In Defence of Moral Error Theory

Moral error theorists typically accept two claims - one conceptual and one ontological - about moral facts. The conceptual claim is that moral facts are or entail facts about categorical reasons (and correspondingly that moral claims are or entail claims about categorical reason); the ontological claim is that there are no categorical reasons-and consequently no moral facts-in reality. I accept this version of moral error theory and I try to unpack what it amounts to in section 2. In the course of doing so I consider two preliminary objections that moral error theory is (probably) false because its implications are intuitively unacceptable (what I call the Moorean objection) and that the general motivation for moral error theory is self-undermining in that it rests on a hidden appeal to norms. | Direct Link to PDF

Moral Minds: The Nature of Right and Wrong

THE CENTRAL IDEA of this book is simple: we evolved a moral instinct, a capacity that naturally grows within each child, designed to generate rapid judgments about what is morally right or wrong based on an unconscious grammar of action. Part of this machinery was designed by the blind hand of Darwinian selection millions of years before our species evolved; other parts were added or upgraded over the evolutionary history of our species, and are unique both to humans and to our moral psychology. These ideas draw on insightsfrom another instinct: language. | Direct Link to PDF (e-book)

Oxford Studies in Metaethics

The full book is available online for free:Oxford Studies in Metaethics is designed to collect, on an annual basis, some of the best new work being done in the field of metaethics. I’m very pleased to be able to present this third volume, one that has managed so successfully to fulfill the aims envisioned for the series. | Direct Link to Book

Moral Judgment

i. Moral rules are held to have an objective, prescriptive force; they are notdependent on the authority of any individual or institution.ii. Moral rules are taken to hold generally, not just locally; they not only proscribebehavior here and now, but also in other countries and at other times in history.iii. Violations of moral rules involve a victim who has been harmed, whose rightshave been violated, or who has been subject to an injustice.iv. Violations of moral rules are typically more serious than violations ofconventional rules. | Direct Link to PDF

Boredom? ADHD?

John Plotz in the New York Times: Their Noonday Demons, and Ours

These days, when we try to get a fix on our wasted time, we use labels that run from the psychological (distraction, “mind-wandering” or “top-down processing deficit”) to the medical (A.D.H.D., hypoglycemia) to the ethical (laziness, poor work habits). But perhaps “acedia” is the label we need. After all, it afflicted those whose pursuits prefigured the routines of many workers in the postindustrial economy. Acedia’s sufferers were engaged in solitary, sedentary, cerebral effort toward a clear final goal — but a goal that could be reached only by crossing an open, empty field with few signposts. The empty field is the monk’s day of spiritual contemplation in a cell besieged by the demon acedia — or your afternoon in a coffee shop with tiptop Wi-Fi.

via

Obama/Clinton?

Nobel Prize winner and former US Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, makes the case for the "natural" Obama/Clinton ticket in 2012:

Why do I say this? Because Obama needs to stir the passions and enthusiasms of a Democratic base that’s been disillusioned with his cave-ins to regressive Republicans. Hillary Clinton on the ticket can do that.

via

The Boundaries of Justice

The overarching concern in the idea of justice is the need to have just relations with others—and even to have appropriate sentiments about others; and what motivates the search is the diagnosis of injustice in ongoing arrangements. In some cases, this might demand the need to change an existing boundary of sovereignty—a concern that motivated Hume’s staunchly anti-colonial position. (He once remarked, “Oh! How I long to see America and the East Indies revolted totally & finally.”) Or it might relate to the Humean recognition that as we expand trade and other relations with foreign countries, our sentiments as well as our reasoning have to take note of the recognition that “the boundaries of justice still grow larger,” without the necessity to place all the people involved in our conception of justice within the confines of one sovereign state.

Amartya Sen, in The National Review, "The Boundaries of Justice."

What Position Will Win the TOC?

