MLK-Logan
UPDATE: The GPS-navigable campus map of James Logan HS has been added to the Maprika iPhone app.
Logan begins today. The always pleasant Aditya Majumdar will be providing coverage.
Doubles
Windsor Roady-Ahrens def Lynbrook Majumdar-Bora [2-1]
Lynbrook Lin-Liu def Windsor Christenson – Jeffrey [3-0]
Claremont Musa-Wilkie def BOD Vastola-Daley
Leland Kang-Yu def Lynbrook Kanth-Unni
Octas
Mira Loma Morris-Mecklai def Claremont Musa-Wilkie [Courtis, Mahajart, Hale]
Centennial Brewer-Hicks def Lynbrook Lin-Liu [Agarwal]
GBay Wong-Nielsen def Windsor Roady-Ahrens [Ortega, Grimald, Mecklai]
Logan Mabie-Sukumar def Bentley Brog-Judge [Read, Domalewski, ?]
GBay Gupta-Bashi def MVLA Schaeffer-Shrivastava[Courtis, Mahajart, Hale]
Claremont Ali-Daugherty def BOD Counts-Carson [Agarwal]
Windsor Fauss-Jeffrey def Leland Kang-Yu [Ortega, Grimald, Mecklai]
BOD Reynes-Seideman def Leland Wu-Kim [Read, Domalewski, ?]
Quarters
Mira Loma Morris-Mecklai def GBay Gupta-Bashi
Windsor Fauss-Jeffrey def GBay Wong-Nielsen
BOD Reynes/Seideman def Logan Mabie-Sukumar
Claremont Ali-Daugherty vs Centennial Brewer-Hicks
Semis
Windsor Fauss/Jeffrey def BOD Reynes/Seideman
Mira Loma Morris/Mecklai def ?
Finals
Mira Loma Morris/Mecklai def Windsor Fauss/Jeffrey
The tournament said it would be running behind schedule from the get-go, with round 3 rescheduled to 9pm from the original time of 8pm. Otherwise, after day 1, the tournament seems to be running pretty smoothly with the exception of some overlap between round 1 and round 2. Some flight B debates from round 1 finished quite late due to judging/tab difficulties, and those who were in flight A for round 2 missed out on 10 to 15 minutes of prep. Quite unfortunate, but life goes on. Looks like there are about 86 parli teams in the pool, but a couple of teams didn’t show up or dropped out of the tournament altogether.
Round 4 resumes Saturday morning at 8am. Best of luck to all!
Resolutions:
1A: The USFG would increase domestic manufacturing jobs.
1B: The USFG would raise the retirement age for Social Security.
2A: THBT collectivism is better than individualism.
2B: THBT a common culture is of greater value than a pluralistic culture.
3A: Government has forgotten its role.
3B: The news media is creating a culture of paranoia.
4A: THW pop the bubble.
4B: THW take a leap of faith.
5A: THW punish Wikileakers.
5B: The USFG would reduce the threat of cyberterrorism.
DA: THBT a bigger paycheck will lead to a better economy
DB: THBT strict control of a child’s life is counterproductive.
OA: TH has already given up on its New Year’s Resolutions.
OB: THBT more could have been done.
QA: ~ THBT the trend is towards confrontation rather than discussion.
QB: ~ THBT Sarah Palin is less of a politician and more of a provocateur.
S: ~ drug wars are disrupting the progress of Latin America
F: THBT the average American has no future.
45 Comments to MLK-Logan
Leave a Reply
2B: THBT a common culture is of greater value than a pluralistic culture.
1A: The USFG would increase domestic manufacturing jobs.
3B: The news media is creating a culture of paranoia.
Bets on Nielson-Wong
Vastola-Daley and
Kim Wu 5-0 in prelims
Wildcards:
Fauss-Jeffrey
Lindenbush-Biederman
Octos pushed back to 10:00 AM tomorrow.
Octos Participants (to the best of my memory)
BOD Carson-Counts
BOD ? -? (NOT Vastola-Daley)
Lynbrook Lin-Liu
Leland Wu-Kim
Leland ?-?
Claremont Musa-Wilkie
Claremont Ali-?
Bentley Judge-Brog
Mira Loma Mecklai-Morris
Granite Bay Gupta-Bashir
Granite Bay Wong-Nielsen
Windsor ?-?
Windsor ?-?
? Hicks-Brewer
MVLA Schaeffer-Shrivastava
There’s one more that I’m forgetting.
Ah. I was forgetting James Logan Mabie-Sukumar.
AK Counts-Carson
AK Reynes-Seideman
AM Lin-Liu
AP Gupta-Bashir
AP Wong-Nielsen
AW Wu-Kim
AW Kang-Yu
BB Mabie-Sukumar
BO Morris-Mecklai
BQ Brog-Judge
BW Schaeffer-Shrivastava
BZ Musa-Wilkie
BZ Ali-Daugherty
CD Roady-Ahrens
CD Fauss-Jeffrey
CE Brewer-Hicks
off of JOT. I won’t be there for parli tomorrow, but I’ll be there for at least semis in IEs. Hopefully I can still get some more info about parli!
