say, “don’t rep out for my opponent.” Is that really ever going to be an effective way of making the round closer? Moreover, why should it be? If you’re winning, shouldn’t you just be allowed to win? Why is the onus on you to point out the disparity in rep and iterate the truism that judges should not vote based on mere reputation, but rather arguments?
Maeshal:
I agree with almost everything you say. My intention in raising the issue of rep is not to help out the underdogs (I really agree with you that nobody actually cares about this), it was really just to a) respond to Quinn’s post which I found particularly disagreeable, and b) perhaps pave the way for a legitimate and civil discussion about voting based on rep, as both you and Gary suggested is possible (you suggest this at the end of your post).
Posted from: 76.17.158.22
December 27th, 2008 00:17
Beena Koshy hacks for Greenhill and Apple Valley.
Discuss!
Posted from: 76.17.167.243
December 27th, 2008 00:55
shit just got real
Posted from: 63.229.215.96
December 27th, 2008 01:25
why do i feel like julian is behind all of this?
Posted from: 76.17.167.243
December 27th, 2008 01:36
not quite sure why you (post 258) would think that… if i think someone is hack i have no problem saying it to their face (or even on vbd). i havent been in the activity long enough to recognize hacks and even though i think beena may have made some odd decisions in the past, i wasnt even there to recognize said rounds. its all word of mouf – which isnt enough justification for me to definitively call someone a hack.
please stop with the accusations people haha
Posted from: 68.117.71.206
December 27th, 2008 10:57
Alright so I feel the need to clear something up.
@256 I really wish what you said was actually true but its not. Beena has judged me three times ever. She dropped me to Mike Spirtos round four of the 2005 Iowa Round Robin. She picked me up on a 2-1 (Koshy, Rose, Bell*) in quaters of that same tournament against Taarini Vohra. The last time she judged me was MBA last year when she dropped me to Moerner. SO I am 1-2 in front of her. Yeah huge hack. The reason she judged me so little is because we struck her a every tournament last year except Glenbrooks (sorry Beena). People you need to get a life.
Posted from: 68.117.71.206
December 27th, 2008 11:01
Oh and she has only judged one of our kids this year that I can remember. She picked up Kevin at Glenbrooks with like a 26 and bitched about how awful he was for weeks.
Posted from: 141.150.87.188
December 27th, 2008 11:11
Oh man, this shit is hella intense.
Posted from: 24.245.28.7
December 27th, 2008 14:50
I’m not going to engage the idiocy of many of these anonymous posts but I think they reveal part of the problem as perception. One solution may be publicity and math.
It’s possible to keep statistically relevant information on judges to determine whether judges are statistically more or less likely to vote for a particular person, school, or state. As I’ve said before, it would also be useful for everyone to have information on which judges were most preferred in a particular pool and if there were community or tab room ratings, what they were. I don’t think that individual teams should be compelled to reveal their strikes but knowing that X person was widely preferred or widely unpreferred would be useful information.
Armed with this information, those that are concerned with judges who rep can accommodate their strike sheets appropriately and/or public knowledge of a voting record would encourage judges to be more accountable.
At the very least, more transparency would perhaps lead to fewer patently ridiculous claims being bandied about VBD.
Posted from: 75.22.181.156
December 27th, 2008 16:05
Ken-do you realize that you are a debater who has probably benefited from rep more than once?
Posted from: 69.118.137.26
December 27th, 2008 16:40
I probably have benefited from rep before, although I do not recall any particular event. I also at times have felt like I lost a round because of rep. I don’t know what that has to do with my thoughts on whether rep is a good or a bad thing. Can rich people be in favor of higher taxes?
Posted from: 99.147.134.35
December 27th, 2008 16:49
Y’all are ignorant.
Tacos > Hacking > Chocolate Cake
Posted from: 99.147.134.35
December 27th, 2008 17:06
oh yeah and rep probably has unfair implications sometimes. It also can develop in vicious ways sometimes, given how rumor-driven debate culture is sometimes. Also, sometimes people acquire rep by associating with other debaters with similar reps. (like the “boys club”/confederacy thing, as an example) This tends to play to the advantage of debaters who are well-connected, and to the disadvantage of debaters who are underrated. But i don’t think anyone has many good ideas on how to fix this.