First, I just want to give a shout-out to the Mountain Brook tournament in Birmingham. This is the second year I've been, and once again the hospitality and timeliness have been exceptional. Jeff Roberts really goes out of his way to bring good judges to the tournament and put on a good show (and the MB students do a great job keeping things running). If you live in the South and don't make it to this tournament, you're missing out!On to the substance of today's post: what position will win the TOC?

I'll try not to answer my own question (since I'm more interested in others' thoughts), but I will say this: debaters are doing themselves a strategic disservice by running away from the plausibly true positions on this topic. I describe the loss as a "strategic" one, because I'm reasonably certain that no one will be persuaded by pedagogical risks.

The debates that start off on dubious premises (thanks to ridiculous case positions) almost always become side-tracked by theoretical and procedural questions that can rarely be resolved predictably. This is especially true in elimination rounds against strong competitors—the marginal utility of a "non-stock" position is significantly diminished when assured that your opponent will either shift the debate to theory or respond with an even more "outside the box" argument. The race to the bottom of absurdity can quickly become a counterproductive exercise, or one that at best terminates in a coin-flip decision.

While I hesitate to make any predictions, I certainly hope that high-level debates will explore the contextually unique accounts of self-defense that tend to permeate this topic in real-world discussion. I believe that the most researched account of this issue can and should take center stage. Off-the-wall positions may be decisive in prelims and lesser tournaments, but the most consistently and universally successful positions are true ones.

What do you expect to see come out on top?

Three Judging Practices That Need To Stop by Adam Torson

All of these practices are tempting, but a moment’s reflection should suggest to most judges that they are inappropriate.

1. Speaker Point Games

Enough with the paradigms that promise increased speaker points for goofy behavior. You might think it’s hysterical to promise a thirty for bringing you a cookie, saying “supercalifragilisticexpialidocious,” or dancing a jig, but it’s not. Judging is not about you – the debaters aren’t there for your entertainment.

If it were harmless fun nobody would care, but speaker points matter. They affect who you debate in prelims (especially later in a tournament when brackets are smaller), whether you break, and out-round seeding. On more than one occasion I have seen a speaker point game change who breaks and who doesn’t. It’s not fair, and it should stop.

2. Berating Debaters

A certain amount of irritation at poorly debated rounds is natural, but it’s stunning how often judges go way over the top. Expressing outrage at the state of debate or the obnoxiousness of some particular practice may be cathartic, but it’s hardly constructive. Getting angry and berating debaters is self-indulgent; the oral critique is not about your anger. It is reprehensible to be proud of making a debater cry.

Sometimes anger is appropriate, as when a debater is rude or patently offensive, but this is relatively rare. Yelling at someone because they made an argument you don’t like suggests a dramatic lack of perspective – the kids are learning what a good argument is, people have different views on what a good argument is, and students are coached in different ways. The RFD is not about showing off how smart you are or how much you know about debate. Get over yourself and make your comments constructive. You are not entitled to adjudicate a tournament full of mistake free rounds.

3. Calling Tons of Evidence

Everyone seems to want debaters to be clearer, but many of us engage in a practice that incentivizes exactly the opposite. The debaters’ opportunity to effectively convey the meaning of their evidence is the constructive. Figuring out what evidence means after the round and making it part of the decision calculus is blatant intervention. There are judges who routinely call virtually every argument read in the round and reconstruct their flow on that basis. Give me a break.

I suspect this is mostly motivated by ego – none of us likes to admit that we didn’t understand an argument. But – I feel like a broken record – it’s not about you. It is unfair and pedagogically unsound to vote for arguments you straight up don’t understand – even more so when you are doing things like supplying evidence comparison for the debaters. Have enough courage to admit when you don’t get something, even at the risk of teenagers thinking you’re not as smart as they otherwise would.

