Ben Schifberg Wins Meadows
LAS VEGAS, Nev. — The fifth annual Kirk L. Knutsen Classic at the Meadows School has come to a close. The top sixteen debaters at the tournament emerged from a field of fifty-two; by late Sunday afternoon, only two debaters were left standing: Millburn High School’s Tess McNulty and South Eugene High School’s Ben Schifberg.
A panel of Ben Empey, Ben Kearl, and Cherian Koshy adjudicated the round, and voted unanimously for Ben, giving him the right to wear the 2008 Meadows Belt.
Ben is coached by Wesley Craven; Tess is coached by Brian Raymond and Michael O’Connell.
LD Ballots
Meadows Ballots Round 1
Meadows Ballots Round 2
Meadows Ballots Round 3
Meadows Ballots Round 4
Meadows Ballots Round 5
Meadows Ballots Round 6
LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE
OCTAS
(1) Millburn TM def. (16) Brentwood MA (Michael Ament)
3-0 (Welsey Craven, Kyle Fleeger, John Scoggin)
(2) South Eugene BS def. (15) Esperanza SA (Saad Asad)
2-1 (Peter D. Van Elswyk, *Corbin Cass, Stephen Babb)
(3) Upper St Clair JG def. (14) Brentwood JL (Jordan Lincenberg)
3-0 (Cherian Koshy, Michael O’Connell, Jay Bhatnagar)
(13) Brophy Prep KC def. (4) Apple Valley MK (Michelle Keohane)
2-1 (Josh Anderson, Mike Spirtos, *Adam Nelson)
(12) Loyola MM def. (15) Brentwood MSh (Michael Shagrin)
2-1 (Jay Bhatnagar, Ben Empey, *adam Nelson)
(6) Esperanza JP def. (11) Albuquerque IE (Ian Erickson-Kery)
3-0 (Stephen Babb, Ashan Peiris, Wesley Craven)
(10) Harvard-Westlake SN def. (7) Brophy Prep JL (Jeff Lockhart)
2-1 (*Corbin Cass, Ryan Hamilton, Kyle Fleeger)
(8) Churchill County RP def. (9) Loyola TM (Tim McHugh)
2-1 (Josh Anderson, *Mike Spirtos, Michael O’Connell)
QUARTERS
(1) Milburn TM def. (8) Churchill County RP (Robert Parker)
3-0 (Wesley Craven, John Scoggin, Mike Bietz)
(2) South Eugene BS def. (10) Harvard-Westlake SN (Sean Nadel)
2-1 (Cherian Koshy, *Corbin Cass, Ben Kearl)
(3) Upper St. Clair JG def. (6) Esperanza JP (Justin Pearce)
3-0 (Stephen Babb, Peter D. Van Elswyk, Mike Spirtos)
(13) Brophy KC def. (12) Loyola MM (Michael Mezzatesta)
3-0 (Charlie Furman, Jay Bhatnagar, Adam Nelson)
SEMIS
(1) Millburn TM def. (13) Brophy Prep KC (Kevin Coltin)
3-0 (John Scoggin, Kyle Fleeger, Stephen Babb)
(2) South Eugene BS def. (3) Upper St. Clair JG (J.P. Gooderham)
3-0 (Cherian Koshy, Michael O’Connell, Peter D. Van Elswyk)
FINALS
(2) South Eugene BS def. (1) Millburn TM (Tess McNulty)
3-0 (Cherian Koshy, Ben Empey, Ben Kearl)
CHAMPION [The Meadows Belt]
South Eugene BS (Ben Schifberg)
—
TOP SPEAKERS
1. Tess McNulty — Millburn High School (NJ)
2. Ben Schifberg — South Eugene High School (OR)
3. Robert Parker — Churchill County High School (NV)
4. J.P. Gooderham — Upper St. Clair High School (PA)
5. Tim McHugh — Loyola High School (CA)
6. Michelle Keohane — Apple Valley High School (MN)
7. Michael Shagrin — Brentwood School (CA)
8. Justin Pearce — Esperanza High School (CA)
9. Sean Nadel — Harvard-Westlake School (CA)
10. Ian Erickson-Kery — Albuquerque Academy (NM)
—
ROUND 1
Brophy KC v La Costa AD Fleeger
Lone Peack CP v Harvard-Westlake AA Fleeger
West JZ v Harvard-Westlake SN Babb
Brophy JL v Alb Acad AC Babb
Loyola AS v. Canyon Spring DB O’Connell
Green Valley RM v Alb Acad FS O’Connell
Loyola CP v Apple Valley MK Nelson
South Eugene BS v CPS AK Nelson
Esperanza JP v Alb Acad IE Peiris
Esperanza RM v Brophy MJ Zucker
Harker RM v Bingham ES Empey
Loyola TM v Brentwood MSh Bhatnagar
Juan Diego AA v CPS AP Koshy
Brentwood CW v Green Valley AH Koshy
La Costa MN v CPS GV Spirtos
Polytechnic SW v Loyola MM Spirtos
Brentwood MA v West AW Cass
Loyola AB v Green Valley DK Cass
Harvard-Westlake NP v Churchill County RP Scoggin
Loyola SW v Oaks Christian Kearl
CPS MD v Green Valley DC Bietz
Esperanza SA v Redlands JK Bietz
Juan Diego RG v Upper St. Clair DC Furman
Juan Diego PG v Brentwood JL Furman
ROUND 2
Bingham ES v Brophy KC Babb
Green Valley DC v Juan Diego PG Babb
Brentwood MSo v. Brophy JL Spirtos
Redlands JK v Loyola CP Spirtos
Alb Acad FS v West JZ Cass
Oaks Christian v Esperanza SA Cass
Alb Acad IE v Loyola AB Empey
Loyola MM v Juan Diego RG Empey
Canyon Springs DB v Harker RM Bietz
CPS GC v Esperanza RM Bietz
Harvard-Westlake AA V. Esperanza JP Scoggin
West AW v Loan Peak CP Petit
Brentwood MSh v Bingham MS Fleeger
Brophy MJ v La Costa MN Fleeger
Alb Acad AC v Brentwood CW Bhatnagar
Apple Valley MK v Loyola AS Bhatnagar
Green Valley AH v Polytechnic SW Furman
Millburn TM v Loyola SW Furman
Green Valley DK v Brentwood MA Koshy
La Costa AD v Harvard-Westlake NP Koshy
Churchill Country RP v Canyon Springs DR O’Connell
CPS AP v South Eugene BS O’Connell
Harvard-Westlake SN v CPS MD Hamilton
Upper St. Clair JG v Green Valley RM Nelson
Brentwood JL v Juan Diego AA Craven
CPS AK v Loyola TM Craven
ROUND 3
Canyon Springs DB v Bingham ES Craven
CPS GC v Loyola SW Craven
CPS MD v Brentwood MSo Koshy
Harker RM v Harvard-Westlake SN Koshy
Harvard-Westlake AA v Bingham MS Babb
West AW v Alb Acad IE Anderson
Loyola MM v Brophy MJ Anderson
CPS AK v Esperanza RM Spirtos
La Costa AD v Loyola TM Spirtos
Brophy JL v Loyola AB Bhatnagar
Upper St. Claire JG v Lone Peak CP Bhatnagar
Juan Diego PG v La Costa MN Nelson
Redlands JK v Juan Diego Nelson
Esperanza JP v Brentwood MSh Cass
Green Valley RM v Alb Acad AC Cass
Brophy KC v South Eugene BS Scoggin
Polytechnic SW v Esperanza SA Zucker
Green Valley DK v Brentwood CW Fleeger
Millburn TM v Churchill County RP Fleeger
Brentwood MA v Apple Valley MK O’Connell
Brentwood JL v West JZ O’Connell
CPS AP v Green Valley AH Bietz
Oaks Christian v Loyola AS Empey
Harvard-Westale NP v Canyon Springs DR Furman
Loyola CP v Juan Diego AA Furman
ROUND 4
Brentwood MSo v Loyola CP Bhatnagar
Chruchill County RP v Harvard-Westlake AA Bhatnagar
Esperanza SA v Upper St. Claire JG Spirtos
Lone Peak CP v CPS MD Spirtos
Juan Diego RG v CPS AP Fleeger
Loyola TM v Harvard-Westlake NP Petit
Apple Valley MK v Brophy JL Cass
South Eugene BS v Loyola MM Cass
Alb Acad FS v Oaks Christian Furman
Havard-Westlake SN v CPS GC Furman
Bingham MS v Redlands JK Marshall
Brentwood CW v CPS AK Scoggin
La Costa MN v Brophy KC Anderson
Loyola AB v Green Valley RM Anderson
Alb Acad AC v Juan Diego PG Peiris
Juan Diego AA v La Costa AD Peiris
Brentwood MSh v Harker RM Ginger
Esperanza RM v West AW Ginger
Loyola AS v Esperanza JP Craven
West JZ v Canyon Springs DB Nelson
Alb Acad IE v Polytechnic SW Babb
Green Valley AH v Milburn TM Babb
Brophy MJ v Brentwood MA Empey
Loyola SW v Brentwood JL Empey
Bingham ES v Green Valley DC Zucker
Canyon Springs DR v Green Valley DK Zucker
ROUND 5
Churchill County RP v Harker RM Craven
West JZ v Brentwood MSo Peiris
Brentwood JL v Milburn TM Scoggin
Lone Peak CP v Harvard-Westlake SN Scoggin
Havard-Westlake NP v CPS AK Hamilton
Juan Diego AA v Esperanza RM Hamilton
Brophy KC v Loyola MM Bhatnagar
Canyon Springs DR v Bingham ES Bhatnagar
Apple Valley MK v Green Valley AH Spirtos
Loyola SW v Brentwood CW Spirtos
Alb Acad IE v La Costa MN Koshy
Juan Diego RG v Green Valley DC Koshy
Brentwood MSh v Brophy JL O’Connell
Loyola AB v Alb Acad AC O’Connell
La Costa AD v Oaks Christian Babb
Upper St. Claire JG v South Eugene BS Babb
Redlands JK v CPS MD Kearl
West AW v CPS GC Kearl
Esperanza JP v Loyola CP Van Elswyk
Loyola AS v Esperanza SA Van Elswyk
Juan Diego PG v Harvard-Westlake AA Empey
Polytechnic SW v Green Valley DK Empey
Bingham MS v Alb Acad FS Petit
Canyon Springs DB v CPS AP Petit
ROUND 6
Green Valley DK v Loyola AS Kearl
Green Valley DC v Loyola SW Bhatnagar
Brentwood CW v Upper St Claire JG Cass
Loyola CP v Brentwood JL Cass
Bingham ES v Harvard-Westlake NP Fleeger
Harker RM v Brentwood MA Fleeger
CPS GC v Bingham MS Zucker
Green Valley AH v Canyon Springs DB Zucker
CPS MD v Canyon Springs DR Ginger
CPS AK v Juan Diego PG Pettit
Alb Acad AC v West JZ Hamilton
Loyola TM v Apple Valley Hamilton
Brentwood MSo v Alb Acad IE O’Connell
Loyola MM v Lone Peak CP O’Connell
Esperanza SA v Loyola AB Nelson
Harvard-Westlake v Brentwood MSh Neslon
Green Valley RM v Redlands JK Koshy
Oaks Christian v Brophy MJ Koshy
Alb Acad FS v Polytechnic SW Peiris
Milburn TM v Brophy KC Peiris
Brophy JL v Esperanza JP Bietz
South Eugene BS v Churchill County RP Van Elswyk
CPS AP v West AW Furman
Esperanza RM v La Costa Canyon AD Furman
Harvard Westlake AA v Juan Diego AA Ribaudo
La Costa MN v Juan Diego RG Ribaudo
Popularity: 11%
test
117 Responses to “Ben Schifberg Wins Meadows”
Leave a Reply
Most Popular Posts
- Jake Nebel Defends Glenbrooks Title
- Ben Holguin Wins Second Minneapple Championship
- Ben Schifberg Wins Meadows
- Matt Dunay, Ellen Noble Are Bump Champions
- Perry Green Wins Manchester
- Weekend Disclosure
- Jan/Feb Resolution Released Tomorrow
- Ross Brown Wins the 2008 Iowa Caucus
- Cameron Baghai Takes USC
- Coulter King Wins Villiger
Posted from: 206.251.74.247
October 31st, 2008 15:24
[…] Meadows — Live Coverage Manchester — Live Coverage (Results on Saturday) Iowa Caucus — Live Coverage (Results on Saturday & Sunday) […]
Posted from: 24.164.191.184
October 31st, 2008 16:56
parker.
Posted from: 71.193.137.54
October 31st, 2008 17:01
Lookin good BS!
Posted from: 68.230.73.179
October 31st, 2008 19:34
SCHIFBERGGGG
Posted from: 98.218.230.121
October 31st, 2008 19:40
looks like a great field. Go Shadow Lab!
Posted from: 208.111.236.13
October 31st, 2008 19:48
GO PARKER and TESSS
Posted from: 24.164.191.184
October 31st, 2008 20:03
parker and tess and nadal and JP lets go.
Posted from: 70.190.107.14
October 31st, 2008 21:09
Way to Go Jeff!
Posted from: 70.190.107.14
October 31st, 2008 21:10
J-Lo Rules!
Posted from: 75.51.187.243
October 31st, 2008 21:22
Why is the field so small considering this is a semis bid???
Posted from: 68.35.78.185
October 31st, 2008 21:38
go flor ian and alex! you guys are so wonderful.
i wish i could be there.
team albuquerque!
Posted from: 75.83.215.37
October 31st, 2008 22:19
woot! woot!
yay jessica
Posted from: 24.234.180.238
October 31st, 2008 23:37
I am 3-1
Tess is 4-0
Ben is 4-0
JP is 4-0
Mezz is 3-1
Saad is 2-2
Ian from Albuquerque is 2-2
That’s all I remember at the moment
Posted from: 70.164.182.189
November 1st, 2008 09:01
brentwood:
msh 4-0
ma 3-1
jl 3-1
mso 2-2
cw 2-2
Posted from: 70.164.182.189
November 1st, 2008 09:06
and harvard westlake sn is 3-1
Posted from: 67.155.35.66
November 1st, 2008 10:32
I know these conversations never happen on here. But anyone want to shed some light on the arguments being made on the topic.
I’m more interested about the neg. Given that 95% of the Lexis articles seem to be AFF and a vast majority of topic articles seem to just refer to Roger Clegg to explain the neg side.
Thanks for any info,
Sam
Feel Free to email me (Duby@wustl.edu) or IM me (SLDUBY) if you don’t want to talk on here
Posted from: 69.69.96.113
November 1st, 2008 10:37
Green Valley RM is 3-1.
Posted from: 68.104.1.44
November 1st, 2008 10:37
I’m in tab, so I haven’t seen any rounds. But what I’m hearing is that there is a LOT of critical argumentation out there. That may be a reflection of the field or it may be the way that people are delving into topics about democracy nowadays. My understanding, though, is that most of these arguments fail to fully address the resolution (eg - democracy is about exclusion absent a reason to exclude felons in particular).
Posted from: 67.155.35.66
November 1st, 2008 11:36
Any examples of these critical arguments?
Posted from: 71.104.147.161
November 1st, 2008 13:16
Good luck to the Esperanza squad
Posted from: 71.107.60.74
November 1st, 2008 14:29
Any update on Bwood and H-W?
Posted from: 24.120.60.99
November 1st, 2008 14:43
Re: Sam - I hear The Gift is being run, some Agamben, etc. I’ll prod some competitors to post.
Re: Update - Round 5 just started. SATs meant that we started at 2pm :-) Flight As should be ending any minute now.
Posted from: 24.120.60.99
November 1st, 2008 17:01
I am 4-1
Ben Schifberg is 5-0
Tess McNulty is 5-0
JP Gooderham is 4-1
Mezzatesta is 3-2
Sean Nadel is 4-1
Saad Asad is 3-2
Shagrin is 4-1 (I think)
Posted from: 24.120.60.99
November 1st, 2008 17:02
Also, all of the 5-0’s are hitting 4-1’s because all 5-0’s are side locked aff this round.
Posted from: 24.120.60.99
November 1st, 2008 18:12
re: matt vela
take a close look at the judging pool and competition. the likelihood that you will receive qualified judging is higher at this tournament than at a few of the octas bids. thanks to dan and the meadows team for putting on a phenomenal tournament, both competitively and socially.
re: sam
i have not heard an NC that advocates felon disenfranchisement. Ks and CPs are very common.
