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.

Bennett Eckert Wins Colleyville

Colleyville, TX -- Congratulations to Greenhill's Bennett Eckert for winning the 2015 Colleyville Heritage Tournament! In finals, Bennett defeated Flower Mound's Jalaj Sood on a 3-0 decision (Zhou, Berdugo, Shivji). Congratulations to both debaters!Colleyville is a finals bid qualifier to the Tournament of Champions. The tournament will feature five preliminary rounds, before breaks to an octafinals round. It took a 3-2 record with 87.1 high/low + 145 total speaks to clear.

Pairings can be found on Joy of Tournaments: http://www.joyoftournaments.com/tx/colleyville/warmroom.asp

 Speaker Awards

1. Bennett Eckert (Greenhill BE)

2. Alexander Yoakum (Grapevine AY)

3. Dino DeLaO (Law Magnet DD)

4. Shomik Ati (Plano East SA)

5. Abbey Chapman (Woodlands AC)

6. Aashima Garg (Hockaday AG)

7. Jalaj Sood (Flower Mound JS)

8. Jeremy Tsai (Flower Mound JT)

9. Aimun Khan (Plano East AK)

10. Anne-Marie Hwang (Hockaday AH)

 OctafinalsGreenhill BE def Liberty Christian BS 3-0 (Woods, Zhou, Melin)Law Magnet DD def Flower Mound AA 3-0 (Woods, Zhou, Melin)Grapevine AY def Flower Mound JT 3-0 (Roberts, Berdugo, Powell)Plano East SA def Cypress Falls KS 3-0 (Roberts, Berdugo, Powell)Flower Mound JS def Cypress Woods NS 3-0 (Cavanaugh, Wright, Koshak)Hockaday LU def Woodlands AC 2-1 (Vacanaugh, Wright*, Koshak)Hockaday AH def Dulles NB 2-1 (Boyer, Paramo*, Becker)Hockaday AG def Plano East AK 3-0 (Boyer, Paramo, Becker) QuarterfinalsGreenhill BE def Hockaday AG (Powell, Becker, Eddy)Grapevine AY def Hockaday LU (Paramo, Boyer, Roberts)Flower Mound JS def Plano East SA (Melin, Smith, Zhou)Law Magnet DD def Hockaday AH (Cavanaugh, Berdugo, Yim) SemifinalsGreenhill BE def Law Magnet DD (Dino De La O) 2-1 (Becker, Melin*, Cavanaugh)Flower Mound JS def Grapevine AY (Alexander Yoakum) 2-1 (Berdugo*, Powell, Wright) FinalsGreenhill BE def Flower Mound JS (Jalaj Sood) 3-0 (Zhou, Berdugo, Shivji) ChampionGreenhill BE (Bennett Eckert)

