2015 Summer Rostrum

Rostrum A PUBLICATION OF THE NATIONAL SPEECH & DEBATE ASSOCIATION

#Nats15 Circle of Champions!

Exclusive Photos, Results, and More!

VOLUME 90 ISSUE 1 SUMMER 2015

June 26 - July 7, 2016

www.wkuforensics.com www.wkuforensics.com | Follow | Follow us on usTwitter: on Twitter: @wkuforensics @wkuforensics WKUWKU Forensics; Forensics; 19061906 College College Heights Heights Blvd.Blvd. #51084; #51084; Bowling Bowling Green, Green, KY 42101-1084 KY 42101-1084 For more For more information, information, contact contact Ganer Ganer Newman Newman - ganer.newman@wku.edu - ganer.newman@wku.edu - 270-745-6340 - 270-745-6340 Sending Sending five orfive more or more students students from the fromsame the same school? school?

Contact Contact us forus info foron info discounts on discounts for schools for schools sending sending multiple multiple students! students!

(Pricing (Pricing willwill be available be available in future in future issues) issues)

June June 2626 - July - July 77 full full session session

June June 2626 - July - July 22 one-week one-week intensive intensive

to compete to compete likelike a champion, a champion, youyou need need to work to work with with thethe champions champions at WKU’s at WKU’s SFI!SFI! WKU team members, and former National Speech & Debate Tournament thethe very very best best andand then then gives gives them them thethe tools tools needed needed to be to be champions. champions.

If you If you want want finalists, Austin Groves, Mark Allseits, Blake Knapp, Brent O’Connor, Lily Nellans, Jamaque Newberry, Carolyn Evans, Dowty, Sam Moore, John dorm dorm fees, fees, andand instructional instructional material. material.

WKU’s WKU’s SFIIan SFI challenges challenges students students to to become become Reynolds, Lyric Davis, Lataya Williams, and Darius Wilson. preparation preparation events, events, original original oratory, oratory, andand debate. debate.

Tuition Tuition includes includes all all meals, meals, camp camp experience. experience.

We We provide provide instruction instruction in all in all major major interpretation interpretation andand limited limited TheThe WKU WKU SFISFI offers offers both both a one a one -week -week intensive intensive study study andand an an eleven-day eleven-day fullfull session session

WKU WKUSUMMER SUMMERFORENSIC FORENSICINSTITUTE INSTITUTE WKU SUMMER FORENSIC INSTITUTE

The WKU SFI offers both a one -week intensive study and an eleven-day full session camp experience. We provide instruction in all major interpretation and limited preparation events, original oratory, and debate. Tuition includes all meals, Reynolds, Reynolds, LyricLyric Davis, Davis, Lataya Lataya Williams, Williams, and Darius and Darius Wilson.

Wilson. dorm fees, andNellans, instructional material.

WKU’s SFI challenges students to become Nellans, Jamaque Jamaque Newberry, Newberry, Carolyn Carolyn Evans, Evans, Ian Dowty, Ian Dowty, Sam Sam Moore, Moore, JohnJohn finalists, finalists, Austin Austin Groves, Groves, MarkMark Allseits, Allseits, BlakeBlake Knapp, Knapp, BrentBrent O’Connor, O’Connor, Lily Lily the very best and then gives them the tools needed to be champions. If you want WKUWKU teamteam members, members, and former and former National National Speech Speech & Debate & Debate Tournament Tournament to compete like a champion, you need to work with the champions at WKU’s SFI!

full session June 26 - July 7

one-week intensive June 26 - July 2

(Pricing will be available in future issues)

Sending five or more students from the same school? Contact us for info on discounts for schools sending multiple students!

For more information, contact Ganer Newman - ganer.newman@wku.edu - 270-745-6340 WKU Forensics; 1906 College Heights Blvd. #51084; Bowling Green, KY 42101-1084 www.wkuforensics.com | Follow us on Twitter: @wkuforensics

June June 2626 - July - July 7, 7, 2016 2016

The TOC

SPEECH HONOR ROLL Apple Valley Barkley Forum at Emory University Beehive Bonanza at University of Utah Bellaire Berkeley Bobcat Bonanza Bradley University Camp Panther Classic at Parish Episcopal Cavalier Invitational at Durham Academy Columbia University Cy-Fair Cypress Bay Tradition Cypress Creek Cypress Woods Dowling Catholic Paradigm Federal Way Florida Blue Key Fullerton Winter Classic Glenbrooks Grady HS Grapevine Hall of Fame at the University of Alabama Harlan Hamm Invitational at Rowan County SHS Harvard University Hilltopper at Western Kentucky University Houston Lamar Husky Invitational at Northeastern University Isidore Newman James Logan Jon Schamber Invitational at the University of the Pacific Laird Lewis at Myers Park HS Longhorn Classic at the University of Texas-Austin

Marshall Speech Spectacular Mid-America Season Opener at Des Moines Roosevelt Mile High at Denver East/George Washington HS Munster HS Navy and Old Gold at Holy Cross School New York City Invitational Newton South Nova Titan Park Hill Patriot Games at George Mason University PFI at Pennsbury Plano West Princeton University Raymond Furling Invitational at St. James School Ridge HS Sharon B. Althoff Rotary Invitational at Wooster HS Southwestern Championships at Arizona State University Spring Woods St. Andrews Saints Classic St. Mark’s Stanford University Sunvitational at University School Sylvania Invitational Toro Country Classic at Mountain View HS University of Pennsylvania University of Puget Sound Villiger Wake Forest Earlybird Westfield HS Winston Churchill HS Yale University

We honor the role played by our Speech Bid Tournaments in the continuing success of the TOURNAMENT OF CHAMPIONS University of Kentucky, 29 April – 2 May 2016 Bids are based on entries by event: Up to 24 entries--Top 3 25 – 72 entries--All Finalists 73 – 240 entries--Semifinalists * 241+ entries--Quarterfinalists * * Generally, we’re looking for the top 12 (SF) or 24 (QF). We’ll adjust for specific formats.

https://cis.uky.edu/toc/ UKTOCSpeech@gmail.com

Bids are available in DI, HI, DUO, EX, OO, and OI. DP accepted towards either DI or HI. Separate Poetry and Prose events require one bid in each.

One bid required to compete in 2015-16.

In this Issue : V o l u m e 9 0 : I s s u e 1 : SUMME R 2 0 1 5

From the Cover

Inside

54

4

From the Editor

5

2015-2016 Topics

40

Get With the Program

2015 National Tournament Photos and Results

Features 9

Board of Directors Spring Minutes

42

Curriculum Corner

12

Inclusion Committee Update

44

What We’re Reading

14

Tough Conversations: A Primer for Discussing Race and Racism in the Classroom

70

Student of the Year Spotlight: Jarrius Adams

by Tommy J. Curry, Ph.D., Douglas Dennis, and Aaron Timmons 46

Using Forensic Activity to Develop the Skills Identified in Common Core State Standards (CCSS)

by Leslie Wade Zorwick, Ph.D., and James M. Wade

114

Elizabeth Arden Internship Program

Competition Events 20

2016-2017 Policy Debate Topic Synopsis

24

Suggested Debate Evidence Rules

28

New Pilot Event Rules: Informative Speaking (INF) and Program Oral Interpretation (POI)

30

Considerations for Informative Speaking

120 Alumni Spotlight:

Audrey Cooper 122 Coach Profile:

Matt and Toni Heimes 124 District in Detail:

New Jersey

by Manda Hicks, Ph.D. 34

What is POI? by Danny Ray

36

POI: The Stock Issues of Interpretation by J. Scott Baker

Like us on Facebook /speechanddebate Share with us on Instagram /speechanddebate Follow us on Twitter @speechanddebate

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 3

From the Editor

Board of Directors

The National Speech & Debate Tournament returned to the great state of Texas this past June. Despite the inclement weather unleashed by Tropical Storm Bill, our student competitors persevered and amazed us with their outstanding talents once again! We owe much of the week’s success to the dedication and support of our local hosts, led by Cindi Timmons and Shona Huffman. I wish to congratulate the entire host committee on a job well done. I also want to thank the many volunteer coaches, tournament officials, and national office staff who put in long hours behind the scenes to run another exceptional tournament. We truly could not hold this event without you!

In addition to our National Tournament recap, I am excited to highlight several noteworthy articles this month. Authors Tommy J. Curry, Ph.D., Douglas Dennis, and Aaron Timmons share valuable suggestions for discussing race and racism in the classroom and beyond. Three of our member coaches explore Program Oral Interpretation and Informative Speaking in more detail and offer tips for developing these new pilot events with your students. Authors Leslie Wade Zorwick, Ph.D., and James M. Wade expand upon their research into the benefits of forensic activities and the undeniable connection to the skills outlined by Common Core State Standards (CCSS). I hope these and other features reinforce a thriving speech and debate community, and help you to make a stronger case of support for this life-changing activity.

Thanks again to everyone involved in making our 90th birthday celebration this summer a huge success! I look forward to seeing all of you June 12-17, 2016, when the National Tournament returns to Salt Lake City, Utah. Until then, I wish you the very best as we begin a fresh competition season.

Sincerely,

J. Scott Wunn Executive Director National Speech & Debate Association

A PUBLICATION OF THE NATIONAL SPEECH & DEBATE ASSOCIATION 125 Watson Street, PO Box 38, Ripon, WI 54971-0038 | Phone (920) 748-6206 | Fax (920) 748-9478

Vicki Pape, Assistant Editor Emily Bratton, Graphic Design Assistant

SUBSCRIPTION PRICES Individuals: $15 for one year | $25 for two years Member Schools: $15 for each additional subscription

(USPS 471-180) (ISSN 1073-5526) Rostrum is published quarterly (Summer, Fall, Winter, and Spring) by the National Speech & Debate Association, 125 Watson Street, PO Box 38, Ripon, WI 54971. Periodical postage paid at Ripon, WI 54971. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to National Speech & Debate Association, 125 Watson Street, PO Box 38, Ripon, WI 54971.

Rostrum provides a forum for the speech and debate community. The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and not necessarily the opinions of the Association, its officers, or its members. The National Speech & Debate Association does not guarantee advertised products and services unless sold directly by the Association.

4

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

Pam Cady Wycoff, Vice President Apple Valley High School 14450 Hayes Road Apple Valley, MN 55124-6796 (952) 431-8200 Pam.Wycoff@district196.org Polly Reikowski, Ph.D., Admin Rep Eagan High School 4185 Braddock Trail Eagan, MN 55123 (651) 683-6902 polly.reikowski@district196.org Kandi King 6058 Gaelic San Antonio, TX 78240 (210) 641-6761 mamakjking@yahoo.com Tommie Lindsey, Jr. James Logan High School 1800 H Street Union City, CA 94587 (510) 471-2520, Ext. 4408 Tommie_Lindsey@nhusd.k12.ca.us Pamela K. McComas PO Box 5078 Topeka, KS 66605 (785) 231-7414 pmccomas1434@gmail.com

Rostrum

J. Scott Wunn, Editor and Publisher

Don Crabtree, President Park Hill High School 1909 6th Avenue St. Joseph, MO 64505 (816) 261-2661 crabnfl@gmail.com

David Huston Colleyville Heritage High School 5401 Heritage Avenue Colleyville, TX 76034 (817) 305-4700, Ext. 214 david.huston@gcisd.net James W. “Jay” Rye, III The Montgomery Academy 3240 Vaughn Road Montgomery, AL 36106 (334) 272-8210 jay_rye@montgomeryacademy.org Jennifer Jerome Millard West High School 5710 S. 176th Avenue Omaha, NE 68135 (402) 715-6000 (school office) (402) 715-6092 (classroom) jjerome1984@gmail.com

2015–2016

Topics

Current topics and resources are available at:

www.speechanddebate.org/topics

Topic Release Information Public Forum Topic Release Dates August 15

September/October Topic

October 1

November Topic

November 1

December Topic

December 1

January Topic

January 1

February Topic

February 1

March Topic

March 1

April Topic

May 1

National Tournament Topic

Lincoln-Douglas Topic Release Dates

September/OCTOBER 2015

Public Forum Debate

Resolved: The United States Federal Government ought to pay reparations to African Americans.

September/October 2015

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

Resolved: Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices.

August 15

September/October Topic

October 1

November/December Topic

December 1

January/February Topic

2015–2016

February 1

March/April Topic

Policy Debate

May 1

National Tournament Topic

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially curtail its domestic surveillance.

2016–2017 Policy Debate Topic Voting •

Topic synopsis printed in this issue of Rostrum (pages 20-22)

•

Preliminary voting occurs online in September-October

•

Final voting occurs online in November-December

•

Topic for 2016-2017 released by the NFHS in January 2016

Students and chapter advisors are eligible to vote!

2015–2016 PARTNER CONTEST

American Legion Oratorical Contest

See page 8 for details.

The National Speech & Debate Association also suggests a NOVICE Lincoln-Douglas Debate topic that may be used during the first two months of a novice season.

For details, visit www.speechanddebate.org/topics.

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 5

Dear School Administrator, We are engaged in the most important work we can possibly do—preparing the next generation of leaders, communicators, citizens, and parents. What an awesome responsibility! Within our daily routines we have so many tasks and too little time to reflect, to examine, and to reset our goals.

I am writing to you to support your many efforts and also to spark your thinking and goal-setting regarding communication and our students.

I am the principal of a 2,100 student high school and a lifelong participant, coach, and director of speech and debate programs in my life as a teacher. Without a doubt, participation and engagement in speech and debate changes student lives!

If you already support and foster a strong speech or debate program, I know you are fully aware of the power of the activity, its life-changing potential, and the career readiness within these skills. If you are wondering how to develop a program and support coaches and teachers in your district, the National Speech & Debate Association can help provide the tools and resources you need.

Speech and debate programs develop leadership, communication skills, and excellence in our young people. If you, as a school leader and visionary, are looking for programs with a tremendous impact—ones that make a real difference in students’ lives—please consider starting a speech and debate program in your district. There is no program in my large high school that has a greater impact on the culture and quality of our school. If you truly want to change the lives of your students, I strongly encourage you to start a speech and debate program!

Sincerely,

Dr. Polly Reikowski Eagan High School 4185 Braddock Trail Eagan, MN 55123 (651) 683-6902 polly.reikowski@district196.org

Find this and other letters of advocacy on our website:

www.speechanddebate.org 6

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

West Coast Publishing --Jump Start Preparation for the Year --Topic specific, quality arguments --Provide excellent models of argument & presentation

The high quality Policy-CX evidence your debaters need to jump start their research. Affirmatives, disadvantages, counterplans, kritiks, topicality arguments.

Aff, Neg, Sept, Oct-Mar and May supplements.

Excellent topic specific value evidence and

For Public Forum debate, high quality evidence, topic analysis, and definitions for ALL NSDA Public Forum Topics. NewsViews Extemp articles pro & con on current issues with multiple citations twice a month.

Clear, step by step instruction for LD, Policy-CX, Parli, Pub Forum debate, and Individual Events. Prepbooks are great handouts to help students prepare and Teacher Materials make instruction easier.

topic analysis for your LD debaters. Aff and neg cases, definitions, topic arguments. We cover ALL NSDA & UIL LD topics for the year.

Go to www.wcdebate.com View Samples of our Products Print and Online Order Forms `

Grow Speech and Debate!

Check out: www.climbthemountain.us

Looking for college scholarships?

Look no further.

American Legion Oratorical Contest As part of the National Speech & Debate Association’s ongoing partnership with the American Legion, the top three finishers from the Legion’s National Oratorical Contest may earn the right to compete in Original Oratory or United States Extemporaneous Speaking at the National Speech & Debate Tournament! The first-place finisher is awarded an $18,000 scholarship, second-place $16,000, and third-place $14,000. The scholarships may be used at any college or university in the United States.

 Want to get involved? Follow these simple steps!

• Visit www.legion.org/oratorical to learn more.

• Click “Request Information” or contact your state’s American Legion Department to learn when the first contest will be.

• Also click on “Assigned Topics” to learn the extemporaneous topic areas.

• Prepare your original oration on some aspect of the Constitution with emphasis on the duties and obligations of a citizen to our government.

Florida student Geeta Minocha placed first at the 2015 Oratorical Contest.

Leadership Board of Directors Spring Minutes

T

he National Speech & Debate Association Board of Directors held its spring meeting in Dallas, Texas, on May 1-2, 2015. Present were President Don Crabtree, Vice President Pam Cady Wycoff, Dr. Polly Reikowski, Kandi King, Pam McComas, Tommie Lindsey, Jr., David Huston, Jay Rye, and Jennifer Jerome.

President Crabtree called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.

Naming Rights Moved by Rye, seconded by Crabtree: “Rename ‘United States Extemporaneous Speaking’ to ‘Carmendale Fernandes United States Extemporaneous Speaking.’”

Passed: 9-0 Carmendale Fernandes, a five-diamond coach and long-time supporter of speech and debate from California, was wellknown for her gracious support in sponsoring the United States Extemporaneous Speaking event at the National Tournament. “Carm” was inducted as one of the founding 12 members of the National Speech & Debate Association Hall of Fame in 1978, the only woman in the original group.

She contributed several years as a member of the Board of Directors and also served as its first female Board President.

Carm passed away October 15, 2014. At the Spring 2015 meeting, the Board of Directors voted unanimously to name her beloved U.S. Extemp in her honor.

Moved by Rye, seconded by McComas: “Rename the ‘Director’s Commendation’ to ‘Frank Sferra Director’s Commendation.’ The commendation will be awarded for outstanding support and commitment to the development of all speech and debate programs regardless of size.”

Passed: 9-0

May 1-2, 2015 Dallas, Texas

Introduced in 2014, the Director’s Commendation is awarded annually for outstanding contributions by a coach. At this meeting, the Board voted unanimously to recognize Frank Sferra’s many contributions to the speech and debate community by naming the Commendation after him. During his lifetime, Frank was a fierce champion of all speech and debate programs.

Upon college graduation, Frank founded the debate program at Bishop Machebeuf High School. He later began his tenure as the Mullen debate coach, which would span half a century. Over the years, Mr. Sferra served as a district leader in Colorado and President of the Board of Directors, earning many accolades including his seventh diamond and induction into the Association’s Hall of Fame.

Moved by Rye, seconded by King: “Rename ‘Lanny Naegelin Dramatic Interpretation’ to ‘Lanny and B. J. Naegelin Dramatic Interpretation.’”

Passed: 9-0 Dramatic Interpretation, previously named for Lanny, is now dedicated to the entirety of TEAM Naegelin.

Inducted into the Hall of Fame in 2001, B. J.’s tireless efforts in teaching, coaching, tournament direction, representing the National Speech & Debate Association, speaking at educational conferences, and working at summer institutes, were nearly always completed in concert with her husband, Lanny. This year we sadly, but proudly, added B. J’s name to the award that recognizes outstanding students in the event that best captured her love for theatre.

The new event and award names were implemented in honor of these outstanding coaches during the 2015 National Speech & Debate Tournament in Dallas, Texas.

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 9

Spring Minutes (continued) New Pilot Events Moved by Crabtree, seconded by King: “Approve the pilot rules for Progam Oral Interpretation.”

Passed: 8-0 (Crabtree, Wycoff, Wycoff, Reikowski, King, McComas, Huston, Rye, Jerome) Moved by Wycoff, seconded by Reikowski: “Approve the pilot rules for Informative Speaking.”

Passed: 8-0 (Crabtree, Wycoff, Wycoff, Reikowski, King, McComas, Huston, Rye, Jerome) Moved by Lindsey, seconded by McComas: “In the pilot year 2015-2016, each member school may enter up to two students in both Program Oral Interpretation and Informative Speaking at its respective District Tournament. These entries will not count toward the school’s entry quota; however, all other entry limit rules will apply. Students still may only enter up to two speech events at their District Tournament, if double entry is allowed. Each district will receive a maximum of two qualifiers in both POI and INF to the 2016 National Speech & Debate Tournament. Following the 2016 National Tournament, the Board of Directors will determine whether or not either event should continue.”

Passed: 8-1 Aye: Crabtree, Wycoff, Reikowski, King, Lindsey, McComas, Huston, Jerome No: Rye

Based on the overwhelming level of positive support from coach surveys last fall, the Association will pilot Informative Speaking and Program Oral Interpretation during the 2016 District and National Tournament series. The entire Board is appreciative for important survey feedback that better informed the pilot rules and guidelines that will be used.

For complete rules, see pages 28-29.

Debate Evidence Rules Moved by Huston, seconded by King: “Approve the updated debate evidence rules for implementation in 2015-2016.”

Passed: 9-0 The Board of Directors, Competition and Rules Committee, and Debate Evidence Rules Ad Hoc Committee would like to thank everyone who provided valuable feedback about these rules throughout the year. Evidence is one of the important components of arguments in debate rounds. All debaters involved are expected to act in an ethical manner that is in accordance with the rules. In keeping with the National Speech & Debate Association Code of Honor, all participants are expected to use and interpret evidence, evidence rules, and procedures in good faith. For the complete set of updated rules, see pages 24-27.

The meeting adjourned Saturday afternoon.

Powering the voice of our future.

CONNECT. SUPPORT. INSPIRE.

10

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

deudleule SchSech le nun Schdeaidntda n! n! auaau ioitnio! auditio Western Kentucky University Western Kentucky University Western Kentucky University

Brent O’Connor, Brent O’Connor, class of 2017 andand class of 2017 Brent O’Connor, Lily Nellans, Lily Nellans, class of 2017 and class of 2018. of 2018.

Lily class Nellans, class of 2018.

TTHHI SI SI SI SWWKKUUFFOORREENNSSI C SS I C THIS IS WKU FORENSICS

To the University, Forensics is an to demonstrate academic excellence, to to To the University, Forensics is opportunity an opportunity to demonstrate academic excellence, excel in competition of the intellect, and to extend the academic atmosphere.

To the excel in competition of the intellect, and to extend the academic atmosphere.

To the To the University, Forensics is an opportunity to demonstrate academic excellence, to student, Forensics is an opportunity to cultivate life-long friendships, travel the counstudent, Forensics is an opportunity to cultivate life-long friendships, travel the counexcel in competition of the intellect, and to extend the academic atmosphere. To the try, andand do what you love. try, do what love. student, Forensics isyou an opportunity to cultivate life-long friendships, travel the country, and do what you love.

WKU remains thethe only team in the history of collegiate forensics to win thethe American WKU remains only team in the history of collegiate forensics to win American Forensic Association (AFA) team sweepstakes, the National Forensic Association (NFA) Forensic Association (AFA) team sweepstakes, the National Forensic Association (NFA) WKU remains the only team in the history of collegiate forensics to win the American Individual Events team sweepstakes, and the NFA Debate team sweepstakes all in the Individual Events team sweepstakes, and the NFA Debate team sweepstakes all in Forensic Association (AFA) team sweepstakes, the National Forensic Association (NFA)the same year, a feat which it has nownow accomplished times.

Last year, WKU won itsthe same year, a feat which it has accomplished nine times.

Last year, WKU its Individual Events team sweepstakes, and the NFAnine Debate team sweepstakes allwon in 25th consecutive state championship title.

25th consecutive state championship title. same year, a feat which it has now accomplished nine times. Last year, WKU won its 25th consecutive state championship title.

UNITY • LEADERSHIP • DISCIPLINE • INNOVATION • GRATITUDE UNITY • LEADERSHIP • DISCIPLINE • INNOVATION • GRATITUDE UNITY • LEADERSHIP • DISCIPLINE • INNOVATION • GRATITUDE WKUWKU Forensics; Ganer Newman Forensics; Ganer Newman 19061906 College Heights Blvd.Blvd. #51084 College Heights #51084 Bowling Green, KY 42101-1084 WKUBowling Forensics; Green, Ganer KYNewman 42101-1084 phone: 270-745-6340 1906phone: College 270-745-6340 Heights Blvd. #51084 Bowling Green, KY 42101-1084 phone: 270-745-6340

email: ganer.newman@wku.edu email: ganer.newman@wku.edu www.wkuforensics.com www.wkuforensics.com email: ganer.newman@wku.edu Follow us on @wkuforensics Follow usTwitter: on Twitter: @wkuforensics www.wkuforensics.com Follow us on Twitter: @wkuforensics

Community Update:

Inclusion Committee

L

ast year, the Board of Directors authorized and established an Inclusion Ad Hoc Committee. The Board asked a group of dedicated individuals to work collaboratively to begin tackling the tough issues of inclusiveness in speech and debate.

The National Speech & Debate Association’s mission and vision (see opposite page) strive to make speech and debate accessible to every student. As we continue to work toward our mission, we must continue to focus on inclusion.

Throughout the past school year, and finalizing the plan at Nationals, the Inclusion Committee established a mission and vision for their group (see sidebar, opposite page).

12

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

Given this mission and vision, the committee has created an action plan for the 2015-2016 school year. The goal of the group is to spend significant, quality time heeding the National Speech & Debate Association membership.

Through various strategies of engaging membership, the group seeks to further learn about obstacles that create barriers to meaningful participation in speech and debate. The group wants to hear from students, coaches, parents, administrators, and other community members.

After a successful year of dialoguing with membership, the group hopes to have significant data compiled for the Executive Director and Board of Directors

(above) Members of the Inclusion Committee met during the 2015 National Speech & Debate Tournament in Dallas, Texas.

to review. Additionally, the group is committed to devising shortand long-term strategies to begin addressing the findings of the research. Actionable steps the organization can take will be presented to the Board of Directors in the future for final approval.

If you have a story to share, have valuable insights to contribute, or are interested in learning more, please do not hesitate to contact any of the committee members directly.

For general inquiries or suggestions, feel free to email steve.schappaugh@ speechanddebate.org.

Mission

of the Inclusion Committee The Inclusion Committee’s mission is to research and facilitate ongoing strategies for the Association and its members to: • Provide the opportunity for meaningful participation to every student, but especially those marginalized or disenfranchised in the United States, to gain the lifelong benefits of speech and debate; • Cultivate a speech and debate community that respects, values, and celebrates the unique attributes, characteristics, and perspectives that make each person who they are; • Provide each individual with the opportunity to achieve their potential.

Vision

of the Inclusion Committee The National Speech & Debate Association becomes the leading voice for inclusive participation in speech and debate activities by establishing standards, facilitating discussion, and creating opportunities that proactively decrease barriers. The inclusion committee will research and provide a list of best practices and recommendations for this including, but not limited to: • Promoting awareness/interest in speech and debate as a viable and attractive activity for all students; • Ensuring access to the benefits of speech and debate by identifying active and passive barriers for meaningful participation, the major driver(s) for these barriers, and potential solutions to these barriers; • Providing an experience through our tournaments and activities that is enjoyable, educational, enriching, and rewarding for all students; • Stimulating students’ intellectual, emotional, and social growth to help all students achieve their goals and make a positive difference;

The mission and vision of the Inclusion Committee supports the overarching mission and vision of the organization.

Mission of the Association The National Speech & Debate Association believes communication skills are essential for empowering youth to become engaged citizens, skilled professionals, and honorable leaders in our global society. We connect, support, and inspire a diverse community of honor society members committed to fostering excellence in young people through competitive speech and debate activities.

Vision of the Association We envision a world in which every student has access to competitive speech and debate activities. We are the leading voice in the development of resources, competitive and ethical standards, curricular and co-curricular opportunities, and recognition systems for our vast network of student, coach, and alumni members.

Inclusion Committee Members Board Reps »

Community Reps »

Don Crabtree,

Erickson Bynum, Coach (SC) Christian Chessman, Alumnus (FL) Dr. Mike Edmonds, Sponsor (CO) Jan Friedman-Pizzo, Coach (OR) Darrell Harvey, Coach (MD) Mario Herrera, Coach (GA) Rebecca Kuang, Alumna (TX) Katherine Minks, Alumna (IA) Lillian Ogunbanjo, Coach (TX) Joseph (Tony) Ugalde, Coach (CA)

Board President (MO)

Tommie Lindsey, Jr., Board Member (CA)

Staff Liaisons » Steve Schappaugh, Director of Programs and Education

Nicole Wanzer-Serrano, Director of Membership

• Governing the Association’s strategies and investments to reflect these core values.

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 13

Tough Conversations: A Primer for Discussing Race and Racism in the Classroom

‘‘

by Tommy J. Curry, Ph.D., Douglas Dennis, and Aaron Timmons

C

lassroom conversations about race and racism can be difficult. Often teachers and students—sometimes apologetically, sometimes angrily, but mostly unselfconsciously— avoid the topics altogether. When they do take place, conversations frequently remain superficial or simplistic. Yet if we hope to address the problems that arise as a result of what playwright Anna Deavere Smith (1993) calls ‘our struggle to be together in our differences,’ we need to be able to talk meaningfully about race and racism.”

— Adapted from Talking Race in the Classroom by Jane Bolgatz (2005)

Wait: The Public Forum topic for September/October is WHAT? The Public Forum topic for the National Speech & Debate Association is, “Resolved: The United States Federal Government ought to

14

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

“Unless significant effort is made discussing how to have these conversations, we risk exchanges and levels of analysis that are watered down and polite to the point of not getting to the core of the issue(s) at hand.”

pay reparations to African Americans.”

