Jump to content
Zachsta

CA State Champs

Recommended Posts

yea you guys are right, well any way does anyone want to attempt to tell anyone what anyone runs in their league

 

you seem to care a lot, why don't you start?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm from Centennial's region, and as far as I know, they don't have any policy teams...at least none that competed at state quals. Also, their team as a whole has apparently lost a lot of support--they're only bringing ONE competitor to nat quals (in extemp), compared to last year when they won sweeps at nquals.
That's so sad, we used to be good. I guess it makes sense; Audrey and Armen were about the only serious competitors after we graduated, and from what I gather, they've pretty much given up this year. Oh well, at least PLNU is having a really good year. I'll take solace in that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's so sad, we used to be good. I guess it makes sense; Audrey and Armen were about the only serious competitors after we graduated, and from what I gather, they've pretty much given up this year. Oh well, at least PLNU is having a really good year. I'll take solace in that.

 

Actually, If I remember correctly, Armen is the only competitor at nat quals...he's in extemp. What year did you graduate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For whoever wants to know:

From my experience, Davis tends to run negative arguments that are equivalent to spec args (aspec, ospec, etc). They say you must specify who enforces (agent), who funds (must specify... like deficit spending, etc), your mandate (what you think the usfg should do), and something else i'm forgetting, within your plan text. So pretty much the only thing that you need spec, other than what you normally would, if you're debating davis is where money is coming from... they don't buy normal means. Also they say that you must explicitly state the stock issues in the name of your contention (Observation 1: Inherency, Observation 2: Significance, Observation 3: Harms, Observation 4: Advantages, Observation 5: Solvency). Example: last year for lay rounds we had Observation 2: significance and harms, and then said Adv. 1... and they said you can't do that.

 

As for their affs, i know they have peace corps, native languages, disaster relief, lsa, and linguists... so nothing too bizarre.

 

hope that helps

-Basil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey Akash, do you know if by chance the St. Vincent team is Atkinson/Schueman (went to state last year)?

No its not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For whoever wants to know:

From my experience, Davis tends to run negative arguments that are equivalent to spec args (aspec, ospec, etc). They say you must specify who enforces (agent), who funds (must specify... like deficit spending, etc), your mandate (what you think the usfg should do), and something else i'm forgetting, within your plan text. So pretty much the only thing that you need spec, other than what you normally would, if you're debating davis is where money is coming from... they don't buy normal means. Also they say that you must explicitly state the stock issues in the name of your contention (Observation 1: Inherency, Observation 2: Significance, Observation 3: Harms, Observation 4: Advantages, Observation 5: Solvency). Example: last year for lay rounds we had Observation 2: significance and harms, and then said Adv. 1... and they said you can't do that.

 

As for their affs, i know they have peace corps, native languages, disaster relief, lsa, and linguists... so nothing too bizarre.

 

hope that helps

-Basil

 

k just want to offer some advice here, you prolly dont want to spec you funding becasue its more theoretically illegit, its better just to beat F-spec (shittiest spec ever because its just bad for debate so unless you bite it with inround decision making, like spiking a D/a

 

and you shouldnt change your style just cuz they run tick tacky procedurals, just beat them onface

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
k just want to offer some advice here, you prolly dont want to spec you funding becasue its more theoretically illegit, its better just to beat F-spec (shittiest spec ever because its just bad for debate so unless you bite it with inround decision making, like spiking a D/a

 

and you shouldnt change your style just cuz they run tick tacky procedurals, just beat them onface

Plus What Lay judge is going to buy f-spec anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plus What Lay judge is going to buy f-spec anyway?

 

 

um all of them, they run it all every round and some how they win, they dont give any voters to it or explain what abuse occurs they just claim it is against the "rules" of debate, which is i guess a jurisdictional voter but they never really say, it is dumb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
um all of them, they run it all every round and some how they win, they dont give any voters to it or explain what abuse occurs they just claim it is against the "rules" of debate, which is i guess a jurisdictional voter but they never really say, it is dumb

Just like cry a little. moms always buy it if you cry. haha. This is a dumb arg, if i lose i will really cry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
k just want to offer some advice here, you prolly dont want to spec you funding becasue its more theoretically illegit, its better just to beat F-spec (shittiest spec ever because its just bad for debate so unless you bite it with inround decision making, like spiking a D/a

 

and you shouldnt change your style just cuz they run tick tacky procedurals, just beat them onface

 

davis has done really well in lay rounds, and parents buy their arguments. i actually feel that you should change your "style" to accomodate parent judges. parents are more likely to buy an argument saying you're breaking the "rules" of debate as opposed to something is "theoretically" illegit.

 

that's just my take on the situation...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
um all of them, they run it all every round and some how they win, they dont give any voters to it or explain what abuse occurs they just claim it is against the "rules" of debate, which is i guess a jurisdictional voter but they never really say, it is dumb

 

 

well they seemed to have mastered the #1 rule of lay judges:

 

lying wins rounds

 

 

 

....

 

 

 

 

or they are just dumb and actually think its a rule

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they actually think it's a rule... they have this little book of rules. i mean i didnt take it seriously till parents bought it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
davis has done really well in lay rounds, and parents buy their arguments. i actually feel that you should change your "style" to accomodate parent judges. parents are more likely to buy an argument saying you're breaking the "rules" of debate as opposed to something is "theoretically" illegit.

