Caitlin Halpern Wins the Princeton Classic
Matt Levinson and Caitlin Halpern
Matt Levinson and Caitlin Halpern
PRINCETON, NJ - At the conclusion of three days of competition, there were two debaters remaining. The final round of the 2005 Princeton Classic pitted Caitlin Halpern of W.T. Woodson High School against Matt Levinson of Randolph High School. On a 6-1 decision–the two debated in front of a panel composed of members of the Princeton Whig-Clio Society–Caitlin claimed this year’s title.
Caitlin is coached by Martha Carr, Anjan Choudhury, and Tanya Choudhury. Matt is coached by Peter Bond.
DOUBLES
(1) W.T. Woodson CH def. (32) Lake Highland SG (Sophie Grace)
3-0 (Shultz, Cunningham, Alston)
Millburn BS def. Scarsdale NB (Neil Basu)
2-1 (*Shultz, Cunningham, Alston)
Randolph ML def. Cary Academy CH (Clay Hane)
2-1 (Abel, Welch, Bathke)
Scarsdale DS def. Hunter ZS (Zayn Siddique)
2-1 (Abel, *Welch, Bathke)
Arthur L. Johnson JM def. Lake Highland NK (Najeeb Khuda)
(Krobetzky, Nunan, Martucci)
Thomas Jefferson EM def. Lake Highland SC (Steven Campisi)
(Krobetzky, Nunan, Martucci)
Scarsdale AY def. Half Hollow Hills East GH (Greg Halperin)
3-0 (Caldwell, Betanabha, Boyle)
Millburn JM def. Half Hollow Hills East KS (Kunaal Sharma)
3-0 (Caldwell, Betanabha, Boyle)
Newark Science AM def. Niskayuna BZ (Boyang Zhou)
3-0 (Ihrie, Kendler, Sheltzer)
Ridge AC def. Bronx Science HR (Hannah Rothman)
3-0 (Ihrie, Kendler, Sheltzer)
Ridge ST def. Scarsdale AH (Andrew Harris)
2-1 (Monro, Rothman, *Blaine)
Ridge NJ def. Chaminade MSm (Matt Smith)
3-0 (Monro, Rothman, Blaine)
Syosset ES def. Plano Senior YW
2-1 (Atkin, Badain, Hechehouch)
Millburn CS def. Great Neck South DF (Doug Friedman)
3-0 (Atkin, Badain, Hechehouch)
Plano Senior VC def. Collegiate DS
3-0 (Levy, Greco, Choudhury)
Scarsdale MA def. Delbarton MC
3-0 (Levy, Greco, Choudhury)
OCTAS
(1) W.T. Woodson CH def. Scarsdale MA (Matt Aks)
3-0 (Sheltzer, Argueso, Cruz)
Millburn BS def. Plano Senior VC (Vishal Channani)
3-0 (Sheltzer, Argueso, Cruz)
Randolph ML def. Millburn CS (Chris Sawyer)
3-0 (Levy, Greco, Blaine)
Scarsdale DS def. Syosset ES (Eric Sporkin)
3-0 (Levy, Greco, Blaine)
Ridge NJ def. Arthur L. Johnson JM (Josh Meah)
2-1 (Lucarelli, *Camp, Friedman)
Ridge ST def. Thomas Jefferson EM
(Herron, Oconnor, Atkin)
Scarsdale AY def. Ridge AC (Andrew Carbone)
2-1 (Billings, Choudhury, *Potts)
Millburn JM def. Newark Science AM (Al-Zamar McKinney)
2-1 (Billings, *Choudhury, Potts)
QUARTERS
(1) W.T. Woodson CH def. Millburn JM (Jake McNulty)
3-0 (Sheltzer, Cai, Zeitlan)
Millburn BS def. Scarsdale AY (Ardevan Yaghoubi)
3-0 (Greco, Perlman, Billings)
Randolph ML def. Ridge ST (Sameer Thanawala)
3-0 (Friedman, Atkin, Kidd)
Scarsdale DS def. Ridge NJ (Naveen Jayaraman)
2-1 (*Boyle, Argueso, Reilly)
SEMIS (TOC Bid)
(1) W.T. Woodson CH def. Scarsdale DS (Dave Salant)
(Reilly, Argueso, Sheltzer)
Randolph ML def. Milllburn BS (Brandon Sherman)
(Greco, Cai, Perlman)
FINALS
(1) W.T. Woodson CH def. Randolph ML (Matt Levinson)
6-1 (K. Reilly, Greco, *Cai, Perlman, M. Reilly, Argueso, Sheltzer)
CHAMPION
(1) W.T. Woodson CH (Caitlin Halpern)
–
TOP SPEAKERS
1. Matt Levinson (Randolph High School, NJ)
2. David Salant (Scarsdale High School, NY)
3. Eric Sporkin (Syosset High School, NY)
4. Joshua Meah (Arthur L. Johnson High School, NJ)
5. Caitlin Halpern (W.T. Woodson High School, VA)
6. Naveen Jayaraman (Ridge High School, NJ)
7. Sameer Thanawala (Ridge High School, NJ)
8. Hannah Rothman (Bronx High School of Science, NY)
9. James Lucarelli (Regis High School, NY)
10. Kunaal Sharma (Half Hollow Hills East High School, NY)
Popularity: 2%
test
Posted from: 24.211.155.46
December 4th, 2005 05:57
go clay
Posted from: 70.21.165.6
December 4th, 2005 06:20
millburn: kick tail and take names
Posted from: 66.180.184.32
December 4th, 2005 06:51
go matt smith woohoo!
congrats to all who broke
i think i was a 4-2 screw:(
Posted from: 141.150.193.20
December 4th, 2005 07:07
confirmed wins are Josh Meah on a 2-1, and in JV John Monagle on a 3-0.
alj all the way :)
and i was a 4-2 screw too :(
and why did burger king move? :’(
Posted from: 24.187.143.156
December 4th, 2005 07:36
What time did these rounds start?
And the obvious question: Any decisions?
Posted from: 69.113.55.9
December 4th, 2005 07:41
Syosset ES def. Plano Senior YW (2-1)
In Octas:
Syosset ES vs. Scarsdale DS
Posted from: 24.187.143.156
December 4th, 2005 07:45
hi rishi
Posted from: 152.163.100.203
December 4th, 2005 07:58
some results from double-octos
Scarsdale MA def. Delbarton MC
Ridge ST def. Scarsdale AH
Scarsdale DS def. Hunter ZS
Millburn BS def. Scarsdale NB
Scarsdale AY def. Half Hollow Hills GH
WT Woodson CH def. Lake Highland SG
Newark Science AK def. Niskayuna BZ
scarsdale got 3 left… still beastly
+in jv, we broke 4 scar. novices… 3 still in… congrats to them for working so hard
in terms of seedings… the way they were posted are pretty much the seeds… so caitlyn is 1, i was 2, levinson was 3, salant 4, etc.
Posted from: 24.211.155.46
December 4th, 2005 08:04
any word on matt levinson’s round…?
Posted from: 69.249.91.131
December 4th, 2005 08:08
go brandon! go jake mcnulty, even though i don’t know if you are still in! and go naveen!!
Posted from: 130.58.241.182
December 4th, 2005 08:54
GO BOYANG!!!!
Posted from: 69.249.94.54
December 4th, 2005 09:54
SAWYER BOOOSH!
LETS GO MILLBURN
Posted from: 69.113.55.9
December 4th, 2005 10:54
Octas: Scarsdale DS def. Syosset ES
Posted from: 63.193.118.145
December 4th, 2005 11:15
there’s another ridge AC? hm, i guess angela got replaced, haha.
since i’m not sure who’s still in, congrats/gl to salant, brandon, and naveen…three of the nicest guys i know.
