[eDebate] DCA Debater #11: AARON LYTTLE

Josh jbhdb8
Wed May 9 13:56:53 CDT 2007


Ahhhh Parody....sweet Parody.

I am gathering the recent slew of posts all make the following point:

The DCA would be boring absent the kafka-esque morphing of Adam Sandler and
Joe Francis necessary for the writing of a funny bio.

Apologies....I was unaware that comedy was on such fragile footing.

Two points:

1. If indeed Sarah and Nat were on board for what was said about them in KU
bio - that would be an example of a woman being subject not just object....I
still supect the incest part was un-solicited by its objects.

2.  Still doesnt mean we ought act this way in a public forum - a) current,
former, and soon to be women debaters and coaches have complained for years
about how they are treated in debate....some sensitivity to this is
warranted by those who reap the benefits of the SQ b) You are role models
for how to act when one becomes successful in debate - maybe, acting like it
wouldnt be an awful thing. c) Insider games are dangerous - see other
posts.  d) Other people google the list and it could hurt people - see other

I know the three stooges are beloved....but really? The best defenses so far
are "Boys will be Boys" "Its necessary for humor" and "If you dont like it
get a sense of Humor"

Come on folks,


On 5/8/07, bandana martin <drmosbornesq at gmail.com> wrote:
> Fuck Corporate Beef: The Aaron Lyttle Story
> Increasingly, all of this DCA shazz-bah seems to degenerate into a mess of
> harsh admonitions over the state of our union.   Many lose sight about
> what the whole process is supposed to be about: remembering the people who
> have made an impression on you in debate.  While some bio's lack an
> appreciation for subtlety, the process nevertheless has merit.   But what
> if no one knows the person you'd like to remember?  If that's the case,
> fuck the popularity contest.   Some people have had an incredible impact
> on debate, even if they've never really belonged to the club-house or have
> garnered enough attention to appear on a ballot.  In this spirit, Martin
> 'I'm not fucking British, you bastards' Osborn(e) and Travis 'John' Cram
> (with cameo appearances by Will 'Jensen' Mosley), would like to offer our
> contribution to the process: the unauthorized debate biography of Aaron
> Lyttle.   While the writing is rich with nuance and wit that most of you
> heathens won't appreciate, those of you who remember Aaron and his
> accomplishments might find it enjoyable.   Don't ever forget your roots.
> Fast Times at CBN: The Early Days
> by Martin Osborn
> To truly understand the impact such a skinny, skinny man can have on a
> community like Wyoming debate, one must first understand the community,
> itself. I would assume it's hard for most of you to take this first step
> because one or more of the following seems strange:
> *(1) *getting 20 speaker points and the 1, (your 'delivery' was apparently
> excellent, but for some reason the judge disapproved of your 'evidence'
> despite not taking the time to read it),
> *(2) *losing a debate that you thought you won, and then reading a ballot
> days later that seems to indicate that you did win but the judge circled the
> wrong team (were you sitting on the "wrong" side of the room? rookie),
> *(3) *three pre-sets (break to finals, speaker points irrelevant),
> *(4) *being in policy but doing as much work as the LOLDers ( *i*. you
> spent more time writing a fancy 1AC underview than you did re-blocking this
> year's pre-season Harvex starter pack on personalized stationary, *ii*.
> haha K debate),
> *(5) *being judged by:
> ( *a*) guy who drives the bus you ride to school (karma can be cruel for
> those caught childishly exiting through the emergency door in Wyoming),
> ( *b*) the local police chief (ditto),
> ( *c*) coach of another team who is actively trying to fuck you to improve
> their meager chances of winning a tournament for once (you mean there are
> DISADS to never having to justify your decisions??? ? p.s. almost worth
> the risk because at least this jimmy doesn't flow on the ballot and time you
> with a wristwatch),
> ( *d*) your friend's mom (we haven't filled out the necessary permission
> slips to make this one funny ? not that Delo's mom was ever nevermind),
> ( *e*) your friend's grandma (do we hafta get permission if said grandma
> is now deceased???).
> This is the debate world that Aaron John Lyttle stepped into and changed
> forever (three to six years is technically forever if the population is
> small enough). Our research indicates that as late as 1995, policy debaters
> in Wyoming were still hand-copying (partial) paragraphs out of library books
> onto note cards. It only makes sense that AJL's devastating idea to invent
> and then use the internet to find evidence took many by surprise. After
> cockily dominating an entire state (two states if you count Colorado ? if
> anybody contests this caveat we either envy their pride or pity their
> intelligence) with a 1AC that was SO awesome that ( *a*) he was willing to
> let the other team read it if they asked to during prep-time and ( *b*) to
> not put it in a binder, with plastic page protection, would have likely been
> his first felony.
> Research prowess was not Aaron's only natural advantage ? the man was born
> with a (Jebidiah Springfield-esque) silver tongue. If it was difficult
> before for the power-hungry teachers and principles judging him to respect
> the privacy rights of potential-drug-using students, Aaron made it downright
> impossible (state champion privacy topic HOLLA). He was a high-powered
