Stuyvesant Wins New York State LD, Policy Titles; Cold Spring Harbor Takes Public Forum
Tamir Yewdaev and Tim De Santa
ALBANY, N.Y. - Hundreds of students competed across sixteen events at this weekend’s New York State Forensic League Championship Tournament. Full results and pictures are forthcoming. (Currently, full results from varsity LD, varsity policy, and novice policy have been uploaded.)
Congratulations to this year’s finalists in Lincoln-Douglas debate: Stuyvesant High School’s Tamir Yewdaev and Regis High School’s Tim DeSanta! On a 3-2 decision, Tamir defeated Tim to claim the NYSFL championship.
Tamir is coached by Julie Sheinman, Caitlin Halpern, and Rahul D’Sa. Tim is coached by Eric Di Michele.
In varsity policy debate, the Stuyvesant team of Zach Frankel and Emma Manson defeated the Bronx High School of Science team of Saieed Hasnoo and Paula Cajdler to win the varsity policy title. Congratulations to both competitors!
Stuyvesant is coached by Julie Sheinman and Bret Harper. Bronx Science is coached by Sarah M. Heaton, David Marks, and Todd Fine.
Congratulations to the finalists in J.V. policy debate! In the final round, the team of Casey Brander and Shantrice King from Beacon High School met the team of Charlotte Strauss-Swanso and Rhiannon Landesberg from the Institute for Collaborative Education. On a 3-0 decision, Beacon defeated ICE to win the state title.
Beacon is coached by Nathaniel Turner. ICE is coached by Jeffrey Romanow.
Congratulations to Bronx Science for closing out the final round of novice policy debate. The team of Andrew Markoff and Zack Elias and the team of Regan Bozman and Dee Yusuf were declared co-champions.
Public Forum debate was offered by NYSFL for the second year. In the final round, the Cold Spring Harbor High School team of Scott Kaufman and Herman Singh defeated the Regis team of Connor McKeown and James Melvin on a 3-2 decision. Congratulations to both teams!
Cold Spring Harbor is coached by Michael Andrews. Regis is coached by Eric Di Michele.
LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE
OCTAS
STUY 2210 def. NIS 2232 SG (Sam Grondahl)
(King, Teleky, Ciorciari)
NIS 2235 def. POL 2236 Poly Prep DH (Daniel Hochman)
(Rodriguez, Strausman, McClean)
HUN 2204 def. BXS 2213 Bronx Science MP (Melanie Plaza)
(Ross, Srivastava, Cioffi)
SCA 2218 def. STY 2209 Stuyvesant SN (Sophie Novak)
(Fuoto, Martucci, Resig)
STY 2212 def. MCQ 2203 McQuaid Jesuit (John Karin)
(Bernstein, Olson, Quinn)
REG 2223 def. GNS 2242 Great Neck South JK (Jesse Klinger)
(Reichbach, Bulger, Cunningham)
SCA 2217 def. REG 2224 Regis PF (Pat Fallon)
(Williams Raoff, Kopchick)
STY 2211 def. CHM 2200 Chaminade MC (Michael Contillo)
(Zaman, Massey, Fitzgerald)
QUARTERS
STY 2210 def. NIS 2235 Niskayuna AW (Alex Williams)
(Reisig, Massey, Ross)
HUN 2204 def. SCA 2218 Scarsdale AY (Ardevan Yaghoubi)
(King, Raoff, Bulger)
REG 2223 def. STY 2212 Stuyvesant YS (Yan Slavinsky)
(Cioffi, Teleky, Martucci)
SCA 2217 def. STY 2211 Stuyvesant CB (Claire Bulger)
(Ciorciari, Srivastava, Olson)
SEMIS
REG 2223 def. SCA 2217 Scarsdale DD (Daniel Daks)
(Kornblum, Andrews, Gunn)
STY 2210 def. HUN 2204 Hunter College ZS (Zayn Siddique)
(Rodriguez, McAlevey, Williams)
FINALS
STY 2210 Stuyvesant TY def. REG 2223 Regis TD (Tim DeSanta)
(*Canisius, Cruz, Strausman, *Schlingbaum, Reichbach)
NYSFL STATE CHAMPION
STY 2210 Stuyvesant TY (Tamir Yewdaev)
—
QUARTERS
SEMIS
CSH 1032 def. STY 1014 (Sylvia Abdullah & Maria Santos)
REG 1029 over REG 1027 (Tim Hudson & Joe McMahon)
FINALS
CSH 1032 def. REG 1029 (Connor McKeown & James Melvin)
NYSFL STATE CHAMPIONS
CSH 1032 (Scott Kaufman & Herman Singh)
—
POLICY DEBATE
SEMIS
(1) BXS 1404 def. (4) MON 1411 Monticello AK (Alayne Ashman & Max Katz)
(3) STY 1401 def. (2) LAK 1405 (Joe Perrotto & Joe Spanier)
FINALS
(3) STY 1401 def. (1) BXS 1404 Bronx Science HC (Saieed Hasnoo & Paula Cajdler)
NYSFL STATE CHAMPIONS
(3) STY 1401 (Zach Frankel & Emma Manson)
—
TOP SPEAKERS
1. Francisco Bencosme (The Bronx High School of Science, NY)
2. Max Katz (Monticello High School, NY)
3. Joe Spanier (Lakeland High School, NY)
4. Zach Frankel (Stuyvesant High School, NY)
5. Nathaniel Sasenarine (Institute for Collaborative Education, NY)
NOVICE QUARTERS
(1) BXS 1606 over (8) BXS 1605 Bronx Science GS (Gorman & Seidman)
(2) BXS 1607 def. (7) LAK 1613 Lakeland CB (Cheong & Burns)
(3) BXS 1610 over (6) BXS 1608 Bronx Science GT (Gardiner & Tive)
(4) EAG 1622 def. (5) MON BB (Bisignano & Burton)
SEMIS
(1) BXS 1606 def. (4) EAG 1622 Eagle MV (Moore & Vargas)
(2) BXS 1607 over (3) 1610 IK Bronx Science IK (Ian Irlander & Scott Khamphoune)
FINALS
(1) BXS 1606 and (2) BXS 1607 close out.
NYSFL NOVICE STATE CO-CHAMPIONS
(1) BXS 1606 Bronx Science ME (Andrew Markoff & Zack Elias)
(2) BXS 1607 Bronx Science BY (Regan Bozman & Dee Yusuf)
—
TOP NOVICE SPEAKERS
1. Ian Irlander (The Bronx High School of Science, NY)
2. Zack Elias (The Bronx High School of Science, NY)
3. Christian Vargas (Eagle Academy for Young Men, NY)
4. Bernard (The Beacon School, NY)
5. Andrew Markoff (The Bronx High School of Science, NY)
Popularity: 69%
test
Posted from: 209.11.48.2
April 27th, 2007 09:55
Lets go Thurm!!! All the way
Posted from: 64.75.117.1
April 27th, 2007 10:17
Good luck to the whole Monticello Team!!
Posted from: 74.70.146.70
April 27th, 2007 12:19
nisk heg
Posted from: 152.17.56.93
April 27th, 2007 19:47
GO BRONX!
Posted from: 72.224.50.34
April 27th, 2007 19:56
Goodluck to Nisky and Albany. Upstate.
Posted from: 63.139.17.66
April 27th, 2007 20:29
Yea Schreiber!!!
Jake+Kyra, Melinda+Gulus, the best of luck!
Posted from: 63.139.17.66
April 27th, 2007 20:37
Go Bros. Yun, Sam Sanders, and all the other Byram people. Especially Jason Laster.