Posted from: 151.204.185.17
December 4th, 2005 11:24
does anyone know when and if the result packets will be online
Posted from: 69.249.91.131
December 4th, 2005 11:34
so does that mean that quarters includes
naveen vs. salant
brandon vs. scarsdale AY
jake mcnulty vs. caitlin
levinson vs. ridge st
Posted from: 24.211.155.46
December 4th, 2005 11:37
Speakers?
Posted from: 24.239.165.248
December 4th, 2005 12:48
CONGRATS ON YOUR FIRST BID BRANDON!!!! YOU TOTALLY DESERVE IT!!!
Posted from: 66.180.184.29
December 4th, 2005 13:00
Levinson was first, Salant was second, I was 6th, Sameer was 7th. In prep of Brandon’s round with Matt right now. Brandon is affirming, Matt is negating.
Posted from: 207.172.220.151
December 4th, 2005 13:10
YAY SALANT!!!!
Congrats to Levinson, Brandon and Caitlin as well.
Tough luck Naveen….next time we’ll get u past that one rd, k? Good!
Posted from: 66.180.184.29
December 4th, 2005 13:13
PS Congrats to all who cleared (especially to Brandon on his first [and well deserved] bid)!!
Posted from: 68.189.241.63
December 4th, 2005 13:40
Yes! Congrats to Dave Salant on an incredibly well-deserved second bid and qualification to the TOC! Congrats also to Caitlin on her third well-deserved bid, Matt on his qual and Brandon on an extremely deserved first bid! Also, congrats to Naveen on his bid round!
Posted from: 128.36.78.199
December 4th, 2005 13:48
Congrats to Naveen!
Congrats also to Sameer for sharing my first name, even though he has absolutely no idea who I am.
Posted from: 69.114.113.124
December 4th, 2005 13:58
So brandon is in finals against? panel is?
Posted from: 151.202.100.247
December 4th, 2005 13:58
brandon. legit.
Posted from: 207.172.220.151
December 4th, 2005 14:00
That just reminded me…
Congrats to Sameer and Ardevan for the bid rounds!!!
Posted from: 69.114.113.124
December 4th, 2005 14:01
So brandon is in finals against? panel is?
Posted from: 69.114.113.124
December 4th, 2005 14:05
Finals is Brandon and? panel?
Posted from: 24.229.103.207
December 4th, 2005 14:06
Does anyone know PFD results past quarters or if the result packet is going to be online?
Posted from: 151.202.100.247
December 4th, 2005 14:10
brandon. legit.
Posted from: 128.163.6.4
December 4th, 2005 14:19
yay dave and brandon!!!
Posted from: 65.35.15.199
December 4th, 2005 14:24
i love dave salant times a lot.
Posted from: 69.249.91.131
December 4th, 2005 14:29
huge congrats to jake mcnulty and naveen on getting to the bid round, to levinson for breaking a pattern, and, most of all, congratulations to brandon, the most legit teammate ever
Posted from: 68.38.212.63
December 4th, 2005 14:39
josh meah was 4th speaker.
congrats josh for getting to octos.. interesting round from what i heard
congrats john monagle for getting to quarters in jv.
ALJ JM reps both divisions :)
judging this weekend was sure erratic.. gotta love one of my judges from scarsdale who both lied to me about the decision and if it was the right one, had only an intervening easy way out to vote against me that wasnt in the round whatsoever. :)
but congrats to all and great job matt reppin jersey
Posted from: 24.211.155.46
December 4th, 2005 14:54
tough luck claiborne…just your two most favoritest people ever in finals huh :) hi KEVIN
Posted from: 151.202.100.247
December 4th, 2005 15:01
in fairness, the judging might have been erratic, but the fact that scarsdale brought rahul d’sa, erin vehstedt, and nick camp (i think) with them made the pool much better as a whole
i totally called finals (again) of this tournament after like the second round…i have like 10 witnesses, including the mysterious “panda”
Posted from: 70.194.247.229
December 4th, 2005 15:03
Just on a quick note…
Congratulations to Dave Salant on getting qualled - I don’t keep track of bids of all debaters, so I wasn’t sure if this is his qual bid or third or whatever.
The round was close, and I see why the other two judges voted the other way; had I been Dave Salant, I probably would have gone for a similar strategy in front of the given panel (and no, it wasn’t something sleazy like new in the 2) in terms of adressing topicality. So my dissenting ballot, even if you don’t recognize the other two names (Luis Argueso was an LD debater at Brophy Prep; I don’t know the other judge off hand) there shouldn’t really be an asterisk on the decision that reflects any doubt on it’s legitimacy. That said, I thought Naveen also went for T very well and won it in terms of how I view the issue, and also I found his advocacy burden to be fulfilled.
I guess that’s a long way of saying I thought a) both debaters did well and b) I could see voting either way here - I was impressed by both, and hope I made a good substitute Petraro ;)
The final results are a bit delayed because I had to catch an Amtrak to DC.
Posted from: 141.161.113.177
December 4th, 2005 15:15
Princton needs to stop having Parli kids judge finals.
Go Caitlin!
Posted from: 68.38.209.138
December 4th, 2005 15:21
I’ve never ever gone and complained about a tournament - and so I consider this to be a first - and hopefully a last.
THIS WAS THE WORST TOURNAMENT IVE EVER BEEN TO - BAR NONE -
I think the judging was mostly atrocious and there seemed to be almost no attempts to put good judges in important rounds *e.g. - there were outrounds .w Petraro not judging and some random non-flow Parli WHATEVER*
- and don’t think i’m complaining on just in terms of my own decisions - it was ridiculous. The tournament was straight up stupid.
Evidence?
Ask the many deserving people that didn’t clear or witness the INCREDIBLY erratic speaker point distribution.
Here’s another example about at outround I heard about -
direct quotation from a participant - not a debater.
The judge disclosure in octos:
*I affirm. I negate. - I’m leeeaaaaning aff - what’re everyone elses opinions?*
CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP.
I think this tournament should either lose its bids or provide better judging. SOMETHING should be done. It COULDN’T have been worse. I WATCHED A JUDGE EXPLAIN HIS RFD IN A SHORT HAIKU.
Yes, I am not kidding. A HAIKU RFD.
- Note - FANTASTIC debaters are in finals…
BUT OTHER FANTASTIC DEBATERS WEREN’T GIVEN A FIGHTING CHANCE!
Here’s the alternative:
*Put some effort and care into the pool - force paradigms - maybe have a small seminar .w someone explaning how to adjudicate a round. SOMETHING
*Pre-rank judges to some extent based on tournament experience and use them in important rounds.
*Allow for a few judge strikes
*EXPLAIN SPEAKER POINT PARADIGMS - LIKE - THE NORMAL IMPLICATIONS OF TWENTY SEVENS = NO CLEAR. therefore, giving LOTS OF 24s is STUPID.
- That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be given, but they should be used only under a certain discretion - e.g. with the knowledge of wtf they do to ppl
*LETS OUTROUND JUDGES GIVE RFDS IF THEY ARE GOING TO DISCLOSE
*TELL JUDGES THAT LIKING A CASE *as in - before it gets debated* - IS NOT a good enough reason to vote for it. Preach the value of substantive debate, not arbitrary intervention.
- Moreover - EXPLAIN why intervening is BAD.
Education can solve for a lot - aside from that though - that was the worst tournament I had ever gone to.
