This tournament was horrible, the judging was awful, and it seemed they only let so many teams in to make money. I mean come on, you know a tournament is bad when no Timber Creek, Ransom Everglades, Trinity Prep, or other power-house Florida schools make the Quarterfinal.s

Were there awards for speakers this year? I know that last year the top ten speakers received an award.

Congrats to Lincoln Sudbury, an incredibly well deserved win. I’m confused about speaker awards as well. On the Harvard “Pairings” page they have a list of the top 20 speakers. I know that speaks were entered into the computer as team points only, but they are listed as individual achievements as far as speaker awards. I’m thinking the computer randomly selected one person from the pair on the team and assigned that person with the award, so it’s possible that those awards should be recognized as a team achievement.

Some of the judging was pretty illegit, me and my partner were 65th seed (speaker point tie with 64th, 1 less without hi-lo) and had 1 illegit drop. We saw a few break rounds, and it was clear that Trinity got illegitly dropped to Lincoln. It was so bad that, the dissenter held up the flow and said to the other judges, you see what you guys did the flow on Trinity was so much better than Lincoln.

So, clearly I am biased on this as I was in the round as second speaker for Lincoln-Sudbury but here is my analysis of the Trinity round. I’m not really sure why I am posting this but here goes…

1. I wouldn’t be surprised if they would have won if it were judged only off the flow. However, we made an educated guess that there were at least two lay judges in the round after they didn’t appear to flow that actively (but they did take decent notes). I personally don’t see the point in ceremonially extending arguments that aren’t relevant to the debate simply to appeal to flow judges. In prelims we guessed incorrectly that a judge would go off only the flow and we were told that we were “dry unconvincing speakers but excellent debaters” during an oral critique.

2. Trinity’s case was in my opinion not that resolutional. In 2nd CX they told me that they shouldn’t have to show the “has become” because it was included in the resolution for no reason. While they did a good job extending their points that there was a threat (particularly on their excellent biological terror point) they were unable to produce evidence stating that this had become a threat. I felt that on this topic pro had a burden to show that Russia has become a threat rather than that Russia always was a threat.

3. The ballots seem to show that the judges bought our “net effect” point. Their points were based on fairly obscure harms and individual facts which were admittedly quite difficult to refute with proper evidence.

4. There are always illegitimate wins/losses in debate as judges aren’t ever perfect. If you watch a round and judge it on a particular criterion (ie purely flow) and we try to appeal to lay judges it wouldn’t convince you. I’m not going to complain but there are definitely rounds where I believe we should have won on the civil disobedience topic as con. We often picked up the debate judges in outrounds and lost the lay judges.

5. The dissenting judge clearly didn’t like us. He gave us 21 speaker points and Trinity 30. Considering that this was quarterfinals and that we went on to win I doubt we spoke that terribly.

6. Both Trinity and Timber Creek were excellent teams and it was a pleasure debating them.

This tournament was run amazingly. Jon and Jeanine (Trinity) are very good, but otherwise none of the Florida teams are anything special. Lincoln Sudbury is very good though, and deserved that win. The team they beat in finals sucked, and I think we should all be glad that LS came out on top. With regard to speakers, they gave awards to the top ten. They were team awards, but are listed as going to whom ever is listed first in the team’s code (Which ever last name initial is first in the code).

When did they speaker awards? My partner and I were in the top 5 but we missed out on the ceremony. I think that the awards ceremony was very poorly held because no one knew where to go for it.

This is what the ballots from the trinity round said:
“I think you successfully countered their arguments by demonstrating not that there is no threat but that it is no worse a threat than the point they (underlined) chose. Had they picked 1991 I’m not sure I would have agreed.”
“con held “net effect”, attacked, 90s anarchy, diff. tactical approach Iran”

We basically argued their case wasn’t topical/resolutional and evidently the majority of judges bought it. It didn’t matter that the proved their points that Russia was a threat now as in the eyes of the judges they didn’t meet has become. I mean, honestly Russia is a threat to US interests, it would be nearly impossible for con to prove otherwise.

