Alaska (James Kilcup and Michael Imeson) have continued their strong start to the year by winning the 2009 Cork IV. In the final they defeated KCL, TCD Hist A and TCD Hist C
KCL (Ross Frenett and Tiernan Fitzgibbon) topped the team tab. Ross Frenett was the best speaker on the tab.
Motions :
1 This House Would Not Allow Parents To Remove Their Children From Sex Education Classes
2 This House Would Remove Executive Clemency For Death Row Inmates
3 This House Would Introduce An Annual Tax On High Value Residential Property
4 This House Would Not Negotiate With a Divided Palestine
5 This House Believes The US Government Should Fund Abortions Through Public Health Insurance
Novice final: This house would Ban The Eating of Meat.
Semi: This house believes That The State Should Help Those Seeking A Cure For Homosexuality
Final: This house would Emmigrate".
Michael Imeson and James Kilcup are awesome and all, but looking at this:
ReplyDeletehttp://tinyurl.com/ybkk3sf
...it's not exactly the truth. Plus, looking at the speaker and team tabs from Vancouver Worlds... well. I'm sure you can make your own conclusions.
How is this "not exactly the truth?" They're at Alaska now, right? Ross Frenett and Tiernan Fitzgibbon debated as KCL, at which they are now enrolled. They are formerly of UCC.
ReplyDeleteAre they lying, too?
You must have not clicked the link.
ReplyDeleteInside the link the Seattle University Spectator reports that Imeson was the "number one debater" at Vancouver Worlds. Last I checked, Jessica Prince was top speaker.
I'm not disputing the results of the Cork IV 2009. I'm disputing what Imeson and Kilcup seem to be telling their university regarding how well they're doing in international tournaments.
Among other lies in the article: at the Cambridge IV 2007, Seattle B was the 2nd ranked US team. False. Check the tab. Yale was.
I can understand exaggerating your achievements a little bit to garner support from your university administration, or to create interest in your debating society, but this is just flat out lying.
Ah, it's the spin to which you object. I understand.
ReplyDeleteImeson won public speaking at 07 Worlds; it seems as likely that the "top debater" text in the article was the reporter's inaccuracy as it was a deliberate deception.
As far as Seattle B at Cambridge, I have no idea what was intended. If the tab says Yale was second, then Yale was second.
I'm not going to get involved in this discussion beyond saying my post concerned this year's performances rather than the accuracy of other articles about past achievements.
ReplyDeleteAlso I'd ask people not to hide behind anonymous while discussing other debaters on my site. Please remember the simple rule "don't get Colm sued" when posting on this blog.
Ah, yes. He did win the public speaking competition. This makes it likely that it could have been the reporter's inaccuracy; non-debaters don't exactly understand the distinctions between "first breaking team", "champion team", "top speaker", "public speaking champion" and whatnot. That's fair enough. There seems to still be an element of deception involved, though.
ReplyDeleteThat's all I'm going to say. Let's not get Colm sued.
As the quoted party in the article, I think it is appropriate for me to comment here. As has already been mentioned, Michael won the public speaking competition at the Vancouver Worlds. That was mis-recorded by the writer of the article. Trust me, we gained no additional cache by suggesting that he was "top speaker" as opposed to "top debater" when dealing with a general university audience. That distinction is only a distinction in debate communities.
ReplyDeleteOn the issue of the 2007 Cambridge IV, Michael and I were awarded 2nd place (link provided below).
Only a minimal amount of research and a minimal amount of charity is needed to realize that I had no intention (or need) to deceive the Seattle University community.
I'm not sure what interest the anonymous poster has in trying to defame either myself or Michael, but I can assure you it is not appreciated. I suppose all I can ask is that, lacking good cause or even an attempt at understanding, that you refrain from doing so in the future.
http://worlddebating.blogspot.com/2007/11/victoria-wellington-win-cambridge-iv.html
Thanks for the clarification, James. But I'm afraid you don't understand. (I seem to be very easily misunderstood. I suppose I'm not being clear enough. Let my try and remedy that.)
ReplyDeleteI wasn't disputing the fact that you were the 1st runner up at the Cambridge IV in 2007. I also saw the tab for myself, your team was the top ranked American team after the preliminary rounds. (Unless of course, I missed another American school above you.)
What I was disputing is this statement, which I'll quote, for the sake of clarity:
"I think a lot of people feel like the debate team is unimportant or low priority because they think Michael and I are the only debaters on it worth endorsing, but that's not the case at all," said Kilcup. "When we went to Cambridge, we also had another team with us [Alana Bellwood and Kerry Kelman], and while Michael and I placed as the top U.S. team, they placed right below us as the second best U.S. team. Our program is strong, and it's consistent."
That statement doesn't seem to be true. Seattle B was ranked 17th after the preliminary rounds. Yale was ranked 9th. I think that makes Yale the 2nd best US team.
The only scenario I can imagine Seattle B being the 2nd best US team is if they broke to semis, with Yale losing in the quarters.
But given that Seattle B were ranked 17th, that means that:
1. A team in the top 16 must have pulled out of the break.
2. A quarterfinal round was held.
And I can't really verify either of these two things, and I'd have good reason to believe that they didn't happen, for two simple reasons:
1. Teams don't pull out of the break very often.
2. A few years back, the Cambridge IV broke only to the semis. I think they only started breaking to the quarters in 2008. I could be wrong though.
I hope I was clear enough not to be misunderstood now. Like I said in my first post, I think you guys are awesome. You've been doing very well for a while; I'd even say you're in a very similar position that Erik Eastaugh and Jamie Furniss were just before they won worlds.
It's just that some of the statements in the first article don't add up.
This has to be the most bizare comment thread I've seen on this site.
ReplyDeleteClearly there is more to this than is coming out here. There would seem to be some personal issue between Anonymous and at least one member of the Alaska team.
ReplyDeleteI'm all for free speech but if you are going to launch a direct attack against a named individual you should have the courage to identify yourself. Therefore I have switched off Anonymous posting on the blog. You will need a google account to continue the dicussion.
Ah, anonymous criticism on the Internet, that's probably one of the few things with a negative value:)
ReplyDeleteWell I won't comment about the whole internet but on this site I prefer if people don't hide behind Anonymous while they launch an attack on a named individual.
ReplyDelete