Congrats to the competitors that met their goals and to everyone that recieved bids.
Don’t get me wrong, the bid recipients are fine debaters - it’s just that soooooooo many other debaters got, yes, i’ll say it - screwed over. Royally.
I’ll take total heat for this post and defend it to the utmost.
Finally - I always remembered Averill / Luong tab to yield a solid tournament. I don’t understand what happened. I’m completely clueless and sick to my stomach after that tournament.
A lot of debaters work hard to do well - tournaments should meet the debaters half way.
I dont understand wtf happened there.
That was pathetic.
- Josh Meah -
Posted from: 162.84.253.23
December 4th, 2005 15:24
yes david yes.
and matt and caitlin, congrats.
Posted from: 67.80.157.102
December 4th, 2005 15:50
I dont know I didnt find the judging that atrocious, in fact i thought it was quite good.
And i lost on a 2-1 not a 3-0 if anyone cares
Posted from: 69.249.78.151
December 4th, 2005 15:51
good job everyone, especially caitlin. congrats to naveen for getting to the bid round. AND congrats to greg hertz for winning his World Debate Tournament.
jake
Posted from: 207.106.89.45
December 4th, 2005 15:53
Congrats Caitlin!
Posted from: 68.38.220.125
December 4th, 2005 15:59
congrats caitlin
Posted from: 69.113.55.9
December 4th, 2005 15:59
3rd speaker was Eric Sporkin (Syosset)
10th speaker was Kunaal Sharma (Half Hollow)
Posted from: 151.202.100.247
December 4th, 2005 16:10
This tournament is always silly; I think the suggestions that Josh make are make sense and all. But I don’t think the tournament will change, because it’s unwilling to change. Not showing up is probably the only solution (Obviously, I haven’t done that, but that’s because the school I coach schedules the tournaments, not me. And I recommended to Hertz that he not come, even though he couldn’t anyway). It’s unfortunate that the tournament will probably never lose its bids to better tournaments, but I think not showing up (while doing nothing as an act of protest to change the tournament) will at least relieve some of the annual frustration.
(also, as a side note, my prediction included caitlin beating matt in finals, as matt can attest to; so I deserve a prize)
Posted from: 69.249.68.66
December 4th, 2005 16:10
Sherman + Karma = bid
Posted from: 69.204.171.245
December 4th, 2005 16:11
My doubles round against Al-Zamar was a 3-0; the octas round between Matt Levinson and Chris Sawyer was a 3-0, as well as the David Salant and Eric Sporkin round.
Posted from: 24.16.112.123
December 4th, 2005 16:19
congrats naveen
Posted from: 207.172.73.161
December 4th, 2005 16:21
Congrats to Zayn and Chris for reppin Marx lab in out rounds, and to Sameer and Ardevan for the same in your bid rounds. You guys rock!
Posted from: 137.165.215.32
December 4th, 2005 16:26
Great job bidding Brandon. Hope you get your 2nd bid soon. Props to Greg at World as well.
Posted from: 69.117.69.255
December 4th, 2005 16:30
matt levinson was 1st speaker
salant was 2nd
Posted from: 69.249.68.66
December 4th, 2005 16:33
Sherman + Karma = bid
Posted from: 69.249.78.151
December 4th, 2005 16:40
i think reilly was on bottom in the salant’s round against caitlin
Posted from: 12.226.91.74
December 4th, 2005 16:49
Boyle, now that you’ve squirreled, does this mean you need to change your paradigm that you send in to tournaments? :)
Posted from: 68.193.74.20
December 4th, 2005 16:49
congrats to matt on finals, AC on octos, and naveen for his first bid round (and picking up a ballot on T at..princeton)
Posted from: 129.2.193.196
December 4th, 2005 16:51
Congratulations Caitlin! Great job winning Princeton!
Posted from: 24.47.222.112
December 4th, 2005 16:55
I don’t really want to comment on the juding, but I did enjoy the tournament’s time management. Everything (for me, at least) was run on-time and there were pretty huge (3-4 hour) breaks in between rounds, which were pretty enjoyable.
Note that I’m not trying to call the tournament “amazing” or “legit” (or that I’m not trying to validate the tournament based off of time), I’m just commenting on something that I found the be rare at other tournaments (that I attend).
Posted from: 68.198.236.197
December 4th, 2005 17:01
My round with Salant was a 2-1 with Welch dissenting.
Also Congrats to Ben Samuels-Kalow from Hunter for winning in JV
Posted from: 129.2.193.196
December 4th, 2005 17:01
Congratulations Princeton! Great job winning Princeton, and definitely well deserved!
Posted from: 68.162.56.181
December 4th, 2005 17:04
is there a tournament website where one can access the tab?
Posted from: 129.2.193.196
December 4th, 2005 17:07
Congratulations Princeton! Great job winning Princeton, and definitely well deserved!
Posted from: 69.172.36.84
December 4th, 2005 17:31
Congratulations, Caitlin! As the District Chair for Virginia, I am more than proud, on behalf of the state, for the incredible year you are having and all the great years leading up to it.
As for the Princeton Tournament…
The tournament ran very well this year, for time schedule. Better than last year. Judges are always an issue everywhere. But Princeton did move forward in putting out PF Quarters. Somewhat disappointed in the judging of one prelim round; but a tournament cannot control judging that tightly.
~bag
Posted from: 68.198.158.134
December 4th, 2005 18:04
24. At 01:58 PM on 4 December 2005, Peter Petraro wrote:
brandon. legit.
3-0 (Greco, Perlman, Billings)
Posted from: 68.196.115.120
December 4th, 2005 18:07
my semis round was a 3-0, and doubles was a 2-1 (Bathke on bottom)
angela cai dissented in finals
congrats to sherman for finally getting an overdue bid and to Caitlin for winning the tournament
Posted from: 68.161.90.65
December 4th, 2005 18:10
Congrats to all who cleared and especially to Scarsdale kids.
Don’t get your wand in a twist, Ardevan.
Posted from: 68.198.158.134
December 4th, 2005 18:12
WHY DO PARLI JUDGES ADJUDICATE OUTROUNDS AND BID ROUNDS
is princeton even trying to appear legitimate to the outside world
Posted from: 68.38.212.63
December 4th, 2005 18:23
thats true peter. im not complaining about any of those judges; the reason why i didnt say a name was because i think its unfair for other people to be influenced for what i have to say. but i just think in bubble rounds the judges should be of a little higher caliber since mistakes made there really make or break someone, and i think josh’s suggestions are pretty good.
Posted from: 162.84.158.246
December 4th, 2005 18:35
congrats to the entire scarhouse… salant (BID), aks, harris, ardevan… our novice-jvers… extempers… speechies… congressmen… great job on all of your hard word and wonderful showing
(sorry if you think i said this before but i a) wanted to reiterate and b) now know what actually happened in all aspects of the tournament)
Posted from: 68.38.212.63
December 4th, 2005 18:41
thats true peter. im not complaining about any of those judges; the reason why i didnt say a name was because i think its unfair for other people to be influenced for what i have to say. but i just think in bubble rounds the judges should be of a little higher caliber since mistakes made there really make or break someone, and i think josh’s suggestions are pretty good, and i agree with him “I think the judging was mostly atrocious and there seemed to be almost no attempts to put good judges in important rounds *e.g. - there were outrounds .w Petraro not judging and some random non-flow Parli WHATEVER*”
giving it a little thought, what was probably most erratic was the fact there were good judges out there, mixed in with random parents. its hard compensating when a parent judge might actually know alot, or when a past debater (in one of my teammates case’s) knew very little of how to ludge effectively. i think paradigms should be submitted for all judges. i dont think it would be that big of a hassle considering many judges already have them made up. there should be some sort of standard database for judge paradigms (cough maybe vb cough?) hehe that could enter in what each judge likes to seem even if they judge twice a year. (perhaps on the paradigm put which tournaments they go to so participants know whom are likely judges that weekend?). another thing i did find interesting was that when i hit very successful debaters (ie: caitlin halpern, peter dam ) i did have very qualified judges (rahul d’sa, dario from ridge [dont want to spell last name wrong]) but other times i had very random judging such as one lady who told my opponent she was fine with speed but then flowed very little (maybe she was a listening type, but who knows). i think the majority of debaters dont know how to adapt unless they know what type of person is in the back of the room, but i agree with peter that i dont think the tournament will change much.
