homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:21 pm
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 7:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 2:27 am
Posts: 635
Home Schooled: Yes
JohnMarkPorter1 wrote:
My Grading rubric:
A+ = 78+, A = 77-73, A- = 72-70, B+ = 79-78, B = 67-63, B- = 62-60, C = 59-55, D = 54-50, F = 49-



I can't believe I just saw this.

_________________
:lol:


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2015 6:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 6:58 pm
Posts: 105
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Always one step ahead of you.
I vote for Marina and Justin ;) :lol:

_________________
Jonah Barnes, NCFCA Region IX

2014-2015 | Barnes/Spence
2015-2016 | Amedick/Barnes (2.0)
2016-2017 | Amedick/Barnes
2017-2018 | Amedick/Barnes


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2015 6:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1377
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
Jonah.a.barnes wrote:
I vote for Marina and Justin ;) :lol:

BIAS!!!

_________________
-Joshua
The dumb Boatswain's Mate who once did debate
Proud Coastie, Puddle Pirate, and Shallow Water Sailor


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2015 6:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2013 4:55 am
Posts: 211
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: VA
Hammy wrote:
Jonah.a.barnes wrote:
I vote for Marina and Justin ;) :lol:

BIAS!!!


YEAH BIAS! :P

But seriously I mean they sound like pretty cool people so...

_________________
NCFCA Region IX (FASD)

Reagan Bass/Justin Moffatt '12-'16


Retired.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2015 10:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 6:58 pm
Posts: 105
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Always one step ahead of you.
Masked Midnight wrote:
Jonah.a.barnes wrote:
I vote for Marina and Justin ;) :lol:

Why?
Because their evidence and strategy against the Girls Count Act was superb.

_________________
Jonah Barnes, NCFCA Region IX

2014-2015 | Barnes/Spence
2015-2016 | Amedick/Barnes (2.0)
2016-2017 | Amedick/Barnes
2017-2018 | Amedick/Barnes


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2015 10:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:01 am
Posts: 652
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Flying a UFO to an undisclosed location ;)
Simon Sefzik wrote:
JohnMarkPorter1 wrote:
My Grading rubric:
A+ = 78+, A = 77-73, A- = 72-70, B+ = 79-78, B = 67-63, B- = 62-60, C = 59-55, D = 54-50, F = 49-

I can't believe I just saw this.


:ugeek: Lovely, isn't it? :P

Jonah.a.barnes wrote:
Because their evidence and strategy against the Girls Count Act was superb.

*looks up act* Oh, it's really a thing :).

You may want to refer to the original post of Razi/Isaac on the aspects to consider while nominating (quality/size/formatting/organization).

This may be one of those situations where Razi reserves the right to clarify. Can debate partners vote for you? Can former debate partners vote for you? Can siblings/family members cast a ballot? Too me, I would reject the current debate partners but if family members or former debate partners give reasons behind their votes that are legitimate they should be fine. I know that in the last thread they were required to provide an analysis of why they chose to vote how they did or it wouldn't be counted.

_________________
John Mark Porter, Alumni
Arx Axiom/Carpe Dictum/Verdict/UADC/HSDC/HSDRC

2011-12 l Porter/Thomason, Light/Porter
2012-13 l Bailey/Porter
2013-14 l Bailey/Porter
2014-15 l Folkert/Porter

2015-16 I Childs/Porter


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2015 10:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2013 6:11 am
Posts: 348
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: In a library somewhere
I'd like to nominate Justin and Marina as well and I actually have real reasons. Their negative brief on cut aid to Egypt is stellar. They have evidence that is more recent than affs and undermines the case. On a more general level they always have high quality sources, fantastic formatting, are easy to work with, and are always generous.

