Lynbrook steals free iPods
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.”
Leave a Reply
My name says it all
Apart from the colored paper rule being pretty weird on its own, I have two larger concerns
1) The uniformity of tournament rules. It seems like after one tournament adopts a rule, all other tournaments follow the suit. I.e. CHSSA passes no team prep, all invites do the same. Regardless of what you think about team prep or colored paper, I think reducing diversity is problematic.
2) This doesn’t change even if the rule is widely unpopular. I don’t think anyone actually liked the color paper rule at MLK, so Stanford’s adoption of it is surprising.
I liked the rule at MLK…
And why isn’t it a good thing to reduce diversity when it comes to the rules of debate?
1) I too find it a bit disconcerting that all the invitationals seem to be following these rule changes. Of course, I think we can still count on UOP (just one example of a somewhat…maverick tournament) maintaining its own rules. Also, I think (maybe?) that these tournaments are trying to act like a state litmus test. Basically, what happens at MLK, Stanford, etc. predicting the outcoming of State. Any tournament would love to have that kind of reputation. So obviously, you’ve got to follow CHSSA rules to do so.
2) I kind of like the colored paper rule. At least it means that I don’t have to buy a ream of paper every tournament (my partner and I use ~10 sheets per round). And the flows I save look like a rainbow when I compile them!
@ Aditya
Diversity in debate is good for the same reasons for why it’s good in species – it’s an evolutionary advantage. Parli is the most widespread event worldwide in part because it is so flexible. I disagree with people who think that they know what constitutes “true parli.” The invitational system is great because it allows tournaments to test out various improvements and adopt the ones which work. Rule diversity also means that each debater will be able to find the set of invitationals with rules she/he enjoys the most. Over-centralization and blind following of CHSSA destroys the point and independence of invitationals and reduces them to the status of leagues. Disregard for popular opinion continues the destruction of the natural selection process because it means that the most successful new rules aren’t the ones being adopted. My concern is with the systemic issues; if it turns out that everyone loves flow rainbows, that’s great, but the systemic problems are still there.
“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”
:[ I wish they used POI to power-protect.
^Shoot, I just noticed that.
I wonder why they asked for our Parli records then…
Artem– Invites will still have a place even w/ CHASSA rules because over 100 teams are at JL, etc while a large WBFL will have 35 teams most average 20-25.
That’s true. When I say that invites are reduced to the status of leagues, I don’t mean that they will reduce in size – that might happen too, as a side effect, but not on a large scale. My argument is that invites play an important role in the circuit by acting as innovators and testing ground for improvements in parli, and that conformity to CHSSA reduces them to the status of leagues not quantitatively but structurally.
Are they ever going to release what the field looks like for Stanford?
I’m also going to be interested to see how they’re going to handle prep time. If they just let us roam free throughout the hotel I’d think there’d be computer use and such.
Sorry for the flood of posts but what’s the judging pool like for Stanford?
If you get an account, you can edit your posts
Field – they won’t release it, but we might post it on POI later if we get any inside info
Prep – last year, they had a big prep room and told you where exactly to sit. The regulations were pretty draconian.
Judging – mostly parents, although the proportion of flay and flow judges is higher than at other tournaments. Hardcore flow is rare, but non-parent traditional judges are fairly common.
Cleveland/Valencia LH is ready to go.
Campbell Hall BG and TK are attending. Looking forward to the next day.
Mira Loma MM (Morris-Mecklai) ready as well. Can’t wait ’til 11:15 (Parli Orientation)!
Good Luck everyone, i think this is going to be a challenging tournament.Also, it should be good to finally see what Socal parli is all about. Logan CN is ready!
What’s high low?
Even though we can’t be there (stupid midterms) socal kicks nocal to the curb
Campbell Hall KB, Campbell Hall TK is not here.
@ Logan
teams that are 3-2 (for example) with high speaks hit teams that are 3-2 with low speaks. Get good speaks, hit easier teams.
@ Colored paper debate and invitationals adopting CHSSA rules
The only tournaments I have heard of adopting the colored paper are MLK and $tanfurd. This being said, I do not believe the use of colored paper to be ridiculous, but limiting how much paper is given is ridiculous. Personally I would never use the rule in my prep rooms because it is more of a hassle than it is worth.
To the person who asked why the rules are changing so much, the fact of the matter is that Parli is a dynamic field, and I certainly believe that there should be less regulation on it, but after some events a few years ago they are trying to regulate it more so that there is a more even playing field. HOWEVER, if they regulate away being able to use any prepared materials during prep time that will be completely ridiculous, teams should be able to write up cases to reference during their prep time.
The man running tab said that State used color paper last year and we all looked at each other. The first color they used was pretty but I’m looking at the paper for the next rounds and we’ve got pale purple, tan, salmon, and a puke a green
Dear POI
I have met many glorious debaters today. Including but not limited to Iain Lampert who suggested that we check Point of Information. The tournament has been great so far.
Love,
Sam
Memo to me: check explicitly with the tournament director if hybrid teams are or are not allowed, and do not take others’ words for it. Cleveland/Valencia HL is out, yeah; we withdrew rather than cause undue trouble. Nice to meet Sam and Erik and Jason. Hope to see you at the Round Robin.
Oh man…that’s too bad
I had thought I read in the rules that hybrids weren’t allowed, and I asked Artem and he said it was fine…
Will you at least be on campus tomorrow during the tourney?
A couple things:
1) Is the Windsor tournament over and done?