Posted from: 12.152.233.130
April 27th, 2007 20:41
Hi
Posted from: 130.132.143.49
April 28th, 2007 08:26
When does breaks happen
Posted from: 130.132.143.49
April 28th, 2007 08:26
Ugh… when DO breaks happen
Posted from: 64.136.27.227
April 28th, 2007 13:16
g’luck Bronx Science and take home the gold! (or whatever cheap plastic trophies they are offering this year =)
Posted from: 65.10.236.54
April 28th, 2007 16:12
CUUUUURRRRRRRRRTTTIIIIISSSSS
Posted from: 68.199.6.154
April 28th, 2007 19:24
Let’s Go Sailors! We have three novices from Hendrick Hudson going this year… and they better KICK SOME ASS!
Posted from: 71.214.205.43
April 28th, 2007 20:23
STOP SNITCHIN
Posted from: 72.224.50.34
April 28th, 2007 21:55
The person from Styvesant who’s name I am forgetting picked up over Regis Tim DeSanto in Finals on a 3-2 decision. Of the panel I know that Cruz and myself were of the three. I can’t speak for the rest of the panel.
Posted from: 152.163.100.206
April 28th, 2007 21:59
I’m pretty sure Hope was also on top.
Posted from: 72.224.50.34
April 28th, 2007 22:16
K. Then the guy who made them flip the coin again was on the bottom. I don;t know his name.
Posted from: 151.202.191.235
April 28th, 2007 23:47
Shout-out to Bronx policy team, dominating as always!
Posted from: 74.70.39.33
April 29th, 2007 07:30
congrats to tamir and tim, you both deserve it
Posted from: 69.118.141.9
April 29th, 2007 09:46
damn it, Ardevan
Posted from: 69.118.237.220
April 29th, 2007 11:06
congrats to daks, richard, and ardevan.
Posted from: 208.120.31.99
April 29th, 2007 11:23
After FOUR pretty intense preliminary rounds, varsity broke to the BIG 32. It’s not really a fifth round but it’s not reall double-octas. I’m still confused what it is. Katie Rubin was one of the bottom eight and was not one of the BIG 32.
Novice and JV had phenomenal judging, including Jon Cruz and Caitlin Halpern. Wasn’t sure where they were in varsity. However there was a double octas round.
English proficiency was not a mandatory requirement for judging.
The trophies were amazing also. Apparently, people no longer have paper to weigh down since paperweights given out last year to double octas finalists were not this year. Instead, in recognition of these finalists, uh. Actually there was none.
I’m so excited for states next year! Oops! I meant The All Boy Catholic Schools Invitational.
Posted from: 74.70.149.223
April 29th, 2007 11:55
Varsity, JV and Novice has 4 prelims. JV and Novice broke to Doubles. Varsity had a 5th round known as The Big 32 where the top 32 people debate each other.
For those who are confused, “The Big 32″ is an extra round used to knock out some extra people. Winning a round in The Big 32 doesn’t guarantee you breaking, and losing a round in The Big 32 doesn’t necessarily mean you wont break. Some 1-3’s won their round in The Big 32 and didn’t break. Some 4-0’s lost their round in the Big 32 but still broke.
I was sort of confused by the way judging worked. For the first round, Cruz, Halperin and D’Sa were in the novice pool. They also judged novice outrounds so I don’t exactly know what went on in tab.
anyways….
Congrats Tamir and Tim
Posted from: 162.84.196.140
April 29th, 2007 13:09
Does anyone know if the results packet will be released online? Also, are full results going to be published here?
Posted from: 72.224.50.34
April 29th, 2007 13:21
A/T Judging:
I also spent 2 rounds in the novice pool.
This tournaments biggest problem is that it did not rank judges in any way. This meant that a judges were stuck judging novice rounds, and mommy judges were judging varsity outrounds. *shrug* It’s NYS.
I judged 2 novice rounds, 1 jv round, varsity big 32, JV dubz, V octos, and V finals.
I’m satisfied that I was used to my full potential.
Just a brief note. I heard the Regis Neg 3-5 times over the course of the tournament, and no matter how many times I heard it, “Respect for national sovriegnty” was STILL not a criterion, even though they said it was.
Posted from: 72.229.148.184
April 29th, 2007 13:36
TAMIR IS THE MAN!
Posted from: 67.84.176.245
April 29th, 2007 13:51
at least TIm is HOT.
Posted from: 205.188.116.206
April 29th, 2007 14:24
Thank God others started discussing the rediculous problems with this tournament because I didn’t want to be accused of taking this thread away from the “congrats (insert name of kid you met this weekend)” The problems with this tournament are so numerous and obvious that I’m still wondering why I decided to go. As others have mentioned Cruz, Shea, Rahul D’sa, Caitlin Halpern, Adhar, and others were placed, not by accident or by random placement, in Novice and JV rounds throughout the tournament. I know judges weren’t randomly assigned because judges, my coach for example, was kept in jv the whole tournament because thats where he told them he was qualified to judge. On outround panels qualified judges were purposefully spread out so that they couldn’t make up the majority. As a result, the judges I mentioned above squireled consistently throughout the tournament. The only round where three qualified judges were put on the same panel was finals and not suprisingly the decision was a 3-2 with those three on top. Does the fact that year after year kids who don’t do all that well throughout the year, but are coached by those who run tab, consitetnly advance far in the tournament not worry people. Now I feel its time for my little disclaimer, I am not trying to attack all winners this year or in years past, but the corruption has to be discussed. Of the 8 people not to advance to the big 32 one was one of the few TOC qualified debaters at the tournament. This should have surprised people, but it didn’t because this happened last year and years before. And to add to what Shea said, I debated the same regis ACs and NCs with the same strange conceptions of what framework and arguments are, but it was not an advantage as the judges were entranced by their words. In rounds that I thought were the clearest I had seen all tournament, including one of my own, a common thread was established 2-1 decision for the wrong debater with Hope (in my round), Jon and others on bottom. I know the argument thats coming next…. adapt adapt adapt and I agree that being able to adapt is important, but adapting can only go so far. At the point where adapting changes the fundemental qualities of the activity, like warrants for agruments, adapting is no longer good. I don’t think its right to base the round on who can sing best even if thats what the judge wants. Changes are needed or we might as well just have Regis, Chaminade and Stuyvesant put their C debaters in a three person round robin with their own parents making up the judging pool to determine who the NYS champion should be.
Posted from: 74.70.149.223
April 29th, 2007 15:02
Id have to agree with Jesse
Posted from: 24.186.42.113
April 29th, 2007 15:19
Thanks for the grouping Chami in with the new round robin, Jesse lol
congrats to the finalists
Posted from: 205.188.116.206
April 29th, 2007 15:35
Don’t worry Contillo you’re not the C debater so you don’t have a shot at the championship
Posted from: 69.122.39.73
April 29th, 2007 16:12
I guess I’m regarded as one of the qualified judges by the posts above…as much as I disagree with many ways in which states as well as judging works, I think its unfair to allude that the finalists were not qualified. In regards to them, one is coached by two of the judges mentioned as “good” judges and De Santa has had a great career including many breaks at other tournaments. Moreover, I judged (assuming we take the logic of me being one of those 8 good judges) and gave De Santa a win 30 against another good debater (Alex Williams).The other two debaters who were in semis were Zayn from Hunter and Taks (sp?) from Scarsdale (a clear debate powerhouse.
Yet, there are still huge problems that still exist even with this competent (to say the least) semi-final round that can only be addressed by talking to the tab room and figuring out what exactly happened.
Posted from: 69.122.39.73
April 29th, 2007 16:13
p.s. The end of the post does not mean to apply that quarters was not legit, I just don’t how was in quarters…
Posted from: 69.122.39.73
April 29th, 2007 16:14
p.s The end of that post does not mean to IMPLY that quarters was not legit, I just don’t know who was in quarters…
Posted from: 208.120.18.235
April 29th, 2007 16:41
The competition was not even LD Debate. There’s a difference between adaptation and just taking advantage of the ignorance of the judges.
