Noah Star Wins 2012 TOC

NSD_Update April 28, 2012 75 Comments

LEXINGTON, KY—Elimination results are posted below.

Congratulations to Lexington’s Noah Star for defeating Loyola’s Bob Overing to win the 2012 Tournament of Champions. (Photo appears courtesy of Shaun Ring.)

Noah is coached by Sara Sanchez, Chris Palmer, Steven Adler, and Jeff Liu; he was also assisted throughout the tournament by Nick Watts, Jonathan Chavez, Jason Zhou and Catherine Tarsney. Bob is coached by Michael Overing, John Scoggin, Ashan Peiris, Alex Zimmermann, James Zucker, Corbin Cass, and Tim McHugh.

RUN-OFF
Harrison DD (aff) def Scarsdale SN (Sam Natbony) 2-1
Evanston EB (NEG) def Kent Denver SM (Sam Mathews) 3-0 (Brown, Parker, Cath. Tarsney)
Suncoast CB (aff) def Harvard-Westlake MC (Michelle Choi) 2-1 (Holguin, *L.Scoggin, Zhou)
Greenhill RK (aff) def Dulles AK (Amyn Kassam) 3-0

OCTAFINALS
16. Suncoast CB (aff) def 1. PV DT (Daniel Tartakovsky) 3-0 (Parker, J.Scoggin, Smith)
2. Lexington NS (aff) def 18. Evanston EB (Erik Baker) 3-0 (Catterton, Parker, L.Scoggin)
3. Mountain View NN (NEG) def 14. Greenhill RK (Rebecca Kuang)
4. Aliso Niguel RG def 13. Harrison DD (Danny DeBois) 3-0
5. Loyola-Blakefield TC (NEG) def 12. PV HZ (Henry Zhang) 3-0
11. Stuyvesant AE (aff) def 6. University MF (Michael Fried) 2-1 (Green, Pearce, *Wilson)
10. Greenhill FD def 7. New Orleans Jesuit JP (Jacob Pritt) 2-1
9. Loyola BO (NEG) def 8. Scarsdale GK (Geoffrey Kristof) 2-1 (Brown*, Zhang, Zhou)

QUARTERS
4. Aliso Niguel RG (NEG) def 5. Loyola-Blakefield TC (Tom Cameron) 3-0 (Mandania, Niemi, J.Scoggin)
9. Loyola BO (aff) def 16. Suncoast CB (Carlton Bone) 2-1 (*Jennis, Zhang, Zhou)
2. Lexington NS (aff) def 10. Greenhill FD (Farhan Damani) 3-0 (Imas, Horowitz, Theis)
11. Stuyvesant AE (aff) def 3. Mountain View NN (Nikhil Nag) 3-0

SEMIS
2. Lexington NS (aff) def 11. Stuyvesant AE (Andre Eckholm) 3-0 (Imas, Lawrence, Parker)
9. Loyola BO (aff) def 4. Aliso Niguel RG (Regan Grishaber) 3-0 (Catterton, Niemi, Torson)

FINALS
2. Lexington NS (NEG) def 9. Loyola BO (Bob Overing) 2-1 (Lawrence, *Rose, Torson)

Champion: Lexington NS (Noah Star)

Speaker Awards:
1. New Orleans Jesuit- Jacob Pritt

2. PV Peninsula- Daniel Tartakovsky

3. Lexington- Noah Star

4. Mountain View- Nikhil Nag

5. Aliso Niguel- Regan Grishaber

6. University- Josh Tupler

7. Scarsdale- Geoffrey Kristof

8. Loyola- Bob Overing

9. Greenhill- Farhan Damani

10. Stuyvesant- Andrew Eckholm

11. PV Peninsula- Henry Zhang

12. CPS- Sarah Sachs

13. Meadows- Ryan Fink

14. Harrison- Danny Debois

15. Loyola Blakefield- Tom Cameron

16. Byram Hills Sammi Cannold

17. Greenhill- Rebecca Kuang

18. Kent Denver- Sam Matthews

19. Suncoast- Carlton Bone

20. Strake Jesuit- Drew McCormick

The bracket:

http://cis.uky.edu/debate/2012LDbracket

NSD Update is reporting live from TOC with a spreadsheet to provide public access to records and results. The Google Doc can be found here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnYKrVaDJbJJdDE3NkFiYzJmRWhzNTlWd3h3ZDRxY0E#gid=0

A special thanks goes out to Mike Bietz and Ben Koh for helping create and format the spreadsheet.