2) Stanford is awesome. It’s nice to see these “Parli debaters” on POI aren’t 40 year old men (except in the cases of coaches, I guess…never mind). I’m not doing well phrasing this…
3) Erik had the good suggestion that someone writes the POI URL on the board in Parli Prep. Feedback?
Let’s do it. I’ll put it on the board.
Did anyone copy the topics?
We put the URL on the board and a couple of people asked us about it. They were really excited about the rankings. POI is spreading
According to Aakriti, Lynbrook broke 7 teams:
Sarthak Angal & Arun Varma
Aditya Majumdar & Indranil Bora
Ritik Malhotra & Akshay Maheshwari
Alice Lin & Betty Liu
Vikram Kanth & Rohit Unni
Vincent Yu & Aakriti Jain
Ruicong Yang & Karthik Vishwanathan
Yeah, I wasn’t. My dad wasn’t thrilled with the way they were treating the judges, so we left along with Mr. Hall after we withdrew.
I will say that meeting Sam Gardner was an absolute joy. Sam, if you’re still in, best of luck to you.
My bad, Lynbrook AV didn’t break. Lynbrook MB, LL, YV dropped in dubs. Lynbrook KU are in octas. Lynbrook MM and YJ are hitting in octas. Bishop O’Dowd kids are in octas.
Can anyone post full breaks?
Dubs
Lowell QA def. Lynbrook MB [3-0]
Saratoga CM def. Lynbrook YV [3-0]
Lynbrook MM def. Carter DG
Lynbrook KU def. Bentley BM
Saratoga MV vs.?
Mira Loma MM vs. ?
Lynbrook YJ def. ?
? def. Lynbrook LL
“? def. Lynbrook LL”
Carlsbad GM def Lynbrook LL
We broke to quarters as well so I’ll for sure take pictures of the postings when they post
Gotcha. Since you have a camera, can you take a finalist picture to put on the front page?
Dubs
Carlsbad GM def. Lynbrook LL [3-0]
Octas
Lynbrook KU def. Claremont MD [3-0]
Lynbrook YJ over Lynbrook MM
both Saratoga teams are out
Great job, Sam! Glad to see that good things happen to good people.
Congrats Sam!!
Clash Debate Club CG defeated Mira Loma MM. -.-
Not the best round of our careers. Our opponents were surprisingly quick to strike the non-immigration topic. We learned why in the round: they ran this crazy case about sanctuary cities that made no sense to me or my partner (since we had never heard of them and didn’t think they existed, which we tried to prove analytically), but which we later found out all three judges knew. Basically, it was knowledge-skew ownage.
Those crazy homeschoolers
CLASH is usually pretty awesome
My dad judged Jason/Brian in octas:
Lowell QA def. Leland DS(Rachel Deghuee and Michael Song)…although he said it was a very messy round
O’Dowd DA had to drop out in the quarters due to illness.
News of a Lynbrook closeout?
Lynbrook KU (Vikram Kanth & Rohit Unni) and Lynbrook YJ (Vincent Yu & Aakriti Jain) closed out Stanford in finals.
Lynbrook got us on a 2-1 decision in quarters. They were really nice so we dont feel bad, and we had a great time and are looking forward to state. Congrats to lynbrook on the close out
Sorry to O’Dowd, congrats to Lynbrook, and condolences and hearty congrats to Sam. Terrific job.
“Lynbrook made the heist of the year” should be the title of this. Both brian and I and campbell hall were robbed. I am publicly saying this. Judges need to realize that they can’t make the entire case(impacts, theory arguments and links) for the other team. You judge based on what was there. Unni and kanth are great guys, but I hope they realize that they had nothing. The judge that voted for us was adamant about the fact that we were robbed. Deciding factor was their team tried to make peace and we were too violent. This argument was never made. Peace was never an issue and the affs main objection was feasibility but that was easily shot down with fiat. Lynbrook owes me half an ipod.
Congrats to Lynbrook.
As to whomever suggested to have POI mentioned in prep rooms, I will do what I can to help at the GGSA tournaments.
Does anyone know which other teams ( besides the lynbrook ones) made it to sems?
Ah, Jason! Nice to have met you; which Campbell Hall team are you referring to?
@Jason: Lol, I kind of want to explicate how that seems very similar to our round against you guys in dubs, with the constitutionality/fiat args within the scope of the resolution, but I do agree that we didn’t state the position very clearly. Nevertheless, talking to one of the flow judges afterwards, he said that him and the parent judge were going to vote for us initially because of that potentially abusive arg that opp made, but then the third judge, a lawyer, began to discuss why he favored the constitutionality argument. Ok, at this point, even if the vote was going to be 2-1 in favor of Jason/Brian, I’d have been happy…this was the best team we’d hit this tourney and was our first real debate at Stanford this year that had clash. However, I think it is absolutely unacceptable that the judges conferred before voting, and that one judge was able to sway the decision for everyone.
Jason/Brian, it would be awesome if we are able to debate you guys again, hopefully at states; that was a great debate!
@Aditya: Are you Lynbrook MB? Sorry about the whole 3rd round thing. Keizra and I were basically being douches pre-round.
Also, do you know who won that one?
@Benjamin: Yeah I wanted to apologize to you about that round too. It just got messy really quickly, and trust me, we had no intention of breaking any parli norms or anything. That was just a bad debate overall for us. I’m fairly sure you guys won that one based on the judge’s reaction, but I don’t know for sure.
For what it’s worth, we were 2-0 then, so you guys probably were as well. Although, I’m not sure how serious you were when you said you lost the 2nd round
BTW Jason, apparently you were 1st seed?