This topic will require thousands of high school students to think about a topic they perhaps have given only fleeting consideration in the past. Most assuredly, most previously have not had the need to research the topic and all of its moving parts. Debating issues specific to African Americans, in addition to concepts of race, racism, white privilege, white supremacy, prejudice, and institutional racism, is very difficult for many. We posit that if coaches and students prepare themselves for these difficult conversations, this topic will result not only in a group of students, coaches, and judges who will be more “racially literate”; it will also provide a framework for discussions to occur at a level far beyond what we have seen in many classrooms and debate rounds thus far.

We suggest that unless significant effort is made discussing how to have these conversations, we risk exchanges and levels of analysis that are watered down and polite to the point of not getting to the core of the issue(s) at hand. A fear of providing a “safe space” for our students is often confused with providing a “comfortable space.” A student’s physical safety is of unquestionable importance.

However, conversations should not be avoided because individuals in the space are uncomfortable with the topic. Understanding community norms, as outlined below, can help us strategize how to have tough, yet fruitful, conversations on the topic. As Bolgatz (2005) indicates, according to teacher Mary Dilg

(1999), “There are some moments in these conversations that are going to be hurtful no matter what other students or a teacher can do.” Hurt and defensiveness may be inevitable. Efforts to be considerate can be a double-edged sword.

The same conversation that some students see as scary will be just the beginning of a “real” conversation for others. What one student hears as reassuring, another might interpret as an effort to silence dialogue. Lorde (1984) encourages us to communicate despite the potential for trouble: “I have come to believe over and over again that what is most important to me must be spoken, made verbal and shared, even at the risk of having it bruised or misunderstood” (p.

40). This is especially true when some individuals in the space are uniquely impacted by the topic.

In our minds, these are reasons to educate ourselves on how to have these discussions and debates—not whether to have them. We must lean into discomfort in discussing issues of race and racism in our society writ large—and even, dare we say, into the debate space.

While consideration of norms for classroom discussions is important, the stakes are potentially higher in actual debate rounds given that

they are debates (with a winner and loser) and not just a dialogue.

In a debate, students must be mindful of listening carefully to the nuances of the opposition and then crafting responses. Thinking through both form and content of potential argument will be critical to maximizing chances of success.

Attempting to engage in debates about race is virtually impossible without establishing some initial ground rules. In order to have true dialogue, some common terms and concepts need to be discussed, as well as the role those things play in our ability to have cogent discussions.

So, what do I need to know to even begin having the discussion?

FIRST – Knowing the distinction between race and racism » According to Barbara J. Fields (2001), racism is the assignment of people to an inferior category and the determination of their social, economic, civic, and human standing on that basis. This unsettles the fundamental instincts of American academic professionals who consider themselves liberal, leftist,

or progressive. Racism is an act of peremptory, hostile, and supremely—often fatally— consequential identification that unceremoniously overrides its objects’ sense of themselves. Often, racism is conflated with race. As Fields continues: “Well-meaning scholars are more apt to speak of race than of racism. Race is a homier and more tractable notion than racism, a rogue elephant gelded and tamed into a pliant beast of burden. Substituted for racism, race transforms the act of a subject into an attribute of the object. Which, in a practical sense, changes African Americans from someone you act with to something you act upon.

This is the personification of antiBlackness. And because race denotes a state of mind, feeling, or being, rather than a program or pattern of action, it radiates a semantic and grammatical ambiguity that helps to restore an appearance of symmetry.”

As recently argued by Dr. Tommy Curry of Texas A&M University (2015), “Racism is not one’s undesirable or mistaken set of beliefs; some constellation of erroneous ideas or stereotypes about the character of Black people; rather, racism is a ‘mass psychosis’ allowing whites to have no regard for the life of Blacks as humans

A fear of providing a ‘safe space’ for our students is often confused with providing a ‘comfortable space.’”

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 15

or citizens” (p. 60-61). Thinking

how Blacks are undereducated, how

that the white race is superior to all

of racism as the architecture of

Blacks overpopulate prisons, and

other races, esp. the black race, and

American society allows for a more

more.

therefore should maintain control

productive understanding as to

in all relations.” This shouldn’t be

how racism was able to flourish

THIRD – Understanding the

a bone of contention, given the

politically, economically, and

concept of institutional racism »

myriad mechanisms used to advance

culturally, despite legal mandates for

whites at the expense of people Institutional racism was succinctly

of color. From slavery to the 3/5

articulated by Arthur de Gobineau in

compromise, to separate but equal,

SECOND – Knowing the distinction

The Inequality of the Races in 1853.

to sharecropping, to the Federal

between prejudice and racism »

Institutional racism simply asserts

Housing Authority that purposely

that institutions in a society will

kept neighborhoods segregated

According to James M. Jones’

reflect the will and perspective of

in a way that determined status

Prejudice and Racism (1997), “the

the dominant racial group in power.

quo housing policies and patterns

essential nature of prejudice has to

This is directly tied to discrimination

in America, to lynchings and the

do with interpersonal relationships,

in that institutions are designed to

continued legal killing of African

with how individuals behave toward

reflect and enable the mobilization

Americans, there should be no

others. Stated simply, prejudice

of certain sectors of society at the

question of the truth of codified,

is a positive or negative attitude,

expense of others. In a racist society,

structural white supremacy.

judgment, or behavior generalized to

the dominant race, or in this case

Now that we know what white

a particular person that is based on

whites, would control the access

supremacy is, we need to determine

attitudes or beliefs held about the

other racial groups have to jobs,

the role it plays in our conversations

group to which the person belongs”

education, health care, housing, etc.

about race. White supremacy can

(p. 137). Prejudice differs from racism

Racial discrimination is the act of

be addressed as white privilege

in that racism extends beyond mere

denying access to specific arenas of

at an institutional level and white

interpersonal relations to societal

society to preserve the racial order.

fragility at an interpersonal level—

equality.

both concepts that complicate

relations and organization, entailing how whites may treat Blacks in the

FOURTH – Understanding the

race conversations, and so must be

workplace, schools, etc. Traditionally,

concept of white supremacy »

addressed.

and racism has been described as

It is imperative to recognize that,

FIFTH – Understanding the

power: one dominant group’s ability

in this country, there is a pervasive

concept of (white) privilege »

to enforce its personal prejudices

system of white supremacy that is

against particular (racialized) groups

codified many times in government

White privilege is defined by the

through laws, institutions, and

laws and/or regulations, and that

Southern Poverty Law Center

agents of society. Racism, then,

system is at play in a variety of ways,

as a transparent preference for

refers to how society is ordered,

even today. Webster’s Unabridged

whiteness that saturates society, but

and is tied to how Blacks are

Dictionary defines white supremacy

it’s not just limited to that. Vodee

concentrated in the underclass,

as “the belief, theory or doctrine,

also describes it as permission to

the difference between prejudice

16

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

escape or avoid challenges to that

impossible to

entitlement. This means privilege

deny.

“Nobody wants to have conversations about race for the fear of the conflict the conversation might cause, so no conversation happens and the status quo replicates itself, making the need for the conversation even greater.”

doesn’t just give you what could

Because

be deemed illegitimate access to

privilege allows

resources, but it also gives you

one to sidestep

the ability to escape questioning

conversations

about how you got those resources

that might be

and why you’re entitled to them.

uncomfortable,

This personifies itself in race

it means people

conversations because the default

are not generally

has always been white; it means that,

taught the necessary

in many instances, whites, even well-

language and vocabulary to have

and behaviors such

meaning ones, lack the vocabulary

conversations about race without

as silence and leaving

and familiarity to comfortably

experiencing severe discomfort. In

the stressful situation.

start a conversation. Race is such

complex conversations that require

a charged word with such heavy

high-level critical thinking and

problems facilitating a conversation

implications that people are terrified

reasoning skills, there are bound to

about race. We want to have

to have the conversations—they

be moments of discomfort. However,

conversations about race without

fear they’ll say the wrong thing.

in conversations of race, these

the discomfort that may happen

Since most American neighborhoods

moments translate to a feeling of

during that conversation. It’s

are segregated by race, our exposure

not being safe—for some, causing

imperative to understand that there

to people different to us is limited,

actual physical discomfort. Professor

is a fundamental difference between

and these conversations rarely

Robin DiAngelo (2015) describes an

an uncomfortable conversation and

develop organically. One often

instance where a woman had to leave

an unsafe conversation. We engage

unacknowledged aspect of white

a conversation about race because

in conversations about race as if

privilege is that whites do not have

her chest started hurting and she was

they are unsafe to have, as if there

to deal with race. Whites have the

in fear that the conversation might

is a possibility of physical danger

option to think about race, whereas

cause her a literal heart attack, which

from these tense conversations. This

people of color do not. For whites,

stopped the conversation on race

is not the case, but it does create

race functions like a windbreaker,

and re-focused the attention on her

a problematic catch-22: nobody

something you might choose more

well-being. This is one example of

wants to have conversations about

out of fashion than utility, and

the interpersonal aspect of white

race for the fear of the conflict the

something you can put on and

supremacy, white fragility, which

conversation might cause, so no

take off at your leisure, whereas for

DiAngelo defines as “the state where

conversation happens and the status

people of color, race is something

even a minimal amount of racial

quo replicates itself, making the need

immutable—you can’t just choose

stress becomes intolerable, triggering

for the conversation even greater,

to not deal with your race because

a range of defensive moves” that

which increases the fear about

everyone you interact with will use

involve but are not limited to

having the conversation, and the

that lens for evaluation, making it

emotional feelings of anger and guilt

circle of inaction continues.

This concept is at the core of

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 17

Now that we are aware of some of the things we need to know to enter the conversation, what is the best way to deploy it? What should I do, you might ask? As a guide, below we offer several recommendations to equip teachers and students to be able to embrace tough conversations about issues of race and racism in general—and, more specifically, in the context of the September/ October topic on reparations. (Note: Some of these concepts are adapted from the National Association of Independent Schools guidelines on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusivity.)

Community-Classroom Norms Dealing with Controversial Topics (especially issues of race/ racism/reparations) • Be fully present and actively engaged in the discussion.

• Acknowledge the facts, and the various dimensions of the facts, surrounding racism, slavery, Jim Crow, and imperialism in America.

(Literature to inform and educate yourself include studies of Black History, Critical Race Theory, Anti-Colonialism, and Black Power Studies.)

• Trust your ignorance on the matter. This is an opportunity to learn, not retreat into theories of convenience like liberalism or integrationism, or multiculturalism, or faux radical theories like intersectionality or Afro-pessimism. Use this moment to think about the specific history and creation of Black poverty.

(Literature includes the work of Ira Katznelson and Joe R. Feagin.)

• Rid yourself of notions like white privilege and talk about structural and ideological

18

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

foundations of white supremacy.

This is not something to be discussed and remedied through acknowledgement, but instead pursued through active citizenship, demands on politicians, and policy changes in the real world.

• Understand (and accept) that profound cultural differences exist in how people argue.

• Never be offended by the truth.

as, opposed to being “uncomfortable.” A lack of comfort is inevitable in tough discussions, and necessary to move the discussion forward.

Physical safety is a reasonable expectation; being comfortable is not.

• Expressions of emotions are acceptable. Expressions of emotions do not mean that the conversation should stop.

• Critically listen to what is being said from all involved in the discussion.

• Understand the importance of your nonverbal communication in the conversation. Your body language, gestures, distance from the other speakers, etc., are important factors in determining how you are perceived.

• Consider restating the point made by those in the discussion to make sure you have an understanding of their point before rushing to respond to it.

• Develop an understanding of (and then avoiding) micro aggressions (micro invalidations, micro insults and micro assaults) as you pursue difficult conversations.

• Speak from the “I” perspective.

• Be self-responsible and selfchallenging.

• Lean into discomfort.

• Experiment with new behaviors in order to expand your range of response.

• Take risks. Being honest in conversation will mean you will make some mistakes in how you word things. Be willing to learn from those mistakes and then let go.

• Accept conflict (and its resolution) as a necessary catalyst for learning.

• Be comfortable with silence.

We would suggest that these guidelines are the beginning of the conversation as a community on how to discuss, and debate, issues of race. While they are in no way exhaustive, we hope they are helpful.

Tommy J. Curry, Ph.D. is an associate professor of philosophy at Texas A&M University.

• Be crisp; say what is core.

• Treat the candidness of others as a gift; honor confidentiality.

• Suspend judgment of yourself and of others.

• Understand that there is a distinction between being “unsafe” in a tough discussion

Douglas Dennis is a two-diamond coach from Saint Francis High School in California.

Aaron Timmons is a fourdiamond coach from Greenhill School in Texas.

References Ali, Z. (n.d.). The case for reparations - Discussion guide [Word document]. Retrieved from https://www.academia. edu/7664254/The_Case_for_Reparations_-_Discussion_ Guide

Jones, J.M. (1997). Prejudice and racism. New York, NY: McGrawHIll.

Bittker, B. (1973). The case for Black reparations. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Katznelson, I. (2005). When affirmative action was white. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Blackmon, D. A. (2008). Slavery by another name: The reenslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II. New York, NY: Anchor Books.

Lorde, A. (1984). The transformation of silence into language and actions. Trumansberg, NY: Crossing.

Bolgatz, J. (2005). Talking race in the classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Brooks, R. L. (2002). Atonement and forgiveness - A new model for Black reparations. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.

Brophy, A. (2003). Some conceptual and legal problems in reparations for slavery. NYU Annual Survey of American Law, 58(4).

Curry, T.J. (n.d.). In the fiat of dreams: The delusional allure of hope, the reality of anti-Black violence and the demands of the anti-ethical. Retrieved from https://www.academia. edu/3384301/_Draft_In_the_Fiat_of_Dreams_The_ Delusional_Allure_of_Hope_the_Reality_of_Anti-Black_ Violence_and_the_Demands_of_the_Anti-Ethical Curry, T.J. (2011). The political economy of reparations: An antiethical consideration of atonement and racial reconciliation under colonial moralism. Race, Gender & Class, 18(1-2).

Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/2635835/The_ Political_Economy_of_Reparations Curry, T. J., & Keheller, M. (2015). Robert F. Williams and militant civil rights: The legacy and philosophy of pre-emptive selfdefense. Radical Philosophy Review, 18(1), 45-68.

Coates, T. (2014). The case for reparations. The Atlantic.

Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/ DeAngelis, T. (2009) Unmasking ‘racial micro aggresions’. Monitor on Psychology, 40(2), 42.

DiAngelo, R. (2015). White fragility. International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 3(3), 54-70.

Dilg, M. (2003). Thriving in the multicultural classroom Principles and practice for effective teaching. New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press.

Farmer, A. (2015, June 17). Somebody has to pay: Audley Moore, mother of the reparations movement. African American intellectual history society. Retrieved from http://aaihs. org/somebody-has-to-pay-audley-moore-mother-of-thereparations-movement/

http://education.jhu.edu/PD/newhorizons/strategies/topics/ multicultural-education/allowing-race-in-the-classroom/

Magee, R. (1993). The master’s tools, from the bottom up: Responses to African-American reparations theory in mainstream and outsider remedies discourse. Virginia Law Review, 79, 863.

Matsuda, M. (1987) Looking to the bottom: Critical legal studies and reparations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Law School.

McIntosh, P. (1990). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. Retrieved from http://www.deanza.edu/faculty/ lewisjulie/White%20Priviledge%20Unpacking%20the%20 Invisible%20Knapsack.pdf Ogletree, C. (2004). Addressing the racial divide: Reparations.

Harvard BlackLetter Law Journal.

Robinson, R. (2000). The debt: What America owes its Blacks.

New York, NY: The Penguin Group.

Saeto, N. (2003). Beyond reparations: Accomodating wrongs or honoring resistance. Hastings Race & Poverty Law Journal, 27.

Schmich, T., & McMahon, T. (2008, May 16). The privilege of whiteness: A conversation. Retrieved from http://codac. uoregon.edu/files/2011/01/The-Privilege-of-Whiteness-AConversation-Handout.pdf Shuster, K. (n.d.). Civil discourse in the classroom. Retrieved from http://www.tolerance.org/publication/civil-discourseclassroom Sleeter, C., & McLaren, P. (1995). Multicultural education, critical pedagogy, and the politics of difference. New York, NY: State University of New York Press.

Smith, A.D., Wolfe, G.C., Fortis, C., & Law, L. (1990). Fires in the mirror: Crown Heights, Brooklyn and other identities. New York, NY: Public Television Playhouse.

Southern Poverty Law Center. (n.d.) [Website] Retrieved from www.splcenter.org Vodee, R. (2015). De-centering privilege in social work education: Whose job is it anyway? Race, Gender and Class, 7(4), 139-160.

White Supremacy. (1998) Def. 1. Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary. New York: Random House.

Fields, B.J. (2001). Whiteness, racism, and identity. International Labor and Working-Class History, 60, 48-56.

Williamson, K.D. (2014, May 24). The case against reparations. The National Review. Retrieved from http://www.nationalreview. com/article/378737/case-against-reparations-kevin-dwilliamson

Grineski, S., Landsman, J., & Simmons III, R. (Eds.). (2013). Talking about race: Alleviating the fear. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Yamamoto, E. (1998). Racial reparations: Japanese American redress and African American claims. Boston College Third World Law Journal, 19(1). 477-523.

Helling, J. A. (n.d.). School of education at Johns Hopkins University - “Allowing” race in the classroom: Students existing in the fullness of their beings. Retrieved from

Yamamoto, E. (2001). Race, rights and reparations: Law and the Japanese American internment. New York, NY: Aspen Publishers.

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 19

Policy Debate: Synopsis of the Problem Areas for 2016-2017 Students and coaches are invited to discuss these topics extensively before voting online by October 15. See page 22 for details!

I

PROBLEM AREA I:

CHINA

the crack-down on rights within China; land use arguments, and specific species protection disadvantages; implications for China/Taiwan relations; labor specific disadvantages; and disadvantages dealing with economic issues specific to plan

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic and/or diplomatic engagement with the People’s Republic of China.

action (inflation, currency collapse, etc.), all directly related to case specific action in China. Counterplan and Kritik ground will be fertile with both case specific and generic arguments in play. There will be plenty of case specific debate, given the literature base on the topic and the number of international experts twho write on China, there will be no shortage of

Among the possible areas could be: Reforming segments

clashing ideas on how best to engage China, giving teams

of U.S./China trade; working with China to increase respect

many possibilities to find proposals for action directly counter

for human rights; working with China to better understand

to the affirmative’s. These clashing ideas would affect debate

and manage its territorial ambitions in the South China Sea

over specific solvency options and case specific advantages.

and other parts of Asia; how to work with China to best

With China rising in stature on the national stage, the

mitigate ongoing concerns over Taiwan; how to work with

resolution is educational, timely, and necessary to debate.

China to ensure sustainable energy and resource policies; how best to protect indigenous groups within China; how best to handle ongoing concerns over Tibet; how best to work together on the threat posed by world terrorism; and many others. Given the amount of literature on the topic, and the

II

PROBLEM AREA II:

TREATIES

number of policy experts opining about China—teams can be assured of finding case ideas in a wide range of areas, with novel and unique affirmatives being proposed by policy experts almost monthly. The topic’s literature base ensures a dynamic range of case options. Negatives will have ample ground to explore the solvency of diplomatic or economic engagement; the effects of changes in China policy on surrounding Asian nations; the implications for U.S. allies in the

Resolved: The United States federal government should ratify or accede to one or more of the following: Convention on the Rights of the Child, Law of the Sea Treaty, Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, AntiPersonnel Mine Ban Convention, Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture.

region should any change to U.S. policy toward China occur; and the effect of change on the U.S. in light of its other national interests and obligations. Case specific disadvantages,

20

America’s status as a global advocate for peace,

again, given the literature base, will move beyond the

cooperation, and human rights is often put to the test when

generic, allowing for case advantages to be weighed by

multilateral treaties are on the table. In particular, the U.S.

countervailing arguments—including arguments pertaining to

has been criticized for its failure to ratify several widely-

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

adopted agreements, notably the Law of the Sea Treaty, the

Solvency claims for negative can be based on arguments

Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Ottawa Treaty

related to cooperation of business organizations, political

banning landmines, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and

division in India, and U.S. opposition based on economic

the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture.

concerns such as domestic unemployment. Disadvantages

Affirmatives on this topic could advocate unconditional

include political scenarios based on how implementation

ratification of any of the listed treaties, or could alternatively

would affect U.S. election outcomes, domestic U.S. backlash,

advocate ratification with reservations excepting individual

hegemony arguments with particular emphasis on China

provisions. Cases could leverage not only the advantages

and Russia, adverse reaction by Pakistan’s leaders, and

specific to each treaty, but also critical and policy-based

environmental impacts associated with increased economic

objections to American exceptionalism and unilateral action.

growth in India. Finally, the presence of humanitarian and

The list of five treaties allows negatives to develop deep case

gender equality issues currently occurring in the Republic of

arguments against each treaty. Counterplan options could

India provide ground for a host of critical arguments. Negative

include alternate actors and solvency mechanisms as well

teams opting to challenge the resolution on critical grounds

as reservations against particular provisions of the treaty.

can claim that increased U.S./India economic engagement will

There is rich disadvantage ground in the areas of international

exacerbate gender equity problems in India, result in increased

relations, economic and political leadership, environmental

cultural imperialism, and cause cultural appropriation in the

impacts, and human rights. Critical positions arise from issues

United States.

of American exceptionalism, exporting capitalist values, and the implications of gender and child issues.

III

PROBLEM AREA III:

INDIA

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic engagement with the Republic of India.

Economic engagement between the United States and

IV

PROBLEM AREA IV:

EXPORT CONTROLS

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially strengthen its export controls on dual-use technology toward one or more of the following: China, Israel, Russia, Taiwan.

In an era where both domestic and international

the Republic of India is a topic that frequently dominates

technology transfers are becoming necessary for a variety of

discussion among political leaders in both nations. At the

reasons, many continue to inquire if current export controls

same time, U.S. trade policy is an issue that often occupies

are adequate to protect U.S. technology from misuse by

rhetoric of both major U.S. political parties. Multiple

foreign powers. The U.S. faces many challenges in export

aspects of economic relations with India provide ground for

control policy including threats from nations who illegally

affirmative advocacy of change in present policy. Affirmative

acquire technology. A fair division of ground exists in the

case areas include: removal of barriers that restrict trade,

literature base between those who want to prioritize security

promotion of India’s agriculture industry, increased space

concerns and protect technology, and those who want to

exploration cooperation, increased emphasis on technology

reduce export controls to stimulate growth in the technology

transfer, and poverty relief assistance. Negative teams have

sector. With this divide in mind, the topic offers debaters

the option of relying on economic claims related to trade

the opportunity to investigate a unique foreign policy tool,

issues, problems associated with dual-use technology,

which has been debated only in small areas of past topics

arguments related to other nations, such as Pakistan and

such as Russia, China, or arms sales. Affirmatives would have

China, as targets for increased economic engagement.

opportunities to investigate the role U.S. technology exports

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 21

play in international terrorism, proliferation, security, and

Japan, and South Korea, and one-third of the world’s maritime

human rights issues. For example, they could strengthen

trade passes through the Straits of Malacca and the South

controls on computers and microprocessors to China or

China Sea. In addition, there are several important issues facing

Taiwan to prevent missile proliferation; stop all current or

the region, including sustained economic growth, territorial

future transfers of policing technology to Israel; or eliminate

rights, and environmental and human impacts of development.

transfers of microprocessors and database technology

Affirmative cases could focus on building a free-trade

to Russia. Negatives would have the ability to highlight

agreement with ASEAN, response to maritime piracy, climate

the impacts of export controls on trade, international

adaptation, development assistance, infrastructure investment,

relations, and domestic technological competitiveness. For

increase financial integration, and telecommunications and

example, negative teams would have ample ground to argue

cybersecurity support. Negative positions would include a

relations disadvantages to each of the countries listed in

the cost and impact of free-trade agreements between the

the topic, or negatives could argue business confidence

U.S. and other countries, discussion of the U.S.'s role in the

disadvantages. Negatives would have access to counterplans

region, discussion of China’s role in the region, other forms of

on alternate export control mechanisms like sanctions or

engagement with ASEAN such as cultural or military, territorial

quid-pro-quo. Solvency debates will also be diverse on

tensions, human trafficking, the effects of development

both the type of technologies and the types of controls.

on the environment, and the impact of globalization

V

and development on human rights in the region.

PROBLEM AREA V:

ASIAN PACIFIC RIM Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic engagement with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

Southeast Asia represents a new and well-balanced topic area. The 10 nations of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, include Brunei Darussalam, Burma (Myanmar), Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. These nations constitute a growing and vital region of the world. If the member nations were considered a single economy, ASEAN would be the world’s seventh largest economy. Though 10 very different countries, the member nations are joined by a commitment to consensus building. Since President Obama announced in 2010 that the United States would shift its foreign policy to focus more on Asia-Pacific, now known as the “Asia Pivot,” this area has received more interest. The topic focuses on the United States increasing its economic engagement to this vital region, and for good reason. ASEAN neighbors China, India,

22

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

Vote Online!

Students and one chapter advisor per school may vote online until Thursday, October 15. To access the link, visit www.speechanddebate.org/topics and follow the online ballot instructions.

The two most preferred topic areas will be placed on a second online ballot in November.

NOTE: The National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) handles selection of the annual Policy Debate topic where each state organization, the National Speech & Debate Association, the National Catholic Forensic League, and the National Debate Coaches Association all have voting privileges.

Attention Policy Debate Coaches:

A Brand New Textbook Resource Designed and Developed By a Winning Coach!

debatevideos.org

Chapter Topic

1

Introduction to Policy Debate

2

The Value of Embracing Confusion

3

The Essentials of Argumentation

4

Introduction to the Surveillance Resolution

5

Structure of a Debate Round

6

Speaker Duties for Each Speech

7

Introduction to Stock Issues

8

Inherency and the Status Quo

9

Harms: Quantitative and Qualitative

10

Solvency Concepts and Strategies

11

Evidence: Cutting, Formatting, and Reading

12

Responding to Arguments

13

Cross Examination Strategies

14

Introduction to the 1AC

15

The Power of Affirmative Fiat

16

Flowing and Roadmaps

17

Introduction to the 1NC

18

Topicality

19

Effects and Extra Topicality

20

Disadvantages

21

Counterplans

22

Kritiks

23

Answering Topicality

24

Answering Disadvantages and Impact Calc

25

Answering Counterplans

26

Answering Kritiks

27

Rebuttals

28

Splitting the Block

29

Styles of Debate and Judge Paradigms

30

How Tournaments Work

Learn Better. Debate Better.

30 chapters. 30 videos. HD 1080p. Multiple Subscription Packages.

Your students can log in and watch 24/7 from any device.

All based on the 2015-­‐2016 Policy Debate Resolution.

The Best Debate Strategies + The Best Teaching Strategies Whether you’re a veteran coach or a brand new teacher, your students deserve a professional textbook with updated information that reflects the current state of Policy Debate. Each video reflects outstanding, proven strategies that work.

Featuring Dr. Josh Anderson Coach of the 2014 Policy Debate Top Speaker at the National Speech & Debate Association National Tournament 2007 Kansas Teacher of the Year 2007 National Teacher of the Year Runner-­‐Up

Ask your administrator if textbook funds are available today!

Free Samples!

!

2015-2016 Debate Evidence Rules Evidence is one of the important components of arguments in debate rounds.

All debaters involved are expected to act in an ethical manner that is in accordance with the rules. In keeping with the National Speech & Debate Association Code of Honor, all participants are expected to use and interpret evidence, evidence rules, and procedures in good faith.

Editor’s Note: Sentences highlighted in gray were modified or added since the release of the 2014-2015 piloted debate evidence rules.

7.1.

Responsibilities of Contestants Reading Evidence

A. Evidence defined. Debaters are responsible for the validity of all evidence they introduce in the debate. Evidence includes, but is not limited to: facts, statistics, or examples attributable to a specific, identifiable, authoritative source used to support a claim. Unattributed ideas are the opinion of the student competitor and are not evidence.

B. Oral source citation. In all debate events, contestants are expected to, at a minimum, orally deliver the following when introducing evidence in a debate round: primary author(s)’ name (last) and year of publication. Any other information such as source, author’s qualifications, etc. may be given, but is not required. Should two or more quotations be used from the same source, the author and year must be given orally only for the first piece of evidence from that source. Subsequently, only the author’s name is required. Oral citations do not substitute for the written source citation. The full written citation must be provided if requested by an opponent or judge.

C. Written source citation. To the extent provided by the original source, a written source citation must include: 1. Full name of primary author and/or editor 2. Publication date 3. Source 4. Title of article 5. Date accessed for digital evidence 6. Full URL, if applicable 7. Author qualifications 8. Page number(s) D. Paraphrasing, authoritative source versus general understanding. If paraphrasing is used in a debate, the debater will be held to the same standard of citation and accuracy as if the entire text of the evidence were read. For example, if a debater references a specific

24

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

theory by a specific author, s/he must also be able to provide an original source. For example, if a debater were to reference social contract theory in general, that would not be an authoritative source that would require citation. However, if s/he references “John Locke’s Social Contract,” evidence would need to be available.

E. Ellipses prohibited. In all debate events, the use of internal ellipsis (. . . ) is prohibited unless it is a replication of the original document. Debaters may omit the reading of certain words; however, the text that is verbally omitted must be present in the text of what was read for opposing debaters and/or judges to examine. The portions of the evidence read including where the debater begins and ends must be clearly marked as outlined in 7.1(G)(2).

