Tara Tedrow is NCFL Champion
In what was a most spirited final round of the Grand National Tournament, Matt Scarola of Syosset kritiked affirmative Tara Tedrow of Celebration. On a 4-1 decision, Tara won the title of 2004 NCFL champion. Congratulations to both, and to their coaches!
Tara is coached by Dean Rhoads. Matt is coached by Lydia Esslinger.
Results, including seedings, follow.
(33) Berkeley Carroll JL (Jacob Levi)
DOUBLES
(1) Hillsborough TO def. (32) Montville JT (Jennifer Tarr)
(2) Pineview JB def. (31) W.T. Woodson (Caitlin Halpern)
(3) Regis JQ def. (30) Cambridge [FL] JE (Joshua Eicholtz)
(4) Syosset MS def. (29) Brookfield East LV (Liz Vieria)
(28) Thomas Jefferson JM def. (5) North Allegheny JB (Julie Baker)
(6) Walt Whitman MB def. (27) Sacred Heart BS (Barry Smith)
(7) Ridge NY def. (26) Brookfield East JJ (Jenny Johnson)
(8) Suncoast BR def. (25) Eagan KF (Katie Foley)
(9) Grady TT def. (24) E.L. Meyers TK (Ted Kopec)
(23) Shrewsbury KL def. (10) Leland KH (Ken Huang)
(22) Needham DD def. (11) Michael Krop MW (Max Wolson)
(21) Marquette NS def. (12) Apple Valley LA (Lindsey Anderson)
(13) Trinity Prep TW def. (20) Hunter LG (Lizzie Grosso)
(14) Trinity Prep TT def. (19) Centreville AT (Alex Thomson)
(15) Lake Highland HL def. (18) Monticello AF (Antoinette Fuoto)
(16) Calvert Hall MW def. (17) La Salle JM (Joe McPeak)
OCTAS
(16) Calvert Hall MW def. (1) Hillsborough TO (Tari Owi)
(2) Pineview JB def. (15) Lake Highland HL (Harriet Levett)
(14) Celebration TT def. (3) Regis JQ (Joey Quinn)
(4) Syosset MS def. (13) Trinity Prep TW (Tim Walsh)
(28) Thomas Jefferson JM def. (21) Marquette NS (Nicki Smith)
(6) Walt Whitman MB def. (22) Needham DD (Dima Doroshenko)
(7) Ridge NY def. (23) Shrewsbury KL (Kenny Lin)
(8) Suncoast BR def. (9) Grady TT (Tye Tavaras)
QUARTERS
(16) Calvert Hall MW def. (8) Suncoast BR (Brett Rowan)
(2) Pineview JB def. (7) Ridge NY (Norman Yao)
(14) Celebration TT def. (6) Walt Whitman MB (Mike Baer)
(4) Syosset MS def. (28) Thomas Jefferson JM (Joyce Meng)
SEMIS
(4) Syosset MS def. (16) Calvert Hall MW (Matt Walters)
(14) Celebration TT def. (2) Pineview JB (Julie Bills)
FINALS
(14) Celebration TT def. (4) Syosset MS (Matt Scarola)
4-1 (Sharon Volpe, *Dave McGinnis, ?, ?, ?)
NCFL CHAMPION
(14) Celebration TT (Tara Tedrow)
Popularity: 2%
test
Posted from: 65.34.148.212
May 30th, 2004 13:09
Let’s go Tara! EMO POWER!!!
Posted from: 24.185.41.37
May 30th, 2004 13:27
good job matt
Posted from: 24.184.42.10
May 30th, 2004 13:57
second year in a row that long island has a finalist at NCFL. coincidence? (hopefully) not.
Posted from: 65.110.129.85
May 30th, 2004 15:07
Kritiked in the final round. I love you Matt!!!
Posted from: 64.170.193.199
May 30th, 2004 15:11
panel?
Posted from: 24.187.202.245
May 30th, 2004 15:25
dave mcginnis of highland park was 1 of 5.
Posted from: 68.196.130.23
May 30th, 2004 16:08
Tara is from Trinity, not Celebration.
Posted from: 69.23.246.38
May 30th, 2004 16:19
if Tara weren’t so ugly, I’d root for her
Posted from: 24.184.42.10
May 30th, 2004 16:22
Tara is hott
Posted from: 208.186.222.168
May 30th, 2004 16:29
what/why/how was it a kritik?
Posted from: 4.26.233.189
May 30th, 2004 17:52
a) tara won
b) tara is, in fact, from celebration
Posted from: 69.161.151.43
May 30th, 2004 17:56
Matt, so proud of you:)
and I to have been told that Tara is debating under celebration
Posted from: 208.54.141.106
May 30th, 2004 19:54
Matt –
Tara was registered for the tournament under Celebration. She no longer goes to Trinity Prep.