However, i think rep can be good. Rep forces debaters to create a public persona. If you are a good debater and win a tournament, but are a complete asshole, you will probably get a bad rep. Or if you act like a moron all the time on vbd or whatever. This phelan dude will probably not be taken very seriously in the future. If you help out strugs and are nice to people, you’ll probably get a good rep. I think that’s good because you have a competitive incentive to create a positive public image for yourself. Maybe this is good practice for those interested in careers like politics, law, or medicine, where having a good rep is immensely beneficial.
Posted from: 71.247.126.222
December 27th, 2008 19:48
I think the best solution is to simply have computers judge debate rounds. Of course that requires advance speech recognition software as well as artificial intelligence but I’m sure that will come eventually. The next best solution would be to have the judges only know what room they are going to and not know the debaters and have a partition between the judge and the debater. I’m pretty positive that it will be much more difficult to recognize voices and it would definitely avoid rep.
Posted from: 68.188.237.23
December 27th, 2008 21:29
Building off of Adam: a hybrid strategy. Have computers record speeches, then judges who are blind to the competitors read said speeches, and decide based on the computer’s output. Speaks can be automatically calculated by the number of obvious word recognition errors (signifying a lack of clarity for multiple such problems), solving the problem raised earlier in the thread.
The only foreseeable problems are debaters saying “Because I am ___(INSERT GOOD DEBATER)___ I affirm,” to boost perceived rep, or judges who hack for certain words/phrases.
I like where this is going. ;)
Posted from: 69.118.137.26
December 27th, 2008 22:21
…
Posted from: 75.73.219.166
December 27th, 2008 22:23
this thread really really sucks
Posted from: 24.245.28.7
December 27th, 2008 22:24
@ Adam and Christian: haven’t you seen Eagle Eye? This will lead to really bad shit. Like Operation Debate Guillotine where all the camp directors get offed Godfather-style. Bietz will be the dude who gets shot in the eye.
Nope, no bueno.
Also, I agree with David Weeks.
Posted from: 68.117.71.206
December 27th, 2008 22:51
Worst movie ever. A fitting end (I hope) to the worst thread ever.
Posted from: 69.105.30.19
December 27th, 2008 23:04
i think we’re making debate WAY more complicated than it really is.
Posted from: 75.73.220.221
December 28th, 2008 00:07
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNcQX033V_M
Posted from: 98.27.222.187
December 28th, 2008 05:21
Gary:
(1) Percentages: ah, but a set can have one or fewer members (empty sets lolz)! The actual percentage is probably something a bit higher. In general, maybe like 3-5 judges.
(2) Favoring styles vs. bad approaches to rounds: my bad, the latter category should be something like, people who, although they are not utterly confused about how debate is supposed to work, have evaluations of the details of rounds that seem to be consistently off.
(3) Cali debaters with Cali judges – I think there was an era when Cali debate had a bit of regional hack stuff. That era is now long gone. It basically ended around 2005.
As for your general point, you can probably guess what my rejoinder is. I think to some extent regional differences in judging track stylistic differences. Californian judges often like a grinding defensive struggle and don’t mind theory. Some Texans seem to like a style which is very alien to many Californians. When we go to TX, we mostly think about that sort of thing. It is probably incorrect to generalize about Texas in this coarse-grained of a manner: there are many obvious exceptions, and I find that the stylistic divergence is not present with Texans from a few years back(e.g. Paul Schiano) and is less dramatic in some cities than others. We often fail to strike people who dislike me or who have no friends in common with me or the MVLA students.
As for not striking NSD staffmembers and Californian judges, well for one, I feel like NSD is a special case here. If NSD hires someone, then I think their view of debate is at least a reasonable alternative to the kinds of views I think are right. So as per the logic of strike sheets I spelled out earlier, we don’t tend to strike those people. As for Californians, there are certainly some judges from Cali who we often strike. Sure, we probably don’t strike very many Californians in comparison to say, Texans, but I think that’s largely accounted for by stylistic differences, not personal ties.
