Patrick Toomey & Katherine Buse from Durham Academy (NC) defeated Jacob Boehm & Clara Kim from East Chapel Hill (NC) to win the Public Forum Division at the Harvard Debate Tournament. Durham Academy was the #1 seed and East Chapel Hill was the #3 seed after the preliminary rounds.
Jacob Boehm was the top speaker and Patrick Toomey was the third speaker.
Harvard is an octafinals qualifier for the Tournament of Champions.
Harvard Debate has posted complete tournament results.
{ 24 comments… read them below or add one }
Speaker points were only added to one speaker (like if a team got 29, the point value would only be added to the first person listed) so the speaker awards are awarded only to one person on the team, not the entire team.
way to rep North Carolina!
No, speaker points were team points. Dr. Edwards did a re-write to TRPC to meet the needs of PFD tab this weekend…
Congrats to both NC teams! I am proud to see PFD in NC become so strong and at the same time, SO glad you both are in Tarheel East!
See ya’ll at states! Kline
I had the pleasure of watching this round, and it was a much deserved win for Durham Academy. The other team was also very good; however, they had to resort to cheating in order to reach the finals. Numerous teams reported throughout the tournament foul play from the East Chapel Hill Team in terms of their evidence and interpretation of the evidence. It was so bad that after the quarter final round (I believe may have been Octos) the other team filed a formal complaint with the tournament coordinator. The complaint was handled in a very unprofessional manner, and the tab room concluded that the evidence had been fabricated however they refused to reevaluate the outcome of the round. It is a shame to think that in Public Forum’s premier year at Harvard University it is going to be remembered for this irrefutable foul play. The fact is that teams like East Chapel give all public forum teams a bad name on the national circuit. Either way, congratulations to Patrick and Katherine.
Just a correction… Jacob Boem was 1st speaker and Patrick Tomey was 3rd. Congrats to Patrick and Catherine, Harvard was an AMAZING tournament with 155 teams. :)
It has been corrected.
Carol,
How dare you make accusations like that, especially when they are completely unfounded. One team made a complaint against East Chapel Hill after quarterfinals, and the tab room handled it extremely professionally by asking for their evidence. They provided it, and the tab room was satisfied. How do I know this? Because not only was I the judge for East Chapel Hill, but I also was in the tab room when they provided the evidence. The tab room did not ever at any point say that it was fabricated. If East Chapel Hill did fabricate evidence, our coach would have been extremely angry and dropped them from the tournament himself. I would suggest to you in the future that before you resort to unfounded attacks, that maybe you should get your information correct so you don’t end up looking like a fool. East Chapel Hill is just as good a name on the national circuit as it has ever been, and in reality, it’s people like you that harm debating as a whole.
As the coach of the East Chapel Hill team, I want to just take a brief moment to deal with Carol’s above accusations. There was indeed a challenge to evidence presented by my team that required us (I was present) to go to the tab room and present the questioned evidence. Our team was quickly able to do so and the tab staff thanked them for their cooperation and the matter was then dismissed. In the future, if you or anyone else has concerns about the behavior of one of my team members, I would appreciate it if you would contact me before posting on a public message board in haste.
Stephen West,
You mention that you were in the tab room was the other team that was making the challenge allowed in the room at that time, no. I personally spoke to the tournament cordinator after the round who told me that the other team was able to supply the primary piece of evidence in question. All I asked was whether or not I could see it, and he said he couldn’t do that. He did tell me what it said though, and it alluded to every one job…1.09 jobs is created. This stat may or may not exist; however, the other team challenged the existence of the word NET. The other team asked numerous times during the round for Chapel Hill to read the stat and they included the word net every time and that completely changes the meaning of the sentence. The tournament was poorly run in the fact that the tab room would have been aware of the real issue at hand had both sides been present to voice their sides. In addition, I have sense looked up the other things that were challenged and they were also fabricated [such as William Douglass and his research, along with what reference Grinols makes on page 129 which not once did the other team offer to cite directly]. I would suggest you in the future hear the whole story before you attack me personally. Although, I do understand where you are coming from, considering the same way you jumped to the wrong conclusion without all the pertinent information, the tab room did also by not allowing the full story to be heard by both teams until after the semis [not what I call professional especially at a DEBATE tournament]. If I am indeed unfounded, I challenge you to post a link here. I don’t suspect you will be able to find one though.
