DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 427 369 CS 510 003

AUTHOR Whitney, Shawnlee A., Ed. TITLE National Developmental Conference on Individual Events Addressing Individual Events, NFA Lincoln-Douglas Debate, and NPDA Parliamentary Debate Conference Proceedings (3rd, Houston, Texas, August 13-16, 1997). PUB DATE 1997-00-00 NOTE 224p. PUB TYPE Collected Works - Proceedings (021) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC09 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Debate; *Debate Format; Higher Education; Oral Interpretation; Persuasive Discourse IDENTIFIERS *Debate Coaches; *Debate Tournaments; Individual Events (Forensics); National Parliamentary Debate Association

ABSTRACT This proceedings presents 19 papers delivered a National Developmental Conference on Individual Events, addressing individual events, Lincoln-Douglas debate, and parliamentary debate. After presenting the conference schedule, the list of attendees, and resolutions, papers in the proceedings are: "The Ghostwriter, The Laissez-Faire Coach, and the Forensic Professional: Negotiating the Overcoaching vs. Undercoaching Dilemma in Original Contest Speeches" (James J. Kimble); "Professionalism and Forensics: A Matter of Choice" (Larry Schnoor and Bryant K. Alexander); "Creating Space for the Physically Challenged Competitor in Individual Events" (David L. Kosloski); "Creating an Individual Events Judging Philosophy" (Jeff Przybylo); "Challenging the Conventions of Oral Interpretation" (Chris S. Aspdal); "Returning to Our Roots: A New Direction for Oral Interpretation" (Trischa Knapp); "Developing Functional Standards as a means to Greater Accessibility in NFA-LD" (John M. Devine); "Maintaining the Status Quo: Recommendations for Preserving Public Argument in Parliamentary Debate" (Steven L. Johnson); "Forensics Fellows: Integrating Faculty Participation into Intercollegiate Parliamentary Debate Programs" (Lewis E. Rutledge); "Presumption in Parliamentary Debate: Examining Whately's Ideas and Their Application to an Emerging and Evolving Debate Style" (Tammy Duvanel Unruh); "Forensics Education and Tournament Management" (Joel Hefling); "Equal Opportunity?: The Impact of Specialized Tournaments on Forensics Pedagogy, Forensics Professionals, and the Forensic Laboratory" (Scott Jensen); "Judge Agreement and Student Rotation: A Real-Life Study of the 1990 DSR-TKA National Forensics Tournament" (Vicki L. Karns); "AFA-NIET: The Culture of Qualifying and Its Effects on Forensics" (Daniel A. West); "Teaching and Coaching Individuals: The Use of Learning Styles in Forensics Coaching" (Thomas Bartl); "Solving for a Healthy Future: Creating National Standards for Training Future Directors of Forensics" (Thomas A. Workman); "New Directions for Public Speaking: The Perfect Pendulum Swings" (M'Liss S. Hindman); "Fisher's Narrative Paradigm Theory: A Model for Differentiating After Dinner Speaking from Informative and Persuasive Speaking"(C. Thomas Preston, Jr.); and "If It's Problem-Cause-Solution This Must Be Persuasive Speaking: Are We Short-changing the Art of Persuasion?" (Shawnalee A. Whitney) . (RS) ' % I I I ) r""i%.10 CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS THIRD NATIONAL ON INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENTAL EVENTS CONFERENCE c-) INDIVIDUAL EVENTS, NFA Rice University,LINCOLN-DOUGLASAugust Houston, 13-16, Texas 1997 ADDRESSING & NPDA PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESOffice of Educational INFORMATION ResearchU.S. andDEPARTMENT Improvement OF EDUCATION M 'Liss Hindman, Tyler JuniorDaniel A. West, RiceCoordinated & Co-Hosted University Collegeby DISSEMINATEPERMISSION TO Ti lISREPRODUCE MATERIAL ANDHAS BEEN GRANTED BY CI Minor9I( changes This document have been has madebeenoriginating toreceived it. from the person or organization CENTER (ERIC) reproduced as Shawnalee A. Whitney, Conference Proceedings Compiled and Edited University:of Alaska Anchorage by officialdocumentPointsImprove ofOERI reproduction view do position not or opinionsnecessarily orquality. policy. stated represent in this 1 TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) Editor's Notes attendtheserveimportantNational influence as tournaments adevelopmental touchstonetime of to ideas regroup, throughout for addressed conferences the to forensics reflect, the at country.developmental like and community the plan one for in forour Houstonconferences many future. years.have We when been can seewean In addition, I have heard They feltconference.forWest,I want theirthat M'Lissto fareffortsecho Liketoo Hindman, the manyinmany sentiments coordinating ofyearsand us the in ofhad the Ricethe andpassed forensics conference University hosting since community, theattendees Speechthe 1997 last and developmentalDanin Debatethanking and M'Liss Team Dan atProfessionalismlastingcareerscolleagues where ways. shaped we remark have theirand been that Forensics forensics andattending where with pedagogy a we developmental the are 1997 going. in conference very conference significant as we early tookand in along- theirlook It seemed appropriate then, that we embraced the theme of fromIthatconference am they gratefulmany took colleagueson theforindividual proverbialthe personal in theevents bullforensics and inby Denver professionalthe community horns in and1990. support invitedwhile I us Ihave have to Houston. worked received on I appreciate the fact forensicattendedNFA-LDWhile the organizations. the debatepurpose 1997 andconference of this NPDA-style conference represented parliamentary was a to broad focus range on debate, individual of intercollegiate events, Presenters and attendees were affiliated with Phi those who Alaskacolleaguesverykindthis document. helpful.words Anchorage. atin Finally, tournamentsthe Department I am appreciativeand thoughtfulof Communication of thenotes support through at I receivedthe email University have from been my of Editing this compilation was not an easy taskThe andDepartment your Secretary, Christine Simonka, was addressresolutionsveteranCEDA/NDT.Rho Pi, forensica PKD, broad and DSR-TKA,papersrange educators of included issues attended the and in AFA-NIET, this intereststhe packetconference. reflective of NFA, conference Not NPDA,of surprisingly, the proceedingsbroad and rangeeven the Undergraduates, graduate students, new coaches, and helpfulsignificantUAA'sthealways efforts information good-naturedSeawolf of time my Speecheditorial throughoutand about effort and assistant, letting the Debateshe process. putme Laure Team. useforth In herC. addition,Iin Macamcomputer helping indebted Connell, I want andme to ato shewith member hermention provided forthese the of thispresentersTheof people packet table who whoofare contents wereindicated were present accepted includes with in anHouston. for asterisk. athe complete conference. listing Papers of the not papersincluded and in The materials included in this proceedings. Conference Proceedings Editor Shawnalee A. Whitney everythingattendpriorconferencepacket to and/or are the possible asprogrampublication tocomplete check to but ensureon ofasdid the thesepossible. not thatstatus attend proceedingsthose of their orpapers present papers. tonot verify papersincluded In short, that were in theyI thishave contacted did packet done not People who were listed in the University of Alaska Anchorage. Co-Director of Forensics March 9, 1998 conference.were left out at the author's request or because they did not attend the 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 . . NEW DIRECTIONS FOR NPDA & NFA LD 2 . . . ConferenceList of Attendees Schedule 35 . Jolm M. Devine,inDeveloping NFA-LD University Functional ofStandards Rhode as Island a means to Greater Accessibility PAPERS FROM THE KEYNOTE SESSION 3 . . . Resolutions 4339 . . LewisSteven E. ArgumentMaintainingL. Rutledge,Johnson, in the Parliamentary University Pt.Status Loma Quo: DebateNazarene Recommendationsof Alaska College Anchorage for Preserving Public 7 . . . James J. Kimble,DilemmaProfessional: TheGeorge Ghostwriter, in Original MasonNegotiating TheContest University Laissez-Faire the SpeechesOvercoaching Coach, vs. and Undercoaching the Forensic 56 . TammyIntercollegiateForensics Duvanel Fellows: Unruh, Parliamentary Integrating Bethel Debate CollegeFaculty Programs Participation (KS) into 14 . . . Larry Bryant K.Professionalism Alexander, Southern and Forensics: Illinois A Matter University of Choice Schnoor, St. Olaf College & theirPresumption Application in Parliamentary to an Emerging Debate: and Evolving Examining Debate Whately's Style Ideas and NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATION & JUDGING TOURNAMENT MANAGEMENT 61 . . . Joel Hefling, South DakotaForensics State Education University and Tournament Management 18 . . . David L.Events Kosloski,Creating Space Hastings for the Physically College Challenged Competitor in Individual 66 . . Scott Jensen,LaboratoryForensicsEqual Webster Opportunity?: Pedagogy, University The Forensics Impact Professionals, of Specialized and Tournaments the Forensic on 20 . . . Jeff Przybylo,Creating Harper an IndividualCollege Events Judging Philosophy 73 . . Vicki L. Karns,DSR-TKAJudge Agreement Suffolk National andUniversity Forensics Student Rotation:Tournament A Real-Life Study of the 1990 NEW DIRECTIONS FOR ORAL INTERPRETATION 24 . . . Chris S. Aspdal 79 . . Daniel A. AFA-NIET:West, Rice The University Culture of Qualifying and Its Effects on Forensics 29 . . . Trischa KnappReturningChallenging to our the Roots: Conventions A New Direction or Oral Interpretation for Oral Interpretation TRAINING OF COACHES AND JUDGES 81 . . . Thomas Bartl, Teaching and Coaching Individuals: The Use of Learning Styles in Southwest State University 83 . . . Thomas A.FutureForensics Workman,Solving Directors Coaching for a UniversityHealthyof Forensics Future: of Creating Nebraska National Lincoln Standards for Training NEW DIRECTIONS FOR PUBLIC SPEAKING 87 . . . M'Liss S. Hindman 91 . . . C. NewFisher's Directions Narrative for Public Paradigm Speaking:Thomas Theory: The Preston, A Perfect Model PendulumJr.for Differentiating Swings After 100. . . Shawnalee DinnerWeIf It's Short-changingSpeaking Problem-Cause-Solution from theInformative Art of Persuasion? This and MustPersuasive Be Persuasive Speaking Speaking: Are A. Whitney 8 (Note:CONFERENCE This schedule includesSCHEDULE all papers & presenters accepted for the conference.) 2:00pm12:15pm SESSIONLunch and Discussionll Wednesday. August 13. 1997 8:00-9:00pm Registration for Pre-Conference Short Courses Tournament ManagementDanScottVickiJoel West, Jensen,Karns, Hefling, Rice SuffolkWebster UniversitySouth University UniversityDakota State University Thursday. August 14. 1997 8:30-11:30am8:00-8:20am ShortShuttles Course depart I: for Professionalism RicePeter University Pober, University& campus Forensics of Texas Training of CoachesTomBobThomas Greenstreet, Workman,and Bard, Judges Southwest University East Central State of University Nebraska,University Lincoln 1:00-4:00pm11:30am PhilosophyLunchShort & CourseDiscussion of Individual II: Creating Events a Judging New Directions forShawnaleeTom PublicM'Liss Preston, Speaking Hindman, Whitney, Univ. ofUniv.Tyler Missouri Juniorof Alaska St. College Louis Anchorage 4:00-6:00pm4:00pm ConferenceShuttles return Registration to HolidayJeff - Przybylo,HolidayInn InnHarper College Saturday. August 16. 