Issuu on Google+

Rostrum A PUBLICATION OF THE NATIONAL SPEECH & DEBATE ASSOCIATION

VOLUME 90 ISSUE 4 SPRING 2016

EBATM is the driver of change at our school. It is the lever to increase student performance overall.” ­— Renee McCall Principal at Timilty Middle School in Roxbury, MA

Boston Public Schools Embrace Evidence-Based Argumentation (EBATM)


NOW  ACCEPTING  APPLICATIONS  FOR  2016  

The University of Texas National Institute in Forensics is one of the largest and most successful summer speech and debate workshops in the country. UTNIF has a reputation for engaging students from across the nation in the kind of training that leads rather than follows performative and argumentative trends. UTNIF students have won championships and final rounds at the National Speech and Debate Association national tournament in Extemp, Humorous Interp, Dramatic Interp, Poetry, the House, the Senate, Policy Debate, Public Forum, and more. Our students consistently excel at the TOC and NIETOC. Join us this summer and see for yourself why UTNIF has made such an impact on speech and debate education for over 20 years.

2016 UTNIF Program Dates Individual Events main session

June 25 – July 9

Individual Events with extension

June 25 – July 13

CX 6 Week Summer Survivors

June 23 – August 4

CX Session 1 (Skills Intensive, Advanced Topic Intensive, Sophomore Select) CX Session 2 (Skills Intensive, Advanced Topic Intensive, Novice) Public Forum (all skill levels accommodated) Lincoln Douglas (all skill levels accommodated) Lincoln Douglas with extension

June 23 – July 13 July 15 – August 4 June 22 – July 4 July 17 – July 31 July 17 – August 4

For complete information on UTNIF Individual Events workshops, please visit www.utspeech.net For complete UTNIF debate camp information, please visit www.utdebatecamp.com UTNIF Contact: jvreed@austin.utexas.edu *please check our websites for final dates and program info.


Save The Date! August 24–27, 2017

Join the National Speech & Debate Association for the inaugural national education conference in Denver, Colorado with our gracious hosts Cherry Creek High School and the Colorado High School Activities Association (CHSAA). Attendees can earn up to 20 hours of professional development as well as possible graduate credit hours!

For information about hotels, schedule, and more, please visit

www.speechanddebate.org/conference. Bring your talents to Denver! Apply to become a presenter for the education conference. Share knowledge with the network of speech and debate coaches and earn valuable hours toward your Professional Speech & Debate Educator accreditation! See our webiste for details.


In this Issue : VOLUME 90 : ISSUE 4 : SPRING 2016

From the Cover

Inside

79

4

Boston Public Schools Embrace Evidence-Based Argumentation (EBATM ) by Sarah Mayper

Features 8

Celebrating National Speech and Debate Education Day

39

USA Debate Team Travels to Slovenia, Canada, and Beyond by Liz Yount

59

2016-2017 Policy Debate Topic Overview by Stefan Bauschard

84

Voices of the Future: Atlanta Students Engage in the Democratic Process

112

Giving Back: By the Numbers by Phil Gibson

National Tournament Preview 10

Overview of High School Tournament Logistics

13

Salt Lake City Venue Guide

16

Salt Lake City Hotel Guide

20

Salt Lake City Transportation Guide

23

Overview of Middle School Tournament Logistics

From the Editor

5 Topics 26

Curriculum Corner

32

Get With the Program

45

Coach Profile: Donus D. Roberts

47

Diamond Coach Recognition

51

Donus D. Roberts Quad Ruby Coach Recognition

52

Triple Ruby Coach Recognition

90

Alumni Spotlight: Anand Veeravagu

94

Student Service Citations

104 Academic All Americans 105 Welcome New Schools 111

Top 50 Districts

Like us on Facebook /speechanddebate

Share with us on Instagram /speechanddebate

Follow us on Twitter @speechanddebate

ROSTRUM | SPRING 2016 3


From the Editor

Board of Directors

As we approach the National Tournament in Salt Lake City, many of you are focused on polishing up performances, getting in some additional practices each week, and advising your students on how to compete with the very best in the country. While we know competition is inherent in local, district, and national tournaments, it is also a powerful tool for teaching critical thinking and analytical skills in and out of the classroom. In this issue, you will learn more about Evidence-Based Argumentation (EBATM) in Boston Public Schools, highlighting teachers who are using unique, debate-inspired activities to giving youth a voice throughout their school district. You will discover how middle school students in Atlanta are embracing critical thinking in the campaign process. You will travel with the USA Debate team as they continue to grapple with important and diverse topics across the globe. This month, we also aim to enhance your competitive success by identifying strategies for addressing next year’s Policy Debate topic. We share how our top diamond coaches engage their students to make them better competitors as well as critical thinkers and creative performers. Finally, we celebrate our first-ever eleventh diamond coach who has worked for decades to make students excellent competitors as well as outstanding citizens. I can’t wait to see many of you in Salt Lake City. Best of luck to our 2016 graduates! Sincerely,

Rostrum 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 | SPRING 2016

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 Dr. 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

J. Scott Wunn Executive Director

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


Topics

Current topics and resources are available at:

www.speechanddebate.org/topics

2016 National tournament

Public Forum Debate Resolution will be released May 1, 2016, at www.speechanddebate.org/topics.

2016 National tournament

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Resolution will be released May 1, 2016, at www.speechanddebate.org/topics.

2016 National tournament

Congressional Debate Legislation The national office will release the high school docket on May 10, 2016, which contains 25 preliminary legislation, 12 semifinal legislation, and 5 final legislation. There will be no Alpha or Omega dockets; chambers will set their agenda (order of business) prior to debating.

2016 National tournament 2015–2016

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

Extemp Areas for IX, USX, Commentary Topic areas will be released May 1, 2016, at www.speechanddebate.org/topics.

2016 USA INVITATIONAL

World Schools Debate 2016 National tournament

Storytelling

Prepared motions will be released May 1, 2016, at www.speechanddebate.org/topics.

Any Theme

Coaches and Students: We need your input! The PF and LD Topic Wording Committees are seeking PF topic areas and LD resolutions for the 2016-2017 school year. Access the online submission forms by visiting our website: www.speechanddebate.org/topics. Submission

deadline is May 15.

Rostrum | SPRING 2016 5


le Schednu a n! auditio Western Kentucky University

Brian Anderson and Andrea Ambam, class of 2019.

THIS IS WKU FORENSICS To the University, Forensics is an opportunity to demonstrate academic excellence, to excel in competition of the intellect, and to extend the academic atmosphere. To the student, Forensics is an opportunity to cultivate life-long friendships, travel the country, and do what you love. WKU remains the only team in the history of collegiate forensics to win the American Forensics Association team sweepstakes, the National Forensics Association (NFA) Individual Events team sweepstakes and the NFA Debate team sweepstakes all in the same year, a feat which it has now accomplished nine times. Last year, WKU won its 25th consecutive state championship title.

UNITY • LEADERSHIP • INNOVATION • DISCIPLINE • GRATITUDE

WKU Forensics; Ganer Newman 1906 College Heights Blvd. #51084 Bowling Green, KY 42101-1084 phone: 270-745-6340

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


West Coast Publishing THE ULTIMATE PACKAGE includes all 4 sets listed below

Affs, DAs, CPs, Ks Monthly updates

Every NSDA & UIL Topic, Values, Philosophers

Extemp Articles, PubForum Pro & Con

Textbooks, Teacher Materials, Dictionary

Go to www.wcdebate.com More Info, Previews, Online & Printable Order Form at the Website

Climb the Mountain Speech & Debate Camp Policy, LD, Public Forum July 25-30, 2016

Congress Debate Session

July 25-27, 2016

Individual Events Session

July 28-30, 2016

For Students and also specialized courses for coaches

Outstanding Lab Leaders, Individual Attention Drills, Practice Debates and Presentations Beautiful Location, Modern Classrooms Family Feel, Great Value

Held at Pacific Lutheran University Tacoma, WA

Go to: www.climbthemountain.us/camp.htm More Info, Lab Leaders, Registration, Prices at the Website.


On March 15, 2016, the hard work of our students and coaches, along with the value of speech and debate, was officially recognized by the United States Senate! Co-sponsors of U.S. Senate Resolution 398 include Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), Sen. Christopher Coons (D-Delaware), and Sen. Angus King, Jr. (I-Maine). Download a printable version by visiting our website: www.speechanddebate.org/worldspeechday.


March 15, 2016

To celebrate National Speech and Debate Education Day, we asked our alumni the question: “How did your experience in speech and debate help you get to where you are today?”

#unexpectedvoices #voicesofthefuture “My job involves a tremendous amount of public speaking. I’m constantly pitching to executives and producers, and I have to translate my specific passion clearly, succinctly, and persuasively— which is no different than persuading a judge in the back of a classroom. Debate was the single most formative thing I’ve ever done in my life, and I am thankful every day for the lessons that I learned.” — Alex Berger, TV Writer/Producer, Blindspot “The ability to combine friendships across the country with a real passionate vigor and intellectual curiosity made speech and debate one of the best, most fun, and most adrenaline inducing activities that I ever participated in, not just in high school, but frankly, in the entirety of my life.” — Vikrum D. Aiyer, named to Forbes Magazine’s 30 Under 30 List for Law and Policy in 2015 “It was the first opportunity I ever had to get up in front of people and feel that my opinion or my thoughts or what I had to say about the world, or a topic, or anything was worthy of attention and consideration.” — Carson Elrod, Actor

“What debate taught me that I will always cherish is a way of thinking about the world—how to make the best arguments and decisions by identifying and comparing the perspectives on every side of an issue and then synthesizing all of that into a framework for making an argument or a decision.” — Brad Hall, Director of Policy and Research, Office of Al Gore

“My participation in debate and forensics gives me the confidence to speak at any table. Whether I am working on a school project or on the board of a local nonprofit, I know I will be able to express myself clearly.” — Anna Zimmerman, Business Administration major at Emporia State University in Kansas

We’re already making plans for next year— we hope you’ll join us!

SAVE THE DATE

MARCH 3, 2017

Check out our entire video showcase online!

www.speechanddebate.org/worldspeechday


National Speech & Debate Tournament JUNE 12-17, 2016 | Salt Lake City, Utah OVERVIEW OF HIGH SCHOOL TOURNAMENT LOGISTICS SUNDay • JUNE 12 (Registration and Expo) This year, tournament registration and the expo will take place Sunday, June 12, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the Salt Palace Convention Center in downtown Salt Lake City, UT. The Sheraton Salt Lake City and the Hilton Salt Lake City Center are the host hotels for the tournament and are located near the Salt Palace Convention Center where the final rounds and awards assembly will be held. Schools staying in any of the recommended properties will find this extremely convenient.

MONDAY and tuesday • JUNE 13-14 (Prelim Rounds/Early Elims/Local Host Posting Party) Nine venues will be used for preliminary competition, June 13-14. All main event preliminary and early elimination competition on Monday and Tuesday will occur between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. High school Congressional Debate will be hosted at the Sheraton Salt Lake City (House) and Hilton Salt Lake City Center (Senate). Alta High School will host preliminary rounds of Extemporaneous Speaking and Original Oratory. Butler Middle School will host preliminary rounds of Lincoln-Douglas Debate. Brighton High School will host preliminary rounds of Public Forum Debate. Hillcrest High School will host preliminary rounds of Policy Debate. Jordan High School will host preliminary rounds of Humorous, Dramatic, and Duo Interpretation. Mount Jordan Middle School will host preliminary rounds of Program Oral Interpretation and Informative Speaking. Indian Hills Middle School will host World Schools Debate competition. The student posting party will take place at the Gallivan Center plaza. Students eliminated from main event competition on Tuesday will re-register for Wednesday supplemental events upstairs in Gallivan Hall (located at the north end of the plaza) during the student posting party.

WEDNESDAY • JUNE 15 (Elim Rounds/Supplemental Events) Five venues will be used on Wednesday. All competition will occur between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Students who qualify for elimination round 9 of all main speech and debate events will compete at Brighton High School. World Schools Debate will also move to Brighton High School on Wednesday. High school Congressional Debate semifinals will be held at the Hilton Salt Lake City Center. Those students re-registered for supplemental speech events will compete at Jordan High School. Those students re-registered in Extemporaneous Debate will compete at Mount Jordan Middle School. Note: Middle school competition begins Wednesday, with MS debate events at Alta High School and MS speech events at Indian Hills Middle School. Buses will be available to shuttle high school students interested in judging.

THURSDAY • JUNE 16 (Elim Rounds/Supp-Cons Events/Interp Finals/Diamond Awards)

Registration Materials are Due May 2!

Thursday morning, debate elimination rounds will continue at Brighton High School. High school Congressional Debate will hold its final round sessions at the Hilton Salt Lake City Center. All supplemental and consolation events will occur at Jordan High School. Note: Middle school competition continues at 8:00 a.m. on Thursday with MS debate events at Alta High School and MS speech events at Indian Hills Middle School. Buses will again be available to shuttle high school students interested in judging. On Thursday afternoon through the evening, attendees will enjoy the national final rounds of World Schools Debate, Program Oral Interpretation, Humorous, Dramatic, and Duo Interpretation, as well as the Donus D. Roberts Diamond Ceremony, at the Salt Palace Convention Center.

FRIDAY • JUNE 17 (Supp-Cons/Main Event Finals and National Awards Assembly) The remaining main event final rounds (Original Oratory, United States Extemp, International Extemp, Informative Speaking, Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Policy Debate, and Public Forum Debate), as well as the supplemental and consolation event finals, will be held throughout the day on Friday at the Salt Palace Convention Center, culminating with the National Awards Assembly Friday evening.

The National Speech & Debate Association has appeared on the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) National Advisory List of Student Contests and Activities since the origination of the list. 10

Rostrum | SPRING 2016


IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS WHEN SELECTING AND RESERVING HOTELS please read before selecting lodging! 1.

All schools should stay at one of the Association recommended hotels in downtown Salt Lake City, UT and the surrounding areas. The lowest rates have been negotiated for our members. Please do not stay outside the block. The large volume of room sales within the block allows the Association to continue to negotiate the most affordable rate list. Properties that do not appear on this list are likely inconvenient for participation in the tournament, including lack of safety, amenities, and proximity to restaurants and are providing no benefit to the overall cost of the tournament. Morning and afternoon traffic could add substantial time to your commute if you are located outside the block. In addition, hotels not on the list have no contractual obligation to the Association, and therefore, we cannot provide any level of reservation protection at these properties.

2.

When calling hotels, all coaches must mention the “National Speech & Debate Association and/or National Forensic League block” to receive the posted rate. All room reservations within the block are subject to an automatic two-night, non-refundable deposit per room at the time of booking. This avoids double booking and allows all attendees equal opportunity to book in the best available properties.

3.

All hotel properties on the Association’s list are easily accessible and are within 15-20 minutes by interstate or surface streets of competition venues. The tournament website will have links to maps from every hotel to the Salt Palace Convention Center, the Salt Lake City International Airport, and all competition sites. You can print all needed maps before ever leaving home.

4.

The high school Congressional Debate headquarters are the Hilton Salt Lake City Center (Senate) and the Sheraton Salt Lake City (House) located in downtown Salt Lake City, UT. It is recommended that high school teams with Congressional debaters stay at the Hilton, Sheraton, or one of the properties located near them to avoid substantial rush hour traffic issues. These hotels are an excellent choice in both price and feature. The Hilton Salt Lake City Center will host all semifinal and final rounds of Congressional Debate competition.

5.

It is recommended that all coaches visit the individual websites of the hotels to determine which property fits the needs of their program. All hotels on the list are conveniently located to various aspects of the tournament. The Hilton Salt Lake City Center and the Sheraton Salt Lake City are the most conveniently located hotels for access to the high school Congressional Debate competition, registration, final rounds, and the National Awards Assembly. Schools are encouraged to book early as hotel blocks will fill up quickly.

6.

Key Travel Times to Note: a. Hilton, Sheraton, and other downtown hotels to Schools (less than 20 minutes) b. Hilton, Sheraton, and other downtown hotels to Congressional Debate and finals (less than five-minute walk) c. All other Hotels to Schools (5 to 20 minutes) d. All other Hotels to Congressional Debate and Finals (less than 20 minutes)

7.

PLEASE LOOK AT A MAP! Before reserving rooms, all coaches should consult a map of the Salt Lake City area to get a better perspective on travel logistics. Also look at maps available on the tournament website. The key to a less stressful week is to consider following the above lodging suggestions provided by the national office.

Additional tournament information will be available at www.speechanddebate.org/nationals. Rostrum | SPRING 2016 11


Now Availab le for P re - O rde r!

PRE-ORDER YOUR #NATS16 T-SHIRTS DURING ONLINE REGISTRATION – STARTING FEBRUARY 15! * Very limited quantities available at tournament. Pre-ordering is highly recommended to ensure your size selection is available!


VENUE GUIDE • SALT LAKE CITY NATIONALS Downtown Salt Lake City will be an excellent location for the 2016 National Speech & Debate Tournament. To make planning easier, we have provided an overview of key logistics. Please refer to the following pages for essential venue and lodging information. Keep in mind that all details are tentative and subject to change.

Salt Palace Convention Center 100 West Temple, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 » Registration and Expo (Sun) » Final Rounds and National Awards Assembly (Thu-Fri)

Hilton Salt Lake City Center 255 West Temple, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 » Host Hotel (Sun-Fri) » High School Senate Prelims (Mon-Tue) » High School Congress Semifinal/Final Sessions (Wed/Thu)

Sheraton Salt Lake City 150 W 500 S, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 » Host Hotel (Sun-Fri) » High School House Prelims (Mon-Tue)

Gallavan Center Plaza 239 Main Street East, Salt Lake City, UT 84111 » Student Posting Party (Tue evening) » Supplemental Re-registration (Tue evening)

Additional tournament information will be available at www.speechanddebate.org/nationals. Rostrum | SPRING 2016 13


VENUE GUIDE • SALT LAKE CITY NATIONALS

Alta High School 11055 S 1000 E, Sandy, UT 84094 » Extemp and Original Oratory (Mon-Tue) » Middle School Debate Events (Wed-Thu)

Brighton High School 2220 Bengal Boulevard, Salt Lake City, UT 84121 » Public Forum Debate (Mon-Tue) » HS Main Event Speech Elims (Wed) » World Schools Debate (Wed) » HS Main Event Debate Elims (Wed-Thu)

Butler Middle School 7530 S 2700 E, Cottonwood Heights, UT 84121 » Lincoln-Douglas Debate (Mon-Tue)

Hillcrest High School 7350 S 900 E, Midvale, UT 84047 » Policy Debate (Mon-Tue)

Additional tournament information will be available at www.speechanddebate.org/nationals. 14

Rostrum | SPRING 2016


VENUE GUIDE • SALT LAKE CITY NATIONALS

Indian Hills Middle School 1180 East Sanders Road, Sandy, UT 84094 » World Schools Debate (Mon-Tue) » Middle School Speech Events (Wed-Thu)

Jordan High School 95 Beetdigger Boulevard, Sandy, UT 84070 » Humorous, Dramatic, and Duo Interp (Mon-Tue) » Supp/Cons except Extemp Debate (Wed-Thu)

Mount Jordan Middle School 9351 South Mountaineer Lane, Sandy, UT 84070 » Program Oral Interp and Informative (Mon-Tue) » Extemp Debate (Wed-Thu)

Additional tournament information will be available at www.speechanddebate.org/nationals. Rostrum | SPRING 2016 15


HOTEL GUIDE • SALT LAKE CITY NATIONALS

BOOKING TIP

For prompt service, mention the “National Speech & Debate Association and/or National Forensic League block” (or the Group Code noted below) when reserving your rooms to receive the advertised rate for the National Speech & Debate Tournament. All room reservations within the block are subject to an automatic two-night, nonrefundable deposit per room at the time of booking or upon cancellation, depending on the property.

Note: Middle school programs needing reservations of less than five days must book at properties other than the Sheraton or Hilton.

Hilton Salt Lake City Center † 255 West Temple, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: (801) 328-2000 Amenities: FC, IP, R

Rate: $119

http://www3.hilton.com/en/hotels/utah/ hilton-salt-lake-city-center-SLCCCHH/index.html

844 East North Union Ave, Midvale, UT 84047 Phone: (801) 561-5999 Amenities: CB, CI, GL, FC, IP

Rate: $139

http://goo.gl/1ag8Fi

Hyatt Place Salt Lake City Airport

Sheraton Salt Lake City † 150 W 500 S, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: (888) 627-8152 Amenities: CI, FC, OP, R

Homewood Suites by Hilton Salt Lake City - Midvale/ Sandy

Rate: $109

52 North Tommy Thompson Road, Salt Lake City, UT 84116 Rate: $139 Phone: (801) 363-1400 Amenities: CB, CI, FC, GL, IP, R

http://www.sheratonsaltlakecityhotel.com/

http://saltlakecityairport.place.hyatt.com/en/hotel/home.html

* * * THIS ROOM BLOCK IS FULL * * *

* * * THIS ROOM BLOCK IS FULL * * *

† NOTE:

The Hilton Salt Lake City Center and the Sheraton Salt Lake City require a minimum five-night stay. If you cancel your reservation, the two-night, non-refundable fee per room will be charged at the time of cancellation.

Hyatt Place Salt Lake City/Cottonwood 3090 E 6200 S, Salt Lake City, UT 84121 Phone: (801) 890-1280 Amenities: CB, CI, GL, FC, OP, R

Rate: $139

http://cottonwood.place.hyatt.com/en/hotel/home.html

DoubleTree by Hilton Salt Lake City Airport 5151 Wiley Post Way, Salt Lake City, UT 84116 Phone: (801) 539-1515 Amenities: CI, FC, GL, IP, R

Rate: $139

http://doubletree.hilton.com/en/dt/groups/personalized/S/ SLCARDT-SDA-20160611/index.jhtml?WT.mc_id=POG

Hampton Inn Salt Lake City Central 2055 South Redwood Road, Salt Lake City, UT 84104 Rate: $139 Phone: (801) 886-0703 Amenities: CB, CI, FC, GL, IP http://hamptoninn3.hilton.com/en/hotels/utah/hampton-innsalt-lake-city-central-SLCRRHX/index.html

Hampton Inn Salt Lake City - Downtown 425 S 300 W, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: (801) 741-1110 Amenities: CB, CI, FC, GL, IP

3038 South Decker Lake Drive, West Valley City, UT 84119 Rate: $139 Phone: (801) 746-8400 Amenities: CB, CI, FC, GL, IP http://www.ihg.com/staybridge/hotels/us/en/west-valleycity/slcbt/hoteldetail

Courtyard Salt Lake City Downtown 345 W 100 S, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: (385) 290-6500 Amenities: CI, GL, IP, R

Rate: $135

http://www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/slccd-courtyard-saltlake-city-downtown/

Springhill Suites Salt Lake City Airport Rate: $139

http://hamptoninn3.hilton.com/en/hotels/utah/hampton-innsalt-lake-city-downtown-SLCDTHX/index.html

* * * THIS ROOM BLOCK IS FULL * * *

Staybridge Suites Salt Lake - West Valley City

4955 Wiley Post Way, Salt Lake City, UT 84116 Phone: (801) 532-6633 Amenities: CB, CI, FC, GL, IP

Rate: $129.95

http://goo.gl/rzp3ph

* * * THIS ROOM BLOCK IS FULL * * *

For the most up-to-date hotel information, please visit www.speechanddebate.org/nationals. 16

Rostrum | SPRING 2016


HOTEL GUIDE • SALT LAKE CITY NATIONALS

AMENITIES LEGEND

CB = Complimentary Breakfast GL = Guest Laundry

|

Rate: $129

https://www.choicehotels.com/utah/salt-lake-city/comfortinn-hotels/ut158

Comfort Inn Salt Lake City Airport 200 North Admiral Byrd Road, Salt Lake City, UT 84116 Phone: (801) 746-5200 Rate: $129 Amenities: CB, CI, FC, GL, OP, R http://www.slccomfortinn.com/

Courtyard Salt Lake City Airport

http://goo.gl/rzp3ph

|

R = Restaurant

Holiday Inn Express & Suites Salt Lake City South Murray 5429 South Commerce Drive, Murray, UT 84107 Phone: (801) 266-0800 Amenities: CB, CI, GL, FC, IP

Rate: $129

http://www.ihg.com/holidayinnexpress/hotels/us/en/murray/ slcmu/hoteldetail

Little America Hotel 500 South Main Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: (801) 596-5700 Amenities: CI, FC, IP, OP, R

Rate: $129

Radisson Salt Lake City Airport 2177 West North Temple, Salt Lake City, UT 84116 Phone: (801) 364-5800 Amenities: CI, FC, OP, R

Rate: $129

http://www.radisson.com/salt-lake-city-hotel-ut-84116/saltair

Rate: $129

http://doubletree3.hilton.com/en/hotels/utah/doubletreesuites-by-hilton-hotel-salt-lake-city-downtown-SLCWSDT/ index.html

Residence Inn Marriott Salt Lake City Cottonwood 6425 S 3000 E, Salt Lake City, UT 84121 Phone: (801) 453-0430 Amenities: CB, CI, FC, GL, OP

Rate: $129

http://goo.gl/ulzAhr

* * * THIS ROOM BLOCK IS FULL * * *

Hilton Garden Inn Salt Lake City Airport Rate: $129

http://hiltongardeninn.hilton.com/en/gi/groups/ personalized/S/SLCAPGI-NSDA-20160612/index.jhtml

Hilton Garden Inn Salt Lake City/Sandy 277 West Sego Lily Drive, Sandy, UT 84070 Phone: (801) 352-9400 Amenities: CI, FC, GL, IP, R

OP = Outdoor Pool

FC = Fitness Center

Group Code: National Speech & Debate

DoubleTree Suites by Hilton Hotel Salt Lake City Downtown

4975 Wiley Post Way, Salt Lake City, UT 84116 Phone: (801) 519-9000 Amenities: CI, FC, GL, IP, R

|

|

https://bookings.ihotelier.com/bookings.jsp?groupID=1588327 &hotelID=4650

4843 West Douglas Corrigan Way, Salt Lake City, UT 84116 Phone: (801) 532-4085 Rate: $129 Amenities: CI, FC, GL, IP, R

110 W 600 S, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: (801) 359-7800 Amenities: CI, FC, GL, IP, R

CI = Complimentary Internet

IP = Indoor Pool

Comfort Inn Downtown 171 W 500 S, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: (801) 325-5300 Amenities: CB, CI, FC, GL, OP

|

Residence Inn Salt Lake City Airport 4883 West Douglas Corrigan Way, Salt Lake City, UT 84116 Phone: (801) 532-4101 Rate: $129 Amenities: CB, CI, FC, GL, IP http://goo.gl/rzp3ph

SpringHill Suites Salt Lake City Downtown Rate: $129

http://hiltongardeninn3.hilton.com/en/hotels/utah/hiltongarden-inn-salt-lake-city-sandy-SLCSYGI/index.html

625 S 300 W, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: (801) 238-3000 Amenities: CB, CI, FC, GL, IP

Rate: $129

http://goo.gl/xs08CU

* * * THIS ROOM BLOCK IS FULL * * *

For the most up-to-date hotel information, please visit www.speechanddebate.org/nationals. Rostrum | SPRING 2016 17


HOTEL GUIDE • SALT LAKE CITY NATIONALS

BOOKING TIP

For prompt service, mention the “National Speech & Debate Association and/or National Forensic League block” (or the Group Code noted below) when reserving your rooms to receive the advertised rate for the National Speech & Debate Tournament. All room reservations within the block are subject to an automatic two-night, nonrefundable deposit per room at the time of booking or upon cancellation, depending on the property.

Note: Middle school programs needing reservations of less than five days must book at properties other than the Sheraton or Hilton.

Best Western Plus Airport Inn & Suites

Holiday Inn Express Salt Lake City Downtown

5433 West Wiley Post Way, Salt Lake City, UT 84116-3719 Phone: (801) 428-0900 Rate: $125 Amenities: CB, CI, FC, GL, IP

206 South West Temple, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: (801) 521-9500 Amenities: CB, CI, FC, GL, IP

Group Code: National Tournament

Online Group Code: NSD Phone Group Code: National Speech & Debate Association

http://bestwesternutah.com/hotels/best-western-plus-airportinn-and-suites

Rate: $119

http://www.ihg.com/holidayinnexpress/hotels/us/en/salt-lakecity/slccc/hoteldetail

Holiday Inn Express & Suites - Salt Lake City West Valley

Marriott Downtown at City Creek

3036 Decker Lake Drive, West Valley City, UT 84119 Phone: (801) 517-4000 Rate: $125 Amenities: CB, CI, FC, GL, IP

75 South West Temple, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: (801) 531-0800 Amenities: FC, GL, IP, R

http://www.ihg.com/holidayinnexpress/hotels/us/en/westvalley-city/wvchi/hoteldetail

http://www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/slcut-salt-lakemarriott-downtown-at-city-creek/

TownePlace Suites Salt Lake City - West Valley

Radisson Hotel Salt Lake City Downtown

5473 West High Market Drive, West Valley City, UT 84120 Phone: (801) 307-3300 Rate: $125 Amenities: CB, CI, FC, GL, IP

215 West South Temple, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: (801) 531-7500 Amenities: CI, FC, IP, R

http://www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/slcsw-towneplacesuites-salt-lake-city-west-valley/

Group Code: National Speech & Debate

Fairfield Inn and Suites Salt Lake City Downtown 130 W 400 S, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: (801) 531-6000 Amenities: CB, CI, GL, IP

Rate: $120

http://www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/slcfd-fairfield-inn-andsuites-salt-lake-city-downtown/

* * * THIS ROOM BLOCK IS FULL * * *

Rate: $119

http://www.radisson.com/saltlakecity/speech

Salt Lake Plaza Hotel at Temple Square 122 West South Temple, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: (800) 366-3684 Amenities: CI, FC, GL, OP, R

Rate: $114

Group Code: National Speech & Debate Association http://www.plaza-hotel.com/

Crystal Inn Hotel and Suites - West Valley City

Hampton Inn 10690 South Holiday Park Drive, Sandy, UT 84070 Phone: (801) 571-0800 Amenities: CB, CI, FC, GL, IP

Rate: $119

Rate: $119

http://hamptoninn3.hilton.com/en/hotels/utah/hampton-innsalt-lake-city-sandy-SDYUTHX/index.html

2254 West City Center Court, West Valley City, UT 84119 Phone: (888) 977-9400 Rate: $109 Amenities: CB, CI, GL, FC, IP Group Code: NFL616 http://www.crystalinnwestvalley.com/default.aspx?pg=about_us

For the most up-to-date hotel information, please visit www.speechanddebate.org/nationals. 18

Rostrum | SPRING 2016


HOTEL GUIDE • SALT LAKE CITY NATIONALS

AMENITIES LEGEND

CB = Complimentary Breakfast GL = Guest Laundry

|

|

CI = Complimentary Internet

IP = Indoor Pool

|

|

OP = Outdoor Pool

FC = Fitness Center |

R = Restaurant

Hampton Inn & Suites Salt Lake City Airport

Red Lion Hotels Salt Lake Downtown

307 North Admiral Byrd Road, Salt Lake City, UT 84116 Phone: (801) 530-0088 Rate: $109 Amenities: CB, CI, FC, OP

161 W 600 S, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: (800) 733-5466 Amenities: CI, GL, FC, OP, R

http://hamptoninn3.hilton.com/en/hotels/utah/hampton-innand-suites-salt-lake-city-airport-SLCHSHX/index.html

https://reservations.redlion.com/ibe/details.aspx?propertyid=13 748&nights=1&checkin=06/07/2016&group=NSD0716G

Holiday Inn Express & Suites Sandy - South Salt Lake City 10680 South Automall Drive, Sandy, UT 84070 Phone: (801) 495-1317 Amenities: CB, CI, FC, GL, IP

Rate: $109

http://www.ihg.com/holidayinnexpress/hotels/us/en/sandy/ slcsa/hoteldetail

* * * THIS ROOM BLOCK IS FULL * * *

Home2 Suites by Hilton Salt Lake City - Murray Rate: $109

http://home2suites.hilton.com/en/ht/groups/personalized/S/ SLCMUHT-NSD-20160611/index.jhtml

Best Western Plus CottonTree Inn 10695 Auto Mall Drive, Sandy, UT 84070 Phone: (801) 523-8484 Amenities: CB, CI, FC, GL, IP

Country Inn & Suites by Carlson, Bountiful 999 N 500 W, Bountiful, UT 84101 Phone: (801) 292-8100 Amenities: CB, CI, GL, FC, IP

Rate: $97

http://www.countryinns.com/bountiful-hotel-ut-84010/ utwestb

Group Code: NSD

4927 South State Street, Murray, UT 84107 Phone: (801) 288-1234 Amenities: CB, CI, FC, GL, IP

Rate: $99

Rate: $100

http://bestwesternutah.com/hotels/best-western-pluscottontree-inn-sandy

* * * THIS ROOM BLOCK IS FULL * * *

Home2 Suites by Hilton Salt Lake City - East 2350 South Foothill Drive, Salt Lake City, UT 84109 Phone: (801) 384-5785 Rate: $100 Amenities: CB, CI, FC, GL, IP

Holiday Inn Express and Suites - Salt Lake City Airport East 200 N 2100 W, Salt Lake City, UT 84116 Phone: (801) 741-1500 Amenities: CI, FC, GL, IP

Rate: $97

http://www.ihg.com/holidayinnexpress/hotels/us/en/salt-lakecity/slcut/hoteldetail

Country Inn & Suites by Carlson, West Valley City 3422 South Decker Lake Drive, West Valley City, UT 84119 Phone: (801) 908-0311 Rate: $89 Amenities: CB, CI, GL, IP http://www.countryinns.com/west-valley-city-hotel-ut-84119/ utvalley

Super 8 Midvale 7048 S 900 E, Midvale, UT 84047 Phone: (801) 255-5559 Amenities: CB, CI, GL

Rate: $78

http://www.super8.com/hotels/utah/midvale/super-8-pridemidvale-midvalley-salt-lake-city-area/hotel-overview

http://home2suites.hilton.com/en/ht/groups/personalized/S/ SLCEAHT-NSD-20160609/index.jhtml

For the most up-to-date hotel information, please visit www.speechanddebate.org/nationals. Rostrum | SPRING 2016 19


TRANSPORTATION GUIDE • SALT LAKE CITY NATIONALS Hertz is the Association's official rental car company. Whether you make reservations through hertz.com, a travel agency, or global online travel sites such as Orbitz, Travelocity, etc., use the Association account code below. Some restrictions may apply. For more information, call Hertz Meeting Services 1-800-654-2240 or visit hertz.com today. Reservations

To reserve special meeting rates, please include your CV# when making reservations.

