Point of Information on Facebook

Lynbrook steals free iPods

Posted on 08 Feb 2010 by Artem Filed under: News

View full results for Stanford 2009-2010

Lynbrook KU (Vikram Kanth and Rohit Unni) and Lynbrook YJ (Vincent Yu and Aakriti Jain) have each won  their semifinal rounds to close out Open Parliamentary Debate at the 2010 Stanford Invitational. The field initially began with 110 teams and broke to double octafinals. Special congratulations are in order for the Lynbrook Parli team, breaking 6 teams into elimination rounds. Vikram and Rohit, and Vincent and Aakriti are coached by Ryan Lawrence.

Parli debate rules
“The Stanford Invitational has adopted the following California High School Speech Association rules and procedures for parlimentary debate.

Teams of two people from the same school will compete. There will be a new topic for each round, and teams are to be given 20 minutes to prepare. Rounds will be double flighted, except perhaps in late elimination rounds.

Times: 7 minute aff constructive, 7 minute neg constructive, 7 minute aff constructive, 7 minute neg constructive, 5 minute neg rebuttal (given by the first neg speaker), 5 minute aff rebuttal (given by the first aff speaker)

* MATERIALS IN THE PREP ROOM: Students may take into the prep room any written material they choose including extemp files, briefs, notes, articles, magazines etc. but may not utilize any electronic devices including computers in any form either in the prep room or during the round. Use of such devices warrants a loss by forfeit in the round.
* CONSULTING: Entrants in parli debate may ONLY prep with their partners, and may NOT confer or prep with any other person (including their coach or teammates) other than their partner. Violation of this rule can result in a forfeit / loss.
* COLORED PAPER: During prep the teams will be given colored paper. The teams may write as much as they can on the colored paper during the 20 min of prep and they may take extra blank colored paper to the round to flow on. This colored paper and a writing utensil(s) are the only materials they are allowed to have in the round. The color of paper will change each round.

Put simply:

1. Only paper materials can be brought into the prep room – no electronic devices.
2. Debaters may consult ONLY with their individual partners.
3. Debaters may only take their colored paper and a writing utensil to their round. No other materials may be used in the round.”

Tabulation rules

There will be 6 prelims

“We will break to double-octas in the event if 80 or more teams complete the preliminary rounds in a given event. Otherwise, the event will break to octas. As of 1/28/2010 each event has more than 100 teams entered.”

“TABULATION PROTOCOLS AND PRIORITIES: Tabulation priorities for Policy, LD, Public Forum and Parli debate are as follows (of course, only as applicable; for example, power protection for rounds 1 and 2 applies only to varsity CX and varsity LD, which are the only events for which we take prior records):

Rounds 1 and 2, preset based upon power protecting those teams with the strongest record (or randomized for events where no prior records are taken);

Round 3 high-low based on wins, points, then opp wins;

Round 4 high-low based on wins, high-low points, total points, opp wins;

Rounds 5 and 6 (and 7 for Varsity Policy and LD) are high-low based on wins, combination of opp wins and points, high-low points, double high low points if approprIate (round 6 and/or 7), ranks.

Additional tie-breakers for all prelim rounds are at the tab staff’s discretion, with the exception that “chance” or “coin toss” or “random number” are always the last option.
CLEARING: For clearing, the priorities are: Wins, high-low points, double high-low points, total points, opp wins, combination of opp wins and points; beyond that, as designated by the Executive Director of the tournament in consultation with the tab staff.”

80 Comments to Lynbrook steals free iPods

  • Benjamin Morris says:

    Heh…yes…we didn’t quite lose that 2nd round as much as we may have led you to believe. In that round, the Opp had maybe a 30 second MO. Dropped everything. Drew phallic pictures on flow and showed them to the speakers on both sides…certainly a memorable round.

    In THIRD round…
    We thought the reactions were kind of ambiguous. Keize and I didn’t know how to assess it. We were kind of tripping over the round for a while.

    @Jason: Congrats on being top seed (if it is so!)! I’m glad your precious Saints won the Super Bowl.

  • Aditya says:

    WHO DAAAAT

  • Aditya says:

    In the meantime, we do realize that 50 comments have disappeared, and we are getting our technical editor to figure out the problem.

  • Ritik says:

    I think the pagination system, designed to paginate the comments after 50 comments, is malfunctioning.