_________________
Caleb

Hammy wrote:
Also, Cashley died in a hole. I don't know why you keep trusting him. I mean sure he's super good at mafia and knows exactly what he's doing, but I feel like maybe some game you would just not trust him. :P Props to you Cashley, always making my games exciting.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2015 11:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2013 4:55 am
Posts: 211
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: VA
Haha while I appreciate the support of Jonah :) I don't mind if y'all don't count it. XD I understand the whole sibling thing. :)

Thank you, though, Cashley. I do rather like our Egypt brief. :)

_________________
NCFCA Region IX (FASD)

Reagan Bass/Justin Moffatt '12-'16


Retired.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2015 11:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:13 pm
Posts: 471
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Purcellville, VA
Haha just for the record, I didn't put him up to that......it was his own doing. XP But yeah, basically what Justin said. I'll accept Cashley's nomination though. Because our Egypt brief truly is superb, if I do say so myself...hehehe. ;D

_________________
RIX Alum | Patrick Henry College | Class of 2019


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2015 4:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 6:58 pm
Posts: 105
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Always one step ahead of you.
JohnMarkPorter1 wrote:
Simon Sefzik wrote:
JohnMarkPorter1 wrote:
My Grading rubric:
A+ = 78+, A = 77-73, A- = 72-70, B+ = 79-78, B = 67-63, B- = 62-60, C = 59-55, D = 54-50, F = 49-

I can't believe I just saw this.


:ugeek: Lovely, isn't it? :P

Jonah.a.barnes wrote:
Because their evidence and strategy against the Girls Count Act was superb.

*looks up act* Oh, it's really a thing :).

You may want to refer to the original post of Razi/Isaac on the aspects to consider while nominating (quality/size/formatting/organization).

This may be one of those situations where Razi reserves the right to clarify. Can debate partners vote for you? Can former debate partners vote for you? Can siblings/family members cast a ballot? Too me, I would reject the current debate partners but if family members or former debate partners give reasons behind their votes that are legitimate they should be fine. I know that in the last thread they were required to provide an analysis of why they chose to vote how they did or it wouldn't be counted.

It is okay if you don't count it I didn't read the post about siblings ect. voting for each other. If its a problem just don't count it.

_________________
Jonah Barnes, NCFCA Region IX

2014-2015 | Barnes/Spence
2015-2016 | Amedick/Barnes (2.0)
2016-2017 | Amedick/Barnes
2017-2018 | Amedick/Barnes


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2015 4:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 10:50 pm
Posts: 391
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Falling at a 60° angle, defying physics
To shift business away from biases...

John Mark Porter
First of all, I gotta give him credit for developing a very advanced grading system for ranking researchers. This is the essence of John Mark: he goes above and beyond of what he needs to do. I've always had a strong strategy against a case that I have a brief of his on, such as his Presidential Public Funding brief that I unfortunately never used (but expected to be a win with if I ever hit the case), and his brief on delisting Kurdistan groups as terrorist organizations (which, again, I've unfortunately never used and likely never will) I'm confident would do the same. So yes, while my in-round experiences using John Mark's evidence are lacking, I have zero reasons to believe that I'd have any problems with his evidence in-round. :)

Gabriel Blacklock
While I haven't yet traded with Gabriel this year, I've been happy with evidence I've received from him in the past. His brief on DC Representation last year was a huge boost for me, and in some cases this year I've discussed evidence with him that both me and him have found (so we both have the cards, even if trading didn't actually happen), and those discussions have often centered around strong points in my brief, so I know he found good evidence. You won't regret trading with Gabe. :)


The only catch with both of my nominees is that they you might have a hard time trading with them, because, due to how much they research, they might already have researched everything they need at that point in time. :P

_________________
Andrew

Barndt/Barndt | TACT, R10 | 2012-13
Barndt/Barndt | TACT, R10 | 2013-14
Barndt/Barndt | TACT, R10 | 2014-15
Barndt/Blacklock | Arete, R10 | 2015-16
Barndt/Cuddeback | R10 | 2016-17
Barndt/Wolf | SALT, R10 | 2017-18

JohnMarkPorter1 wrote:
I'm inclined to think like Andrew does.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:01 am
Posts: 652
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Flying a UFO to an undisclosed location ;)
The Pumaman wrote:
John Mark Porter
First of all, I gotta give him credit for developing a very advanced grading system for ranking researchers. This is the essence of John Mark: he goes above and beyond of what he needs to do. I've always had a strong strategy against a case that I have a brief of his on, such as his Presidential Public Funding brief that I unfortunately never used (but expected to be a win with if I ever hit the case), and his brief on delisting Kurdistan groups as terrorist organizations (which, again, I've unfortunately never used and likely never will) I'm confident would do the same. So yes, while my in-round experiences using John Mark's evidence are lacking, I have zero reasons to believe that I'd have any problems with his evidence in-round. :)


Thanks for the endorsement Andrew :). PECF brings back so many fond memories. You'll have to trade for some of my more relevant briefs like 5th Fleet or Syrian Rebels :), at the same time, I like briefing squirrely cases.

