Yesterday the PFDebate.com National Public Forum Challenge II was held at Myers Park High School in Charlotte, NC. In the 10th and final round of the day, Robert Kindman & Josh Zoffer from Durham Academy (NC) defeated Harrison Grussmark & Austin Criden from Ransom Everglades (FL) on a 5 – 4 decision to claim the championship.
Kindman & Zoffer also won The Laird Lewis Invitational, also hosted by Myers Park, which took place on Friday & Saturday.
Challenge Round 1 (Round 4)
Cary Academy RC challenged American Heritage DB, winner is Cary Academy RC
McDowell YS challenged Asheville KM, winner is Asheville KM
Harker GH challenged American Heritage NW, winner is Harker GH
Durham WP challenged Asheville KS, winner is Durham WP
Harker BA challenged Cold Spring Harbor EH, winner is Cold Spring Harbor EH
Durham Academy KZ challenged Roosevelt OK, winner is Durham Academy KZ
Ransom Everglades GC challenged North Mecklenburg HS, winner is Ransom Everglades GC
Charlotte Latin HO challenged Academic Magnet GC, winner is Charlotte Latin HO
Challenge Round 2 (Round 5)
Durham Academy WP challenged American Heritage DB, winner is Durham Academy WP
Charlotte Latin HO challenged American Heritage NW, winner is Charlotte Latin, HO
Harker GH challenged Asheville KS, winner is Harker GH
Ransom Everglades challenged Roosevelt OK, winner is Roosevelt OK
Cold Spring Harbor EH challenged North Mecklenburg HS, winner is Cold Spring Harbor EH
Durham Academy KZ challenged McDowell YS, winner is McDowell YS
Cary Academy RC challenged Harker BA, winner is Cary Academy RC
Asheville KM challenged Academic Magnet CM, winner is Academic Magnet CM
Eliminated Teams:
Harker BA
North Mecklenburg HS
American Heritage DB
American Heritage NW
Asheville KS
Challenge Round 3 (Round 6)
Roosevelt HS draws the BYE
Durham Academy WP challenged Cold Spring Harbor EH, winner is Durham Academy WP
Harker GH challenged Academic Magnet CM, winner is Harker GH
Cary Academy RC challenged Charlotte Latin HO, winner is Cary Academy RC
McDowell YS challenged Ransom Everglades GC, winner is Ransom Everglades GC
Durham KZ challenged Asheville KM, winner is Durham Academy KZ
Eliminated Teams:
Academic Magnet CM
McDowell YS
Asheville KM
Challenge Round 4 (Round 7)
Cary Academy RC challenged Roosevelt OK, winner is Cary Academy RC
Durham Academy KZ challenged Charlotte Latin HO, winner is Durham Academy KZ
Ransom Everglades GC challenged Cold Spring Harbor EH, winner is Ransom Everglades
Durham Academy WP challenged Harker GH, winner is Harker GH
Eliminated Teams:
Charlotte Latin HO
Roosevelt OK
Cold Spring Harbor EH
Challenge Round 5 (Round 8 )
Cary Academy RC draws the BYE
Harker GH challenged Durham Academy KZ, winner is Durham Academy KZ
Ransom Everglades GC challenged Durham Academy WP, winner is Ransom Everglades GC
Eliminated Teams:
Durham Academy WP
Challenge Round 6 (Round 9 – Semi-final)
Cary Academy RC challenged Ransom Everglades GC, winner is Ransom Everglades GC
Durham Academy KZ challenged Harker GH, winner is Durham Academy KZ
Eliminated teams:
Cary Academy RC
Harker GH
Challenge Round 7 (Round 10 – Final)
Durham Academy KZ vs. Ransom Everglades GC, winner is Durham Academy KZ
{ 30 comments… read them below or add one }
Congrats to all the teams lucky enough to compete! What a great day for PF debate. Incredible teams with some incredible competition. Anyone want to comment on the quality of the topic since the tournament host is also the chair of the topic committee?
The topic turned out to be very debatable and very even. While the aff vs. neg ground was a little blurred at times, the debates it produced were by and large very good.