Reservations

To reserve special meeting rates, please include  1-800-654-2240 your CV# when making reservations.  1-405-749-4434  www.hertz.com  1-800-654-2240  of1-405-749-4434 At the time reservation, meeting rates will be  www.hertz.com automatically compared to other Hertz rates and the best rate will apply. At the time of reservation, meeting rates will be automatically compared to other Hertz rates and the best rate will apply.

Premium Emergency Roadside Service

Protects you from unexpected service costs related to non-mechanical occurrences. Daily rental fee applies. Premium Emergency Roadside Service Protects you from unexpected service costs related  non-mechanical Covers lock-outs and lost key to occurrences. Daily rental fee  Flat tires and tire mounting are covered applies.  Running out of gas/fuel delivery Covers lock-outs reimbursement and lost key up to   Travel interruption  $1,000 Flat tires and tire mounting are covered  Running out of gas/fuel delivery  Travel interruption reimbursement up to $1,000

NeverLost®

In-Car Navigation System Guides You Wherever You Want To Go

NeverLost®

In-Car Navigation Guides YouSystem Wherever NeverLost uses the System Global Positioning You Want Go sensors to achieve the accu(GPS) – withTo smart racy needed for true turn-by-turn guidance thru a NeverLost uses the Global Positioning System 5” LCD screen with computer-generated voice (GPS) – with smart sensors to achieve the accuinstructions. Daily rental fee applies. racy needed for true turn-by-turn guidance thru a 5” LCD screen with computer-generated voice instructions. Daily rental fee applies.

Hertz Meeting Services National Speech & Debate Association National Speech Debate Salt Lake City,&UT Association June 12-17, 2016 Salt City, UT CV#Lake 04JZ0007 June 12-17, 2016 CV# 04JZ0007

CV # 04JZ0007

Rates available from all Salt Lake City locations for rental start dates June 5-25, 2016 Rates available fromDaily all Salt Lake City locations Weekend Weekly Car Class Day June Per5-25, Day 2016 5-7 Day for rental startPer dates A-ECONOMY

B-COMPACT Car Class C-MID-SIZE A-ECONOMY D-STANDARD B-COMPACT F-FULLSIZE C-MID-SIZE4DR

G-PREMIUM D-STANDARD I-LUXURY F-FULLSIZE 4DR Q4-MIDSIZE SUV G-PREMIUM L-STANDARD SUV I-LUXURY R-MINIVAN Q4-MIDSIZE SUV U-CONVERTIBLE L-STANDARD SUV

$39.00 Daily $42.00 Per Day $45.00 $39.00 $49.00 $42.00 $55.00 $45.00

$69.00 $49.00 $89.00 $55.00 $62.00 $69.00 $74.00 $89.00 $79.00 $62.00 $72.00 $74.00

T-LARGE SUV $115.00 R-MINIVAN $79.00 T6-PRM XCAP SUV $125.00 U-CONVERTIBLE $72.00 T-LARGE SUV

$115.00

$19.00 $169.00 Weekend Weekly $21.00 $174.00 Per Day 5-7 Day $23.00 $184.00 $19.00 $169.00 $25.00 $194.00 $21.00 $174.00 $33.00 $23.00 $205.00 $184.00

$69.00 $25.00 $89.00 $33.00 $62.00 $69.00 $74.00 $89.00 $79.00 $62.00 $72.00 $74.00 $115.00 $79.00 $125.00 $72.00

$115.00

$345.00 $194.00 $399.00 $205.00 $299.00 $345.00 $339.00 $399.00 $399.00 $299.00 $359.00 $339.00 $549.00 $399.00 $649.00 $359.00 $549.00

Check out T6-PRM XCAP SUV $125.00 $125.00 $649.00 www.neverlost.com for your travel planning needs! Check out www.neverlost.com for your travel planning needs!

General Information

Meeting rates include unlimited mileage and are subject to availability. Advance reservations are General Information recommended, blackout dates may apply. GovMeetingsurcharges, rates include unlimited mileage and are ernment taxes, tax reimbursement, subject to availability. Advance reservations airport related fees, vehicle licensing fees and are recommended, blackout dates may apply. Govoptional items, such as refueling or additional ernment taxes, taxrental reimbursement, driver fees,surcharges, are extra. Minimum age is 20 airport related charge fees, vehicle licensing fees and (age differential for 20-24 applies). optional items, such as refueling or additional Standard rental conditions and qualifications apdriver fees, are extra. Minimum rental age islo-20 ply. Vehicles must be returned to the renting (age differential charge U.S. for 20-24 applies).weekcation. In the continental and Canada Standard conditions and qualifications end rentals rental are available for pickup between apply. Thursday Vehicles must be returned themust renting noon and noon Sundayto and be location. In continental U.S.atand Canada returned nothe later than Monday 11:59 p.m. weekend rentals are available pickup between Thursday pick-up requires aforminimum three-day noonFriday Thursday and requires noon Sunday and must keep. pick-up a minimum two-be returned no later than Monday at 11:59 p.m.reday keep, and Saturday and Sunday pick-up Thursday pick-up requires a minimum three-day quire a one-day keep. Weekly rentals are from keep. Friday pick-up requires a minimum twofive to seven days. Extra day rate for Weekly day keep, and Saturday and Sunday pick-up rerentals will be 1/5 of the Weekly Rate. quire a one-day keep. Weekly rentals are from five to seven days. Extra day rate for Weekly rentals will be 1/5 of the Weekly Rate.

SIRIUS® Satellite Radio

Choose from over 130 channels, including 69 channels of commercialSIRIUS® Satellite Radio free music, live sports, exclusive Choose from over 130 channels, inentertainment and talk, comedy, cluding 69news, channels commercialworld-class evenoflocal free music, live sports, exclusive traffic and weather. Daily entertainment and talk, comedy, rental fee applies. world-class news, even local traffic and weather. Daily rental fee applies.

See you in June! Additional tournament information will be available at www.speechanddebate.org/nationals. 20

Rostrum | SPRING 2016


TRANSPORTATION GUIDE • SALT LAKE CITY NATIONALS

www.Delta.com Meeting Event Code:

NMMY3

Receive discounts off your flight when you book online with recommended carriers. Some restrictions may apply.

www.swabiz.com Click “Book Travel” and Enter Company ID:

99696096

Salt Lake City International Airport

www.United.com

776 North Terminal Drive

 Salt Lake City, UT 84122

* UNITED: U.S. 50 States and Canada Customers: call your professional travel agency, book online via united.com or call United Reservations Meetings Desk at 800-426-1122 and provide the Z Code ZW9R and Agreement Code 177617. For all tickets issued through United Meetings Reservations Desk, there will be a booking service fee per ticket collected. This fee is subject to change without notice. Such service fee is nonrefundable and applies to all itineraries, one-way or round-trip.

Offer Code: *

ZW9R177617

Additional tournament information will be available at www.speechanddebate.org/nationals. Rostrum | SPRING 2016 21


WORLD SCHOOLS DEBATE INVITATIONAL • TOURNAMENT LOGISTICS Entries • World Schools teams are comprised of three to five students. The cost of entry is $50 per student. • Each National Speech & Debate Association district may enter ONE team to the National Tournament. Districts will not be allowed a second team. • Students must attend an NSDA district qualifying event to be eligible for selection to their district’s team. • Students who attend the district tournament and qualify in a main event for the 2016 National Tournament may forgo their qualification and participate in World Schools Debate instead, if they are selected for the team by their district and have preferred it on the Single Entry Letter of Intent prior to the District Tournament Series. Refer to the Single Entry Letter of Intent regarding preferences in partnership events. • Guest nations may enter teams, as well. See www.speechanddebate.org/USAinvitational for details. Judges • Each district team must furnish one judge. The judge may not be entered into any other judging pool at the National Speech & Debate Tournament. • There are no hired judges available. • Judges must attend judge training on Sunday! Motions • There will be a mix of prepared and impromptu motions for the competition. • Prepared motions will be announced by May 1, 2016. Tentative Schedule Sunday

Judge and Competitor Training; Demo Debate

Monday

Preliminary Rounds (4)

Tuesday

Preliminary Rounds (2) and Double-Octafinals

Wednesday Octafinals/Quarterfinals/Semifinals Thursday

Final Round

Friday

Additional educational sessions on World Schools Debate

Supplemental and Consolation Events • Teams who are eliminated from competition on Tuesday are eligible to enter in supplemental events if pre-registered. Teams must re-register during the local host posting party Tuesday evening. • Teams who do not advance to Thursday’s rounds may enter in consolation events if pre-registered. Teams must re-register Wednesday evening.

Additional tournament information will be available at www.speechanddebate.org/nationals. 22

Rostrum | SPRING 2016


OVERVIEW OF MIDDLE SCHOOL TOURNAMENT LOGISTICS

Middle School Overview | JUNE 14-17, 2016 Tentative Schedule TUESDAY • JUNE 14 Registration will be held from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the Sheraton Salt Lake City. Wednesday • June 15 Middle school competition begins Wednesday, with MS debate events at Alta High School and MS speech events at Indian Hills Middle School. Rounds begin at 8:00 a.m. and last until 6:00 p.m. Time has been built in for lunch. Thursday • June 16 Middle school competition continues Thursday, with MS debate events at Alta High School and MS speech events at Indian Hills Middle School. Rounds begin at 8:00 a.m. and last until 7:00 p.m. Time has been built in for lunch. Friday • June 17 Starting at 8:00 a.m., final rounds of Speech, Policy, and Congress, as well as semifinal and final rounds of Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum, will be held at the Salt Palace Convention Center. The awards assembly will commence at 3:00 p.m., followed by the high school awards assembly at 6:00 p.m., where middle school champions will be recognized.

Important Middle School Dates • Coaches can register online at www.joyoftournaments.com/msnationals/2016. Entries are due April 24. • Congressional Debate legislation is due April 24. • The national office will begin sending out waitlist notices beginning May 1. • Title, author, and ISBN information for Interpretation events, as well as titles for Oratory and Declamation, must be posted on the registration website by May 1. • Media release forms, signed by each student’s parent/ guardian, must be submitted by May 13. • All fees, including judge bond, must be received in the national office by May 13. • A late fee of $200 will be assessed for fees and forms received after May 13. A school/club risks forfeiting participation if fees and media release forms are not received by May 20.

Other Details • Coaches are asked to carefully review all tournament information at www.speechanddebate.org/nationals. • Please note that each school is limited to five entries per event. A team may place entries on the waitlist to try and secure additional spots. • We will continue to rigorously train high school student judges. We are requiring middle schools to bring judges for each division in which they have students (Policy, LD, or PF, Speech, and Congress) as a condition for registering. More details are available on the website.

Please Read Before Selecting Lodging! Coaches should review all information relative to lodging on pages 10-11 and 16-19. Be sure to mention the “National Speech & Debate Association and/or National Forensic League block” when booking rooms, and only book with recommended hotels for the reasons listed. The host hotels (Sheraton Salt Lake City and Hilton Salt Lake City Center) require a minimum five-night stay. Middle school programs needing reservations of less than five days must book at properties other than the Sheraton or Hilton. All room reservations within the block are subject to an automatic non-refundable two-night deposit per room at the time of booking or upon cancellation, depending on the property. This avoids double booking and allows all attendees equal opportunity to book in the best available properties.

Important Notice: The 2016 Salt Lake City Nationals is the last time a club or non-school member may enter the Middle School National Tournament. The Board of Directors affirms the creation, support, and development of speech and debate programs at the middle and secondary levels through accredited public and private schools. Beginning with the 2016-2017 school year, all members of the Association must be school-based. For any club or organization that does not currently have a school-based membership, the Association is eager to work with you to create school based speech and debate teams. Students who are currently Association members through their area non-schoolbased clubs and organizations may request to have their memberships transferred to their accredited public and private schools. Homeschools and virtual schools that are recognized by the state in which those schools compete may join the National Speech & Debate Association.

Additional tournament information will be available at www.speechanddebate.org/nationals. Rostrum | SPRING 2016 23


Curriculum Corner 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.

Cross-Curricular Corner In this Voices of the Future lesson, students will be given an opportunity to consider the role of campaign commercials in elections—specifically, the presidential primaries that candidates are going through to secure their party’s nomination. Prerequisite Knowledge Required: • Students should be aware of the presidential candidates running for office in both parties and have familiarity with many of the issues they are faced with during the election season. Prior to the class, students should work in groups to create a campaign ad that focuses on a key issue they feel addresses a concern in the election. The ad should be 60-90 seconds. Each student in the group should contribute meaningfully to the script writing and the portrayal of the commercial. Common Core Standard Addressed: CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.SL.11-12.1.B Work with peers to promote civil, democratic discussions and decision-making, set clear goals and deadlines, and establish individual roles as needed.

26

Rostrum | SPRING 2016

For an overview of another Voices of the Future unit, turn to page 84!

• Welcome the students/bell ringer activity. On the board, there should be a list of groups who will be presenting their commercials that day. Give each student an evaluation form for each commercial to fill out. Students should rate the commercial on a likert scale for factors including, but not limited to: accurate portrayal of candidate, accurate portrayal of candidate platform, meaningful contributions from all group members, time of commercial, and creativity. There should be a general comments section, too. (5 minutes) • Commercial Presentations/Q&A – Each group should present their 60-90 second commercial and then take questions from the audience for two to three minutes afterward. Track each quality question a student asks, and facilitate who gets to ask the questions to ensure they’re divided up. If a question is not high-quality, ask the class to think of a more challenging or appropriate way to ask the group. (50 minutes) • Conclusion – At the end, provide feedback to the group and collect the evaluation forms. The constructive criticism should focus on areas of overall strength and weakness for the class. Assign students to review other commercials and find one on YouTube they think most closely aligns with a presentation in the class. They will be reviewed the following day, with follow-up discussion on the role of campaign commercials. (5 minutes)

Debate Corner In this lesson, students will be given an opportunity to propose topics that any of the National Speech & Debate Association wording committees should


consider. The class will feature a series of topic presentations that must be defended. Prerequisite Knowledge Required: Students should be familiar with past topics that have been debated recently, as they should not write a topic proposal for a previously debated topic. Common Core Standard Addressed: CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.SL.11-12.4 Present information, findings, and supporting evidence, conveying a clear and distinct perspective, such that listeners can follow the line of reasoning, alternative or opposing perspectives are addressed, and the organization, development, substance, and style are appropriate to purpose, audience, and a range of formal and informal tasks. • Welcome the students/bell ringer activity. On the board, there should be a list of the students who will be giving presentations that day. Give each student an evaluation form for each presentation to fill out. Students should rate the presentation on a likert scale for factors including, but not limited to: time of presentation, clarity of thought, debatability of topic, and proof of an in-depth literature base to support researching the topic. There should be a general comments section, too. (5 minutes) • Presentations – Students will give a presentation that covers the main elements of their topic proposal paper. The presentation should provide the suggested topic wording, possible alternative wordings, an overview of affirmative and negative ground, and an establishment of depth of literature to make for relevant and in-depth debate. Student presentations should be five minutes each, with three minutes of questioning facilitated by the teacher after the presentation. Note: This series of presentations will take multiple days. (50 minutes) • Closing – At the conclusion of the last presentation each day, collect the evaluation forms. Remind students they will do presentations the following day(s) and they will all need to be prepared to present, regardless of their position on the randomly selected list. (5 minutes)

Interp Corner As the school year winds down, students in Interpretation events should look forward to the next season. It’s never too early to start finding new literature! During this lesson, students will identify possible additions to build the team’s Interp library. Prerequisite Knowledge Required: Students should understand dramatic structure, the rules of Interpretation events, and have an understanding of what literature currently is available to them in the team’s Interp library. Common Core Standard Addressed: CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RL.9-10.2 Determine a theme or central idea of a text and analyze in detail its development over the course of the text, including how it emerges and is shaped and refined by specific details; provide an objective summary of the text. • Welcome the students/bell ringer activity. (5 minutes) • Review – have students discuss what makes for a good Interp piece; what the key elements of dramatic structure are; any gaps they feel exist in the library. (10 minutes) • Have students research new scripts and books that are available or coming soon. Students can use websites such as www.speechanddebate.org/approvedwebsites, www.dramatists.com, www.samuelfrench.com, and more. (35 minutes) • Have students write down a list of two to three “must haves”, two to three “maybes,” and two to three “never purchase.” (5 minutes) • Closing – Explain to students they need to go home and write a justification for their categorization of the scripts/books that are on their list. They will need to bring that to class the following day. (5 minutes)

Rostrum | SPRING 2016 27


Public Speaking Corner This lesson is designed to encourage students to reflect on a final round of Oratory, Extemp, or Informative Speaking. Students should use their observations to help guide future decisions they make in their main event(s) of public speaking. Prerequisite Knowledge Required: Students should understand the rules and conventions of their public speaking event(s). Common Core Standard Addressed: CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.SL.11-12.3 Evaluate a speaker’s point of view, reasoning, and use of evidence and rhetoric, assessing the stance, premises, links among ideas, word choice, points of emphasis, and tone used. • Welcome the students/bell ringer activity. (5 minutes) • If doing this as a class, play the first half of a final round of a public speaking event from Nationals. If students can do different events, they can watch the final round of their choice with headphones and a personal computer. Students will watch the first three speakers and keep a log of reactions. Was the topic unique/was the topic addressed clearly? Did the transitions make sense? Was there a clear and easy to follow structure? Were there adequate supporting materials? Was the delivery engaging? What were things that could have been better? (35 minutes) • Reflection – Students should finish their reflections from the partial round watched. They should write down three to five takeaways that will help shape any decisions they make about their own event in the future. (15 minutes) • Closing – Remind students they will repeat this process tomorrow and watch the remaining three speakers in that final round. They will do the same reflection exercise and then rank the round 1 through 6. They will turn in the reflection and ranks to the teacher for review and assessment. (5 minutes)

Written by Steve Schappaugh, Director of Community Engagement for the National Speech & Debate Association

28

Rostrum | SPRING 2016

Exploring Media Literacy, Speaking & Listening Skills

We’ve partnered with our friends at NAMLE (the National Association for Media Literacy Education) to design resources to help teachers explore standards in media literacy and speaking and listening. Our three-part poster series provides valuable insights on standards that could be tied into lessons, as well as activities to do with students. Take a deeper look into the possibilities with Campaign 2016 in your classroom!

www.speechanddebate.org/ voicesofthefuture


I have used HeinOnline in the past to conduct research for Public Forum Debate, and it was quite helpful. The updated list of databases enhances my ability to find unique and compelling evidence. I’m grateful for this research tool. – Jonathan Goldberg, Student

Available to ALL Members! HeinOnline is an outstanding research platform typically only available to law students and legal professionals. Now, as a member, you can access even more online research with HeinOnline! HeinOnline has more than 130 million pages of legal history available in a fully searchable database. In addition to the vast collection of law journals, HeinOnline also contains Congressional Record Bound volumes, complete coverage of the U.S. Reports back to 1754, famous world trials dating back to the 1700s, legal classics from the 16th to the 20th centuries, the United Nations and League of Nations Treaty Series, all United States Treaties, the Federal Register from inception in 1936, the CFR from inception in 1938, and much more. Perfect for debaters, extempers, orators, and others, HeinOnline is a tremendous benefit of your membership!

ACCESS YOUR MEMBER RESOURCES!

Visit your dashboard at www.speechanddebate.org


August 7-10, 2016 | Golden Nugget Hotel | Las Vegas, Nevada Join your peers, the Board of Directors, national office staff, and other guest speakers for this unique collaborative occasion!

essional This Development year’s leadership conference, spearheaded by a committee of leaders, will highlight

Accreditation, and Recognition Opportunities for Coaches

building our national community with sessions specifically designed for large and small

al Speech & Debate Association is committed to giving speech and debate cess to various forms of professional development. We aim to ensure that you ity to earn credit towards professional licensure requirements, as well as providing • Diversity and inclusion positive recognition from your school administration. Here is an overview of some you can benefit from our organization. • Advocating for your program and

districts, including:

for the activity general Coaches Institute – The Coach Institute is a FREE resourcein available for all member . This week long training provides helpful lessons and insights from veteran • Demystifying the district coaches cators. For more information visit www.speechanddebate.org/onlineinstitute. tournament for your coaches

te Credit – Coaches may opt to earn graduate credit from Drake University for • Partnering with your state ing training sessions such as the Coach Institute. A master’s level graduate credit is . • Partnering with local organizations

Leadership challenges rs – Throughout the year the • National Speech & Debate Association offers more FREE online webinars for students and coaches . Attendees can earn professional A nd much more! • ment credit.

Plus, enjoy focused networking time to uncover more opportunities to learn from each other.

onal Accreditation - The National Speech & Debate Association is proud to e outstanding members for their expertise in coaching and teaching speech and Our Professional Development Program recognizes coaches and educators who mitted to furthering their education and skills to better meet the needs of their s. Visit http://www.speechanddebate.org/accreditation for more information.

ech & Debate Association •

The 2016 conference is open to all district leaders and any other coaches interested in leadership! Registration is $50 per attendee. Several meals are 125 Watson Street, Ripon, WI 54971 • (920) 748-6206 • www.speechanddebate.org provided. The Golden Nugget offers the most affordable and convenient option for lodging at $69 per night. A $115 rate has been negotiated for Saturday night for those wishing to arrive early.

Special Thanks to Our Planning Committee! David Abel (KS) Christy Briggs (NV) Don Crabtree (MO) Clifton D. Davis (ID) Kelly Clark Garner (MS) Mary T. Gormley (NJ) Kristi Hodgkiss (TX) Alma J. Nicholson (LA) Jeff Stutzman (IN) Pam Cady Wycoff (MN)

Register now until July 1, 2016! Visit us online:

www.speechanddebate.org/leadershipconference


Interpretation, Original Oratory, Extemp, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, and Congressional Debate

ChampionBriefsInstitute.com


GET WITH THE PROGRAM Meet the instructors 2016 Summer Online Institute The National Speech & Debate Association’s Online Institute is an affordable and convenient enrichment opportunity for students and coaches alike. Here, we introduce you to the renowned instructors committed to helping you succeed! advocate for training new coaches in coaching, but also curriculum writing. Coach Clinic

Wendi Brandenburg Wendi Brandenburg has been coaching speech and debate for 25 years. During this time, she has coached every event the NSDA offers. Likewise, she has had numerous award winners across all categories and has won four state championships at her current school. This past summer, she received her third diamond award. She is heavily involved in the community. For the past seven years, she has served on the North Texas Longhorns District Committee. Last year, she was appointed to serve as the Programs Director for their district. In the Texas Speech Communication Association, she has served as their Educator Training Chair, and twice been nominated for their Educator of the Year award. She is a passionate

was fantastic, Nefertiti is excited to get back to her roots in Public Forum Debate by analyzing topics for the National Speech & Debate Association.

PF

Nefertiti Dukes Nefertiti Dukes is currently a teacher at North Miami Middle School in Florida where she is serving as a 2015 Teach For America Corps Member. At North Miami, she teaches English and has begun a debate team full of enthusiastic middle school students. Last year, she graduated from Western Kentucky University with a B.A. in Political Science and Psychology. While there, she competed for the forensic team in both speech events and debate events. At the end of her senior year, she was crowned the National Forensic Association’s National Champion in Lincoln-Douglas Debate. While collegiate forensics

Interp

Kris Hall Kris Hall is an NSDA diamond coach who currently coaches speech, debate, and theatre at the nationally recognized school, The Montgomery Academy in Alabama, where she coached a 2015 national finalist in Prose. Also this past year, her students placed in finals at Emory in both Duo Interpretation and Dramatic Interpretation. A native Texan, Kris is a graduate of Midwestern State University in Wichita Falls, Texas, where she obtained her B.A. in English with a minor in Speech Communication and

several hours in theater performance and direction. In 2003, Kris was awarded Alabama Coach of the Year after building the first ever speech and debate program, which in the first year had a student qualify for the National Tournament in Humorous Interpretation. She discovered Blake Williams, the 2006 Dramatic Interpretation winner, when he was in middle school and coached him until she moved to coach in Florida for a couple of years. She has taught and built programs in Alabama, Texas, and Florida and has had numerous state champions and national qualifiers in all interpretative events. For the past 25 years, she has had a passion for finding talent and helping students find literature and selections that challenge students to perform outside of their comfort zone, while emphasizing their strengths. She believes that what makes a powerful performer is being committed to the entire

Coach Clinic • Policy Debate • Congressional Debate • Interpretation • Original Oratory • Public Forum Debate • Extemporaneous Speaking • Lincoln-Douglas Debate 32

Rostrum | SPRING 2016


process—from selecting the material, cutting, and characterization to stepping out on the stage with confidence and connecting with the audience. 

Congress

Jeff Hannan Jeff Hannan is the director of speech and debate at Evanston Township High School. He was the NSDA national champion in Congressional Debate (House) in 2000, and coached the NSDA national champion in Congressional Debate (Senate) in 2012. He has taught Congressional Debate at camps in Massachusetts, California, Minnesota, Mississippi, Illinois, and Florida, and he served as a senior staff member at the Florida Forensic Institute for 15 years. He is the author of Introduction to Public Forum and Congressional Debate as well as the public speaking textbook Authentic Communication: Public Speaking for Everyone. 

Oratory

Harrison Postler Harrison Postler joined the National Speech & Debate Association in August

2015, marking his 13th year in speech and debate. Harrison graduated from the University of Northern Iowa in 2013 with a degree in Communication and received a Master’s from George Mason University in 2015 for Communication Studies. He has been in several national final rounds, including an Impromptu Speaking championship in 2013. As a coach, he has helped students in high school and college reach elimination rounds at their respective national tournaments. His work for the Association focuses on the development of resources for both students and coaches including webinars, lesson plans, and coach clinics.

Policy

Brian Rubaie Brian Rubaie currently serves as the Assistant Debate Coach at The Barstow School and the University of CaliforniaBerkeley. He also is a summer instructor at the University of Michigan 7-Week Seniors program and the Wake Forest Earliest Bird. He has coached high school teams to several deep elimination debates, including the 2012 Tournament of Champions final round, and led Coppell High School to its first four

qualifications to the TOC. Brian also helped his college teams secure invitations to the Kentucky Round Robin and appearances in the late elimination debates at the National Debate Tournament. As a debater, he was named the 2010 Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) “Baby Jo” Debater of the Year, and won Georgia State University in addition to reaching the semifinals of Harvard, Berkeley, and CEDA Nationals. He reached the quarterfinals and earned speaker awards his last two years at the National Debate Tournament (NDT). Brian has previously worked as an assistant debate coach at Niles North, Glenbrook North, and the University of TexasDallas and as a summer lab instructor at the University of Michigan, Wake Forest University, Gonzaga University Scholars, University of North Texas, Baylor University, University of Missouri Kansas City, and the University of Vermont.

programs. He coached the 2015 NSDA national champion in International Extemporaneous Speaking, and has coached the winners of many national tournaments including UK TOC and the Emory Barkley Forum. Additionally, Bill has coached top three finishers at The Montgomery Bell Round Robin for Extemp, Wake Forest, Yale, Glenbrooks, and NCFL. During his six years at his last school, students he coached won 12 individual state championships.  He is the recipient of the TOC Extemp Outstanding Service Award in 2015. Bill runs Extemp prep for the UK TOC and the Middle School National Speech & Debate Tournaments. He loves all events, but Extemporaneous Speaking is his passion. This summer, he will serve as a lead instructor in that event at several national forensic camps. Thompson has also served as a trainer for the NSDA as a part of its ongoing webinar education series. 

Extemp

PF

Bill Thompson

Megan West

Bill Thompson is the Director of Middle School Forensics at NSU University School. He has coached for more than 20 years with a variety of high school

Megan West is the Director of Debate for Broward County in Florida. She previously served as the Director of Speech and Debate at Cypress Bay

Coach Clinic • Policy Debate • Congressional Debate • Interpretation • Original Oratory • Public Forum Debate • Extemporaneous Speaking • Lincoln-Douglas Debate Rostrum | SPRING 2016 33


High School in Weston, Florida. Cypress Bay was named a School of Excellence in Debate in 2012 and an Overall School of Excellence Award winner in 2013 and 2014. In her five years at Cypress Bay, Megan coached students to deep out-round success in PF, LD, Congress, and Extemp at national invitationals including Blue Key, Glenbrooks, Minneapple, Sunvitational, Emory, Harvard, and Berkeley. She has boasted champions at Glenbrooks (Oral Interp), Harvard (Congress), Emory (Public Forum), Lexington (LD), Sunvitational (PF), and the Florida Forensic League State Tournament (LD, Congress, DI, and PF), in addition to multiple TOC qualifiers in all events. At the 2014 National Speech & Debate Tournament, Megan coached a national finalist in International Extemp. Megan was also a twotime state champion in Parliamentary Debate, top speaker at the National Parliamentary Debate Association National Tournament, and national finalist in Impromptu and Persuasive Speaking at the American Forensic Association national tournament. In 2004, Megan was the Texas State champion in LD and the National Speech & Debate Association national champion in Impromptu.

Kris continues to serve as a Board Member for the nonprofit and a co-director of curriculum at the annual institutes. Besides his experiences administrating and teaching at TDC, Kris has also taught camp at NDF, VBI, UTNIF, and Championship Group. Kris is a Teach For America alumnus (Dallas ‘10), holds a B.A. in Government and Philosophy from the University of Texas at Austin, and an M.A. in Women’s and Gender Studies, also from UT Austin.