_________________
John Mark Porter, Alumni
Arx Axiom/Carpe Dictum/Verdict/UADC/HSDC/HSDRC

2011-12 l Porter/Thomason, Light/Porter
2012-13 l Bailey/Porter
2013-14 l Bailey/Porter
2014-15 l Folkert/Porter

2015-16 I Childs/Porter


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2015 3:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1377
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
Masked Midnight wrote:
Current debate partners may not nominate their partners because they stand to directly gain from the evidence traded.

I nominate John Mark Porter!

_________________
-Joshua
The dumb Boatswain's Mate who once did debate
Proud Coastie, Puddle Pirate, and Shallow Water Sailor


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2015 5:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 4:27 am
Posts: 103
Home Schooled: Yes
Well considering he's not my partner anymore.... I nominate Joshua Folkert. Josh has a great way of making his briefs easy to understand and always has impacts after every card. He may not have the: "I just finished my 60th brief of the year...." but he makes up for it in quality.

_________________
Alec Light

2010-11 |R8| Light/Light
2011-12 |R8| Folkert/Light
2012-13 |R8| Folkert/Light
2013-14 |R8| Folkert/Light
2014-15 |R8| Childs/Light
2015-16 |R8| Light/Toman


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 05, 2015 9:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 4:27 am
Posts: 103
Home Schooled: Yes
I nominate Simon Sefzik. His asylum brief is small, but it packs a punch. Plus, Simon is lots of fun!

_________________
Alec Light

2010-11 |R8| Light/Light
2011-12 |R8| Folkert/Light
2012-13 |R8| Folkert/Light
2013-14 |R8| Folkert/Light
2014-15 |R8| Childs/Light
2015-16 |R8| Light/Toman


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 5:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1393
Home Schooled: Yes
I wanna nominate Patton/Rogers (not sure which ones of them do the research :P). Their brief on Signature Strikes is amazing. Definitely the best brief I've run into against that case.

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2015 3:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 3:24 am
Posts: 769
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Alabama
Thomas Lee - While he hasn't had consistent debate success so far this year (although he did just come in 4th at our last qualifier), Thomas is a fantastic researcher. Rarely have I discussed a case with him that he hadn't researched to some degree. Recently, he put together a stellar brief on Arming the Peshmerga, and I've had the pleasure of working with him on building a case or two.

_________________
- Brennan Herring (Team Policy Coach, Catalyst Speech and Debate)

Ethos is also pretty cool, you should check it out.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 11:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:01 am
Posts: 652
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Flying a UFO to an undisclosed location ;)
Alec The Thinker wrote:
Well considering he's not my partner anymore.... I nominate Joshua Folkert. Josh has a great way of making his briefs easy to understand and always has impacts after every card. He may not have the: "I just finished my 60th brief of the year...." but he makes up for it in quality.

That's nice to know :D.

My Grading rubric:
A+ = 78+, A = 77-73, A- = 72-70, B+ = 79-78, B = 67-63, B- = 62-60, C = 59-55, D = 54-50, F = 49-

I'd like to second the nomination of Jacob Beaver and Brennan Herring. They have a great brief on TNWs and I've also traded for several of their strategy "FRONTLINEs" that are really good. They're cool people too.
1. Quality of Sources:10/10
2. Date of evidence: 9/10
3. Specificity of quotations 9/10
4. Consistency of tags (no power-tagging) 10/10
5. Clean Formatting: 8.5/10
6. Clear Organization of points and evidence: 10/10
7. Size of brief 9/10
8. Coverage of case 9/10
Not all briefs are structured from a Stock Issues & Disadvantages point of view and some of the arguments could use more variety of sources to back them up, but that’s honestly all I could dock them for. -2
BONUS POINTS: Clarity points +3. They map out their arguments very well and it is easy to understand and adapt to them.
Final Grade: 76.5/80 ~ A

_________________
John Mark Porter, Alumni
Arx Axiom/Carpe Dictum/Verdict/UADC/HSDC/HSDRC

2011-12 l Porter/Thomason, Light/Porter
2012-13 l Bailey/Porter
2013-14 l Bailey/Porter
2014-15 l Folkert/Porter

2015-16 I Childs/Porter


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 Next

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited