History Made in Kentucky: Chris Theis Wins 2nd TOC
Westminster Takes Policy; Harker Wins PF;
Joseph Perretta Claims Congressional Debate Title
LEXINGTON, Ky. — The final round of the 2009 National Tournament of Champions featured defending champion Chris Theis of Apple Valley High School and challenger Daniel Moerner of Los Altos High School.
On a 6-1 decision, Chris defeated Daniel to defend his title. Chris is the first-ever repeat TOC champion in Lincoln-Douglas debate. Congratulations to both for reaching finals in a year that featured what may well be the strongest senior class in history.
Chris is coached by Pam Cady Wycoff, Cherian Koshy, and Tim Hogan; Daniel is coached by Eric Palmer, Stephen Hess, and Alex Smith.
The judges in the final round were Neil Conrad, Jon Cruz, Lexy Green, Ali Huberlie, Jonathan Massey, Tom Rollins, and Aaron Timmons. Huberlie dissented.
The recipient of this year’s Walter Alan Ulrich Award — recognizing the top speaker at the TOC — was Jake Nebel of Trinity Preparatory School.
LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE
(18) Salado TC (Tyler Cook)
RUN-OFF ROUND
(17) Scarsdale MM def. (16) Mountain View NP (Natalee Pei)
2-1 (*Tim Case, Ryan Lawrence, Elyse Lyons)
OCTAS (SWEET SIXTEEN)
(16) Scarsdale MM def. (1) Greenhill DS (Danielle Smogard)
2-1 (Anjan Choudhury, Prashant Rai, *Tim Case)
(2) Trinity Prep JN def. (15) Edina BH (Ben Holguin)
3-0 (Ali Huberlie, Peter D. Van Elswyk, Liz Vieira)
(3) Strake Jesuit PT def. (14) Saint Louis Park CT (Catherine Tarsney)
3-0 (Tom Evnen, Petey Gil-Montllor, Kris Wright)
(4) Los Altos DM def. (13) Valley RB (Ross Brown)
3-0 (Ari Parker, Julian Switala, Adam Nelson)
(5) Meadows JL def. (12) Walt Whitman BL (Ben Lewis)
3-0 (Sam Duby, Cherian Koshy, Stephen Hess)
(6) Apple Valley CT def. (11) Upper Saint Clair JG (J.P. Gooderham)
3-0 (Dan Meyers, Patrick Diehl, George Clemens)
(7) Mountain View DG def. (10) Bronx Science MD (Matt Dunay)
2-1 (Tim Hogan, *Christian Tarsney, Matt Wilson)
(8) Westlake DR def. (9) Scarsdale KH (Ken Hershey)
2-1 (*Neil Conrad, Gary Johnson, Ernie Rose)
QUARTERS
(8) Westlake DR def. (16) Scarsdale MM (Marcus Moretti)
2-1 (Ernie Rose, Neil Conrad, *Petey Gil-Montllor)
(2) Trinity Prep JN def. (7) Mountain View DG (Daniel Garber)
2-1 (Tim Case, *Ali Huberlie, Matt Wilson)
(6) Apple Valley CT def. (3) Strake Jesuit PT (Paul Tyger)
2-1 (Jon Cruz, Anjan Choudhury, *Stephen Babb)
(4) Los Altos DM def. (5) Meadows JL (Jordan Lamothe)
2-1 (Ari Parker, Julian Switala, *Tim Hogan)
SEMIS
(4) Los Altos DM def. (8) Westlake DR (Devin Race)
3-0 (Ali Huberlie, Julian Switala, Ernie Rose)
(6) Apple Valley CT def. (2) Trinity Prep JN (Jake Nebel)
2-1 (Matt Wilson, *Stephen Babb, Dan Meyers)
FINALS
(6) Apple Valley CT def. (4) Los Altos DM (Daniel Moerner)
6-1 (Neil Conrad, Jon Cruz, Lexy Green, *Ali Huberlie, Jonathan Massey, Tom Rollins, Aaron Timmons)
TOC CHAMPION
(6) Apple Valley CT (Chris Theis)
—
TOP SPEAKERS
1. Jake Nebel — Trinity Preparatory School (FL) [Walter Alan Ulrich Award]
2. Chris Theis — Apple Valley High School (MN)
3. Paul Tyger — Strake Jesuit College Preparatory School (TX)
4. Daniel Moerner — Los Altos High School (CA)
5. Daniel Garber — Mountain View High School (CA)
6. Danielle Smogard — Greenhill School (TX)
7. Devin Race — Westlake High School (TX)
8. Jordan LaMothe — The Meadows School (NV)
9. David McNeil — Edina High School (MN)
10. Tyler Cook — Salado High School (TX)
11. Ken Hershey — Scarsdale High School (NY)
12. Matt Dunay — The Bronx High School of Science (NY)
13. Ben Lewis — Walt Whitman High School (MD)
14. Francesca Parente — Wayzata High School (MN)
15. J.P. Gooderham — Upper Saint Clair High School (PA)
POLICY DEBATE
Bellarmine RV – Will Rafey & Sagar Vijay
Bishop Guertin CP – Katryna Cadle & Chris Power
Bronx Science MB – Andrew Markoff & Regan Bozman
Colleyville Heritage MN – Andrew Murray & Alex Nasr
Damien QH – Reid Ehrlich Quinn & Sean Hernandez
Fullerton Union GS – Robin Gray & Sasha Sabherwal
Glenbrook North MS – Flynn Makuch & Victor Shao
Glenbrook South TD – Will Thibeau & Richard Day
Greenhill BL – Nupi Bhushan & Anna Litman
Jack C. Hays DS – Nathan DuPont & Natalie San Luis
Kinkaid KS – Layne Kirshon & Craig Smyser
Milton BL – Ken Bailey & Austin Layton
New Trier GS – Ross Gordon & Ira Slomski-Pritz
Notre Dame DP – Chris Duran & Quinn Powell
Pace AL – Jennifer Armstrong & Peyton Lee
Westminster JS – Rajesh Jegadeesh & Anshu Sathian
Woodward NP – Brittany Nehman & Matthew Pesce
PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE
OCTAS (THE SWEET SIXTEEN)
(1) Durham WP def. (16) McClintock SB (Veekas Shrivastava & Justin Bever)
3-0 (Matt Grauer, Christensen, Hamilton)
(15) Mountain Brook SG def. (2) New Trier GC (Joey Glickman & Zach Collins)
2-1 (Eric Di Michele, Ben Kearl, Rosenthal)
(3) Lake Highland MW def. (14) Walt Whitman FN (Itai Farhi & Tom Niblock)
2-1 (Fred Robertson, P. Harris, Berkowitz)
(4) Timber Creek WE def. (13) Ridge SB (Francis Suh & Alex Bai)
3-0 (Mike Wascher, Jim Miller, S. Waugh)
(5) New Trier EW def. (12) Walt Whitman WH (Benjamin Wolcott & Sarah Houston)
3-0 (Jonathan Peele, Joseph Gazzola, Carol Green)
(6) Walt Whitman ES def. (11) Regis PS (Jackson Popkin & Ryan Smith)
(Dean Rhoads, Schurevich, R. Schebel)
(10) Ransom Everglades BB def. (7) Ransom Everglades GF (Harrison Grussmark & Jordan Flanzraich)
2-1 (Did Actually Hold Debate)
(9) Harker HG def. (8) Regis GL (Joseph Gasperetti & James Lampariella)
2-1 (Caugherty, Cornwall, Jake Lewis)
QUARTERS
(9) Harker HG def. (1) Durham WP (Grace Wallack & Dede Pless)
(10) Ransom Everglades BB def. (15) Mountain Brook SG (William Schreiber & Amanda Claire Grayson)
(6) Walt Whitman ES def. (3) Lake Highland MW (Will Miller & Danny Welch)
(4) Timber Creek WE def. (5) New Trier GC (Joey Glickman & Zach Collins)
SEMIS
(9) Harker HG def. (4) Timber Creek WE (Kaitlyn Westerberg & Thaddeus Ewald)
(6) Walt Whitman ES def. (10) Ransom Everglades BB (Jose Bengochea & Charles Barr)
FINALS
(9) Harker HG def. (6) Walt Whitman ES (Alex Edelman & Aaron Schifrin)
TOC CHAMPIONS
(9) Harker HG (Kelsey Hilbrich & Kaavya Gowda) 3-2
CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE
FINALISTS
1. Joseph Perretta — Christopher Columbus High School (FL) [TOC Champion]
2. Robert Colonel — Winter Springs High School (FL)
3. Alex Smyk — Ridge High School (NJ)
4. Ray Escobar — St. Thomas Aquinas High School (FL)
5. Harlan Downs-Tepper — Stuyvesant High School (NY)
6. Bryan Campanello — Southlake Carroll High School (TX)
7. Sebastian DeLuca — Monte Vista High School (CA)
8. Michael DeRosa — American Heritage Plantation High School (FL)
9. Anna Tsiotsias — Nova High School (FL)
10. Geoffrey Block — Trinity Preparatory School (FL)
11. Jordan Foster — Boone County High School (KY)
12. Zul Kapadia — Loyola Academy (IL)
—
PRELIMS
LD Round 1
LD Round 2
LD Round 3
LD Round 4
LD Round 5
LD Round 6
LD Round 7
CX Round 1
CX Round 2
CX Round 3
CX Round 4
CX Round 5
CX Round 6
CX Round 7
Popularity: 40% [?]
test
475 Responses to “History Made in Kentucky: Chris Theis Wins 2nd TOC”
Leave a Reply
Most Popular Posts
- History Made in Kentucky: Chris Theis Wins 2nd TOC
- The College Connection
- Karlyn Gorski Wins NCFL
- The Road to the NCFL
- Victor and Tammy Jih Win The Amazing Race!
- Solt Addresses TOC Concerns
- TOC 2009: Videos - Nebel vs. Theis
- Adron Mason Wins First Palo Alto Round Robin
- TOC 2009: Videos - Nadel vs. Theis, McNeil vs. Brown
- BREAKING NEWS: NFL 2009 Resolution Released
Posted from: 68.11.25.35
May 1st, 2009 07:57
Nats topic is military conscription.
Posted from: 98.194.132.99
May 1st, 2009 11:31
We’re all wishing you the best over here, JRob. Good luck man!
Posted from: 67.93.45.130
May 1st, 2009 12:06
mezz, do your thing and go
getmoney.getpaid
Posted from: 149.89.150.113
May 1st, 2009 13:43
win this shit jared
Posted from: 128.135.208.19
May 1st, 2009 14:41
if anyone lands in cinccy tonight call Chris Catterton or tell me. Please
Posted from: 68.81.159.124
May 1st, 2009 16:59
good luck to team pa–karlyn and jp
Posted from: 68.224.225.77
May 1st, 2009 17:53
Good Luck to Meyers and the Meadows kids!
Posted from: 64.12.116.76
May 1st, 2009 18:00
Will there be videos of rounds?
Posted from: 96.242.12.29
May 1st, 2009 18:03
go tess, win that shit dude
Posted from: 68.212.220.214
May 1st, 2009 18:17
good luck sasha and carter belien!!
Posted from: 72.130.133.97
May 1st, 2009 18:33
good luck ilya!
Posted from: 74.105.160.141
May 1st, 2009 18:44
i think tess mcnulty is great.
tess mcnulty will defeat the competition.
i endorse tess mcnulty.
Posted from: 70.231.238.21
May 1st, 2009 19:22
YESSS NARAYAN REPRESENT ~~~!!!!!!!
Posted from: 71.162.224.83
May 1st, 2009 19:38
win this tournament bring back to pa jp you can do it.
Posted from: 208.59.130.175
May 1st, 2009 20:36
Go, fight, win
Bronx Army, ROLL OUT!
Posted from: 98.164.117.194
May 1st, 2009 20:41
Own this thing Will!
NOJ HEG 4 LIFE!!!!
Posted from: 69.120.226.250
May 1st, 2009 20:44
DROP GURDANE OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH
Posted from: 98.164.117.194
May 1st, 2009 20:45
Will Simoneaux owns…win this thing dawg
NOJ HEG!!
Posted from: 76.212.193.40
May 1st, 2009 20:45
good luck to Ilya, Sean, and the rest!
Posted from: 98.164.117.194
May 1st, 2009 20:49
Will Simoneaux is a beast and is going to own at TOC son!
NOJ HEG!
Posted from: 68.35.78.185
May 1st, 2009 21:01
xi and ilya will do wonderfully!
Posted from: 208.120.67.163
May 1st, 2009 21:06
GO BRONX
Posted from: 208.59.130.175
May 1st, 2009 21:18
“The greatest results in life are usually attained by simple means and the exercise of ordinary qualities. These may for the most part be summed in these two: common-sense and perseverance.”- Owen Feltham
Bronx Army, ROLL OUT!!!
Posted from: 67.42.179.245
May 1st, 2009 21:28
Here is a shout out for Shifberg, the dominating Oregon Lder!
Posted from: 205.188.116.76
May 1st, 2009 21:50
GOOD LUCK BRONX!
Posted from: 74.240.79.118
May 1st, 2009 21:56
carter. represent
Posted from: 72.229.244.102
May 1st, 2009 22:06
Guys, just because i like you im gonna let y’all in on a secret: JARED DUMMITT WILL WIN THE TOC
Posted from: 68.199.159.19
May 1st, 2009 22:21
COME ON BRONX!
Posted from: 75.25.160.95
May 1st, 2009 23:06
GOOD LUCK ILYA!!!!
Posted from: 72.204.185.206
May 1st, 2009 23:13
Own it up Will!
NOJHEG
Posted from: 76.88.21.46
May 1st, 2009 23:14
Good luck Ilya
Posted from: 76.227.169.23
May 1st, 2009 23:29
bronx ftw
Posted from: 98.117.144.117
May 1st, 2009 23:43
Is Ben Shifberg the only LDer from the Pacific NW competing this year? If so, good luck man!
Posted from: 24.90.128.226
May 1st, 2009 23:53
good luck BRONX!
Posted from: 72.199.38.115
May 1st, 2009 23:55
Good luck to Michael Mezzatesta, Cam, Ilya, Sasha, Sean, JRob, Fresca, David and Andrew!!
Posted from: 69.115.18.52
May 2nd, 2009 00:43
GO CASTRO, BIGGGGG JOHNSOOOOON!
Posted from: 72.197.236.254
May 2nd, 2009 00:44
Good luck Cam and Ilya!!!!!
Posted from: 99.9.240.23
May 2nd, 2009 01:00
JRob ftw. Class of ‘11 rep.
Posted from: 98.196.20.90
May 2nd, 2009 01:05
H-TOWN HEG
Posted from: 165.123.230.4
May 2nd, 2009 02:21
Best of luck, Karlyn. I know you’ll do great!
Posted from: 98.116.124.18
May 2nd, 2009 07:09
Lets Go Bronx! you know the pump up music
Posted from: 199.76.153.38
May 2nd, 2009 08:21
GO SEAN!!!!
Posted from: 199.76.155.44
May 2nd, 2009 08:47
(Neg)Alex “Paco” Castro v (Aff)Christian “Daffy” Keil
Posted from: 199.76.152.11
May 2nd, 2009 08:52
Paco–
I am very proud of all you’ve accomplished in four years. Now go out and accomplish that wonderful ONE MORE THING–Rule TOC!
BC
Posted from: 199.76.155.44
May 2nd, 2009 09:25
I will be keeping track of who is undefeated, who is down 1, who is down 2, and who is down and out.
Live from 206B: Valley RB def. Edina DM.
Posted from: 199.76.154.138
May 2nd, 2009 09:26
GETCH YO POPCORN GETCH YO POPCORN
Posted from: 199.76.154.21
May 2nd, 2009 10:10
“Christian “Daffy” Keil”
What?
Posted from: 199.76.155.44
May 2nd, 2009 10:26
ya, you know its a “nickname”
because you look like daffy duck
much love
Posted from: 65.207.218.226
May 2nd, 2009 10:51
Salado TC defeats Bronx Science MN
Posted from: 75.72.79.154
May 2nd, 2009 12:05
Erik legried defeats Daniel Daks
Posted from: 68.173.162.12
May 2nd, 2009 12:51
GO, FIGHT, WIN BRONX SCIENCE!!
Posted from: 64.12.116.76
May 2nd, 2009 12:57
Did anyone record any rounds from Round 1 or 2?
Posted from: 24.181.121.112
May 2nd, 2009 13:17
I’m with Brooklyn Tech NA. We need some more recorded rounds on VBD
Posted from: 70.231.255.4
May 2nd, 2009 13:29
Go Narayan and Rohit!!! Good job on round one!!!!
Posted from: 71.198.1.224
May 2nd, 2009 14:03
goodluck narayan and rohit
bring it back to the bay!
Posted from: 24.6.208.2
May 2nd, 2009 14:05
go rohit and narayan
lsd hege
we believe.
Posted from: 71.204.167.142
May 2nd, 2009 14:09
Go Rohit and Narayan! You guys are awesome and doing great!
Posted from: 97.116.7.151
May 2nd, 2009 14:33
Round 3 pairings are on JoT:
http://www.joyoftournaments.com/ky/toc/info.asp?p=6
Posted from: 199.76.164.84
May 2nd, 2009 15:24
CX three is up. Bluetub has full CX coverage
Posted from: 199.76.175.113
May 2nd, 2009 15:28
I’ve returned from the TOC Advisory Committee Luncheon; round 3 is up on VBD for both LD and CX.
Posted from: 64.12.116.76
May 2nd, 2009 15:39
when are there gunna be LD results..i know the blue thing has CX results but what about LD results??????!?!?!?!
Posted from: 199.76.175.113
May 2nd, 2009 16:42
Bronx Science MD def. Hunter College AB
Bronx Science SS def. Edina BH
in round 3
I encourage people to post results here; I will be compiling them as well and posting. Today is a little tough because of the Advisory Committee luncheon during round 2 and the Advisory Committee meeting during round 4, but I will compile what is posted and what I compile. :o) (So, post!)
Posted from: 66.41.171.61
May 2nd, 2009 16:43
Anyone got Edina results?
Posted from: 68.192.28.123
May 2nd, 2009 16:44
“go tess, win that shit dude”
Good job Sam.
Nice gender neutral language there.
G’luck Jeff!
And Alan and Tess. =D
And Erik!
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
May 2nd, 2009 17:01
St Louis Park CT is 3-0
(Go Catherine!)
Posted from: 68.174.72.138
May 2nd, 2009 17:16
This is all via phone and reception was bad but…
Winston Churchill CD = 2-1
Regis CK = 3-0
Wayzata FP = 1-2
Posted from: 199.76.159.111
May 2nd, 2009 17:21
that info is wrong. regis ck isn’t 3-0
Posted from: 72.229.244.102
May 2nd, 2009 17:28
I heard Corona del Sol PG is 1-2
Posted from: 71.142.92.137
May 2nd, 2009 17:36
GO LYNBROOK.
Roro and Narayan, we’re all rootin’ for you guys. :]
Posted from: 76.220.42.130
May 2nd, 2009 17:38
lynbrook =]
Posted from: 68.192.165.197
May 2nd, 2009 17:40
Ridge AT 3-0. Affirming against Theis in round 4.
Good Luck!!!
Posted from: 75.72.79.154
May 2nd, 2009 17:41
Erik Legried is 2-1 as is DFK.
Posted from: 69.232.192.146
May 2nd, 2009 18:22
Good luck Rohit and Narayan!
Posted from: 64.12.116.76
May 2nd, 2009 18:27
Is anyone else 3-0?
Posted from: 75.25.130.115
May 2nd, 2009 18:35
Lynbrook NS 2-1 WLW
i think
Posted from: 12.37.85.2
May 2nd, 2009 18:36
New York results:
Bronx Science MD – 2-1
Bronx Science SS – 2-1
Bronx Science ST – 0-3
Bronx Science AS – 0-3
Hunter College AB – 1-2
Regis CK – 1-2
Scarsdale KH – 3-0
Scarsdale MM – 2-1
Scarsdale NL – 2-1
Scarsdale ET 1-2
Scarsdale MH 1-2
Scarsdale DD 0-3
Stuyvesant JD – 1-2
Posted from: 74.107.97.191
May 2nd, 2009 18:40
hows nebel doing
Posted from: 208.120.131.125
May 2nd, 2009 18:54
go get em saboor+dunay
btw the link for rd 2 schems is the same as rd 1
Posted from: 98.111.153.206
May 2nd, 2009 18:55
Anyone have the results of the 2 pa debaters?
