3-0:
Lynbrook Zia Syed and Christine Fujiki
Lynbrook Jonathan Uesato and Eric Xu
Los Gatos Anderson and Hua
? Agrawal and Zhang
?
Resolutions:
1. Elena Kagan is the wrong choice for the Supreme Court.
2. The state of CA should enact a policy to decrease high school dropout rates.
3. Individuals have a moral obligation to not eat meat.
Thanks for the heads up, IDEA’s tourney article is up on POI now. The topic was apparently “In some cases, juveniles should be tried as adults.” for the entire tournament.
It’s safe to assume that it will be at least two weeks after the last state qualifier and won’t run against CHSSA, but I don’t know the exact dates yet. I plan to release the invite at around October.
Any chance of getting the Claremont HS tournament included in your qualifying list? The 4th annual Claremont Invitational is scheduled for Jan. 8-9. We run both novice and varsity divisions in parli and last year had over 30 teams in each division representing 14 different schools.
We’ll definitely include Claremont (assuming we get the results packet). It wasn’t on the calendar originally because I didn’t know the date, but I’ll add it in right now. Thanks for the info.
Not sure if this has made it onto the parli community’s radar yet, but the NFL now officially recognizes Parli with regard to earning NFL points. However, they have decided to only award 4 points for a win and 2 points for a loss (instead of 6 and 3 points, respectively, for all other forms of debate). Please contact your NFL district chair ASAP to protest this unfair treatment of parli.
Terry Abad
GGSA President
Lowell High School
San Francisco
CHSSA has illegalized plans in Parliamentary Debate, by an 11-9 vote. It’s on pages 8-9 of the link provided above. So, any plans run at State or league tournaments are liable to be protested and the round automatically dropped because of it. The same goes for counterplans. Of course, this is horrible for the activity. Good luck debating policy resolutions without plans or counterplans.
“Caperton: Hate plan texts; should legislate against them. Policy judges bring their pro-policy bias.”
I agree. We should also just ban all bad arguments in general, bad judges are biased in their favor.
Are any of the coaches who voted in support actively involved in parli?
There’s a chance the rule might only refer to value resolutions, that’s kind of unclear. Ben’s round was on a policy resolution though.
Aditya makes a good point, this rule will get a lot more cumbersome once it starts getting upheld by invitationals.
I’m assuming that the adjudicators of the protest were unaware that the Aff ran a plan. I believe the question was phrased along the lines of “Aren’t counterplans illegal? They ran a counterplan.” No mention that Aff ran plan, focus of the protest kept simply on the CP.
As I was unaware of the rule at the time, I would not have been able to protest.
Also, as I was not at the actual protest of the round, so this is a best-guess.
“Graber: Friendly amendment: Use the plan definition from Motion H.”
Note that this reference to ‘Motion H’ is NOT a reference to the mysterious ‘Section H’ which theoretically could (if it exists) differentiate between value, fact, and policy.
‘Motion H’ as Graber uses it refers to another amendment about plans in Public Forum, which CHSSA passed in the same session. No relation besides the letter H.
I’m pretty sure that because CHASSA recognizes Fact, Value, and Policy resolutions as distinct that this change only applies to value. It’d be kind of hard to debate a policy res without a policy? Either way still awful.
Artem and I are looking for something in the official rules or council minutes that discerns between the three. If you or anyone else has information on it, it would be greatly appreciated.
Resolutions are written with fact/value/policy distinction in mind (at least at CFL tournaments), but this rule would still be problematic, because the type of resolution can be subject to interpretation.
@Ben: So how was the DQ decision made? Did you or anyone representing you have any say?
I took a POI in the LOR that basically said that CP’s are illegal. It devolved into a 2 minute discussion of rules (we stopped time, because neither side was entirely sure of the rule, and I wasn’t going to keep extending the Ads of the CP if the rule were true). Eventually, we settled on just debating it out as though there were no rule, and having the rule violation be looked at after-round.
I assume that my coach advocated for me in the protest. He later informed me that CP’s are illegal, in reference to the round.
This is a silly and unnecessary rule. I suppose it’s incumbent on the government to clearly define the round as a value round and then ensure that there’s enough ground left for the opposition. This is going to be messy, especially when a gov team seems to be implementing a policy, the opp responds with a CP, and the gov team retreats to value and argues CP’s not allowed.
I foresee lovely rounds that focus on nothing but the issue of abuse.