LD

Kris Wright Kris Wright has been coaching debate for 13 years, the first 10 of which were exclusively in LD. In the past three years, Kris has also begun coaching Policy Debate. Currently, Kris is the head coach of the Judge Barefoot Sanders Law Magnet in Dallas, Texas, where he has coached students to qualify to the TOC in LD and Policy. Law Magnet students have reached outrounds of major national tournaments, including Greenhill, St. Marks, MidAmerica Cup, Harvard, Glenbrooks, Harvard-Westlake, Emory, Sunvitational, Grapevine, Wake Forest, and Meadows. Before coaching and teaching full-time at the Law Magnet, Kris exclusively coached LD at Westlake (Austin), University School (Florida), Southlake, and Marcus High Schools. Kris’ debaters have consistently succeeded on the local and national circuits. Kris is also the cofounder of the Texas Debate Collective (TDC), a premier, non-profit debate camp with the explicit mission to expand educational opportunities for low-income debaters.

Learn More and Register Online!

2016 Guest Instructors

Ben Berkman

Tom Evnen

Trey Cobb

Blake Williams

Emma Collins

Joe Wycoff

Tentative Guest Instructors Jacob Abraham Farrah Bara Courtney Brusnon Jon Carter Dino De La O Rohan Dhoopar Crayton Gerst Mary Gormley Chase Harrison Michelle Hill Megan Hirsh

»

• MORE TO BE ANNOUNCED SOON!

Ian Hopkins Brandon Inzinna Vernon Johnson David Kumbroch Yijia Liang Phoebe Lin Lauren McCool Chad Meadows Eric Melin Lily Nellans

Ganer Newman Devin Race Bailey Rung Miles Saffran Paige Settles Yatesh Singh Josh Wartel Noah Wexler Chase Williams Jon Williamson Ben Zimmerman

General Public

Member

Resource Package

$350

$275

$225

www.speechanddebate.org/institute

Coach Clinic • Policy Debate • Congressional Debate • Interpretation • Original Oratory • Public Forum Debate • Extemporaneous Speaking • Lincoln-Douglas Debate 34

Rostrum | SPRING 2016


How can you use your debate skills in a professional context?

“The critical thinking and speaking skills I learned in debate are at the center of what I do every day at McKinsey.” – Claire Branch, Past President of Princeton University Debate Panel, 2014 Champion Harvard APDA Tournament

“At McKinsey, I’ve helped implement federal financial regulation and

tackled critical

questions of public sector financial

management. These are the sorts of

topics that fascinated me as a debater; to work on them professionally right out of college has been an incredible experience.” – Josh Zoffer, Past President of Harvard Speech and Parliamentary Debate Society, 2009 NSDA National Champion in Public Forum Debate

McKinsey & Company is a consulting firm that works with senior executives to help them solve their most pressing issues in technology, healthcare, government, and many other industries. College graduates join McKinsey to collaborate

on teams, gain exposure to many industries, and enhance their leadership capabilities, working hand-in-hand with clients. As a debater, you'll bring sharp analytical skills, breadth of knowledge on today's issues, and public speaking prowess to a career that will develop you as a leader. Learn more at www.mckinsey.com/careers.


CLAREMONT SUMMER DEBATE PROGRAMS

About the Public Debate Program

The Public Debate Program offers 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 were developed to maximize student educational outcomes and accelerate standardsbased learning, as well as professional communication practice. The PDP promotes sophisticated public speaking, critical thinking, note taking, research, argumentation, and refutation skills. In 2015-16, the PDP established new initiatives in Pakistan, China, Costa Rica, India, Jordan, and the US. More than 750,000 teachers and students in 27 countries participate in the PDP.

National Middle School/High School Debate Summer Sessions

Middle schools and high school students may participate in MSPDP and HSPDP/CHSSA parliamentary debate programs. All debate sessions feature an innovative curriculum, extraordinarily low 4-1 studentfaculty ratio, small group instruction, certified staff and judges for program instruction, and studentdirected elective and open forum sessions. The summer program integrates student assessment portfolios for individual feedback and best practices updates during the following year. Students may attend one or more than one session – all sessions are appropriate for new and advanced debaters.

International High School Debate Summer Session/Audition

The program is open to US and international high school students. Debaters from China, Japan, Germany, Canada, Singapore, Indonesia, Kuwait, UAE, India, Mexico, Jordan, and other countries have previously attended. Instruction includes preparation for international debating in 2 international debate formats – the World Schools Debating Championship (WSDC) and World Parliamentary Debate (WPD) formats. In addition to the advantages of Claremont Summer programming (innovative curriculum, 4-1 student-faculty ratio, staff with years of international debate experience, studentdirected elective and open forum sessions), the program includes an integrated audition for Claremont’s International Public Debate Program (IPDP). The IPDP is an extraordinarily large, active, and successful program; its award-winning debaters have participated in tournaments and international exchanges in more than 20 countries. IPDP instruction and international competition assists students to succeed in WSDC competition. About half of the members of the NSDA’s WSDC debating squad previously participated in IPDP or other PDP debating.

Visit claremontsummer.org for information and applications

OUTSTANDING LEADER IN NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL DEBATE TRAINING 2016 SUMMER PROGRAMS

CLAREMONT SUMMER Residential/commuter sessions for 500 debate and leadership communication students. For comprehensive Information and applications, visit claremontsummer.org. MIDDLE SCHOOL DEBATE Three sessions, with training in the Middle School Public Debate Program (MSPDP) format. Comprehensive instruction in advanced public speaking and argumentation – appropriate for MSPDP and other debate formats. The third session includes a summer tournament. Session 1 – June 24-29 Session 2 – July 6-11 Session 3 – July 26-August 2 HIGH SCHOOL DEBATE Two sessions, one with training in the High School Public Debate Program (HSPDP) and California High School Speech Association (CHSSA) parliamentary debate formats and another session featuring international debate instruction in the World Schools Debating Championship (WSDC) and World Parliamentary Debate (WPD) formats. National (HSPDP/CHSSA) – July 17-24 International (WSDC/WPD) – June 18-25

PROGRAM DIRECTOR John Meany Director of Forensics Claremont McKenna College Claremont Colleges Debate Union john.meany@cmc.edu


CLAREMONT LEADERSHIP PROGRAMS

LEADERSHIP AND PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION ACADEMIC CONFERENCES 2016 PROGRAMS

WINTER CONFERENCE Conference on Nuclear Politics February 19-21

An effort to stimulate informed discussion, deliberation, and debate on nuclear weapons, proliferation, and energy issues. The conference includes 3 keynote speeches and opportunities for high school students to present papers, engage in roundtable discussions, and offer multimedia presentations.

CIVICS IN ACTION (CIVAC) LEADERSHIP AND PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION PROGRAMS

SUMMER SESSION – JULY 9-16

Claremont Summer offers advanced communication training for academic and career success. The Claremont program uses the same instructional sessions, practice exercises, and curricular materials now used by higher education institutions, non-profit and government organizations, and businesses for training tens of thousands of individuals. Through the application of case studies, training simulations, and roundtable discussions with talented communicators from diverse fields – technology, higher education, politics, law, and finance – students will develop the ability to identify problems, propose technically-achievable solutions, express vision, and motivate and manage others. The summer program includes the opportunity to present papers and engage in discussion panels in the Conference on Criminal Justice Reform.

ACADEMIC TERM PROGRAMS 2016-17

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 presentations, training students for leadership and school/community projects. National and international projects are ongoing during each academic year. Students can build on their project work or join new initiatives annually. Programming is evaluated by field and educational professionals.

For information on summer and leadership programs, please visit

claremontsummer.org & leadershipcommunication.center

Claremont’s Civics in Action program features opportunities to learn and apply management communication skills and participate in national and international leadership projects and conferences. Programming is based on the Claremont Colleges Debate Union’s successful professional communication programs for higher educational institutions, non-profit organizations, businesses, and government agencies. National and international photojournalism, healthy eating, and voter registration projects are underway.

SUMMER CONFERENCE Conference on Criminal Justice Reform July 14-15 (Announcement March 2016) For Conference and CivAc Information, visit leadershipcommunication.center.

CONTACT Lauren Phillips Claremont McKenna College Claremont Colleges Debate Union lauren.phillips@cmc.edu


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


Global Success: USA Debate Team Travels to Slovenia, Canada, and Beyond by Liz Yount

A

s I sit in my Canadian hotel room after a long day of debating, I recall a mere 13 days ago when I was sitting in a very similar hotel room, except I was halfway around the world for a tournament in Ljutomer, Slovenia. Although the languages and customs in Europe differed from those of Vancouver, my experience with the USA Debate team has remained consistent— it is one of incredible teamwork and coaching that combines to create a mutual respect for discourse and competition. Six debaters and two coaches from across the United States traveled to Slovenia March 1 to 6 to compete in the Za in Proti International World Schools Debate Tournament. After more than 17 hours of traveling and a two-hour ride across the beautiful Slovenian countryside, we finally reached the tournament hotel where debaters and coaches from

DEBATE

“We want to use words to shape the future for debate, both domestically and internationally.”

around the world met us with smiles and warmth. We debated difficult topics ranging from women in combat scenarios to the intersections of race and class, building upon the subject matter we covered in the Harvard-Westlake MLK Civil Rights Debate and the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in January. In addition, the USA Debate team participated in the Canadian Pan American Debates from March 17 to 23. At the tournament in Slovenia, the USA Debate team entered two teams into a pool consisting of 50 teams from 14 countries and several continents. Both American teams advanced to elimination rounds, with USA Red finishing as a quarterfinalist and USA Blue winning second place in the finals. In terms of speaker awards, I finished as second place overall speaker, Julia Lauer placed fifth, Amit Kukreja finished as ninth speaker, and Milan Amritraj and Josh May tied for tenth place speaker.

(from top) The USA Debate team traveled to Ljutomer, Slovenia, in March for the Za in Proti International World Schools Debate Tournament. • USA Red members Liz Yount, Milan Amritraj, and Joshua May advanced to quarterfinals and placed fifth overall. • USA Blue teammates Julia Lauer, Nikolas Angelopoulos, and Amit Kukreja debated in the final round and finished in second place.

Rostrum | SPRING 2016 39


By participating in both the Slovenian and Canadian tournaments, I have seen our country’s team transform from a group of strangers, all coming from different domestic formats of debate, to a unified symposium of knowledge and skill. Now, more than ever, we have become a cohesive unit, both in and out of rounds, which will aid us immensely as we prepare for the world championship in Stuttgart, Germany, this summer. “The depth of work on our prepared motions has increased astronomically,” coach and team manager Cindi Timmons said. “In Canada, we were able to bring a new element to our approach on these motions that allowed us to be very successful.” Mrs. Timmons also reflected on how the depth of our research allows us to expand our knowledge, helping us not only as debaters for

impromptu motions, but also as students in school. “We’re going to be doing a lot more impromptu prep work in terms of how to best use that preparation time,” Mrs. Timmons explained. “Going in much deeper on the social justice issues is important because a lot of the topics have these elements, and we want our discourse to be effective.” In Slovenia and Canada, we were faced with very difficult topics that focused on issues of race, gender, and poverty. I learned from these experiences how essential debate is in bringing clarity and exposure to the material conditions of people living in horrible situations around the world. It is very easy to get caught up in the debate round and forget that the lives we are discussing are not just hypothetical people, but rather real individuals with real struggles. As young people, debate allows us to have very difficult

conversations regarding these systemic issues, and the past few months with the USA Debate team have shown me how necessary this dialogue is to our society. Hahn Do, on the coaching staff at Kingwood High School in Houston, Texas, who was also at the world championship in Singapore last summer, agrees with the importance of engaging in timely debate regarding social issues. “Rhetoric is very important in understanding things like race and classism,” Ms. Do concurred. “There’s always a need to better explain ourselves and better explain the narratives of the unspoken voices that exist out in the world.” Ms. Do has witnessed American debaters, from both her high school and the USA Debate team, integrate seamlessly into the WSDC circuit, since our varying backgrounds in LincolnDouglas, Congressional, and

Policy Debate teach astute critical reasoning skills. “We have integrated very seamlessly into the format,” she said. “Growth-wise, we are starting to get a better grasp of how to weave our arguments rhetorically with our narratives.” As the world championship in Germany becomes more and more of a reality each day, the entire USA Debate team is preparing to represent this country to the best of our ability on the international stage this summer. Each tournament, each loss, each win, and everything in between are all steps in the process toward reaching our full potential. At the end of the day, we want to use words to shape the future for debate, both domestically and internationally, and to create positive, impactful discourse regarding meaningful issues around the world. The USA Debate team is yet another step in this amazing process.

(left to right) Members of the 2015-2016 USA Debate team include Milan Amritraj, Liz Yount, Joshua May, Sonya Huang, Nikolas Angelopoulos, Julia Lauer, Amit Kukreja, alternate Colette Faulkner, and Nikhil Ramaswamy. Not pictured: Matthew Zheng.

Apply for the 2016-2017

USA Debate team! 40

Rostrum | SPRING 2016

The application process will be open May 1, 2016, through July 5, 2016. Visit www.speechanddebate.org/usadebate to learn more!


2016 WORLD SCHOOLS

DEBATE  CAMP DEBATE

“The triumphs of the tongue have rivaled, if not surpassed, those of the sword.” — Calvin Coolidge

Train for World Schools Debate with members of USA Debate!

June 26–July 5 In Scenic Plymouth Notch, Vermont

Could you be the next member of USA Debate? Camp sessions will be taught by veteran members of USA Debate, internationallyrenowned content experts and highly-successful college debate coaches. This camp has a track record of helping debaters become competitive candidates for USA Debate, and the camp will provide inside tips about the USA Debate application process from USA Debate alumni. You’ll also have the chance to visit nearby Dartmouth College.

Sign up today at CoolidgeFoundation.org


Need help prepping for your upcoming tournament? Save time, energy, and stress by ordering low cost Extemp Questions, Impromptu Prompts, and World Schools Motions from the National Speech & Debate Association!

Extemporaneous Questions 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! *

Impromptu Prompts General Public

$75

(up to 7 rounds)

$50

Members

Resource Package

(up to 7 rounds)

$25

(up to 7 rounds)

World Schools Debate Motions General Public

Members

$125 (up to 7 rounds)

$100 (up to 7 rounds)

Resource Package

$75

(up to 7 rounds)

Visit www.speechanddebate.org/tournamentservices to place your order!


REGISTER & TAB WITH US Low Cost • Flexibility • Support • Auto-Posting

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-POSTING – Teams that register through JOT do not need to enter points manually after your tournament. Just review and submit!

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!


Comprehensive Program Scholarships Available to NSDA Students Your NSDA Points Will Transfer Top 10 National PKD Program 2016-2017 National Travel Schedule: West Virginia • Idaho • St Louis, Missouri Indianapolis, Indiana • Minnesota & More About Simpson: Located in Indianola, Iowa • 13:1 Student to Faculty Ratio 1,450 Full-Time Students More Than 75 Student Clubs & Organizations FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT: spencer.waugh@simpson.edu www.simpson.edu/speech-and-debate


Eleventh Diamond COACH PROFILE

Donus D. Roberts by Russ Godek

Serendipity.

S

erendipity—luck that takes the form of finding valuable or pleasant things that are not looked for. If you spend enough time with coaches in the speech and debate community, you’ll start to notice patterns. One pattern of note is the reoccurrence of serendipity. One would be surprised at how many coaches hadn’t envisioned a life dedicated to speech and debate. Enter Donus Roberts. “I had never planned on coaching debate,” Donus

recalled. “At the time, I had told myself I was going to be an attorney, but people told me that I should get my teaching certification in case I wanted to teach at some point.” Donus was convinced he was going to be a lawyer, but he listened to his friends’ advice and acquired his teaching certification. This points to one of his greatest strengths—the ability to pay attention to smart and successful people in his life. “I’m a sponge,” Donus said. “I would notice a coach and just watch their style. I was able to easily seek out positive influences and learn from them.” Donus developed this ability from an early age, and he credits that to his father. An intellectual man with a modest career as a dirt farmer, Dan Roberts had a strong influence on Donus throughout his life. “He taught me a great deal about how to intellectually prepare.” His father had a few favorite sayings that Donus took to heart over the years. “He would say, ‘I’ve never met anyone who didn’t benefit from overlearning.’ Meaning, if you decide to study something, invest in it fully and learn all there is to know. Don’t just do enough to get by.” This approach is astonishingly evident throughout Donus’ time in speech and debate. That brings us to the elephant in the room: The Eleventh Diamond.

Donus’ eleventh diamond is the first in the history of the National Speech & Debate Association. Under his leadership, students earned more than 31,000 points through speech and debate presentations, competition, and service. If you ask Donus about the award, he prefers not to make a big deal about it. In fact, he remains amazingly concerned whether he’s done enough. “There’s been a lot of publicity about it and people are saying nice things,” Donus said. “With all of the awards I’ve received over the years, my only worry is that I’ve given enough back to deserve them.” So far, I’ve only found people who will attest to Donus being more than deserving of every one of them. Don Crabtree, President of the NSDA Board of Directors, has worked closely with Donus for more than 20 years and has nothing but glowing remarks. “He is the epitome of wisdom, talent, hard work, and kindness. He represents all the best there is to coaching,” Don said. “I am a better person for having known him.” One of Donus’ proudest achievements was earned in 1987 when he implemented the ombudsperson role at the National Tournament. “I feel it really opened up the tournament, allowing it to become a much more transparent and democratic process,” Donus said. “It eased the process of dealing with protests, as well, since there was a clear line of communication.” Donus would be joined in the Bud Room by Crabtree in 1996, spending many years working closely with one of his best friends to ensure the tournament ran smoothly. Of course Donus, echoing his father’s words, would not settle for doing just enough to get by. Later, in 2003, Public Forum Debate—an event

Rostrum | SPRING 2016 45


HISTORY IN THE MAKING Donus created to be more accessible to students—was introduced at the National Tournament. “Most of my career was in Policy Debate,” he said. “Public Forum has many of the same virtues of Policy Debate, but it’s more accessible to more students. I felt that it had the capacity to serve more students than Policy could realistically serve.” It’s surprising to think such a storied speech and debate career almost never started. Donus attended Platte High School, a small South Dakota school that didn’t have a debate team, though that didn’t stop his history teacher from seeing his potential. “He told me that it was too bad I hadn’t gone to a larger school with a team,” Donus said. “He thought I would enjoy the activity.” His history teacher was right, eventually. “My first experience in speech and debate came in college, and it wasn’t particularly illuminating. The first time my partner and I went out and debated, I was mediocre, and he was worse. We ended up 0-6 at the tournament!” Donus wouldn’t let that loss dissuade him; instead, he turned it into a learning moment. From it, he developed a lesson he gives to all coaches and students in this activity. “Be authentic,” he said. “Never lose your sense of humor, especially your ability to chuckle at your mistakes.” More struggles came for Donus in college, as a hunting accident almost took his life and left him blind in his right eye. Donus, an avid reader, continued his intense studying shortly after his accident. “My left eye was not strong enough to sustain constant studying and reading on its own,” he said. “And so I went blind.” His blindness eventually went away and his left eye recovered a few days later. The accident had taken a toll mentally, physically, and financially—with the

46

Rostrum | SPRING 2016

Donus Roberts is the first and only coach to earn an eleventh diamond in the history of the National Speech & Debate Association. Below is a sampling of his many accolades.

latter being key, as it prompted him to seek out a teaching job. Donus took a job with Watertown High School and is still with the program 56 years later. Most of those years were spent coaching alongside his wife, Lovila, whom he met during lunch while teaching. It’s fair to say that despite plenty of struggles, his college experience was fruitful. Today, as he interviews with me, he sits with his wife in their bookstore, DDR Books, in Watertown, South Dakota. “Just about the time that bookstores are closing like mad, I opened mine,” he said. “Now digital books are losing ground, though, so it’s not looking so foolish anymore.” Donus and Lovila have been “retired” for years now, but they both continue to coach. Many ask why he continues to work, despite his retirement. For Donus, the answer is simple—it’s not work. “The school system and people in this town have taken great care of us and have always been appreciative of our efforts.” Donus’ biggest pet peeve? People who take more from life than they give. (Kind of obvious, right?) His favorite word? You guessed it—serendipity. Written by Russ Godek, Communications Associate for the National Speech & Debate Association

• Earned degrees from Southern State Teachers’ College at Springfield and Northwestern University • Watertown High School: Classroom teacher, Director of Speech Activities, Head Debate and Individual Events Coach, and Language Arts Department Head • Watertown High School’s debate and individual events program was the largest in South Dakota and usually among the five largest in the United States • Held an eight-term election to the NSDA Board of Directors • Served as Board president from 1994-1996 • Served as president of the Watertown Education Association • Served as chair of the South Dakota National Forensic League Committee • Served as president of the Speech Communication Association of South Dakota • Began the South Dakota Forensic Coaches Association in 1978 and served as its first president from 1978-1980 • The only active coach ever selected for the South Dakota Forensic Coaches Hall of Fame • The first South Dakota coach to receive a National Federation Speech and Drama Award • Elected to the National Speech & Debate Association Hall of Fame in 1987, his first year of eligibility • Elected to the National High School Hall of Fame in 2005, becoming only the second non-athletic coach to earn induction • The first recipient of the NSDA’s Brother Gregory “Rene” Sterner Lifetime Achievement Award. • Earned the Harold Jordan merit Award for Speech Education, the Governor Frank L. Farrar Award for teaching and coaching Excellence, the University of South Dakota’s Outstanding Alumnus Award, the Distinguished Service Award of the Speech Communication Association of South Dakota, the Clara Chilson Lee Award for coaching excellence, the Moorhead State University Award for leadership in speech communication, the National Federation Interscholastic Speech and Debate Award for Outstanding Speech Education, the Concordia College Lifetime Achievement Award, and the Distinguished Service Award for the State of Minnesota


DIAMOND COACH RECOGNITION

Eighth Diamonds

u Eighth DIAMOND u Carl F. Grecco Truman HS, PA January 14, 2016 • 22,899 Points

Carl Grecco graduated from the University of Scranton in 1962 and began teaching at Woodrow Wilson High School in Levittown, PA that fall (the school’s name was changed to Harry S. Truman High School in 1982). During his first year of teaching, he was asked to take over the existing forensic program. During his tenure at the school, Truman has qualified students to 22 NSDA National Tournament finals and 41 NCFL finals. Truman has qualified students to the NSDA finals in CX, LD, Extemp, Dramatic and Humorous Interp, and Congressional Debate. Additionally, the school has been awarded the Leading Chapter Award five times, has been in the 200 Club for a number of years, and has won the District Sweepstakes Award three times.

Randy Pierce coached speech and debate at Pattonville High School from 1974 until 2013. While there, he coached state champions in Oratory, Extemporaneous Speaking, and Lincoln-Douglas Debate, along with six state champion mock trial teams (one finishing fourth at nationals). He was responsible for Pattonville implementing a public speaking graduation requirement, and was honored as the district’s Teacher of the Year. For the last three years, he has continued coaching speech, debate, and mock trial at Francis Howell North High School, MO. Mr. Pierce helped found the Eastern Missouri District in 1979, and served on the District Committee for 33 years. Mr. Pierce’s service to the speech and debate community includes terms as the chair of the National Federation’s Speech, Debate, and Theatre Committee and as the chair of the Missouri State High School Activities Association’s Speech, Debate and Theater Advisory Committee. He worked as a staff member for 20 years at the Midwest Debate Institute and served as Missouri’s representative to the national debate topic selection committee for 20 years, authoring multiple topic papers for that group. He was the debate coordinator of the Greater St. Louis Speech Association for more than 30 years, and he has represented speech, debate, and theatre on the National Federation of High School Associations’ Citizenship Committee. Mr. Pierce co-hosted the 1998 National Tournament, has served on the Extemp evaluation committee, and has worked in several positions in the National Tournament tab room. He has been called upon multiple times by the Missouri State High School Activities Association to testify to the Missouri General Assembly on behalf of speech and debate activities. Mr. Pierce has received a number of awards in recognition of his commitment to speech and debate education. He has been honored by the Speech and Theatre Association of Missouri with the Outstanding Teacher Award, the Loren Reid Service Award, and the Emeritus (Hall of Fame) Award. The Missouri Bar presented him with the E. A. Richter Award for excellence in citizenship education. The Missouri State High School

In addition to these accomplishments, Mr. Grecco served on the Executive Board of the Pennsylvania High School Speech League for more than 35 years, as an officer of the Philadelphia Catholic Forensic League since 1978, and as the President of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Debate League since 1998. He has also been an active recruiter and trainer for new programs in the southeastern Pennsylvania area for a number of years and has been chosen as the NFHS Outstanding Speech, Debate and Theatre Award winner twice for Pennsylvania. Mr. Grecco retired from the classroom in 1998, but he has continued to coach there for what is now a total of 54 years. He spends his free time reading, traveling, and teasing his grandchildren.

Activities Association has honored him with both its Distinguished Service Award and its Irvin A. Keller Award for long-standing and significant contributions to interscholastic activities. In recognition of his contributions to the forensic community, he was inducted into the NSDA Hall of Fame in 2002. In 2014, he was inducted by the u Eighth DIAMOND u National Federation of Randy Pierce High School Associations Francis Howell North HS, MO into the National High February 10, 2016 • 27,458 Points School Hall of Fame and chosen to deliver the acceptance speech on behalf of that year’s inductees. Last year, he and his wife were inducted as Fellows of the National Churchill Museum to honor their founding of the Winston Churchill Student Speech Contest. His wife of 38 years, Rebecca, coached at a neighboring school for 35 years, and they recently became members of the “Proud Grandparents” club. Mr. Pierce enjoys travel, history, politics, blackpowder rifle matches, distance running, horseback riding, and trivia (yes, he appeared on “Jeopardy”). On the day before this year’s National Tournament begins, he plans to make Utah the 23rd state in which he has run a half-marathon. His coaching of a national qualifier in Program Oral Interpretation this year proves that you can, in fact, teach an old dog new tricks.

Rostrum | SPRING 2016 47


DIAMOND COACH RECOGNITION

Fifth Diamond

u Fifth DIAMOND u Harriet L. Medlin Brentwood HS, TN January 22, 2016 • 13,001 Points

u Third DIAMOND u Rebecca Gray Jordan Elk Grove HS, IL February 8, 2016 • 6,000 Points

48

Rostrum | SPRING 2016

Harriet Medlin’s forensic career began in 1982 with eight students in Williamson County. WCS now has 10 high schools and all but the newest one, which will open in the fall, currently have or have had active speech and debate programs. This is her proudest accomplishment. In fact, three of her former team members have gone on to coach a WCS team. Ms. Medlin qualified her first student to nationals in 1985, and has qualified numerous students since. At the 2015 National Tournament, she qualified two PF teams and three students in Congressional Debate. One PF team finished in the top 20 and the other team finished in the top 30, earning a School of Excellence Award in Debate for Brentwood High School. In 2014, two of her students competed at Nationals in Congressional Debate, with one student advancing to the semifinals of Congressional Debate. She has had at least one recipient of the Academic All American award each year for a total of 33 students receiving the award. Last year, one of her students was the Tennessee District Student of the Year. Her students have won numerous district and state awards through the state organization, THSSDL. Ms. Medlin has served as a member of the Tennessee Committee for more than 10 years and was also named the New District Chair of the Year during the Leadership Luncheon at the 2015 Nationals. She has hosted the district qualifier many times, in addition to hosting district, state, practice congresses, and PF tournaments. Her dedication has encouraged many other schools to participate and grow their teams, for which she has been recognized numerous times with many awards. She has educated her team and herself through summer forensic camps and mentors new coaches in Tennessee serving as a beacon of light to us all.

u Third DIAMOND u Jennifer Alme The Harker School, CA February 11, 2016 • 6,074 Points

u Third DIAMOND u Kara L. Smith Lake City HS, ID February 25, 2016 • 10,303 Points


DIAMOND COACH RECOGNITION

u Third DIAMOND u Sarah M. Sherry Puyallup HS, WA February 29, 2016 • 6,054 Points

u Second DIAMOND u Shannon Jarman Cumberland Int’l Early College HS, NC January 7, 2016 • 3,000 Points

u Second DIAMOND u Calvin Helsley Mansfield HS, MO January 19, 2016 • 3,001 Points

u Second DIAMOND u Sandra J. Berkowitz The Harker School, CA January 23, 2016 • 3,001 Points

u First DIAMOND u Lisa Lincoln Desert Academy, NM October 29, 2015 • 1,502 Points

u First DIAMOND u Joshua Cohen Newton South HS, MA January 11, 2016 • 2,899 Points

u First DIAMOND u Ryan Nassif Clear Lake HS, TX January 11, 2016 • 1,504 Points

u First DIAMOND u Sara Berghoff Southport HS, IN January 25, 2016 • 1,500 Points

u First DIAMOND u Kara Prentice-Wines Canton South HS, OH January 30, 2016 • 1,501 Points

Rostrum | SPRING 2016 49


DIAMOND COACH RECOGNITION

u First DIAMOND u Bill M. Thompson NSU University School, FL January 30, 2016 • 1,500 Points

u First DIAMOND u Nicole Smith El Dorado Springs HS, MO February 2, 2016 • 1,500 Points

u First DIAMOND u Yatesh Singh Lakeville North HS, MN February 6, 2016 • 1,500 Points

u First DIAMOND u Laura Hammond Stillwater Area HS, MN February 20, 2016 • 1,898 Points

50

Rostrum | SPRING 2016

u First DIAMOND u Sue Hennessey Acton-Boxborough HS, MA February 1, 2016 • 1,754 Points

u First DIAMOND u Jeffrey A. Stoppenhagen Columbia HS, ID February 8, 2016 • 3,300 Points

u First DIAMOND u Sarah Donnelly Natick HS, MA February 20, 2016 • 1,500 Points


Donus D. Roberts Quad Ruby Coach Recognition The Association is proud to honor coaches who have earned their first 1,000 points.

