Public Forum Debate News & Information
Adam Bloch & Ben Grossman from Chaparral HS (AZ) defeated Johnny Amiri and Connor Fitzpatrick from Foothill HS (NV) to win the ASU Southwest Championship this past weekend. The open division consisted of 73 teams.
Amiri & Fitzpatrick are now unofficially full-qualified for the Tournament of Champions.
Please help us fill in any missing information on our 2007 TOC wiki page.
Crossfire Briefs are published 10 times per year for the September through April NFL topics, the NCFL Grand Nationals topic, and the NFL Nationals topic.
For more information about Crossfire Briefs, visit the PFDebate Shop
Crossfire Briefs
2008-09 Subscription
10 Issues
$140
Crossfire Briefs
September 2008
Military Draft
$20
Pre-Order
{ 18 comments… read them below or add one }
Personally, I sat in this round and truly find it hard to believe that the decision really went this way. I don’t mean to talk trash, but the team from Chaparral made topicality arguments and then continued to argue that Policy debate should be left in policy debate. I think on a further level, the team from Chaparral offered very few logical arguments, maybe none at all. Not to mention they were the rudest couple of human beings I’d ever seen in my life.
On the other hand, the team from Foothill had everything you would want in a public forum team, and I expect great things from them this year at the TOC, and again at Nat’s. Great Job guys!
I’m not much of a debater, as a matter of fact, I’m an IE person interested in doing debate. I decided to watch this debate hoping to learn something. The teams were going back and forth at each other and amazingly it all made sense to me. I loved the Gilligan’s Island analogy, it fit the debate perfectly. After the halarious yet serious debate, I was sure that Foothill HS won the round.
Chaparrel was completely rude and they’re remarks was actually quite offensive. I am really having a hard time understanding how the judges saw them as the winners. It doesn’t make sense.
Despite the comments of the previous people, I am not at all surprised with the way this round went. I too sat in on the round and really thought the debaters from Arizona won the debate on multiple levels. First of all, I felt Amiri and Fitzpatrick’s antics were a) totally absurd and b) made a mockery of the event. It seemed that when the two didn’t know how to respond to arguments, they diverted the round using extended (nonsensical) metaphors. Whether Amiri and Fitzpatrick were mentioning Gilligan’s island or their smoking of ‘a bowl of pot’ (yes, they really used that) the debate just went downhill with every one of their attempts at rebuttal. The low point of the debate, of course, was when one of Amiri and Fitzpatrick called their opponent “little buddy”. If you want to talk rudeness I think that’s all that needs to be said. In the end, the debate came down to the fact that Amiri and Fitzpatrick could not and did not respond to their opponents arguments and spent so much of the round clowning around (literally) that they hadn’t addressed Bloch and Grossman’s original or rebuttal arguments. Looking at the flow, Amiri and Fitzpatrick had few valid responses to their opponent’s arguments, but Bloch and Grossman had offered some good points, and I’m guessing that is what the round came down to. It seemed right to me!
I do believe Zach has an honest opinion, and for that, I won’t be rude to him.
I’m not really looking for a debate online, because this is just an opinion. But personally, the analogies that Amiri and Fitzpatrick presented made the debate alot easier to understand, specifically for non-debaters who do not know the flow. But even on the flow, I believe they thoroughly won with much more logical argumentation. Bloch and Grossman made arguments about how lobbyists weren’t at fault, but corrupt politicians were. I believe the rhetoric of the resolution asks us to evaluate the influence of lobbyists specifically, so if they are acting on behalf of corrupt politicians they are still acting. Amiri and Fitzpatrick thoroughly won this argument.
But as a judge, I would have voted cleanly in cross examination because of the rude remarks the Chaparral team continued to say. But more than that, every chance they got they attempted to make a speech. This, I believe, is against the rules of the PF debate.
Finally, after the round more than thirty people including myself came to the Foothill team and congatulated them on a fantastic round. Including some girls, which actually wished to take their pictures with the team.
The Foothill team conducted themselves very well, and made debate an entertaining activity for all involved. Congrats on the full qual guys!
I’ve seen Amiri and Fitzpatrick debate numerous times, first as an opponent, and then as a judge. I find it hard to believe that they would let any arguements made by their opponents go the whole debate untouched. If you know them, then you know that this is not their speaking style. While I will believe that they did use numerous metaphors in their round, as most debaters do, I seriously doubt that they were “nonsensical”. It just doesn’t make sense to me.
I was part of the team that Johnny and Connor defeated in Semi’s and there is no way the Grossman and Bloch legitimatly won that round. I know Johnny and Connor filed a formal complaint as there are no existing ballots from the round. I don’t think that they have heard back yet but until I see the ballots I will continue to think that Grossman and Bloch did not truly win that round.
If my memory serves me right, Grossman-Bloch were on Negative. They ran the rebutal that all negative IMPACTS shown by the affirmative were IMPACTS, not INFLUENCES. They said if you take lobbyists out of the system, the system is worse off. For example, they stated that if people didn’t spend money on lobbyists they would have more to corrupt the legislative process because they wouldn’t have to pay lobbying fees. Therefore, lobbyists positively INFLUENCED the legislative process, even though they still had negative IMPACTS. Amiri and Fitzpatrick failed to address this point and simply wrote it off as irrelevant, while it actually dictated the flow of the round. Additionally, Amiri and Fitzpatrick utilized a large majority of crossfire time to make analogies and statements and left little time to Grossman and Bloch to say anything, which is why (mainly Grossman did this) the opposition would cut them off in mid statement. Although, when Amiri (I believe it was him) called Grossman “little buddy”, it was exceptionally rude. My stance was that Amiri and Fitzpatrick were ready for routine arguments, and when they didn’t get them they flipped. Amiri and Fitzpatrick spend too much of the round trying to make everyone laugh, so when a judge who had already seen their Aff case walked in to judge, the cases lost their charm, and it came down to arguments. Grossman and Bloch definitely won the round, even if it was off one argument.
i watched this round and i have to say most of you are wrong. Amiri and Fitzpatrick were the rudest people i have ever seen. There comments to Grossman and Bloch were unacceptable and totally uncalled for. Calling ben grossman “little buddy” and than referring back to it is a mockery of everything that PFD stands for. Grossman and Bloch won that round as they were the best and they deserved it. Anyone who doubts them surely did not look at this debate unbiased.