Posted from: 213.60.33.107
December 28th, 2008 15:15
I have been told that there has been some discussion of rep and I just want to remind everyone that you can always buy more:
http://www.repsol.com/imagenes/br_pt/REPSHOP__59580_tcm20-67065.jpg
Posted from: 24.118.167.223
December 28th, 2008 15:19
‘Empty sets’? Did someone discover a second one? And have they run it by Zermelo and Frankel?
Posted from: 75.25.130.115
December 28th, 2008 15:47
http://ndca.joyoftournaments.com/judge.asp?evt=LD provides information to uncover “hacks.” I think that adding more tournaments to this feature would enable debaters to support their call-outs/appraisals of judges with more than just anecdotal evidence. It would also provide new/local programs with information about judges that is currently only available to schools that have coaches familiar with most people on the circuit.
Posted from: 24.245.28.7
December 28th, 2008 18:02
This is useful and a great start.
Posted from: 199.120.105.71
December 28th, 2008 19:07
different tack. who are the best judges on the national circuit? Come on! Who are your top three?
Rose
Schauppagh
Christian
Posted from: 12.214.105.101
December 28th, 2008 20:07
dylan
dylan
dylan
dylan
dylan
Posted from: 24.164.191.184
December 28th, 2008 20:09
Wes Craven is the best judge on the circuit :D
Posted from: 98.27.222.187
December 28th, 2008 21:12
Christian: there are as many empty sets as you’d like but they are all identical. Relative identity f00
Posted from: 24.118.167.223
December 28th, 2008 23:13
Even relative identity views admit trivial cases of ‘absolute’ identity, e.g. there’s only one particle x at time t, excluding weird quantum shit. As far as I can see, every case of mathematical identity is trivial in this sense, cuz the identity paradoxes only crop up for physical objects that either have parts or change over time or both. Besides, for a and b to be only relatively identical, they have to be discernible, which any ‘two’ empty sets certainly aren’t in the language of set theory and can’t be in any other language either unless you’re willing to let them have non-set-theoretic properties (maybe there’s a red empty set and a blue empty set?).
Posted from: 70.56.10.123
December 28th, 2008 23:18
…
Posted from: 98.27.222.187
December 29th, 2008 00:21
I’m talking about sortally relative identity, not metaphysics. The idea is: a single person takes two flights; the airline says they’ve flown two passengers. The substrate is the same (the guy who took the flights), but the sortal term deployed appears to determine whether there’s two things or not. When applying the sortal “passenger” there’s two passengers and they are not identical, for the term “person” there’s just two slices of the same thing. To get a similar result here you’d just have to use the word “set” in a way where the individuation conditions of sets weren’t given by the axiom of extensionality. That wouldn’t be the set theory use of the term “set”, but who cares. I’ve heard computer people use the word this way and that’s the way it’s often used in English. You could probably worry about whether or not they’re referring to the same object as the set theorists if you believe sets are objects (and are crazy). Sue me for my middle English in a bad joke, dawg.
Posted from: 24.118.167.223
December 29th, 2008 01:18
Again, you still need discernibility within some sortal category. I’m fine with allowing non-technical uses of the word ‘set’, of course, but unless ‘sets’ in some non-technical sense have non-set-theoretic properties (like being passengers on planes, or some analogue), there’s still no sortal category that contains multiple empty sets.
You’re obviously right that it doesn’t matter and there’s no good reason for me to give a shit either way. But this thread’s too good for me not to get involved in it somehow.
Posted from: 98.27.222.187
December 29th, 2008 02:48
no the point is that there’s only one empty set under the set theory use of “set” and multiple empty sets under other uses of the term for which sets are individuated by considitions other than their membership. example: role in a program, or in ordinary language, (intensionally) different categories that lack members. that’s what the point about reference was meant to bring out.
I would like to nominate this thread for the VBDEEZ award: worst thread of the year.
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
December 29th, 2008 11:23
If its so bad, then why are you still arguing on it?