Things that are acceptable at the tournament that otherwise wouldn’t have been:
-Going new in the two! Encouraged especially in the 2AR
-Don’t extend a single piece of offense and when you do make sure you dart to it in the last eight seconds of your rebuttal
-Refer to as many tragic events as you can, eg: Cambodia and Pol Pot, Nazi Germany, Rwanda, Darfur, a pregnant lady getting kicked in the stomach
-What’s an impact?
-Warrants are only for people who can’t speak like they’re giving an eulogy - with as much rhetorical flourish, facial emotions, and passion
-Cards longer than 18 words are not flowed
-Judges not flowing at all
-”If my head is down and my eyes are closed, I am still listening.”
Posted from: 70.110.96.39
April 29th, 2007 16:42
Non-english speaking judges bother me. So does states.
Posted from: 69.122.39.73
April 29th, 2007 16:48
States does not provide judges, teams do…bashing states, and what they are given to work with doesn’t make any sense…talk to the teams that bring those judges…
Posted from: 208.120.143.117
April 29th, 2007 17:38
Just to respond to some of the Regis bashing that is going:
Firstly, to argue that Regis debaters do not understand the format of L-D is ridiculous considering how well they do. Secondly, Regis is one of the few schools (along with Hunter and Stuy and the most of the other NYC Schools) that still engages in the philosophical side of debating. To say that they are among those who are changing debate is absurd, considering Regis stopped doing policy debate once it turned into the speedreading, card-flourishing, statistics debate that it is today. The fact that L-D is headed in this direction is clearly no fault of Regis’.
Also, how is respect for national sovereignty any less a criterion than protecting human rights,etc?
Finally, I think that everyone who complains about the judges is being whiny and poor sports–the regis kids are getting the same judges as you, regis brings more judges than any other school (many of them being harvard students), you’re just mad that Regis cleans up year after year at states.
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
April 29th, 2007 17:45
respect for national sovereignty is not a criterion because it definitionally is negative ground and therefore is not a functional standard to weigh offense because aff’s can never link to it. seriously, what is their ground? “turn: by protecting rights we actually respect national sovereignty more than if we just prioritized national sovereignty in the first place!”
Posted from: 208.120.18.235
April 29th, 2007 17:45
On a completely irrelevant note, I almost had a heart attack because I thought I posted the above comment while I was in a state of consciousness since the IPs are so similar.
Then I noticed the humility at the end of the comment and retracted that theory.
Posted from: 205.188.116.206
April 29th, 2007 18:08
Just to clarify ,I am not attacking anyone specificaly and was happy to see daks, alex williams, and others do well at the tournament. I thought the debaters in the final round were both good, not the top two in the tournament, but that happens at a lot of tournaments. I do think the Regis framework was rediculous and please don’t pretend like most of the debaters were even using criteria, what I heard multiple times was, “the resolution provides us with human rights and national sov” and that was it. I agree with Adhar that its not the tournaments fault for the judges a team brings, but it is the tournaments fault for not ranking judges and purposefully making it so legit judges aren’t judging important rounds and that they purposefully have lay judges make up the majority in outround panels. I don’t think anyone would dispute the amount of times we saw 2-1 rounds where the spectators and the legit judge all agreed and the two parents not flowing in the back made up the majority. I think the final round made this real clear with the 3-2 decision (it was a good round, but I as well as I believe the 3 judges on top, though they can speak for themselves) thought which was really clear.
Posted from: 69.120.236.168
April 29th, 2007 18:11
Because we are debaters, I think we have to do this Regis thing in a debatey way.
I negate the resolution, resolved: Regis ought to win states because they deserve it.
I would like to offer the following definitions:
Win- To be the victor in
Good- Skillful
Deserve- To be worthy of
Ought- What is desirable
VP: My VP will be fairness. Everybody in a debate tournament is supposed to start on an equal ground with one another. Therefore, by running the tab room, owning the judging field, and being a large part of the debating field (thereby lessening the amount of possible debaters faced), Regis is starting ahead of all other schools.
VC: In order to upheld fairness, we must look to my VC of upholding Jim Menick. Jim Menick is all seeing and all knowing and because he is not at states, it is a completely BS tournament. Therefore, because states is an illegitimate tournament, nobody deserves to win it. Regis does fall into the cateory of nobody (they’re not that special).
I think my case is flawless. Please post any critiques you may have. :)
Posted from: 162.84.196.140
April 29th, 2007 18:45
This is in response to a few posts above (mostly by ‘states lover’).
1) Most “parent” judges, still want warrants as they are a very basic part of any argument. The judging at states makes you structure and say the warrant differently, not disregard it. I have heard many parent judges calling people on warrants.(you really don’t need to flow the round to recognize that the logic behind something is missing)
2) There is no discrimination against good or circuit debaters; they just have to alter their redirect knowing a lot of judges don’t know LD jargon. If you know the judging is like that write your cases differently, don’t be stubborn and complain about it later. Clearly “good” debaters as you call them (or circuit debaters) can win the tournament, last year ardy did. A lot of big circuit schools have won states. There is no huge corruption. In fact of the three schools you listed Regis won once and the others haven’t won at all in the past 8 years. If you really think that states is so corrupt and poorly ran then don’t go.
3) I do agree that it is not very effective that many flow based judges are spread out (there was usually one per panel) b/c it forced debaters to adapt to the majority anyway. From what I heard judges were ranked A, B, or C but placed in one big pool. So judges ranked A could be placed in novice rounds but would judge upper brackets. (I may be wrong, but that is what I was told) The fact is that tab doesn’t have the capacity to hand pick where judges go. There were over 400 kids at the whole tournament and jeopardizing time for hand picked panels isn’t very practical. One a side note, I feel that in terms of speed of the tournament was very well run, this was probably the first tournament I have gone to where rounds did not run well behind schedule.
Congratz to both of the finalist.
Posted from: 208.120.31.99
April 29th, 2007 18:48
In my moment of asdjf;x-ness, I forgot to congratulate everyone who did a phenomenal job this weekend.
Posted from: 70.128.83.195
April 29th, 2007 19:29
Well…this just goes to show that TFA States is better than NYC States…
Posted from: 68.221.197.206
April 29th, 2007 19:36
new york sucks
Posted from: 75.4.11.92
April 29th, 2007 19:46
ddaks is the best debater…ever
Posted from: 72.224.50.34
April 29th, 2007 20:30
“-What’s an impact?”
I know who states lover is. I laughed.
Jes’ sayin’
Posted from: 74.73.175.199
April 29th, 2007 21:43
stop bashing on regis and mr. dimichele. first of all, mr dimichele is incredibly honest and in general a great guy he wouldn’t purposely break his kids just for the purpose of promoting them. secondly, even if regis does bring a lot of kids, it’s because they qual a ton of kids. debate is a huge activity at regis, roughly a third the kids do speech or debate with the hearn. thirdly, just because as post 38 stated, the NYC schools like regis, hunter and stuy stick to traditional debate that doesn’t involve “T violations” (which might i add, a bronx science novice was running off a google video he saw of patrick diehl), doesn’t mean their kids aren’t good. they consistently have solid performances because their coaches give everyone equal attention, as opposed to schools where the coaches individually coach the “good kids” and ignore the rest.
i rest my case.
by the way: tim de santa is a beast.
Posted from: 74.73.175.199
April 29th, 2007 21:45
oh and about the novice: he ran this “T violation” against me, and when i asked in CX what a T violation was, couldn’t tell me. at least we at regis can explain the meaning of what we run.
Posted from: 69.120.236.168
April 29th, 2007 22:03
Dear Whichever Regis Novice You Are,
First of all, I don’t care how honest DiMichele is. You control the judging field and the playing field. The epitome of this is when in either the JV or Varsity finals, three judges had their names crossed out. THREE! You know why? Because a Regis kid made the finals. Regis in and of itself illegitimizes states..