F. Availability of evidence.

1. In all debate events, for reference, any material (evidence, cases, written citations, etc.) that is presented during the round must be made available to the opponent and/or judge during the round if requested. When requested, the original source or copy of the relevant (as outlined in 7.2) pages of evidence read in the round must be available to the opponent in a timely fashion during the round and/or judge at the conclusion of the round.

2. Original source(s) defined. Understanding that teams/individuals obtain their evidence in multiple ways, the original source for evidence may include, but is not limited solely to, one of the following: a. Accessing the live or displaying a copy of a web page (teams/individuals may access the Internet to provide this information if requested). b. A copy of the pages preceding, including, and following or the actual printed (book, periodical, pamphlet, etc.) source. c. Copies or electronic versions of published handbooks (i.e., Baylor Briefs; Planet Debate, etc.). d. Electronic or printed versions or the webpage

for a debate institute or the NDCA sponsored Open Evidence Project or similar sites.

3. Regardless of the form of material used to satisfy the original source requirement, debaters are responsible for the content and accuracy of all evidence they present and/or read.

G. Distinguishing between which parts of each piece of evidence are and are not read in a particular round. In all debate events, debaters must mark their evidence in two ways: 1. Oral delivery of each piece of evidence must be identified by a clear oral pause or by saying phrases such as “quote/unquote” or “mark the card.” The use of a phrase is definitive and may be preferable to debaters. Clear, oral pauses are left solely to the discretion of the judge.

2. The written text must be marked to clearly indicate the portions read in the debate. In the written text the standard practices of underlining what is read, or highlighting what is read, and/or minimizing what is unread, is definitive and may be preferable to debaters. The clarity of other means of marking evidence is left to the discretion of the judge.

H. Private communication prohibited. Private, personal correspondence or communication between an author and the debater is inadmissible as evidence.

7.2.

Definitions of Evidence Violations

A. “Distortion” exists when the textual evidence itself contains added and/or deleted word(s), which significantly alters the conclusion of the author (e.g., deleting ‘not’; adding the word ‘not’). Additionally, failure to bracket added words would be considered distortion of evidence.

B. “Non-existent evidence” means one or more of the following: 1. The debater citing the evidence is unable to provide the original source or copy of the relevant pages when requested by their opponent, judge, or tournament official.

2. The original source provided does not contain the evidence cited.

C. “Clipping” occurs when the debater claims to have read the complete text of highlighted and/or underlined evidence when, in fact, the contestant skips or omits portions of evidence.

D. “Straw argument.” A “straw argument” is a position or argumentative claim introduced by an author for the purpose of refuting, discrediting or characterizing it.

Reliance on a straw argument occurs in a debate round when a debater asserts incorrectly that the author supports or endorses the straw argument as his or her own position.

Note: A debater who acknowledges using a “straw argument” when verbally first read in the round, would not be misrepresenting evidence. However, if the debater fails to acknowledge the use of a “straw argument” and his/her opponent questions the use of such an argument, then that debater has committed an evidence violation.

7.3.

Procedures for Resolving Evidence Violations

A. Judges are responsible for resolving disputes between debaters regarding oral citations (7.1(B)); written source citations (7.1(C)); distinguishing between what parts of each piece of evidence are and are not read in a particular round (7.1(G)). When the judge(s) have such a dispute in the round, they must make a written note on the ballot or inform the tabulation committee of the dispute.

They must do so particularly if it impacts the decision in the debate. These decisions may not be appealed.

B. An appeal can only be made if the issue has been raised in the round with the exception of the issues listed in 7.3(C). Appeals may only be made if judge(s) have misapplied, misinterpreted, or ignored a rule.

C. A formal allegation of violation of the evidence rules is permitted during the round only if the debater(s) allege a violation of 7.2(A) (distortion); 7.2(B) (nonexistent evidence); 7.2(C) (clipping). If a formal allegation of violation of these rules is made during a round, the following procedures must be followed: (see section 7.3(D) for procedures for making a formal allegation after the conclusion of the round): 1. The team/individual alleging a violation must make a definitive indication that they are formally alleging a violation of an evidence rule.

3. The evidence is paraphrased but lacks an original source to verify the accuracy of the paraphrasing.

2. The team/individual alleging the violation of the evidence must articulate the specific violation as defined in 7.2(A) ; 7.2(B) and/or 7.2(C) .

4. The debater is in possession of the original source, but declines to provide it to their opponent upon request in a timely fashion (as outlined in 7.4.C).

3. The judge should stop the round at that time to examine the evidence from both teams/individuals and render a decision about the credibility of the evidence.

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 25

a. If the judge determines that the allegation is legitimate and an evidence violation has occurred, the team/individual committing the violation will be given the loss in the round. Other sanctions may apply as well as articulated in 7.3(E). b. If the judge determines that the allegation is not legitimate and that there is no violation, the team/individual making the challenge will receive the loss in the round.

Note: Teams/individuals may question the credibility and/or efficacy of the evidence without a formal allegation that requires the round to end. Teams/ debaters may make in-round arguments regarding the credibility of evidence without making a formal allegation or violation of these rules. Such informal arguments about the evidence will not automatically end the round, and will be treated by the judge in the same fashion as any other argument.

D. The tabulation committee is authorized to hear: (1) appeals, pursuant to 7.3(B), claiming that a judge ignored, misinterpreted or misapplied rules other than those from which no appeal is permitted pursuant to 7.3(A); (2) appeals from a judge’s decision, pursuant to 7.3(C), on a formal in-round allegation of distortion or nonexistent evidence (note: judge decisions regarding clipping may not be appealed); and (3) a formal allegation of distortion or nonexistent evidence that is made for the first time after conclusion of the debate.

E. The procedures for making an appeal or postround formal allegation are as follows: 1. A coach or school-affiliated adult representative from the school(s) competing in the debate or a judge for the round must notify the tabulation committee of intent to submit an appeal or formal post-round allegation within 20 minutes of the end of the debate round. The 20-minute time period begins once the last ballot from all rounds (if flighted, both flights) has been collected by the tabulation committee.

2. The coach must submit the post-round formal allegation to the tabulation committee within 10 minutes of the formal notification of the intent to appeal. The allegation must be in writing and articulate the specific evidence violation that is being challenged. The challenged contestant and coach will then be notified.

3. If the tabulation committee determines that the original protest has merit, the coach or school affiliated adult and contestant(s) being challenged will be given 20 minutes to provide evidence denying,

26

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

or to the contrary of the claim. If such evidence cannot be offered, the challenged debater(s) will be given the loss in the round and may be subject to additional penalties. If the tabulation committee determines that the allegation is not legitimate and that there is no violation, the team/individual making the challenge will receive the loss in the round.

4. The tabulation committee has the discretion of extending the time limits for these actions if circumstances do not allow a coach or school-affiliated adult to be available within the prescribed time limits.

F. The tabulation committee’s decision to disqualify a student can be appealed by the coach or school affiliated adult. The following procedure should be followed: 1. The appeal must be submitted in writing to the tabulation committee within 10 minutes of the notification to disqualify.

2. The tabulation committee will then submit the appeal to the national office referee(s) The committee will contact the national office referee once the written appeal has been received. Both sides will be able to provide written explanations and supporting evidence to defend their individual side.

3. A decision will be rendered in a timely manner. The decision of the national office shall be final and cannot be appealed.

4. No more than one round may occur between the round being protested and the decision of the national office referee.

5. If the appeal is successful and the contestant(s) may now continue in the tournament, they will be put into the appropriate bracket for pairing the debates.

G. If appeals are made in rounds in which multiple judges are being used, normal procedures should be followed to ensure each judge reaches his/her decision as independently as possible. Judges will be instructed not to confer or discuss the charge and/or answer to the potential violation. It will be possible for one judge to determine that an evidence violation has occurred and the other judge(s) to determine no violation has occurred.

The tabulation committee will record the panel’s decision in the same fashion as a normal win or loss; the outcome is thus tabulated in the same fashion as a round in which an evidence violation has not occurred. If the majority of the panel finds an evidence violation did not occur, no sanction may be applied to the team/individual charged with the violation. If the majority finds a violation has occurred, the appropriate penalties will be administered.

7.4.

Penalties for Evidence Violations

A. If the judge determines that an entry has violated one of the rules listed in 7.3(A) and 7.1(H) (oral citation, written citation, indication of parts of card read or not read, use of private communication), the judge may at his or her discretion disregard the evidence, diminish the credibility given to the evidence, take the violation into account (solely or partially) in deciding the winner of the debate, or take no action.

B. If a debater(s) commits an evidence violation for “clipping” (7.2(C)), the use of a “straw argument” (7.2(D)) or the use of “ellipses” (7.1(E)) will result in a loss for the debater(s) committing the evidence violation. The judge should award zero speaker points (if applicable), and indicate the reason for decision on the ballot.

C. If debater(s) commits an evidence violation of “distortion” (7.2(A)) or have used “nonexistent evidence” (as defined by 7.2(B)) the offending debater(s) will lose the debate and be disqualified from the tournament. However, if a debater(s) loses a round due to “non-existent evidence” (7.2(B)) violation during an in-round formal allegation, but can produce it after the round within 20 minutes to the tabulation committee, the committee may decide not to disqualify the entry. The loss that was recorded by the judge may not be changed. If a post-round protest is levied against a debater for not providing evidence or an original source in round (non-existent evidence), and the judge confirms they in fact did not provide the evidence in a timely fashion when requested in round, the debater(s) will lose the round and be disqualified from the tournament. However, if a debater(s) produces the evidence within the post-round challenge period, that debater(s) may avoid disqualification.

D. Evidence infractions violate the Code of Honor.

Depending on the severity, an offense may result in

Thank you to the Debate Evidence Rules Ad Hoc Committee for your guidance throughout this process!

notification of said offense to the contestant’s high school administration and chapter sponsor, loss of all District and/or National Tournament merit points, including trophy and sweepstakes points for the offending student(s), and/or revocation of Association membership. These decisions would be left to the national office, and not the individual District Committee.

7.5.

Tournament Adjustments

A. Under no circumstance will a tournament or part of a tournament be re-run because of a violation of these rules.

B. In the case of a disqualification of a debater(s), all ranks and decisions of other debater(s) made prior to the start of the round being protested stand and no revision of past round ranks will take place. Penalties listed in 7.4 will be applied.

C. When a round has been held between the round being protested and a final decision regarding the protest, the result of that round will be recorded as follows: 1. If the protest is upheld, and a debater is disqualified, the opponent of the disqualified debater will receive a forfeit win.

2. If the protest is overruled, and the protesting debater won the protested round, no revision of the result on the ballot will take place.

3. If the protest is overruled, the protesting debater lost the protested round, and had no previous losses, no revision of the result on the ballot will take place.

4. If the protest is overruled, the protesting debater lost the protested round, and had a previous loss, the opponent will receive a forfeit win regardless of the result on the ballot.

Aracelis Biel – New York W. Bryan Gaston – Oklahoma Maryrose Kohan – Colorado Justin Seiwell – Missouri Greg Stevens – Iowa Cort Sylvester – Minnesota Megan West – Florida David Huston, Board Liaison – Texas Steve Schappaugh, Staff Liaison

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 27

New Pilot Event Rules: Informative Speaking and Program Oral Interpretation At the Spring 2015 Board of Directors Meeting, the Board unanimously voted to run a one-year pilot of Informative Speaking (INF) and Program Oral Interpretation (POI). In the pilot year 2015-2016, each member school may enter up to two students in both Program Oral Interpretation and Informative Speaking at its respective District Tournament.

These entries will not count toward the school’s entry quota; however, all other entry limit rules will apply. Students still may only enter up to two speech events at their District Tournament, if double entry is allowed. Each district will receive a maximum of two qualifiers in both POI and INF to the 2016 National Speech & Debate Tournament. Following the 2016 National Tournament, the Board of Directors will determine whether or not either event should continue.

INF

Informative Speaking

Informative Speaking Event Description: 1. Purpose: An informative speech is an original speech designed to explain, define, describe, or illustrate a particular subject. The general purpose of the speech is for the audience to gain understanding and/or knowledge of a topic. Any other purpose such as to entertain or to convince shall be secondary. The use of audio/visual aids is optional. (See # 4 on Aids.)

2. Contest: This contest comprises only memorized speeches composed by the contestants and not used by them during a previous contest season.

3. Subject: Effective speeches provide new information or perspectives on a topic, including those that are widely known. The responsibility for choosing a worthwhile topic rests with the contestant. A fabricated topic may not be used. Any non-factual reference, including a personal reference, must be so identified.

4. Aids: Audio/visual aids may or may not be used to supplement and reinforce the message. During the presentation, no electronic equipment is permitted. The use of live animals or any additional people as visual aids is not allowed during the speech. Items of dress put on and removed during the course of the presentation are considered costumes and may not be part of the contestant’s presentation. Visual aids may not violate law (weapons, drugs, etc.) The host school is not responsible for providing any facilities, equipment, or assistance in a contestant’s use of visual aids. Expedient set up and take down of aids is expected. If a visual aid displays published pictoral material, the source must be included in the workcited page but does not need to be cited orally.

28

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

5. Length: The time limit is 10 minutes with a 30-second “grace period.” If there are multiple judges in the round, all must agree that the student has gone beyond the grace period.

Should a student go beyond the grace period, the student may not be ranked 1st. There is no other prescribed penalty for going over the grace period. The ranking is up to each individual judge’s discretion. Judges who choose to time are to use accurate (stopwatch function) timing devices. No minimum time is mandated.

6. Quotation: Not more than 150 words of the speech may be direct quotation and such quotations must be identified orally and in a printed copy of the speech supplied prior to registration.

7. Script: Manuscripts must be available at all district tournament contests in the event of a protest. However, it shall be the choice of each individual District Committee whether or not to require these materials be submitted prior to the district contest. The script must identify the quoted materials, state the number of quoted words, include a work-cited page in APA or MLA format, and both the speaker and the coach must attest by signature that the speech is the original work of the contestant.

Informative Speaking Judging Criteria: 1. Selection of a subject that primarily enhances the knowledge and understanding of the audience.

2. Clear organization, in-depth content development, and credible sources.

3. Direct and communicative verbal and non-verbal delivery.

4. Effectively selected, prepared, and presented audio/visual aids, if used.

Photo by Sur la Lune Photography

POI

Program Oral Interpretation

Program Oral Interpretation Event Description: • POI is a program of oral interpretation of thematically-linked selections chosen from two or three genres: prose, poetry, drama (plays).

• A primary focus of this event should be on the development of the theme or argument through the use of narrative, story, language, and/or characterization.

• Competitors are encouraged to devote approximately equal times to each of the genres used in the program. At least two pieces of literature that represent at least two separate genres must be used.

• The use of a manuscript is required.

• Time Limit: 10 minutes max with a 30-second grace period.

• This is a contest in oral interpretation. The contestant should be evaluated on poise, quality, and use of voice, inflection, pronunciation, and the ability to interpret characters consistently.

• The contestant should also be evaluated on how effective their argument/theme is projected in the total program.

• In developing a creative, thematic program, attention should be given to the design and organization of a cohesive and carefully conceived whole by linking authors and ideas inherent in the literature.

• There is an expectation to use at least two pieces of literature each presenting a different genre with approximately equal times devoted to each genre. This distinction pertains to these three genres as a whole, not types of literature within a genre, such as fiction/nonfiction.

• The contestant must address the script; however, introduction and transitional material may be memorized.

• Sources must meet all Association Interp rules for publication.

Program Oral Interpretation Judging Criteria: • An introduction should set the stage, enhancing the interpretation of the literature to the audience, providing information and analysis to the chosen theme.

• All selections must be verbally identified by title and author.

However, where, when, and how these are accomplished are the speaker’s decisions.

• The intact manuscript may be used by the contestant as a prop so long as it remains in the contestant’s control at all times.

• No costumes or props other than the manuscript are permitted.

In the pilot year 2015-2016, each member school may enter up to two students in both POI and INF at its respective District Tournament. These entries will not count toward the school’s entry quota. Each district will receive a maximum of two qualifiers in both POI and INF to the 2016 National Speech & Debate Tournament.

• Adaptations may be used only for the purpose of transition.

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 29

Competition Events

Considerations for Informative Speeches

by Manda Hicks, Ph.D.

So, you want to write an informative speech?

First, you need to go on a topic hunt, and you need to stumble and fall. People think they’ll search and search and search and find the PERFECT topic, but you know what the enemy of ‘good’ is? The enemy of ‘good’ is perfect. The enemy of ‘finished’ is perfect. If you’re a senior in your fourth year of writing speeches, then maybe you get to spend time looking for that perfect topic. But if you have never written an informative speech before, investing in process is much more important than having what you think is a super competitive topic.

Trust me, the competitiveness of your speech will be determined by how extensively you researched your content, how many drafts it went through, and how well you practiced; not by how ‘competitive’ your original topic is.

Inspiration for topic ideas can run the gamut: advancements in science and technology (e.g., 3D printing); new or unknown phenomena that play a defining part in our contemporary world (e.g., online reputation management firms); products that benefit humanity

30

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

Adding a new event can be intimidating for coaches and students alike. Pi Kappa Delta coach Dr. Manda Hicks offers her advice on what makes a successful informative speech—as well as common pitfalls to avoid when choosing the ‘perfect’ topic.

aspects of their proposed topics would be good (or not good) for an informative speech. The comments I make over and over again in those emails are as follows:

“This is too general.”

(e.g., the drinkable book); and just exciting concepts or ideas in general (e.g., bitcoin, urban agriculture, gaslighting). Even providing unique insight into the social significance of everyday objects or products (e.g., the potato) or new research into human behaviors (e.g., the handshake) can serve as valid high school topics if done well. Ask these questions: Does the topic have significance? Is it relevant to your audience? Will it be universally appealing? Does it offer new information or fresh insight? The more of these questions that can be answered with a “yes”—the better the topic.

As a coach, I encourage students to spend a few days searching for topics then email me a collection of five to seven topic ideas with relevant links. I then start a conversation with the students over email about which

Typically, most topics need to be narrowed down. In fact, some of the best informative speeches have come from someone sending me an idea that contains another idea. A speech on the future of cyberwarfare? Way beyond the scope of a 10-minute speech. But an informative on how Zero Days work? Super cool. As a coach or as a student, be VERY open to abandoning the original direction of a speech in order to focus on the more promising and interesting content.

“Your audience already knows this.”

The point of an informative speech is to inform. Don’t inform us of things we already know. You want to inform us that oil fracking causes earthquakes? We already know that. You want to inform us about Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs or agenda setting theory of the media?

Many of your judges are speech

or debate teachers; we already know those concepts. Informative speeches should tell me something I do not know, or provide a fresh perspective about an already familiar topic. Students have to take the level of their content from “here’s something everybody read on Facebook” or “here’s something that a lot of people heard on NPR” to, “here is something you didn’t know or didn’t understand about that thing on Facebook or NPR.” Too many students want to do a shallow review of a topic; instead, they need to dig in and find the places in the issue/concept/idea that need the most explanation.

“This appears to be reliant on a single source.”

Often students will find an invention or technological advancement that is the sole product of one company or one research lab. This isn’t a bad topic, per se, but the student is under extra burden to find additional sources to help ensure objectivity. Informative speeches that are reliant on one source sound like a sales speech. If students can only find one or two articles about the topic, and that content is coming from the same place, then they should find another topic.

“I’ll see this in a debate round.”

Informative Speaking shouldn’t function to keep an audience up on current events; that is what debate and Extemporaneous Speaking are for. The biggest problem with

a current event as an informative speech is that it is always changing—and you do not want the content of your memorized speech to be always changing. If a student sends me a topic idea that’s basically being covered on the nightly news, I try to see if there is another angle—a more informative angle. For example, a student may want to do an informative speech on island building in the South China Sea. Instead of a speech on the fact that China is building an island, or a speech on why China is building an island, one would want to do an informative speech on how an island is built. The student could then save the specific China content for their attention-getting device or a discussion of potential implications. (For more about implications, see the next section.)

Under this guidance, the student goes from talking about policy, which tends to be persuasive, to talking about process, which tends to be informative. Speaking of. . .

“This topic is persuasive.”

Often students get really excited about a topic because it is something they are passionate about. That’s fine (and can be an advantage), but often that passion ends up being advocacy. One of the goals of Informative Speaking is objectivity, so students must craft their content in a way that feels informative rather than persuasive. This might feel like a ‘no duh’ observation, but it’s actually trickier than it appears. Granted, all communication is inherently

persuasive, and there are moments in an informative speech where a student needs to be persuasive (the reason to listen; the motivational link; and to a lesser degree, the implications). Conversely, there are many more moments in an informative speech where a student needs to explain content as objectively as possible.

Once students have selected a topic, done some preliminary research, and are composing a first draft, there are a new set of considerations.

Selection of Organizational Structure and Attention to Conventions Most informative speeches have an introduction, a three-point main body, transitions, and a conclusion.

How one composes those particular structural devices can be influenced as conventions are established over time in your state, district, or national circuit. For example, using a quotation from a credible source as both a thesis and reason to listen has become increasingly popular in some areas (and increasingly despised in others), on the collegiate circuit.

How much one should invest in popular conventions depends upon the student’s level of mastery. I want students to learn how they write a speech before they learn how others write a speech. After that, they can absorb as many competitive conventions as they wish. I’m not saying students should be set up for failure, or that I won’t intervene

I want students to learn how they write a speech before they learn how others write a speech.”

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 31

if a draft is missing fundamental structural content. What I am saying is that conventions make things smaller—conventions say there is only one correct way to do a thing. I don’t believe that, and I don’t coach that. The organizational structure may follow what the circuit expects—e.g., A) Background, B) Application, and C) Implications— but I would argue that the main points really should be determined uniquely by the content of the speech. Put differently, the student should do the research, and then the research should tell the student “I am best put together in the following way: A) Method, B) Advantages, and C) Disadvantages.” I tell students to make a big pile of research, figure out what they want to say, and the most appropriate organizational structure will emerge.

A Note About Implications A fairly new development (within the last 10 years) in collegiate forensics has been the critical nature of implications. Increasingly, implications have become the standard conventional third main point in an informative speech. In the past, the third main point was usually something like “Advantages and Disadvantages” or “Strengths and Limitations.” Very often, this would be a fairly flat point in the speech, with the advantages being that it saves lives and the disadvantages

being that it was expensive; or in early stages of development; or not available. This kind of organizational structure tended to be a little predictable and not terribly exciting.

Now, we have a greater emphasis on how the concept or thing or phenomena at the focus of the speech changes the world—what does it mean on a social or cultural level?

Let me give you an example. I judged an informative speech on a new technology that absorbs oil that has been spilled into the ocean.

Functioning like a gravitational pull, this property attracted and gathered oil for collection from the sea. The speaker did a wonderful job of explaining both the science and the process in main points one and two, and then turned his attention to implications in main point three. One of his implications was that with the advent of this new technology, oil companies may become even more lax in transportation safety, because they had this amazing technology at their disposal. That’s an awesome, creative, and pretty thoughtful implication.

Please recognize that there are many different organizational patterns in Informative Speaking.

Students might choose to examine social, cultural, or political dimensions of a topic instead of assigning a broad label such as implications. This is your event—use the major points in your speech that work best for your topic!

Optional Visual Aids An informative speech claims to inform and to explain. Therefore, it makes sense that some of the information in a speech will be sophisticated and complicated. If this is indeed the case, then the student may need visual aids (VAs) to explain the content. However, not

32

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

Speeches must be designed for the ear—not for the eye. Writing for the eye is verbose and elegant and varied; the eye can linger and travel back for clarity. Writing for the ear is repetitive and rhythmic and purposeful.” all topics require the use of a visual aid; sometimes “less is more” when it comes to explaining a challenging concept. If students choose to use a visual aid, they should collect images that could be used for a visual aid while researching their speech. They should do so bearing in mind that the higher the quality of the image, the higher the quality of the visual aid. If students search for images while they are writing, it is much easier to write a VA into the content. If students write the entire speech and then try to slap a VA onto the content, they’ll run into some problems. Do not add a VA just to use a VA. It must be appropriate to the speech and the topic.

Crafting of Oral Citations Informative speeches, because they are objective and because they are explaining heretofore unknown

content, require a great diversity and number of sources. Those sources need to be presented in the most impressive way. Students should make a practice of forbidding parenthetical information in their drafts. Speeches are designed for the ear—why on earth would one have parenthetical information in a draft?

Rather than merely noting the source of their content in a draft, whether paraphrased or quoted, students need to compose the actual oral citation. So, instead of seeing this in a draft: (Calderon-Douglas, 2015) Chola culture can be seen as a form of early folk feminism.

Students should go ahead and draft an oral citation: In her April 2014 Vice article, Barbara Calderon-Douglas frames Chola culture as a form of folk feminism.

‘Real Talk’ I use the term ‘real talk’ to denote the need to speak directly to the audience and make sure they are paying attention. Again, speeches must be designed for the ear—not for the eye. Writing for the eye is completely different than writing for the ear. Writing for the eye is verbose and elegant and varied; the eye can linger and travel back for clarity. Writing for the ear is repetitive and rhythmic and purposeful; the speaker uses every available channel and device to make sure that when an audience member leaves the room, that audience member can remember exactly what the speech was about. Building on this, material that is designed for the ear has to make room for moments of ‘real talk’; moments where the speaker provides a sentence or a statement or a cue that is exciting

and memorable and authentic.

Don’t just say a startling statistic and move on; say a startling statistic, make sure your audience understands the significance of it, and then extend it with an explanation or a statement that puts it into perspective. People are not always the best listeners; the speaker should use paralanguage and real talk and connection for people to truly understand the meaning—the sometimes very exciting meaning— of the speech content.

Overall Considerations for Informative Speaking The most significant features of contemporary competitive Informative Speaking at the collegiate level are a good topic, attention to and connection with audience, current and diverse research, attention to organizational and structural fundamentals, and special attention to implications. I imagine many of these traits will transcend the realm of competitive high school forensics, as well.

In closing, I will leave you with what I tell my students when they are working on a speech: “A good informative speech is 42 or so sentences that COULD NOT BE BETTER. It’s like taking all of your research and all of your ideas and feeding them into a supercomputer and that supercomputer spits out the 42 best-possible sentences from all that content. That’s your speech. Be the supercomputer.”

Best of luck to you in your supercomputing.

Manda Hicks, Ph.D., is the Director of Forensics and an Assistant Professor at Boise State University in Idaho. Her team is a member of Pi Kappa Delta, the collegiate honorary for speech and debate.

R E V I E W

Informative Speaking Event Summary Students deliver a self-written, 10-minute speech on a topic of their choosing.

Limited in their ability to quote words directly, Informative Speaking competitors craft a speech using evidence, logic, and optional visual aids.

All topics must be informative in nature; the goal is to educate, not to advocate.

The speech is delivered from memory.

Traits of Successful Informative Speakers • • • • • •

Driven Well-spoken Enthusiastic Logical Personable Curious

Basic Understandings An Informative speech is not simply an essay about the topic—it is a well researched and organized presentation with evidence, logic, and sometimes humor to convey a message. Topics are varied and interesting. Whether it be a new technological advance of which the audience is unaware or a new take on a historical, cultural, or social concept with which everyone is familiar, Informative Speaking is an opportunity for students to teach the audience. Types of topics and structure vary greatly, so talk to your coach to determine what works best for you!

For additional tips on this and other events, check out our High School Competition Events Guide at www.speechanddebate.org/ competitionevents.

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 33

Competition Events

What is POI?

by Danny Ray

P

rogram Oral Interpretation

may be utilized to develop the

(often shortened to

interpretation. It is important

POI) is the most creative

that each piece of literature be

and thought-provoking of the

distinguishable from the others,

“Interp� events. POI allows students

embodying distinct demographics:

to demonstrate their intellect

age, gender, and other unique

and creativity by choosing and

characteristics that inspire authentic

organizing items from various genres

portrayals. Reliance on caricature

of literature into a cohesive theme.

or stereotype should be resisted

POI can be defined as a program

Photo by Sur la Lune Photography

of thematically-linked selections

unless justified by the literature.

Credit should be given to unique

of literary merit, chosen from two

should be retained. A logically

and thought-provoking delivery

or three recognized genres of

cohesive program is the desired

choices that improve the program.

competitive interpretation (prose/

result. Although recognition

Delivery should be either realistic

poetry/drama). A critical focus

might be accorded students who

and believable or appropriate to

of this event should be on the

have selected new and unfamiliar

the literature. In all cases, delivery

development of the theme through

literature, there is always a place

should be well executed and

the use of narrative/story, language,

for new perspectives on older or

unaffected (e.g., discouraging the

and/or characterization.

more popular works. In fact, in POI,

use of vocal exaggeration).

One interper may choose to

a balance of perspectives may shed

The use of the manuscript is

combine pieces from the genres of

new light on prior interpretations.

another important part of POI. Page

poetry and drama, while another

Students should bring a fresh, original

turns may be used as transitions

might choose to employ drama,

take on the material throughout their

between each piece of literature and

prose, and poetry. A central

programs.

the character represented by each

theme for the program should

34

Pi Kappa Delta coach Danny Ray takes a closer look at Program Oral Interpretation and offers his tips for developing and evaluating this creative event.