Gerardine McKnight Charles Cook Brittany Freibott Cameron Maury Nicholas R. Lee RaNae Johnson Nathan Amberg Shannon Chamberlain Sam Zulia Michael Orfield Humzah Quereshy Cody Dorumsgaard Gary D. Peters Kathryn Campbell Phillip R. Helt Jacob Simon Alex Carlson Neomia Areetta Hagans Flores Alison McBee Elizabeth Haas Dustin Tao Robin Brown Brandi Shepard Carol Sylvester Pricilla Merritt Nancy Robinson Beverly Diles Brock James Sondrup Christopher Villarreal Erica Baker Nick Reid Josh Coots Peter Dong Craig Wall Marilyn Myrick Sandra M. Peek Matthew Leland Sara Zinck Bryan Tyler Davis Lynette Welter Jonathan Robertson Peter Quinn Bill Fritz Alan K. Tannenwald

Bridgewater-Raritan Regional High School, NJ Riverside High School, SC Redlands High School, CA El Camino Real Charter High School, CA Valley City High School, ND Green River High School, WY Dickinson High School, ND Northridge High School, UT Wadsworth City School, OH Canyon Crest Academy, CA University School, OH Maple Grove Senior High School, MN Wirt-Emerson Vis Perf Arts, IN Boise High School, ID Rockhurst High School, MO Comeaux High School, LA East Ridge High School, MN Paul Laurence Dunbar High School, KY Knoch Senior High School, PA Sunset High School, OR Leland High School, CA Clark High School, NV Sylvania Southview High School, OH Rosemount Sr. High School, MN Fullerton Joint Union High School, CA Sugar Salem High School, ID Chaska High School, MN Rigby High School, ID Millard South High School, NE George Ranch High School, TX Douglas High School, SD Chesterton High School, IN IL Math And Science Academy, IL Teurlings Catholic High School, LA Lake Travis High School, TX West Hardin High School, TX Lincoln Academy, ME Plano Sr. High School, TX McDonald County High School, MO Walther Lutheran High School, IL Sudan High School, TX Randolph High School, NJ Adlai Stevenson High School, IL Newton South High School, MA

1,441 1,402 1,310 1,286 1,254 1,220 1,218 1,201 1,195 1,192 1,191 1,187 1,168 1,160 1,158 1,158 1,157 1,155 1,153 1,144 1,141 1,133 1,126 1,124 1,121 1,119 1,116 1,109 1,108 1,106 1,105 1,104 1,104 1,100 1,099 1,099 1,094 1,093 1,091 1,088 1,088 1,081 1,076 1,076

Joseph Hyink Brian Alford Young Kim Samuel Segrist Chelsea Russell Neal White Jharick Shields Scott Odekirk Brett Rydalch Laura Harvey Will Malderelli Kayla Crook Anthony Gerrettie James Zucker Mike Bausch Nicholas Ingles Robert A Busch Nicole B. Dalton Teja Vepa Kevin L. King Deborah Lawson Joshua Schmidt David R. Holmes Marna R. Weston Michael V. McCabe Christopher Ray Smith Judith A. Rothstein Zoe Burstyn Nathan Van Dyke Marie Bakke Matthew Rothrock Tracy Honeck Matthew Graca Lauren McCool Randal K. Thomas John Michael Hardin Jody Markgraf Nick Herink Wanda Teddy Wil Pippin Travis Don Toth Brandon Sanchez Samira Husein

(January 15, 2016 through March 15, 2016)

Providence Classical Christian School, WA James Bowie High School, TX The Bronx High School Of Science, NY Lincoln Southeast High School, NE Willard High School, MO Plano Sr. High School, TX St. Andrew’s Episcopal School, MS Copper Hills High School, UT Grantsville High School, UT Jesuit High School, CA Scarsdale High School, NY Marshfield High School, OR Salpointe Catholic High School, AZ Loyola High School, CA Bingham High School, UT Prior Lake-Savage School-ISD719, MN Holy Cross Catholic Academy, TX Flintridge Preparatory School, CA Claremont High School, CA Marshfield High School, MO Grand Island Senior High School, NE The Hill School, PA San Marcos High School, TX Oak Hall School, FL La Salle College High School, PA Sachse High School, TX Paint Branch High School, MD Newport High School, WA Minnetonka High School, MN West Springfield High School, VA Columbus East High School, IN Muskego High School, WI Gabrielino High School, CA Des Moines Roosevelt High School, IA Denver South High School, CO Blue Valley Southwest High School, KS Kimball Area High School, MN Lincoln East High School, NE Antioch Community High School, IL Midland Christian School, TX Fort Scott High School, KS Gabrielino High School, CA Gabrielino High School, CA

1,075 1,069 1,069 1,065 1,065 1,064 1,060 1,060 1,059 1,054 1,052 1,052 1,048 1,047 1,045 1,040 1,038 1,037 1,036 1,034 1,032 1,031 1,026 1,025 1,021 1,018 1,017 1,016 1,014 1,013 1,012 1,009 1,009 1,008 1,008 1,008 1,006 1,004 1,004 1,004 1,001 1,000 1,000

Rostrum | SPRING 2016 51


Triple Ruby Coach Recognition

(January 15, 2016 through March 15, 2016)

Celebrating speech and debate coaches who have earned their first 750 points.

Adam Murphy Katie Carlson Sean Hanlin Colin Malinak Beth Steinleitner Carl Stafford Susan Schripsema Andrew Gegios Kristi Moore Rachel Warnecke Brian Darby Frank Ruskus Jerica L. Pfeiffer Rita Pello Val McIntosh Carrie Alexander Spina Conor Cameron Mark Stowitts Artem Raskin Julie McMerty Timothy Leffert Alisha Sharaballi John Holen Joel M. Kuper Ethan Samuel Matthew Stewart Adesuwa Omoruyi Ashley McCulloch

Millburn High School, NJ East Ridge High School, MN Howard Health And Life Science, NC Saint Mary’s Hall High School, TX Dassel Cokato High School, MN Van Horn High School, MO La Cueva High School, NM Whitefish Bay High School, WI Jefferson City High School, MO Midwest Speech & Debate, MI Clear Creek High School, TX Monta Vista High School, CA Idaho Falls High School, ID Madison West High School, WI Niles West High School, IL Tuscarwaras Valley High School, OH Solorio Academy High School, IL Cajon High School, CA Evergreen Valley High School, CA Orono High School, MN Piper High School, KS Ridge High School, NJ Lincoln East High School, NE Greybull High School, WY Bolivar R 1 High School, MO Royse City High School, TX Alief Taylor High School, TX Eaglecrest High School, CO

967 951 942 913 899 899 894 882 881 877 869 865 865 860 859 855 845 844 843 837 833 830 823 821 820 816 812 810

Michael Murray Donnie Drobny Carrie Oorlog Jonathan Nye Stephen Black Lily Bolig Chad Chenowith Tom Smith Laura Herrera Amanda Sloan Brandon Spars Maura Brew Barbara Bastianini Angela Smith Shauna Wessely Christel Belcher Kristy Hensley Krys Park Anna Frances Carmon Tim Haynes Jamey Pritchett Cindy Giles Mentzer Frank Kerber Ashley Murphy Kate Jones-Rickman Brandon Kamaka Gina DiFelice

Oxford Academy, CA Borah High School, ID Brookings High School, SD Horace Mann High School, NY Woodlawn High School, AL San Dieguito Academy, CA Bishop Dwenger High School, IN John Hersey High School, IL Eastwood High School, TX Coral Academy Of Science Las Vegas , NV Sonoma Academy, CA Benilde-St. Margaret’s School, MN Pine-Richland High School, PA Resurrection Christian School, CO Milton High School, WI Danville High School, KY Raytown South High School, MO Campbell County High School, WY Columbus East High School, IN Central High School - San Angelo, TX Mildred High School, TX Keystone Oaks High School, PA Peters Twp High School, PA Unionville High School, PA William H. Taft High School, TX Beavercreek High School, OH Rocky Mountain High School, CO

Advertise your speech and debate openings with us!

As a service to member schools, the National Speech & Debate Association offers complimentary employment listings on our website and also in Rostrum. For $100, you may reserve a custom, third-page print ad with larger font, optional logo, and more. We’ll even help you design your ad! Contact us at editor@speechanddebate.org or call us at (920) 748-6206 to reserve your ad today. Our next issue will be published in mid-September!

LEARN MORE www.speechanddebate.org/jobs

52

Rostrum | SPRING 2016

806 805 803 801 800 794 790 787 787 786 784 781 781 780 776 767 766 759 757 756 754 754 753 753 752 752 751


*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


SQUIRREL-KILLERS 2016-2017 ORDER FORM PRINTED COPY

CD

E-MAIL

PRINT/CD

PRINT/E-MAIL

COMBO COMBO POLICY DEBATE (CROSS-X): ($first copy/extra copies) Choose one of three subscriptions: (on printed copies of 4 or more of the same item, all copies are at lower price) Basic Subscription ___ copies ($96/$48) ___ $85 ___ $74 ___ $133 ___ $122 $______ OR Basic + 6-mo. Updates ___ copies ($146/$73) ___ $128 ___ $110 ___ $201 ___ $183 $______ OR Basic + 4-mo. Updates ___ copies ($130/$65) ___ $114 ___ $98 ___ $179 ___ $163 $______ NOTE: same items available individually: Aff. Casebook (May 15) ___ copies ($16/$8) ___ $13 ___ $10 ___ $21 ___ $18 $______ 1st Negative Briefs (Jul 15) ___ copies ($40/$20) ___ $36 ___ $32 ___ $56 ___ $52 $______ 2nd Negative Briefs (Jul 15) ___ copies ($40/$20) ___ $36 ___ $32 ___ $56 ___ $52 $______ Update Briefs (print & CD published MONTHLY, e-mail version published WEEKLY) 6-month option (Sep-Feb) ___ copies ($50/$25) ___ $43 ___ $36 ___ $68 ___ $61 $______ 4-month option (Sep-Dec) ___ copies ($34/$17) ___ $29 ___ $24 ___ $46 ___ $41 $______

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE (NSDA TOPICS ONLY) Basic Subscription (all 4) ___ copies ($104/$52) ___ $88 ___ $72 ___ $140 ___ $124 $______ OR same items available individually: (on printed copies of 4 or more of the same item, all copies are at lower price) Sep-Oct L-D topic ___ copies ($26/$13) ___ $22 ___ $18 ___ $35 ___ $31 $______ Nov-Dec L-D topic ___ copies ($26/$13) ___ $22 ___ $18 ___ $35 ___ $31 $______ Jan-Feb L-D topic ___ copies ($26/$13) ___ $22 ___ $18 ___ $35 ___ $31 $______ Mar-Apr L-D topic ___ copies ($26/$13) ___ $22 ___ $18 ___ $35 ___ $31 $______ PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE (NSDA TOPICS) Basic Subscription (all 7) ___ copies ($182/$91) ___ $154 ___ $126 ___ $245 ___ $217 $______ OR same items available individually: (on printed copies of 4 or more of the same item, all copies are at lower price) Sep-Oct PF topic ___ copies ($26/$13) ___ $22 ___ $18 ___ $35 ___ $31 $______ Nov PF topic ___ copies ($26/$13) ___ $22 ___ $18 ___ $35 ___ $31 $______ Dec PF topic ___ copies ($26/$13) ___ $22 ___ $18 ___ $35 ___ $31 $______ Jan PF topic ___ copies ($26/$13) ___ $22 ___ $18 ___ $35 ___ $31 $______ Feb PF topic ___ copies ($26/$13) ___ $22 ___ $18 ___ $35 ___ $31 $______ Mar PF topic ___ copies ($26/$13) ___ $22 ___ $18 ___ $35 ___ $31 $______ Apr PF topic ___ copies ($26/$13) ___ $22 ___ $18 ___ $35 ___ $31 $______ TOTAL

$______

NAME ADDRESS CITY, STATE, ZIP E-MAIL ADDRESS Visa/MasterCard # __________________________________ Exp Date _________ CVV (3-digit #) ______

S-K PUBLICATIONS PO Box 8173 Wichita KS 67208-0173

PHONE 316-685-3201 FAX 316-260-4976 debate@squirrelkillers.com http://www.squirrelkillers.com


MAKE A

DOZEN MEMORIES

AT THE

12th Annual GEORGE MASON INSTITUTE OF

FORENSICS

FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS GMIF HAS CELEBRATED THE PAST 3 IX CHAMPIONS AT NSDA!

GMIF is proud to celebrate recent success in the 2015-2016 season at the Glenbrooks, Villiger, Blue Key, Yale, Harvard, Emory and Wake Forest Tournaments resulting in;

8 Champions 35 Finalist 29 Semifinalist 69 Quarterfinalist

This summer GMIF welcomes Beth Clarke as the 2016 extemp co-curriculum director, and NSDA IX National Champion Nathan Leys as the assistant curriculum director. Both Beth and Nathan have coached past NSDA IX National Champions!

productions at Kennedy 12. Attend Center & a BACKSTAGE TOUR

8. Tour Washington, D.C

11.

7.

Reunite with former GMIF ALUMNI

researchers, writers, 10. Become and performers POI and Informative 9. Experience Majors

Join in conversations with Senators and Members of Congress

with finalists and 6. Work National Champions

5. performance showcases Observe amazing

4. Engage in in-depth workshops Audition for the GMU 3. Forensics Team 2. Meet the GMU Forensics Team MAKE AMAZING NEW FROM AROUND THE 1. FRIENDS COUNTRY AND WORLD

For More Information about GMIF or the GMU Forensics Team go to: gmif.gmuforensics.org

team.gmuforensics.org

gmif2016@gmail.com

Regular Sessions: July 10-23rd 2016 Extension Sessions: July 23rd-26th 2016


National Debate

High School Debate Camp

Schedule

June 5-18

2-week policy debate

June 5-25

3-week policy debate

June 19-29 June 5-18

Public Forum Public Speaking & Social Justice

Program features include: • Experienced, trained teaching staff • Introduction and advanced training • Prepare for the next topic before school starts Applications and more information will be forthcoming at: www.emory.edu/bf/institutes.index.html Barkley Forum Center for Debate Education, Emory University, 404-727-6189


June 26 - July 7, 2016

WKU team members, and former National Speech & Debate Tournament finalists, Brian Anderson, Brent O’Connor, Lily Nellans, Blake Knapp, Lyric Davis, Mark Allseits, Sam Moore, Lataya Williams, Andrea Ambam, Carolyn Evans, and Matt Wisenden.

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, public forum and congressional debate. Tuition includes all meals, dorm fees, and instructional material. WKU’s SFI challenges students to become the very best and then gives them the tools needed to be champions. If you want to compete like a champion, you need to work with the champions at WKU’s SFI !

Resident Commuter

full session (June 26 - July 7) $1200 $600

one-week intensive (June 26 - July 2) $700 same prices as last year $300

}

Application deadline: JUNE 17, 2016. Take advantage of early registration; discounted rates if you register by May 20!

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


Education First Nationally Recognized Staff Proven Student Success 2015 NSDA Nationals Results •  •  •  • 

Multiple finalists in Congressional Debate 5th Place in Dramatic Interp 7th Place in Public Forum Debate 11th Place in International Extemp

2016 Summer Institute

July 3-17, 2016

What our students think we do best: “The close knit environment of the lab, and the consistent effort of the lab leaders”

Barrett Honors College Arizona State University Find out More and Register at www.swsdi.org

Access, not Profit

“The mix of instructors. We had people with a lot of experience, as well as the perspectives of judges, coaches, and competitors.”

SWSDI is a not-for-profit camp. That means we’re not concerned about making money, we’re interested in making sure that everybody has access to the tools that improve performance.

“There was a lot of communication and help among everyone. There was a very comfortable feeling that I really liked & hope to feel again next year.”

Cost: $1095 for two weeks, $780 for one week. Room and board included. Commuter pricing offered.

“SWSDI sparked a passion for forensics in our daughter. They strike the perfect balance between rigor and fun.”

We believe that the camp experience is the best tool for levelingup your debate skills, and for building strong teams and communities. Come join us in July.


2016-2017 Policy Topic Overview

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

by Stefan Bauschard Introduction If you ask someone what the 2016-17 debate topic is, they will say the topic is “China.” They are right that the topic area is China, and since China is a country of one billion plus people that is becoming a leading global power, and since the U.S. engages China in many different ways on a daily basis, China as a topic area is a fascinating one for debate. But the resolution more carefully focuses the question to whether or not the United States should significantly increase its “diplomatic and/or economic engagement” with China. Directing the Affirmative to such engagement substantially limits the topic, both substantively and strategically. In this essay, I will review what it means to engage China through economic and/or diplomatic means, review the major issues for potential engagement, and discuss strategic considerations for both the Affirmative and the Negative.

Diplomatic and/or Economic Engagement: Key Questions I think there are four issues regarding “diplomatic and/or economic engagement” that will be important to determining both the potential breadth of the topic and available Negative counterplan ground: 1) Over what issues can the engagement occur? For example, it seems obvious that economic engagement can occur over trade, but it is less obvious that economic engagement can cover military issues. Can diplomatic engagement occur over military issues and are there any limits to what constitutes diplomatic engagement? 2) How do we engage? This how question focuses on actions like providing economic aid, negotiating trade deals, engaging in talks and supporting direct financial investment

in industries in the topic countries. These are just a few examples. 3) Can engagement be conditional? In other words, is it topical for the U.S. to offer a reduction in trade barriers, for example, in exchange for action by one of the topic countries in some particular area(s)? This bargain is referred to as a quid pro quo (qpq). Related to this, if it is determined that engagement can be conditional, the question that will arise is if the Affirmative plan has to be conditional. In other words, must a topical engagement plan include a quid pro quo? The conditionality question is really a second formulation of the how question. If engagement requires a qpq, it means that most cases are likely to hurt relations. 4) Does engagement require the United States federal government to interact with China? This is somewhat related to the last question, but even short of a quid pro quo, if the U.S. engages China, does the U.S. have to interact with China’s government, or can the U.S. simply lift a trade restriction it currently has on China? If the plan has to involve an interaction, teams can counterplan (when it is feasible) to simply remove the restriction and not interact. Suggested answers to each of these questions will be provided in the next sections. The implication of the answers for topicality arguments is also previewed. • What issues can be covered by economic engagement? The core question here is how the term “economic” limits the topic beyond what would be true if the topic simply said “increase its engagement with…” Obviously, the term “economic” limits the type of engagement, but contextual usage evidence doesn’t suggest that there is too much of a limit. I’ve found contextual evidence that supports including all of the following in economic engagement:

Rostrum | SPRING 2016 59


Policy Debate • China • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Trade Information technology Investment General environmental issues Forest and wetland conservation Water and air quality Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) Health care Clean energy, including renewable energy Electricity production and transmission Nuclear power General energy security Defense and security Economic development Intellectual property Reducing corruption Food regulation Environmental regulation

Specifically, in the context of China, it includes day-today interactions and discussions of trade policy, bilateral investment, bilateral dialogues, trade and investment, cyber security, climate change, clean energy, the rule of law, and global economic issues. Sheets, Nathan. (2015, April 29). Remarks by Undersecretary Nathan Sheets at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Retrieved 01/10/16 from https://www.treasury.gov/ press-center/press-releases/Pages/jl10039.aspx. (The author is Undersecretary, Department of the Treasury.) It’s a great pleasure to be here among so many proponents of economic engagement with China. I know many of you have devoted a good deal of your careers to this endeavor. In particular, Matt, the work that you and CSIS have done over the years has been enormously helpful as we try to improve our strategies and tactics for engaging with China bilaterally and multilaterally. In that context, I will focus my remarks today on an important mechanism for this engagement, the Strategic and Economic Dialogue (SandED). Around this time of year, the question we are asked most often about the SandED is: “When is it going to be held?” And we usually say—as I will today—that we will announce the dates later. But here’s a more accurate answer: “The SandED is actually held every day!” In reality, the SandED is much more than just two days of meetings in early summer. It’s not an event, but rather a mechanism. A mechanism for managing and building the relationship between the world’s two largest economies, and it’s powered by day-in and day-out interactions. ... But let’s begin by looking back at how we framed our economic engagement with China even earlier, in the years before the SED. President Carter and Deng Xiaoping created the U.S.-China Joint Economic Committee soon after the establishment of diplomatic relations. It was initially chaired by the Treasury Secretary and a Chinese Vice Premier and designed to serve as the primary mechanism for coordinating economic relations. At first, the JEC agenda was broad. In 1982, for example, it included proposals for a bilateral investment treaty and

60

Rostrum | SPRING 2016

for what became the Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade, or JCCT. Over time, however, the JEC evolved to concentrate mostly on financial issues, while the JCCT covered commercial issues. Trade policy was handled in the WTO accession negotiations, and then increasingly added to the JCCT agenda. As our relationship grew, so did the modes of engagement. By the mid-2000s, the U.S. government had dozens of bilateral dialogues with China, many of them with an economic focus. … The Obama Administration chose to broaden the SED, adding the strategic track so that it became the Strategic and Economic Dialogue. As a “whole of government” dialogue, the SandED has proven to be a powerful tool for engaging across the array of complex issues in our relationship—from trade and investment, to cybersecurity and pandemic response, to development finance and climate change. We have seen some notable successes, including last year, as the SandED brought together foreign affairs, energy, and economic agencies on both sides to advance our work on climate change and clean energy cooperation. ... They discuss not only bilateral issues but also global economic developments and broader strategic issues. Since trade often involves weapons and potential weapons components, economic engagement can likely include military issues in certain instances. • Does “diplomatic engagement” undermine limits? How does the term “diplomatic” engagement limit the topic beyond if the topic had simply said, “engagement.” We know that the topic allows economic engagement, but is there anything else that is allowed by diplomatic engagement that is not allowed by economic engagement? (Note: It may be the case that diplomatic engagement includes economic engagement, but we need to know what else may be covered by diplomatic engagement to see how much the topic enlarges beyond economic engagement.) Haass, Robert N. (Summer 2000). Survival, 42(2), 114-5. (The author is the Director of Foreign Policy Studies at Brookings.) Architects of engagement strategies can choose from a wide variety of incentives. Economic engagement might offer tangible incentives such as export credits, investment insurance or promotion, access to technology, loans or economic aid. Other equally useful economic incentives involve the removal of penalties such as trade embargoes, investment bans or high tariffs, which have impeded economic relations between the United States and the target country. Facilitated entry into the global economic arena and the institutions that govern it rank among the most potent incentives in today’s global market. Similarly, political engagement can involve the lure of diplomatic recognition, access to regional or international institutions, the scheduling of summits between leaders— or the termination of these benefits. Now that we have covered both diplomatic and economic


Policy Debate • China engagement, the question is, is any type of engagement excluded? Most significantly, can diplomatic engagement include engagement over military issues? It seems like it includes engagement over at least some military issues, such as joint exercises. Curtis, Lisa. (2014, July 16). Indispensable partners – Reenergizing U.S.-India ties. Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South and Central Asian Affairs Hearing. Retrieved 02/10/16 from http://www. heritage.org/research/reports/2014/06/after-the-electionopportunity-for-revitalizing-usindia-relations. (The author is a Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation.) While their economic ties pale in comparison to those between China and India, Indo-Japanese diplomatic engagement has intensified in recent years. Japanese Emperor Akihito paid a rare visit to New Delhi in late 2013. Indian Prime Minister Singh made a historic four-day visit to Tokyo in May 2013, in which the two sides signed a joint statement pledging nuclear cooperation and expanded joint naval exercises. Other evidence suggests that it can include threats: Quirk, Sean P. (2015, November 9). Reconciling China’s PLAN: strategic intervention, tactical engagement. The Diplomat. Retrieved 01/10/16 from http://thediplomat.com/2015/11/ reconciling-chinas-plan-strategic-intervention-with-tacticalengagement. (The author is a Lieutenant, junior grade, U.S. Navy Surface Warfare Officer stationed in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. He is also a Young Leader and non-resident WSDHanda Fellow with the Pacific Forum CSIS. He previously lived in Beijing, China.) Diplomatically, Washington should hold a strategic intervention with Beijing to address China’s bad neighbor policy: The United States will never accept the Chinese strategy of rapidly expanding its maritime domain at the price of international law and the sovereignty of its neighbors. There are already several forums for U.S.China strategic discussion, among them the Strategic and Economic Dialogue, Strategic Security Dialogue, Defense Consultative Talks (DCT), Asia-Pacific Security Dialogue, and the Assistant Secretary Sub-Dialogue. Conveying U.S. concerns and intentions in these bilateral strategic forums allow Beijing to save face on the international stage. ... The goal of this strategic intervention would be to pressure Beijing to back down from its destabilizing belligerence in the East and South China Seas. ... The United States should, however, continue to demand that all claimants resolve disputes through peaceful arbitration, never with the use of force. ... Washington should make clear that China would face international repercussions for further militarization of international waters, to include United Nations condemnation and possible sanctions. The evidence reproduced in this section establishes two important points:

One, diplomatic engagement is much broader than economic engagement, so topicality violations that argue that the Affirmative is not “economic engagement” are not particularly useful since Affirmative teams can claim they fall under “diplomatic engagement,” which is quite broad. In fact, it is arguably so broad that it really doesn’t limit the topic much at all, leading it to functionally read, the United States federal government should increase its engagement with China. “Diplomatic and/or economic” is arguably a useless modifier. Second, there is a strong argument that diplomatic engagement makes the topic bidirectional because it can include pressure. While teams may win topicality “interpretation” debates that the Affirmative must be a “positive incentive” for the purpose of limits and avoiding bidirectionality, the literature clearly indicates that “diplomatic engagement” includes pressure—in other words, “sticks” as well as “carrots.”

• How does the U.S. engage? As noted, this question is also related to the third question because whether or not engagement can (or should) include a quid pro quo is a how question related to engagement. I separated them because the conditionality question applies to all other how issues and is really a core question about the types of acceptable Negative counterplans. For example, the U.S. might engage by providing foreign aid, but whether or not that aid can or should be delivered as part of a quid pro quo is a separate question. Similarly, can the plan topically make a simple trade concession, or does the plan have to offer it as part of a quid pro quo to be topical? In terms of specific mechanisms for engagement, contextual evidence exists for engaging in all of the following ways: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Official contacts with the government Academic exchanges Two track dialogue(s) Development programs (foreign aid) Providing loans Working through non-governmental organizations (NGOS) Enabling International Financial Institutions (IFIs) to support work in the topic countries Negotiating trade agreements and facilitating trade ties Developing standards and practices for businesses Using the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID) to support business development Encouraging other countries to reduce trade barriers Providing visas to individuals in other countries (this was an entire college resolution!) Supporting increased investment Helping U.S. companies navigate the business climate Strengthening measures to protect intellectual property Encouraging countries to invest in the U.S. Integrating countries into the global economic system Reduction in sanctions and other trade barriers Facilitating action by IFIs Boosting capital investment

Rostrum | SPRING 2016 61


Policy Debate • China • Supporting joint technology development • Providing technical cooperation on energy environment • Facilitating the development of regulation Some of these mechanisms are more or less relevant in the context of China, but that are all generally considered mechanisms of engagement. Many of these are obviously not qpqs. There is some evidence that says that U.S. economic engagement also includes engagement by private actors— businesses and nonprofit organizations that are not tied to the government. While this private engagement constitutes economic engagement by the United States, it would not constitute the federal government’s economic engagement and the resolution does say the U.S. has to increase its engagement. It is important to point out here that it is really the how question that determines what constitutes engagement. One way to look to define economic engagement is to look at what economic issues engagement can occur over. This list of economic issues was provided above in discussion of the first question. It is important, however, to emphasize that engagement is really a process and that if the Affirmative plan uses one of the tools discussed in answering the second question, the plan likely uses economic engagement, even if that economic engagement occurs over non-economic military issues. • Can (or must) engagement be conditional? Affirmatives will likely use one of the following engagement mechanisms that have been listed above. The major outstanding question is whether or not the Affirmative can topically choose to make that engagement conditional and whether or not they have to make the how conditional in order for the action of the how to constitute engagement. At least in the context of economic engagement, there is evidence that supports both interpretations of the term—that it can be both conditional and unconditional. Kahler, Miles, & Kastner, Scott L. (2006). Strategic uses of economic interdependence: Engagement policies on the Korean Peninsula and across the Taiwan Strait. Journal of Peace Research, 43(5), 52. (Kahler: Professor, Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies, University of California, San Diego; Kastner: Professor, Department of Government and Politics, University of Maryland.) While the determinants and effectiveness of economic sanctions have been the subject of a substantial and growing literature in international relations, much less attention has been given to economic engagement strategies, where a country deliberately expands economic ties with an adversary to change the target’s behavior. This article develops a theoretical framework that distinguishes between three types of engagement strategies: conditional policies that directly link economic ties to changed behavior in the target state; unconditional policies where

62

Rostrum | SPRING 2016

economic interdependence is meant to act as a constraint on the behavior of the target state; and unconditional policies where economic interdependence is meant to effect a transformation in the foreign policy goals of the target state. Although this previous card is in the context of economic engagement, there is no reason to believe that the same analysis would not apply to other forms of engagement and there is evidence that “engagement” includes both. O’Hanlon, Michael. (2016, January 8). What Obama gets right about America’s Asia policy. Retrieved 01/10/15 from http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-from-chaos/ posts/2016/01/08-state-of-union-asia-pacific-policyohanlon. (The author specializes in national security and defense policy. Before joining Brookings, O’Hanlon worked as a national security analyst at the Congressional Budget Office. His current research agenda includes military strategy and technology, Northeast Asia, U.S. Central Command and defense budgets, among other defense and security issues. His most recent book is The Future of Land Warfare, Brookings Institution Press, 2015.) The Asia-Pacific region is a promising but dangerous one. The pillars of Obama’s Asia policy are, in effect: • A (hardly dramatic) military “rebalance” to the broader Asia-Pacific region that, among other things, will increase the share of the Navy based or deployed there from 50 percent (the historic average) to 60 percent of the total U.S. fleet by 2020; • The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement that will include most of the region’s key economies besides China, assuming that Congress (and other nations’ legislatures) ratifies the accord; • Building on the accomplishments of President Bill Clinton and President H.W. Bush in improving the U.S.-India relationship across economic, security, and diplomatic spheres; and • A policy of engagement with China that promotes cooperation on issues like energy, climate, and broader economic policy, while also pushing back against China on issues like cybersecurity and the military’s activities in the South China Sea. The bidirectionally is true in the context of China: Finkelstein, David. (2015, September 24). Heritage Foundation Panel Discussion. (The author is Vice President and Director of China Studies, CNA.) But we must also understand that economic engagement with China means ensuring that they participate fairly in our system. First and foremost, China needs significant improvements to its legal system and to further open its economy to foreign and private investment. Another reform that China must undertake, urgently undertake, is combating the theft of foreign intellectual property. ... To effect these changes, we need a carrots and stick strategy


Policy Debate • China of increasing economic engagement with China that brings international norms and transparency, while holding firm on these fundamental principles. Although the piece of evidence above indicates that engagement can be conditional or unconditional, there is contrary evidence on both sides that sets up all of the following topicality arguments on the Negative: 1) Affirmative plans cannot be unconditional; engagement requires a quid pro quo; 2) Affirmative plans cannot be conditional; engagement must always be positive and cannot be negative. In regards to this second topicality argument, it is important to articulate a distinction between positive and negative conditions. A positive condition, for example, would be rewarding China with lifting a trade restriction if it frees political prisoners. A negative condition, for example, would be applying another trade sanction if it does not release political prisoners (or increase Internet freedom). There is good evidence that negative conditions are not engagement but that positive conditions are part of engagement. Mastanduno, Michael. (2003). The strategy of economic engagement: Theory and practice in Edward D. Mansfield and Brian M. Pollins (Eds.) Economic Interdependence and International Conflict: New Perspectives on an Enduring Debate, 184-5. (The author is a government professor at Dartmouth.) The approach taken in this chapter focuses instead at the state level, on the expansion of economic interdependence as a tool of state craft. Under what circumstances does the cultivation of economic ties, that is, the fostering of economic interdependence as a conscious state strategy, lead to important and predictable changes in the foreign policy behavior of a target state? Students of economic statecraft refer to this strategy variously as economic engagement, economic inducement, economic diplomacy, positive sanctions, positive economic linkage, or the use of economic “carrots” instead of sticks. Critics of the strategy call it economic appeasement. There is also evidence that negative and positive conditions together constitute economic engagement. Forcese, Greg, et al. (2002). Globalizing decency: Responsible engagement in an era of economic integration.” Yale Human Rights & Development Law Journal, 42. (The author is a member of the Bars of New York, Ontario, and the District of Columbia. He is an Associate at Hughes, Hubbard & Reed, LLP, in Washington.) At the margins, “conditionalities” inducing adherence to codes of conduct and sanctions blur together. For instance, while selective purchasing need not constitute a

boycott, the Burma and South Africa procurement regimes discussed above are clearly designed to curtail economic engagement with unpalatable regimes. Measures insisting on divestment cross a subtle boundary, going beyond the “mitigation” goal of the second prong of responsible engagement. They clearly constitute sanctions, the propriety of which must be scrutinized with an eye to the various concerns about sanctions, their effectiveness and secondary effects. The interpretations of economic engagement related to whether or not it can be conditional or unconditional are both winnable, however, and this has two important implications for next year’s debates. First, debaters that are good at debating topicality can win debates on both sides. If the Affirmative plan is a quid pro quo, the negative can argue that it cannot be a quid pro quo. If the Affirmative plan is not a quid pro quo, the negative can argue that it has to be a quid pro quo. Second, different types of Affirmative plans set up different types of Negative counterplans. If the Affirmative plan is not conditional, Negative teams can advocate a counterplan to condition the plan on one of the topic countries adopting a particular policy. Popular net-benefits to this counterplan will be Politics (it will be more popular to ask for something in return than to just give something away) and the advantage that stems from adding the condition (protecting human rights, for example). If the Affirmative plan is conditional, Negative teams can advocate passing the plan without the condition. Popular netbenefits to this counterplan include improving relations with the target country and avoiding the Sovereignty Good kritik. If the Affirmative plan is conditional, it is also arguably competitive for a counterplan to add a condition. Although counterplans that simply add items to the plan are normally not competitive because the permutation to do both would solve for the benefit of the second action, a permutation to add a condition is arguably severance because the counterplan makes the quid pro quo more difficult for the topic country to accept and arguably severs out of the easier, earlier offer. Regardless of the merits of the particular counterplans and the competitiveness of this latter counterplan, conditioning and deciding not to condition constitute strong Negative counterplan ground, so all debaters need to be prepared for this debate. • Does the plan have to include dialogue? If the plan is a conditional or quid pro quo engagement, interaction with China will inherently be part of the plan. If the plan is unconditional, however, must it still involve some sort of interaction with the government to be topical? For example, the U.S. can remove a trade barrier without any interaction with those governments at all—but do these actions constitute economic engagement?

