Jump to content
theglobalcowboy

NFL Policy Elims

Recommended Posts

 

I know George Washington won for a fact (I watched it), but I heard that Greenhill won as well. Can anyone verify?

GW wins on a 6-5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know who sat?

 

It's streaming now - can be found on the nfl facebook page.

 

the panel was announced - sorry for mispellings. got some of the affiliations

 

gig harbor chris cobert

mtn brook jeff roberts.

dept asst sec ME colin kahl.

gbn michael greenstein.

daryl burch.

lee's summit - nate smith.

gbs tara tate.

marty laber.

ft lauderdale - james wakefield.

judy croll.

russ tidwell.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've judged NFL Finals twice, and in both instances there was not a "who voted for whom" session....no oral critique session. At the conclusion of the round the judges were taken to a separate room to write our ballots. We could ask for any evidence we wanted but there was no formal face-to-face with the debaters. The decision was announced but not specifie as to which judges voted which way.

 

Perhaps it was different this year, I wasn't there.

 

Some of the judges who are Cross-X members have come on here to explain/expand on their ballots, but not all obviously

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the panel, but who voted for who?

Voting AFF: Roberts, Kahl, Greenstein, Burch, Tate.

Voting NEG: Coovert, Smith, Laber, Wakefield, Kroll, Tidwell.

(borrowing spellings from above, some may be incorrect)

 

While I'm posting, I'd like to thank the debaters and coaches from Greenhill for a gracious, respectful, fun round. I'd also like to congratulate and thank everyone against whom Sam and Miles competed - though we're obviously circuit outsiders, we were met with nothing but class.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bryant Yang is only a sophomore. That makes me a bit terrified to debate him next year.

yeah that dude went to Nebraska DI this year and killt it, SFL just so happens to be one of the most bad ass teams out there

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voting AFF: Roberts, Kahl, Greenstein, Burch, Tate.

Voting NEG: Coovert, Smith, Laber, Wakefield, Kroll, Tidwell.

(borrowing spellings from above, some may be incorrect)

 

While I'm posting, I'd like to thank the debaters and coaches from Greenhill for a gracious, respectful, fun round. I'd also like to congratulate and thank everyone against whom Sam and Miles competed - though we're obviously circuit outsiders, we were met with nothing but class.

 

Sincerest congratulations to you and your team; I couldn't help but notice that most of the ballots you lost came from people connected with national circuit teams; did it come down to a style choice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voting AFF: Roberts, Kahl, Greenstein, Burch, Tate.

Voting NEG: Coovert, Smith, Laber, Wakefield, Kroll, Tidwell.

(borrowing spellings from above, some may be incorrect)

 

While I'm posting, I'd like to thank the debaters and coaches from Greenhill for a gracious, respectful, fun round. I'd also like to congratulate and thank everyone against whom Sam and Miles competed - though we're obviously circuit outsiders, we were met with nothing but class.

 

lol, and as expected, the 4 big name policy coaches vote for greenhill. congrats to GW on the win and being absolutely ridiculous at persuading non-policy judges to vote for them.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sincerest congratulations to you and your team; I couldn't help but notice that most of the ballots you lost came from people connected with national circuit teams; did it come down to a style choice?

It did. Sam and Miles decided before the round that they wanted a case debate and that they would prioritize charisma and persuasiveness above winning every issue on the flow. That's what they did, but I will admit that the margin was awfully close for comfort. The diversity of panels is definitely the most difficult part of NFLs: you need to be an excellent technical team to get to finals, but you need to adapt impeccably to win the last round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, and as expected, the 4 big name policy coaches vote for greenhill. congrats to GW on the win and being absolutely ridiculous at persuading non-policy judges to vote for them.

 

This might be a bit offensive... Although Greenhill may have been more successful on the circuit this year, I watched the round and thought that GW was amazingly persuasive. I think that there is a tendency for people who are used to circuit type debate to shun other styles of policy debate. I definitely prefer a fast debate, but people who are used to and like slow debate are not "dumb", or inferior to fast debaters.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might be a bit offensive... Although Greenhill may have been more successful on the circuit this year, I watched the round and thought that GW was amazingly persuasive. I think that there is a tendency for people who are used to circuit type debate to shun other styles of policy debate. I definitely prefer a fast debate, but people who are used to and like slow debate are not "dumb", or inferior to fast debaters.