I cannot say whether ECH fabricated evidence or not, but I can say that this is a BIG problem in PFD and tournaments need to crack down.
OK, I’m going to make my last comment here before I get my blood pressure too high.
First, I have no clue who you are and really why you feel you should be making these comments about East Chapel Hill. It sounds like you are a vindictive parent more than anything else.
Second, we must be getting different information from the tournament coordinator then. Now, since I was told that East Chapel Hill was cleared of all accusations of fabrication, I assumed that would be the end of it. Now, looking back, I remember that piece of Grinols evidence because a) Durham Academy found it and GAVE it to East Chapel Hill before the tournament and b) because I read NET myself on page 129. Obviously, I don’t have access to the book right now. However, the tab coordinator did ask to see the word net, which was provided to him.
Third, the reason why tab coordinators do not allow the team making the accusation to enter the room is because it creates much more of a tension, which isn’t good for either side. In fact, it would create a stigma against the complaining team, and would inherently lead to more attacks if the information the complaining team received wasn’t up to their particular standards. Now, obviously, that doesn’t happen, so instead, vindictive members of the team are forced to post on public message boards in order to validate their concerns.
Next, I’m going to address the notion that this had been happening all tournament long. That is patently false. In order to “justify” your attacks, you’re trying to fabricate (just like East Chapel Hill, in your opinion) evidence in order to create a stronger case.
Now, finally, I come to this conclusion. While I was able to see all of the evidence and I know that this accusation is completely false, I’m also going to have to instill a little bit of debate advice. Debates, especially in Public Forum, are not won simply because of one piece of evidence. If they were, then we would be in Policy. However, they are not. Instead, teams need to realize that while they need a lot of facts, they need to find some other way to win, since conflicting facts are the nature of debate. Now, since I’m quite aware of which team accused East Chapel Hill (and to be dignified, I won’t share their names on this board), I also judged them, and came to the conclusion that they were very facts-oriented as opposed to looking at the spirit of the resolution. My last piece of advice that I’ve told countless times before to everyone I’ve coached: Try harder next time. I’m sorry you didn’t get the results you wanted. However, that should mean that instead of complaining (which rarely works, even in real life), you should focus on finding other ways to beat them. No team is flawless, no matter how good they may seem. Make sure there’s not a shadow of doubt that your team won the debate, and then they will in fact win every round they’re in. Until then, excuses only serve to make you feel like you were robbed, rather than actually working hard enough to make sure that no statistic, no matter how fabricated it may seem, so that this won’t happen again.
i have to say that North Carolina made quite a showing at the harvard tournament. with schools like cary academy, durham academy, east chapel hill, and many others from that state doing extremely well.
I have to disagree Steven. One piece of fabricated evidence can very easily through an entire round of PFD. It affects the opposing team who has to spend the very limited amount of time they have trying to prove that the item is either untrue or not relevant, which is hard to do when it is fabricated.
I am not saying you guys did this, I have no idea. What I am saying is that when teams DO stuff your team was accused of, it is a HUGE deal.
First, I believe every team has the right to challenge a piece of evidence in order to ensure its validity. Also, I would like to point out that I wasn’t present, but Stephen, I disagree if you are trying to say it is more beneficial to only have one team present at a challenge. This seems like it could possible trigger a miscommunication. Also, I have debated this topic at another tournament this month, so actually own the Grinols book. Carol seems to make reference to some 1.09 jobs stat which I have looked in my book and have not found on pg 129 (idk maybe this is some kind of miscommunication). Either way, I don’t think you help your case when you mention how one piece of evidence doesn’t matter. It kind of sounds to me like you are conceding that something may have been up. Finally though, I get the impression that this Carol person is some disgruntled debater that just missed out rounds because of ECH. In the end though, what’s done is done. I agree with Jason I am not saying you guys did this, but this isn’t the proper medium to really argue about it. So, I hope we can end this conversation and hope that this isn’t an issue in the future.
