2016 Summer Rostrum

Rostrum A PUBLICATION OF THE NATIONAL SPEECH & DEBATE ASSOCIATION

VOLUME 91 ISSUE 1 SUMMER 2016

INSIDE

Exclusive Tournament Photos, Results, and More!

INTRODUCING PODIUS & BIG QUESTIONS DEBATES

The University of Texas National Institute in Forensics is one of the largest and most successful summer speech and debate workshops in the country.

For more than 20 years, UTNIF thought leaders have engaged students from across the nation to lead rather than follow argumentative and performative trends. Our participants enjoy tremendous competitive success, earning championships and final round appearances in nearly every event.

Join us for another summer of UTNIF excellence. www.utdebatecamp.com www.utspeech.net

The American Legion Oratorical Contest

LOOKING FOR COLLEGE SCHOLARSHIPS?  LOOK NO FURTHER. As part of the National Speech & Debate Association’s ongoing partnership with The American Legion, the top three finishers from the Legion’s National Oratorical Contest may earn the right to compete in Original Oratory or United States Extemporaneous Speaking at the National Speech & Debate Tournament! The firstplace finisher is awarded an $18,000 scholarship, second-place $16,000, and third-place $14,000. The scholarships may be used at any college or university in the United States.



Want to get involved? Follow these simple steps!

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

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

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

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

Washington student Benjamin Crosby placed first at the 2016 Oratorical Contest.

Watch examples of past winning orations online at www.legion.org/oratorical/videos.

In this Issue : V o l u m e 9 1 : I s s u e 1 : SUMME R 2 0 1 6

From the Cover

Inside

68

4

From the Editor

5

2016-2017 Topics

50

USA Debate Team: Advocates Across the Globe

2016 National Tournament Photos and Results

Governance and Leadership 9 12 17

Board of Directors Spring Minutes Updating Our Constitution 2016 Summer Leadership Conference: New Ideas. New Friends. A Sense of Unity!

Community 18

The State of Interp: A Town Hall Meeting 22 Big Questions Debates: A Forum for Life Learning 24 Introducing Podius Debates 26 Voices of the Future: Debating the Debates 46 Policy Debate: Synopsis of the Problem Areas for 2017-2018

by Liz Yount 52

Student Spotlight: Hanna Watson

54

Alumni Angles: Ian Panchèvre

56

District in Detail: New England

58

Team Profile: Leland High School, CA

Member Resources 28 31 32 36 39 40

Website Redesign Edco and the NSDA Partner to Create Fundraising Guide Curriculum Corner: Teacher in a Box

by Pam McComas and Renee Motter

Get With the Program What We’re Reading

by Joe Wycoff

Exploring the 2016 September/October Public Forum Topic by Stefan Bauschard

OUR MISSION Rostrum shares best practices, resources, and opportunities that connect, support, and inspire a diverse community of speech and debate educators committed to giving youth a voice.

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

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 3

From the Editor

Board of Directors

We have a truly unique opportunity to engage in speech and debate activities every day with students, parents, judges, colleagues, administrators, and the general public. This issue of Rostrum is about celebrating these tremendous opportunities.

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

Start by reviewing a recap of the Summer Leadership Conference to see what initiatives our coaches and district leaders wish to pursue in the years ahead (page 17). Check out the opportunities our new website redesign provides for finding and accessing resources (page 28). The updates to our Constitution also provide an opportunity for our organization to become more equitable and inclusive (page 12).

You will read about two new public debate initiatives we’ve launched: Big Questions Debates for high schools and Podius Debates for colleges and universities. Additionally, you have the opportunity to receive grants for hosting Big Questions Debates at your own school! See the articles on pages 22-25 for more information.

The opportunities do not end there. Host a debate watch party and learn about the terrific work being done with our Voices of the Future program (page 26). Check out our new Teacher in a Box curriculum that allows coaches and teachers to pull together our valuable resources in one place, starting with Public Forum Debate (page 32). Read about the opportunities to expand the type of materials that can be used in interpretation events this year (page 21).

Our opportunities would not be complete without our National Tournament. We have the opportunity to celebrate excellence in all its forms. Highlights from the Salt Lake City Nationals begin on page 68. We also have the opportunity to be inspired by the story of Hanna Watson (page 52). Imagine joining your speech and debate team in your senior year and making it all the way to the big stage. Hanna’s opportunities have opened wide due to her participation in speech and debate. They will influence her life forever.

I look forward to the opportunity of working with you in another successful year!

Sincerely,

J. Scott Wunn Executive Director National Speech & Debate Association

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

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

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

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

4

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

David Huston Colleyville Heritage High School 5401 Heritage Avenue Colleyville, TX 76034 (817) 305-4700, Ext. 214 david.huston@gcisd.net 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 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

Rostrum J. Scott Wunn, Editor and Publisher Steve Schappaugh, Managing Editor Vicki Pape, Assistant Editor Amy Seidelman, Copy Editor Deano Pape, Copy Editor Emily Bratton, Graphic Design Assistant Emily Kriegel, Advertising Coordinator

Pam Cady Wycoff, Vice President Apple Valley High School 14450 Hayes Road Apple Valley, MN 55124-6796 (952) 431-8200 Pam.Wycoff@district196.org

James W. “Jay” Rye, III The Montgomery Academy 3240 Vaughn Road Montgomery, AL 36106 (334) 272-8210 jay_rye@montgomeryacademy.org Dr. Polly Reikowski, Admin Rep Eagan High School 4185 Braddock Trail Eagan, MN 55123 (651) 683-6902 polly.reikowski@district196.org Timothy E. Sheaff Dowling Catholic High School 1400 Buffalo Road West Des Moines, IA 50265 (515) 222-1035 tsheaff@dowlingcatholic.org

2016–2017

Topics

Current topics, voting links, and resources available at:

www.speechanddebate.org/topics Member students and one chapter advisor per school are eligible to vote!

Topic Release Information

September/OCTOBER 2016

Public Forum Topic Release Dates

Public Forum Debate

The PF Wording Committee chooses a number of debate topics at its summer meeting.

These areas are then used throughout the school year. During the last week of the month (or seven days prior to the topic release date), chapter advisors and member students may vote for one resolution to be used as the next PF topic. If you would like to submit a PF topic area for consideration, please submit by June 1 for the following school year by visiting www.speechanddebate.org/topics.

Resolved: In United States public K-12 schools, the probable cause standard ought to apply to searches of students.

October 1 November 1 December 1 January 1 February 1 March 1 May 1 June 23 June 23 Aug 1 - Aug 7 August 8

November PF Topic December PF Topic January PF Topic February PF Topic March PF Topic April PF Topic National Tournament PF Topic List of Potential PF Topic Areas Announced for 2017-2018 2017 September/October PF Ballot Announced Voting for the 2017 September/October PF Topic Occurs 2017 September/October PF Topic Announced

Lincoln-Douglas Topic Release Dates From August 1 through September 11, chapter advisors and member students may vote online for a new slate of LD topics chosen by the LD Wording Committee at its summer meeting. The September/October LD topic (voted on the previous fall) is announced August 8. If you would like to submit an LD resolution for consideration, please submit by June 1 for the following school year by visiting www.speechanddebate.org/topics.

October 1 December 1 February 1 May 1 June 23 Aug 1 - Sept 11 August 8

November/December LD Topic January/February LD Topic March/April LD Topic National Tournament LD Topic List of Potential LD Topics Announced for 2017-2018 Voting for the 2017-2018 LD Topics Occurs 2017 September/October LD Topic Announced

2017–2018 Policy Debate Topic Voting The National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) handles selection of the annual Policy Debate topic where each state organization, the National Speech & Debate Association, the National Catholic Forensic League, and the National Debate Coaches Association all have voting privileges.

• • • •

Topic synopsis printed in this issue of Rostrum (pages 46-48) Preliminary voting occurs online in September-October Final voting occurs online in November-December Topic for 2017-2018 released by the NFHS in January 2017

September/October 2016

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

Resolved: Countries ought to prohibit the production of nuclear power.

The NSDA also suggests a separate LD resolution that may be used during the first two months of a novice season. Coaches are encouraged to check with tournament hosts in their area before exclusively prepping for one topic over another.

2016–2017

Policy Debate

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

2016–2017

Big Questions Debates

Resolved: Science leaves no room for free will.

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 5

To Whom It May Concern, The purpose of this letter is to state my overwhelming support for speech and debate activities on all school campuses around the nation. I feel that speech and debate has a significant impact on both student academic achievement and social emotional well-being. Involvement in the speech and debate program allows students to be successful in an area they may not be aware they could find success. In secondary schools, students are encouraged to be involved in an art, an activity, or some sort of athletic team. Many schools offer sports, music, clubs, and an array of activities. Speech and debate serves as yet another way for students to find their “niche.”

As a middle school administrator in Fresno, California, I helped start a speech program. The results of the program were amazing! Students who signed up for the class were able to realize what potential they had in the area of public speaking. At the end of the school year, students were able to perform in front of hundreds of people. Their self-esteem rose tremendously, and we saw that every student in the class had passing grades in all of their classes.

Besides the personal confidence it built up in each of the students in the program, it also impressed many of the staff members at school as well as parents at home.

The adults on campus and at home were very impressed by the performances of the students in the program. As a school site, there was a sense of pride by students when our school would win at competition, which was quite often.

We had t-shirts made that stated, “What other people fear more than death, we do for fun.” It was an amazing thing to watch a team of over 90% minority students perform well and help create a sense of pride at the school. Parents would attend the competitions with their students, many of which last more than 10 hours! Many parents would tell me how impressed they were with what their child could do and never believed their child was capable of performing in front of others. Building this confidence in children is not only beneficial, it is absolutely essential for them to be successful.

In closing, I just want to re-iterate my utmost support for speech and debate activities and programs at all schools.

If you are a school administrator or a teacher who is contemplating starting a program, please do so. Please jump in with both feet and know that there will be students willing to take the same risk. The results of this program will be beneficial to all students on campus.

Respectfully submitted,

Carlos Castillo Carlos Castillo Principal Wawona Middle School and Bullard High School Fresno Unified School District carlos.castillo@fresnounified.org NSDA Middle School Principal of the Year, 2016

Find this and other letters of advocacy on our website:

www.speechanddebate.org 6

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

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

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

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

Excellent topic specific value evidence and

For Public Forum debate, high quality evidence,

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

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

topic analysis, and definitions for ALL NSDA (NFL) Public Forum Topics. For Extemp, essays pro & con on current issues with multiple citations twice a month.

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

Grow Speech and Debate!

Check out: www.climbthemountain.us

Extemp Genie Automatic Extemp Software



Automatic Filing



Diverse Sources

Push the button and Extemp Genie downloads tens of thousands of articles to your device from the original sources.

Give great speeches drawing on over 30 supported sources.



Offline Search



Clutter Free Articles

Search through tens of thousands of articles in seconds, completely offline.

Read articles in distraction free plain text.

Extemp Genie’s automatic filing enables students to spend time developing their speaking abilities and understanding of current events. Students have time to actually read the news in depth, rather than just skimming the headlines and clicking save.

Extemp Genie is completely free for anyone to use until the end of September 2016, so now is an excellent time for coaches and students to try it out.

Use it free until the end of September 2016! https://extempgenie.com

GOVERNANCE

Leadership Board of Directors Spring Minutes

T

May 5-7, 2016 Salt Lake City, Utah

he National Speech & Debate Association Board of Directors held its spring meeting May 5-7, 2016, in Salt Lake City, Utah. Present were President Don Crabtree, Vice President Pam Cady Wycoff, David Huston, Jennifer Jerome, Kandi King, Dr. Tommie Lindsey, Jr., Pam McComas, Dr. Polly Reikowski, and Jay Rye.

evidence in debate. This document will serve as an assistant in the interpretation of the evidence rules in certain situations.

The Board of Directors believes that the creation of formal documents that help judges and tab room committees address evidence issues will help to alleviate some of the issues caused by the complexity of evidence rules.

President Crabtree called the meeting to order Thursday morning.

Moved by McComas, seconded by King: “Amend the California Plan rules for sectioning to read as follows: ‘When using the California Plan, District Committees in speech events with 14 or fewer entries are not required to hold a semifinal round and students may advance directly to the final round.’”

Passed: 9-0

Competition and Rules Moved by Huston, seconded by McComas: “Move to adopt a piloted set of Congressional Debate evidence rules for the 2016-2017 school year.”

Passed: 9-0 Based on recommendations from the Congress Evidence Committee, the Board of Directors had a discussion of how evidence is currently used in Congressional Debate and the concerns surrounding students’ appropriate, substantiated, and ethical use of evidence in Congressional Debate speeches.

The Board of Directors voted to adopt piloted Congressional Debate evidence rules as an option for use by districts during the 2016-2017 district competition season. The complete evidence rules are available in the 2016-2017 Unified Manual.

Moved by Huston, seconded by McComas: “Adopt the proposed casebook questions on evidence rules for inclusion in the High School and Middle School Unified Manuals.”

Passed: 9-0 After reviewing the Competition and Rules Committee’s proposal, the Board of Directors voted to approve the adoption of casebook questions relating to the use of

Moved by McComas, seconded by King: “Amend the California Plan rules for sectioning to read as follows: ‘When using the California Plan, District Committees in speech events with 14 or fewer entries may determine to hold two preliminary rounds of competition.’”

Passed: 8-1 Aye: Crabtree, Wycoff, Jerome, King, Lindsey, McComas, Reikowski, Rye No: Huston Moved by Rye, seconded by Huston: “Adopt the Student Leadership Committee’s proposal for direct questioning in Congressional Debate: In 20162017, districts may pilot direct questioning at their district tournaments. At the 2017 National Tournament, direct questioning will be piloted in the semifinal and final congressional sessions. The presiding officer will open the floor for questions following each speech. Speakers will recognize questioners and directly call on them for their question.”

Passed: 9-0

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 9

Spring Minutes (continued) The Board of Directors wishes to thank the Student Leadership Committee for their input on this issue. After discussion, the Board determined that direct questioning will allow competitors to focus intense scrutiny on the speaker’s arguments and will enhance the educational value of Congressional Debate. Districts may pilot direct questioning beginning with the 2016-2017 school year.

Moved by Wycoff, seconded by King: “Amend the language in the LD, PF, and Policy evidence rules in section 7.1.2.b to the following: ‘A copy of the page(s) the evidence is on, the page preceding, and the page following, or the actual printed (book, periodical, pamphlet, etc.) source.’”

Passed: 9-0 If the students are citing evidence from a print source, they must be prepared to either present the physical printed source or to present a copy of the page the evidence is taken from, as well as the page before and after if the evidence is challenged.

Moved by Rye, seconded by Lindsey: “Beginning with the 2016 National Tournament, the national office will perform an audit of all final round speech performances after the conclusion of the tournament to confirm that no egregious violations of the rules has occurred. Once the audit is complete, all decisions will be final.”

Passed: 9-0 In order to ensure that all pieces performed in the final round of speech events meet the rules and standards of the National Speech & Debate Association, the Board voted to establish an auditing procedure in the national office. In the event that an egregious violation of the rules occurs, Executive Director Wunn will present the case to the Board, who will make the ultimate decision of whether to disqualify the piece.

Moved by Wycoff, seconded by King: “Beginning with the 2016-2017 district tournament series, egregious violations of the rules in the final round may be protested up to seven days after the conclusion of a given tournament.”

Passed: 9-0

In an effort to reduce the likelihood of rules violations at district tournaments, coaches will be permitted to protest the results of the final round during the seven days following the tournament.

Moved by King, seconded by Wycoff: “Approve the changes within the interpretation event rules to the definition of print publications and the website review process as presented.”

Passed: 9-0 The Board passed the following changes. For more details, see the article on page 21.

1. Move to allow published, unaltered PDFs that are commercially or professionally available to be eligible sources for interpretation events.

2. Move to allow e-books (such as Kindle, Nook) to be eligible sources for interpretation events.

3. Move to add a provision to the interpretation rules on website sources that states: “Websites that have editorial review for their own staff writers are permissible.”

4. Move to alter the timeline for reviewing websites for interpretation to read as follows: “Website submissions that are received by the 15th of a month will be reviewed, and if they meet the stated criteria, be posted by the 1st of the next month as an approved website for that season.”

Moved by Rye, seconded by King: “Form a committee to create a Code of Ethics for Coaches.”

Passed: 9-0 The Board decided to form a committee that will compile a rough draft of a Code of Ethics for Coaches to discuss at the Summer Leadership Conference. From there, the committee will create a proposal for the 2016 Fall Board Meeting.

Moved by Wycoff, seconded by Rye: “Add the following language to schools registration materials: ‘I certify that we have agreed that student performances in all categories chosen by and created by members of our school team represent our school standards in their use of subject matter, language, and gesture.’”

Passed: 9-0 The meeting adjourned Saturday afternoon.

10

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

FORENSICS

WKU TEAM

AUDITIONS

12.03.16 Junior Hilltopper offering competition in 12 junior events!

12.09-10.16 Hilltopper Classic our largest tournament of the year!

Want to be a member of WKU Forensics? Auditions held Fri. morning, 12/9, during the debate portion of the Senior Hilltopper Classic. Auditions are also available year round. Contact Ganer Newman at ganer.newman@wku.edu for a reservation.

Hilltopper Classic events - Broadcasting, Congress, Declamation, DI, Duo, Extemp, HI, Improv Duo, Impromptu, Oratory, Poetry, POI, Prose, Pub. Forum, & Storytelling.

The Senior Hilltopper Classic remains both an NIETOC and a UKTOC qualifier.

We host both individual events and debate, over a two-day schedule! Semifinals for events with large entries.

Last year, team member auditions were a great success. Several students were selected to become WKU competitors, and some received scholarships.

Junior Hilltopper events - Broadcasting, Declamation, Duo Acting, Extemp, HI/DI, Impromptu, Improv Duo, Poetry, Prose, Oratory, Solo Acting, & Storytelling.

www.wkuforensics.com Twitter: @wkuforensics Phone ~ 270.745.6340

GOVERNANCE

Updating Our Constitution

B

elow are the changes proposed last spring by the Board of Directors to the Constitution of the National Forensic League d.b.a. the National Speech & Debate Association, and approved by the voting membership. We are excited to share our plans for implementing these changes with our membership.

These updates will allow us to prioritize meeting our fiduciary responsibilities as the organization grows to ensure that our core mission and strategic objectives are met, while maintaining the financial stability necessary to keep membership affordable.

Approved Amendment to Article III-A1

Former language:

Membership Eligibility

1. Eligibility. Any instructor or student in a school holding membership in the National Speech & Debate Association, who has participated in high school speech activities to the extent of qualifying for the Degree of Merit, and who, if a student, ranks scholastically in the upper two thirds of his/her class, shall be eligible to become a member of the National Speech & Debate Association. A person who has participated in high school speech activities, but has not otherwise qualified, may be elected if the Board of Directors concurs.

Overview: The approved amendment gives schools the

ability to determine when students become members.

Instead of requiring that a student achieve the Degree of Merit and a scholastic ranking in the upper two thirds of their class, membership will be gained by affirmation from the administration and/or school advisor that the student has met appropriate academic standards established by the individual school and has represented character reflective of the Honor Code of the Association. The Degree of Merit will still be required for students to participate in NSDA District and National competition and will remain the first Degree of membership strength. This approved change expands access to membership benefits and allows the administration and advisers at a member school to determine the appropriate academic standard and character reflective of the NSDA Honor Code to warrant participation in the Association.

Approved language:

1. Eligibility. Any instructor or student in a school holding membership in the National Speech & Debate Association, who is deemed worthy of membership by the administration of their school, and who, if a student, has participated in high school speech activities, has represented high academic standards and character reflective of the Honor Code of the Association, and has paid the membership fee, shall be eligible to become a member of the National Speech & Debate Association. A majority of the Board of Directors may elect anyone for membership.

Voting result: 73% in favor, 27% against Timeline: No change this year. Membership at the discretion of the school, concurring with registration and payment, will be in place for the 2017-2018 school year.

The Association’s Constitution was first established in 1925 and has been amended periodically by its members. Amendments to the Constitution require a majority vote in favor of any approved core change.

12

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

MAR 2016

In the 2015 membership survey, a significant number of respondents expressed a desire for the organization to demonstrate inclusiveness and equity, as well as to increase access to the benefits of membership.

2015

1925

Constitutional Timeline

The NSDA hosted an online membership Q&A about the proposed amendments on Thursday, March 31, 2016.

Approved Amendment to Article IV

Credit Points

Overview: The approved amendment will allow the Board

of Directors to adjust credit point allocations within various competitive areas and events as required by growth and trends in the activity at the local, state, and national level.

Currently, the NSDA Constitution severely limits the ability of the organization to adjust credit point allocation for various activities. The proposed amendment would lift those restrictions by allowing the Board of Directors to determine appropriate rules, procedures, and guidelines on credit points moving forward.

Voting result: 77% in favor, 23% against

* Note: 66% of total schools voted in favor of the voting

strength amendment, compared to the 52% of total strength-based votes in favor. This is the only amendment vote where the results of the strength-based vote and the school-based vote varied more than 2%.

G. Credit Points - Allocation Determination Credit point allocation shall be determined by majority consent of the Board of Directors and shall be published in the official chapter manual(s) of the organization.

Approved Amendment to Article V-D1/2

Voting Strength

Overview: The approved amendment changes the current

weighted voting system to a “one member, one vote” and “one school, one vote” model. The current weighted voting system is one of inherent biases that leads to unequal voice and representation. By moving to a system where each individual member and each member school is afforded the same voice through equal voting weight, the organization can advance its goals of inclusion and equity.

D. Votes 1. Number. The number of votes cast by each member shall be: One, if s/he holds the Degree of Merit; Two, if the Degree of Honor; Three, if the Degree of Excellence; Four, if the Degree of Distinction; Five, if the Degree of Special Distinction; Six, if the Degree of Superior Distinction; Seven, if the Degree of Outstanding Distinction, and Eight, if the Degree of Premier Distinction. Instructors shall cast one additional vote for each diamond awarded them.

2. Chapter Strength. The total number of active degrees possessed by a chapter determines strength of its vote in district and national matters.

Provisional and member chapters are granted voting privileges at one-half of their degree strength.

Approved language:

D. Votes 1. Number. The number of votes cast by each member shall be one, if they hold the Degree of Merit or higher.

2. Chapter Strength. Each active member school shall have one vote in district and national matters.

In April, a total of 730 member chapters, representing a total voting strength of 115,882, cast a ballot on the proposed Constitutional amendments. In order to pass, an amendment must have received at least 57,941 votes.

MAY 2016

Approved amendment to add language:

APR 2016

Timeline: The “one school, one vote” model will be implemented in Spring 2017 for district and national elections. At that time, district leaders will also be elected for two year terms to lend more stability and continuity into district tournament preparation, district communication, and other district efforts.

Former language:

Timeline: No changes in credit point allocations are planned prior to Fall of 2017. Any changes will be announced in future issues of Rostrum and other membership communications.

The national Board election was conducted by electronic balloting in conjunction with the constitutional referendum beginning April 4, 2016.

Voting result: 52% in favor, 48% against *

Official, audited results from the referendum were released in the District Leader Newsletter on May 9, 2016.

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 13

Amendment to Article VII-B

Board of Directors

Overview: As the organization grows in size and scope,

it is necessary to evaluate its national leadership structure.

Giving the Board of Directors the ability to change its size and makeup in the future can improve representation, ensure fulfillment of responsibilities, and diversify voice. The approved amendment below will allow the Board of Directors to adjust its size and scope as determined by the Board. The amendment allows for additional elected Board members, if needed, to ensure proper representation of the membership.

It also allows the Board to appoint members with additional expertise, similar to the existing administrative representative, to navigate its legal, financial, strategic, and administrative responsibilities. The terms of appointed Board members would remain at two years.

Voting result: 74% in favor, 26% against Timeline: The Board of Directors will initiate board expansion efforts, including evaluating capable experts who can provide a service to the speech and debate community, at the Fall Board Meeting. The Board’s intent is to maintain a majority of elected leaders on the Board.

than the total number of elected directors. Appointed directors are not eligible to be president or vice president.

The Board, by majority vote, may expand or decrease the number of elected and appointed directors as long as the action does not violate the above provisions.

Former language:

2. Election. Eight directors and an alternate director shall be chosen by the active members in even numbered years in such manner as the Board of Directors shall prescribe.

The Board will elect the president and vice president.

In odd numbered years, the Board shall elect a school administrator as a director.

Approved language:

2. Election. Eight directors and an alternate director shall be chosen by the active members in even numbered years in such manner as the Board of Directors shall prescribe.

The Board will elect the president and vice president from the elected directors. The Board shall elect a school administrator and any additional appointed directors.

Former language:

Former language:

1. Personnel. The Board of Directors consists of a president, vice president, six directors, and one representative from secondary school administrators.

3. Terms. In the 1992 election, the four candidates receiving the highest number of votes will be elected for fouryear terms. The next four candidates will be elected for two-year terms. The candidate finishing ninth will be alternate for two years. In 1994 and subsequently, the four candidates receiving the most votes will be elected to a four-year term. The fifth candidate will be the alternative for two years.

Approved language:

Approved language:

1. Personnel. The Board of Directors consists of a president, vice president, at least six elected directors, one representative from secondary school administrators, and additional Board appointed directors. The number of Board appointed directors is not to be equal to or greater

3. Terms. Elected directors shall serve four-year terms. Fifty percent of the elected directors shall be determined in each even numbered year. The fifth placed candidate will be the alternative for two years. Appointed directors shall serve terms of two years.

MISSION

VISION

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

We envision a world in which every student has access to competitive speech and debate activities.

We are the leading voice in the development of resources, competitive and ethical standards, curricular and co-curricular opportunities, and recognition systems for our vast network of student, coach, and alumni members.

To learn more, visit www.speechanddebate.org. Questions? Email info@speechanddebate.org or call (920) 748-6206.

14

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

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/tournament-services to place your order!

Save The Date!

August 24–27, 2017 Join the National Speech & Debate Association for the inaugural national education conference for speech and debate 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 our network of speech and debate coaches and earn valuable hours toward your Professional Speech & Debate Educator accreditation! See our website for details.

LEADERSHIP

New Ideas.

New Friends.

A Sense of Unity!

by Amy Seidelman

We asked attendees for some of their takeaways from the conference. They said:

T

he 2016 Leadership Conference, United in Mission, Vision, and Voice, brought intelligent minds and generous volunteer leaders to the Golden Nugget hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada, August 7-10. The opportunities to network, examine, and share tales and strategies from teaching and coaching were plentiful!

Byron Arthur (pictured above) of Holy Cross School in New Orleans, Louisiana, gave an inspired keynote speech on the power of a unified belief—in this case, that all students should have access to speech and debate. He expressed the importance of knowing your role in what may seem like an overwhelming burden or mission, and facing any adversity or challenge with the conviction that staying true to a unified belief is tantamount to anything else.

We also talked at length about coach engagement within our districts and the work going on concerning evidence rules, curriculum, advocacy for speech and debate, and inclusion.

One highlight for many attendees was a large group debate over the

“It was a great opportunity to make new friends! I also came away with many more ways to recognize the accomplishments of coaches and students in our district.”