Posted from: 12.192.201.199
December 29th, 2008 14:40
oh my god someone please make this stop
Posted from: 75.73.220.221
December 29th, 2008 15:25
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpPyBXMxeb0
Posted from: 70.173.180.114
December 29th, 2008 15:42
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv5zWaTEVkI
Posted from: 70.118.127.70
December 29th, 2008 15:49
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-n-jZJhpT4
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
December 29th, 2008 16:11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7oX5zRZ5IM&feature=related
Posted from: 75.73.219.166
December 29th, 2008 16:35
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vulNlhUI6m0&feature=related
Posted from: 98.27.222.187
December 29th, 2008 17:16
who am i to place myself above transcendent badness.
also, i want rebar neimi to write an almanac about national circuit debate personas and whatnot like his counterpart just did for basketball
Posted from: 76.17.167.243
December 29th, 2008 17:25
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wz-mJed_bP0&fmt=18
Posted from: 76.113.213.176
December 29th, 2008 18:11
The things that are differentiated by their role in a language (formal or informal) are linguistic expressions referring to sets, not the sets themselves. Sets themselves don’t have any role in a language, so they don’t have the linguistic properties like sense that you’re claiming would differentiate the various ‘empty sets’ (e.g. ‘the union of {a, b} and {c, d}’ and ‘the union of {e, f} and {g, h}’ play different roles in the language, and hence are (obviously) different expressions, but that doesn’t mean that *the sets they refer to* are different sets; the same sort of thing could be said about multiple entries on a passenger manifest referring to one and the same person, with the upshot being that there are ‘two passengers’ only in the sense that a ‘passenger’ is a partly or wholly linguistic entity, but that’s not essential to my point, I don’t think). Point is, talking about the ‘intensional’ properties of sets is nonsensical. I’m pretty sure you know you’re wrong.
RA: Read the next sentence. It answers your question.
PS: Julian’s video wins. ‘The second you pour soy sauce, food becomes incredibly delicious.’ How true…
Posted from: 76.113.213.176
December 29th, 2008 18:12
PPS: DESTROY ALL FOREIGN SAUCES!!
PPPS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krXP_TUZqsk
Posted from: 67.159.44.138
December 29th, 2008 18:14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lQW-FWMcBo
Posted from: 66.240.26.3
December 29th, 2008 18:52
I’m a huge hack for whomever it is you’ll probably hit at your next tournament so do yourself a favor and strike me EVERYWHERE.
Posted from: 98.27.222.187
December 29th, 2008 19:58
Christian, let me be more explicit. In formal semantics (the example with which I am most familiar) the intension of a set gives its extension at some index (e.g. a world, a time, whatever). So you might say two sets are empty at some world w1, but still say they are different sets because they have different intentions and say different extensions at some other world w2. It all depends on how you construe the individuation conditions once you have a notion of the intension of a set.
The notion of intension, in my mind, captures part of the functional role of a term, namely, its role in counterfactual inferences, but this isn’t really necessary to my point. It just might help make more sense of my earlier remarks.
My guess is that for sets of mathematical entities it makes less sense to talk about the intension of a set because of the presumption that the existence of mathematical entities must be necessary. If this is so, then the sets containing them will have the same extensions at all possible worlds. The set of the reals is the same at all worlds, the set of dogs isn’t.
So then I guess the upshot is if individuation conditions for sets are given by intensions, there can be more than one empty set. If they are given by extensions, there can’t be. Different theories of the individuation conditions of sets will yield back different conclusions about the justifiability of using the plural of the phrase “empty set”. The sortally relative identity theorist is going to reply to your point about there really only being the person and not the passengers by saying that you are privileging the ontology of one theory, perhaps because it seems more natural to you. It’s tough enough to argue for the naturalness of an ontology for material objects, let alone sets.
So I don’t know I’m wrong because I’m not wrong, but I’ll give you some confessions for the hell of it:
(1) I don’t believe in sortally relative identity in general, but I think it might make some sense for things like mathematical entities
(2) This is because I believe sets and their kin are actually linguistic entities, or something similar
(3) I also sympathize with their reply to you on passenger vs. person because I think the idea of a “natural” ontology or a “natural” property is a superstition.
Kids: go learn about logic, metaphysics, and language. It’s better than Best and Kellner, I promise.