What happens when the opp team (1) claims abuse, (2) has a legitimate argument why the round should be turned into a policy round, (3) debates policy, and (4) also debates the value just in case the judge doesn’t buy the first three arguments. Does the gov team claim a violation of the rules and therefore gets the win even if they offered no ground to opp?
I think the Gov would be in more danger. The general “plan is a test of resolution’s truth” argument is still legal, regardless of the rule that plans are illegal.
The general concept is: the resolution is vague on purpose. It is open for a multiplicity of possible plans. We know some plans will be bad and some will be better (by varying degrees). A judge cannot assume a workable plan for putting the resolution into action exists and/or creates more benefits than harms, as that is interventionalist. Thus, the existence of a plan in debate basically attempts to prove the resolution true by creating a specific framework and course of action. If plan is good, and is topical, then the resolution is true: USFG/TH SHOULD “resolution” (BY doing plan).
Without plan, debate becomes vague, pointless, and uneducational. If Opp runs this kind of argument, Gov’s only legitimate response is that plans are illegal, “we’d run them if we could”. And that just gets convoluted.
I could be wrong, but I think this rule change only applies to Lincoln Douglas debate. Section 3 of Article XI in the CHSSA bylaws is the section on LD. Parli is Section 4.
If anyone in Parli has been penalized by this rule, it was likely an unfortunate error IMHO.
I second the above comment. I read through the minutes from that meeting and it appears that plans have been eliminated from LD (it is Section 3 of Article XI as previously stated). There was also a motion regarding plans in Public Forum.
1st, “Parliamentary debate” is never mentioned in this portion of the minutes, 2nd, the amendment in bold states “No plan shall be presented by either *DEBATER* in the round,” when this says “debater” it implies only one debater which would be LD, and 3rd, the amendment is to “Section 3″ Parli is in Section 4.
After reading over the meeting minutes again, I think I can shed light over why this misinterpretation has occurred.
This is the motion in question, and the motion right above it:
MOTION TO REVISE THE BY-LAWS 10-05-E: M/Abad, S/
Regarding rules changes in Parliamentary Debate
Withdrawn
MOTION TO REVISE THE BY-LAWS 10-05-F: M/Johnson, S/Caperton
As you can see, someone reading this without reading too closely may falsely interpret the two motions as one motion and believe that “Regarding rules changes in Parliamentary Debate” refers to the removal of plans, instead of whatever motion was withdrawn.
Additionally, Wardner references that it’s good to have similarities between the NFL and State definitions of a plan. Parliamentary debate isn’t an NFL event, but Lincoln Douglas is.
I’m still researching this issue further, as my coach informed me that the decision was that counterplans are illegal. I will be getting to the bottom of the issue.
Furthermore, this is still useful information for the LD community, as plans have become illegalized in LD.
Parliamentary & Public Forum Debate allocations (based on 48 entries per event):
Area 1 – CFL 6, GGSA 6
Area 2 – Sacto 4, SVFL 5, YFL 3
Area 3 – SCDL 5, Tri Valley 4, WBFL 3
Area 4 – CBSR 4, OCSL 4, SDIVSL 4
No we are not
As much as we would like to, it conflicts with Meadows and we don’t have another chaperone easily available for 2 travel tournaments on the same weekend.
Results for monta vista novice:
3-0:
Lynbrook Zia Syed and Christine Fujiki
Lynbrook Jonathan Uesato and Eric Xu
Los Gatos Anderson and Hua
? Agrawal and Zhang
?
Resolutions:
1. Elena Kagan is the wrong choice for the Supreme Court.
2. The state of CA should enact a policy to decrease high school dropout rates.
3. Individuals have a moral obligation to not eat meat.
Los Gatos – Olivia Flechsig and Adam Silverman!
I’m assuming Agrawal/Zhang are Saratoga ZA, the SCU2 runners-up?
I heard that Bentley McKenna-Brog LOST to Burnaby Mountain School from British Columbia in Canada at the ITOCs at Willamette in the final round.
Second place in the world isn’t bad, but they won last year.
Does anyone know what they debated or why they lost?
Thanks for the heads up, IDEA’s tourney article is up on POI now. The topic was apparently “In some cases, juveniles should be tried as adults.” for the entire tournament.
Any preliminary dates yet for a repeat of the California Cup in 2011? Just curious…
It’s safe to assume that it will be at least two weeks after the last state qualifier and won’t run against CHSSA, but I don’t know the exact dates yet. I plan to release the invite at around October.