– Christy Briggs, Sagebrush District

J.P. Fugler from Lindale High School in Texas presents strategies for making the district tournament work for everyone.

organization’s mission, and whether or not it’s being met. That debate sparked discussions about the difference between competition and participation or access, the reach of the activity among students from different backgrounds and experiences, and the current state of NSDA main events across the country.

The “end-of-conference” feelings our attendees reported were principally energized, excited, and inspired!

Amy Seidelman is the Director of Operations for the NSDA.

“The opportunity to interact with the national office, staff, and other coaches from across the country.” – Richard Bracknell, Georgia Southern Peach District “Sharing with colleagues is always helpful in developing resources and minimizing tunnel vision.” – Mary Gormley, New Jersey District “Knowing where to go for resources/ lesson plans for teaching the skills associated with debate in my social studies classroom.” – Sarah Rother, Central Minnesota District “I came into it as a first timer looking for ideas to help our district and in addition to the great leader workshops, the briefing on the Communicators in the Classroom program gave me some hope for our district.” – David Dejesa, South Carolina District “Friends for sure! I do feel as though I better understand how much is happening at the national office. The NSDA is doing a LOT!!!” – Chris Wardner, California Coast District

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 17

COMMUNITY

The State of Interp A Town Hall Meeting

by Deano Pape

While winning trophies and accolades is terrific, teaching students how to approach the activity is critical.

T

his past June, the National

is terrific, teaching students

vocal inflection. While students

Speech & Debate

how to approach the activity is

and coaches alike can learn much

Association held a Town

critical. There was an emphasis

from viewing video performances,

Hall Meeting, presented by

on ensuring that students do

it is important that students

InterProd, to bring together a

their own work, research their

find their own characterization,

panel of distinguished coaches for

own characters, write their own

movement, cutting, and approach

perspectives on the past, present,

intros, and cut their own pieces.

to interpretation.

and future of our interpretation

Coaches who simply hand a cut

events. The meeting was well

piece to their students, complete

Back to Basics

attended and engaged a number

with introduction, are denying

While getting students to do their

of important issues, including

their students the opportunity to

own work is important, they have

ethical treatment of material,

learn important skills gained from

to be taught the process from start

character and integrity, the future

interpretation. “Stop handing the

to finish. It is easy for students to

of the activity, and how the new

kid the fish and hand them the

feel overwhelmed. As panelist Tony

publication rules (see page 21)

fishing pole,” said panelist David

Figliola stated, “Don’t let them

will offer more opportunities

Kraft. Students need to tell the

drown.” Coaches need to teach

for students in the selection of

story in their own way and find

their students the fundamentals

materials.

their characters through practice

of interpreting character, plot

and performance.

development, conflict, and cutting

Ethical Considerations

18

Panelists also expressed concern

literature, but students may not

It was clear from the outset

that students and coaches should

internalize it right away. “You help,

that educating students is at

avoid taking a piece that has been

you teach, you help, you teach...”

the forefront of the panel’s

performed well previously and

said Figliola. While you don’t want

approach to the activity. While

using the same piece, complete

students to fail completely, they

winning trophies and accolades

with identical movements and

also have to learn how to explore

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

Byron Arthur

Jenny Cook

Tony Figliola

David Kraft

Sarah Rosenberg

Joe Wycoff

Jacquelyn Young

MEET THE PANELISTS

presented by

Byron Arthur • two-diamond coach from Holy Cross School in Louisiana the process or they’ll never learn

and fill in the rest after you know

what to do well in the future.

what story you wish to tell.

Panelists offered perspective

Coaches may also wish to have

on how to help students succeed.

students cross over into other

For example, cut the piece for

events. As panelist Joe Wycoff

understanding—ultimately, it

explained, have the interper do

comes down to selecting one

oratory, and the orator, interp. “Use

story or aspect of the story,

the best of your head and your

and communicating that to the

heart” for the students to excel.

audience. The audience needs to

Panelists explained that

understand what is happening,

it is important for coaches

so don’t make the plot overly

to understand the rules and

complex. Select one truth—one

distinguish rules from norms of the

story—and tell it well. In addition,

activity. Take the transition rule,

focus on distinguishing characters.

for example. Coaches must teach

Audiences often get one shot

students that original material may

to comprehend and feel the

be incorporated for transitional

interpretation, and in order to do

purposes only. This means a few

that successfully, they need to

words, or a line—it does not mean

understand what is taking place

that a student can compose an

and how to tell the characters

entirely new scene. While this may

apart.

be clear to many coaches, other

One piece of advice was to

elements, such as reassignment

decide the conclusion of the

of lines from one character to

selection, then the introduction,

another, may not be explicitly

Jenny Cook • President and Executive Director, Summit Debate Tony Figliola • five-diamond coach from Holy Ghost Prep in Pennsylvania David Kraft • InterProd Founder; three-diamond coach from Leland High School in California and St. Thomas Aquinas High School in Florida Sarah Rosenberg • threediamond coach from Democracy Prep Bronx Preparatory Charter School in New York Joe Wycoff • four-diamond coach from Apple Valley High School in Minnesota Jacquelyn Young • fourdiamond coach from Blue Springs High School in Missouri

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 19

stated in the rules, and thus are

As panelist Jacquelyn Young put

events, such as Program Oral

open to interpretation. The rule-

it, “It’s not just about their being

Interpretation, as well as adding

making bodies were encouraged

on stage, but how they get to the

new avenues for varying types of

to take a stronger role in making

stage.” Students are judged before,

literature through its publication

the definitions and rules as clear as

during, and after their rounds,

rules (see page 21). Creativity and

possible as they vary considerably

from the moment they jump on

expression are important aspects

at the state, regional, and national

the bus to the tournament to the

of interpretation events. Kraft

levels.

point at which they are dropped

urged that we must not allow our

off. Students represent not only

activity to become stagnant.

As Wycoff suggested, call the person who is making the decisions

themselves, but also their high

Figliola said that as much as

(such as a tournament director

school, their parents, and their

he loves this activity, we have to

or the national office) to make a

coaches.

make sure that it remains for years

determination in advance. “Here is

This expression of character and

to come. It is difficult for students

what we are trying to do—is this

integrity was also reflected in the

to stay engaged in an era of short

okay?” is a fair question and should

pride these coaches expressed in

attention spans and coaches

be understood prior to attending

their students. As panelist Byron

experience heavy demands on

the tournament. As panelist Sarah

Arthur explained, it doesn’t matter

time and energy in all facets of

Rosenberg pointed out, we send

whether the student participates

their lives. We must continue to

mixed messages to students

in debate, finds their voice through

support the outstanding work of

when we say that there are rules,

oratory, or tells a story through

our students and coaches to keep

but then ignore those rules by

interpretation. “The end goal is

our programs healthy.

rewarding behavior that is against

that the student leaves us and

those rules.

contributes to society and inspires

that coaches focus their attention

and leads others.”

on being good teachers. They must

The Bigger Picture

Rosenberg expressed a love for

Longevity in the activity means

prepare students for the future,

Although the panel was focused

the activity because she can see

not just for finals. That is the

on Interpretation, many of the

how students’ lives are changed,

mark of what is most important.

coaches commented on how

especially among the underserved.

As Wycoff stated, “The real final

important integrity and character

Students get exposed to varying

round is the job interview. The

are for students and coaches

ideas among a diverse group of

scholarship. That’s when you find

alike. The panel conveyed that

people through this activity.

out that speech and debate makes

students and coaches should

Kraft discussed the need for

adhere to a fair playing field and

more opportunities to innovate.

act according to their school,

He is pleased that there is

team, and NSDA codes of honor.

a willingness to adopt pilot

the difference.”

Deano Pape serves as Membership Manager for the NSDA.

The end goal is that the student leaves us and contributes to society and inspires and leads others.” — Byron Arthur

20

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

Understanding the Updated Interp Rules The following recommendations were proposed by the interpretation committee and passed by the Board of Directors at the Spring meeting.

present an original, unaltered PDF via flashdrive, email, or on an electronic device (e.g., laptop) when requested by tournament officials.

1. Move to allow published, unaltered PDFs that are commercially or professionally available to be eligible sources for interpretation events.

4. Move to alter the timeline for reviewing websites for interpretation to read as follows: “Website submissions that are received by the 15th of a month will be reviewed, and if they meet the stated criteria, be posted by the 1st of the next month as an approved website for that season.”

E-Books E-books (such as those published on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes & Noble for Nook) are now eligible for use in interpretation events. As the committee outlined, many publications are available in e-book format and at lower prices than their print-published counterparts. In addition, there are many published works that are only available in electronic book format.

Students must present an original, unaltered ePub or other recognized e-book format via flashdrive or email when requested by tournament officials. However, as some e-book formats are exclusive to their specific apps or electronic readers, students must provide the required technology and/or Internet access to verify the material performed for tournament officials.

PDFs Published, unaltered PDFs that are commercially or professionally available are now eligible sources for interpretation events. The committee argued that much literature is now available by PDF download as its sole form of publication. Many companies provide their material for instant download as a PDF. Performers or coaches who manipulate a PDF script outside the scope of the rules will be subject to disqualification. Students must

Website Content The committee agreed that content in HTML format and available on vetted websites should be eligible for submission and use. Websites must retain their content and not simply be used to post materials and then remove them to prevent access.

The NSDA has added a provision to accept websites that have editorial review for their own staff writers.

Most newspapers and magazines, for example, have online content with editorial control over the

2. Move to allow e-books (such as Kindle, Nook) to be eligible sources for interpretation events.

3. Move to add a provision to the interpretation rules on website sources that states: “Websites that have editorial review for their own staff writers are permissible.”

material. This change excludes unmoderated blogs, Facebook posts, tweets, and on-demand websites created on Wix or similar platforms, as that content is not subject to editorial review prior to posting.

Under the previous policy, websites underwent an annual review by the national office. However, in recognition that materials are posted to well-established websites throughout the year, submissions will now be accepted year-round for review and posting on the approved website list. Website submissions by the 15th of a month will be reviewed and posted by the 1st of the next month. Once a site is approved (e.g., The New York Times), all articles posted by that source would be approved for use.

The complete set of rules adopted for the 2016-2017 school year can be found at www.speechanddebate.org/ rules-forms-manuals under “Interpretation Rules.” There, you will find additional Frequently Asked Questions to help explain these changes further.

Interpretation Committee Members Brian Eanes, Chair – Texas Meg Howell-Haymaker – Arizona David Kraft – Florida Rebecca Meyer-Larson – Minnesota Tyler Unsell – Missouri Don Crabtree – Board Liaison Deano Pape – Staff Liaison

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 21

FUNDING OPPORTUNITY

A Forum for Life Learning John Templeton Foundation Grant Creates New National Debate Competition

by Lauren Burdt

This is the first in a series of articles on the Big Questions funding opportunity. The next will appear in the Fall 2016 Rostrum.

T

he National Speech & Debate Association has received a generous three-year grant from the John Templeton Foundation to distribute $470,000 per year to schools and debate programs that host a new national debate event, Big Questions Debates.

Big Questions is a one-on-one debate format that allows students to debate life’s big questions. The topics encourage quality research and critical thinking on complex worldview topics students might not otherwise consider.

High school classrooms and tournaments that hold Big Questions Debates may be eligible to receive up to $1,700 per event, depending on the number of participants (see opposite page). These debates can be held as a classroom event, tournament event, stand-alone event, intra-school scrimmage, or supplemental event. At minimum, events must hold three rounds and have 15 student participants.

The Big Questions format involves two opposing contestants debating a year-long topic concerning the intersection of science, philosophy,

2016-2017 Topic Resolved: Science leaves no room for free will.

and religion. Students are assigned a side of the topic before each round and present cases, engage in rebuttal and refutation, and participate in a question period. Often, general

members of the public are recruited to judge and observe this event.

To receive funding to host Big Questions Debates, review the event details and fill out an application on the NSDA website. Applications close on the first of each month, and an application must be submitted at least one month prior to the event.

There is a limited amount of money to be awarded, so please apply early to increase the chances of being accepted. After Big Questions Debates are held, there will be a brief survey for judges and students to complete and a reporting form to be returned to the Association. These must be returned within a week of the tournament’s final date in order to receive the full grant award.

The NSDA has created a comprehensive resource package to assist students, judges, and coaches in preparation for these debates.

The resources include monthly topic analyses, a student manual, judge training videos, classroom lesson plans, and a webinar series. This season’s most successful high school students will be invited to compete in Birmingham at the 2017 National

Check out the topic primer by Tom Evnen on our website! www.speechanddebate.org/big-questions 22

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

VISIT www.speechanddebate.org/big-questions

EMAIL lauren.burdt@speechanddebate.org

Tournament in a Big Questions Debate Capstone Event. A total of $20,000 in college scholarships will be awarded to the top four students who compete in the Capstone Event.

Big Questions is designed to enhance students’ current debate experiences, opening their minds and encouraging them to engage in life discussion that may not align with their previously held beliefs. Whether or not their opinions are changed, the rich experience of this debate event will advance students’ knowledge, comfort,

and interest in learning more about the subject matter.

“Speech and debate provides vital life skills to young people,” said Scott Wunn, Executive Director of the NSDA. “The John Templeton Foundation recognizes the educational impact of this activity. Through this grant, we will work together to change lives of students across the country.”

To learn more about Big Questions and to apply to host an event, please visit our website or contact Lauren Burdt, Project Manager of Big Questions Debates.

Big Questions Debates This one-on-one debate format allows students to debate life’s big questions.

Order/Time Limits of Speeches Affirmative Constructive............8 min Negative Constructive................8 min Question Segment........................3 min Affirmative Rebuttal.....................6 min Negative Rebuttal.........................6 min Question Segment........................3 min Affirmative Consolidation..........4 min Negative Consolidation..............4 min Question Segment........................3 min Affirmative Rationale...................2 min Negative Rationale........................2 min (Each debater gets 5 minutes of prep time to use at their discretion.)

Grant Applications and Awards Big Questions makes it easy to obtain funding for your speech and debate program!

Simply apply online at www.speechanddebate.org/big-questions, host a Big Questions event, and get grant money depending on the number of students who participate. Applications close on the first of each month and must be completed at least one month before the start dates of your tournament.

See below for a general guideline of award sums.

Tier

Number of students

Awarded upfront

Awarded after tournament

Total awarded

1

15-24

$300

$400

$700

2

25-34

$300

$600

$900

3

35-44

$300

$1,000

$1,300

4

45+

$300

$1,400

$1,700

This publication was made possible through the support of a grant from the John Templeton Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation.

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 23

COMMUNITY

Introducing

Podius Debates

Calendar Southern Methodist University (Texas)

The Martha Proctor Mack Ballroom, Umphrey Lee Center, Meadows School for the Arts • September 29, 2016 • 7:00 p.m.

• Topic: Affirmative action policies harm those they intend to help.

• Moderator: Tara Tedrow • Debaters: David Coale and Lyn Robbins

by Sarah Mannheimer

University of Kentucky

I

n a world of sound bites, talking heads, character limits, Internet trolls, short attention spans, and uninformed opinions, there is still room for an American institution that advances dialogue, reveres research, and inspires respectful opposition.

The National Speech & Debate Association is excited to announce the Podius Debates series. The series, which will feature various guest debaters and moderators, will take place at colleges and universities across the United States. Podius was created to help Americans preserve and strengthen their democratic institutions by championing intelligent and thoughtful civic discourse.

Podius supports both competitive and public debate, believing that the education of the civic body is best achieved by teaching students to thoughtfully consider and defend both sides of a proposition. Join us as two professional speakers and a moderator discuss a controversial issue of contemporary public importance.

The upcoming Podius Debates will include such diverse topics as affirmative action policies, media bias, voter turnout, the changing American Democratic landscape, and more.

24

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

Podius is set to kick off at Southern Methodist University in Texas on September 29, 2016. The first topic – Do affirmative action policies harm those they intend to help? – will be framed by a 60-minute debate, led by a moderator, and then the audience will be given the chance to vote on a “winner.” Were you swayed by the arguments presented? Did you change your mind? Podius gives audiences the chance to hear from both sides to reach an informed decision on the topics shaping our world.

The Podius Debates series is made possible by a generous grant from the Arthur N. Rupe Foundation. The ANRF supports numerous projects that promote civil and reasoned public debate at the high school, college, and civic levels. ANRF sponsored debates (including the Podius Debates series) are non-partisan and accessible to general audiences with the intention of educating and exposing audiences to all sides of a social issue. Together, we want to grow debate in America by connecting with organizations and audiences who share our passion. We also believe we can become greater through the articulation of beliefs in an environment free from the fear of mockery or suppression by those who

Woodford Reserve Room, Commonwealth Stadium • October 6, 2016 • 7:00 p.m.

• Topic: The media is to blame for large-scale voter ignorance.

• Moderator: Tara Tedrow • Debaters: Thomas Hollihan and Robert C. Rowland

University of Mary Washington (Virginia)

Dodd Auditorium • October 10, 2016 • 7:30 p.m.

• Topic: Media bias is a threat to American democracy.

• Moderator: Ray Suarez • Debaters: Stephen Farnsworth and Craig Smith

disagree. Podius Debates educate and inform the civic audience about the policies they will vote on and the issues that will affect their lives. Our goal is to get people thinking carefully, listening to each other and testing their ideas through reasoned dialogue. Learn more about the Podius Debates series at www.podius.com.

Sarah Mannheimer is the Manager of Podius Debates for the NSDA.

Learn more about the Podius Debates series at www.podius.com.

About THE MODERATORS Tara Tedrow was a nationally ranked competitive debater for four years, during which she was the only debater to earn three national Lincoln-Douglas Debate championships. Tara was a state of Florida champion for debate, and was one of the top ranked speakers in the nation.

Tara attended Wake Forest University on a Presidential Scholarship for Debate, and received her Juris Doctor from the University of Florida Levin College of Law, where she went on to become the President of the Trial Team and graduated at the top of her class. Tara has been privately coaching competitive debate for more than ten years for individuals around the nation. Tara founded the Central Florida Debate Initiative (CFDI) in 2013, with the hopes of bringing competitive speech and debate to every high school student in Central Florida.

Tara is an attorney practicing land use and real estate law at Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, P.A. in Orlando. v Ray Suarez is an American broadcast journalist and host of Inside Story on Al Jazeera America.

Suarez joined the PBS NewsHour in 1999 and was a senior correspondent for the evening news program on the PBS Television Network until 2013. He is also host of the international news and analysis public radio

program America Abroad from Public Radio International. He was the host of the National Public Radio program Talk of the Nation from 1993-1999. In his more than 30-year career in the news business, he has also worked as a radio reporter in London and Rome, as a Los Angeles correspondent for CNN, and as a reporter for the NBC-owned station WMAQ-TV in Chicago. v

THE DEBATERS David Coale is a Dallas-based attorney and a partner at Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst, where he focuses on appellate law. He has been named one of the top 100 attorneys in Texas and is listed in “Best Lawyers in America” in both appellate and commercial litigation, and has served as chair of the State Bar of Texas Appellate Section. He debated for Harvard College, where he won the National Debate Tournament and the inaugural Copeland Award. v

— vs. —

Lyn Robbins is senior partner with Robbins Travis PLLC, where he handles trial and appellate litigation for clients throughout the country.

He is adjunct professor of advanced trial advocacy at Baylor Law School, and a faculty member of the Academy of the Advocate at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland. Lyn debated for Baylor University, winning the national championship in 1987. He was the first debater ever to be named Top Speaker at the National Debate Tournament for two consecutive years. While in law school, he coached

Baylor’s National Championship team of 1989. In high school, he debated for Montgomery Bell Academy in Nashville, winning the Tennessee state high school championship three times, receiving the Top Speaker award at the Tournament of Champions. v Thomas Hollihan is a Professor at the Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism at the University of Southern California. He served as associate dean for academic affairs in the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism from 19972007. He currently chairs the Executive Committee of the USC U.S.-China Institute. He has also chaired the Board of Trustees of the National Debate Tournament. He is a faculty fellow in the USC Center for Public Diplomacy and the USC Center for Communication Leadership. In addition to his teaching and publishing, Professor Hollihan has served as a consultant to political candidates, elected officials, business leaders, and non-profit leaders. Professor Hollihan makes frequent appearances in the media to discuss political issues and campaign strategies. v

— vs. —

Robert C. (Robin) Rowland is a Professor in and Director of Graduate Studies of Communication Studies at KU. He received his BA from the University of Kansas, where he and his debate colleagues were the 1976 National Debate Champions. He taught rhetoric, argumentation, and debate for five years at Baylor University, where one of his teams won the 1987

National Debate Tournament.

He has published three books, including Shared Land/ Conflicting Identity: Symbolic Trajectories of Israeli and Palestinian Symbol Use. Rowland has worked with Congressional candidates on developing persuasive messages, as well as a number of other candidates for state offices. He has conducted a number of training programs for the Kansas Bar Association, which honored him with their Outstanding Service Award in 2003. v Dr. Stephen Farnsworth is a Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at the University of Mary Washington.

He is the principal author of The Global President, which examines how Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush have shaped the global conversation about the U.S. government. He is also the author or co-author of four other books on topics including media coverage of presidential elections and how presidents “sell” their policies and themselves. v

— vs. —

Dr. Craig Smith, Professor Emeritus and Director Emeritus of the Center for 1st Amendment Studies at CSU-Long Beach, is the author of 16 books and more than 60 scholarly articles and book chapters. He served as a full-time speechwriter for President Gerald Ford and Chrysler CEO Lee Iacocca. He has served as a consultant to President George Bush and Governor Pete Wilson, among others. In 1983, he founded the Freedom of Expression Foundation and remains its president to this time. v

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 25

ELECTION CYCLE

FAST FACTS

Debating the Debates

Mike Pence (R) Governor of Indiana

P

residential debates offer an exciting opportunity for speech and debate teams to engage their communities around the activity of debate. Consider combining a watch party with other debate related activities (see our website for ideas and resources) and encourage audience participation to increase support and advocacy of your team! For example, you could promote engagement activities such as liking your team Facebook page, signing up to receive emails of team results, or following your team on Twitter.

Interested in hosting a watch party? Here are a few tips: • Reserve an auditorium or large space with appropriate sound and video display capabilities during the next presidential or vice presidential debate.

• Get a keynote speaker to welcome everyone and speak about the importance of debate in a democracy (for example, a debate coach or alum of your program).

• Invite the community! Share and post our flyers around your school or town.

• Ask local politicians to attend and participate in a Q&A with the audience.

• Consider providing refreshments or snacks for attendees.

26

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

Tim Kaine (D) U.S. Senator from Virginia

FIND TIPS & MATERIALS: www.speechanddebate.org/ voices-of-the-future

Host a Debate Watch Party Hosting a watch party is a great way to showcase the talents of your speech and debate team, raise awareness in your community, and even gain local media coverage! Join us October 4 as we celebrate two prominent alumni on the national stage. If you’re interested in hosting your own event, email steve.schappaugh@speechanddebate.org.

Attend Watch Parties in Your Area OCTOBER 4 !

Locations confirmed as of September 9, 2016:

COLORADO – Contact: Renee Motter Email: renee.motter@asd20.org

FLORIDA – Contact: Megan West Email: megan.west@browardcountyschools.com IOWA – Contact: Steve Schappaugh

Email: steve.schappaugh@speechanddebate.org

NORTH CAROLINA – Contact: Jonathan Peele Email: jpeele@charlottelatin.org

OHIO – Contact: Chase Williams Email: cwill@hawken.edu

PENNSYLVANIA – Contact: Sharon Volpe Email: svolpe@northallegheny.org See www.speechanddebate.org/voices-of-the-future for more hosts!

With special thanks to Derek Yuill, five-diamond coach of Gabrielino HS, CA

Both the Republican and Democratic vice presidential candidates are alumni of the National Speech & Debate Association! Mike Pence qualified for Nationals in Oratory and Boys’ Extemp and placed third in Impromptu.

Tim Kaine earned more than 400 points during his time as a student. Pence attended Columbus North High School in Indiana. Kaine competed for Rockhurst High School in Illinois. Both schools are current members of the NSDA. Pence and Kaine will square off in a nationally televised debate this fall.

HHHHHHHHHH DEBATE SCHEDULE (tentative dates)

Each debate will be broadcast live on C-SPAN, ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC, as well as all cable news channels including CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC among others. The debates will air from 8:00 to 9:30 p.m. CT. Monday, Sept. 26, 2016 First Presidential Debate Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY Tuesday, Oct. 4, 2016 Vice Presidential Debate Longwood University, Farmville, VA

H

Sunday, Oct. 9, 2016 Second Presidential Debate Washington University, St. Louis, MO Wednesday, Oct. 19, 2016 Third Presidential Debate University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV

MyDebateTeam Free, Online Team Management

What is MyDebateTeam?

MyDebateTeam is a free team management software with 150+ features to help you save time and energy. The platform connects team members, organizes logistics, keeps parents involved, tracks finances, and so much more! MyDebateTeam is here to help your team realize its full potential.

Features

Logistics

Communications Teamwork

Calendars, sign-ups, and payment records allow you to easily manage your team and keep track of important information.

Email and Text Messaging features simplify communications, allowing you to contact individuals, groups, or the whole team.

Built-in file sharing, discussion boards, work logs, and photo albums encourage collaboration and turn your team into a family.

What’s New This Year?

More than 400 schools from across the country currently use MyDebateTeam and we're constantly updating the system to provide more tools to make your life easier. Over the summer, we worked hard to add new tools, improve site speed, and provide easier access to the features most important to you. Log in now and check it out!

Visit www.MyDebateTeam.com for More Information

www.speechanddebate.org

Website Redesign

by Aaron Hardy

Get started by taking our interactive tour! Click the button on the front page.

W

e recently launched a newly redesigned website, and we’re excited to share it with you! The new site is easier to use, more intuitive, and streamlines access to NSDA member resources.

We hope you like it! If you haven’t already, take our interactive tour on the site by clicking the button on the front page.

Why the Change?

Streamlined Navigation

We redesigned our website to better serve our members. We’ve incorporated feedback about navigation, access to resources, locating commonly used forms and manuals, and the overall user experience, including better compatibility with mobile devices.

In addition, the new website will make it easier for us to keep the site up to date and quickly incorporate feedback in the future.

The new site has a single navigation menu throughout the site—no more jumping back and forth between separate areas to access resources.

Below is a brief explanation of what each menu contains:

We’ve made improvements to every part of the site. It has a new, modern look, and a revamped navigational system to make information and member resources easier to find and use. Some of the most important changes are highlighted here.

• Membership » Contains general information about membership in the NSDA, useful for both prospective or current members. This includes things like an explanation of the Honor Society and the NSDA’s competition events, information about District Tournaments, a list of current topics, and current member rankings.

• Resources » This is where you access all the different resources

« Navigation menu

28

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

Member Resources » All resources can be accessed from the main Resources menu by clicking “Search/View All Resources.”

the NSDA provides to members, such as videos, topic analyses, curricular resources for teachers, judge training materials, tournament services, a job openings board, and scholarships.

• Upcoming Events » This section includes information about (you guessed it) upcoming events— such as Nationals, conferences, informational webinars—as well as a calendar of speech and debate events around the country.

• Programs » Find out about all the different programs and initiatives inside the NSDA, such as the USA Debate Team, the Student Leadership Committee, professional development opportunities, and much more.