  • Update: error

  • Rebar Niemi

    but on a serious note, it is lame how many big schools actively attempt to disguise and hide their arguments. and also, if anyone EVER sees anything they’d like to see in a bainbridge case, guess what my email link works and i’ll reply and i’m not a broken dropbox link that probably never worked in the first place.

    rebar.niemi@gmail.com

    my philosophy is information wants 2 b free – but it also wants to b used well. 

    • Anonymous

      Which schools actively attempt to disguise and hide their arguments?

      • Rebar Niemi

        well greenhill for one – i saw someone posted a chaos children counterplan on your LD leaks and then someone else took it down.

        also you didn’t disclose the runoff round ac ms. kuang ran.

        for two, bainbridge. when we disclosed our TOC a strat, we obviously left out key things and didn’t even provide a cite for our crucial Babb 12 evidence.

        there are a number of kids with broken dropbox links too.

        • Rebar Niemi

          one time michelin massey told me about how greenhill had the most amazing evidence ever – some card about deterrence and nukes and studying conflicts through history. he literally said it was the best piece of evidence ever.

          i don’t think you’ve ever disclosed that!

          jake, i like that some of greenhill’s newer arguments have tried to drive at “what makes a better advocate/debater” but i’m curious, do you think that everyone should be running shells that indict their opponent’s chosen form of advocacy? i think its a good idea – force ppl to actually defend some of their practices or at least think about it (in round not out of round), but are you gonna be bummed if we say that you don’t produce the better advocate?

          • Anonymous

            I don’t handle the students’ disclosure pages on the NDCA wiki, but I thought Rebecca ran the same AC she’s been running in pretty much every other round of this topic, which is on the wiki.

            Like every other kind of argument, I think people should run advocacy skills arguments when they are good (or, at least, when they think they’re good). Theory also forces people to defend their practices, but I don’t encourage people to run bad theory arguments.

            You are the weakest troll on the WWW.

          • Rebar Niemi

            lol as you can tell i have no rational arguments nor examples nor data to back up my trolling. if that makes it weak – so be it. 

          • Rebar Niemi

            i’m of the neo-italian school of trolling: weak thought.

            I’M TRYING TO BE DEFEATED PLZ HELP.

  • I wanted to say that I really appreciated the use of MJP for the final panel, and the ability to strike 2 judges from a list of 7. The ‘All-Star’ approach to the final panel was dated and clearly not working.

  • Anonymous

    So when is the annual flamewar starting?

    • Rebar Niemi

      srsly someone get this thing going.

    • Anonymous

      I’ll just say it: what is the point of LDLeaks if it’s only available for members? When people started complaining about their cases being posted against their will, Nebel responded by saying it promoted free exchange of information and was better than secret unaccountable prep circles. Now that it’s an invite-only prep circle that allows members to secretly post others’ cases, why does it still exist?

      Not that it’s relevant anymore, but I hope this doesn’t still exist like this next year just so Jake can be a hypocrite on disclosure to abuse power and keep Timmon’s dying program afloat. (Ok, that last sentence was just to start a flamewar, but the rest of this was legit.)

      I don’t see what the big concern is about free-riders, it’s not like bad debaters succeed off of other people’s hard work. The people mining for cards on free wikis have a poor grasp of the topic lit and aren’t the ones winning tourneys. The best evidence ends up being shared anyways because it’s successful, and you don’t get to claim ‘dibs’ on some article you found online that someone else wrote.

      • Anonymous

        Rude comment aside, I’ll answer your question.

        Members-only LDLeaks is not a secret unaccountable prep circle because anyone can become a member. The only condition of membership is that you contribute. You don’t have to get invited; you can request to join on your own, and I’ve accepted every non-anonymous membership request. The reason for restricting it to people who contribute is that free-riding undermines the public good. The problem with free-riding isn’t that bad debaters stole cards; it’s that teams used LDLeaks to prepare for rounds even though they weren’t contributing. I’ve heard from a number of people that they are ideologically cool with LDLeaks but don’t contribute out of sheer laziness. That’s not fair to the people who do take the time to contribute.

        If I were a hypocrite about disclosure, I would be the guy who says that disclosure is good but doesn’t encourage his students to do it. But my students have disclosed voluntarily on the NDCA Wiki even though most others haven’t. So I’m not a hypocrite. (Not to imply that I *make* my students disclose; I don’t. They disclose because they think it’s the right thing to do.)

        What I do find hypocritical is that many people continue to share flows privately despite publicly criticizing LDLeaks.