Posted from: 24.120.60.99
November 1st, 2008 18:20
Speakers and Elim Brackets will be up after the catered dinner ;-) Octas will happen tonight and quarters will take place tomorrow morning at 10am.
Posted from: 64.111.151.99
November 1st, 2008 18:58
GO TESS, ROB, but especially JP GOOOOOOODERHAM Rep PA bro!
I know JP is 5 and 1
Posted from: 76.219.139.225
November 1st, 2008 19:04
Congrats to JP on a great first tourey.
What are people Kritiking and Couterplaning?
Posted from: 24.120.60.99
November 1st, 2008 19:14
Ian: I ran one alongside a K against Schif in rd. 6
Tess and Ben are 6-0
JP is 5-1
I am 4-2 and dropped to Tess and Ben
Posted from: 76.233.86.241
November 1st, 2008 19:16
Actually, this tournament seems strikingly similar to westlake. As for competition, no idea. What are the breaks, 4-2 high speaks?
Posted from: 68.230.73.179
November 1st, 2008 20:52
SCHIFBERGG tearing it up
Posted from: 76.233.86.241
November 1st, 2008 21:49
Wow….Esperanza JP & SA close out…easily…
Posted from: 70.164.140.113
November 1st, 2008 21:53
Results from octofinals:
Brophy KC def. Apple Valley MK
South Eugene BS def. Esperanza SA
Upper St. Clair JG def. Brentwood JL
Churchill County RP def. Loyola TM
Posted from: 70.164.140.113
November 1st, 2008 22:05
More:
Loyola MM def. Brentwood MS
Millburn TM def. Brentwood MA
Posted from: 24.120.60.99
November 1st, 2008 22:11
Quarters in the morning will be:
Milburn TM v Churchill County RP
South Eugene BS v Harvard-Westlake SN
Upper St. Claire JG v Esperanza JP
Brophy KC v Loyola MM
Posted from: 74.36.136.254
November 1st, 2008 22:12
BEN AND JP. DO IT.
Posted from: 76.237.8.82
November 1st, 2008 22:15
MEZZATESTA!
Posted from: 24.130.185.160
November 1st, 2008 22:22
go mez and rob
Posted from: 207.108.55.160
November 1st, 2008 23:11
Michael Mezzatesta is my homeboy…
Posted from: 98.201.60.162
November 1st, 2008 23:20
how are CPs competitive?
Posted from: 71.104.147.161
November 1st, 2008 23:24
justin pearce will win it all
@40: counterplans are competitive if you win arguments that prove they are. (How zen…)
Posted from: 76.233.86.241
November 1st, 2008 23:49
@41
Will be surprised if he doesn’t.
Posted from: 98.218.230.121
November 2nd, 2008 04:05
Yay Shadow lab and Benjamin Bunny and JP! Good luck in the bid rounds (paradoxically, since several of yall are hitting each other).
Posted from: 24.164.191.184
November 2nd, 2008 06:11
Tess v. Rob take two. Good luck guys.
Also, good luck JP, Sean, and Mezzie
Posted from: 208.111.219.120
November 2nd, 2008 08:29
That sucks Parker Vs Tess….good round though, JP you better bring that belt back to the Keystone!
Posted from: 69.230.69.224
November 2nd, 2008 09:37
Got to wish Mezzatesta some good luck. :D
Posted from: 76.94.91.43
November 2nd, 2008 10:39
Harvard-Westlake Sean Nadel FTW.
Posted from: 68.81.159.124
November 2nd, 2008 10:48
go JP
Posted from: 24.120.60.99
November 2nd, 2008 10:49
Loyola MM (Aff) v Brophy KC (Furman, Bhatnagar, Nelson)
Churchill County RP (AFF) v Milburn TM (Craven, Scoggin, Bietz)
S. Eugene BS v Harvard-Westlake SN (Koshy, Cass, Kearl)
Upper St Claire JG v Esperanza JP (Babb, Van Elswyk, Spirtos)
Rounds start in 10 min
Posted from: 71.193.137.54
November 2nd, 2008 11:25
We’re ALL pulling for you Benjamin Bunny(?), Gramps, Beebs, Benj…!!!
Posted from: 24.120.60.99
November 2nd, 2008 11:32
Schifberg affirming against sean nadel. its a fierce round
Posted from: 24.120.60.99
November 2nd, 2008 11:58
Upper St Claire JG def Esperanza JP 3-0
S. Eugene BS def Harvard-Westlake SN 2-1
Millburn TM def Churchill County 3-0
Posted from: 208.111.219.120
November 2nd, 2008 12:22
Congrats to tess on the bid, and go JPPPPP!
Posted from: 24.120.60.99
November 2nd, 2008 12:30
Semis is starting now:
Milburn TM v Brophy KC (Scoggin, Fleeger, Babb)
USC JP v S. Eugene BS (Koshy, O’Connel, Van Elswyk)
Posted from: 70.173.219.47
November 2nd, 2008 13:18
So GV didn’t break right?
Posted from: 70.173.219.47
November 2nd, 2008 13:18
So GV didn’t break right?
Posted from: 69.253.230.13
November 2nd, 2008 13:41
update? anyone?
Posted from: 71.193.137.54
November 2nd, 2008 13:41
YAHOO!! Congrats on the bid Benj!