• PKD » Learn about Pi Kappa Delta, the collegiate honorary society of the NSDA. • About » Find information about the NSDA as an organization, such as our mission statement, staff, and board of directors.

Member Resources One of the biggest changes on the new website is how you access NSDA member resources, such as videos, textbooks, lesson plans, topic analyses, and more.

All resources on the site can be accessed from the main Resources menu by clicking “Search/View All Resources.” From there, you’ll see a table with all of the resources we offer (see sample above).

The “Access” column will tell you whether a particular resource is available to everyone, NSDA members, or only if you have the Team Resource Package. The lock will be open if you have access, closed if you don’t. Make sure you’re logged in to access member-only resources!

If you’re looking for a particular type of resource, you can use the search and filter functions on the left of the screen. Simply type a word in the filter box, or click one of the

tags, and the table will instantly filter to show you matching resources:

In addition, members frequently need to access the Unified Manuals (the official source for NSDA rules and guidelines), or various forms for the District Tournament. While all of these appear in the main resources table, you can also access all of these in one place by going to the Membership menu and selecting “Rules, Forms, & Manuals.”

• Support » Help the NSDA by donating or learning about other ways you can give back to the speech and debate community.

You can also search the entire site from any page by clicking the magnifying glass icon on the right side of the menu.

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 29

www.speechanddebate.org Your Account » The exact layout of your Account page will change depending on whether you’re a student, a coach, a district chair, and whether your account is already linked to your NSDA member record.

What’s Next?

Your Account In the upper right corner of the site, you’ll see a link for members to log in, or access your Account page if you’re already logged in.

The exact layout of your Account page will change depending on whether you’re a student, a coach, a district chair, and whether your account is already linked to your NSDA member record. When you first create an account, make sure to click “Link Your Account” to connect it with your membership record.

Your Account page is where you can see your current NSDA merit points total, your honor society degree level, and information about your school, district and more.

30

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

We’ll continue improving the website, including an expanded Account page with more customized information, additional rankings, and streamlined member resources.

We’ll also continue to respond to member feedback to make sure the site is responsive to your needs.

We’re also hard at work on the next generation of the NSDA’s Points Application, in order to make entering and tracking honor society points, managing your roster, and maintaining your school membership easier in the coming years. Stay tuned for more updates on our progress!

Aaron Hardy is the Director of Technical Solutions for the NSDA.

Send Us Feedback! If you have a question or comment about our new website, please fill out our online contact form or send us an email at info@speechanddebate.org with the subject line “Website Feedback.”

Edco and the NSDA Partner to Create Fundraising Guide Fundraising is a key part of success for any extracurricular activity, and speech and debate is no exception. For your team to experience all the amazing benefits that speech and debate has to offer, you need money to pay for registration fees, to travel as well as to afford room and board at different competitions, and to hire coaches and assistant coaches. With these different costs, speech and debate teams can have an annual budget of $9,000 or more!

This might seem like an intimidating number. Fortunately, the National Speech & Debate Association has partnered with Edco, an online fundraising solution for K-12 schools, to develop this new guide to help you break down the fundraising process into manageable chunks. Use these tips to plan your upcoming fundraising and lead your team to success!

We walk you through, step-by-step!

PART 1: Create Your Story PART 2: Budgeting and Fundraising

At the end of the day, what matters is that your students are able to participate in the unique and stimulating activity of speech and debate. In order to provide this opportunity, however, your team needs money. Fundraising is the backbone of success, and though it can get frustrating at times, it doesn’t have to be! Edco and the NSDA are here to simplify and speed up the process for you.

PART 6: Event Fundraising – Hosting a

Speech and Debate Tournament

We hope this guide will make fundraising easier for you, and we have many more resources available to help. The NSDA wants every one of its teams to do well, and actively creates educational materials and provides support. Edco also strives to alleviate the stress by becoming your partner in the online fundraising process. Edco has designed their fundraising platform to be as simple and compliant with the school system as possible. Additionally, they have a Customer Success team dedicated to working one-on-one with advisors.

PART 7: Getting Support From Your

School and the District

Check out our guide online at www.speechanddebate.org/ edco-fundraising-guide.

PART 3: Raising Money from Friends,

Family, and the Community PART 4: Raising Money from Local Businesses PART 5: How to Get Press Coverage

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 31

CURRICULUM CORNER

Teacher in a Box: Creating Speech and Debate Curriculum for New Teachers

Education author Rick Smith best describes the traits of a new teacher: “Being a new teacher is like trying to fly an airplane while building it.”

How many of us can relate to this concept? We know this feeling of being “not prepared” for the unit plan, let alone individual lesson plans—and sometimes, we are afraid or too busy to seek out veteran teachers to assist in the planning process for our own lessons. When talking about speech and debate, we often have the added complication of a new teacher who lacks formal experience in the discipline.

To develop the blueprint for building our own airplane, the National Speech & Debate Association has embarked on the journey of creating Teacher in a Box

32

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

by Pam McComas and Renee Motter

for the new speech and debate educator. The NSDA also has partnered with other organizations to develop curriculum that can be implemented directly in the classroom. These lessons are developed and written by top speech and debate educators utilizing best practices and resources cultivated by the NSDA in the quest for excellence in our classrooms.

Curriculum Committee The first step in creating our airplane was to develop a curriculum committee—part of the initiation phase. Formed four years ago, this ad hoc committee consists of Dr. Josh Anderson, Olathe Northwest High School, KS; Pam McComas, NSDA Board Member, KS; Steve Meadows, Danville High School, KY; Renee Motter, Air Academy High School, CO; Gail Naylor, retired coach from Silver Lake High School, KS; James Weaver, National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS), IN; and Derek Yuill, Gabrielino High School, CA.

Steve Schappaugh, Director of Community Engagement, and Nicole Wanzer-Serrano, Director of Development, are the national office liaisons who helped develop the concept of Teacher in a Box.

Educational Partnerships In addition to establishing the curriculum committee, the NSDA recently expanded its engineering crew and partnered with NAMLE (National Association of Media Literacy Education) and P21 (Partnership for 21st Century Learning).

NAMLE is at the forefront of efforts to encourage media literacy in youth and adults, and we know that speech and debate gives students the skills to effectively understand, analyze, and question the messages they are bombarded with from numerous sources on a daily basis. Speech and debate can be a vehicle through which media literacy is achieved. In conjunction with NAMLE, the NSDA co-developed lesson plans for the

2016 presidential election cycle, which are available to our members online (https://namle.net/2016presidential-election/) and can be used in different disciplines to look at and analyze various aspects of this presidential election.

Working with P21 provides additional advocacy opportunities for the NSDA. By becoming a member, the NSDA has joined P21’s diverse coalition of business community, education leaders, and policy-makers working together to prepare learners along the entire continuum of learning. P21 provides a framework, through their 4Cs of Communication, Creativity, Critical Thinking, and Collaboration, via which we can develop curriculum that is attractive to administrators and teachers who prize 21st century skills.

While these partnerships have moved the NSDA forward in developing curriculum to give more students access to speech and debate, the committee decided there was an immediate need to build debate and speech lessons

for “new teachers” to utilize in their classrooms as they get their programs off the ground.

Teacher in a Box Takes Flight Phase 2 of our project involved creating a blueprint for our curriculum—the integration phase.

This past June, veteran Pennsylvania coach Sharon Volpe joined cochairs of curriculum writing Renee Motter and Pam McComas to create, develop, and write a set of Public Forum lesson plans for new teachers.

Assessing the current PF resources, the writers concluded the priority was to integrate webinars, the PF textbook, final round videos, and existing lesson plans, as well as write new lessons, develop supplemental materials, brand all materials, and develop a lesson plan template based on Understanding

by Design by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe. After this direction was established, the process of creating a logical progression of lessons into a unified unit became the goal.

Curriculum Writers Pam McComas – Kansas

Pam is a seven-diamond coach and member of the NSDA Board of Directors. She is the 2016 recipient of the NFHS Outstanding Speech/ Debate/Theatre award. She has an M.S. in Curriculum and Instruction and served 40 years as a secondary teacher.

Renee Motter – Colorado

Renee is the Speech and Debate Head Coach and Teacher at Air Academy High School. She earned her M.A. in Curriculum and Instruction and has 20 years of experience in high school classrooms.

She is a two-diamond coach.

Sharon Volpe – Pennsylvania

Sharon teaches calculus and coaches speech and debate at North Allegheny High School. She has a bachelor’s of science degree in applied mathematics and a master’s degree in mathematics education. She is a four-diamond coach.

Understanding by Design, or UbD, is an educational planning approach. UbD is an example of backward design, the practice of looking at the outcomes in order to design curriculum units, performance assessments, and classroom instruction. UbD focuses on teaching to achieve understanding.

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 33

For Public Forum Debate,

to create lessons that utilize

the final blueprint is in the

existing resources and some

implementation phase. As

newly designed ones to teach

the 2016-2017 school year gets

all NSDA main events. Finally,

underway, the complete PF

the committee will look toward

curriculum is available on the

creating Teacher in a Box 2.0,

NSDA’s website. Anyone can visit

which will focus on more

www.speechanddebate.org, click

advanced strategies and skills in

the “Resources” menu, drop down

each event.

to “Search/View All Resources,”

In developing these lessons

and then click on “Teacher in a

and integrating resources already

Box” to access the lesson plans

cultivated by the NSDA, our

complete with unit summary.

hope is new speech and debate teachers and coaches will feel a

On the Horizon

little less like they are building

Without question, there is

a plane in the sky and a little

a need for more curriculum.

more like they are effectively

Ongoing development of

giving students a voice. Our

debate lesson plans will

hope is that new speech and

consist of Policy Debate,

debate educators will hear

Lincoln-Douglas Debate,

about Teacher in a Box, use

and Congressional Debate.

the lessons and resources, and

After tackling the debate

give us feedback to make these

events, the committee plans

materials even better.

Get Involved!

The committee is seeking experienced teachers in various speech and debate content areas to assist in our curriculum writing endeavors.

If you’d like to be part of future curriculum writing groups, please contact Pam McComas at pmccomas1434@gmail.com or complete our form at http://tinyurl.com/nsdateacherinabox.

OVERVIEW Teacher in a Box: Public Forum Debate This set of Public Forum Debate lessons for Teacher in a Box is designed for the novice coach and students. The lessons are sequential and should be presented in this order.

Each PF lesson begins with an essential question and a set of objectives. The lessons connect existing material, as well as introduce new material for Public Forum Debate. There are links to webinars, handouts, and extended materials.

Lesson 1 What is Debate?

Lesson 2 What is Public Forum Debate?

Lesson 3 Resolution Analysis Lesson 4 Research Lesson 5 Evidence and Tagging Lesson 6 What is an Argument?

Lesson 7 Writing the PF Case Lesson 8 Flowing Lesson 9 Crossfire Questioning Lesson 10 Debate Demo Lesson 11 Delivery Lesson 12 Refutation Lesson 13 Practice Debates Lesson 14 Tournament Etiquette

Find these and other materials under the Resources menu: www.speechanddebate.org 34

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

COMPETITION EVENTS

Get With the Program Thank You to Our 2016-2017 Content Providers These talented coaches are working behind the scenes to produce topic analyses, research guides, webinars, and more for our members. Get to know them here!

Event Resources All members can access Policy Debate starter files, bi-monthly Lincoln-Douglas Debate topic analyses, and monthly Public Forum Debate topic analyses. In addition, Congressional Debate dockets with 10 pieces of legislation, Extemp practice questions, World Schools Debate motions, and Big Questions Debates topic analyses are available every month.

Resource Package subscribers can access a monthly set of Policy file updates, mid-topic updates and evidence guides for LD, as well as a September/October topic update and monthly evidence guides for PF. World Schools Debate motion guides and a current events video update for Congress and Extemp are also released monthly.

GET INVOLVED

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

Tom Evnen | Big Questions Debates Tom Evnen has a B.A. in philosophy from Swarthmore College and is currently a graduate student in philosophy at the University of Chicago. Tom has been an active debate coach for more than 10 years. He has coached at Hockaday High School (TX), University School (FL), Oxbridge Academy (FL), and La Jolla (CA). Tom has coached students to elimination rounds at the Tournament of Champions 13 times, and finalists or champions of Greenhill (and the Greenhill Round Robin), Valley, St. Marks, Bronx (and the Bronx Round Robin), Apple Valley, Voices, Blake, Stanford, and Glenbrooks. Additionally, Tom coached students to the final round of LD at the National Tournament for three years in a row (2007-2009), and they won the championship two of those three years. v

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

Email our Resource Coordinator, Harrison Postler, at harrison.postler@speechanddebate.org.

36

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

Sean Kennedy | Policy Debate Sean Kennedy is a Graduate Teaching Assistant in the Department of Communication Studies. He has been a coach at the University of Kansas since 2012, and has worked with the Lansing, Shawnee Mission East, and New Trier High School debate teams. As a debater at KU, he was the top speaker at the 2011 Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) National Tournament and received a speaker award at every major national tournament. He qualified for the National Debate Tournament (NDT) three times as a first round at-large qualifier and was the fifth-ranked first round at-large team in 2012. He was in the elimination rounds at the NDT three times, reaching the quarterfinals in 2012. He reached the quarterfinals or better at every major national tournament, including winning the Wake Forest tournament and twice reaching the semifinals of the CEDA National Tournament. v

Nathan Leys | Extemporaneous Speaking Nathan Leys is a senior at George Mason University in Fairfax, VA. He competes for the GMU Forensics team, where he won the national championship in Impromptu at the 2016 AFA-NIET. Before college, Nathan graduated from Theodore Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, IA, where he was an NSDA All American and the 2013 national champion in International Extemp.

Nathan currently coaches at Trinity Preparatory in Winter Park, FL and is returning for his fourth year interning with the NSDA. Outside of forensics, Nathan can be found pretending to enjoy exercise, stubbornly rationalizing his coffee habit, or skipping the boring parts of the Economist. v

Dr. Kip McKee | Public Forum Debate Dr. Kip McKee begins his tenth season directing the Harrisburg High School speech and debate programs in South Dakota. He began his affiliation with the then-NFL back in 1987 as a Duo interper and Policy debater. Over the last 20 years of coaching, Kip has worked with numerous national qualifiers and state champions in Extemp, Interp, Oratory, Congress, and Public Forum. Since starting the debate program in Harrisburg less then a decade ago, the team has qualified ten teams to the NSDA national championship, competed at NCFL, and qualified teams to the TOC. He also received his third diamond during the 2015-2016 season. When not focusing on debate, Dr. McKee is the Director of Fine Arts for the Harrisburg School District. He is also the proud coach of his daughters’ track and field team! v

Cindi Timmons | World Schools Debate Cindi Timmons lives in Dallas, Texas, and has been involved in debate for more than 40 years. Retired from 30 years in public schools where she coached dozens of national and state champions while winning numerous coaching awards, she has also served the speech and debate community in national and state leadership positions, in professional development training, and in summer institute work. In addition to coaching, Cynthia is also the Team Manager. Cynthia is a member of the National Speech & Debate Association Hall of Fame as well as the Texas Forensic Association Hall of Fame. She is actively engaged in promoting the cause of women in debate and teacher professional development. Having previously hosted three National Speech & Debate Tournaments in Dallas, she is preparing to host the best of the United States again in 2019. In her spare time, she loves reading and writing. Most importantly, she is a wife and the mother of two. v

Kris Wright | Lincoln-Douglas Debate Kris Wright has been coaching debate for 13 years, the first ten 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. His students have also been invited to some of the nation’s most competitive round robins, including Greenhill (LD and Policy), College Prep (LD and Policy), Kandi King (LD), UT Austin (Policy), Voices (LD), University of Oklahoma (Policy), Sunvitational (LD), and Debate.LA. He has also coached multiple Law Magnet students to qualify to NSDA Nationals in both LD and Policy debate, and to outrounds of TFA State in both debate events. v

Find member resources online at www.speechanddebate.org/resources!

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 37

COMPETITION EVENTS

RESOURCE EXCERPT

Original Oratory – Substructure In addition to our monthly resources, you can find other eventspecific materials on our website, including this new guide to structuring an original oration, written by Harrison Postler.

This guide offers tips for understanding substructure in Original Oratory. We will focus on the substructure of a main point, walking you through the process of decoding substructure, outlining, and turning it into a drafted main point. This is not meant to be the definitive and only method for determining substructure; rather, it is meant to provide a solid foundation for students and coaches looking to improve their understanding of speech construction. Upon developing an understanding of substructure and how to apply it, examples will be used to help visualize the transition from page to stage!

Substructure Substructure refers to the holistic view of your speech’s structure—meaning, each paragraph is broken down into its component parts with each part serving a unique purpose. Substructure is not to be confused with structure writ large.

An easy way to differentiate the two is by remembering that structure refers to the purpose of each paragraph (e.g., the introduction seeks to introduce your topic to the audience), and substructure refers to the purpose of each sentence within the paragraph (e.g., the significance statement in your introduction establishes the scope of your topic). Both concepts synergize into creating an effective method for conveying your point to an audience.

A tried and true substructure for main body points is the S.E.S.S. Method, which stands for state, explain, support, significance. Each letter refers to a different section of an argumentative paragraph, and by devoting a few sentences to stating, explaining, supporting, and signifying, you will have created a complete argument. In an outline, it will look like this:

State: This section is devoted to stating the purpose of the paragraph. Think of it like a topic sentence in an argumentative essay.

Explain: Here is where you devote a little more time to developing your argument. This section is typically longer than the state section, and it’s where you will walk the audience through the logic of your argument. Use this section to provide context, link information together, and solidify the main point.

Support: What would an argument be without a source? If you think of the state, and explain sections as your claims, this is where the data comes in.

Significance: Sometimes referred to as a clincher, this section is where you end your main point on a high note. Think of it as your chance to leave your audience with a lasting impression, something that summarizes your argument poignantly.

Harrison Postler serves as Resource Coordinator for the NSDA.

Find our complete guide to Original Oratory – Substructure on our website at www.speechanddebate.org/resources.

38

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

8

Original Oratory Named After Joe and Pam Wycoff Only four times in our organization’s history has a national main event been permanently named for an individual or individuals: Sandra Silvers, Richard Sodikow, Lanny and B. J. Naegelin, and Carmendale Fernandes.

June 16, 2016, was a special night as the National Speech & Debate Association added two new names to this prestigious list and commemorated one of our most historic and prized competition events.

“To have a national event named for you by the Board of Directors, three things must be true,” explained Executive Director Scott Wunn. “You must be a coach of undeniable excellence. You must be a leader and educator of exceptional greatness. You must leave an indelible mark on the activity.”

The Wycoffs have a combined total of 78 years coaching experience, which includes an unprecedented run from 2000 to 2012 of 13 national finalists in Original Oratory. Between them, they have coached nine national champions and eight runners-up in Original Oratory—not to mention dozens of finalists and champions in other events.

The 1995 national champion in Original Oratory, Ms. Sally Koering Zimney (pictured above, center), spoke from the heart Thursday evening as she helped congratulate her mentors. Her speech illustrated the tremendous impact Pam and Joe have had on their students and the entire speech and debate community.

Congratulations to the namesakes of Joe and Pam Wycoff Original Oratory!

What We're Reading

by Joe Wycoff This fall is the perfect time to dive into the U.S. Constitution! Between the presidential debates, national Constitution Day (September 17), and the September/ October Public Forum topic based on the Constitution, students will have ample opportunity to engage with the fundamental values, principles, and issues of their constitutional government.

Copies of the Paulsens’ books were mailed to each member high school from the 2015-2016 school year as part of the NSDA’s fall renewal packets. The books are provided to debaters and future leaders through the generosity of Mr. and Mrs. Scott and Cyan Banister, citizens committed to the U.S. Constitution.

•

•

• •

The Constitution: An Introduction

by Michael Stokes Paulsen and Luke Paulsen If you love history (as I do), then you’ll love this book. It is written in a very straightforward fashion and deals with the Founding Fathers and the construction of America’s most sacred work, the Constitution.

The book is scholarly and factual, but it’s more than that: it is told in a narrative form, a form that tells the “stories” that make both the historical period and the people involved seem real, believable, and human. In other words, this book does a fantastic job of forming a Constitutional umbilical cord between our nation’s past and our current American scene.

In the beginning, I found myself skipping sections because they looked boring; however, I then found myself going back and reading those same sections. I needed to do this in order to make the sequencing of this book’s narrative make sense.

Here are some of the highlights that I found fascinating and interesting: • Before reading this book, the authors recommend that we actually read the Constitution.

• In the Declaration of Independence, the phrase “united States”—the word “united” wasn’t capitalized; only the

•

•

•

•

• •

word “States” was capitalized. This would prove to be a critical foreshadowing of events to come.

Many of the Founding Fathers were young guys: Alexander Hamilton was 30, James Madison was 36, and George Washington was a military hero by the age of 22.

I had never heard of a man, Gouverneur Morris, yet it was this man whose single and greatest contribution to The Constitution was three words: “We the people...”

The duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr deserves reading to discover the real story.

The real reason why Supreme Court justices have a life tenure, etc., is fascinating.

Whether we like to hear it or not, the bottom line is that the Constitution is pro-slavery. Find out the story behind this.

The Fugitive Slave Clause, the Three-Fifths Clause, and Dred Scott—these all were monumental contributors to the American Civil War. At different times in our history, all three branches of government have violated openly the Constitution, even Abraham Lincoln.

Dirty Politics during the times of the Constitution was just as dirty and conniving as now! Read about the Midnight Judges.

The word “slavery” was never mentioned in the Constitution until 1865—in the 13th Amendment.

More than slavery and the rights of “all men,” the greatest issue during the times was the rights of the individual states—versus the power of the Union.

Throughout all of this, it was paramount that the Constitution be “the supreme law of the land.”

This is a great book for classes or families to read and discuss. It brings alive a time period that is too often viewed as dusty and discardable. I read it once. I’m now going back to read it again!

Joe Wycoff is a Hall of Fame member and fourdiamond coach from Apple Valley, Minnesota.

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 39

COMPETITION EVENTS

Exploring the 2016 September/October Public Forum Topic

TOPIC AREA: U.S. CONSTITUTION Resolved: In United States public K-12 schools, the probable cause standard ought to apply to searches of students.

by Stefan Bauschard Terms in the Resolution

The resolution is a bit of a mouthful. Let’s break it down.

United States. This is one of the two easy-to-understand terms in the resolution. It simply refers to searches of students that occur in the United States.

The Government’s activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner’s words violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth, and thus constituted a “search and seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment (U.S. v. Katz).

Public K-12 education. Public schools are schools that provide education to students free of charge. Those schools are funded, “in whole or in part by taxation.” 1 K-12 simply means grades kindergarten through grade 12.

Government searches are normally considered reasonable, and hence a justifiable intrusion on privacy, when the government can prove there is probable cause to conduct a search (Ellis, 2010): 3

This term is important for three reasons: • The resolution does not include a debate about probable cause requirements in private schools. This is important because private schools can impose their own standards for school searches through a contract with parents, since rights only protect a person against unconstitutional action by the government, not similar problematic action by the private sector.

• The students in question are generally minors. Although there are some students in high school who are 18 or older, most will be minors in the jurisdiction in which they live.

• Public school officials are public officials. They are government officials. This is important to a discussion of Constitutional protections, as the Constitution is designed to protect people from the government. In New Jersey v. T.L.O., the Supreme Court ruled that those protections exist for minors in public schools.

Reasonableness is measured by examining the totality of the circumstances surrounding the search and balancing the intrusion “on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests” against the search’s “promotion of legitimate governmental interests.”

Generally, any search will be found to be unreasonable “where the government or its agent has not proven it to be necessary.”

The most common method of demonstrating the “reasonableness” of a search is by a showing of “probable cause,” which is the “level of suspicion which is required to justify government intrusion upon interests protected by the Fourth Amendment.”

Searches of students. The first technical term in the resolution is “search” and the question is whether or not there should be a search of “students.” Both of these terms need unpacking. Let’s start with “search.”

The significance of the term “search” stems from the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which establishes: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Based on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Fourth Amendment established in U.S. v. Katz (1967), 2 a “search” occurs when the government infringes upon an individual’s legitimate expectation of privacy:

40

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

The second question related to “search” is, “what is searched?” The resolution refers to a search of a “student,” but what is a search of a student?

Clearly, a strip search (which has occurred) is a search of a student. However, in New Jersey v. T.L.O., the most important Supreme Court case related to this resolution, T.L.O.’s purse was searched. Is that a search of a student? Seemingly so, since she was carrying her purse. But what if her locker was searched when she was not present?

Is there a difference if her locker was searched by a school official directly or if a canine does a walk through sniff search of all lockers? What if a student’s automobile that is registered to his or her parents and parked in the school parking lot is searched? Is that a search of a student?

Arguably, these are all searches of students since it is the student who bears the penalty, but distinctions can be drawn, at least between object searches and person searches.

Bedden, Dana. (2006.) Ed Dissertation. Public school law: Student search & seizure in K-12 public schools. Retrieved 06/22/16 from https://theses.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/ etd-03102006-174524/unrestricted/DBeddenFinalETD.pdf.

In general, there are three types of legal searches: search of inanimate objects, search of persons, and administrative searches. The objects included in the inanimate search category include (but are not limited to) student lockers, desks, luggage and the contents of lockers and desks (for example, bags, purses, backpacks, and binders). A person/personal search consists of actions such as asking the person to empty pockets, pat downs, sniff searches, strip searches and searches of belongings on a person. It is important to note that the more personal or closer to the person’s body the search becomes, the reasonable suspicion standard requirement increases. The third, administrative searches, are primarily sweep searches of persons or buildings. Administrative searches may include searches of groups of people when the “special need” exists to prevent a dangerous situation or the governmental interest outweighs the individual’s right to privacy. This may include searches for weapons or drugs.

This brings up important questions as you prepare for your debates: • Can the Pro only topically argue for “person” searches, or do “student” searches include objects?

• What specific cases are both topical and best under what interpretations?

• Can the Pro just generally defend the resolution in the first Constructive speech and then use particular definitions to argue that particular Con arguments are not relevant?

Probable cause. In most instances (there are exceptions beyond school searches), the government must establish “probable cause” to conduct a search.

What is “probable cause”? “Probable cause” is arguably both the most important term in the resolution and the one that is most difficult to define.

The Supreme Court has established that probable cause to search exists when “known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief that contraband . . . will be found” (Ornelas v. United States, 1996, at 696). Dana Bedden (2010) adds some additional explanation: The precise meaning of “probable cause” is somewhat uncertain. Most academic debates over the years have centered on the differences between “more probable than not” and “substantial possibility”. The former, “more probable than not” involves the elements of certainty and technical knowledge. The latter, “substantial possibility”, involves the elements of fairness and common sense. There are more adherents of the latter approach, but how do you define common sense.

Supreme Court case law has indicated that rumor, mere suspicion, and even “strong reason to suspect” are not equivalent to probable cause. The reasonable man definition; common textbook definition states: Probable cause is where known facts and circumstances, of a reasonably trustworthy nature, are sufficient to justify a man of reasonable caution or prudence.in the belief that a crime has been or is being committed. (reasonable man definition; common textbook definition) In the context of this resolution, it is critical to understand the difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion.