Characterization is vital in

piece. As the pieces of literature

be clearly defined, and a balance

interpretation events, even more

are spliced into the program, each

between the genres of literature

so in POI. Multiple characters

segment of literature may be

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

placed on its own page for clarity.

or help you understand the human

characters and believable voices are

Remember that the central theme

condition better?

an important part of a successful

is always represented and the pages should flow together cohesively.

Generally students will use

POI. Indicating that the character

a program of literature to build

voice for an elderly woman sounded

an argument or make a point or

like a teenage boy tells the student

Preparing Judges for POI

help explain a concept to us. We

which character to work on and

The National Speech & Debate

see literature as another “way

how. If the character was struggling

Association provides basic

of knowing,” and the material

with something emotionally, and

criteria for judging Program Oral

gives us insight into the human

you didn’t hear that in the student’s

Interpretation (see page 29). Below

condition. Sometimes this is brought

voice, you should comment on that,

are some additional considerations I

together and focused for us in the

as well.

look for when evaluating this event.

introduction. If you find you have

Anyone observing a performance

no clue why the student chose

a growth-and-learning kind of way),

should be able to appreciate what

this literature, or what you are

explain what about the program

the performer has done. In much

supposed to be getting out of it, the

made you dislike it or made you

the same way a trained theatre critic

introduction likely didn’t help focus

uncomfortable. Students are

is able to identify the components

your attention on the right things. A

allowed to choose the material

of a theatrical production and

solid POI will have a clear argument.

they perform. Making choices can

provide constructive feedback on

Writing comments on the ballot

come with consequences. If your

the presentation, a trained judge

such as, “Your theme or argument

ranking was influenced by the

will be able to identify the specific

wasn’t clear,” or saying, “I don’t think

literature itself, let them know. “I

components of a POI that make

your literature built the argument

was offended by the language of the

it better or worse than another

you identified in your introduction”

piece” or “This was way too graphic

performance. (Ultimately, at the end

will convey this feedback.

for me” will help convey your

of the day, what usually happens is

Look for variety when making

If you are offended (and not in

concerns in a constructive manner.

the student who best connected

comments on a ballot. “It all

with you, who made you understand

sounded similar to me” is fairly

POI. As with any interpretation

or believe something—even if in an

vague. Instead, be specific: tell the

event, what makes a performance

unexplainable way—is probably the

student his or her inflection was

“successful” can be highly subjective.

one who will win your round!)

monotone throughout, or that there

However, as you develop your

wasn’t adequate vocal distinction

skills in coaching the event, you

events, there are specific items

among the different characters, or

will discover your likes and dislikes,

to consider: embodiment of the

that the level of emotional intensity

and your own criteria will emerge. I

characters, character distinctiveness

was the same throughout the

would convey those observations to

and believability, and quality of

performance.

anyone you are training to evaluate

In POI, like other interpretation

literature. Did the program make a

Characterization is a challenge for

good argument or have a centralized

many students, especially if they are

theme? Did the literature support

portraying someone of the opposite

that argument or theme? Was it

gender and their own voice is

enjoyable? Did it make you think

very high or very low. Genuine

There is no perfect way to judge

the event.

Danny Ray is the Director of Forensics at Marshall University in West Virginia. His team is a member of Pi Kappa Delta, the collegiate honorary for speech and debate.

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 35

Competition Events

POI: The Stock Issues of Interpretation

by J. Scott Baker

W

e’ve all had those late nights going home after a tournament: debaters analyze the progressive strategies heard in Policy rounds, extempers argue the socio-economic struggles of a country no one else even knows exists, and interpers re-enact every moment of a competitor’s Dramatic Interpretation. When all you want is quiet, these extremely different worlds all collide into a buzz behind you—three different worlds that almost never collide, until. . . it happens. The scrawny, nerdy 15-year-old Policy diva happens to glance over and see a bubbly, expressive 15-yearold Dramatic dude, and a love connection is made. This is the moment you, as coach, dread.

As nauseating as this scenario may be for most coaches, how does it happen? These students don’t even speak the same language.

How can a topicality-loving debater really communicate effectively with a poetic Romeo? If we truly want our squads to unite with a single language, we must teach our oral interpretation students how to debate. How do we do this? The answer is simple: give them a single

36

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

event they can both love. This event is called Program Oral Interpretation (POI).

POI, as described by the National Speech & Debate Association, is a “program of thematically-linked selections of literary merit, chosen from two or three genres of competitive interpretation.” The intent of the event is to make an argument using literature. Interpers simply must realize POI has more to do with debate than meets the eye.

To begin, POI performers write their own resolutions. While these resolutions may lack the depth and sophistication of Public Forum,

“POI cross-applies performance and argumentative perspectives; and while my approach to the event may be unique, the union may just impact our programs in a positive manner.”

Lincoln-Douglas, or Policy topics, the fact that a performer is writing a resolution is a step in the right direction. Some of my students’ recent resolutions are simplistic in style, but heavy in commitment: Resolved: Gender inequality still exists in the United States workplace; Resolved: Same-sex marriage ought to be legalized throughout the country; Resolved: Racism is detrimental to society. While none of these would be considered for a national topic, oral interpretation students are taking their idea and cutting it into a 10-minute program.

We then progress to the next step: stock issues.

Significance: The debater quickly provides you with at least 10 experts who can demonstrate scope of the problem debated. The POI performer has to explain to the audience, either through a strong introduction, and/ or the literature itself, why this particular issue is so important. This isn’t about a plan being implemented in POI; it’s about the justification of their self-created resolution and literature choices.

Harms: What is wrong with the status quo? The performer pulls together literature directly showing

harms caused by their problem: e.g., racism, gender inequality, gun violence. Similar to a debater finding evidence, the performer searches for a poem, a short story, or a monologue to address their issue.

The performer must contextualize the issue within the framework of society.

Topicality: Is the plan/argument/ literature provided by the performer germane to the resolution established in the introduction? In other words, does the literature address issues the performer wants to argue in their POI? Does each piece of literature link to both the resolution and the audience? Does the cutting of the selected materials push forth the argument? It’s not an exact match, but, again, baby steps.

Inherency: What barriers exist preventing the performer’s implied solution from occurring or exacerbating the problem? While the debater argues how Congress will never show bipartisan approval for a bill or that President Obama will lose too much political capital, the performer addresses attitudinal or physical barriers a character faces in his/her life that prohibits the change from their personal status quo.

Solvency: In literature, we call this the denouement. How do we minimize the problem? Does the character solve a problem by accepting a change in his/her life?

Does the audience find peace after the death of the protagonist? Can a poet better the world in the last line of a stanza? In literature’s falling action, do we find a definitive answer? The debater argues the plan provides solvency; the performer argues the culmination of the performance provides closure.

In my own classroom, I rarely use debate vocabulary outright to

teach POI; however, I do structure a POI like a case: observation (teaser), a resolution (introduction), and contentions (arguments within the scope of the performance). Each contention utilizes a structure, based on Toulmin’s model: claim, data, warrant, impact. I encourage my students to find moments in literature, cuttings of poems, or excerpts of news articles which will set up the C-D-W-I structure. For example, if a student presenting on gender inequality wants to claim the “glass ceiling” still exists, then the performer should make the claim, support it with statistics, lines from a script, and/or a poem stanza, provide a literary warrant, and leave us with an emotional impact.

Like a counterpart in debate, the performer makes a structured point while progressing through the POI. Overall, if we want our vastly different team members to reach across the bus and discover each other’s world, then we must begin somewhere. POI is the beginning.

When we offer an interpretive event that allows a performer to make the same arguments as a debater, then there is definitely something inherently good about that event.

POI cross-applies performance and argumentative perspectives; and while my approach to the event may be unique, the union may just impact our programs in a positive manner.

Do you have questions about my methodology? I’m open for crossexamination.

J. Scott Baker is a threediamond coach. He currently serves an Education Studies Lecturer at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse and is the Assistant Director of Forensics at Ripon College in Wisconsin.

R E V I E W

Program Oral Interpretation Event Summary Using a combination of prose, poetry, and drama, students construct a program up to 10 minutes in length. With a spotlight on argumentation and performative range, Program Oral Interpretation focuses on a student’s ability to combine multiple genres of literature centered around a single theme. Competitors are expected to portray multiple characters.

No props or costumes may be used except for the manuscript. Performances also include an introduction written by the student to contextualize the performance and state the titles and authors used in the program.

Traits of Successful POI Performers • Ability to characterize multiple perspectives • Strong argumentation skills • Controlled performance • Depth/breadth of emotion • Knowledge of poetic, prosaic, and dramatic convention

Basic Understandings POI relies on the performer’s ability to portray a wide range of characters and literature all held together under a common theme. Each program must contain at least two of the three genres and students are encouraged to include all three. There is a set time limit of 10 minutes, with a 30-second grace period.

Students who choose to compete in POI should focus on making an interesting argument that is supported in different ways by each piece of literature they select.

For additional tips on this and other events, check out our High School Competition Events Guide at www.speechanddebate.org/ competitionevents.

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 37

NATIONAL SPEECH & DEBATE ASSOCIATION

TROPHY SHOP Order tournament trophies, school awards, plaques, medals, and more from the National Speech & Debate Association’s Trophy Shop!

We have thousands to choose from, or you can create customized awards for your event! As a member, you have access to wholesale prices and early invoicing.

Learn more at www.speechanddebate.org/trophyshop

SPARK INSIGHT

Get With the Program 2015-2016 Debate Topic Content Providers We have some amazing coaches lined up to provide topic analyses, research guides, webinars, and more throughout the year. Thanks for giving back to our community!

Debate Resources All members can access monthly PF topic analyses, bi-monthly LD topic analyses, and Policy starter files by logging in to your dashboard.

Practice dockets with 10 pieces of Congress legislation are also available monthly.

Resource Package subscribers can view bi-monthly topic updates for LD, a September/ October topic update for PF, a monthly set of Policy file updates, and an expanded bibliography for PF research.

GET INVOLVED

Kevin J. Berlat Kevin J. Berlat is the current national Congressional Debate tabulation chair.

He also serves as director for the Congressional Debate TOC. At Harvard, he assists in the Congress tab room.

Kevin is the Immediate Past President and Public Relations officer for the Arizona Speech and Debate Coaches Association. He also serves on the National Federation of High Schools Citizenship and Equity committee. He was the 2014 NFHS Section 7 Heart of the Arts award winner. As a coach, Kevin helped to build Arizona’s Congressional Debate community. He serves on the board of the Southwest Speech and Debate Institute and is its Congress Lab leader. Kevin and his wife Kimberly coach at Phoenix-Central High School and want to provide you with the best practice legislation possible. v

Visit our website to find even more great speech and debate resources— available right at your fingertips!

Are you interested in leading webinars or providing other resources for our community?

Email Steve Schappaugh, Director of Programs and Education, at steve.schappaugh@speechanddebate.org.

40

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

Sean Kennedy

Aracelis Biel

Sean Kennedy Aracelis Biel is Director of Debate at is a Graduate Collegiate School in New York, where Teaching Assistant she has taught both Lincoln-Douglas in the Department and Public Forum Debate since of Communication 2010. Ms. Biel holds a B.A. with Studies. He has been a High Honors from Smith coach at the University College with dual majors of Kansas since 2012, and in Philosophy and English. has worked with the Lansing, Her undergraduate studies Shawnee Mission East, and New Trier were focused in the fields of High School debate teams. As a debater at KU, he was the pragmatic linguistics, epistemology, top speaker at the 2011 Cross Examination Debate Association and philosophy of mind and language. As a (CEDA) National Tournament and received a speaker award at debate educator, she is particularly dedicated every major national tournament. He qualified for the National to teaching rigorous academic research skills, Debate Tournament (NDT) three times as a first round at-large liberal arts literacy, and analytic philosophy. v qualifier and was the fifth-ranked first round at-large team in 2012.

He was in the elimination rounds at the NDT three times, reaching the quarterfinals in 2012. He reached the quarterfinals or better at every major national tournament, including winning the Wake Forest tournament and twice reaching the semifinals of the CEDA National Tournament. v

Nefertiti Dukes Nefertiti Dukes is currently a teacher Mark Webber at North Miami Middle School in Florida where she is serving as a 2015 Teach For Mark Webber led an informative webinar series on World Schools Debate America Corps Member. At North Miami, this past spring and will continue to provide additional resources during she teaches English and has begun a debate the 2015-2016 school year. He has taught internationally in five countries team full of enthusiastic middle school on four continents. He is originally from Texas where he coached a students. Last year, she graduated from Western competitive national circuit debate team at Houston-Memorial.

Kentucky University with a B.A. in Political Science He has founded debate leagues in Venezuela, Sudan, and Mexico and Psychology. While there, she competed as well as supporting existing leagues in for the forensic team in both speech events and Malaysia and Southeast Asia while also debate events. At the end of her senior year, she teaching IB and IGCSE Theatre. He was crowned the National is currently the coach for the Forensic Association’s National American School Foundation Champion in Lincoln-Douglas D.F. in Mexico City as well Debate. While collegiate as for Team Mexico for the forensics was fantastic, Nefertiti World Schools Debating is excited to get back to her Championships. v roots in Public Forum Debate by analyzing topics for the National Speech & Debate Association. v

www.speechanddebate.org

Log in to your custom dashboard to watch past final round videos, access live and recorded webinars, and much more!

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 41

Curriculum Corner compiled by Steve Schappaugh Check out these practical ideas for speech and debate teachers to use in the classroom. Each activity is constructed to last one hour, but plans may be altered to work with your setting.

Novice Corner Teaching students who have never been involved with competitive speech and debate can be quite the challenge. Whether they’re nervous about their ability to speak in front of others, were signed up by their parent to be in the class, or didn’t want to take a painting class but needed an arts credit, students can enter a speech/ debate class with less enthusiasm than we would want.

Here’s an engaging activity to introduce your students to the world of competitive speech and debate.

Prerequisite Knowledge Required: None Common Core Standard Addressed: CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.SL.9-10.1.B

Work with peers to set rules for collegial discussions and decision-making (e.g., informal consensus, taking votes on key issues, presentation of alternate views), clear goals and deadlines, and individual roles, as needed.

• Welcome the students/bell ringer activity. (5 minutes) • Icebreaker – Why are you in Speech/Debate class? (10 minutes) • Use the final round videos from Nationals to show your students excerpts from public speaking, interpretation, and debate events. You can adjust this to focus on the event(s) your team does, or use the middle school videos if it’s more of a novice group. Two- to four-minute clips from various events is suggested. (30 minutes)

42

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

• Ask students to take out a blank sheet of paper for each event segment you’re going to watch.

• Before the video starts, have students draw a line down the middle of their paper. The first column should be reactions while the video clip is playing.

The second column will be for a follow-up activity.

• Between segments, have students finish writing down any reactions in the first column for the previously watched event. Students should aim to have three reactions written down on their chart.

• Once all event segments are viewed, and students have had time to write down their reactions, encourage a group discussion about each event. Take straw polls to gauge the students’ interest in each event. (10 minutes) • Next steps – Have students take home their charts and complete the follow-up assignment. In the second column, students should write down what skills they think it would take to be successful (three to five skills per event), and names of peers they think would be good at that event. They should write a justification for why they picked the people they did for each event. They will turn this in the next day, and it will serve as the beginning class discussion.

Debate Corner The start of the school year means introducing students to new LD, PF, and Policy topics, as well as a whole range of potential issues in a Congressional Debate docket.

Teams doing multiple forms of debate may struggle at times with groups of students not seeing the value of other forms of debate. The goal is to get the students to work collaboratively and see the unique contributions each type of debater can make to the group.

Prerequisite Knowledge Required: Argument structure; current topics; forms of debate Common Core Standard Addressed: CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.CCRA.SL.1

Prepare for and participate effectively in a range of conversations and collaborations with diverse partners, building on others’ ideas and expressing their own clearly and persuasively.

• Welcome the students/bell ringer activity. (5 minutes)

• Split the students into four mixed groups (for example, one LDer, one PFer, one CXer, and one Congress-er could make up one group). (5 minutes)

and advance the plot or develop the theme.

• Assign each group a different topic (one LD, one PF, one Policy, and one Congress legislation). Ask the students to work together to generate as many potential ideas for and against their given topic. Remind students to think about the structure of an argument (claim, warrant, impact) when brainstorming. (20 minutes)

• Make sure students have their cutting of an HI, DI, or Duo. (5 minutes)

• Ask one student from each group (who is not in the event of the assigned topic) to share their best argument.

After the argument is shared, invite a member from another group to ask one question to challenge the argument, either its warrant or impact. (25 minutes) • Closing – Assign the students a different topic that is not from their event, and not one they did in the small group. Have them complete a research exercise in which they define key terms, locate three sources for the topic, and find three three sources against the topic. (5 minutes) Editor’s Note: Debate coaches should read “Tough Conversations: A Primer for Discussing Race and Racism in the Classroom” (pages 14-18) for additional insights surrounding the September/October PF reparations topic.

Interp Corner Dramatic structure is a cornerstone of successful interpretation. It is important that students understand dramatic structure so they can develop a compelling story that builds to something meaningful for the audience.

Students who learn dramatic structure in interpretation are also at an advantage when studying in literature courses.

This lesson is aimed at having students develop the ability to analyze dramatic structure and identify weaknesses in cutting.

Prerequisite Knowledge Required: Dramatic structure, time limits for interpretation events, previous reading of a cutting Common Core Standard Addressed: CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RL.9-10.3

Analyze how complex characters (e.g., those with multiple or conflicting motivations) develop over the course of a text, interact with other characters,

• Welcome the students/bell ringer activity. (5 minutes)

• Ask the students to plot out the dramatic structure of the cutting on a sheet of paper. They can create a diagram or just write out the elements in a chart, whatever they prefer. (10 minutes) • Group discussion – Is there consensus on the initial incident, rising action, climax, falling action, and resolution? (15 minutes) • Individual assignment – Write a critique of the dramatic structure. Potential areas of criticism: What is the biggest problem with the cutting that’s been put together?

What is missing that would help make the story more complete? Is one part too long and another part not long enough? Does the story make sense? (20 minutes) • Closing – Assign students to watch a favorite show or movie and plot out the dramatic structure. Have them identify the greatest strength and weakness they see in the show/movie they selected. (5 minutes)

Public Speaking Corner Public Speaking is all too often a concern for many of our students. Taking a public speaking course can assist them with their ability to confidently portray ideas of significance.

At the start of the year, it’s important to get them off on the right track by talking—from day one. Here’s an outline of a day that will engage students in a couple different ways.

Prerequisite Knowledge Required: None Common Core Standard Addressed: CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.CCRA.SL.4 Present information, findings, and supporting evidence such that listeners can follow the line of reasoning and the organization, development, and style that are appropriate to task, purpose, and audience.

• Welcome the students/bell ringer activity. (5 minutes) • Group Discussion – What qualities exist in a good public speaker? (5 minutes)

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 43

• Watch three to five short videos of public speakers.

This could be a Ted Talk, a final round of Oratory or Extemp, Reagan’s Challenger address, or some other video you think would be potentially appealing to the students. Try to identify a variety of videos with speakers of various strengths. (15 minutes)

is to interview a parent, friend, or family member asking any 10 (appropriate) questions they’d like.

They should record the answers and bring them to class the next day for a set of one-minute presentations on their interviewee. (5 minutes)

• Make Your Case Speeches – Have students pick their favorite speaker from the video series and outline a 30-second speech as to why that speaker was the best public speaker, referencing specific observations from the video. (35 minutes: 5 minutes “prep time” and 30 minutes speaking time)

Are you interested in being featured in our Curriculum Corner? If so, email steve.schappaugh@speechanddebate.org.

Steve Schappaugh is the Director of Programs and Education for the National Speech & Debate Association.

• Closing – Highlight one or two common strengths you saw in the group. Tell them their assignment

What We're Reading Are You Fully Charged?

The 3 Keys to Energizing Your Work and Life

by Tom Rath If your schedule feels full, you’ll appreciate this book for two reasons—easy to read, put down, and pick back up a lot; and full of ideas on how to prioritize each day the things that will give you energy and meaning.

Rath argues that the same three keys which matter most for our daily health and well-being—engaging in meaningful activities, nurturing relationships, and choosing to eat, sleep, and exercise in a way that generates the most energy—are also the source of engagement at work. Even if that insight isn’t new to you, his tips for making choices based on those concepts might be.

44

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else

by Geoff Colvin Colvin expands on a popular cover story from Fortune with research and real examples to back up his argument that high level achievement is not the product of genius or innate ability, but deliberate practice based on clear objectives, frequent analysis, direct feedback, and a systematic approach to work. Colvin effectively demonstrates how a coach who uses this approach with a willing, disciplined, and motivated learner can help him or her achieve greatness in creative endeavors, independent work, or business.

ADD A TEAM RESOURCE PACKAGE TO ACCESS EVEN MORE TOOLS AND MATERIALS! As a coach, the National Speech & Debate Association’s online resources help me be more efficient and knowledgeable on all events. The resources are like having assistant coaches at my disposal to help my team grow and succeed.

– Dario Camara, coach

EVENT

ALL EVENTS

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE POLICY DEBATE CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE EXTEMPORANEOUS SPEAKING INTERPRETATION ORIGINAL ORATORY

MEMBERSHIP BENEFIT • LIVE Webinars • National Tournament Videos through 2014 • Training and Professional Development • Lesson Plans • Honor Society Membership • Judge Training Modules • HeinOnline - Legal Database • Council on Foreign Relations Resources

RESOURCE PACKAGE • Recorded Webinars • 2015 National Tournament Videos (high school and middle school events)

• Discounts to Attend Summer, Fall, and Winter Online Institutes • Textbooks • Software Support

• Topic Analysis

• Evidence Guide • Mid-Topic Update

• Topic Analysis

• Evidence Guide • Online Textbook • Mid-Topic Update

• Starter Files

• Policy Updates

• Monthly Dockets

• Current Events Update Videos

• Free Practice Questions • Ability to Purchase Extemp Questions for Tournaments

• Current Events Update Videos • Nationals Video Analysis on Topic Areas • Discounts on Questions for Tournaments

• Script List

• Searchable, Multi-Year Script Database • Online Textbook

• Past Topic List

• Online Textbook

INCLUDED WITH SCHOOL MEMBERSHIP!

+ $199

Visit your dashboard at www.speechanddebate.org to add a Team Resource Package today!

Using Forensic Activity to Develop the Skills Identified in Common Core State Standards (CCSS)

by Leslie Wade Zorwick, Ph.D., and James M. Wade

M

ost forensic coaches are aware of the power of argumentation as a teaching tool in content area classrooms, but documentation of the benefits of argumentation training is limited. This article reports the results of a survey supported by the National Speech & Debate Association that was designed to examine teacher experiences and perceptions concerning the use of argumentation and debate in their classes.

Argumentation is the process of giving reasons to support a particular idea or position. It involves making some claim and providing reasoning and evidence to support that claim. When one makes an argument, she becomes an advocate for that position. To be successful, an advocate must identify, organize, and explain her ideas in a reasonable and persuasive way. Teachers can assign tasks in a variety of academic disciplines

46

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

This research offers insight into how the CCSS can be supported by the expanded use of argumentation and debate-related activities across the curriculum—and how the power of effective pedagogy can improve teacher satisfaction and retention rates.

that require students to explain their ideas and become advocates of particular positions. When placed into the context of a debate, advocacy becomes more active.

Different positions are identified and a clash of ideas is encouraged, thereby inviting a closer evaluation of the arguments and reasoning presented. Asking students to advocate alternative understandings or policies can enliven classroom conversation and encourage thoughtful analysis. Students could be asked to debate how the Ebola virus could best be controlled, whether the American Civil War was inevitable, or whether Brutus was a patriot or a murderer, depending on the class.

Asking such questions and assigning sides offers a way to generate constructive controversy.

Debate requires students to develop positions based on evidence and

to logically connect information to support those positions. Topics like these give an additional purpose to written assignments and offer a way to create energetic classroom discussion and interaction.

This article is a follow-up to a 2009 survey printed in Rostrum (Wade & Zorwick, 2009), which reported the tremendous benefits debate coaches observe when including argumentation and advocacy in their content course teaching. The results presented here confirm the conclusions reached in that earlier survey about the effectiveness of debate-based activities across the curriculum.

More importantly, this survey goes beyond our initial research to connect teacher experiences to critical goals articulated in the

Common Core State Standards (CCSS), which identify skills important for college and career readiness. Even in those states reluctant to adopt CCSS, the standards reflect a universal sense that academic skills and ways of thinking must take priority when designing educational programs. The results of our current survey provide strong evidence to support the use of forensic activities designed to develop student advocacy and argumentation skills.

Underlying the CCSS is a reconsideration of what literacy means in a modern world. To be college and career ready, students must be able to understand the increasingly complex and diverse messages that they read and hear, and must be able to critically evaluate the information those messages contain. Additionally, literacy requires the ability to craft written and oral messages that are clear and well-developed. The CCSS for English/Language Arts, Literacy in History/Social Studies, and Literacy in Science and Technical Subjects do not establish specific content goals or identify specific teaching pedagogy. Rather, they identify

‘‘

universally accepted skills that are needed for active and effective participation in our economic and political systems.

The speech and debate community has long developed many of the literacy skills identified in the CCSS through an array of competitive speaking events, including original oratory, extemporaneous speaking, and multiple forms of debate competition. While forensics focuses on speaking, it more importantly develops critical thinking skills by promoting close and critical analysis of ideas along with the expression of ideas in a clear, logical, and well-developed way. Our previous research found that 90% of our participants, all of whom were teachers who coach speech or debate, brought these activities into their classrooms to promote student engagement and learning (Wade & Zorwick, 2009).

With the support and assistance of the National Speech & Debate Association, our survey was distributed to middle and high school teachers across the nation who also coach forensic activities.

Those teachers were asked to

describe and evaluate their use of classroom argumentation and debate in their academic classes.

These experiences were not tied to forensic competition, but rather reflected the use of debate-based activities to support classroom instruction. For the purposes of the current research, teachers were asked to rate the extent to which they perceive argumentation and debate-related activities across the curriculum have developed skills identified in specific Common Core standards in their students.

This survey offers insight into how the CCSS can be supported by the expanded use of argumentation and debate-related activities across the curriculum. The results below reflect the data from 238 teachers.

Survey Results CCSS identifies three groups of parallel literacy standards: English Language Arts, Literacy in History/ Social Studies, and Literacy in Science and Technical Subjects.

While the specific wording varies occasionally, those standards overlap significantly. The standards also become more complex as students move through school,

Even in those states reluctant to adopt CCSS, the standards reflect a universal sense that academic skills and ways of thinking must take priority when designing educational programs.�

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 47

‘‘

The overwhelming majority of respondents agree that classroom argumentation, advocacy, and debate-based activities have a positive impact on student learning across a range of specific Common Core standards related to Writing and Language, Speaking and Listening, and Reading.�

Table 1. Writing and Language Common Core State Standards

Social Studies/ History Teachers (N = 19)

Science or Technical Teachers (N = 35)

English and Other Subject Teachers (N = 184)

Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content, with precise claims and counter-claims developed fairly and thoroughly with appropriate evidence and organized clearly (based on CCSS Writing Standard 1)

100%

88.6%

97.8%

Write informative or explanatory texts focused on disciplinespecific content, with precise claims and counterclaims developed fairly and thoroughly with appropriate evidence, and organized clearly (based on CCSS Writing Standard 2)

100%

88.6%

97.3%

Conduct short as well as more sustained research projects to answer a question or solve a problem (based on CCSS Writing Standard 7)

94.7% 80.0%

97.5%

Gather relevant information from multiple authoritative print and digital sources, accessing that information, and integrating it into a text (based on CCSS Writing Standard 8)

94.8%

94.2%

97.8%

Draw evidence from informational tests to support analysis, reflection, and research (based on CCSS Writing Standard 9)

94.7%

94.3%

98.4%

Acquire and use accurately general academic and domain-specific words and phrases (based on CCSS Language Standard 6)

89.5%

85.7%

93.5%

Survey respondent teachers who think classroom argumentation, advocacy, and debate-related activities have had a moderate or strong positive impact on these writing and language skills.

48

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

ultimately peaking with 11th-12th grade standards designed to insure college and career readiness.

At the beginning of our survey, respondents identified the primary subject they were currently teaching. They were then directed to specific questions related to the Common Core standards for 11th-12th grade students in that subject area. Three tables included in this article show the extent to which teachers in Social Studies/ History, Science/Technical subjects, and English and all other specialties believe debate-related classroom activity produced moderate or strong improvement in the skills identified in Common Core standards in that area.

While slight disciplinary differences emerge, the consistency of results is noteworthy. The overwhelming majority of respondents agree that classroom argumentation, advocacy, and debate-based activities have a positive impact on student learning across a range of specific Common Core standards related to Writing and Language, Speaking and Listening, and Reading.

Table 1 (see page 48) shows the extent to which teachers agreed that debate-related activity improves Common Core skill in Writing and Language, with separate columns of data for Social Studies/History teachers, Science or Technical teachers, and English and other specialty teachers. The majority of all teachers surveyed agreed that debate has a moderate

or strong positive impact on the skills identified in the CCSS standards for Writing and Language, including students’ abilities to write arguments based on disciplinespecific content, write informative texts based on evidence, conduct research projects to answer a specific question, gather and integrate relevant information from multiple sources, draw information from texts to support analysis and research, and to learn and correctly use academic terminology.