STILL kind of confused why the judge i mentioned in my first post would give me an rfd in my favor and tell me i won 2 minutes after the round and i guess either make a very bad mistake on the ballot or lie? legit factor of that person is preeetty low now
thats my rant :)
Posted from: 66.92.163.42
December 4th, 2005 18:46
Ernie -
Technically the ballot said Peter Petraro on it, so that’s my out for probably not changing my paradigm for those that want NDCA paradigms until that website is updated ;)
I’ll speak to the two VLD outrounds I judged. The first were fairly clear, so it’s not that surprising they were 3-0s. I also knew in the Naveen v. Salant round by the end of the 1NR that there was a decent chance I’d be the only one possibly voting negative; I think I wrote down some funny comment about adapting for me. Here’s ultimately what I thouhgt - Salant did exactly what I would have told someone to do in front of that panel. They’re not going to want to vote on a T violation, so give them some out (even if it’s not fully answered) and they’ll more than likely ignore the T violation (and I have no doubt had the panel been different Salant would have dealt with T differently in the 1AR). At the same time, given the nature of Salant’s case and the fact that I wasn’t sure until probably about an hour after I heard it as to what some good responses would be (on a substantive level), I do think Naveen did the right thing in going for T as an issue (because almost immediately that’s what came to my mind when I heard the case). So, even if I disagree with the result, don’t take anything away from the competitors - it would have been a different round with a different panel in terms of the 1AR, and then from there the issues would have gone down differently (meaning I know Salant can answer T, and I told him after the round that he did exactly what I would have reccomended doing to a competitor in front of that panel).
That said…… meh, I can’t really share any interesting stories or thoughts on the board for political reasons. I’m sure people will hear them anyway, like the story about the policy team that stole my timer ;)
Posted from: 68.38.212.63
December 4th, 2005 18:53
o, and again, no names, but just take a look at the elims. especially at the 2-1’s. not saying anything in particular because i dont want to offend anyone, but many of the “squirrel” judges are very legit, which kind of makes you wonder why they are disenting right? i doubt THAT mant good judges suddenly forgot how to judge. guess the other 2 were moms :-/
Posted from: 66.26.40.201
December 4th, 2005 19:02
Praise Josh Meah (though I’ve never met him) for speaking the truth! The judging here was absolute shit. In my bubble round (3-2 in 6th) I was negative and the judge wrote on the ballot “the negative disproves the necessity of judicial activism for protecting writes, HOWEVER…”. Like no, I’m sorry. That is the most ridiculous crap I have heard in all my debating career. You disprove the resolution but lose the round?! That’s not how LD works. That’s why we can’t have parli debaters like my judge, judging in important rounds when they cannot even understand that the fact that the resolution is disproven means that you have to vote negative; that cannot be outwiehged by anything, ever. So basically, everything that Josh said was articulate and persuasive, and moreover, it’s all sadly but empriically true. Thank you for speaking the truth so well.
On another note, congrats to everyone that cleared or got the screw. Great job
Posted from: 68.171.8.199
December 4th, 2005 19:22
Does anyone know if there’s a result packet posted online? If so, where? Thanks, and congrats to all competitors.
Posted from: 68.38.212.63
December 4th, 2005 19:46
** damrosch, not dam
Posted from: 161.253.33.81
December 4th, 2005 20:13
wooh! go caitlin! you’re such a superstar. :-)
Posted from: 24.31.11.247
December 4th, 2005 20:24
Now you all know what the local circuit is like, full of crap judges who don’t know what they are talking about. You should feel lucky that you don’t have to put up with it all the time.
Posted from: 151.202.100.247
December 4th, 2005 20:45
Uh, I don’t get “irony.” My post just said that Brandon was legit (it was posted after I found out he got his bid). And since, like, everyone but one person loses in a tournament, pasting the result of the round he lost next to my comment isn’t exposing any irony at all.
Posted from: 151.202.100.247
December 4th, 2005 20:47
oh ok i get it; that’s the panel of the quarters round he won…ok, wow, he won with parli judges in the back…because it’s the debaters fault who’s judging him…
Posted from: 69.117.14.146
December 4th, 2005 20:50
i agree with matt about the time between rounds being comfortable
when else could i watch the 2 hour law and order special?
Posted from: 71.139.185.227
December 4th, 2005 21:16
congratulations caitlin.
Posted from: 24.54.239.171
December 4th, 2005 21:56
Congrats to Caitlin for tearing it up.
Posted from: 128.135.173.63
December 4th, 2005 23:08
Princeton: 3 days, expensive hotels, atrocious judging, TERRIBLE schedule (3-4 hours between rounds aren’t a sign of a good tournament) and a semis bid.
Hen Hud: 2 days, cheaper hotels, excellent judging (it’s at least a million times better than princeton), better competition, strikes, judge ranking, and a quarters bid.
Yet somehow Princeton had 60 schools entered and Hen Hud has 28?
Follow Pete’s advice, and boycott Princeton…there’s a much better alternative.
Posted from: 68.49.180.49
December 5th, 2005 02:33
I was the squirrel in the Newark Science AM-Millburn JM round (by the way, no one should take anything from that at all, except that I was on the bottom of a decision that, as I told both debaters, could easily have gone to either and in which there was no clear winner).
Of course I’m proud of Caitlin as a coach. So, I’ll just say: Your hard work is amazing, and you did great this weekend.
And, I also definitely understand where those who are complaining about the tournament are coming from. I don’t think people should take those posts as merely sour grapes, but rather consider them seriously for their merit as legitimate challenges/questions to some of the administrative decisions in the tournament.
Finally, regardless of those questions, I just wanted to compliment the four debaters in Semis. Regardless of any circumstances at the tournament or anyone’s outside opinion of who judged those rounds, all four cases run in semis were, in my (biased) opinion, pretty interesting and deserving of that kind of round. I watched the Matt-Brandon round, and was glad — despite some of the issues on the flow — to hear good arguments about societal inequalities developed in smart and unique ways. Similarly, at least insofar as it was described to me after the fact, Dave’s aff seemed unique and really interesting. Anyway, despite anything anyone else says about this tournament, I know we (W.T. Woodson) were really excited and honored to be in the same company as the other 3 debaters who received bids. It is a great thing that Dave and Matt can now book a flight to Lexington, and that Brandon is halfway there.
Posted from: 68.49.180.49
December 5th, 2005 02:42
Oh yeah, plenty of pictures to come from the tournament, including the much anticipated pictorial of the Brothers Salant!
Random fact: I believe only 3 of the 32 debaters clearing to Doubles were female (Caitlin, Sophie, and Hannah). Of course, I have no idea what the general composition of the pool was by gender (the pool as a whole in Varsity had 153 debaters in total), nor am I suggesting ANYTHING (particularly regarding causation) for this statistical anamoly), other than I found that to be a random trivia oddity worthy of note after they posted the breaks.
