Bishop O’Dowd Wins Santa Clara
In the final round of the Dempsey Cronin Invitational at the Santa Clara University, Audrey Carson and Marco Zepeda (Bishop O’Dowd) squared off against Ronak Ahir and Shreyas Kamat (Leland) on the resolution “The UN should open Antarctica to resource exploration.” Judges Belesiu and Herman awarded the championship to Audrey and Marco, who affirmed the resolution. Judge Raskin dissented.
Bishop O’Dowd is coached by Jon Thorpe. This is the second time in the past three years that Bishop O’Dowd won SCU.
Leland is coached by Gay Brasher.
Aaron Latta of Prospect was named top speaker.
The final round audio recording is posted. A video recording will be made available later.
BOD CZ vs Leland KA
RFD
Varsity Results
Octos
Bishop O’Dowd CZ over Prospect NL (No Show?)
Notre Dame LAL def. CLASH BV
Opp. Leland DS def. Irvington DG
Irvington LM def. El Cerrito AT
Leland AK def. James Logan TL
Gunn YA def. Leland KT
Notre Dame FV def. James Logan RW
Saratoga AC def. Bentley DR
Quarters
Bishop O’Dowd CZ over Gunn YA (drop)
Leland AK def. Notra Dame FV
Opp. Saratoga AC def. Leland DS (3-0)
Opp. Irvington LM def. Notre Dame LAL (3-0)
Semis
Bishop O’Dowd CZ def. Irvington LM (2-1)
Leland AK def. Saratoga AC
Finals
Gov. Bishop O’Dowd CZ def. Leland AK (2-1)
Champions
Bishop O’Dowd CZ (Audrey Carson & Marco Zepeda)
Novice Results
Octos
Bentley KM def. Saratoga BK
Irvington ShRe def. Bentley MS
Notre Dame DB def. Bishop O’Dowd DZ
Gov. Irvington LiMo def. Dougherty Valley GK
Opp. Irvington DZ def. Bishop O’Dowd AC
Dougherty Valley ZM def. Irvington SR
James Logan CC def. Irvington SiSi
Irvington KC def. James Logan KN
Quarters
Bentley KM vs Irvington ShRe
Gov. Dougherty Valley ZM def. Irvington KC
James Logan CC def. Irvington LiMo
Notre Dame DB vs Irvington DZ
Semis
James Logan CC def. ?? ??
Dougherty Valley ZM def. ?? ??
Finals
James Logan CC def. Dougherty Valley ZM
Champions
James Logan CC (Wells Chang & Ashley Chang)
64 Comments to Bishop O’Dowd Wins Santa Clara
Leave a Reply
Yes, we know this. For purposes of argument, what we are talking about here is speaking in the policy speed style.
Term of art, and all that.
@Ben: I always assumed it was called that because you’re spreading a bunch of arguments out there on the flow. The more you know.
Hahahahaha y’all though that was spreading, my grandma could have flowed that speech; that was maybe 1/4 speed at most.
Btw Arguments Against This Ridiculous “Spreading K”
1. Non-unique we spread all the time
2. Testing different parts of the Aff is a better internal link to education than congressional discussion that outweighs their K because only spreading can capture that
3. My partner went slower than you in his speech since i cannot extrapolate off of anything more than he said that checks back you offense about you inability to respond
All these arguments were made and unfortunately not understood.
And on case.
I didn’t even have to win a single DA, which i really did. Since they don’t have any impacts left in the round you vote neg on presumption if anything.
But whatever that was my first Parli tournament with not a single practice round watched or participated in, come to Policy if you want a theory lesson.
Should have just run a Heidegger K on this ridiculous resolution.
^^^^ yea dawg
^^^seriously?
Dude you are not helping your case. I’m still amazed at how you managed to survive in policy without structuring your disads.
On an unrelated topic, I have yet to see a single speed K adequately explain how we set the brightline between spreading and naturally fast talking.
Haha I apologize for the structure of the DA’s they were literally off the top of my head. All I had written down were impact cites from a big policy impact file. Plus i didn’t know how parli exactly structures their DA’s so i went with a simple Brink/Uniqueness, Link, and Impact set up.
I still don’t think that you can justify voting on a K/Theory argument that has no alt, no reason to reject the Neg team and no comparative analysis made to the Negative arguments. (^^ above). Plus this argument was so badly articulated I though that everyone would just brush it off, guess not lol.
And on the impact level we established in the round that only a .000000001% risk of either of my impacts outweighs so there was really no reason to justify voting neg since the AFF didn’t have any real harms lol.
Artem, I have 2 weeks off coming up for Christmas break, and I will find it a fantastic use of my time to write a K that does just that.
For no other reason than I’m a contrary dinosaur with not a whole lot else better to do.
Regarding the comment on “illegitimate judges”, one of the finals judges is Santa Clara Univ’s Parli debate captain and very capable, unbiased.
Congrats to all the finalists, and in particular, Aaron Latta of Prospect, the overall top speaker who, along with partner Larry N., was deprived of his chance to advance due to technical difficulties
Way to go Bishop O’Dowd (who defeated me in a prelim round) and Leland
Totally agreed with Shreyas.
O’Dowd’s kritik had no alternative or any semblance of a proper shell structure… so much judge bias and incompetence.
I voted for Leland, but in defense of Thomas and Julie, they both know what a K alt is. You can’t expect judges to throw away all unstructured arguments on the high school level, because then there wouldn’t be anything left to decide on.
We totally deserved to win. The judges were totally competent. Get with it.
All is well
@Audrey It seems like your brushing off this debate as if it were nothing although in fact, a judge did explicitly state that your win was not by a landslide. Hopefully you don’t get too overconfident over this win because this will effect both you and your partner in the long run so you also get with it.