Michael Harris Takes College Prep

Oakland, CA – Nikhil Nag & Jeff Liu will provide live updates from the 11th Annual College Preparatory School Invitational, now featuring a quarters bid due to USC’s cancellation. There is no warm room, but for #cps12 elimination pairings and results follow @NSD_Update.

Double Octafinals:
Harker SP def. La Costa Canyon BC (Brennan Carruthers) 2-1 (Mackenzie, Bhat, *Goyal)
La Jolla RP def. Loyola NF (Nick Froelich) 3-0 (Mackenzie, Jiang, Phillips)
Lynbrook HS def. Immaculate Heart KH (Katherine Hughes) 3-0 (Bob Overing, Pak, Lamothe)
Harvard-Westlake TC def. Palo Alto AZ (Allen Zheng) 3-0 (Jiang, Alderete, Kumar)
Flintridge Sacred Heart MA vs. Dougherty Valley JS (Jamie Shen) (Jagadeesan, Morris, Hinojoza)
Brentwood JL def. Immaculate Heart HS (Hiyawan Solomon) 2-1 (Nag, *Jay Bhatnagar, Roshni Bhatnagar)
Peninsula AT def. Loyola BK (Ben Koh) 3-0 (Roshni Bhatnagar, Joshi, Choi)
Peninsula DT def. Torrey Pines AR (Adam Roke) 3-0 (Legried, Vance, Choi)
Peninsula HZ def. Harvard-Westlake CC (Cameron Cohen) 3-0 (Lamothe, Pielstick, Legried)
Torrey Pines JH over Torrey Pines AS (Achinthya Soordelu)
Loyola MH def. Mountain View AJ (Arman Jaffer) 2-1 (*Kennedy, Wynn, Jablon)
Harker KD def. Wenatchee CS (Colton Smith) 2-1 (Kennedy, *Wynn, Pak)
Peninsula AJ def. Harvard-Westlake AM (Amelia Miller) 3-0 (Fink, Dharani, Meyers)
Loyola CK def. Harvard-Westlake WG (Will Gingold) 2-1 (*Achten, Dharani, Fink)
Los Altos SD def. Mission San Jose AB (Anand Balaji) 3-0 (Case, Newkirk, Pielstick)
Harvard-Westlake SH def. Harker RX (Raymond Xu) 2-1 (Case, Newkirk, Alderete)

Octafinals:
Harker KD def. Lynbrook HS (Haziq Siddiqi) 2-1 (Lamothe, *Jablon, Overing)
Loyola MH def. Torrey Pines JH (Josh Helali) 3-0 (Nag, Bhat, Joshi)
Peninsula DT def. Flintridge Sacred Heart MA (Monica Amestoy) 3-0 (Case, Choi, Zerbid-Berda)
Peninsula HZ def. Harvard-Westlake TC (Tommy Choi) 3-0 (Legried, Mackenzie, Newkirk)
Harvard-Westlake SH def. Peninsula AJ (Akhil Jalan) 2-1 (Legried, Mackenzie, Subramanian)
La Jolla RP def. Brentwood JL (Jackson Lallas) 2-1 (Nag, Jiang, *Jay Bhatnagar)
Harker SP def. Peninsula AT (Arjun Tambe) 2-1 (Lamothe, Newkirk, Arid)
Loyola CK def. Los Altos SD (Salim Damerdji) 2-1 (Case, *Jablon, Choi)

Quarters:
Loyola CK def. Harker KD (Karan Das-Grande) 3-0 (Choi, Case, Fink)
Loyola MH def. Harvard-Westlake SH (Shelby Heitner) (Jiang, Joshi, Bhatnagar)
Peninsula DT def. Harker SP (Srikar Pyda) (Newkirk, Kennedy, Legried)
Peninsula HZ def. La Jolla RP (Ram Prasad) 2-1 (Lamothe, *Pielstick, Mackenzie)

Semis:
Loyola MH def. Peninsula HZ (Henry Zhang)
Peninsula DT def. Loyola CK (Chris Kymn)

Finals:
Loyola MH def. Peninsula DT (Daniel Tartakovsky) 3-0 (Fink, Lamothe, Case)

Champion:
Loyola MH (Michael Harris)


  • Congrats to Michael on the win, and to Daniel on finals and top speaker. I think most people who watched the final round will agree with me that it was phenomenal.
    Also congrats to Srikar “Pyda Bread” Pyda and Karan on the bid, Shelby on the qual, and Chris Kymm on semis.
    Finally, thanks to College Prep on amazing hospitality throughout the tournament.