Why? Because “reasonable suspicion” is the governing standard for most school searches.

The reasonable suspicion standard was established by the Supreme Court in New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1984). 4 T.L.O. began when a New Jersey high school teacher claimed to have found two female students smoking in the bathroom, which violated a school rule. The two students were taken to the assistant principal’s office. The student who T.L.O. was with admitted to smoking, but T.L.O. denied it. The assistant principal searched T.L.O.’s purse and found a pack of cigarettes as well as cigarette rolling papers.

Since the assistant principal suspected that the rolling papers were signs of marijuana, he further searched the purse and discovered marijuana, a large stack of $1 bills, a list of students who owed T.L.O. money, and two letters that implicated T.L.O. in selling marijuana. The assistant principal turned the evidence over to police and T.L.O. was prosecuted in juvenile court. T.L.O., however, moved to suppress the evidence, claiming that it was obtained as a result of an illegal search.

The Supreme Court determined that a “search” did occur, but that it was not unconstitutional because “when ‘special needs,’ beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable cause requirement impracticable,” a warrant based on probable cause is not required.

While the Court found that warrant and probable cause requirements were not necessary in a school setting, the Court did establish that students have Constitutional rights in schools and that “reasonable suspicion” was needed for school officials to conduct a search.

Although the Court did not unpack the probable cause versus reasonable suspicion distinction much in this case, it is possible to discern a general difference: Jordan, Michael K. (2010.) From T.L.O. to Safford: A close look at the Supreme Court’s decisions on searches and principles that emerge from these cases. Retrieved from http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? article=1016&context=lawandpractice Given Wilson’s belief that Redding was secreting pills in her clothing, the questions before the Court were: (1) whether his belief was reasonable and (2) whether the scope of the search was reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and nature of the infraction. Before addressing these questions the Court provided further guidance on the difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause.

Recall that T.L.O. did not give a precise explanation of the difference between the two, though one was clearly left with the impression that reasonable suspicion was a common sense notion of what one could conclude from any given set of facts. In this case the Court equated the knowledge component of probable cause as raising a fair probability or a substantial chance that the known facts imply prohibited conduct. Reasonable suspicion requires only a moderate chance of finding evidence of wrongdoing. While this formulation may lack mathematical precision, it is consistent with the Court’s previous statements in T.L.O. that school administrators should not be compelled to educate themselves in the nuances of probable cause. They ought to be held to a standard of reason and common sense.

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 41

While it is not easy to parse the difference between reasonable suspicion (RS) and probable cause (PC), especially for those unfamiliar with examples in the law, it is important to understand the PC is a more difficult standard for school officials to meet and that it would constrain searches of students in public schools.

As you prepare for the year, you may want to construct some examples of searches you think are (a) supported by PC, (b) supported by RS, and (c) supported by neither. These are excellent examples that you will be able to use in cross-fire both to articulate the difference when you are Pro but also to try to undermine the difference (to show there is no solvency) when you are Con. In. “In” generally means “within,” so the question the resolution presents is about searches in schools.

While this is an important constraining term, it does leave one basic question unanswered: what actor is conducting the search in schools?

In T.L.O., the search was conducted by an assistant principal. Within the current legal environment, most argue that this search without probable cause is acceptable.

But what if the search is conducted in school but by a police officer acting on his or her own? What if a school administrator directs the police officer to conduct the search?

These are important distinctions that the resolution and (T.L.O.) do not address.

Ellis, Ransom. (2010.) Public school search & seizure law. Missouri Bar Association. Retrieved 06/22/16 from http://www.eehjfirm.com/pdf/MO-Bar-StudentSeaches-100726.pdf.

School Resource Officers may or may not be certified law enforcement officers. In order to conduct a lawful search under the Fourth Amendment, a law enforcement officer must have “probable cause” (or an exception of “probable cause” like, consent or plain view). The standard of school employees is much less—“Reasonable suspicion.” Where a School Resource Officer is acting in a “law enforcement capacity” as opposed to a “school related capacity”, the SRO must have probable cause to engage in any search. The deciding factors to determine the status of the SRO will include the following: 1. Whether the request for the search was directed by school administrators or as a result of law enforcement information.

2. Whether the subject of the search constitutes a violation of school rules.

3. Whether the SRO is an employee of the school district or an employee of a law enforcement entity.

4. Whether the location and circumstances of the search appeared to be “school related” or “law enforcement related.”

While there are cases that support the proposition that a city police officer who is assigned full-time to a school as a “liaison officer” is in the same position as a school official for Fourth Amendment purposes, caution should be exercised when an SRO searches students at school. The following evidence offers some additional guidance:

42

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

Gambone, Alfonso. (2015, August 25.) Probable cause, public schools, and the police: State action vs. school action. Retreived 06/23/16 from http://gambonelaw. com/probable-cause-public-schools-and-the-policestate-action-vs-school-action.

School officials are permitted to search individual students or the entire student body if they consider the search reasonable based on their suspicion that the student(s) is breaking the law or school policy. By definition, school officials would include teachers, a teacher’s aide, school administrators, school police, and local police school liaison officers. These people all need to satisfy a reasonable suspicion standard if they are acting on their own authority or on the authority of the school official.

If, however, a school official is acting on behalf of police, courts treat the situation much different. School officials must satisfy a probable cause standard which is much higher than a reasonable suspicion. Courts will evaluate whether school officials are acting as agents of police based on the circumstances surrounding the search (totality of the circumstances). Courts will consider (1) the purpose of the search; (2) the party who initiated the search; and (3) whether the police participated in the search or approved it. The mere presence of police with school officials isn’t enough to require the school to establish probable cause before initiating the search of the student or the student body. Courts will look at whether police dominated or directed the action of school officials to determine if it was the school action or a state action. If there is no state action, students have a lower expectation of privacy. Courts must balance that privacy interest against the school’s need to maintain order and discipline within a school environment.

What does this mean for the topic? It is something you need to unpack and think about, particularly since there are a number of district court cases that address this question. Most conclude that probable cause is not required, a few conclude that it is.

Can the Pro argue that probable cause should apply when police officers acting on their own conduct searches in schools? That is easier for the Pro to defend than arguing that it should apply when school employees just conduct the searches.

What if a principal is searching for a weapon, as opposed to searching for Tylenol, if students are not allowed to bring it to school?

How specific can the Pro’s advocacy be? If it can be specific, what is the least controversial approach the Pro can take? If the Pro has to defend the resolution as a general statement, how easy will that be? Can the Pro really defend that probable cause should be required for an assistant principal to search for a knife? A gun? ALL searches?

Allowing the Pro to defend the particulars seems unfair, but forcing them to defend the resolution as a blanket statement seems unworkable.

Pro Arguments

The basic Pro approach is to argue that probable cause should be applied to school searches and argue that this protects the dignity and privacy of students.

Supreme Court Justice Stevens. (1983.) New Jersey v. T.L.O. Retrieved 06/23/16 from https://www.law.cornell.edu/ supremecourt/text/469/325.

The search of a young woman’s purse by a school administrator is a serious invasion of her legitimate expectations of privacy… But the majority’s statement of the standard for evaluating the reasonableness of such searches is not suitably adapted to that end. The majority holds that a search of a student by a teacher or other school official will be “justified at its inception” when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school. This standard will permit teachers and school administrators to search students when they suspect that the search will reveal evidence of even the most trivial school regulation or precatory guideline for student behavior. The Court’s standard for deciding whether a search is justified “at its inception” treats all violations of the rules of the school as though they were fungible. For the Court, a search for curlers and sunglasses in order to enforce the school dress code is apparently just as important as a search for evidence of heroin addiction or violent gang activity…The majority offers no explanation why a two-part standard is necessary to evaluate the reasonableness of the ordinary school search. Significantly, in the balance of its opinion the Court pretermits any discussion of the nature of T.L.O.’s infraction of the “no smoking” rule. The “rider” to the Court’s standard for evaluating the reasonableness of the initial intrusion apparently is the Court’s perception that its standard is overly generous and does not, by itself, achieve a fair balance between the administrator’s right to search and the student’s reasonable expectations of privacy. The Court’s standard for evaluating the “scope” of reasonable school searches is obviously designed to prohibit physically intrusive searches of students by persons of the opposite sex for relatively minor offenses. The Court’s effort to establish a standard that is, at once, clear enough to allow searches to be upheld in nearly every case, and flexible enough to prohibit obviously unreasonable intrusions of young adults’ privacy only creates uncertainty in the extent of its resolve to prohibit the latter. Moreover, the majority’s application of its standard in this case—to permit a male administrator to rummage through the purse of a female high school student in order to obtain evidence that she was smoking in a bathroom—raises grave doubts in my mind whether its effort will be effective. Unlike the Court, I believe the nature of the suspected infraction is a matter of first importance in deciding whether any invasion of privacy is permissible.

Pro teams may also want to take advantage of literature that argues that minority, particularly Black and Latino, students are more likely to be targeted by the school disciplinary apparatus and that a tougher legal standard could forestall this trend.

Nance, Jason. (2013). Random, suspicionless searches of students’ belongings: A legal, empirical, and normative analysis. University of Colorado Law Review. Retrieved 06/23/16 from http://lawreview.colorado.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2013/11/10.-Nance_Final_s.pdf.

Empirical studies measuring the use of strict security measures in schools are scarce. The few studies that exist suggest that strict security measures are applied disproportionately to schools with high minority populations. For example, in another empirical study, I found that schools with higher percentages of minority students were more likely to use certain combinations of strict security measures than other schools, even after taking into account school crime, neighborhood crime, and school disorder. Similarly, Aaron Kupchik and Geoff Ward found that, after controlling for school crime, neighborhood crime, and school disorder, schools with larger proportions of minority students were more likely to use metal detectors than other schools. The findings from these empirical studies are consistent with many ethnographers’ experiences that directly observe schools. For example, Torin Monahan and Rodolfo D. Torres explain: Perhaps not surprisingly, racial minorities are disproportionately subjected to contemporary surveillance and policing apparatuses… [That is,] students in poorer inner-city schools are subjected to more invasive hand searches and metal-detector screenings, while students in more affluent schools tend to be monitored more discreetly with video surveillance cameras. The disproportionate use of strict security measures to minority students is particularly harmful for at least two reasons. First, researchers observe that there already exist high levels of mistrust between minority students and educators. Thus, strict security measures, especially those that appear to be applied unfairly, may negatively impact the educational environment at schools with high minority populations in a particularly severe manner. Second, several leading social scientists and criminologists are concerned that the presence of strict security in minority schools perpetuates racial inequalities. Loic Wacquant argues that poor inner-city schools have “deteriorated to the point where they operate in the manner of institutions of confinement whose primary mission is not to educate but to ensure ‘custody and control.’” As a result of this “custody and control” approach to education, lowincome minorities often have very different educational experiences than affluent, white students. For example, Aaron Kupchik and Geoff Ward argue that strict security measures sour minorities’ attitudes towards the government and limit their future opportunities.

They write: Marginalized youth are presumed to be young criminals and treated as such through exposure to criminal justice oriented practices (e.g., police surveillance and metal detectors), while youth with social, political and cultural capital are presumed to be well-behaved, treated as such, and empowered to be productive citizens. Furthermore, this disparity in school security can have profound consequences on students’ social mobility, since suspension, expulsion and arrest each limit their future educational and employment prospects. Similarly, Paul Hirschfield argues that the resulting disproportionate use of strict security measures prepares urban minority students for certain positions in the postindustrial order, “whether as prisoners, soldiers, or service sector workers.” While conceding that the purpose of these measures may be laudable— to prevent contraband from entering schools—strict security measures stand as a “daily reminder of how little

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 43

power students have over those in whom they entrust their futures and, in turn, how powerless their trusted guardians are to secure for the students a dignified, timely, and safe passage into school (and adulthood).”

And there is evidence that a focus on security without attendant rights protection will socialize individuals against rights in society, threatening positive citizenship and democracy (Nance, 2013): Strict security measures also skew students’ mindsets about constitutional values and the role of government in their lives, causing students to discount important constitutional rights. As Betsy Levin explains, schools play a critical role in helping students learn skills and values that enable them to exercise the responsibilities of citizenship and benefit from participation in a free economy. Those values include the right to privacy. If schools do not honor students’ constitutional rights, schools cannot effectively teach students about those rights. This principle has been observed by the Supreme Court as early as 1943 when it stated: “That [schools] are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes.” Furthermore, school officials’ treatment of students in schools socializes students to tolerate and expect similar treatment by government officials outside of schools. If students encounter drug sniffing dogs, metal detector checks, frisks, and authorities rummaging through their personal belongings on a regular basis, these practices will seem normal to them. The citizenry now may have divergent views regarding individual privacy rights and the role the government should play in our personal lives, but as the rising generation becomes more accustomed to more intrusive invasions, it is possible that those healthy debates may shift towards greater acceptance of strict security measures or disappear altogether.

Finally, teams may wish to get a leg-up on the school security argument by claiming that intrusive security measures actually threaten school safety (Nance, 2013): In fact, empirical studies cast doubt on whether strict security measures effectively reduce school crime, and many researchers argue that implementing such measures increases misbehavior and crime. Rather than relying on coercive measures, research demonstrates that there are alternative, more effective methods for reducing school crime that maintain students’ dignity, do not degrade the learning environment, and teach students to value their constitutional rights.

Con Arguments

Generally, Con teams will argue that the invasion of privacy is minimal, that minor students have a lower expectation of privacy in schools where school officials are responsible for them.

Tiller, Benjamin. (2014.) The problems of probable cause: Meneese and the myth of eroding Fourth Amendment

44

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

rights for students. Saint Louis University Law Review, p.

589-90. Retrieved from http://www.slu.edu/Documents/ law/Law%20Journal/Archives/LawJournal58-2/Tiller_ Article.pdf.

Ms. Bough’s most significant and seriously flawed argument is her assertion that reasonable suspicion will inevitably lead to the erosion of students’ constitutional rights.

This contention, originally argued in the Dilworth dissent, requires careful consideration, and makes it necessary to examine the constitutional rights of students. It has long been established that “students do not shed their constitutional rights… at the schoolhouse gate.” At the same time, “students in school do not possess the same breadth of constitutional rights as parties in other settings.” Although students retain constitutional rights in school, those rights are “limited by the circumstances of [the school’s] special environment.” For example, students have reduced freedom of speech rights while in school.

Similarly, students have reduced freedom of the press rights. While no student has brought suit asserting the right to assemble, it is unlikely that any court would give students the freedom to assemble in the hallway (or anywhere other than his or her assigned classroom) during the school day while classes are in session. Additionally, students have limited freedom of religion rights. In fact, the only First Amendment right that students seem to universally possess is the freedom to petition. As for the Second Amendment, it is without question that students enjoy no right to possess firearms while at school. Additionally, students have reduced Fourth Amendment rights in school, and have no Twenty-first Amendment right to possess alcohol in school. Finally, students, until they reach the required statutory age, are required to attend school, and thus lack the freedom to do as they please while school is in session. In short, it is accepted that students, as minors in a compulsory educational system, do not and cannot enjoy the same constitutional rights as their older counterparts. Applying the reasonable suspicion standard to school resource officers—the same standard that courts readily apply to school employees—does not erode the rights of students. Rather, the reasonable suspicion standard is entirely consistent with the other constitutional rights that students enjoy. It will not produce a slipperyslope or erode student rights, just as limiting the right of students to use abusive language in school has not produced a slippery-slope of silencing student speech or of eroding student rights. Instead, just as limiting abusive language in schools protects minor students from such language, applying a reasonable suspicion standard in schools protects children from violence and drug use that, unfortunately, so often accompanies public school systems.

Furthermore, they will argue that the searches are necessary to maintain discipline, prevent school violence, and reduce drug use and trafficking in schools (Tiller, 2014): This Note does not seek to encourage the suppression of individual rights, liberty, or autonomy. There is no question that “students do not shed their constitutional rights… at the schoolhouse gate.” However, while society protects the rights of students, it must not forget to also protect

their health and safety. American schools are experiencing substantial gun, violence, and drug problems that have no end in sight. It is the legal duty of schools and school resource officers to identify and resolve these problems— something they cannot do without the flexibility to quickly intervene and resolve dangerous situations. If probable cause were the standard, teachers and resource officers would be forced to apply for a search warrant to search students. Unfortunately, the time this would take could be the difference between life and death for students. With the reasonable suspicion standard, though, like what happened in In re Josue T. and In re William V., schools will be safer because teachers and resource officers will be able to respond quickly and prevent violence before it occurs.

Con teams will also exploit the difficulty of articulating the difference between RS and PC, arguing that school administrators will succeed in proving that their search was justified, even under a PC standard. Moreover, of course, a student would need to have the resources to initiate a court case and succeed.

There is a lot of literature that debates the workability of “probable cause.”

After all, it’s not like it can be precisely defined, and judges and juries can always rationalize that school officials acted with “probable cause.”

There is related “critical legal studies” literature that makes the case that the law is indeterminate and that the interests of the powerful (in this case, the interests of the school administrators and the policy) will always be protected. While it is not advisable to run this as a full kritik in PF, the evidence can be used to make a well developed solvency argument.

Second, even if a school administrator’s actions are determined to be unconstitutional, they may be granted “qualified immunity,” meaning that the existence of any legal standard will not deter them from searching.

Davenport, Erin P. (2014.) Stripped bare: Students’ Fourth Amendment rights, school searches, and the reasonableness standard.” Tennessee Journal of Law & Policy, Vol. 4: Iss. 1, Article 6. Retrieved from http://trace. tennessee.edu/tjlp/vol4/iss1/6.

Today, schools search for drugs, weapons, and evidence of drug use, and according to the courts, these searches do not violate students’ rights.” Even if the courts consider some searches unreasonable, qualified immunity protects teachers from liability because the law surrounding these searches often is not clearly established. Thus, school officials can act with impunity because courts will likely perceive the search as reasonable or grant school officials qualified immunity for their actions.

Third, there is a substantial body of literature that argues that using the law is “inherently racist” because questions of whether or not such things as “probable cause” exist will always be processed through the lens of racism—consciously or unconsciously, people will conclude the police have probable cause to search a minority. Although this is usually presented as a kritik in Policy Debate and Lincoln-Douglas Debate, it can be presented as a solvency argument in Public Forum Debate.

There is also potential for Court disadvantages. As discussed in the essay, using Reasonable Suspicion to guide the

appropriateness of school searches has been established in U.S. law since 1983, based on the Court’s reading of what is required by its interpretation of the Constitution.

If the legislature(s) were to require the probable cause standard, this would not overturn T.L.O. Rather, it would simply provide clarification to what school officials need to do. Nonetheless, this would would mean that school administrators have to comply, but the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution would still stand, the decision would not be overturned.

If, however, the Court were to overturn its decision, this could threaten the legitimacy of the Court. Since school searches are probably politically popular (there is a widespread concern for school violence), this could result in Congress stripping the Court of some of its power, threatening judicial independence. It may also mean that the Court no longer defers to elected officials, undermining judicial minimalism and threatening democracy.

There are a number of disadvantages related to court action in this area, including court stripping, judicial minimalism, stare decisis, and judicial legitimacy.

So, an additional important question is, can the Pro argue for action by a particular branch of government (is this a plan?). If not, do we just assume T.L.O. is overturned by the affirmative’s advocacy?

Some Concluding Thoughts

Despite a few identified shortcomings, this resolution introduces an important controversy that is relevant to all students.

Preparing for debates on this issue will involve some relatively complex legal research. As you prepare for your debates, you should consider a few things beyond the general subject matter: • Does the search of a student refer to more than the search of a body of a student?

• What type of individual (assistant principal versus police officer) does the resolution address?

• Can the Pro argue for action by a particular branch of government?

Ultimately, answers to these questions will turn on interpretations of the resolution. Furthermore, you will need to prepare Pro and Con arguments, as well as answers to both sides. I have previewed these in this essay and will develop them further in subsequent essays.

End Notes 1 Retrieved

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_school. from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/ text/389/347.

3 Public school search & seizure law. Retrieved from http://www.eehjfirm.com/pdf/MO-Bar-StudentSeaches-100726.pdf 4 Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/ text/469/325 2 Retrieved

Stefan Bauschard is the Founder of Millennial Speech & Debate and serves as Debate Coach for Lakeland Schools in New York.

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 45

COMPETITION EVENTS

Policy Debate: Synopsis of the Problem Areas for 2017-2018 Students and coaches are invited to discuss these topics extensively before voting online by October 15. See page 48 for details!

I

PROBLEM AREA I:

ENERGY POLICY Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase incentives for development and/or use of renewable energy in the United States.

United States energy policy has changed frequently over the past few decades. These changes are indicative of the fact that federal policy is traditionally reactive in nature. The very formation of the U.S. Department of Energy during the 1970s occurred after years of uncertainty regarding the nation’s energy supply.

Although national energy policy has changed frequently over the past three decades, many of those changes have been the result of political, economic, or environmental factors at the time. At the start of the 21st century, the combination of technological advances in the renewable energy sector and increased concern regarding climate change contributed to ambitious development of new energy forms.

The list of more popular kinds of renewable energy includes solar, wind, hydro-electric, tidal energy, geothermal, as well as several additional options that remain in developmental stages such as hydrogen and fusion power.

Increased international focus on climate change over the past several years has further served as justification for expansion of renewable energy. These efforts, however, have been tempered by expansion of oil production in the United States. The advent of hydraulic fracturing has resulted in opening new petroleum reserves, especially in shale fields.

This topic is very well-balanced with affirmative teams having the option of advocating for any one of the numerous forms of renewable energy resources. Harms associated with fossil fuel use as well as a potential impact on climate change are problem areas that affirmative teams can opt to address. Affirmative teams also have the option of making a

46

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

number of critical claims, especially in the context of climate change and preservation of natural resources. Negative teams have a number of options for argumentation. They could argue that, due to current economic/supply factors, it is simply unfeasible to convert to renewable energy in a major way. Moreover, negative debaters can claim clean coal technology or nuclear energy as alternatives to traditional fossil fuel options. Finally, negative teams also have the option of relying on conversation to reduce both consumption as well as environmental impacts of fossil fuel use. Negative teams will also have the option of presenting federalism, backlash, and spending disadvantages.

Negative debaters will have the option of a range of counterplans from relying on state and/or non-governmental organizations for implementation or choosing to develop energy resources not supported by the affirmative.

II

PROBLEM AREA II:

INCOME INEQUALITY Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase progressive taxation, the federal minimum wage or consumer lending regulation in the United States.

Over the last few decades, the gap between wealthy and poor has increased dramatically, as evidenced by Census and economic data. The 2016 elections, particularly the Democratic primaries, highlighted the anxiety and emotions that people feel about this issue. While the impacts related to the economy are clear to understand, there are also impacts to these disparities in education, social mobility, crime, and even the environment, as seen in this year’s developments regarding water quality in Flint, Michigan. This

resolution proposes that the federal government should act to reduce income inequality through either increasing the progressiveness of our taxation system (either by changing the tax rates, adding additional taxes on the super-wealthy, crafting tax breaks that are only accessible by people below a certain income level or establishing through some means a guaranteed income), the federal minimum wage, or through regulation of consumer lending procedures, including but not limited to predatory lending practices such as abolishing prepayment penalties or capping interest rates. In the wake of Thomas Piketty’s book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, a number of organizations have taken research into this topic more extensively, guaranteeing a deep and evolving research base over the course of the year. Because these issues affect all people, novices will easily access the core issues, and varsity students should find enough nuance in the literature to craft innovative plans and find strategic advantage ground.

Negative teams will have a range of positions at their use to combat these cases, including but not limited to business confidence, inflation, capitalism good, socialism good, and politics—given the range of people’s perspectives regarding the economy and the government’s proper role in it, a modicum of research will unveil a range of strategic arguments to advance on this debate.

III

PROBLEM AREA III:

EDUCATION REFORM

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its funding and/or regulation of elementary and/or secondary education in the United States.

United States students do not rank well compared to their peers from other countries. Achievement gaps also exist between children from different ethnic groups and between affluent and low-income students. Are the schools at fault, or are other issues to blame? What changes in funding, regulations, standards, or support for our schools will bring better results? Do we need more teachers, higher teacher pay, uniform teacher standards, and/or smaller class sizes?

Will more money for technology improve teaching? Do we need more flexibility to employ and develop different types of schools? Do we need more flexibility within our public schools? What will bring up graduation rates and help United States students compete internationally? How can we prepare and train the future United States workforce? This resolution

will provide a balanced field to discuss these important education issues. The affirmative teams will have the ability to critically examine everything from charter schools to online programs to for-profit schools. There is flexibility to argue for or against K-12 in traditional schools versus more specialized schools. Each area of the country has substantially different standards and rules. This topic allows students to examine those differences and how the federal government can improve education across the board. Negative ground includes arguments from traditional policy options such as federalism, States CP, other agent counterplans, solvency deficits as to whether the affirmative is affecting a large enough scope to solve, spending DAs, politics scenarios, etc. Critical literature is also applicable to the wide variety of presumptions within our government and education systems.

IV

PROBLEM AREA IV:

DOMESTIC AGRICULTURE

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its regulation of one or more of the following in the United States: genetically modified foods, biofuels, pesticides, concentrated animal feeding operations, crop insurance.

Issues related to the quality, quantity, and ethics of food production are of interest to all Americans. Accordingly, it seems strange that it has been 30 years since we last debated an agriculture topic at the high school level. The United States actively promotes controversial agricultural practices through direct subsidies and provision of crop insurance. Affirmative teams would be able to focus on numerous controversies related to federal promotion of agricultural programs. The United States is the world leader in the production of genetically modified foods, despite objections from the European Union and numerous scientists about safety. The federal government promotes the use of corn for the production of ethanol despite concerns about the impact on food prices and shortages around the world.

Environmentalists argue that natural methods of integrated pest management should replace the intensive use of chemical pesticides. Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO) are controversial because of their impact on animal rights, overuse of antibiotics, and promotion of human obesity. Proponents of sustainable agriculture believe that

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 47

federal crop insurance regulations could be better used to discourage factory farming at the expense of family farms and/or sustainable agricultural practices. Negative teams will also have a variety of arguments from which to choose.

Negative teams can argue that genetically modified foods are absolutely safe and offer the key to feeding the world while also protecting against drought conditions and minimizing use of pesticides and herbicides. Defenders of biofuels argue that ethanol offers a clean and renewable way to promote U.S. energy independence. The current reliance on chemical pesticides and large farming and ranching operations can be defended as essential means of ensuring the world’s food supply while keeping prices within reach of the poor.

V

PROBLEM AREA V:

RUSSIA

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase economic, diplomatic and/or military pressure on the Russian Federation.

Recent allegations of hacking into the DNC is only the most recent Russian action that endangers economic and political stability worldwide. In recent years, Russia annexed Crimea, armed the Syrian government, and armed rebels in Ukraine. Russia’s political leaders maintain close ties with organized crime and silence dissidents. Russia’s economic system lacks the ability to create a modern market system. Past U.S. efforts to engage Russia have failed to foster necessary reforms, making it clear that the U.S. needs to place more pressure on the Russian Federation.