1997 8:00-8:20am5:15pm Shuttles departreturn tofor Holiday Rice University Inn campus Friday. August 15, 7:00pm5:00-7:00pm 1997 ShuttlesReception/Social depart for Hour Ninfa's - Holiday Restaurant Inn (banquet) 9:00am8:30am KEYNOTEContinental SESSION BreakfastJim Kimble, Geoge Mason University 9:00am8:30am8:00-8:20am SESSIONContinentalShuttles depart I Breakfast for Rice University campus 11:30am Lunch and DiscussionLarryPeter Pober,Schnoor, University &St. Bryant Olaf ofCollege Alexander, Texas Southern Illinois University NewStandards Directions for Evaluation forJeff OralDavid Przybylo, Interpretation and Kosloski, Judging Harper Hastings College College 1:30pm conferencefollowedProgramSESSION Chairsby SUMMARIES/LEGISLATIVE recommendations/resolutions. open present discussion summaries and development of their FORUM sessions of New Directions forJohnTrischa NPDAChris Devine, Knapp, Aspdal,& NFA Suffolk Oregon University LD University State of University Houston 5:00pm Shuttles return to Holiday Inn TammyLewisStevenJudith Unruh, Rutledge,Bowker, Johnson, Bethel Oregon UniversityPt. CollegeLoma& StateRobert Nazarene of University Alaska, Trapp, College WillametteAnchorage University 0 1 1 1 Mr.CONFERENCE Chris Aspdal ATTENDEES SouthProf. Joel Dakota Hefling State University Prof. David Kosloski Dr. David J. Robinson SouthwestProf.Houston,University Thomas TX State ofBartl UniversityHouston TylerProf.Brookings, Junior M'Liss College SD Hindman SouthMr.Hastings,Hastings Mike Dakota College NELarson State University Pt.Prof.Youngstown,Youngstown Loma Lewis Nazarene E.State OH "Skip" University College Rutledge RiceMr.Marshall, Amir University MNBrown Houston,SanProf.Tyler, Jacinto Lisa TX TX Hischke Central College SuffolkMs.Brookings, Jodi University Maffioli SD St.Prof.San Olaf Diego, Larry College CASchnoor Levelland,SouthProf.Houston, Natalie Plains TX TX CollegeBryant St.WebsterMs. Louis, Gina University MO Jensen Houston,SanMs.Boston, JacintoCourtney MA TX Central Massingill College Gainesville,SanteProf.Northfield, Fe Ann Community FLScroggie MN College Mr.Houston,University GregJason TXCunningham Cryerof Houston Prof.St.Webster Louis, StevenScott University MO Jensen L. Johnson Mr.Houston,RiceMs. JohnLauren University NashTX McGarity Prof.Salem,WillametteDr. Robert Tammy OR TrappUniversity Unruh Prof.Boston,Suffolk John UniversityMA Devine LeeProf.Anchorage,Univ. College Mike of Alaska, JonesAK Anchorage Dr.Manhattan,Kansas Greg Phelps State KS University Prof.BethelNorth Daniel College Newton, West KS BakerDr.Kingston,University UniversitySusan RIRedding of Rhode Emel Island SuffolkDr.Baytown, Vicki University TXKarns UniversityDr.Houston,University Peter TXPober of Texasof St. Thomas Prof.Houston,Rice UniversityShawnalee TX Whitney SuffolkMr.Baldwin Dave Univeristy City, Gallant KS GeorgeProf.Boston, MasonJim MA Kimble University Univ.Dr.Austin, ofC. Missouri Thomas TX Preston St. Louis UniversityProf.Anchorage,Univ. Thomas of ofAlaska, NebraskaWorkman AK Anchorage SanPt.Prof. Boston,Loma Diego, Konrad Nazarene MA CA W. Hack College Corvallis,OregonDr.Fairfax, Trischa StateVA OR Knapp University Palatine,WilliamProf.St. Louis, Jeff RaineyIL PrzybyloMO Harper College Canyon,WestProf.Lincoln, GuyTexas TXNE Yates A&M University 12 2 THIRD NATIONAL DEVELOPMENTAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS FROM THE competitive ends that are exclusive of pedagogicalWhile ends competition are not conducive and education are compatible, we believe that (addressing Individual Events, NFA-LD,August & NPDA 13-16, Parliamentary 1997, Debate) Rice University, Houston, TX ON INDIVIDUAL EVENTS commentssexist,to forensics related professionalism. to apparel, appearance,We believe and so thaton. judges should refrain from paradigmsbiased, that incorporate or prejudicial attitudes and should exercise tact in panelsweresessionresolutionsEDITOR'S or developed sessionsfor wereapprovalNOTES: developed by theEachor rejection entire new in panels resolutiongroup by theand in entire werethe is indicated Keynote group.brought with andto the aLegislative S.legislative Titles of that developed resolutions are indicated. Resolutions that Most thata new all event other calledinterpretation Oral Performance eventsWe Weemploy support encourage of Originalpublished the development forensics Literature material organizations only. ofand a Steeringsuggest to Committeeconsider the for adoption the purpose of appearedresolutionsfromwereSessions endorsedthe are inKeynote arethegrouped by listedconference a andvote together. in Legislative ofthe thoseschedule. order All attending resolutions in which the theappearing conference. corresponding in this document panels Sessions These resolutions were sent to are listed first. Resolutions Other conference.offerEvents,of developing training NFA-LD, fora 1998 coaches/judges and National Parliamentary Developmental similar Debate. to the Conferenceshort courses on at Individual the 1997 The following individuals have been elected to serve on the That conference would officersCommunicationinOrganizations discussion of the various at in Associationthe September variousnational fallconvention.1997organizations meetings so the organizations held and duringthe Council the could annual of includeForensics National them (UniversityPalatine,University,Jensencommittee: (Webster IL), Boston, M'Liss Dan University, West MA),Hindman (Rice Jeff PrzybyloUniversity,(Tyler Junior (William Houston, College, Rainey TX), Tyler, HarperTom TX),Workman College, Scott of Nebraska, Lincoln, St. Louis, MO), Vicki Karns (SuffolkNE), and Shawnalee Whitney THE KEyNOTE anti LEGISLA TIVE SESSIONS RESOLUTIONS FR 014 (University of Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage, AK). "STANDARDS RESOLVIIONS EROM EVALOATItO AK!: xpoING" hostingWelch),JuniorUniversity College), theand Third theForensics Rice Dan National University WestSquad Developmental (Rice (Lauren staff University), forMcGarity, Thetheir Conference conference work members Amir in Brown,organizing onparticipants of Individual the and Rice andJason formally thank M'Liss Hindman (Tyler competitorsdistribute who are physically challenged.We encourage This statement the Council would of include: Forensic Organizations to develop and a one-page statement concerning the judging of student discipline.developEvents.TheirAlaska efforts research Anchorage) have and provided forresources her worka forum in editingfor forensic the conference educators to proceedings. explore and The participants also thank Shawnalee Whitney (University of to promote professionalism in our paradigmsmovements).sensory,1) recommendations physical, based on or use speech on of judging manuscript, impairments students gestures with(i.e. reconceivingtemporary or transitional or permanentjudging 14 REST COPY AVAILABLE 3 15 materials2) provisions and/or regarding human/animal the use assistance. of conventions, time limits, visual developmenttoward excellence of the studentin the knowledge as my primary and practice concern. of my field and will work I pledge to strive listedThis statement as tournament should directors be distributed in the to national all directors3) instructions calendars of forensics of for all the Council and use those of thisof statement for all tournaments. practically."followingtoward theareas: betterment of my field artistically,This pedagogically,body encourages ethically, forensics and and communication research in the competitionbackgroundthedirectorForensic tournament. when Organizations for of physically the A coverphysicallyneed affiliates, forletter challenged judge challenged accompanying andeducation competitors could student. be and the invoked thestatementhave issues been by a wouldsurrounding enteredtournament give into a 2) 1)Empirical Forensics support education for thepedagogy method communicationof forensics as and/or citizenship pedagogy judgingJustification:ineffectivechallenges.compensate remains with LackTherejudging a thesigniftcantof is educationcriteriaphysically orreason producesjudge challenged why unfairly judges retention student. those who studentsrates are uncomfortable of physicallywith physical or sufficient evidence that judges inappropriately As a result, poor 4)3) PublicEmpirical speaking support event for competencyissues and concernsforensics standards coaching of and administration studentbeingthatorganizationchallenged currently placed him competitorsor wouldsolely doesherself. notonprovide theexist. are coach a low. value of afor physically physically challenged challenged student competitors or the It removes the burden of judge education Such a statement from a national NEW DIRECTIONS FORRESOLUTIONS ORAL INTERPRETATION" FROM Tilt PANEL ENTITLED furtherdevelopinggraduate believe student individual it staff judge or volunteer philosophiesWe judges believe as part to itof establishis judge the responsibility preparation. a process We ofof every Director of Forensics with is the responsibility of every tournament director to textarethedescriptions importancein by CAPITAL offering as guidelinesof a letters.) understandingpurpose forThese for their engaging ofrule interpretation text.We changes encourage in interpretation place event the the rulesnational emphasis of to each emphasize organizations onof thethe to consider the following (Additions to current guidelines anddevelopprovide training somea commission formof Directors of judge to determine oftraining Forensics. at national Weall tournaments. call standards upon the for Council the evaluation of Forensic Organizations to endorse and Once determined, national themeunderstandinggenres. subsidiary of theto understanding literatureProse Intetpretation: and offinally, the text. the proposed rule changes make In addition, these proposals offer a means to achieving the A selection or selections of prose material of "statementFurther,conventionstandards we should ofshort call moral courses be duty" implemented under for forensics existing through oreducators new national certification reading: conferences "Iprocedures. pledge and to for the forensics community to adopt an oath or cuttingsTHEDELIVERY.OFliterary ILLUMINATEDTHE and merit TEXT poetry DESIGNED THROUGH are TEXTSprohibited. TO THE SHAREILLUMINATE USE A OF COMMON VOCAL AN UNDERSTANDING AND THEME. PHYSICAL Play MULTIPLE SELECTIONS MAY BE USED WHEN Use of manuscript is required. competition,make as my andmission I commit the educationto making choicesof the student that place through the academic speech 4 Maximum time limit is 10 minutes including introduction. UNDERSTANDINGindividualsinvolvingDramatic Duo:the FOR portrayal THE OF of PURPOSE twoTHE or TEXT more OF charactersTHROUGH ILLUMINATING presented THE USE by AN twoOF A cutting from a play, humorous or serious, required.cuttingsTHEDELIVERY. ILLUMINATED andMaximum proseMULTIPLE workstime TEXTS limit SELECTIONSare is prohibited.SHARE 10 minutes A COMMONMAY including BE USED introductions.THEME. WHEN Play Use of manuscript is other.fromnodrawnVOCAL costumes, the Maximum from manuscriptAND stage, props, PHYSICAL time screen, and lighting,limit the or is focus DELIVERY.radio.10 etc., minutes should Thisare to isincludingbe benot off-stage used. an acting introduction. and not to each This material may be Presentation is event; thus, expressionnewnessfor the individual and of therank material.performer decisions at beingtheWe time, mindful recommend and should of the that communicate student's judges recognize individual issues ofthe value of "recycled" material FORCOMPETITIVEFROMProgram TWOOral Inteipretation: ORINTERPRETATION THREE RECOGNIZED (PROSE/POETRY/DRAMA) GENRES THE PURPOSE A PROGRAM OFOF LITERATURE ILLUMINATING ANOF and"recycled" to seek literature,out "fresh" to or avoid "novel" copyingWe approaches. encourage or mimicking coaches performance to guide students ideas who desire to interpret older, devotedCOMMONBEVOCALUNDERSTANDING CHOSEN to eachAND THEME. ofBECAUSE PHYSICAL the genres A OF substantial THE THE usedDELIVERY. ILLUMINATED TEXTin theportion THROUGH LITERATURE of the TEXTS total THE time SHARESHOULD USE must OF be A program. Different genre DIREOIONS FOR PARLIAMENTARYDEBATEWe encourage :RRSOCUTIONS AND NFA-LD" FROM TfiEPANgt, EktrtLED debate programs and organizations to develop Maximumdoespoemmeans not includedthe constitute material time in limit a musta short poetry is 10appear story minutesgenre). inthat separate appearsincluding pieces only original ofin literaturethat introduction short (e.g. story a Use of manuscript is required. variousargumentopportunities disciplines skills. to provide as resources studentsWe for encourage all venues forensic forensicin events. which programs to develop to utilizepublic non-forensic faculty from DramaticILLUMINATEcharactersand/or transitions. Interpretation: from a play or plays of literary merit DESIGNED TO AN UNDERSTANDING A cutting which represents one or more OF THE TEXT constructs, or previous practicalWe conventions discourage in debate.an unexamined adoption of rules, previous theoretical manuscriptmaterialILLUMINATEDMULTIPLETHROUGH ismay required. THE SELECTIONSbe USEdrawnTEXTS Maximum OF from VOCALSHARE stage,time MAY ANDA limit COMMON BE PHYSICALis 10USED minutes THEME. WHEN DELIVERY. including THE screen or radio. Use of This judgesenforce and policiesthat ongoing to reduce educationWe sexual encourage aboutWe harassment sexualencourage debate harassment of organizations forensicstudents, be organizationsa coaches, priority. to experiment and to with develop, alternate implement, formats and THEmeritPoetryoriginal TEXTDESIGNED Interpretation: introduction. THROUGH TO AILLUMINATE selectionTHE USE or OF selections AN VOCAL UNDERSTANDING of AND poetry PHYSICAL of literary OF debaterulingincluding should on butan continue issuenot limited of in debate itsWe to entirety. various suggest procedure international that forvoiced parliamentary formats. in a Point debate, of Order, regardless the of an adjudicator's 13 BEST COPY AVAILABLE 5 119 We recognize debate as a unique, worthwhile activity, worthy of a or alternative formats to ensure theWe public encourage accessibility tournament of various directors events. to consider the use of experimental student's dedication and effort. RESOLUTIONS fRom THE PANFT ENTITI.ED"TOURNAMENT MANAUEMENTis, in(re)consider the fmal round the use of individual of a briefWe events.believesingle question that tournament (not to exceed directors one and minute) national organizations should words,emphasiscompetition we on discourage qualificationduring the the course procedurescreation of the of forWeayear culture national encourage should in tournaments.which not the be forensicsstudents dictated and/or communityby an to adopt the philosophy that In other points.encouragingforshould decision" be encouragedjudges section. to more to provideclearlyWe call justifyclear for a justification "reasonand explain for ordecision"ranks their and own speakersection "reason on ballots as aIn means cases ofwhere such a section is not included on ballots, judges events,ondeterminingcoaches a perception and are the encouraged,the hosting number of the of need of so-calledexplicitly students for and/or "last orto beimplicitly, chance" lack included thereof qualifying to in pull aof fmal placesqualified tournaments. round in basedthoseslots, speakerParliamentaryprovide pointsadvisory (e.g.Debate point what Association guidelines does a 15 similarmean, Weto delineate encourage a to 16, those a the17, usednational differencesand soby on).the organizations National between and tournament directors to communicatedspeaking in the tournament invitation.We callWe for believe tournament that experimentationdirectors in all regions in extemporaneous to cooperate andto ensure impromptuis worthwhile, and believe that innovations should be that a variety of comprehensive and specialized tournaments are available. "NEW DIRECTIONS FOR'PUBLIC-PEAKING" RgsoLumiNs yRoN TEEF PANEL availablecondescending.stance when to competitorsresponding to and/or commentsWe coaches encourage on ballots who seek forensicswhich clarification are educatorscontradictory on ballotto take or a professional, proactive Additionally, we encourage judges to make themselves 2 0 organizationalcomments. patterns, modes ofWe persuasion, believe the topic forensics selection, community and so on. should encourage diversity in REST COPY AVAILABLE 21 6 professional. Ziegelmueller and Parson (1984), for example, suggest that Abstract:undesirably.uneducationally,thatwho allegedly There writehas theirlong original opposingbeen speeches concern number--undercoachersare forin forensictheir students. circles aboutwhile also coaches acting such Perhaps most critically, both sets of coaches areovercoachers acting are indeed acting This essayunethically argues and 4)administrator,professional "forensicrelates that roles, andthe Guildstudent among of advisor"them American the (p. role 37).Forensic of Similarly,classroom Educators Bartanen teacher, believes (1993,program that p. educators are required to fulfill a number of differing withoutinbetweensevenunprofessionally. a truly component endangeringthese professional two extremes,parts, either manner--contribute I suggest thewhere student's thata forensic there learning to iscoach a astudent's comfortable process can legitimately--and creative or any ground ethicalefforts in After breaking down the creative speech process into whatAsboth"forensic individual the we philosophy do, programs most events of and shoulduscoaches practice at this be and directeddevelopmental of directorsthe activity." by professional striving conference to educatorsbecome naturally better trained fall at in boundaries. THE GHOSTWRITER, THE LAISSEZ-FAIRE COACH, AND THE FORENSIC PROFESSIONAL: underattentionresearch,Unfortunately,session this isincreasing todegrees,evidence the whilemechanics focus andthat we departmentalat ontalk least ofprofessionalism aboutactual a few professionalism coaching, peoplestatus, in are we forensics. the interested tend activity in toterms give inthat ofthe too istenure, issue. atlittle the Indeed, this NEGOTIATING THE OVERCOACH1NG VS. UNDERCOACHING DILEMMA IN ORIGINAL CONTEST SPEECHES James J. Kimble1 hearttherewhichAlthough of isour we sufficient profession. theeach act utilize roomof coaching ourfor discussionsgifts is (andobviously exercise of professionalism an ourindividualized biases), in I coaching.believe activity that Inin George Mason University, Fairfax, VA Director of Forensics Thecompetitivethornyparticular, subject issues Iseason.of believe involved coaching that in individual thereappropriately is merit events guidingin in wrestling a professional our students as a group manner through with could the -Faules,(p.usingNo 65).one ghostwritten butRieke the & most Rhodes material unscrupulous (1976) in a contest openly calling defends for the original practice work of betweenindividualofencompass originality the severalevents extremes in public possibleprofessional of address the issues. Laissez-Faire events.can find ample, coach defmedand the Ghostwriter.middle ground In this essay I shall focus on the issue In particular, I contend that the I The increasing maturity of forensic activities in the United States has -Madsen (1984). . ghostwriting [is] a fact of life in most contest events (p. 9) memorizedeventstheshall overcoaching advance face; 2)speech thisa delineation vs. argument in undercoaching competitive of in seven three forensics; stepsdilemmaseparate involved sections:coachesand in3) creatinga of 1)suggested originala discussion an original public,set ofof thoughtsprompted1 AUTHOR'S on this issue, NOTE: and DanThe West author for thanks his encouragement Matt Davis and for patience.sharing his growing attention to the development of the forensic professionalspecific norms manner. to guide coaches as they negotiate these seven steps in a 7 TheOvercoaching rules and vs.guidelines Undercoaching of organized forensics indicate that public (1968,becomeUnfortunately, p. victimized. 81), without such assistance our students can and often will As Faules and Rieke comment in their first edition speechexpectation.else,meanaddress andthat scripts speeches wethe strenuouslyauthoredspeeches are to by beare others "original."object to be has written to appeared any bycoach the in forensicscompetitoror team contests,violating and no either onethat But there is little doubt that the practice of handing students Most of us interpret this word to theundirectedto adequateexpose speech certain situationor guidance poorly students to prepared be may traumatic to beaudiences student seriously than is or ismuch toharmfula well-instructed competition more tolikely them, without to one. fmdfor an individualsoroutrightthrough have therulesourselves who efforts violator may of have the(Madsen, crossedoverly 1984). helpfulthat line. Many coach of (Kalanquin, us, in fact, have1989) heard-- or the contributed to--negative gossip about teams or acontendyou competitorIndeed, have that manyhad whosuch that of has usundercoaching experience, hereapparently have had Ihad suspect is the asno uncomfortable poorcoaching you'll a pedagogical agree advice experience with whatsoever. choiceme ofwhen judgingas is I If relativelyeducationalthisVariously134), practice for sparse,called instance,practice. (at "ghostwriting"least) are arguesoften are bluntclearly that or"coachingin "overcoaching,"againsttheir disapproval. theefforts rules, should the and extreme supplement,are also forms poor ofnot Previous treatments of the subject, which are Ulrich (1986, p. succeedprofessionalHereovercoaching. lies competitively, a dilemma,manner. On and then, the the one facingprofessional hand, the we coach esteem enjoy who thatwatching oftenhopes accompaniesour to studentsact in a substitute for, student efforts." Madsen (1984, p. 10) agrees, adding that . . if we believe that students must, in fact, learn to do research, otherourselves--tothat success. hand, we the don't point want where to werisk cross cheating, the line or into even overcoaching. being perceived On the as In that spirit we can blind ourselves--or rationalize to helpfuloffendedappreciateto organize coach. by historical materials, ghostwriting, data to presentand be good it byideas literature,a fellow with clarity student then weand or . to an come overly to . . will be pridebuildcheating, intact--tocharacter so we cast inconvince our stones students. atourselves those who that we a suspectfew clueless are ghostwriting. tournaments will Thus we gain room--with professional ofSince us wouldthe event agree called with declamation these writers is not in theiroffered blunt at the assessments college level, of thosemost characterBormann'sYet that point (1961, where p. 267)the speech words, is at no the longer place the"where student's--when the speech changes it is, in . . . from what it would have been had the speaker prepared the usproblematic.oneaddresswho that who overcoach a speeches coachgives hisworking andfor or their who,her with studentsstudents. in anthe original process, as little event directionend speaker up ghostwriting as possible--is"need not publicrefrain also Faules, Rieke, and Rhodes (1976, p. 65) agree, reminding Yet acting as a laissez-faire coach-- speechprovide(1983)who are wassurvey,for outline,paid himself"--remains a definiteto 69.8% adjudicate research, ethical of judges andsuch violation. defmitionally fmalthoughtpresentations. editing that elusive,forfor aa hypotheticalcontestant's even to those coachoriginal of usto However, 20.6% thought it was In Thomas and Hart's competition"substanceforensicshouldfrom making mention educator of arguments(1993,suggestions. it needsto p. the 7). within student."If she student has an speechesidea that willas events improve are a created work, shefor to consistently And Denyberry argues that "the monitor and scrutinize the onequestionable,ethicalviolationonly judge questionable at responded all. and 6.3% behavior that sure a "coach-written thatand it7.9% was fine.didn't oration think is 'not unethical for violation Students,in meanwhile, were 69.5% sure therethat was an situation, 23.2% Addingsure to this confusion, the it was an ethical behavior was 8 beginners (p. 93). And Thomas and Hart themselves suggest that there theyis a potential would evaluate gulf between a specific, what real-life respondents instance. feel in the abstract and how jokes,topic,2. Brainstorming: main and points,selecting puns, generating some and of points these as many ideasof view) ideas as better as (including possible than others. aboutconcepts, the chosenpotential inanrecognizetoWith believeourIE suchcoach textbooks whenaKalanquin varietybecomes the offers of encouragement, too viewpointswhen helpful"little she help arguesand (1991, suggestion, onpotential the thatP. 