Kathryn Kenny Wins 2015 Newark Invitational

 Newark, NJ -- Congratulations to Harrison's Kathryn Kenny for winning the 2015 Newark Invitational! In finals, Kathryn defeated Byram Hill's Paul Erlanger on a 3-0 decision. Congratulations to both debaters for reaching finals and earning bids to the Tournament of Champions! Kathryn is coached by Chetan Hertzig and Marshall Thompson. Paul is coached by Ben Koh, Ben Ulene, and Janna White. Newark is a finals bid qualifier to the Tournament of ChampionsFull results can be found on Tabroom: https://www.tabroom.com/index/tourn/index.mhtml?tourn_id=3327 OctafinalsLexington KB def Ridge NPHarrison AEl def Hunter College SCJ. Graham Brown BD def Harrison EAHarrison KK def Scarsdale LSByram Hills PE def Ridge SKPrinceton JK def Delbarton NAHunter College NP def Harrison SOHarrison AG over Harrison MZ QuarterfinalsLexington KB def Harrison AEl (Aguirre, Chocolate, Walker)Byram Hills PE def Princeton JK (Cumming, Romero, Montero-Colbert)J. Graham Brown BD def Hunter College NP (Beretay, Smith, Curry)Harrison KK over Harrison AG SemifinalsHarrison KK def J. Graham Brown BD (Blake Dawson) (Beretay, Manuel, Romero)Byram Hills PE def Lexington KB (Kaushal Balagurusamy) (Cumming, Smith, Williams) Finals (bid)Harrison KK def Byram Hills PE (Paul Erlanger) ChampionHarrison KK (Kathryn Kenny) 

Varun Bhave Wins the 2015 Sunvitational

 Fort Lauderdale, FL -- Congratulations to Del Mar's Varun Bhave for winning the 2015 Sunvitational Speech and Debate Tournament held at the University School of Nova Southeastern University. In finals, Varun defeated Cypress Bay's Jake Steirn. Congratulations to both debaters! Sunvite is a quarterfinals bid to the Tournament of Champions.Pairings can be found on Joy of Tournaments: http://www.joyoftournaments.com/fl/sunvite/warmroom.asp?webe=156298&i=550 DoublesStrake Jesuit AT over Strake Jesuit MLCypress Bay JS def Bronx Science ES 3-0Scarsdale RG def North Crowley AR 3-0Del Mar VB def Bronx Science CL 3-0Law Magnet DD def Lake Highland RS 2-1Sacred Heart AT def Dreyfoos KR 3-0Theodore Roosevelt EW def Bronx Science JS 2-1Lake Highland NK def Cypress Bay JI 3-0Strake Jesuit JZ def Bronx Science DR 3-0Lake Highland AA def American Heritage 2-1Oxbridge NV def Strake Jesuit KF 3-0Strake Jesuit SM def Bronx Science ID 3-0Scarsdale DW def Bronx Science OK 2-1LAMP RR def Winter Springs JL 3-0Lake Highland SP def North Allegheny 3-0 OctafinalsCypress Bay JS def Lake Highland SP (Evnen, Hom, Ortega)Strake Jesuit JZ def Lake Highland AA (DeVore, Reiter, Roth)Del Mar VB def Strake Jesuit AT (Huett, Millman, Rojas)Strake Jesuit SM def Theodore Roosevelt EW (Hymson, Wright, Hense)Sacred Heart AT def Scarsdale DW (Ave, Struver, Biel)Strake Jesuit XX def Law Magnet DD (Ditzian, Sigalow, Eastlund)Lake Highland NK def Oxbridge NV (Levy, Castillo, Pregasen)LAMP RR def Scarsdale RG (Lonam, Jain, Azbel) Quarterfinals (bid)Cypress Bay JS def LAMP RR (Ruchir Rastogi) 3-0 (Castillo, Lonam, Levy)Strake Jesuit SM def Sacred Heart AT (Adam Tomasi) 3-0 (Sigalow, Millman, Hom)Del Mar VB def Strake Jesuit XX (Anthony Tohme) 3-0 (Ditzian, Hymson, Wright)Strake Jesuit JZ def Lake Highland NK (Neal Kapoor) 2-1 (Reiter*, Huett, DeVore) SemifinalsCypress Bay JS def Strake Jesuit JZ (Joe Zaghrini) 3-0 (Millman, Levy, Lonam)Del Mar VB def Strake Jesuit SM (Sean McCormick) 2-1 (Sigalow*, Azbel, Reiter) FinalsDel Mar VB def Cypress Bay JS (Jake Steirn) (Evnen, Levy, Ditzian) ChampionDel Mar VB (Varun Bhave)