Some may assume that this topic is merely a minor revision of the 2016-2017 China topic. However, the relationship between the U.S. and China is fundamentally different than the relationship between U.S. and Russia. Thus, pressure and engagement are not synonyms. Pressure involves more forceful language or actions, whereas engagement assumes a more cooperative environment exists. Further, Russia’s foreign policy is more focused on Europe and the Middle East, whereas China’s foreign policy is more focused on Southeast and East Asia. Hence, significantly different issues will be debated. For example, Syria/ISIS and military deployment in Europe are potentials areas of advantage ground on the Russia topic, but unlikely to be affirmative

48

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

ground on the China topic. Debating Russia enhances students’ understanding of world affairs in a unique manner.

Possible affirmatives include supporting the Ukrainian government, imposing sanctions that focus on Russian energy sales, recommending that Russia be removed from international organizations such as the G8 or WTO, expanding the use of the Magnitsky Act to include more Russian officials and business personnel tied to rights violations, supporting pipeline construction for European supply of oil and natural gas, supporting international banking reform, withdrawing from New START, working with NATO to deter Russian military activities in the Baltic States or Arctic Ocean, or reversing/ halting military base closures in Europe. Negative ground includes disadvantages based on Russian backlash, Russian election results, U.S. politics, European destabilization, or terrorism. Counterplan ground includes testing the agent of action (e.g., EU or NATO), engaging Russia instead of pressuring, as well as alternative solvency mechanisms for the Affirmative advantages. Critical ground includes realism, otherization, securitization, “terror talk,” or threat construction.

Vote Online!

Students and one chapter advisor per school may vote online until October 15 at 4:00 p.m. CT. To access the link, visit www.speechanddebate.org/topics and follow the online ballot instructions.

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

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

COMMUNITY

USA Debate Team: Advocates Across the Globe

by Liz Yount

“Our experiences abroad

O

ne morning in Stuttgart, Germany, at the World Schools Debating Championship, I ate breakfast with debaters my age from four different countries. I learned how an average day for a teenager in Denmark differed from that of someone in Slovenia, and how the typical European breakfast seemed odd to debaters from Palestine. But regardless of their food preferences, students from 55 nations sat together in one room, sharing stories, laughs, and languages. I had the privilege of being part of that remarkable experience and witnessing global unity in such a way that could only be made possible through debate.

Five debaters, two coaches, and one judge from the United States

50

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

(left to right) Joshua May, Sonya Huang, Liz Yount, Milan Armitraj, and Amit Kukreja

affirmed my belief that debate and discourse have the power to transcend all conflicts and borders—that our efforts representing the United States serve a purpose infinitely greater than ourselves.” traveled to Stuttgart, Germany, from July 15-29 for the World Schools Debating Championship. Prior to the actual tournament, we had spar rounds against Teams Hong Kong, Singapore, Palestine, Argentina, and Mexico. During the tournament,

we faced Teams from Switzerland, Australia, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Bangladesh, the UAE, Denmark, and Israel.

The late nights of preparation and practice rounds did not begin when we touched down in Stuttgart, but rather 13 days earlier in Colorado Springs. From July 3-9, the USA Debate team, along with coaches Aaron and Cindi Timmons and team alumni, trained at Colorado College and participated in a campuswide demo debate. Through the generosity of the college and the limitations of video chat, we began drafting cases for WSDC and running practice rounds, while video calling in teammates from India and Vermont.

After a few short days of rest back at home, we flew across the ocean one last time to represent the United States together at the World Championship. The tournament conveners and our two wonderful German student hosts awaited our arrival at the Stuttgart airport and helped to make our two-week stay as comfortable and enjoyable as possible. USA Debate alum Danny DeBois also served as our

delegation’s judge in the tournament pool.

“I had an amazing time getting involved in world schools again and giving back to USA Debate,” DeBois said. “I’m happy I got the chance to get to know the students on USA Debate better, and also watch and judge some top-level rounds between some of the best teams in the world.”

We fought through difficult competition, rampant heat, and varying levels of travel sickness for four days of intense debating. Team Captain Milan Amritraj, who will attend USC Marshall’s School of Business in the fall, said he was proud of how well the team came together for each round, despite some difficult extenuating circumstances.

“USA Debate gave me the incredible opportunity to compete against some of the best young minds around the world and the invaluable privilege of representing my country in the activity that I love,” Amritraj explained. “I will truly miss the team next year.”

Amritraj also reiterated the importance of advocating for people through debate. I couldn’t agree

more. We debated topics ranging from women’s representation in film to hate speech and patent protection; however, regardless of the subject matter, we made a conscious effort to never forget the people behind the topic. Our late coach Alfred “Tuna” Snider constantly reminded us to “always fight for someone,” and this simple four word expression has become a mantra on our team. Debate has given us all so much in our lives, and by treating each debate round as a platform for change and exposure, we can attempt to give back through our discourse; bringing light to difficult subjects and injustices across the world.

More beautifully, however, was that we were not alone in this advocacy, because while one team fighting for someone is impactful, imagine 55 teams—all using debate to fight for their brothers and sisters around the word. That’s powerful.

That’s literally world changing. That’s what happened in Germany this summer at the WSDC. When the tournament came to a close, a large piece of paper stood near the hotel exit for teams to write messages and sign their names. At the top of the paper, the Israeli delegation wrote, “Team Israel sends its love to Team Palestine.” Near the message sat a heart accompanied by the Palestinian flag. Seeing those messages impacted

me on a deeply personal level. It affirmed my belief that debate and discourse have the power to transcend all conflicts and borders—that our efforts representing the United States serve a purpose infinitely greater than ourselves.

While this generation of Team USA may be heading separate ways, I hope we managed to inform the way future generations of our team approach this activity—with a deep respect for other nations, with humility and gratitude, and with a fervent desire to be an advocate for our brothers and sisters around the world.

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 51

STUDENT SPOTLIGHT

Accidental Happiness

by Russ Godek

What started out as a goal of completing one more credit to graduate from high school turned into an unforgettable year that would change Hanna Watson’s life forever. This is her story.

I

magine joining the speech and debate team your senior year of high school—walking into a world where your fellow students have years of experience on you, where lingo and terminology completely foreign to your ears is thrown around casually.

That’s what Hanna Watson of Andover High School in Kansas did this past spring. What started out as a goal of completing one more credit to graduate turned into an unforgettable year that would change her life forever.

Hanna was an excellent student committed to working hard at

52

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

whatever she put her mind to. Going into her senior year, she needed to take one elective to complete her graduation requirements.

“I wanted something that could challenge me more than just the speech class that was offered,” Hanna said. “So I joined the speech and debate team.”

After years of her friends encouraging her to join throughout the four years of high school, she was finally on the team.

The next step was deciding in which event to compete. Being a passionate participant in theater, Interp events drew her interest immediately. “I tried Dramatic Interpretation first, but when I tried cutting a script for the first time, I realized I was not cut out for it,” Hanna said. (No pun intended.)

With her deadline assignment fast approaching, she decided to write an original oration to have something to turn in to her coach. It turned out to be a natural fit. From there, encouragement came from friends and

her coach, James Harris—who knew she had what it took, considering he coached the 2015 national champion in Original Oratory.

Coming in a first-time competitor as a senior—during her spring semester, no less—presented many challenges for Hanna. “The learning curve was steep at first,” she said. “I wasn’t aware of the workload that the activity took, not to mention picking up the terminology that was used daily.” It wasn’t until Hanna competed in her first tournament in February that everything began to click for her. She placed first in that tournament, and because Original Oratory was such a natural fit for her, many students didn’t even realize she was a first-year novice.

Helping her conquer the learning curve was her ever-insightful coach James Harris. “My coach was absolutely incredible,” she said. “He actually ran a workshop on oration that broke down everything from the way to talk to timing.” This instruction was crucial to Hanna’s success. From her natural abilities and years of theater, she knew how to speak well. What she didn’t know was how to deliver an original

oration well. Learning the technical side of the event is another beast altogether, and Mr. Harris was there to help her every step of the way. That is what good coaches do: they guide their students to success.

Part of that process is helping the student find a topic for their oration.

Mr. Harris’s advice to Hanna was simple: find what you are passionate about and talk about it. For Hanna, that was the idea of privilege and how it affects different people. For the regular season, Hanna spoke on this topic, constantly reworking and adding to it as needed throughout the year to improve upon the original piece. The hard work Hanna put in showed—she placed first at all of her tournaments except one, where she received third place. “I knew that I wasn’t very focused and hadn’t practiced enough leading up to that tournament,” Hanna said. “It opened my eyes and made me realize if I wanted to succeed, I needed to put in the time and effort every time.”

What would Hanna advise an incoming student to do when walking into this activity? “Practice,” she said.

“In my short time, I saw students who had a ton of talent but just did not have the time to practice and they were never able to reap the full rewards of the activity.” How much practice are we talking? Well, you can never really practice enough, but Hanna often found herself spending four hours a night working on forensics. Two of those hours were spent specifically on researching, rewriting, and rehearsing— all the things that go into crafting an original oration.

The winning continued for Hanna, and she eventually qualified for the National Tournament. One of Hanna’s best friends, April Taylor, who was in the same district, also qualified for Nationals in her category of Humorous Interpretation. “April was one of my best friends,” Hanna said. “She helped me in so many ways. Being a first-year student, I didn’t know anyone, and she was very quick to be my friend

at my first tournament.” The two friends were now headed off to the National Speech & Debate Tournament in Salt Lake, Utah.

Mr. Harris had given Hanna critical advice for the National Tournament. Together, they decided that the topic of privilege was overdone on the national stage, and they sought out another, more unique topic. “I landed on binary thinking,” Hanna said. “It ended up being a perfect topic, because it touched on so many ideas that were of interest to me, yet still was a topic that hadn’t been done much.”

Hanna would excel at the National Tournament, which surprisingly, came as a shock to her.

“I had imagined that I would make first breaks because of how well I had done all year, but I didn’t think I would break in quarterfinals.” Hanna had doubted herself because she didn’t see her success on the Kansas state level translating nationally; now, she encourages all students who think like that to dispel that notion.

Breaking to semifinals was next up for Hanna, in one of the happiest moments she can remember.

Hanna’s elation would turn to grief as her friend April failed to break to semifinals in Humorous Interpretation. “It was extremely tough to see her not break,” Hanna said. “She was a four-time national qualifier, and her piece was fantastic, but it just didn’t work out.” Despite April’s journey ending, she remained strongly supportive of her friend.

No surprise, right? Hanna quickly learned this kind of friendship and support is common among speech and debate students. “It’s one of the best aspects of the activity.”

Hanna went on to compete in the final round. Stepping out in front of thousands of people in the audience was overwhelming for her.

Despite her nerves, she gave one of her best performances of the

ON ATTENDING UNC

“Going into politics, I will continue using the skills I learned to make my voice heard and strive to make a difference.”

— Hanna Watson 2016 graduate from Andover High School, KS year. The judges agreed, of course, as she placed second in Original Oratory—a remarkable feat for a first-time qualifier attending only the seventh tournament of her career!

Now in her first year at the University of North Carolina (UNC), Hanna Watson is double majoring in Political Science and African/African American Studies. Sadly, UNC does not have a speech team, but that will not stop Hanna from speaking.

“Going into politics, I will continue using the skills I learned to make my voice heard and strive to make a difference,” she said. Hanna has a newfound confidence heading into her political classes at UNC thanks to her time in the activity.

In a short period of time, Hanna made lifelong friends, successfully competed against some of the best and brightest students in the country, and honed key skills that will prepare her for a bright future in politics. Now, a wealth of possibilities awaits.

Not bad for a student just looking to fulfill a credit requirement, huh?

Russ Godek is a freelance writer from Pittsburgh, PA.

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 53

ALUMNI ANGLES

Giving Back, Building Forward

‘‘

by Russ Godek

I

While I had a good bit of competitive success during my time in the activity, the people I met are what stay with me.” — Ian Panchèvre, 2008 alumnus

t’s common to find speech and

being able to read my own flows,” Ian

Antonio as he prepared to continue

debate alumni still active in the

said. “It’s kind of hard to give a good

his education at Yale. Immersing

community in some fashion.

rebuttal speech when you can’t read

himself in judging and coaching, Ian

your own handwriting.”

had many conversations with coaches

Some coach, some teach, some judge—but one alum decided to go

and students that ignited the spark

one step further. He started a company

did not give up. “I really learned

for Prepd. The rules had changed

to directly help debaters. Meet Ian

how to persevere,” Ian said. “Though

since Ian left the activity: laptops and

Panchèvre, founder and president of

LD didn’t really work out for me,

tablets were not only allowed, but

Prepd (pronounced “prepped”).

I never felt speech and debate as

commonplace in debates. Students

Ian grew up with a knack for

a whole wouldn’t be a rewarding

used various applications to organize

argumentation, much to the chagrin of

experience.” Ian explored other

notes and research for their debate

his parents. “It started when I was really

events and ultimately found U.S.

rounds, including Dropbox and

young,” Ian laughed. “My parents always

and International Extemporaneous

Google Drive, but none of them were

told me I had a talent for argumentation,

Speaking were the two events that

tailored for debaters. When asked

but I wasn’t allowed to use those skills

best suited his skill set.

for a recommendation of a better

against them.”

Ian competed for Tom C. Clark High

54

Despite his struggles in LD, Ian

Ian graduated in 2008 and went on to attend Yale, where he was

application to use, Ian had no answers.

“I felt like the market was

School in Texas, having joined the team

a member of the Yale Debate

communicating a problem to me

his sophomore year. Ian started out in

Association. Eventually, Ian took a

that I was in a really good position to

Lincoln-Douglas Debate (LD), seeing it as

break from school to launch a tech

solve,” he said. “I had a lot of contacts

an opportunity to argue competitively,

startup. While it ultimately failed, it

in the community from my time

but struggled with the event. Ian was

would set him up to found Prepd a

as a competitor, experience as an

hampered by sloppy handwriting, which

short time later. In the winter/spring

entrepreneur and project manager in a

impacted his ability to flow and give a

of 2013, Ian reconnected with the

tech startup, and I had a software team

strong rebuttal speech. “I wound up not

speech and debate community in San

that I could leverage to assist.” For Ian,

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

the opportunity was calling him, so

much more scalable product model

Ian’s fondest memories from his time

he listened and started to build Prepd

and technology structure,” Ian said.

in speech and debate. “While I had a

(www.prepd.in).

“This will allow us to build additional

good bit of competitive success during

applications on top of the platform

my time in the activity, the people I

more easily as we move forward.”

met are what stay with me,” Ian said.

Prepd is an innovative technology platform designed specifically to address the needs of competitive

As of last year, Prepd was used by

“I’ve made lifelong friendships.”

speech and debate students.

more than 400 schools and 13,000

Helping debaters research, practice,

students who have collectively

and debate, using himself as an

and compete, Prepd includes four

uploaded 2.5 million research files.

example. “The activity does so much

applications: Extemp, Congress,

Ian has attended the National

in developing critical thinking skills,

the Dashboard, and the Library.

Tournament the past two years

public speaking skills, research and

Extemporaneous speakers and

to get insight and feedback from

reading habits,” he said. “Every day, I

congressional debaters can gain a

his customers. This past Nationals,

apply those skills to my work. I have

competitive advantage by seamlessly

Ian walked away inspired about his

the opportunity to speak in front of

sharing and managing evidence.

company and the prospects for the

people because of the skills I learned.”

“It all comes down to time, efficiency, and productivity,” Ian said.

future.

“Getting to meet our customers

Ian attests to the value of speech

Before our conversation ended, Ian shared one piece of advice.

“With Prepd, you can build a very

and hear the feedback from coaches

“Know what you want to get out of

robust database of articles, organize

and students, both good and bad,

the activity,” he said. The advice is

them effectively, and learn more

was great,” Ian said. “We truly believe

simple, but critical for students to

actively as you read.”

we are making a positive impact in

grasp when the are just starting out.

the speech and debate community

For some, the competitive nature of

and on students’ lives.”

winning tournaments and compiling as

Prepd has grown substantially in the past three years with the advancement of technology, having just launched

At the end of the day, the

many points as they can is rewarding.

the latest version of their software.

people—and the relationships he

For others, it’s the social aspect that

“With Generation 3, we now have a

has built with those people—remain

draws them. Still for others, it can be a personal growth tool. “I had a friend

Ian Panchèvre is the founder and president of Prepd.

from South Korea who joined the team because he wanted to become a better speaker,” Ian said. “Over his four years in speech and debate, his Englishspeaking skills improved dramatically.”

Whatever your reason for joining he speech and debate team, be sure you know what you want to gain from the activity. Whatever you choose, if it’s right for you, trust yourself and make the most of the opportunities that come your way.

Russ Godek is a freelance writer from Pittsburgh, PA.

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 55

DISTRICT IN DETAIL

Team New England:

Meet the District Committee

Camaraderie

Marc Rischitelli, Chair

Above

Shrewsbury High School – Shrewsbury, MA

Lisa Honeyman

Competition

Newton South High School – Newton, MA

Sheryl Kaczmarek Lexington High School – Lexington, MA

Susan Marianelli

by Steve Schappaugh

Milton Academy – Milton, MA

Paul (PJ) Wexler Needham High School – Needham, MA

Ask district chair Marc Rischitelli any question about the New England District, and you’re likely to

Marc

Lisa

Sheryl

hear him discuss one central theme:

camaraderie.

And it’s for a good reason—the district is incredibly proud of this quality, especially in light of past divisiveness that coaches remember from many years ago.

“Well-developed camaraderie is a key element of any successful team,” Rischitelli explains. “The competitive nature of forensics can make it difficult to take that same mutual trust and friendship found on an individual team and expand it into a district-wide atmosphere. I’m proud to say that the coaches and students of ‘Team New England’ have achieved just that.”

Fellow committee member and longtime New England coach PJ Wexler describes one example in which camaraderie came before competitiveness.

“At this particular tournament, the day

56

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

went on a little longer than expected, which created a challenge for a student who had a commitment to their school play that evening. When the final round came—one which had four students from different schools ‘in the mix’—rather than force the theater student to withdraw, the collaborative decision was made to hold the final round after school later in the week.” Schools could have made the reasonable request to finish the tournament on the original day it was scheduled, but the students and coaches involved did not want to put another student through that experience. It’s as if they were accommodating their own team member after all.

Welcoming new coaches is essential to building camaraderie within a district.

“When I came here 13 years ago, I had no idea what the district would be like,” says Milton Academy coach Susan Marinelli. “I quietly came on board, and

‘‘

Susan

PJ

Camaraderie takes time and patience to cultivate, but in the end, I believe it is the thing that will allow a district to successfully face any challenge.”

— Marc Rischitelli

New England District national qualifiers

everyone was so kind and embracing.

For a new coach, it can be daunting not only to be learning their new teaching environment, but establishing their team.”

Now that she’s been in the district for 13 years, Marianelli is actively involved in supporting new programs.

“If they need individual help, I go to the school, talk with the students, give them an overview of the activity, and continue to work with the coach to get them to their first tournament,” she explains. “That may mean doing a coaching session with one of their students, giving the coach a few cuttings to get them started, or just simply setting them up on the website to enter the tournament.”

Many districts across the country have experienced their own tension, or may be combatting some of those same issues today. Rischitelli’s outlook for those who may be struggling is one of optimism. “Camaraderie takes time and patience to cultivate, but in the end, I believe it is the thing that will allow a district to successfully face any challenge.”

The New England District uses a number of strategies to promote the concept of camaraderie among its students and coaches throughout the year. However, Nationals is where everything comes together for a culminating experience for Team New England. Some of the activities leading up to and during Nationals include

coaching each other’s students, holding a district dinner, sharing transportation, and sitting together at awards.

The effect of the bonding that occurs at Nationals spills over into the fall every year. When schools are back in session, the momentum of the National Tournament experience creates excitement for the upcoming season.

“Our students who are talented and lucky enough to [attend Nationals] return to share stories of their competitive and social experiences, which in turn keeps our district competitively strong and socially healthy,” says Rischitelli.

The Salt Lake City Nationals provided Team New England even more excitement to build on for the new school year. This past summer, junior Marshall Sloane from Milton Academy was named the International Extemporaneous Speaking national champion. When asked about the role of the district in Marshall’s success, his coach notes the ongoing support.

“It really makes a difference when every coach in the league knows your name, asks how you are, and offers to help,” says Marianelli. “[Coach] Alan Tannenwald from Newton South has listened to him several times.”

To be sure, the entire delegation from New England takes pride in the fact that their local tournaments helped develop Marshall’s skill set. His win was not a win just for himself, his coach, and his team, but a win for Team New England, as well.

“New England coaches have been known to publicly dance with each other in celebration of one student making finals,” Wexler notes. We can only imagine their celebration of a national championship!

The district was recognized for more than their student’s competitive success this summer. At the District Leadership Luncheon and Awards Ceremony held Sunday, June 12, Executive Director Scott Wunn presented the New England District with the District Charter Award for having the most new charter chapters in the nation during the 2015-2016 school year.

“When schools attain charter status, it shows consistent growth and stability,” Wunn explained. “We understand this would not be possible without the dedicated leadership of Marc, Susan, Lisa, PJ, and Sheryl. The New England District is a model for creating a supportive network that fosters growth for all.”

As students across the New England District start attending speech and debate practice, they have much to look forward to this year. Not only will they join the team at their school, but they will become part of a broader network of students and coaches. They will join Team New England.

Steve Schauppaugh is the Director of Community Engagement for the NSDA.

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 57

TEAM PROFILE

1971-2016: Earning the Bruno Award “The trophy is so meaningful to me because it recognizes sustained performance at Nationals over the years.” — Gay Brasher, Leland High School

by Steve Schappaugh

The Leland team accepted their award on stage in Salt Lake City in June.

There are few people who can relate to the massive undertaking of running a speech and debate team with 350 students.

You read that right—350 students!

Leland High School has maintained a 300+ member team since the mid1990s.

Despite the national success of the team in public speaking, interpretation, and debate, including NSDA national champions, finalists, and school awards,

58

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

winning is not the main goal of the Leland High team. Instead, coach Gay Brasher notes that the primary focus of the team is “to provide students with a life skill that will make their lives easier.” Given this goal, the team does not have tryouts, but instead strives to provide the opportunity to all who want to improve themselves.

Brasher has an unshakeable vision for how speech and debate uniquely opens doors for students and enriches their lives after leaving Leland High School. This philosophy has led to

Leland’s points toward earning the award began in 1971, the first year the team attended the National Tournament.

Career Highlights Received the James M. Copeland Coach of the Year Award – 2001

seemingly endless opportunities for students at the public school based in San Jose, California.

Brasher attributes the growth of the team to a number of factors, including an amazingly supportive administration and staff over the years, parents who encourage other parents, the empowerment of novices, and peer recruitment.

Inducted as a member of the National Speech & Debate Association Hall of Fame – 2006 Earned her Sixth Diamond coaching award from the NSDA – 2012

Team Management

Received the Leading Chapter Award for the California Coast District – 2013

By the Numbers Leland’s total strength (members and degrees) in 2015-2016 – 425 Leland’s cumulative rounds of main event competition at the National Speech & Debate Tournament – 1,674

Bruno E. Jacob / Pi Kappa Delta Trophy

Naturally, one has many questions about how to organize, manage, and support a team of 350 students. According to Brasher, it begins with a speech and debate classroom that is available after the school day ends—and well into the evening. The Leland speech and debate practice room is open seven days a week!

But how do practices even work? As Brasher notes, it begins with student accountability. “It is the students’ responsibility to arrange their coaching appointments with the coaches who are available to them every day,” she explains. Staying on the team requires six practice sessions a semester with an adult coach, and nine practice sessions with varsity peer coaches. Additionally, there are “practice pods in which students from different events critique one another.”

The sheer number of students would seem overwhelming to some, but for others, it would be the 17 separate events the team prepares throughout the year.

That’s just another reason the practice room never closes!

The volume of students and events means that all hands are on deck. Brasher has created an infrastructure of student leadership, in-house coaches, and external coaches to ensure that

Top 5

Total Rounds

1. Leland High School, CA

1,674

2. Plano Sr. High School, TX

1,651

3. Gabrielino High School, CA

1,626

4. Bellarmine College Prep, CA

1,624

5. West High School - Iowa City, IA

1,613

Leland varsity Public Forum students demonstrate the event to novices.

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 59

students get an optimal experience.

Each event has between two and five event chairs, who are student leaders.

Whenever peer and adult coaches are available to work, they post a sign-up in the speech and debate room, and students sign up for slots.

Brasher, who is entering her 50th year of teaching and coaching, started at Leland in 1980. Today, Brasher gratefully recounts the indepth support she has for coaching her students: “Last year, the school fortunately listened to my pleas and brought on Stacy Dawson to teach English and oversee our debate events.

This year, another Leland English teacher, Vivian Chien, joined our staff and works with our original events.

For the past 10 years, Chris Wardner has overseen Lincoln-Douglas Debate as well as Extemporaneous Speaking. I am supported constantly by Michaela Northrop, who comes in to assist and oversee Policy Debate and Impromptu Speaking. Our staff also includes adjunct coaches such as Gregory Burns, Michael Storr, Dave Kraft, Jenny Cook, and Bob Ickes, who come in regularly from various parts of the country, and our own alumni—such as Dustin Tao— who return to help us.”

So students have coaching, an available practice room, and a lot of events to choose from for competition. Translating that to tournament sign-ups can be a difficult task, too. At the start of the year,

the students receive a schedule of all tournaments the team will attend. Students turn in a list of competitions at which they are interested in representing Leland. As the tournament draws closer, a list of those who initially expressed interest is posted, and an opportunity exists for un-signing up and for additional students to sign up. Once a complete list of interested students is generated, decisions are made as to who gets to attend.

The decision of who gets to travel can be difficult. First, while the entry limits at local league tournaments are generous, there is a cap at state qualifiers and invitationals. Brasher notes that no student is permitted to attend a tournament until an adult coach performs a tournament readiness assessment. For the capped tournaments, if a coach signs off on a student being ready for a tournament—and if there are still more students than spots—the coaches examine students’ previous records of achievement and work ethic to determine the final cut.

The tournament registration process is complex and involves a student vice president to manage. In 2015, that student was senior Kaavya Samu. Part of Samu’s job included soliciting the appropriate quotas of parent judges to meet the high requirements of Leland’s team. The time spent on registering for a single tournament can take upward

of three weeks. The process includes students signing their parents up for judging. Sometimes students tell their parents and others don’t, which is why the team set up an email notification system for parents. “The most time spent is trying to fix problems to make things run smoothly for our parent judges as well as for the tournament,” explains Samu.

For Brasher, the greatest challenge in managing the team is tracking each student properly. Communication channels to and between students are key. Additional hurdles include holding team meetings, since the cafeteria is the only space big enough on campus for the entire team to gather.

While every aspect of managing the team may seem daunting, Brasher credits her coaches and staff with helping brainstorm new ideas. “We met as a group this summer to improve the way we organize some things, such as the readiness assessment and the initial sign-ups for tournaments at the beginning of the year,” she explains.

Rewarding Opportunities

While the challenges may be plentiful, the rewards are abundant. The first reward Brasher notes is the ability to “bring the gift of speech to our surrounding community.” Students visit elementary and middle schools in local and urban areas. In addition, they run workshops at Leland for middle school students, run two tournaments at Burnett Middle School with upward of 700 students, and have assisted new speech and debate programs—not to mention having coached migrant education students from across a three-county region!