Posted from: 207.237.2.69
May 2nd, 2009 19:45
B.R.O.N.X.!
Posted from: 12.37.85.2
May 2nd, 2009 20:25
3-1: Bronx Science MD, Bronx Science SS
Posted from: 69.183.223.46
May 2nd, 2009 20:50
How is Regis doing?
Posted from: 64.12.116.76
May 2nd, 2009 21:06
How is Dylan Scher doing?
Posted from: 70.147.174.183
May 2nd, 2009 21:13
can someone get a Nebel update?
Posted from: 74.63.75.131
May 2nd, 2009 22:09
MVLA is running Venezuela Aff
Impacts to terrorism, foreign relations, narcotics
http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2008/07/14/the-farc-narco-terrorism-and-hugo-chavez.html
Posted from: 74.105.160.141
May 2nd, 2009 22:10
tess is 3-1 LOL ROFL
Posted from: 12.37.85.2
May 2nd, 2009 22:11
Jake is down one.
Posted from: 66.90.104.37
May 2nd, 2009 22:29
I think right now is a good time to address the creepy obsession lots of kids who have never cleared at bid tournaments have with some of the top debaters. It’s just plain strange and it needs to stop. VBD has done a good job of mitigating this issue by implementing a policy of not interviewing current debaters, but the problem persists nonetheless. Who cares what Jake Nebel’s record is or if there are videos of him? He is a normal person too and if you’ve never met him then you should probably stop stalking him. TOC is not that big of a deal and even if you win it you still come out as a mere college freshman. Will people please stop idolizing debaters and realize there’s more to this world?
Posted from: 24.161.27.30
May 2nd, 2009 22:41
Come on, give these kids a break. Even if you don’t understand it or agree with it, it’s not your call. Let everyone enjoy the hype… that’s really just unnecessary.
Posted from: 76.201.61.251
May 2nd, 2009 22:54
MEZZ
Posted from: 75.72.79.154
May 2nd, 2009 22:57
Erik’s 2-2
Posted from: 64.12.116.76
May 2nd, 2009 23:20
how are the texas kids doing? Anyone know? Thanks
Posted from: 68.143.32.2
May 2nd, 2009 23:23
@ 88
1. “toc not that big of a deal” + “more to this world”=sounds like someone didn’t clear at the toc ;)
2. #1 creepy obsession; anon posts on vbd that lecture toc debaters
3. speaking of persisting problems, i’m developing a rash…
4. any updates on jake?!
Posted from: 74.107.97.191
May 2nd, 2009 23:26
how about GET A LIFE gets a life and stops posting on a DEBATE blog telling other people to get a life when he needs to
Posted from: 24.6.180.173
May 2nd, 2009 23:39
@88: It’s the same way that people swoon over Zach Efron and those NBA dudes.
Posted from: 76.230.234.141
May 2nd, 2009 23:42
Nice Job so far Nardawg. Keep on pushing Rohit. You guys got this.
Posted from: 98.198.172.6
May 3rd, 2009 00:08
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=46386172297&ref=ts
Posted from: 24.6.163.235
May 3rd, 2009 00:55
gooo narayan and rohit.
were all rooting for you guys :D
lots of love from everyone!
Posted from: 74.208.166.126
May 3rd, 2009 00:59
@88: yeah, underclassmen need to stop obsessing over debaters they’ve never met before.
btw whats chris theis’ record??????
Posted from: 74.208.166.126
May 3rd, 2009 01:01
YESH POST 100
Posted from: 69.232.234.161
May 3rd, 2009 01:34
Go Rohit and Narayan!
Posted from: 75.167.66.106
May 3rd, 2009 01:44
valley rb is 2-2
Posted from: 128.120.166.107
May 3rd, 2009 01:47
GOOOO NARAYANNNNN !
DUDE
Khalessi GO ALL THE WAYYY!
Posted from: 70.138.94.38
May 3rd, 2009 02:02
Here is some family lovin from down souf
I love you brutha Merill
And tessandra you make me proud
good luck to everyone
Posted from: 70.112.60.227
May 3rd, 2009 02:07
HAVE FUN WAKS AND D RACE!!!!!!!! Texas FTW.
Any TX records?
Posted from: 71.135.51.81
May 3rd, 2009 02:25
you guys got this!
we know u can do it!
narayan and rohit! YEAH!
Posted from: 68.143.32.2
May 3rd, 2009 06:01
3,6,9 stand real fine
To the window, to the wall,
To the sweat drip down my balls (MY BALLS)
To all these bitches crawl (crawl)
To all SKEET SKEET SKEET
Posted from: 12.37.85.2
May 3rd, 2009 07:02
@88
There’s a difference between “stalking” someone and knowing one’s record – knowing a record matters for competitive purposes.
Posted from: 71.145.147.22
May 3rd, 2009 10:34
are they power matching round 5?
Posted from: 199.76.169.66
May 3rd, 2009 10:41
Trinity Prep JN 2-3
Apple Valley CT 3-2
Los Altos DM 3-2
Blake PO 5-0
Posted from: 206.240.25.95
May 3rd, 2009 10:43
Garber 5-0
Moerner 5-0
Smogard 5-0
Tyger 5-0
Jordan 4-1
Jake 4-1
Ken 4-1
Chris 4-1
Posted from: 69.115.18.52
May 3rd, 2009 10:43
Jon, how can Trinity Prep be 2-3 when he was 3-1 yesterday at the top of the page? lol =P
Posted from: 68.174.72.138
May 3rd, 2009 10:44
@110
thts totally off considering nebel was up 3
Posted from: 71.247.126.222
May 3rd, 2009 11:04
thats obviously not jon cruz and blake po obviously isn’t 5-0 in case there was any doubt.
Posted from: 69.22.193.244
May 3rd, 2009 11:05
good luck to jared, coulter, and alex; stunter(is?) represent!
Posted from: 206.240.26.203
May 3rd, 2009 11:22
Westlake DR: 4-1
Westlake AW: 2-3
Posted from: 75.72.79.154
May 3rd, 2009 11:27
Blake EL is 3-2
Posted from: 204.210.133.195
May 3rd, 2009 11:34
Nice job shabby and dunay, congratulations to you guys for doing so well. And the picture at the top is probably the greatest picture ever.
Posted from: 68.39.29.92
May 3rd, 2009 11:35
@ 110-That posting is not possible first of all .
Furthermore, Cruz never posts about other debaters and not his own and usually not without some type of message or greeting
Posted from: 206.240.24.158
May 3rd, 2009 12:03
I did not post 110. jcruz@gmail.com isn’t my e-mail address.
Posted from: 72.177.194.67
May 3rd, 2009 12:21
ahhh, its just not a TOC thread without anonymous trolls and imposters
Posted from: 69.115.22.244
May 3rd, 2009 12:26
@120 sorry Mr. Cruz, i suppose ppl have nothing better to do then to pose as others. =/
Posted from: 75.167.66.106
May 3rd, 2009 12:46
Mountain View DG just defeated Apple Valley CT
Posted from: 69.115.22.244
May 3rd, 2009 12:49
rnd 6 TOC
http://www.joyoftournaments.com//defn/8/8/8800/Lincoln%20Douglas%20Debate%20Round%20Six.pdf
Posted from: 71.237.222.30
May 3rd, 2009 13:27
Go Bschif, kick axe! Way to represent the Northwest!!!
Posted from: 75.33.204.45
May 3rd, 2009 13:33
come on ilya, you know you’re better than that
Posted from: 199.76.188.57
May 3rd, 2009 13:39
tyger is 5-0 debating smogard now. (she’s also 5-0).
Posted from: 128.252.78.87
May 3rd, 2009 14:16
sean wynn is 6-0
Posted from: 98.111.182.220
May 3rd, 2009 14:32
Great job Danielle
So amazed and thankful that you were my lab leader 5-0 is awesome keep it up.
Posted from: 150.252.44.74
May 3rd, 2009 14:32
Smogard’s 6-0 now.
Heard Tyger debated great in that round as well…let’s hope for a Texas Finals.
Posted from: 98.111.182.220
May 3rd, 2009 14:37
anyone know if upper-saint claire jg beat mountain view dk?
Posted from: 67.165.63.35
May 3rd, 2009 14:39
Post 131
Upper St Clair JG defeated Mountain View DK
Posted from: 75.161.250.166
May 3rd, 2009 14:42
Trinity Prep JN d. Wayzata FP
Posted from: 98.111.182.220
May 3rd, 2009 14:47
anyone aware of northland christians jr record?
Posted from: 208.120.131.125
May 3rd, 2009 14:54
matt, you got this
Posted from: 76.227.169.23
May 3rd, 2009 14:55
JR is 4-2
Posted from: 64.12.116.76
May 3rd, 2009 15:09
Did Moerner and Garber pick up? Anyone else 6-0?
Posted from: 98.111.156.183
May 3rd, 2009 15:20
Danielle smogards also 6-0
Posted from: 67.93.45.130
May 3rd, 2009 15:20
Mezz?
Posted from: 206.240.24.158
May 3rd, 2009 15:28
Round 7 PDF will be up shortly.
4-2 round —
Northland Christian JR vs. Bronx Science MD
Judge: Mike Mundt
Posted from: 205.188.116.76
May 3rd, 2009 15:35
anything on texas kids? westlake? Churchill? SFA?
Posted from: 64.236.121.129
May 3rd, 2009 15:35
Anyone have nyc resukts?
Posted from: 206.240.24.158
May 3rd, 2009 15:40
Bronx Science MD 4-2
Bronx Science SS 3-3
Posted from: 193.200.150.82
May 3rd, 2009 15:44
I heard SFA James Monaco was 1-5. Devin Race was 4-1 going into round 6, Paul Tyger is 5-1 and I’m not so sure about the rest.
Posted from: 206.240.24.158
May 3rd, 2009 15:52
ROUND 7 PAIRINGS, AS TYPED BY JON CRUZ
South Eugene BS vs. Scarsdale KH (Peter D. Van Elswyk)
Scarsdale MM vs. Mountain View DK (Liz Vieira)
Westlake DR vs. Meadows JL (Shane Stafford)
Southlake Carroll RB vs. Saint Louis Park CT (Adam Nelson)
Apple Valley CT vs. Valley RB (Ari Parker)
Ridge AT vs. Mountain View NP (Ernie Rose)
Mountain View DG vs. Strake Jesuit PT (Ryan Graham)
Bronx Science ST vs. Crowley DL (Pam Cady Wycoff)
Bronx Science AS vs. Lynbrook RR (Anthony Berryhill)
Walt Whitman EM vs. New Orleans Jesuit WS (Christian Tarsney)
Millburn TM vs. Walt Whitman JK (Wes Craven)
Glenbrook North PD vs. Edina BH (Brad Noethe)
Hunter College AB vs. Hockaday SV (Joe Vaughan)
Corona del Sol PG vs. Upper Saint Clair JG (Joe Vaughan)
Scarsdale ET vs. Walt Whitman DW (Kyle Plumley)
Mountain Brook CB vs. Harvard-Westlake SN (Jake Gelfand)
Mountain View JM vs. Loyola MM (George Clemens)
Walt Whitman BL vs. Trinity Prep JN (Nathan Abell)
Austin SFA JM vs. Arthur L. Johnson AC (Mike Spirtos)
Lynbrook NS vs. Blake EL (Mike Spirtos)
Pace AZ vs. Torrey Pines IG (Prashant Rai)
Regis CK vs. Salado TC (Prashant Rai)
Desert Vista XL vs. Winston Churchill CD (Jonathan Massey)
Bronx Science SS vs. Scarsdale NL (Shane O’Neal)
Apple Valley MK vs. Edina JM (Travis Smith)
Meadows NS vs. Walt Whitman SR (Eric Palmer)
Walt Whitman PG vs. Meadows AS (Paul Gravley)
Lake Highland GB vs. Archer LB (Julian Switala)
Rancho Bernardo CB vs. Westlake AW (Quinn Olivarez)
Edina DM vs. Berkeley Carroll DS (Kris Wright)
Wayzata FP vs. Anderson MV (David Wolfish)
Scarsdale MH vs. Fort Lauderdale CR (Scott Koslow)
Northland Christian JR vs. Bronx Science MD (Mike Mundt)
Los Altos JW vs. Lakeville South CK (David McGinnis)
Stuyvesant JD vs. Oak Mountain JL (Charlie Furman)
Perkiomen Valley KG BYE
Good luck to all. :o)
Posted from: 64.236.121.129
May 3rd, 2009 16:00
That’s my sister’s school, how’s hockaday doing?
Posted from: 71.237.222.30
May 3rd, 2009 16:08
So sorry you had to leave Benj! On to the IB!
Posted from: 66.108.128.126
May 3rd, 2009 16:35
who is still in?
Posted from: 208.120.131.125
May 3rd, 2009 16:51
DUNAAAAAAAAAAYYYYY
HUGE CONGRATULATIONS on 5-2!!!!!
GO GET EM IN OUTROUNDS
Posted from: 66.41.171.61
May 3rd, 2009 16:55
Anyone have Edina records?
Posted from: 206.240.25.143
May 3rd, 2009 16:55
clearing so far:
ken hershey
marcus moretti/DFK
devin race
jordan lamothe
ryan bennett/catherine tarsney
chris theis (and ross brown if ross wins)
alan tong/natalee pei
daniel garber
paul tyger
pat donovan/ben holguin
jake nebel, ben lewis is 4-2 or 5-1 i’m not sure
cameron is 4-2 i think???
matt dunay/josh roberts
Posted from: 206.240.25.143
May 3rd, 2009 16:57
oh paul gu/jp is a 4-2 debate too i think (i know jp is 4-2), and jon’s post omitted the 6-0’s: daniel moerner and danielle smogard.
Posted from: 66.108.128.126
May 3rd, 2009 17:08
DUNAY!!!! CONDUCT THEM OUTROUNDS!!!!
Posted from: 99.171.180.106
May 3rd, 2009 17:12
Cameron is 3-3
Posted from: 64.12.116.76
May 3rd, 2009 17:17
Did Rd 7 end? If so, who is 7-0?
Posted from: 166.216.160.5
May 3rd, 2009 17:18
Valley RB def. Apple Valley CT
Greenhill DS def. Los Altos DM
Posted from: 64.12.116.76
May 3rd, 2009 17:21
@ 156, those were the results I weren’t expecting. Congrats to all 4 anyway and good luck to whoever clears!
Posted from: 64.12.116.76
May 3rd, 2009 17:21
*wasn’t
Posted from: 208.120.67.163
May 3rd, 2009 17:28
GO DUNAY!!
Posted from: 199.76.171.35
May 3rd, 2009 17:31
Jordan beat Devin in the 5-1.
Posted from: 206.240.24.158
May 3rd, 2009 17:39
Matt Dunay defeated Josh Roberts and is 5-2.
Posted from: 12.37.85.2
May 3rd, 2009 17:53
Ross Brown beats Chris Theis. LPW. Both will clear.
Posted from: 129.62.82.224
May 3rd, 2009 18:01
I check VBD twice out of the year now. For nationals results and TOC. TOC never gets old. I’m waiting with anticipation for what should be some awesome run-off rounds.
Posted from: 64.12.116.76
May 3rd, 2009 18:05
Are run-offs tonight?
Posted from: 98.111.168.152
May 3rd, 2009 18:07
congrats to jp gooderham the first pennslyvanian to ever break at the toc!
Bring it home
Posted from: 66.191.158.228
May 3rd, 2009 18:10
when will their be a final list of breaks?
Posted from: 206.240.26.105
May 3rd, 2009 18:15
Daniel Moerner lost to Blake PO in round 7, Moerner is 6-1, PO is 8-0. Neil Conrad adjudicated.
Posted from: 70.218.154.53
May 3rd, 2009 18:16
Get em JROB!!!
Posted from: 206.240.26.105
May 3rd, 2009 18:16
Excuse me, 7-0. Sorry for the double post.
Posted from: 75.41.220.54
May 3rd, 2009 18:31
I just got a text from Mezz saying he went 4-3. Congrats man! way to finish off the year! you deserve it!
Posted from: 64.12.116.76
May 3rd, 2009 18:33
GOOD JOB, DUNAY!
Posted from: 64.91.192.78
May 3rd, 2009 18:34
I deserve to be at the TOC, but…….
Posted from: 129.62.82.224
May 3rd, 2009 18:36
When Eric Palmer was at TOC he went 8-0 in prelims. It was the first time it had ever been done.
Posted from: 205.188.116.76
May 3rd, 2009 18:51
full results??
Posted from: 69.230.64.144
May 3rd, 2009 18:55
Grats to Mezz!
Posted from: 74.224.121.192
May 3rd, 2009 19:05
so if AV CT went 4-1, then dropped to garber, then dropped to RB, why is he clearing?
Posted from: 76.214.200.19
May 3rd, 2009 19:08
Because he was 4-0 when he lost to garber not 4-1…
Posted from: 64.12.116.76
May 3rd, 2009 19:08
Who else broke?
Posted from: 206.240.24.158
May 3rd, 2009 19:09
I have posted the seventeen individuals with 5-2 records. Mountain View’s Natalee Pei and Scarsdale’s Marcus Moretti will debate in the run-off round.
More later, but — CONGRATULATIONS TO MATT DUNAY AND THE TEAM OF ANDREW MARKOFF AND REGAN BOZMAN FOR CLEARING AT THE 2009 TOC!
Posted from: 76.110.240.54
May 3rd, 2009 19:12
Congratulations to all of the students and their coaches who cleared! It’s an impressive list of students — it should be a great day tomorrow.
Posted from: 193.200.150.125
May 3rd, 2009 19:20
hey jon or someone, can you please post the seedings of the people that broke??
Posted from: 152.17.56.134
May 3rd, 2009 19:28
Congrats to Dunay, Andrew and Regan! Best of luck tomorrow!
Posted from: 70.113.205.123
May 3rd, 2009 19:29
that is quite an amazing break list!
Posted from: 71.145.147.22
May 3rd, 2009 19:43
Is there going to be videos of outrounds online?
Posted from: 66.191.158.228
May 3rd, 2009 19:44
good luck to the Mountain Brook PF team and all the other competitors!
Posted from: 70.112.60.227
May 3rd, 2009 19:54
Go Devin!! HAVE FUN!
And congrats, Andrew, on completing a year of dominance in style!!!
Posted from: 64.105.9.98
May 3rd, 2009 19:55
can anyone tell me what happened to pat donnevan?
Posted from: 136.152.146.175
May 3rd, 2009 20:01
Based on the round 7 pairing and Smitty’s post,
Pat lost a 4-2 round to Ben Holguin and finished 4-3. That’s pretty much the TOC- great debaters often end up on the outside looking in.
Posted from: 66.41.171.61
May 3rd, 2009 20:11
For the videos comment, there is a law in Jefferson County, where the tournament is happening, that you can’t film minors without parental consent. This effectively prohibits the taping of round. I think the only way around this would be if the round features two competitors who are 18 years old.
Posted from: 128.163.238.15
May 3rd, 2009 20:18
Run-Off Results:
Scarsdale MM def Mountain View NP
Posted from: 199.76.170.142
May 3rd, 2009 20:19
In runoff, Scarsdale MM def. MVLA NP.
Posted from: 71.104.147.161
May 3rd, 2009 20:19
@189
According to Wikipedia, Lexington, KY is NOT in Jefferson County, KY. Its in Fayette County, KY
So unless Fayette county also has a law against videotaping minors, videotaping should be okay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexington_Kentucky
Posted from: 74.107.97.191
May 3rd, 2009 20:21
how were they able to film the TOC all the other years then? and wouldent the parents be able to give consent over the phone or internet?
Posted from: 74.107.97.191
May 3rd, 2009 20:23
how did the whitman debaters do?
Posted from: 128.12.82.70
May 3rd, 2009 20:27
Congrats to Matt Dunay for clearing at one of the hardest TOCs in history.
Also, congrats to Saboor and Adam for finishing off the year in style at the TOC, and to Seth for an impressive addition to an already impressive list of accomplishments. He will see you at the NCFL.