  • Hi everyone I’d like to make a post about an issue with a
    specific policy that the CPS tournament had.

    Before I do so. I just want to congratulate everyone who bid
    or got to a bid round.

    Anyway, in my bubble round there was a situation I faced
    regarding the representation of the evidence. A specific methodology, in a card
    was misrepresented to make the evidence seem “godlike.” I made the argument in
    the 1AR and the 2AR as to why it is misrepresented and why my judge should look
    at it at the end of the round. The methodology was supporting a card that
    stated rehabilitation leads to more racism, which was ultimately where my
    opponent “won” on (apparently because it took out all of the AC offense). In the RFD he refused to look at the evidence because it would just be “mitigation” of the arguments. This is problematic because the study is methodologically flawed and was a takeout to the study because it was an argument that the whole study was based on a false premise. It is also noteworthy that this study was the only response on the AC (a bunch of cross-apps). Now, this judge refused to look at the evidence so I naturally did what all angry of debaters did. I went to my coach and asked him to ask tab to review the evidence. The summary of the evidence would be sufficient to realize the argument was misrepresented. However, tab refused to do so because “evidence challenges are at the discretion of the judge in round.” The above situation is one insignificant round to the rest of the community but it explains why I think invitational tournaments with bids ought to be required to evaluate evidence if the judge refused in round to evaluate the evidence whatsoever. I feel like tab has the obligation to do check up evidence to ensure the fairness of the tournament ifthe evidence has been called out.

    Let me put it this way:

    They don’t want
    misrepresented evidence – I said she misrepresented the evidence – asked the
    judge to look at it – The judge refused to even though it was made explicit in
    the round and after the round – I went to my coach and asked him to talk to tab
    – tab said that evidence challenging is done at the discretion of the judge.

    I guess you can see my issue with this. I hope future
    tournament directors think about allowing evidence challenges if the judge does
    not consider the challenge.

    Also, I really don’t want this to be a personal attack on
    anyone. This is just a debater describing what happened and why I believe tournaments
    should be obligated to review evidence challenges if a judge refuses to do so.

    • TheBerkeleyBear

      Tourneys also want judges to vote for the better debater, but you can’t argue with tab over bad decisions. The judge thought that even if the evi was miscut, your opponent would be the better debater since it’d just be mitigation. It sucks that you’re irked, but you should probably just pref judges accordingly.

    • anon94

      what gives a tabroom any more discretion over a judge? the tabroom wasn’t present for the round, would probably be forced to evaluate from two incredibly biased presentations of the dispute from each side and has no reason to care about rewarding the correct debater at all. moreover, when the lone wolf without a coach institutes this kind of challenge against a debater with a big time coach who knows the tabroom, who do you think is going to win?

    • Tab room speaking here. I think I join pretty much every other tab room in the country in holding a strong presumption against overturning the decision of a judge. Tab wasn’t in the round. Even if tab was in the round, tab’s perspective on the debate may be different than that of the judge. After all, how many times have you listened to an RFD in elims in which each of the three judges decided for entirely different reasons? The potential for disaster is far greater in a world in which tab is comfortable overturning judges’ decisions. Though it may offer little comfort at the moment, your best protection is to take what you have learned about this judge and use it when filling out your judge prefs in the future. You need to persuade the judge in the room, and it appears that in this case the judge was not persuaded that s/he needed to examine the evidence in order to render a decision.

      If the issue was something more extreme (evidence fabrication, cards cut out of context/misrepresented), then the issue is somewhat different, but still should not require tab intervention. In these cases you are making an ethics challenge. That’s an all in move on which you stake the debate. You ask the judge to read the evidence immediately and decide if the other debater cheated. If s/he is persuaded that the other debater cheated, you win. If not, you lose. Evidence challenges of this sort should not be entered into lightly. Reputations are at stake. In some cases, debaters accused of cheating are suspended from the activity, sometimes even from school. Conversely, unfounded accusations of cheating can backfire terribly on the reputation of the debater making the accusation.