Posted from: 24.120.60.99
November 2nd, 2008 13:48
Finals is starting now (45 min ahead of schedule)
Milburn TM v S. Eugene BS (Koshy, Empey, Kearl)
Posted from: 69.253.230.13
November 2nd, 2008 13:55
YAY for PA’s first bid of the season, you rock jp :)
also, congrats to tess!
Posted from: 70.173.219.47
November 2nd, 2008 14:03
Great job to all competitors
Posted from: 70.173.219.47
November 2nd, 2008 14:04
Any common arguments that are being made throughout the tournament? Especially now that the Meadows Invitational is coming to a close?
Posted from: 76.246.93.176
November 2nd, 2008 14:08
What???? Nooooo, JP! (Arg, I hate how I can’t tell which JP people are referring to on here. There is a JP Gooderham and a Justin Pearce from Esperanza….lol)
Posted from: 98.109.41.141
November 2nd, 2008 14:11
go tessie go
Posted from: 70.173.219.47
November 2nd, 2008 14:25
What arguments are floating around final round?
Posted from: 76.246.93.176
November 2nd, 2008 14:29
@65
Who was in semis and finals?
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
November 2nd, 2008 14:29
is this a finals or semis bid? Congrats to JP btw.
Posted from: 70.173.219.47
November 2nd, 2008 14:33
—SEMIS—
Milburn TM v Brophy KC (Scoggin, Fleeger, Babb)
USC JP v S. Eugene BS (Koshy, O’Connel, Van Elswyk)
—FINAL ROUND—
Milburn TM v S. Eugene BS (Koshy, Empey, Kearl)
This is a semis bid.
———–
Anyone know the main arguments made on both the AFF/NEG for either the semis or final round?
Posted from: 24.120.60.99
November 2nd, 2008 14:48
S. Eugene BS def Milburn TM 3-0
Posted from: 70.173.219.47
November 2nd, 2008 14:49
Woahh…what happened Tess?! Congratulations to everyone though!
Posted from: 98.218.230.121
November 2nd, 2008 14:54
BIG PROPS to B.Bunny and Ms. Tess!
Posted from: 24.215.162.120
November 2nd, 2008 14:59
gooooo tessums
Posted from: 206.251.74.247
November 2nd, 2008 15:10
[…] Meadows — Finals: South Eugene’s Ben Schifberg defeated Millburn’s Tess McNulty on a 3-0 decision. Manchester — Finals: Walt Whitman’s Perry Green defeated Bronx Science’s Matt Dunay on a 2-1 decision. Iowa Caucus — Finals: Valley’s Ross Brown defeated Hopkins’s Conor Doherty on a 3-0 decision. Whitman — Finals: Bainbridge’s Lizzie Sivitz and Lauren Greenawalt closed out. (Lizzie coached over teammate Jimmy Mooney in semis.) […]
Posted from: 70.56.25.172
November 2nd, 2008 15:33
So… Can we get a picture of Ben lifting the belt above his head or like wearing it… please.
Posted from: 68.230.73.179
November 2nd, 2008 16:04
SCHIFBERGGGGGGGGGGG congrats man
Posted from: 169.232.78.86
November 2nd, 2008 17:15
congrats mez and sean on quarters!
Posted from: 63.164.47.227
November 2nd, 2008 17:59
Thanks for the support guys. This tournament was so much fun, thank you so much Dan Meyers. The food was easily the most incredible tournament food I’ve ever had. The buffet was phenomenal, the food was so good. Besides that the tournament rocked in many other ways, a sweet schedule that allowed sleeping in on Saturday, and extremely high quality judging. I went here last year and it just gets better and better.
Posted from: 24.174.22.156
November 2nd, 2008 18:09
Yay Benjamin Bunny! Congrats; much deserved
Posted from: 70.164.140.78
November 2nd, 2008 18:09
To echo Schif’s comment, this was definitely the best tournament I have attended (even topping my incredible experience last year).
Dan Meyers and the Meadows squad have worked extremely hard to make this a great experience for debaters and coaches (i.e. phenomenal judging, late start times, endless supply of food and drink).
This was definitely a great way to start my season, and I strongly encourage everyone to attend.
Finally, congratulations to Schifberg and Tess for stellar performances.
Posted from: 24.25.143.250
November 2nd, 2008 18:43
Congrats to JP on reaching semis and to JDawg for reaching quarters. What was the bid level?
Posted from: 68.104.1.44
November 2nd, 2008 19:00
Several things:
1) The results packet is linked below. Mike Bietz will be uploading scanned ballots very soon.
http://www.tmsforensics.com/easyfile/file.php?download=2008110217501958
2) Thank you all for coming. We, as a program, really appreciate those that choose to spend a weekend with us at our tournament. We enjoy hosting you and value your decision to join us in Vegas.
3) Thank you to my students. You all worked very hard and I appreciate it very much. That hard work was critical to the tournament running even further ahead of schedule than it did last year. Your efforts were also essential to everyone’s general enjoyment of the tournament.
4) Thank you for all the praise on and off of this thread. We, as a team, are flattered and appreciative. Our goal is simply to put on the kind of tournament that our friends would want to go back to year after year. We strive, each year, to make it better. We welcome any and all suggestions.
I’m sure I’m forgetting something and I am sorry for that.
Thanks to all.
DM
Posted from: 72.130.138.114
November 2nd, 2008 19:14
congrats to pearce and the brentwood crew
Posted from: 98.112.164.45
November 2nd, 2008 21:53
to answer everyones questions about args and shit
there really was no common case ive heard of. its tough to find what the stock ac is on this topic.
mad props to schiffy for going through 3 straight out rounds affirming, what a beast
Posted from: 209.30.247.182
November 2nd, 2008 22:08
I’m not trying to be overly harsh. But how is “there really was no common case ive heard of” an answer to what arguments are people making on the topic?