Posted from: 66.32.49.180
December 29th, 2008 20:57
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4
best thread ever
Posted from: 70.146.47.116
December 29th, 2008 21:15
http://xkcd.com/451/
Posted from: 76.113.213.176
December 29th, 2008 21:55
I see what you’re saying slightly better now. But there are a few big problems:
(1) What formal semantics are you talking about? It sounds like what you have in mind is something like Kripkean possible-world semantics, but if that’s the case then you’re just illustrating my point. In any possible-world semantics I’ve ever seen, you have a set of *predicate letters* (i.e. linguistic objects) plus a set of worlds and then some sort of function that maps pairs of worlds and predicate letters to the extension of the predicate at the world, which is a subset of the domain either of the world or of the model as a whole. So, (a) you wouldn’t say anything like ‘the set s is empty at w1′ but rather ‘the extension of the predicate P at w1 is the empty set’ (in any indexed model, the extension of a predicate is not a set but a function; the extension of a predicate *at an index* is a set, but that means that sets are already indexed and don’t get relativized to an index) and (b) the subset of the domain that represents the extension of a predicate at a world is the referent, not the sense, of the expression (if sense has any formal analogue in this sort of system, it would be the assignment function, not the values of that function; and even that analogy is loose). You’re either confusing sense and reference or missing the whole point of the sense/reference distinction–sense determines reference at a world, but not vice versa, so two expressions can be different, have different senses, and yet have one and the same referent (e.g. the empty set).
(2) It doesn’t really make sense to talk about ‘intension’ in the context of formal semantics at all. It’s a truism that no formal language can ever capture the intensional properties of an expression–’is a square circle’ and ‘is an unmarried bachelor’ have clearly different senses, but will have all the same semantic properties in any formal system, meaning primarily having the same function from worlds/indexes to extensions. Even if you wanted to, like, slap a subscript on their extensions so that at a given world the one expressions would refer to {}1 and the other to {}2 (which my other arguments show that you can’t do, and which no model theory I’m aware of tries to do), it wouldn’t capture the difference in sense any more than representing the two predicates with different letters does.
(3) Any formal semantics has to be embeddable in set theory, meaning minimally that every model in the semantics has to be a sub-model of some model of set theory (presumably though I guess not necessarily including the standard model). Any model of set theory has one and only one empty set. And even if the ontology of set theory is purely arbitrary, it does have an ontology, it’s the ontology that we do in fact use to talk about sets and about things like formal semantics that are modeled using sets, and in that ontology there are very clear axioms spelling out what sets do and don’t exist and those axioms rule out multiple empty sets. If you’re talking about formal semantics that are based on/modeled by formal theories in which the notion of a ‘set’ has a formal definition, it’s odd to abandon that definition and start using the term in a way that runs directly counter to its use in set theory. Your argument was a lot more plausible in the case of natural language, where terms like ‘the empty set’ don’t need precise definitions.
(4) The position you’re taking would have the really odd implication of multiplying lots of entities other than the empty set. For instance, by your logic the Earth has at least three North Poles, because ‘the northernmost point on the Earth’s surface,’ ‘the point on the Earth’s surface diametrically opposite the South Pole,’ and ‘the point on the Earth’s surface which is equidistant from all points on the Earth’s equator and experiences winter in December’ all have different senses. You can say that the senses are the same because they’re all logically/tautologically equivalent, but so are the senses of any two expressions which refer to the empty set at all possible worlds (‘x is a square circle iff x is a married bachelor’ is tautologous’). You can also point out that you’re only defending relative identity for mathematical entities, but I could do basically the same thing for ‘the unit set of the North Pole’. Maybe you’re only talking about *pure* mathematical entities, but in that case there’s something fishy about using expressions whose senses have non-mathematical content, e.g. ‘married bachelor,’ to generate multiple empty sets, and you’ll be stuck using mathematical expressions whose senses are transparently equivalent, and if you want to stick to your guns you’ll have to say that there is, for instance, a 3 for every one of the mathematical expressions referring to ’3′ (successor of 2, predecessor of 4, square root of 9, etc.), and you’re still going to have a big uphill battle with our ordinary intuitions to convince us that there are infinitely many number 3′s instead of just one (and not for the more plausible structuralist reasons that might be given for thinking something like that).
(5) I don’t see how you’re answering my last post. ‘Intension’ is still a property of expressions referring to things, not of the things themselves. That’s true in any language, formal or otherwise.