Announcing the Hockaday Women's Round Robin by Jordan Innerarity

Women’s Round Robin

March 28-29, 2015

The Hockaday School

11600 Welch Road

Dallas, TX 75229

 Dear Colleagues, We invite entries to the Hockaday Women’s Round Robin held Saturday and Sunday, March 28-29, 2015 on the Hockaday campus. The round robin is an opportunity to compete against, and join together to celebrate, women in debate. It is our hope that you will make plans to attend. All women who have received at least one bid to the TOC are automatically accepted into the round robin. Any women who would like to attend may submit an application regardless of whether she has received a TOC bid or not. Historically, the round robin has been a site of excellent competition and comradery for those who have attended and it is our goal to continue that tradition. The tournament will feature a relaxed schedule with plenty of opportunities to engage in conversation and enjoy each other’s company. Awards are being provided by Vetro Glassblowing and every participant will receive a glass blown flower. The entry deadline is March 6th, 2015. We look forward to hosting you,Dr. Charles Walts, Director of DebateMr. Jordan Innerarity, Assistant Director of DebateThe Hockaday Debate Team Contact Information:Dr. Walts, cwalts@hockaday.org, 214.360.6570Mr. Innerarity, jinnerarity@hockaday.org, 214.360.6569 Entry Requirements: Automatic Entry:We will admit up to 24 participants. Any women debater who has received at least one bid to the TOC is automatically accepted into the round robin. We will accept entries on a first come, first serve basis and will close entries once we reach 24. Contingency Bid:A women may apply for a contingency bid and we will accept those entries if needed to reach the 24 participant cap. In order to apply for a contingency bid, please fill out the form at the end of the invite. Entry Deadline:All Entries are due no later than March 6th, 2015 via the Joy of Tournaments system. Once again, to ensure access to the event, entries will be accepted on a first come, first serve basis. Please email Dr. Walts to secure your entry. Entry Fees and Judging:There is no entry fee to attend the Women’s Round Robin. We would very much like it if each entry is accompanied by a judge, but understand that this is not always possible. If you are unable to provide a judge, please contact Dr. Walts to ensure arrangements are made. Lodging:In the past, we have hosted several debaters in the homes of Hockaday students. We will continue to offer this an option, but there are several excellent hotels close to campus. Please notify Dr. Walts if you would like to be hosted by one of the Hockaday debaters.  Schedule:Saturday, March 28 8:30-9:00 AM     Registration and Breakfast          Clements Science Building 9:00 AM                 Pairings and Announcements    Clements 9:30 AM                 Round One 11:00 AM              Round Two 12:30 PM              Lunch and Roundtable Discussion 2:30 PM                 Round Three 4:00 PM                 Round Four 6:00 PM                 Dinner  Sunday, March 29 8:30-9:30 AM     Breakfast                                                  Clements Science 9:30 AM                 Round Five 11:00 AM              Semi-Finals 12:30 PM              Lunch and Awards 1:30 PM                 Finals  Women’s Round Robin Application 

1. Name:
2. Email:
3. Phone:
4. School:
5. School Address:

6. Coach’s Name:
7. Coach’s Email:
8. Coach’s Phone:
9. Qualifying Tournament(s):

10. If you are applying for a contingency bid, please attach a list of tournaments you attended and your performance at each tournament.

Varad Agarwala Wins the 2015 Barkley Forum

 Atlanta, GA -- Congratulations to Greenhill's Varad Agarwala for winning the 2015 Barkley Forum held at Emory University! In finals, Varad defeated Peninsula's Akhil Jalan on a 4-1 decision. Congratulations to both debaters! Varad is coached by Aaron Timmons, Josh Roberts, Bekah Boyer, Chris Randall, and Rebecca Kuang. Akhil is coached by Scott Wheeler and Chris Theis.Emory is a quarterfinals bid to the Tournament of Champions. Pairings can be found on Tabroom: https://www.tabroom.com/index/tourn/index.mhtml?tourn_id=3496 Walter Alan Ulrich Tutorial (Double Octafinals)Newark Science CQ def Colleyville Heritage RK 3-0Harvard-Westlake CC def Lexington PC 2-1Newark Science AK def St. Andrew's Episcopal KGUniversity JR def Law Magnet DDBronx Science ID def LAMP RR 3-0Strake Jesuit RC def Glenbrook South JB 3-0Greenhill MM def Kinkaid JY 3-0WDM Valley TG def Lake Highland KP 2-1Bronx Science GM def Scarsdale DW 3-0Hawken NK def Apple Valley PH 2-1Kinkaid TG def Strake Jesuit JZ 3-0Harker PR def duPont Manual XH 3-0Lexington DA def Glenbrook South JL 3-0 Rhoda Kirchner Radow Tutorial (Octafinals)Newark Science CQ def Hawken NK 2-1 (Fife, Reyes*, Stewart)Peninsula AJ def Harvard-Westlake CC 3-0 (Fink, Prax, Roberts)Newark Science AK def Bronx Science GM 3-0 (Roberts, Timmons, van Berg)Peninsula AT def University JR 3-0 (Castillo, Neesen, Wilson)Greenhill VA def Bronx Science ID 3-0 (Alston, Astacio, Neesen)Strake Jesuit RC def Kinkaid TG 2-1 (Elisetty, Fife, Moerner*)Greenhill MM def WDM Valley TG 2-1 (Prax, van der Meer, Wheeler*)Lexington DA def Harker PR 2-1 (Sims*, Stewart, Wright) Patricia Bailey Tutorial (Quarterfinals, bid)Newark Science CQ over Newark Science AK (Amit Kukreja)Peninsula AT def Strake Jesuit RC (Richard Cook) (Fife, Nails, Wilson)Greenhill VA def Lexington DA (Dan Alessandro) (Elisetty, Wheeler, Fink)Peninsula AJ def Greenhill MM (Mitali Mathur) (Neesen, Prax, van Berg) Marilee Dukes Tutorial (Semifinals)Peninsula AJ def Newark Science CQ (Christian Quiroz) (Roland, Miller-Melin, Wright)Greenhill VA def Peninsula AT (Arjun Tambe) (Tavaras, Bietz, Elisetty) Dale Lauder McCall Exhibition (Finals)Greenhill VA def Peninsula AJ (Akhil Jalan) (Lingel, Berthiaume, Hahn, Dimichele, Jordan) ChampionGreenhill VA (Varad Agarwala)   