Congratulations to both on a fantastic round!
Mike - I’m posting from a Starbucks, I can post a summary of the round later, unless someone beats me to it with some explanations. :)
It was something of a last-minute kritik, with a lot of the arguments being, and I think Matt would acknowledge this readily, rather standard neg positions integrated into a kritik structure. Matt acknowledged at the beginning that he wanted to “make an impact” at the tournament by introducing argumentation styles that are not common at the NCFL. Given how many people who weren’t familiar with kritiks started talking about it after, including a number who approached me asking questions (although I had nothing to do with the case or him running the case), it looks like he made something of the impact that he wanted to make.
Congratulations to both!!!
(Also, to avoid the inevitable question that comes when a decision was 4-1, Dave McGinnis was the squirrel.)
Posted from: 67.170.248.14
May 30th, 2004 20:39
Hey just curious - whats the deal with Celebration and how come no more Trinity Prep??
In any case…CONGRATS TO BOTH FINALISTS!
Posted from: 65.110.129.85
May 30th, 2004 21:30
ask tara
Posted from: 67.192.145.8
May 30th, 2004 22:13
is “kritiked” a verb?
Posted from: 208.186.222.168
May 30th, 2004 22:53
“is “kritiked” a verb?”
that is a good question. don’t get me started on this new found obsession with verbing nouns.
Posted from: 149.174.164.22
May 31st, 2004 00:15
Initial caveat: I am assuming, and always have assumed, that the word “kritik” is a different way of spelling “critique”. Infact, until I saw someone “misspell” the word kritik, I wrote out “critique” for arguments. Keeping that in mind…
The word critique is both a noun and a verb. (A transitive verb if memory serves.) Even if “kritik” isn’t simply a different way of spelling critique, I’d imagine the etymology of the word kritik as an argument has it’s roots in the word critique. (The difference, if there is one, in the two being that a “kritik” is the debate specific spelling for a debate argument/criticism that critiques x, whereas a “critique” is simply an argument/criticism of something “in the real world”.) So, if the word kritik has its roots in the word critique which does function as a verb, then I have no clue why kritik can’t take on a verb form.
Posted from: 24.46.121.154
May 31st, 2004 07:30
“verbing nouns” - hehehe.
Gary, if the question is directed towards me, keep in mind you’re asking a person who regularly utilizes invented words like “dorktastic” and “horrocious.” Anything goes. ;o)
Posted from: 69.23.246.38
May 31st, 2004 07:32
Bietz, it’s called “verbifying,” which in itself is a verbification… jk that’s not a word (though it should be).
Tara is rockin
Posted from: 69.23.246.38
May 31st, 2004 07:33
to clarify: verbify is a word, verbification is not
Posted from: 208.186.222.168
May 31st, 2004 08:35
as long as you continue bidding at tournaments next year, cts, u can do all the verbification u want.
Posted from: 209.23.218.50
May 31st, 2004 08:39
Scrotum rocks my socks.
Posted from: 204.210.36.190
May 31st, 2004 09:35
critique=kritik
critiqued=kritisierte
Posted from: 12.125.168.42
May 31st, 2004 10:35
joking about being a nazi is always hilarious.
Posted from: 66.171.46.217
May 31st, 2004 10:40
Congratulations to Tara Tedrow, now of Celebration.
I think the LD community should tip their hats to the coaching staff of Celebration, but an especially hardy “job well done” should be extended to Dean Rhoads, debate coach for Trinity Prep (Orlando, FL). This is the school where Tara has spent much of her LD career, so I think a hats off to her old coach is equally important.
Congrats Tara! Congrats Mr. Rhoads on your first national champ.
DJMK2
Posted from: 204.210.36.190
May 31st, 2004 12:43
Yeah, I’m really dumb and didn’t catch that. I’d like to remind everyone that it’s not cool to be a nazi.
Posted from: 204.210.36.190
May 31st, 2004 12:43
Yeah, I’m really dumb and didn’t catch that. I’d like to remind everyone that it’s not cool to be a nazi.
Posted from: 209.234.32.62
May 31st, 2004 13:53
No one’s asked, but here’s my RFD from the round:
I agree that the K didn’t *need* to be a K. It was just the stock combination of communitarianism and Glendon “rights talk” framed as a criticism of the resolution. The argument could just as easily have been made in a standard case position with responses to the aff, but, meh. That’s not my decision.