Rostrum | SPRING 2016 63


2016 NFHS Rostrum Ad_Rostrum Ad 06.qxd 2/11/2016 9:00 AM Page 1

National Federation of State High School Associations

NFHS Speech, Debate and Theatre Association Member Benefits:

• Insurance coverage, including excess general liability, up to $1 million • Subscription to High School Today, a monthly NFHS publication • Training Materials and Resources • Access to Online Publications • Professional Development • Network of Communication All of these benefits and more for a $20 annual membership fee! To join, go to www.nfhs.org and click on “NFHS for You”

Join Today NFHS

SPEECH, DEBATE & THEATRE ASSOCIATION

NFHS Publications Available for Purchase Forensic Quarterly

The Forensic Quarterly (FQ) has remained one of the most credible and valuable resources for policy debaters and coaches across the country. Four issues are published each year: FQ1, an overview of the current policy debate topic area; FQ2, a bibliography of available research materials; FQ3, potential affirmative cases; and FQ4, possible negative cases.

NFHS Coach’s Manual for Speech and Debate

The NFHS Coach’s Manual for Speech and Debate is designed specifically for novice coaches. The manual contains information on a number of elements of coaching, including contest descriptions, finances, travel, judging, attending tournaments, and building and developing a team. The loose-leaf notebook format makes it easy to add information specific to your state.

Training DVDs

Videos are available on a variety of topics including Public Forum Debate, Lincoln Douglas Debate and Original Oration.

To order any of these materials, call NFHS customer service toll free at 1-800-776-3462 or order online at www.nfhs.com.


Policy Debate • China One way to think about answering this question is to say that if the Affirmative wins the debate that unconditional actions are economic engagement then the plan is topical and interaction with the government is not required. However, is it the case that the Affirmative could write a plan that is simply unconditional, such as providing foreign aid or negotiating a trade deal, without attaching any conditions but nonetheless interacting with the government? Requiring the Affirmative plan to include some interaction with China’s government does two things for the Negative. First, it provides a limiting function on the topic by excluding some cases that do not provide for any interaction. Second, if the Affirmative plan is really an artificial interaction with the government, meaning that the interaction is not needed to do the plan but is only there for the purpose of making the plan topical, the Negative could read a counterplan to simply act unilaterally without engaging the government. This would require them to provide a reason that the artificial interaction is bad, but as long as the Negative comes up with some net-benefit (even a simple “Diplomatic Trade-Off”), they will probably win because the Affirmative will not be able to defend it as necessary to solve.

Third, Negative teams will argue that restricting the Affirmative to positive cooperation will limit the topic and avoid bidirectionality. So while this essay will cover all approaches, I think this practical topicality question is something debaters must keep in mind as they approach the season.

Issues to Engage Over I devoted a substantial amount of time to the meaning of the phrase “diplomatic and/or economic engagement” not only because it establishes what plans can do but also because it sets up important Negative counterplans and lays the foundation for important Negative strategy. In this section, I will review some of the major issues that the U.S. should arguably engage China over that will likely be popular Affirmative case areas.

While this proposed “interaction” requirement does help the Negative, I don’t think it will be that hard for the Affirmative to find a strong case that requires at least some type of diplomatic engagement with China’s government to solve.

Since the topic simply requires some engagement with China, teams can really argue for engaging China over any issue that represents a strong case area. There are proposals in the literature for “hardline,” “softline,” and various QPQ approaches.

• Does the plan have to be positive?

Climate Change. China and the U.S. are the world’s two largest emitters of carbon dioxide and cooperation over the issue could go a long way toward reducing global climate change. Given that the climate change advantage is often used to provide leverage against common kritiks and the overall strength of warming as an advantage, I suspect proposals to engage China over climate change will be popular Affirmative plans.

Despite the quality of the evidence that says engagement can include pressure and Negative incentives, I think a lot of debaters will argue that engagement must be exclusively positive for limits purposes. First, there is a lot of context evidence indicating that engagement is positive. Second, there are plenty (at least 100) proposals for positive/cooperative engagement. Goldstein, Lyle J. (2015, May 1). Meeting China halfway: How to defuse the emerging U.S.-China rivalry, p. 1-2. Georgetown University Press. Kindle Edition. Scholars who research U.S.-China relations on both sides of the Pacific are nearly universal in concluding that such a catastrophic conflict today is far from inevitable. But what they have not done thus far is to provide concrete intellectual paradigms and accompanying policy proposals to lead this troubled relationship away from the brink of disaster. Therefore, this book seeks to be dramatically different from any other in the field in its treatment of U.S.China relations, by explicitly focusing on how to realize new paths to bilateral cooperation via “cooperation spirals”— the opposite of an escalation spiral. One hundred policy proposals are made throughout the chapters of this book, not because these are the only solutions to arresting the alarming course toward conflict, but rather to inaugurate

66

a genuine debate regarding policy solutions to the most vexing problems in bilateral relations.

Rostrum | SPRING 2016

Cooke, Merritt. (2013, September). Sustaining U.S.-China cooperation in clean energy. Woodrow Wilson Institute. Retrieved 01/20/16 from https://www.wilsoncenter.org/ sites/default/files/US_China%20Cooperatin%20in%20 Clean%20Energy_1.pdf I believe this topic is an important one. If the United States and China find a way to realistically base and sustain their cooperation in clean energy, they will be addressing directly 40 percent of the world’s total carbon emissions. And if together they manage to create a replicable model of cooperation, they can indirectly help the world address the remaining 60 percent. South China Sea. There are a number of territorial disputes in the South China Sea (SCS), including between Brunei, China, Taiwan, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam. There are also disputes over the Spratly and Paracel Islands. Recently, China has been more aggressive in asserting its territorial claims, building artificial islands and increasing military activity.


Policy Debate • China In response to China’s military build-up the U.S. has increased its military activity in the region, including a number of “sail throughs” in the SCS. Some policy advocates argue the U.S. should take a more aggressive approach to containing China in the SCS and others argue the U.S. needs to take a less aggressive approach, arguing that its current policy risks an escalating conflict with China. Tuosheng, Zhang. (2015, November 12). Use ‘quiet diplomacy’ to resolve sea issue. China Daily. Retrieved 01/02/16 from http://europe.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2015-11/12/ content_22435699.htm. (The author is the Director of Research and Senior Fellow at the China Foundation for International Strategic Studies.) The South China Sea is one of the busiest sea lanes in the world used by China, Japan, the Republic of Korea and many other countries, including the United States, and keeping it open is in the best interest of all. The shipping lane has never suffered disruptions despite the disputes among various countries over islands, reefs, and maritime rights and interests. Still, the U.S. has a fundamental disagreement with China over freedom of navigation. And the real reason for disagreement is the protracted closerange military reconnaissance and other operations by the U.S.. Since U.S. actions endanger China’s national security, the latter is naturally opposed to them. Late last month, the U.S. further intensified the disagreement over freedom of navigation by sending its warship to patrol the waters near the islands where China has carried out reclamation work. On the handling of South China Sea-related issues, the White House, the U.S. Department of State and the Department of Defense have some differing views. But the views of the Defense Department and the U.S. Pacific Command seem the toughest. Their belligerent views could be a symbolic stance to satisfy China bashers and get more budgetary funds. Or, they could signify their intention of turning the military operations in the South China Sea into a regular affair, gradually increasing their scale and intensity. Although both possibilities are provocative, the latter will greatly increase the risks of China-U.S. frictions in the South China Sea. So, while waiting to see what exactly the U.S. is after, China must prepare for a long-term struggle in case the U.S. pursues the second path. Compliance or non-compliance with the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea aside, the entry of the U.S. warship into the waters near China’s islands sends a strong negative signal: that the U.S. considers China an adversary or even a potential enemy. … But ignoring China’s promises, the U.S. has been consolidating its military presence in the South China Sea by continuing close-range military reconnaissance against China, interfering in the regional maritime disputes, selling weapons to Vietnam and other countries, strengthening its military alliances in the region and regaining its hold over military bases in the Philippines, and calling for joint patrols with Japan and other allies from outside Southeast Asia. By sending guided-missile destroyer USS Lassen to patrol the waters near China’s islands, the U.S. seems to indicate that it

is ready for a direct military conflict or confrontation with China. In a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black, however, it has accused China of interfering in its exercise of freedom of navigation and “militarizing” the region by carrying out construction work on its islands. China and the U.S. indeed have serious differences on the South China Sea issue. But they should be addressed through dialogue, not through an armed conflict. Given the emerging risks, therefore, the two countries need to use “quiet diplomacy” rather than taking actions that could worsen the situation. North Korea. China is North Korea’s largest trading partner and likely has the greatest potential to thwart the problematic behavior of North Korea, which has recently tested a nuclear weapon, a ballistic missile, has a 9 million person army, and has recently made threats against South Korea. This case would probably struggle on the solvency question (teams would have to win both that some form of engagement would incentivize China to change their behavior toward North Korea and then win that China changing its behavior would induce changes in North Korea’s behavior), but given the timeliness and magnitude of the impact, I think these cases will likely be popular. For example, one proposal suggests the U.S. could offer to China that the U.S. would not deploy its troops or nuclear weapons in North Korea after unification. Rosenmount, Henry. (2015, October 14). What better U.S.China cooperation might look like. Retrieved 04/12/16 from http://fpif.org/what-better-u-s-china-cooperation-mightlook-like/ Believing that only even stronger sanctions can bring North Korea to the negotiating table on nuclear disarmament, Secretary of State John Kerry is pressing China to join in imposing them. China, however, is reluctant to do so, even though it has become sorely peeved at its neighbor in recent years. One thing the U.S. could offer in return for Chinese cooperation would be a pledge not to station any American troops or nuclear weapons in North Korea when the two countries reunite, as sooner or later they must. Such a pledge would clearly restrict our future options, but it is almost certainly worth the effort. There is also a proposal for the U.S. to reduce troops in South Korea in exchange for China’s cooperation on Korean unification. Kydd, Andrew. (2015, July 30). Pulling the plug: Can there be a deal with China on Korean unification? Washington Quarterly. Retrieved 04/13/16 from https://twq.elliott. gwu.edu/sites/twq.elliott.gwu.edu/files/downloads/ Kydd_Summer%202015.pdf. (The author is a professor in the Department of Political Science, University of WisconsinMadison.) What kind of deal could enlist Chinese support for unification at a price tolerable to South Korea and the United States? China would have to withdraw support

Rostrum | SPRING 2016 67


Policy Debate • China for the North Korean regime in order to pressure it to join the ROK. To convince the North Korean leadership to leave power, it would be very helpful to offer them asylum in China, permanently protecting them from criminal trials or reprisals. South Korea would have to agree to reunification with the North on the condition that it immediately dismantles the North Korean nuclear program under full international inspections and reaffirms Korea’s adherence to the NonProliferation Treaty (NPT) as a non-nuclear weapons state. The United States would have to agree to reduce its role in Korea. It would almost certainly have to withdraw its military forces from united Korea, and possibly scale back or eliminate its alliance relationship as well. Korea could be “neutralized,” much as Austria was early in the Cold War, to remove it from the superpower competition. The key quid pro quo is Chinese termination of support for the North in exchange for U.S. withdrawal from the South. What would each of the major players have to gain from such a deal? China would reap benefits in at least four areas. First, it would see U.S. troops off the continent of Asia. China views U.S. troops as a threat that is bad enough for now, but would be even worse if Korea unified, with U.S. troops moving north to the Yalu. Second, a deal would eliminate other security threats generated by North Korea, in particular the possibility of war—even nuclear war—on the Korean peninsula. Third, a unified Korea would be an economic dynamo for northern China, contributing to investment and cross-border prosperity. Finally, it would permanently end the refugee problem posed by northern poverty. It’s true that there would be a temporary period of instability and migration within Korea and possibly across the Korean-Chinese border, but South Korea would have to take responsibility for this issue and the problem would diminish with time, as it did in the German case.

Outer Space. The U.S. and Russia were the original space powers but China has been aggressively expanding both its “peaceful” exploration and development of outer space as well as its military applications. There are various proposals to work with China to peacefully develop outer space as well as proposals to work with China to develop approaches to reduce the risk of military conflict in space. ASATs are designed to shoot-out the satellites of adversaries, blinding other countries and making it difficult for those countries to conduct military operations in the event of a conflict. David, Leonard. (2016, June 16). U.S.-China cooperation in space: Is it possible, what is in store? Space.com. Retrieved 04/12/16 from http://www.space.com/29671-china-nasaspace-station-cooperation.html

Taiwan. Legally part of China, Taiwan is an island off the East coast of China. It is unique in that it is a “partially recognized state,” which means that it has its own government, the capacity to enter into relations with other states, a defined territory, and a permanent population.

It will take presidential leadership to get started on enhanced U.S.-Chinese cooperation, said John Logsdon, professor emeritus of political science and international affairs at The George Washington University’s Space Policy Institute in Washington, D.C.

Taiwan has always been a controversial issue in U.S.-China relations because the U.S. defends Taiwan with arms sales and general military support but does not recognize Taiwan as an independent country, as this would collapse relations with China and risk a war over Taiwan.

“The first step is the White House working with congressional leadership to get current, unwise restrictions on such cooperation revoked,” Logsdon told Space.com. “Then, the United States can invite China to work together with the United States and other spacefaring countries on a wide variety of space activities and, most dramatically, human spaceflight.”

Despite an overarching framework for U.S.-Taiwan relations (no support for Taiwan independence, military support to deter China’s aggression), there are many proposals to “engage” China over Taiwan, including increased and decreased arms sales, collaboration to prevent conflict escalation, and other proposals to manage relations across multiple actors. One proposal in this area is to limit U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. Topping, Seymore. (2011, December 20). China vs. the U.S.: Cooperation over competition, part 5. World Policy Journal. Retrieved 04/12/16 from http://www.worldpolicy.org/ blog/2011/12/20/china-vs-us-cooperation-over-competitionpart-5

68

In keeping with the Taiwan Relations Act, the Obama Administration, like administrations before it, sold this year a $5.3 billion arms package to Taiwan consisting mainly of upgrades of Taiwan’s fighter jets. … The deal induced the usual bitter complaints in China of interference, but Beijing did not cancel the military-to-military consultations entirely as it did temporarily last year. In my view, the sale of arms packages to Taiwan, so irritating to Beijing, has more significance for the arms industry in the United States than it does for the balance of power in the Taiwan Strait. Taiwan is utterly dependent on the United States for defense against any Mainland military takeover attempt. Without that shield it would be entirely vulnerable to the far more powerful Mainland forces, more so now with the new batteries of missile launchers sited on the Mainland pointing at the island. Supplying arms to Taiwan makes little, if any, difference in the real military balance.  

Rostrum | SPRING 2016

Logsdon said the U.S.-Soviet Apollo-Soyuz docking and “handshake in space” back in 1975 serves as a history lesson. “A similar initiative bringing the United States and China together in orbit would be a powerful indicator of the intent of the two 21st century superpowers to work together on Earth as well as in space,” Logsdon said. While it is impressive that China has become the third country to launch its citizens into orbit, the current state of the Chinese human spaceflight program is about equivalent


Policy Debate • China to the U.S. program in the Gemini era, 50 years ago, Logsdon noted. “China has much more to learn from the United States in human spaceflight than the converse,” Logsdon said. “From the U.S. perspective, the main reason to engage in space cooperation with China is political, not technical.” Cyber Security. Cyber security deals with the protection of computer networks from cyber attacks. Cyber attacks include efforts to shut-down computer systems, redirect computer systems to more malicious tasks, manipulate the military and financial systems of other countries, and to steal corporate secrets. These attacks can be carried out by individuals, terrorists, and other countries. Over the last few years, the U.S. has accused China of engaging in a number of cyberattacks against U.S. corporations and its military infrastructure. The evidence against China is arguably very strong. In the fall of 2015, the Obama Administration reached an agreement with President Xi in an attempt to improve cybersecurity, but the agreement was vague and many observers argue it is not likely to accomplish much. As a result, there are a variety of proposals to reduce the threat of cyberattacks from China and to avoid military escalation over any potential attacks. Staffy-Gaddy, Franz. (2015, October 30). Can the U.S. and China cooperate on the first (and last) line of cyber defense? The Diplomat. Retrieved 04/12/16 from http://thediplomat. com/2015/10/can-the-us-and-china-cooperate-on-the-firstand-last-line-of-cyber-defense/ For now, the September 2015 China-U.S. cyber agreement remains the most useful framework for bilateral cooperation on cyber-related policy issues after the June 2013 Sunnylands summit pledges to deepen cybersecurity cooperation were abandoned with the U.S. indictment of five Chinese military hackers in May 2014. To avoid past mistakes, the rather vague September agreement needs to be followed up as soon as possible by bilateral meetings to more clearly define specific venues of cooperation between China and the United States. And while the September agreement talks about a meeting of a new joint China-U.S. high-level government-to-government working group to combat cybercrime to be held before the end of the 2015 and biannually in subsequent years, other initiatives to deepen cooperation between the two countries need to happen. One possible way to do so is to strengthen cooperation between the Chinese and U.S. Computer Emergency Response Teams (CERTs). In general, CERTs are the first (and last line) of defense in protecting a country’s critical information infrastructure from cyberattacks and are tasked with coordinating responses to network intrusions across the nation and beyond. China’s CERT is specifically tasked with “building up

the national monitoring, warning, emergency response, evaluation and public opinion centers for network security.” It serves as the coordinating body for other CERTs in China and also engages with CERTs in other countries. Military-to-Military. The U.S. already has a dominant global presence and China continues to modernize its military and expand its global presence. As China’s global power rises, it creates more opportunities for the U.S. and China to come into conflict. To avoid escalation, there are a number of proposals for the U.S. and China to develop agreements to reduce the risk of these conflicts and their potential escalation. Guoliang, Gu. (2014). Cooperation and differences between China and the United States in the field of arms control and nonproliferation. Retrieved 04/11/16 from https://www.nti. org/media/pdfs/Gu_Guoliang.pdf. (The author is Director, Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation Studies, Institute of American Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.) China and the United States should enhance their strategic reassurance through dialogues at different levels. … It is particularly important to strengthen military to military relations between the two countries, as exchanges and dialogues between the U.S. and Chinese militaries have lagged behind exchanges and dialogues in other fields. The two sides should strengthen their communication so as to have better understanding on their respective threat perceptions, military strategies, and national defense planning, instead of basing their military preparation on the “worst case scenario” category. The military leaders and experts should have in-depth dialogues on specific issues such as nuclear doctrines and policies, nuclear security, ballistic missile defense, outer space, cyber security, military transparency and etc. The two militaries should enhance their cooperation in countering terrorism, antipirates and U.N. peace-keeping. They should have more regular exchanges of visits and restore their lab to lab projects. Greater efforts should be made to remove the three major obstacles, the concerned provisions of U.S. National Defense Authorization Act of 2000 in particular, which hinder further improvement of military to military exchanges between the two countries. Trade Deficit. The low cost of producing goods in China contributes significantly to a trade deficit between the U.S. and China where the U.S. is purchasing more goods from China than it exports, arguably threatening the U.S. economy and its relative superpower strength vis-à-vis China. There are proposals to resolve this by facilitating U.S. exports. Against all countries, China currently has a trade surplus of $600 billion. Currency. China has been allowing the devaluation of its currency, the Yuan, for the last nine months. In spite of this, most analysts think the Yuan is more than 10%

Rostrum | SPRING 2016 69


– -


George Mason

Debate Institute

June 26 – July 10, 2016

About Us

The George Mason Debate Institute was established over a decade ago, and in the last two years has grown to be the largest debate camp in the state of Virginia, We offer novice, junior varsity, and varsity levels of instruction in Policy, Lincoln-Douglas, and Public Forum styles of debate. Being located close to Washington D.C. provides our campers with the opportunity to not only visit the capitol, but also learn from prestigious thinkers that we bring to the institute for guest speaking lectures.

Why GMDI?

The George Mason Debate Institute strives to offer the most individual attention of any debate camp. Low student-to-faculty ratios and an extremely active and qualified faculty allows us to meet the individual needs of every debater. GMDI also works hard to ensure an environment where every camper not only learns as much as possible, but feels as welcome as possible!

Tuition Rates ONE Week Resident

June 26–July 3

$975

ONE Week Commuter

June 27–July 3

$650

Want to learn more? To apply, or for more information, please contact institute director Jackie Poapst, at japoapst@

gmail.com . TWO Week Resident

June 26–July 10

$1,750

TWO Week Commuter

June 27–July 9

$1,200

www.georgemasondebate.com

4400

University

Drive,

We hope to see you this summer! Fairfax,

VA

22030

debategmu@gmail.com


Policy Debate • China overvalued against the U.S. dollar. China has continued to cut its currency because the government and investors borrowed trillions of dollars during the great recession and spent it on “uncompetitive factories and ghost cities” (Rubino, 2016). Now these companies and governments that own these assets are facing bankruptcy. The only way for China to deal with this is to lower the value of the Yuan to reduce domestic debts. A devalued currency means foreign countries can buy Chinese goods more cheaply, and, since the cost of importing goods rises, it protects domestic Chinese producers. This contributes substantially to the trade deficit problem discussed above. The problem is that this could lead to a domino effect as other countries lower their currencies to be more competitive with China. This would contribute to an artificial relative spike in the U.S. dollar, and that would “in turn swell the value of dollardenominated commodities and corporate debt — which would likely grind global growth to a halt” (Rosenfeld, 2016). Advocates like former Representative Bill Owen argue we need to pressure China to reduce its currency devaluation (Owens, 2015). Human rights. One objective of U.S. policy approaches toward China has always been to push China in the direction of greater respect for human rights. Trade is likely the lever used to pressure China to move in this direction. Teams may claim general human rights advantages or claim to solve specific instances of human rights abuses, such as the central government’s treatment of Tibet. Nuclear Power and Proliferation. China is an advanced manufacturer of nuclear energy technology and China often exports this technology in order to make money. These exports could support the development of nuclear weapons in countries such as Iran and Pakistan. Engaging China may encourage it to reduce this dangerous nuclear trade. Recently, the U.S. and China have made pledges and entered into agreements on nuclear energy cooperation (123 agreements), so a critical component of a case in this area is finding evidence that more needs to be done. Export Controls. Export controls limit the sale of advanced technologies to countries such as China in order to prevent them from developing military applications that could threaten the U.S. and its allies. Some scholars argue for reducing these controls. Segal, Adam. (2004). Practical engagement: A fine-line for U.S.China trade. Washington Quarterly, 200. Retrieved 04/11/16 from http://www.cfr.org/china/practical-engagementdrawing-fine-line-us-china-trade/p7063. (The author is Greenberg Senior Fellow for China Studies and Director of the Digital and Cyberspace Policy Program.) The most effective response to this new paradigm is to maintain the embargo on the sale of military items and a small

72

Rostrum | SPRING 2016

but very crucial handful of dual-use items, while relaxing controls on most advanced commercial technologies. This policy will further integrate China into the international system and, more importantly, help preserve the U.S. comparative advantage in technological innovation, thus assuring continued U.S. technological superiority. The arms and defense technology embargo that the United States and the European Union imposed on China after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre should remain in place. Despite recent French claims that the EU’s ban is outdated and should be lifted, the United States should continue to cooperate with and, when necessary, pressure European suppliers to maintain a common policy with the United States. The United States has taken some tentative steps toward lifting controls on the sales of advanced commercial technologies, such as lifting the ban on the export of some types of supercomputers, but more can be done to ensure that U.S. technology producers are able to exploit rapidly changing markets. In a globalized world, excessive unilateral export controls risk harming U.S. access to critical markets and, therefore, U.S. innovative capacity. Environmental Issues. Climate change will likely be the dominant issue addressed by teams that wish to focus on the environment, but other environmental problems that could be addressed include air pollution, acid rain, and water pollution. With 1 billion+ people and an economy that is working to move out of “developing country” status, the environment is not in the best shape and there are many proposals for efforts to strengthen cooperation with China to improve it. One potential area for cooperation is oil drilling safety: Goldstein, Lyle J. (2015). Meeting China halfway: How to defuse the emerging U.S.-China rivalry, p. 124. Georgetown University Press. Kindle Edition. The United States should focus on maritime spill mitigation in enhancing environmental and civil maritime cooperation with China. This chapter began with the assertion that it is not simply coincidental that China suffered a giant oil spill in the midst of the “green city” of Dalian at the same time (summer 2010) as the United States was engaged in the BP crisis and the resulting vast cleanup of spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico. Insofar as oil and natural gas will continue to play vital roles in both these economies for the foreseeable future, it is imperative that these fossil fuels are extracted from the sea floor in the safest manner and using the most ecologically sensible safeguards. In this area U.S. technology and practices will be of huge interest to the relevant Chinese agencies and companies. At the same time, and given the regrettably common occurrence of spills in Chinese waters, U.S. practitioners will also gain from having access to China’s widening experience in this area, for example, through the use of extensive case studies. Moreover, as undersea drilling expands to previously inaccessible areas (e.g., the Arctic) and sensitive domains (e.g., the South China Sea), it will be especially important to have developed integrated and interdependent commercial and official networks that can ease mistrust and enhance cooperation to benefit the


Policy Debate • China world’s endangered oceans in a new era of technologyenabled exploitation of its resources. Out of Area. As the discussion of North Korea demonstrates, the resolution in no way limits Affirmative cases to those that deal with problems in China. It is topical for the U.S. to engage China over any issue, including the Middle East (think Syria, Iraq, and the Gulf Area), various regional disputes and resource issues in Africa, ties with Russia, and China’s growing influence in Latin America. Strategic considerations aside, the breadth of the topic really includes the entire world, because China is a global power. Here are a couple of solvency cards. Africa: Goldstein, Lyle J. (2015). Meeting China halfway: How to defuse the emerging U.S.-China rivalry, p. 148. Georgetown University Press. Kindle Edition. The United States should propose enlarged U.S.-China military engagement in the sphere of military medicine with a focus on Africa. The current Ebola Crisis powerfully demonstrates the imperative for greater global engagement in Africa’s health situation, as well as the potential for Washington and Beijing to spearhead these efforts. Both the United States and China have large and well-developed military medical establishments. In each country, these military medical institutions enjoy high prestige for professionalism, high-quality care, and the unique ability to offer large-scale care in extremely austere conditions when called upon to do so, as they have each demonstrated in the 2014 Ebola Crisis. Both nations deploy military medical units around the world, and especially in the developing world, to offer medical aid. Undoubtedly, both Washington and Beijing likely have ulterior motives beyond altruism, not least competing for “hearts and minds” to outperform the other superpower in the grand game to increase their respective influence. The United States has engaged in such a form of military medical diplomacy for decades, and undoubtedly much good has been done, though the effort has not been entirely without missteps. Africa is a natural focal point of such efforts. China has radically increased its capabilities in this arena during the last decade. With the only purposebuilt naval hospital ship in the world, Beijing has dispatched this unique vessel recently to both Africa and Latin America to deliver medical aid to needy countries. Arguably, a competitive approach to delivering aid between the two superpowers could actually benefit the developing world. However, a more cooperative approach would have the benefit of integrating the efforts, preventing redundancies, allowing for specialization, and generally offering the developing world the prospect that the two superpowers could work toward the common objectives of development and better health, as suggested by the example given at the start of this chapter. A joint patrol by hospital ships from the Chinese and U.S. navies along the African coast could have immense symbolic importance for the bilateral relationship more generally. Indeed, the two navies have already engaged

in regular educational exchanges between hospital ship personnel. In the current Ebola Crisis, the two hospital ships could work in tandem off the coast of West Africa to form a proximate safe haven for infected medical aid workers— a step that could plausibly boost the morale of those risking their lives on the front lines of the crisis. Middle East: Bandow, Doug. (2015). America and China face the 21st century: Replace confrontation with cooperation. Huffington Post. Retrieved 04/12/16 from http://www.huffingtonpost. com/doug-bandow/america-and-china-face-th_b_7785546. html. (The author is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, specializing in foreign policy and civil liberties.) Elsewhere the cases get tougher. In the Middle East Goldstein ends his cooperation spiral with the U.S. pressuring Israel to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty and China pushing Iran to recognize Israel. Wonderful ideas, but likely to face massive resistance by the other countries involved. Regarding India, Goldstein would have China back Delhi’s membership on the U.N. Security Council and the U.S. president shun the Dali Lama and halt drone strikes in Pakistan. Big ideas worthy of debate, but, again, not easy to achieve.

Advantage Areas I normally address the primary advantage areas in more detail, but given the breadth of the topic I will run through them quickly. I do think the stronger cases will claim advantages that are likely intrinsic to engaging China, such as U.S.-China relations, China’s economic development, containing China, and the avoidance of U.S.-military conflict with China. There are, however, other advantages. Beyond the issues already discussed, these include China-Russia relations, ChinaJapan relations, U.S. power projection in Asia, the security of sea lanes, U.S. global hegemony (both hard and soft power), U.S. military readiness, China conventional force readiness, China nuclear modernization, terrorism, China & U.S. influence in the Middle East and Latin America, free trade (both regional and global), nuclear proliferation, and China’s global soft power. Basically, since China is a global power, every impact you have ever seen read will likely become an impact on this topic.

Disadvantages In the discussion of the likely case areas, I didn’t focus on likely plan mechanisms. I do think that methods of engagement that either increase or decrease pressure on China (and ones that do both) are likely topical/considered to be engagement, though some good T debaters will be good

Rostrum | SPRING 2016 73


Policy Debate • China

at winning “interpretation” / limits debates in either direction. Regardless, however, most plans will move in one direction (increased or decreased pressure) and this creates opportunities to start thinking about strategy. The beginning of that is thinking about disadvantages that link to increased pressure and those that link to decreased pressure / more accommodating approaches. Increased Pressure Disadvantages Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Stability. If China were to change its policies in response to U.S. pressure, this could undermine the legitimacy of the CCP and/or contribute to governmental infighting. This could undermine the ability of the CCP to implement particular economic reforms, make it more aggressive internationally, or accelerate military development. In the past, some teams have even argued this could lead to the collapse of the CCP. U.S.-China Relations. Greater pressure on China would likely lead to disruptions in U.S.-China relations. There is a lot of good impact evidence that claims that strong U.S.-China relations are important to resolve many different global problems. As just discussed, strong U.S.-China relations could also undermine China-Russia relations and teams could argue it is bad for China and Russia to have strong relations. Decreased Pressure Disadvantages China Aggression. There is an entire body of literature devoted to the question of whether or not the U.S. should contain China. Containment advocates argue that we need a strong posture vis-à-vis China in order to deter China’s military aggression. This disadvantage will argue that going “soft” on China will encourage China’s aggression. Some scholars argue that engagement of China that is aimed at integrating China economically has failed because of China’s perceptions of U.S. relative decline, a growth in assertive Chinese nationalism, and increased repression. U.S. Elections. Approaches toward China that are “soft” will likely be bashed by Republicans as threatening U.S. military and economic interests. Teams will argue this bashing will make it more likely the Republicans will win and that a Republican victory will be bad. U.S. Political Capital. Pushing “soft” approaches toward China through Congress is likely to burn Presidential political capital. Similarly, unilateral actions by the President are also likely to alienate at least the Republican side of Congress and burn capital. Noori, Maral. U.S. (2015, August). Overcoming barriers to U.S.-China cooperation. Institute of Peace. Retrieved 04/11/16 from http://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/PB192Overcoming-Barriers-to-U.S.-China-Cooperation.pdf Political interests undermine the bilateral relationship. U.S.