The quality of the topic was better than I thought it would be, but I’ll stop right there on comments about the challenge and/or topic before I get myself in trouble.
Crews – so mysterious. Opinions are good. what did you think?
My problem with the topic is the inherent bias towards the pro; all some teams had to do apparently was complain about global warming and/or foreign dependence on oil and they won high-stakes rounds off that alone, regardless of any con attempt to look at the bigger picture (i.e. if China and India buying up any gas we don’t buy, this makes a PRO vote worthless). That isn’t good debate.
My problem with the challenge was random judges/parents eavesdropping on conversations among debaters, random judges picking up PRO every round they judged according to their own children and students, and random judges picking up ppl for purely political reasons (like wanting to help debaters in a fellow state…).
Ultimately, the challenge was run well, executed perfectly, but inherently flawed insofar as a small tournament with a small judging pool just breeds controversy.
On a better note, I certainly am not upset with who ended up as champions; Josh and Robert certainly deserve the win (both wins!). Congrats to them both!
I agree with the previous posts for the most part. The topic was very debatable, but I think that there was a lot less originality than a lot of other ones. Pretty much everyone ran the same pro, and cons could attack from basically two or three different standpoints. What it came down to was who had the best evidence and not really the best arguments. I also agree with that the challenge was great, but there is an inherent bias when coaches and parents are judging(I hope my mom wasn’t one of the judges you are talking about).
I will note, however, that teams provided a total of 14 judges (2 dropped before the tournament) and I provided 20 hired judges. Most of the hired judges had no idea (nore cared about) who any of the teams were…I do agree, it is always tough when coaches judge, but it is not something you can avoid at most tournaments.
I am glad you enjoyed the Challenge, it was fun to host.
That is impressive Jason: 20 hired judges is amazing!
I think you have to give coaches more credit. The ethics of debate has to get to the point where we trust judges to vote the round. If we can’t do that in forum, we will end up with the fights they are experiencing in the LD world with the NFD and VBI fight.
Does anybody think we should go to codes to prevent the judges knowing who they are judging? That was standard practice 20 years ago. We still do it at the NFL level even districts. We started doing it at our state tournament again last year.
A team with a reputation can be hurt by codes, but it puts less pressure on judges who feel pressure to vote the name.
Any ideas with forum?
Personally, since I coach at a tiny public school, I like codes because most lay judges have an inherent belief that small schools produce poor students. That may be just me though.
This event is still great, but that means we have to protect it. Jason Kline’s event is an attempt to do that at that highest levels.
BTW, I think Kindman and Zoffer should be congratulated for debating 19 rounds in a single weekend without passing out.
One thing that needs to be changed is the policy on flowing. We had people in the challenge flow all of our Laird Lewis outrounds and Challenge prelims. Its just not fair to small teams like mine who don’t have the extra people to send to flow other teams.
What would you suggest, Josh? It is a public activity.
That happened to Rahman and I as well, but I didn’t really mind it. I think our quarters match at Laird Lewis with Harker had four challenge teams flowing. Although I guess it would be more annoying if the topic had a lot of original arguments. I don’t really think there is anything that can be done to stop your cases from getting out if you final at Laird Lewis though.
Now, Josh, let’s not complain about being a “small” team when your coach is flowing a ton of rounds too. And at least your coach would tell you people’s cases. My mom wouldn’t tell us who she picked up, much less what people ran.
Mr. Kline, even though you had 20 hired judges, from what I saw, judges were randomly assigned, meaning in outrounds judges could be all hired or all coaches/parents. It all depended on luck.
And I think that the statement “The ethics of debate has to get to the point where we trust judges to vote the round” would be applicable if there were no instances to give the community reason not to trust some judges. But there are. Any debater can give you an example of this from their own experience.
Judges were randomly assigned, but then balanced by me. In some instances, I could not completely balance them, but a good faith effort was made. But given the situation, on the panels, it was quite likely you got two hired judges, and almost guarenteed you got one.
Graeme, have you ever trusted a judge that has voted against you?