“Cody” are you Amiri or Fitzpatrick, because that is the only way I feel you could justify your remarks. …also the Chaparral team may have been “rude”; however, not compared to the Foothills team that had the gall to call Bloch’s partner his “little buddy.” Either way, I predict the two will meet again at TOC.
[This comment was edited]
Hey, I’m from Chaparral HS and while I didn’t watch the round, I did debate against Amiri and Fitzpatrick and have watched several Grossman-Bloch debates, as well as debated them in practice. Although I can’t comment on this round specifically, I would have to say that from my experience Bloch and Grossman are stronger debaters than Amiri and Fitzpatrick. I will concede that Bloch and Grossman can be very rude and condescending debaters ( ;] ) but they have never descended to the level of belittling an opponent by referring to him as “little guy.” Perhaps I would think differently if I had seen the debate, but from what I know I have to conclude that it is not surprising at all that Bloch and Grossman won the debate, and the Foothills team’s decision to file a formal complaint smacks of pettiness and poor sportsmanship.
P.S. To the poster who mentioned that there are no existing ballots from the round, you are mistaken. We have them, and Adam (Bloch) has informed me that he will be sending the Foothills team copies next week.
Nick, will Chaparral be going to Central? They didn’t come to Mountain View and my partner and I were looking forward to going against them.
Chaparral will be attending Central.
I was present at the debate, and one thing that has been overlooked in all of these posts was not necessarily the rudeness of either team (though I would say that Amiri/Fitzpatrick were by far more rude than Grossman/Bloch) but the rudeness of the people watching the round. I am not trying to say anything bad about the students from Foothills, but while I was sitting in the round, I noticed that most of the crowd (which was about 80-90% foothills students) were not observing proper debate etiquette, such as laughing for far too long at jokes. Though there were some jokes that were pretty funny, when the audience starts getting glares from the judges because they are laughing too long, it goes from playful to disruptive.
Also, for everyone saying that they have no idea how Grossman/Bloch won, I don’t think you were honestly watching the debate. IMO, when a team says that the 2nd amendment gives you the right to shoot someone in the face (as Amiri/Fitzpatrick did), it is almost an automatic loss. Most of Amiri and Fitzpatrick’s case was off-topic, arguing that lobbying is bad, not that it is exerting a bad INFLUENCE, and yes, there is a difference. Grossman/Bloch were able to counter each of Amiri/Fitzpatrick’s arguments, and G/B’s point about the status quo went untouched. In the end, G/B won not because they showed that lobbying was good, but that it did NOT have a negative influence on the legislative process, which is what the resolution was about.
Listen I’m from Foothill, while I didnt watch the final round of pf beacuse I was watching out rounds of policy. I gotta say this is the worst display of sportsman like conduct I’ve ever seen. We are debaters who will never agree on who won the debate and you all insist on proving a point online about a tournament that honestly doesn’t matter anymore. It was over almost a month ago. If you wanna prove some kind of ego trip then fine, however you won’t hear comments from Foothill kids. The fact is that this is infinately regressive. Of course, all the Chaparral kids are going to say they won and Foothill is also going to wonder why they lost since they have been told there were no ballots. In closing, congrats Johnny and Conor to T.O.C, and Chaparral, good luck on getting your next bid. peace.
First, if it’s so degressive then why are you here. And second, it obviously is still a problem if Amiri and Fitzpatrick appealed for ballots. And finally, I’m not even from Chaparral, I go to Sandra Day, and, considering I lost to Amiri and Fitzpatrick in prelims, I would be more likely to be supporting the Foothills team. I posted the first comment as to inform people on the original arguments made by Chaparral and applaud them for their bold step (many judges may not accept such an argument), sorry. I guess I’ll see Chaparral at Central and Foothills at Nationals, but until then I’ll just leave the topic alone. (Serrano-Dunne)
For those of you who watched the round and still believe Grossman and Bloch won the round are crazy. I debated both teams and Amiri Fitzpatrick were by far the better team. End of Story.
Chaparral: On what number decision was the final round decided?
Once again, Grossman and Bloch were original, and Amiri and Fitzpatrick could not cope. End of story.
My name is Johnny Amiri, of the Amiri/Fitzpatrick team. I want to start off by apologizing on behalf of my team for many of their remarks posted on what is supposed to be a constructive debate website. I’d also like to clarify that the references made regarding the “little buddy” comment have been taken totally out of context and were not meant in any way to be rude, condescending, or insulting. I never looked “down” on my opponents and felt proud to be in a final round with such talent. My personal opinion of the debate round is irrelevant, and in all honesty, so is everyone’s. The final decision has been made, and I congratulate Adam Bloch and Ben Grossman on their win, and hope to see them soon, so we can formally resolve this feud that has been created by members of our teams and shake hands like young adults.
Leave a Comment