Posted from: 24.211.155.46
December 5th, 2005 02:43
To Petey,
I really don’t think anyone should boycott Princeton. If your point is that the debate at Princeton sucked (and I won’t argue with you on that one), then encouraging all the competitive teams to go elsewhere will only decrease the quality of the tournament. We should encourage the tournament to hire better judges/bring our own to improve quality, not boycott the tournament out of existence. Hen Hud may be a great tournament but 2 great tournaments are better than 1.
Posted from: 68.38.209.138
December 5th, 2005 02:58
wump
bringing more good competitors doesnt force the tournament to check its own legitimacy. it needs to rework itself. its effed up
-completely
bringing good debaters to the tournament only perpetuates the problem
Posted from: 68.38.209.138
December 5th, 2005 03:14
I think my last post was too much of a criticism without an alternative.
The reason why saying teams need to be responsible for bringing good judging is that
a) most dont
b) that doesnt force princeton to do some judge training.
there are serious administrative issues. good teams still went to princeton, but the litany of clueless parent/parli judges really hurt the judge pool.
note - there are FANTASTIC parent/parli judges out there. it’s nonsensical to hold them responsible for being clueless. i blame princeton. there is no point in brgining better judging. just dont go and let it devolve into a useless local and let the bid move to the west coast or something. it’s useless at princeton.
Posted from: 24.107.11.25
December 5th, 2005 03:21
Until recently, I had only heard about how talented Anjan was from Mr. Timmons. Since I’ve met him, I’ve been even more impressed with how well he participates in the debate community. The dude put up trophy after trophy in high school was one of the top law students at Harvard, but you’d never know that from how humble he is both inside and outside the tournament. On many occasions he’s taken time to talk to me about my students after he judges them spending a considerable amount of time offering feedback.
I just think it’s so impressive that when he and his incredibly talented debater Caitlin get their first big tournament win, he is not only gracious enough to recognize people’s complaints with how the tournament is running but even goes as far as explaining that there might be a need to seriously consider them. Anjan is just a Mench. If Lexington is still taking nominees for the Lexington Coaching Award, I think they should strongly consider him. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more gracious winner. I couldn’t think of a nicer duo than Caitlin and Anjan to win a tourney. I hope you guys have many more victories.
Posted from: 63.138.40.98
December 5th, 2005 04:37
>TERRIBLE schedule (3-4 hours between rounds aren’t a sign of a good tournament)
This is a rather baseless comment. ONe should notice that there is also a speech tournament being conducted at the same time and in the same rooms. In addition, only a two hour lag existed between rounds–there was a 4 hour difference between STARTING times, with each round given a full two hours. This allows for the inevitable delays, debaters or judges not showing up, rooms being like by public safety between rounds, and the like.
Having been in tab running Congress, I can tell you that the negative comments about the care in placement of judges during key prelim rounds is wholly inaccurate. Tim Averill and Minh Luong work carefully to ensure that the key rounds get the best judges. I am sure that some of those judges ended up NOT picking up their ballots, at which point they are given to an available judge. That of course is not tab’s fault.
I do agree with the idea of making sure that the judges are trained, and aware of the ‘trends’ in LD–and then be able to give a coherent and explicit paradigm when asked before the round. If a judge says that she does not wish to hear T, or theory, or PoMo syntactically-challenged authors, or whatever, she should say so, rather than say “what the other judge said is fine by me.”
What Josh said.
BC
Posted from: 63.138.40.98
December 5th, 2005 04:41
And, frankly more importantly, a huge big bunch of congratulations to Caitlin on a terrific win, and also to Anjan–for coaching one of the best and being a heckuva human being.
BC
Posted from: 216.159.104.202
December 5th, 2005 05:00
I had the pleasure of judging Caitlin at the Glenbrooks and was floored. It’s nice to see a debater with personality, strategic capabilities and slower, persuasive delivery succeed in a world gradually shifting away from the critical public speaking skills necessary to succeed outside of the debate world.
Congratulations, Caitlin, for a fantastic victory.
Thank you, Anjan, for coaching such a spectacular debater and such a wonderful person!
Posted from: 128.135.173.63
December 5th, 2005 05:19
I understood Matt Smith’s post as saying there were literally 3-4 hours between rounds, not, for example, that he had flight A, lunch and flight B and thus got alot of downtime.
Certain tournaments deserve to be reformed, and amazingly, even in the NE we are starting to see some of that this year. (thank you, Hen Hud/Lex) Apparently, in the year of change, Princeton didn’t get the message. As long as they bank on the tournament’s location as the main reason for drawing competitors and then use that pool size to legitimate the fact that it’s a semis bid, nothing will change, it will certainly never become “great” if any of the current conditions are maintained. Some NE tournamnents just need to lose bids and die so that the better ones that are taking active steps to improve can be rewarded with bids or better attendance.
Posted from: 68.49.180.49
December 5th, 2005 05:42
I forgot to note above that in addition to Martha Carr and myself, Caitlin is also coached by my wonderful sister, Tanya.
And, while I certainly do appreciate the very nice compliments, I should admit that any successes had by Caitlin this year are really only the product of her own immense talent and extremely hard work ethic. It would be nice to take credit for these things, but really, I’m just along for the ride. :-)
Posted from: 63.138.40.98
December 5th, 2005 05:46
As far as I could tell, all rounds were started within 15 minutes of the scheduled time: 5 and 9 pm on Friday, 8, 12, 4, and 8 on Saturday.
BC
Posted from: 66.108.85.206
December 5th, 2005 05:55
“Anjan is just a Mench. If Lexington is still taking nominees for the Lexington Coaching Award, I think they should strongly consider him. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more gracious winner. I couldn’t think of a nicer duo than Caitlin and Anjan to win a tourney. I hope you guys have many more victories.”
Unfortunately, my understanding is that the award is going on a very brief hiatus this year…but I couldn’t agree more with what Sam said. Happily, as I’m positive Anjan isn’t leaving the activity again anytime soon, I know he’ll continue to be eligible when it is reintroduced.
And Sam’s right. Anjan is a mench.
Congratulations Caitlin, and to her coaches: the Choudhurys and Martha Carr!
Posted from: 209.210.9.10
December 5th, 2005 06:39
congrats to Catlin on your 3rd bid…good work josh, and isabelle and jenny nice work despite not breaking..you guys still deserve it.
Posted from: 151.198.226.100
December 5th, 2005 06:47
illegit. illegit. illegit.
wat now biatch?! wat now?!
wat wat wat??!?!?!?
Posted from: 63.138.40.98
December 5th, 2005 06:48
to local debater:
if you read any of the posts by anyone above, you’d notice that it wasn’t simply a problem of “local judges”. there were many great judges, but not really assigned to rounds that should have been given higher quality judges. also, dont atack people on the basis that we think we are too good for local judges or dont know what it is like, because before this year my team was only able to go to tournaments with “local tournament type” judging. my post said the tournament itself was confusing because there was such a large gap between the good judges and bad judges and sometimes no way to tell who has what qualifications. ive been subject to lay judges for three years, and because of my school’s extended traveling ability this year, great judging, but when those two types are combined and there is no way for a debater to tell how to adapt, thats when problems occur.
Posted from: 151.198.226.100
December 5th, 2005 06:49
illegit. illegit. illegit.
wat now biatch?! wat now?!
wat wat wat??!?!?!?
alex zhao just clicked the post button and posted an incomplete post. poser.
go brandon and the queer theory aff! congrats congrats.