Ben Laufer Wins the 2015 Columbia Invitational

New York, NY -- Congratulations to Hunter College's Ben Laufer for winning the 2015 Columbia Invitational, held at Columbia University in the City of New York. In finals, Ben defeated Sacred Heart's Adam Tomasi on a 2-1 decision (Ulene, Kwan, Koh*). Congratulations to Ben for winning the tournament and finishing his qualification to the Tournament of Champions, and to Adam for reaching finals. Ben is coached by Danny Li; Adam is coached by Jacob Nails.Columbia is a finals bid qualifier to the Tournament of Champions. Pairings can be found on Tabroom: https://www.tabroom.com/index/tourn/index.mhtml?tourn_id=3339 OctafinalsCambridge OS def Manchester Essex NA 3-0Byram Hills PE def Harrison MZ 2-1Bronx Science CL def Harrison RP 3-0Byram Hills AJ def Collegiate EW 3-0Hunter College BL def Harrison AE 3-0Sacred Heart AT def Benjamin Cardozo AB 3-0Hunter College NP def Bronx Science DR 3-0Collegiate DK over Collegiate KY QuarterfinalsByram Hills AJ def Cambridge OS 3-0 (Farrell, Gichan, Hertzig)Byram Hills PE def Collegiate DK 3-0 (Aguirre, Haughton, Jain)Hunter College BL def Bronx Science CL 3-0 (Heizelman, Koh, Kuzmenko)Sacred Heart AT def Hunter College NP 2-1 (Kymn*, Stafford, Ulene) SemifinalsHunter College BL def Byram Hills AJ (Amos Jeng) (Gichan, Kymn, Heizelman)Sacred Heart AT def Byram Hills PE (Paul Erlanger) (Bhat, Biel, Haughton) FinalsHunter College BL def Sacred Heart AT (Adam Tomasi) 2-1 (Koh*, Kwan, Ulene) ChampionHunter College BL (Ben Laufer)