Posted from: 98.195.66.198
November 2nd, 2008 22:22
re: 84
people were asking what were some arguments in general people were making on the topic. blay was simply stating that there were no real “common” arguments or stock cases that people generally ran. there were too many alternate cases and arguments listed to get a general idea of the arguments run
Posted from: 24.234.180.238
November 2nd, 2008 22:28
Thanks everyone for the shoutouts, the judging at this tournament was amazing, the food great, and the competition stellar. Congrats to Ben and Tess you’re both beasts and def are awesome. JP you’re dope and congrats on the bid.
Shadow lab fights on.
Posted from: 68.126.0.34
November 2nd, 2008 22:40
awesome tournament. thanks for everyone who wished me good luck. great showing by shadow lab, we filled 4 of the 8 quarters spots.
thanks a ton to Dan Meyers and the Meadows crew, everything about the tournament was exceptional.
Posted from: 71.254.154.10
November 2nd, 2008 22:46
Great job Ben. Even if I dropped you every out round, you were legit.
Posted from: 98.112.164.45
November 2nd, 2008 22:56
to sam duby:
look dude, i think you need to learn to read. yall were asking for specific cases and common strats, there was none, the best way to simplify was really there was usually a K run almost every round, although not in outs. and i for one and not gonna go on here and post every single strat ive run so that people can prep me and my teammates out and this is the first tournament on this topic with many more to come.
so the next time you start asking for cases and common positions, be thankful that someone even responded to your shit
Posted from: 75.36.127.0
November 2nd, 2008 23:27
Blay, shut up, you’re making us look bad.
Congrats to Ben on the win and Tess, JP, and Kevin on the bids.
This was a great tournament, easily one of (if not the) best tournament I’ve been to. Amazing that we slept in each morning and the it still finished early. unheard of. In my opinion, this had one of the best judging pools ever, and a great pool of debaters as well. Thanks to the whole Meadows team for putting on another great one. Good luck topping it next year. (shoot for quarters bid!)
Posted from: 68.126.0.34
November 3rd, 2008 01:42
i agree that this tourney had an amazing judging pool… until peter van elswyk showed up the 2nd day
Posted from: 158.165.14.226
November 3rd, 2008 09:39
Pictures!! Pictures!! Pictures!!
Posted from: 67.171.212.124
November 3rd, 2008 11:17
Meadows was incredible. It’s inevitable this tournament will explode in popularity because it is impossible to find the combination of that judging pool, competitor pool, hospitality and national circuit atmosphere in a location that’s cheap to fly into and with tournament fees that make you feel guilty for paying so little when you see the food and facilities.
Respect to the other tournaments this weekend and I can’t really be comparative since I don’t know several…but Meadows was the best. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. Right now it isn’t a huge tournament-but it’s very dense. And the size of the tournament does effect the experience…outstanding tournaments like Greenhill or Bronx have large fields with big numbers but I’ll always prefer the more concentrated and personal atmosphere of Meadows. It’s perfect.
Dan has made this tournament into an intimate and highly competitive tournament with his priorities on hospitality and quality judging…I still can’t believe the judge pref sheet i was handed when i got into vegas..i spasmed, handed the sheet to ben and then asked him ‘how many 1’s do we get?!’…it’s like a dream come true for any debater who is sick of inconsistent judging and wants to receive some of the best criticism in the country. Unless either pdve, corbin or I am judging…of course ;)
Thanks Dan…You know how much i respect you for running this tournament and taking care of all of it’s participants and I hope even more people will experience that…not too many more though…
Posted from: 67.171.212.124
November 3rd, 2008 11:24
Sorry there will be a few posts here;
wanted to say ‘grats to the shadow lab…great to see you all and sorry to see you have to hit eachother :(
thanks to parker and his fam for helping out, tess for being a badass (most of the time!), the loyola boyz, jp, ah hell everyone!
and of course ‘grats to young money…bid round, bid round, belt…just letting the beat build bschif?
mmm i love that belt.
Posted from: 134.84.33.209
November 3rd, 2008 11:44
learn to read and be thankful duby
Posted from: 67.171.212.124
November 3rd, 2008 11:51
to duby, karlyn, y’all;
i’m pretty exhausted so let me just throw out some quick comments on a few things i saw run…but i’m happy to chat about it over email too…
there were several deliberative democracy/habermas acs, some generic political participation acs, most affirmative cases didn’t spend much time on framework regarding specification of the society or what constitutes a felon or what type of felon disenfranchisment laws were implicated in the resolution and just boiled down to defending universal suffrage. There were several exceptions to that of course…our affirmative case was just a deliberative democracy position but massively front loaded with framework…though less on interpretation issues and more on preempting under-developed kritiks, alternatives, random off-case and skeptical arguments that we anticipated from negatives. And I think that paid off…it was the most common negative strategy we dealt with…most likely because it was the start of the topic and people knew that meadows judges would allow greater ‘flexibility’ on the negating strategies.