  • Ritik says:

    Also, I got a chance to look at the page with seeds. From what I remember:

    1: Lowell QA
    3: Carter DJ
    5: Bentley BM or Lynbrook KU
    19: Lynbrook YJ
    28: Bentley BM or Lynbrook KU
    30: Lynbrook MM
    32: Lynbrook MB

  • Benjamin Morris says:

    Double Octos:
    Granite Bay GW (Ishaan Gupta and Stacey Wong) over ? ?? (? & ?)
    Clash Debate Club CG (? & ?) def. Mira Loma MM (Benjamin Morris and Keizra Mecklai)
    Bishop O’Dowd DA (Kate Drew and Carey Appeldorn) def. West Campus HB (Kristi Hancock and Cassandra Barker)

  • Abhishek says:

    Double octos
    Saratoga mv def bishop o dowd cd

    octos
    Campbell hall def Saratoga mv (abhishek venkataramana and vijay meningitis)

  • Abhishek says:

    Menon* iPhone auto correct lol

  • Jason says:

    octa

    Lowell QA def. Leland DS

  • Aditya says:

    LOL autocorrect fail

  • Robert Ying says:

    Hey guys,
    Patrick Lin didn’t code pagination support into the original theme, so it wasn’t working. It is now added in, paginating at 30 comments. Hopefully it will be better styled later (it is styled like all other links right now)

  • CH BK says:

    So, the Tab room admitted to my partner and myself that they had screwed up our ranks. Apparently, we were factored in as loosing a round that we should not have been and that eliminated us. What happened to the Stanford Tournament this year? It seems like there were a lot of problems across many of the events

  • rebecca says:

    I agree that stanford has some problems. Was anyone else missing ballots or getting ballots for other schools?

    Will seeds ever be released for Stanford?

    jason and Brian, that was an interesting quarter final. I’m sorry about your loss in the semis. Youre both really nice and good debators. If this California Cup ever happens, we hope to see you there. But did either of you find the third judge’s reasoning a little messed up? Being an environmental researcher doesn’t mean you should base your decision off of years of personal experience and knowledge of the subject…

  • LQCoach says:

    In the Double Octas, it was actually Claremont MW against La Quinta AN

  • Benjamin Morris says:

    Seeing as the page has been renamed so much, I move to change it to “Lynbrook Steals Free iPods”.

  • Vikram Kanth says:

    @Benjamin, we hit that clash team too and they ran the exact same sanctuary city case against us. My partner looked at me and we were like what the hell is this stuff. Luckily for us we bought the idea and just debated about the advantages.

    BTW just another example of colored paper stopping the use of a pre done case or repeated case.

  • Aditya says:

    ^But it didn’t really stop the repetition of the case…

  • Vikram Kanth says:

    sorry i meant that sarcastically as a serious failure

  • Iain Lampert says:

    Hahahahahahah. Oh, irony. You subtle and cruel mistress.

  • Artem says:

    How could you not catch the sarcasm.

  • Aditya says:

    1. I like the colored paper.
    2. I’ve been doing apchem hw for the past 5 hours…not in the right state of mind after that X_X

  • Benjamin Morris says:

    @Vikram and Rohit

    Thank you for beating them (mercilessly, I hope). I hate when a team has a “pet plan” that they run at every available opportunity.

  • "Vijay Meningitis" says:

    wtf? congrats to jason and brian on 6-0

  • Aditya says:

    Vijay, I’m going to call you that from now on :D

  • Rebecca says:

    yeah, we really didn’t want to discuss war. we were hoping for college judges, i think they would have been far more amused by the interpretation

  • Krista says:

    @Vikram,

    This was our first time doing parli and after the round (and before the decision) we realized that going with an idea that had worked for us once (in dbl octs) wasn’t in the spirit of parli and were/are sorry. Because re-running that plan was a bad decision and also because you guys are really great debaters, I can honestly say I am glad you won that round and went on to co-championship. Congratulations :)

  • Artem says:

    I wouldn’t say that recycling arguments is against the “spirit” (whatever that means)of parli. It’s definitely misused/overused, and, in most cases, recycled arguments tend to be nontopical and not very strategic, but in some rounds, they’re the way to go. I think it’s problematic to base in-round behavior on anything other than basic explicit rules like speech times and norms shaped by theory debate, as community norms based on anything other than theory cannot be challenged, even if they are not ideal.

    Anyway, quarters at Stanford at your first parli tourney is pretty beast. Clash debaters never cease to impress me.

  • rebecca says:

    jason, if youre asking me, that was original

  • Vikram says:

    @Krista,

    Don’t worry about it. It was a really interesting case. Personally I don’t really see anything wrong about reusing an argument, I just found it kind of obscure. I also don’t really like the colored paper rule.

    I think you guys are amazing and its even more amazing that this was your first tournament. I wish you the best of luck in your debate careers and I hope to face you later this year or next year as well.

Leave a Reply