Brasher also identifies another reward—one most would not associate with a team of 350 students. She says it is gratifying to see the team develop a closeness, despite its size. In some ways, this is achieved organically, such as through the peer coaching program.

However, she also plans specific events throughout the year to foster

Leland students can work seven days a week in the available practice room.

60

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

a collegial, supportive, and family-like environment.

“We hold a fall welcome dinner for the novices, to introduce them to the team and make them feel at home,” Brasher explains. The welcome dinner comes full circle for students. Former team president and 2016 graduate Anirvin Sikha recalls the closeness he felt at the Senior Farewell dinner, which occurs annually in May. “We also hold a fundraising evening at a popular local restaurant,” Brasher continues. “Students bond and look around in amazement that our team is able to fill nearly an entire restaurant.”

Most notable is the detail that goes into the Leland end-of-year banquet. Each attendee is recognized in an individual way, and the entire event can last up to eight hours! The excitement in Brasher’s tone about the banquet is inspiring.

2016 graduate and team vice president Arushi Desai sums up the unity of Leland’s team eloquently: “It is easy to feel miniscule in comparison with the enormity of such a team. But the support, strength, and pride that surface from being on such a team is astounding. Our family is created through our united passion for the activity, respect for Mrs. Brasher, and fondness for each other.”

Paying It Forward

Leland believes that having such a large team and benefiting from tremendous support requires paying it forward to others. Students invest in themselves, each other, and students across the entire community. Brasher recognizes that none of it would be possible without so many individuals who work to make the team possible.

At the start of the school year, adjunct coach Bob Ickes recalls that Brasher spent the early hours prior to the first day of school driving around delivering flowers to people at the school district office and various other staff locations. “Through her example, students learn so much more than just how to speak and present themselves in public,” Ickes explains. “They learn how to be kind and sensitive

While the challenges may be plentiful, the rewards are abundant. and generous and to respect their audiences.”

Brasher’s support of others is never an isolated incident. Her kindness is present year-round. For example, after she attends tournaments, she sends administrators letters detailing how positive the experience was for her students. The letter is more than a generic thank you. She takes the time to learn the names of volunteers and includes what they did for her or her students specifically in the letter.

“Being recognized by my school’s Headmaster because of the letter Mrs. Brasher sent was unexpected and a tremendous act of kindness that really assisted me in understanding the magnitude of what we had accomplished in hosting the tournament,” said former Florida student Lucas Katler.

At no time in discussing the team does Brasher boast about the team’s competitive accomplishments. She’s squarely focused on the skills students receive, the collegial environment, and the blessings of having such a large team. Obstacles would not be how Brasher classifies the unique challenges of coaching a team of 350 students.

Rather, she sees them as opportunities.

Winning the Bruno

Those opportunities have led to the pinnacle competitive achievement in our organization. At the 2016 Salt Lake City Nationals, Leland High School became the newest recipient of the Bruno E. Jacob / Pi Kappa Delta Trophy. Named after Bruno E. Jacob, the founder of the National Speech & Debate Association, the NSDA’s top trophy is awarded to the school

that has earned the greatest number of cumulative rounds in main events at the National Speech & Debate Tournament.

“Leland High School represents the best our activity has to offer,” said Executive Director J. Scott Wunn.

“Their inspiring history of competitive success culminated in the worthy receipt of the Bruno E. Jacob award this summer.”

Leland’s points toward earning the award began in 1971, the first year the team attended the National Tournament. While the award represents what the team has accomplished in 45 years, it’s impressive that Brasher’s leadership has been present in 36 of those years.

Brasher is still humble about the accomplishment. “I never imagined that incredible honor would be something to which we could aspire,” she says. “I look at the list of past winners, and I guess I just never thought we could be considered among that hallowed group. The trophy is so meaningful to us because it recognizes sustained performance at Nationals over the years. With our team as big as it is, we can get so caught up in the daily administration that we forget the arc of what we have accomplished.”

Relating to the work of Brasher and the students, alumni, and coaches of Leland High School may be next to impossible. However, admiring the scope of what the Leland speech and debate team has established and maintained over the years is possible.

Steve Schauppaugh is the Director of Community Engagement for the NSDA.

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 61

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.

COVER STORY 70

Tournament Sponsors

72

Week in Photos

86

High School National Champions

100 Circle of Champion Coaches 106 Specialty Awards

68

113

School Awards

114

Who Broke and Why

124

Middle School National Champions

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

Exclusive photos, results, and more!

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 69

Thank You to

Our Sponsors Our generous sponsors make the National Speech & Debate Tournament possible! Thank you for showing your commitment to fostering excellence in young people through competitive speech and debate activities.

Platinum Level

Gold Level

Ruby Level

70

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

Sapphire Level

James M. Copeland

Tom Rollins

Emerald Level

A. C. Eley fund

Carmendale Fernandes fund

The Jeps Foundation

Harold C. Keller Fund

MCCARTHEY FAMILY FOUNDATION

Harland B. Mitchell FunD

Lanny D. and B. J. Naegelin Fund

Donus and Lovila Roberts

Sandra Silvers Fund

Richard B. Sodikow Fund

Bob and Salli Stockton

William Woods Tate, Jr., Fund

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 71

SUNDAY District Leadership Luncheon and Awards Ceremony

72

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

At the 2016 District Leadership Luncheon

presented to Steve Meadows of Kentucky.

and Awards Ceremony, Michael

Other district chairs from across the

Shackelford and Carol Shackelford of Utah

country received Gold, Silver, and Bronze

each received Chair of the Year awards.

Awards for their outstanding leadership.

Dustin Rimmey of Kansas was recognized

Leaders also voted to select the best

for Best Chair Communications. Andrew

district ads printed in the National

Dennis of Wyoming was named Best

Tournament Book. The Tall Cotton (TX) and

New Chair. The Ralph E. Carey Award

Northern Illinois Districts were chosen by

for Distinguished Career Service was

their peers as this year’s winners.

Tournament Registration and Expo Students toured the National Tournament Expo on Sunday as coaches picked up their team’s registration materials. Attendees shopped the Speech & Debate Store, visited with representatives from colleges and universities, and took photos in front of the Salt Lake City skyline backdrop. The NSDA also hosted its inaugural African American/Black and Hispanic/Latino Coaches’ Caucuses. Afterward, members facilitated a discussion about the future of coach caucuses.

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 73

MONDAY First Day of Competition Thousands of high school students kicked off preliminary rounds of competition in 13 main events: Policy Debate, Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Public Forum Debate, Congressional Debate– House, Congressional Debate–Senate, Original Oratory, United States Extemp, International Extemp, Informative Speaking, Humorous Interp, Dramatic Interp, Duo Interp, and Program Oral Interp.

74

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

Hall of Fame Banquet The National Speech & Debate Association welcomed its newest Hall of Fame members during a special banquet Monday evening in the Sky Gallery of the Natural History Museum of Utah. The NSDA proudly inducted Byron Arthur of Louisiana, Eloise Weisinger Blair of Texas, Mark Ferguson of Illinois, Dr. Alfred “Tuna” Snider of Vermont, and Robert Shepard of Texas.

(above, left to right) Byron Arthur, Sarah Green, Mark Ferguson, Eloise Weisinger Blair, and Robert Shepard.

Sarah Green, daughter of the late Dr. Alfred “Tuna” Snider, accepted the posthumous award on behalf of her father.

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 75

TUESDAY Re-registration and Student Posting Party After a full day of competition, attendees flocked to the Gallivan Center in downtown Salt Lake City for an evening filled with fun, food, and entertainment—and of course, tournament results on the big screen! The student party featured human foosball, yard games, a magician, a DJ, food trucks, and Tropical Sno, among other things! Those who did not break re-registered upstairs in Gallivan Hall to compete in supplemental events on Wednesday.

76

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 77

WEDNESDAY High School Main Event Semifinals and Supplemental Events • Middle School Competition Middle school teams registered Tuesday evening and arrived Wednesday morning ready to start their competition. Many high school students transitioned to performing their supplemental events: Commentary, Expository, Extemporaneous Debate, Poetry Reading, or Prose Reading.

Meanwhile, after main event semifinals during the day, students waited in suspense to learn who would advance to the final round.

After the postings were revealed, teams celebrated and posed for photos as they geared up for the ultimate challenge: owning the room to be named national champion at the largest academic competition in the world!

78

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 79

THURSDAY Final Rounds and Diamond Assembly

80

Supplemental and consolation events

Diamond Assembly, presented by

continued throughout the day on

Colorado College, as the Association

Thursday. Following the Speech Finalists’

honored many coaches and educators

Light and Sound Check in the morning,

for their dedication and excellence

thousands of spectators packed the

in speech and debate activities.

Grand Ballroom of the Salt Palace

Meanwhile, the Congressional Banquet

Convention Center to watch the final

was held in the Hilton Grand Ballroom

rounds of interpretation events Thursday

and recognized student Senators and

afternoon and evening. Competition

Representatives for their hard work

paused briefly for the Donus D. Roberts

throughout the competition week.

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 81

FRIDAY Final Rounds and National Awards Assembly

82

Orators, extempers, informative speakers,

and scholarships. The Association

and debaters took the main stage

thanked its generous tournament

on Friday to wrap up the last day of

sponsors during a special luncheon.

competition in Salt Lake City. Final rounds

The National Awards Assembly marked

of supplemental, consolation, and middle

the end of a terrific week of tough

school events also occurred throughout

competition and incredible devotion to

the day as students competed for awards

speech and debate activities!

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 83

2016 HONORS & AWARDS

2016 Four-Time Qualifiers (listed in alphabetical order by state, then school, then last name)

Christin Villalobos Victoria Villalobos Candace Rosado Nathan Lam Dalton R. Boyt Liam Frolund Cory Vandenberg Sammie Leo Justin David Graham Molly Looman Harrison Wilco Dante Hirata-Epstein Emily Heckle Colette Sheaff Katherine Fitzgerald Jack Sweeney Tom Sweeney Megan Kline Stefan S. Petrovic Ciara Sanchez Alexander L. Trobough Andrew F. Figueiredo

84

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

Gabrielino High School Gabrielino High School Heritage High School San Marino High School Stockdale High School Turlock High School Air Academy High School Rocky Mountain High School Trinity Preparatory School Henry W. Grady High School Henry W. Grady High School Iolani School Dowling Catholic High School Dowling Catholic High School Prospect High School Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School El Dorado High School Lawrence High School St. Mary’s Colgan High School Sumner Academy Wichita East High School

CA CA CA CA CA CA CO CO FL GA GA HI IA IA IL IN IN KS KS KS KS KS

Timothy Shertzer

Louisiana School For Math Science & The Arts

LA

Nick J. Danby

Bangor High School

ME

Vance J. Kelley

Lee’s Summit North High School

MO

Thomas Manglona II

Mount Carmel School

MP

Ian Hennington

Madison Central High School

MS

Wyatt Dykhuizen

Flathead High School

MT

Parker Kouns

Flathead High School

MT

Vaikunth Balaji Stephen Durosaiye

Ridge High School Democracy Prep Bronx Preparatory Charter School

NJ

Christian Borkey

Gilmour Academy

OH

Nicole Floistad

Bixby High School

OK

Grant Goodwin

North Bend Sr. High School

OR

Brittney Wilkerson

Sayre Area High School

PA

Madeline Jarrard

Brentwood Academy

TN

Thomas Mosmeyer

Holy Trinity Catholic High School

TX

Drew McElvany

Saint Mary’s Hall High School

TX

Mary Angela Ricotta

St. Agnes Academy

TX

Caleb Christiansen

Beaver High School

UT

Jonathan Corbin

Fluvanna County High School

VA

Hollis Rammer

Sheboygan South High School

WI

NY

William Woods Tate, Jr. National Student of the Year Six finalists participated in an interview process with the national panel of judges who selected the 2016 William Woods Tate, Jr., National Student of the Year, one of the most prestigious individual student honors presented by the National Speech & Debate Association.

Marshall Webb from Saint Mary’s Hall High School, TX was awarded a $1,000 scholarship and will represent the Association in various public capacities throughout the 2016-2017 academic year.

The other finalists, in alphabetical order, include Madison Hall from The Montgomery Academy, AL; Karly Kinsey from Independence Truman High School, MO; Ethan Morelion from Big Spring High School, TX; Christine Vo from Spring Woods High School, TX; and Jordyn Zimmerman from Mentor High School, OH.

Marshall Webb Saint Mary’s Hall High School, TX Coached by: Joseph Muller and Colin Malinak

(left to right) Christine Vo, Jordyn Zimmerman, Marshall Webb, Madison Hall, Karly Kinsey, and Ethan Morelion.

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 85

2016 HONORS & AWARDS

Richard B. Sodikow Policy Debate

Policy Debate Top Speakers

presented by Trinity University

presented in memory of Phyllis Flory Barton

1st – Laura M. Nicolae Washburn Rural High School, KS Coached by: Cynthia A. Burgett

2nd – Emily Gordon Rowland Hall-St. Mark, UT Coached by: Michael Shackelford 3rd – Julia Henry Hutchinson High School, KS Coached by: Zachary Brown 4th – Carter Martindale Sky View High School, UT Coached by: Jody Orme 5th – Brian Roche Glenbrook South High School, IL Coached by: Jonathan Voss 1st – Raam Tambe and Jerry Wang Palos Verdes Peninsula High School, CA Coached by: Scott Wheeler

6th – James Wu Washburn Rural High School, KS Coached by: Timothy Ellis

2nd – Vinay Ayyapan and Anirudh Prabhu Bellarmine College Prep, CA Coached by: Aaron Langerman and Hoon Ko 3rd – Henry Lininger and Leo Saenger South Eugene High School, OR Coached by: Tom Lininger

Harland B. Mitchell Trophy

4th – Devavrat Dave and Vyas Venkataraman Heritage Hall School, OK Coached by: W. Bryan Gaston 5th – Laura M. Nicolae and James Wu Washburn Rural High School, KS Coached by: Cynthia A. Burgett 6th – Anthony Trufanov and Jonah Jacobs Glenbrook North High School, IL Coached by: Dr. Michael Greenstein

86

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

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

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

Public Forum Debate

presented by the University of Utah

presented by the Arthur N. Rupe Foundation

1st – Bennett R. Eckert Greenhill School, TX Coached by: Aaron Timmons

2nd – Priya Kukreja Millard North High School, NE Coached by: Aarron Schurevich, Lauren Burdt, and Daniel Carlson 3rd – Sean Mason Bartlesville High School, OK Coached by: Linda Shipley 4th – Theodore Steinmeyer Fenwick High School, IL Coached by: Arthur Wieckiewicz 5th – John Michael Magloire Chaminade High School, NY Coached by: Brother John McGrory 6th – Ishan Bhatt St. Andrew’s Episcopal School, MS Coached by: Jharick Shields

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

2nd – Sebastian Ix and Hunter Martin Pinecrest High School, NC Coached by: Ann Petersen 3rd – Loften Deprez and Eilene Yang Durham Academy, NC Coached by: Crawford Leavoy and Jeff Welty 4th – Alekh Kale and Sullivan Sweet James Madison Memorial High School, WI Coached by: Timothy M. Scheffler 5th – Claire L. Hazbun and Arjun Ramani West Lafayette High School, IN Coached by: Aaron P. Smith and Ben Carson 6th – Asher Specter and Alex Karpf Horace Mann High School, NY Coached by: Jonathan Nye

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 87

2016 HONORS & AWARDS

88

Congressional Debate–House

Congressional Debate–Senate

presented by the Stennis Center for Public Service Leadership

presented by the Stennis Center for Public Service Leadership

Top Presiding Officer (House)

Top Presiding Officer (Senate)

Rep. Niv Skidan Syosset High School, NY Coached by: Lydia Esslinger

Sen. Pranav Kumar Montville High School, NJ Coached by: Mary T. Gormley and Michael Miller

Leadership Bowl (House)

Leadership Bowl (Senate)

Rep. Jake Dean Sunnyslope High School, AZ Coached by: Erin Long, Michelle Schwimmer, and Heather Butler

Sen. Pranav Kumar Montville High School, NJ Coached by: Mary T. Gormley and Michael Miller

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

Congressional Debate–House

Congressional Debate–Senate

presented by the Stennis Center for Public Service Leadership

presented by the Stennis Center for Public Service Leadership

1st – Rep. Jake Dean Sunnyslope High School, AZ Coached by: Erin Long, Michelle Schwimmer, and Heather Butler

1st – Sen. Victoria Bevard Thomas Jefferson HS Science and Technology, VA Coached by: Marie Bakke

2nd – Rep. Ian Hennington Madison Central, MS Coached by: Rachel Clapper and Tracy Hennington

2nd – Sen. Eric Wan Ridge High School, NJ Coached by: David Yastremski, Martin Page, and Andrew Monagle

3rd – Rep. Faisal Younus Syosset High School, NY Coached by: Lydia Esslinger

3rd – Sen. Pranav Kumar Montville High School, NJ Coached by: Mary T. Gormley and Michael Miller

4th – Rep. Justin Kang Syosset High School, NY Coached by: Lydia Esslinger 5th – Rep. Nathaniel Sweet Boca Raton Community High School, FL Coached by: Phyllis Pacilli 6th – Rep. Griffin Leckie Lake Highland Preparatory, FL Coached by: Chris Sprouse and George Clemens

4th – Sen. Kaitlyn Allen-O’Gara Oxford Academy, CA Coached by: Michael Murray 5th – Sen. John Chen Syosset High School, NY Coached by: Lydia Esslinger 6th – Sen. Phillip Hedayatnia Hawken School, OH Coached by: Bob Shurtz and Chase Williams

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 89

2016 HONORS & AWARDS Informative Speaking

presented by the Patrick Henry Memorial Foundation Auxiliary

1st – Sarah Grambo Apple Valley High School, MN Coached by: Tzitel Voss

1st – Aekta Mouli Eagan High School, MN Coached by: Joni Anker

2nd – Sarah Schulz Moorhead High School, MN Coached by: Tasha Rohlfs

2nd – Hanna Watson Andover High School, KS Coached by: James Harris

3rd – Rhegan Graham Prospect High School, IL Coached by: Jonathan Kaminsky, Scott McDermott, and Paul Zaremba

3rd – Justin Cooper Scarsdale High School, NY Coached by: Joseph Vaughan and Will Malderelli

4th – Veronica Boratyn Prospect High School, IL Coached by: Jonathan Kaminsky, Scott McDermott, and Paul Zaremba

4th – Seth Herschkowitz Poly Prep Country Day School, NY Coached by: David Baloche

5th – Bharathi Arasan Archbishop Mitty High School, CA Coached by: Karen Joshi and Benjamin Cruz 6th – Serena Wang San Marino High School, CA Coached by: Matthew T. Slimp

90

Joe and Pam Wycoff Original Oratory

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

5th – Charlie Schmidt Denver East High School, CO Coached by: Matthew Murphy 6th – Mahima Krishnamoorthi Modesto High School, CA Coached by: Summer Hansen

A. C. Eley International Extemp

Carmendale Fernandes United States Extemp

presented by the Council on Foreign Relations

presented by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation

1st – Marshall M. Sloane Milton Academy, MA Coached by: Susan Marianelli and Brian Anderson

1st – Micah Cash Tulsa Washington High School, OK Coached by: Meredith Deaton and Kelly R. McCracken

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

2nd – Marshall Webb Saint Mary’s Hall High School, TX Coached by: Joseph Muller and Colin Malinak

3rd – Vaikunth Balaji Ridge High School, NJ Coached by: David A. Yastremski and Andrew Monagle

3rd – Jacob Thompson Des Moines Roosevelt High School, IA Coached by: Lauren McCool

4th – Shreetika Singh Seven Lakes High School, TX Coached by: Terrick Brown

4th – Brian Xu San Marino High School, CA Coached by: Matthew T. Slimp

5th – Charlie Barton Regis High School, NY Coached by: Eric DiMichele

5th – Neil Patel Plano West Sr. High School, TX Coached by: Rhonda Smith and Kattie Leito

6th – Nikhil Ramaswamy Jasper High School, TX Coached by: Tom McCaffrey

6th – Katherine Hu Plano Sr. High School, TX Coached by: Cheryl Potts

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 91

2016 HONORS & AWARDS

Program Oral Interpretation

Humorous Interpretation

presented by The Interp Store

presented by Western Kentucky University

1st – Ariaki Dandawate Ridge High School, NJ Coached by: David A. Yastremski and Ryan Monagle

1st – Jacob Wallack NSU University School, FL Coached by: Robert Sheard, Amber Justmann, and Bill M. Thompson

2nd – Drake Leach Grapevine High School, TX Coached by: Grant Hahn

2nd – Evan Clear Bishop McGuinness High School, OK Coached by: Ryan J. Swartz

3rd – Quest Broussard Comeaux High School, LA Coached by: Sandra L. Broussard and Jacob Simon

3rd – Micah Spieldenner Chanhassen High School, MN Coached by: Grigoriy Berman

4th – Austin Kraft Prior Lake-Savage School-ISD719, MN Coached by: Meghan Jones 5th – Emma Warnecke West Bloomfield High School, MI Coached by: Rachel Warnecke 6th – Haleigh McGirt Jupiter High School, FL Coached by: Kristen L. Taylor

92

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

4th – Luke Wodrich Grapevine High School, TX Coached by: Grant Hahn 5th – Mark Moran Eagan High School, MN Coached by: Seth Hammond

Lanny D. and B. J. Naegelin Dramatic Interpretation

Sandra Silvers Duo Interpretation

presented by Simpson College

presented by Colorado College

1st – Izabella Czejdo McDowell High School, PA Coached by: William Caugherty, Marlene Kloss, and Juan De La Cruz

1st – Christin Villalobos and Victoria Villalobos Gabrielino High School, CA Coached by: Derek Yuill and Pear Kasrirarat

2nd – Vaffie Barkolleh James Logan High School, CA Coached by: Dr. Tommie Lindsey, Jr.

2nd – Chase Garrett and Kendal Samuel Southside High School, SC Coached by: David Watkins

3rd – Jaylon Bolden J. Frank Dobie High School, TX Coached by: Andrew George Barrett and John Augillard, III

3rd – Benjamin Marshall and Molly McDermott Prospect High School, IL Coached by: Scott McDermott, Jonathan Kaminsky, and Paul Zaremba

4th – Alyssa Wilhelm Roseville Area High School, MN Coached by: Jessica Fedje 5th – Brian Baker Hendrickson High School, TX Coached by: Michael Fisher, Kirsten Nash, and Samin Agha 6th – Olivia Najafi Phoenix Country Day School, AZ Coached by: Nick Klemp and Michelle Hill

4th – Tyra Johnson and Edgar Partida James Logan High School, CA Coached by: Dr. Tommie Lindsey, Jr., Justin Kurup, and Darius Wilson 5th – Trevor Taylor and Cassandra Edlund Apple Valley High School, MN Coached by: Dan Hodges 6th – Ahmarey Stimley and Kerrington Anderson Hattiesburg High School, MS Coached by: Raphael Scott Waldrop Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 93

2016 HONORS & AWARDS

2016 President’s BowlS sponsored by Mr. and Mrs. Donus D. Roberts

President’s Bowl (IX)

President’s Bowl (USX)

Marshall M. Sloane Milton Academy, MA Coached by: Susan Marianelli and Brian Anderson

Micah Cash Tulsa Washington High School, OK Coached by: Meredith Deaton and Kelly R. McCracken

President’s Bowl (OO) Justin Cooper Scarsdale High School, NY Coached by: Joseph Vaughan and Will Malderelli 94

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

2016 INTERP BowlS

Interp Bowl (Humorous)

Interp Bowl (Dramatic)

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

Izabella Czejdo McDowell High School, PA Coached by: William Caugherty, Marlene Kloss, and Juan De La Cruz

Interp Bowl (Duo) Benjamin Marshall and Molly McDermott Prospect High School, IL Coached by: Scott McDermott, Jonathan Kaminsky, and Paul Zaremba Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 95

2016 HONORS & AWARDS

Unger Cup presented by the James J. Unger Memorial

Brother René Sterner Commentary presented by Western Kentucky University

Awarded to the team that has placed the highest, cumulatively, at five great national debate tournaments

Palos Verdes Peninsula High School California Coached by: Scott Wheeler

1st – Bradley Wascher Saint James School, AL Coached by: Thomas Robert Ian Turnipseed

Karl Mundt Trophy Presented annually to the school that has accumulated the most National Congress participation points

2nd – Patrick Deneen University High School, IL Coached by: Mark Adams, Laurie Ann Adams, and Shannon Jean Maney 3rd – Andrew Langford Lake Highland Preparatory, FL Coached by: Cameron Bonnewell 4th – Joseph Stein Fairview High School, CO Coached by: Kristina Getty and Michael Aaron

Belen Jesuit Prep School Florida Coached by: Luis Dulzaides

96

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

5th – Shawn Kant Ridge High School, NJ Coached by: David A. Yastremski and Andrew Monagle 6th – Nihar Rama Mason High School, OH Coached by: Melissa Donahue

Expository

Extemporaneous Debate

presented by Western Kentucky University

presented by Colorado College

1st – Samuel Geiger Belleville West High School, IL Coached by: Adam Jenkins, Russ Reidelberger, and Julie Schloesser

1st – Lyle Derden Lamar High School - Houston TX Coached by: Eloise Weisinger Blair

2nd – Jillian Gilburne Phoenix Country Day School, AZ Coached by: Nick Klemp and Michelle Hill

2nd – Austin Smith Coronado High School, NV Coached by: Paul Miles

3rd – Griffin Paschall Henry County High School, TN Coached by: Linda Wilson Miller 4th – Andrew Mcallister Normal Community West High School, IL Coached by: Ellie Marvin 5th – Carla Seravalli Lincoln East High School, NE Coached by: Nick Herink and Matt Davis 6th – Sooruj Bhatia Riverside High School, SC Coached by: McGregor Cook, David Dejesa, and Pete Martin

3rd – Jack Evans Hampton High School, PA Coached by: Alison McBee 4th – Pavithran Guttipatti Eastview High School, MN Coached by: Todd W. Hering and Zachary Prax (TIE) 5th – Owen Weber Bettendorf High School, IA Coached by: Joe Rankin (TIE) 5th – Tristan Wagner Jackson Hole High School, WY Coached by: Margaret Gagnon

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 97

2016 HONORS & AWARDS

Poetry Reading

Prose Reading

presented by Western Kentucky University

presented by Western Kentucky University

1st – Danielle Hahami Stuyvesant High School, NY Coached by: Duval Bodden

1st – Craig Heyne Nova High School, FL Coached by: Christopher Relyea

2nd – Salvador Tinajero Fullerton Joint Union High School, CA Coached by: Sal Tinajero and Pricilla Merritt

2nd – Griffin Paschall Henry County High School, TN Coached by: Linda Wilson Miller

3rd – Jordan Killion Pekin Comm High School, IL Coached by: Scott Pyle 4th – Tre Edgerton East Ridge High School, MN Coached by: Alex Carlson 5th – Valerie Akinyoyenu Walt Whitman High School, MD Coached by: Gavin Mease 6th – Alejandro Cuellar-Mayoral Braddock High School, FL Coached by: Carol Lynne Cecil and David Kraft