Mabie-Sukumar v. Brog-Judge will be quite the showdown, I hope someone films it.
4B: THW take a leap of faith.
5A: THW punish Wikileakers
5B: (something about cyberterrorism)
dubs reses:
A: THBT bigger paychecks (would?) lead to a better economy.
B: (something about strict parenting)
octas reses:
A: THBT we’ve given up on our New Year’s Resolutions (wording?)
B: THBT more could have been done.
Also, Betty/I dropped in octas to Hicks/Brewer on a 0-1 (Vineet Agarwal judging).
Update: Windsor Fauss-Jeffrey defeated Leland Kang-Yu in octas.
Fun resolutions, but questionable judging. It’s interesting that none of the Scu semifinal teams broke past quarters…
do you know quarters results?
I talked to Ben from ML a bit before I left, and him and Keizra are through to semis (they had just finished their round).
I believe he said these were some of the teams still in at that point (quarters): Nielsen/Wong, Mabie/Sukumar, and I believe Ali/Daugherty…
It’s Reynes/Seideman v. Fauss/Jeffrey and Morris/?? v ??/?? in the semis right now I am told.
4A: THW pop the bubble.
I’ve been told that Ben and Keizra got to finals
4A I believe, was THW pop the bubble
DA was THBT a bigger paycheck will lead to a better economy
awesome, go Mira Loma MM!
Mira Loma MM, Ben Morris and Keizra Mecklai won James Logan MLK Invite Open Parli
Good for Ben and Keizra. Things were looking dismal for the MLK tournament for a while there…. At least an actual team won!
Things I learned about parli I never knew before James Logan:
1) To prove abuse, negative teams no longer have to state a violation in definitions.
2) Fact debates cannot be narrowed down in the slightest and must always be applicable to all subjects, events, and issues in the world.
3) Parli is loved so little by the debate community that our judges get stolen for other style of debate rounds to have timers and flowers.(or is it flowwers?? You get the point)
Well Gary, I think number 3 is a bit unfair because parli was getting all the flow judges in prelims which was ridiculous for people in POLICY. Suck it up.
I have to agree wtih Gary on his third point; any good parli debater knows that not having a flow judge can really screw a team.
another thing i learned from mlk: the most valuable use of time for the intelligent and quick (parli debaters) is to debate round after round after round of broad, ambiguous fact/value debates. what ever happened to a solid round of policy? This House does NOT believe the resolutions were any good.
additionally, i agree with the earlier comment that the judging was questionable considering which teams dropped.
finally, congrats to the champs. however, I must say courtesy is severely lacking on that team.
Judging was definitely insufficient. I had two judges that had questionable fluency in the English language.
My only real critiques are of the motions and the initial scheduling. Almost every motion was severely weighted to one side, and it’s not fun when your next round starts 10 minutes after you get out of your first.
Obviously, not all of the judges were past debaters who flowed, but this is an issue the PuFo and Policy kids had to deal with as well. Additionally,when you see that you have a parent judge, you can’t be upset when they don’t understand your technical nuances. Debating to a college judge allows for argumentation that might fly over the parent’s head. Adapt or die.
Ivy. There is an extent to which one can adapt to judges. You cannot adapt to judges that simply do not vote on any premise or standard that is homogenous throughout the debate community. Essentially you are telling me to adapt to judges that don’t follow the basics of parliamentary debate AND moreover, you cannot tell whether a judge comprehends a topic as simple as abuse by looking at them.
I’m not asking for eery judge to be a flow judge. I’m asking for judges to at least the roles of a Government and Opposition teams. At the point where teams openly admit there is no abuse, yet continue to redefine and then judges vote on abuse there is a serious problem.
Don’t insult the intelligence of parent judges by saying the arguments are “over their heads” because that isn’t the problem. Debates that are laid out clearly then have judges acting unilaterally are what we need to root out of the debate community.
Oh, and I forgot. As a side note I did enjoy the resolutions. Honestly blaming resolutions for the outcomes of debates is weak. Yes in some cases the resolution can be the main problem. One or two resolutions aside, MLK had definable topics that did require a bit of critical thinking. Forbid that ever be the case.
And just so we are all clear. There are cases when predictability is so low that Opposition teams are not able to effectively use prep. Welcome to the challenge of spontaneous debate.
Being bitter about losing is also a challenge of spontaneous debate, Gary.
I respectfully disagree with Gary. Windsor doesn’t try to come out of rounds or losses blaming the judges, especially on a panel of 3. Unless the judge has a personal bias, we try to persuade every judge we get. It doesnt matter if they are parent judges or coaches, you shouldn’t always just win on the flow or by topicality or by default. Thats why, in my opinion, you should always ask preferences and philosophies because adaptation is huge. If people think blaming the resolution is weak,I would argue that blaming the judge is even weaker.