 

Where do I claim that GW is dumb or in "inferior" to fast debaters? GW did a great job and in the end convinced a majority of judges to write a ballot their way. I think its agreed that if we were to examine the flow argument by argument, Greenhill won the debate, but not all of the judges judge that way. As TheGreatInstigator said, GW put the emphasis on rhetoric and persuasiveness because they knew that was their best shot to win. I was not "shunning" them, rather I was congratulating them on being successful in their style of debate (which caters to non-circuit judges). However, the win would have been infinitely more impressive had they gotten a ballot from someone like Tara Tate or Greenstein as it would have proved that GW could compete with Greenhill at a national circuit level, which they are probably are not able to without completely revamping their style of debate.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be wrong, but doesn't George Washington's win break the streak of national circuit teams winning NFL? Or, should the fact that George Washington broke at Alta count them as a national circuit team - I forget, from last year's post tourney discussion, how that all shakes out.

 

 

 

Where do I claim that GW is dumb or in "inferior" to fast debaters? GW did a great job and in the end convinced a majority of judges to write a ballot their way. I think its agreed that if we were to examine the flow argument by argument, Greenhill won the debate, but not all of the judges judge that way. As TheGreatInstigator said, GW put the emphasis on rhetoric and persuasiveness because they knew that was their best shot to win. I was not "shunning" them, rather I was congratulating them on being successful in their style of debate (which caters to non-circuit judges). However, the win would have been infinitely more impressive had they gotten a ballot from someone like Tara Tate or Greenstein as it would have proved that GW could compete with Greenhill at a national circuit level, which they are probably are not able to without completely revamping their style of debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They did get Mike Baxter-Kauf's ballot in semis vs. Mountain Brook

 

That's impressive. Although I though MBK sat out for Mtn Bk with another guy?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's impressive. Although I though MBK sat out for Mtn Bk with another guy?

 

You're right, I misread the FB status. And yes, it breaks a streak dating back to 1995 (as far as I can find TOC data) of the team who won NFLs being a TOC team. Not only that, in all but 2 years, the team who won cleared at the TOC, in the two years where they didn't, the NFL champion went 4-3.

 

Year NFLs Champion TOC Result

2010 Whitney Young GH Octafinals

2009 Damien EH Semis

2008 Colleyville DH Finals

2007 Glenbrook North FS Champion

2006 Bellarmine GG 4-3

2005 Montgomery Bell LR Quarters

2004 Glenbrook North NS Octas

2003 Blake GM Runoff

2002 St Marks BM Finals

2001 Glenbrook North KN Champion

2000 Glenbrook North KM 4-3

1999 Glenbrook North PS Octas

1998 Greenhill BT Finals

1997 Glenbrook North MS Octas

1996 Greenhill HM Quarters

1995 Niles West GL Semis (Closeout)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[

Thanks for confirming my memory is suspect. I recall a big fight about this last year.

 

quote name=theglobalcowboy' timestamp='1308528998' post='837796]

You'reThan right, I misread the FB status. And yes, it breaks a streak dating back to 1995 (as far as I can find TOC data) of the team who won NFLs being a TOC team. Not only that, in all but 2 years, the team who won cleared at the TOC, in the two years where they didn't, the NFL champion went 4-3.

 

Year NFLs Champion TOC Result

2010 Whitney Young GH Octafinals

2009 Damien EH Semis

2008 Colleyville DH Finals

2007 Glenbrook North FS Champion

2006 Bellarmine GG 4-3

2005 Montgomery Bell LR Quarters

2004 Glenbrook North NS Octas

2003 Blake GM Runoff

2002 St Marks BM Finals

2001 Glenbrook North KN Champion

2000 Glenbrook North KM 4-3

1999 Glenbrook North PS Octas

1998 Greenhill BT Finals

1997 Glenbrook North MS Octas

1996 Greenhill HM Quarters

1995 Niles West GL Semis (Closeout)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As one of the judges who votes neg, I certainly don't agree that Greenhill won every issue on the flow, and I'm pretty sure that is not generally "agreed" upon. It was an incredibly close round, and I am not surprised it ended up as a 6-5 decision. Countersmash: while I don't think you necessarily insulted GW in your post, I do think you made some assumptions about the judges on the top of the decision which are not true. If I have time, I will try to explain my decision in more detail at some point. It was a great honor for me to judge the final round this year (something I didn't expect at all going into the tournament), and I really enjoyed the round.