      • I guess that’s fair. Thanks for actually taking the time to respond (most people would just ignore the rant).

        • No problem. I know that you were upset and I appreciate that your original post was not made in an inflammatory manner. You handled yourself far more maturely than many.

    • anon24

      I understand that you’re upset about the way things were handled, but I totally agree with the manner in which tab handled it. Having tab review evidence would create way more problems than it would solve. Also, it may seem like your view of how things ought to occur in debate is correct, but keep in mind that this is an activity that is entirely comprised of completely subjective viewpoints of how the activity ought to be. That’s why we have judge prefs and thats why we have different circuits.

  • I.am.Big.Bob

    Public Service Announcement: The key to beating util is reading a evidence ethics theory shell on one piece of irrelevant evidence. And supposedly Rakowski is not a utilitarian. Weird. Also,shout-out to non-interventionist judges!

    • Rakowski is a luck egalitarian dude

      • I.am.Big.Bob

        Nah, Rakowski is a util guy. Cuz util is trutil.

    • If there are arguments in your case that are “irrelevant,” then you suck at writing cases.

      • I.am.Big.Bob

        It wasnt me. But by irrelevant I mean that it wasnt abusivey cut at all. It was framed to seem like the opposing debater could not debate at all. It was a stupid arguement on one framework card just so that the debater didnt have to engage in real debate. And on top of that, the person who initiated theory still lost the theory debate. And it was a terrible interpretation.

        • When you say the Rakowski card “wasnt [sic] abusively cut,” you’re disregarding basic tenets of academic integrity. It might not skew the round, but it could certainly get you kicked out of high-school, college, or academia. It’s very relevant.

          • anon94

            theres a difference between misinterpreting and miscutting. saying he is a utilitarian based on one excerpt (card) isn’t any different from thinking that the onion is real news. stupid? sure. malicious? probably not. there are various readings of the lit of every philosopher that draw different conclusions.

          • Unless you lazily copy/paste cards from articles you’ve never read, it’d be impossible to misinterpret Rakowski’s position. Here’s the article people cut Rakowski from:
            http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2710&context=facpubs

          • anon94

            the conclusion of the article indicates that saving the many is good under certain conditions

            “Killing some people to save others from death is wrong, unless the
            killing accords with a rule that everyone killed accepted overtly or
            would reasonably have found beneficial to adopt”

            it seems to me that this article posits an even stronger claim for arguments about extinction coming first or threshold deontology.

          • Even in the sentence you quote, he’s explicitly stating that everyone in society under the veil of ignorance has to accept utilitarianism for it to be permissible to implement utilitarianism. I’m also not sure how you could miss the bulk of the essay on the constraints if you ended up cutting a card from the very middle.

          • anon94

            the rest of the sentence is even more utilitarian. congrats on proving my point.

          • If you interpret utilitarianism to mean:
            1. The vast majority of people must agree to util for anyone to act on util
            2. Otherwise, acting on act-util “is wrong”
            3. We don’t have to save the lives of Kantians (sorry Pritt)
            4. We don’t have to save the lives of Christians (who believe in the first commandment)

            Once again, this article is only making the innocuous claim that if people consent to a principle such as maximizing life, we’re permitted to exercise that principle in situations where they’re concerned.

          • I.am.Big.Bob

            Salim just won’t admit that util is trutil.

          • anon24

            Theres so many utils! Utils everywhere!

          • Util sucks.

  • nikhiln17

    Congratulations to Karan Das-Grande on registering upset after upset to attain his first bid to the TOC. Who knew you’d be this good this fast? Also, shout out to Los Altos’s Salim Damerdji for reaching octafinals and to Loyola’s Chris Kymn for getting another bid for #justicelab.

  • Quarters:
    Harker KD vs. Loyola CK (Choi, Case, Fink)
    Loyola MH vs. HWL SH (Jiang, Joshi, Bhatnagar)
    Peninsula DT vs. Harker SP (Newkirk, Kennedy, Legried)
    Peninsula HZ vs. La Jolla RP (Lamothe, Pielstick, Mackenzie)