Table 2 (see page 50) shows the extent to which teachers agreed that debate-related activity improves Common Core skill in Speaking and Listening, with separate columns of data for Social Studies/History teachers, Science or Technical teachers, and English and other specialty teachers. Once again, the vast majority of all teachers surveyed agreed that debate has a moderate or strong positive impact on the skills identified in the CCSS standards for Speaking and Listening, including students’ abilities to: participate in collaborative discussion while expressing themselves persuasively, integrate multiple sources of information, evaluate speakers thoughtfully, and present information clearly and logically.

As forensic coaches, our survey respondents are especially attuned to the development of speaking and listening skills in students.

The Common Core established a number of Speaking and Listening Standards. The first of those

standards in all fields concerns a student’s ability to “initiate and participate effectively in a range of collaborative discussions with diverse partners, building on others’ ideas and expressing their own clearly and persuasively.”

This is an especially important issue, given that people outside debate could worry that debate and argumentation in classrooms will be competitive and noncollaborative. One concern shared by some teachers who are reluctant to introduce argumentation and debate into their classes is the fear that students can take disagreement personally and emotions can flare up to disrupt learning. A counter concern is that discussion often falls flat in a classroom where no one disagrees. Survey respondents offered insight into this dilemma.

When incorporating the data from all teachers (and using a weighted mean to account for the different size for our teacher groups), 92.5% of respondents agreed that debatetype activities actually promote collaboration among students.

Those results are based on actual classroom experiences and not rooted in general fears and vague expectations.

Table 3 (see pages 50-51) shows the extent to which teachers agreed that debate-related activity improves Common Core skill in Reading.

Because the expectations for reading are different in the content areas of Social Studies/History, Science/Technical, and English, we asked questions specific to the (continued on page 51)

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 49

Table 2. Speaking and Listening Common Core State Standards

Social Studies/ History Teachers (N = 19)

Science or Technical Teachers (N = 35)

Initiate and participate effectively in a range of collaborative discussions with diverse partners, building on others’ ideas and expressing their own clearly and persuasively (based on CCSS Speaking and Listening Standard 1)

94.7%

80.2% 94.6%

Integrate multiple sources of information presented in diverse media or formats, evaluating the credibility and accuracy of each source (based on CCSS Speaking and Listening Standard 2)

94.8%

85.7%

97.2%

Evaluate a speaker’s point of view, reasoning, and use of evidence and rhetoric, identifying any fallacious reasoning or exaggerated or distorted evidence (based on CCSS Speaking and Listening Standard 3)

100%

91.5%

97.8%

Present information, findings, and supporting evidence clearly, concisely, and logically such that listeners can follow the line of reasoning and organization (based on CCSS Speaking and Listening Standard 4)

100%

91.4%

96.7%

Survey respondent teachers who think classroom argumentation, advocacy, and debate-related activities have had a moderate or strong positive impact on these speaking and listening skills.

English and All Other Subject Teachers (N = 184)

Table 3: Reading Common Core State Standards Survey respondent teachers who think classroom argumentation, advocacy, and debate-related activities have had a moderate or strong positive impact on these reading skills.

Social Studies/History Teachers (N = 19)

50

Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of sources (based on CCSS Reading Standard for Informational Texts 1)

100%

Determine central ideas and provide an accurate summary that makes clear the relationship among key details and ideas (based on CCSS Reading Standard for Informational Texts 2)

100%

Evaluate various explanations for actions or events and determine which explanation best accords with the textual evidence (based on CCSS Reading Standard for Informational Texts 3)

100%

Evaluate authors’ differing points of view on the same event or issue by assessing the authors’ claims, reasoning, and evidence (based on CCSS Reading Standard for Informational Texts 6)

94.7%

Evaluate an author’s premises, claims, and evidence by corroborating or challenging them with other information (based on CCSS Reading Standard for Informational Texts 8)

100%

Compare and contrast treatments of the same topic in several primary and secondary sources (based on CCSS Reading Standard for Informational Texts 9)

89.5%

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

(continued from page 49)

Table 3. (continued) Science or Technical Teachers (N = 35) Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of science and technical texts (based on CCSS Reading Standard for Informational Texts 1)

91.4%

Determine central ideas or conclusions of a text and summarize complex information by paraphrasing and simplifying accurately (based on CCSS Reading Standard for Informational Texts 2)

85.8%

Analyze how the text structures information and demonstrate understanding of the information or ideas (based on CCSS Reading Standard for Informational Texts 5)

82.8%

Analyze the author’s purpose in providing an explanation in a text, identifying important issues that remain unresolved (based on CCSS Reading Standard for Informational Texts 6)

82.9%

Integrate and evaluate multiple sources of information presented in diverse formats and media in order to address a question or solve a problem (based on CCSS Reading Standard for Informational Texts 7)

88.6%

Evaluate the hypotheses, data, analysis, and conclusions in a science or technical text, verifying, corroborating, or challenging conclusions with other sources of information (based on CCSS Reading Standard for Informational Texts 8)

85.7%

Synthesize information from a range of sources into a coherent understanding of a process or concept (based on CCSS Reading Standard for Informational Texts 9)

85.7%

English and All Other Subject Teachers (N = 184) Cite textual evidence to support analysis of what the text infers and specifically states (based on CCSS Reading Standard for Informational Texts 1)

98.9%

Determine central ideas and analyze their development in the text (based on CCSS Reading Standard for Informational Texts 2)

96.2%

Analyze how an author logically organizes and develops his or her position (based on CCSS Reading Standard for Informational Texts 3)

95.6%

Determine how the author uses rhetoric to advance his or her purpose (based on CCSS Reading Standard for Informational Texts 4)

93.4%

Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claim in a text, evaluating the validity of reasoning and relevance of the evidence used (based on CCSS Reading Standard for Informational Texts 8)

98.9%

relevant content areas, creating a different number of assessed CCSS for each group of teacher respondents. Our participants who teach Social Studies/History agreed that debate creates a moderate or strong improvement in their students’ ability to cite specific textual evidence (100%), accurately summarize and identify relationships in the text (100%), evaluate explanations for actions (100%), evaluate authors’ points of view (94.7%), evaluate a text by using other texts (100%), and compare and contrast a topic using multiple sources (89.5%). Our participants who teach Science/ Technical subjects agreed that debate creates a moderate or strong improvement in their students’ ability to cite specific textual evidence (91.4%), accurately summarize texts (85.8%), analyze text structure (82.8%), analyze the author’s goals and unresolved issues (82.9%), integrate multiple sources (88.6%), evaluate hypotheses, data, and conclusions (85.7%), and synthesize information from a range of sources (85.7%). Our participants who teach English (and all other subjects) agreed that debate creates a moderate or strong improvement in their students’ ability to cite specific textual evidence (98.9%), identify central ideas and their development (96.2%), analyze how authors organize and develop positions (95.6%), evaluate how authors use rhetoric (93.4%), and evaluate the argument in a text (98.9%).

Teacher Retention The effects of debate across the curriculum go beyond the impact

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 51

‘‘

More than 70% of responding teachers indicated they were more likely to continue teaching because of their experience using argumentation and debate activities in their classrooms.”

on student learning. These activities contribute to teacher success and job satisfaction. Providing effective educational opportunities is the purpose of schooling and the ultimate goal of CCSS, but maintaining a workforce of effective and committed teachers is a hidden crisis that threatens to undermine the entire educational system. The July 2014 study of teacher retention conducted by the Alliance for Excellent Education indicated that about 500,000 teachers “move or leave the profession each year” (Haynes, 2014).

This turnover negatively impacts education across the nation, having a disproportionate impact on highpoverty schools (Haynes, 2014).

This survey offers some insight into the power of effective pedagogy in improving teacher satisfaction and retention rates.

Our survey results indicate the perceived effectiveness of argumentation-based activities in content area classes, but this study also found evidence that this feeling of effectiveness is translated into greater job satisfaction. More than 70% of responding teachers indicated they were more likely to continue teaching because of their experience using argumentation and debate activities in their classrooms. The reasons become clear when other survey results

52

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

are considered. In this survey, 81% of our participants indicated that debate activities improved their relationships with their students, 64% indicated that debate in their classrooms had improved their ability to effectively manage student behavior, 88% indicated that their enjoyment of teaching increased as a result of this debate activity, and 82% indicated that their confidence as a teacher increased because of using classroom debate. In light of these responses, it is not surprising that 89% of our survey respondents indicated that they will continue to use such activities in their future classes.

Conclusion Advocacy, argumentation, and debate-related activities can have a powerful, positive impact on student learning outcomes.

Forensic coaches are in a unique position to support educational reform. In a world where there is a growing realization that all students need to develop advocacy and argument skills, coaches can become important and influential

resources and mentors for other teachers in their schools. And in a world where a growing number of schools and school systems seek to improve educational opportunities for their students, coaches can become advocates and leaders promoting curriculum reform. The lived experiences of teachers using debate in the classroom and the accumulating data provide compelling evidence to support the expansion of advocacy, argumentation, and debate across the curriculum.

Leslie Wade Zorwick, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Psychology at Hendrix College who studies stereotyping and prejudice reduction and the educational benefits of debate.

James M. Wade is a retired high school teacher and diamond coach, and is presently an educational and communication consultant for the Glenn Pelham Foundation for Debate Education. He also served as the Assistant Principal for a charter middle school in Atlanta, GA and taught classes at Georgia State University in Argumentation, Debate, and Public Speaking.

References Haynes, M., Maddock, A., & Goldrick, L. (2014). On the path to equity: Improving the effectiveness of beginning teachers. Retrieved from the Alliance for Excellent Education website: http://all4ed.org/reports-factsheets/path-to-equity/ Wade, J., & Zorwick, M. L. W. (2009). Assigned advocacy, argumentation, and debate in high school classrooms. Rostrum, 83, 13-15.

Exclusive photos, results, and more!

54

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 55

Thank You to

Our Sponsors

We want to thank our generous sponsors for making the National Speech & Debate Tournament possible and for showing their commitment to fostering excellence in young people through competitive speech and debate activities.

Platinum Level

Gold Level

Ruby Level

56

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

Thank you for supporting the 2015 National Speech & Debate Tournament!

Sapphire LeveL

EMERaLD LeveL

Donus and Lovila Roberts Lanny D. and B. J. Naegelin Fund Sandra Silvers Fund

Jason Mehta and Family Carmendale Fernandes Fund

Richard B. Sodikow Fund A. C. Eley Fund

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 57

SUNDAY District Leadership Luncheon and Awards Ceremony

58

During the 2015 District Leadership

presented to Susan L. Anderson of

Luncheon and Awards Ceremony,

North Dakota. Other district chairs from

Mary T. Gormley of New Jersey received

across the country received Gold, Silver,

the Association’s Chair of the Year award.

and Bronze Awards for their outstanding

Greg Malis of Louisiana was recognized

leadership. Leaders also voted to select

for Best Chair Communications. Harriet

the best district ad printed in the

L. Medlin of Tennessee was named Best

National Tournament Book. The New

New Chair. The Ralph E. Carey Award

England district took home first place,

for Distinguished Career Service was

with Tall Cotton placing a close second.

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

Tournament Registration and Expo While coaches gathered tournament materials and completed the registration process, students checked out the National Tournament Expo.

Attendees spoke with college and university representatives, visited sponsor tables, shopped the Speech & Debate Store, and took photos in front of the Dallas skyline backdrop. Coaches also had the chance to attend the first of many educational sessions offered throughout the week.

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 59

MONDAY First Day of Competition Thousands of students descended upon the Sheraton Dallas and Crowne Plaza hotels for the preliminary rounds of high school competition in eleven main events: Policy Debate, LincolnDouglas Debate, Public Forum Debate, Congressional Debate–House, Congressional Debate–Senate, Original Oratory, United States Extemp, International Extemp, Humorous Interp, Dramatic Interp, and Duo Interp.

60

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

Hall of Fame Banquet The National Speech & Debate Association honored its newest Hall of Fame members during a special banquet held Monday night at the exquisite Old Parkland campus. The Association proudly inducted Dr. Elizabeth Ballard of Oklahoma, Jane Boyd of Texas, Kim Jones of California, Dr. Peter Pober of Virginia, and Fred Robertson of Nebraska.

(above, left to right) 2015 Hall of Fame inductees Fred Robertson, Kim Jones, Dr. Elizabeth Ballard, Jane Boyd, and Dr. Peter Pober.

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 61

TUESDAY Re-registration and Local Host Posting Party Even Tropical Storm Bill couldn’t dampen the spirits of everyone waiting to see who had advanced to elimination rounds in their cherished events. Led by Executive Director Scott Wunn, crowds chanted “Bill will not win!” before cheering on the results. Those students who did not “break” were eager to re-register for supplemental events and start anew the next day. Despite a last-minute venue change, staff and local hosts put on a great show during the student party, entertaining guests throughout the evening with karaoke, dancing, Texas-style “bubba games,” and more.

“Bill will not win!”

62

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

Tropical Storm Bill

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 63

WEDNESDAY High School Main Event Semifinals and Supplemental Events • Middle School Competition

64

Middle school teams registered Tuesday

Expository, Extemporaneous Debate,

After the agonizing suspense, teams

evening and were ready to kick-off their

Poetry, and Prose. Meanwhile, high

celebrated and posed for photos as they

rounds Wednesday morning—one of

school students who had competed in

geared up for the ultimate challenge:

the busiest days of the week. Many high

main event semifinals were cheered on

owning the room to be named national

school students began competition

by their peers as long, white paper scrolls

champion at the largest academic

in supplemental events: Commentary,

revealed the advancing finalist codes.

competition in the world!

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 65

THURSDAY Final Rounds and Diamond Assembly

66

Supplemental and consolation events

Assembly, presented by Colorado

continued throughout the day on

College, as the Association honored

Thursday. Following a successful Speech

many coaches and educators for

Finalists’ Light and Sound Check in

their dedication and excellence in

the morning, thousands of spectators

speech and debate activities. Upstairs

packed the Lone Star Ballroom and

in the beautiful Chaparral Room, the

adjacent Preconvene Area to watch the

Congressional Banquet recognized

final rounds of Interp events Thursday

student Senators and Representatives

evening. Competition paused briefly

for their hard work throughout the

for the Donus D. Roberts Diamond

competition week.

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 67

FRIDAY Final Rounds and National Awards Assembly

68

Orators, extempers, and debaters

Generous tournament sponsors were

from emcee Timothy Sheaff, the

took the main stage on Friday to wrap

thanked and recognized during a special

National Awards Assembly ended

up the last day of competition in

luncheon. Later in the day, six students

a tremendous week of tough

Dallas. Final rounds of supplemental,

gave heartfelt performances of their

competition and incredible devotion

consolation, and middle school events

original work during the Light the Stage

to speech and debate activities. This

also occurred throughout the day

Spoken-Word Poetry Showcase. With

capstone experience celebrating 90

as students competed for awards.

the infamous “At this time� resonating

years will not soon be forgotten!

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 69

Student of the Year

Spotlight

by Jarrius Adams

I

t has been such an honor to be named the 2015 William Woods Tate, Jr., National Student of the Year. Each year, the National Speech & Debate Association looks to celebrate students who not only know the Code of Honor of the organization, but who seek to incorporate those core tenets of integrity, humility, respect, leadership, and service into their everyday lives. Any one of the hundreds of thousands of students in this organization could stand in my place, and I am beyond humbled to help inspire a future generation of speakers and debaters.

My affiliation with this organization and adoption of its principles has altered my very demeanor and the way I look at life. I have always dreamed of working with the Association in this capacity, and I am committed to ensuring more

‘‘

“My success, and the successes of my peers, prove that neither race, social background, disability, nor socioeconomic status can keep you from achieving your dream.” students can exercise their voice through this activity. My success, and the successes of my peers, prove that neither race, social background, disability, nor socioeconomic status can keep you from achieving your dream. If we can see each day as a new opportunity and are willing to work hard toward accomplishing a goal, then anything is possible.

My participation in speech and debate has helped change my life in unimaginable ways. I walked into speech class in middle school with my mind filled with images of Denzel Washington and Jurnee Smollett from The Great Debaters. I couldn’t imagine the vast and ever-expanding world that was competitive speech and debate. For seven long years, I dedicated myself to this activity and all it could teach me about life and about myself. Those seven

years have been the best years of my life. I met new people, traveled to new places, and learned so much about the world around me. Most importantly, I got to hear so many great stories told to me through performances and through the relationships I developed along the way.

This activity teaches you not to judge a person by appearance or stereotypes because everyone has a story. This activity has given a voice to hundreds of thousands of students who otherwise would not have had the opportunity to speak on the issues important to them.

The Association gives students the opportunity to choose to improve their communities, schools, teams, and the world.

Our lives will be defined by the choices we make. The choices we make as performers in developing a character,

FROM THE

COACH

I have never been prouder than to have watched Cory Williams (2010 National Student of the Year) recently graduate from Vanderbilt University—and I expect no less from Jarrius Adams, who is currently working with the Secretary of State in Mississippi on Initiative 42, a public school funding campaign, while preparing for his freshman year at the University of Mississippi in Oxford. Each would explain their experience in high school speech and debate made all the difference!”

70

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

— Scott Waldrop, Director of Forensics, Hattiesburg High School, MS

‘‘

FROM AN

ALUMNUS

or the choices we make as debaters in finding arguments, help us to prepare for the real world of decision making.

We all have choices to make, but when we choose to be respectful, and to have integrity, then we will never make the wrong decision. To paraphrase John Wooden, it is the choices we make when no one is looking that will truly test our character.

We are extremely privileged to participate in an activity that truly has student character development as its core. It is our job as students, competitors, coaches, and judges to take

Learn from everyone who crosses your path and work hard to get everything out of this activity that you possibly can.

I believe everyone in the world has the fundamental right to speak their mind and tell their story. The National Speech & Debate Association allows our nation’s youth to express themselves through speech and debate. Being a member of this organization has had such a profound impact on my life and has given me the ability to tell my story. Activist and community servant Lailah Gifty Akita once said, “You have nothing to

Jarrius Adams and Scott Waldrop

advantage of all of the opportunities before us. Every round is an opportunity to learn. Every camp or workshop is an opportunity to grow. I know the nights are sometimes long and tiring, but life is too short to not work hard and utilize all of the resources at our disposal. The Association provides resources online like videos and webinars from previous national finalists and champion coaches that can help you become a better performer, actor, speaker, or debater.

Don’t let this time go to waste.

Before you know it, your time with speech and debate will be over. You will be sitting in a college dorm, making plans that will impact the rest of your life. Now is the time to become a human sponge and soak up everything you can.

lose by giving your best.” I charge each student reading this to go into this year giving no less than 100%. Don’t look back and wonder “What if...” You have the ability to make your goals a reality right now. The same can be said about whatever you do in life. Always give it your all and then, always do more.

I cannot wait to begin working with the Association and its members to ensure that students across this nation, who are looking to have their voices heard, have access to the life-changing activity that is speech and debate.

Though I will miss my team, my coach Scott Waldrop, and all of the friends I have made while doing this activity, I look forward to all the future brings.

As the leader of the Hattiesburg High School forensic program for the last 15 years, Scott Waldrop has inspired countless students to achieve phenomenal heights. His doctrine of character building is one that resonates in the hearts and minds of each pupil under his tutelage. His never-ending support of his students has been critical to the successes of our program. Backed by a school district that acknowledges the importance of an arts education, Mr. Waldrop has fostered an environment where standards of trustworthiness, integrity, humility, and service abound. It is not by happenstance that such a culture has fostered another student who exemplifies the core tenets that the National Speech & Debate Association looks for in its National Student of the Year. It was my great honor to work with Jarrius Adams as I charged him with continuing the tradition of outstanding student development set in place by Mr. Waldrop and the Hattiesburg Program. I am so proud of him and his accomplishments, and I look forward to all that he has to contribute to the speech and debate community.”

— Cory Williams, 2010 National Student of the Year, Hattiesburg High School, MS

Jarrius Adams and Cory Williams

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 71

2015 Four-Time Qualifiers (listed in alphabetical order by state, then school, then last name)

Terek Robert Rutherford Hayden Cavanaugh Evan Price Rohan Dhoopar Brian Yu Connor Sendel Christopher Zheng Michael Hudson Tiana Menon Alec Goldberg Lenora Ryanne Popken Olivia Grubbs Josh Mansfield Christian Cousins Vinesh Kannan Rohan Chatterjee Vijay Ramasamy Eric Maxwell Ali Dastjerdi Henry Walter Yash H. Kamath Brian Anderson Telyse S. Masaoay Andrea Ambam Casey Goggin Noah Knutson

72

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

South Anchorage HS Saint James School The Montgomery Academy Bellarmine College Prep Monte Vista HS - Danville Cherry Creek HS Cherry Creek HS Kent Denver School Palisade HS Miami Beach Sr. HS Warner Robins HS West HS - Davenport Highland HS Lake City HS IL Math And Science Acad Munster HS Blue Valley North HS Garden City HS Shawnee Mission East HS Shawnee Mission East HS Wichita East HS Larue County HS Central HS - Springfield Raymore-Peculiar HS Pinecrest HS Central Cass HS

AK AL AL CA CA CO CO CO CO FL GA IA ID ID IL IN KS KS KS KS KS KY MO MO NC ND

Gavin Muscha

Richland HS Daniel Carraher Lincoln East HS Maddison Leigh Witman Edmond Santa Fe HS Nicky Halterman Norman HS Grant Bumgarner Tulsa Washington HS Lydia Szlasa Sayre Area HS Caroline Vana Towanda Jr.-Sr. HS Blakely Watkins Towanda Jr.-Sr. HS Stephanie Hong Riverside HS Blanche Froelich Brookings HS Caleb Munce Sioux Falls Lincoln HS Andy Gordon Ravenwood HS Marina Finley Bellaire HS Abhinav Sridharan Plano Sr. HS Kishan Srikanth Plano Sr. HS Saint Mary’s Hall HS Seis Steves Montana Rowton Winston Churchill HS Evan Lope Wylie Sr. HS Joshua Wartel Lake Braddock Secondary HS Mariah Squires Gig Harbor HS Alexander Helman Glacier Peak HS Jayaram Ravi Tahoma Senior HS Cole Kostelny Appleton East HS Ian Olson Appleton East HS Kedrick Stumbris Appleton East HS

ND NE OK OK OK PA PA PA SC SD SD TN TX TX TX TX TX TX VA WA WA WA WI WI WI

William Woods Tate, Jr. National Student of the Year Six finalists participated in an interview process with the national panel of judges who selected the 2015 William Woods Tate, Jr. National Student of the Year, one of the most prestigious individual student honors presented by the National Speech & Debate Association.

Jarrius Adams from Hattiesburg High School, MS was awarded a $1,000 scholarship and will represent the Association in various public capacities throughout the 2015-2016 academic year.

The other finalists, in alphabetical order, include Mylan Gray from Sumner Academy, KS; Telyse S. Masaoay from Central High School - Springfield, MO; Mitali Roy Mathur from Greenhill School, TX; Emily Meier from Aberdeen Central High School, SD; and Ajjit Narayana from James Logan High School, CA.

Jarrius Adams Hattiesburg High School, MS Coached by: R. Scott Waldrop

(left to right) Jarrius Adams, Ajjit Narayana, Emily Meier, Mitali Roy Mathur, Telyse S. Masaoay, and Mylan Gray.

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 73

National Winners Richard B. Sodikow

Policy Debate

Policy Debate Top Speakers presented in memory of Phyllis Flory Barton

1st – Ryan Spector Glenbrook North High School, IL Coached by: Dr. Michael Greenstein

2nd – SunHee Simon Science High School, NJ Coached by: Jonathan Alston 3rd – Jacob Hegna Blue Valley Southwest High School, KS Coached by: Jared Zuckerman 4th – Anthony Trufanov Glenbrook North High School, IL Coached by: Dr. Michael Greenstein 5th – Yash H. Kamath Wichita East High School, KS Coached by: Vickie Fellers 1st – Ryan Spector and Anthony Trufanov Glenbrook North High School, IL Coached by: Dr. Michael Greenstein

6th – Brian Roche Glenbrook South High School, IL Coached by: Jonathan Voss

2nd – Justin Cajanding and Austin Stroud Damien High School, CA Coached by: Ian Beier and Chuck Ballingall 3rd – Allen Wang and Zahir Shaikh The Blake School, MN Coached by: Shane Stafford and Sandra J. Berkowitz

Harland B. Mitchell Trophy

4th – Alex Estrada and Joseph Estrada Stephen F. Austin High School - Austin, TX Coached by: John Mast 5th – John Grogan and Conor Hogan La Salle College High School, PA Coached by: Raymond T. Shay, Michael V. McCabe, and Gregory B. Porter 6th – James Allan and Akshay Ramaswamy Lakeland High School, NY Coached by: Stefan Bauschard

74

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

The national champion Policy Debate team receives the Harland B. Mitchell Trophy, named after the Association’s legendary debate coach.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

Public Forum Debate

presented by The Lanier Law Firm

presented by the Arthur N. Rupe Foundation

1st – Nicky Halterman Norman High School, OK Coached by: Kasey Harrison

1st – Will Arnesen and Sam Arnesen Walt Whitman High School, MD Coached by: Iaan Reynolds

2nd – Sonya Huang Leland High School, CA Coached by: Chris Wardner

2nd – Liya Khan and Samantha MacIlwaine Dougherty Valley High School, CA Coached by: Aleisha Readye and Ben Fagan

3rd – Varad Agarwala Greenhill School, TX Coached by: Aaron Timmons

3rd – Alekh Kale and Sullivan Sweet James Madison Memorial High School, WI Coached by: Timothy M. Scheffler

4th – Jake Mazeitis Park Hill South High School, MO Coached by: Jennifer Holden

4th – Eitan Ezra and Harrison Hurt Poly Prep Country Day School, NY Coached by: David Baloche

5th – Rachel Boedicker Highland High School, OH Coached by: DeVon Griffin

5th – Armin Ameri and Aidan Brandt University School, OH Coached by: Peter Paik and Humzah Quereshy

6th – Jackson Lallas Brentwood School, CA Coached by: Victor Jih

6th – Matthew Feng and Caroline Hao Plano West Sr. High School, TX Coached by: Rhonda Smith and Kattie Leito

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 75

National Winners

76

Congressional Debate–House

Congressional Debate–Senate

presented by The Stennis Center for

presented by The Stennis Center for

Public Service Leadership

Public Service Leadership

Top Presiding Officer (House)

Top Presiding Officer (Senate)

Rep. Ben Kilano Desert Vista High School, AZ Coached by: Brendan Porter, Brittany Stanchik, and Victor Silva

Sen. Ryan Fedasiuk Desert Vista High School, AZ Coached by: Brittany Stanchik, Brendan Porter, and Kevin Berlat

Leadership Bowl (House)

Leadership Bowl (Senate)

Rep. Abhinav Sridharan Plano Sr. High School, TX Coached by: Cheryl Potts and Sarah Zinck

Sen. Ryan Fedasiuk Desert Vista High School, AZ Coached by: Brittany Stanchik, Brendan Porter, and Kevin Berlat

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

Congressional Debate–House

Congressional Debate–Senate

presented by The Stennis Center for

presented by The Stennis Center for

Public Service Leadership

Public Service Leadership

1st – Rep. Nick Danby Bangor High School, ME Coached by: Joseph Pelletier and Jennifer Page

1st – Sen. Kaitlyn Allen-O’Gara Oxford Academy, CA Coached by: John Williamson

2nd – Rep. Sophia Zupanc Gilmour Academy, OH Coached by: Gay Janis, Armand Domalewski, and Brittany Janis

2nd – Sen. Ryan Fedasiuk Desert Vista High School, AZ Coached by: Brittany Stanchik, Brendan Porter, and Kevin Berlat

3rd – Rep. Marina Finley Bellaire High School, TX Coached by: Jay Stubbs

3rd – Sen. Prianka Kumar Desert Vista High School, AZ Coached by: Brittany Stanchik, Brendan Porter, and Victor Silva

4th – Rep. Abigail Marone Notre Dame High School, PA Coached by: Kim Marone

4th – Sen. Gregory Seabrooks Oxbridge Academy Of The Palm Beaches, FL Coached by: David Childree

5th – Rep. Ben Kilano Desert Vista High School, AZ Coached by: Brendan Porter, Brittany Stanchik, and Victor Silva

5th – Sen. Carla Troconis East Chapel Hill High School, NC Coached by: Willie Warren

6th – Rep. Abhinav Sridharan Plano Sr. High School, TX Coached by: Cheryl Potts and Sarah Zinck

6th – Sen. Brecken Denler Mountain View High School, AZ Coached by: Meg Howell-Haymaker

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 77

National Winners Original Oratory presented by the Patrick Henry Memorial Foundation Auxiliary

Karl Mundt Trophy The Karl Mundt Trophy is presented each year to the school who has accumulated the most National Congress participation points, awarded as follows: 1. One point for each legislative day.

2. Two points for advancing, or for being elected Presiding Officer in a session.

3. Three points for placing 4th, 5th, or 6th.

4. Four points for placing 2nd or 3rd.

5. Five points for the national champion in the Senate or the House.

6. Upon earning this award, a school’s total resets to zero.

The 2015 Karl Mundt Trophy was presented to Desert Vista High School in Arizona with 233 points.