Although I did not go to Harvard, I debated this topic and others this year and have discovered the same problems everyone is talking about. People do manipulate stats to work for their case. My school buys Carver Files, Planet Debate, and Finalist Finals and because I’ve read through the evidence so much i know nearly every statistic for both cases by heart as I’m sure most of you do too. When it is very obvious what evidence the team is using (i.e. they are nearly plagiarizing the evidence files) and they misuse a stat its very obvious to the other team what they have done; however, because 90% judges are really ignorant to whats going on they don’t have any way to tell who is lying and who is not. I’ve debated with and against people who do it and its such a dirty trick. People say (i know my numbers are off as this topic i debated 3 weeks ago and haven’t looked at the evidence since) 50% of all marriages end in divorce and 12% of gamblers are divorced = 62% of people have a gambling related divorce. How can that be when only like 40% of the population gambles; however, when the cross-fire is only 3 minutes long you spend the entire time arguing over a stat and and you have virtually lost the entire debate to pointless details. Unfortunately this is a huge problem in PF but there is no way to stop it. It’s a shame too because I have lost rounds where judges have written on ballots ___ side won because the opposition could not respond to ____ point, but their entire point was based on a fallacy. I’m not sure what happened with the evidence but i do believe what Carol said about how both teams should be in the room. Let them DEBATE it out.
The way to stop it is to establish review committees and to actually PUNISH violating teams.
At NFLs last year, a team that broke very high was questioned on evidence they presented. The review by the NFL Ombudsman concluded that the team DID indeed fabricate evidence but did nothing about it! Why? Because the judges said it didn’t influence their decision!! I say, you fabricate, you are out. Period. That is how this is stopped.
Here in NC, we have something similar to this set up at our State tournament.
These two girl-girl teams (I wanted to specify but not name names) in SC at ours districts literally won debates b/c they lied. Facts the opposition brought up — we hit both teams back to back — they would respond with fabricated facts or extensions that we brought up. it’s difficult to respond to fabricated evidence — you sound arrogant but teams simply shouldn’t get away with it. Sad thing was — one team qualled to nats and the other was one win away from getting to nats…and last year there were absolutely no evidence rules. now, there are, but they certainly aren’t stringent. bibliographic citations are NOT evidence that evidence exists. if you make up facts, you can easily make up citations on the spot. i feel if you cite a fact, you should have the article that came with it or the book (w/ page #) etc. etc.
When I’ve been kicked out of districts by teams that lie, been screwed over at emory’s barkley forum where a team fabricated facts and when asked for citations they couldnt produce (the judge didn’t care…), and other smaller incidents, i know that fabricating evidence SHOULD be punished, that evidence SHOULD always be able for production upon request, and that huge tournaments SHOULD allow everything out in the open. tension isn’t a reason to stop total openness…
O and personally I have nothing vested in ech’s success nor do I honestly have an opinion about the allegations brought forth. openness is my suggestion for the truth to be reached!
o i made a mistake — extensions to RESEARCH we brought up that didn’t exist. like for example they said a study we cited later found that big box retailers boomed after slight declines … or something like that…which was not feasible b/c of the date of the evidence….. ruasldijalkfj;jf….sorry i hate liars in debate…
I just think it’s funny that you won’t say what team brought up the accusations, but then you say it happened in quarters XD We can just follow the bracket you know, it’s not that hard. After following the bracket it becomes obvious that the school who made the accusation actually held both validity and scorn; ECH beat their school in both octos and quarters. This means that either A: the school had two chances to see what kind of evidence was used and could make a more educated call of fabricated evidence, or B: simply held a grudge. From personal experience I don’t believe that they would hold a grudge, nor do I believe that the coordinator would make a bad judgement, so I don’t know what to believe, nor do I care. I learned from my experience that it doesn’t matter who won, the fact is that if the opposition was good enough they would have overcome. At the same time I believe evidence can swing a round, but only because judges allow it to. Evidence should NOT swing a round, but the sad truth is that it does. Oh well, congratilations to those who qualified for TOC, I wish I could have been at Harvard -_-
Jeffrey,
Your bring up two possible cases; however, the second case can’t be true. You don’t believe the tournament coordinator would make a bad judgement, but if you read some of the previous comments the coordinator wasn’t really filled in on both sides of the issue it seems. This may have caused him to make a bad decision. It is quite rare to see a team file a formal challenge like this [despite the fact that this occurs a lot more frequently] therefore I suspect that whatever this ECH team said must have been pretty bad. What’s done is done though.