74

Rostrum | SPRING 2016

hard-liners fear an increasingly powerful China. The military threat is used both to rationalize increasing U.S. defense funding and to counter any Obama administration attempt to constructively engage China. Even the U.S.-China climate change and clean energy cooperation joint announcement was denounced, with Republicans complaining that China would not be required to make changes for sixteen years. Human Rights Leadership. The uniqueness for this will be difficult to win, but positively engaging China may undercut U.S. leadership on human rights, undermining U.S. global human rights promotion. Similarly, teams may argue that positive engagement may undermine U.S. leadership on global democracy, threatening democracy worldwide. CCP Stability. This disadvantage also links to softline approaches that claim to change China’s behavior in particular areas because those changes could be seen as caving in to the West. Russia-China Alliance. Reducing pressure on China could cause China to align more with the U.S., reducing China’s cooperation with Russia. The impacts include arguments as to why it is good for China and Russia to develop strong ties. Japan. Softline policies, particularly military softline policies, could anger and scare Japan and other U.S. allies in the region that rely on the U.S. to contain China. Disadvantages Specific to Interacting with China As discussed in the topicality section, there is a strong negative topicality argument that says the plan needs to involve some interaction with China in order to constitute engagement. While many disadvantages can link to the outcome of the engagement, there are two that are relatively unique to the engagement. The first, and best, is Diplomatic Capital. This disadvantage argues that when the U.S. negotiates with China that it consumes the resources and focus of the Department of State and that the DOS would be better off using the resources to work toward the resolution of another crisis, such as the one in Syria. Similarly, it may be possible to spin a unique link story for the CCP stability disadvantage that argues that interacting with the U.S. may produce some political disruption. Human rights and democracy leadership may also be undermined by interacting with China. Disadvantages that Aren’t Specific to a Type of Plan There are many disadvantages that stem from the result of the plan rather than the adoption / implementation of the plan. The plan might increase China’s economic growth, but Chinese growth might trigger inflation, or destroy the environment and


Policy Debate • China support military modernization. Similarly, the plan may slow down China’s conventional force modernization, but that may support greater nuclear modernization, which may be worse. Similarly, if China’s nuclear modernization declines, it may shift to a stronger conventional force posture. This may make military conflict more likely. Similarly, teams may claim to restrain the development of nuclear weapons but others may argue that nuclear proliferation is good. Others may claim to sustain or increase U.S. global hegemony, but Negative teams may argue this makes conflict more likely. Impact turn strategies can represent good strategic choices when there are a limited number of common advantages on a topic and the total number of likely add-ons that any Affirmative team is likely to read will be limited. If not, it is difficult for teams relying on impact turns to at least play enough defense on all of the other advantages so that the impact turns can outweigh if they win them.

Counterplans Discussion of counterplan opportunities is another opportunity to consider strategically. “Soft Engagement” Counterplans. In 2005-2006, the college policy debate resolution focused on the question of whether or not the U.S. should increase its pressure on China. The topic was unidirectional—the Aff had to be mean to China in order to exact some concession. It was tough to be Affirmative that year. Negative teams frequently ran counterplans to achieve the same results by being (super) nice to China and then read disadvantages such as CCP stability and relations as net-benefits to the counterplan. The Negative could always add in a long list of very nice rewards that it would offer China to change its behavior. Pressure Counterplans. If the Affirmative is soft on China, Negative teams can counterplan to use pressure to obtain the same results, using the Containment Good and the Elections/ Politics disadvantages as net-benefits. I do think the solvency evidence for this counterplan is not as good as the general engagement solvency, so I think that most teams will turn to more softline approaches. Unilateral Policy Change Counterplans. Rather than directly engage China, the U.S. could make a policy change unilaterally. The net-benefits to this counterplan are Diplomatic Capital and any other disadvantages that can be uniquely linked to interacting with the Chinese government (potentially CCP stability and human rights / democracy leadership). This counterplan will be very effective against any case that interacts with China solely for the purpose of being topical. For example, cases that reduce U.S. export controls could be done without any interaction with China, but some plans may interact with China in an artificial way for topicality purposes.

Add a condition counterplans. The U.S. could make a QPQ deal with China that has either a positive condition (doing something nice for China if they go along) or a negative condition (a penalty if they fail to go along). Regardless of the type of condition, it is arguably competitive to either change or add condition(s), as those changes would sever out of the original offer. The netbenefit would be some better or additional solvency for the case. Advantage Counterplans. Advantage counterplans are simply counterplans that solve the various Affirmative advantages without engaging China. Net-benefits are the various disadvantages to engagement (hardline or softline). Process Counterplans. More and more angst has been developing against process counterplans, but they are still popular in debate. The basic idea is that rather than adopt the plan (as the Affirmative proposes) is that the plan is first sent through some process, which, the Negative will say, will inevitably lead to its adoption. For example, the Negative may propose that some U.S.China commission consider the plan and that such consideration will improve U.S.-China relations and lead to its adoption. Historically, one of the most popular process counterplans is the Consult counterplan. This counterplan argues that the plan should be proposed to a country that is likely to support its adoption, but since the counterplan gives the country a veto over the plan that this veto opportunity will likely strengthen relations with said country. But, of course, in the end the country will support the plan and it will be adopted. If you are a Policy debater, it is always good to have a process counterplan in the hopper at the beginning of the year in order to have a potentially winning strategy against any case you are debating.

Kritiks I think that kritiks are becoming less relevant to overall “strategy” because the Policy Debate community is becoming more divided between those who engage in more traditional policy debate and those who read kritiks as “one-off” positions and only “kritik.” The emergence of the new all-kritik labs at summer camps only reify this trend. While factoring the kritik into overall strategy considerations has become less relevant, the presence of the kritik has only grown and, at the very least, people need to be prepared to debate the most popular ones. Capitalism. Probably the most popular kritik in debate, there are strong links that are focused around the idea that engaging China and promoting relations would promote capitalism and neoliberal development. One important strategy note is that the Capitalism K is also useful to Negative teams that want to fight off performance Affirmatives, as there is good evidence that addressing economic oppression is essential to solve oppression. There is also an entire

Rostrum | SPRING 2016 75


Policy Debate • China body of literature that argues that racial oppression cannot be solved until economic inequality is addressed. Anti-Blackness. This is really not my wheelhouse, but I can imagine several applications of anti-blackness to the resolution. One, China is anti-black and, therefore, we should not engage it. Two, the international relations system is anti-black, so engaging it should not be supported. Three, the plan supports the global economic system, which is also anti-black. Certain representations and policies themselves may also be anti-black. Shunning /Human Rights. As discussed in the case section, U.S. policy toward China has most often included consideration for how U.S. policies could encourage China to have greater respect for human rights. One way this argument manifests itself on the Negative is to argue that the U.S. should not engage China because of its human rights abuses. There is a “shunning” argument that claims it is immoral to engage countries that promote human rights.

Conclusion China is a great area for a topic. Since China is an emerging superpower that interacts with the U.S. on the global stage on a daily basis, the topic intersects many important issues that I believe many will find quite interesting. While the breadth of the topic means that students must be prepared to debate a variety of issues, this breadth may also be overwhelming even to the most dedicated debater. Being prepared on the Negative will require debaters to think strategically in order to be able to confront a number of cases with common and applicable generics that support some case specific strategizing, particularly as the year goes on. The most important way to start that strategizing is to think about what it means to participate in economic and/or diplomatic engagement with China. While “economic and/or diplomatic” won’t provide much of a useful substantive limit, debaters who are effective at winning topicality arguments that the plan should be limited to either softline or hardline approaches (and topicality debaters may be able to fit certain QPQ strategies into those categories) can then develop strategies against topical approaches. For example, if they can win that engagement must be softline, they can counterplan with a hardline approach, using Politics and U.S.-China relations bad as net-benefits. If they can win that it must be entirely softline, they can counterplan with a general softline approach but a hardline QPQ condition. While it may be difficult to limit Affirmative cases to either hardline or softline approaches, teams will likely be successful at limiting plans to those that involve some interaction with China. Not only does this limit the breadth of topical changes, but it also sets-up a counterplan to change U.S. policy without engaging China, using Diplomatic capital as the net-benefit. This functionally limits the topic. And, if the “add a condition” counterplan is competitive, that counterplan strategically limits the topic.

76

Rostrum | SPRING 2016

Beyond these functional and strategic limits, Negative teams can also take advantage of process counterplans and a number of strong kritiks to fight off a variety of Affirmative cases. While I have focused a lot on Negative strategy, Affirmative teams should think through these arguments when choosing a case, as defeating these core Negative arguments will be an essential element of their strategy. These strategies will effectively limit the ability of the Affirmative to win with many of these cases, but the potential breadth of the topic should create adequate ground for the Affirmative to choose a case that is less vulnerable to these approaches.

Additional References Gurtove, M. (Summer 2013). Engaging enemies: Fraught with risk, necessary for peace. Global Asia, 8-9. Owens, B. (2015, August 20). Time to take action against Chinese currency manipulation. Retrieved 04/11/16 from http:// thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/finance/251534-time-totake-action-against-chinese-currency-manipulation Rosenfeld, E. (2016). Chinese yuan: Here’s what’s happening to the currency. Retrieved 04/11/16 from http://www.cnbc. com/2016/01/07/chinese-yuan-heres-whats-happening-tothe-currency.html Rubino, J. (2016). Welcome to the currency wars. Retrieved 04/14/16 from http://beforeitsnews.com/ economy/2016/03/john-rubino-welcome-to-the-currencywar-part-22-2804567.html Rudd, K. (2015, April). The future of U.S.-China relations under Xi Jinping: Toward a new framework of constructive realism for a common purpose. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Retrieved from http://belfercenter.ksg. harvard.edu/publication/25237/summary_report.html Steinberg, J. & O’Hanlon, M. (2014). Strategic reassurance and resolve: U.S.-China relations in the 21st century. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Swaine, M. (2011). America’s challenge: Engaging a rising China in the 21st century. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Tellis, A. (2014). Balancing without containment: An American strategy for managing China. Retrieved 04/11/16 from http:// carnegieendowment.org/2014/01/22/balancing-withoutcontainment-american-strategy-for-managing-china White, H. (2012). The China choice: Why America should share power. Australia: Black Inc. Stefan Bauschard is the Founder of Millennial Speech and Debate and serves as Debate Coach for Lakeland Schools in New York.


TWO-THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN

M I S S O U R I S TAT E

POLICY DEBATE CAMPS

D E B AT E I N S T I T U T E

WHY ATTEND DEBATE CAMP AT M I S S O U R I S TAT E ?

• Learn how to move to the next level in your debate career • Learn the strategies that DEBATE CHAMPIONS use to win tournaments • It’s a BLAST! Although you work hard and learn alot, it will be a fun-filled camp with many lasting memories

Listen to what Nick Ramsey said about the MSU Debate Camp “MSU Debate Camp offers the best possible camp experience. After having gone to a big national camp, I came to truly appreciate what makes Missouri State’s camp special. The lab leaders are really knowledgeable. The camp is small enough that you get plenty of personal attention. They proved willing and able to work with debaters from all backgrounds and experience levels.” Nick placed 3rd place in the NFL National Debate Tournament.

REGISTRATION DEADLINE

JUNE 3, 2016 Space is limited. To register go to

2 Week Policy

(June 26 - July 9) $600 Commuters • $1,300 Dorm

3 Week Policy

(June 26 - July 16) $900 Commuters • $1,950 Dorm

1 Week Novice

(July 10 - July 16) $350 Commuters • $700 Dorm

Event Camp Week

(July 12-18) Lincoln-Douglas • Public Forum Congress • Extemp • Interpretation College Credit Options for 2 & 3 week camps $200, 3 credit hours, public speaking

MORE REASONS WHY MSU IS YOUR BEST CHOICE FOR DEBATE CAMP Missouri State produces National Debaters:

MSU debaters have been in elims of all major national tournaments, including NDT semifinals. Recent MSDI alumni have been offered over $335,000 in college debate scholarships.

New 3-week options.

Three-week students may choose from a lay judge, kritik, or event camp track for their final week.

Focus is on skill development:

This is the most effective means to rapid debater development. You will be in more practice rounds and speeches at the MSU debate camp. You will be in practice rounds and speeches by day 2 of camp, far faster than most debate camps.

Pragmatic approach for your circuit:

Many of our attendees come from middle of the topic circuits that use lay judges. MSDI will cover EVERY core case on the China topic and negative strategies that will work on YOUR circuit. We will teach you how to adapt arguments to your circuit.

debate.missouristate.edu and select MSDI

For more information contact EricMorris@MissouriState.edu

417.496.7141

Affordable:

MSU Debate Camp is about half the expense of many debate institutes, but with staff comparable to top labs in other camps. By adding the college credit option, you might save an amount comparable to full tuition.


SWITCH TO GEICO. NOW THAT’S A BRIGHT IDEA.

As a National Speech & Debate Association member, you know about making smart choices. Here’s another one you can make: get a free quote from GEICO. We’ve been helping people save money on car insurance for more than 75 years, and we would love to do the same for you. Do the smart thing; visit geico.com/stu/nsda or call 1-800-368-2734 for your free quote today.

geico.com/stu/nsda | 1-800-368-2734 GEICO contracts with various membership entities and other organizations, but these entities do not underwrite the offered insurance products. Some discounts, coverages, payment plans and features are not available in all states or all GEICO companies. Discount amount varies in some states. One group discount applicable per policy. Coverage is individual. In New York a premium reduction may be available. GEICO may not be involved in a formal relationship with each organization; however, you still may qualify for a special discount based on your membership, employment or affiliation with those organizations. GEICO is a registered service mark of Government Employees Insurance Company, Washington, D.C. 20076; a Berkshire Hathaway Inc. subsidiary. © 2016 GEICO


Educational Partnerships Boston Public Schools Embrace Evidence-Based Argumentation (EBATM) by Sarah Mayper

(above) Roger Nix, former math teacher at the Edward M. Kennedy Academy for Health Careers and Inés Brito, ESL teacher at Jeremiah Burke High School in Boston.

This is the second in a series of articles on Evidence-Based Argumentation (EBATM) and our recent partnership with the Boston Debate League. The first appeared in the Winter 2016 Rostrum.

Y

ejide Najee-Ullah’s classroom is packed with 10th graders, and not one of them is paying attention to her. Their conversations get so loud and heated that a teacher from down the hall pops her head in to make sure that everything is okay. This scenario might sound like an out-of-control class, and a teacher who needs help with classroom management, yet it is anything but—Ms. N. is thrilled. She walks around the room, listening in on the intense conversations. Students are quoting the text, questioning each other, and getting frustrated when their time to speak runs out. Many of them interrupt each other, and

the judges (also students) have to enforce the “no speaking while your partner is giving an argument” rule. Ms. N.’s students are participating in a Mini Debate, one of many activities created by the EvidenceBased Argumentation (EBATM) program developed and, in this school, run by the Boston Debate League. Right now, they are digging into the question, “Did African Americans who came North in the Great Migration get the freedom they were looking for?” Students are sitting in groups of three, and each student has been assigned a role, including judges. After the class is over, Ms. N. asks her students to raise their hands if they would like to do this kind of activity again. Every hand goes up.

Yejide Najee-Ullah (or Ms. N., as her students call her), teaches history at Excel High School in South Boston, MA. She works every day to get her students to understand that history is more than just dates, wars, and famous figures—history is about each of us and is ever-changing.

Meanwhile, across the city, a class of 7th grade math students is working in small groups to decide which evidence from a graph is relevant to a problem, and which is not. Biology students are presenting passionate speeches explaining why one organ system is more important to human life than the others. English Language Learners are finding evidence from a short story to support the claim that the dominant emotion in the text is fear. These activities are made possible through the EBATM program, a school-wide initiative currently in place at Excel High School and seven other middle and high schools in the Boston Public School District. Each of the schools commit to a multiyear program of professional development for all teachers, making EBATM a core instructional focus for the school. An EBATM

Rostrum | SPRING 2016 79


Jennifer Salazar is the 11th and 12th grade Humanities teacher at Boston Green Academy. When not writing and developing curriculum, Jennifer enjoys reading historical fiction, historical nonfiction, and young adult novels.

80

Rostrum | SPRING 2016

BUILDING ARGUMENTS COLLABORATIVELY | The EBATM Carousel Activity asks students to build arguments collaboratively, working on one element at a time. The teacher sets up “stations” around the room with a piece of chart paper at each station. Working in teams, students move around the room in sequence: the first group writes a claim in response to the prompt, the second group adds evidence to support the claim created by the first group, and the third group provides reasoning. Variations of the activity require groups to question the arguments created, respond to questions, or provide counter claims. Above, students in Jennifer Salazar’s class at Boston Green Academy work to find evidence to support claims about Euripides’ play Medea.


EBATM is the driver of change at our school. It is the lever to increase student performance overall.” ­ Renee McCall, Principal — at Timilty Middle School

LEARNING ARGUMENTATION | Students from Mildred Avenue Middle School in Boston employ EBATM Skills as they identify claims, relevant evidence, and reasoning using Maya Angelou’s poem And Still I Rise.

coach spends one day a week in each school, working individually and in groups with teachers to plan activities. Teachers learn to help students build evidencebased arguments, evaluate and question arguments, and develop counterclaims, all by using their already existing curriculum. The program includes a suite of more than a dozen activities that can be used across content areas and grade levels to help students develop critical thinking through argumentation. Although the activities are different, all of them have a few essential qualities: they require students to dig deeply into the content they are studying, use the language of argumentation, and develop their own voices. In an EBATM activity, students talk more and teachers talk less. Peer-to-peer engagement is critical, and students ask questions about each other’s arguments and about the content under study. As the EBATM program develops, the work deepens, and EBATM teacher leaders at each school work with their coaches and colleagues to improve their practice. Groups of teachers examine student work, identify challenges, and plan new lessons. In several schools, EBATM

activities have been the focus of instructional rounds, allowing teachers and school leaders to see the work in action across the school. The EBATM program requires a major commitment from teachers and school leaders, as well as intensive work by EBATM instructional coaches. Adolescents love to argue, but teaching students to create arguments that are based in evidence and show strong reasoning is difficult. That’s where partnerships between schools or school districts and debate organizations come in. In this case, the Boston Debate League is using its expertise to bring effective debate practices from the afterschool realm into Boston Public classrooms. The National Speech & Debate Association envisions numerous similar partnerships across the country. “EBATM is the driver of change at our school,” said Renee McCall, Principal at Timilty Middle School in Roxbury, MA. “It is the lever to increase student performance overall.”

Sarah Mayper is an EBATM Instructional Coach for the Boston Debate League.

How to Start an EBATM Program in Your School District By working with school districts, we create programs that provide the needed resources, training, and support all teachers need to successfully implement EBATM in their classes. To learn more about bringing Evidence-Based Argumentation to your school or school district, please contact Nicole Wanzer-Serrano at nicole.wanzer-serrano@speechanddebate.org or visit our website at www.speechanddebate.org/EBA.

Rostrum | SPRING 2016 81


Skills in the EBATM Skill Progression

REVIEW Evidence-Based Argumentation (EBATM ) is a professional development program that helps teachers in all disciplines create a classroom environment where students are engaged in the art of creating an argument, in any subject, by evaluating evidence, developing claims, and using sound reasoning.

LEARN MORE

EBA Skill #4 – Mini Debate The Mini Debate allows students to practice classic debate skills (presenting your own argument and questioning your opponent’s argument), without the stress and time required for a full class debate. Students work in pairs, and argue with one another, rather than standing up in front of a larger audience. The arguments are presented quickly and simply, so the activity does not take much time. For a Mini Debate, the class is divided into trios, and given a debatable claim. Two students are assigned opposing positions: Claim A or Claim B. Both students use the activity sheet to outline a complete argument, with evidence and reasoning. The third student is assigned to be the judge. Judges typically prepare by choosing one piece of evidence and reasoning for each side of the debate, as well as writing questions to ask each debater. When both students are ready, they take turns delivering their arguments, within a time limit (two minutes is typical). When Student A is speaking, Student B listens and take notes on the activity sheet. When Student A finishes, Student B asks questions designed to challenge Student A’s argument. Student A responds to each question. Then the process is repeated, with Student B presenting and Student A questioning. The judge observes the other two students debating, asks their own questions, evaluates each student using a judging rubric, and declares a winner who persuaded them most.

Judge  Name:      

   

Criteria  

What  is  each  person’s   claim?  

 

Mini  Debate  Judge  Rubric      

Claim  A  

 

Claim  B  

 

 

How  clearly  did  they   present  the  claim?  

• • •

Very  Clearly   Somewhat  Clearly   Not  Clearly  

• • •

Very  Clearly   Somewhat  Clearly   Not  Clearly    

How  valid  was  the   evidence?  

• • •

Very  Valid   Somewhat  Valid   Not  Valid  

• • •

Very  Valid   Somewhat  Valid   Not  Valid  

How  relevant  was  the   evidence?  

• • •

Very  Relevant   Somewhat  Relevant   Not  Relevant  

• • •

Very  Relevant   Somewhat  Relevant   Not  Relevant  

• • •

Very  Strong   Just  OK   Weak  

• • •

Very  Strong   Just  OK   Weak  

How  well  did  the   speaker  connect  the   argument  to  the   audience?  

• • •

Very  Well   Just  OK   Not  Well  

• • •

Very  Well   Just  OK   Not  Well  

Did  they  use  the   required  terms  in  the   word  bank  accurately?  

• • •

Yes,  all   Some   None  

• • •

Yes,  all   Some   None  

How  strong  was  the     reasoning?    

(How  well  did  they  connect   the  evidence  to  the  claim?)  

Overall,  who  persuaded   you  the  most?           What  feedback  do  you     have  for  each  student?          

The  WINNING  claim  is:    

 

Mini Debates are a good way to introduce students to the oppositional and competitive nature of debate, in a format that allows them to practice presenting and questioning. If students have participated in several Mini Debates, it will help prepare them well for a Full Debate.

Visit www.speechanddebate.org/EBA or email nicole.wanzer-serrano@speechanddebate.org. 82

Rostrum | SPRING 2016


Mini Debate: EBATM Skill #4 The Great Migration Name: ___________________________________

Class: ____________________

Date: _______________

Prompt: Did African Americans who came North during the Great Migration get the freedom they were looking for? Claim A: Yes, ______________________________________________________________________________________ . Claim B: No, ______________________________________________________________________________________ . Directions: 1. Before the Mini Debate, write your assigned claim in the chart on the next page, and the two reasons you believe your claim is true. 2. You and your opponent will each have two minutes to speak during the Mini Debate. o Use your notes when it is your turn to present your argument. o Take notes on your opponent’s argument when it is their turn to speak. 3. You and your opponent will each have two minutes to prepare three questions to ask of each other. These questions should gather more information and/or expose assumptions. 4. You and your opponent will each engage in a two-minute cross-examination period. Claim A person asks the questions and Claim B responds; then they switch. 5. You will be judged by a peer. Judges will use a rubric to determine which team convinced them the most.   Name:____________________________  Class:___________________  Date:______________    

Mini  Debate:  EBA  Skill  #4  The  Great  Migration  

  Name:____________________________  Class:___________________  Date:______________  

Mini  Debate:  EBA  Skill  #4  The  Great  Migration  

 

                             

Round  #1:  My  OPPONENT’S  claim  is:    

MY  claim  is:      

 

 

Evidence          

               

Evidence          

               

Evidence          

                 

 

Reason  #1   Reasoning:  How  does  this  evidence  support  your  claim?  

Reason  #2   Reasoning:  How  does  this  evidence  support  your  claim?  

Reason  #3   Reasoning:  How  does  this  evidence  support  your  claim?  

TEMPLATES Boston  Debate  League  2014  ©      

           

Reason  #1    

Reason  #2  

                       

Reason  #3  

  My  Questions  

           

  My  Opponent’s  Response        

 

Pair  Share  –  After  the  Mini  Debate:   Something  new  I  learned  by  engaging  in  this  debate…  

Boston  Debate  League  2014  ©      

Rostrum | SPRING 2016 83


The unit, which as many teachers will recognize was developed and improved upon throughout the trimester, went something like this: • Week One. Introduction to the electoral college and understanding why we think in terms of red states and blue states.

Atlanta Students Engage in the Democratic Process

• Week Two. Primaries versus caucuses (at this point, the students wanted to color more!).

I

t’s right there in our mission statement. We believe communication skills are essential for empowering youth to become engaged citizens, skilled professionals, and honorable leaders in our global society. Being part of a team, learning to research and think critically, and practicing to represent a particular viewpoint—these aspects of speech and debate competition all put students on the track toward engaged citizenship. But the techniques can be applied in and out of the classroom, at any time, and the 2016 presidential election cycle presents a perfect time to do it. Our Voices of the Future resources are publicly available and designed to encourage student involvement in democratic society using speech and debate skills inside and outside the classroom by engaging students in the four zones of literacy: reading, writing, speaking, and listening. This year, the Voices of the Future tools focus on the presidential debates. Available on our website, the resources help any teacher or coach host a watch party     with built-in activities, pre- and post-     debate teaching tools, and more. On Instagram, we saw how one school was using the resources, and asked them to share the details. At Marist School, instructor and onediamond coach Jeffrey Miller devoted the second trimester of an activity period for 7th graders to a Voices of the Future unit. After spending the first trimester mirroring the current Policy topic to think and debate on surveillance

84

Rostrum | SPRING 2016

• Week Three. Intro to the Republican candidates, and discussion on candidate beliefs versus policy, and that beliefs can be similar even if specific proposals for change are different.

Marist School – Atlanta, GA Instructor – Jeffrey Miller Audience – 7th Graders Goal – Students understand why their parents are talking about the election, and learn how to persuade an audience!

issues specific to their lives, the students transitioned to learning about the electoral college, swing states, and why states were considered red vs. blue (complete with very popular coloring activities!). The learning culminated in the creation and delivery of presidential stump speeches delivered to swing state audiences of the students’ choosing.

• Week Four. Intro to the Democratic candidates, with a similar approach. • Week Five. Building an issues table. Of the main issues in the debates, where do the candidates fall? Identify areas of overlap between parties, and differences within parties. Fill in the table with each candidate’s belief. • Week Six. Students circle any two views from the seven candidates in their table. Students are encouraged to think beyond the candidates, and to mix and match positions to create their version of the ideal candidate. During this process, they are asked a lot of questions and prompted to defend their choices, getting the brain into argumentation mode.

• Week Seven. Students begin writing speeches as candidates who support their selected issues, giving background by performing researching Week 1 – Introduction to the Electoral College Directions: Correctly identify each state as a “red”, “blue” or “swing” state and color appropriately. on the positions. • Week Eight. Students select a state to campaign in, limited to swing states. Students are asked to defend their strategy within that state. How many electoral college votes are available

 


there? What is the audience like there, and why will your issues resonate? For example, the winning speaker chose Florida, and tailored her speech to senior citizens. • Week Nine. Students, acting as candidates, used talking points to give a three-minute stump speech. A ballot listing the participating students was created to allow for an audience vote at the end.

‘‘

Our students hear about all of the candidates and what their parents, siblings, and peers think about them. Voices of the Future gave our 7th graders the opportunity to speak about the candidates for once, rather than just listen.”

perception surveys and discussion question prompts are designed for actual presidential debates, but could easily be adopted to lead discussion or measure changes in perception during a unit or classroom activity. Don’t forget to use the hash tag #voicesofthefuture on any posts related to your work, so we can see and share your activities with the rest of the community!

Written by Amy Seidelman, Director of Operations for the National Speech & Debate Association

       

— Jeffrey Miller

Week 2 – Introduction to the Primaries and Caucuses Timeline of the next 12 months February-June 2016 Primaries and Caucuses

August/ September 2016 Party Conventions

December 2016 Electoral College Vote

November 2016 General Election

Some other cool things: • Throughout the unit, updates and photos were available for parents on social media. The final speeches were live tweeted, with photos explaining who was giving a speech, in what state, on which issues. • All students, parents, and teachers were invited to attend the final speeches and become part of the audience vote. • Next year, Jeffrey is considering videotaping the speeches to include some video elements in the posts. • Marist School is now planning a social justice day, based on a political convention model, treating each home room as a state, with a winner to be named during end of school announcements. Voices of the Future is meant to be used as an umbrella to help teachers engage students in current events or issues of citizenship using speech and debate. Whatever activity you choose (or create yourself), you may adopt this theme and tailor the activities to suit your needs. For example, the pre- and post-debate

Selection Type

Caucus

Definition        

Issue Climate Change Primary

Education

Closed Primary

Gun Control

Taxes Open Primary

Advantages

Disadvantages

didates and Positio n to the GOP Can Week 3 – Introductio Carson Rubio z Cru The climate . It is Trump

ns Christie

Climate change is real and at least It is not real. change debate It is a hoax. ially man-made. Climate change is “irrelevant.” partApprove the ce. ture scien is not Tempera Keystone change is of Pipeline. Skeptical cyclical. cap and trade. mon Com End No federallyNo federallyCore. Waive No No federallydetermined No federallydetermined Child Left Behind s. We determined s. We standard dard determined rules for states stan We standards. need more e mor standards. We need need more school choice. need more school choice. not ban assault Do ce. choi on s ol limit scho Few school choice. The Second weapons. Support The Second ownership ent ndm Limit restrictions Ame some gun control. Amendment except for the on guns. Ban right to bear Focus on addressing right to bear mentally ill or s is one of some assault tal health issues. arm men of one icted is arms those conv weapons and Americans’ most Americans’ most of violent crime. extend the fundamental ntal ame fund rights. waiting period Reform the tax code rights. Establish a flat corporate for purchase. e toward a Cut tax. Eliminate End corporate Mov tax and taxes to 25 IRS. flat the er taxes.   Low percent. IRS l rates. abolish the Simplify individua   individual Conside   r a onethe on time tax brackets. Add   wealthy to pay $2,500 child tax credit. down the debt. Week It is real not caused by man.

Issue

3 – Introduc

tion to the De

mocrat

Candidates February 9 – New Hampshire Primary 20- Nevada Caucus, SC Primary and Position ClimateFebruary Clinton Change s It is real and Sanders we neeTexas, March 1 – Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, d to transitionTennessee, Ch arge compa O’Malley to renewable nies for Vermont, and Virginia (SUPER TUESDAY!) It is real and carbon emissi energy. a “na ons threat.” Gover tural nm should regula ent Education te greenhouse End No Child gas Lef Expand Presch t Behind. Two years em issions. free tuition at ool access. state colleges. Increase schoo Gun Control Refor l and freeze tuit choice student loans. m Require full ion background state colleges. at A mixed appro checks, ban assault federal handg ach. No Increase gun weapons. control. Ban period. Some un waiting dozens of ass pro for gun manuf tection weapons. Lim ault act Ban assault we urers. gun magazin it size of es. apons. fingerprints Require to buy a Taxes handgun. Close loopho les Raise some tax cutting middle and es on the class wealthy. Cut Use tax increa taxes. taxes ses to fund government middle class. for programs. Raise the min imum wage. Strengthen uni on bargaining.

February 1 – Iowa Caucus

(above and opposite) Sample documents from the Marist School Voices of the Future unit, courtesy of Jeffrey Miller.

For more information, please visit us online at

www.speechanddebate.org/voicesofthefuture. Rostrum | SPRING 2016 85


YOUR RESOURCE PACKAGE IS GETTING STRONGER!