As far as your point about the arbitrariness of ontology: I don’t actually believe that any sets ‘exist’ in any ontologically loaded sense of the word, and I think that that’s an ontological position that’s fairly easy to argue for (if the best reason to believe in sets is Quine’s ontic commitment crap, that by itself is good enough reason not to believe in them). The claims I’m making about the ‘existence’ of one and only one empty set should I guess be interpreted nominalistically, as true within the fiction of set theory and any formal language built on set theory. If my argument were about ontology rather than semantics, my claim would be that there’s no such thing as an empty set at all. But in either case, there certainly aren’t more than one.
I second your point about real philosophy being cooler than Best and Kellner.
Posted from: 66.75.244.56
December 29th, 2008 23:16
[ ] thread does not suck
[x] thread sucks
[ ] empty set lolololololol
Posted from: 70.173.180.114
December 29th, 2008 23:41
[ ] thread does not suck
[ ] thread sucks
[x] empty set lolololololol
Posted from: 66.75.244.56
December 29th, 2008 23:49
post 308 is expert
Posted from: 70.173.180.114
December 30th, 2008 00:10
Good job tonight smitty, i wish i had nights like you did today
Posted from: 70.118.127.70
December 30th, 2008 00:19
How is babby formed?
how is babby formed
how girl get pragnent
Posted from: 75.73.219.166
December 30th, 2008 00:20
they need to do way instain mother> who kill thier babbys. becuse these babby cant frigth back? it was on the news this mroing a mother in ar who had kill her three kids . they are taking the three babby back to new york too lady to rest my pary are with the father who lost his chrilden ; i am truley sorry for your lots
Posted from: 69.118.137.26
December 30th, 2008 00:33
what happened
Posted from: 98.27.222.187
December 30th, 2008 01:49
Christian: next time I have an irrelevant and pointless debate about sets with you remind me not to write everything in such a way that makes my point so incomprehensible that I have to re-explain myself repeatedly.
By gesturing to “formal semantics”, what I mean is some class of theories of the semantics of natural languages that use formal tools of some sort. I am not talking about formal semantics in the sense of the discipline that tries to give the semantics for various logics, or something like that. I think this is the source of the confusion here, so pardon my UG linguistics profs.
The exact example I have in mind (I think) is something like a deformation of the old school Montague analysis of the meaning of names of sets, though I think you could employ the same structure in any theory which makes use of indexes (which is why I said “in formal semantics” instead of naming anything more specific, even though this obviously generated many other confusions).
Let me try re-stating this: my argument is that there is a commonsense, natural language use of the word “set” (that I think has an analogue in CompSci, as I mentioned previously) that is distinct from the mathematical usage of the term, and might lead you to the conclusion (if you accept sortally relative identity) that whether or not there can be more than one empty set depends on the choice of a conception of sets, whether the commonsense notion or the mathematical notion. Even if you don’t make the further, more ambitious move, it still ends up being ok to talk about the empty set in the plural.
Here is how that works:
Montague stuff:
For names of individuals: the extension of a name is its referent. The intension of a name is a function from index to the referent of that name at that index.
For names of sets: the extension is a set, and the intension is a function from index to the referent (a set) at that index.
So apply this to a natural language term like “the Tarsney family”. On the actual world, this description picks out Christian and Catherine and your parents and whoever else. On some other world, it might pick out some other group. The question is whether, on the two worlds, there are two different sets or not. If the answer is “yes”, then the set referred to is individuated purely extensionally, that is, because the name has a different extension on the two worlds, it refers to a different set on each world. If you didn’t think that way, then you might think the same set exists on both worlds but they have different members.
This is obviously a non-set theoretic way of thinking about sets, but it gels with some natural language intuitions. You might want to say that the group designated by the expression “the Tarsney family” still exists on both worlds, at least in some sense, even if the members of that group are entirely different. This would imply that the referent of a set name or description that refers to a set isnt a collection of individuals at all, its a class or category which individuals may or may not inhabit. And since the referent of a name of a set is, well, a set, then this would imply that sets are classes of that sort, according to the ontology of natural language.
Now, I am well aware that the technical apparatus drives you towards the former judgment that the expression refers to different sets in different worlds. If the intuition I’m pointing to is at variance with that, then maybe that means the analysis given by the apparatus is a poor one for names of sets. I don’t have much at stake there.