Second of all, if the novice you’re talking about is Adam Silver, I suggest you shut your mouth. He ran a that and got 30 speaker points in front of one of the most qualified judges at this tournament. Just because he’s crafty enough to use resources (such as the internet) against you doesn’t mean you have to bitch about it. Furthermore, why were you unable to defeat this T-violation? If he didn’t know anything about it, it would have been easy to defeat him. I’m sorry Mr. Regis, but maybe you should learn how to debate and stop bitching.
As the person who eliminated Silver, I can personally testify to his debate superiority. Although he may not have been the ultimate State debater, his knowledge of debate was by far the greatest out of all of the novice field. He deserves much more respect than you are giving him.
Best regards,
Fisch
BYR 1321
Posted from: 72.224.50.34
April 29th, 2007 22:33
First of all, no one was ‘bashing’ your school. It’s a simple fact that the reason that the kind of debate espoused by your school is furthered by the fact that you bring 2000000 kids, and you therefore bring 1000000 judges who either have no clue what they’re doing, or are slanted towards your style of debating to begin with. Your school also brings extra judging, so as to further force the judging pool into a lay/quazi traditional mindset.
Second, if you ran the same neg case that I heard five times, I would say that you are being missled as to how a criterion functions in an LD debate round. A criterion is used to weigh, comparitively, how two sides achieve a desirable ends, knowing your school, that’s probably justice. Insofar as the criterion is “respect for national sovriegnty,” then your value structure essentially says “In order to see which side better upholds justice, we see which side negates more.” As Wade said earlier, The only aff advocacy if the criterion is nat sov. is “TURN: Rights protect sovriegnty better.” You’re literally saying “Because we negate, we negate.” If you don’t see how that’s a ridiculously incoherent position, then I do not know what to tell you.
Third, none of my comments were meant to say that any of the debaters who advanced far into the tournament were poor. Alex Williams is a good friend of mine, and an excellent debater. Zayn, Tamir, and DiSanto are all excellent debaters(I’m not saying others aren’t, I just can’t speak for them) The only flaw in the finals round that I saw, and this was on both sides, was the lack of extensions.
Fourth, you could probably build a palace with the straw you’ve accumulated over there. No one has said anything about T-Violations, until you brought them up. But furthermore, the arguement was not that regis was too progressive, the argument was that the case that the majority of them ran on neg was just plain circular, and that the large number of judges they bring skews the judging pool so that students have to debate on Regis terms, rather than debate in the strategic manner they would like. I think it was very telling that when observing debaters reading schems, the first thing they did, before trying to figure out who their opponent was, was figure out who the judge was. This is the only time I have ever witnessed that phenomina.
Sixth, Addressing T’s directly, they’re a necessary check on abuse. Just because you had one used against you does not mean that it was a bad strategy, nor does it indict the debater that used it. I would be very careful how you present yourself, because right now it just looks like you’re attacking a past competitor for no reason.
LAstly, I want to make it very clear that I have immense respect for all the kids who cleared. This discussion is not meant to be an indict of their skill at all. This is meant to address directly that there are numberous problems with the tournament, and they need to be fixed. Not that I am terribly confident they will be.
Posted from: 72.224.50.34
April 29th, 2007 22:37
I skipped fifth somewhere in there.
Posted from: 72.224.50.34
April 29th, 2007 22:45
Oh, also, I just wanted to address something else briefly:
“Finally, I think that everyone who complains about the judges is being whiny and poor sport”
I’m not sure how a judge can be a poor sport…
Posted from: 74.73.177.122
April 30th, 2007 03:50
“they consistently have solid performances because their coaches give everyone equal attention, as opposed to schools where the coaches individually coach the ‘good kids’ and ignore the rest.”
I’ve stayed rather quiet on this thread, but I take great exception to the implied comment that coaches at schools other than three mentioned reserve their coaching for only a handful of students. Given that you have no idea what happens at the meetings and outside of the meetings of other teams, you probably should not be making sweeping generalizations. (This, of course, is in addition to the ludicrously sweeping and implied generalizations you are making about the debate “styles” of competitors from other schools.)
Posted from: 167.206.203.14
April 30th, 2007 08:10
just to clarify a few things:
1) many circuity debaters, myself included, worked extremely hard to adapt to the judging pool at this tournament. make note that when the bronx novice ran theory, it was in front of a very experienced, legitimate judge.
2) no matter how hard people worked to adapt to the judging pool, this is no excuse for judges like Jon Cruz and Caitlin Halpern to be judging novice and jv for most of the tournament, while parent judges for whom this was their first tournament, were judging varsity outrounds.
3) once again, no matter how hard circuit debaters worked to adapt to the judging pool, its pretty hard to adapt when judges are specifically asked to be biased against your school.
congratulations to everyone on their performance. this is no bashing of the competitors; many debaters had the luck of legitimate judges or debate in the style that the judges liked. that takes skill, good job-especially to people who worked hard to adapt.
Posted from: 167.206.203.14
April 30th, 2007 08:53
In response to post #24 - I am trying to break all the codes on the pictures of the outround schems that I took. As soon as I have those broken, I will post. I will try to include panels and decision information when I have it. (None of the latter information was publicized or in the results packet, so I can only post what I know. I encourage everyone to contribute to make the results as full as possible.)
Posted from: 167.206.203.14
April 30th, 2007 08:57
In response the author of post #50 -
I am quite certain that Adam knows what a topicality violation is. I am not a fan of theory debate. I do not like when it is run, but I recognize there are times when it is necessary. The debaters who I coach run it when there is a reason to run it. (At least, that is what they are taught to do. I obviously am not aware of every action every debater I coach makes in every round.) I’m sure that he made a judgment that it was necessary to run in this round. Based on many of the cases I saw this weekend, it would not surprise me if there were room for such an argument.
So, I am quite sure that he “could” tell you.
If he chose not to tell you, then that is a separate issue, and one I will be sure to discuss with him.
Posted from: 167.206.203.14
April 30th, 2007 09:08
i would just like to note that I am the one who ran the T violation; i can’t remember any clarification questins in cross x. Put simply, “in support of regis” is simply lying.
Posted from: 162.84.196.140
April 30th, 2007 09:11
Why would you bash other schools when you are telling people not to bash Regis? Obviously what some people are saying about Regis is wrong but that doesn’t mean you should be hypocritical and criticize other debate programs (especially successful ones).
Jon, I know a few codes if they are any help
SCA 2217- Scarsdale DD
SCA 2218- Scarsdale AY
SCA 2219- Scarsdale RF
Posted from: 167.206.203.14
April 30th, 2007 09:15
Thanks, Dan! I do have a list of all the codes from the prelim packets. If anyone has lists of panels, I will include those, too.
Much appreciated.
There is a lot of negativity on this thread. I do want to congratulate here Tamir and Tim for what I know was a hard-earned final round appearance. As I indicated at the end of the round, both of them have had a lot of success in our state this year and this is a great way to cap off the season. Congratulations again to both of you, and to Julie, Caitlin, Rahul, and Eric!
Posted from: 169.226.6.196
April 30th, 2007 09:53
I know that I picked up Alex Williams in octos, I believe it was, over a kid from PolyPrep whose name I am forgetting.
Its a shame they had to hit each other, because they were the best debaters I saw all day.
Posted from: 167.206.203.14
April 30th, 2007 12:01
OMG! Post policy results Jon!
Posted from: 69.120.217.195
April 30th, 2007 12:04
Does anyone know who won Novice?
Posted from: 66.109.50.135
April 30th, 2007 12:54
Dearest Shea,
Your extremely long post was both unnecessary and displayed a fundamental inability to count.