Noah Simon Wins 2015 Puget Sound

 Tacoma, WA -- Congratulations to Crossroad's Noah Simon for winning the 2015 University of Puget Sound Invitational! In finals, Noah defeated Eastside Catholic's Tinuola Dada. Congratulations to both debaters! Noah is coached by Leah Shapiro and Jordan Lamothe. Tinuola is coached by Colton Smith, Jeff Richards and Jane McCoy. UPS is a semifinals bid qualifier to the Tournament of Champions. QuarterfinalsSprague CG def Centennial KM (Bergus, Session, Barton)Crossroads NS def Centennial ZM (Smith, Rocky, Anderson)Eastside Catholic TD def Harvard-Westlake CJ (Eddins, Tobin, Fitzger)Gig Harbor CM def Eastside Catholic DR (Adler, Blanchette, Salsbur) SemifinalsCrossroads NS def Bainbridge JM (James Maltman) (Richard, Blanchette, Barton)Eastside Catholic TD def Sprague CS (Colin Gesik) (Hudgens, Adler, Clare) FinalsCrossroads NS def Eastside Catholic TD (Tinuola Dada) ChampionCrossroads NS (Noah Simon)

Millard North Closes Out 2015 Westside

Omaha, NE -- Congratulations to Millard North’s Priya Kukreja and Grant Brown for closing out the 2015 Westside Warrior Debate Tournament held at Omaha Westside High School. In semifinals, Priya and Grant defeated West Des Moines Valley's Evan McKinney and TJ Foley, respectively. Congratulations to Priya and Grant for closing out and qualifying to the Tournament of Champions! This is the second time Grant and Priya have closed out a tournament, having closed out Dowling Catholic a few weeks ago. Priya and Grant are coached by Ananya Mitra, Connor Brown, Lauren Burdt, and Aaron Schurevich. Full results can be found on Joy of Tournaments: http://www.joyoftournaments.com/ne/westside/info.asp?p=8 QuarterfinalsMillard North GB def Lincoln CM (Woodford, Woiwood, Walter)Millard North PK def Lincoln Southwest Deb MH (Sloven, Stevens, Welter)West Des Moines Valle EM def Lincoln EY (Genrich, Burdt, Jones)West Des Moines Valle TF over West Des Moines Valle GS SemifinalsMillard North GB def West Des Moines Valle TF (TJ Foley) (Stevens, Genrich, Warma)Millard North PK def West Des Moines Valley EM (Evan McKinney) (Jones, Woodford, Turley) Co-ChampionsMillard North GB (Grant Brown) and Millard North PK (Priya Kukreja) 

