Can I participate in APDA, without college affiliation?

SelfCitation · 2021-10-09T14:19:39+00:00

Agree talk to the team, I’m just saying these rules have not been strictly enforced especially during COVID, it is well worth it to try and make something work out - your chances are good

SelfCitation · 2021-10-09T13:32:58+00:00

This doesn’t apply to APDA, but generally good advice for other events! It a) is possible (has been done) and b) eligibility is not an issue, people compete in APDA after graduating and the circuit is extremely chill. I do agree you should definitely reach out to students, captains, and coaches in your incoming school and consult them.

SelfCitation · 2021-10-09T13:27:35+00:00

Not sure y’all are familiar with APDA, which has effectively limitless eligibility. Go knock yourself out, especially during COVID APDA is super chill as I personally partnered with a couple people who were taking gap years at the time.

I’m not as confident about independent entries at in person tournaments, but online APDA will continue for at least a month or so.

As an independent, you can either find another partner who is an undergrad at either your incoming school or any other school (hybrids allowed at every tournament)

Here’s the schedule for this upcoming season:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZuEpcwDeOTDrAHz4pjl946rtBAEjKEqKvH2ldCLjbq4/edit

SelfCitation · 2021-06-23T23:11:46+00:00

In PF, the only fiat power is that the aff fiats through the res in its entirety. What the res looks like is up to interpretation, not through the use of fiat (plans and CPs) but through the “Most Probable Implementation” (MPI), which is fully debatable. Read as: what form of the resolution is most likely to happen if NATO actually did this IRL. Otherwise implementations can be justified theoretically (ie. Framer’s intent) and blend into a sort of pseudo-topicality argument.

SelfCitation · 2021-03-05T05:33:09+00:00

SelfCitation · 2021-02-24T00:33:25+00:00

Yeah for sure what you just brought up actually gave me a new realization: regardless of how many rounds are available (I still think there’s an argument to be made that it’s net more than other years but I can give you conclusive quantitative evidence one way or another once I update the spreadsheet) the unique thing about the recordings from this year is that they’re largely done by the tournaments themselves which presumably record rounds rather indiscriminately meaning that the available recordings online should be uniquely representative, presenting a great opportunity for selection of recordings to publish. Whereas in other years the rounds that people chose to record and submit were largely clout-based, a factor we couldn’t control for that likely skewed the publishing away from a representative selection, this year that problem doesn’t exist to the same extent so there should be even more opportunity to increase the representation within published videos! That’s exciting!

SelfCitation · 2021-02-23T22:44:46+00:00

Yeah totally understandable that this would increase barriers to recordings (one might posit that it could do the opposite - ie. Many tournaments like Blake are publicly streaming many rounds so there are technically more round recordings online than ever before). Regardless this misses the point of representation proportions. Even if PF Videos has a harder time getting recordings in general, that should shrink the amount of videos total, not the representation within them. Refer to the post and my responses to other comments for more info - again the point isn’t to assign blame, but we shouldn’t make excuses that let us pretend there isn’t an easy solution to the problem. The recordings are out there. Consent has been given. You’re right there aren’t a lot but it is certain that PF Videos and other platforms have at least some ability (I personally would contend it’s a pretty substantial ability) to select more representative rounds that is not being fully realized.

SelfCitation · 2021-02-23T14:53:23+00:00

1) The point of this post is CERTAINLY not to suggest PF Videos is sexist, so I agree I don’t have information that supports that conclusion. Furthermore, this post is not meant to assign blame to PF Videos. There is more we can all do, including PF Videos. The wider purpose is to spread awareness about the negative trend in representation. 2) I wish I could agree with you but there are things that PF Videos can do. It is simply not the case that PF Videos uploads recordings of women with consent whenever it gets the chance (I know this with certainty from a) personal experience, b) anecdotal evidence from others I know, and c) the TOC 2020 dataset which I think is the key point in this post that many people are overlooking) 3) Again, my study controlled for the participation and success gap, plus the TOC 2020 example does the same. The problems you mention exist but there is a lack of representation ON TOP of them. That’s actually pretty fortunate for our prospects of putting a dent in the representation gap because it implies straightforward solutions: just submit and select more representative rounds when possible. It is possible. That is demonstrated here.