 

Also, I just wanted to confirm that we were taken to a room after the round, and they brought the debaters there. A lot of evidence was read by a decent portion of the judges and then we signed our ballots and turned them in. I was gone by the time awards came around, so I never had a chance to talk to the debaters. I don't know if any of the other judges did or not.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MBK did vote for us not GW (for clarification purposes).

I do think the split of national judges vs. others shows the inherent dichotomy of NFL Nationals. What I think is often left out is the credit given to national style teams for adapting (Greenhill/Damien/Pembroke etc) against teams who debate the more traditional Nationals style their entire career. I think the fact National style teams end up winning (or in this case are at least in finals) should prove the benefits of National circuit debate.

 

I personally think Greenhill won. GW dropped an addon, that's kinda unrecoverable.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am more than happy to give the community the RFD that I wrote on the ballot in the final round. It was an honor to judge this debate, where four incredibly talented debaters were great representations for policy debate. My articulation of the round is not a slam on the debaters that won (I was on the bottom of the decision) but I do think it helps generate educational discussion when current debaters can know what various judges were thinking.

 

I voted Affirmative.

 

I catalogued the debate into looking at the three major issues - the 2AC Chinese aggression add-on, the Disaster Relief DA, and the case debate:

 

1 - The 2AC add-on was dropped. This was not answered by the Negative in the block or the 2NR. A continuation of having a full Marine presence in Okinawa will signal to Japan that China should be feared. That self-fulfilling prophecy invokes posturing that could lead China to be aggressive. 100% risk of a nuclear war for the Affirmative.

 

2 - The DA - I wrote this on the ballot when the 1NC was finished: I did not think that, even if the 1NC won every argument in the debate, that they could outweigh the case. The DA had no articulated impact. I think the Negative did a great job spinning the story about future disaster relief centers. However, there was no articulated sizeable impact to that DA. I think the Affirmative further mitigates the DA with a couple of arguments - the current disaster relief project ended a few weeks ago (which took out the alliance impact) and that US military presence would still exist post-plan with other branches of the military. The Negative did not have a card specific to the Aff's troops. Small risk of a very small-impacted DA.

 

3 - The case - in my opinion, there was not much offense on case. The Negative spinned a logical story about the need for the troops to be closer together to increase speed for responding to crises. However, there was no evidence on this question...just the 2Ns "geography" and "get on the bus" depictions. I even gave the Negative the benefit of the doubt when I called for cards in the post-round to give me any card that they had that made this argument. They pointed me to the Aff's cards. The Aff's cards were clear on this point - it is more important for the troops to be in one centralized place for training (Okinawa is too small of an island so the Marines are too spread out in the status quo to train effectively) and the Marines can more quickly deploy themselves as a centralized unit. The Negative won some case mitigation on the GAO indict - the Marines have been poorly trained for 15 years. This, at best, is small defense.

 

When the Affirmative won a dropped nuclear war add-on, the Negative had a very large hill to climb to win my ballot. The Negative (in my opinion) only won a very small risk to a DA that had little impact. This did not outweigh the dropped Sino aggression add-on nor a very large risk of the case.

 

As an aside, for any individual that thinks I may have voted for the Affirmative because I am "national circuit", you need to brush up on your debate history. I debated for a tiny high school program near Joplin, MO, where my mom was my debate coach. This Carl Junction HS graduate can enjoy and adjudicate a round based on stock issues. The Negative framed the debate as a case vs. DA debate and the above commentary is how I saw the debate in a policymaker paradigm. There have been numerous times at NFL Nationals and at regional tournaments where I have voted for the "non-circuit" team. The "national circuit" label is irrelevant to me and certainly not one that correctly identifies my entire debate history.

 

Again, congratulations to all four debaters for an outstanding final round. It is a very diverse panel and it is difficult to pick and choose your approach. This is just how one lowly coach saw this 90 minutes of argumentation...

 

Tara Tate

Glenbrook South HS (IL)

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's streaming now - can be found on the nfl facebook page.

 

the panel was announced - sorry for mispellings. got some of the affiliations

 

gig harbor chris cobert

mtn brook jeff roberts.

dept asst sec ME colin kahl.

gbn michael greenstein.

daryl burch.

lee's summit - nate smith.

gbs tara tate.

marty laber.

ft lauderdale - james wakefield.

judy croll.

russ tidwell.Garden City KS, I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[

Thanks for confirming my memory is suspect. I recall a big fight about this last year.