 

that's just my take on the situation...

 

 

i totally agree on changing start vs lay judges, but not for a team, unless tehy are really alot better than you, and the only thing you can do to have a chance is try and dodge their arguments...

 

 

anyway just explain why its not a rule and to even consult their judging instructions and offer reasons why F spec fucks over debate

 

 

 

AND they are lay judges so tell them to look at the impacts of the case before "dumb" args like T becasue it actually matters...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
they actually think it's a rule... they have this little book of rules. i mean i didnt take it seriously till parents bought it.

 

okay then say that you get you money from funraising such as bake sales and car washes or say it comes from teh profits generated by the selling of government siezed property

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, If I remember correctly, Armen is the only competitor at nat quals...he's in extemp. What year did you graduate?
I graduated last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AND they are lay judges so tell them to look at the impacts of the case before "dumb" args like T becasue it actually matters...

I Agree full heartedly. This aregument is dumb. Say that and explain why you have to look at the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First,

 

Trashing a team in a public forum is not cool unless they've done something really over the line--like pretending to disclose their AFF, but actually lying about it. Trust me, I've beat my head against the wall over the Bellarmines and Homestead teams who may be losing on the flow (and that was definitely not always the case because Bell and Homestead teams have delivered their share of fast round beatdowns), but managed to convince the judges that the sky was green and the grass blue. But you respect those teams because they can do something you can't.

 

Davis, and Bellarmine, talk how lay judges want you to talk. They don't use words like fiat or F-Spec or turn or voter or extra-topical. If I may lay some wisdom on you youngsters given to me by the infamous Hoon Ko: Parents are interested in how things get funded because they pay taxes. While Davis' willingness to identify "pork barrel" spending that can be cut to fund their plan is extra-topical, it is effective when talking to John and Jane Q. Taxpayer. While I believe extra-topicality can be explained to parents, I don't think the time it would take to do so is worth the effort.

 

One thing national-circuit teams have on league teams is your depth of knowledge on the topic. Use it. There is a reason that the state champions in policy for the last decade have been teams that compete on the national circuit. That's because they know the resolution far better than the schools who only know how to pay lip service to lay judges.

 

Since noone seems to have listed the teams from the SVFL who will be attending state:

 

Davis x4

Jesuit FM

McClatchy DC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Teams attending state and NFL Tourneys, particularly in California, should read Marcus' post above, and many of his other posts written on judge adaptation, and pay CAREFUL attention to what he has written. In fact, I just returned from judging the NFL Qualifier in SoCAL, and I assure each of you that my ballots and decisions were no better arrived at than ANY of the parents, volunteer students or "non-circuit" coaches I was privileged to sit next to and with whom I was HONORED to judge.

 

I say thanks to Marcus and to the others who have written in a fashion similar to the words that Marcus chose in discussing Davis, because my nephew debated for Davis last year, and the year before, and although he and his partner did not debate this year as Seniors, I know how hard he and his partner worked, and how well they did even at "Circuit" tourneys.

 

Debate is a MARVELOUS activity, and there is room for a plethora of ideas, and a solid diversity of styles, without the need for, or utility of, public abuse being heaped upon anyone who at least TRIES to participate in the activity.

 

Good luck to all at your state tournaments and qualifiers, read Marcus' posts, and ENJOY the experience regardless of the TYPE of judge sitting in the back of the room who is holding a ballot with your team's name listed as a competitor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coast Forensics League

 

Bellarmine Go/Vora

Bellarmine Chung/Yang

Bellarmine Karnik/Shah

Bellarmine Deshmukh/Vijay

Bellarmine Dimitrov/Walia

Bellarmine Simmons/Wong

Leland Liu/Young

Lynbrook Gupta/Ho

St. Francis Kazi/Rahman

 

Does anybody know what Affs teams are running because it would be sweet if we could have at least some type of Aff casebook

 

lets hear a bellarmine aff first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

K I think we're still missing some leagues. Last year there were 62 teams entered total.

 

We know about:

CFL

GGSA

SoVFL

Sacto

OCSL

MarMonte

SDIVSL

WBFL

 

Anyone know about these:

YFL

SCDL

TVFL

CBSR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

64 teams isn't it? regardless, this is the list so far

 

Arroyo Grande CF

Arroyo Grande LS

Bakersfield VH

Bellarmine Go/Vora

Bellarmine Chung/Yang

Bellarmine Karnik/Shah

Bellarmine Deshmukh/Vijay

Bellarmine Dimitrov/Walia

Bellarmine Simmons/Wong

Davis

Davis

Davis

Davis

Edison NG

Edison BM

Edison RL

Fullerton GL

Fullerton PS

Fullerton ST

Fullerton CM

Hoover CC

Irvington

James Logan LP

James Logan BC

James Logan WW

James Logan BD

James Logan HM

James Logan AC

James Logan SW

Jesuit FM

La Costa CS

La Costa FH

La Costa LH

La Costa BM

La Costa GS

Leland Liu/Young

Loyola GP

Loyola DV

Loyola HO

Lynbrook Gupta/Ho

McClatchy DC

Ridgeview GR

St. Francis Kazi/Rahman

St Vincent

San Dieguito SK

Sanger PF

Sanger MT

 

That's 47 teams accounted for so far, unless i missed some...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...