Any chance of getting the Claremont HS tournament included in your qualifying list? The 4th annual Claremont Invitational is scheduled for Jan. 8-9. We run both novice and varsity divisions in parli and last year had over 30 teams in each division representing 14 different schools.
We’ll definitely include Claremont (assuming we get the results packet). It wasn’t on the calendar originally because I didn’t know the date, but I’ll add it in right now. Thanks for the info.
Yale quarters have been posted
http://yale.tabroom.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/real-alpha-list-of-clearing-teams.pdf
Not sure if this has made it onto the parli community’s radar yet, but the NFL now officially recognizes Parli with regard to earning NFL points. However, they have decided to only award 4 points for a win and 2 points for a loss (instead of 6 and 3 points, respectively, for all other forms of debate). Please contact your NFL district chair ASAP to protest this unfair treatment of parli.
Terry Abad
GGSA President
Lowell High School
San Francisco
http://cahssa.org/PDF/Minutes/Minutes2010-05.pdf
CHSSA has illegalized plans in Parliamentary Debate, by an 11-9 vote. It’s on pages 8-9 of the link provided above. So, any plans run at State or league tournaments are liable to be protested and the round automatically dropped because of it. The same goes for counterplans. Of course, this is horrible for the activity. Good luck debating policy resolutions without plans or counterplans.
Are you kidding…
Not kidding. I was disqualified from my fourth round at league yesterday because I ran a counterplan.
Won’t this apply to tournaments who also claim they follow CHSSA rules?
“Caperton: Hate plan texts; should legislate against them. Policy judges bring their pro-policy bias.”
I agree. We should also just ban all bad arguments in general, bad judges are biased in their favor.
Are any of the coaches who voted in support actively involved in parli?
There’s a chance the rule might only refer to value resolutions, that’s kind of unclear. Ben’s round was on a policy resolution though.
Aditya makes a good point, this rule will get a lot more cumbersome once it starts getting upheld by invitationals.
Did the AFF team in Ben’s round use a policy framework? (and what was the resolution?)
Yes, they ran stock-issues and plantext.
If they ran a plantext, why would only you be DQd?
What is this bullshit…
I’m assuming that the adjudicators of the protest were unaware that the Aff ran a plan. I believe the question was phrased along the lines of “Aren’t counterplans illegal? They ran a counterplan.” No mention that Aff ran plan, focus of the protest kept simply on the CP.
As I was unaware of the rule at the time, I would not have been able to protest.
Also, as I was not at the actual protest of the round, so this is a best-guess.
“Graber: Friendly amendment: Use the plan definition from Motion H.”
Note that this reference to ‘Motion H’ is NOT a reference to the mysterious ‘Section H’ which theoretically could (if it exists) differentiate between value, fact, and policy.
‘Motion H’ as Graber uses it refers to another amendment about plans in Public Forum, which CHSSA passed in the same session. No relation besides the letter H.
Why would they do this to us?
BECAUSE POLICY JUDGES HAVE ALL THEIR PRO POLICY BIAS!!!
BIAS!!!
Because.. you know… aff always wins in parli
I’m pretty sure that because CHASSA recognizes Fact, Value, and Policy resolutions as distinct that this change only applies to value. It’d be kind of hard to debate a policy res without a policy? Either way still awful.
Artem and I are looking for something in the official rules or council minutes that discerns between the three. If you or anyone else has information on it, it would be greatly appreciated.
Resolutions are written with fact/value/policy distinction in mind (at least at CFL tournaments), but this rule would still be problematic, because the type of resolution can be subject to interpretation.
@Ben: So how was the DQ decision made? Did you or anyone representing you have any say?
I was not there for the actual decision-making.
I took a POI in the LOR that basically said that CP’s are illegal. It devolved into a 2 minute discussion of rules (we stopped time, because neither side was entirely sure of the rule, and I wasn’t going to keep extending the Ads of the CP if the rule were true). Eventually, we settled on just debating it out as though there were no rule, and having the rule violation be looked at after-round.
I assume that my coach advocated for me in the protest. He later informed me that CP’s are illegal, in reference to the round.
This is a silly and unnecessary rule. I suppose it’s incumbent on the government to clearly define the round as a value round and then ensure that there’s enough ground left for the opposition. This is going to be messy, especially when a gov team seems to be implementing a policy, the opp responds with a CP, and the gov team retreats to value and argues CP’s not allowed.
I foresee lovely rounds that focus on nothing but the issue of abuse.