Finally, a big shout out to coach Cruz for not only reviving, but in some respects exceeding the Bronx legacy. You all make me proud to be a Bronx Science alum.
Posted from: 71.104.147.161
May 3rd, 2009 20:36
@193
Probably because there isnt actually a law against it. Bring on the videos!
Posted from: 68.172.215.24
May 3rd, 2009 21:02
congrats everyone
Posted from: 69.115.22.244
May 3rd, 2009 21:04
if anyone is curious as to who dropped out… looking at the schems it was valley MK
Posted from: 75.25.130.115
May 3rd, 2009 21:12
Lynbrook NS 4-3
Posted from: 162.84.165.89
May 3rd, 2009 21:22
MATT DUNAYYYYYY!
Posted from: 68.175.94.216
May 3rd, 2009 21:58
Congrats Matt!
Posted from: 64.132.59.114
May 3rd, 2009 22:05
Congrats to Sdale, JP, and ma boi Robro
Posted from: 12.37.85.2
May 3rd, 2009 22:10
Smitty, Jing, and Garber found the following block to court spec; it made me laugh. I’ll give a dollar to the first person who is brave enough to reveal themselves as the true author of the block :D. This is probability the most poorly-written argument (if I’d even call it an argument) that I have ever seen.
“AT COURT SPEC
“CINERP” [WHAT IS "CINERP," are you trying to say counter-interp?]
Predictability turns: only court spec can have in round predictability/cohesive strategy which outweighs.
Turn: court specification is predictable on this topic because it has been happening forever and only with courts that are in the news.
Ground: Turn: it GUTS 1ac ground if you can’t spec a court and favors the neg because it means I have no way of making particular solvency arguments so they can always outweigh.
Turn: It gives him more ground when I spec a court cause he can run specific arguments to that court, allows Neg ground to expand to real world and specific scenarios.
Turn: Specifying trial gives him access to Gitmo related ground that he didn’t have access to before.”
Considering that this block could’ve been written by any of my debate friends/acquaintances who are at TOC,I was thinking about NOT posting this. But then again, what kind of friend would that be worth having? ;D
Posted from: 68.199.236.45
May 3rd, 2009 22:15
Congrats Matt D, Regan B, and Andrew M.
Win it for us
Posted from: 71.247.126.222
May 3rd, 2009 22:23
Congrats Dunay Regan and Andrew for breaking!!!
Posted from: 71.104.147.161
May 3rd, 2009 22:24
i feel like “gitmo related ground” should be a standard for fairness in and of itself
Posted from: 12.37.85.2
May 3rd, 2009 22:25
Yo DFK that’s my block.
You can give me the shell back and a dollar tomorrow at breakfast.
kthanksbye
Posted from: 71.104.147.161
May 3rd, 2009 22:28
I think 203 is what happens when pofo debaters start running theory
Posted from: 96.250.43.152
May 3rd, 2009 22:28
Congrats to Matt, Regan and Andrew! Go Bronx Science! :)
Posted from: 12.37.85.2
May 3rd, 2009 22:31
yeah i can vouch for that… and that was after i tried to do some editing to salvage it (so i guess i should get a dollar too by claiming part of it)
so next time we see you dfk…PSY UP
Posted from: 12.37.85.2
May 3rd, 2009 22:34
*PAY UP
Posted from: 69.118.140.49
May 3rd, 2009 22:34
Congrats to Ken, Marcus, JP and Jake for clearing! good luck guys!
Posted from: 12.37.85.2
May 3rd, 2009 22:38
MOUNTAIN.
Posted from: 74.225.72.242
May 3rd, 2009 22:38
Congrats Ransom BB!
Posted from: 68.173.134.158
May 3rd, 2009 22:42
matt dunay.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
that was my congratulatory remark :)
i am really happy for you. and at the risk of sounding trite, you really do deserve this. youve worked SO hard for four years.
srsly, congrats again. im proud of you.
p.s. keep going
Posted from: 74.73.94.248
May 3rd, 2009 22:43
Yay Team Bronx Science!
Yay Matt Dunay!
Yay!!!
Congrats to all.
Posted from: 75.167.66.106
May 3rd, 2009 22:44
big congrats to ross brown. going 3-0 today and beating thesis.
Posted from: 71.190.115.169
May 3rd, 2009 22:53
YES!
MAJOR CONGRATS TO DUNAY, ANDREW AND REGAN!!!!
Posted from: 137.238.122.183
May 3rd, 2009 23:00
Congrats Matt Dunay! I love you and good luck!
Posted from: 12.37.85.2
May 3rd, 2009 23:14
Props to:
The Mountain, great year, great careers, great everything
The Juniors- Ben, Ross, Lamothe, Catherine
Amanda and Nate. The end of one career and the start of a new generation.
Smogard…if you go undefeated it means something. and sorry for giving you shit throughout the tournament. it is all love
Moener…Nebel…Theis: You three killed this year. Congrats. See you all around hopefully
As a little note. Congrats to Lamothe. You sir are a beast. 6-1 and breaking as a 2 year debate junior. This is the culmination of a breakout topic that should continue long into next year.
Posted from: 207.237.2.69
May 3rd, 2009 23:15
Matt! Regan! Andrew! wooooooooooooooooooo
Posted from: 12.37.85.2
May 3rd, 2009 23:27
ALSO
i somehow forgot JP.
I picked you up 2 years ago in a bid round against Rebar. Since then you have become a very good debater. I make fun of you but you really played your game this weekend and stuck with it. Each round is its own tournament. You’re like Tiger.
congrats
Posted from: 207.207.127.243
May 3rd, 2009 23:35
@Court Spec Block:
hmm… so this block says that spec is good? so it’s really answers to OSPEC? yikes.
and you gotta love those theory turns… haha
i have no idea what the topic is, but it’s sad that someone is running and winning on court spec bad, forcing people to write awful blocks to an equally awful argument.
on a more positive note, congrats to everyone who broke (even though i don’t know most of you)! MVLA, please win the tournament.
Posted from: 71.142.92.137
May 3rd, 2009 23:47
Congratulations Lynbrook for putting up a great fight. :)
Posted from: 70.156.228.168
May 3rd, 2009 23:52
Congrats to everyone who broke. Especially, congratulations to Charles and Jose, and Jordan and Harrison – shame you had to hit in octas.
Posted from: 24.227.218.24
May 4th, 2009 00:06
A huge congrats to Devin, Paul and Danielle for breaking. Bring it home for Texas!
Posted from: 99.6.172.88
May 4th, 2009 00:21
@226
THIS. Good luck!
Posted from: 76.229.126.145
May 4th, 2009 00:32
@88
Pepole that do well ARE gods. That’s why they are advertised on vbd. Why else would they be mentioned? Now stfu, and where are my fav. celebrities at???
Posted from: 12.37.85.2
May 4th, 2009 00:36
why did the JOT program place a mutual 3 judge (Liz Viera) in a down 2 round (possibly the most important round in someone’s career)? In the future, can tab check how the computer distributes mjp’s in down two rounds?
Posted from: 70.244.48.32
May 4th, 2009 00:46
C’mon Texas.
We have to instill our heg this year!
And 2nd Ryan Lester’s post (#226)
Congrats to Devin, Paul and Danielle for breaking! And to Jrob, our H-town prodigy, for having an impressive record in prelims.
Posted from: 12.37.85.2
May 4th, 2009 00:47
(this was a round-7 break round to be more specific)
Posted from: 128.113.236.90
May 4th, 2009 00:49
I have the hairs of various TOC competitors available for sale along with used napkins and utensils. Email me if you would like to acquire these relics.
Posted from: 70.244.48.32
May 4th, 2009 00:50
Hey, Sohail, did you get my email?
Posted from: 24.161.174.206
May 4th, 2009 00:52
So many great careers came to an end today. I just wanted to congratulate, and thank, my teammate Cameron Baghai. Accomplishing what you did with the amount of resources you had and the personal situations you had to deal with is nothing short of spectacular.
I will sorely miss you next year, and hopefully people will continue to try to fix the problems in circuit debate as you did. So many people say we need to make a change, but you are one of the very few who actually made a change, even if it cost you rounds and championships.
Eye of the Tiger.
Posted from: 71.104.147.161
May 4th, 2009 00:53
@ 234:
word.
Posted from: 64.81.242.45
May 4th, 2009 02:12
good luck to the daniels (garber + moerner) and jordan tomorrow!
Posted from: 24.45.11.130
May 4th, 2009 03:05
I just wanted to formally congratulate Dylan for going 4-3 as a sophomore. He consistently put in hard work and exceeded my already high expectations for him this weekend.
Good luck to everyone else still in it.
Posted from: 76.15.176.210
May 4th, 2009 05:58
Good Luck Dunay
Posted from: 74.143.198.34
May 4th, 2009 07:02
Congratulations to Dylan Scher of Berkeley Carroll and Josh Roberts of Northland Christian for going 4-3 at the TOC as sophomores. The class of 2011 is already shaping up — here at the TOC and elsewhere — to be fierce.
Josh has faced and defeated top debaters throughout the season. He was a gentleman — and an incredibly intense opponent — here and at MBA, and I know he is going to be one of the dominant players of the next two years.
Speaking of future dominant players, Dylan is from a fellow New York City program and throughout the weekend I was simply floored by how particularly “big” his wins were here in Kentucky. Every round at the TOC is hard, and against a hard opponent, but facing and defeating consistently top debaters like David McNeil, Xi Lin, Shivani Vohra, and Daniel Lumpee as a *sophomore* is incredibly impressive.
Posted from: 162.83.225.100
May 4th, 2009 07:22
GO BRONX!
Posted from: 71.212.159.146
May 4th, 2009 07:48
RE: pairing systems…
Most programs that utilize preference do so to maximize constraints + preference. IF there are not sufficient judges who are clean (for whatever reason) and who match 1:1 or 2:2, then 3:3 is used in many programs. The philosophy is that this is seen as more fair than getting a 1:2 judge pairing in the most important round of someone’s career.
Imagine if Debater X got her #1 critic in said round and her opponent, Debater Y, got her #20 judge. I’d say that scenario is far less equitable (definitely less fair) than Debaters X and Y getting their 30th and 35th preferred judge in the tournament. In a world without a full ordinal ranking, the former scenario becomes much more likely in a single judge 1:2 pairing.
Happy TOC to all. As always, there are some breakout performances. Greenhill’s brain trust put together a 7-0 again; Ross Brown cracked three straight break rounds, including one against the defending champ; two sophomores posted winning records; the three most dominant debaters from this strong graduating class have all made their way into the playoffs; etc.
Being at the TOC is its own reward. Having a winning record is wonderful. Being in the elimination debates with a shot at the title is sublime.
I know this is no consolation; but, in 5, 10, 15, and 20+ years from now… the results of a particular debate will not matter. It is our relationships and lessons learned from this wonderful activity that will give you joy.
Savor this while you can!
Michelin Massey
Posted from: 146.113.65.215
May 4th, 2009 08:24
Congratulations to all those who cleared.
Posted from: 12.37.85.2
May 4th, 2009 10:06
dmr and grabes: bring it home! mv closeout run take two… it has been an epic four years.
Posted from: 128.113.236.90
May 4th, 2009 10:17
Some octas pairings
Edina BH v Trinity Prep JN
Los Altos DM v Valley RB
Posted from: 128.113.236.90
May 4th, 2009 10:22
tarsney (aff) v tyger (neg)
Posted from: 207.80.127.240
May 4th, 2009 10:36
Congrats to all that cleared!
Go Tyger! All of Strake Jesuit is pulling for you!
Tom Padgett, ‘82
Posted from: 167.206.203.14
May 4th, 2009 10:45
DUNAY Mwrwew
Posted from: 167.206.203.14
May 4th, 2009 10:47
That was abhi
Posted from: 137.52.211.175
May 4th, 2009 10:55
Ross Brown is negating in his round v. Daniel Moerner
Posted from: 92.132.188.76
May 4th, 2009 11:09
big ups to dylan sher whose standout performance this weekend is only a sign of things to come. keep up the hard work, jack. good luck to everyone left standing.
Posted from: 12.37.85.2
May 4th, 2009 11:48
Results from Room 407:
Strake Jesuit PT (neg) def. Saint Louis Park CT
3-0
Posted from: 71.139.30.39
May 4th, 2009 11:54
BEAR! congratulations, coach!
JB
Posted from: 167.206.203.14
May 4th, 2009 12:00
BRONX!!!!! Congrats to Regan, Andrew, and Matt
Posted from: 12.37.85.2
May 4th, 2009 12:04
Moerner (aff) def Ross Brown (neg)
Marcus (aff) def Smogard (neg)
Posted from: 12.37.85.2
May 4th, 2009 12:05
Theis def. J.P. (3-0)
Posted from: 207.80.127.240
May 4th, 2009 12:06
GO Strake Jesuit PT! We are SJ!
WTG Paul and Jerry!
Posted from: 209.181.228.22
May 4th, 2009 12:16
nebel (neg) def Holguin 3-0
Posted from: 209.181.228.22
May 4th, 2009 12:25
Moerner and Garber won their octas round
Posted from: 209.181.228.22
May 4th, 2009 12:26
so quarters consists of:
- smogard
- moerner
- garber
- nebel
- moretti
- Theis
- Lamothe
- Tyger
Posted from: 205.221.1.253
May 4th, 2009 12:28
marcus beat smogard. so she is not in quarters.
Posted from: 206.180.133.78
May 4th, 2009 12:28
Hey Great Job to Josh Roberts on goin 4-3 as a sophmore. gonna do it next year!
Posted from: 68.63.152.244
May 4th, 2009 12:29
…but smogard debated moretti
Posted from: 138.192.151.62
May 4th, 2009 12:40
Race v. Hershey is the round not reflected in Phelan’s list.
Posted from: 206.180.133.78
May 4th, 2009 12:40
What are Quarters?
Posted from: 128.252.254.28
May 4th, 2009 13:06
MARCUSSSSSSSSSSS AND THEISSSSSSSSSSSSS
Posted from: 12.37.85.2
May 4th, 2009 13:08
Sorry I went so fast –
Non-advancing Congressional Debate semifinalists–
St. Joseph’s Prep PA Fred DeRitis
Pennsbury HS PA Jonathan Fried
Nova HS FL Stefan Leon
Walt Whitman HS MD Mike Neubauer
John Hersey HS IL Sarah Prostko
Trinity Prep FL Dhruv Ranadive
Nova HS FL Jacob Gilson
Berkeley Carroll NY Emily Graham
Northland Christian TX Alex Heim
Monte Vista HS CA Neil Malani
Mountain View HS CA Rylan Schaeffer
Unionville HS PA Shaina Sklar
Final Session Congressional Debate Participants
Trinity Prep FL Geoffrey Block
Southlake Carroll TX Bryan Campanello
Winter Springs HS FL Robert Colonel
Monte Vista HS CA Sebastian DeLuca
American Heritage Plantation FL Michael DeRosa
Stuyvesant HS NY Harlan Downs-Tepper
St. Thomas Aquinas HS FL Ray Escobar
Boone County HS KY Jordan Foster
Loyola Academy IL Zul Kapadia
Christopher Columbus FL Joseph Perretta
Ridge HS NJ Alex Smyk
Nova HS FL Anna Tsiotsias
JUDGES:
Jane Boyd, TX
Keith Pittman, NC
Nancy Dean, FL
Jonathan Peele, MA
Jim Jacobi, WI
Posted from: 209.80.137.250
May 4th, 2009 13:23
Finals: Blake PO def. Saint Louis Park NT on a 7-0 decision
Posted from: 98.185.218.66
May 4th, 2009 13:28
MVLA Heg.
Posted from: 72.255.3.1
May 4th, 2009 13:42
internet here is awful.
Quarters:
Moretti v. Race
Garber v. Nebel
Theis v. Tyger
Lamothe v. Moerner
Posted from: 209.181.228.22
May 4th, 2009 13:47
yeah sorry for the mistake i was going off what i could remember from a text message.
Posted from: 209.181.228.22
May 4th, 2009 14:28
Moerner and devin pick up on 2-1s
Posted from: 168.69.134.241
May 4th, 2009 14:29
quarters sends fear through my veins. get it done paul and devin, you got it.
Posted from: 75.89.132.15
May 4th, 2009 14:37
Nebel Def. Garber 2-1
Posted from: 12.52.248.131
May 4th, 2009 14:58
Theis v. Tyger update anyone?
Posted from: 72.177.194.67
May 4th, 2009 15:04
theis def. tyger on a 2-1
cruz, choudhury, babb*
so that makes semis:
theis
nebel
moerner
race
Posted from: 128.113.238.221
May 4th, 2009 15:05
Sems are Nebel, Theis, Race, and Moerner
Posted from: 98.218.253.63
May 4th, 2009 15:37
When did semis become 3 person panels?
Posted from: 12.37.85.2
May 4th, 2009 15:42
sems are
theis v jake, moerner v race
Posted from: 69.118.140.49
May 4th, 2009 15:45
major congrats to marcus for getting to quarters and to ken!
Posted from: 205.173.47.254
May 4th, 2009 15:53
GOOD JOB BEN! HOLGUIN of course. duh. for all you haters. :)
Posted from: 205.173.47.254
May 4th, 2009 15:57
brilliant job narayan and rohit esp at large quals
i predict moerner for the kill
Posted from: 69.2.82.154
May 4th, 2009 15:57
When do semi’s start? CST if possible?
Posted from: 12.37.85.2
May 4th, 2009 16:06
Theis over Nebel on a 2-1 Babb dissents.
Posted from: 128.113.198.63
May 4th, 2009 16:21
Moerner over Race
Finals is
Theis v Moerner
Posted from: 69.115.18.52
May 4th, 2009 16:27
theis going for repeat champ, one more round
Posted from: 24.90.128.226
May 4th, 2009 16:29
Congrats to Matt, you did awesome. Good job to Saboor, Adam, and Seth.
Posted from: 24.118.55.215
May 4th, 2009 16:36
good luck Chris :)
if you win again, your minions will have reason to look at you like you are God.
Posted from: 12.169.241.130
May 4th, 2009 16:42
PFD Finals:
Harker def. Walt Whitman (3-2)
CONGRATULATIONS Kelsey and Kaavya!
Posted from: 198.187.215.250
May 4th, 2009 16:49
when are finals?
Posted from: 68.117.46.56
May 4th, 2009 16:51
Chris Theis!!!
Posted from: 128.220.57.137
May 4th, 2009 16:51
woooo go DMR
Posted from: 32.169.167.250
May 4th, 2009 16:58
Semis already finished?!
Posted from: 71.167.160.235
May 4th, 2009 17:00
i just want to wish my baby good luck in Finals…you rock babe
Posted from: 209.240.89.108
May 4th, 2009 17:01
theis will destroy
Posted from: 166.197.184.97
May 4th, 2009 17:02
Congrats to jp one of the best pa debaters ever
Jake take Home that toc you can def do it
Your a winner
See ya around
Posted from: 32.169.39.187
May 4th, 2009 17:07
Is jake out?
Posted from: 24.34.72.180
May 4th, 2009 17:10
yes, jake dropped to theis in semis
Posted from: 207.80.142.5
May 4th, 2009 17:33
can anyone find out how kinkaid policy did in qts?
Posted from: 173.19.35.200
May 4th, 2009 17:38
are any of these rounds being filmed? they were last year.
Posted from: 68.39.29.92
May 4th, 2009 17:38
the vids from these rounds will be so epic!
they’ll be a good replacement to all the toc vids that seem to have faded away over the past couple of years
Posted from: 128.113.198.63
May 4th, 2009 17:42
6-1 theis
huberlie on bottom
Posted from: 24.245.28.7
May 4th, 2009 17:49
Congrats to AV! Way to go!
Posted from: 75.136.125.233
May 4th, 2009 17:49
Sohail, did Chris win it?
Posted from: 68.192.28.123
May 4th, 2009 17:50
Double win on the TOC.
Damn. Legit.
Posted from: 198.187.215.250
May 4th, 2009 17:51
has that ever happened before?
Posted from: 69.118.139.116
May 4th, 2009 17:52
can someone explain to me how J.P. (who I’m guessing was 11th seed not 13th) was a higher seed than Ben Lewis, even though their records were the same and Ben was 13th speaker while J.P was 15th. I have been trying to figure out how that has worked all day.