91).issue "it exceptions or because assistance it becomesit offered easy by is nearly Regrettably,impossible tothe advice resorts to 4.topic,3. Organization:Research: ordinarily fmding fromoutlining publishedauthoritative and otherwise sources. or anecdotal arranging ideaselements about of the speech,chosen fmally,orinplatitudes, "themakingtoo littlecoach offers this asassistance." mustin determinationlittle Faules, determine help Conversation Rieke because the and appropriatecoach theRhodes' among subjectshould (1976,degreecoaching avoidappears p.of providing 82)andassistance to statementjudgingbe somewhat too . peers,much that . . [and] andfollowing5.including Composition: research--to elements the organizational create writing from an both edit-able or brainstormingpatterntyping manuscript. andout earlyusing and versionsresearch.ideas from of brainstorming the speech-- relativelythroughGivenalarming this it, asnovel thisdilemma, a conversation essay concept: offersand not the starterits that little own there in concreteapproach. the are coaches' sub-steps guidance lounge. to availablecreating an to originalhelp us I present what I believe is a 7.manuscript6. Polishing:Editing: versionre-organizing, refming of the and/or speech. re-working, improving re-arranging an edited version and/or of re-focusing the speech; a Sevensteps.professionallypublic Stepsaddress in acceptable Originalspeech, butSpeech varies that from theCreation level step toof step. coaching assistance that is Let me begin with the units.asObviously,a.k.a. we One "tweaking." go reason through these is stepsthat versions our will approaches hardly of these ever willsteps take vary forplace fromeach as studentliterallyspeech to wediscernible student coach. isthereaddressIf toowe isfailmuch thusspeech to andlittlethink ashow wonder ofhaving muchthe creationthat component is toowe havelittle. process steps,trouble involved we telling mystify in how an the muchoriginal process coaching public and But as we know from our public cyclic,theminformation.studentAnother toand re-focus back certainly reason to the theis idiosyncratic. librarythat speech almost after or a all evenspeech of usjust has will tobeen fmdfind in ourselvescompetition,more up-to-date sending wanting a The process, in other words, can at some point become differentpossiblespeech.speaking By topoints courses see considering that in the varyingthere creative a are forensic levels several process. of original coaching steps eventone assistance must in this take are light appropriatein itcreating becomes at a levelssomeaYet vocabulary ofidentifying thatcoaching. the with"composition" and whichexplicating we stepcan these talkis stepswhere about is mostuseful professionally of if theironly concernin establishingresponsible about Just looking at the list, for instance, may suggest to discussionIAlthough hope1. Choice what of I coachingwon't of follows topic: claim in selection willathat professional mybe usefulversionof the manner. speech's asof athese starting The subjectsteps steps pointis fromthe are: defmitivefor among the larger several one, thewithproceedtopicghostwriting coach a to coach ato studentdid actually whoexists; the earlierispolishes write tonot these at editingout alla individualsstudent-editedthe objectionable, stepspeech. by thethemselves.Others speech,coach as longmight who but as have wouldliterallyhe or little she be assigns problem upsetdoesn't ifa In any case, using possibilities. 2 6 9 these terms in this discussion enables me to offer the following suggested 2 professionalset of specific manner. norms for coaches hoping to negotiate these steps in a contributesproblems.The undercoached As almost the second nothingstudent, area to on of the the Table creative other 1 suggests, hand, process. has this a different student's setcoach of The coach has JayassaysCoaching VerLinden an that educational "forensics the echoes Seven activity issome Steps: most ofand negative A my perceiveProposal basic when feelings offor itinstructors Professionalonly about in terms forensics lose Educators sightof competitive when of its he role swim,Afterstudent,theprobably work that with talking madeunderpoint, the a abouthowever,choice coachlist of the possiblere-appearingof choice thetopic) student topics ofand topics hashasto (thus, polish beenevenand I brainstormingestimate,left spentsome largely some of twenty the alone time atranscript's few percentto with sinkideas. the orof overcoachingeducator-coachspeeches"educator-coaches"success (quoted for and in their forensics, undercoaching;in Schroeder,(paraphrasingstudents, I contend, nor1994, true Derryberry, do involves educator-coachesp. they throw avoiding 1993, the p. the studentsneither extremes write into of a 12). We are, or should be, 5). Being an pointthisAgain,grammar student's out not atthe allthe perilsspeech undercoached end of serves undercoaching.the process. as speeches enough ofwill a paradigm, look exactly I think, like thisto accurately one. But Not only has this coach not spent tournamentcoachingstudent'screatingInstead, true sessions.originalcreation, without educator-coaches speeches, significant making guidance carefully sure andnegotiate that advice the thespeech on steps those is involved events. in Letyet mehas explicatehad significant this position using the previously- input from collaborative truly the coaches.weknowledgebuttime passthey've looking along aboutalso over tospent structure, ourdrafts almoststudents of sourcethe no student's whentime citation, with we efforts acttheword asstudent, and choice,professional making contributing or whatever suggestions, educator- their else almostaverage"Let'sidentified first by steps.studentimagine definition, and the speechhasovercoached had we much can original imagine,more coaching speech. the overcoached contribution speech, than Taking the "most contentpresenceundercoacherAt this toof handthe should student. the bestudent obvious. work Both the spend coach too has little done time and in the to actualoffer point the common fault of both the overcoacher and the The overcoacher (ironically, given the label) is minimal--heandseventythestudent hypothetical editing contribution.percent ofor theshe ofcoach thespeech.has At work,athad each the some firstandstep inputlevelevenalong ninetyofin the Tablethe creative choicepercent 1 is neverprocess,of of topic the doing compositionandfor instance,lesseven than the The student's contribution, meanwhile, is styledemoralizedguidancesemester.memorization of coaching. or andadvice, tips, victimized. and even Each perhaps coach, to then, work has on faults delivery peculiar later to in their the The undercoacher is content to let the student labor without But perhapsoften producingmost critically a clueless from a competitor pedagogical who is timeofbrainstorming feelingsthe they effort. abouthave phase, spentthe speech--is but together, the rest almost poolingof the nonexistent. time their contributes efforts, knowledge, only ten percent and Even worse, the coach and student's combined effort--the Thesestudentstudent,standpoint, examples learns failing neither at totheof workthe ofsame these overcoacher intime acoaches cooperative, the student and spends the creates. symbioticundercoacher much quality fashion settime the sowith stage that their thefor withpedagogicalcoachArguably,involvement the has speech, thisnot benefits. literallyexample has I suspect been ghostwrittenis asmall paradigmthat enoughmost the case of speech, tous of minimize would the butovercoached agree the most student's that of student; inthe truthlevel process's the itsof While this student may well successfully compete worktheovercoachedsignificantthe most is the educational, most waysnor educational. to theand student's contributes speech much where lessfinal thewhen coach's the student's contribution solo is student in Table undercoached. 1.I believe, in short, that this is a student who This student,Instead, the coachI contend, contributes is neither in success would be empty, both educationally and ethically. 10 has learned both from the coach and from the creative process. professionaleffortTherefore--subject is the manner.only one to the of thecaveats three I listthat below--I is most likelycontend to that be workingthis coaching in a speech,somewhatIn the editing the more student and significant. polishing has created Insteps researching, athe transcript coach's organizing, contributions which is andnow againcompiling suitable become forthe topics;mostthisThe thirdspecific of thethe pair. coachwork, contributions For perhapsand the studentchoice spendingof coach of have topic and thealso phase, summerstudent spent the aretime creating coach markedly together has a list actually different discussingof possible done for attentionchoices,(writingthirty percent etc.), thencommentsfrom ofaskingand the the anothercoach. overall inthe margins, student thirty editing percentto drawing timespend workingwith the arrows, theremaining studentover the explainingforty transcript percent alonethose of I've suggested that this coach spends around crossing out word contributingbutproportionallyonpossible the even choice. topics, for more skilledmoreOf and thancourse, thetime isstudents student educationallychoosing the advanced has this their spent coach sound. speechstudent additional doesn't topic would time than seem very alone, in this tolikely mereflecting example, spendto be sendingworkingpolishingthe editing the over phase, studenteffort the transcripttheon off theircoach's to finish own. alone, share the Once polishingthen of thetheworking editingwork process with load phase on the istheir againchangesstudent own. similar, before into a to HereandIntake the the withthe brainstorming student's coach a given may significantly speech havephase appendedtopic, the