Access even more tools and materials Informative Speaking: Creating a Solid Foundation Informative Speaking is a pilot event this year, and we will name a national champion at the 2016 National Tournament! Joining us in Salt Lake City this June? Read up on this new event to be sure you’ve considered these valuable perspectives!

Event

All Events

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

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

• Topic Analysis

• Evidence Guide • Mid-Topic Update

Public Forum Debate

• 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 • NEW! Research Guide

Policy Debate Congressional Debate Extemporaneous Speaking Interpretation Original Oratory

Included with school membership!

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

+ $199


World Schools Debate Judge Training Video Library

Last summer the response by the community to participate in World Schools Debate at the National Speech & Debate Tournament was outstanding. As we lead up to another National Tournament, we have worked to create a World Schools Debate video library for judge training. These videos will be useful for anyone who wants to learn more about the activity, not just the judges. If you are attending Nationals as a judge for World Schools, you'll be expected to watch the entire series of videos prior to arriving on Sunday.

The World Schools video series is informative and engaging. Each video is concise and to the point, making the best use of your time.” – Lauren McCool, Coach World Schools Debate Judge Training Video Library 1. Overview of World Schools Debate 2. Debate Motions 3. Speaker Roles – First Speaker 4. Speaker Roles – Second Speaker 5. Speaker Roles – Third Speaker 6. Speaker Roles – Reply Speech 7. Points of Information/Protected Time 8. Other In-Round Etiquette 9. Flowing/Taking Notes 10. Filling Out the Ballot

Check out this stellar series to learn the most important details of World Schools Debate!

www.speechanddebate.org/howtojudgewsd


ALUMNI SPOTLIGHT by Russ Godek

‘‘ |

Anand Veeravagu, M.D. ANAND’S WORDS OF ADVICE:

TRY speech and debate!

It’s an opportunity to gain exposure to a way of thinking—how to structure an argument, a thought process, and subsequently communicate quickly and efficiently.”

Coming of Age in the Medical World

T

he year is 2012. Nestled between San Francisco and San Jose, just off the campus of Stanford University, sits the Palo Alto Veterans Affairs Hospital. Chief Neurosurgery Resident Anand Veeravagu, 27, gets an emergency call to surgery for an injured veteran. The veteran had been serving in special forces when he was hit with a roadside improvised explosive device (IED). The IED had done much damage—the veteran had lost a leg, vision in one eye, and unfortunately, had developed a severe brain infection. Anand was able to save his life, and the veteran, 23-years-old at the time, would go on to rehab successfully, but both of their lives would forever be changed. Anand was left with many questions. Why are young lives being changed like this? Why are families being burdened with this pain? Why is our country fighting this war? How did we get here? He did not have the answers to these questions, but he was eager to find them.

90

Rostrum | SPRING 2016

Anand’s inclination to not only ask the important questions, but also to seek their answers, was bred from his time in speech and debate. “I found that the speech and debate community was a set of people I could identify with,” he said. “Whether it was their understanding of current events or their willingness to participate as active citizens, I always felt empowered.” Anand knew that understanding the political climate, policy decisions, and health care issues would directly impact how he practiced medicine in the future. He was determined to develop and use that knowledge, leading him to accept a position as White House Fellow and Special Assistant to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Leon Panetta. In the year to follow, Anand would work with the President on policy surrounding traumatic brain and spinal cord injuries for veterans. “The interview process was tough,” he said. “You go through a rigorous discussion about your motivations and thoughts on many current events, such as the Arab Spring.”

Anand hadn’t much knowledge of the Arab Spring, but what he did have was years of experience in Extemporaneous Speaking from his time in speech and debate. “That experience helped me—I knew I could extrapolate my understanding of other issues to relate to various current events they asked about.” It’s funny to think that a career Policy debater like Anand would draw on Extemporaneous Speaking skills during a high pressure situation. “Our coach Ms. Boyd always made us participate in Extemporaneous Speaking, even if we were Policy debaters,” he said. “At the time we hated it, but in retrospect, it was extraordinarily valuable.” Anand was able to learn much from his time at Grapevine High School in Texas, but one surreal moment in particular stands out. “During a tournament, my partner and I were discussing the right to privacy, in which we made a point that using stereotypes to screen for people in airport security lines isn’t the most effective way to bolster homeland security.” Anand drew on his own experiences of being singled out in airports across the country. “It was a great moment, because my partner and I both realized we had an opportunity to bring to light certain issues that needed to be debated in a public space,” he said. “We realized we had a bigger purpose than just the debate round.” That bigger understanding is perhaps the most important benefit of participating in speech and debate, if you ask Anand. “It’s an opportunity to


think about national and international issues,” he said. “You broaden your interest and knowledge past just what immediately surrounds you, and that perspective is very important.” Of course, it also helps to have a great coach to aid you along the way. Anand is very thankful to his high school coach, Jane Boyd, and other great mentors in his life. “I’ve been very fortunate to have these remarkable mentors who pushed my abilities,” he said. “They forced me to look 10 feet ahead, instead of five, and showed me what I needed to do to get there.” Anand’s goal setting is reflected in his pursuit of neuroscience. As he transitioned into college, he accepted a position at Johns Hopkins University in their bioengineering program. He chose the program because he knew he liked working with his hands. “I liked producing something of value,” he said. “Bioengineering sort of combined all those elements.” From there, he chose electrical engineering as a formal area of concentration—and in that choice we can see his goal setting. “Electrical engineering, oddly enough, models itself after the nervous system very well.” It was a natural progression for him to jump from there into neuroscience, and his ability to see future trends helped in his decision. “Technology was starting to advance quite rapidly at that time. Neuroscience, moreso than any other field, directly benefits from technology,” he said. “All of our surgical procedures are technology dependent—the better the technology, the more we can do for a patient.” Anand has utilized the skills and lessons he learned from speech and debate throughout his career, and it’s because of that, he hopes all young

students will at least try the activity. “It’s not about winning, whether that’s a round, a tournament, or the National Tournament,” he said. “It’s an opportunity to gain exposure to a way of thinking—how to structure an argument, a thought process, and subsequently communicate quickly and efficiently. I can’t stress enough how valuable that is in this day and age where data travels very quickly.” Above all, Anand appreciates staying grounded. “We certainly had financial difficulties through most of my youth, but no matter what, I always had a wonderful home to come back to,” he said. “I did get a glimpse into what it was like not to have certain advantages, though, and it opened my eyes.” That experience filled Anand with the desire to give back and helped push him toward a career in medicine—a career helping others. Building upon that, Anand has done much work caring for underserved populations around the world. “What I enjoy the most about that is getting to teach,” he said. “I believe that you have to generate models for self-sustaining medicine, so while we provide aid ourselves, much of our time is spent teaching so they are self-sufficient moving forward.” To think, at the turn of the century, Anand was only beginning to further his understanding of national issues in Ms. Boyd’s classroom at Grapevine High School. Thirteen years later, he was in the White House, involved in national security dialogues, helping shape public policy for the health care of veterans. It’s been quite a remarkable journey for Anand, one that started in speech and debate. Written by Russ Godek, Communications Associate for the National Speech & Debate Association

CrossFire What is your favorite word? Outstanding What is your least favorite word? Hate What is your worst fear? I hope I never lose clarity of thought. What is your favorite movie? The Gladiator What is your biggest pet peeve? When the job isn’t done right If you could meet anyone in history, who would it be? Abraham Lincoln What thought or quotation would you put in a fortune cookie? “To whom much is given, much is expected.”

ABOUT Dr. Anand Veeravagu served as White House Fellow and Special Assistant to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. Anand is a neurosurgeon in training at Stanford University School of Medicine. He is a Clinical Instructor and Fellow in Spine Surgery and will become Assistant Professor of Neurosurgery in July. Anand graduated from Grapevine High School in Texas in 2001. He has been accepted to the Stanford Graduate School of Business MBA program, received his M.D. from Stanford University, and graduated with honors from Johns Hopkins University with a B.S. in Biomedical Engineering and minor in Multicultural and Regional Studies. Anand and his wife love to travel, spend time with friends, and explore new restaurants.

Rostrum | SPRING 2016 91


Become a star under a big tent approach to debate.

Wake Forest Debate is excited to welcome applications to the

Ross K Smith Debate Workshops The Earliestbird a 1-Week Skills Practice and Intro to the Topic—June 11-18th The RKS 5-Week an intensive, intim ate w or kshop —June 18-July 23 Learn from great faculty! (and m or e to be added) Senior Faculty: Jarrod Atchison, Daryl Burch, Justin Green, Maddie Langr, Val MacIntosh, Calum Matheson, Ian Miller, Mimi Sergent-Leventhal, Becca Steiner, Terrell Taylor Junior Faculty: Charles Athanasopolous, Rayvon Dean, Ned Gidley, Jack Manchester, Kate Shapiro, Corinne Sugino

Know who you will work with before you arrive This will allow students to have clear expectations and receive reading material before arrival so they can hit the ground debating. Intimate Approach Our faculty to student ratio is one of the best in the country. Each lab is capped at 28 students with 3 senior and 3 junior faculty members for each. Big tent Approach If you only debate one style of argument over the summer, you will be forced to learn in the middle of a debate. Instead, come to the RKS and practice debating all styles. The senior Lab, Advanced K Lab, and Policy Project Labs will all help students excel at what they do best.

Find out more and apply at: rksatwfu.org


2016  Summer Speech Intensives:  June 22­24, 7­12th grade, Brookings, SD July 9­14, 6­9th grade, St. Paul, MN July 16­23, 10­12th grade, St. Paul, MN July 17­23, Coaching Camp, St. Paul, MN  August 1­4, 9­12th grade, Billings, MT

r the Ente ode on c coup A20 NSD .com ! pete m o tion c p tui ak2 e m p a s r c at   you 0 off 2 $   r fo ease  incr S E PRIC IL 15th APR

Summer Camps Team Workshops Coach Education Advocacy Materials College Speech Resources thePROCESSstarts@speak2compete.com SPEAK2compete.com

Cadi Kadlecek

Kristofer Kracht


Student Service Citations The following students have received Student Service Citations from the National Speech & Debate Association in recognition of outstanding service to speech and debate education. Students receive a citation for every 100 service points earned through activities such as community speaking or outreach. A single act of service usually garners between two and five service points. These citations were earned between January 15, 2016 and March 15, 2016.

94

Student Service Citation, 6th Degree (600+ points) Max Cline Skyline High School

UT

600

Student Service Citation, 5th Degree (500+ points) George Sawyer Truman High School Kory Turner Sacred Heart High School Morgan Leanor Tracy Rio Grande High School Ashlyn McMillon Home Educator’s Outsourcing Solutions

PA MA NM TX

560 528 519 506

Student Service Citation, 4th Degree (400+ points) Brooke Wagner Plymouth High School Caleb Jones Home Educator’s Outsourcing Solutions Elizabeth McGoldrick Truman High School Bradi Allen Mulvane High School Erick Beltran Rio Grande High School Landon Mays El Dorado Springs High School Palmer Stroup Paducah Tilghman High School Brooke Brady Yucaipa High School Katelynn Wilson Willard High School Kirin Heftye Arroyo High School Patrick Aimone Servite High School Alexander Gasman ILEAD North Hollywood Connor Lichtenwalter Conway High School Mary Nail Conway High School Steven E. Rastrelli Centennial High School Yessica Serrano Conway High School

IN TX PA KS NM MO KY CA MO CA CA CA AR AR CO AR

479 450 429 420 419 414 407 405 402 401 400 400 400 400 400 400

Student Service Citation, 3rd Degree (300+ points) Juan Garcia Plymouth High School Eric Doan Arroyo High School Terra Maslak Central High School - Springfield Cavan Hagerty Bangor High School Jenna Nicole Crowe Mountain Home High School Sunil Alexander Yucaipa High School Kate Farwell ILEAD North Hollywood Kallee Walton Mulvane High School Shawn P. Bonner-Burke Monticello Central High School Ellie Johnson Ben Davis High School Alexander Fergusson Orono High School

IN CA MO ME ID CA CA KS NY IN ME

390 380 352 350 348 345 340 340 338 338 330

Rostrum | SPRING 2016


Student Service Citation, 3rd Degree (300+ points) Nico Reason Jefferson High School Anthony Massa Hoover High School Elaine Huang Arroyo High School Lauren Savoy Truman High School Griffin Bodhi Molinary-Kopelman ILEAD North Hollywood Kennedi Cox Odessa High School Aaron Dix Salina High Central Andrew Vo Arroyo High School Brandon Yu ILEAD North Hollywood Connor Innes Mulvane High School Eric Sun Pueblo West High School Jordan Pulliam Mulvane High School Chloe Haroldson Bixby High School Elyssa Albaugh Princeton High School Sean Rogers ILEAD North Hollywood Sasha Rabich ILEAD North Hollywood Joseph Drennan Chaminade High School Ireland Nichols Harrisburg High School Jacob George Zorehkey Central High School - Springfield

IN OH CA PA CA TX KS CA CA KS CO KS OK TX CA CA NY SD MO

330 329 325 324 323 322 320 320 315 314 311 310 309 307 306 301 300 300 300

Student Service Citation, 2nd Degree (200+ points) Hannah Shields Thompson Downers Grove North High School Melodie Lamborn Canon City High School Austin Moore Los Angeles Center For Enriched Studies Elleora Svoboda La Reina High School Jillian Gilburne Phoenix Country Day School Devin Gritton Plymouth High School Jaden Reekie Mulvane High School Lilly E. Plotkin Golden High School Matthew Manfredo Canon City High School Colleen Ballantyne Vincentian Academy Nicole Campbell Yucaipa High School Chelsea Fosu Democracy Prep Bronx Preparatory Charter School Chloe Pearson Yucaipa High School Avery Withrow Maconaquah High School Marilyn S. Collins Golden High School Morgan Light Lebanon High School Yaritza Sanchez Jefferson High School Rem Aitbouchireb Kerr High School Nicholas Magda Sky View High School Daniel James Brophy Downers Grove North High School Andrew Garcia Chaminade High School Kaily Edison Alief Taylor High School Tanis Ham Harrisonville High School Jack Wooton Wheaton Warrenville South High School Bempa Ashia Democracy Prep Bronx Preparatory Charter School Raina Grimsley Mitchell High School Tiernan Hughes Bixby High School Gloria Huang Arroyo High School Daniel Rojek Hoover High School Philip Dunne Chaminade High School Johnathon Bentley Knight Amarillo High School Casey O’Reilly Chaminade High School Kamryn Owens New Castle High School Isabelle Picciotti Oak Park & River Forest High School

IL CO CA CA AZ IN KS CO CO PA CA NY CA IN CO MO IN TX UT IL NY TX MO IL NY SD OK CA OH NY TX NY IN IL

295 290 290 279 276 275 270 264 245 235 235 235 235 235 231 230 230 228 227 225 225 221 221 221 220 219 218 216 216 215 215 215 215 215

Rostrum | SPRING 2016 95


96

Student Service Citation, 2nd Degree (200+ points) Nicholas Schleith Chaminade High School Jared Stone Los Angeles Center For Enriched Studies Isabella R. Cauley Herriman High School Brady Hagen ILEAD North Hollywood Ryan Solberg Mitchell High School Michael Dylan Johnson Harrisonville High School Jacob Holland Cabot High School Segan Rae Helle Bonita Vista High School Justin Cummins ILEAD North Hollywood Mark May East Ridge High School Jorge Rojas-Ortega Trinity High School Garrett Barron Rutherford South Anchorage High School Natalie Brunjes Gabrielino High School Victoria A. Reaves Central High School - Springfield Maya Sobchuk Chaminade College Prep Rodolfo Dominguez Farmington High School Rachel Stobbe Kickapoo High School Dylan Curtis Carlsbad High School Chad Wesley Cox Davis East Carteret High School Joseph Delorto Downers Grove North High School Triniti Krauss Palisade High School Gabriel Salazar El Camino Real Charter High School India Smith Apple Valley High School Samantha Togno La Reina High School Bryce Yoder Penn High School Allison Dakota Shaw Home Educator’s Outsourcing Solutions Rachel Moore Sandra Day O’Connor High School Garrett Wheeler Bixby High School Kieran T. Cavanagh Monticello Central High School Jubin Thomas Fayette County High School Rachel Andrus Dickinson High School Thomas Brautigam Elk Grove High School Olivia Dutcher ILEAD North Hollywood Jon Eberly Plymouth High School Gabriela Espinoza Herriman High School Blair Eubanks North Little Rock High School - West Campus Nathan Fennacy Buchanan High School Samuel Hawes Home Educator’s Outsourcing Solutions Amaranta Hernandez Arroyo High School Nathanael Hirst Belleville West High School Katheryn Horn North Little Rock High School - West Campus Massimo Indolini Chaminade High School Hannah Grace Kelly Conway High School Jessica Mendoza Bixby High School Ella Michaels North Hollywood High School Michael Nguyen Arroyo High School Laken Prowse North Little Rock High School - West Campus Abram Quiroz Arroyo High School Savannah Raup Conway High School Sawye Raygani Los Gatos High School Issac Silva Garden City High School Megan Trusedell Salpointe Catholic High School Nicholas White Chisholm Trail High School Chase Young Mulvane High School Max Yun College Prep

NY CA UT CA SD MO AR CA CA MN KY AK CA MO CA NM MO CA NC IL CO CA MN CA IN TX TX OK NY GA ND IL CA IN UT AR CA TX CA IL AR NY AR OK CA CA AR CA AR CA KS AZ TX KS CA

215 215 214 214 214 213 212 211 210 210 210 210 208 208 208 207 207 205 205 205 205 205 205 205 205 204 203 203 202 201 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200

Student Service Citation, 1st Degree (100+ points) Mohammad Alam North Hollywood High School Ruby Scanlon Los Angeles Center For Enriched Studies

CA CA

197 197

Rostrum | SPRING 2016


Student Service Citation, 1st Degree (100+ points) Elizabeth Charlton Home Educator’s Outsourcing Solutions Tanner Timothy Ryan Downers Grove North High School Kiara Bradford Conway High School Seema Iyengar Westwood High School Maanasa Nathan Westwood High School Michela Short Victoria East High School Sawyer Barnett Carson High School Isobel Duncan Oak Park & River Forest High School Denver King Bixby High School Caleb Sevy Sugar Salem High School Taylor Sigut Greater Latrobe High School Edson Arciniega Arroyo High School Ramya Yedatore Westwood High School Neha Shah Westwood High School Morgan Akers Cabot High School Alex DeTaboada Carlsbad High School Sidny Grow New Castle High School Dallas Koelling Oak Park & River Forest High School Joshua Sevy Sugar Salem High School Claire Walton College Prep Jessica Daviss Alief Taylor High School Grace Traynor North Allegheny Sr High School Catherine Cheng Westwood High School Michelle Lin Westwood High School Jace Waring Kickapoo High School Cameron Brown Sugar Salem High School Caylen Haalboom Yucaipa High School Wyatt Maxwell Harrisonville High School Lisa Michelini Schaumburg High School Jake Youngman Hinsdale Central High School Sam Bryan Helena High School Samiksha Ramesh Carlsbad High School Cameron Lybbert Columbia High School Ava Ewald Chanhassen High School Heidi Kutchek Downers Grove North High School Iverson Lai Arroyo High School Savannah Landaverry Arroyo High School Jeremy Pesigan Oak Park & River Forest High School Frankie Madison Spiller Palisade High School Chad Hamner Carlsbad High School Hannah Brewer Farmington High School Kaylee R. Coffman Golden High School Elijah Larson Farmington High School Bethany McCall Columbia High School Isaac Castaneda Columbia High School Maia Abbruzzese Lincoln High School Bryana Acosta Rio Grande High School Savannah Horton Yucaipa High School Kyle McGinty Plymouth High School Aidyn Travis Mulvane High School Christian Willig Mulvane High School Arin Zwonitzer Carlsbad High School Abigail Moberg Dickinson High School Katherine Alexander Westwood High School Ethan Brown Westwood High School Jackson Freeman Westwood High School Nisha Rajasekar Westwood High School Blake Vakili Carlsbad High School Landan Stocker Billings High School

TX IL AR TX TX TX NV IL OK ID PA CA TX TX AR CA IN IL ID CA TX PA TX TX MO ID CA MO IL IL MT CA ID MN IL CA CA IL CO CA NM CO NM ID ID OR NM CA IN KS KS CA ND TX TX TX TX CA MO

195 195 190 188 188 186 185 185 185 185 182 180 178 176 174 171 170 170 170 170 169 167 166 166 166 165 165 165 165 165 163 163 161 160 160 160 160 160 160 159 158 156 156 156 155 154 150 150 150 150 150 150 148 146 146 146 146 146 145

Rostrum | SPRING 2016 97


Student Service Citation, 1st Degree (100+ points) Victoria Castro-Chavez Bear Creek High School Jake French North Platte High School Cameron Caldwell Jefferson High School Ethan Carlson Norfolk High School Gracie Glenn Research Triangle High School Hanson Hoang Arroyo High School Taylor Hutcheson Yucaipa High School Riley Petri-Rose Mulvane High School Jacob Hunter Springer Blue Valley North High School Lexy Amos Farmington High School Feyisayo Oguniana Kerr High School Clarissa Wykstra Syracuse High School Tiffany Chen Alhambra High School Zane Arnold Danville High School Neil Chaudhury Westwood High School Marissa Howard Middletown High School Neil Shah Westwood High School James Byron Smith Clear Falls High School Christina Tahtouh Kerr High School Ryan Yang Westwood High School Gabriela Gonzalez-Stuver Oak Park & River Forest High School Sean Lane Oak Park & River Forest High School Erica Paulson Yucaipa High School Charlotte Sauer Jefferson High School Danielle Bloom Bonita Vista High School Twyla Luella Gross Enderlin High School Suzanna Moberg Dickinson High School Keirstyn Luthy Sky View High School Ryan Howe Carlsbad High School Kailee Burkart Yucaipa High School Arman Haveric Hinsdale Central High School Maria Putzier Salina High Central Alexander Toliver Marshall High School Emily Turkel North Hollywood High School Henry M. Bergstol Mountain Home High School Brian Coombs Westwood High School Hayden Gregoire The American School Of Tangier Anthony Sun Pueblo West High School Amanda Shields Bolivar R 1 High School Jenna Han Westwood High School Ruokun Li Westwood High School Saket Myneni Westwood High School Alicia Boone Big Sky High School Jonathan Gibson Mulvane High School Nicolas J. Gonzalez-Stuver Oak Park & River Forest High School Tatum Kirschenheiter Big Sky High School Emily Lambert Yucaipa High School Evelyn Martinez Downers Grove North High School Shane Morton Carson High School Abby Roberts Glenbrook South High School Annette Eve Rosen ILEAD North Hollywood Savannah R. Ruiz Salina High Central Hope Woodworth Research Triangle High School Kathleen Rose Cunningham El Modena High School Celeste Riley-Norman ILEAD North Hollywood Will Sera Home Educator’s Outsourcing Solutions Curt Brummit Mars Hill Bible School Whitney Elliott Kickapoo High School Ariel Laabs Kimball Area High School

98

Rostrum | SPRING 2016

CA NE IN NE NC CA CA KS KS NM TX UT CA KY TX OH TX TX TX TX IL IL CA IN CA ND ND UT CA CA IL KS MO CA ID TX MC CO MO TX TX TX MT KS IL MT CA IL NV IL CA KS NC CA CA TX AL MO MN

144 143 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 139 139 138 137 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 135 135 135 135 133 133 133 132 131 130 130 130 130 130 128 128 128 128 127 126 126 126 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 124 124 124 123 123 123


Student Service Citation, 1st Degree (100+ points) Calder Meis Victoria East High School Jacob Thomas Larue County High School Abby Vokoun Lincoln Southeast High School Clayton Becker Claremont High School Tre’von Mathews Middletown High School Victor Qin North Hollywood High School Hope Allison Victoria East High School Izsys Archer Jefferson High School Lorynn Boyce Mulvane High School Ryan Dickey Blue Valley North High School Isaiah Doran New London High School Sean Honesty Schaumburg High School Leean Huber North Medford High School Mackenzie Huber Hinsdale Central High School Samuel Jocas Hoover High School Courtney Mae Klein Centennial High School Conor Lynch Chaminade High School Justine Martinez Arroyo High School Darren J. Williams Little Rock Central High School Sara Heaslip Lake Travis High School Ky’Lee Hoyt Lebanon High School Sebastian Loyd Fort Scott High School Alex Vergara Bonita Vista High School Shaunt Avakian Bridges Academy Tiffany Chiang Alhambra High School Danielle Hallissey Holy Trinity Catholic High School Landon Keen Lebanon High School Gantt Meredith Tampa-Jesuit High School Halley Parmele Kickapoo High School Juliana Janatowski Whitmer High School Jillian Lauver Holy Trinity Catholic High School Garrett Lukenbill Harrisonville High School Adina McCall Lebanon High School Bo Bowers Haskell High School Cecilia Caputo Whitmer High School Olivia Carroll Victoria East High School Steven Ha Alief Taylor High School Jake Hemmings Trinity Presbyterian School Neil Press Cypress Bay High School Brock Richardson Kickapoo High School Victoria Bevard Thomas Jefferson High School Science & Tech Jason Bobadilla Garland High School Kasey Britt Turner Ashby High School Neazha Brown Bixby High School Liam Bryant Carlsbad High School Mikayla Dimick Elko High School Parker Egan Sugar Salem High School Cooper Geurin Bolivar R 1 High School Gabriel Shirk Girson Oak Park & River Forest High School Kaden Griesfeller North Platte High School Jack Hamilton Oak Park & River Forest High School Meghan Nichole Jones Palisade High School Stephen Listisen Ursuline High School Jasmine Moheb El Camino Real Charter High School Rory Penepacker Glenbrook South High School Reanna Saldivar Yucaipa High School Kaitlin Showalter Valley Center High School Taylor Spurgeon-Hess Sylvania Southview High School Quinn A. Stewart Scarborough High School

TX KY NE CA OH CA TX IN KS KS WI IL OR IL OH MN NY CA AR TX MO KS CA CA CA TX MO FL MO OH TX MO MO OK OH TX TX AL FL MO VA TX VA OK CA NV ID MO IL NE IL CO OH CA IL CA KS OH ME

123 123 123 121 121 121 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 119 119 119 119 118 118 118 118 118 118 117 117 117 117 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115

Rostrum | SPRING 2016 99


Student Service Citation, 1st Degree (100+ points) Hana N. Tatsutani Milton Academy Diana Weeks North Little Rock High School - West Campus Dylan Godbey Danville High School Emilee Johnston Bonneville High School Evan Kirksey Willard High School Destiny Meyer Dilworth Glyndon Felton High School Maeghan Sullivan Oak Park & River Forest High School Jennifer Vlacovsky Central Catholic High School Angela Winn Victoria East High School Aliyah Shaw Sumner Academy Adriana Vega Oak Ridge High School Jacob Ball Cardinal Wuerl North Catholic High School Nathaniel Pettit Knoch Senior High School Hayley Scott North Little Rock High School - West Campus Brianna Ferguson Nova High School Sydney Gibbs Central High School - Springfield Isaac Spanjer Fargo North High School Sabrina Tsai El Modena High School Chofian Abobakr Sioux Falls Lincoln High School Emily Adair Cabot High School Alec Bradley Wheaton Warrenville South High School Luke Chitwood Byron Nelson High School Knighten Cooper Kickapoo High School Kelsey L. Dewbre Westmoore High School Sonia Gadre Kentucky Country Day Carolyn Gutsch Salina High Central Becca Howard Regents School Of Austin Patrick Johnson Chaminade High School Allison Kennon Lakeville South High School Jaywon Kim Scottsdale Preparatory Academy Ryan Kinville Madison High School Logan Lankford American Falls High School Carol Lee Riverside High School Dane Madrigal Servite High School Timothy A. Mosco Rio Grande High School Angela Myers Hoover High School Olivia Nilsson Kentucky Country Day Audrey Nussbaum Kentucky Country Day Mercedes Petrack Maconaquah High School Terrence Pledger Sumner Academy Cameron Stephens Blue Valley North High School Jared Thalwitz Woodberry Forest School Morgan Thibodeaux Llano High School Tiya Tito Glenbrook South High School Evan Matthew Weaver Marshall High School Shiree Wilson Chaney High School Shania Wolfe Parkview High School Gabe Woodson Bixby High School Alex Acosta Concord High School Isabella Cefalone Haskell High School Brady Edmondson Kickapoo High School Kylee Evans Kickapoo High School Aria Flores Round Rock Christian Academy Noah Gann Bolivar R 1 High School Jackson Garske Columbine High School Cole B. Gunter Wichita East High School Brandon K. Schloss Wellington High School Sarah Slanaker ILEAD North Hollywood Olivia Zapater-Charrette Oak Park & River Forest High School

100

Rostrum | SPRING 2016

MA AR KY ID MO MN IL OH TX KS TX PA PA AR FL MO ND CA SD AR IL TX MO OK KY KS TX NY MN AZ ID ID SC CA NM OH KY KY IN KS KS VA TX IL MO OH MO OK IN OK MO MO TX MO CO KS FL CA IL

115 115 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 113 113 112 112 112 111 111 111 111 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109


Student Service Citation, 1st Degree (100+ points) Emily Aguilar La Reina High School James Delano Milton Academy Soleil A. Devonish Milton Academy Linsey Drake Kickapoo High School Lydia Graham Danville High School Cecilia K. Guan Milton Academy Nashra Javed Westwood High School Tong Liu Acton-Boxborough Regional High School JuliAnn Lukach Dickinson High School Hunter Martin Bixby High School Steven McDunn Munster High School My’Kell McGee Concord High School Jessie Lee Page Mountain Home High School Jesus Pineda Kerr High School Elizabeth Szalay Plymouth High School Giselle DeSilva Gabrielino High School Thomas Hammon Bolivar R 1 High School Cale Harper Monett High School Elijah Aaron Lora Bethany Christian High School Cole Baker Willard High School Shams Bawani Corpus Christi Carroll High School Matthew Cohen Llano High School Ryan Coops Westwood High School Spoorthi Dasari Westwood High School Garrett Gallego Gabrielino High School Murtaza Hakimi Westwood High School Rasik Jankay Westwood High School Nora Larson Lincoln Southeast High School Natalie Lauver Holy Trinity Catholic High School Surya Madireddy Westwood High School Sonali Mitra Westwood High School Saavan Nanavati Westwood High School Roshni Rawal Westwood High School Anushka Rijal Westwood High School Alec Smith Morristown West High School Sindhura Sridhar Westwood High School Anjali Venkatesh Westwood High School Drake Weber Kickapoo High School Elva Ye Westwood High School Sophia Carlin Oak Park & River Forest High School Alexandra Carroll Olathe Northwest High School Claudia Cervantes Milwaukee High School Of The Arts Matthew Christie Boca Raton Community High School Susan Correa Hereford High School Ever Cruz Alief Taylor High School Damion DaCosta Democracy Prep Harlem High School Serena Daley Oak Park & River Forest High School Anthony Della Valle Vincentian Academy Rebecca Dillman Jefferson High School Morgan Easter Canon City High School Vonni Estrada Yucaipa High School Claire Fitzpatrick Summit High School Catie Floegel Summit High School Zachary Fullerton Bethel Park High School William Galbreath Van Vleck High School Glaydmar Gamboa Dickinson High School Elizabeth Grace Glisson Marshall High School Joshua Goble Salina High Central Krista Grendze Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School

CA MA MA MO KY MA TX MA ND OK IN IN ID TX IN CA MO MO IN MO TX TX TX TX CA TX TX NE TX TX TX TX TX TX TN TX TX MO TX IL KS WI FL TX TX NY IL PA IN CO CA NJ NJ PA TX ND MO KS IN

108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 107 107 107 107 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105