In other news: Congrats to Ken and Marcus, J.P., Devin, Jake and Ross.
Posted from: 129.174.180.84
May 4th, 2009 17:56
On last year’s TOC thread (see below), Rebar asked “If Chris wins next yr, is he the best ever?”
Well… is he?
http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2008/05/05/chris-theis-wins-the-toc/#comment-251305
Posted from: 24.240.33.63
May 4th, 2009 17:59
@307:
yes. yes he is.
he’s also the hottest 2-time TOC champion.
-tg
Posted from: 24.90.84.59
May 4th, 2009 17:59
Oliver:
From what I could tell by looking at the packet, speaker awards were given based on H/L, then total points if there was a tie. While they had the same H/L, Ben had more total points, so he was the higher speaker. When determining seeding, it went wins, H/L, then D H/L. JP had a higher D H/L than Ben.
Posted from: 128.113.198.63
May 4th, 2009 18:03
Theis over Moerner
Green, Conrad, Timmons, Rollins, *Huberlie*, Massey, and Cruz
Posted from: 146.113.65.215
May 4th, 2009 18:03
Well done, Chris.
Posted from: 75.173.166.122
May 4th, 2009 18:05
Two pretty epic debaters, Moerner & Theis. Congrats to Ross, Catherine, Marcus, Hersheys, Jeff Liu, and hope Matt Kawa will get better from the swine flu and tear it up next year.
Posted from: 72.177.121.206
May 4th, 2009 18:08
Nice job, Devin!
Posted from: 70.124.52.133
May 4th, 2009 18:10
Madeline, Devin, Andy, and JMon, and whoever else i forgot, big up yo selves! does anyone know when videos will be posted?
Also, shout out to Shaan Heng-Devan, a fierce Congress competitor that didn’t break, but maybe should have, or maybe not. I wasn’t there.
Posted from: 98.198.172.6
May 4th, 2009 18:14
Don’t tell me that there aren’t videos
Posted from: 69.154.53.95
May 4th, 2009 18:23
Where is the results packet found?
Posted from: 98.207.95.210
May 4th, 2009 18:25
wow…looks like AV really knows how to break a curse!
congrats to chris, cherian and tim on the double-win, to moerner for representing the bay area so well, and to everyone else for what i’m sure were fine performances to end what i know were great careers. hopefully, i’ll see some of you kids in college debate next year…
Posted from: 68.196.203.109
May 4th, 2009 18:29
Wow, I don’t know Chris personally, but congratulations on the epic two-time victory.
Posted from: 70.112.60.227
May 4th, 2009 18:41
DEVIN YOU BEAST!! Congrats to all the Texas debaters, you guys rocked!!
and of course, congrats to Theis!
Posted from: 74.63.75.131
May 4th, 2009 18:54
does anyone know who squirreled in the run-off round?
Posted from: 71.104.147.161
May 4th, 2009 19:14
Re: Results Packet:
http://bluetub.s3.amazonaws.com/TOC%20Lincoln%20Douglas%20Results%20Packet.pdf
Posted from: 74.143.198.34
May 4th, 2009 19:23
Or, straight on Joy of Tournaments:
http://www.joyoftournaments.com//defn/8/8/8800/TOC%20Lincoln%20Douglas%20Results%20Packet.pdf
And worry not. Many rounds were recorded.
Re: 300 — those old TOC videos haven’t been lost permanently. They will be back online in the coming weeks.
Posted from: 64.12.116.76
May 4th, 2009 19:25
Was the final round, as well as Nebel v. Theis recorded?
Posted from: 12.37.85.2
May 4th, 2009 19:39
Full Congress Results Packet at http://www.studentcongressdebate.org.
01. Joseph Perretta – Christopher Columbus FL
02. Robert Colonel – Winter Springs HS FL
03. Alex Smyk – Ridge HS NJ
04. Ray Escobar – St. Thomas Aquinas HS FL
05. Harlan Downs-Tepper – Stuyvesant HS NY
06. Bryan Campanello – Southlake Carroll TX
07. Sebastian DeLuca – Monte Vista HS CA
08. Michael DeRosa – American Heritage Plantation FL
09. Anna Tsiotsias – Nova HS FL
10. Geoffrey Block – Trinity Prep FL
11. Jordan Foster – Boone County HS KY
12. Zul Kapadia – Loyola Academy IL
Posted from: 74.143.198.34
May 4th, 2009 19:46
Adam — thank you SO much!
Posted from: 68.196.201.204
May 4th, 2009 19:47
Why did Ben Schifberg forfeit to Ken Hershey in round 7?
Posted from: 205.173.47.254
May 4th, 2009 19:51
Chris Theis
won the TOC twice
OH MAN THIS BITES.
jk he’s cool as ice
Posted from: 74.73.226.8
May 4th, 2009 19:52
CONGRATS HARLAN!
Posted from: 98.198.172.6
May 4th, 2009 19:56
congrats to Nebel, Moerner, Theis
beasts.
Posted from: 99.6.172.88
May 4th, 2009 20:05
As much as I would have liked to have seen this title come back to Texas, a tremendous congratulations to Chris Theis for making history.
Props to J-Rob for going 4-3 as a sophomore, Paul Tyger for representing H-Town hege, getting to quarters, and Devin Race for generally being cool and getting to semis. Also — Jordan Lamothe for his quarters showing — what an epic junior year; hopefully you didn’t break any technology at the TOC, haha. Love to Will Simoneaux — even though you didn’t clear, you’re still a pretty cool kid.
And, a general round of congratulations to everyone who managed to qualify for this tournament in the first place — your records speak for themselves!
Posted from: 71.145.164.54
May 4th, 2009 20:05
Congrats to all Texas debaters, especially Devin whose been owning things up this year.
Posted from: 99.9.240.23
May 4th, 2009 20:09
Congrats to all the Texas kids that broke. Devin, Paul, and Danielle. Congrats to Jake Nebel (courtesy of the “Jake Nebel is God facebook group). And major congratulations go out to Chris, who I have only heard of, but great job.
Posted from: 76.227.169.23
May 4th, 2009 20:16
chris theis is my hero
Posted from: 208.54.95.231
May 4th, 2009 20:21
Congrats to all the debaters this weekend! Two Time Champ? Ridiculous…I dont see that happening again for a really long time. Congrats to Moerner for a great career also.
I’d like to congratulate JP for his outstanding performance this weekend. Debating Chris Theis twice and winning 3 break rounds (5, 6, and 7) to clear was awesome for someone who didn’t know what the circuit or the TOC was the summer before his Junior year.
Major props to Jordan for being in quarters as a Junior, to Danielle for being top seed and having an awesome tournament, to Jake for the top speaker award, and to Devin for repping truth as best as it can be done.
oh….and Framed Certificates are LAME! Did the recession kill the horses?
Posted from: 70.146.10.18
May 4th, 2009 21:09
Are there going to be videos?
Posted from: 67.165.63.35
May 4th, 2009 21:18
Giving a framed certificate to the leaders of the TOURNAMENT OF CHAMPIONS is akin to giving fuzzy dice to an Olympics champ or putting a blanket of dandelions on the Kentucky Derby winner.
If this event signifies the absolute best competitors — the Champions — treat the competitors with the dignity and respect they have earned.
Is there any way to award the horses? The young women and men deserve to be rewarded for a year of hard work and dedication.
Posted from: 24.161.174.206
May 4th, 2009 21:20
the horses are gone?!
Posted from: 128.252.254.28
May 4th, 2009 21:26
FINALLY now someone can talk down to Jason Baldwin…
congrats Ben, Catherine, JP, Hershey, Garber, Nebel, my favorite Scarsdalian Moretti, and most of all Theis for going large and taking it down for AV and MN again.
Posted from: 72.80.231.72
May 4th, 2009 21:27
CONGRATS DEVIN!
Posted from: 130.58.197.232
May 4th, 2009 21:45
Certificates are utterly gimp. Plaques would have been a reasonable transition over to certificates, but it is unwise to give people expecting big ass horse trophies framed pieces of paper.
Congrats Theis on another win; that’s pretty incredible. Congrats to Jake for getting top speaker. You consistently have impressed me all last year and I regret I didn’t get the chance to see you debate this year. Also, good job Moerner for a really solid four years and getting to finals. Congrats on getting into Pomona by the way.
Props to Garber and Khalessi for representing the Berroweeks War Machine. Congrats also to Greenhill, strake, and the other texans present.
Posted from: 64.91.192.78
May 4th, 2009 22:05
Beware!!!!!!!!!
The future is coming!
Posted from: 75.167.66.106
May 4th, 2009 22:46
they gave out certificates to everyone? thats absurd.
completly ridiculous.
Posted from: 68.174.130.136
May 4th, 2009 22:48
Congratulations to Chris and to Apple Valley.
Posted from: 140.180.13.24
May 4th, 2009 22:52
Congrats Jake on top speaker and on semis – looking forward to seeing you at Princeton in the fall
Posted from: 64.91.192.78
May 4th, 2009 22:57
I KNOW VICTORIA’S SECRETS!!!!!
Posted from: 99.28.108.234
May 4th, 2009 23:13
i’ve been informed that policy finals is
Bellarmine vs. Westminster
Posted from: 74.36.131.1
May 4th, 2009 23:27
Big congrats to MN debaters who again prove our state is epic.
Lakeville’s own CK for a winning record.
Theis for an UNBELIEVABLE second win!
Ben Holguin for breaking and Catherine Tarsney for sweet 16 as a junior!
Posted from: 69.153.88.143
May 5th, 2009 00:30
Congrats first to Chris on a remarkable career and back to back TOCs.
Congrats also to Paul, Devin, Moerner for a great year and a great TOC and to Jordan for a phenomenal end to junior year. I can’t wait to watch you next year; sorry I was your only drop in prelims.
And congrats to Will for a great three years and for putting it all together this year. I’m proud of you, man.
And props to Spirtos for making it to TOC at all. What would we have done without you, man?
Posted from: 98.198.222.188
May 5th, 2009 00:34
POLICY – Westminster SJ (Neg) wins on a 2-1 against Bellarmine, Kuntal Cholera sat out
Posted from: 69.110.37.18
May 5th, 2009 00:46
That was a misreport (see twitter updates after that pronouncement). Twitter is about to update the real one…
Posted from: 69.110.37.18
May 5th, 2009 00:48
or not. XD
Posted from: 138.16.102.70
May 5th, 2009 01:20
i just wanted to give some recognition to the group of scarsdale debaters graduating this year – ken, matt, marcus, nikita and dan. you’re an extremely smart, hard working, dedicated bunch, and you’ve all had very successful careers and should be extremely proud. it’s been great knowing you over the past few years, and i wish i could have been there with you this weekend.
congrats especially to ken and marcus for finishing on a high note.
and congrats to chris, daniel and their coaches.
Posted from: 68.80.3.219
May 5th, 2009 02:52
Congrats to everyone who broke and who did well.
HUGE CONGRATS to Chris – this is an amazing accomplishment, and I can’t think of a nicer person to have acheived this.
Also, congrats to Jake on being top speaker and an awesome showing.
JP, way to rep PA. You should be incredibly happy with your performance, and given how hard you work, you absolutely deserve this. Truly great job.
Finally, congrats to Whitman, Scarsdale, Greenhill, and Bronx on stellar showings.
Posted from: 75.25.130.115
May 5th, 2009 04:12
CFL league has had debaters in finals of all 3 debate events – Harker in PoFo, MVLA in LD and Bellarmine in CX. Has that ever happened before?
Posted from: 69.154.53.95
May 5th, 2009 13:57
Congrats to the Texas debaters who cleared… Danielle, Paul, and Devin
Posted from: 96.224.4.9
May 5th, 2009 14:33
It is utterly inexcusable that they gave out little pieces of paper. TOC bills itself as the preeminent debate tournament in the country–more meritorious and rigorous than NFLs, or CFLs, or at least that’s the idea. The accomplishment is what matters, but the competitors deserve an award that is in the same league with how highly regarded TOC is as a tournament when they show it to their parents, grandparents, friends, teachers, and anyone else. unless there was just an error getting the awards there on time, in which case the competitors should be getting their trophies as soon as possible, getting rid of the horses is outrageous and TOC/UK should be embarrassed.
Posted from: 205.221.1.253
May 5th, 2009 14:47
^, truth.
TOC officially stands for
Tournament of Certificates.
Because champions deserve more.
Posted from: 130.253.56.92
May 5th, 2009 17:26
Congrats to Chris on a great second TOC win. Your versatility and accomplishments in debate are unmatched.
Posted from: 130.253.56.92
May 5th, 2009 17:28
Also congrats to a good showing from MN. Keep it up next year!
Posted from: 69.154.78.254
May 5th, 2009 18:28
Paul, you did amazing bro. Hopefully you end up being my roommate at USC, but if not I’ll see you around
Posted from: 76.182.224.33
May 5th, 2009 18:32
anyone know when videos are going to be up?
Posted from: 193.200.150.82
May 5th, 2009 18:49
Isn’t Westminster a sophomore team?!
Posted from: 69.110.10.231
May 5th, 2009 19:30
Nope, they’re both seniors.
Posted from: 24.161.27.30
May 5th, 2009 19:46
Vids???
Posted from: 76.113.212.240
May 5th, 2009 21:36
Gotta second the comments above about the certificates. I loved a lot of things about the tournament, especially the general running of LD tab (the MJP system was awesome, especially the idea of doing it by rounds of obligation and the second pref sheet for outrounds) and the elimination of the pre-round 7 assembly, but I really did have a problem with the shitiness of the trophies, and I hope that people will make enough noise about it that it won’t happen again next year. Kids pay a shit-ton of money (in many cases, including ours, entirely out of pocket) to compete at the TOC, and for the tournament to just pocket that money and give you back a certificate that looks like it was made in ten minutes by a third-grader with a Paint program is absurd and insulting both to the amount of time, money and effort kids have put in and to the accomplishment of clearing at the TOC. Maybe I’m just full of crap and the tournament is somehow running a deficit despite charging all the same fees as in previous years, having more competitors than ever before, moving into a much cheaper hotel than last year, and hiring few if any judges (at least on the LD side). But my feeling is that there’s money for horses, and it wasn’t spent on horses. I feel bad for any senior whose goal all year was to win a big pillary thing with a horse on top like the ones in their team’s trophy case, accomplished what they thought was a big deal, and got to take home a piece of paper in a five-dollar frame as the final take-away from their debate career.
Posted from: 75.167.66.106
May 5th, 2009 22:50
The TOC should be ashamed that every LOCAL tournament beat the shit out of them in terms of awards.
The TOC trophies themselves are already kind of flimsy and such. (but who cares, it has a horse on it)
but to take away the one symbol in debate that actually means something.
To the seniors who cleared for the first time at this tournament. I would like to say that I feel horrible for you, the TOC took away everything you worked towards for some 4 years.
To the tournament directors, you should be red in the face for this type of injustice to occur. Kids pay so much for this tournament. Many miss the little time that they have to prepare/study for AP tests, and some even miss their high school prom to go to your tournament. And you gave them a sheet of paper.
I would encourage the kids who got certificates to email the directors and complain. Not only that, but they should send their certificate back. The TOC will want to use those frames (that they got at Dollar Genera) for next years certificates.
I think that my local Jr. High tournament gave away better awards out than the TOC.
The TOC and those responsible for the awards is a joke.
Posted from: 170.170.59.139
May 5th, 2009 23:23
the “we want trophies” line of criticism is honestly one of the dumbest arguments i have ever heard. trophies are one of the biggest and most unnecessary expenses of any tournament’s budget. they create no value and i would bet that their impact on fundraising is minimal, at least at the high school level. trophy costs–which can run into the five figures–are passed onto competitors and add to the already prohibitive cost of going to tournaments. if you care about maximizing access to debate for underprivileged students, you should commend tournaments for cutting one of the most economically inefficient traditions in the activity.
more importantly, the notion that students work for four years to earn a piece of wood and plastic is laughable. i would bet that the vast majority of people at the TOC believe that debate is inherently valuable and that success is its own reward. clearing at the TOC is a formidable accomplishment, and its value is not diminished by the fact that the tournament chose to give out certificates.
Posted from: 74.63.107.2
May 5th, 2009 23:47
You may be correct when its comes to the local circuit, or for other tournaments.
But the TOC is the biggest tournament, it is the pinnacle of debate. Those who are able to reach elimination rounds at such a tournament deserve a trophy. They deserve a physical object that they can look back on in 10 years and remember how they were one of the best. And a certificate, framed or not, does not accomplish that. Many people do not understand the importance of the TOC, good trophies is a way to show family and friends just how big of a deal that it is.
You mention that the TOC was saving money, and making it more economically feasible for kids to go. EXCEPT IT COST THE SAME AS LAST YEAR.
The Tournament of Champions is better than certificates, the Tournament of Champions is better than picture frames, and most certainly the students who clear at the Tournament of Champions are better than both of those things.
The function of the TOC is to find out and recognize the best debaters in the country. It also serves as a goal for the thousands of debaters who go to tournaments all year. To reward few who can clear at it with paper is ridiculous.
If debate tournaments are going to stop giving out hardware, don’t let the TOC be the first ones. Don’t let the most important tournament be the first to go, let them be the last.
Posted from: 69.118.137.26
May 6th, 2009 00:11
re: smitty
was the registration fee this year at the TOC much lower than it has been in previous years? If it was then you are right, but I doubt it was.
Congrats to everyone who cleared, especially Theis and Moerner, who both had incredible seasons. This tournament effectively marks the end of an extremely strong class that I was proud to be a member of.
A special congrats of course to my teammate Marcus for reaching quarters. BYAH!
Posted from: 192.17.86.52
May 6th, 2009 00:17
Nothing below is a criticism of TOC, the people running it, UK, or anyone else. It’s an argument about trophies.
I think trophies have value. When I was in high school, our principal knew nothing about debate. He DID know that (1) one or two kids got a scholarship for it, (2) that it got us points when we did well at UIL, and (3) that there were some big-ass trophies for the school to put on display. I’m pretty sure he cared more about #3 than #1.
Trophies don’t have to be expensive to be impressive. I have no business relationship with this site, but strongly recommend http://www.trophiesplus.com/. I bought my trophies there when I ran tournaments, and never had the first problem with them. There’s a little assembly involved, but it’s minor and that’s what novi are for. They even have a sweet horse-topped option.
Posted from: 76.113.212.240
May 6th, 2009 00:20
I didn’t realize that the decision to give shitty trophies was intended to make TOC more accessible to the underprivileged. Thanks for clarifying, Smitty, I retract my criticism, and I’m glad that effort was so successful.
Posted from: 76.113.135.99
May 6th, 2009 00:41
Ouspensky’s flexed physics muscle is the most prominent and worthwhile the debate community has ever seen and will ever see.
Adieu.
Posted from: 128.12.77.106
May 6th, 2009 01:15
congrats to everyone. it was a pleasure working with MVLA and being a part of the activity for the last seven years. to anyone i may have pissed off, i’m sorry. it wasn’t personal and we’d probably be friends if things were different. to my friends, sorry for getting too hammered and passing out 10. call me when you’re in cali.
special thanks to prashant and mangus (who aren’t listed) for helping out the mountain this weekend. also to eric palmer who has dramatically changed the face of this activity, been a great friend and influence.
and give these kids some ponies dear lord.
Posted from: 128.12.77.106
May 6th, 2009 01:18
oh also big congrats to Dylan and the Bellarmine team for holding it down in policy.
Posted from: 98.212.197.248
May 6th, 2009 02:21
great tournament and congratulations to all.
every year there are a few people left out who deserved to debate on monday. shivani, ryan bennett, khalessi, j.roberts, gurdane, and alan tong quickly come to mind. i don’t think all these people would have cleared had there been a doubles round but i was just curious why the toc only clears to octos? under the current format, i understand that a doubles round would not even clear everyone with a winning record (and speaks are more arbitrary than w/ls). but i still think it may be preferable to explore the possibility of clearing more debaters. perhaps there are overwhelming considerations that make this unfeasible, i.e. adding an extra round, etc., i’m just curious.
Posted from: 66.235.1.41
May 6th, 2009 03:46
Sorry I wasn’t there to liveblog y’all, my bad. next year? i promise to do it black card style for whoever flies me in.