It was exciting to see so many critical arguments on the negative though few had a developed decision calculus (what a shocker). I only saw a few of what I would call a short, stock nc (some social contract derived standard and offense that says ‘felons break the law, so they can’t make the law’). Much more common negative positions were versions of ‘democracies should decide for themselves’ or ‘affirming creates a static conception of democracy which is undemocratic’ etc. Many negatives were running overviews saying the above; mostly mouffe stuff. I only saw one straight up agonistic democracy nc. I also only saw one democracy=exclusion case which i had anticipated would be the most common critical argument at the start of the topic. Our main negative strat was a blasphemous rant (”criticism”) condeming affirmatives for legitimating democracy through endorsing the ‘right to vote’ and allowing felon enfranchisment to undercut social movements…as we pointed out to everyone it usually just functioned as ‘terminal defense’ to affirmatives claiming to increase participation or empowering felons. I likened our negative strat to the NY giants defense in the superbowl…though that might be a little over the top :)
I’m sure i’m missing tons…i think the comments on this thread are correct that few if any definitive trends were found in the strategies this weekend though i tried to outline a few for y’all
Posted from: 206.41.39.34
November 3rd, 2008 12:36
Thanks for that post, Wesley. Very kind indeed.
Posted from: 149.142.112.2
November 3rd, 2008 15:17
I want to also thank Dan Meyers and the Meadows team for an incredible tournament experience. I second everything that Wesley said in 93.
Congrats to all who did well at this competitive tournament.
Posted from: 76.212.203.201
November 3rd, 2008 16:51
To echo what is being said already, This was a great tournament and I am already looking forward to coming back next year.
Posted from: 24.164.191.184
November 3rd, 2008 18:57
Gratz mezz, sean, saad, parker, and especially tess.
Posted from: 67.80.215.195
November 3rd, 2008 20:40
yaaaaaaaaay, congrats ben, tess, and jp :o)
Posted from: 70.104.23.74
November 3rd, 2008 21:55
Thank you Wesley.
I wish all those involved in this competitive (yet educationally based?) game would share information in the way you did.
Posted from: 24.46.207.84
November 4th, 2008 08:20
Congrats to Tess on first speaker and finals!!
Posted from: 150.212.2.138
November 4th, 2008 21:16
BEN IS LIKE CURREN$Y, CRIMINALLY UNDERAPPRECIATED YOUNG MONEY PRODUCTION.
WEEZY F BABY, PLEAZ SAY THE MOTHAFUCKIN’ BABY.
J.R. COO COO.
Posted from: 155.97.238.226
November 4th, 2008 22:25
Thanks especially to Dan Meyers for an AMAZING tournament, there was nothing at all to complain about. :) The food was amazing, the prep room was awesome, and the night out on the Strip was funnn!!! This is a tournament well deserving of its reputation
Posted from: 71.42.216.162
November 5th, 2008 11:36
i’d like to echo a lot of what’s been said here; i don’t have any idea of how dan meyers could have run a better tournament. it was extremely comfortable and hospitable, fantastically well-run (outrounds were done several hours early), and the food was fantastic (and while i wasn’t there personally, i hear great things about the free chinese buffet that most people were transported to by meadows bus). the judging pool was absolutely unbelievable. on numerous occasions, i was able to walk into tab and look over ballots for my students or my own ballots with no difficulties at all - sometimes, i could just come in and hang out for a bit. i have no doubt that this tournament is going to get bigger - which might be kind of sad, given that it works so well in part because of its size - but i can say that if you go to the meadows, you won’t be disappointed at all. i think i can honestly say that it’s the best tournament i’ve attended. on that note, the tournament did, in fact, not end late on sunday afternoon; it was actually pretty early, like 1 or so.
i also want to congratulate all of the students who did so well this weekend: the brophy, loyola, esperanza, and brentwood (who i judged like 80 times) boys, michelle, sean, and ROB PARKER. jp and ben, props on your bids and thanks for the really enjoyable rounds. tess, i’m more proud of you than i can say.
as for what people were running this weekend:
a lot of affirmatives were making arguments about the link between the revocation of voting rights (or law in general) and racism. a few cases i saw were more directly about state accountability with specific applications to felon voting and flaws in criminal justice systems. the most common positions seemed to be cases about deliberative democracy and the necessity of open access to the political process. a few acs made a lot of arguments about increased crime and social division when we separate felons and uniquely remove their political voice. i believe that i saw an ac that was actually about punishment which claimed that the revocation of the right to vote across all felonies attached a political punishment to what was not necessarily a political crime (taking away your voting rights doesn’t fit the crimes of grand theft auto or public urination). there were also a number of critical affirmatives which tied the revocation of voting rights to biopower, the state of exception, and other commonly critiqued oppressive mechanisms, as it were.
negatives seemed to be a little behind on this tournament. i think i only saw 2 or 3 actual ncs on this topic, mostly contractarian-style arguments (you break the law, you don’t make the law) or arguments about protecting crucial social values. a few negatives were running pics about specific instances in which the right must be revoked; i don’t think that i saw any other than voter fraud and treason. i also saw a pic about the problem of rights language that revoking voting as a right for felons and instead making it an obligation; i haven’t done the research myself but it’s supposed to be modeled after australia somehow. but in almost every round, negs were running the k. most people refused to talk about felons and instead just hammered in the democracy debate or ranted about law or the subject or something. one thing that i noticed was that almost NOBODY was outlining a) a decision calculus for their critical advocacies or b) any reason why the alternative might be uniquely negative ground. there was one k that i saw that was actually decent and talked about voting, which said that the political process is more or less a sham to cover up the domination of capital over political interests and that negating the resolution was a rejection of the myth that formal politics provided a solution to our problems.
hope that’s helpful.