Moreover, your continued participation in the realm of Lincoln-Douglas Debate and delusion that you are of any significance to said event is troubling. I feel that the best resolution to this problem is the immediate removal of your being from the civilized world. Consider your exile effective as of this reading.
Yours,
D. Lawrence Coleman
Posted from: 71.244.123.232
April 30th, 2007 13:05
Hi, Albany team. It’s nice to hear from you guys.
Posted from: 24.90.125.76
April 30th, 2007 14:39
I find it rather humorous but also sad that there’s so much controversy over a t-violation, while practically none over the prevalence of such standards as “protecting human rights”, “respecting national sovereignty”, and “progress” (o wait, I guess I can’t call them standards because I was dropped in outrounds when my panel, which included a local coach and former Regis debater, didnt realize that standard and value criterion are synonymous and thus couldnt follow when i used the terms interchangeably). That is not traditional debate, it is bad debate.
Pretty much the only tournemant Regis goes to outside the northeast is Emory, and its not because this elite private Catholic school where “roughly a third of the kids” do speech or debate is lacking any funding. The reason the bring so many debaters to stats is because they qual at the 3-round tournemants that they host and tab at their own school virtually every weekend of the school year. Perhaps if they actually exposed themselves to debate outside Manhatten they would realize that in fact t’s are not some pariah argument but generally accepted.
Furthermore, it seems to me that when criterions are functionally exclusive of all their opponent’s ground, running theory is not only acceptable but practically obligatory. And Adam knew what tviolations were and was running them long before that round was even recorded, so “in support of regis” is just lying now.
Posted from: 72.224.50.34
April 30th, 2007 14:44
We should be careful not to degenerate into meaningless bickering. Ad hominum attacks (on both sides) do nothing but create bad feelings, and breed more ad hom attacks.
It is possible to have differences of opinion without attacking each other.
(also, as I recall, it was Tourville who ran the T in that round, not Diehl…But that’s just nitpicking.)
Posted from: 74.70.149.223
April 30th, 2007 14:44
How come post 58(Jon), 59(in support of debate) and 61(Jon) have the same IP but different email addresses?
Posted from: 74.73.177.122
April 30th, 2007 14:46
They are both posted from Bronx Science, which, it seems, has one shared IP address. “In support of debate” is Adam Silver. (I think he already identified himself as such in his post.)
Posted from: 74.73.177.122
April 30th, 2007 14:47
Unrelated aside:
A photocopy of a handwritten bracket was distributed with the results packet (which does not include seeds), but I can’t seem to find it anywhere. I won’t be able to post full results unless I can get a copy of the bracket.
If your school has one, please let me know if you might be able to scan or fax it.
Posted from: 74.70.149.223
April 30th, 2007 14:49
in the 1NC, tourville had t, the 1ar by diehl had just theory violations, and then the NR contained severance bad, and 1ar theory bad.
Posted from: 72.224.50.34
April 30th, 2007 15:30
Yeah. Diehl kicked case, but the fact that the person said that Diehl ran T proves that he doesn’t even have any clue what he is indicting. Topicality and other theory are distinct from each other.
Posted from: 152.163.100.206
April 30th, 2007 15:57
This will probably be my last post on this thread because I’m pretty sure my really long posts got my point across, but I think the discussion is moving away from where it should be. I had my own problems with Regis judging and some of the debating, but not that much more than other schools and this shouldn’t be a conversation Regis good or Regis bad, rather what I’m still waiting for is an explanation for the outround panels and the overall judging decisions throughout the tournament. I understand hand picked panels are difficult, but keeping past debaters and respected coaches in the varsity pool vs. parents who are judging for the first time is honestly not that difficult. There is really no excuse for that and that is what should be talked about, not an attack on Adam who I’ve heard is very good though I’ve never met him or an attack on Shea who I think was seen by most debaters at the tournament as one of the top people you’d want to see in the back of the room.
Posted from: 208.120.143.117
April 30th, 2007 16:26
What I don’t understand is how all the people complain about Regis judges, I guess 8 Harvard students must (to quote Shea Strausman) clearly have “no idea” what they are doing. Secondly, Everyone who is complaining about Regis judging doesn’t seem to realize that Regis parents are no worse than other school’s parents, and also if you are so mad about how many judges we bring, why don’t you bring your own? The fact that Regis brings so many judges is what allows the damn tournament to happen.
Also to Fisch: your post manages with its vitriolic and bitter nature, to not only make every other negative post here seem mild, but you also make yourself look like an imbecile in the process. Congratulations!
Posted from: 70.23.254.248
April 30th, 2007 16:30
I just wanted to note that I’ve gone over flows and I did not hit a single Regis debater at states; least of all first round, in front of Caitlin Halpern (who, by the way, is an amazing judge), where I did indeed run a T violation off a definition, which I believed was abusive. I’m kinda amused by how somebody correlated me running T with Tourville Vs. Diehl. Considering that it was an entirely different argument, this only goes to prove the stupidity of the accusation.
Posted from: 69.120.236.168
April 30th, 2007 16:37
I never thought I’d see the day when I was called an imbecile by somebody from Regis… especially one who is dumb enough to think that the tournament can’t exist without Regis. Next year, do us all a favor and stay in the city. I think I speak for a majority when I say that Regis’s monopoly makes the state tournament worse. Notice how it’s Regis vs. everybody else on this thread.
Also, congrats to all of the debaters who legitimately did well. That’s supposed to be vague and subjective.
Much love,
Fisch
Posted from: 72.224.50.34
April 30th, 2007 17:05
“What I don’t understand is how all the people complain about Regis judges, I guess 8 Harvard students must (to quote Shea Strausman) clearly have “no idea””
First of all, I would say you’re making a massive appeal to authority. Proficiency in one area (harvard) does not make you proficient in others. (debate)
Second I would say that even being the best of judges does not make you immune from legitimate complaints. If someone had a problem with the way I adjudicate the round, I know my first response would not be to attack the person making the comment, but instead trying to fix the problem.
Third of all, I would say you’re missconstruing me completely. I suggest you read my post. I suggested that they either knew nothing about the event, OR (that means Instead of x…y) they’re predisposed to your idea of debate to begin with.
I too am done with this thread. To summerize my position:
There are massive problems with states that I do not see getting substantively addressed any time soon, “Respect for national sovreignty” is not a criterion, and Congrats to the debaters who did well.
Posted from: 70.23.254.248
April 30th, 2007 17:34
First, the personal attack on Fisch gives interesting insight into the regis debate team. Fisch’s comments are highly pertinent and do not make him look like and imbecile - quite the opposite.
Secondly, in my view, it is the sheer number of entries and judges that regis brings that has become the problem with the tournament. I, personally, would rather not go to any tournament then go to one in which a majority of the judging pool was biased against me.
I would like to thank Fisch for bringing up the multitudes of problems that plague this tournament. Without people like him, this tournament couldn’t improve from what its become (not that there are any guarantees of improvement anyway, given regis’ responses to this thread).
Posted from: 152.17.131.91
April 30th, 2007 17:39
I felt kind of compelled to post here because I’m more than disgusted with some of what’s being said.
It’s kind of sad that instead of actually attempting to do something about the condition of the state tournament, a bunch of whiny high school students who were upset with their performance decided to go online and complain about it to the virtual debate community. Instead of using an entire squad of kids (Regis) who largely joined this activity for the same reasons that all of you did, why don’t you actually try to do something productive?
The students at Regis shold not have to apologize for the way they debate, it’s the responsiblity of their opponents to either engage them within their framework and “out-persuade” them (it’s not too much to ask), or provide a preferable framework for debate (not hard to find) and try to beat them on your terms.
I understand the frustration with states, it sucks to drop early, especially as a senior. Instead of publically venting and attacking the integrity, intelligence, and skill of entire squads (which both “sides” in this discussion seem to be guilty of), why don’t you contact Mr. Eric DiMichele from Regis and Bro. John McGrory from Chaminade. Both play extremely important rolls in running the tournament (I believe Bro. John is the director?), and would be the best people to bring these judging issues to.