MAJOR UPS TO MY MAN MAMMO. knew you could do it kid. to everyone else, hard work iz gut, stay in skool, hopefully see you soon. love and war, pace.
Posted from: 165.123.231.74
May 6th, 2009 10:38
Major congratulations to Chris and Daniel on a great final round and spectacular careers. Congratulations as well to to Ken, Marcus, Jake, Garber, and Danielle, who all wrapped up phenomenal careers in style. I was extremely impressed by all of you this weekend.
But special congratulations to J.P., who after just two years on the national circuit came back from being 2-2 to being in outrounds at TOC. You have worked so hard for this, and it’s been incredible to watch your growth in debate over the past two seasons.
And please do give the kids some ponies. They deserve them.
Posted from: 206.180.133.78
May 6th, 2009 11:49
Re: 371
Christian: Is your post saying that tournaments often times don’t have trophies so they can waive entry fees/judge fees for certain programs or that the TOC DID waive entry fees for certain programs and this traded off with the ability to buy trophies.?
Even if that’s true, it seems like some donor or company would GLADLY have donated the whatever $1,000-$2,000 per event to provide for trophies.
Posted from: 70.138.99.19
May 6th, 2009 11:50
thanks to dave huston for doing a good job in tab.
“And please do give the kids some ponies. They deserve them.”
Posted from: 128.36.76.173
May 6th, 2009 12:10
christian, you shouldn’t apologize for in all due respect, post 367 was a bit pompous.
In terms of the argument itself, based on that logic no tournament would give a trophy at all since debate has inherent value.
While Mr. Smith may not appreciate why others value the trophies, that’s his personal preference. One (good) reason trophies matter is that its a symbol, a physical representation of people’s achievement–something that lasts even after years and years.
Anyone who looks at USC’s hall of trophies would never make the argument in post 367. Yes sports has value, and there is importance in the activity itself, but good or not, programs respond to physical proof of achievement.
Based on Alex’s argument, why don’t we replace the huge, pewter like trophies with certificates at the NFL Nationals?
It’s one thing to tell a debate-phobic principal or administrator that you got to the octofinals, its another to show up to an assembly with a big trophy. Yes, its superficial, but it gets attention.
To be fair, the ‘underprivileged’ argument works if we were to hear that the money in trophies went to covering entry fees for poor students, or to donating ot a charity, but unless we hear that argument, or if entry fees went down (and at a whopping 150 dollars per LDer + costs to get a judge–I don’t think so). At best, the “trophies are a waste” argument works for those tournaments where cost cutting is a premium, ie smaller local ones, etc, I’m not sure that applies to the TOC and if it does, feel free to correct me.
My point isnt’ to cap on the TOc, it’s more to say that those people who are upset have a right to be, and shouldn’t be slammed with inflammatory rhetoric like Alex’s post.
It costs a lot of teams a lot of money to go to the TOC, and I’ve worked with many who qualified but couldn’t afford the high entry fees and fixed costs in attending. The least we can do for those who do scrape everything together to attend is to give them a gesture that fits the level of the tournament and the prestige involved. It’s more than fair for people to expect some kind of ROI from a 150 dollar entry fee.
I suggest that those people who are unhappy with their trophies look into ordering their own from those who make the ponies.
That all said, congrats to everyone who made it to TOC and those who were in elims. Many phenomenal debaters never make it to the big dance.
To those seniors who didn’t get the results they wanted/ deserved, take solace in the fact that once you start college, you’ll be very busy in bigger and better things.
Posted from: 76.113.212.240
May 6th, 2009 12:58
Sam and Bhill, I think we’re in slightly more agreement than you realize. Give post 371 one more scan for sarcasm. ;-)
Posted from: 97.115.2.113
May 6th, 2009 15:10
1) the argument that toc costs stayed high doesn’t account for the costs of the hotel, of room reservations at UKY, and other expenses–i am positive the overall tab per competitor would have been higher if trophies were included. if sam is right that donors could cover trophy costs, i wouldn’t be opposed to them, but i don’t think the costs of trophies should be passed onto competitors, many of whom strain their budget to be able to travel to the toc.
2) even if the toc doesn’t cut costs or donate the money to UDL, y’all’s criticism is misplaced–you should be complaining that fees are too high or that the TOC doesn’t pay enough attention to issues of access, not that they didn’t spend money on trophies.
bottom line is this–trophies are a personal/aesthetic preference and don’t justify imposing economic inefficiencies on everybody else, particularly not in an activity where barriers to access are already so high.
my post was probably too strident, but i am genuinely disappointed with a lot of the responses’ lack of concern for issues of access in debate. christian’s characterization of my argument in post 371 is particularly dismaying and i think it speaks to a widespread lack of reflection on the role of privilege in our activity. i guess after watching people’s reactions to finals of cps 2 years ago i shouldn’t be surprised.
Posted from: 205.221.2.86
May 6th, 2009 15:35
I respectfully disagree with Alex. I think the trophies are quite important.
First, while a lot of students may have become too “mature” (read: cynical and jaded) to care about hardware any longer, the physical manifestation of the victory is a big deal for a lot of kids. It’s a representation of the victory and the fact that it’s physically striking in some way is important. People notice it. People who have no idea what debate is will understand that something cool has happened when you have a big or shiny or interesting (or, say, *apple shaped*) representation of your success.
Second, schools care. Many schools don’t know or care what debate is, but they know what big honkin’ trophies are and what they mean. For a lot of schools, being able to bring the principal something tangible to put in the trophy case or the front office is a huge deal. I can’t imagine that a lot of schools are going to be blown away by the framed certificates.
Finally, I think there’s something to be said for tradition. I have heard the TOC referred to as the “run for the ponies” or something similar. The iconic photograph used to represent the TOC at the top of the VBD page is a sea of gleaming golden horses. One of the first things I remember from my first TOC (waaaay back in 2000) was coming into the Ramada, heading downstairs to registration, and seeing the table covered with horse trophies. It was very impressive.
Nothing from the Hobby Lobby can compare.
Posted from: 205.221.2.86
May 6th, 2009 15:36
AND lest the true purpose of the thread be lost…
CONGRATULATIONS to both Chris and Daniel. I can’t imagine a more appropriate finals match-up. Well done, congratulations on a strong end to a pair of stellar debate careers. I look forward to coaching my students to be judged by you in years to come.
Posted from: 67.165.63.35
May 6th, 2009 15:47
On the trophy issue, I agree with a lot of the people who have already posted. I think we can all agree that the TOC is pretty special, especially to the debaters who participated in outrounds. The pony was certainly a symbol of the tournament, and it would be nice to commemorate that experience with the traditional trophy. As someone already noted, contacting the tournament staff is probably the best option.
More importantly, congratulations to everyone who made it to Lexington last weekend. Good work to Chris and Jake for great finishes to awesome careers. A special congrats to MVLA and Scarsdale for extremely dominant team performances. Finally, congrats to the juniors who shined in a tough pool. Ross’s run in break rounds against several TOC elim-quality opponents was definitely a highlight of the tournament. I am sure that Ben, Catherine, and Jacques have bright futures ahead of them as well.
I also wanted to thank everyone who helped me out over the past two years. As my lab leaders at NSD, I know that Dan Meyers and Ari Parker played extremely influential roles in inspiring me to attend circuit tournaments. Both have helped me out numerous times since then, and I know that I wouldn’t be where I am today without them. Mr. McGinnis and Mr. Vaughan have also been extremely helpful in helping me with housing and rides this year, and I appreciate their support.
Next, I wanted to thank Tim Case for coming out to this year’s TOC with me. Your dedication and tireless effort was incredible. I promise I will do my best to make sure that history doesn’t repeat itself. ; ) Thanks for doing everything you could to make my last tournament great.
To Ali, I loved working with you over the past two seasons. Your commitment to helping me succeed was spectacular. I know I’ve come a long way since Wake Forest last year, and I am really glad that I always had your guidance along the way. Thank you for working so hard to help me achieve my goals.
Posted from: 69.105.99.19
May 6th, 2009 18:41
i agree with smitty that tropies are a waste of money. the only exception to this rule is the harker trophies; i have mine on display in my room and it looks pretty BAMF. other than that, they’re a waste — so unless TOC is gonna invest in some SICK trophies that will cost a lot of money, might as well hand out certificates.
congrats to everyone who qualified for the TOC. special congrats to the eight debaters who qualled from Shadow Lab, especially paul tyger.
debate was fun, i’m bummed that it’s over.
Posted from: 205.221.1.51
May 6th, 2009 18:47
Gah. I just realized my arguments were all repeats of Bhill. That’s one smart man. :)
Posted from: 24.90.223.119
May 6th, 2009 19:32
Are any debaters willing to post their cases now that the TOC is over?
Posted from: 98.14.255.196
May 6th, 2009 19:39
I can say that as the director of a debate program in an urban public school, which receives zero dollars from the school — and instead relies entirely on fundraising and alumni generosity — that trophies have a symbolic and financial value. Obviously, they symbolize a particular achievement for an individual (or individuals); when displayed in the school, they represent a team’s history and accomplishments. TOC trophies in particular have looked basically the same for decades; anyone familiar with national circuit debate would immediately recognize the award upon viewing it, and it would speak to the history of the program.
But more fundamentally, trophies have “financial” value as well. Administrators like to see hardware as tangible recognition of the accomplishments of students; they serve, if you will, as “proof” of what was accomplished when students and teachers missed school, spent money, etc. Displays of trophies are also phenomenal ways to recruit students en masse and to encourage potential donors to be generous to the team. Alumni who leave their major trophies at the school create a tangible link to the team and often appreciate seeing those awards, years later, on display. I’ve written about this before, and will be writing an article about fundraising shortly.
Bottom line: displaying presentable, handsome awards — whether from the TOC or the local league tournament — helps gain funding, and funding helps increase access in debate. I direct a debate program at an urban public school. I have to spend a lot of time raising money personally, and my debaters have to spend a lot of time raising money as well. So I speak, I think, with some authority on this. Accordingly, while I respect the sentiment behind what Alex is saying, I disagree with his conclusion.
But, moving on to the real substance of what I wanted to say:
I want to congratulate the twelve seniors and four juniors who advanced into the elimination rounds at this year’s TOC. This was, I think unquestionably, the toughest senior class in the history of this activity. (I’ll write more about that in the upcoming return of “Ask Cruz.”) This was an exceptionally difficult year to clear at the TOC and all who did have my heartiest congratulations. So too do the seventy-five students in total who qualified. It’s an exceptional achievement.
I think it goes without saying that Ross Brown, Jordan Lamothe, Ben Lewis, and Catherine Tarsney are poised to be four of the most successful seniors in the coming season. I’ve had the opportunity to see all four debate and think it’s appropriate that these four were able to break into the outrounds and stand alongside folks who represented the aforementioned deepest class in history.
I remain so impressed by the quality and character of this senior class.
I can think of few people more modest, more hard-working, and more focused than Chris Theis, and thus, I can think of few people more deserving of the historic distinction of being our activity’s only two-time TOC champion. Chris is so representative of the excellence that has for so long defined the Apple Valley debate dynasty.
Daniel Moerner has also had an exceptional career and impressed me as a respectful, highly intelligent competitor. I still remain so impressed by the incredible adaptation skills displayed when he came to compete at the Vassar Round Robin his junior year.
What a group. Daniel Garber, who — for all of his (extremely) impressive achievements — still always struck me as one of the country’s most *underrated* debaters. Ben Holguin, one of the most intelligent (and very funny) competitors around. J.P. Gooderham, extraordinarily adaptive and extraordinarily polite. Devin Race, incredibly cool and incredibly sharp. Danielle Smogard, extremely focused and hard-working while extremely welcoming and outgoing. Paul Tyger, who is particularly close with my own debaters, and one of the most driven and strategic debaters I’ve seen.
Ken Hershey and Marcus Moretti, fellow Northeasterners who have developed from awesome novices to incredible competitors and representatives of the Scarsdale dynasty.
I feel I especially the need to single out Jake Nebel. He is, I believe, the Tom Rollins of Lincoln-Douglas debate. Tom has been (I would argue rightfully) declared by many the most dominant college policy debater in history, yet he never won the NDT. Instead, he won just about everything else. Jake’s exceptional regular season success is, I think, unmatched in the history of our activity, and will — along with the records of many from the class of ‘09 — continue to awe the future trivia hounds. That he was able to be so competitive and so dominant while also being so engaging and so modest is, I think, even more impressive than his awards themselves.
But finally, and most personally and emotionally, I want to recognize my own four debaters who were at the TOC this year. They have each had an amazing season, and I have been so proud to watch them accumulate achievements. I have been even prouder to watch them help train the next generations of Bronx Science debate. They represent why I love debate so much.
These four have been friends since they were all in the same kindergarten class, and have been friends all the way to their senior year. Their graduation is particularly emotional for me because they are part of the first senior class with whom I’ve worked since the very start of their novice year — I began at Bronx Science halfway through what would have been their eighth grade year — and it’s hard to believe that they are now heading off to college. You’d be hard-pressed to find a hard-working, cooler, smarter group of kids anywhere…even in debate.
Congratulations to Saboor Sheerazi, Adam Silver, and Seth Teleky for qualifying. And congratulations to Matt Dunay for bringing Bronx Science back into the outrounds at the National Tournament of Champions.
Posted from: 75.72.79.154
May 6th, 2009 19:49
congrats to the entire minnesota contingency, to Jrob for being a beast, to Lamothe for making it to quarters, and to Moerner for making it to finals.
On the trophies, issue, I feel that the trophies are one of the most memorable parts of a tournament (anyone who’s friends with me on facebook can attest to my obsession with debate trophies). I’m going to assume there was a legitimate reason why the trophies were cut (not that i’d necessarily agree with that reason, but i’m sure there’s a reason nonetheless), and I think we’d all appreciate it if it was possible for someone who can actually attest to why they decided to ditch the trophies this year.
Mezz, I personally think the horse trophies are pretty sick, but even if you don’t agree, you have to admit, they have a lot of prestige that makes them pretty baller. Neither the Stanley Cup (Pro Hockey’s championship trophy for those of you who have no sports knowledge) nor the Lombardi Trophy (NFL’s championship trophy) are all that fancy. The former is a chalice with big rings around it that have each member of each championship team’s name on it, and the latter is just a football on top of a stand with the NFL logo on the front with the words “Vince Lombardi Trophy” above it, and the teams that played that year and the final score on it. My point is that the prestige of seemingly simple trophies adds a lot of value to them, and that’s the case with the horse trophies that used to be awarded at TOC.
Posted from: 67.186.56.66
May 6th, 2009 19:51
“Tom has been (I would argue rightfully) declared by many the most dominant college policy debater in history, yet he never won the NDT.”
id be interested to hear your rationale for having such a strong opinion about a debater who was doing an activity you dont judge before you were born.
Posted from: 98.14.255.196
May 6th, 2009 19:56
Absolutely: my rationale has nothing to do with Tom’s debate style or talent (both of which, I have been told, were very impressive). All I was trying to say is that I agree that winning virtually everything would make you the “most dominant college policy debater in history” — or at at least put you under serious consideration for “most dominant college policy debater in history” — even if it doesn’t include the national title (in Tom’s case, the NDT).
Of course, in such a deep senior class, different cases can be made for overall dominance. (For example, winning back-to-back titles at the TOC, St. Mark’s, and the Greenhill Round Robin is unprecedented in each case. And I think separate from debates over dominance, the “Who is the only Lincoln-Douglas debater to win the TOC twice?” will be a favorite basic trivia question going forward!)
Posted from: 68.172.215.24
May 6th, 2009 20:23
i love mezz
Posted from: 69.118.140.49
May 6th, 2009 20:39
Congratulations to my teammates Marcus and Ken for an excellent run at TOC, a fitting end to two very impressive careers.
Also, to the rest of my teammates – I’ve very much enjoyed the last 4 years. Congrats on strong showings.
Posted from: 68.90.180.236
May 6th, 2009 22:17
Congrats to everyone again. Sorry to continue the threadjack but I thought I’d add my two cents.
I couldn’t agree more with Jon on the trophies discussion.
Coaching and competing for a school that had lost not just its tradition of excellence in debate but also its entire program after Katrina is extremely difficult financially, especially when that school is so heavily focused on athletics.
The school administration has no idea of the difference between some local tournament and a prestigious national tournament. But they do know that we come back with tall trophies from tournaments in New Orleans. And until we started getting more competitive again on the circuit, the only thing we could do to get more money in our extremely small budget was to show our trophies from local tournaments to the administration and the school assembly.
Whether or not trophies are individually important to debaters (though it varies from person to person, I think most would say they are), they are for the most part very important to programs. They demonstrate a concrete representation of success for administrators and students who don’t understand the activity from outside.
Telling our principal we broke a kid to octas means nothing to him. Showing him a trophy we won means something. We have an entire floor of our school dedicated to awards, with each hall lined with trophies. Having debate trophy cases to point to when asked about the program’s success has been important for us.
And to make a point I don’t think has been made yet, trophies are important to student support, not just administration support. For those of you who may remember Josh Fulwiler (it wasn’t that long ago), he would get up at our school’s annual award ceremony to accept some school-sponsored debate award donated by an alumnus and the whole student body would cheer for him because they saw him every week at assembly holding up whatever trophies he had won from a tournament the weekend before. Students, not affiliated with the program would would go to local tournaments to watch our team debate because they knew it was something we excelled at.
And student body support is important for the program in several ways.1. It influences administrations who understand that the program is something valuable to more than just the participants but the school as a whole. 2. It helps the program directly because more students outside the program are willing to contribute time and money to fundraisers or other events (like tournaments) just like they might do with a football or baseball game because they recognize the success. 3. It also helps recruit new students into the program; if the student body views a debate program in a positive light because they know we bring home trophies, more students become interested rather than simply stereotyping debate and staying away.
Trophies are not the prohibitive cost that prevent debaters from attending tournaments. Even the tournament fees usually aren’t the deciding factor. It’s typically the cost of the flight, hotel, and (sometimes) car that are costs at issue. While every little bit may count, I don’t think the TOC has dramatically (or even slightly) lowered the tournament-specific costs to attend. And it typically is not difficult, as has been mentioned, to find a sponsor for these things.
While as a student you may not see beyond the personal benefits (which may vary from debater to debater) of trophies to debaters, I think that coaches/directors recognize (as I have firsthand) the benefits of trophies to programs in how they influence students and administrators.
Posted from: 98.198.172.6
May 6th, 2009 22:50
When will the videos be uploaded?
Posted from: 24.21.132.208
May 6th, 2009 23:39
Congratulations are certainly in order to everyone who broke and especially Chris Theis and Jake Nebel.
I’d also like to thank God that Jason Baldwin is no longer “the winningest.” I’m sure he’s a great guy, but the “Debate should be about Deontology vs. Utilitarianism, or other philosophies created by old white men that I like” argument finally can go the way of long introductory quotes and Tab soda.
Thank you Chris.
Posted from: 24.28.87.229
May 7th, 2009 00:10
I’m just wondering where all the money went.
Each debater has to pay a 150 dollar entry fee, in addition to providing a judge. That means that money wasn’t spent on judges, it wasn’t spent on trophies, and it wasn’t spent on providing food or other services to competitors (with the exception of that one breakfast).
Maybe this is just me, but a good number of my memories from the tournament are of being hungry–the prohibitive 5-10 minute walk to those restaurants and the lack of concessions made for lots of stomach-grumbling. Compare this, for example, to the Greenhill tournament, which (if I remember) charges less for the entry fee but manages to provide constant food to all of the competitors in addition to hiring a substantial number of judges and giving out gigantic plaques. I understand that Greenhill has a higher number of competitors and so can sustain a greater cost, but it seems like something is amiss.
I just can’t help wondering what all my money was spent on.
Posted from: 70.116.19.103
May 7th, 2009 00:23
i attended five bid tournaments my senior year because they were expensive, but like Ian i think that the costs of flights, hotels, etc. were more of a barrier than the tournament fee. i also thought getting a trophy with historic value was a particularly nice recognition of my accomplishments and my hard work, especially when the trophies in the memorial debate room had motivated me to work hard for years. but i wouldn’t really consider myself underprivileged when i debated. so, do any actual underprivileged debaters want to add their own take on this discussion, rather than people claiming to speak for them and willing to invoke their cause to score points?