<3panda
Posted from: 151.198.226.100
December 5th, 2005 06:55
and w00t w00t for the ridge team for finally breaking to later outrounds. thank you naveen for running the crt aff in front of chris blaine.
<3 panda
Posted from: 151.198.226.100
December 5th, 2005 06:57
and w00t w00t for the ridge team for finally breaking to later outrounds. thank you naveen for running the crt aff in front of chris blaine.
<3 panda
Posted from: 205.196.188.155
December 5th, 2005 08:58
“In my bubble round (3-2 in 6th) I was negative and the judge wrote on the ballot “the negative disproves the necessity of judicial activism for protecting writes, HOWEVER…”. Like no, I’m sorry. That is the most ridiculous crap I have heard in all my debating career. You disprove the resolution but lose the round?! That’s not how LD works. That’s why we can’t have parli debaters like my judge, judging in important rounds.”
Wait? What? Important? Bubble?
Posted from: 66.193.5.99
December 5th, 2005 10:08
cameron-
I meant like, had I won that round, I would’ve been 4-2 and might’ve broken. So yea, that’s an important round to win.
Posted from: 209.210.9.10
December 5th, 2005 10:10
congrats to everyone at Princeton. Specifically Catlin congrats on the win and ur 3rd bid, Isabelle, Josh, and Jeny congrats as well you really are amazing. and thanks for keeping in touch this weekend…it was good to hear from you guys when i was in Texas.
Posted from: 209.210.9.10
December 5th, 2005 10:12
congrats to everyone at Princeton. Specifically Catlin congrats on the win and ur 3rd bid, Isabelle, Josh, and Jeny congrats as well you really are amazing. and thanks for keeping in touch this weekend…it was good to hear from you guys when i was in Texas.
Posted from: 209.11.48.2
December 5th, 2005 10:54
+1 to Duby’s comments about Anjan, +1 to Cyndy’s comments about Caitlin. In fact, the whole “team Woodson/Choudhury” is really impressive. Thanks for coming up to the NE!
As for the complaining, if you didn’t go into this tournament with your eyes open about what would happen then let this be a lesson. Your team should have talked about what this pool is like and how do you deal with it. I agree that maybe the overarching pool of judges would not have been what I would have liked but have a sense of realism. Know what you are in for and ADAPT! For those who complained about an outround panel with two ‘mommy’ judges and a circuit judge, if the two ‘mommies’ are on top and the circuit judge is on bottom for you then YOU ADAPTED POORLY!
Why go for the one circuit judge? That makes no sense. In outrounds, you have to win the panel, not the round necessarily. That’s part of the game folks. That’s why Salant made fun of T and didn’t go for Boyle’s ballot in quarters. Even Boyle admitted he knew that was going to happen. I’ve been on the bottom so many times for this exact reason and complimented the debater for not trying for my ballot when I was the divergent paradigm of the panel. That’s called playing the game well.
Posted from: 207.153.112.110
December 5th, 2005 11:11
congrats Caitlin
Posted from: 149.61.132.211
December 5th, 2005 11:39
Just wanted to say congratulations to all of the debaters! You guys did an amazing job. And a huge congrats to Caitlin and Matt!
Posted from: 63.138.40.98
December 5th, 2005 12:33
Joe
I have the utmost respect for you in terms of your coaching ability and the time you put into making the activity better. However, I think it is completely absurd for you to call all losses from bad judges the fault of the competitors. Before you criticize me for criticizing the tournament I will still contend the entire tournament was garbage.
I’m sure many people adapted, but there still needs to be some educating of judges. Back when I went to NDF a couple years ago, I recieved a packet from you, created by Doug Lieb, that thoroughly explained LD in its most simplistic form so that new judges could learn about the acitivity. I don’t know what has happened since then, but i dont see any reason why your position on a necessity for a minimum education of judges for tournament credibility should change and even if it wasnt in terms of tournament credibility you still used to believe in educating judges.
It’s a naturalistic fallacy to say that the tournament sucks, adapt, and move on. Rather, what ought to be done is a correcting of the huge administrative problem where there is no accountability for the garbage judging. You and I both know that those judges are not dumb people, but when many different rounds are being called illegitimate, there is probably some credibility to it.
When judges are not clear about their paradigm, write ad homs on ballots, and explain RFD’s with Haikus I can absolutly guarantee you that you are 100% wrong. Everyone that knows me understands that I NEVER EVER complain about tournaments, but there is nothing wrong with objective criticism. Competitors and judges alike have supported me in this opinion and in that sense, with someone with as much clout as yourself, I am astonished that your arguement is simply the trite one: adapt.
Yes - adaptation is fantastic. Tell us all what to adapt to. Judges should have an idea of what their own preferences are. Tell judges to flow - if not - tell judges to only adjudicate on in round substance and not on their own inclinations. I do not believe in EVER directly mentioning a judge, no matter how unreasonable they may be, but I will provide you with a very fine example of bad judging. In one of my rounds, I dropped the ballot because the judge openly admitted that they didn’t believe in my case, though I had won clear extensions. She felt that there were logical leaps, though not mentioned in the round (ever) that she felt compelled to question. Therefore, because i did not answer the questions in her head I lost the ballot.
No Joe. No. This is a problem when judges think they are SUPPOSED to intervene. This judge was a very intelligent person and a teacher at their school, but felt it was perfectly legitimate to intervene. THIS JUDGE THOUGHT IT WAS WHAT HE/SHE was SUPPOSED TO DO. This is something that needs to be corrected and the solutions are all too simple.
A special note needs to be made that I plan on participating in this community longer than my own competitive career lasts and my criticisms and alternatives are parts and pieces of changes I’d like to be activist in making. I dont understand why you wouldn’t want to make judging better.
Please make this make sense to me. I’m 100% positive that I do not understand where you are coming from at all.
- Josh Meah -
Posted from: 68.192.190.207
December 5th, 2005 12:46
Just to reflect on some of the stuff that’s been said:
I really think that what Mr. Vaughan has said needs to be considered. The Princeton tournament has had a REPUTATION for being a “lay” tournament at which judging is not going to pick up the Horkheimer K or the irony aff. That said, I don’t CONDONE that kind of judging, but I do think that given the fact that the tournament’s reputation is pretty longstanding as one where you have to “tone it down”, some of the complaining is unnecessary. Granted, this appears contradictory, given that I ran T in quarters; that was my screwup though. I went out on a limb because I was desperate, hoping to win both Boyle’s ballot and someone else’s ballot. It didn’t work. I’m not going to complain, because as a debater, that is MY FAULT if I couldn’t deal with the case in any other way than T. And I’ll totally admit that.
I really respect Dave, and like Boyle said, I thought he went for the best strategy in that round–don’t even worry about his ballot. I think it’s really STUPID when people start complaining how bad judging is when they can’t pick up the judge who is incapable of flowing them at 400 WPM. So I think Mr. Vaughan is definitely right in that sense.
On the flipside, however, what he’s said needs to be taken with a grain (and maybe another for all this snow) of salt. If you are dropping the round, you are dropping because the judge didn’t understand your arguments, or you specifically ran something that you should have KNOWN that you were predisposed to dropping on–as a general principle. There are sometimes rounds that are simply unpredictable. This comes about particularly when people ask “do you have a paradigm/specific preference for arguments, presentation, etc?” and the judge simply shakes her head, unknowing of the hidden question: “Can I basically disregard you and debate however the hell I want to?” Therefore, I think the solution to the problem is what Josh advocates: the Princeton tournament needs to have at least SOME judge orientation (that is better than your average parent-judge orientation). I don’t think that it was the worst tournament EVER (although I am obviously a bit biased); I think debaters need to realize that adaptation IS a necessary skill in debate, despite what your theory blocks are screaming to you from the hidden depths of your expando.