So in 1AR Tara doesn’t extend her case. She spends four minutes making seven arguments about the kritik. The whole 1AR is about the kritik. Her primary argument about the kritik is “So he’s made his point and educated you about what a kritik is, now you can vote for me since I have a case and a value premise.” She ignores the links in the K that say Scarola doesn’t have to have those things. I think Matt and Tara both probably knew how this was going to play out . Tara made the right decision by adapting to the other four judges.
In 2NR Scarola answers back the 7 on the k. Tara had set several of those responses up in CX, and Scarola had told her in CX what his answers would be. She went ahead and made the responses — and he went ahead and made the answers, exactly as he had in CX. Generally, if you try to set up an argument in CX and your opponent indicates that they have three responses, you should address those responses pre-emptively when you make the argument. Tara didn’t do that, and it made it easier for Scarola to win the kritik in 2N.
In 2AR, Tara extends her case position. COMPLETELY new. I was bothered by that, particularly because she did it in a forum where she knew it would probably work. I think there are some “rules” of the game that we’re bound to observe; I punish folks for going really obviously new because if there isn’t a “community norm” AGAINST going new, then people will do it all the time (well, more often than usual) and everyone will suffer when the judge doesn’t know the difference. So the 2AR bothered me.
But in terms of winning the game, Tara’s strategy was wise. The other judges reacted to her argument exactly as Scarola’s kritik predicted that they would. At least two of them seemed down-right upset about the round as they passed in their ballots.
I thought it was a fun round and both did really well. My only complaints are: (1) It wasn’t really a kritik; and (2) Even for the purposes of adaptation, I don’t think Tara should have gone new in the 2. That’s just always wrong.
Posted from: 24.46.121.154
May 31st, 2004 14:00
Thanks Dave - you beat me to it and gave a more thorough rundown of the round than I was going to. (For those intereted, Chetan posted a nice summary of the K on Westman.)
I also agree with both of Dave’s complaints at the bottom, though I would qualify the first one by noting that, while the case structure need not have been a kritik, I felt it worked it was one. I guess given the reasons Matt ran it, it made sense for him to run it that way. (I don’t mean to restate the obvious again.)
Aside from the new arguments in the 2AR, which I noticed as did others, I really have to commend Tara for her adaptation. In the 1AR particularly, it was masterful: she went for the majority of the panel, just as she should have. Particularly impressive was the really effective persuasiveness; I noticed that, consciously or not, Tara made sure to make forceful, noticeable, direct eye contact with each of the judges in the front, driving home the args against accepting a K in the first place. As Dave said, Matt predicted in the kritik itself that the judges would reject it because it was “not LD” and did not have a value structure, etc. Tara’s 1AR strategy was a good demonstration of adapting to a particular set of judges.
The strategies employed by both made it, by and large, a really entertaining and educational round.
Posted from: 64.12.117.7
May 31st, 2004 14:32
I would like to say that I have seen Mr. Scarola debate many times and I am sure he also had very good eye contact. I am sure some of the final round judges noted that by awarding him the appropriate speaker points.
Posted from: 4.47.204.234
May 31st, 2004 15:16
Does anyone know who was first seed coming out of Prelims…and so on and so on.
Posted from: 64.12.116.212
May 31st, 2004 15:16
When and why did Tara Tedrow transfer to Celebration?
Posted from: 68.161.143.243
May 31st, 2004 15:44
how does matt have good eye contact when his eyes are always closed?
Posted from: 4.47.204.234
May 31st, 2004 16:07
Yeah, can someone post prelim seed info.
Posted from: 24.184.217.255
May 31st, 2004 16:12
(reposted from lddebate.org)
I personally consider what I was running to fall into the realm of “kritiks” in that the arguments made were explictly challenging the assumptions implicit within the resolution (and very clearly within the affirmative case). However, I spent quite a bit of time asking other people if they thought it was a critique, because the argumentation contained within it was fairly common. Ultimately, I decided two things: the fact that “rights talk” arguments are common did not mean it wasn’t critical; and the fact that I had such trouble deciding whether or not it (should be run as) / (was) a kritik only added weight to the notion I was trying to advance, that a kritik doesn’t have to be something incomprehensible and worthy of the automatic loss that many give to it.
That said, I didn’t try to win the round based on “enlightening” the panel, in fact, I wouldn’t have mentioned it again had Tara not brought it up in the 1AR. I tried to make the round into a regular debate after I gave that introduction, and was criticized and selectively listened to by some of the judges; despite trying to explain why kritiks, and this one specifically, should be given a chance.