I thought the judging at this tournament was fair; I think my team’s drops, to Stoneman Douglas NF and Regis BO, were legit, as were our wins. I will say that I was a little disappointed with the quality of the final round. To be fair, though, I didn’t see Lincoln-Sudsbury definitely beat Regis AD; I didn’t see any of either teams’ other rounds so I can’t comment there.

The speaker awards were team awards, the name that appears on the list is whichever speaker’s that was listed first on the team name (American Heritage School CG- Cobos, North Allegheny KZ- Krauss, etc)

haha so did the speakers ever get bowls for their speaker awards? And yea Harvard was very legit.I think it was one of the greatest tournaments held this year. With the 250 somewhat teams that came, I’m pretty satisfied with the results.

The speaker awards are fairly ridiculous/subjective in general. How can a team place in the top 5 in terms of speakers and not break to triple octas?

I don’t quite understand why you dwell on the Florida teams all that much. If my memory serves me I believe this is the second year in a row that Chapparel(sp?) and Regis have had the most teams break. If those schools were really that invincible I think we would have seen one of them win the tournament. “Debate King,” sorry you guys got dropped, better luck next year? How’s the weather in Florida this time of year anyways?

I would first like to start by congratulating LS on their first place win, it was well deserved. After our quarters round Greg and I both felt that in terms of argumentation we had won the round, but actually knew we had lost the round itself. Explaining this is very simple- although you may win a flow you have to remember that this is PF. Our only job as debaters is to persuade the judge, no matter how incompetent he or she may be. I’m by no means saying that the judges we had were incompetent, I am merely stating that debaters have to be able to persuade anyone, and its very clear from the results of the tournament that LS did this very well. Trinity may have out-argued LS in octas, but they failed to convince 2/3 judges and really thats all that matters.

Congrats to Lincoln-Sudbury. You’re a great team, but I just want to defend a team that I really admire — Trinity Prep FS.

“Stubbs @ 9:22 pm
So, clearly I am biased on this as I was in the round as second speaker for Lincoln-Sudbury but here is my analysis of the Trinity round. I’m not really sure why I am posting this but here goes…”

Answer: You’re posting this because you are confronting a legitimation crisis and have a guilty conscience about winning the round. It happens.
Now that we’re on the line-by-line, I feel more at home, so let’s roll:

“1. I wouldn’t be surprised if they would have won if it were judged only off the flow. However, we made an educated guess that there were at least two lay judges in the round after they didn’t appear to flow that actively (but they did take decent notes). I personally don’t see the point in ceremonially extending arguments that aren’t relevant to the debate simply to appeal to flow judges. In prelims we guessed incorrectly that a judge would go off only the flow and we were told that we were “dry unconvincing speakers but excellent debaters” during an oral critique.”

Extensions aren’t ceremonial rituals to satisfy flow judges’ obsessions. Debaters re-articulate arguments that are important and haven’t been refuted; it’s a pretty intuitive (and necessary) concept in debate. I don’t see why Jon and Jeanine’s arguments were “not relevant to the debate”; if anything, an extended argument is the only argument that is relevant. Anything else is simply a blast from the past. Also, they extended their arguments to emphasize that their evidence was fairly recent, proving the “has become” burden by demonstrating Russia’s new status as a threat.

“2. Trinity’s case was in my opinion not that resolutional. In 2nd CX they told me that they shouldn’t have to show the “has become” because it was included in the resolution for no reason. While they did a good job extending their points that there was a threat (particularly on their excellent biological terror point) they were unable to produce evidence stating that this had become a threat. I felt that on this topic pro had a burden to show that Russia has become a threat rather than that Russia always was a threat.”