I think it’s important for the vast majority of you to remember that these people are educators and debate coaches. Eric DiMichele is a TOC hall of fame coach, his program has seen massive success in almost every IE and form of debate; Chaminade sees great local and some regional success in many events. The point being, these people do not intentionally inject poor judges into the judging pool and they aren’t in this activity to stroke their egos. Yes there is bad judging at states and the tab room is forced to make do. Yes mistakes are made, and the people in tab should be called to task for those mistakes (e.g. Rahul should not have been judging JV and novice rounds). However, the way almost every participant in this discussion has been conducting themselves is not going to spark any change at future state tournaments.
I guess ultimately what I’m trying to get at is that instead of whining about how much states sucked this year you should see what you can do to make some productive change. These enormous threads have been started and dragged on EVERY year since my freshman year. Instead of whining about how much states sucked this year, why don’t all of you try to make it better next year?
The people in tab are sacrificing their time to put on this tournament, they want it to be as good as it can within limits. Constructive criticism given to tournament directors can do nothing but help.
Just my two cents.
Posted from: 24.161.65.27
April 30th, 2007 17:45
Dan Cook is cool.
Posted from: 74.70.149.223
April 30th, 2007 17:49
Yo, adam, I was wondering if you could email me your sn, I want to ask you something about the round where you ran t. my email is ssyed1@gmail.com
Posted from: 24.90.254.175
April 30th, 2007 17:53
When I look at this, i see an argument that uses a lot of pretty words to say the exact same thing: With few exeptions, the judging was pretty poor.
With the regis intrasquads held every weekend, it is no suprise to me that they managed to qual a large amount of students to this event. In bringing so many students, lots of judges must come too. With a flood of students and judges from the same school, all holding criterion of either “respecting national soverignty” or “protecting human rights”, its pretty clear that something along the way went very, very, wrong.
Thus, the VP of fairness is not upheld.
Either way, congrats to those who managed to debate in a intelectual and interesting way.
Posted from: 74.73.177.122
April 30th, 2007 17:58
I think Tom is entirely right about the tone of the thread and the problem with criticizing entire programs. (I would argue that this seems to be a problem with many posters on this thread.)
That having been said, a number of these issues have been raised before, numerous times, by coaches as well as students. Jim Menick wrote a reasoned letter to the New York State Forensic League that was posted on hs web site. To my knowledge, none of the well-reasoned suggestions were incorporated into tournament procedure, and none of these suggestions were ever put to the state-wide membership. Since the leadership positions for this organization are basically unelected, there is little that many people feel they can do other than vent. Many of the issues that people are highlighting have everything to do with the structure of the tournament (the qualification process, the geographical distribution of competitors and thus the geographical distribution of the judging pool, etc.) and, I suspect, nothing to do with the intentions of the people in the tab room.
In the end, however, Tom is right: I think both of the people that he mentions are coaches of integrity who obviously give up a lot of their time for their teams and for the tournament. I have a lot of respect for both of the debaters in the final round — I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve judged Tim over the last few years, for example — and I think that constructive criticism ought to remain constructive rather than descend into finger-pointing.
Posted from: 71.141.193.190
April 30th, 2007 18:16
Hey Jon, I’m not sure if you emailed me the other day or if it was a prank. I figured that since everyone is just stealing one another’s identities, some imposter may have emailed me as Jon Cruz. It would be nice to get things cleared up. Thanks.
Posted from: 70.23.254.248
April 30th, 2007 18:16
Upon reflection, I apologize for making a sweeping generalization about the Regis team. The comment they made earlier about our team and Mr. Cruz’s coaching was hurtful, but I would imagine that a lot of kids on the Regis team don’t appreciate being grouped with a single poster for the team. I apologize to all, although I maintain that the poster should also take into consideration the harm that they may have caused to other people from other teams.
Posted from: 74.73.177.122
April 30th, 2007 18:21
Hi Bilal — I just sent you a follow-up e-mail.
I think Adam is right on target. (Though, I should mention that the post in question did not single out Bronx Science or myself, but rather, made sweeping generalizations about programs that were not one of three listed.)
Posted from: 69.120.236.168
April 30th, 2007 18:22
Well, now that it’s apparent that we all (or most of us) are upset at how states works, we should do something about it. I think now is the right time to take a stand, as a group, before we all move on and then have the same stuff next year. I understand that the positions are basically unelected, but is there some way that could change? I think at this point in time there’s a large enough group that is upset that something has to be done. If anybody can think of a way in which we can take action together, can you please post it? I’m thinking a petition to the state (signed by many coaches), but then again I really do not know how the system works.
Posted from: 24.161.65.27
April 30th, 2007 18:48
I don’t know if petition is the way to go, and I also think Fisch was a little rude earlier. Regardless, I agree with him that we can complain and whine all we want on VBD, but the only way to actually DO something is to DO something. If people want changes, take action.
Posted from: 69.120.236.168
April 30th, 2007 19:00
Yes, I was rude earlier, and I apologize for that. I’m a little bit hot-headed. I’m sorry for what I said about Regis. They have a great debate program with a group of very talented debaters. I just took out my frustrations about the tournament on them, because they were a large target. That being said, we should move on. Most of us said something stupid on this thread and we can’t all call one another out on it.
Posted from: 68.126.176.126
April 30th, 2007 19:06
Okay cool. Yeah, I did not recieve the second email.
Posted from: 69.119.93.209
April 30th, 2007 19:40
I wish my hair were like Adam’s.
Posted from: 24.162.54.183
April 30th, 2007 20:49
Good job daks
Posted from: 205.196.218.26
May 1st, 2007 04:17
[…] [via Victory Briefs Daily] Filed under State Champions by PFDebate LLC Permalink • Print • Email • Comment […]
Posted from: 64.75.117.1
May 1st, 2007 10:35
Congrats to Max on second speaker.
Posted from: 69.120.236.168
May 1st, 2007 12:52
How come as soon as I say let’s do something, this thread goes dead?
Posted from: 169.226.112.164
May 1st, 2007 13:20
because in all honesty there really isn’t anything that can be done.
Posted from: 69.120.236.168
May 1st, 2007 13:26
Oh… that’s a good reason, I guess. lol
Posted from: 69.120.236.168
May 1st, 2007 15:15
Not to be annoying, but what’s the status on full results?
Posted from: 152.17.125.39
May 1st, 2007 15:50
No Shea Strausman, the reason it died is because half of the people who have posted here have nothing positively constructive to contribute and would rather whine. Also, a thread on Victorybriefs Daily is not the best place to get something done.
You could email either two of the people I mentioned earlier, or you could talk to your coach and contact other coaches in the state about a petition to change the system. Or you can try both.
Best of luck.
Posted from: 66.108.4.118
May 1st, 2007 19:47
sex
Posted from: 68.174.10.165
May 1st, 2007 20:57
It has come to our attention that there is some confusion regarding this past State Debate tournament. Before we attempt to engage some of the issues that have been raised, let us first apologize for the unsanctioned and rash words of a certain Novice on our team. He may have had good intent, but had he come to any of the upperclassmen first, we would have prevented the incident. We show no disrespect for any other school or debate program, and we would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Tamir on a well-deserved victory. We also applaud all those who broke and did well in the tournament.
Now, to the issues at hand. (We do, of course, write this in light of some recent apologies on the wall and do not wish to further incite arguments; but we feel it is necessary still to clarify and discuss a few things.)