98

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

3rd – Dieynaba Dieng Democracy Prep Bronx Preparatory Charter School, NY Coached by: Sarah Rosenberg, Luis Cardenas, and Norberto Troncoso 4th – Kelby Miller Seminole High School, TX Coached by: Danny Stottlemyre 5th – Noah Darden Iona Preparatory, NY Coached by: Charles Sloat 6th – Briana Ralston Desert Vista High School, AZ Coached by: Stacy Endman and Joe Guffey

Impromptu

Storytelling

presented by Western Kentucky University

presented by Western Kentucky University

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

1st –Stephen Durosaiye Democracy Prep Bronx Preparatory Charter School, NY Coached by: Sarah Rosenberg, Luis Cardenas, and Norberto Troncoso

2nd – Jason Greenfield Phoenix Country Day School, AZ Coached by: Nick Klemp and Michelle Hill

2nd – Sean Rogers ILEAD North Hollywood, CA Coached by: Iain Lampert

3rd – Olivia Shoemaker Lakeville North High School, MN Coached by: Yatesh Singh, Elizabeth Vieira, and Jennifer Baese

3rd – Maquelle Huntley Carthage High School, MO Coached by: Bryan Whyte

4th – Milan Amritraj Campbell Hall High School, CA Coached by: Susan Foley 5th – Jarrek Holmes Kent Denver School, CO Coached by: Terry Stern Rubin and Forrest Sayrs 6th – Sophia Skwarchuk Flathead High School, MT Coached by: Sean O’Donnell

4th – Sarah Keenan Liberty Sr. High School, MO Coached by: Mick Turpin 5th – Shreya Chandran O’Gorman High School, SD Coached by: Teresa Fester 6th – Joshua Jones Home Educator’s Outsourcing Solutions, TX Coached by: Donna Szumila

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 99

2016 HONORS & AWARDS

2016 Circle of Champion Coaches

Champion coaches received a commemorative plaque in the shape of the state of Utah. (above, left to right)

Ryan Monagle, New Jersey – Program Oral Interpretation

Elose Weisinger Blair, Texas – Extemporaneous Debate

Pear Kasrirat, California – Duo Interpretation

David Yastremski, New Jersey – Program Oral Interpretation

Adam Jenkins, Illinois – Expository

Melissa Parker, New York – Poetry Reading

Susan Marianelli, Massachusetts – International Extemp

Joni Anker, Minnesota – Original Oratory

Rachel Baron, Maryland – Public Forum Debate

Luis Cardenas, New York – Storytelling

Christopher Relyea, Florida – Prose Reading

Erin Long, Arizona – Congressional Debate–House

Norberto Troncoso, New York – Storytelling

Roger McCafferty, South Dakota – Impromptu

Aaron Timmons, Texas – Lincoln-Douglas Debate

Sarah Rosenberg, New York – Storytelling

Robert Sheard, Florida – Humorous Interpretation

Meredith Deaton, Oklahoma – United States Extemp

Juan De La Cruz, Pennsylvania – Dramatic Interpretation

Amber Justmann, Florida – Humorous Interpretation

William Cougherty, Pennsylvania – Dramatic Interpretation

Ian Turnipseed, Alabama – Commentary

Derek Yuill, California – Duo Interpretation

Marlene Kloss, Pennsylvania – Dramatic Interpretation

Tzitel Voss, Minnesota – Informative Speaking

100

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

Richard B. Sodikow Policy Debate

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

presented by Trinity University

presented by the University of Utah

Raam Tambe and Jerry Wang Palos Verdes Peninsula High School, CA Coached by: Scott Wheeler

Bennett R. Eckert Greenhill School, TX Coached by: Aaron Timmons

Public Forum Debate presented by the Arthur N. Rupe Foundation

Will Arnesen and Sam Arnesen Walt Whitman High School, MD Coached by: Rachel Baron

Joe and Pam Wycoff Original Oratory presented by the Patrick Henry Foundation Memorial Auxiliary

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

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 101

2016 HONORS & AWARDS

Congressional Debate–House

Congressional Debate–Senate

presented by the Stennis Center for Public Service Leadership

presented by the Stennis Center for Public Service Leadership

Rep. Jake Dean Sunnyslope High School, AZ Coached by: Erin Long, Michelle Schwimmer, and Heather Butler

Sen. Victoria Bevard Thomas Jefferson HS Science and Technology, VA Coached by: Marie Bakke

A. C. Eley International Extemp

102

Carmendale Fernandes United States Extemp

presented by the Council on Foreign Relations

presented by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation

Marshall M. Sloane Milton Academy, MA Coached by: Susan Marianelli and Brian Anderson

Micah Cash Tulsa Washington High School, OK Coached by: Meredith Deaton and Kelly R. McCracken

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

Informative Speaking

Humorous Interpretation presented by Western Kentucky University

Sarah Grambo Apple Valley High School, MN Coached by: Tzitel Voss

Jacob Wallack NSU University School, FL Coached by: Robert Sheard, Amber Justmann, and Bill M. Thompson

Lanny D. and B. J. Naegelin Dramatic Interpretation

Sandra Silvers Duo Interpretation

presented by Simpson College

Izabella Czejdo McDowell High School, PA Coached by: William Caugherty, Marlene Kloss, and Juan De La Cruz

presented by Colorado College

Christin Villalobos and Victoria Villalobos Gabrielino High School, CA Coached by: Derek Yuill and Pear Kasrirarat

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 103

2016 HONORS & AWARDS

Program Oral Interpretation

Brother RenĂŠ Sterner Commentary

presented by The Interp Store

presented by Western Kentucky University

Ariaki Dandawate Ridge High School, NJ Coached by: David A. Yastremski and Ryan Monagle

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

Expository

104

Extemporaneous Debate

presented by Western Kentucky University

presented by Colorado College

Samuel Geiger Belleville West High School, IL Coached by: Adam Jenkins, Russ Reidelberger, and Julie Schloesser

Lyle Derden Lamar High School - Houston TX Coached by: Eloise Weisinger Blair

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

Poetry Reading

Prose Reading

presented by Western Kentucky University

presented by Western Kentucky University

Danielle Hahami Stuyvesant High School, NY Coached by: Duval Bodden

Craig Heyne Nova High School, FL Coached by: Christopher Relyea

Impromptu

Storytelling

presented by Western Kentucky University

presented by Western Kentucky University

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

Stephen Durosaiye Democracy Prep Bronx Preparatory Charter School, NY Coached by: Sarah Rosenberg, Luis Cardenas, and Norberto Troncoso

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 105

2016 HONORS & AWARDS

James M. Copeland Coach of the Year Meg Howell-Haymaker Arizona

Ralph E. Carey Award for Distinguished Career Service Steve Meadows Kentucky

106

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

Middle School Coach of the Year Deborah Simon Massachusetts

Eleventh Diamond Award Donus D. Roberts South Dakota

Eighth Diamond Award

Seventh Diamond Award

Randy Pierce Missouri

Mark Harris Missouri

Sixth Diamond Award

Sixth Diamond Award

Pauline J. Carochi Colorado

Glenn M. Nelson Kansas

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 107

2016 HONORS & AWARDS

Communicator of the Year Pat Bagley Utah

High School Principal of the Year Michael O’Toole Pennsylvania

108

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

Frank Sferra Director’s Commendation Sara Given Missouri

Middle School Principal of the Year Carlos Castillo California

Alumni Lifetime Achievement Award Robert Shrum California

Pelham Commendation Jonathan Alston New Jersey

Brother Gregory “René” Sterner Lifetime Service Award Dr. Richard Edwards Texas

Harold Keller Public Service Leadership Award Sal Tinajero California

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 109

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

Points and Results

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

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

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

ELIM Rounds Main Debate:

School Awards

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

Win = 10 points

Loss = 7 points

Main Speech:

1st 10 points

2nd 9 points

3rd 8 points

4th 5th/6th/7th 7 points 6 points

Supp Speech:

6 points

5 points

4 points

3 points

Extemp Debate:

Win = 6 points

2 points

Loss = 4 points

CONGRESS

Speech Schools of Excellence

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

Debate Schools of Excellence

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

Average of points awarded by official scorers, on a scale of 3-9 points per speech and complete hour of presiding. bonus points Champion: Second place: Third place:

15 points 10 points 5 points

Formula for Determining School Awards Speech Schools of Honor

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

Debate Schools of Honor

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

Outstanding School Achievement

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

112

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

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

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

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

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

2016 School Awards Schools of Outstanding Distinction

Speech Schools of Excellence

Debate Schools of Excellence

Apple Valley High School, MN Chesterton High School, IN Denver East High School, CO Eagan High School, MN Millard North High School, NE Monte Vista High School - Danville, CA Plano West Sr. High School, TX Ridge High School, NJ Syosset High School, NY Trinity Preparatory School, FL

Bishop McGuinness High School, OK Brentwood Academy, TN Chanhassen High School, MN Cypress Bay High School, FL Fishers High School, IN Gabrielino High School, CA Hattiesburg High School, MS ILEAD North Hollywood, CA J. Frank Dobie High School, TX James Logan High School, CA Kent Denver School, CO Moorhead High School, MN Munster High School, IN NSU University School, FL Phoenix Country Day School, AZ Plano Sr. High School, TX Prospect High School, IL Ronald Reagan High School, TX Saint Mary’s Hall High School, TX Scarsdale High School, NY

Archbishop Mitty High School, CA Asheville High School, NC Bellarmine College Prep, CA Blue Valley Southwest High School, KS Boca Raton Community High School, FL Cherry Creek High School, CO Cy-Fair High School, TX Durham Academy, NC Fenwick High School, IL George Washington High School, CO Hawken School, OH James Madison Memorial High School, WI Lake Highland Preparatory, FL Lamar High School - Houston, TX Miramonte High School, CA Montgomery Bell Academy, TN Pembroke Pines Charter High School, FL Pine View School, FL Poly Prep Country Day School, NY Summit High School, NJ Washburn Rural High School, KS Western High School, FL

Speech Schools of Honor Note: A correction in calculation has resulted in a change in the official school awards for the National Tournament.

The computer system designed to calculate the school awards mistakenly included the pilot events of Program Oral Interpretation and Informative Speaking and did not properly calculate current tiebreaker procedures. The correct list appears here.

It is important to note that all schools recognized on stage at the National Tournament are still being honored with a school award. After discussion, the Board of Directors determined that no school should lose recognition, but that the organization should, to the best of its ability, recognize school achievement at an appropriate level that reflects the adjustments that were made. The National Speech & Debate Association takes pride in honoring students, coaches, and schools at the highest level.

We sincerely apologize for the error and will strive to ensure that a mistake of this nature does not occur again.

Archbishop Mitty High School, CA Ardrey Kell High School, NC Blue Springs High School, MO Comeaux High School, LA Des Moines Roosevelt High School, IA Desert Vista High School, AZ Dreyfoos School Of The Arts, FL Grapevine High School, TX Harlingen High School South, TX Hendrickson High School, TX Jasper High School, TX Lakeville North High School, MN Lincoln East High School, NE Mason High School, OH McDowell High School, PA Millard West High School, NE Newton South High School, MA O’Gorman High School, SD Raymore-Peculiar High School, MO Regis High School, NY Riverside High School, SC Roseville Area High School, MN San Marino High School, CA Seven Lakes High School, TX Southside High School, SC Summit High School, NJ Tulsa Washington High School, OK University High School, IL

Debate Schools of Honor Aberdeen Central High School, SD Bartlesville High School, OK Bellaire High School, TX Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School, IN Centennial High School, ID Delbarton School, NJ Edina High School, MN Fishers High School, IN Gig Harbor High School, WA Greenhill School, TX Henry W. Grady High School, GA Holy Cross Catholic Academy, TX Liberty Sr. High School, MO Madison Central High School, MS Miami Beach Sr. High School, FL Montville High School, NJ Nova High School, FL Oxford Academy, CA St. Andrew’s Episcopal School, MS West Des Moines Valley High School, IA West Lafayette High School, IN

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 113

WHO BROKE AND WHY — MAIN EVENTS Below is a summary of what it took for high school contestants to advance at the 2016 National Tournament.

Policy Debate At the end of round 6, a total of 72 teams advanced to round 7-8 with 8 or more winning ballots.

A total of 50 teams advanced to round 9.

A total of 35 teams advanced to round 10.

A total of 24 teams advanced to round 11.

A total of 15 teams advanced to round 12.

A total of 9 teams advanced to round 13.

A total of 6 teams advanced to round 14.

A total of 3 teams advanced to round 15.

A total of 2 teams advanced to round 16.

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

Lincoln-Douglas Debate At the end of round 6, a total of 86 debaters advanced to round 7-8 with 8 or more winning ballots.

A total of 64 debaters advanced to round 9.

A total of 43 debaters advanced to round 10.

A total of 27 debaters advanced to round 11.

A total of 17 debaters advanced to round 12.

A total of 10 debaters advanced to round 13.

A total of 6 debaters advanced to round 14.

A total of 3 debaters advanced to round 15.

A total of 2 debaters advanced to round 16.

Public Forum Debate At the end of round 6, a total of 95 teams advanced to round 7-8 with 8 or more winning ballots.

A total of 68 teams advanced to round 9.

A total of 48 teams advanced to round 10.

A total of 32 teams advanced to round 11.

A total of 20 teams advanced to round 12.

A total of 12 teams advanced to round 13.

A total of 7 teams advanced to round 14.

A total of 5 teams advanced to round 15.

A total of 3 teams advanced to round 16.

A total of 2 teams advanced to round 17.

114

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

Program Oral Interpretation At the end of round 6, a total of 60 contestants advanced to rounds 7-8 with a cume of 36. Four contestants were tied.

Three of those students advanced with at least 1 one, 5 twos, 2 threes, and 2 fours.

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

At the end of round 10, a total of 14 contestants advanced to rounds 11-12 with a cume of 38 (clean break).

At the end of round 12, a total of 6 contestants advanced to round 13 with a cume of 65 (clean break).

Informative Speaking At the end of round 6, a total of 60 contestants advanced to rounds 7-8 with a cume of 37. Seven contestants were tied.

Three of those students advanced with at least 2 ones and 2 twos.

At the end of round 8, a total of 30 contestants advanced to rounds 9-10 with a cume of 21. Three contestants were tied.

Two of those students advanced with at least 1 one and 1 three.

At the end of round 10, a total of 14 contestants advanced to rounds 11-12 with a cume of 37. Five contestants were tied.

One student advanced with 5 ones.

At the end of round 12, a total of 6 contestants advanced to round 13 with a cume of 70. Two contestants were tied. One student advanced with 5 ones.

WHO BROKE AND WHY — MAIN EVENTS Below is a summary of what it took for high school contestants to advance at the 2016 National Tournament.

Humorous Interpretation

Original Oratory

At the end of round 6, a total of 60 contestants advanced to rounds 7-8 with a cume of 36. Seven contestants were tied. Two of those students advanced with at least 3 ones, and one student advanced with 2 ones and 5 twos.

At the end of round 6, a total of 60 contestants advanced to rounds 7-8 with a cume of 35. Seven contestants were tied.

Four of those students advanced with at least 3 ones and 3 twos.

At the end of round 8, a total of 30 contestants advanced to rounds 9-10 with a cume of 22. Five contestants were tied. Two of those students advanced with at least 1 one and 1 three.

At the end of round 8, a total of 31 contestants advanced to rounds 9-10 with a cume of 20. Three contestants were tied.

Two of those students advanced with at least 1 one.

At the end of round 10, a total of 14 contestants advanced to rounds 11-12 with a cume of 34 (clean break).

At the end of round 10, a total of 14 contestants advanced to rounds 11-12 with a cume of 39. Two contestants were tied.

One student advanced with 3 twos.

At the end of round 12, a total of 6 contestants advanced to round 13 with a cume of 65 (clean break).

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

Dramatic Interpretation

United States Extemporaneous Speaking

At the end of round 6, a total of 60 contestants advanced to rounds 7-8 with a cume of 36. Ten contestants were tied. Seven of those students advanced with at least 3 ones and 1 two.

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

At the end of round 8, a total of 30 contestants advanced to rounds 9-10 with a cume of 21. Seven contestants were tied. Six of those students advanced with at least 2 twos.

At the end of round 10, a total of 14 contestants advanced to rounds 11-12 with a cume of 37. Five contestants were tied. Three of those students advanced with at least 1 one and 2 fours.

At the end of round 12, a total of 6 contestants advanced to round 13 with a cume of 74 (clean break).

Duo Interpretation At the end of round 6, a total of 60 teams advanced to rounds 7-8 with a cume of 36. Ten teams were tied.

Two of those teams advanced with at least 5 ones.

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

At the end of round 8, a total of 30 contestants advanced to rounds 9-10 with a cume of 22. Five contestants were tied.

One student advanced with 2 ones.

At the end of round 10, a total of 14 contestants advanced to rounds 11-12 with a cume of 36. Four contestants were tied.

Three of those students advanced with at least 3 ones.

At the end of round 12, a total of 6 contestants advanced to round 13 with a cume of 71 (clean break).

International Extemporaneous Speaking At the end of round 6, a total of 60 contestants advanced to rounds 7-8 with a cume of 34. Six contestants were tied.

Five of those students advanced with at least 3 ones and 4 twos.

At the end of round 8, a total of 30 contestants advanced to rounds 9-10 with a cume of 22. Five contestants were tied. One student advanced with 1 one and 2 threes.

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

At the end of round 10, a total of 14 contestants advanced to rounds 11-12 with a cume of 33. Two contestants were tied. One student advanced with 4 ones.

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

At the end of round 12, a total of 6 contestants advanced to round 13 with a cume of 65 (clean break).

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 115

“We produce more than 2,400 awards for the National Tournament alone. Imagine what we can do for your school or tournament!” — Chad Wagner, Trophy and Award Production Coordinator for the NSDA

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

MAIN DEBATE EVENTS – FINAL RESULTS Place

Name / School / State

RICHARD B. SODIKOW POLICY DEBATE presented by Trinity University 1. Raam Tambe and Jerry Wang Palos Verdes Peninsula High School, CA

RD 14

RD 15

FINAL

W W W

B B B B B

AFF (9-4)

2. Vinay Ayyapan and Anirudh Prabhu Bellarmine College Prep, CA

W W W

W W W W W

NEG (4-9)

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE presented by the University of Utah 1. Bennett R. Eckert Greenhill School, TX

RD 14

RD 15

FINAL

W W L

B B B B B

AFF (8-7)

2. Priya Kukreja Millard North High School, NE

W W W

W L L W W

NEG (7-8)

PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE presented by the Arthur N. Rupe Foundation 1. Will Arnesen and Sam Arnesen Walt Whitman High School, MD

RD 15

RD 16

FINAL

L W W

B B B B B

CON (9-6)

2. Sebastian Ix and Hunter Martin Pinecrest High School, NC

W W L

W W W W L

PRO (6-9)

WORLD SCHOOLS DEBATE Team Florida Manatee (pictured at right) defeated Team North Coast (OH) in a 6-3 decision for the opposition during the final round of the 2016 USA World Schools Debate Invitational hosted at the National Speech & Debate Tournament in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Team Florida Manatee, coached by Jesus Caro, consisted of Zachariah Chou from American Heritage School - Plantation; Eric Beilin from Cypress Bay High School; Itiel Wainer from NSU University School; and Mickenzie Donnelly from Western High School.

Team North Coast, coached by Chase Williams, consisted of Ananya Kalahasti from Hathaway Brown School; Ozan Ergungor from Hawken School; James Swingos from Hawken School; Benjamin Wesorick from University School; and Will Frankel from University School.

Samuel Wood from Ardrey Kell High School in North Carolina was named the top debate speaker and received the Robert Shrum Award.

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 117

PILOTED MAIN SPEECH EVENTS – FINAL RESULTS

Place

RD 7-10

Name / School / State Cume

Semi

Semi

RD 11

RD 12

FINAL Total

PROGRAM ORAL Interpretation presented by The Interp Store 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Ariaki Dandawate, Ridge High School, NJ Drake Leach, Grapevine High School, TX Quest Broussard, Comeaux High School, LA Austin Kraft, Prior Lake-Savage School-ISD719, MN Emma Warnecke, West Bloomfield High School, MI Haleigh McGirt, Jupiter High School, FL

22 2 5 5 2 1 5 4 2 5 1 1 5 2 3 1 1 2 4 2 1 3 5 1 3 2 78 18 1 2 1 4 1 3 5 6 4 3 3 2 4 1 2 4 1 3 3 2 2 1 4 4 6 78 19 1 1 3 3 2 4 5 3 4 2 2 3 3 4 3 5 4 2 5 6 6 3 3 2 5 87 27 4 4 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 5 4 5 2 4 2 3 5 4 3 1 2 5 5 3 88 30 5 4 6 4 3 2 1 1 3 6 4 1 1 5 5 3 5 1 1 5 5 4 2 1 1 97 23 5 1 2 1 7 3 2 5 3 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 4 4 6 6 6 4 119

INFORMATIVE SPEakING 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Sarah Grambo, Apple Valley High School, MN Sarah Schulz, Moorhead High School, MN Rhegan Graham, Prospect High School, IL Veronica Boratyn, Prospect High School, IL Bharathi Arasan, Archbishop Mitty High School, CA Serena Wang, San Marino High School, CA

22 1 1 6 1 1 6 4 4 4 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 4 71 30 1 5 2 2 6 1 5 2 6 1 4 1 2 3 4 2 2 2 5 3 6 2 6 96 27 3 4 2 5 2 5 2 4 7 3 1 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 6 5 4 1 1 98 34 3 3 3 4 7 1 1 1 2 1 3 6 5 2 2 6 6 4 4 2 3 3 2 100 32 5 7 1 1 2 2 6 5 3 5 6 5 1 5 6 5 5 6 3 6 1 5 3 119 35 4 3 7 1 3 3 5 2 1 6 5 4 6 6 5 4 4 5 2 4 5 6 5 123

PILOTED MAIN SPEECH EVENTS – SEMIFINAL RESULTS

RD 7-10

Name / School / State Cume

Place

Semi

Semi

RD 11

RD 12 Total

PROGRAM ORAL Interpretation presented by The Interp Store

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Crystal Wilson, Hattiesburg High School, MS Kimberly Lee, Summit High School, NJ Kayla Williamson, Brentwood Academy, TN John Martin, Southside High School, SC Anthony Evans, Fullerton Joint Union High School, CA Lalee Ibssa, Trinity Preparatory School, FL Zariah Hubbard, Hattiesburg High School, MS Shreya Chandran, O’Gorman High School, SD

34 38 37 36 38 35 34 36

32114 63663 26525 35454 46265 67776 77776 73457

53767 26226 64475 67717 46365 13572 72424 77654

73 80 83 85 85 86 87 91

34 25 30 33 36 37 33 36

75536 76653 22534 56347 27424 44471 61765 62765

31312 44644 47377 52533 26655 67156 73764 73727

70 74 74 76 79 82 85 88

INFORMATIVE SPEakING

118

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Rachel Standal, Eagan High School, MN Emily Elizabeth Timmer, Holland High School, MI Anagha Komaragiri, Fairmont High School, MN Christina Su, University High School, IL Devin Remley, Riverside High School, SC Trinity Ek, Apple Valley High School, MN Anna Kutbay, Morristown West High School, TN Omair Hasan, Sylvania Southview High School, OH

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

MAIN SPEECH EVENTS – FINAL RESULTS

Place

RD 7-10

Name / School / State Cume

Semi

Semi

RD 11

RD 12

FINAL Total

HUMOROUS INTERPRETATION presented by Western Kentucky University 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Jacob Wallack, NSU University School, FL Evan Clear, Bishop McGuinness High School, OK Micah Spieldenner, Chanhassen High School, MN Luke Wodrich, Grapevine High School, TX Mark Moran, Eagan High School, MN

17 1 1 3 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 4 4 2 2 5 1 4 4 3 5 4 1 4 74 23 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 6 1 3 5 2 3 3 5 79 29 7 3 2 2 3 6 4 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 6 6 1 3 2 2 2 87 28 2 2 1 4 1 5 1 7 2 4 5 2 4 6 4 2 3 5 4 4 1 4 3 97 30 2 3 6 6 3 3 3 3 4 2 3 5 6 4 2 3 2 2 2 1 5 6 1 100

lanny d. and B. J. naegelin Dramatic Interpretation presented by Simpson College 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Izabella Czejdo, McDowell High School, PA Vaffie Barkolleh, James Logan High School, CA Jaylon Bolden, J. Frank Dobie High School, TX Alyssa Wilhelm, Roseville Area High School, MN Brian Baker, Hendrickson High School, TX Olivia Najafi, Phoenix Country Day School, AZ

36 1 2 3 3 3 1 2 1 3 2 3 2 1 4 4 2 4 2 4 1 2 6 2 87 26 5 7 3 1 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 5 2 5 1 4 3 4 1 5 1 5 1 92 24 4 1 5 5 1 5 6 3 1 6 5 4 3 1 2 3 6 3 3 6 3 2 5 100 24 3 5 6 1 2 3 7 1 6 6 2 1 6 2 3 6 1 5 5 2 6 1 3 110 36 5 4 2 2 7 1 5 2 2 3 6 3 5 6 6 1 2 6 2 4 4 3 6 116 37 6 2 2 4 4 2 2 6 3 2 4 6 4 3 5 5 5 1 6 3 5 4 4 118

sandra silvers duo interpretation presented by Colorado College 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Christin Villalobos and Victoria Villalobos, Gabrielino High School, CA Chase Garrett and Kendal Samuel, Southside High School, SC Benjamin Marshall and Molly McDermott, Prospect High School, IL Tyra Johnson and Edgar Partida, James Logan High School, CA Trevor Taylor and Cassandra Edlund, Apple Valley High School, MN Ahmarey Stimley and Kerrington Anderson, Hattiesburg High School, MS

21 4 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 5 5 2 4 5 3 1 5 2 3 3 72 21 5 1 4 4 2 1 1 3 2 1 3 4 4 1 3 5 1 1 3 4 5 4 1 78 32 7 2 1 2 1 7 2 2 7 4 1 2 2 3 1 2 2 6 2 2 1 1 2 87 27 1 5 4 1 6 6 5 2 4 6 4 3 1 4 6 1 3 4 5 3 3 2 5 104 20 6 6 6 6 7 2 2 1 5 2 5 5 3 2 4 3 6 5 4 1 4 6 4 108 34 2 1 2 7 2 1 4 5 4 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 4 2 6 6 6 5 6 130

JOE and PAM WYCOFF original oratory presented by the Patrick Henry Memorial Foundation Auxiliary 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Aekta Mouli, Eagan High School, MN Hanna Watson, Andover High School, KS Justin Cooper, Scarsdale High School, NY Seth Herschkowitz, Poly Prep Country Day School, NY Charlie Schmidt, Denver East High School, CO Mahima Krishnamoorthi, Modesto High School, CA