A. They meet. Jon and Jeanine’s method of meeting this burden should’ve definitely satisfied your love for non-flow judges, because they extended their arguments and subsequently showed that they proved that Russia “has become a threat.” All of their arguments were about post-2001 events, so there’s no violation of the definition. Their argument is not that “Russia always was a threat,” but rather, that Russia has recently become a threat.
B. Jeanine’s response in CX wasn’t that the phrasing didn’t matter; she said that because Russia’s status as threat/ally is constantly changing every year, the “has become” burden doesn’t make sense unless we reduce it to its nature as a threat in the status quo. The point is, the textual pickiness of “has become” should be converted to the word “is” in order to make the resolution even debateable in the first place. That seems to be a prerequisite to a textual discussion of the resolution, but hey, idk.

“3. The ballots seem to show that the judges bought our “net effect” point. Their points were based on fairly obscure harms and individual facts which were admittedly quite difficult to refute with proper evidence.”

Obscure? Individual? What are you talking about? How are biological weapons not a “net effect” threat? Obviously a nation’s status as a threat is always determined by individual, specific actions that it (a) intends to take, and (b) is capable of executing. Jon and Jeanine proved both of those burdens (that it refuses to cooperate in weapons security and that those weapons will hurt people), so Russia has become a threat. In the “net effect,” whatever that’s supposed to mean. The reason why you couldn’t refute them was because they were good arguments, and they were sufficient to prove that Russia is a threat.

“4. There are always illegitimate wins/losses in debate as judges aren’t ever perfect. If you watch a round and judge it on a particular criterion (ie purely flow) and we try to appeal to lay judges it wouldn’t convince you. I’m not going to complain but there are definitely rounds where I believe we should have won on the civil disobedience topic as con. We often picked up the debate judges in outrounds and lost the lay judges.”

So now you’re conceding that your win was illegitimate, or you’re crafting a pretty complicated “even-if” story that only a legitimate flow judge could comprehend. Also, the point is to minimize the amount of illegitimate decisions. You’re committing the naturalistic fallacy here: just because those decisions do exist doesn’t mean that they ought to.

“5. The dissenting judge clearly didn’t like us. He gave us 21 speaker points and Trinity 30. Considering that this was quarterfinals and that we went on to win I doubt we spoke that terribly.”

The dissenting judge was a pretty fair and respected national circuit critic, but let’s not get into a discussion of his credibility. Maybe the reason why the dissenting judge didn’t like you was because you annoyed him by not adequately responding to Trinity’s arguments. Let’s compare the credibility of two possible conclusions:
A. The flow judge was illegit. He hated you guys. The lay judges just happened to make the right decision.
B. The flow judge didn’t like you, but he still fairly evaluated the round and decided that Trinity won. You picked up the lay judges because it was a close round in terms of speaking ability.

“6. Both Trinity and Timber Creek were excellent teams and it was a pleasure debating them.”

True, and they probably deserved to do better.

NEXT VICTIM: Eric Grimes.
“Friedman” is a little pejorative, so let’s use first names. I haven’t heard Jon make very cocky remarks, but even if he has a bigger head than Jay Leno, I don’t think that justifies an illegitimate loss. It only harms the activity to glorify vengeful decisions and want debaters to lose simply because you don’t like them. Piss off, and have some respect for debate as a competitive and intellectual activity.

“ceremonially”.. My bad

Btw great line-by-line real debator

i just want to congratulate you once again for winning. obviously no one here is going to convince anyone to change their opinion on the octos round/legitimacy of the tournament in general. regardless of what anyone thinks winning harvard and going 12-0 is very worthy of praise and you have definitely won more of my respect by defending ur opponent against attacks on his character. good luck in future endeavors.

Just wanted to say congrats to Lincoln-Sudbury for pulling off a sick 12-0 and winning the largest competitive speech and debate tournament outside of nats. Saw you guys in quarters and finals and you guys really reflected great work ethic and quality argumentation. Btw don’t let the bastards get you down.