What happens when the opp team (1) claims abuse, (2) has a legitimate argument why the round should be turned into a policy round, (3) debates policy, and (4) also debates the value just in case the judge doesn’t buy the first three arguments. Does the gov team claim a violation of the rules and therefore gets the win even if they offered no ground to opp?
Isn’t this something the judge should decide?
I think the Gov would be in more danger. The general “plan is a test of resolution’s truth” argument is still legal, regardless of the rule that plans are illegal.
The general concept is: the resolution is vague on purpose. It is open for a multiplicity of possible plans. We know some plans will be bad and some will be better (by varying degrees). A judge cannot assume a workable plan for putting the resolution into action exists and/or creates more benefits than harms, as that is interventionalist. Thus, the existence of a plan in debate basically attempts to prove the resolution true by creating a specific framework and course of action. If plan is good, and is topical, then the resolution is true: USFG/TH SHOULD “resolution” (BY doing plan).
Without plan, debate becomes vague, pointless, and uneducational. If Opp runs this kind of argument, Gov’s only legitimate response is that plans are illegal, “we’d run them if we could”. And that just gets convoluted.
What is this….
I could be wrong, but I think this rule change only applies to Lincoln Douglas debate. Section 3 of Article XI in the CHSSA bylaws is the section on LD. Parli is Section 4.
If anyone in Parli has been penalized by this rule, it was likely an unfortunate error IMHO.
I second the above comment. I read through the minutes from that meeting and it appears that plans have been eliminated from LD (it is Section 3 of Article XI as previously stated). There was also a motion regarding plans in Public Forum.
No mention of plans in Parli.
Caperton is the coach for RHS, but none of his students participate in Parli.
This is false.
1st, “Parliamentary debate” is never mentioned in this portion of the minutes, 2nd, the amendment in bold states “No plan shall be presented by either *DEBATER* in the round,” when this says “debater” it implies only one debater which would be LD, and 3rd, the amendment is to “Section 3″ Parli is in Section 4.
After reading over the meeting minutes again, I think I can shed light over why this misinterpretation has occurred.
This is the motion in question, and the motion right above it:
As you can see, someone reading this without reading too closely may falsely interpret the two motions as one motion and believe that “Regarding rules changes in Parliamentary Debate” refers to the removal of plans, instead of whatever motion was withdrawn.
Additionally, Wardner references that it’s good to have similarities between the NFL and State definitions of a plan. Parliamentary debate isn’t an NFL event, but Lincoln Douglas is.
I’m getting rid of the thread seeing how it’s an stain on my journalistic reputation. Also, this was mostly Ben’s fault.
Anyway, happy ending for all. Parli stays as is, but now we have another reason to laugh at LDers.
LOLZ artem, you’re an idiot, way to pin this on Ben…
Agreed, this mostly was my fault.
I’m still researching this issue further, as my coach informed me that the decision was that counterplans are illegal. I will be getting to the bottom of the issue.
Furthermore, this is still useful information for the LD community, as plans have become illegalized in LD.
CFL League 1 was today, with 5 Parli undefeated.
Leland LY (Samuel Lin & Brian Yin)
Leland WK (Albert Wu & Wooju Kim)
Bellarmine ??
And two others I don’t know of.
Bellarmine was Byrd… and someone
And then 2 Wilcox teams as well
Parliamentary & Public Forum Debate allocations (based on 48 entries per event):
Area 1 – CFL 6, GGSA 6
Area 2 – Sacto 4, SVFL 5, YFL 3
Area 3 – SCDL 5, Tri Valley 4, WBFL 3
Area 4 – CBSR 4, OCSL 4, SDIVSL 4
http://www.cahssa.org/PDF/Minutes/Minutes2010-09.pdf
Sacramento is now CVFL, btw. So, if anyone ever refers to CVFL they’re talking about Sacto (Capitol Valley Forensics League).
Is Lynbrook going to UOP, Aditya?
No we are not
As much as we would like to, it conflicts with Meadows and we don’t have another chaperone easily available for 2 travel tournaments on the same weekend.
Too bad really, UOP is a pretty nice tourney
CFL results are up: http://www.pointofinformation.org/results/leagues/cfl/cfl-2010-2011/cfl-1-leland/
Does anyone have results from GGSA League II Parli?
http://www.joyoftournaments.com/ca/ggsa-parli/2010/results3.htm
4-0′s:
Bentley: Brog & Judge
DeLaSalle/Carondelet: Freitas & Clakley
Dougherty Valley: Tu & Zhu