 

quote name=theglobalcowboy' timestamp='1308528998' post='837796]

You'reThan right, I misread the FB status. And yes, it breaks a streak dating back to 1995 (as far as I can find TOC data) of the team who won NFLs being a TOC team. Not only that, in all but 2 years, the team who won cleared at the TOC, in the two years where they didn't, the NFL champion went 4-3.

 

Year NFLs Champion TOC Result

2010 Whitney Young GH Octafinals

2009 Damien EH Semis

2008 Colleyville DH Finals

2007 Glenbrook North FS Champion

2006 Bellarmine GG 4-3

2005 Montgomery Bell LR Quarters

2004 Glenbrook North NS Octas

2003 Blake GM Runoff

2002 St Marks BM Finals

2001 Glenbrook North KN Champion

2000 Glenbrook North KM 4-3

1999 Glenbrook North PS Octas

1998 Greenhill BT Finals

1997 Glenbrook North MS Octas

1996 Greenhill HM Quarters

1995 Niles West GL Semis (Closeout)

 

The 2005 NFL's was a rare feat where the two teams were both from Montgomery Bell Academy. So it should be MBA LR and MBA BW

http://www.nflonline.org/uploads/Rostrum/ha0905polbarton.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also voted Affirmative in this debate and let me start by saying that I am posting this because i did not have a chance to talk to the debaters personally and am rather disappointed at some of the comments made on this forum although i do understand them and am not offended. i will start off by saying that i debated for North Hardin Highschool in Radcliff Kentucky for three years and only debated a limited amount of time on the national circuit my senior year before going to the University of Louisville under Scott Harris (now director of debate at Kansas). Winning NFL districts was a big deal to us back then and i never had the opportunity to compete at NFL nationals because our district was that competitive so i have a great deal of respect and admiration for the people (ALL THE PEOPLE) on that stage. additionally being part of a revolutionary movement in debate that challenges the norms and procedures of switch side debate and line by line refutation i have an empathetic spirit to persuasive styled argumentative rhetoric and have championed that spirit through the University of Louisville, the Baltimore Urban Debate League as well as Towson University. Well that being said how i adjudicated the round.

 

Being that this round had no argumentation on the stylistic choices made by both sides, that was not an issue in this debate so i defaulted to a more traditional mode of evaluation.

 

The Add-on was conceded by the Negative giving the affirmative a huge risk of nuclear war in the debate. I would feel compelled to address this in a much different light had the negative mentioned systemic risks vrs probable calculations of war/extinction but none of these arguments were made. The 1AR and 2AR i thought were quite clear on the evaluation of this as a conceded impact.

 

The DA of disaster relief i thought had potential but I must agree with Tate on this one (odd huh?) that the Alexander evidence i believe (if my memory serves me correctly) was only articulated that if another disaster happens then the US should be held responsible which i did not think was an impact. There was no other articulation of why this should be weighed above the case impact or the add-on so i dismissed it as outweighed which affected my evaluation of the disad. Even if the negative wins the link to the da (though greenhill is challenging at the link level also) there is insufficient work at the impact level to weigh against the add-on and the case.

 

The Case debate i thought was characterized very well by Chris in the 2Ac and the 2AR by saying that the proficiency (may not have been his exact words) of marines post the affirmative would overcome the perception of a loss of numbers. Though the negative i thought was extremely eloquent and persuasive on there spin that leaving 2,200 troops would be perceived as a weakness and their spin on the geographical proximity of rapid response being necessary, I thought the affirmative's evidence was much cleaner and clearer on centralization mitigating the affect of only having 2,200 troops perceptually. In other words the aff still leaves some troops via the 31st meu and centralizes remaining troops increasing the proficiency of rapid response.

 

With a substantial case impact of Collapse of the alliance and East Asian instability combined with a conceded 2AC add-0n i thought the affirmative should win.

 

Let me end by saying that the TREMENDOUS and TALENTED style of George Washington made it a good debate and their strategic stylistic choice eventually served them victorious and i hope they chose to debate in college and have the opportunity and experience of travelling and competing nationwide. The activity needs more challenges to its rhetorical and argumentative style and i commend them on something i only dreamed of achieving. good luck to all in the future.

 

Daryl E. Burch

Head Coach, Capitol Debate

Howard County Maryland

Director of Forensics at the McDonogh School

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks and congratulations to the judges in the final round. The RFD is very well thought out and does show the forum how serious all of the panel takes the responsiblity.

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...