Posted from: 68.196.115.198
December 5th, 2005 12:50
thank you joshy-poo for your long response that i did not read.
Posted from: 65.25.226.156
December 5th, 2005 13:21
panda, how bout contributing something meaningful rather than something pointless that I feel obligated to respond to in hope that if/when I do encounter you in real life I won’t instantly hate you.
Posted from: 209.11.48.2
December 5th, 2005 13:23
Josh,
If you would go back and actually read my post, you will note that I conceded to your arguments. Yes, the Whig-Clio panel should distribute some sort of guidelines. In fact, I am going to attach my judging manual to my registration next year.
My adapt comment was specifically to the person several posts back who complained about 2 mommie judges and the circuit judge on bottom and to NOTHING else. I agree. You cannot really adapt to intervention.
Please, in your screed-ready mode, calm it down and read the post a second time before you misconstrue the argument. Granted my application was not as specific as it should have been, so be it.
Posted from: 171.64.209.204
December 5th, 2005 13:49
I just wanted to echo the comments Sam, Jon, and Joe made about Anjan (though I haven’t met Caitlin, I’m sure she is also very deserving of the praise and kind comments she is receiving). Both when he judged me and since I’ve interacted with him now that I’m no longer competing in the activity, I have always found Anjan to be one of the most kind-hearted and gracious people in this activity (the same applies to his Tanya - I can only imagine what great parents Mr. and Mrs. Choudhury are). In an increasingly competitive activity, Anjan has always been very nice and down-to-earth, and he has consistently shown his dedication to the educational value and general pleasantness of the debate community. He is really the kind of person this community should make sure stays around.
Posted from: 151.202.68.163
December 5th, 2005 13:56
I have met the panda.
Posted from: 68.38.209.138
December 5th, 2005 14:22
Joe
If that is implicit in your first post and I did not catch that, I apologize.
Naveen
word
On other stuff:
Anjan is one of the best judges I’ve ever had and is one of the nicest people I’ve ever met. I concur with all of the afforementioned and just want to further that if you haven’t met caitlin, you are missing out. She’s a brilliant sweetheart and they are one hell of a team.
Posted from: 207.172.150.102
December 5th, 2005 14:31
Kevin-
I’m kind of curious as to what kind of judging you would prefer. In my experience, your position has always been “Interventionism good because it keeps people who run ’stupid’ arguments from winning”. But now you’re going out and attacking judges for intervening and voting against you even if they concede that you won ‘X’ argument because it’s “too interventionist”. Now, I’m not sure what kind of judge you can find that will fit into your conception of the “perfect” judge.
On a similar note, I went to Princeton last year and found the judging to be awful. In fact, I found myself complaining about judging quite a bit last year. But what I’ve come to realize is that there is very little to be gained by complaining about the judge. If the judge is paying attention to the round, a lot of times that’s all you can expect, and you’ve gotta put the burden on yourself to figure out what that judge wants to hear. That means doing commonsensical things like advancing a coherent “position” or weighing explicitly in front of a parent judge (even though I’m a big fan of weighing period). It also means not undercovering topicality in front of Boyle.
Now, of course tournaments should take steps to accommodate debaters, but it also means that debaters should know what they’re getting themselves into and adapting to that end. As an extreme, that means not going to tournaments at which you don’t think you can win the judges. As Joe told me before Princeton- Yes, the judging is bad, but you know that already because it’s Princeton.
Posted from: 160.39.156.157
December 5th, 2005 14:36
When I debated Petey at Vassar a couple of years ago, Jen Fluke wrote the RFD in a haiku. I just thought I’d share.
Posted from: 207.172.150.102
December 5th, 2005 14:48
Yeah, I almost forgot, congratulations to everyone who went and did well, especially Caitlin, Dave, Matt and Brandon (who I’ve only met in passing but seems really cool).
Posted from: 68.198.150.207
December 5th, 2005 15:18
I actually think when you combine what Petraro and Vaughan said you get a good solution to the problem. Petraro suggested that if you don’t like the tournament don’t go. If you didn’t know that Princeton is known for being a terrible tournament then you probably should have done a little more research because it ain’t too hard to find that out. If you want Princeton to change then it’s simple: don’t go. If you don’t go the Princeton tournament doesn’t make money off you, they see numbers/ legitimacy declining and they are forced to make a change. If you do go then you tacitly accept the judging and as Mr. Vaughan said you adapt and don’t complain.
Posted from: 66.26.40.201
December 5th, 2005 15:35
Alex-
My problem with the judging was not that “I won x argument, and I should therefore win but the judge dropped me”. It was that I proved the resolution false (verbatim on the ballot) but he voted aff. Now, proving the resolution false isn’t just an argument; if you do that on the neg, you win the round. I challenge you to convince me otherwise, but to do so would just make you sound ridiculous. Besides, if I prove the resolution false on the neg and the judge votes aff, he or she may just be ignorant of how to adjudicate a debate round, which I thought was the problem with the judging. And as to your question, my perfect panel would probably be some less preferred judges that aren’t point fairies- cyndy woodhouse, jeff doss and steph bell.
Anyways, I dont know why you posted this. You go on to agree that the judging was bad when you attended. I also think you’re right to say that complaining isn’t going to change the rounds, but it does make people (myself included) feel better to 1) vent and 2) make sure that they were not a rare victim and that the problem was widespread. At the point that basically everyone, even those who did very well, can agree that the judging was shit, then I think it’s reasonable to conclude that I will never attend the tournament again, and I would advise against it. So basically, I had no idea that the judging was bad. I knew the tournament was lay and that is a very basic description of my debating, and so I attended. I came to learn that the judging was terrible, and now I don’t want others to fall victim to the same thing. That’s all. THanks
Posted from: 207.172.150.102
December 5th, 2005 16:01
I think there are a lot of judges who would be willing to drop you even if you “prove the resolution untrue” when you negate, but that’s besides the point. The point I’m getting at it something you appear to have realized: that complaining about bad judging won’t make it go away, and that there’s really no one to blame for it.
Posted from: 207.172.150.102
December 5th, 2005 16:16
I think there are a lot of judges who would be willing to drop you even if you “prove the resolution untrue” when you negate, but that’s besides the point. The point I’m getting at it something you appear to have realized: that complaining about bad judging won’t make it go away, and that there’s really no one to blame for it.
Posted from: 66.31.28.52
December 5th, 2005 16:31
Would someone please tell me who would have won Princeton if the judging had been “perfect” and every assigned judge had actually picked up a ballot? In the future, maybe we should not hold the rounds at all and just look at the names of the competitors and coaches and decide in advance how things “should” turn out. Then we could save a lot of time and make every national circuit person happy.
So much whining in the previous posts from people who were recently in debate diapers! Of course there are bad and interventionist judges. After all, Bush is President, so get used to it! Wait until NFL if you want a lesson in adapting.
All kidding aside, Minh and I did our best to ensure that the best possible judge was watching each round and we were especially attentive to the cusp rounds. When people come to Princeton, they know they will be judged by very bright and very earnest Princeton debaters and they should also know that they are not going to win on the latest tricks of the trade alone and even that reputation may not be enough to win.
My best team in PFD, which had not yet lost a tournament, went 2-2 in PFD and lost in rounds where the judge indicated that he knew what was right and was going to vote that way no matter what the debaters said. Oh well, that’s debate and that’s life. I hope that Hen Hud will be up to its usual high standards.