So with empty sets: take two names for the empty set, “the set that contains just unicorns” and “the set that contains just witches”. On the actual world both of these expressions refer to the empty set. Now, on some other world where there is at least one witch or unicorn, the expression used to refer to that set no longer refers to the same thing as the other.
This obviously points (and I don’t think you want to deny this) to a difference in meaning between the two referring expressions. My point is that if you dispensed with the set theoretic notion of a set, you could say that they didn’t refer to the same thing in the first place (when they both seemingly referred to the empty set). “The set that just contains witches” refers to a class which has no members, and “the set that contains just unicorns” refers to a different class which has no members.
The idea of a set here then is supposed to be something like a container which may or may not have something in it. There can be different containers that have nothing in them, so in this sense of the term there can be multiple empty sets. Now, you aren’t supposed to think of set theoretic sets as containers for precisely this reason. That’s why the notion of a “set” which I am arguing exists isn’t set theoretic. Set theoretic sets are individuated extensionally and these sets aren’t.
Now, connecting this back to the issue about relative identity, my point was that you might say that what looks like nothing from the ontological perspective of set theory might look like an unfilled class from the ontological perspective of natural language. The obvious objection here, of course, is that the two expressions are not referring to the same thing, because non-set theoretic sets are not sets at all, properly speaking. They might be abstract objects of some other kind, or something. At this point, I don’t particularly care to take a stand on this.
So I guess my point is really something that should seem pretty mundane: if you think of sets as containers, you can talk about multiple empty sets. That isn’t the set theoretic notion. If you proceed to treat the question “what are sets, really?” as legitimate, you might say the answer to that question depends on your choice of language. Of course, you might just want to say that there is a raw ambiguity between the non-set theoretic use of the word and the set theoretic use, and they just refer to different things, all of which can be incorporated into the same ontology. Either way, it isn’t stupid or crazy to talk about empty sets in the plural; one just needs to specify which language one is speaking. I took my rhetoric from Gary’s post, so I suppose I was speaking whatever language he was.
Beyond that, I think the substance of your post was entirely right, though I think it answers something that I wasn’t defending. Pardon my pervasive sloppiness.
Posted from: 75.73.220.221
December 30th, 2008 02:39
Best and Kellner are the shit
Posted from: 75.73.220.221
December 30th, 2008 02:45
…and anyone who thinks otherwise can take a look at this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-z_00M3Bro
Posted from: 69.118.137.26
December 30th, 2008 12:05
free hat
Posted from: 75.73.219.151
December 30th, 2008 12:18
[x] lol checkboxaments
Posted from: 76.113.213.176
December 30th, 2008 12:47
OK, I do in fact see what you’re saying now.
If you want to think of a set as simply the extension of a predicate, rather than the extension of a predicate at a world/index, then of course you’re right there’s a unique set for every predicate (or at least for every intension/sense of a predicate) and more than one of those sets could be empty at a given world or at every world. My only appeal would be to common usage, since I think most philosophers would make a distinction between “the extension of P” and “the set of P’s” and use the latter only to refer to the extension of P *at an index*, presumably here now in the actual world (et cetera) unless otherwise indicated. But I don’t know anything about Montague, so maybe he does use the word ‘set’ in this way. If you replaced “name of a set” with “predicate” at “the extension is a set” with “the extension at an index is a set” in your summary of the theory, it would be identical with the semantics I’m familiar with, so I have no particular objection to his way of doing things other than the odd word choice.
But, claims about common usage are pretty irresolvable, and you’re of course right that in natural language people are free to (and typically do) use the word “set” a little loosely, and, as everyone’s eager to point out, it’s not all that vitally important to begin with, so I’ll leave it at that. ;-)
Posted from: 67.159.56.234
December 30th, 2008 12:49
TEVE LANDIS & ASSOCIATES.
(CORPORATE,INVESTMENT / MARITIME SOLICITORS
& GENERAL LEGAL PRACTITIONERS)
209 ROAD, ‘R’ CLOSE HOUSE 2B FESTIVAL TOWN,
LAGOS NIGERIA.