Posted from: 70.116.19.103
May 7th, 2009 00:40
but, thanks to all the people who put in the hard work to make the TOC happen, this year and every year. congrats to chris, jake, daniel, and devin, and everyone else who did well or qualified. this has been an extremely dominant senior class and this year’s tournament reflected that.
Posted from: 67.165.63.35
May 7th, 2009 15:03
Update on the trophy controversy:
My stepdad sent the administration an e-mail yesterday expressing his concern. The response he received today said that while UK is disappointed in the reaction, they apparently had been criticized for the old trophies…
According to the e-mail, the frames and certificates were roughly equal to price to the ponies. They just liked the new awards better, I guess.
On another note, (in case you haven’t seen this), a case wiki has been put up for this year’s TOC. It looks like Chris has already added a lot of his stuff, and I will do an update tonight. It’s at http://www.circuitdebater.wikispaces.com
Posted from: 96.229.143.242
May 7th, 2009 18:22
I hope people, before emailing the administration at UK, take the time to email Jon Sharp or Roger Solt regarding the trophies. There are often unintended consequences of going “above the head” of debate coaches. Many debate teams are in delicate positions, especially given the current economic situation. We are all part of the same community and hopefully we can keep things “in the family” as much as possible before escalating.
Posted from: 69.110.39.55
May 7th, 2009 18:32
Another thing about that trophy issue: while there might be claims that there’s a budget issue, that seems kind of absurd to try to resolve it top-down instead of bottom-up. This IS the TOC after all, and to get there participants have had to chug through several circuit tournaments, most especially attending tournaments like the Glenbrooks or Berkeley/Harvard. If they can already afford that, why should costs be specifically attacked at the highest level where everyone’s managed to get that far in the first place?
But as mentioned earlier, the framed certificates apparently cost as much as the trophies, so that’s just completely messed up. Those frames aren’t even designed or anything, it’s just paper surrounded by a plain black border. My teammate’s USC octo-final award looks better…
Posted from: 74.63.75.131
May 7th, 2009 18:41
I think it’s ridiculous to declare Jake the Tom Rollins of LD debate given that he was 0-2 against Moerner.
Posted from: 193.200.150.82
May 7th, 2009 18:45
go troll some other site anon, no one cares what you think. its an analogy, doesn’t mean it needs to be perfect.
Posted from: 97.115.2.113
May 7th, 2009 19:00
even i will admit that these certificates are dumb if they cost as much as the old trophies. there are plenty of cool things you can give out–UKY glassware, plush wildcats, even t-shirts that said “i cleared at the 2009 tournament of champions and all i got was this stupid t-shirt”. in fact, i would imagine that the tournament could probably have some pretty nice glassware ordered for a fraction of the cost of the wooden trophies, and i think that would be a pretty effective compromise.
Posted from: 68.181.221.50
May 7th, 2009 21:18
Personally, I like the t-shirt idea. This way you probably won’t have it in 10-15 years when you don’t care, but you may have it for a few while you still do. That, and it’s something you can actually bring to college.
Posted from: 99.147.5.44
May 7th, 2009 21:23
i don’t know about you charlie but i keep my horse in my apartment. roytman always stops by to admire it.
Posted from: 24.90.84.59
May 7th, 2009 22:00
Congrats to Matt, Seth, Adam and Saboor on closing out successful debate careers in style, as always.
Posted from: 76.31.244.169
May 7th, 2009 22:57
It’s funny that no one who cleared at TOC thinks giving out trophies is a bad idea. All of the objections seem to be coming from the competitors and former competitors that didn’t clear.
Posted from: 130.160.214.98
May 7th, 2009 23:02
Wait, I am just now catching up on this discussion. Hold on a second. People didn’t get trophies this year? That’s bullshit. Everyone who clears deserve a pony and if you disagree you’re wrong.
Smitty: Wood and plastic are important too.
Posted from: 68.181.221.50
May 7th, 2009 23:07
Duby, don’t forget that everyone who was at TOC, regardless of how well they did there, did well at other tournaments that do give out trophies. And given most people are making arguments for/against trophies rather than emotional appeals about how amazing it is to gaze at the shiny horse, I don’t know how much it matters that they didn’t get this particular trophy.
Anyway, I was half joking. I think the certificates are pretty silly – Alan and I even laughed at the participant one (though it was a nice gesture). The point is that there are a lot of things better than said certificate – including a t-shirt.
On that note, I want to throw a nice little shout out to Alan Tong. Alan was a pleasure to coach in that he did no work (nor did he want to beyond talking about arguments) but is a very entertaining and intelligent child who likes music a lot. Especially Elliott Smith.
Posted from: 24.6.158.21
May 7th, 2009 23:10
The following is what would have been my outrounds case at TOC. I was too lazy to create a wiki page, so I decided to post it here. Here is my gift to the activity:
“DFK TOC OUTROUNDS CASE”
I affirm. I reserve the right to clarify. An international court is the only court that can deal with crimes against humanity. First, according to UrbanDictionary.com, the word “crime” is defined as “shit that needs wiping.” Prefer this interpretation because it allows for equitable division of ground. Either side can uphold their position by incorporating crimes specific to real shit, metaphorical shit, and smelly shit. Second, an international court is the representative of humanity, defined as “the quality of being humane,” because it is the only prosecutorial body that spans over national boundaries and cultural lines.
I value morality. All moral systems must seek to minimize bullshit. This action is a prerequisite to any other conception of morality because bullshit occludes our ability to engage in constructive analysis of truth.
The Princeton Press (Interview with Harry G. Frankfurt.” Princeton Press. http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7929.html
http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:Qh4rmTVAA04J:www.teton-rainbows.com/_content/files/PressRelease.doc+%22Blue+Thunder%22+native+American+stops+drought&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us) writes,
“Rather, bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant. Frankfurt concludes that although bullshit can take many innocent forms, excessive indulgence in it can eventually undermine the practitioner’s capacity to tell the truth in a way that lying does not. Liars at least acknowledge that it matters what is true. By virtue of this, Frankfurt writes, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.”
If conversations about truth and falsity are irrelevant, then the only way to access meaning from the resolution is to default to the affirmative standard because meaning is contingent on the truth value of language. Minimizing bullshit requires paying thoughtful detail to the composition of the shit.
Harry Frankfurt writes,
“Is [T]he resemblance that bullshit itself is invariably produced in a careless or self-indulgent manner, that it is never finely crafted, that in the making of it there is never the meticulously attentive concern with detail to which Longfellow alludes? Is the bullshitter by his very nature a mindless slob? Is his product necessarily messy or unrefined? The word shit does, to be sure, suggest this. Excrement is not designed or crafted at all; it is merely emitted, or dumped. It may have a more or less coherent shape, or it may not, but it is in any case certainly not wrought. The notion of carefully wrought bullshit involves, then, a certain inner strain. Thoughtful attention to detail requires discipline and objectivity. It entails accepting standards and limitations that forbid the indulgence of impulse or whim. It is this selflessness that, in connection with bullshit, strikes us as inapposite.”
According to Frankurt, bullshit is grounded in an indulgence of impulses because it is characteristically dumped by mindless slobs. Acting on impulses has no correspondence to any conception of morality because impulses occlude the rational decision-making calculi which are key for determining whether or not certain moral norms are worth adhering to. Thus, my value criterion is maximizing the clean-up of shit. This standard is preferable because shit possesses the inherent quality of badness; aesthetically, shit is horrendous from the perspective of any moral philosopher. Just hold a piece of shit close to them and see how they react. I bet even Nietszche would agree. Moreover, impacts to shit precede any other impacts because they are more long-term. This is true because shit has the inherent quality of cohesiveness since we all know how sticky it is. Lastly, even though the Princeton Press and Frankfurt analyses are specific to bullshit, comparisons of shit devolve into evaluation of net shit, so my standard functions as a plausible, overarching weighing standard in this round. My thesis is that The United States Federal Government ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court in order to prosecute Native Americans for crimes against humanity. I reserve the right to clarify.
My sole contention is that Native Americans constitute an enormous bullshit that goes against humanity. Winning a link that Native Americans are fakes is sufficient to affirm the resolution because an international court is the only possible entity that can maximize the clean-up of shit, and an international court attempts to do this through prosecution. Native Americans cannot logically be human from an educated standpoint.
Messiah ONE writes,
http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2002.1.29.203459.418.html
“For centuries, Native Americans have told the world that they are native to the American land, even though scientists have irrefutable evidence that humans originated from the dark jungles of Africa. As any intellectual will tell you, the Americas and Africa are far apart from each other. Therefore, if humans came from Africa, how can Native Americans be native to this golden land of opportunity? Are the Native Americans lying about their nativity? That would be ridiculous to believe, for it would be ignorant and racist for anybody to believe that an entire race of people were lying. Therefore, the only logical conclusion to which an educated man can come is that Native Americans are not human.”
Native Americans cannot possibly be human because they possess mystic powers that humans cannot logically comprehend. Bennie Lebeu in 2006 upholds this idea, using supposed rain-maker Blue Thunder (himself) as an example.
“One of Mother Earth’s wisdom workers is Bennie (Blue Thunder) LeBeau Senior. Bennie LeBeau Sr., is an Eastern Shoshone Native American, who lives on the Wind River Indian Reservation, in Wyoming. Blue Thunder is a messenger of the old ancestors. He, among many others has been receiving messages in dreams and visions with sacred instructions about harmonizing Mother Earth to bring her to health and balance…. It is a big challenge given the mind-sets that currently operate and “control” the natural resources in regulations of man made laws.”
According to molecular, genealogical, cultural, and other scientific evidence, Native Americans cannot justifiably be human. Messiah TWO writes,
“It might seem difficult to believe that Native Americans are not humans since they are quite similar to real humans, but baboons, orangutans, and even monkeys have very similar DNA to modern humans. Native Americans are obviously another form of primates, quite possibly descendants of the Neanderthals, once believed to be extinct. It would explain why Native Americans were vulnerable to small pox, polio, and the measles when even the most primitive European man adapted an immunity to the diseases. It would also explain their tendency to identify each other under such savage monikers such as Running Wolf, Rising Eagle, and Thunder Cat.”
Because Native Americans have not revealed their true identities as animals to other human beings, they constitute a huge bullshit since they are totally ignorant to the truth. Allowing Native Americans to pose as humans is a crime against humanity because it allows the bullshit to continue indefinitely. Messiah THREE impacts,
“Native Americans are animals, but enjoy all the privileges once reserved to human beings. They can be employed, obtain a driver’s license, be a chef, and even participate in professional sports. This is plainly wrong, as it would be ridiculous for a business to employ a monkey, for a pig to cook one’s meals, for a cat to drive a car, or for a dog to play football. They should require a license to own, should not be employed, and certainly it should be a crime to have sexual relations with a Native American, as bestiality is clearly wrong. Until legislation regulates the ownership of Native Americans, they will be allowed to roam our streets like lions, tigers, and bears, making it unsafe for the children.”
Posted from: 128.135.112.81
May 7th, 2009 23:11
I might write a long & gushing post specifically dedicated to the class of 2009 at a later date, but for now: y’all rocked. Congrats to all for moving the activity forward this year (and dominating it for the last two).
On the trophies issue: I agree with the critique of trophies in general. The Meadows tournament is a great example — they have one epic trophy, keep entries fees low, and give any extra money to a good cause. The TOC pony is probably the single most important trophy in debate and it seems absurd to deny that symbol to (probably) the best class ever.
In terms of cost cutting… Why not try to move the tournament back a weekend if we really care about this issue? God knows that flights won’t be so brutally expensive when they aren’t on DERBY WEEKEND.
Posted from: 24.6.158.21
May 7th, 2009 23:12
1AR Add-on
The satirical nature of the cards within the 1AC (which are indeed bullshit) ridicules the close-minded attitude that society has toward Native Americans and other cultures. This criticism is highly evident in the 1AC contention evidence, which imitates the idiotic thought-processes of those who are racists toward Native Americans. The 1AC is, therefore, a criticism of the limitations that bar intercultural discourse. Michael Rabinder James ONE (James, Michael Rabinder. “Critical Intercultural Dialogue.” Polity, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Summer, 1999), pp. 587-607. Accessed 01/07/2008. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3235237) describes the nature of intercultural dialogue.
“When the practices of one culture seem to contradict values cherished by another, critical intercultural dialogue proposes neither imposing answers nor looking the other way. Rather, it encourages members of conflicting cultures to adopt an attitude of openness toward each other, to attempt to understand each other’s perspectives, and only then to engage in intercultural criticism. In advocating this stance, [C]ritical intercultural dialogue also encourages participants to recognize honestly the limitations confronting intercultural understanding, how these limitations alter the scope, manner, and aims of intercultural criticism, and what conditions enable intercultural dialogue to proceed fairly. Thus, a theory of critical intercultural dialogue cannot propose answers to specific cultural conflicts. Instead, it encourages participants to explore the questions carefully and persistently, in order to discover answers that better accommodate their diverse cultural perspectives. 52”
My introduction of satirical discourse about the barriers between whites and Native Americans is a voting issue because thought always shapes the world, and you have an obligation to resist destructive thought even if your resistance wont do anything, for instance, you wouldn’t say someone doesn’t have an obligation to resist Nazism in 1930s Germany just because doing so wouldn’t absolutely stop it; even if condemning someone being racist doesn’t stop racism doesn’t mean you don’t still have an obligation to condemn racism. Even if you have a high threshold for a discourse voter, the rhetoric of the Rabinder card is very specific to the performance of critical intercultural discussion that I presented within the 1AC through a satirical criticism of close-minded racism.
Posted from: 24.6.158.21
May 7th, 2009 23:22
(Here is the post that was supposed to precede the 1AR add on post)
The following is what would have been my outrounds case at TOC. I was too lazy to create a wiki page, so I decided to post it here. Here is my gift to the activity:
“DFK TOC OUTROUNDS CASE”
I affirm. I reserve the right to clarify. An international court is the only court that can deal with crimes against humanity. First, according to UrbanDictionary.com, the word “crime” is defined as “shit that needs wiping.” Prefer this interpretation because it allows for equitable division of ground. Either side can uphold their position by incorporating crimes specific to real shit, metaphorical shit, and smelly shit. Second, an international court is the representative of humanity, defined as “the quality of being humane,” because it is the only prosecutorial body that spans over national boundaries and cultural lines.
I value morality. All moral systems must seek to minimize bullshit. This action is a prerequisite to any other conception of morality because bullshit occludes our ability to engage in constructive analysis of truth.
The Princeton Press (Interview with Harry G. Frankfurt.)
“Rather, bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant. Frankfurt concludes that although bullshit can take many innocent forms, excessive indulgence in it can eventually undermine the practitioner’s capacity to tell the truth in a way that lying does not. Liars at least acknowledge that it matters what is true. By virtue of this, Frankfurt writes, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.”
If conversations about truth and falsity are irrelevant, then the only way to access meaning from the resolution is to default to the affirmative standard because meaning is contingent on the truth value of language. Minimizing bullshit requires paying thoughtful detail to the composition of the shit.
Harry Frankfurt writes,
“Is [T]he resemblance that bullshit itself is invariably produced in a careless or self-indulgent manner, that it is never finely crafted, that in the making of it there is never the meticulously attentive concern with detail to which Longfellow alludes? Is the bullshitter by his very nature a mindless slob? Is his product necessarily messy or unrefined? The word shit does, to be sure, suggest this. Excrement is not designed or crafted at all; it is merely emitted, or dumped. It may have a more or less coherent shape, or it may not, but it is in any case certainly not wrought. The notion of carefully wrought bullshit involves, then, a certain inner strain. Thoughtful attention to detail requires discipline and objectivity. It entails accepting standards and limitations that forbid the indulgence of impulse or whim. It is this selflessness that, in connection with bullshit, strikes us as inapposite.”
According to Frankurt, bullshit is grounded in an indulgence of impulses because it is characteristically dumped by mindless slobs. Acting on impulses has no correspondence to any conception of morality because impulses occlude the rational decision-making calculi which are key for determining whether or not certain moral norms are worth adhering to. Thus, my value criterion is maximizing the clean-up of shit. This standard is preferable because shit possesses the inherent quality of badness; aesthetically, shit is horrendous from the perspective of any moral philosopher. Just hold a piece of shit close to them and see how they react. I bet even Nietszche would agree. Moreover, impacts to shit precede any other impacts because they are more long-term. This is true because shit has the inherent quality of cohesiveness since we all know how sticky it is. Lastly, even though the Princeton Press and Frankfurt analyses are specific to bullshit, comparisons of shit devolve into evaluation of net shit, so my standard functions as a plausible, overarching weighing standard in this round. My thesis is that The United States Federal Government ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court in order to prosecute Native Americans for crimes against humanity. I reserve the right to clarify.
My sole contention is that Native Americans constitute an enormous bullshit that goes against humanity. Winning a link that Native Americans are fakes is sufficient to affirm the resolution because an international court is the only possible entity that can maximize the clean-up of shit, and an international court attempts to do this through prosecution. Native Americans cannot logically be human from an educated standpoint.
Messiah ONE writes,
http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2002.1.29.203459.418.html
“For centuries, Native Americans have told the world that they are native to the American land, even though scientists have irrefutable evidence that humans originated from the dark jungles of Africa. As any intellectual will tell you, the Americas and Africa are far apart from each other. Therefore, if humans came from Africa, how can Native Americans be native to this golden land of opportunity? Are the Native Americans lying about their nativity? That would be ridiculous to believe, for it would be ignorant and racist for anybody to believe that an entire race of people were lying. Therefore, the only logical conclusion to which an educated man can come is that Native Americans are not human.”
Native Americans cannot possibly be human because they possess mystic powers that humans cannot logically comprehend. Bennie Lebeu in 2006 upholds this idea, using supposed rain-maker Blue Thunder (himself) as an example.
“One of Mother Earth’s wisdom workers is Bennie (Blue Thunder) LeBeau Senior. Bennie LeBeau Sr., is an Eastern Shoshone Native American, who lives on the Wind River Indian Reservation, in Wyoming. Blue Thunder is a messenger of the old ancestors. He, among many others has been receiving messages in dreams and visions with sacred instructions about harmonizing Mother Earth to bring her to health and balance…. It is a big challenge given the mind-sets that currently operate and “control” the natural resources in regulations of man made laws.”
According to molecular, genealogical, cultural, and other scientific evidence, Native Americans cannot justifiably be human. Messiah TWO writes,
“It might seem difficult to believe that Native Americans are not humans since they are quite similar to real humans, but baboons, orangutans, and even monkeys have very similar DNA to modern humans. Native Americans are obviously another form of primates, quite possibly descendants of the Neanderthals, once believed to be extinct. It would explain why Native Americans were vulnerable to small pox, polio, and the measles when even the most primitive European man adapted an immunity to the diseases. It would also explain their tendency to identify each other under such savage monikers such as Running Wolf, Rising Eagle, and Thunder Cat.”
Because Native Americans have not revealed their true identities as animals to other human beings, they constitute a huge bullshit since they are totally ignorant to the truth. Allowing Native Americans to pose as humans is a crime against humanity because it allows the bullshit to continue indefinitely. Messiah THREE impacts,
“Native Americans are animals, but enjoy all the privileges once reserved to human beings. They can be employed, obtain a driver’s license, be a chef, and even participate in professional sports. This is plainly wrong, as it would be ridiculous for a business to employ a monkey, for a pig to cook one’s meals, for a cat to drive a car, or for a dog to play football. They should require a license to own, should not be employed, and certainly it should be a crime to have sexual relations with a Native American, as bestiality is clearly wrong. Until legislation regulates the ownership of Native Americans, they will be allowed to roam our streets like lions, tigers, and bears, making it unsafe for the children.”
Posted from: 24.6.158.21
May 7th, 2009 23:47
(I have actually run this case before. Once at the VBT rr and once at the Voices rr)
Posted from: 67.80.215.195
May 8th, 2009 00:02
yay i love you charlie, at least you’re honest!
Posted from: 24.161.174.206
May 8th, 2009 00:13
Its a shame dfk didn’t run that case, would’ve made for an entertaining video.