Tim
Posted from: 131.229.177.243
December 5th, 2005 16:33
+1 to what Joe Vaughan said.
Now that I’m 3 years out, I think back to my junior year at Princeton - good lord, it was 5 years ago - and recall the Parli kid who fell asleep during one of my prelims and, like, drooled on my ballot. Come to think of it, drool might have been the only thing that wound up on that ballot.
Anyone who goes to Princeton next year - don’t say you haven’t been warned.
Posted from: 68.196.115.120
December 5th, 2005 17:14
I don’t know what you’re all talking about. My prelim judging was sweet.
Posted from: 141.150.16.209
December 5th, 2005 17:27
Tim,
I know how hard you and Minh work to ensure the integrity of the tournament. I have seen it for four years. Anyone who questions that is going to get, at least, a snarl from me.
But there is an expectation of adaptation, and there is the reality; and when a judge gives no clue as to his or preferences, then there is nothing to adapt to. When a judge says, “I’ll agree/go along with what so-and-so [another judge] says” and then clearly votes on paradigmatic issues which could have been adapted to had the basis for adaptation been stated, then I think a valid concern has been raised.
“Oh my God what has happened to LD in the 4 years since I debated” is not a valid comment. “What makes you think you can….” is, also, not valid. At least, neither is valid unless one is given something to adapt to.
Please note, that I say this as someone who generally prefers traditional LD. I find most PoMo stuff obtuse and incomprehensible as used in most rounds (please NOTE that qualifier); I would much prefer that debaters talk about the topic rather than tell me that one or the other is being ‘fairer’ by arguing some obscure or limited position. I get all that. But, if we are to insist on adaptation, we must ensure that the debaters know to what they must adapt; and that is the gravamen in this current discussion. A judge who says, as one did earlier this year, “you guys have gotten this far, you must know what you are doing”, and then, after the round, tells one debater “you are bad for debate” for going into theoretical, a priori, or other such new wave tactics, has, frankly, misled the debater. And that, too, has happened.
Adaptation indeed must happen; but one needs to know what to adapt to, and judges who do not reveal that or, who, worse, refuse the opportunity and/or mislead debaters, do our students a great disservice, both intellectually and competitively. Either objection should raise concern; the twain coming together ought raise greater concerns.
BC
Posted from: 24.148.160.143
December 5th, 2005 18:16
congradulations matt and caitlin! i’m glad to see the two people who have beat me in outrounds winning tourns. i love both of your styles, it’s good to see your types of styles winning tourns, it’s very encouraging. also note to anjan, you’re my hero.
congrats again.
Posted from: 69.172.36.84
December 5th, 2005 18:24
So many posts! Just to weigh in for fun on this one…
IF LD is a communicative activity, then judge adaptation becomes of paramount importance. Clearly, a paradigm would be useful for all competitors and Victory Briefs has done well on that. One could argue that some sort of eParadigm might be useful. We have done that for Districts and Victory Briefs has a compendium of sorts. Contrariwise, paradigms are only so useful for students as some judges may have less than clear ideas on the activity. Additionally, when I judged Vassar RR, my paradigm was very clear and very old, old school. Not one student I judged adapted to that paradigm. Communication is of prime value in this activity. There are, in some sense, no Right or Wrong in persuasion (viz. George Bush analysis supra) in the real world. And the purpose of debate is not to construct Truth (see theology department for that), but to persuade a judge. A very, very important lesson for high school students. Important lesson for adults, as well. Princeton offered a great, variegated judge pool that forced debaters to adapt. I think one of the reasons Caitlin did well was that she has been judged by very contemporary judges, very traditional judges, and very lay judges in her career. If we become enamoured by current theories to mathematically prove why we should pick up a ballot, we have lost the communicative nature of LD and should start carrying around tubs, dressing for paintball, and practicing our auctioneer speedtalk skills.
As I have told dejected debaters and forensicators for a number of years, “Jesus was busy and couldn’t judge this outround.” It is just, in the final analysis, a tournament. If does not adjudicated value or lack thereof. It, like any other high school forensics tournament, offers life-lessons in an undistilled form. Lessons, for some of us, me included, not to take ourselves so seriously and to not focus on the rank but the lesson learned.
And, from what I saw on Dr. Luong’s and the Venerable Averill’s tabs for the short years I’ve been doing this activity (including Princeton!), one would be hard-pressed to find a more concerned and absolutely fair tab staff. Judge strikes and paradigms are a nice idea; but to go about evincing change with a “This sucks” line of argumentation shows that not only is your rhetorical analysis off in your rounds, you haven’t even heard of Dale Carnegie.
Princeton, no matter what, still is a great tournament because it is a great location at a great time of the year. Everyone of my kids, even the ones who came close to breaking and still did not, loved the tournament and always has. Bronx was spectacular for the competition; but, sorry Jon, not the most aesthetically appealing except for the mural of famous dead inventors in the foyer. Yale, well, we see some buildings but, well, mostly one street (and, if you’re Dario, the Hockey Rink). Harvard is mostly the high school and some parts of downtown. There are some tournaments you go to for competition and some you go to for environment. Princeton in December is the best place for ChristmaHanukwazakah ever!
And, now for some egg nog and a roaring fire.
~bag
Posted from: 68.38.212.63
December 5th, 2005 18:24
+3 to Coop.
i feel a little compelled to answer mr vaughan’s comment that i think was to my post. it’s not simply about knowing the judges are bad and you have to adapt, its a problem when you see a judge and think they are a lay judge, you ask for what they can handle, and they clearly say they can handle handle speed, any argument however dense, and then clearly misunderstood my opponents arguement. if judges dont know how to tell you how to adapt, its only a *little* hard to actually adapt. i dont think i had terrible judging, and the only complaint i have is against that certain judge i mentioned in my first post who lied after the round. that hurt the integrity of the team who brought that judge, who i mentioned in the first post. teams can certain control judging by educating and bringing their own, so the tournament isnt forced to hire crap.
Posted from: 24.148.160.143
December 5th, 2005 18:27
Randolph ML def. Cary Academy CH (Clay Hane)
(Abel, Welch, Bathke)
2-1 for matt, not sure who was on bottom
Posted from: 24.47.222.112
December 5th, 2005 18:43
I agree with Mr. Cooper. I can’t really complain about this tournament, though, because I had really good judging (comparatively), except for my first round:
Greg Ihrie, Mike Badain, Mike Shih, Legolas (I’m not kidding), and Erin Vedstedt (sorry Erin I don’t know how to spell your last name).
But I think one thing that really needs to be brought to attention is the lack of these judges that people would enjoy having in the outrounds.
Posted from: 67.171.219.52
December 5th, 2005 18:55
I don’t mean to interrupt any discussions about the tournament but I wanted to congratulate Mr. Dave Salant. I learned everything I know about debate and life in general from Dave. His part-Emily Post, part-cowboy personality is one of the most entertaining out there. Although he likes to use the term “rugged” to describe others, there will be no one more rugged at the TOC than Mr. Salant himself.
Posted from: 64.12.116.203
December 5th, 2005 18:56
is it any use pointing out that even tho the tournament was seemingly illegit… the brackets were seemingly like any tournament… and it seemed that the higher seeds like 1, 3, 4, 6 were all really legit ppl… i mean you would expect caitlin levinson salant and josh meah to break highly at every tournament, wouldn’t you?
Posted from: 69.249.50.38
December 5th, 2005 19:12
mr. cooper is far more qualified to speak on what went