Rostrum | SPRING 2016 101


Student Service Citation, 1st Degree (100+ points) Jackson Gress Bishop Miege High School Zachary Grove North Hollywood High School Katelynn Gutierrez Jefferson High School Taylor Hallabuk Towanda Jr.-Sr. High School Shanya Hawari Fargo South High School Tiffany Holm Campbell County High School Sarah Hyman Kentucky Country Day Sam Jones Bolivar R 1 High School Griffin Kaiser Research Triangle High School Jacob Karst Valley Center High School Arielle Kreuzwieser Ursuline High School Daniel LaRose Chaminade High School Jasmine Mahajan North Allegheny Sr High School Anna Merchant Mulvane High School Veronica Pattengale Frontier High School Joel Perez New London High School Lynn Pratt Fishers High School Hanna Punnoose Glenbrook South High School Katherin Recio Summit High School Ethan Reiss Glenbrook South High School Chansey Rhoads Lebanon High School Shalom Robles Van Vleck High School Noah Stevens Garland High School Elizabeth Tagg Lindale High School Paige Thorgerson Dickinson High School Chapel Tinius Bowling Green High School Sabree White Sumner Academy Christian Williams American Falls High School Dustin Wilson Bandon High School Divyesh Chotai Milpitas High School Faith Madison LoPiccolo Henry Clay High School Jacob Mancinas Arroyo High School Vanessa Obi Sumner Academy Terner Shearer Haskell High School Joanna VanBrunt Haskell High School Jonathan Wu Shrewsbury High School Olivia Diulus North Allegheny Sr High School Hannah Ekwere Alief Taylor High School Sofia Koyama Gabrielino High School Nicholas Christian Van Slooten Bentonville High School Beighly Mae Weiss Sumner Academy Christian Joy Bixby High School Grace Phillips Delone Catholic High School Marshall Webb Saint Mary’s Hall High School Gage Anderson Cherry Creek High School Madelyn Chandler Trinity Presbyterian School Shannon Clarke Morristown West High School Ashley Feng Montville High School Levi Hodge Cassville High School Bailey Hunt Oak Hill High School Evan Stoddard Canterbury High School Mariah Villaroman Munster High School Chinenye Agbakwu Garland High School Emma Armstrong Cozad High School Jacob E. Aronoff Milton Academy Chase Atkins Frontier High School Taylor Beeson Middletown High School Caleb Andrew Booton Jemez Mountain Home School Kathryn Bordona Edison Computech High School

102

Rostrum | SPRING 2016

KS CA IN PA ND WY KY MO NC KS OH NY PA KS IN WI IN IL NJ IL MO TX TX TX ND KY KS ID OR CA KY CA KS OK OK MA PA TX CA AR KS OK PA TX CO AL TN NJ MO IN IN IN TX NE MA IN OH NM CA

105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 103 103 103 103 103 102 102 102 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 100 100 100 100 100 100 100


Student Service Citation, 1st Degree (100+ points) Michael Paul Bottei Father Ryan High School Abigail Boughton Prosper High School Devlyn Brill Mulvane High School Hannah Broniszewski Quigley Catholic High School Caitlynn Brown Bixby High School Claudia Brown Bixby High School Bianca Cataluna American Falls High School Elena Cecil Larue County High School Andrew Chan Milton Academy Emily Chen Montville High School Abby Coffman Lebanon High School Jeremy Charles Cowham Milton Academy Zachary Dawson Bixby High School Madelyn Deevers Bixby High School Nick Della Sala Summit High School Raymond Maurice Forstater Blue Valley North High School Jack Franco Hinsdale Central High School Lonnie Frazier Prosper High School James Garvin Chaminade High School Samuel Geiger Belleville West High School Ayla Hantson Prosper High School Kennedy Harless Plymouth High School Serena Joliff West Plains High School Paula Kosienski Fargo South High School Elie Laville Blue Valley North High School Timothy Ledet Comeaux High School Jake Lemonds Hutchinson High School Audrey Lightfoot Cabot High School Claire Lise-Greve Trinity Valley School Ania Luckiewicz Vincentian Academy Alexander Maher Chaminade High School Henry Malone Prosper High School Madison L. Marquardt Lennox High School Noah Mason Lincoln Southeast High School Connor McClaury Prosper High School Marlen Wayne Meester Valley City High School Jennifer Miranti Flintridge Sacred Heart Academy Bonnie Mitchell Prosper High School Zach Nachtigal Big Sky High School Jackson Paris Elko High School Nicholas Parkes La Salle College High School Caleb T. Rhodes Milton Academy Ashley Caroline Rice East Carteret High School Victoria Rice Yucaipa High School Eliza L. Scharfstein Milton Academy Kendall Sewell Collierville High School Tara Sharma Milton Academy Nitika Singh Schaumburg High School Alexandra Singleton Gabrielino High School Prakrunya Subhasree Badrinrayan Westview High School Timothy Sullivan Cathedral Prep Seminary Mary Talamantez Bonita Vista High School Alexander L. Trobough Sumner Academy Alexandra E. Upton Milton Academy Mark Wade Prosper High School Michael Wlodawsky Prosper High School Jonathan S. WuWong Milton Academy Dante Wyche Van Vleck High School

TN TX KS PA OK OK ID KY MA NJ MO MA OK OK NJ KS IL TX NY IL TX IN MO ND KS LA KS AR TX PA NY TX SD NE TX ND CA TX MT NV PA MA NC CA MA TN MA IL CA OR NY CA KS MA TX TX MA TX

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Rostrum | SPRING 2016 103


Academic All Americans The Academic All American award recognizes students who have earned the degree of Superior Distinction (750 points); earned a GPA of 3.7 on a 4.0 scale (or its equivalent); received an ACT score of 27 or higher, or SAT combined score of either 1330 on the1600 scale or 2000 on the 2400 scale; completed at least 5 semesters of high school; and demonstrated outstanding character and leadership. ALABAMA Lyndsey Young ALASKA David Courtright

South Anchorage High School

ARKANSAS Morgan Akers Katie Grace Matthews

Cabot High School Bentonville High School

CALIFORNIA Daniel Cho Marcus Cohen Jacqueline Dang Kaiden Gipson Sofia Koyama Justin Lagera Joseph Paik Grace Shau Trevor Swafford Christine Tran

Oxford Academy El Dorado High School Gabrielino High School Bonita Vista High School Gabrielino High School Clovis North High School Santa Margarita Catholic High School Milpitas High School Bonita Vista High School Gabrielino High School

COLORADO Kam Lee Peter Leonard

Widefield High School Mountain Vista High School

FLORIDA Sarah Branse Matthew Herskowitz Madison A. Moreno Nathaniel Josiah Sweet Hannah Verma

NSU University School NSU University School Boca Raton Community High School Boca Raton Community High School Lake Highland Preparatory

IDAHO Avery Gonzales ILLINOIS Vignesh Alla Kevin Gordon Scott Okuno Brian Roche Douglas Stryker

104

Mars Hill Bible School

Rostrum | SPRING 2016

(January 15, 2016 through March 15, 2016)

KANSAS Leen Bakdash Stefan S. Petrovic Bridget C. Smith Gracie Taylor

Wichita Collegiate Upper School Lawrence High School Lawrence High School Wichita Collegiate Upper School

LOUISIANA Luke Kirk

John Paul The Great Academy

MAINE Nick J. Danby Tyler DeFroscia Elizabeth Grace Robbins Ellie Sapat

Bangor High School Bangor High School Bangor High School Falmouth High School

MASSACHUSETTS Benjamin T. Makishima Srinivas Setty Marshall M. Sloane

Milton Academy Acton-Boxborough Regional High School Milton Academy

MINNESOTA Carissa Gillispie

Andover High School

MISSISSIPPI Alyssa Bass Caitlin Leiva Joshua McCoy

Oak Grove High School Oak Grove High School Oak Grove High School

MISSOURI Brett Keith Buchanan Anna Christianson Cooper Wayne Giles Maquelle Huntley Kathryn Hurrell Charles Li Adam Maiale Joe Swingle Emily Zaretzky

Blue Springs South High School Carthage High School Blue Springs South High School Carthage High School Carthage High School The Pembroke Hill School The Barstow School Blue Springs South High School Camdenton High School

MONTANA Nicolena Boucher Brendan Wathen

Skyview High School Hamilton High School

NEBRASKA Brent Hausmann Sameer Kunte Rajan Mediratta Gauri Ramesh Aaron Salzman Ian Salzman

Norfolk High School Millard North High School Millard North High School Millard North High School Creighton Preparatory School Creighton Preparatory School

Kimberly High School

Glenbrook South High School Glenbrook South High School Glenbrook South High School Glenbrook South High School Glenbrook South High School


Spark Leaders

Welcome New Schools (January 15, 2016 through March 15, 2016)

OHIO Anjali Fernandes Ananya Kalahasti Noah Katz Pranav Muthigi Aarathi Sahadevan Lydia Spencer Molly Walton

Notre Dame Academy Hathaway Brown School Copley High School Copley High School Hathaway Brown School Hathaway Brown School Notre Dame Academy

OKLAHOMA Pranoy Behera Abigail Hales Sean Mason Jack Williams

Bartlesville High School Bartlesville High School Bartlesville High School Bartlesville High School

OREGON Kelsey Dunn Aman Sharma Stanley Sun

Lincoln High School Westview High School Westview High School

PENNSYLVANIA Richard Ling Benjamin Oon Shahil Patel Eric Ricci SOUTH DAKOTA Olivia M. Smith Bryan Waugh TEXAS Christina Bui Lyndie Ho Anita Pai Alec Ramsey UTAH McKadee Eyre Nicholas Magda Catherine Suzanne Miner VIRGINIA Jonathan Corbin

Abington Heights High School Abington Heights High School Abington Heights High School North Allegheny Sr. High School

Spearfish High School Spearfish High School

Hendrickson High School Edward S. Marcus High School Byron Nelson High School Lindale High School

Beaver High School Sky View High School Olympus High School

Fluvanna County High School

Canoga Park High School

CA

Dana Hills High School

CA

El Capitan High School

CA

Golden Valley High School

CA

Impact Academy Of Arts & Tech

CA

International Studies Academy

CA

The Webb Schools

CA

Cardozo High School

DC

Emerson Preparatory School

DC

Richard Wright School For Journalism & Media Arts PCS DC Northside Christian School

FL

Lithia Springs Comprehensive High School

GA

Silver Creek High School

IN

Essex Technical High School

MA

Winsor School

MA

Roeper School

MI

St. Marys School

NC

New England High School

ND

Equality Charter High School

NY

Frank Sinatra School For The Arts

NY

Hebrew Academy Five Towns Rock

NY

High School For Civil Rights & Law

NY

Manhattan Hunter Science High School

NY

NYC Charter High School For AECI

NY

Passages Academy

NY

Trevor Day School

NY

Dalton High School

OH

Soddy Daisy High School

TN

OC TECHigh School

TX

Eastern View High School

VA

Goochland High School

VA

Bay Port High School

WI

Markesan High School

WI

Southwest High School

WI

CONNECT. SUPPORT. INSPIRE. Rostrum | SPRING 2016 105


Employment Opportunities Brentwood Academy Seeks Director of Forensics & Assistant Forensics Coach (Tennessee) Candidates interested in either position should email Jenny Oldham at jenny_oldham@brentwoodacademy.com.

Please send your CV, background information, and salary expectations by email to ncjob@yahoo.com. It is helpful if you note other scheduling requirements during this period.

Upper School Director of Forensics/Public Speaking Instructor: Brentwood Academy is seeking a full-time Director of Forensics and ninth grade public speaking instructor. The ideal candidate has experience performing and/or coaching competitive speech events on the national circuit. Events include Humorous Interpretation, Dramatic Interpretation, Duo Interpretation, Extemp, Impromptu, Original Oratory, Poetry, Prose, POI, etc. This position requires detailed budgeting and bookkeeping, as well as preparing travel arrangements and entry submissions for all tournaments. The position requires travel up to 16 weekends per year. Candidate should plan to acquire licensure to drive passengers in a bus (CDL, Class C vehicles; Passenger Endorsement). Additional responsibilities include managing fine arts box office, organizing web calendar, and directing the improvisational team. Assistant Forensics Coach/Middle School Instructor: Brentwood Academy is also seeking a full-time Upper School Assistant Forensics Coach, who will direct the Middle School forensics program and instruct the middle school drama/forensics elective classes. Experience performing/ coaching individual events is ideal (see above list). This position requires travel up to 16 weekends per year.

Capitol Debate Seeking Summer Debate Camp Instructors (Nationwide) Capitol Debate is hosting two-week summer debate camps in 16 cities during the summer of 2016. With more than 1,200 students coming through our doors this summer, we are looking to add more instructors into our system. For this summer, we have a need for debate instructors for the weeks of July 30 to August 12 at either Babson College in Boston, Rider University in NJ, or Iona College in NY. We might also have some openings for the weeks of July 2 to July 15 or June 4 to June 17. We are looking for Junior Instructors, Lab Leaders, and Senior Instructors. Junior Instructors are typically college students with debate experience. Lab Leaders typically are college graduates who are currently coaching and have worked at summer debate camps in the past. Senior Instructors have classroom experience preferably in the K-12 area. While our camps focus on Public Forum as a model to teach debate to new students, we welcome applications from LD, Policy, and speech coaches. To apply, please send a cover letter and resume to hr@capitoldebate.com.

Calabasas High School Seeks Coach/Mentor (California) The team was recreated about three years ago, and has been completely student-run since then. We are a small, manageable team with some very powerful speakers. Our school is wellknown for its performing arts programs, which have received many awards throughout the years. Meetings are held once a week on Monday, from 3:00 p.m. to roughly 4:00 p.m., but times are adjustable. This will be a paid job, with negotiable pricings. This is a great opening for new and experienced coaches who are looking for a small group of dedicated and talented students. More information on the team can be found on our website. If you are at all interested, would like more information, or have any questions or concerns, please contact us at calabasaspeechandebate@gmail.com.

106

Dayton High School Seeks Speech and Debate Teacher/Coach (Texas) Rural high school seeking a Speech and Debate Teacher/ Coach. This fledgling program has had success in UIL for the past couple of years and is looking for someone to put them over the top in TFA and NSDA competition. Program includes Debate class during the day along with Professional Communication classes. Weekend travel should be expected. (This year’s team went to 16 tournaments not including districts. The expectation is roughly two tournaments per month.) Regular teaching duties also apply. For complete details, visit www.speechanddebate.org/jobs.

Cape Fear Academy Seeks Lincoln-Douglas Debate Coach (North Carolina)

Education Unlimited Seeks Public Speaking Instructors and Theater Instructors {summer only} (California)

Cape Fear Academy (NC) seeks a Lincoln-Douglas Debate Coach for remote coaching of students on June topic from May 1 to June 17, 2016. Attendance at Nationals is optional but desirable.

Camp Brainy Bunch, an academic enrichment day camp program for 1st - 6th graders, seeks creative and high-energy Public Speaking Instructors and Theater

Rostrum | SPRING 2016


More Speech & Debate Jobs Available Online:

www.speechanddebate.org/jobs Instructors for their summer day camps throughout the San Francisco Bay Area from June - August 2016. Instructors are generally college graduates or current college students with experience in one of our subject areas (Public Speaking, Creative Writing, Theater, Engineering, Leadership). Instructors are responsible for teaching the CBB curriculum, fostering a safe and supportive environment, assisting with recreation outside of instruction, and supporting camp operations.  Additionally, instructors should have the ability to speak confidently and compassionately with parents and students, and have direct experience working with 1st - 6th grade students in a classroom setting. Most importantly, instructors should be flexible and willing to have fun and support camp wherever needed! These are temporary positions at summer day camps in the Bay Area. Instructors must provide their own transportation and should be able to work at one or more of our day camp locations in the Bay Area for two to six weeks this summer. For complete details, visit www.speechanddebate.org/jobs. Interested candidates should follow the provided link to apply directly through the Camp Brainy Bunch website. You will need to submit a resume, contact information for three references, and complete a questionnaire.

Education Unlimited Seeks Public Speaking Instructor {summer only} (California) Education Unlimited, a leading academic-enrichment provider, seeks energetic and enthusiastic Public Speaking Instructors for 4th - 12th graders at residential summer programs from June - August 2016. Public Speaking Instructors will guide students through the Education Unlimited Public Speaking curriculum to help them become more clear, confident, and effective speakers, and to help them enjoy public speaking activities. Instructors will teach either the Delivery unit, the Debate unit, or both (depending on camp session and instructor expertise). Instructors will also teach an elective in the afternoons or evenings. Examples of electives include Model Congress, Model UN, Impromptu Speaking, Readers Theater, Negotiations, Policy Debate, and Oratory. Most Public Speaking Instructors have a background in speech, debate, or drama and have experience teaching public speaking to young people. In addition to teaching responsibilities, instructors are expected to assist the camp director with active supervision and recreation assistance.  These are full-time, residential, temporary summer positions on college campuses (including UCLA, UC Berkeley, Stanford, and UCSD, MIT, Brown, and Georgetown). Instructors may be hired for one week or for multiple sessions. Please

indicate your availability on the job application. Interested candidates should follow the provided link at www.speechanddebate.org/jobs to apply directly through the Education Unlimited website. You will need to submit a resume, contact information for three references, and complete a questionnaire.

Evanston Township High School Seeks Assistant Speech and/or Debate Coach (Illinois) ETHS, a racially and economically diverse public school north of Chicago, is hiring assistant coaches for 20162017. The positions are part-time, but with generous stipends. We are looking folks in the area looking to commit to our team, perhaps looking for some other job in our building, or perhaps attending school nearby. Our team is organized by the following principles: • Education: We will always seek to develop, refine, and implement best practices to help our students learn and grow. • Inclusion: Our team should reflect our student population. We will create and maintain an open, inclusive, and safe space for all students. • Student Leadership: We will structure our team and our decision-making process such that students are involved and empowered. • Fun: We will create a relaxed, inviting space that recruits and retains students on its own. • Competitive Excellence: To the extent that competition is a goal for our students, we will encourage them to aim for the highest levels of success. We will facilitate local, state, and national competitive excellence. Experience in Policy, Congress, Public Address, or Limited Prep is particularly helpful. For complete details, visit www.speechanddebate.org/jobs. To begin the application process, follow the link provided and send a letter of interest and brief resume (just a few sentences will suffice) to head coach Jeff Hannan at hannanj@eths202.org.

EVHS Speech & Debate Seeks a Speech Coach and/ or a Public Forum Coach (San Jose, California) Evergreen Valley High School Speech & Debate is seeking both a PF coach and a Speech coach beginning in August 2016 for its after-school program. Both coaches are expected to assist and instruct students in their respective events, and on occasion chaperone

Rostrum | SPRING 2016 107


Employment Opportunities tournaments. Logistical tasks are completed entirely by others.

Los Fresnos CISD Seeks Speech Teacher - TFA Sponsor (Texas)

EVHS has a wonderful program with dedicated kids and a very fulfilling, enjoyable work-environment. We have an elite program, with a TOC championship, multiple national invitational victories, and qualifications to the Kentucky TOC, the NIETOC, the Parli TOC, the State Tournament, and more. If you are interested, please email evhs.sd@ gmail.com with a cover letter and resume.

Los Fresnos CISD in deep South Texas is seeking a Speech and Debate Teacher/Coach. We have a successful UIL Academic program and are ready to move into competing in TFA and NSDA/NFL meets. We are looking for someone to start this program and develop a competitive team in DI/HI, Extemp, and Debate. Weekend travel should be expected. Regular teaching duties also apply.

Leaders Academy Seeks Teacher (Seoul, South Korea)

You may submit your application online using the provided link at www.speechanddebate.org/jobs and attach your transcripts, letter of intent, and resume. TEA certification on the field is required.

Job Responsibilities • Primary instruction is debate and speech. Secondarily, focus on English and social studies. Design and manage curriculum. • Provide differentiated instruction to a variety of abilities and counsel students to find appropriate competitions. • Provide in-depth feedback and guidance to both students and parents about the progress of each student. • Will coach students at tournaments, possibly including international tournaments. Qualifications (must haves) • Bachelor’s • Forensic experience and expertise • Passion for teaching and coaching

The New York City Urban Debate League Seeks Borough Debate League Director (New York) The Borough Debate Director is the leader of NYCUDL programming in his/her respective borough. The Debate Director leads and implements all aspects of NYCUDL’s work in the borough. Key responsibilities include program/ tournament planning and management, outreach and communications, and partner management. For complete details, visit www.speechanddebate.org/jobs. To apply, please send resume and cover letter to info@ debate.nyc. Please include job title in the subject line.

Preferences (but not necessary) • Teaching certificate • Model United Nations

The New York City Urban Debate League Seeks Part-Time Tournament Manager (New York)

• Salary based on qualifications; overtime available

The Tournament Manager works with our Program Directors to manage all tournaments of the New York City Urban Debate league. Key responsibilities include program/tournament planning and management, event management, communications, and data tracking.

• Includes flights and housing stipend

For complete details, visit www.speechanddebate.org/jobs.

Applicants should send CV and cover letter to leaderslearning@gmail.com. Include “NSDA Recruitment” in the subject heading.

To apply, please send resume and cover letter to info@ debate.nyc. Please include job title in the subject line.

• Civics or Economics expertise Contract • Year-long contract starts ASAP

About Leaders Academy Leaders Academy is one of the oldest and most respected debate academies in Korea. The majority of grand champions in NFL-Korea events in the 20122013 academic year trained at Leaders Academy. Leaders Academy, Jaesok Building 4F, 908-1 Daechi, Gangnam, Seoul, Korea Phone: 82-2-562-9799

108

Rostrum | SPRING 2016

The Nueva School Seeks Lincoln-Douglas Coach (California) Best greetings – Nueva seeks an LD assistant coach with the appropriate circuit experience and philosophical background who would enjoy teaching two very bright, industrious, underexperienced Lincoln-Douglas debaters. At present, we’re looking for someone who will be in the Bay Area and can come to some tournaments, show up in


More Speech & Debate Jobs Available Online:

www.speechanddebate.org/jobs person a couple of times a month, and work with the kids remotely at other times. Card-cutting is not a priority. Interested parties should email Les Phillips at lphillips@nuevaschool.org.

or Debate Program and teaching Speech & Debate courses. To apply for this position, please fill out the teaching application, which can be found on the Presentation High School employment page. Email completed PDF application and other required documents to employment@presentationhs.org. For complete details, visit www.speechanddebate.org/jobs.

Okasan and Me Inc. Seeks Student Teacher Policy Debate or Public Forum (California) Seeking high school student teacher of Policy Debate and/ or Public Forum for a small class in San Jose, California. Meets during the summer, June through August 2016. We would like the student teacher to continue throughout the school year on an on-call basis. Flexible hours and will work around student teacher schedule. Straight salary; we do not offer housing for the student teacher. For complete details, visit www.okasanandme.com. Please submit resume to the corporation Okasan and Me Inc. at okasanandme@Msn.com.

Palmer Trinity School Seeks Part Time Debate Coach (Florida) We are looking for a debate coach for a few hours per week to work with high school students. Please send emails of interest and brief qualifications to Bill Bailey at bill.bailey1@att.net. Thank you.

Seeking Private Speech/Debate Coach (California) Looking for a private coach in the peninsula. Interested candidates should submit their resume to adchanlau@gmail.com.

Salina South High School Seeks Debate & Speech Teacher (Kansas) The mission of the Salina Public Schools is to ensure that all students learn the skills necessary to participate successfully in the communities in which they live. Completion of this mission is a responsibility of the student, community, teachers, and staff in a cooperative partnership. Salina South has approximately 1,130 students in grades 9-12. For complete details, visit www.speechanddebate.org/jobs.

Trinity Valley School Seeks Upper School History Instructor and Director of Speech and Debate (Texas) The Pike School Seeks Speech and Debate Teacher Grades 6-8 (Massachusetts) F/T Start immediately. Provide leadership of the interscholastic competitive speech team. Strong background and experience in teaching speech/public speaking and various types of debate. Exp. coaching in the areas of speech & debate at a competitive level also preferred. Please go to The Pike School’s employment page at www.pikeschool. org/employment and click apply below the job description. Fill out the form and attach the requested material.

Presentation High School Seeks Speech Director and/or Debate Director (California) Presentation High School in San Jose, CA is seeking full-time Directors in Speech and/or Debate beginning in August 2016. The Director(s) will be responsible for providing leadership for the ongoing development, coordination, and administration of Presentation High School’s Speech and/

Trinity Valley School—a nonsectarian K-12 independent school in Fort Worth, Texas—is seeking an Upper School History Instructor/Director of Speech and Debate. This individual will ideally possess the following qualities: a thorough knowledge of his/her discipline, passion for teaching upper school students, teaching experience in the upper school, knowledge of varied pedagogy, and the leadership qualities to inspire, motivate, and develop students. “Specific upper school social studies courses that could be taught include, but are not limited to, ancient civilizations, modern world history, and United States history.” The individual will also be an experienced speech and debate competitor and/ or coach to direct our Upper School (grades 9-12) Speech and Debate Team. The ideal candidate should have the ability to be flexible and caring while holding students to high expectations in both academic endeavors and behavior. A Master’s degree or three years teaching experience is preferred. Interested candidates should submit their application information via the Trinity Valley School website. For complete details, visit www.speechanddebate.org/jobs.

Rostrum | SPRING 2016 109


Get Ready!

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

SHOP NOW: store.speechanddebate.org


Top 50 Districts (Ranked by average number of charter chapter degrees as of March 1, 2016) Average Leading Chapter Rank Change District No. of Degrees

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 27 29 29 31 32 33 33 35 35 37 38 38 40 40 42 43 44 44 46 46 46 46 50

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -1 -3 -2 3 3 -- -1 -4 2 -5 2 1 2 1 -2 -12 -5 -1 6 1 4 -8 -1 7 -- 3 -- 9 -4 2 -3 -5 3 1 -- 10 -5 -3 1 -7 -- -3 -1

East Kansas Florida Manatee Three Trails (KS) Kansas Flint-Hills Northern South Dakota Ozark (MO) Show Me (MO) Idaho Mountain River Nebraska Rocky Mountain-South (CO) Eastern Ohio Northwest Indiana Rushmore (SD) East Los Angeles (CA) Montana New York City Northern Illinois California Coast Heart Of America (MO) Sunflower (KS) Northern Ohio Southern Minnesota New Jersey North Coast (OH) Northeast Indiana East Texas Central Minnesota Golden Desert (NV) Greater Illinois Western Ohio Colorado West Kansas Florida Oceanfront Carver-Truman (MO) New England (MA & NH) Southern California West Iowa Idaho Gem of the Mountain South Kansas San Fran Bay (CA) Eastern Missouri South Texas Carolina West (NC) Illini (IL) Pittsburgh (PA) Heart Of Texas Wind River (WY) South Florida New Mexico Florida Panther

261 220 208 202 194 191 189 184 184 176 171 168 162 156 149 146 145 144 144 143 140 129 128 127 125 124 123 123 122 122 118 117 115 115 112 112 111 110 110 108 108 106 105 103 103 101 101 101 101 100

No. of Degrees

Olathe Northwest High School Nova High School Blue Valley North High School Washburn Rural High School Aberdeen Central High School Central High School - Springfield Lee’s Summit West High School Highland High School Millard North High School George Washington High School Perry High School Munster High School Sioux Falls Lincoln High School Gabrielino High School Bozeman High School The Bronx High School Of Science Glenbrook North High School Leland High School Liberty Sr. High School Valley Center High School Canfield High School Eagan High School Ridge High School Solon High School Chesterton High School William P. Clements High School Eastview High School Green Valley High School Belleville West High School Mason High School Cherry Creek High School Hutchinson High School Boca Raton Community High School Neosho High School Lexington High School Carlsbad High School Dowling Catholic High School Columbia High School Fort Scott High School James Logan High School Ladue Horton Watkins High School Bellaire High School Ardrey Kell High School Downers Grove South High School North Allegheny Sr. High School Westwood High School Green River High School Braddock High School Los Alamos High School Lake Highland Preparatory

555 888 714 458 438 735 545 471 748 593 393 430 447 886 361 825 523 878 636 526 350 608 436 369 467 504 524 384 192 268 681 258 324 422 401 444 303 214 258 498 254 537 304 443 572 468 379 260 213 439

View complete rankings online at www.speechanddebate.org. Rostrum | SPRING 2016 111


PARTING GLANCE

GIVING BACK By the Numbers

M

y high school debate partner, Bill Jeffress, and I over three years? That’s more than 600 volunteer judges have judged in quite a few high school speech needed to help us do something we loved. Without them, and debate tournaments since graduating from no tournaments, no trophies, and far less of a feeling of high school in 1972. We don’t have a precise count on the accomplishment. number of rounds or tournaments. My best guess is that If we “service” this debt at the rate of four tournaments after our kids were grown and we lived in the same town per year and five rounds per tournament, we only repay again, we have averaged about three or four tournaments 40 rounds a year. At that pace, just to do the minimum a year and maybe four or five rounds necessary to match what was done for per tournament. We get teased about us, it would take 15 years of judging. “If you found that you being a little “long in the tooth” to Was your competition experience still be judging. A glance at the judging similar? could spend a few hours pool confirms that we sometimes The students participating in NSDA with today’s speech find ourselves in a tiny demographic events these days are spectacularly and debate students, minority. talented. Even though Policy Debate A couple of years ago, I was filling today is far different from the way you are likely to find out the judging information form we did it in during the early ’70s, Bill that volunteering to for a tournament that was new to and I enjoy the challenge of being judge is one of the more me. The form asked me to identify helpful critics and judges, and it is enjoyable debts you will “who the tournament should thank” very satisfying to see that the activity for asking me to volunteer to judge. that we enjoyed so much continues ever choose to repay.” Without much conscious thought, to thrive more than 40 years later. I filled in that blank with the name Judging also gives us something to “Louis Banker.” This was not literally true. Louis Banker was talk about, and yes, argue about with each other in the my multiple-diamond high school speech coach who had Hospitality Room and beyond, often for months at a time. died some 20 years before. Having to answer that question Not everyone can spare the time to be a tournament gave me some insight into why Bill and I still judge. In a judge, of course. Kids, grandkids, jobs, care-giving, health way, it feels like a debt to Mr. Banker and all our former concerns, and transportation problems just scratch the judges that we are struggling to repay. surface of issues that prevent today’s willing adults from How much of a debt? Crunching the numbers, I figure volunteering to judge. But if the tumblers clicked into that during the three years Bill and I competed, we place, and you found that you could spend a few hours probably averaged 11 tournaments a year. We competed in with today’s speech and debate students, you are likely about seven rounds of debate and three rounds of Extemp to find that it is one of the more enjoyable debts you will each for all of these tournaments. (Hey, we were pretty ever choose to repay. good, okay?) At one judge per prelim round and three per elim round, that’s about 21 judges that were required Phil Gibson, NSDA Alum (’72) just for us in each tournament. Thirty-three tournaments Fort Osage High School, Independence, MO

112

Rostrum | SPRING 2016


REGISTER FOR THE SUMMER ONLINE INSTITUTE! The Online Institute is an affordable and convenient enrichment opportunity for students and coaches alike. Save the expense of traveling to camps by participating online! You will receive individual instruction and guidance from renowned coaches across the country committed to helping you succeed.

National Speech & Debate Association

ONLINE INSTITUTE

Summer 2016 Sessions: ff FREE Coach Clinic * WENDI BRANDENBURG

ff Policy Debate BRIAN RUBAIE

* Eligible for graduate credit through Drake University! DATES: JULY 18-22

DATES: JUNE 6-10

ff Congressional Debate JEFF HANNAN DATES: JUNE 20-24

ff Interpretation KRIS HALL DATES: JUNE 27-JULY 1

ff Original Oratory HARRISON POSTLER Guest Lecturer: JOE WYCOFF DATES: JULY 5-9

ff Public Forum Debate NEFERTITI DUKES & MEGAN WEST DATES: JULY 25-29

LEARN MORE AND REGISTER ONLINE TODAY! General Public

Member

Resource Package

$350

$275

$225

www.speechanddebate.org/institute

ff Extemporaneous Speaking BILL THOMPSON DATES: AUGUST 1-5

ff Lincoln-Douglas Debate KRIS WRIGHT DATES: AUGUST 8-12


2016 Spring Rostrum