Noah Haselow Wins the 2015 Wisconsin State Tournament

 West Bend, WI -- Congratulations to Brookfield East's Noah Haselow for winning the 2015 Wisconsin State Tournament! In finals, Noah defeated Whitefish Bay's Evan Zhao on a 4-1 decision (Trussell, Syron, Hansen, Larson, Wagner*) for the championship. Congratulations to both debaters!Full pairings and results can be found on Joy of Tournaments: http://www.joyoftournaments.com/wi/wsdt/warmroom.asp OctafinalsBrookfield East NH advances without debatingBrookfield East BZ advances without debatingBrookfield East NN advances without debatingMarquette HL advances without debatingWhitefish Bay AP advances without debatingBrookfield East CG over Brookfield East NA (Nithin Alexander)Whitefish Bay EZ over Whitefish Bay WT (Wendy Trattner)Whitefish Bay SS over Whitefish Bay SR (Suhas Raja) QuarterfinalsBrookfield East NH def Whitefish Bay SS (Sarah Spector) 2-1 (Hoffmann, Kestrel*, Neal)Whitefish Bay EZ def Brookfield East BZ (Bashar Zaidat) 2-1 (Buck, Largin*, Hansen)Brookfield East CG def Brookfield East NN (Niyaz Nurbhasha) 2-1 (Larson*, Walls, Chomicki)Whitefish Bay AP def Marquette HL (Harry Lucas) 2-1 (Trussell*, Shreekumar, Wagner) SemifinalsBrookfield East NH def Whitefish Bay AP (Alex Plum) 3-0 (Hoffmann, Hansen, Summers)Whitefish Bay EZ def Brookfield East CG (Collin Gray-Hoehn) 2-1 (Kestrel, Mikic*, Trussell) FinalsBrookfield East NH def Whitefish Bay EZ (Evan Zhao) 4-1 (Trussell, Syron, Hansen, Larson, Wagner*) ChampionBrookfield East NH (Noah Haselow)

Tinuola Dada Wins Federal Way

Federal Way, WA -- Congratulations to Eastside Catholic's Tinuola Dada and Bainbridge Island's James Maltman for reaching the finals of the 2015 Federal Way Tournament. Tinuola defeated James in the final round. Congratulations to both debaters!OctofinalsBainbridge CW advances without debatingBainbridge JM advances without debatingECHS TD advances without debatingBainbridge NM def Central Valley AM (Arin Mitchell)ECHS JM def Federal Way LPGig Harbor AB def Eisenhower  JH (Julianne Hoberg)Gig Harbor CA def. ECHS DD (Dino de Raad)Gig Harbor EA def Capital JS (Julian Scott)QuarterfinalsGig Harbor EA def Bainbridge CW (Cedar Williams)Bainbridge JM def ECHS JM (Joseph Meehan)ECHS TD def Gig Harbor CA (Cameron Allen)Bainbridge NM def Gig Harbor AB (Alec Bellis)SemifinalsBainbridge JM def Gig Harbor EA (Eric Anderson)ECHS TD def Bainbridge NM (Nathaniel Mahlum)FinalsECHS TD def Bainbridge JM (James Maltman)ChampionECHS TD (Tinuola Dada)

Peninsula Closes Out Lexington

 Lexington, MA -- Congratulations to PV Peninsula's Arjun Tambe and Akhil Jalan for closing out the 2015 Lexington Invitational! In semifinals, Arjun defeated Newark Science's Christian Quiroz; Akhil defeated Del Mar's Varun Bhave. Congratulations to both debaters! Arjun and Akhil are coached by Scott Wheeler, Chris Theis, and Akash Gogate.Pairings can be found on Tabroom: https://www.tabroom.com/index/tourn/index.mhtml?tourn_id=3233 Top Speakers