Yes, PF is a public activity. But debaters whom I will be debating the next day shouldn’t be able to watch me and then prep out my cases before the next day. In general it doesn’t both me. Just in this case where there was another tournament the next day. The problem could be easily rectified by just saying that people competing the next day can’t flow outrounds. I don’t even have a problem with them watching, just flowing. And I think we all know the “throw out your flow when you leave rule” never works.
Dear Mr. Crews,
We are friends but I must say, I take direct offense to the following:
“My problem with the challenge was random judges/parents eavesdropping on conversations among debaters, random judges picking up PRO every round they judged according to their own children and students, and random judges picking up ppl for purely political reasons (like wanting to help debaters in a fellow state…).”
Myers Park works incredibly hard to host the challenge ever year, and when it comes to rules and NFL guidelines, no one follows them to the letter like Mr. Kline.
First, I must say while it is unfortunate that you feel this way, all schools were required to bring a judge because Myers Park cannot field 45 judges alone, no school can. And, while you are upset that their were parents judging these rounds, I must say that your mom judged as well- so you cannot fault other schools for bringing a parent when you did as well.
Second, Myers Park was glad that Academic Magnet could come to the PF Challenge! but, as previously pointed out, I don’t think it is fair to ANY school to call them out for flowing outrounds.
Correct me if I’m the only one, but I can honestly say that I have never Won/Lost a round because I had another teams flows or because another team had mine. It would be impossible for Myers Park to regulate flowing the round- no matter how hard we tried. Coaches will always have access to their coaches flows- and schools will always trade there is no way around it.
Third, As for some parents sharing flows, I can assure you that both of my parents, did not even know who ANY of the debaters were, nor did they actually care (no offense) what school the debaters went to. For the outround pools, if you look at the results- the tab tried really really hard to have a diverse judge pool and I believe it would be hard to single out an all coach pool. Also, because the challenge is run with two elimination rounds, I would seriously question whether a team was dropped because of judges TWICE. Debate can be frustrating, but I think that everyone has to agree that for the most part, it all hits an equilibrium. We all win rounds that we shouldn’t and we all lose rounds that we should have. Such is life, Such is debate, it happens.
But we are glad that you came and we hope to see even more from Academic Magnet next year! Your PF team is strong!
I encourage everyone to apply for the challenge next year. I only wish MP could debate hahaha.
Thanks!
All of us complain about judges: coaches, students, parents, and other judges. Most of the time, I beleive judges do their best job. I have seen a few judges who vote politically, but that usually makes them look ridiculous.
In the end, parents as judges can bring in other emotions. However, most of the time judges pick the team that wins.
My biggest question is for you and the others on the blog. How will you judge?
Final word of advice that comes from a lot of research: If you “like” your judges, you will get more wins.
BTW, we used codes at Laird Lewis this year, Greg.
Mr. Kline, of course I trust judges who have voted me down, and I take offense that you would sarcastically question that. But this is not to say I trust all judges all the time. Tell-tale signs that I distrust a judge: when they bring in bias in RFDs, base decisions solely on speaking ability, sleep in round, don’t understand English, don’t take any notes whatsoever the entire debate, etc. These judges have popped up in rounds I’ve lost and rounds I’ve won; either way: I have a problem with them. And I don’t think I’m unique in any of these qualms. I’m sure in your experience as a coach you have witnessed these things happen to your students and questioned these judges’ competency.
Mr. Stevens, as a judge, I will not do any of the things I listed above. I will flow, base decisions on who won key arguments (speaker points come second to arguments), and write thorough comments and thorough RFDs. I will pay attention the entire round. I will disclose my decisions right after round. I will do everything I wanted judges to do when I debated. I know how much this means to people; I will not be a part of the problem; I will be a part of the solution.
I wasn’t beiing sarcastic.
I honestly do not believe you have to flow to judge a PFD round. I do, but I don’t think it has to be done. The event is supposed to be geared towards lay judges, and when I bring in lay judges, I tell them they can take notes, but for many of them, listening is hindered by notetaking, so I completely understand why they don’t take notes.
Everyone has had judges they didn’t like, but I teach my kids to learn from them, and learn to reach them. I don’t allow whining about judges on my team.