increases, coach's and a thenlist solo as of workeddoes effortpossible their dramatically through anglestime spent aor coaching directionsdecreases together. possibleworkhas.significantThroughout timetopics--has everyamount these stepthis seven of coachalong time steps, together,thespent thisway. more third and time coach/student at onlyon a stepone thanpoint--generating pair Perhapsthe has student spent more a importantly, the coach and the student have shared While the character of this work spendcollaborativethespeechsession work even andwith at more its thisthe pool direction. student stagesolo of timeideas. on in The their whichat this student, own, theyphase perhapsboth however, of the generated creativeexpanding has possibledone process. on fifty theideas percent original, for the of Advanced students, again, would perhaps educationalis muchworktime is withoutmore obviously process in commentquestion), I'm important advocating. or this contribution, time (if the together student then is isathat criticaljust time's witnessing component educational the of coach valuethe contributionresponsibilityWhen the student time increases sinks reaches dramatically.to ten the percent middle In (perhaps thesteps research their the initial sharestep thearticleof coach'sthe oroverall series solo contributions,actedsuccessfullyIn comparison as well with as the their other time students, together. The first two coaches haveirresponsibly and unethically; balanced their own creative this then, third coach haswork with this third student has the carefully coach's andthroughspentcoach'sof columns the together and astudent's pile thatstudent's of identifying sparked articles time time thetoalone together identifydatabase original in the remainslikely ideasearch library inareas about thewords, stacks ofcoach's thesupport or same or readingmind), in for (perhaps front the while together speech) of time the stillmanner.unprofessionallyethicalnegotiated has the the potential extremes and to the beof third, actingstudent presumably, unprofessionally. guidance, actinghas acted in a in responsible, a professional and manner. I say "presumably" in the last sentence because the third coach In short, the first two coaches I've suggested these have acted hasThecomputerexhibitsninety-five significant organizational search extremely percentresponsibility terminal phaselittle of the increasessolo is foron-task similar,contribution almost even time, withall more of whilefrom the to work. studentthearoundthe coach composition seventypresent while the percent.at step leaststudent also makeembodiedbelievepercentage the they're negotiation inallocations the causal. bottom of arethe of indicativeseven Table steps 1, ofI clearer: nowprofessional add several behavior, caveats but to I don'thelp In fact, along with my proposed coaching norms, 30 11 31 authorshipstudent1. No mustmatter is indeedalways what thepercentagesbe ablestudent's. to honestly of effort believe apply inthat a given the speech's case, the professionally,will get us talking. or not . . . well, if it doesn't avoid the debate at least it coach'sthespent2. Following level by instruction student of Platonic-styleDerryberry and should coach (1993), be together instruction more the interrogatory iseducational likely the coachto be valuethan proportional uses directive). of (i.e., the time the to Deltaof the 78(2),Guild 1-11.of American Forensic Educators.Bartanen, The Forensic M. D. (1993). of Pi Kappa Coaches corner: The educational objectives References canover3. The and competitive coaching often are process success.compatible.) should always aim for educational value (Note, however, that these two goals City,Forensicmaterials MO. League for(ERIC high ConferenceDocument school debates-con?. Reproduction on the State Paper of ServiceBeetham, High presented SchoolNo. P. ED C. Debate, at267 (1985). the 470) National Kansas Are debate handbooks proper educational paradigmatic4. myspeechessessionThe example, percentages than will examples as obviouslybased rule-bound of efforton of divergethe a hypotheticalindicta; student's Table to real-life greater 1 levelare "average" orcoachingintended oflesser experience, extents coaching ofmore specific fromas the Journal of Speech. 48,, 262-267. Derryberry,Bormann, E. B.G. R.(1961). (1993, Ethics November). of ghostwritten Developing speeches. ideas Quarterly through ByConclusion combining the hypothetical coaching example in Table 1 with the coach's technique in coaching, the topic chosen, and so on. ServiceCommunicationforensics. No. ED 366Association, 999) Miami, FL. (ERICFaules, Document D. F., & Reproduction Rieke, R. D. (1968). Directing forensics: DebatePaper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech themtheseisbyabove controversial. professional in issues,caveats, the face rather Ieducator-coaches. ofhopeIn politefact, than that I silence.watching hopeI've made it is, a for afew clear it colleaguesis casetime forwe responsible startedover the talking years coaching aboutraise It may well be that my argument here Morton.forensics:and contest Debatespeaking. & Scranton, contest &PA: debate International speakingFaules, Textbook. D.(2nd F., ed.). Rieke, R. D., & Rhodes, J. (1976). DirectingDenver: clamoringitWhileThe comes mistake most time for of of that usto those wouldadapt elusive writers, agreethem code that toin (Kalanquin, anmy ethics issue opinion, in we forensics 1989, falter.was Madsen, their is a goodfocus 1984, idea, on Ulrich,ethics. when And yet we keep Mankato,of Schnoorthe first MN: &developmental V. Mankato Karns (Eds.), State. conference Perspective on onindividual Kalanquin,individual events events: P. (1989).(pp. Proceedings. 90-93). Have we been offering too much help? In L. ethicalIfMy we1984). approach think concerns of hasthe we beenissues will to surrounding focusinevitably not on get overcoaching the caught ethical up but invs. ona undercoaching"whose the professional. ethics?" as Reproductionprogram. Storm Service Lake, No. ED 244 318) Madsen, S. (1984). Ethical considerations in building a forensic IA: Buena Vista College. (ERIC Document debate. But to see this issue as one in which we can behave 12 No.Association,presentededucational ED 381 perspectives823) New Orleans, in forensicsLA. (ERIC activities DocumentSchroeder, for the Reproduction 21st A. century. B. (1994, Service Paper November). The administrative view of theat the annual meeting of the Speech Communication VaryingPercentTable of by1 Student, Coach Input Coach, (Paradigm and Combined Examples) Work on an Original Speech, Ulrich, W. (1984). The ethics of forensics. In D. Parson (Ed.), ContributorSteps in creative process TOP BRN RCH ORG CMP EDT PSH CommunicationConferenceAmerican Forensics Association. in Perspective: Papers from the Second National on Forensics (pp. 13-22). Annandale, VA: Speech StudentOvercoached student 20 .20 .10 .10 .10 .10 .10 educational goals and programs. In D. ParsonZiegelmueller, (Ed.), American Forensics G., & Parson, D. W. (1984). Strengthening CombinedCoach .10.70 .10.70 .10.80 .10.80 .00.90 .00.90 .00.90 (pp.in Perspective: 37-48). Annandale, Papers from VA: the Speech Second Communication National Conference Association. on Forensics StudentUndercoached student .70 .80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .90 CoachCombined guides student through steps .10.20 .20.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00.10 CoachStudent .75.15 .30.50 .10.70 .05.75 .05.75 .30.40 .30.ao composition;CombinedNote. The editing;seven stages polishing. abbreviated above are: choice of topic; brainstonning; research; organization; .10 .20 .20 .20 .20 .30 .30

34 13 35 forensicchoicesmuchABSTRACT: has educator. that been are In said involveddealingThis about paper withthe in thisexaminesvarious the educationaltopic elements ofthese Professionalism activity.elementsthat go into Opinions, by the andrelating making Forensics, probes, the of a weandvariousconsider feel via arestudies,the for theinternet, the important to millennium various to personal issues conversations ahead. to opinions, consider. In thisfrom will We examination, discussions bedo usednot pretend to atput references tournaments forthto have what theto determiningaand forensic questions professional the are direction presented to of be toa careerawarechallenge andof the thoseprogram choices involved in thatforensic in must the education. education be faced inof Thisshaped,futureanswers. conference of delivered, Weforensics do nothas and willpretendon executed. its be agenda shapedto be prescriptive. sessions as to how concerned Butthese we issues withdo contend theare training handled, that the of PROFESSIONALISM AND FORENSICS A MATTER OF CHOICE hopeforcoachesonLincoln-Douglas thethat all each and encompassing ofjudges, the debate, sessions standards topic tournament would of of professionalism evaluation address management, the and factor and judging, and forensics.of professionalism a generalnew oralOne directions session would interpretation, public speaking, parliamentary and St. Olaf College, Northfield, MN Bryant DirectorK. Alexander of Forensics Larry Schnoor lastaddresstournamentsawayas day it is allfromand related of aand thethe half. toinvolvementtheissues allRather, results of that the weofmay areas in a will forensic forensichave from attempt already participation, activities.education to been ask It someputand is coaching, notforth what questions, our during is purpose carried judging, thedo to When the subject of "Professionalism and Forensics" was first suggested, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL Doctoral Candidate theAsofsome concern weissues probing, continue beforeto the and along forensic us hopefully, are this the community. pathway same center as of were attentionexamination, here upon in 1986. it areas is clear The that thatsame seem many issues to beof wesuggestcould decidedwere have that not that soit exactly was manyby theputting sure differentmost justour important. collectivewhat meanings, direction In experiences attempting and to totake. select into After forensicsnarrow just all, one, our the together, focus,mightterms programpointtheThebeing infirst training recycled,time,that debate should numerousand coachwith education be followed.a was fewstudies hired ofnew coaches Inand changes,by every apositions university and case, but judges mentionhavethe back samehas been inbeen is base 1905. madetaken an of issueSincethat onconcern. thesince that atappropriateprograms.includingwe this would conference timeAnd cometo examine since up have we with this are continued overtopicon the 50from edge yearsthe several of inquiry the of millennium,experienceperspectives. into the questions itin Manyonly forensics, seemed papers and as competitors, coaches, and directors of forensic theeducator,field.forensic bibliography One as educator wellof the complied as best forshould onereferences by that beSteven well has that Huntbeeninformed could (Hunt,in the be of field,1996).helpful the developments would Another for a be new excellentto checkforensic in the . approachDeltadecades.concerns Professional To thethat echo turn have theof Development thebeenwords century, raised of the it byConferenceKeynote is manytime that Addressthroughout (Schnoor,we take to the stock the 1995 past of Pijust several Kappa what 1995), as we Program"wasEarmarkssource1952). from would Perhapspublished Graceof a beSound Walsh oneto in review 1958of Forensics in the her (Walsh, more what article Program," interesting 