31 1 1 6 2 2 6 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 4 1 4 6 2 6 6 2 5 2 88 23 6 1 3 2 6 6 2 3 3 1 3 6 3 1 2 1 5 1 4 3 5 3 5 91 32 2 4 2 4 4 4 1 5 1 4 6 2 5 2 3 3 2 4 1 5 4 1 1 95 36 2 3 7 1 2 2 2 3 3 1 4 3 4 3 4 5 1 3 2 1 3 6 4 98 30 4 2 1 1 1 2 4 1 4 5 5 4 6 5 5 6 4 6 3 2 1 2 6 103 33 3 4 2 4 4 1 5 4 6 3 2 5 2 6 6 2 3 5 5 4 6 4 3 114

CARMENDALE FERNANDES United States Extemp presented by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Micah Cash, Tulsa Washington High School, OK Marshall Webb, Saint Mary’s Hall High School, TX Jacob Thompson, Des Moines Roosevelt High School, IA Brian Xu, San Marino High School, CA Neil Patel, Plano West Sr. High School, TX Katherine Hu, Plano Sr. High School, TX

28 3 1 2 2 1 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 6 5 1 1 3 4 3 2 2 70 21 1 1 2 1 3 3 6 5 6 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 1 5 2 4 5 85 27 3 2 5 4 2 6 3 5 4 3 4 2 6 2 1 4 3 2 4 6 4 5 1 101 23 2 5 3 3 4 4 4 3 1 2 6 4 5 5 5 1 2 5 5 3 5 3 6 102 31 2 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 1 5 6 2 6 2 6 5 6 6 1 6 6 4 104 31 1 7 4 4 7 1 2 6 4 4 3 5 4 4 4 2 6 4 2 2 1 1 3 105

A. C. Eley International Extemp presented by the Council on Foreign Relations 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Marshall M. Sloane, Milton Academy, MA Justin David Graham, Trinity Preparatory School, FL Vaikunth Balaji, Ridge High School, NJ Shreetika Singh, Seven Lakes High School, TX Charlie Barton, Regis High School, NY Nikhil Ramaswamy, Jasper High School, TX

29 2 1 1 2 1 4 2 5 1 3 2 3 2 1 3 1 4 2 3 5 3 1 2 77 28 1 1 2 3 5 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 6 80 28 3 5 4 6 2 7 2 3 2 1 5 2 5 3 1 5 1 5 6 2 6 2 1 100 25 1 4 4 3 6 6 3 2 3 4 4 5 3 4 5 4 5 1 1 6 2 3 3 100 31 6 6 3 2 3 2 5 3 2 2 3 4 4 6 4 2 2 4 2 1 1 6 4 101 33 5 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 3 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 5 3 5 4 5 116

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 119

MAIN SPEECH EVENTS – SEMIFINAL RESULTS

RD 7-10 Place Name / School / State Cume

Semi RD 11

Semi RD 12 Total

HUMOROUS INTERPRETATION presented by Western Kentucky University

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Candace Rosado, Heritage High School, CA Grant Goodwin, North Bend Sr. High School, OR Mary Barnett, Saint Mary’s Hall High School, TX Mackenzie Saunders, Desert Vista High School, AZ Grace Smith, Brentwood Academy, TN Katelynn Wilson, Willard High School, MO Ariana Grollman, Moorhead High School, MN Dylan France, Gothenburg High School, NE

32 29 34 34 30 31 28 33

57434 64225 31556 45736 36674 64567 76747 57455

17411 45635 52444 16257 74275 45666 66557 77766

69 71 73 80 81 86 88 92

35 33 32 34 37 33 37 34

13756 26422 34163 41535 26145 73476 75677 67764

73341 47457 56575 63773 71645 35264 24521 61757

75 76 77 78 78 80 83 90

28

25614

56327

69

26 28 35 33 35 29 35

34345 47554 13333 36257 53733 67565 74776

63665 73414 54573 35432 37635 47753 46767

71 72 72 73 80 84 96

43776 37555 76644 54227 33423 16262 55676 77757

76 76 76 76 77 85 89 96

LANNY D. AND B. J. NAEGELIN Dramatic InterpretatioN presented by Simpson College

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Austin Hille, Northwest High School, TX Justice Jones, Millard North High School, NE Noah Naiman, Kent Denver School, CO Jackson Cobb, Eagan High School, MN Samuel Mesfin, Archbishop Mitty High School, CA Sawyer Warrenburg, Harlingen High School South, TX Kevin Bernard Gordon, Andy Dekaney High School, TX Stokley Wilson, Hattiesburg High School, MS

sandra silvers duo interpretation presented by Colorado College

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Tristan Pflumm and Larkin Reilly, St. James Academy, KS Stephen Durosaiye and Tavan Thomas, Democracy Prep Bronx Preparatory Charter School, NY Giselle DeSilva and Alan Lee, Gabrielino High School, CA Tanner Geren and Eli DePriest, Marshfield High School, MO Cooper Smith and Brandon Black, Brentwood Academy, TN Jazmyn Bolden and Dimitri Devon Brooks, J. Frank Dobie High School, TX Antonio Flores and Taylor Turner, James Logan High School, CA Wesley Woodson and Devonte Kavanaugh, Catholic Memorial School, MA

JOE AND PAM WYCOFF original oratorY presented by the Patrick Henry Memorial Foundation Auxiliary

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

JJ Kapur, West Des Moines Valley High School, IA Rhea Kamat, Ronald Reagan High School, TX Maanik Chotalla, Brophy College Prep, AZ Madeline Jarrard, Brentwood Academy, TN Pierre Paul, Wooster High School, OH Michael Mason, Lincoln East High School, NE Aidan S. Bassett, Newton South High School, MA Lizzie Kimbrough, St. Cecilia Academy, TN

31 25 33 36 31 39 32 38

15435 53756 52171 35435 76567 76367 67573 47653

CARMENDALE FERNANDES United States Extemp presented by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Madison Morrissette, Millard North High School, NE Jacob Beedle, Salem High School - Salem, VA Joan Bentz, Neosho High School, MO Dylan Powers, Smoky Hill High School, CO Quinn Kupec, Moorhead High School, MN Ryan Olson, Monte Vista High School - Danville, CA Alexander L. Trobough, Sumner Academy, KS Daniel James Brophy, Downers Grove North High School, IL

A. C. Eley International Extemp presented by the Council on Foreign Relations

120

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Samhitha Sunkara, Ardrey Kell High School, NC Kendall Gardner, Fishers High School, IN Connor Rothschild, Kickapoo High School, MO Kendra Blandon, Cypress Bay High School, FL Alicia Zhang, East Ridge High School, MN Christian Sayers, Valparaiso High School, IN Tim Chung, Gabrielino High School, CA Liam Frolund, Turlock High School, CA

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

33 34 33 31 35 36 36 36

76153 43616 62575 67455 44774 75336 54762 56667

35127 54353 17764 75427 51475 63735 27276 76656

73 74 83 83 83 84 84 96

24 28 31 32 28 30 29 30

44746 66214 33345 57572 42663 72574 27657 75757

46412 25734 37455 33255 64576 54766 76677 57647

66 68 73 76 77 83 89 90

SUPPLEMENTAL AND CONSOLATION EVENTS – FINAL RESULTS

Place

Name / School / State

RD 12

RD 13

FINAL

W W L W W L

W W W W W B B B B B

NEG (4-3) AFF (3-4)

PRELIM CUME

SEMIS

EXTEMPORANEOUS DEBATE presented by Colorado College 1.

Lyle Derden, Lamar High School - Houston, TX 2. Austin Smith, Coronado High School, NV

PLACE

Name / School / StatE

FINAL Total

PROSE READING presented by Western Kentucky University

1. Craig Heyne, Nova High School, FL

2. Griffin Paschall, Henry County High School, TN

3. Dieynaba Dieng, Democracy Prep Bronx Preparatory Charter School, NY

4. Kelby Miller, Seminole High School, TX

5. Noah Darden, Iona Preparatory, NY

6. Briana Ralston, Desert Vista High School, AZ

13 18 15 14 16 15

523 221 136 111 234 523

1 3 4 2 1 1 3 33 4 2 2 1 4 2 1 34 2 1 1 5 5 5 2 40 6 5 6 6 2 6 4 44 3 4 5 4 3 4 6 45 5 6 3 3 6 3 5 47

POETRY READING presented by Western Kentucky University

1. Danielle Hahami, Stuyvesant High School, NY

2. Salvador Tinajero, Fullerton Joint Union High School, CA

3. Jordan Killion, Pekin Comm High School, IL

4. Tre Edgerton, East Ridge High School, MN

5. Valerie Akinyoyenu, Walt Whitman High School, MD

6. Alejandro Cuellar-Mayoral, Braddock High School, FL

16 10 11 10 12 11

311 353 235 122 543 214

2 1 1 1 2 1 3 28 1 2 2 2 4 5 2 33 5 3 3 6 3 3 4 39 4 6 4 4 6 6 5 40 3 4 5 5 1 4 1 41 6 5 6 3 5 2 6 43

EXPOSITORY presented by Western Kentucky University

1. Samuel Geiger, Belleville West High School, IL

2. Jillian Gilburne, Phoenix Country Day School, AZ

3. Griffin Paschall, Henry County High School, TN

4. Andrew Mcallister, Normal Community West High School, IL

5. Carla Seravalli, Lincoln East High School, NE

6. Sooruj Bhatia, Riverside High School, SC

BROther rené sterner COMMENTARY presented by Western Kentucky University

1. Bradley Wascher, Saint James School, AL

2. Patrick Deneen, University High School, IL

3. Andrew Langford, Lake Highland Preparatory, FL

4. Joseph Stein, Fairview High School, CO

5. Shawn Kant, Ridge High School, NJ

6. Nihar Rama, Mason High School, OH

10 11 11 12 11 14

211 211 524 422 344 132

1 1 1 1 1 3 3 21 4 5 6 2 2 2 2 30 2 2 2 6 3 1 6 37 5 4 4 4 5 4 5 42 6 3 3 5 4 5 4 43 3 6 5 3 6 6 1 43

13 11 9 11 9 14

231 211 224 311 342 122

2 6 2 1 1 2 1 27 1 2 1 4 3 5 2 27 4 1 4 2 5 1 4 32 3 3 3 3 2 4 5 32 6 5 5 5 4 3 3 40 5 4 6 6 6 6 6 48

IMPROMPTU presented by Western Kentucky University

1. Jacob Womack, Aberdeen Central High School, SD

2. Jason Greenfield, Phoenix Country Day School, AZ

3. Olivia Shoemaker, Lakeville North High School, MN

4. Milan Amritraj, Campbell Hall High School, CA

5. Jarrek Holmes, Kent Denver School, CO

6. Sophia Skwarchuk, Flathead High School, MT

5 4 6 5 5 6

124 233 411 411 124 512

1 1 2 1 2 2 1 19 2 2 5 2 1 4 4 26 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 28 5 4 1 5 3 1 5 29 3 5 4 4 5 5 2 33 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 44

STORYTELLING presented by Western Kentucky University

1. Stephen Durosaiye, Democracy Prep Bronx Preparatory Charter School, NY

2. Sean Rogers, ILEAD North Hollywood, CA

3. Maquelle Huntley, Carthage High School, MO

4. Sarah Keenan, Liberty Sr. High School, MO

5. Shreya Chandran, O’Gorman High School, SD

6. Joshua Jones, Home Educator’s Outsourcing Solutions, TX

6 4 8 5 6 8

411 132 131 513 222 223

3 4 2 1 3 3 2 25 4 1 1 6 4 5 1 25 2 2 5 4 2 1 6 28 1 5 6 2 5 2 4 32 6 3 4 3 1 6 5 33 5 6 3 5 6 4 3 38 Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 121

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE RESULTS HOUSE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 F F F F F F F F F F

Jake Dean Ian Hennington Faisal Younus Justin Kang Nathaniel Sweet Griffin Leckie Katherine Kleinle Emily Raney Narelle Gilchrist Jacob Cimerberg Taylor Rich Amisha Kambath Ismail Shaik Paul Ambrose Travis Boyd Ella Michaels Niv Skidan Aayush Sharma Alex Brown Shreeya Singh Logan Potter Rudgy Estel Elizabeth Propst Isaac Pohl-Zaretsky

Sunnyslope High School Madison Central Syosset High School Syosset High School Boca Raton Community High School Lake Highland Preparatory Ridge High School Willard High School Forest Hill High School Western High School Dreyfoos School of the Arts Dougherty Valley High School Archbishop Mitty High School Liberty Senior High School Spring Woods High School North Hollywood High School Syosset High School King High School Fishers High School Pembroke Pines Charter High School Mountain Home High School Nova High School Asheville High School Asheville High School

AZ MS NY NY FL FL NJ MO FL FL FL CA CA MO TX CA NY FL IN FL ID FL NC NC

SENATE 1 Victoria Brevard Thomas Jefferson HS Science and Technology VA 2 Eric Wan Ridge High School NJ 3 Pranav Kumar Montville High School NJ

4 Kaitlyn Allen-O’Gara Oxford Academy CA 5 John Chen Syosset High School NY 6 Phillip Hedayatnia Hawken School OH 7 Shawn Haq El Camino Real Charter High School CA 8 Samuel Joyce St. Petersburg High School FL 9 Alexander Casendino Miramonte High School CA 10 Noah Scantlebury Lamar High School - Houston TX 11 Ryan Kennedy Charlotte Catholic High School NC 12 Dean Swennumson Monte Vista High School - Danville CA 13 Douglas Dubrowski Ardrey Kell High School NC 14 Jared Stone Los Angeles Center for Enriched Studies CA F Jack Fitzgerald Pine View School FL F Victor Sanchez Wellington High School FL F Gregory Seabrooks Oxbridge Academy Of The Palm Beaches FL F Jun-Yong Kim Seven Lakes High School TX F Gabrielle Cabeza Western High School FL F Usmaan Hasan Plano West Sr. High School TX F Benjamin Ragan Southside High School SC F Quinn Stewart Scarborough High School ME F Paul Odu Rockhurst High School MO F Ben Portzen Eagan High School MN

122

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

Leadership Bowl

Top Presiding Officer

Top Presiding Officer, Leadership Bowl

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE presented by the Stennis Center for Public Service Leadership

HOUSE

SENATE

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 123

2016 Middle School Results The seventeenth annual Middle School National Speech & Debate Tournament was held June 14-17, 2016, in Salt Lake City, Utah. A total of 888 students from 136 schools across the country competed at the event!

Schools of Excellence (Top performing middle schools in speech and debate events) Speech Bak Middle School of the Arts, FL Chaparral Star Academy, TX Milton Academy, MA NSU University School, FL Sidney Lanier Middle School, TX Wilshire Academy, CA

Debate Dougherty Valley Bridge Academy, CA HuaXia Chinese School, TX Kudos College of Youth Leadership, CA Mountain Brook Jr. High School, AL Sidney Lanier Middle School, TX X

Overall Phoenix Country Day School, AZ The Golden State Academy, CA The Harker Middle School, CA

Debate Results Congressional Debate Place 1 2 3 4 5 6

Contestant Michael Yu Luca Zislin Roopa Irakam Arshia Mehta Faraz Siddiqi Sohum Gupta

School Sidney Lanier Middle School, TX NSU University School, FL Ivy GuruKul Online, CA Dougherty Valley Bridge Academy, CA Dougherty Valley Bridge Academy, CA Dougherty Valley Bridge Academy, CA

Final Ranks 23322 11166 92631 39254 78417 54549

Rank Total 12 15 21 23 27 27

School Dougherty Valley Bridge Academy, CA The Harker Middle School, CA Mountain Brook Jr. High School, AL Capitol Debate, CA West Des Moines Valley, IA The Harker Middle School, CA HuaXia Chinese School, TX West Des Moines Valley, IA

Prelim Record 4-2 5-1 5-1 5-1 5-1 4-2 5-1 5-1

Elim Place Champion Second Place Semifinalist Semifinalist Quarterfinalist Quarterfinalist Quarterfinalist Quarterfinalist

School Capitol Debate, CA Lake Highland Preparatory, FL Mountain Brook Jr. High School, AL Sidney Lanier Middle School, TX HuaXia Chinese School, TX Sidney Lanier Middle School, TX Sidney Lanier Middle School, TX Fairmont Preparatory Academy, CA

Prelim Record 5-1 6-0 5-1 6-0 4-2 5-1 5-1 4-2

Elim Place Champion Second Place Semifinalist Semifinalist Quarterfinalist Quarterfinalist Quarterfinalist Quarterfinalist

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Place 1 2 S S Q Q Q Q

Contestants Kavin Kumaravel Sachin Shah Pavel Shirley Maya Arora Animesh Joshi Akshay Manglik Caroline Huang Lauren Gilbert

Public Forum Debate Place 1 2 S S Q Q Q Q

Contestants Joshua Fu and Kilin Tang Anoosh Kumar and Sid Pinnamaneni Harrison Hitson and Marielle Cornes Mogi Taylor and Jeffrey Chen Yilin Li and Michelle M. Li Olivia Faust and Sarika Kotha Ethan Van Nostrand and Max Tran Sasha Ronaghi and Matthew Ong

Policy Debate 124

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

Place 1 2 S S Q Q Q Q

Contestants Aden Barton and Thomas Zeuthen Audrey Kermgard and Louise Bond Connie Tran and Edmond Wen Jai Bahri and Jason Lin Andy Lee and Deven Shah Ben Elijah Harris and Chloe Kinderman Eric Gao and Matthew Zhang Camila Vicens and Brian Xu

School Montgomery Bell Academy Jr., TN Dr. Bessie Rhodes Magnet School, IL Autonomy Debate, CA The Harker Middle School, CA The Harker Middle School, CA Mountain Brook Jr. High School, AL Kudos College of Youth Leadership, CA The Kinkaid School, TX

Prelim Record 5-1 4-2 4-2 5-1 5-1 6-0 5-1 4-2

Elim Place Champion Second Place Semifinalist Semifinalist Quarterfinalist Quarterfinalist Quarterfinalist Quarterfinalist

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Speaker Awards 1 2 3

Akshay Manglik Caroline Huang Kavin Kumaravel

The Harker Middle School, CA HuaXia Chinese School, TX Dougherty Valley Bridge Academy, CA

175.5 pts 175.0 pts 175.0pts

The Harker Middle School, CA The Harker Middle School, CA Dr. Bessie Rhodes Magnet School, IL

175.5 pts 175.5 pts 175.0 pts

Policy Debate Speaker Awards 1 2 3

Jason Lin Jai Bahri Audrey Kermgard

Public Forum Debate Speaker Awards 1 2 3

Vivian Kuang Christopher Bodea Victor Valbuena

Dougherty Valley Bridge Academy, CA Ivy Bridge Academy, GA Ivy Bridge Academy, GA

178.0 pts 176.5 pts 175.0 pts

Speech Results † Tied speech cumulative rank totals were broken on judge preference, then sum of reciprocal fractions, then number of firsts, seconds, thirds, etc., then adjusted final rank total, after dropping high and low ranks, and finally, lowest semifinal rank total.

Declamation Place 1 2 3 4 5 6

Contestant Jonathan L.S. Wolf Maya Bokhari Ysabelle Broderson Julia Craciun Olivia Boscardin Neil Patel

School CNMI, MP Milton Academy, MA Sidney Lanier Middle School, TX Chaparral Star Academy, TX Phoenix Country Day School, AZ Phoenix Country Day School, AZ

Final Ranks 56111 21336 43424 15245 62652 34563

Rank Total 14 15 17 † 17 † 21 † 21 †

School Chaparral Star Academy, TX The Golden State Academy, CA The Golden State Academy, CA Saint Mary’s Hall, TX Benilde-St. Margaret’s School, MN Chaparral Star Academy, TX

Final Ranks 11111 22255 44422 35334 53543 66666

Rank Total 5 16 † 16 † 18 20 30

Dramatic Interpretation Place 1 2 3 4 5 6

Contestant Elise Little Ayush Agarwal Sherwin Lai Mafer Benavides Ronan Brew Olivia Herrera

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 125

Middle School Results The fifteenth annual Middle School National Speech & Debate Tournament Interpretation wasDuo held June 18-20, 2014, in Overland Park, Kansas. More than 700 students from 100 schools across the country competed at the event! School Place Contestant 1 Olivia Boscardin and Bennett Montrose Phoenix Country Day School, AZ 2 Swetha Naidu and Ayush Agarwal The Golden State Academy, CA 3 Griffin Freret and Darwin Harris Phoenix Country Day School, AZ 4 John Moore and Ryan Horlick Phoenix Country Day School, AZ Schools of Excellence 5 Virginia Barrett and Isabelle Dupre Milton Academy, MA (Top performing middle schools in speech and debate events) 6 Isabel Alex and Benjamin Simpson Milton Academy, MA Speech

Forensics of Oakland County,Speaking MI Extemporaneous Milton K-8, MA Place Academy Contestant Ockerman Middle School, KY 1 Theo Teske Saint Mary’s Hall, TX 2 Darwin Harris Wilshire Academy, CA 3 Pranav Konduri

4 5 6

Debate

Wilshire Academy, CA Hua Xia Chinese School - Katy, TX Sidney Lanier Middle School, TX

Debate Results

Humorous Interpretation Congressional Debate 11 22 3 3 4 54 65

6

Vishnu EllaSajit Schnake AveriEvan Suk Eiglarsh Aidan Shev Jonathan L.S. Wolf Michael Xiao MogiSivan TaylorBen-David Tavish John Nahas Mohanti

Cody Waterfall

School

Rank Total 12 13 † 13 † 16 23 28

Overall

Academy of Higher Learning, CA Sidney Lanier Middle School, TX Capitol Debate, MD The Brooks Academy, CA Final Ranks School Knox Jr. High, TX Edina High School,The MNHarker Middle School,1CA 1112 Kudos College/Leadership, CA Phoenix Country Day School, AZ 22243 The Kinkaid School, TX Lanier Middle School, TX Sidney 33624

Patrick Kim Danny Tang Ioana Nechiti

Place Contestant Contestant Place

Final Ranks 23232 16114 41323 34441 52655 65566

School

Prelim Ranks

44361 56535 65456

Final Ranks Elim Total

Knox Jr. High, TX 2 1 Middle 2 4 1 School, MO 10 Raymore-Peculiar East Academy of Higher Learning, CA 3 4 5FL 3 4 19 NSU University School, New West Charter School, CA 6 3 4 7 2 22 CNMI, MP Windemere Ranch Middle School, CA 7 2 1 9 3 22 NSU University School, FL Sidney Lanier Middle School, TX 4 7 6 2 7 26 The Golden State Academy, Nova 42 Academy, CA 8 6 3 9 5 CA 31

Milton Academy, MA

11212 33123 44631 22566 65354 56445

Rank Total 6 13 18 † 18 † 24 26

Rank Total 7 12 18 21 23 24

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

Contestants Impromptu Speaking 1 Anish Odhav

Place

Place 2 SamContestant Segal 3 1 KyleHanna J. Lee Herbowy 4 2 JJ Kapur Avi Gulati 5 3 Lavanya SinghVassantachart Dorothy 6 David Liang 4 Haritha Kumar 5 Alex Chon Public Forum Debate 6 Patrick Kim Place

Contestants

1 Devesh Kodnani and Akush Swarnakar 2 Lyle Derden and Lekha Sunder Original Oratory 3 Abhishek Shah and Avi Patel Place Contestant 4 Christy Lee and Annie Chang Elise Little and Polly Moser 5 1 Claire Silberman Avi Gulatiand Robert Chen 6 2 Ishika Chawla

3 4 5 6

Dorothy Vassantachart Kate Ishida Niitiggya Taneja Arusha Patil

School

Prelim Record

Elim Place

The Kinkaid School, TX 4-1 School The Kinkaid School, TX 3-2 Chaparral Academy of Higher Learning, CAStar Academy, 3 - 2 TX West Des Moines Valley, -1 TheIAHarker Middle 4School, CA The Brooks Academy,Velasquez CA 4 Academy,- 1CA The Kinkaid School, TX 4-1

Co-Champion Final Ranks Co-Champion 23141 Semifinalist Semifinalist 14222 Quarterfinalist 31313 Quarterfinalist

School

Elim Place

Young Genius Academy, CA Wilshire Academy, CA Wilshire Academy, CA

Prelim Record

The Brooks Academy, CA 5-0 Sindey Lanier Middle School, TX 4-1 The Brooks Academy, CA 4-1 School BC Academy, Canada 4-1 Capitol Debate, MD Chaparral Star Academy, 5 - 0 TX CA The Brooks Academy,The CA Harker Middle 4School, -1

55534 62466 46655

Champion Runner-Up Semifinalist Final Ranks Semifinalist 21215 Quarterfinalist 12136 Quarterfinalist

Rank Total 11 † 11 † 11 † 22 24 26

Velasquez Academy, CA CNMI, MP The Golden State Academy, CA The Harker Middle School, CA

43522 34661 56353 65444

Rank Total 11 13 16 20 22 23

School Bak Middle School of the Arts, FL The Golden State Academy, CA Chaparral Star Academy, TX Sacred Heart Intermediate School, MA Sainty Mary’s Hall, TX The Golden State Academy, CA

Final Ranks 13122 32411 21246 44333 66554 55665

Rank Total 9 11 15 17 26 27

Poetry Interpretation Place 1 2 3 4 5 6

126

Contestant Ervin Williams Ayush Agarwal Julia Craciun Kayla Turner Caroline Coley Swetha Naidu

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016

Prose Interpretation Place 1 2 3 4 5 6

Contestant Gina Kim Ryan Horlick Paris Scheorbel Ethan Lambert Sasha Monaco Nikki Solanki

School Wilshire Academy, CA Phoenix Country Day School, AZ Midwest Speech & Debate, MI Phoenix Country Day School, AZ Bak Middle School of the Arts, FL The Harker Middle School, CA

Final Ranks 11411 22232 34123 43365 55554 66646

Rank Total 8 11 13 21 24 28

School Raymore-Peculiar East Middle School, MO Phoenix Country Day School, AZ NSU University School, FL The Golden State Academy, CA Bowling Green Junior High, KY The Harker Middle School, CA

Final Ranks 11112 33241 24635 55363 46426 62554

Rank Total 6 13 20 22 † 22 † 22 †

Storytelling Place 1 2 3 4 5 6

Contestant Ella Schnake Ethan Lambert Faraaz Sadruddin Tavish Mohanti Leah Tabor Avi Gulati

Rostrum | SUMMER 2016 127

Full ride, four-year merit scholarship to any American university!

Scholarship includes full tuition, fees, room and board, expenses, and leadership training.

Selection Criteria: 1. Academic Excellence 2. Interest in Public Policy and Appreciation for Coolidge Values 3. Humility and Leadership

ONLY high school juniors are eligible to apply.

Apply Online This Fall

CoolidgeScholars.org

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

The Big Questions Debates are a one-on-one debate format supported by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation.

JOIN THE DEBATE EARN UP TO $1,700 PER EVENT

APPLY NOW!

� Students will grapple with complex worldview questions as they debate both sides of 2016-2017 topic. � Tournaments, districts, and classrooms that hold Big Questions Debates will be eligible to receive up to $1,700 per event.

2016-2017 TOPIC

RESOLVED:

Science leaves no room for free will.

� Debates can be held as a tournament event, stand-alone event, intra-school scrimmage, classroom event, or supplemental event. � Tournaments that can host at least 3 rounds and 15 students may be eligible to apply. � The NSDA will have a full resource package available for judges, students, and coaches.

Visit www.speechanddebate.org/big-questions to apply!