Pranav Reddy Wins Harvard-Westlake

 Studio City, CA -- Congratulations to Harker's Pranav Reddy for winning the 2015 Harvard-Westlake Debate Tournament! In finals, Pranav defeated Peninsula's Akhil Jalan on a 2-1 decision (Hunt*, Neesen, Torson). Congratulations to both debaters! Congratulations to Pranav for also advancing to elims undefeated and winning top speaker. Pranav is coached by Greg Achten, Ryan Fink, Jordan Lamothe, and Jerry Chen. Akhil is coached by Chris Theis and Scott Wheeler.Harvard-Westlake is an octafinals bid qualifier to the Tournament of Champions.Pairings can be found on Tabroom: https://www.tabroom.com/index/tourn/index.mhtml?tourn_id=2819 Partial TriplesBrentwood JR def Chaminade JCHopkins SG def Brentwood MRLaw Magnet DD def Harrison KKMSJ PB def Peninsula JLBrentwood JC def Los Altos SNCrossroads NS def La Canada AZLexington DA def Presentation MSFlintridge MC def MSJ ABMSJ SS def Servite RDMeadows MS def Dougherty Valley CSBrentwood CH def North Crowley ARPeninsula KK def Oakwood NM Double OctafinalsTorrey Pines VB def Hopkins SG 3-0 (Fink, Chen, Hunt)Miramonte TK def Lynbrook DW 2-1 (Smith*, Fink, Legried)Brentwood JC def Torrey Pines SS 2-1 (Fife*, Sohn, Peiris)Harker PR def Brentwood JR 3-0 (Letak, Peiris, Torson)Peninsula AT def Crossroads NS 3-0 (Newkirk, Torson, Walton)Brentwood JL def Law Magnet DD 3-0 (Jacobson, Randall, Walton)Peninsula AJ def Flintridge MC 3-0 (Hang, Jacobson, Neesen)Interlake AL def MSJ SS 2-1 (Hang*, Newkirk, Raskin)Peninsula JZ def Meadows MS 2-1 (Harris, Koh, Roberts*)Los Altos JN def Peninsula KK 2-1 (Harris, Hunt, Roberts*)Greenhill BE def Lexington DA 3-0 (Ahsan, Amestoy, Wheeler)Torrey Pines KK def Hawken NK 2-1 (Chen, Wheeler, Fife*)John Marshall DD def MSJ PB 3-0 (Kulkarni, Overing, O'Krent)Apple Valley GH def Greenhill GB 3-0 (Wanless, Alderete, Kulkarni)Oakwood JW def Brentwood CH 3-0 (Bistagne, Yanofsky, Ziaee)Northland Christian DL def Lexington AS 3-0 (Amestoy, Damerdji, Bistagne) Octafinals (bid)Peninsula AT def Northland Christian DL 3-0 (Randall, Fife, Kulkarni)Los Altos JN def Peninsula JZ 2-1 (Amestoy, Legried, Neesen)Greenhill BE def Apple Valley GH 3-0 (Newkirk, Jacobson, Legried)Torrey Pines VB def Miramonte TK 3-0 (Fife, Kumar, Walton)Harker PR def Torrey Pines KK 3-0 (Amestoy, Alderete, Walton)Peninsula AJ def Interlake AL 3-0 (Roberts, Yanofsky, Chen)Brentwood JL def John Marshall DD 3-0 (Fink, Sullivan, Letak)Oakwood JW def Brentwood JC 3-0 (Fink, Jacobson, Hang) QuarterfinalsGreenhill BE def Los Altos JN (James Naumovski) 3-0 (Hunt, Kumar, Letak)Peninsula AJ def Torrey Pines VB (Varun Bhave) 2-1 (Fink, Torson, Walton)Harker PR def Brentwood JL (Jackson Lallas) 3-0 (Wheeler, Neesen, Yanofsky)Peninsula AT def Oakwood JW (Jack Wareham) 3-0 (Chen, Amestoy, Legried) SemifinalsPeninsula AJ def Greenhill BE (Bennett Eckert) 2-1 (Fink, Torson, Hunt*)Harker PR def Peninsula AT (Arjun Tambe) 2-1 (Randall*, Roberts, Amestoy) FinalsHarker PR def Peninsula AJ (Akhil Jalan) 2-1 (Hunt*, Neesen, Torson) ChampionHarker PR (Pranav Reddy) 