> mutant not meant for reproduction but luckily for Cheyenne East High School,
> he was a generous god. He taught us how to persuade the judge of ridiculous
> things by using wit (2AR overview: the 2NR is a jack of all stocks but a
> master of none*), revolutionized the intangibles ? the kid was born in a
> suit with a confidence-red tie ? and solidified the foundation of what would
> become a preeminent debate empire, the likes of which the mountain region
> had never seen before and will likely never see again. (NOTE: This is not to
> say we didn't have a debate coach: her name was Sandy.)
> Aside from establishing total control over one of the remaining nexuses of
> persuasive debate (CEHS debaters would later shine on the national stage
> that he had sadly failed on, eliminating Glenbrook North's top team at NFL
> nationals two years in a row on their way to the top 10), Aaron wanted more.
> He told the young Cheyenne East debaters about an entirely different debate
> landscape where people read really fast, mostly shunned persuasion over
> logic and were not commonly expected to wear their best suits. The
> tournaments they competed at took place so far away teams often needed to
> fly ? remember airplanes had only recently been introduced into Wyoming at
> this point (late 1990s) so this idea was very strange to us. These "circuit
> kids" also read "critiques" ? a siren whose song Martin Osborn admittedly
> gave into at one dark stage ? which Aaron apparently knew a lot about,
> seeing as he was the only one among us who knew how to pronounce "Michel
> Foucault."
> Training began. We cut more cards, (some of us) learned speed drills,
> started thinking about WHY people won debates and made new goals. "Speed"
> debate was a totally useless tool in our area but we were determined to show
> lazy circuit kids (who we were informed had all of their cards cut by
> coaches and who were all wealthy ? not complete lies in our experience) that
> we could keep up. Interviewee Will Jensen remembers every moment of his life
> that involves the word "debate" reflecting that, throughout his "debate
> career, Aaron has inspired and taught me more than any other person," (and
> here Will is speaking of that 6-month period where he actually did debate
> work) "before going to Berkeley's tournament, AJL was willing to debate me
> [maverick] every day after school for almost a month, even though he
> probably had a million better things to do." We can say with firm confidence
> that AJL in fact had nothing better to do but simply loved the feeling of
> relentlessly crushing a first-year over and over for all to see. Sometimes
> he even had the goodwill to explain to Jensen the ins and outs of the
> arguments ? and thus we learned about counterplan theory, critiques, and
> offense/defense.
> After Aaron and his also-very-good-but-not-hot-like-Aaron-partner Dusty
> Hixenbaugh went 6-2 at the Berkeley tournament and lost in doubles (on a
> disgusting 2-1 decision to El Cerrito), we had evidence that kids from our
> school could achieve national success, overcoming whatever disadvantages we
> thought worked against us with a mix of hard work and impact back files
> (NOTE: some of us are still stuck in this stage ? there's no need to name
> names [COUNTER-NOTE: Martin Osborn's affinity for Lacan in high school
> automatically disqualifies him from editorializing about the argumentative
> preferences of certain others-tjc]). This process culminated in two teams'
> legitimate (that's right Manchester Essex) qualification to the TOC, where
> they would compile about half the wins it takes to clear (a total of 3 more
> than Ross Richendrfer could manage that year).
> Alcohol, Depravity & Madness: The Later Days
> by Travis Cram
> Ole AJL did make quite an impression on me, showing me the virtues of a
> strong work ethic, stoic leadership and all that good sounding crap.   Despite
> this, the larger portion of the blame for my formative years of debate lies
> with Brian Delong and my 2 ? years of back-packing him around in high
> school.   Anything positive that Aaron imparted to me was offset by this
> peculiarly angry bearded devil.  It was very strange, however, to find
> myself debating with Aaron after my transfer to Wyoming.  It was like
> coming full circle.  Due to the vagaries of criminal law and the attitudes
> of the state of Pennsylvania towards convicted felons (a lexis source search
> of the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle with the terms 'Aaron J. Lyttle', 'Martin
> Osborn' and 'police cars' proves revealing), he had also found his way onto
> the debate team at Wyoming and on the same graduation track as myself:
> mentor and student gloriously reunited.   Having been the only contributor
> lucky enough to actually debate with Aaron, I thought I'd share a few
> experiences from the heady, wild days of 'Wyoming CL.'
> We quickly emerged as a team of cagy old veterans on the China topic.  What
> we lacked in skill and trickery we made up with our collective
> disillusionment with debate and life (which we had in spades, I tell ya).
> Wyo CL rapidly ascended to the plateau of mediocrity, breaking even at
> every tournament.  How did we achieve this stunning feat?   We could
> always bank on 1 aff win off some poor schmucks who were even slower than
> us.  Than we'd scrap together a few neg wins using treachery, deceit and
> our penchant for the impact turn (god bless Emory's prolif case that year).
> It was a recipe for adequacy; everything in moderation, even wins, was our
> mission statement.
> Finally, at CEDA, we discovered the key to success: nuclear war good.