1st – Kenon Brinkley Andover High School, KS Coached by: James Harris

2nd – Keiaireyona Brown Apple Valley High School, MN Coached by: Scott Voss, Bryan Hagg, and Kathleen Johnson 3rd – Aekta Mouli Eagan High School, MN Coached by: Joni Anker 4th – Andrea Ambam Raymore-Peculiar High School, MO Coached by: Todd Schnake 5th – Noah Weinflash Montville High School, NJ Coached by: Mary T. Gormley Desert Vista High School Arizona Coached by: Brendan Porter, Brittany Stanchik, Kevin Berlat, and Victor Silva

78

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

6th – Clayton Covington Blue Valley North High School, KS Coached by: Max H. Brown and Kelly Michael Thompson

A.C. Eley Memorial

International Extemp presented by the Council on Foreign Relations

United States Extemp presented by Carmendale Fernandes

1st – Brian Anderson Larue County High School, KY Coached by: Katy Cecil, Eric Todd Cecil, and Bill M. Thompson

1st – Brian Yu Monte Vista HS - Danville, CA Coached by: David Matley

2nd – Justin David Graham Trinity Preparatory School, FL Coached by: Darcy Butrimas, Dean Rhoads, and Nathan Leys

2nd – Jay Sirot Montville High School, NJ Coached by: Mary T. Gormley

3rd – Alex Ye Gabrielino High School, CA Coached by: Derek Yuill and Eric Chen 4th – Jack Glaser George Washington High School, CO Coached by: Maryrose Kohan 5th – Noah Wexler Nova High School, FL Coached by: Kate Hamm, Jeremy Johnson, and Carolyn Evans 6th – Rohan Dhoopar Bellarmine College Prep, CA Coached by: Deirdre Sullivan

3rd – Joshua Wartel Lake Braddock Secondary High School, VA Coached by: Duane Hyland 4th – Shawn Kant Ridge High School, NJ Coached by: David A. Yastremski and Andrew Monagle 5th – Vishal Narayanaswamy James Madison Memorial High School, WI Coached by: Timothy M. Scheffler 6th – Marshall Webb Saint Mary’s Hall High School, TX Coached by: Joseph Muller

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 79

National Winners Humorous Interpretation presented by Western Kentucky University

Dramatic Interpretation

1st – Rohan Chatterjee Munster High School, IN Coached by: Jordan Mayer

1st – Daniel Williams Holy Cross School, LA Coached by: Byron R. Arthur and Warren P. Johnson

2nd – Sophia Miliotis Roseville Area High School, MN Coached by: Bret Hemmerlin

2nd – Ricardo Flores Americas High School, TX Coached by: Irene Gardea

3rd – Taren Pfitzer Sioux Falls Lincoln High School, SD Coached by: Amanda Nelson

3rd – Luke Stodghill South Grand Prairie High School, TX Coached by: Forrest Denbow

4th – Jacob Wallack University School, FL Coached by: Amber Justman and Megan Koester

4th – Jarrius Adams Hattiesburg High School, MS Coached by: Raphael Scott Waldrop

5th – Sophia Darbonne Acadiana High School, LA Coached by: Brittany Turner Note: Code H208 was disqualified from the final round due to violations of the rule on adaptations.

80

Lanny D. and B. J. Naegelin

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

5th – Nissim Fargo Tbakhi McClintock High School, AZ Coached by: Timothy J. Cornwell and Richard Glover 6th – Jack Coborn Ellis Orono High School, MN Coached by: James Doyle and Kirsten Pardun-Johannsen

Sandra Silvers

Duo Interpretation presented by Colorado College

1st – Stephen Durosaiye and Tavan Thomas Bronx Preparatory Charter School, NY Coached by: Sarah Rosenberg and Luis Cardenas

2nd – Jane Emma Barnett and Seis Steves Saint Mary’s Hall High School, TX Coached by: Joseph Muller 3rd – Rod Rahimi and Wahab Ahmady James Logan High School, CA Coached by: Tommie Lindsey, Jr., and James Doyle 4th – Anne Hunt and Will Haubl Archbishop Mitty High School, CA Coached by: Karen Joshi and Benjamin Cruz 5th – Trevion Heliton and Sidney Odom Hastings High School, TX Coached by: Lillian Ogunbanjo and Brian Darby 6th – Ameres Groves and Elijah Reynolds Blue Springs High School, MO Coached by: Jacquelyn Young

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 81

Final Round Winners 2015 President’s BowlS sponsored by Mr. and Mrs. Donus D. Roberts

President’s Bowl (USX)

President’s Bowl (OO)

Joshua Wartel Lake Braddock Secondary High School, VA Coached by: Duane Hyland

Aekta Mouli Eagan High School, MN Coached by: Joni Anker

2015 Mehta International bowl sponsored by Jason Mehta and Family

Mehta International Bowl (IX) Brian Anderson Larue County High School, KY Coached by: Katy Cecil, Eric Todd Cecil, and Bill M. Thompson

82

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

2015 BAMA BowlS sponsored by The University of Alabama

Bama Bowl (Humorous)

Bama Bowl (Dramatic)

Rohan Chatterjee Munster High School, IN Coached by: Jordan Mayer

Daniel Williams Holy Cross School, LA Coached by: Byron R. Arthur

Bama Bowl (Duo) Jane Emma Barnett and Seis Steves Saint Mary’s Hall High School, TX Coached by: Joseph Muller

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 83

National Winners Extemporaneous Debate

Unger Cup

presented by Colorado College

presented by the James J. Unger Memorial The Unger Cup, named in honor of one of America’s finest debaters and coaches, former Georgetown Director of Forensics, Professor James J. Unger, is awarded each year at the National Tournament by Professor Unger’s alumni and friends to the Policy Debate program which has placed the highest, cumulatively, at five great national debate tournaments: the National Speech & Debate Tournament; the NCFL Grand Debate Tournament; the University of Kentucky Tournament of Champions; the Bickel & Brewer/New York University International Public Policy Forum tournament, and the National Debate Coaches Association Debate Tournament.

An antique silver, three-handled loving cup, created by Tiffany at the turn of the century, remains at the national office with a professionally designed base to hold all future names. The winning team each year receives a replica trophy to honor this accomplishment.

This year, the 2015 Unger Cup was awarded to Glenbrook North High School in Illinois.

1st – Joey Schnide Evanston Twp High School, IL Coached by: Jeffrey Hannan, HooRay Johnson, and Eric Bumperson

2nd – Isaac Spanjer Fargo North High School, ND Coached by: Clover Ellingson 3rd – Madison Switalia Munster High School, IN Coached by: Robert Carroll 4th – Peter Charalambous Chaminade High School, NY Coached by: Bro. John McGrory 5th – Nick Ritter Summit High School, NJ Coached by: Anne Poyner

Ryan Spector and Anthony Trufanov Glenbrook North High School, IL Coached by: Dr. Michael Greenstein

84

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

6th – Grace Watson Greenwood Laboratory School, MO Coached by: Heather Walters

Brother René Sterner

Commentary

Expository

presented by Western Kentucky University

presented by Western Kentucky University

1st – Jason Fisher Highlands Ranch High School, CO Coached by: Brent C. Oberg

1st – Jacob Womack Aberdeen Central High School, SD Coached by: Roger McCafferty

2nd – Bethany Dain Belleville West High School, IL Coached by: Adam Jenkins

2nd – Christopher Zheng Cherry Creek High School, CO Coached by: Martha Benham

3rd – Bradley Wascher Saint James School, AL Coached by: Thomas Robert Ian Turnipseed

3rd – Viraat Goel University High School, IL Coached by: Mark Adams, Laurie Ann Adams, and Shannon Jean Maney

4th – Allison Christopher Ursuline High School, OH Coached by: Joan L. Williams and Tyler Luonuansuu

4th – Parth Patel Huntley High School, IL Coached by: Tom George

5th – Parth Patel Huntley High School, IL Coached by: Tom George

5th – Donnie Bland Belleville West High School, IL Coached by: Adam Jenkins

6th – Adelynn Nee East Mountain High School, NM Coached by: Trey Smith and Hannah Flake

6th – Timothy Janicek James Logan High School, CA Coached by: Tommie Lindsey, Jr.

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 85

National Winners

86

Poetry Reading

Prose Reading

presented by Western Kentucky University

presented by Western Kentucky University

1st – Erik Thomas Southland College Prep Charter High School, IL Coached by: Cheryl Frazier, Lauren Wells, and Andrew Malone

1st – Austin Guritza Cheyenne East High School, WY Coached by: Marcus W. Viney and Ashley Schulz

2nd – Ethan Pytlik Raymond Central High School, NE Coached by: Carolyn Enevoldsen

2nd – Aman Singh Ardrey Kell High School, NC Coached by: Chris Harrow

3rd – Lucas Cerzosimo Michael Krop High School, FL Coached by: Ruthie W. Metcalfe

3rd – Charnnia Jones Southland College Prep Charter High School, IL Coached by: Cheryl Frazier and Lauren Wells

4th – Jacob Sanders Harrison County High School, KY Coached by: Laura Sanders

4th – Madison Hall The Montgomery Academy, AL Coached by: James W. Rye and Kris Hall

5th – Lauren Dirksen Hallsville High School, TX Coached by: Melissa Witt

5th – Matthew Wolfe Catholic Memorial School, MA Coached by: Robert Croteau

6th – Fernando Rojas Fullerton Joint Union High School, CA Coached by: Sal Tinajero and Pricilla Merritt

6th – Antonio Gil Holy Ghost Prep, PA Coached by: Darius Wilson, Tony F. Figliola, and Patrick Hoelzle

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

Impromptu

Storytelling

presented by Western Kentucky University

presented by Western Kentucky University

1st – Josh Mansfield Highland High School, ID Coached by: Robin Jensen

1st – Sean Miles O’Gorman High School, SD Coached by: Teresa Fester

2nd – Matt Greydanus Grand Rapids Christian High School, MI Coached by: Nancy Fitzgerald, Brian Karsten, and Steve Tuit

2nd – Micah Spieldenner Chanhassen High School, MN Coached by: Grigoriy Berman

3rd – Viraj Thakur Bellarmine College Prep, CA Coached by: Daniel Baxter 4th – Brian Xu San Marino High School, CA Coached by: Matthew T. Slimp 5th – Jarrek Holmes Kent Denver School, CO Coached by: Terry Stern Rubin and Forrest Sayrs 6th – Wyatt McGillen Flathead High School, MT Coached by: Shannon O’Donnell

3rd – Blanche Froelich Brookings High School, SD Coached by: Carrie Oorlog and Sally Pies 4th – Jackson Frey O’Gorman High School, SD Coached by: Teresa Fester 5th – Sam Hamerski Roseville Area High School, MN Coached by: Bret Hemmerlin 6th – Emmy Bear O’Gorman High School, SD Coached by: Teresa Fester

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 87

Honors and Awards

Spark Excellence 2015 Circle of Champion Coaches

Champion coaches received a commemorative plaque in the shape of the state of Texas.

88

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

(left to right) Robin Jensen, Idaho (Impromptu) Jeffrey Hannan, Illinois (Extemporaneous Debate) Teresa Fester, South Dakota (Storytelling) Luis Cardenas, New York (Duo Interpretation Sarah Rosenberg, New York (Duo Interpretation) Eric Todd Cecil, Kentucky (International Extemporaneous Speaking) Katy Cecil, Kentucky (International Extemporaneous Speaking) Bill M. Thompson, Kentucky (International Extemporaneous Speaking) David Matley, California (United States Extemporaneous Speaking) James Harris, Kansas (Original Oratory) Marcus W. Viney, Wyoming (Prose Reading) Daniel Sandweiss, Maine (Congressional Debate–House) Kasey Harrison, Oklahoma (Lincoln-Douglas Debate) Byron R. Arthur, Louisiana (Dramatic Interpretation) Warren P. Johnson, Louisiana (Dramatic Interpretation) Cheryl Frazier, Illinois (Poetry Reading) Roger McCafferty, South Dakota (Expository) John Williamson, California (Congressional Debate–Senate) Dr. Michael Greenstein, Illinois (Policy Debate) Andrew Malone, Illinois (Poetry Reading)

Richard B. Sodikow Policy Debate

Ryan Spector and Anthony Trufanov Glenbrook North High School, IL Coached by: Dr. Michael Greenstein

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

Public Forum Debate

presented by The Lanier Law Firm

presented by the Arthur N. Rupe Foundation

Nicky Halterman Norman High School, OK Coached by: Kasey Harrison

Will Arnesen and Sam Arnesen Walt Whitman High School, MD Coached by: Iaan Reynolds

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 89

Honors and Awards

Congressional Debate–House

Congressional Debate–Senate

Outstanding Representative

Outstanding Senator

Rep. Nick Danby Bangor High School, ME Coached by: Joseph Pelletier and Jennifer Page

Sen. Kaitlyn Allen-O’Gara Oxford Academy, CA Coached by: John Williamson

Original Oratory

90

presented by the Patrick Henry Memorial Foundation Auxiliary

Carmendale Fernandes United States Extemp

Kenon Brinkley Andover High School, KS Coached by: James Harris

Brian Yu Monte Vista HS - Danville, CA Coached by: David Matley

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

A. C. Eley International Extemp

Humorous Interpretation

presented by the Council on Foreign Relations

presented by Western Kentucky University

Brian Anderson Larue County High School, KY Coached by: Katy Cecil, Eric Todd Cecil, and Bill M. Thompson

Rohan Chatterjee Munster High School, IN Coached by: Jordan Mayer

Lanny D. and B. J. Naegelin Dramatic Interpretation

Daniel Williams Holy Cross School, LA Coached by: Byron R. Arthur and Warren P. Johnson

Sandra Silvers Memorial Duo Interpretation presented by Colorado College

Stephen Durosaiye and Tavan Thomas Bronx Preparatory Charter School, NY Coached by: Sarah Rosenberg and Luis Cardenas

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 91

Honors and Awards

Extemporaneous Debate presented by Colorado College

Joey Schnide Evanston Twp High School, IL Coached by: Jeffrey Hannan, HooRay Johnson, and Eric Bumperson

92

Brother RenĂŠ Sterner Commentary

Expository

presented by Western Kentucky University

presented by Western Kentucky University

Jason Fisher Highlands Ranch High School, CO Coached by: Brent C. Oberg

Jacob Womack Aberdeen Central High School, SD Coached by: Roger McCafferty

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

Poetry Reading

Prose Reading

presented by Western Kentucky University

presented by Western Kentucky University

Erik Thomas Southland College Prep Charter High School, IL Coached by: Cheryl Frazier, Lauren Wells, and Andrew Malone

Austin Guritza Cheyenne East High School, WY Coached by: Marcus W. Viney and Ashley Schulz

Impromptu

Storytelling

presented by Western Kentucky University

presented by Western Kentucky University

Josh Mansfield Highland High School, ID Coached by: Robin Jensen

Sean Miles O’Gorman High School, SD Coached by: Teresa Fester

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 93

Honors and Awards

James M. Copeland Coach of the Year Dr. Joshua Anderson Kansas

Ralph E. Carey Award for Distinguished Career Service Susan L. Anderson North Dakota

94

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

Principal of the Year Dr. Joseph H. Murry, Jr. Louisiana

Frank Sferra Director’s Commendation Jimmy L. Smith Texas

Ted W. Belch Coach Award Dr, Michael Greenstein Illinois

Seventh Diamond Award Judy Kroll South Dakota

Sixth Diamond Award

Sixth Diamond Award

Vickie Fellers Kansas

Gail Naylor Kansas

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 95

Honors and Awards

Alumni Lifetime Achievement Award Tom Rollins Virginia

Pelham Commendation Aaron Tmmons Texas

96

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

Brother Gregory “René” Sterner Lifetime Service Award Steven Davis Kansas

Harold Keller Public Service Leadership Award J. Austen Irrobali Texas

Bruno E. Jacob / Pi Kappa Delta Trophy The top trophy at the National Speech & Debate Tournament is named after the Association’s founder, Bruno E. Jacob, who served as executive director for more than 40 years. Endowed by the collegiate speech society, the Bruno E. Jacob / Pi Kappa Delta Trophy is presented to the school that has accumulated the greatest number of main event rounds at the National Tournament.

Cherry Creek High School in Colorado earned this year’s award with a championship total of 1,639 rounds.

Albert S. Odom, Jr., Commendation Martha Benham Colorado

Top 5

Total Rounds

1. Cherry Creek High School, CO

1,639

2. Leland High School, CA

1,626

3. Plano Sr. High School, TX

1,588

4. West High School - Iowa City, IA

1,571

5. Albuquerque Academy, NM

1,556

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 97

GET READY!

Prep for the upcoming speech and debate season with supplies from the NEW Speech & Debate Store!

SHOP NOW: store.speechanddebate.org

WHO BROKE AND WHY — MAIN DEBATE EVENTS Below is a summary of what it took for high school contestants to advance at the 2015 National Tournament.

Policy Debate

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

At the end of round 6, a total of 68 teams advanced to round 7-8 with 8 or more winning ballots.

At the end of round 6, a total of 85 debaters advanced to round 7-8 with 8 or more winning ballots.

A total of 46 teams advanced to round 9.

A total of 60 debaters advanced to round 9.

A total of 35 teams advanced to round 10.

A total of 43 debaters advanced to round 10.

A total of 24 teams advanced to round 11.

A total of 29 debaters advanced to round 11.

A total of 15 teams advanced to round 12.

A total of 18 debaters advanced to round 12.

A total of 9 teams advanced to round 13.

A total of 11 debaters advanced to round 13.

A total of 5 teams advanced to round 14.

A total of 6 debaters advanced to round 14.

A total of 4 teams advanced to round 15.

A total of 4 debaters advanced to round 15.

A total of 2 teams advanced to round 16.

A total of 2 debaters advanced to round 16.

Public Forum Debate

Congressional Debate

At the end of round 6, a total of 96 teams advanced to round 7-8 with 8 or more winning ballots.

Cumulative rank totals determined advancement and placing at each level. After four preliminary sessions, the top 6 senators and top 5 representatives advanced to semifinals from each chamber. After semifinals, the top 6 students from each chamber advanced to finals.

A total of 73 teams advanced to round 9.

A total of 48 teams advanced to round 10.

A total of 30 teams advanced to round 11.

A total of 18 teams advanced to round 12.

A total of 10 teams advanced to round 13.

A total of 6 teams advanced to round 14.

A total of 3 teams advanced to round 15.

A total of 2 teams advanced to round 16.

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 99

WHO BROKE AND WHY — MAIN SPEECH EVENTS Below is a summary of what it took for high school contestants to advance at the 2015 National Tournament.

Humorous Interpretation

Original Oratory

At the end of round 6, a total of 60 contestants advanced to rounds 7-8 with a cume of 34. Four contestants were tied. Three of those students advanced with at least 3 ones.

At the end of round 6, a total of 60 contestants advanced to rounds 7-8 with a cume of 37. Six contestants were tied. One of those students advanced with 3 ones and 3 twos.

At the end of round 8, a total of 30 contestants advanced to rounds 9-10 with a cume of 21. Two contestants were tied. One of those students advanced with 3 twos.

At the end of round 8, a total of 31 contestants advanced to rounds 9-10 with a cume of 22. Five contestants were tied. Two of those students advanced with at least 2 ones.

At the end of round 10, a total of 14 contestants advanced to rounds 11-12 with a cume of 35 (clean break).

At the end of round 10, a total of 14 contestants advanced to rounds 11-12 with a cume of 37. Two contestants were tied. One of those students advanced with 4 ones.

At the end of round 12, a total of 6 contestants advanced to round 13 with a cume of 64 (clean break).

Dramatic Interpretation

United States Extemporaneous Speaking

At the end of round 6, a total of 60 contestants advanced to rounds 7-8 with a cume of 36. Four contestants were tied. Three of those students advanced with at least 3 ones.

At the end of round 6, a total of 60 contestants advanced to rounds 7-8 with a cume of 35. Five contestants were tied. Two of those students advanced with at least 3 ones.

At the end of round 8, a total of 30 contestants advanced to rounds 9-10 with a cume of 21 (clean break).

At the end of round 10, a total of 14 contestants advanced to rounds 11-12 with a cume of 35 (clean break).

At the end of round 12, a total of 6 contestants advanced to round 13 with a cume of 69 (clean break).

At the end of round 8, a total of 30 contestants advanced to rounds 9-10 with a cume of 20. Five contestants were tied. Three of those students advanced with at least 2 ones.

At the end of round 10, a total of 14 contestants advanced to rounds 11-12 with a cume of 36 (clean break).

At the end of round 12, a total of 6 contestants advanced to round 13 with a cume of 66 (clean break).

Duo Interpretation

International Extemporaneous Speaking

At the end of round 6, a total of 60 teams advanced to rounds 7-8 with a cume of 35. Six teams were tied. Five of those teams advanced with at least 3 ones.

At the end of round 6, a total of 60 contestants advanced to rounds 7-8 with a cume of 34. Six contestants were tied. Five of those students advanced with at least 2 ones.

At the end of round 8, a total of 30 teams advanced to rounds 9-10 with a cume of 20 (clean break).

At the end of round 10, a total of 14 teams advanced to rounds 11-12 with a cume of 39 (clean break).

At the end of round 12, a total of 6 teams advanced to round 13 with a cume of 68. Two teams were tied. One of those teams advanced with 4 ones.

100

At the end of round 12, a total of 6 contestants advanced to round 13 with a cume of 69 (clean break).

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

At the end of round 8, a total of 30 contestants advanced to rounds 9-10 with a cume of 20 (clean break).

At the end of round 10, a total of 14 contestants advanced to rounds 11-12 with a cume of 35 (clean break).

At the end of round 12, a total of 6 contestants advanced to round 13 with a cume of 68 (clean break).

Enjoy the Best of NATIONALS! On

$

ly

199

Order yOur dVds tOday! store.speechanddebate.org

Points and Results

PreliM Rounds Debate: Win (2 judges) = 10 points • Split (1-1) = 8 points • Loss (0-2) = 7 points Speech: Two judge total of...

Schools of Outstanding Distinction Top 10 schools after combining both debate and speech points (must score points in both divisions).

= 10 points = 9 points = 8 points = 7 points = 6 points

ELIM Rounds Debate:

School Awards

2 or 3 4 or 5 6 or 7 8 or 9 10+

Win = 10 points

Loss = 7 points

Speech:

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th/6th/7th 10 points 9 points 8 points 7 points 6 points

Supplemental:

6 points

5 points

4 points

3 points

2 points

CONGRESS Average of points awarded by official scorers, on a scale of 3-9 points per speech and complete hour of presiding.

Speech Schools of Excellence

Top 20 schools in total speech points that did not win a School of Outstanding Distinction Award.

Debate Schools of Excellence

bonus points Champion: Runner-up: Third place:

15 points 10 points 5 points

Top 20 schools in total debate points that did not win a School of Outstanding Distinction award.

Formula for Determining School Awards Speech Schools of Honor

Top 21-40 schools in total speech points that did not win a School of Outstanding Distinction award.

Debate Schools of Honor

Top 21-40 schools in total debate points that did not win a School of Outstanding Distinction award.

Outstanding School Achievement

School administrators of the top six individuals or teams in each main event are sent an Outstanding School Achievement plaque following the National Tournament. The plaques are personalized with students’ names, school, event, place, and year.

102

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

Speech ..................................................................................................................

Round 7/8 6 points Round 9/10 + 4 points (Total 10) Round 11/12 + 4 points (Total 14) Round 13 + 6 points (Total 20) Debate ..................................................................................................................

Round 7/8 6 points Rounds 9 through 12 + 2 points per round (Total up to 14) Top 6 Place Winner + 6 points (Total 20) Congress ...............................................................................................................

Semifinalist 6 points Finalist + 4 points (Total 10) Top 7-14 + 4 points (Total 14) Top 6 Place Winner + 6 points (Total 20)

2015 School Awards Schools of Outstanding Distinction Apple Valley High School, MN Archbishop Mitty High School, CA Bellarmine College Prep, CA Desert Vista High School, AZ Gabrielino High School, CA James Logan High School, CA

Miramonte High School, CA Munster High School, IN Nova High School, FL Plano West Sr. High School, TX University School, FL

Speech Schools of Excellence

Debate Schools of Excellence

Blue Valley North High School, KS Bronx Preparatory Charter School, NY Central HS - Springfield, MO Grapevine High School, TX Eagan High School, MN Hastings High School, TX Hattiesburg High School, MS Hinsdale Central High School, IL Kamehameha Schools, HI McClintock High School, AZ Monte Vista High School - Danville, CA Montville High School, NJ Moorhead High School, MN Raymore-Peculiar High School, MO Ridge High School, NJ Roseville Area High School, MN Rowan County Sr. High School, KY Saint Mary’s Hall High School, TX South Grand Prairie High School, TX Trinity Preparatory School, FL Tulsa Washington High School, OK

Aberdeen Central High School, SD Bangor High School, ME BASIS Scottsdale High School, AZ Bellaire High School, TX Brookfield East High School, WI Brophy College Prep, AZ Cypress Bay High School, FL Damien High School, CA Durham Academy, NC George Washington High School, CO Greenhill School, TX James E. Taylor High School, TX Oakwood School - North Hollywood, CA Plano Sr. High School, TX Strake Jesuit College Preparatory, TX Syosset High School, NY University School, OH West Lafayette High School, IN Westwood High School, TX

Speech Schools of Honor

Debate Schools of Honor

Acadiana High School, LA Americas High School, TX Andover High School, KS Blue Springs High School, MO Cherry Creek High School, CO Columbiana High School, OH Durham Academy, NC Eastview High School, MN George Washington High School, CO Harlingen High School South, TX Holy Cross School, LA James Madison Memorial High School, WI Lake Braddock Secondary High School, VA Lakeville North High School, MN Larue County High School, KY O’Gorman High School, SD Orono High School, MN Plano Sr. High School, TX Prospect High School, IL Sioux Falls Lincoln High School, SD Southside High School, SC

Brentwood High School, TN Carroll High School - Southlake, TX Cary Academy, NC Central High School - Springfield, MO Chesterton High School, IN Dougherty Valley High School, CA Eagan High School, MN Edina High School, MN Edmond Santa Fe High School, OK Glenbrook North High School, IL Green Valley High School, NV James Madison Memorial High School, WI Lamar High School - Houston, TX Leland High School, CA North Allegheny Sr. High School, PA Olathe Northwest High School, KS Park Hill South High School, MO Shawnee Mission East High School, KS Stephen F. Austin High School - Austin, TX The Blake School, MN Walt Whitman High School, MD Wichita East High School, KS

ROSTRUM | SUMMER 2015 103

MAIN DEBATE EVENTS – FINAL RESULTS Place

Name / School / State

RICHARD B. SODIKOW POLICY DEBATE 1. Ryan Spector and Anthony Trufanov Glenbrook North High School, IL

RD 14

RD 15

FINAL

WWWWW

LW L L L

NEG (9-2)

2. Justin Cajanding and Austin Stroud Damien High School, CA

LLLLL

W LW W W

AFF (2-9)

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE presented by The Lanier Law Firm 1. Nicky Halterman Norman High School, OK

2. Sonya Huang Leland High School, CA

RD 14

RD 15

FINAL

WWWWW

W LW W L

NEG (9-4)

LLLLL

W LW W L

AFF (4-9)

PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE presented by the Arthur N. Rupe Foundation 1. Will Arnesen and Sam Arnesen Walt Whitman High School, MD 2. Liya Khan and Samantha MacIlwaine Dougherty Valley High School, CA

WORLD SCHOOLS DEBATE Team New Mexico Blue (pictured at right) defeated Team South Oregon in an 8-1 decision during the final round of the USA World Schools Debate Invitational (USWSDI) hosted at the National Speech & Debate Tournament in Dallas, Texas.

Team New Mexico Blue consisted of Areeg Abd-Alla from La Cueva HS; Jonathan Hasse from La Cueva HS; Jessica Berry from Albuquerque Academy; Ani Nadiga from Los Alamos HS; and Sajila Hossain from La Cueva HS. Team South Oregon consisted of Lorien Deyo from North Bend Senior HS; Gillian Mullane from Ashland HS; Sravya Tadepalli from Crescent Valley HS; and Rob Stallman from Ashland HS. Tiana Menon from Palisade HS in Colorado was named the top speaker at the USWSDI.