1958).Douglas "Nine Steps backEhningerpresentations inin A1952. Goodcalled along (Ehninger, Forensics the this "Six line we are about, what has been said about forensics, and what we need to 14 helpslongevitytrainingAs oneto provide examines of that a forensicstability is thesenecessary professional,atpast the referencesin same our timefield. one that we Thisbegins areare relatedsenselooking to develop of to forlongevity the changes education the sense is and what and of thewhichattend,This end factor of state,all a theseason. of regional way"choice" fromDuring ormay the national the regularalso regular be level seasonrelated season, tournaments tournamentsto the choices tournaments to toare attend. the made nationalsselected In as some to to at floatingWithoutinlongevitynew the developments past, ona issense a whatwhat sea ofof ishas longevity, ideasneeded,in been how but tried, we aswith we we want tend and nocan sense to whatlearn gobe of like intostillfrom direction a theneeds shipwhat future. without ashasto webe been This considered.do any notproposed sense rudder, know of theothercases,makefor return cases, athis forensicsure received choice thethat choice program. programsis for based that of tournamentscost.on continueIn howothers, nationally in it a attendedis particular to supportcompetitive is geographical based programs onthe theobjective area. incost order Inand isstill to program,themakedeterminingwhere individual choices. we and have where It incareer isbeen, the the we long forchoices wantso that howrun, to madeperson, go,thecan we directionweby mustasan know welleducator realize of whereas forensics for that that thewe have we studentswant in shall impact the to havefuture. go.in upon the Into choicemade.suchIn the Manythat as case PKD,the programsof fraternal which DSR-TKA, endare national affiliatedof season or tournamentPhi withnationals Rho a Pi.national is Itto the mayattend, best fraternal be for choice their their organization professionalmust program. also be Letstudents,theThese tournamentsus choicesfirst and consider fmally, need selected, tointhe bethe discussion theconsidered development training, on ineducation the ofthe forensiclength areas and of events. ethicsthe forensic of coaches season.season, and theneedschoice.NDT,Others respective toCEDA, mayThe make pointselect thisschool AFA-NIET, here choiceto attendand is that basedwhat one NFAeach ison of best program,what orthe even forother is thebest Interstate.each nationals, students for director the overall inThat such thatof atoo as program program.program, NPDA, is their at conclusionvalidnumerousseasonDuring reasons, isthe muchopinionswas past as developed, severaltoofar were aslong the years,put but andwriter forththe shouldmuch discussionof on the thehas be opinion internet.beenshortened. did presentput was Each forth concerned. Thisall opinion aboutan past opportunity howofferedNospring, real the us.choiceschoiceTherethey These are arenot may numerous translate "professional"to be attend based intootherany on thenational a choices programsvariety professional andtournamentof throughout factors, should choices butbe of the respected weany that nation must kind. need not asthat Granted, to suchforget makebe bymade that theall of formakeforensicelementto vent their a their choice, educationprogram.of "choice"frustrations. based shouldAfter asupon itall,Only enable relates what isn't a few boththatis to best of thiscoacheswhat the for issue. commentsis them, requiredand In students fora professional offeredtheir in the toperformance, professionallearnput forth sense,how the to practicaleachoutsideinvolved choice, the sense, academicin sothese which they choices, practice theytoo willcan understandingof carry gain forensics withthe skillsthem as thewell. uponof reasons Ourdecision graduation. students and making economics should in be a for Chicago.numerousmostconsiderationworld? of Theour Therepapers graduatesability of can whichevidence be nowill questionis beenter. valued presented This that highly discussion forat this somein theyear's thebusiness is NCAseasonalso theconvention world is subject too which long, inof to make choices upon a full examination and fieldchoicesWhatmustWhatever of behas everyday.forensicsremembered thisis put to forth do orFor with not. aboutthat instance, the Wethe the element aresame training the well should"choice" of awarerequired "choice?" be of ofrequired whetherfor those Each a forensic studiesfor ofto usanyremain educator,must thateducator.. inmakehave the it students.professionalthoseposition,and for that others, other are in needsthan it the may the best and bedecision position considerations,too short. is toa professional makeWe do theboth not decision, advocateonefor themthat based should anyand uponparticular forbe left theirtheir to stillinthatanotherindicated being chooseothers (Bartanen, a that forensic mayto leavemany choose 1996; educator,may choose to doGill, leave sonot in 1990;because becauseothersto remain Jensen, itthey ofmay in family are1993). the be not fielddue reasons Inreally to somefor tenure thatone or cases, whatever. interestedreason reasons, those or 38 15 39 mayWhyThe pointneverthe choice beto beclear was made to made anyone is that and except itwhat is a was thefactor person considered of "choice"making in makingthe that choice. is that involved. choice dowesay our alwaysabout behavior the model "choices" and the actions behavior we make send and asa ethicsmixed professional to message? which forensic we These give educators? lipare service,questions Do or professional.weethics.Also believe involved It is therecertainly Yet, in is the thinkan clear "ethical"training of to the all ofstandard numberof the us inforensic attendanceofthat times is relatededucator the at question thisto isbeing conference, the ofaelement forensics "ethics" that of beWhatactions,only made? can each weHaroldour of useethics. us to L.can help Lawson answer us in presented asthis we quest, examine four in this questions ourselves, time of in choices our 1994 behaviors, (Lawson,that must our whatstudent,numeroussuchcomes asabout up this. all in rumors theofdiscussions During which "choice" related our center at atenure totournaments,forensic thisaround as coach forensiceducator questions ator conventions,that professionals, makes coach,of "ethics." by this allowingand westudent atFor conferenceshave instance,a studentor heard that forthof sureConference,forensics1994). the the element forensics In(Schnoor, hisSchnoor Keynoteof program choices 1995). put Addressforth isneededIn based bothtwelve to tocases,on the bequestions an 1995 made educationallythe authors'Pi in one Kappa this may examinationviews Deltasound utilize clearly Development philosophy in maldng andput fmdinterpretativeforensicquestion?to continue material, Are to buteventswe compete becausedoing for that students whenthe student coach the to knows student'sause, service? not that because grade Whatthe student aboutpoint the student willtheaverage "choice"be cannotable is toat a educator makes by writing original material to use in directpressure.forthcoming.inwardly,determination. the Andprogram they thatOthers We may and insuppose notitself mayactivity. like is notthat a the choice--amake some answers thesecould choice or choicesavoid conclusions to allowthese because choicessuch that ofpressures would externalbecause, beto are"choice."criticismswin we with sending thisOur or after material?students to themdinner arewith Or speeches. awarethe these coach ofpractices? Allthe that ofchoices writesthese weare the make.based orations Whaton theor messagesrhetorical matter of studentscriteriachallengedAs we faceby to which toenter the develop yeartheto analyze careers criteria2000, problems ofwe by their whichmust choice and rememberto makesituations with choices a thatsound that eachand will professional to ofallow develop us areour yearsthesetoactivities, Whenbe clearonchoices. experimentalwe be in considertheyour It hasminds oral been eventsinterpretation,the as interestingtodevelopment whydesigned we public areto to listenofadvocatingpresent newspeaking, to somedirectionsthe these discussion ornew debate, developments, directions. for anyoverwe needof the In our makepreparesthatbybackground, which sure studentsto that operate. not our only for programs The ofthe forensics,claim academic do has more butbeen and thenalso putprofessional ofjustforth the train ongeneral numerousour world. students forensicsnature We occasions, of needto programsethics take to should exist because forensic participation dointerestingreasonsadvantageousthat to discussion possibly why twist. for events givewe Thethe have some educationreasons should heard area that notnumerousof of thewere students.be country adopted advanced reasons We a betterhaveor dealtwhy tried--and also chance thewith heard event what ofhere numerous wouldwinning, it wouldis the be ourprofessionalinmake our behaviors,place sure programs inthat theworld. theour academicare qualities, choices, In those this matterworld,that procedures,our our ethics, ofto students determination,follow have policies, in canbeen our carryand counterintuitivefootsteps. we practices withmay themdiscover We we intoneedchoose to thatthe the. to mostlypresentwaybeenrather itsuggested than could basedevent being beonwere that whatincluded based dropped. an itexperimental onwould inany Thea tournamentdoeducational objection to eventthe competition would toobjections.schedule, dropping be worthwhile, from would Evenan eventthe whenbe standpoint hastheif someit onlybeen has claimsexamination,professionalism to be a "professionalbut that it is we one claim forensicthat thismust educator."activity be completed fosters. Itfor may each be of a painfulus that of winning, rather than from an educational perspective. What does this 16 41 References SpeechAZ: Gorsuch Teacher, Scarisbrick 1, 237-241. Publishers. Ehninger,Bartanen, M.D. D. (1952). (1994). Six Teaching earmarks and of directing a sound forensics. forensics Scottsdale, program. extension. National Forensic Journal, 8, 179-188.Hunt,Gill, M. S. (1990).B. (1996). Why A selectforensics partially coaches annotated quit: A bibliography replication and for pedagogyevents.directing The forensics: for Forensic the transition Teaching, of Pi Kappa fromcoaching Delta, forensics and81, Jensen,judging141. competition S.debate L. (1996, andto education. individual November). Unifying research and teaching SpeechAssociation,Paper presented and Theater San Diego,at Associationthe annualCA. meetingof Missouri ofLawson, theJournal, Speech 51-60.H. L.Communication (1994). Four steps toward a philosophy of forensics. Events.Events: Mankato,Proceedings MN: of Mankatothe First DevelopmentalSt. UniversitySchnoor, Press. Conference L. & Karns, on Individual V. (Eds.). (1989). Perspectives on Individual (1995). What direction are we traveling? Keynote StatesConference,Address Speech March Journal, 22, 35-37.1995. The Forensic ofWalsh, Pi Kappa G. (1958). Delta, 80,Nine 2-7. steps in a good forensics program.to Central the 1995 Pi Kappa Delta Professional Development 4 2 17 PHYSICALLY CHALLENGED COMPETITOR CREATING SPACEIN FOR INDIVIDUAL THE EVENTS challengedcommunityforensicsconcerns,building/room hasamong students littlerecently accessibility, others. attention in beenforensics. While given hastransportation, increasing Yetbeen much their given needed gender integration peer to attention theand rejection, issueminority is important in of theand