The first misconception is that Regis has engaged in some sort of unofficial agreement or conspiracy with other New York City schools such as Stuyvesant and Chaminade. We are not sure how seriously this is taken by the majority of you, but the men and women in charge of the debate programs (including people such as Mr. DiMichele and Brother John) are people of great integrity. As Tom said earlier, they are educators first and foremost, and they would cringe at the very thought of unethical behavior that would muddle and hinder the learning experience of debate. Because this claim seems a little outrageous, we do not think it deserves much more of an explanation.
As a preliminary response to the claims that States is essentially controlled by Regis, we believe it is important to consider who has won over the past few years. You will find that there is a wide range of schools participating in final rounds at all levels. Even last year’s state championship in Varsity was between Scarsdale and Niskayuna.
Another point that has been brought up is that the Regis judges are biased in favor of certain people and styles of debate. Some of you have expressed concern that Kaitie Rubin from Monticello was in the bottom eight. While this is certainly surprising considering her track record, it is still important to consider that it is a little presumptuous to declare that States is illegitimate because of this fact alone. Even all-stars have their off days, and the very fact that this is a debate competition means that no one has a free pass or is guaranteed to get to a certain point. Furthermore, the only judge who picked Kaitie Rubin up in first four rounds was, in fact, a Regis judge. Regis judges also picked up Daniel Daks and Ardevan Yaghoubi of Scarsdale whenever they had them in rounds. The reason I bring them up as examples is not to attack them—far from it. They are two examples of successful debaters who are well-respected by the debate community, and Regis judges obviously picked up on the fact that they were skilled.
Another point of contention was that Regis floods the judging pool as well as the field itself. First of all, the fact that we send a lot of judges is, we think, a good thing. We help to run the tournament and it is important not to take one’s gratitude away from any judge who volunteers his or her time to support us. When most would complain about a lack of judges—a real problem—I am really surprised to hear the concern that Regis sends extra help. To add to that, the judges that Regis sends do not ever shirk their responsibilities, leave early, or try to get away without writing comprehensive ballots. Regis has been thanked in the past by many tournament directors and coaches of other teams for helping tournaments to run smoothly, including Mr. Vaughan and Mr. Menick from Scarsdale and Hendrick Hudson respectively. As for flooding the field and getting easy qualifications, the Manhattan Debate League tournaments are not there to facilitate guaranteed quals for Regis. MDLs are open to Regis, Stuyvesant, Hunter, Poly Prep, Bronx Science, Fordham, Berkeley Carol, Collegiate, and other schools, all of whom have taken advantage of them. The reason MDLs run so quickly and so often is, once again, thanks to the favorable judging ratios and help provided by the generosity and willingness of all of the schools involved. Yes, Regis does send a lot of people to states, but that is because a lot of people are good enough to be there. Regis does have a strong program, and keep in mind that there are maybe two local tournaments all year at the most for Varsity debaters to qualify at, and these debaters get their quals pretty much in full from national tournaments. If Regis debaters were not talented, we would not be able to claim such success among our graduates, including five collegiate national champions in the past nineteen years.
Probably the most ubiquitous allegation is that Regis judges are not qualified. Over the last ten years, Regis has consistently offered educated and informed judges including two federal court justices, two state supreme court justices, one state senator, a former Head of Criminal Division-Southern District, a Chief Investigative Report for ABC News, five lawyers, two national collegiate debate champions, and ten Regis grads who went on to Harvard Law School, all of whom had significant debate experience. The fact that these judges are viewed as incompetent or brushed off as being “lay judges” is very disconcerting. These people are highly intelligent and informed about the issues being raised in debate rounds. The only thing these people might not know about as much as some other, more favored judges are the past histories of the two high school debaters standing before them about to give their speeches. If what you seek in a judge is past baggage and preconceptions about who you are and how you debate, if you desire the judge to know that you are in fact a very successful circuit debate “celebrity” who rarely loses a round, it seems as if this would shed light on a more real and pressing problem that needs to be extirpated if the activity is to retain any value at all.
Finally, let us quickly address the complaint about the tab room. The selection of judges for the preliminary rounds is completely random, with the obvious exception being that one cannot judge a debater affiliated with the same school as he or she. The break rounds are all handpicked, but all of this is bound by regional constraints, as the three different regions have to be represented on the panels. Furthermore, Mr. DiMichele does not sit around picking and choosing advantageous panels, and he had absolutely no part in choosing the panel for the final rounds. The issue of highly respected judges being stuck in Novice is quickly debunked for a few reasons. First of all, there were Regis judges as well that were stuck for the most part judging Novice. Second, for logistical purposes, it is essential that every judge cycle through different divisions. Third, and most important, is the fact that it is sort of troubling that the language “stuck judging Novice” is used to describe what happened. If these judges are as good as their reputations would have us all believe—and I am sure they are—then why would Novices not deserve the same treatment and ability to learn from their experience? It should not be considered a waste of anyone’s time that Novices are gaining experience through the advice that these talented and educated men and women have to offer them. We, in the Varsity division, should be happy that those rounds that are often the least clear are receiving the most skilled and refined discernment.
In the end, however, if the longwinded—perhaps too longwinded—statement above is not enough to convince anyone that Regis is not biased or just in it to get everyone else, we would like to make one more reference: Regis never strikes judges. There have been times that we have looked at a schematic and seen on the judging panel the letters spelling out the surname of a few people that have been historically mean-spirited, disinterested, or just completely into a different style of argumentation than the Regis debater offers, but we never have nor ever will strike judges. While it would certainly be to our advantage, we believe that at the point where a debater is thinking more about the strategic movement of judges in or out of a round, the activity is becoming something less pure than it should be. Others may disagree, and I would venture to say that some consider this idealistic or stupid, but it cannot be denied that although there seems to be some prejudice towards Regis—earlier posts on this wall can attest to the fact—we can accept it and deal with it.
We appreciate anyone who has actually taken the time to read this long post. Nevertheless, we felt it was important to give our own two cents (or two hundred cents in this case). We hope that the post has provided a bit more understanding.
Posted from: 169.232.243.177
May 2nd, 2007 01:35
“Probably the most ubiquitous allegation is that Regis judges are not qualified. Over the last ten years, Regis has consistently offered educated and informed judges including two federal court justices, two state supreme court justices, one state senator, a former Head of Criminal Division-Southern District, a Chief Investigative Report for ABC News, five lawyers, two national collegiate debate champions, and ten Regis grads who went on to Harvard Law School, all of whom had significant debate experience. The fact that these judges are viewed as incompetent or brushed off as being “lay judges” is very disconcerting. These people are highly intelligent and informed about the issues being raised in debate rounds. The only thing these people might not know about as much as some other, more favored judges are the past histories of the two high school debaters standing before them about to give their speeches. If what you seek in a judge is past baggage and preconceptions about who you are and how you debate, if you desire the judge to know that you are in fact a very successful circuit debate “celebrity” who rarely loses a round, it seems as if this would shed light on a more real and pressing problem that needs to be extirpated if the activity is to retain any value at all.”
I’ve read this one post and this one post alone, so maybe i’m missing something, but are you serious dude? you think anyone wants like congressmen and senators to judge them? you think theyre only shortcoming is that they dont know about the celeb status of debaters? how bout the fact that they havent seen a contemporary LD round like, ever? i wouldnt trust a judge who hadnt seen a round in like 5 years, let alone like 30.
and whats the deal with the northeast and touting “harvard students” like theyre the end all be all of knowledge? i can think of like, maybe 5 or 6 qualified ld judges that go to harvard right now, i bet none of them were at this tournament.
ugh, fuck generalizations about schools, your entire region blows guys. i’m sorry. move to cali or texas or MN or something.
Posted from: 169.232.243.177
May 2nd, 2007 01:37
and why do all of you have such big sticks up your asses…who signs their names as D. Lawrence Coleman…waht a d-bag.
sidenote: Shea Straussman sounds like the messiah of your community.
Posted from: 169.232.243.177
May 2nd, 2007 01:38
“ICE” is the tightest name for a school ever though.
