Finalist Interviews

Jordan Farenhem (Pembroke Pines Charter JF)

Question: What does it feel like to debate a semifinals round after a whole tournament? Is it exhausting, exciting, or a combination of both? What does it feel like to close out a tournament after all that stress/hard work?
Jordan Farenhem: Debating all the way to semifinals was a mix of exhaustion due to having debated at the round robin and then eight previous rounds at the tournament, but by the time I got to around quarters, I realized how close I was to winning (or what ended up being a close out) which gave me a new burst of energy and enthusiasm. By that point everyone in the tournament is tired, but the tournament only becomes more intense as the bid and win grow closer.

Q: Was there a particular round you debated at this tournament in which you really enjoyed the argument interaction/clash in? 
JF: Most of my rounds from this weekend were lay rounds, but those are perhaps some of the best in terms of clash and argument interaction as there aren’t a ton of uplayers, so the round actually comes down to substance. Most affs were along the lines of holding police accountable, and most negs were things like ban qualified immunity CPs, arguments about police deterrence, or just phil debates about how police and the government have full control of society and therefore are above the law. Although there wasn’t a huge variety of arguments, it was interesting to see how people interacted and responded to things each round because most wins didn’t come just from what the offense was (because I am fairly sure the wins were split pretty evenly between aff and neg each round), but how individual debaters chose to collapse and weigh in their later rebuttals. 

Q: What do you think best prepared you for this tournament?
JF: I think the best preparation for this tournament was years’ worth of lay debate practice as the majority of judges at the tournament were lay, so having competed at dozens of local lay tournaments helped me to have that lay appeal, be able to talk slower and still argue effectively, and really sit down on arguments that I knew the judges were buying. I also read a lot of literature as to what exactly the qualified immunity doctrine actually states, which made it easy to make arguments like the aff doesn’t solve or make arguments towards how the current doctrine has a few flaws and how affirming is key to fixing those.

Main Tournament

Round 1

Pairings | Results

Round 2

Pairings | Results

Round 3

Pairings | Results

Round 4

Pairings | Results

Round 5

Pairings | Results

Round 6

Pairings | Results


BocaRaton AA def. Ft. Lauderdale TM (Choudhary, Schauben, Vogel)
Ft. Lauderdale JF def. BocaRaton NM (Joseph, McNamara, Schwartz)
Ft. Lauderdale SB def. PinesCharter WW (Marques, Reed, Shatzkin)
NSU University GF def. West Broward EM (Joseph, McNamra, Schwartz)
William T. Dwyer LM def. Heritage BG (Abbasakoor, Budowky, Meles)
PinesCharter JF def. Ft. Lauderdale HB (Schauben, Reed, Ciocca)
PinesCharter SS def. Coral Springs DB (Choudhary, Schauben, Stickna)
North Crowley LR def. West Broward ACi (Abbasakoor, Budowsky, Meles)


NSU University GF def. BocaRaton AA (Vogel, Stickna, Schwartz)
William T. Dwyer LM def. Ft. Lauderdale JF (Schauben, Reed, Ciocca)
PinesCharter SS def. Ft. Lauderdale SB (McNamara, Joseph, Choudhary)
PinesCharter JF def. North Crowley LR (Shatzkin, Meles, Marques)


PinesCharter JF def. NSU University GF (Shatzkin, Schauben, Olson)
PinesCharter SS def. William T. Dwyer LM (Stickna, Marques, Choudhary)


Jordan Farenhem (Pembroke Pines Charter JF) and Stephen Scopa (Pembroke Pines Charter SS) close out.

Shailja Somani