Dear Mike Spirtos,
Mr Mike Spirtos was my client and he was among the victim of the bomb
explosion that took place on 27th January 2002 lagos Nigeria. who is a
national of your country, and an oil consultant/contractor with via
Nigerian
Liquidfied Natural Gas(NLNG) my client deposited the sum of
US$7.9Million
dollars(Seven million Nine Hundred Dollars) with a SECURITY COMPANY. On
maturity, after some months I couldn’t hear from my client again and
finally
I discovered from his contract employee (Nigeria Liquidfied Natural
Gas)
indicating that my Client was among the victim of the bomb explosion.
And it was clear that he died without making a will to any of his
relation
with my office. All attempts has been made to see if I could get any of
his
relation but all of no available. I therefore decided to look for a
foreigner bearing the same name with my Client who will stand as his
next of
kin to claim this fund. The total sum of US$7.9, is still with the
SECURITY
COMPANY. No one will come and claim it except the next of kin to my
Client.And according to Nigerian banking law, the money will revert to
the
ownership of the Nigerian Government. If the account owner is certified
death and no body comes forward to claim it.
This is the situation, and my plan is looking for a foreigner who will
stand
in as the beneficiary/next of kin. This is simple. All you have to do
is to
send me Your company name and address if any,Your telephone and fax
numbers
which i will use to process and procure all the legal papers/documents
that
backs you up as the true next of kin to my client and I will submit it
to
the Finance house for proper Claim of the fund and we are going to
share in
the ratio of 60% for me 40% for you.
There is no risk involved.Because i will use my position as attorney
and
prepare all the legal documents/papers the SECURITY COMPANY may/would
demand
from you for this transaction.If you are interested, please reply and
be
rest assured that this transaction could be most profitable for both of
us.
I am waiting for your quiet reply.
Respectfully,
Barrister Steve Landis.
Posted from: 75.73.219.151
December 30th, 2008 13:03
sounds legit we can trust this guy Steve Landis
Posted from: 70.173.180.114
December 30th, 2008 13:20
Dude, take chances this guy looks legit
Posted from: 71.82.120.122
December 30th, 2008 15:34
eric/christian,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEtP9zQAOI4
Posted from: 24.151.13.54
December 30th, 2008 16:22
this thread is now on the 324th level of retardedness
Posted from: 173.17.71.195
December 30th, 2008 17:08
Hacking ftw!
Posted from: 76.113.213.176
December 30th, 2008 17:13
Aww…that video is cute. And by ‘cute’ I mean ‘deeply disturbing and terrifying’.
Posted from: 71.247.126.222
December 30th, 2008 17:44
How do you quietly reply?
Posted from: 66.75.244.56
December 30th, 2008 20:23
wadetx05
11:28
the only thing “chris theis takes blake” needs now is a pyramid scheme by a nigerian
that would perfect it
Alex Smith
11:28
omg yes
Posted from: 98.27.222.187
December 30th, 2008 21:23
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZDTt_uj7fo
Christian’s side project
Also, I will name my child “Empty Setz”
Posted from: 71.82.116.254
December 30th, 2008 21:24
I am so proud that a thread bearing my name has spawned such greatness…
Posted from: 75.73.220.221
December 30th, 2008 21:36
…and I’m so jealous. If only I could have gotten one more ballot…
Posted from: 68.188.237.23
December 30th, 2008 22:38
…or if I could have gotten seven more…
Posted from: 76.113.213.176
December 30th, 2008 22:41
No true ninja would have that much trouble explaining how to model the naturals in set theory.
Posted from: 76.113.213.176
December 30th, 2008 22:49
Also, if anyone in the debate community has a secret alter-ego as the Math Ninja, it’s definitely Tourville, who’s the only person I can think of who actually has both the math qualification and the ninja qualification.
Posted from: 75.73.220.221
December 30th, 2008 22:58
Yeah that guy is obviously a fake.
Posted from: 71.247.126.222
December 30th, 2008 23:20
where/when are results being posted?
Posted from: 71.247.126.222
December 30th, 2008 23:21
*ballots
Posted from: 75.73.220.221
December 31st, 2008 03:33
http://www.joyoftournaments.com/mn/blake/info.asp?p=3