physicallydiversity forensics judging to the in Hastings College, Hastings, NE Director ofDavid Forensics L. Kosloski particularlyrecentItidea might of questionnairetotal be usefulinteresteddiversity to on inbegin in forensics.physically discussing addressing challenged how some judging of students thecriteria concerns in is forensics. applied raised to I in theam a expertsphysicalthepublicCurrent forensics school researchgenerally access classroomscoach regardingand agree equaland thathas critic.the educational implicationsintegrationcomplete While it integrationopportunityof forhas students all been who withdemonstratedand caneducate, disabilitiesacceptance be legislated, including thatinto of expressedaboutcoachesphysically evaluating some responded challenged concern. a physically to student.These the question, were Mychallenged someresearch "Do of studentyou thehas typical shownhave in concernscompetition?", comments: that when as forensics a judge 25% educationalstudentsExtensiveattitudinal withwith barriers researchinstitution. disabilitiesdisabilities (Beattie, has willshown are Anderson, happencrucial that onlytothe &their attitudesifAntonak, as overall much of 1997; integrationattention educators Jones, is giveninto toward1984). the to Positive attitudes toward physically challenged allowances"Istudents "[Iwonder am mustmoreconcerned] if I'm belee-way being taken thattoo intoor hard judgescredit account--the or for toosubconsciously performanceforgiving 'sympathy' for somegrantbeyond ballot." individuals.to whateverchallenged (Airman,achievementNegativeincreasestudents, the for1981; attitudes, allocationexample, and Jamieson, inappropriate on encourage of the the 1984). other resources newThebehavior hand, policiesfmdings necessary reinforce by to ofstudents be theto developed expectations increasemost with recent integration. disabilitiesand research ofhelp low to confmedandeverythingTake the persuasion, ability to beinga wheelchair." to equal standdelivery a would is obviously have some an advantage important over element a student and, . . . (traditional) student who has movement witheducationalwhoin thissuch see area students settings (Beattie, and perceive thus,Anderson, express themselves & more Antonak, to favorable be more1997) attitudessuccessful suggest toward that in dealing teachers their physically challenged students functioning successfully in wasdifficult"Judging hesitant to tell a . student how much with controlcerebral he palsy had overwas ahis challenge motor skills. because Thus, it was I . . to comment on his excessive use of hand gestures." physicallyRecentlyoverall integration. Ichallenged have written students about in theindividual challenges events of competition creating a (Kosloski,space for thetournamentapplicable audience,"In the case back-to-the-judge,is the vocal ofstudent the quality--should hearing-impaired 'signed' and the [vocally] speech it count student, while interpreted that the much?the interpreter only the speech."category sat, in not . . . [At] a. participatingadmittedchallengedcoaches1994). thatand My students whilecritics research they are willsuggests preventing not discourage that the total students integration with disabilities of physically from in forensics, into the forensics certain barriersattitudes makeand inexperience such among activity. Many coaches have participation feltdoingHowever,"It a bit was'Children cheated. neverI must of aIadmit aproblemfelt Lesser perhaps when God'for Ishe judgedme and had because found anthe unfair girlout I am shein advantage." duovery was interpretation open-minded.really deaf, I difficult, if not impossible. These barriers include budget constraints, 18 These salient concerns offer us a point of entry for a discussion on how 8. Are traditional (without disabilities) competitors disadvantaged isparticipatehindercompetitors.successfully how judginga physically in Attheforensics. decisions issue forensics challenged for At impactthe activityissue coach theirfor student isthe self-esteemhow physically in a judge'stheir and desirechallenged decision confidence. to continue can competitor helpAnd, orto at is integrating physically challenged 9. fromIscompetitorwhen it ever competing? delivery justified in a round? to discourage a physically challenged student is What disabilitiesdiscounted might be considered too for a physically challenged physicallyissue:Theissue following for challenged the critic are some andis how traditional questions to be fair competitors.that in I hopeapplying will fostercertain discussion criteria to on both this 10. decisionsHow"healthy"severe do coaches forfor thisthe studentactivity? prepare after the competition? physically challenged student for competition? How does a coach interpret ballot 2.1. evaluatingShouldchallengedDo current all platformcompetitor? competitorsdelivery movement, expectations be held gestures, to the and same vocal standard expression? when in competition hinder the The need for new direction. Social problems, 28, 321-337. Airman, B. M. (1981). Studies of attitudes toward the handicapped: Works Cited 3. thestudentorA studenttwitch round? be uncontrollablywith evaluated Tourette's against Syndromeduring other competition. "traditional" or cerebral Howperformancespalsy should may shake that in Psychology,disabilitiesModifying 131,and their245-260. integration into regular classrooms. JournalBeattie, of attitudes J. R., Anderson, R. of prospective educatorsJ., & Antonak, R. R. (1997). toward students with 4. inthanmayA studentcomparison othershave witha in slightly theto a degenerative theround. slurredother How performances? vocal shouldmuscle style that condition or competitor a slower or nerve rate be evaluatedof disorder speech Exceptionaleducation:handicapped. Theory Children. In R. andL. Jones practice. (Ed.), (pp. Attitudes 206-222). and Reston,attitude changeVA: Council inJamieson, special for J. D. (1984). Attitudes of educators toward the 6.5. penalizedbookShould in interpretation awhenthe visually competitor visual impairedevents? who student is confmed be required to a wheelchair to use a black be aids seem clearly necessary in an Children.education: Theory and practice. Reston, VA: Council for ExceptionalKosloski,Jones, R. L. D. (Ed.). L. (1994). (1984). Considering Attitudes and the attitude role ofchange the physically in special 7. challengededucationResearchinformative shows students speech? that into most our forensicsactivity. How administrators is that accomplished? believe that is the key to successful integration of physically Journalchallenged 11 37-46.student in individual events competition. National Forensic 4 6 19 4 7 CREATING AN INDIVIDUAL EVENTS JUDGING PHILOSOPHY judgingas serve philosophy as a tool towill train improve graduate the students "health" and of individualfuture coaches. events as well William Rainey Harper College, Palatine, IL Jeff Przybylo thisphilosophyInconsistent theaddition, student's shouldshould with I strongly thebe include discussedprogram urge a paragraphcoaches andand individual'sadjustments who concerning have philosophymade graduate the so followingthe assistants and philosophy goals. topics. to make is first assignment as a member of the staff. The judges,eachconcerningWhatattitudes events, is coaches, an I.E.howconcerning and Judging theand views judge graduate judgingconcerningPhilosophy? views assistants criteria. Individual decision-making. can Eventsuse to develop in general, their variables views and in It is a series of writtenIn addition, statements it can serve as aIt is a tool that yourWhat-Additional A focus? General is your How topics Philosophy view do can you of becompetition approach addedStatement to a suit round?and (overall your the program'svalue view ofof this yourneeds. activity? positions) What is debate).trainingdiscussionAs forensics sessions. starter judgesfor forensics we often classes, let conferences, our moods, and pet graduate peeves, assistant It is not intended to be shared with competitors (as in regional evaluateHow- "Overdone" do theseyou feel things?material/topics about overdone material and "old" topics? How do you thatminded,keepopinionsdifferences, creating us fromeducationally cloud acoaching doing personal our vision our based, styles, judging JOBS. while judges ages, philosophyjudging of relationships, communication. I.E. will rounds. aid values, judges inand doing political their Our job is to be objective, fair, open These things oftenIt is my position -tournament?What ListeningDifferent rules rulesbehaviordo you (NFA, use whenAFA, judging? Phi Rho DoPi, etc.)you adjust for the particular decisionbehowjobs. shared he/she making with will others,BEFOREapproach however, thea judge act ofbegins it judgingis intended a season I.E. rounds. toof bejudging. used as a toolThis for philosophy is created to help the individual judge determine Its content may What-rank/rate?How Language isdoes your a(dirty attitude student's words, toward behavior sexist language? language, as an audience etc.) member effect their view.viewforensicsA judgingon social decisions philosophy issues and why?"lifeshould in general), not articulate but instead a judge's should world be a viewforensics (one'sIt should answer the question, "What criteria do I use to make -What UseMovement isof your script attitudeand (looking Book-as-Prop toward at the movement? script) (interpretation) AsshouldA judging judges develop philosophyand coaches,as one isgrows dynamicI believe as a judge orthat ever it and ischanging. importanteducator. Our to viewsspend and some criteria time rank/rate?What-To Current what is yourdegree sources attitude should toward a student current "use" sources the book? and how does it effect your 4 8 thinking and writing about WHY we judge the way we do. The I.E. 20 ballot?What- Types types Do of commentsyou of highlightcomments the do positive/negative? you try to write? Do Do you you justify "coach" the rank? on the JudgingAppendix Philosophy A - Sample Individual Events Judging Philosophy assignWhat- Speaker isspeaker lowest points points? you will go? What is a "25?" What criteria do you use to AJulyHarperJeff General Przybylo1997 College, Philosophy Palatine, Statement IL Does-Do AppearanceOrganization you the organize student of yourwith ballot ballotthe brand in any new way? power suit get the same rank as the Good"6"I evaluate isbecause Good. the ofI performancedo one not verbal get caught slip as aor whole.up because in trends For of example, aor single technical small I would things. problem. never give a How-student Time and toviolationswithout what degreeone? do you penalize for over/under time? thenoperformancesthingsWhen bearingpast determiningI whenhave on inmy awardingseen that ranking. rank, inround. the speaker I Ido past. IMAY judge not pointsThe compareconsider in theonly and moment. trendsthethingmaking performance thator Past comments. things I experiences consider I haveto Thetrends seenis haveonly the orin philosophy- AinEach statement prose,persuasion, event couldexample has for originalinclude itseach controversialspeech event a interp short vs. unifiedparagraphmaterial, issues. analysis movementconcerning in impromptu, ineach duo, event. etc. value A judging topics For example, third person stories Iexceptiontypicallyeffective believe communication iniscome competition.when into I suspect the skills.office plagiarism. and say, "Wow, teach me to research, Competition is the tool coaches use to teach It is our little "trick." Students do not to