Because of the explanation, the digestible and common nature of the kritik, and the way the round played out, I felt that there was a real chance the kritik could pick up, though I was obviously wrong (and to the person who mentioned speaker points; one ballot was a 22-30). Even for someone who almost NEVER runs terribly complicated arguments, and has never run a kritik, this was pretty straightforward. While some people may not have had their opinions changed on the use of kritiks, many people’s first introduction to them was in that round. Hopefully next year or a few years down the road when they judge at the CFL, the arguments themselves, rather than the word “kritik,” will be evaluated. I think that’s true even if the debate community decides (however that would happen) that rights talk isn’t a “kritky enough” kritik; because the structure of the argument, and the word “kritik” itself, aren’t already associated with evil.
No matter what, the tournament was timely (although that may have been a bad thing given the early schedule), and a nice way to see people I haven’t seen in a long time, and might not see again in a while. Thanks to all of the friends I saw this weekend for making tournaments worth going to, and please keep in touch with me at matts886 @ optonline.net
–
P.S. - Congrats Tara!
Posted from: 24.167.117.126
May 31st, 2004 16:39
someone should start teaching ppl how to always go new in the 2, it seems to be a winning strategy and i’ve seen it lose maybe twice.
Posted from: 152.163.253.37
May 31st, 2004 20:26
Congrats Matt, finals was a really entertaining round and i was happy that it was with u. I don’t think that you were on a suicide mission by running a K, but i do know that it took “balls of steel” (as a few kids have posted on other sites). Congrats on all your successes this year, glad I got to hit you once before you left the ciruit.
Posted from: 68.193.76.189
May 31st, 2004 21:05
congrats to: tara, matt, norman, jen, julie, etc, etc.
Posted from: 68.219.2.3
May 31st, 2004 21:51
as the person who mis-suggested what the K was going to be (really thought id guessed it up till the middle of the 1NC) id just like to take full credit for the win
ok im kidding
tara was awesome
and that final was definitly one of the more enjoyable forensics rounds ever
Posted from: 68.202.189.126
June 1st, 2004 08:40
I just wanted to post to Matt–since i dont know his screen name- that my extension under my first contention in the 2AR was actually a complete mistake. I had it extended to read in the 1AR and when i was looking at my extremely messy flow I extended that, thereafter realizing that “oh god, that was new.” I think Matt saw my apologetic facial expression when i finished the speech, but I def. didn’t pull the new as any type of strategy. I don’t even think any of the judges mentioned that specific argument in their RFD-except for the ballot i dropped. So while new in the 2 might be a “good CFL strategy” i wasn’t at all intending to pull something sleezy to win the round. Sorry Matt, and again, Congrats. Tho the weekend has stirred up some controversy now, i hope everyone had a good time.
Posted from: 167.206.155.194
June 1st, 2004 09:14
Tara,
a) My screen name is matts886
b) No hard feelings, I believe you, and definately wouldn’t want to cause anything to be polarized :-P.
c) Someone called to my attention that you might think my post on westman that’s titled “hate me…” was directed at you with the mention of new in the 2; I just wanted to make it clear that it was just an example, and wasn’t directed at you.
Congrats,
Matt
Posted from: 68.202.189.126
June 1st, 2004 11:21
Message removed.
IP Address: 68.202.189.126
Winter Park, FL
Posted from: 68.202.189.126
June 1st, 2004 11:33
Message removed.
IP Address: 68.202.189.126
Winter Park, FL
Posted from: 68.202.189.126
June 1st, 2004 11:35
Message removed.
IP Address: 68.202.189.126
Winter Park, FL
Posted from: 68.202.189.126
June 1st, 2004 12:30
Whoever is posting these outrageous comments under the names of “numbaonestunna” and “mad game” is getting out of hand (i have a feeling is the same person over and over). While your comments are somewhat amusing due to their ridiculousness, you should tone down the insults toward other people. Who are you? Did i even hit you at the tournament?
Furthermore, Dean Rhoads was an awesome coach and i thank him and the Trinity team for everything they’ve done for me. This weekend Tim Walsh from Trinity broke- so someone from Trinity did place. Also, quoting horrid rap songs doesn’t really prove a point. And further, the lake highland coach is not an idiot, Mr Clemens is one of my personal favorites! Whoever you are, calm down or stop posting your mindless rants.
And you asked how Lake Highland did: Harriet broke to octos i think. And to use your words, i think shes a “supastar.”
Message edited.
IP Address: 68.202.189.126
Winter Park, FL
Posted from: 64.173.42.38
June 4th, 2004 21:44
seems like tara enjoys bashing herself. ?:(?
Posted from: 209.60.98.248
June 15th, 2004 07:36
Did the pictures for NCFLs get posted yet?…I didn’t see them and am anxiously awaiting their arrival! :)
Posted from: 169.139.185.1
October 20th, 2004 10:39
tara is my love and we have many babies