Posted from: 76.219.139.225
May 8th, 2009 00:46
DFK:
“I affirm. I reserve the right to clarify.” Did this originate from that discussion at the dinner the night of the VBT RR?
Posted from: 24.6.158.21
May 8th, 2009 01:00
yes
Posted from: 76.212.4.118
May 8th, 2009 07:09
Realizing that my slight comment on the certificates might have set off a firestorm…I just wanted to second the comments above regarding the running of the tournament. Though food would be nice and horses are fun to ride, Dave Houston and Lexi Green deserve a standing ovation for their efforts this year in making the TOC function better and run smoothly. Thanks to those two and all behind the scenes who contributed to the tournament. I don’t think those efforts should be clouded by what I think is healthy discussion on trophies.
On a side note, if the TOC does want to make an active effort to deal with the underprivilege (i hate that word) issue – speaking without the full support of the board – the Voices Foundation would gladly create a TOC scholarship fund to provide students money to travel and cover costs at the TOC if they cant afford it on their own if the TOC wanted to donate the portion of the entry fee that goes to the tournament. We have done this with the State Tournament in California and continue to do so for camps. I’d personally much rather they use the money on this instead of certificates and I am sure many would agree. I would even be willing to solicit funds on top of that to cover the cost of 16 outround certificates and 15 Speaker Award Certificates.
Can a piece of paper and a frame really cost the same as a full-on trophy? The only way that is possible is if they are getting a ridiculous discount. As someone who has fundraised and solicited donations to cover the cost of the Voices RR trophies – I can definitely say 1. they are ridiculously expensive for what you get and 2. there are plenty of people willing to donate the funds to pay for them.
Again though, thanks to the TOC Committee and Dave and Lexi for their efforts. I certainly hope they dont view this thread as a criticism of them.
Anyone want to help make a push for what I mentioned above? I’m ready, willing, and able.
Posted from: 128.125.36.59
May 8th, 2009 10:20
I’m just going to guess that the cost of the 16 frame for the kids who broke is less than the cost of trophies… but the cost of providing those frames to every student cost the same. I feel like that might make more sense.
And I very much agree with everything Tim said.
Posted from: 128.135.190.198
May 8th, 2009 10:54
i agree with catterton and duby. Give the kids a pony. everyone wants one. no one (in my opinion) likes a stupid t-shirt. those are what your grandma gets you, not what you get for clearing at the tournament you have worked four years to clear at
im sorry no one got their ponies
Posted from: 68.90.180.236
May 8th, 2009 17:28
mike, your grandma gave you a TOC t-shirt?
Posted from: 75.134.138.102
May 8th, 2009 21:31
reposted from facebook:
So it has not sunk in yet that it is all over but over this last week I have been reflecting on everything and I definitely have a lot of people to thank. I am usually not this sentimental but I feel these things need to be said.
First, I want to thank all of the people who helped us out this year. The Iowa debate team was, as always, a tremendous help. It was amazing to have access to their resources and ideas all weekend. It saved us hours of prep to be able to call you guys up for cards on random arguments that were popping up all weekend so that we could focus on what we needed to focus on. So I just want to say thanks to Mr. Bellus for all of the help as well as the constant support and encouragement over the last four years and to Sarah Spring for all of the work that she did. I would also like to thank Andy Poker. It sucked that you could not make it out to the tournament this year, but those few practice sessions were very helpful and helped plant the seeds for a lot of our strategies at the tournament. You always offer a unique and interesting perspective. Not to mention you introduced me to The Room. For that I will be forever grateful.
Second, I need to thank all of the competitors, friends and coaches out there who have the last four years both fun and worthwhile. It has been fun and challenging debating with all of you these last few years. There were so many tremendous debaters who had amazing circuit careers come to an end this weekend. There are way to many people to single out by name but I really do mean it when I say am grateful to all of you for pushing me and making this activity enjoyable. There are a few people I would like to congratulate specifically. Danielle, you were absolutely amazing not only this weekend but also all year. Even though it didn’t work out how you wanted to you but still accomplished a lot and you were always very impressive. You are still the only person who I know of who I have a losing record against, Cherian will never let me forget that one :) I would like to specifically congratulate Moerner and MVLA. It has been fun competing against you guys. You were always the team that gave us the most trouble and the one that pushed us to get better. You guys were always amazing and debating with you was always a challenge. Also, I want to congratulate Jake. You are a tough competitor and a good friend. I enjoyed every round we had this year, especially that semis debate. I told some people after that round that if my career was going to end with a loss I would have been happy ending on that round. I have learned a lot from you, whether it was from just sharing a room with you the last two years at camp or just talking to you about arguments, thanks man.
Third, I want to thank Ms. Wycoff. Not only do you make everything that we do possible but you are also always there to keep me in line, encourage me, and make sure that I am as ready to go as possible. Whether it was trying to make sure that I was getting food on Monday, acting as my good luck charm watching all of my debates, or offering your words of encouragement between every round, you were always there trying to do whatever you could to make this possible. The reason that our team continues to be successful is because of the loyalty of your former students who always come back and give back. That loyalty is loyalty to you and everything that you have done for them and I feel the same way.
I also want to thank my friend and teammate Michelle. You are not only a great teammate but you are also my best friend and it has been great spending these last four years with you. Every step of the way you have been there believing in me, encouraging me and as you say being my number one fan. I don’t always act like it but I really appreciate it. You were really onto something the other day when you said that the last four years of debate has been like having a second secret life that nobody else understood. There is some truth to that and you were the only person who knew about both of my lives and as a result you were the only person who I could always count on to know what was going on with me. You were always there to do whatever I needed. There is no way that I would have made it through these last four years without you.
Last but certainly not least I need to thank my coaches Cherian and Tim. Cherian, Guru, you were not around as much this year as last but you were always there to help out when it really mattered and when I really needed it. You could have easily stayed out of everything this year and just focused on your new job and life but you still found the time to be there for me and to help me achieve everything that I have. I have learned so much from you the last four years, not only about debate and the world but also, about what it means to be a teacher and a coach. You are unquestionably one of the overall greatest people in this activity and you are in it for all the right reasons. Your leaving is not just a loss for our team but to the activity as a whole and you are going to sorely missed. Good luck with starting the new family. I hope I have now earned an invite to the Wedding ;) Tim, what can I say buddy, thank you. After you graduated last year you would have been perfectly justified in moving on to bigger and better things but you stuck around to help me give this one more shot. Although, that was probably a bad life choice it is one that I will always be grateful for. I have no clue what I would have done this year without year. Not simply because of the ridiculous amount of work you do but because of how you keep me in line. You have challenged me to become better and have challenged my ideas to become stronger. Not only are you the best coach I could ask for but you have also been a great friend over the years, always there to encourage me when I needed encouraging, to shoot me down when I was a little to confident and to just generally be there. There is no one whose opinion I think higher of and to be honest making you proud was one of my main reasons for not only competing but also for putting in all of the effort that I did. I could never thank you enough.
There are many, many more people that need to be thanked and much more that needs to be said to those I have thanked but this is already getting way to long and much to sentimental. I can already tell that I am going to miss it. It was bee quite four years.
Thanks everyone, it’s been real.
ps. I have not proofread this so there are probably a ton of errors. I apologize in advance.
Posted from: 98.201.178.59
May 9th, 2009 16:47
toc was real. kind of sad, seems like a lot of people are calling it quits now, so it’ll be interesting to see how the nat’l circuit debate landscape looks next year. oh and i hate horses, but no trophies (certificates are not trophies, i wouldn’t put my birth certificate up on a shelf or in a display case) is kind of shitty.
Posted from: 70.118.127.70
May 9th, 2009 18:34
I’d like to thank Chris for breaking the ice on the sentimental side of TOC. I’m going to be a copycat here and give my own thanks and congratulations:
First and foremost, I’d like to thank the educators in my career, starting with Petey Gil-Montllor. PT, I’m glad I was born four years after you; the alignment of the stars made me fortunate enough to have you as a coach for all four years of high school. In those four years I have learned more from you than from any other friend or teacher—-about debate, life, the universe, and everything. You have been essential in my development as an individual, and I look forward to thanking you more extensively when you graduate from the University of Chicago.
I also want to thank the forensics coaches at Trinity Prep: Dean Rhoads for introducing me to debate and inspiring my success from the beginning, Darcy Butrimas for being a fantastic teacher and getting me into college, and Michael Vigars for caring about my personal success and lugging around the printer for two years.
My lab leaders at camp have also played a huge role in my development: Steve Schappaugh, Joe Vaughan, Jacob Levi, Adwait Parker, Josh Anderson, Stephen Babb, Tommy Clancy, and Neil Conrad. I received three summers of great debate education at VBI and a solid foundation in the novice lab at NDF; this foundation was instrumental to my success in forensics. I would like to single out Neil as my two-time mentor at VBI. Neil, not only did your mentorship help me improve as a debater; you inspired me to work harder and to play like a champion. I am honored to teach with you at Mean Green Workshops this summer, and I’m very excited to be an educator at VBI in July.
Next, I’d like to say a few words about the Trinity Prep debate squad. As a novice, I learned so much from my captains, Miles Brundage and Tim Walsh. They introduced me to the great possibilities of the national circuit and encouraged me from day one to aim sky high. Their contributions to my own education have taught me the importance of teaching younger debaters at my school and around Central Florida. I know Ravi Sankar would agree. Ravi, I had three fun years with you, and I missed your presence on the team this season. Thank you for being a great teammate and an even better friend. To the next generation of Trinity debaters—-Arseniy Banayev, Smiti Mohan, Alex Patel, Jeremiah Baxter, Mihir Tak, and Amit Singh—I hope you have learned everything I have to teach, and I know you’ll do great next year. Arseniy, I have loved watching you grow as a student for the past three years, and your TOC bid foreshadows your success as a senior.
As for the Class of 2009, y’all are the best. It’s an honor and a privilege to be a part of this class. While my love goes out to all the senior debaters whose careers concluded in Lexington, and my congratulations go out to every one of the sixteen great debaters who should’ve received ponies, I’d like to focus on two special bros in Minnesota. Ben, while I’m upset we had to debate so early on Monday, I’m glad we got to debate at all. Our best debates—-Vassar ’07, Archer ’08, and TOC ’09—-were the best of our careers. You taught me how to not drop arguments, how to affirm, how to be smart in round, and how to survive at VBI. You’re a great friend. Chris, “You are a tough competitor and a good friend. I enjoyed every round we had this year, especially that semis debate. I told some people after that round that if my career was going to end with a loss I would have been happy ending on that round. I have learned a lot from you, whether it was from just sharing a room with you the last two years at camp or just talking to you about arguments, thanks man.” (Yeah, I just copy/pasted that from Chris’s post, but it’s only because the feeling is entirely mutual.)
Finally, to the Class of 2010: rock on. I’ll see many of you in lab this summer.
Thanks for everything, everyone,
Jake
Posted from: 173.28.2.92
May 9th, 2009 20:56
Was that a Douglas Adams reference I noticed in Nebel’s post?
Posted from: 24.6.158.21
May 9th, 2009 22:08
Although my career did not end as I would have liked it to, I still want to take the chance to thank the people who were instrumental in helping me improve as a debater and as a person.
JP Gooderham: You’ve improved so much since our TOC round at junior year and I can’t think of a better person to be 0-3 against (sorry Catterton). Most importantly, I want to thank you for tolerating my random 4AM questions at NSD like “JP….is 2PAC still alive?” MATHIAS HALL ROOM 203 HEDGE.
Rahul Ramakrishnan: You are truly underrated in the debate community. When we hit in dubs at Stanford my junior year, you were more efficient, technical, and strategic than any debater I’ve ever seen; I talked to Corbin about this at the voices round robin and he definitely agreed. It’s too bad that no one video-taped that 1AR…
Berryhill/Michelin/Ernie- Thank all of you for teaching me how to hold it down against high-rep debaters and helping me ultimately change my style from mere trickery to a more substantive style. More importantly, all of you taught me that debate is not only about winning; it’s about the relationships that you make with other people (see Michelin’s comments in post 241).
Moerner: During our four years in debate, you looked out for me like a big brother and I looked up to you. During freshman year, I was seriously lacking self-confidence. However, your constructive feedback, unusually vast knowledge of philosophy (especially for someone our age), and intensity not only made me a more confident debater, but a more confident individual as well. Thanks for looking out for me.
Natalee: Unlike what I wrote about Garber, I’d like to thank debate for establishing our friendship. Your spontaneity, easygoingness, and positive attitude have gradually trickled down on me. When you said, “Khalessi you have revised my view on human nature; people change themselves for the better,” I wanted to let our friendship was a key factor for that change. Thanks.
BIG SHESS: Words cannot describe what you have taught me. You gave me a personality; you served as my mentor; and you were my role model. Thanks for everything (including writing my Stanford recommendation letter). Although it’s a shame that you won’t be coaching MVLA with me next year, it’ll be an honor to serve in your position.
Smitty: Although I wanted to thank you for helping me out this year in general, I wanted to especially thank you for helping me out in one specific round. Before my round-7 bubble round at TOC, you discussed how you were in the same position as I was four years ago and the things you would have done differently. You gave me the confidence and determination I needed to win the final round of my career, even though I did not get the ballot. You are an exceptional coach, an exceptional individual, and an exceptional friend.
Eric: Thank you for pushing me toward my goals and believing in me. At the breakfast of champions during my junior year, you turned to me and listed the names of the great debaters who also went 3-4 at TOC as juniors. I couldn’t have gone from a 3-4 TOC debater to a Semifinalist at both St. Marx and Glenbrooks without your dedication, availability, and confidence in me.
BIG SHESS: Words cannot describe what you have taught me. You gave me a personality; you served as my mentor; and you were my role model. Thanks for everything (including writing my Stanford recommendation letter). Although it’s a shame that you won’t be coaching MVLA with me next year, it’ll be an honor to serve in your position.
Garber: You were my friend before we even started debate; your presence in my life has made me a kinder, more open-minded, and smarter individual. I’ll never forget our wacky practice rounds, your delicious post-Harker nachos, and your understanding heart. It’ll be sad to not see you in my everyday life next year.
-Daniel Khalessi
Posted from: 193.200.150.125
May 12th, 2009 18:21
I think the increasing prevalence of theory in ld is ruining it. At the point at which theory is simply run as another winning strategy instead of a legitimate defensive mechanism it is abuse in it of itself. Yet even theory simply as a defensive mechanism is unnecessary. If something is really abusive then the judge should say so and say I ignored this argument. Legitamite theory is run against a limited range of arguments. Those arguments should be evaluated prior to tournaments by the community and decided whether or not they are abusive. Then a comprehensive rules for what is and is not permitted as arguments can be published. This allows debaters to actually focus on the substantive issues in the round instead of either losing or winning on so called gateway issues which should not be determined by debaters themselves. Further if there is no reason why debaters shouldn’t try to establish the rules themselves whats stopping people from running theory about theory. In fact I think we should have debates about whether the debate over the theory run against the theory is fair or unfair. The rules are already established by the nfl. The timing and the order of the speeches along with everything else. For some reason we take without question the format of debate yet won’t accept the rest of the rules. If we can question in round the nfl rules on arguments then why shouldn’t people be allowed to run theory about how debates are structured and simply keep on talking past the time limit.
Posted from: 69.118.137.26
May 12th, 2009 18:44
…genius!!
Posted from: 69.110.22.74
May 12th, 2009 18:52
While it’s great that we continue questioning aspects of debate, I’d definitely disagree with several aspects of #430:
First, saying that the judge should ignore arguments at his/her own discretion seems absurd to me. There’s absolutely no brightline, and this is just asking for arbitrary intervention in which neither debater has any control whatsoever. Therein lies the point of theory – to set and clearly frame what is abusive and how that then ought to be treated. Rather than *hoping* the judge recognizes or does not recognize a certain thing as perhaps being abusive.
This issue again comes forth when trying to say that tournaments should create a “comprehensive list of rules.” Not only does this seem entirely nonsensical based on its inherently subjective nature, but this then becomes a clear constraint on how LD debates can progress. In the same way censorship of certain literature because they may be deemed “offensive” harms education, so too would censoring arguments because they may be deemed “abusive.” One of the great parts of LD debate is that its largely open – you set the framework, you set the arguments, and it all fleshes out in-round.
You also criticize theory run against theory, but earlier you also lament how theory is becoming more abusive rather than becoming a defensive tool. Yet theory against theory serves exactly that purpose – it can check abusive theory (“possibility of abuse”), as well as defending against such theory usage.
Finally, I don’t see at all where the NFL rules says “multiple burdens are not allowed” or “deontological standards are prohibited”…regulating and legislating “fairness” doesn’t seem too practical…
Posted from: 69.118.137.26
May 12th, 2009 18:58
I agree. We need to give the NFL much more centralized control over the types of arguments debaters can run in order to encourage debaters to think on their own and to increase the educational value of debate. Instead of having a system in which debaters can actually argue what the theoretical rules of debate should be in round, the NFL should just impose a list of self-explanatory prohibitions on all debaters in the form of “the aff may not do X, the neg may not do Y…” etc.
Then, we can use the NFL as a tool for even better things, such as excluding all argumentative styles that we, as a community collectively do not like. It would be great if there were a national prohibition against kritiks, counter-plans, all policy-esque arguments, and spreading. This would also allow debaters to focus on issues that are actually important rather than ones that they just think are important. The NFL, after all, knows what is good for debate and its views should never be contested.
The last part of this process is just to publish arguments that the NFL deems true or false on a given topic. For instance, the NFL should just declare “the argument that joining the ICC would increase U.S. soft power is true.” This way, debaters won’t have to debate anything, and the NFL can just do things for them. To me, this type of debate is better, because it’s so obvious that the soft power advantage to joining the ICC is true, so why should we even waste our time debating it?
It’s really a shame that the NFL still hasn’t been able to teach people the right way how to debate. If it doesn’t, it’s possible that they will never learn…
Posted from: 69.105.99.19
May 12th, 2009 19:15
ah, the slippery slope — ken you tricky bastard!
Posted from: 68.104.7.43
May 12th, 2009 19:44
Ken – I’ll push for some of your revisions during the upcoming Wording Committee meetings. Thanks for the great ideas!
Posted from: 76.212.4.118
May 12th, 2009 22:49
agreed with Dan…you’ve just given me so many ideas….the NFL will rule Presentation always wins
Posted from: 75.73.219.166
May 13th, 2009 00:10
I dislike the NFL
Posted from: 128.135.188.145
May 13th, 2009 01:05
i <3 the Raiders
Ben how can you be so negative?
Posted from: 71.104.147.161
May 13th, 2009 01:14
“At the point at which theory is simply run as another winning strategy instead of a legitimate defensive mechanism it is abuse in it of itself”
Um…then make that argument next time you hit theory. Or have the NFL ban all the arguments that your coach tought you to believe are the work of satan. One or the other.
Posted from: 66.75.244.56
May 13th, 2009 02:02
“Um…then make that argument next time you hit theory.”
no. please don’t do this. these are universally awful arguments and entrench the notion that the legitimacy of theory debate is a contestable question (hint: it’s not). i see this from some otherwise pretty smart heads too, so i’m not just singling you out.
Posted from: 128.12.120.236
May 13th, 2009 03:53
with all due respect to smitty, I think the attitude displayed in post #440 is pretty absurd. the assertion that “the legitimacy of theory debate” should not be considered “a contestable question” resembles the claims that many reactionary judges/coaches made a few years ago when theory debate was new to the activity: that “this is LD, not policy” and that certain long-accepted practices ought to be considered immune from in-round criticism.
theory has become so prevalent in LD largely because it has been a means by which debaters (rather than us wise and all-knowing judges) have been able to take some ownership of their activity and to challenge widely-held assumptions about what LD debate ought to look like. assertions of the sort made in smitty’s post seem to exhibit a turning away from this openness to criticism and communal self-reflection that I find troubling. this is not to single out smitty (whose attitude I’m sure I am exaggerating) – I hear a lot of smart and accomplished debaters claiming, for example, that the LD community ought to accept as axiomatic that “fairness is a voter.” the principle underlying our acceptance of theory debate is that pretty much anything ought to open to in-round criticism – including the legitimacy of theory debate itself.