Posted from: 134.173.90.141
May 2nd, 2007 02:53
The most satisfying tournament i ever had was NYC districts in which i qualified to NFLs in spite of the active judge handicapping in the “open tab room” in favor of certain school and against certain individuals. If it were not for my coach and two others who had to protest the tabulation and sit in and monitor the tab directors to ensure ‘objectivity,’ I am sure I would have been eliminated. I do not think that alumnai or ‘friends of the program’ can necessarily serve as objective ajudicators when that is not the intention at all. True story. Sitting down and discussing these facts with these people is a loss as well. Close-minded people resist the power of reasoned argument–in judging paradigms and in codes of ethics. So yeah districts is like states + a little bit of transparency (by NFL regulation). Ironically, same tab room…
Posted from: 134.173.90.141
May 2nd, 2007 03:01
haha prai did you seriously suggest moving from NY to MN or TX for better regional debate?
Posted from: 167.206.203.14
May 2nd, 2007 08:59
Brendan O’Boyle and Tim De Santa, you still do not address the fundamental problem behind the judging - how can a judge be expected to adjudicate fairly if they neither flow nor even take notes? Precious few of my rounds were decided on actual issues. I respect Harvard students for their intelligence, not their LD debate experience. I don’t know about you, but i can’t figure out how a the decision of a judge who read a novel throughout the round can be seen as fair.
Posted from: 169.232.243.177
May 2nd, 2007 10:32
john - if you got the money, absolutely. also to get away from all of the hoity toity northeast people. it’s an abyss of death i tell you.
Posted from: 167.206.203.14
May 2nd, 2007 10:44
I think “jl” is one of those hoity toity people: J. Levi. :o)
(And I was just about to comment about his too-cool signature.)
Posted from: 169.232.127.101
May 2nd, 2007 15:54
sorry i thought it was lewis
Posted from: 151.204.150.214
May 2nd, 2007 16:53
Jonny Poo -
Post more pictures of States!
Posted from: 24.215.215.98
May 2nd, 2007 18:21
The disapproval of judges who act deliberately disinterested to the point where it directly conflicts with their ability to adjudicate the round, i.e. reading a book, is ubiquitous; I don’t think anyone at all would seriouly want to see this judge in the back of the room. Sorry Adam, but that comment is irrelevant.
Therefore the debate about desirable judging can be cleanly divided into two advocacies: the flow judge (this encompasses both traditional and more circuity judges, as long as they know what they are doing), and the lay judge.
There are unique advantages and disadvantages to each.
On an educational level, debate in front of flow judges tends to be faster and rife with jargon. In a practical sense this increases the speech time, because speed and the ability to reference a shared pool of basic knowledge with a single word and not having to devote time to a lengthy explanation of fundamental concepts allows the generation of both numerically more and more thoroughly developed arguments. Obviously, more, better developed arguments
drastically increase the educational value of the round.
However, lay judges test one’s ability to develop advocacy and persuasion skills in a fashion presentable in the non-debate world. Their supporters would argue that this ultimately outweighs the educational value of the flow judges because the skills necessary to pick up a lay judge may prepare one for the post-academic life in way that debate as an inclusive activity for those already familiar with it cannot.
In the interests of brevity and people actually reading this I won’t bring up the the disadvantages of each. However, Flow v. Lay is is without a doubt the single most common debate on vbd. So, rather than have a fight over whether Regis sucks or not in which virtually everybody has their minds already decided, including me, we should rationally discuss this issue. Whether or not it results in any actually tabbing policy changes is secondary, a discussion would just be interesting and thought-provoking.
Posted from: 162.83.150.14
May 2nd, 2007 18:44
I agree with Seth. There is no point in bashing one particular team, since that won’t change anything. What we need to do is to convert all changes to flow judges. This, of course, isn’t limited to judges that like fast debate. Flow judges are quite literally judges that flow the round and know the rules of debate. Thus, lay judges should be taught the rules of debate, either before the tournament or during it (I remember the back of ballots bearing Debate 101 on them). Even the rudimentary rules (such as what a standard is, what the offense/defense dichotomy is, and the fact that at the end of the day, the judge is voting for the better debater, not necessarily the better speaker.) Even if judges have some idea of what debate is, then we would at least minimize some of the randomness often associated with lay judges.
Posted from: 130.132.143.49
May 2nd, 2007 20:28
I think that an important concept that new judges to debate need to grasp is the seperation of speaker points and the winner of the debate.
As Vineet said, “at the end of the day, the judge is voting for the better debater, not necessarily the better speaker.”
As an example, i dropped first round of states because i went over the time limit, only about 5 seconds. However, I had already persuasively lost the round at the end of the 1NC/1N by going over the time limit. This is a problem that judges must understand; that speaker points dont necessarily imply what the decision was.
If someone is rude, its understandable that they might be destroying the educational value of the activity and dropping them might be reasonable.
The Flow serves as a more objective standard, i think, to adjudicate the round. The flow does not even have to comprise of the normal flow-taking down every single argument and warrant and impact, etc. A lay judge should atleast flow the voting issues, contentions, V/VC, to have some objective “standard(not to confuse with the criterioN!” to evaluate the round.
If you are going 300 WPM+(you know what i mean:using speed) in front of a lay judge, then maybe you deserve to lose the round as you can’t adapt. But if you can communicate your points to the judge, and the judge drops you on a more subjective than objective level because he or she d idnt flow, then that just illustrates the need to have some sort of simple “flow” to allow for better debates
Posted from: 130.132.143.49
May 2nd, 2007 20:31
Edit on last paragraph last sentence last two words: better decisions
Posted from: 24.28.104.30
May 3rd, 2007 04:55
We don’t let just anyone referee basketball games, you have to be trained and have intimate knowledge of the activity. The same ought to be true of debate. If you don’t have initmate knowledge of how the activity is done, you ought not judge. If a basketball referee stated that his paradigm for basket ball was that instead of putting the ball through the hoop to win you must sing and dance, we would all be apalled. We would not think that anyone should have to adapt to this paradigm and so a similar standard ought to be applied to all activities.
Posted from: 166.109.0.155
May 3rd, 2007 05:56
Okay, so what are we going to do about this? I mean, we’ve been saying the same thing for the last 117 posts. We need to do something. If people agree on writing a petition, I would be more than happy to help. If anybody proposes any other reasonable response, I would gladly take part in it. Quite honestly, the most simple solution may be to just give the judges a rubric. That would at least give them some set guidelines to vote off of. Also, a one hour judging review session before the tournament could be beneficial. That way, even inexperienced judges will have some prior knowledge of how judging works. After we finish with improving the judging quality, we can look at other glaring problems, such as qualification and non-critique/disclosure.
Fisch
PS- Will Novice LD results be posted? My ego needs to see them. :)
Posted from: 167.206.203.14
May 3rd, 2007 10:19
Hi Eric - I need a copy of the bracket, as I seem unable to find one. I will try to piece together what I have.
Does anyone have final round results of both novice and JV LD?
Posted from: 69.120.236.168
May 3rd, 2007 13:17
John Jay Michael Mitchell (don’t know the code) over POL 1369 (Poly Prep Vergil Parson) was the novice final round.
Posted from: 69.120.236.168
May 3rd, 2007 13:19
And I can tell you that it was 3-2 and Kopchick was one of the judges.
Posted from: 24.186.36.169
May 6th, 2007 20:25
JV LD final round: Jericho Sana Raoof over some Regis kid
Posted from: 69.120.236.168
May 17th, 2007 16:04
I never got to see my name on VBD… lol.
Posted from: 87.101.244.8
October 8th, 2007 17:40
Hi
G’night
Posted from: 63.147.134.5
November 20th, 2007 18:13
Our health in our hands -
we is cool!
Po