Okay, so first off, thanks Coach Kline. I agree with Lee in that, it was obvious you worked very hard on this tournament. I think for the most part, it ran very smooth and if I weren’t graduating, I would definetly come back.
With that said, I realize how difficult it is to pair judges with rounds, but when you get downed for a reason as illegit as “random judges picking up ppl for purely political reasons (like wanting to help debaters in a fellow state…)” it’s kind of hard not to take offense.
Additionally, Zoffer, I think it is interesting that you would mention something about debaters flowing your cases during the challenge. I mean, you won the tournament AND the challenge afterall… I just find that humorous that you would mention that.
Let me start by saying that the PF Challenge was an outstanding and well run event, and that the rounds I judged at both the Laird Lewis and the Challenge were some of the best I have seen in the last few years. As an economics teacher I was thrilled to see a topic about economics that didn’t become overly technical, that allowed for a nice balance of theoretical and empirical analysis concerning the economic concepts, and that linked those concepts to the real world in a way that is timely and meaningful. The wording committee should be commended on some fine work.
To address a few other issues from this thread:
1. I don’t really think the Pro bias was as significant as some people are making it out to be. The overall breakdown for the entire challenge was only 29-25 in favor of the Pro, and in the last four rounds only one Pro picked up out of 8 debates. Both in teams in finals picked up on the Con multiple times. I only saw one of the teams on that side, but I think what set them apart from many of the other Cons I judged was that they had a very focused and tight Con position, rather than trying to raise an extremely large number of objections that ultimately wound up being poorly developed and often unpersuasive.
2. There is nothing unethical about people preparing for other teams’ cases. If you can only win through the element of surprise it is doubtful that you are very deserving in the first place. While there can be inequities based upon some teams being larger than others, those can be rectified by networking with others. As evidenced by this weekend’s results it does not seem to make a difference if other people have your cases or not. This seems an especially strange concern for PF, where many teams debated each other a second time on the same sides during the course of a tournament.
3. While I will concede there are often valid complaints about judging, I find it hard to believe that in a field as competitive as this one was that it makes a whole lot of sense to claim that there was some sort of epidemic of illegitimate decision. There were a lot of very skilled and very prepared teams competing. When that happens, no matter how good you are you may wind up losing more than you might expect, or be use to. To claim that decisions were politically motivated seems exceedingly arrogant and disrespectful to the teams who were successful at the tournament. One way I think we could reduce these kinds of perceptions would be for judges to give oral comments after the round explaining their decisions. This often allows there to be better communication of exactly what the judges were thinking in making their decisions, as well as creates a little more accountability on the judge’s end. Given the format and schedule of this tournament that may not actually be feasible, but it would be nice if a way could be worked out to do so, at least on the paneled rounds.
Congratulations to Myers Park for hosting a great event, and to all the teams who participated. I would encourage everyone to consider this event in the future.
If anyone has comments on how the Challenge was done this year compared to last, I would like them. I personally liked this year’s format much more. I will be adding in writing a ‘single-elim rule’ once the tournament gets to 4 or fewer teams. It should be noted that Cary Academy was undefeated until semis.
The National Public Forum Challenge III will be January 10th, 2010 at Myers Park High School. An application will be available by September 2009.
Lol Graeme my mom is by no means a coach. In fact, I think that might of been the first time she actually judged vpf. Yes she did tell us who she picked up in two cases, but that was it. I don’t think she could of even explained what other teams ran if she wanted to.
To reiterate I think the tournament was great and very well-run. Honestly I just don’t like the concept of coaches judging in this tournament. They are too involved with the strategies of their teams to fairly judge. Even if they do not mean to be biased they are. I watch some coaches sit with their teams after every round and directly tell them how to combat every single argument an opponent ran, and then I am too assume that this same person is going to completely ignore what is advantageous to their team and judge fairly?
This also is not meant to take away from the teams that won because out of all the teams I watch over the weekend, which wasn’t every team in the challenge, Josh and Robert ran the best cases and defended them best as well. They definitely deserved to win.