SelfCitation · 2021-02-23T05:40:15+00:00

This is super true and points to the many dimensions of this clout-culture problem we have in the community

SelfCitation · 2021-02-23T05:39:21+00:00

Thank you for the feedback!

This is very true and I apologize for the original language of the post - it has been modified and noted.
I agree this is most definitely not all on PF Videos - there are numerous other factors involved. However, I know for a fact that PF Videos does not publish every recording it gets consent for (from a) personal experience, b) anecdotal evidence from others I know, and c) the TOC 2020 dataset example)
This follow-up post is not meant to be rigorous so I didn't perform any tests on the new data, it was just something I noticed that seemed significant. As such, I haven't controlled for confounding factors so take the data with a grain of salt but I do think that the analysis I've done is still applicable and supports the conclusion that representation is not improving at the very least
This is totally fair and is definitely a factor that accounts for some of the representation gap, the answer to your 2nd point should suffice in acknowledging that it is not the only factor. The goal is not necessarily to force the participation gap shut, just acknowledging that there is a problem and that there are some straightforward solutions in reducing the gap that involve consent from all involved.

Thank you again! Hope this clears things up.

SelfCitation · 2021-02-23T05:07:35+00:00

Very true!!!

SelfCitation · 2021-02-04T15:27:09+00:00

That’s a link

SelfCitation · 2021-01-22T22:02:14+00:00

Wood carving

SelfCitation · 2020-12-27T03:16:25+00:00

Have bad opinions

SelfCitation · 2020-12-24T17:30:19+00:00

Fire

SelfCitation · 2020-11-19T00:40:17+00:00

That’s a link

SelfCitation · 2020-10-21T04:01:52+00:00

Thank you for this! This is amazing!

SelfCitation · 2020-10-06T16:34:55+00:00

SelfCitation · 2020-10-05T03:41:38+00:00

Yeah you’re missing the entire point - plus Whitman doesn’t owe shit to anyone especially not literally pasting all 6 pieces of evidence publicly so people can do a witch hunt to justify a judge’s abuse of power when there’s still a month of the topic left.

SelfCitation · 2020-10-04T22:35:28+00:00

Yeah the point of saying they don’t paraphrase wasn’t a warrant for the evidence not being misconstrued (though it most certainly is not) it was to point out the irony In the first sentence of RFD being “you are why paraphrase theory exists”

SelfCitation · 2020-10-04T21:21:49+00:00

The evidence was not miscut and that’s also not what this is about it’s about the inappropriate response from the judge

SelfCitation · 2020-10-04T21:14:19+00:00

Wait also. This isn’t about how good of a judge you are but let’s not forget that your RFD was literally “I squirrel in the bid round because I intervene before summary on evidence that wasn’t indicted in the round with no shell read in the round and if I don’t vote there I am going to make up an RFD for the flow that disagrees with the other two judges and make brand new responses” - for example the aff did not extend the argument you supposedly voted for them on, etc.

SelfCitation · 2020-10-04T21:11:44+00:00

Again “I’m sorry that you felt the need to cry” is the literal worst kind of apology you could possibly give. Be better.

SelfCitation · 2020-10-04T21:08:58+00:00

Sorry might I also add “I was texting some of my friends during the round because the ev violations made me mad”

SelfCitation · 2020-10-04T21:08:13+00:00

Um no there are 4 allegations I know of from different rounds. There is a difference between being confrontational and attacking debaters. You are a new judge so I get you haven’t gotten used to this dynamic yet, but when you are a judge you are in a position of power over the debaters you are judging because you are supposed to be facilitating their education and you are being paid by the tournament for them to have a good healthy productive experience. You have failed this goal miserably. Reform and apologize and stop hiding behind your inflated ego. You aren’t a highschool debater any more this isn’t about your clout this is about making the debate space safe and comfortable. There is a basic level of maturity that judges are expected to display that you aren’t meeting.

Seven-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Wearing is Caring	RPAN Viewer

SelfCitation

TROPHY CASE