104

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

RD 15

RD 16

FINAL

WWWWW

W LW W L

PRO (9-6)

W LW LW

BBBBB

CON (6-9)

MAIN SPEECH EVENTS – FINAL RESULTS

Place

RD 7-10

Name / School / State Cume

Semi

Semi

RD 11

RD 12

FINAL Total

HUMOROUS INTERPRETATION presented by Western Kentucky University 1. Rohan Chaterjee, Munster High School, IN 27 1 1 4 1 4 6 3 1 6 7 4 1 3 3 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 3 3 2 82 2. Sophia Miliotis, Roseville Area High School, MN 26 3 4 1 3 1 4 4 3 3 6 1 2 1 4 5 2 3 2 4 3 3 3 1 1 1 83 3. Taren Pfitzer, Sioux Falls Lincoln High School, SD 29 4 3 5 5 6 1 5 3 1 2 3 4 4 5 3 4 4 4 1 1 4 4 2 5 6 105 4. Jacob Wallack, University School, FL 29 1 3 1 1 1 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 2 4 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 112 5. Sophia Darbonne, Acadiana High School, LA 33 2 5 2 4 2 1 2 4 5 1 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 4 127 Note: Code H208 was disqualified from the final round due to violations of the rule on adaptations.

lanny d. and B. J. naegelin Dramatic Interpretation 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Daniel Williams, Holy Cross School, LA Ricardo Flores, Americas High School, TX Luke Stodghill, South Grand Prairie High School, TX Jarrius Adams, Hattiesburg High School, MS Nissim Fargo Tbakhi, McClintock High School, AZ Jack Coborn Ellis, Orono High School, MN

24 1 5 2 1 5 2 4 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 63 28 1 4 1 4 1 3 2 2 7 4 3 5 1 3 5 4 2 2 4 1 3 6 4 93 29 6 1 1 2 2 1 1 6 1 3 4 4 5 6 2 1 6 3 2 6 4 3 3 95 35 2 1 2 1 2 5 3 5 3 5 6 3 3 2 1 3 5 4 3 2 5 5 2 101 28 5 5 5 6 5 6 2 1 4 2 2 6 6 4 4 6 3 5 5 5 2 4 6 119 29 3 6 4 6 4 7 5 2 2 1 5 2 4 5 6 5 4 6 6 4 6 2 5 121

sandra silvers duo interpretation presented by Colorado College 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Stephen Durosaiye and Tavan Thomas, Bronx Preparatory Charter School, NY Jane Emma Barnett and Seis Steves, Saint Mary’s Hall High School, TX Rod Rahimi and Wahab Ahmady, James Logan High School, CA Anne Hunt and Will Haubl, Achbishop Mitty High School, CA Trevion Heliton and Sidney Odom, Hastings High School, TX Ameres Groves and Elijah Reynolds, Blue Springs High School, MO

23 1 3 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 4 5 1 2 3 3 3 1 2 1 2 5 6 3 68 35 3 4 3 2 4 6 4 3 3 1 1 1 2 3 5 1 1 1 2 6 2 1 1 3 1 86 29 2 1 5 2 2 4 1 4 1 2 6 3 4 4 1 6 2 2 5 1 4 5 2 1 4 89 30 4 3 1 5 1 3 4 2 3 2 4 2 6 5 6 2 5 6 3 5 3 3 3 4 6 105 29 4 2 4 1 6 3 3 7 2 3 5 6 1 2 3 5 4 4 6 3 6 4 6 2 2 108 27 1 5 2 1 3 5 5 1 4 4 3 5 3 6 4 4 6 5 4 4 5 6 4 5 5 109

original oratory presented by the Patrick Henry Memorial Foundation Auxiliary 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Kenon Brinkley, Andover High School, KS Keiaireyona Brown, Apple Valley High School, MN Aekta Mouli, Eagan High School, MN Andrea Ambam, Raymore-Peculiar High School, MO Noah Weinflash, Montville High School, NJ Clayton Covington, Blue Valley North High School, KS

16 1 1 3 1 2 3 1 3 4 3 1 4 4 3 1 5 1 6 4 2 2 4 5 73 27 3 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 4 1 3 6 5 1 4 5 6 1 5 1 3 81 26 1 2 6 1 7 3 3 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 2 2 2 2 5 1 2 2 83 26 4 3 1 6 3 4 2 2 3 5 3 6 1 1 2 3 5 1 1 6 4 3 1 89 32 2 3 4 6 1 2 4 6 2 7 6 5 5 5 3 4 6 4 3 4 3 5 4 117 33 2 6 3 5 2 7 1 6 1 3 5 3 6 4 4 6 3 3 5 3 6 6 6 120

CARMENDALE FERNANDES United States Extemporaneous speaking 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Brian Yu, Monte Vista HS - Danville, CA Jay Sirot, Montville High School, NJ Joshua Wartel, Lake Braddock Secondary High School, VA Shawn Kant, Ridge High School, NJ Vishal Narayanaswamy, James Madison Memorial High School, WI Marshall Webb, Saint Mary’s Hall High School, TX

30 3 2 1 6 1 1 4 2 1 5 4 1 2 6 2 3 4 1 2 2 4 5 2 87 30 2 2 1 2 1 5 7 5 2 3 3 3 4 1 2 5 1 4 3 4 1 1 1 88 24 5 5 2 7 6 1 5 1 1 5 1 2 1 5 1 1 6 2 1 1 3 6 5 90 36 4 1 4 3 4 2 4 3 2 2 2 6 3 2 5 4 3 3 4 3 5 4 4 105 26 1 5 4 6 3 2 1 3 5 1 6 5 5 4 6 6 2 6 5 6 2 3 6 111 21 4 4 3 4 2 6 6 7 3 6 5 4 6 3 4 2 5 5 6 5 6 2 3 114

A. C. Eley International Extemporaneous speaking presented by the Council on Foreign Relations 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Brian Anderson, Larue County High School, KY Justin David Graham, Trinity Preparatory School, FL Alex Ye, Gabrielino High School, CA Jack Glaser, George Washington High School, CO Noah Wexler, Nova High School, FL Rohan Dhoopar, Bellarmine College Prep, CA

30 2 7 2 4 1 3 5 2 2 1 1 1 5 2 4 4 1 1 1 1 5 1 5 2 1 82 25 1 1 4 2 5 4 3 2 1 1 3 4 6 6 6 1 3 2 3 2 1 3 4 1 4 84 34 1 1 1 1 4 1 5 5 4 3 4 2 1 1 5 3 2 3 2 3 2 4 1 6 2 88 21 3 5 2 1 6 5 6 3 6 2 6 5 2 4 3 2 4 4 4 4 4 2 3 4 3 99 30 3 4 3 3 5 2 1 5 6 4 2 3 4 3 2 5 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 3 5 118 34 2 6 3 4 1 6 2 7 1 2 5 6 3 5 1 6 5 5 6 5 3 5 2 5 6 121

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 105

MAIN SPEECH EVENTS – SEMIFINAL RESULTS

RD 7-10 Place Name / School / State Cume

Semi RD 11

Semi RD 12 Total

HUMOROUS INTERPRETATION presented by Western Kentucky University

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Philip Mackenzie, Desert Vista High School, AZ Benjamin M. Gruenbaum, Lee’s Summit North High School, MO Micah Spieldenner, Chanhassen High School, MN Ryanne Linn, Raymore-Peculiar High School, MO Peyton Tinder, Munster High School, IN Carol Lee, Riverside High School, SC John Biebighauser, Grapevine High School, TX Derek Collins, Hattiesburg High School, MS

LANNY D. AND B. J. NAEGELIN Dramatic InterpretatioN

Thomas Steele, Creekview High School, TX Kella Merlain-Moffatt, Oxbridge Academy Of The Palm Beaches, FL Presleigh Renner, Hinsdale Central High School, IL Dominique Chillis, J. Frank Dobie High School, TX Currie Blackwell, Petal High School, MS Olivia Pickard, Wadsworth City School, OH Georgette Voss, Buffalo Grove High School, IL Bianca Montgomery, Andy Dekaney High School, TX

sandra silvers duo interpretation presented by Colorado College

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Samuel Maxwell and Christian Heisler, O’Gorman High School, SD Sean Mullin and Melissa Mason, Lakeville North High School, MN Keegan Tucker and Anna Lee Hawkins, Jefferson County HS, TN Lauren Troldahl and Claire Doty, Apple Valley High School, MN Wyatt Dykhuizen and Parker Kouns, Flathead High School, MT Destinee Thornton and Timothy Fields, Ben Davis High School, IN James Gracia and Enrique Cantu, Harlingen High School South, TX Olivia Paige Nickell and Makda Mehari, Rowan County Sr. High School, KY

original oratorY presented by the Patrick Henry Memorial Foundation Auxiliary

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Sarah Bellal, James Logan High School, CA Mahima Krishnamoorthi, Modesto High School, CA Jessica Anderson, Moorhead High School, MN Jimmy McDermott, Prospect High School, IL Naomi Seleshi, Apple Valley High School, MN Serene Singh, The Classical Academy, CO Claire Lamman, Canon City High School, CO Sarah Gardner, Notre Dame Academy, OH

CARMENDALE FERNANDES United States Extemporaneous speakinG

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Nathaniel Saffran, Trinity Preparatory School, FL Neil Patel, Plano West Sr. High School, TX Jasper Shea Primack, Newton South High School, MA Zian Hu, Leland High School, CA Karna Venkatraj, A & M Consolidated High School, TX Micah Cash, Tulsa Washington High School, OK Ria Mazumdar, Albuquerque Academy, NM Julia Couillard, Downers Grove South High School, IL

24 35 32 31 35 33 32 35

34657 72433 26764 62323 57545 56667 65376 77775

23255 27222 71461 66747 44523 31673 76714 57674

66 69 76 77 79 83 85 97

32 31 35 31 35 35 31 34

53333 33434 22541 62326 44656 77757 46673 77777

24764 65437 46456 37377 73343 51512 17765 46656

72 73 74 77 80 82 83 85

32 28 34 36 36 39 38 36

52436 21647 34755 66244 76572 55363 67765 77677

22255 45455 13523 17567 62346 76676 56674 77767

68 71 72 84 84 93 97 104

31 29 37 31 36 31 33 33

64534 45237 34126 67574 52743 76655 75446 57775

43154 65476 67732 16164 54751 27347 55465 76576

70 78 78 78 79 83 84 95

29 29 34 32 30 24 35 35

73545 31514 14652 53235 26727 67313 77676 66757

43234 57771 45144 62643 32472 76457 31566 73667

69 70 70 71 72 73 89 95

14176 57433 32156 61725 24634 76347 77477 43655

70 72 73 75 76 77 83 88

A. C. Eley International Extemporaneous speaking presented by the Council on Foreign Relations

106

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Shreetika Singh, Seven Lakes High School, TX Owen Chang, Miramonte High School, CA Eitan Sapiro-Gheiler, Durham Academy, NC Neil Tagare, Bellarmine College Prep, CA Roman Shemakov, McClintock High School, AZ Elizabeth Kingaby, Central Cabarrus High School, NC Seckin Kara, Dallastown Area High School, PA Varoon Pazhyanur, Eastview High School, MN

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

25 32 28 33 35 21 33 35

72773 42534 73657 46452 53626 65567 54162 67773

SUPPLEMENTAL AND CONSOLATION EVENTS – FINAL RESULTS

Place

Name / School / State

RD 12

RD 13

FINAL

BBBBB WWWLL

WWWLL BBBBB

NEG (7-0) AFF (0-7)

PRELIM CUME

SEMIS

PROSE READING presented by Western Kentucky University

1. Austin Guritza, Cheyenne East High School, WY

2. Aman Singh, Ardrey Kell High School, NC

3. Charnnia Jones, Southland College Prep Charter High School, IL

4. Madison Hall, The Montgomery Academy, AL

5. Matthew Wolfe, Catholic Memorial School, MA

6. Antonio Gil, Holy Ghost Prep, PA

14 15 16 11 15 15

221 461 313 144 125 532

1 1 2 1 1 5 4 28 2 2 5 2 3 2 2 37 4 3 1 3 6 1 5 39 3 4 3 6 5 4 1 39 6 5 6 4 2 3 6 47 5 6 4 5 4 6 3 49

POETRY READING presented by Western Kentucky University

1. Erik Thomas, Southland College Prep Charter High School, IL

2. Ethan Pytlik, Raymond Central High School, NE

3. Lucas Cerzosimo, Michael Krop High School, FL

4. Jacob Sanders, Harrison County High School, KY

5. Lauren Dirksen, Hallsville High School, TX

6. Fernando Rojas, Fullerton Joint Union High School, CA

16 14 11 16 13 16

115 223 211 432 344 323

1 4 3 2 1 3 1 33 2 3 1 5 3 1 3 33 4 6 2 1 6 4 6 37 5 2 5 3 2 2 5 42 3 1 4 6 4 5 4 44 6 5 6 4 5 6 2 50

EXTEMPORANEOUS DEBATE presented by Colorado College 1.

Joey Schnide, Evanston Twp High School, IL 2. Isaac Spanjer, Fargo North High School, ND

PLACE

Name / School / StatE

FINAL Total

EXPOSITORY presented by Western Kentucky University

1. Jacob Womack, Aberdeen Central High School, SD

2. Christopher Zheng, Cherry Creek High School, CO

3. Viraat Goel, University High School, IL

4. Parth Patel, Huntley High School, IL

5. Donnie Bland, Belleville West High School, IL

6. Timothy Janicek, James Logan High School, CA

BROther rené sterner COMMENTARY presented by Western Kentucky University

1. Jason Fisher, Highlands Ranch High School, CO

2. Bethany Dain, Belleville West High School, IL

3. Bradley Wascher, Saint James School, AL

4. Allison Christopher, Ursuline High School, OH

5. Parth Patel, Huntley High School, IL

6. Adelynn Nee, East Mountain High School, NM

11 11 9 12 10 11

531 222 322 111 631 116

3 2 2 1 2 1 2 29 1 1 3 6 6 4 4 35 2 4 4 5 3 3 5 35 5 3 6 2 4 6 1 35 6 6 1 4 1 2 6 39 4 5 5 3 5 5 3 41

12 11 13 13 13 14

213 322 231 552 135 113

1 1 1 3 2 4 1 26 2 2 2 4 1 3 6 31 6 3 3 1 5 2 3 35 4 4 4 2 3 1 4 42 3 5 5 6 4 5 2 44 5 6 6 5 6 6 5 47

IMPROMPTU presented by Western Kentucky University

1. Josh Mansfield, Highland High School, ID

2. Matt Greydanus, Grand Rapids Christian High School, MI

3. Viraj Thakur, Bellarmine College Prep, CA

4. Brian Xu, San Marino High School, CA

5. Jarrek Holmes, Kent Denver School, CO

6. Wyatt McGillen, Flathead High School, MT

7 5 6 5 6 6

313 232 521 413 121 111

1 3 3 2 1 1 1 22 5 2 1 1 3 3 4 25 2 1 4 3 5 2 3 28 3 5 2 6 2 5 2 30 6 4 5 4 4 4 5 32 4 6 6 5 6 6 6 38

STORYTELLING presented by Western Kentucky University

1. Sean Miles, O’Gorman High School, SD

2. Micah Spieldenner Chanhassen High School, MN

3. Blanche Froelich, Brookings High School, SD

4. Jackson Frey, O’Gorman High School, SD

5. Sam Hamerski, Roseville Area High School, MN

6. Emmy Bear, O’Gorman High School, SD

4 4 5 4 6 4

422 343 211 213 121 126

2 1 2 2 2 1 4 21 1 2 5 3 3 3 2 27 6 6 4 1 1 5 3 28 3 5 3 5 6 4 1 30 5 4 6 4 5 2 5 33 4 3 1 6 4 6 6 36 Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 107

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE RESULTS HOUSE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 F F F F F F F F F F

Nick J. Danby Sophia Zupanc Marina Finley Abigail Marone Ben Kilano Abhinav Sridharan Nasser Douge Heidi Artigue Julia Lauer Michael Solomentsev Katherine Kleinle Paul Ambrose Faisal Younus Simon Essig Aberg Adam Somers Taylor Bennington Usmaan Hasan Yuval Shmul Kevin Solomon John Antolik Alex Wakefield Keshav Goel Isabelle Smith Morgan Austin

Bangor High School Gilmour Academy Bellaire High School Notre Dames High School Desert Vista High School Plano Sr. High School Nova High School Chaparral High School The Bronx High School Of Science Desert Vista High School Ridge High School Liberty Sr. High School Syosset High School Desert Vista High School Central High School - Springfield Wooster High School Plano West Sr. High School Cypress Bay High School St. Petersburg High School La Vernia High School Desert Vista High School Bellarmine College Prep Olathe Northwest High School Hathaway Brown School

ME OH TX PA AZ TX FL AZ NY AZ NJ MO NY AZ MO OH TX FL FL TX AZ CA KS OH

SENATE 1 Kaitlyn Allen-O’Gara Oxford Academy CA 2 Ryan Fedasiuk Desert Vista High School AZ

3 Prianka Kumar Desert Vista High School AZ 4 Gregory Seabrooks Oxbridge Academy Of the Palm Beaches FL 5 Carla Troconis East Chapel Hill High School NC 6 Brecken Denler Mountain View High School AZ 7 Dylan Wickersham Silverado High School NV 8 Nick Verderame Charlotte Latin School NC 9 Kishan Srikanth Plano Sr. High School TX 10 Junyuan Tan Kerr High School TX 11 Steven Planitzer Norton High School OH 12 Greg Fantin Plano West Sr. High School TX 13 Calvin Maynard Good Shepherd School TX 14 Azhar Hussain Carroll High School - Southlake TX F John Chen Syosset High School NY F Victoria Bevard Thomas Jefferson High School Science & Tech VA F Maddie Wettach Lake Highland Preparatory FL F Marlon Poroj El Camino Real Charter High School CA F Mary Angela Ricotta St. Agnes Academy TX F Sean William McFeely Miramonte High School CA F Pranav Govindaraju Archbishop Mitty High School CA F Annika Ramnath Cypress Bay High School FL F Emma Lin Carroll High School - Southlake TX F Esther Jaffee Sarasota High School FL

108

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

Presiding Officer Leadership Bowl

Presiding Officer, Leadership Bowl

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE presented by The Stennis Center for Public Service Leadership

HOUSE

SENATE

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 109

2015 Middle School Results The sixteenth annual Middle School National Speech & Debate Tournament was held June 17-19, 2015, in Dallas, Texas. More than 600 students from 122 schools across the country competed at the event!

Schools of Excellence (Top performing middle schools in speech and debate events) Speech Lakewood Speech & Debate, TN Phoenix Country Day School, AZ Saint Mary’s Hall, TX The Pike School, MA Wilshire Academy, CA

Debate Carroll Middle School, TX Dougherty Valley Bridge Academy, CA Knox Jr. High, TX Kudos College of Youth Leadership, CA West Des Moines Valley, IA

Overall The Brooks Academy, CA Sidney Lanier Middle School, TX The Harker Middle School, CA

Debate Results Congressional Debate Place 1 2 3 4 5 6

Contestant Jack Xiao Evan Finley Joy Chen Sahaj Singh Luca Zislin Alison Cohen

School Velasquez Academy, CA Sidney Lanier Middle School, TX La Reina Middle School, CA Southlake Junior Debate Club, TX University School, FL Chandler Preparatory Academy, AZ

Prelim Ranks 41115 52321 13462 88236 29684 36893

Elim Total 12 13 16 27 29 29

School West Des Moines Valley, IA Kudos College of Youth Leadership, CA Knox Jr. High, TX St. Andrew’s Episcopal School, MS Southlake Junior Debate Club, TX Lake Highland Preparatory School, FL Willshire Academy, CA Marvin Baker Middle School, TX

Prelim Record 5-1 4-2 5-1 6-0 5-1 5-1 5-1 5-1

Elim Place Champion Second Place Semifinalist Semifinalist Quarterfinalist Quarterfinalist Quarterfinalist Quarterfinalist

School Ephraim Curtis Middle School, MA Fairmont Middle School, CA Institute for Collaborative Educ MS, NY The Brooks Academy, CA The Brooks Academy, CA The Harker Middle School, CA Nova Middle School, FL Sidney Lanier Middle School, TX

Prelim Record 5-1 4-2 4-2 4-2 5-1 6-0 4-2 5-1

Elim Place Champion Second Place Semifinalist Semifinalist Quarterfinalist Quarterfinalist Quarterfinalist Quarterfinalist

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Place 1 2 S S Q Q Q Q

Contestants Conal Thomas-McGinnis Shriya Padigepati Andrew Yu Ishan Bhatt Paul Doherty Julia Wu Tiffany Chang Sesh Hollendonner

Public Forum Debate Place 1 2 S S Q Q Q Q

110

Contestants Sandeep Varun Shankar and Joseph Bernard Pinto Jake Palmer and Kyle Kishimoto Stefan Walzer-Goldfeld and Zayaan Fernandez Harsha Mudaliar and Roshni Varma Ishan Maunder and Arunav Gupta Clarissa Wang and Cindy Wang Emma Smith and Brenda Reiter Alexander Nelson-Groocock and Pooja Vettical

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

Policy Debate Place 1 2 S S Q Q Q Q

Contestants Atticus Glen and Julian Habermann Saul Galvez and Isabella Pira Mollie Hartenstein and Emma Ringstad Madison Huynh and Anusha Kuppahally Patrick Milito and Mason Wicklander Laiba Akhtar and Tyler Roscow Tivas Gupta and Kenneth Larson Juliet Elizabeth Jones and Anahita Farishta

School Montgomery Bell Academy, TN Emiliano Zapata Academy, IL Dr. Bessie Rhodes Magnet School, IL The Harker Middle School, CA Academy Of the Sacred Heart, IL Union Public School, OK Academy Of the Sacred Heart, IL Marvin Baker Middle School, TX

Prelim Record 5-1 4-2 4-2 5-1 3-3 5-1 6-0 4-2

Elim Place Champion Second Place Semifinalist Semifinalist Quarterfinalist Quarterfinalist Quarterfinalist Quarterfinalist

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Speaker Awards 1 2 3

Andrew Yu Maaz Syed Conal Thomas-McGinnis

Knox Jr. High, TX Knox Jr. High, TX West Des Moines Valley, IA

177.0 pts 176.0 pts 175.0 pts

Dr. Bessie Rhodes Magnet School, IL

174.0 pts 174.0 pts 172.0 pts

Policy Debate Speaker Awards 1 2 3

Emma Ringstad Andrew Lee Saul Galvez

The Harker Middle School, CA Emilliano Zapata Academy, IL

Public Forum Debate Speaker Awards 1 2 3

John Manahan Jason Pan Shreyas Kiran

Delbarton School, NJ The Harker Middle School, CA Dougherty Valley Bridge Academy, CA

178.0 pts 176.5 pts 175.5 pts

Speech Results † Tied speech cumulative rank totals were broken on judge preference, then sum of reciprocal fractions, then number of firsts, seconds, thirds, etc., then adjusted final rank total, after dropping high and low ranks, and finally, lowest semifinal rank total.

Declamation Place 1 2 3 4 5 6

Contestant Erin McDermott Matthew Peterson Anson Aerath Jackie Leavitt Kenyon Pelletier Natalie Clark

School Mt. Prospect Middle School, IL Phoenix Country Day School, AZ Ivy GuruKul Online, CA Saint Mary’s Hall, TX The Pike School, MA Lakewood Speech & Debate, TN

Final Round 12112 23334 55521 61245 44463 36656

Rank Total 7 15 18 † 18 † 21 26

School Phoenix Country Day School, AZ The Brooks Academy, CA Saint Mary’s Hall, TX Midwest Speech & Debate, MI Phoenix Country Day School, AZ The Harker School, CA

Final Round 11123 53211 24432 42645 35554 66366

Rank Total 8 12 15 21 22 27

Dramatic Interpretation Place 1 2 3 4 5 6

Contestant Bella deRoos Ayush Agarwal Gabby Garcia Debra Moraitis Sophia Corridan Nikki Solanki

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 111

Middle School Results The fifteenth annual Middle School National Speech & Debate Tournament Interpretation wasDuo held June 18-20, 2014, in Overland Park, Kansas. More than 700 students from 100 schools across the country competed at the event! School Place Contestant 1 Ayush Agarwal and Tavish Mohanti The Brooks Academy, CA 2 Debra Moraitis and Zack Moraitis Midwest Speech & Debate, MI 3 Matthew Peterson and Sophia Corridan Phoenix Country Day School, AZ 4 Aparajita Pathak and Neha Annamalai The Brooks Academy, CA Schools of Excellence 5 Nathan Mahon and Wesley Mahon University School, FL (Top performing middle schools in speech and debate events) 6 Kimi Acosta and Emma Young Grand Prairie Fine Arts Academy, TX Speech

Forensics of Oakland County,Speaking MI Extemporaneous Milton K-8, MA Place Academy Contestant Ockerman Middle 1 Lyna KimSchool, KY Saint Mary’s Hall, TX 2 Arian Raje Wilshire Academy, CA 3 Ruchi Maheshwari

4 5 6

Debate

Sidney Lanier Middle School, TX The Brooks Academy, CA Wilshire Academy, CA

Debate Results

Humorous Interpretation Congressional Debate 11 22 3 3 4 54 65

6

Vishnu Sajit Evan Eiglarsh AveriElla SukSchnake Aidan Shev Tavish Mohanti Michael Xiao MogiJared TaylorShapiro Trevor John Nahas Stewart

Milani Gosman

School

Rank Total 10 12 17 18 21 27

Overall

Academy of Higher Learning, CA Sidney Lanier Middle School, TX Capitol Debate, MD The Brooks Academy, CA Final Round School Knox Jr. High, TX Wilshire Academy, The CA Harker Middle School,5CA 4112 Kudos College/Leadership, CA The Brooks Academy, CA 21353 The Kinkaid School, TX Beaumont Independent, CA 16245

Sam Frank Nevin Prasad Kayla Lee

Place Contestant Contestant Place

Final Round 51112 16221 42443 25335 34554 63666

School

Prelim Ranks

Knox Jr. High, TX 2 1 2 4 1 University School, FL Academy of Higher Learning, CA 3 4 5MS, 3 4MO Raymore-Peculiar East New West Charter School, CA 6 3 4 7 2 The Brooks Academy, CA Windemere Ranch Middle School, CA 7 2 1 9 3 Sidney Lanier MiddleBeachwood School, TX High School, 4 7 6 2 CA 7 Austin Academy, TX Nova 42 Academy, CA 8 6 3 9 5

Bak Middle School of the Arts, FL

43624 35561 62436

Final Round Elim Total 10 19 22 22 26 31

12111 24224 53543 31655 46336 65462

Rank Total 13 14 18 19 20 21

Rank Total 6 14 20 † 20 † 22 23

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

Contestants Impromptu Speaking 1 Anish Odhav

Place

Place 2 SamContestant Segal 3 1 KyleIshan J. Lee Lakhani 4 2 JJ Kapur Kayla Lee 5 3 Lavanya SinghKasar Atharva 6 David Liang 4 Nikhil Dharmaraj 5 Vinay Metlapalli Public Forum Debate 6 Adele Lauzon Place

Contestants

1 Devesh Kodnani and Akush Swarnakar 2 Lyle Derden and Lekha Sunder Original Oratory 3 Abhishek Shah and Avi Patel Place Contestant 4 Christy Lee and Annie Chang Kevin Wangand Polly Moser 5 1 Claire Silberman Eva Prakash 6 2 Ishika Chawla and Robert Chen

3 4 5 6

Pradeep Muthaiya Saskia Reford Sophia Scott Samuel Lee

School

Prelim Record

Elim Place

The Kinkaid School, TX 4-1 School The Kinkaid School, TX 3-2 The Brooks Academy of Higher Learning, CA Academy, 3 - 2CA West Des Moines Valley, IA -1 Wilshire Academy, 4CA The Brooks Academy,Ivy CAGuruKul Online,4 CA -1 The Kinkaid School, TX 4-1

Co-Champion Final Round Co-Champion 11222 Semifinalist Semifinalist 62513 Quarterfinalist 33146 Quarterfinalist

School

Elim Place

The Harker Middle School, CA The Pike School, MA Sidney Lanier Middle School, TX Prelim Record

The Brooks Academy, CA 5-0 Sindey Lanier Middle School, TX 4-1 The Brooks Academy, CA 4-1 School BC Academy, Canada 4-1 Capitol Debate, MD The Brooks Academy, 5 - 0CA The Brooks Academy,The CA Brooks Academy, 4 - 1CA

46631 25455 54364

Champion Runner-Up Semifinalist Final Round Semifinalist 12322 Quarterfinalist 43116 Quarterfinalist

Rank Total 8 17 † 17 † 20 21 22

Emerson Community Charter, CA Saint Mary’s Hall, TX Almaden Country School, CA THEO, TX

26235 34641 51463 65554

Rank Total 10 15 18 † 18 † 19 25

School Saint Mary’s Hall, TX Bowling Green Junior High, KY The Brooks Academy, CA Bak Middle School of the Arts, FL Lakewood Speech & Debate, TN Sacred Heart Intermediate School, MA

Final Round 22311 44233 33425 16146 51552 65664

Rank Total 9 16 17 18 † 18 † 27

Poetry Interpretation Place 1 2 3 4 5 6

112

Contestant Gabriella Garcia Cole Vaughan Ayush Agarwal Ervin Williams Sylis Allen Kayla Turner

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

Middle School Results

The fifteenth annual Middle School National Speech & was held June 18-20, 2014, in Overland Park, Kansas. M from 100 schools across the country competed at the e

Schools of Excellence

(Top performing middle schools in speech and debate eve Speech

Debate

Forensics of Oakland County, MI Milton Academy K-8, MA Ockerman Middle School, KY Saint Mary’s Hall, TX Wilshire Academy, CA

Academy Capitol De Knox Jr. H Kudos Co The Kinka

Debate Results Congressional Debate Place

1 2 3 4 5 6

Contestant

School

Vishnu Sajit Averi Suk Aidan Shev Michael Xiao Mogi Taylor John Nahas

Knox Jr. Hig Academy o New West C Windemere Sidney Lan Nova 42 Ac

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Place

1 2 3 4 5 6

Contestants

School

Anish Odhav Sam Segal Kyle J. Lee JJ Kapur Lavanya Singh David Liang

The Kinkaid The Kinkaid Academy o West Des M The Brooks The Kinkaid

Public Forum Debate Place

Prose Interpretation Place 1 2 3 4 5 6

Contestant Bella deRoos Gabriella Garcia Steele Schoeberl Rachel Kho Sylis Allen Katherine Manuel

School Phoenix Country Day School, AZ Saint Mary’s Hall, TX Lakewood Speech & Debate, TN Velasquez Academy, CA Lakewood Speech & Debate, TN Paul Breaux Middle School, LA

1 2 3 4 5 6

Contestants

School

Devesh Kodnani and Akush Swarnakar Lyle Derden and Lekha Sunder Abhishek Shah and Avi Patel Final Round Rank Total Christy Lee and Annie Chang 2 2 4 2 2 Claire Silberman and 12 Polly Moser 1623 1 13 Chen Ishika Chawla and Robert

The Brooks Sindey Lan The Brooks BC Academ Capitol Deb The Brooks

43154 35615 54363 61546

17 20 21 22

Final Round 11221 22132 55313 43455 34664 66546

Rank Total 7 10 17 21 23 27

Storytelling Place 1 2 3 4 5 6

Contestant Ella Schnake Cole Vaughan Nikhil Dharmaraj Zach Moraitis Lucy Ding Elizabeth Packard

School Raymore-Peculiar East MS Bowling Green Junior High, KY The Harker Middle School, CA Midwest Speech & Debate, MI Sidney Lanier Middle School, TX The Pike School, MA

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 113

Elizabeth Arden Internship Program A “once in a lifetime opportunity” for members of the Student Leadership Committee

by Shelby Young

Six members of the SLC visited the Elizabeth Arden headquarters in New York City in July.

through social media and

“It truly was a once in a lifetime opportunity.”

the web, completed brand exercises, toured International Flavors and Fragrances, and learned

This summer, six members of the

about developing a fragrance with a

National Speech & Debate Association’s

celebrity—not to mention, taking in

Student Leadership Committee (SLC)

the sights and sounds of New York

traveled to the big apple for a three-

City!

day internship program with Elizabeth Arden, Inc. From July 6 to July 8, students were

114

“My favorite part of the internship was the people!” said student intern Michelle Ma. “From meeting National

introduced to the Elizabeth Arden

Speech & Debate Association

brand, worked with various department

representatives to the lovely people

leaders, learned about marketing

at Elizabeth Arden, and my fellow SLC

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

“We chose to offer this unique internship experience to members of the SLC because this group of student leaders has shown outstanding commitment and dedication to speech and debate throughout the year.”