        • One thing I’d say is I think the decision about whether it should be public or private should probably be made well in advance of TOC. It is a pretty time consuming thing to do while at the tournament, had I known it would be private I could have assigned a younger student from my school to just follow me around and do it. I decided during the course of the tournament that my time was better spent working with students. I think the fact that we decided we could opt out should be pretty good proof of the claim that most schools can get any flow they want even without disclosure. 
          It is shocking to me that so many people who would be benefited by this system continue to attack ldleaks, but I suppose it is their right to do so. Notice that Jake is pretty much the only big school person pushing this system, and frankly people should be thanking him for it. I support the system in the abstract because I find Jake’s arguments about its educational value and its right to exist very compelling, however I don’t have much of an incentive to be evangelist about it because I think its existence would be neutral or negative for my school.

          • In all seriousness, can anyone defend an argument for why ldleaks should not exist?

          • Anonymous

            I definitely agree it’s a good thing; in fact, my only complaint was that it’s no longer public. I think “why does it still exist” came off the wrong way, but what I meant is that I thought it was no different than the private prep circles; however, I think Jake’s explanation makes sense.

            It would be nice if the site was made public now that it’s over, as a kind of post-topic disclosure like circuitdebater. I think it would be a helpful educational resource because a) not that many people willingly disclose on circuitdebater, and b) this is more reflective of people’s actual strategy in round; if they ran short deont NC, two theory shells, and case turns and only the NC is disclosed, that doesn’t tell us much about how people are winning rounds.

          • Anonymous

            Good comments. I had never thought to make it members only because I assumed that people who wanted to use LD Leaks would contribute. I made it members only because usage statistics on the first day of TOC disproved that assumption. I didn’t know those statistics until the TOC actually started, so I think it was appropriate to make the decision during the tournament.

          • Fair enough, I hadn’t considered that you would be monitoring the usage. Just something to think about for the future.

        • Anonymous

          i think you make a fair point regarding making people contribute to see what has been leaked, but “Share everything you’ve seen, judged, or debated after each round” is too time consuming and demanding for many and IMO not worth the benefit gained by joining

          • Anonymous

            It usually takes me less than 90 seconds to post a summary, and you just copy/paste cites. But if you think that’s too demanding, then just don’t join.

            Or you can opt for the other membership condition — voluntary disclosure. I wrote on the site’s main page that I’ll let people join who voluntarily disclose everything they read, as long as they don’t privately share information. You can do that instead of disclosing everything that other people read.

        • Rebar Niemi

          i’m disclosing my role of the ballot: role of the ballot.

      • Erik Baker

        See, positing anonymously takes all the fun out of the flamewar. The vintage ones were great because you got to see all these people with the cajones to own up to their comments get on beef with each other in a no-holds-barred internet throwdown. Now it’s just Nebel vs. the anonymous denizens of the Update’s anti-disclosure wing. Where’s the fun in that? And “versus” is really too strong of a word for the polite word-mincing going on. “That last sentence was just to start a flamewar”? Come on. Let the words speak for themselves! I want to see blood!

        But seriously, it could just be that I haven’t quite come down from my post-ToC existentialism high, but I think anonymous posting is really annoying. Especially among debaters, people should take responsibility for what they say. 

        • Anonymous

          no – our identities are for steven adler only

          • Anonymous

            lol

        • Rebar Niemi

          debaters all b worried that they’ll ruin daddy and mommy’s good family name and then the ivy schools won’t let them in.

        • Anonymous

          I don’t think anyone who actually read my post can think I’m anti-disclosure… lol. But speaking of anti-disclosure, I don’t see a circuitdebater page with your name on it, Mr. Octafinalist. 🙁

          • Rebar Niemi

            erik baker’s disclosure would consist of a buncha page long camus cards and the words “fairness is absurd”

          • page long camus cards are probably a voting issue

          • Erik Baker

            *certainly

          • Erik Baker

            Rebar is essentially right, but nonetheless there is a page now. I just suck at computers (as anyone who watched my octas round can testify) so I just didn’t understand how to work the page and was too lazy until now to really exert the effort to figure it out. 

      • Anonymous

        Worst. Flamewar. Ever.

    • Flamewar implies eurocentric modes of political thought. das racist

      • Erik Baker

        i’m at the pizza hut, i’m at the taco bell, i’m at the combination pizza hut and taco bell

    • Better late than never.

  • Rebar Niemi

    congrats to evry1 this was fun.

     from my possibly flawed observation last yr 7/14 aff losses in run off, this year 7/12 in the bubble round? is that right? i’m curious to see the full results because i wasn’t tracking them 100%. 

    anyway, curious to see what other people’s thoughts are about how it went.