Posted from: 71.42.216.162
November 5th, 2008 11:38
rights language and revoking*
Posted from: 24.120.60.99
November 5th, 2008 11:45
For those thinking about applying to the NDCA, here are the relevant numbers:
Entries - 52
States - 9
First Elim - Octas
Posted from: 96.234.65.108
November 5th, 2008 20:28
I’m sure everyone is convinced by now, but meadows is by far the most pleasant, accomodating tournament I’ve ever been to. Amazing judges, amazing schedule, amazing food. Thanks so much to the tournament staff and Meadows school, for supplying everything anyone could ask for.
Posted from: 71.42.216.162
November 6th, 2008 04:25
oh i forgot to congratulate ian e-k. props kid, you made rd 6 mad fun.
Posted from: 24.205.203.169
November 6th, 2008 21:13
Since my only other bid tournament on this topic is Alta and I’m writing new stuff for that tourney I’m going to share what I was running.
I had 3 aff cases.
1) Straight (what I thought to be) stock. Value was democracy, criterion was Maximization of Government Accountability. With a few cards from Rummel and Talbott thrown in about the advantages of democratic systems (such as famine and democide prevention) as preempts to critical negs. The contention args were 1) Felon suffrage holds government accountable to an otherwise unrepresented sector of society. 2) Voting is a human right. 3) Some felons aren’t linked to voting (this is the “taking away your voting rights doesn’t fit the crimes of grand theft auto or public urination” arg o’connell talked about) 4) Disenfranchising felons lets government legislate social morality (i.e. like Iran criminalizing homosexuality) 5) Potential to disenfranchise innocent persons.
Second was a critique of capitalism. The links were 1) Disenfranchisement entrenches a competitive mindset that is capitalistic. 2) Disenfranchisement redraws class distinctions of capitalism in politics (rich, middle, poor -> rulers, voters, disenfranchised). 3) Disenfranchisement could be used to outlaw anti-capitalist movements. 4) Dfran disproportionately hurts the poor who’ve been hurt the most by capitalism. and the fifth arg just said felon suffrage was uniquely aff ground. The impacts were typical cap bad stuff, the authors were Barnes, Avakian, Ophuls, Driver and Milbrath. The alt was 3 cards saying basically the opposite of the links (suffrage is a tool to fight cap, makes people politically equal, etc.)
The third strat was straight up statism good. There was a ton of preempts including theory saying felon suffrage is solely aff ground and we look to a prescriptive decision calculus. The standard was Maximization of Safeguards from Physical Abuse (although only the first contention arg impacts to it). There 4 links to felons voting -> statist, and 4 args saying Dfran hurts state legitimacy. The contention args were 1) State safer than state of nature. (went for risk of impact). 2) State key to use of ethical systems (preempt other prescriptive negs, theory, etc. b/c they make appeal to distinctions of good/bad). and 3) A chomsky card saying the only way to take out the state is through the state as a preempt to statism bad stuff.
Neg cases will be in next post.
Posted from: 24.205.203.169
November 6th, 2008 21:22
My neg positions were.
First, a straight stock NC that never got run. Value was democracy with a criterion of Maximization of Government Culpability. Then there were two args about how protection of innocents in governments ultimate responsibility. The contention args were 1) the forfeiture arg, and 2) some empirics about when felons get the right to vote crime increases. I also had an optional overview with it that was 5 reasons true democracies can never exist as an pre-standards reason to negate.
Second was a critique of infusing the state with philosophy. The links were 1) res says democratic society 2) actively voting infuses the state w/ democratic philosophy, 3) the choice to vote does the same 4) some specific link to the AC, 5) a concession out of CX that I got 100% of the time, 6) There are AC positions that could critique the state but they choose not to run them and instead actively support it. The impacts were, 1) terrorism, 2) felon suffrage deepens the control of the state, 3) voting deepens control of the state, 4) democide w/ 3 empirical warrants. The alt was a new form of politics that focuses on de-normalization. The author for the alt was Seem.
Third, was the NC from the first strat and then I ran a critique of democracy (saying it couldn’t exist, not that it was bad) as a offcase. The links were 1) res presumes democracy, 2) AC advocates for democracy. The impact was a card (Schmitter 96) that gives 5 reasons true democracies can never exist. And the alt was vote neg b/c if democracies can’t exist the resolution can’t be true and we can’t say it’s beneficial because there’s no basis to say non-existent things rock. After that there was another off that was either a dump on either a particular ACs conception of democracy or gendered language bad depending on the AC
Hope that helps.
Posted from: 24.90.20.221
November 6th, 2008 22:19
so your neg strat was to run as many generic non-responsive and barely topic specific critical positions with skeptical links to the res but never specific to the 1ac advocacy. then you would never to answer the affs actual arguments.
this is the type of shit that’s ruining debate
Posted from: 76.93.137.42
November 6th, 2008 22:35
anon-
if his positions are so non topical and have such shady links, why don’t you and all the other brilliant anons out there beat positions like this so that people stop running them because they are “shit”?
You can criticize what people run all you want, but at least 1. tell us who you are, and 2. be thankful that Robert actually disclosed his cases. Most people don’t even do that.
Telling someone, who just did something most people in the community would hesitate to do, they are “ruining debate” is a pretty harsh claim that needs to be warranted.
Posted from: 24.205.203.169
November 6th, 2008 23:00
Thank you Paras.
Anon, if you don’t like what I was running that is fine, you are entitled to your opinion.
Posted from: 71.42.216.162
November 6th, 2008 23:15
anons are ruining debate. monday morning armchair vbd philosophers are ruining debate. debaters who are willing to disclose their positions for the benefit of the community at large are NOT ruining debate.
Posted from: 68.126.0.34
November 6th, 2008 23:31
yeah Rob very cool of you to disclose your cases, mad respect
anon learn to debate on the neg