Akhil Gandra Wins the 2015 Cougar Classic

Houston, TX -- Congratulations to Westwood's Akhil Gandra for winning the 2015 Cougar Debate Classic held at the University of Houston! In finals, Akhil defeated Strake Jesuit's Alberto Tohme on a 2-1 decision (Baig, Sharma, Koshak*). Congratulations to both debaters! The Cougar Classic is a semifinals bid qualifier to the Tournament of Champions.Congratulations to Akhil Gandra, Alberto Tohme, Abbey Chapman, and Tyler Gamble for reaching semifinals and earning bids!Pairings can be found on Tabroom: https://www.tabroom.com/index/tourn/index.mhtml?tourn_id=3254 Double OctafinalsStrake Jesuit AT def Dulles KLStrake Jesuit JZ def Blaine HPCypress Woods NS def Dulles SKKaty Taylor NY def Dulles AWCalhoun Home AC def Clements ATWestwood AG def Dulles AKWestlake DB def Dulles SAWoodlands AC def Strake Jesuit RCKinkaid TG def Clements EMDulles KS def Kinkaid JYStrake Jesuit ATo def Oxbridge NVKinkaid NK def Cy-Fair CMWoodlands College Prep VM def Strake Jesuit SMClements FT def Episcopal ABClements SR over Clements RGKinkaid MS over Kinkaid EH OctafinalsStrake Jesuit JZ def Cypress Woods NSDulles KS def Kinkaid MSKinkaid NK def Katy Taylor NYWestwood AG def Clements SRWoodlands AC def Westlake DBKinkaid TG def Clements FTStrake Jesuit ATo def Calhoun Home ACWoodlands College Prep VM def Strake Jesuit AT QuarterfinalsKinkaid TG def Dulles KS (Kevin Si) (Castllo, Dar Dar, Bates)Woodlands AC def Strake Jesuit JZ (Joe Zaghrini) (Graves, Breland, Popatia)Strake Jesuit ATo def Kinkaid NK (Nina Kalluri) (Kassam, Roy, Koshak)Westwood AG def Woodlands College Prep VM (Venkatesh Muppaneni) (Hodge, Xiong, Van Berg) Semifinals (bid)Strake Jesuit ATo def Kinkaid TG (Tyler Gamble) (Hodge, Wei, Brelland)Westwood AG def Woodlands AC (Abbey Chapman) (Conrad, Castillo, Popatia) FinalsWestwood AG def Strake Jesuit ATo (Alberto Tohme) 2-1 (Baig, Sharma, Koshak*) ChampionWestwood AG (Akhil Gandra)

Greenhill Closes Out 2015 Debate.LA Challenge

Studio City, CA -- Congratulations to Greenhill's Varad Agarwala and Bennett Eckert for closing out the 2015 Harvard-Westlake Debate.LA Challenge hosted at the Harvard-Westlake School! In semifinals, Varad defeated Harker's Pranav Reddy on a 2-1 decision (Letak*, Theis, Parasarathy); Bennett defeated Torrey Pine's Varun Bhave on a 3-0 decision (Fink, Amestoy, Sullivan). Congratulations to all debaters!The Debate.LA Challenge used an alternate pairing format debaters were allowed to "challenge" each other for their pairings. Out of a pool of 32 debaters, debaters had an opportunity to challenge anyone else in the pool, starting with the lowest seeded debater after each round. The rounds were adjudicated in a normal round robin format, with a two-person panel. The top four debaters in ballot count advanced to semifinals. SemifinalsGreenhill VA def Harker PR (Pranav Reddy) 2-1 (Letak*, Theis, Parasarathy)Greenhill BE def Torrey Pines VB (Varun Bhave) 3-0 (Fink, Amestoy, Sullivan) Co-ChampionsGreenhill VA (Varad Agarwala) and Greenhill BE (Bennett Eckert) Top Speakers

