VBD Video Coverage: TOC Final Round
Hirsh Jain
David Wolfish
The round was adjudicated by Tim Averill, Mike Bietz, Nick Coburn-Palo, Cherian Koshy, and Jenn Larson. The panel voted unanimously for the negative.
The round was a rematch of the Glenbrooks finalists (David that tournament on a 2-1 decision) and brought their overall record against each other to a 2-2. Its outcome established David as the first Texan ever to win the Tournament of Champions.
Click to the streaming video. You can either watch the Windows Media Version or the Quicktime Version.
What did you think of the debate?
Thanks again to Jon Cruz and Ryan Hamilton for dealing with the logistics. Thanks to J.W. Patterson, the debaters, and the judges for allowing us to film. We have paid some big bucks to get professional streaming technology, so we hope you enjoy it You should be able to get pretty good video and audio quality. You can enlarge the window and get a big image. You can even drag the video bar and jump to a later part of the debate. Many people should be able to watch simultaneously. You do need either Windows Media Player or Quicktime installed on your computer (before either link will work). And some of the audio for the cross-ex is not as good because of the microphone.
Your Sponsor
We are still taking applications for both sessions on a first-come, first-serve basis until spots fill. So join your fellow debaters this summer at UCLA! For more information, contact michelin@victorybriefs.com or call (310) 453-1681.
Popularity: 2%
test
24 Responses to “VBD Video Coverage: TOC Final Round”
Leave a Reply
Most Popular Posts
- VBI Information Packets Sent Today!
- The TOC Concludes: Kentucky is Wolfish Country
- VBD Video Coverage: TOC Run-off Round
- VBD Video Coverage: TOC Final Round
- A/T: Questions for Aaron Timmons
- The Mirthful Ballot
- "The Truf"
- The Force is Strong With This One
- Live from the TOC: Round VI
- Tara Tedrow Defends Her NCFL Title
Posted from: 65.29.33.250
May 10th, 2005 16:25
Jon- in the intro, “voted unanimously for the negative*”
thanks for the great coverage
Posted from: 24.16.46.72
May 10th, 2005 16:26
unanimously for the negative*, hehe
Posted from: 24.16.46.72
May 10th, 2005 16:27
blah, too late.
Posted from: 67.183.155.124
May 10th, 2005 16:50
“The panel voted unanimously for the affirmative.”
David won this round, yes…?
Posted from: 67.183.155.124
May 10th, 2005 16:51
nm
Posted from: 67.124.49.254
May 10th, 2005 18:47
hot
Posted from: 24.161.161.155
May 10th, 2005 20:42
Just wondering, is the reason the VIC neg was not run by Wolfish because of the type of case that Hirsh ran, which would seem so? If not so, then did he (david) not run it because of fear of the theory debate or judge not accpeting it or w.e.?
on a side note–
did those who did take the ap chem test today feel that the test was pretty easy? other than maybe the first 15 multiple choice, it was not bad; even FRQ were really easy except for the lab question, which was moderate (with some bs). I ask this b/c ap tests are based on curves and if other people in the nation felt it was hard or w.e., then its good (well for me it is).
Posted from: 68.226.137.67
May 10th, 2005 21:15
David you are amazingly smart. I am so impressed by your style and I’m glad that you have done so well.
Posted from: 134.173.93.214
May 11th, 2005 02:40
“The round was a rematch of the Glenbrooks finalists (David that tournament on a 2-1 decision)”
Note that Hirsh defeated David the first two times they debated, at TOC as juniors, and in prelims of St. Mark’s. It wasn’t as though the record between the two was completely one sided.
Posted from: 143.229.132.226
May 11th, 2005 07:50
That’s fair, and is due to my own ignorance of their record. I’ll correct the reference.
Anyway, great job by both debaters!
Posted from: 205.169.164.67
May 11th, 2005 09:54
“other than maybe the first 15 multiple choice, it was not bad; even FRQ were really easy except for the lab question, which was moderate (with some bs).”
i agree (you’re probably sorry to hear that). i mean, the lab question was ridiculous (i basically didn’t answer), and in the 1st 10 or so MC questions i left like 3 blank…i also found out that i messed up one of my 5 equations, because i thought that iodide was insoluble. dang it. but other than that, yeah, it was pretty easy.
which is bad. i thought that i might be getting a 5 until everyone i know started to say how easy it was. now i’m just praying for a 4.
Posted from: 65.12.227.240
May 11th, 2005 17:56
Amazing round, IMO. Both David and Hirsh debated fantastically, and deserved to wind up in finals.
Posted from: 128.148.248.196
May 12th, 2005 09:03
Congrats to David on an incredibly impressive run, and two (although I’m sure there were more) phenomenal debate rounds. The last 2 rounds were amazingly clear on the part of both debaters involved, and will be a valuable teaching tool for younger debaters. Props to the finalists and to VBD for improving debate in so many ways.
Posted from: 207.156.196.242
May 12th, 2005 09:14
This was a great round and not only should it be as a teaching tool for younger debaters but older debaters as well. This has nothing to do with the round but one thing i was thinking about is that i believe clarity is the most important thing in the round. So i almost feel there should be a crossex after every speech (except obviously the 2ar) because not understanding someones refutation might be just as bad as not understanding someones constructive.
Posted from: 64.12.116.203
May 12th, 2005 12:34
I think ME brings up a good point sometimes refutations are not very clear but im a local circuit debater so maybe things are different on the national circuit
Posted from: 207.158.110.8
May 12th, 2005 13:25
A lot of circuit debaters/judges allow and ask clarification questions during prep. I asked Hirsh to explain his turns on the neg case before my last neg speech.
Posted from: 71.106.7.107
May 12th, 2005 19:35
Yeah most people allow you to ask clarification questions, not like, set-up questions. Plus you don’t want your opponent to come up with new warrants, so most people keep it really simple.
I didn’t flow this round (though I flowed octos-semis), but did Hirsh drop conditionality in his last speech or was that just me?
Posted from: 67.180.140.183
May 13th, 2005 00:40
that’s in fact what all of the judges voted on. hirsh assumed that essentialization was the warrant for conditionality and so just refuted that - though david preempted this in the nr. as nick said in his rfd, if hirsh had been more clear about how defeating essentialization rejected the conditionality argument then the decision would have been much harder, but without this explicit link, conditionality was the easy way out.
Posted from: 169.232.101.180
July 13th, 2005 21:16
Ok. The humor Hirsh utilized in his CX was effective up until he degraded Wolfish’s vocab. Once that happened the round started going down from there. As Warrants, Cards, and Claims were discussed, the round became more and more muddled, until as AG wrote, essentialization was the easiest way out of a throughly answered round. Good job on both sides, hopefuly they will compete on the college circuit and own EVERYONE there.
Posted from: 64.192.46.38
October 29th, 2005 11:21
Hey is it possible to download the streaming video on to my computer first, then watch it. Because the streaming video is a bit lagging for my computer. If so how. I really want to see how a good LD debate round goes.
Posted from: 68.196.121.18
May 6th, 2006 19:23
Right click the link, and save as… to save it.
Posted from: 67.124.225.133
May 20th, 2006 22:31
All of last year’s TOC videos do not work. Please fix?
Posted from: 69.181.76.65
October 28th, 2006 19:36
all of these toc videos don’t work anymore can somenoe fix them please :)
Posted from: 216.83.253.42
November 5th, 2006 09:41
i agree please fix