Posted from: 128.12.120.236
May 13th, 2009 04:40
(not to endorse any of the really bad arguments made against the use of theory in this thread).
also, congrats to everyone who qualified to/did well at the TOC; as everyone has noted, this year had an exceptionally impressive crop of debaters.
Posted from: 69.118.137.26
May 13th, 2009 09:19
I don’t think that smitty accepts “fairness is a voter” as axiomatic, I think he’s just saying that his paradigm leans towards treating it as axiomatic and he is generally difficult to persuade as to otherwise. This is analogous to other aspects of any judge’s paradigm, such as “I presume neg,” “I prefer impact-comparison over deontology,” or whatever else. It’s almost never impossible to change judges’ perspectives on these issues in-round. I doubt that if I ran theory in front of smitty and dropped 3 reasons for why fairness isn’t a voting issue he would vote for me on it.
I think what smitty was really saying (or trying to say) is just that the arguments most frequently presented for why fairness shouldn’t be a voter are just bad arguments, and that the theory debates he watches would be much better if they attacked a much more easily contestable claim (“you are being abusive”) instead of a claim that he thinks is difficult to contest (“fairness is a voter”). His language may have been more simple than this, but I think that this is the prevalent attitude that largely underlies what he meant.
Posted from: 98.210.172.34
May 13th, 2009 17:03
Why is it not OK to question the foundations of theory argumentation?
Why are RVIs not OK? I think it’s “unfair” to not at least be open to a well justified RVI.
Would judges who think theory is always a voter reject a K of theory?
Why are some judges gut instincts to throw away all of their intuitions about the functioning of language and truth to resolve questions about whether they endorse a statement by reference to bizarre meta-standards like fairness, that have nothing to do with the resolution?
Big ups to all of you BTW — you’re the new face of backwards, conservatism (in spirit, not in politics) in the LD judging pool. Keep voting down arguments just because you disagree with them.
I’ll vote for theory if people substantiate their claims… though 4 sentences of blips does not a voter make. Can you at least consider RVIs and Ks of theory as legitimate strategies? Aren’t you sick of hearing theory to take out strategies that are clearly topical, fair, and normal interpretations of the topic? Shouldn’t people be able to defend themselves against a class of argumentation, that regardless of its argumentative merits, is being used disingenuously and specioulsy in rounds?
Posted from: 98.210.172.34
May 13th, 2009 17:05
oh and for all you comparing worldviews folks, i have three questions for you:
1. how can you have debates about competing worldviews without making true statements about those worlds?
2. how can you make true statements describing a world that are not descriptive statements?
3. if you can only make descriptive statements to truthfully describe those worlds, how can you have a debate that has clash other than clash over whose evidence is better / more credible / more recent / more accurate?
is this really how you want debate to work?
Posted from: 98.210.172.34
May 13th, 2009 17:10
also, can someone offer a good justification of why fairness is a voter that would pass for a reasonable argument in even a high school paper? can you please post it here? i’ve never seen one of these made in a debate round. all i hear is strings of sentences loosely connecting concepts (like “ground skew to education to fairness to OMG PPL WONT SHOW UP TO DUHBAIT NO MO”) without a clear explanation of how they are connected…
also, if these arguments collapse into ppl won’t show up if we’z unfair, how can you ever assess that this is the case? how do you know that more people are not showing up because they are tired of hearing your theory arguments?
Posted from: 98.210.172.34
May 13th, 2009 17:13
actually, correction, there was one round of LD where i voted for mangus on a theory argument and didn’t feel like i was voting for something stupid. thanks mango.
Posted from: 205.221.1.161
May 13th, 2009 17:34
I think the reason it seems “axiomatic” that “fairness is a voter” is that some concept of fairness underlies our intuitive understanding of what competition is. Fairness, loosely defined as the notion that competitive events should be structure such that, going in, there are no advantages or disadvantages inherent to the system, is a given in every other competitive activity. I mean, if the definition of “winner” in a marathon were simply “whoever crosses the finish line first,” then Rosie Ruiz really did win the New York marathon (despite the fact that she took a subway to cover the middle half of the course.)
If you don’t have at least some notion that structural advantages and disadvantages are illegitimate, I don’t know how you can have a competition. I think the argument that people wouldn’t do debate if it were structurally unfair is probably true on some level. I mean, if the rules of Monopoly suggested that the oldest player got twice as much money on every play and could annex their opponent’s properties any time they wanted, then there would be no incentive to play on anyone’s part… the younger players would always know they’d lose, the older players would always know they’d win. The pleasure obtained from that particular kind of game would be eliminated.
If it were legitimate in debate for the negative to point out that the resolution can’t be “true” unless the world exists, then to posit that the affirmative has the prima facie burden of proving that the world exists, then pointing out that it’s impossible to prove that the world exists because we have no independent evidence of the trustworthiness of our senses — and if judges vote on this argument, and if they reject affirmative claims that such a burden structure is unfair — then debates would predictably resolve for the negative. I don’t know if it’s possible to independently prove the existence of the universe, but I doubt one can do it in six minutes and still have time to present a topical AC. So, in the world where the negative has the structural ability to undermine the “truth value” of the resolution in that way, I think most of the kinds of pleasure we associate with debate would be eliminated, and it would come down to whoever flipped neg in Round 7 (or whoever got the most speaker points, given a 6-round tournament, for surely the vast majority of debaters would go 3-3.)
Setting aside for a moment the question of whether particular “abusive” behaviors are actually unfair, the idea that unfairness is wrong *is* a competitive axiom. Or, at least, it should be.
Posted from: 98.210.172.34
May 13th, 2009 17:46
At the point where theory argument can itself be run abusively as a time suck and the aff is forced to defend whether their position meets several meta-standards (just like meeting several negative truth testing burdens that are epistemologically reductive) in every single round, why can’t the aff run a k of theory in the 1ar with RVIs? why is this strategy not ok if the ultimate goal is to check back strategies that are un-educational (and education is a meta-concern in theory as it is… which means it’s reasonable ground to justify a claim that theory violates its own meta-standards and ought to be rejected)? the aff won’t be able to present and defend a topical AC if they get theory run against them every round regardless of how normal and topical their case is. theory is just as reductive and distracting from the 1ac proper as running 7 truth-testing negs with disproofs of assumptions in the resolution.
Posted from: 66.75.244.56
May 13th, 2009 19:49
i don’t know why you would need to win the argument that fairness is an internal link to people showing up–fairness is a terminal impact in and of itself because there is no value to an activity in which both sides do not have an equal chance to win. the notion of the “truth” of the resolution being a prior concern is silly–even if i were to concede that truth-testing is a superior paradigm to comparing worlds (which i don’t think it is, but this is a debate i don’t think we’re gonna reconcile if we haven’t already), how we evaluate the truth of the resolution begs the question of the interpretive framework whereby we determine what it means to prove the resolution true or false. fairness should serve as a concern that structures the way in which we interpret the truth-question of the resolution so as to allow both sides to access arguments that would give them an equal chance to win the round. this is what people mean when they say that fairness is a gateway issue.
the other problem is that a world of capital-T truth testing leads to a race to the bottom in which the explicitly political question of the resolution is sidelined in favor of a debate over the nature of time, causality, free will, or whether one can prove a statement true at all. i’m not saying that these arguments have no place in debate (well, i am, but i don’t need to say that for this argument to function), but in practice the burden upon debaters to prove that time, causality, etc. exists is so great that there is a tendency for these arguments to crowd out substantive, relevant arguments that address the political question of the topic. you can still endorse truth-testing (or at least some version of it, i.e. a “best justification” approach) while allowing for concerns of fairness to restrain the excesses of capital-T-truth testing.
finally i am certain that, once people get better at answering theory (i.e. a counterinterpretation and a comparison of offense becomes the norm rather than the exception), people will stop running theory arguments all the time because they can’t just count on their opponents to drop the ball. if you don’t like theory debates, stop hinging your strategy on “fairness is not a voting issue,” because that argument is quickly waning in popularity, is pretty well blocked out, and won’t be close to a winning argument in a couple of years once community norms shift a little bit.
Posted from: 128.36.76.173
May 13th, 2009 21:06
Thank you Greg for saying, pretty eloquently, what I’ve thought for the past few years–particularly about how the use of theory has in some circles become just as ‘conservative’ or as much of a power game as some of us used to complain about when past coaches would use the imposition of orthodoxy to justify blatant intervention / repping out.
One point that I think is true is that there are many who are in the “theory is great camp” who are just as close minded as those past coaches they would critique, and they view their view as one that others should have to follow (i.e. you should have to answer theory in a particular way, using its own paradigms, language, etc. in order to be “legit” in calispeak).
Often those who have a different view are called “reactionary,” and find themselves on the not so nice end of mjp (a debate for another time). I think Greg’s frustration is justified–I’ve seen lots of theory-fans talk crap when people run kritiks of theory, or rvi’s etc, frustrated that the opposing debater won’t just speak in the same language, methods, and code of the theory camp. I.e. why should we *have to* use a “counter interpretation of theory or comparison of offense” within a framework that one finds bankrupt in the first place?
How can we expect a 1ac that runs a topical case to have a chance against theory that is not only blipped out, but multi pronged, and read at a blistering speed, on top of other stuff like truth testing nonsense, case answers, etc.? Yes it’s theoretically possible, but if that becomes the norm/acceptable (as it is in some regions of the country), then don’t be surprised as more and more people are leaving LD, and are either going to policy–where they at least do this stuff competently, or public forum, or leaving completely.
One of the reasons I have the paradigm I do about theory is because so often, as Greg said, I see people running 4 point theory with lots of crappily written policy speak that isn’t at all original. (i.e. if I hear “debate is a competitive activity” or “we are people before we are debaters” one more time…)
That’s part of why some have left LD, or were leaving some of the toc rounds in disgust during the theory wars.
It’s not that theory is bad per se, but rather there seems to be that it has turned into the next level of conformity and groupthink on par with what people used to yell about when the value premise/criterion model was treated as God.
If nothing else, people should be more open to the fact that there are some who couldn’t give a rat’s tail about blips on education, fairness, etc. and they can still be good debaters, judges, or thinkers in the activity. (i.e. there are judges in policy who are still respected who refuse to ever vote on T)
In some circles this kind of openness to different views on theory does not exist, and hence Greg’s (and my, and many other older coaches’) frustration.
On my own note, one frustration I had watching some rounds, esp elims was the lack of basic public speaking skills (ie voice variation, pausing, avoiding monotone), comprehensibility and even to some degree technical skills.
Maybe I’m a fuddy duddy, but I think there’s a problem when there are (some) coaches who have been in the activity 7-9 years at a high level who can’t flow some of the elim rounds.
Posted from: 128.12.120.236
May 13th, 2009 21:16
not going to address everything here, but a couple points:
1) There is a difference between the axiom that “unfairness is wrong” (what Dave and Smitty are arguing) and the axiom that “fairness is a voter.” The latter, at least as it’s interpreted by most judges and debaters today, means “if I win any sort of argument establishing that her interpretation, to any degree, makes the round unfair, I win.” This is partly why a lot of debaters choose to devote time to running theory in almost every round – the threshold for how unfair an interp has be before a debater gets voted down is, for a lot of judges, extremely low.
2) Just to be clear – Dave and Smitty, I take it you would agree that your beliefs about the importance of fairness, were they to be imposed by judges (which I know is not what you’re arguing), would exclude stuff like the Louisville project in college policy (at least as I understand it) or the kinds of K’s of theory that Greg mentions. Is that a good position for the community to take?
I think a lot of the things Dave and Smitty are saying about fairness are smart, but I think it’s bad to try to shut off discussion on what LD debate “is,” how we ought to think of the ballot, and how we ought to think of academic debate in the context of broader political and social issues.
Posted from: 66.75.244.56
May 13th, 2009 21:32
2 things:
1) unfortunately, your interpretation of “fairness is a voter” seems to be pretty common. debaters, coaches, and judges could help solve this problem by re-orienting the discussion from “fairness is/is not a voter” to a discussion of reasonability vs. competing interpretations as a mechanism of evaluating theory debates.
[the basic question is whether you should win for proving that your interpretation is better/more fair/more limiting/more educational or whether the affirmative should be able to function within a reasonable counter-interpretation of the resolution that is "good enough". there are pretty good arguments on both sides of this question, which is one more reason why i think LD would benefit from starting to engage this debate]
2) the louisville project and similar arguments don’t deny the question of fairness-they simply re-orient the question of fairness in order to discuss the way in which racial and/or socioeconomic privilege serves to exclude people from debate. i don’t know what greg’s arguments are so i can’t speak to them.
Posted from: 216.45.232.83
May 13th, 2009 22:24
Before the moment completely passes I want to thank a few people. Then you guys can get back to something about fairness or whatnot.
To the community: I want to thank the young coaches who have recently come back in droves. Ernie has dedicated his time to making the Valley program one of the top programs in the country. Duby graduated from a powerhouse school, but has spent his last 5 years working with Northland Christian, Spanish River, and ALJ. This year especially shows how great his contribution has been. Diehl has been a great asset at Scarsdale, helping the program become even more competitive than it already was. Spirtos has made a huge impact with Catterton (who now, should be included in this group) and at his alma mater at Meadows. Gary Johnson has for what seems like forever now, fueled the Strake program. Palmer built a program out of very little at MVLA and has become probably the most influential person in shaping debate thought over the past 5 years (to me, personally terrifying and also impressive). Neil has proven to be one of the most intelligent debate minds in the community and has helped Greenhill continue their dominance. Christian took on the huge task of building a sustainable program at SLP and has succeeded beyond expectation. Even though Paul doesn’t coach anymore he still has an impact on the activity: Ari and Roytman have come back to coach, clearly to honor The Great One.
I’ve witnessed some of the most valuable contributions to LD over the years come from these coaches. I see my friends and peers in debateland put stock into working one on one with kids to make them more competitive (and help them get what they want out of the activity). I guess my point is that most of these coaches will probably not be around long enough to become institutions themselves. They will not be an Aaron Timmons, a Pam Wycoff, or a Victor Jih. But there’s a cycle of people who come back as young coaches to refresh the debate community. It’s kind of weird to just issue a blanket thank-you to a group of people as diverse as listed above, but I am truly grateful for all of you. The debate community continues to exist in a healthy state because of you. I’ve learned a lot from you all in bits and pieces over the years, but most of all I’ve witnessed all of you demonstrate a genuine care for your students and the wellbeing of the activity. I know I’ve missed people in that list, but I cannot imagine the debate community resembling anything worthwhile without their time.
To the class of 2009: you guys are really impressive. I can’t think of a class that I’ve seen that has been more talented. Congrats to all of you.
Pam/Cherian: Both of you make debate at AVHS possible. Pam has put in years of guaranteeing that the program stays afloat. Most importantly she is always truly happy for her students accomplishments, not because they bring her some credibility, but because she is really just happy that they’re happy, and that just strikes me as the right way to approach things. Cherian, over the years you have taught me what it means to teach debate. It involves yelling, smoking, and not sleeping. This year specifically, I’m grateful for your help at the ToC: you always bring so much to the table and simply having you there is a huge asset. Your on-site management of everything at tourneys from scouting to prepping is pretty amazing. I look forward to ruining your wedding in some way shape or form in the upcoming weeks.
Michelle/Fresca: Michelle I still think you have your best tournament ahead of you, but I’ve been really impressed with both of you this year. Even in just the last few months I’ve seen you guys improve leaps and bounds, and ending your circuit careers going 4-3 at the ToC is pretty solid indicator that both of you can compete with anyone. Although both of you are going to college in areas that don’t really have high school debate programs, I hope you find a way to give back to the activity at some point in time. Both of you could offer a lot as teachers of debate. Remember: rivalries never die.
Chris: really, I am not too sure what to write for you. The short version of it is too long, but you are by far the greatest kid I’ve worked with over my five years of coaching and I mean that on every level. You are also probably the best debater in the history of the activity now, which truly frightens me. This win is huge, and even though debate is just an after school activity I hope, for your sake, you soak up how meaningful it is as a culmination of four years of a chapter of your life. You’ve been level headed with me the entire time, which has made coaching you nothing but enjoyable. I still stand by that you argue with me just to argue with me sometimes, but I think I might actually miss the arguments, and with all this coming to a close I recognize how rare it was that I got to coach both a student I respect and a friend I enjoyed wasting time with. My life advice to you is that you’re smart. Don’t fuck it up.
Pretty basic I guess: I have really enjoyed my time in the debate community. Thanks everyone.
Posted from: 67.186.56.66
May 14th, 2009 01:37
2 points: kritiks of theory and old school time suck rvi’s are very different things, and the value of world-comparison (what amounts to net benefits) is not that it avoids truth claims but rather that it doesnt take the truth of the resolution as the ultimate question for the judge to decide. other than that, im not touching this with a 10 foot pole.
Posted from: 76.173.203.162
May 14th, 2009 04:36
oh my god i want to vomit all over this thread.
smitty that backhanded comment about cps 2 years ago was retarded.
thank you dfk for not shouting me out in your thank yous.
greg your claim that you can’t understand why fairness might be a voter is worse than smitty’s memory for what went down at cps 2 years ago.
hogan thanks for calling me and shess “very little” i appreciate that
BUT ON A HAPPY NOTE I LOVE YOU ALL AND ILL MISS YOU. IT WAS A GREAT RIDE AND I WOULDNT TRADE IT FOR THE WORLD. THE GOOD FOLKS AT VALLEY, APPLE VALLEY, GREENHILL, SCARSDALE AND ANYONE ELSE IVE SCRAPPED WITH THESE LAST 7 YEARS.
especially you jam jam
Posted from: 76.173.203.162
May 14th, 2009 04:36
- P.RAI
OUT FOR GOOD BABBYYYYY
Posted from: 76.173.203.162
May 14th, 2009 04:38
TRIPLE POST: GOTTA ADD GBN TO THAT LIST (would never forget you bbts)
Posted from: 167.206.203.14
May 14th, 2009 11:23
ugrauwguauihriowuerhowiuerhoaiuwerhoauh
Posted from: 63.138.40.98
May 14th, 2009 11:43
Gesundheit.
BC
Posted from: 205.167.47.158
May 14th, 2009 13:20
Post – Why would you want a thank you comment posted on a thread that you want to vomit all over?
Much love man,
DFK
Posted from: 98.210.172.34
May 14th, 2009 16:06
POST YOU ARE AN AMAZING HUMAN BEING
Posted from: 204.169.65.3
May 14th, 2009 17:15
So I didn’t think I was going to write anything else, but uh I don’t really want anyone taking offense at a thank you note…
Prashant, what I meant by “very little” is that the program wasn’t really on the map, and you can’t deny that Eric joining the school grew the program significantly. My comment isn’t a reflection of the quality of the students that were at the school at the time, it was about the growth of the program over the last five years. If anything you and Hess belong in the group of young coaches I’m talking about.
Posted from: 98.210.172.34
May 14th, 2009 17:41
YOU TOO TIMMMMMMM HOOOOOOOOOOOOOGAN
Posted from: 208.120.131.125
May 14th, 2009 19:17
just as clarification, post 459, was not me.
Posted from: 76.31.244.169
May 15th, 2009 02:03
Tim: Two Words…..Brett Favre :)
Posted from: 67.167.227.199
May 15th, 2009 02:11
TEHM i’m coming out of retirement next year. come be a lifer with me.
kids beware of TGO.
Posted from: 75.25.130.115
May 15th, 2009 04:02
Fun fact: there has been a total of 1 30 given out in policy at this year’s TOC and a total of 32 30s in LD.
Posted from: 76.173.203.162
May 15th, 2009 06:02
love you tim.
dont love you greg.
Posted from: 98.210.172.34
May 15th, 2009 07:16
do you still wanna have that fight at in n out burger sometime? just let me know…
Posted from: 75.55.125.90
May 19th, 2009 03:49
Re: Post # 449
I think Dave has come a long way since trying to prove for 4 hours that unicorns exist on some planet somewhere in the universe.
Posted from: 67.205.59.174
June 26th, 2009 18:24
[...] Diehl — Lynbrook High School (CA) 2008 | Chris Theis — Apple Valley High School (MN) 2009 | Chris Theis — Apple Valley High School [...]
Posted from: 208.54.15.48
February 16th, 2010 02:17
473
Posted from: 208.54.15.48
February 16th, 2010 02:19
sorry for the double post but that was actually 474