> (much to the chagrin of Josh Gonzalez, who would come to judge our
> shenanigans more than anyone deserved).   After honing our craft against
> Whitman BM's Agamben K (suck it, Buntin), we discovered the key to being out
> of the tournament in doubles: Harvard KM.   Nevertheless, we took these
> lessons and ran with them the next year, clobbering together a string of
> 5-3-miss-on-points in the first semester of the courts topic.  Many of you
> are probably asking: who the fuck is Wyoming CL?   Our anonymity
> demonstrates Aaron and I's main obstacle to success: too much charisma.  We
> were so amazing as to even be unmemorable.   Our magnanimous personalities
> would blind people, leading them to believe that we dropped a ton of shit
> every debate.
> Above and beyond his triumphant success in debates, Aaron was far more
> remarkable off the field.   Squad meetings illustrate this: 'Alright, so
> assignments are as follows?Will, you take politics updates.  T-Cram, you
> take these case-hits.  Crowe you take these disads.  Delo, try to make
> your aff topical for once.  Aaron, you have to write a new aff, do four
> casehits and do you think you could cut some answers to this list of fifty
> K's that we don't understand?   Thanks?'  Alright, so it's kind of an
> exaggeration (we all know Crowe didn't cut cards), but not far from the
> truth.   Despite the inordinate work-load, he'd meet every deadline,
> handing over piles and piles of evidence.  Sometimes he'd go above and
> beyond that ('Hey, I was bored so here's a big omega-point file').   And
> there was never a complaint.
> That's not to say that Aaron isn't fond of fun (alcohol). Later, Will
> Jensen pointed out that "he actually combined debate work and alcohol quite
> successfully. Aaron could outwork any of the rest of us on the UW squad, and
> usually did so with a martini in hand. There are not many things that are
> funnier than a drunken Aaron intent on fighting someone twice his size
> because he disagrees with them about whether or not PICs are legitimate."
> Those of us lucky enough to run case-specific strategies and keep aerosol
> tracks in a backfile folder can only imagine.   Aaron and I also had a
> strong tradition of getting falling-down-shitfaced before trips.  When
> every flight begins with a two-hour drive to Denver at 3 in the morning, the
> sauce is needed to keep one's sanity
> Another case in point of Aaron's dedication: the art-bag.  Aaron packed
> his clothes for trips in this giant canvas sack that was designed to be an
> art portfolio that he had found in our squad room (don't ask ? parli).   In
> order to make sure our tubs met the airlines weight requirement, we would
> have to shift files into our bags.  Being of amorphous size and shape, a
> good twenty or thirty pounds of files would make its way into the art-bag.
> It got to the point that it probably weighed more than a tub.  Now picture
> Aaron, usually drunk or half-conscious, hauling this monstrosity through the
> airport (something that weighed almost 2/3rds as much as him).   Forslund
> had the bad luck of asking 'what was in the bag' and was assaulted by a
> surly Aaron who slung the bag at him, nearly decapitating the 'Shooter
> McGavin' visage that sits atop Forslund's body.   With the exception of
> this small outburst, Aaron still never complained.  He was an absolute
> work-horse, carrying an entire squad at times.
> That's what I find truly admirable about him and will always remember.  But
> even beyond the lessons of hard work and leadership, Aaron taught me how to
> have fun.   Yeah, we were never at any risk of breaking into debate
> stardom, but it didn't matter.  It was enough to be able to debate and
> hang out with one of your best friends, weekend after weekend.   Through
> all the levels of debate's absurdity, frustrations and utter bullshit, we
> never lost sight of that.  Outside of Cheyenne East alum and some old
> Pittsburgh people, few will remember Aaron, but he should know that he had a
> tremendous impact on more than he probably realizes. Debate is harder in
> college (take that circuit kids) so our success took a dive and a lot of us
> no longer debate. It is undeniable, though, that AJL played a large part in
> the collegiate successes of Chris Loghry, Chris Crowe, Brian Delong, Travis
> Cram, Will Jensen, Martin Osborn, Josh Schmerge and other Schmerge-level
> debaters who even we have forgotten. Nonetheless, a legacy of mediocre
> performances with a strong appreciation of self-deprecating humor may not
> have been created by AJL but it would have surely died without him.
> Aaron had the rare fortune of winning his last debate round ever (not many
> can say that).  Fittingly, we beat a biopolitics aff on 'murder and
> disposability good,' bringing our misanthropic thrill-ride to a halt.   After
> Wake, he silently stepped down to pursue a new life in law school and
> marriage.  We're definitely going to miss having you around, but we
> couldn't be happier for you.   Good luck in the future, AJL ? stay in
> touch, you shifty sonofabitch.
> *Stock issues: a paradigm whereby the affirmative must show that the
> resolution is correct by proving beyond a reasonable doubt that as a result
> of attitudinal, structural AND existential reasons, a significant harm
> exists that a topical plan can completely cure. See also: 5 minute 1ARs
> against 8 minutes of new in the 2NC are hard when nobody understands turns
> and you can't go fast.
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070509/2843f06e/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list