I’d first like to thank Mr.Kline, Lee and everyone at Meyer’s Park for running the tournament and challenge. (and quite frankly, for hosting the first forensics dance-off i’ve ever seen)
Anyway, here’s my opinion on the weekend, including laird lewis and the challenge. Unfortunately, things don’t always go the way one would plan or hope. I know that I’ve had my fair share of rounds where I felt I had rightfully won, but was downed. I suppose it’s the nature of debate. For every round that goes our way, there’s going to be one that doesn’t. However, unless it’s an NFL nats round during your senior year, there is always going to be another tournment, round or judge to prove yourself to.
It sucks to work hard, and lose on an illegit reason. However, because it is a subjective activity, there is no way to appease everyone. Flows are always going to be shared. There will always be lay judges. There will always be flow judges. There will always be teams with coaches who share arguements. Do I necessarily agree with it? No. But I think we have to accept these aspects as additional obstacles. Then we can divert our focus from what should have happened that time, to what will happen next time.
(sorry, this may sound like an O.O. speech)
As frustrating as it may be to have your cases leaked to other debaters, it is inherent in the activity, as previously stated. As a group, though, we must craft and implement effective measures to cope with this issue.
We should learn from those who have been around the longest–the policy debaters. Sharing flows in policy is commonplace; PlanetDebate, the PFDebate.com of policy, even lists the cases teams utilize on the national circuit. Yet, the best teams have a way of emerging as victors, time and time again. The reason is simple–competition drives you to new heights.
We should use this opportunity to improve the overall quality of our debates, not to quibble about what we view as illegitimacy.
PF debate is much better today than a few years ago, and incredibly better than 6 years ago when we had the first tournament in Iowa. The change has come from people who demanded evidence, warrants, and good argumentation.
19 rounds in one weekend means that people have to change or the activity gets really stale. That doesn’t seem to have happened. Though we are just debating, finding the right rhetoric and the right argument on these issues is important because debaters will be determining public policy. My son, a former debater, works in DC for a Senator. All of us are influencing the decisions of the Congress and the soon to be President Obama. The best arguments, the best idea, should still win the debate. of course, we could get rid of the coin toss.
Flow are a way to more clearly create arguments and debate on the second and third level. That seems a goal that we are just starting to get to.
I judged a lot the past two weekends in forum, after judging a lot of LD during the December topic. I really love PF when it is done well. It is on topic, open to all, and free of games.
Actually, Aditya, I believe that strict enforcement of non-flow standards by other teams would significantly decrease the amount of flow sharing. I really think that its a terrible process, and could be cracked down on.
Zoffer, congrats on winning the challenge! And also on your Octofinal at Crestian!
I have heard that argument. But in reality, banning flow sharing doesn’t really work. What should a tournament director do if there is an accusation of flow sharing? Throw out a team?
I have seen teams try to stop others from flowing them, and then huddle together after rounds to share their own flows.
The end of it all is this: if you are good enough to make it to out-rounds, flow sharing shouldn’t bother you. Like RJ said, if surprise is your only hope to win, you ought to expect to lose.
I personally believe that flowing and subsequent analysis is one of the best way to teach novices how to debate.
I really have to respond to say how dumb a post that was, specifically the latter part.
Just because a team has some skill at PF doesn’t mean that they have the capability to go against a case neg/aff CUSTOMIZED to their arguments. In a match between two equal opponents on all other levels, a team with their opponent’s flow would win against one without.
Trying to dismiss it as “surprise” victory is stupid – if that was your philosophy, then why don’t Myers Park debaters post their cases online? If there’s nooooo harm, then I challenge you to instruct your teams to do that.
[Insert awkward, "erm, well, nevermind" response from Jason here]
Oh! So you’re not going to? Why? Because there’s a difference between knowing the arguments being run, and *having a case customized entirely to their arguments, including their cards*.
Finally, the educational value comes from understanding the arguments made by an aff/neg team – not by having the full cites/copy of their arguments. You don’t flow when you watch CSPAN (if you watch CSPAN). Yet you get something from it – there are ways to get education without copying the cites on the cards.