  • Where’d the bow tie go?

  • Anonymous

    There is a wiki-space named  http://circuitdebater.wikispaces.com/ and usually TOC debaters would post there cases as a resource to younger debaters. I encourage this years TOC debaters to post their cases to help younger debaters.

  • It’s McHugh, not McGugh, just saying…

  • Anyone have any idea when a full results packet will be released?

  • A note on side bias, Regan was neg when he beat Tom in quarters and Tom was neg when he beat Henry in octos. 

  • CONGRATS NOAAHHHHHHHHH

  • why is there a three judge panel for finals? not saying that the judges are bad, i think it’s actually a good panel, but 5 judges is better. why 3 judgez?

    • Anonymous

      It was apparently seven, and then each side had the option to strike 0, 1, or 2. They each struck 2, and 2 that did not overlap, hence three total judges on the panel.

  • Anonymous

    when are videos coming out!

  • Congrats Nikhil!

  • So much for outrounds side bias…

    • Rebar Niemi

      oh yeah this topic had nothing to do with it. 

    • aff city bitch, aff aff city bitch

    • I feel like it’s harder to figure out side bias without controlling for rounds where the Aff wins because of arguments made about side bias. 

      • Rebar Niemi

        tcam with the dagger!

  • Corbin Cass

    You better win Bob.

  •  Finals is Noah v. Bob

    • Anonymous

      Bob is sidelocked aff. Panel is Ryan Lawrence, Adam Torson, and Ernie Rose

  • Anyone have the top speakers?

    • I’ve been told Pritt was the top speaker, but that’s all I know.

    • Anonymous

      1. New Orleans Jesuit- Jacob Pritt

      2. PV Peninsula- Daniel Tartakovsky

      3. Lexington- Noah Star

      4. Mountain View- Nikhil Nag

      5. Aliso Niguel- Regan Grishaber

      6. University- Josh Tupler

      7. Scarsdale- Geoffrey Kristof

      8. Loyola- Bob Overing

      9. Greenhill- Farhan Damani

      10. Stuyvesant- Andrew Eckholm

      11. PV Peninsula- Henry Zhang

      12. CPS- Sarah Sachs

      13. Meadows- Ryan Fink

      14. Harrison- Danny Debois

      15. Loyola Blakefield- Tom Cameron

      16. Byram Hills Sammi Cannold

      17. Greenhill- Rebecca Kuang

      18. Kent Denver- Sam Matthews

      19. Suncoast- Carlton Bone

      20. Strake Jesuit- Drew Mccormick

  • Anonymous

    Anyone have a copy of the octas pairings/panels?

    • Anonymous

      loyola blakefield tc v pv peninsula HZ
      -holguin, gooderham, liz scoggin
      University MF vs Stuyvesant AE
      -green, gooderham, pearce
      Greenhill RK vs Mountain View NN
      -lamothe, theis, legried
      Aliso Niguel RG vs Harrison DD
      -lamothe, legried, kawahara
      Jesuit JP vs Greenhill FD
      -Norris, Tarsney, Massey
      Loyola BO vs Scarsdale GK
      -Zhou, Zhang, Brown
      PV Peninsula DT vs Suncoast CB
      -parker, smith, john scoggin
      Lexington NS vs Evanston EB
      -parker, liz scoggin, catterton 

  • I’m looking at the spreadsheet, and right now it’s around 1am Kentucky time.  Based on the information there, here are some interesting facts about the 7th Round system and who lost in the bubble and on what side.

    Out of fourteen 4-3s, twelve lost in the bubble round.  Out of those twelve, seven lost on the affirmative:1 – Whitman SF2 – Valley MS3 – University JT4 – Torry Pines EL5 – Scarsdale GR
    6 – Meadows RF
    7 – Loyola AB

    Just over half, and all of them very talented debaters.

    Again, I apologize if my numbers are off as it is very late and the spreadsheet is mesmerizing.  But there’s some food for thought.

  • Anonymous

    any news on the 4 rounds

  • Anonymous

    Will there be March Madness-esque brackets for elims like there were last year with fantasy debate? That was some cool stuff if it can be done again

  • Since it’s the only one not updated for some reason, Kent Denver (Aff) def. Cypress Woods TJ with Andrew Cockroft in rd. 4

  • Correction: GW MZ won round 1 against Keller TF.

  • Rebar Niemi

    yo someone invite me to this i’ll contribute

  • Why have some people debated twice and others not at all?

© Copyright 2017, National Symposium for Debate