1. Torrey Pines - Varun Bhave

2. PV Peninsula - Akhil Jalan

3. Harvard-Westlake - Cameron Cohen

PV Peninsula Closes Out College Prep

Oakland, CA -- Congratulations to PV Peninsula's Arjun Tambe and Akhil Jalan for closing out the 2014 College Preparatory School Invitational! In semifinals, Arjun defeated Del Mar's Varun Bhave; Akhil defeated Miramonte's Tom Kadie. Congratulations to Arjun and Akhil! Arjun and Akhil are coached by Chris Theis and Scott Wheeler. CPS is a quarterfinals bid qualifier to the Tournament of Champions. Pairings can be found on Tabroom: https://www.tabroom.com/index/tourn/index.mhtml?tourn_id=3406 Congratulations to Tom Kadie, Micah Rosen, Jacob Reiter, Arjun Tambe, Akhil Jalan, Shivane Sabharwal, Kevin Krotz, and Varun Bhave for reaching quarterfinals and earning bids! Partial Triple Octafinals/RunoffsHarker SP def Mission San Jose PBCrossroads NS def San Marino KWArbor View AA def Mission San Jose ABJohn Marshall DD def Los Altos SNOakwood JW def Monta Vista SSPeninsula KK def Loyola ZMDel Mar OG def Palo Alto ALLos Altos JN def Palo Alto AMOakwood AB over Oakwood JS Double OctafinalsPeninsula AJ def Oakwood AB (Chen, Knell, Yanofsky)Miramonte TK def Oakwood JW (Damerdji, Saggi, Chen)Miramonte AB def La Canada AZ (Hunt, Clemmons, Ziaee)Brentwood JL def Crossroads NS (Jacobson, Bhattacharya, Hunt)Peninsula AT def Arbor View AA (Fink, Lamothe, Siddiqi)Brentwood MR def Lynbrook DW (Carter, Kymn, Peiris)Harker KQ def Saratoga SD (Peiris, Carter, Kymn)LAMP RR def Del Mar AI (Overing, Saggi, Jaffer)Harker SP def Peninsula JL (Overing, Alderete, Berger)Brentwood JR def Peninsula KK (Newkirk, Saluja, Bhattacharya)Del Mar KK def John Marshall DD (Newkirk, Dharani, Knell)Brentwood CH def Dougherty Valley SZ (Pyda, Damerdji, Kennedy)Brentwood JC def BASIS Scottsdale CD (Pyda, Kennedy, Fife)Peninsula JZ def Los Altos JN (Dharani, Fife, Glenn)Mission San Jose SS def Mountain Pointe EH (Saluja, DeBois, Yanofsky)Del Mar VB over Del Mar OG OctafinalsDel Mar KK def Harker SP (Jacobson, Hunt, Carter)Peninsula AJ def Harker KQ (Amestoy, Alderete, Knell)Del Mar VB def Brentwood JC (Fife, Kymn, Jaffer)Brentwood JR def LAMP RR (Damerdji, Saggi, Yanofsky)Peninsula AT def Brentwood CH (Pyda, DeBois, Lamothe)Mission San Jose SS def Peninsula JZ (Fink, Siddiqi, Chen)Brentwood JL over Brentwood MRMiramonte TK over Miramonte AB Quarterfinals (bid)Miramonte TK def Brentwood JL (Jackson Lallas) (Pyda, Yanofsky, Wheeler)Peninsula AJ def Brentwood JR (Jacob Reiter) (Kymn, Lamothe, Hunt)Peninsula AT def Del Mar KK (Kevin Krotz) (Lawrence, DeBois, Chen)Del Mar VB def Mission San Jose SS (Shivane Sabharwal) (Fife, Jacobson, Nag) SemifinalsPeninsula AJ def Miramonte TK (Tom Kadie) (Jacobson, Lawrence, Yanofsky)Peninsula AT def Del Mar VB (Varun Bhave) (DeBois, Fife, Kymn) ChampionsPeninsula AT (Arjun Tambe) and Peninsula AJ (Akhil Jalan)