1. Del Mar - Varun Bhave

2. Cypress Bay - Jake Steirn

3. Peninsula - Arjun Tambe

4. Sacred Heart - Adam Tomasi

5. Peninsula - Akhil Jalan

6. Bronx Science - Griffin Miller

7. Del Mar - Sujay Singh

8. Harvard-Westlake - Nick Steele

9. Walt Whitman - Sophia Caldera

10. Harvard-Westlake - Cameron Cohen

 Double OctafinalsPeninsula AT def Bronx JSNewark CQ def Millburn WHBronx GM def Hunter College SCPeninsula AJ def Bronx CLOxbridge NV def McDowell JPSacred Heart AT def Byram Hills PEHarvard-Westlake NS def Del Mar KKCypress Bay JS def John Marshall DDScarsdale MB def Lake Highland RSScarsdale RG def Del Mar SSWalt Whitman SC def Hunter College AKDel Mar VB def WDM Valley TGByram Hills AJ def Hunter College BLHarvard-Westlake CC def WDM Valley GSLake Highland SP def Bronx IDWalt Whitman LK def Newark AK OctafinalsNewark CQ def Sacred Heart AT 2-1 (Hordines, Lavelle, Kuzmenko*)Walt Whitman LK def Bronx GM 2-1 (Kors*, Millman, Curtis)Peninsula AJ def Oxbridge NV 2-1 (DeBois, Levy*, Gorthey)Cypress Bay JS def Scarsdale MB 3-0 (Koh, Li, Melnick)Del Mar VB def Scarsdale RG 2-1 (Massey, Wheeler*, Lonam)Walt Whitman SC def Byram Hills AJ 2-1 (Hom, Cha*, Zhou)Peninsula AT def Lake Highland SP 3-0 (Pregasen, Evnen, Chen)Harvard-Westlake NS over Harvard-Westlake CC Quarterfinals (bid)Newark CQ def Walt Whitman SC (Sophia Caldera) 3-0 (Curtis, Kors, Cha)Peninsula AJ def Harvard-Westlake NS (Nick Steele) 2-1 (Chen, Kymn*, White)Peninsula AT def Walt Whitman LK (Leora Korn) 2-1 (Evnen, DeBois*, Gorthey)Del Mar VB over Cypress Bay JS (Jake Steirn) (flight) SemifinalsPeninsula AT def Newark CQ (Christian Quiroz) 2-1 (Lavelle, Kors, Hordines*)Peninsula AJ def Del Mar VB (Varun Bhave) 2-1 (Chen, DeBois*, Curtis) Co-ChampionsPeninsula AT (Arjun Tambe) and Peninsula AJ (Akhil Jalan)

Arvind Veluvali Wins the 2015 Minnesota State Tournament

 Minneapolis, MN -- Congratulations to Roseville's Dean Doneen and Edina's Arvind Veluvali for making it to the final round of the 113th annual Minnesota State High School League State Debate Tournament. We are currently awaiting a decision in the final round.Quarterfinals Blaine HPR def Apple Valley GH (Grace Hoffa)Edina AV def Visitation SK (Sophia Kuriscak)Mahtomedi SK def Brainerd JK (Jordan Kleist)Roseville DD def Rosemount WL (William Lai)SemifinalsEdina AV def Blaine HPR (Hayley Pierce-Ramsdell)Roseville DD def Mahtomedi SK (Sophie Krohn)Finals Roseville DD (Aff) v Edina AV Debaters qualify for the State Tournament by placing in the top six at one of the four section tournaments (numbered 3-6 for some reason) held last weekend. Teams are only permitted to bring a maximum of two debaters to their section tournament. The 2015 State Tournament participants are:Section 3:

1. Claire Hoffa (Apple Valley)
2. Grace Hoffa (Apple Valley)
3. William Lai (Rosemount)
4. David Cox (Eagan)
5. Geeth Gutta (Rosemount)
6. Jack Linden (Eagan)

Section 4:

1. Sophie Krohn (Mahtomedi)
2. Kate Totz (Maple Grove)
3. Hannah Cowan (Robbinsdale Armstrong)
4. David Necas (Robbinsdale Cooper)
5. Sophia Kuriscak (Visitation)
6. Michael White (Robbinsdale Cooper)

 Section 5:

1. Hayley Pierce-Ramsdell (Blaine)
2. Jordan Kleist (Brainerd)
3. Dean Doneen (Roseville)
4. Nathan Meyer (Roseville)
5. Camryn Schmidt (Brainerd)
6. Sara DeSobrino (Forest Lake)

 Section 6:

1. Arvind Veluvali (Edina)
2. Kyle Loomis (Chanhassen)
3. Rae Akinsanya (Hopkins)
4. Kendrick Walton (Champlin park)
5. Kiley Eichelberger (Chanhassen)
6. Andrew Salmon (Minnetonka)