The round that Gary keeps referencing as unfair because the judges voted even though abuse wasn’t proven, is a round in which one judge was a debater’s father (the debater qualified for state 2 times & is a very accomplished LD’er, and his father has judged many rounds and knows a lot about debate). Another judge was an assistant coach or past debater as far as I’m concerned and the other I have no idea about. The vote against gov was because gov had stepped beyong the lines of courtesy and dropped the entire opp case. No matter what your argument, if the other team brings up a case I never think its very wise to refute it all by just saying its non-topical. It is sad that such great debaters sometimes debate about…debate but otherwise I feel as if the debate community is honest and positive. If abuse is cried even though you didnt “technically” prove abuse, the point still came across that it was unfair, uneducational and for a lack of better words screwy (sp.?). You dont need an experienced judge to see that something was set up unfair or a stretch to relate back to the motion.
Either way its not too important to dwell on the past, the tournament was just fine and I enjoyed the amazing clash and awesome debating that took place.
Gary: Any form of debate is a public speaking event, parli especially. Part of public speaking is adapting to your audience. If you know your judge isn’t flowing or isn’t experienced, it is your job to adapt to that, no matter what. As much as I wish there was an infinite pool of great judges, there isn’t. Public speaking is all about winning over the audience, even if you don’t like your audience.
You almost never lose a round you “should have won.” If you didn’t convince the judge, then you didn’t win. And when you don’t win, you shouldn’t verbally attack the other team.
i think we can all agree that it would be nice if tournaments provided clearer criterion or what not to the judges so that there would be some consistency in judging. however, thats not the case and it probably never will be. sometimes the bad judging will be for us, and sometimes against.
Jason and Brenda: Totally agree and I apologize for the “passion” in that quarter final round. I still stand by my point however that non topicality is a legitimate response to cases that counter a Government teams definitions.
As far as it being framed in a “screwy” nature… I was mad because stacey and I used most of our prep time attempting to frame the most balanced debate possible. And it seemed to us that you guys were planning on running an alternative case regardless of how we defined it.
Read up on the entire North Korean issue and you can see it had the potential for a very VERY educational well developed debate.
Adaptation is key, but I’m not going to “adapt” to my teachers grading methods if she/he grades my math test wrong. I look forward to hitting windsor teams in the future and putting this mess of a round in the past… Congrats on 2nd.
^ HAHA I love the teacher analogy. Who thinks of that?
in a good or bad way?
good way.
Sorry Windsor. I’ll try to keep Gary on a leash next time…
NO! PLEASE!!! NOT THE KENNEL!
But I do have to share Gary’s frustration on his third poit… in my brother’s LD outrounds he had three judges, a timer, and a flow-er, whereas Parli teams only got one judge in octos. This isn’t to say that I’m blaming certain results exclusively on judges. And I’m sure there was a reason that forced James Logan to arrange it this way. Just pointing out the extreme imbalance.
I would guess that since octos were moved to Sunday, the judging pool was substantially smaller than it would have been had octos been Saturday night as per the original schedule.
Also, I’m not sure whether the “timer” and “flow-er” occupations were assigned by tab or if they were just friends of the judges who were at the tournament and wanted to hang out and help with noncommittal roles… (Then again, I remember there have been “timers” in my speech outrounds for the past several years so who knows -__- )
Regardless, going from a 3 judge panel in dubs to just 1 judge in octos is pretty inexcusable.
The reason why we wanted to make sure the better judges went to LD: The LD pool was much larger and broke to the same exact bracket as parli, you needed to be 4-1 with high speaks in order to break in LD whereas in parli you needed to be 3-2. Also, if more schools brought qualified judges it wouldn’t be anywhere near as much of a problem.
Reason why parli went from 3 judges in dubs to one judge in octos: Pofo deserved the judges more because they had a harder break (very similar to LD). This would not have happened if we had actually had enough judges sitting in the room.
also: it should be noted that there is no such thing as a timer and a flow-er. We did not know that stuff like this was going on in judges, and we always struggled to be able to push the last few ballots anyway.
I’m not understanding the logical link between larger initial pool and more need for legitimacy. I would agree that PF deserved judges because of the fact that Octos was the bid round, though.
To Gary:
Everything has possibly been said
Except:
Dont bring up new information in your last speech, including new def-initions, arguments and refutations. It is against the rules. Plus take POI’s so people can say this.
HAHAHAHHA you’re telling me how parli functions?? Kid you’re not even worth it. I don’t bring up new agruments in the last speech. I can extend and explain (in some cases even with extended analogies as long as it is not a new argument)the debate as much as I want during my rebuttal and I will continue to do so.
Yours Truely,
the kid that sleeps with a parli handbook.
<3 gary.
Classic Mormon Mophead.
<3 you too