Carol Stapek,
I understand that you are mad because my partner and I beat two teams from your school, going on to make it to finals and I know you are trying, using whatever methods possible, to soil our name. Unfortunately, I would like to dispel the lies you have fabricated regarding the evidence we used to successfully secure our second place finish.
First, with regard to the Grinols quote about sports teams. The link to the google book copy of his book “Gambling in America: Costs and Benefits” is below:
http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0521830133&id=cxteLGb3ugQC&pg=PP1&lpg=PP1&ots=Rdv5uHlbvs&dq=grinols&sig=KthvSj-xDaVoFF11RQEJAZ9Rp34#PRA1-PA129,M1
If you go to page 129, you can see the quote: “We have borrowed our estimates for price-related benefits from the literature on major-league sports teams.”
I had the book during the round, I pointed to where he said this, and I even offered to let your teams look at the book.
As for the 1.09 jobs created, I never said a net increase of 1.09 jobs, only “1.09 additional jobs.” You can find this statistic on the 21st page of the following link (the pdf browser will say page 21, however the actual pdf will say page 22, a bit confusing):
http://www.state.nj.us/casinos/about/commrepo/docs/njccc.pdf
The document says, “A 1995 study by Rowan University’s Center for
Economic Data Analysis estimated that for every job in the casino industry, another 1.09 jobs were created elsewhere in the economy.”
We never claimed 1.09 net jobs were created, only that there was a multiplier effect of 1.09 jobs.
I do not know what else I can do to help you understand that the rounds against your teams were won fairly, with evidence that was all but fabricated.
With regard to the review of evidence, I was called into the tab room, asked to provide these two pieces of evidence, did, and then was respectfully dismissed
I am truly offended that you, without any of the facts, made blatantly false and reputation-damaging comments about my partner and I. I would only ask that you retract you statements and apologize.
Jacob Boehm, 2 time national qualifier
I was a member of the team that ended up challenging the ECH immediately following the round. First of all, I would like to point out that I nor anyone else from my school started this discussion. I am glad to see Jacob’s final admittal in a very devious kind of way. I think we both know what was said during the round whether we are willing to admit it or not is another story. I distinctly remember making reference to the fact that you fail to bring up the number of jobs lost in the grand cross fire/summary and you responded that this was a NET of jobs. I strongly believe this could be considered fabrication of evidence and it completely changes what that 1.09 jobs mean. I would be willing to cut you some slack (as in maybe you misspoke); however, I was present during your finals round as you will recall and once again you claimed it was a NET of jobs. Not that I care in the least at this point, but I would like to point out in addition to your now lying about what you said during the round concerning the jobs you never offered to show us the book nor did you ever read from the book. I assure you I would have gladly accepted your offer at the time. At this point, it is just a he said she said battle, but I assure you I haven’t lost any sleep at night. Considering, I know exactly what was said during the round and I would reckon you do as well. If you want to change it just to protect your school’s reputation, I think that is fairly superficial of you but I respect your freedom to do that. I sincerely hope it doesn’t happen again but in the mean time I hope we can both stop publicly ranting. I would be more than happy to speak with you if you so desired in private seeing as we were denied that freedom immediatley following the round.
This may seem hypocritical of me, but I forgot something. Jacob, you agree that the word net is not present; however, you respond that you never said net. Well I would like to point out the fact that Stephen West of ECH seems to still adamantly insist that you said the word net (however he seems to think it actually exists in the quoted text and it doesn’t). He goes on to say that you showed the coordinator the word net well clearly at least one person from ECH is lying. I believe you owe someone an apology, and I hope ECH doesn’t make the same mistake again in the future.
Well, you deleted my last post, but let me point out that Mr. Toomey seems to believe that public forum = reading evidence. It’s not. His speaking style is somewhat irritating, and he’s just weak in the round, especially the one I saw here. I mean no harm to Patrick, as I see him often in debate tournaments, but I believe the Durham team is over-rated.
Leave a Comment