— Steve Schappaugh, Director of Programs and Education

interns, there was something truly special about being in a room full of passionate people.”

Meet the Interns

Following a highly competitive application process, six student interns were selected from more than 100 members of the Student Leadership Committee this spring.

“We chose to offer this unique internship experience to members of the SLC because this group of student leaders has shown outstanding commitment and dedication to speech and debate throughout the year,” said Director of Programs and Education Steve Schappaugh. “We are excited to offer SLC students exclusive internship and scholarship opportunities in the 2015-2016 school year, as well.”

From Las Vegas to Indiana and Texas, the six selected student interns traveled from across the country to participate in the Elizabeth Arden Internship Program in New York City.

Elizabeth Arden is a global beauty products company. The student interns had the opportunity to work with nearly every department within the organization. From marketing and communications to fragrance, legal, and human resources, the interns had the opportunity to meet one-on-one with numerous department eaders including the Vice President of Elzabeth Arden, Joel Ronkin. The students learned about their departments, their daily work, their career paths to Elizabeth Arden, and much more.

“I learned a lot about networking and how to build a brand,” said student

Michelle Ma (‘17) – McLean HS, VA “Interning at Elizabeth Arden was a once in a lifetime experience!

From having the invaluable experience talking one-on-one with financial, legal, marketing, and PR professionals to walking down the streets of New York City with some of the nation’s most accomplished debaters, I can honestly say those three days were the highlight of my summer and also the highlight of my life!”

Kris Alighchi ('15) – Rancho HS, NV “This internship is a life-changing experience with every moment being a stepping stone paving the path toward greater achievements. I utilized the connections I obtained within Elizabeth Arden to cooperatively develop a club within my college to aid homeless women applying for jobs.”

Noah Weinflash ('15) – Montville HS, NJ “This is a dream internship! The advice we were given will definitely shape how I’ll spend my college years.

We were exposed to all the different parts of Elizabeth Arden. I learned about networking and building a brand.”

Jake Mazeitis {'15) – Park Hill South HS, MO “This is truly a once in a lifetime opportunity to work with some of the most skilled and engaging professionals the marketing industry has to offer, all while getting to know some of the most skilled and engaging students in the National Speech & Debate Association. I never wanted to leave!”

Jessica Zhang ('17) – The Woodlands College Park HS, TX “My favorite part of the internship was interacting with all the employees at Elizabeth Arden and being treated as part of their close-knit family. I learned about the importance of networking and being open to new ideas that may seem out of my comfort zone. I have become more eager to talk to people and express my thoughts as a result of this experience.”

Emily McKenzie ('16) – Plymouth HS, IN “The internship was incredible! This opportunity will help me in my future aspirations. I learned so much from the advice Elizabeth Arden staff and other interns shared.”

intern Noah Weinflash. “Elizabeth Arden employees told us about their

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 115

a story through your senses is vital to successful marketing campaigns.

“The session at International Flavors

specific journeys into their current positions, and gave their advice on how we can most effectively use our college years. The advice we were given will definitely shape my college years.”

“As someone who has always been interested in law, and loves the idea of working in New York City, talking to Elizabeth Arden’s in-house lawyer and listening to her insights has me wildly

“I learned how to use marketing terminology effectively and correctly, and how to relate with customers

and Fragrances is one I will never

on a personal level, be it through a

forget,” said student intern Jessica

nationwide campaign or a personal

Zhang. “The activity taught me to

interaction,” said student intern Jake

view the importance of our senses

Mazeitis. “The skills I learned during

in a completely new way; finding the

this internship will help me begin to

extraordinary in the ordinary was eye

translate my debate skills into the

opening.”

professional realm.”

At the end of the three-day

Along with the invaluable

program, the students had the

educational experience, the six student

opportunity to put their new

interns also had the opportunity to

knowledge to the test with a branding

explore the New York City culture.

exercise and presentation to an

From learning to ride the subway to

Elizabeth Arden executive.

cheering on the Yankees to watching

interested in a similar job in the future,” said Ma. Additionally, the students had an opportunity to learn about synesthesia with a visit to International Flavors and Fragrances, one of Elizabeth Arden’s partners. From creating a fragrance to associating scents with

“I learned a lot about networking and how to build a brand. The advice we were given will definitely shape my college years.”

— Noah Weinflash

colors and feelings, this unique field trip taught the students how telling

116

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

(below) • Interns Jessica Zhang (left) and Michelle Ma (right) gave a presentation during the three-day summer internship experience.

“The skills I learned during this internship will help me begin to translate my debate skills into the professional realm.”

— Jake Mazeitis

a Broadway Show, the internship experience was something these students will never forget.

“This internship was truly a lifechanging experience,” said student intern Kris Alighchi. “Every session was incredibly interesting and unique, and I loved being immersed in the New York culture since I’m

(pictured at right, top to bottom) • The six interns posed in front of the iconic Red Door at Elizabeth Arden, Inc. • The students toured Elizabeth Arden stores throughout New York City. • Kris Alighchi gained insights from Doug Anderson during the store tour. • The SLC students spent time with the Vice President of Elizabeth Arden, Joel Ronkin.

from Nevada.”

“This internship was one of the best experiences I have ever had. It

“The program couldn’t

was my first time going to New York,

have gone any better,” said

and it has always been a dream,”

Schappaugh. “We’re currently

said student intern Emily McKenzie.

working with Elizabeth Arden

“I created so many memories with

to see how we can improve the

amazing people, and I learned so

program in the future. This is just

many new things thanks to Elizabeth

the beginning of many amazing

Arden.”

internships SLC members will be

Because of the success of the

able to access.”

2015 Elizabeth Arden Internship Program, the National Speech & Debate Association will offer a 2016 Elizabeth Arden Internship Program to members of the Student Leadership Committee.

Shelby Young is the manager of marketing and communications for the National Speech & Debate Association.

A special note of thanks to our partners at Elizabeth Arden.

Along with providing this experience for our student members, Elizabeth Arden also awarded all of our Diamond Coaches with a $200 gift at the 2015 National Speech & Debate Tournament. Thank you for your support!

Apply for the 2015-2016 Student Leadership Committee. It’s easy! Students can fill out the application form at www.speechanddebate.org/slc.

All applications are due September 24!

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 117

*Based on US home use consumer test on 62 women aged 25-59 after 8 weeks. ©2015 Elizabeth Arden, Inc.

JUMP START YOUR DAY, NOW!

SUPERSTART

Skin Renewal Booster INNOVATION

Boost your skin’s natural defenses.

Boost your skin’s ability to renew.

Boost the results of your skincare products.

Developed by Arden Active Skincare, SUPERSTART SKIN RENEWAL BOOSTER helps restore the healthy look of your skin’s surface layer, fortifying its natural ability to repair and renew. Used before a serum or moisturizer, it boosts the results of your skincare products.

Your skin is beautiful, resilient and refreshed, ready to face the day.

Proof... not Promises™ 95% of women agree that SUPERSTART boosts the effectiveness of their skincare products.*

Elizabeth Arden partners with National Speech and Debate to inspire young minds.

elizabetharden.com

T:10.875”

B:11.375”

ALUMNI SPOTLIGHT

‘‘

|

Audrey Cooper

by S. L. Chandler

T

Everyone should try forensics. Not every school offers it, but lucky are those students whose schools do. I believe adolescents need to have an extra-curricular outlet like speech to stimulate the intellect.”

he 2015 Nationals are history.

with all the seals she earned in

adolescents need to have an extra-

Scattered to the proverbial

semesters of competition.

curricular outlet like speech to

four corners of America are

The now current (and first

its contestants with memories to

female) editor-in-chief of the San

savor and some to be forgotten. But

Francisco Chronicle, the city’s major

many supportive teachers she had, but

to Audrey Cooper, former two-time

daily newspaper, was in a happily

her demeanor changed when she

Nationals competitor for Shawnee

reminiscent mood as she recalled

remembered one of Shawnee’s

Mission High School in Kansas,

those days and weekends on the

assistant coaches: “He forbade me to

the memories are forever green—

road, despite the fact that, in Original

wear a green dress for any tournament.

especially when we presented her with

Oratory, she was “so tired of having

And that injunction lasted for three

a freshly made copy of her original

to give the same speech for five

years!”

Honor Society certificate, complete

months.”

There were times, of course, when

As a youngster, Audrey was never reluctant to speak in public, so joining the speech team came naturally. To

a fast talker. I learned to do that in

this day, she knows how valuable

a debate camp even before I got to

her experiences were. “Now, I have

Shawnee. But I would advise people in

a basic speech that I use regularly

general, and forensicaters in particular,

at conferences. Debate taught me

to speak slowly. It’s much better

how to stand in a room wearing high

preparation for the real world.”

heels, facing a crowd who judges what

should try forensics. Not every school offers it, but lucky are those students whose schools do. I believe

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

She recalled with fondness those

she did debate and admitted she “was

In fact, she added, “Everyone

120

stimulate the intellect.”

you say while they get to munch on canapés.”

It’s a little different now, what with technology and all. Editor Cooper

remembers how “we used to tape

she qualified. She “didn’t do

speeches ourselves—no video or iPads,

too well in competition but

for example. It was never an easy job.

had a terrific time anyway.”

Times change, and I guess we all do.”

She met Kirk Seward first

Reflecting on her college years,

when he was part of an

she did Parli and “thought it weird.”

official greeters’ group (Big

She joined a sorority and did student

Brothers) who showed

government. Doing debate had taught

the new kids around the

her “to speak above a whisper.” Around

school. “He laughed at me,”

that time, she gravitated toward

she remembered, “because

journalism. Cooper found that she

I just had minor surgery

liked Policy Debate—its emphasis on

on my forehead and was

governmental and legal issues led her

wearing a bandage!” In any event, they

to study the political journalists and

had speech in common, and much

see a career for herself, as well.

more as time went on, and have been

To this day, even though she’s not

married several years now. Kirk is the

Audrey Cooper serves as Editor-In-Chief for The San Francisco Chronicle.

When I mentioned Supreme Court

the editorial page editor, she sits in

founder of Mercator MedSystems,

Justices, she smiled. Justice Sonia

on all editorial meetings, which, at

Inc., and travels extensively for his

Sotomayor is one of the editor’s real

The Chronicle, are open to all staff

work, no doubt using the same powers

favorites: “I see her as the next Sandra

members.

of persuasion he used to qualify for

Day O’Connor.”

With the steady demands as The Chronicle’s editor-in-chief, as well as

Nationals in debate.

As a teacher and speech coach

Audrey didn’t follow the legal path, but justice has clearly been served with

a wife and mother, she says, “a good

myself, I couldn’t resist asking

her tenure as a gifted and successful

week is a 60-hour one and a bad one

Audrey what she thinks of the

editor-in-chief of one of California’s

more like 100. It’s especially tough on

speaking abilities of various American

most respected newspapers. The

women like me who want to work in

personalities.

Chronicle and she are indeed lucky to

journalism and raise a family (she has a

On a scale of 1 to 10, she gives

two-year old son). It’s difficult—if not

President Obama a 9.5, but Presidential

almost impossible—to respond to the

hopeful Hillary Clinton, she thinks, “is

24-hour cycle in this business.” Clearly

not that good a speaker.” Better in her

she needs (and has) a fine support

opinion are Senator Elizabeth Warren

system.

and MSNBC commentator Rachel

The saying “birds of a feather

Maddow, who gets her “spunky award.”

flock together” certainly is true for

She also reserved kudos for Sarah Palin

Audrey. Her husband not only went

who, she says, “knows how to relate to

to the same high school, but made it

her audience and comes off as a very

to Nationals around the same time

sympathetic person.”

have each other.

S. L. Chandler has been a coach for more than 40 years, and enjoys running middle school speech tournaments in the San Francisco Bay Area. His byline has appeared in The New York Times, National Inquirer, New York Daily News, San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Examiner, Japan’s Mainichi Daily News, and England’s Manchester Guardian. Chandler’s work also appears regularly in Humortimes.com.

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 121

COACH PROFILE Matt and Toni Heimes

by Russ Godek

This Nebraska power couple is gearing up for their 23rd year of coaching speech and debate.

Learn how they met, their journey together, and what keeps them motivated every single day.

Y

ou don’t have to be in Nebraska long before you know that Matt and Toni Heimes are names that matter.

Both natives of the Cornhusker State, their paths first crossed at the University of Nebraska Kearney. Toni was a small-town girl with coaching in her blood, thanks to her father, who was a longtime speech coach.

Matt, a business major at the time, took interest in the school’s theatre production in the hopes of rekindling his love of the stage. Little did he

122

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

know, his future wife would be in the performance that night. They soon became Duo Interpretation partners and the rest, as they say, is history.

This power couple of speech and debate is now in their 23rd year of the activity and starting their 14th year at Lincoln Southwest High School.

Matt and Toni built the speech and debate program from the ground up since the school’s opening in 2002.

“One of the first things we did was convince the administration to let us join the National Speech & Debate Association,” said Matt.

“Getting the opportunity to go to National Tournaments fairly early in our careers made such a difference.”

Appearing at Nationals afforded them the opportunity to bring ideas about technique and material back to Nebraska with them, giving their

students access to knowledge from around the country.

Since Matt coaches speech while Toni coaches debate, running the teams together allows them a unique opportunity when deciding on events with students.

“If a student comes into my class thinking he’s a debater, but I can tell he will be better in interpretation events, I can easily shift him to find success with Matt,” Toni explained.

The program has found much success since its inception. They have appeared at 13 National Tournaments, and most recently received a School of Excellence Award at the 2013 Nationals in Birmingham, Alabama.

That kind of success comes with a lot of time and energy put into practice, preparation, and teaching.

That is why Toni insists on the same advice for coaches new to the activity. “Take care of yourself,” she says. “If you’re not spending time with your family, that’s when it

becomes a burden and you are not able to be the best you can be for your students.”

It’s important not to lose perspective, however, and Matt is gratefully aware of the luxury in being a married couple in this activity. “We are lucky—we get to do this as a family, so when we travel for tournaments, we travel together, which makes it more enjoyable.”

“Speech and debate has taken two small-town Nebraska kids and given us the opportunity to do things we never thought we’d do before,” said Toni.

While the plane trips (they had never flown on a plane prior) are fun and the cities are nice to visit, it’s the people that matter the most to her.

“The people we’ve met and relationships we’ve developed have made us more worldly and more understanding of different situations,” she said. “For that, I am forever grateful.”

If it were not for speech and debate, you may have found Matt

ON NATIONALS

“The exposure that comes with going to the National Tournament has been great. We’ve met many wonderful people because of the Association.”

– Matt Heimes

ON TECHNOLOGY

“Technology is bringing us closer together—I can invite coaches into my classroom to help coach, despite them being on the other side of the country.”

– Toni Heimes behind a desk in an office these days.

“I probably would not have stayed in teaching were it not for the coaching element,” he said. “That very different level of connection you develop by coaching—working with kids one-on-one, creating characters and expanding their writing—it’s something you just don’t get in a regular classroom.”

While they take great enjoyment from their involvement in the activity, at the end of the day, it’s always about the students. “The outlet that speech and debate offers students is unparalleled,” said Matt. “I love the creativity and confidence that it helps students develop.”

Russ Godek serves as Communications Associate for the National Speech & Debate Association.

CrossFire We took a page out of James Lipton's book and asked the couple our own version of the pivot questionnaire.

TONI What is your favorite word? benign Who is your favorite author?

Sharon Olds What is your biggest pet peeve? details What is your favorite movie?

Howard the Duck If you could meet anyone in history, who would it be?

Amelia Earhart

MATT What is your favorite word? creatify Who is your favorite author?

John Logan What is your biggest pet peeve? lack of follow-through What is your favorite movie?

Moulin Rouge If you could meet anyone in history, who would it be?

William Shakespeare

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 123

District in Detail New Jersey

compiled by Mary T. Gormley

Meet the District Committee Mary T. Gormley, Chair Montville High School – Montville, NJ

Phillip John Drummond Freehold Township High School – Freehold, NJ

Renee Drummond Elizabeth High School – Elizabeth, NJ

Fr. Michael Tidd, OSB Delbarton School – Morristown, NJ

David A. Yastremski Ridge High School – Basking Ridge, NJ

Mary Gormley was named the 2014-15 Chair of the Year at the District Leadership Luncheon and Awards Ceremony held June 14, 2015, during the National Speech & Debate Tournament in Dallas, Texas.

Below, she shares some insights, challenges, and accomplishments from her state and local community.

124

What makes the New Jersey district unique? Perhaps what makes us unique is that our district is essentially the same as our state league. The leadership crosses over into both organizations, and as a result, all of our weekly state competitions follow the same rules mandated for the District Tournament. New Jersey schools are also unique because speech and debate is strictly an after-school extracurricular activity.

What challenge do you face as a district that you have a hunch other districts also face, and how do you approach it? I believe that the biggest problem facing our district, and the state league in general, is coach attrition. Some of our big and powerful programs, particularly in the southern part of the state, have become dormant because of the death or retirement of a coach. The

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015

lack of participation in that region has made weekly travel burdensome for those who remain. We try to be as proactive as possible to keep these programs alive, but rapid turnover in faculties and administration, as well as a lackluster financial commitment from some Boards of Education, have made some of our best programs a faded memory.

That being said, there is plenty of interest on the part of parents and students to start programs in New Jersey! I am inundated by emails, particularly in the summer, from prospective new programs. I follow through by contacting potential schools and forwarding additional information. Some stick, but unfortunately many are discouraged by a lack of commitment from administration. This has resulted in the emergence of buy-in after-school programs that give students a taste

of competition at tournaments on college campuses.

As an elected body, your district committee can change from year to year. What’s one action or principle you believe adds stability to the committee structure? Our committee has remained fairly stable over the last several years, most likely because our longest running programs have maintained its core. Although this is in many respects a positive, finding people willing to assume leadership positions is always an issue.

Fresh, new leaders are important, and we try to tap those resources—but sometimes it backfires by scaring off new coaches who complain they don’t have time, or don’t make enough money, to put in the extra time.

This issue of Rostrum celebrates the National Tournament. Tell us about

a time something really great happened for your district at the tournament.

Although individual school affiliations are important, once we arrive at Nationals, we become Team New Jersey. As a district, we make a concerted effort to work as a unified team. Each year we plan a kick-off dinner; this year was no exception. When possible, we try to stay at the same hotel. This summer in Dallas we went to the Book Depository together; many of us also took in the rodeo. We share our team codes and follow each other into out-rounds. This year we have much to be proud of as a district in U.S. Extemp, Original Oratory, Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, the House and Senate, Policy, Extemporaneous Debate, and World Schools Debate.

Other than running the district tournament, what ways do you think a district committee can most add value for its member schools?

Because our state and district are almost identical in composition and leadership, we are fortunate to be able to take fledgling coaches and teams under our wing. Sitting down with new coaches is vital to new programs. Going back 28 years to

when I first started, I know the most intimidating part of competition is watching the success of long-standing programs. New coaches need to be assured their programs have that potential. Having students stay to watch final rounds is important.

Walking new coaches through the paperwork is also important.

Although filling out point sheets by hand and calculating point totals is no longer a process, navigating the website still needs a tutorial or two. Entering points accurately and in a timely manner ultimately benefits the entire district come District Tournament time.

You’ve attended the Summer Leadership Conference. What do you find most useful about that event?

The Summer Leadership Conference has been a great opportunity to commiserate, collaborate, and celebrate the things we confront as an organization. One of the many benefits of the National Speech & Debate Association I cite when speaking to new members and their parents each fall is the exposure to a diverse group of individuals with a common goal—to communicate effectively before a multicultural audience. No less can be said for this conference. I have met and become friends with an extraordinary group of individuals through this experience.

Why do the students of the New Jersey district make you proud to support and represent them? What

makes me most proud of the students from New Jersey is their willingness to cross boundaries from which most high school students are insulated.

As a state and as a district, we are ethnically and racially diverse. In sports, urban and suburban athletes rarely cross paths. But for us, on any given Saturday, students from Newark, Basking Ridge, Princeton, Phillipsburg, and Elizabeth will be in the same room. The audience and judges shift dramatically from round to round. As a result, critiques run a wide gamut.

New Jersey students learn resilience in the face of multifarious criticism and to adapt accordingly. What better way to immerse children in a culture they will encounter in college and in life beyond the academic world?

“Sitting down with new coaches is vital to new programs. I know the most intimidating part of competition is watching the success of long-standing programs. New coaches need to be assured their programs have that potential.”

Rostrum | SUMMER 2015 125

REGISTER & TAB WITH US Low Cost • Flexibility • Support • Auto-Pointing

NEW IN 2015-2016:

LOW COST – Member coaches can use the JOT registration website (up to 1,199 entries) AND tabulation software (Standalone Version only) for a flat rate of $225!

BENEFITS:

Great for state and invitational tournaments!

FLEXIBILITY – You can still use Tabroom or TRPC tabulation software, even if teams register for your tournament through JOT.

SUPPORT – Flat rate includes free tech support for the JOT registration website and tabulation software.

AUTO-POINTING – Teams who register through JOT do not need to enter points manually after your tournament. Points will be uploaded automatically!

DISTRICT LEADERS:

Remember, Joy of Tournaments is absolutely free to use web registration and tabulation software for your District Tournament! Plus, free support is provided to all districts using JOT. This is a value of well over $250! Districts are required to use the JOT registration website for their National Speech & Debate Association District Tournament.

Contact support@joyoftournaments.com to get started today!

PUBLIC DEBATE & LEADERSHIP PROGRAMS

OUTSTANDING LEADER IN NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL DEBATE & LEADERSHIP INSTRUCTION 2016 SUMMER PROGRAMS

CLAREMONT SUMMER Residential/commuter sessions for 500 debate and leadership communication students. Application and comprehensive Information is available at claremontsummer.org.

2015-­‐16 PROGRAMMING

National Youth, Middle School, and High School Public Debate Programs

The Youth, Middle School, and High School Public Debate Programs (YPDP, MSPDP and HSPDP) offer integrated class/critical thinking instruction and debate competition for secondary schools. Major educational and civil rights non-­‐profit organizations in the US and abroad use PDP materials and programming for critical thinking, professional communication, language development, and girls’ and women’s empowerment instruction. The PDP proprietary competitive debate formats are developed and evaluated to maximize student educational outcomes and accelerate standards-­‐based learning and promote sophisticated public speaking, critical thinking, research, argumentation, and refutation skills.

In Summer 2015, the PDP established new programs in Pakistan, Costa Rica, India, Brazil, and China.

International High School Debate Program

US high school students are eligible to apply to participate in the International Public Debate Program (IPDP). The IPDP offers tournament and international exchange opportunities in 9-­‐12 countries each year. The 2015-­‐16 schedule already includes a dozen major events. Instruction includes preparation for international debating in 3 international debate formats. Half of the students selected for the National Speech & Debate Association’s international debate squad were award-­‐winning IPDP debaters, previously earning top team and individual honors at the Pan American, Heart of Europe, Eurasian, and China National championships. In addition to tournament competition, students lead workshop sessions, participate in demonstration and public debates, and promote public speaking and argumentation instruction in the classroom. For example, IPDP debaters have served as debate workshop staff and participated in roundtable discussion and public debate events in Qatar, United Kingdom, Korea, China, and New Zealand.

Leadership Communication Program

High school students are eligible to participate in Claremont’s Civics in Action program, a social and political advocacy group promoting innovative ideas and workable, sustainable educational and community projects. The program uses curricular materials, methods, and individual and group presentation exercises (extemporaneous speaking, roundtable discussion, town hall meeting, multimedia presentation, social networking and social professional communication) developed for businesses, non-­‐profit organizations, and higher education. Students prepare leadership and school/community projects for evaluation by field professionals, including university faculty, lawyers, financial analysts, and non-­‐profit organization staff.

For more information, please visit highschooldebate.org.

PUBLIC DEBATE PROGRAM (PDP) OPEN ENROLLMENT The Public Debate Program sponsors public speaking, argumentation, and debate training for more than 650,000 teachers and students in 25 countries each year. US middle schools and high schools are invited to join established Public Debate Program leagues. Schools may also opt to serve as ‘anchors’ for new debate leagues. For program information, please review the format, instruction, rubric, video, and other materials at highschooldebate.org.

LEADERSHIP COMMUNICATION PROGRAMMING Claremont’s Civics in Action program features opportunities to learn management communication skills and participate in national and international leadership projects and conferences.

PROGRAM DIRECTOR John Meany Director of Forensics Claremont McKenna College Claremont Colleges Debate Union john.meany@cmc.edu

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

USA Debate 2014-2015

those were the days!

Five students represented the United States at the World Championships in Singapore, where the team placed tenth in the world!

D EB AT E A DEB TE • USA S • A U E B T • USA A E • A A D S T E • U S A D E B AT E • U S A D E B AT E • U S A D E B AT D E B AT E U S A AT E • U DEB B E A S A U S D E • • U D E B AT E

To follow the 2015-2016 team, visit www.speechanddebate.org/USADebate.

Order Extemp Questions for Your Next Tournament!

Save time and order low cost Extemp Questions from the National Speech & Debate Association! PLUS, help your students prepare by utilizing questions authored and reviewed by the same team that produces questions for the National Speech & Debate Tournament!

Instructions: 1. Fill out a short form at www.speechanddebate.org/ExtempQuestionsService.

2. Share specifics about your tournament, and our experienced team will write the questions for you.

3. Topic areas will be released two weeks before your tournament, and all questions will be in your inbox the Thursday before the tournament begins.

Pricing:

GENERAL PUBLIC

MEMBERS

SINGLE Division

$50 per Round

$35 per Round

$100 per Tournament

TWO Divisions

$80 per Round

$50 per Round

$150 per Tournament

*Save up to $30 per Round*

RESOURCE PACKAGE (up to 7 rounds)

(up to 7 rounds)

*Save up to $410 per Tournament!*

The questions that the Extemp Questions Service wrote for my invitational last year were interesting, fun, timely, and incisive. I can’t emphasize enough how nice it was to have one last thing to stress about as I prepped my tournament, at such an affordable price point!

– Justin Weaver, Coach National Speech & Debate Association • 125 Watson Street, Ripon, WI 54971 • (920) 748-6206 • www.speechanddebate.org

www.facebook.com/speechanddebate www.instagram.com/speechanddebate www.twitter.com/speechanddebate

Our Mission We believe communication skills are essential for empowering youth to become engaged citizens, skilled professionals, and honorable leaders in our

Learn more about how you can help give youth a voice!

global society. We connect, support, and inspire

www.speechanddebate.org

a diverse community of honor society members

info@speechanddebate.org

committed to fostering excellence in young people through competitive speech and debate activities.

Code of Honor Our Vision We envision a world in which every student has access to competitive speech and debate activities.

We are the leading voice in the development of resources, competitive and ethical standards, curricular and co-curricular opportunities, and recognition systems for our vast network of student, coach, and alumni members.

“As a member of the National Speech & Debate Association, I pledge to uphold the highest standards of integrity, humility, respect, leadership, and service in the pursuit of excellence.