Therefore,advantage.competitionwrite,help the student I tryAsthat towitha looks coachjudge this like with particularI focus fun. the sameon stage the mind of process the set. learning and notprocess. the product.organize, and appreciate literature!" As educators we must use fun to our They seeIt ais gamemy job or as a judge particularInterp"Overdone" material student). material/topics should be of a college level and challenging (for the It should also have literary merit. The fact that . myoriented.Publicsomebody rank. address The "did fact topicsthe that piece shouldsomebody before" be timely, has"did no the bearingscholarly, topic before"on creative,my rank. has noand bearing research on 50 21 51 judgeIDifferent make according a point rules of (NFA, to finding those AFA, rules. out whatPhi Rho rules Pi, the etc.) tournament is following and If, for example, the tournament is using 25OnSpeaker - for a 1-25performances points scale: that are among the best I have ever seen. tournament,schoolimportantEntertain.Phi Rho tournaments. Pi when rulesNOT judging thethen A rules judgeI a will community he/she mustjudge feels evaluate Speech college are "correct." according totournament Entertain to theas as well rulesSpeech as of high the to I will not apply After Dinner Speaking rules. This especially round.the2324 - abovefor I performancesthework criteria). number down from oneI thatmay ranked there, are start among neverspeaker below thegoing 23inbest the itbelow Iif roundhave was 15. seen an(if theyextremely this do not weakmeet year. thelisteningListening same behavior studentisbehavior equally willexhibiting important be "warned" poor as speaking. onlistening the ballot. skills The his/her next time rank I observewill be Students who exhibit poor use)studentWORKIOrganization organize are toconfusingON, readmy and of ballotsand ballot COMMENTS. and use. intooften three useless. columns;An organized GOOD ballot STUFF, is much THINGS easier for TO Stream of conscious ballots (which most judges a SexiestLanguagedropped.is not anddouble Poor foul listening entered language (or behavior lying should about includes be beingavoided leaving DE). unless early it when is being the usedstudent to personShouldProse stories. stories tell a are "story." acceptable and are judged no differently than first I look for a beginning, middle and end. Third BothMovementinmake ADS/STE arean argumentacceptable and is not Book-as)Prop consideredor as is long a vital as scholarly. theypart(Interpretation) ofare a purposeful.character's dialogue.Movement Blue and humor book- understandIpoetry look for understanding. with the audience. Programs and long poems are equal. And whether or not the student shares that UseStudentsranks."as-prop of script should should "addacknowledge to" the performance the literature. and not be used "to get better A student who ignores the IImpromptuTheDrama believe focus & thatshouldDuo & aExtemporaneous unified be on creating analysis character(s) Speaking is a superior and way bringing to argue a play (number to life. of topicSourcesCurrentliterature does shouldsources (not not lookingcall support for atsources arguments pages, from blank in "this ascript, timely year" etc.) and then will effective so be be penalized. it. manner. If a ValuePersuasionpointsshould topicsis irrelevant.be usedshould as besupport2 orreserved 3 work for ideas,for fine ADS notdepending or as STE. main onpoints. the topic). Example 5 2 onTypesperformance.My how commentsof to comments improve My on the thegoal performanceballot is to willencourage reflect or speech. positivethe student My and ballots while negative will providing aspectsend with advice of athe encouragedmessage.Problem-Cause-Solution Other and celebrated.methods (as is long not theas they only are way appropriate to organize for thea persuasive topic) are "justification of rank" statement. 22 asTopicsInformative well asshould society be inscholarly, general. creative and important to a general audience message.entertaining,IAfter discourage Dinner blue,Speakinghave a solid structure, and provide a useful/motivational sexist, or racist humor. The speech should be

5 4 23 CHALLENGING THE CONVENTIONSOF ORAL INTERPRETATION Overused Material University of Houston, Houston, TX Christopher S. Aspdal timesout.termperform,If athat before"piece suggestsfor of whatever essentiallyliterature that the reason, is becomes material'sfound then to atraditionally valueitnegative is classified of entertainment label be anasgiven enjoyableoverused. to hasThe the been selectionliteratureattitudeThis worn is aof to listening to a piece that we have "heard a thousand growliterature.natureManyThe forensic from stigmas of oral this community haveinterpretationmaterial. been However, placedis currently is to in educatewethe facing as world coaches students many of oral and difficult throughinterpretation. judges challenges. have the usetaken The of Regardless of the literature used, students have the ability to reviewthisUnfortunately,itself. label. older pieces the educational of literature value and oflearn the fromliterature them. suffers There equally is, after from all, Students should be allowed, for the sake of education, to approachIthavea more taken negative to the oral place approachinterpretation of more to isthisimportant andimportant concept. see whatwords Wordsfor possible likeus such toeducation looksolutions as recycle at andthe we research.reasonsand may trite be why we have taken this consequencespieceimportantliteraturea reason of literature why lessonis easy of they performing in isto oralhavelabeled learn, interpretation. been literatureas "overused,"performed that interests studentsso many them. should times. not suffer the is fun and exciting or simply teaches an Regardless of the reason why a Either the Obviously,Theeducateinterpretationable following to students derive. when community andlookingAbove help allat them suchelse,and tosome awe subjectiveachieve need possible to their rememberevent solutions goals as oral(rather thatto interpretation, these we than are problems. ours). here to will examine some current issues facing the oral questionable.TheNational second Material misconception behind recycling pieces The question is raised, if a piece of literature has been is a bit more andprovideproblems.no group disappointment for willPerhaps a more ever throughforequalreach competitive criteriaa examiningunanimous for students. judging, these decision concerns, and on create how we less tomay solve frustration be able these to tournaments,often,obviouspieceperformed becomeit answeris seenby that anoff onto students individual limits thisballots question to shouldand other in heard awould notstudentsnational bethrough appear allowed breakin the theto to round,befollowing halls perform no. of However,then universities literatureyears? should all that thistoo at The communityWe,TheRecycling questionunfortunately, Pieces that of would using seemprevent "recycled" to students have material assumed from hasrehashing raiseda law old manyin performances.our eyebrows. forensic student"flownliteraturehas been willits "successfully"could course eventually not and possibly suffer should done. from be be improvedtheselaid to prevailing rest." on, or attitudes. (2) The literature has The belief seems to be either: (1) The In either situation, the misconceptioncompetitionidea"recycling"Before of weusing (usually go behindmeans. aany piece further, successfully)recycled When of literature itused literatureis probably in would thatthe is areahas two-fold. benecessary previouslydefmedof competitive toas defme recycling.been forensics, performedwhat exactly the in The andwillprocess.thrivesCreative effortfmd material upon. in and preparing artistic that strikes endeavors and presenting their are attention what pieces. the and oral spend interpretation a great deal community of time Additionally (and very important to note), many newer studentsBy limiting students such, we stifle the creative thought However, once taken to 5 6 24 wastecompetition, of time, these due to students the "recycling are told rule." that their efforts are, essentially, a presentindividualStudents material should pieces. of anybe This permitted sort. is to There say to that is use not the their a cutting specific creative should rule endeavors claiminglikewise reflectrightsto cut toandthe he/sheHowever,original should ideas, when not this abe student penalized. does choose to perform a "common" topic, is one of the great aspects of oral interpretation. thepreviouslystudent's round. original performedused. Judges work piece should and and not equallyevaluate an "exact remove according cutting their to personal and/orthe performance blocking"views on ina gender,OftenGender it thenSpecifichas beenthe performer Interpretationsaid that ifmust a piece be of of the literature same gender is written as the for character a specific in judgingallowliteraturestudentsIt is opinions.students important dois discovered, not to necessarily togrow note fromwe that should theirknowin both performances,encourage as instances much asthe of we rathereducational recycling coaches than material, be do.process stifled andmany by All too often, students have simply become frustrated When thattointhe orala literature.acharacter student interpretation. must Thisat all bringsremain costs, The uptrueideaand the tothesuggests question his only or her waythat of sex. maletostudents insure vs. female shouldthat this roleremain is playingdone true is Triterefrainrecyclingand given Topic from stigma.up discouraging on forensics We should commentary. because encourage of judgments students tomade do theirbased best, on thisand toversa,process.The grow problem a certainas When performers with degreea male this andideaofstudent growth learn is that takes as takes students much on place. the as become theypersona Students can limited ofabout should a female, totheir thebe abilities. allowedcreativeor vice aboutmayinterpretation.Similar be a toreferred specific the recyclingJust to topicas as literary trite concept, enough or material common. another times, is oftenThe stigmawe belief becomelabeled falls is onasthat very theoverused, when realm tired we oftopicsof hear oral or thatinterpretationdifferences.opportunityNo othernormally forum to would allowsstretch of interpretivenot studentsbeyond be considered. their to performance expand limited their boundaries trulylimits allows and and perform portray a student genderpieces the As trite as this may sound, the fact remains that oral Thescrutinizedsuchdesensitized problem as war, on towith manylove, the this subject adeath competitive philosophy and and thus the weekend.comes learninfamous innothing two "gayparts. further AIDS"First, from perhaps have it. beenthere Topics notthemselves.allowedlimitedAs acting judges, to to help(as thewe I'vestudents needboundaries heard to opengrow all set ourtooin uptheir mindsoften) by performances the to and stage.the thatidea wethat and areoral learn therefore interpretation more about not is Gender shifts should be studenteducation.performancetopic,is something buttalents, Programmedwe new as toall a createand toowhole. innovative often logical literature miss links or teaches itinteresting as because well us as to to creativewe utilize derive tend acutting. from fullto tune spectruman overused out the of Secondly, students are here primarily for genderWhenCultural looking specific Sensitivity to interpretation. the area of cultural sensitivity, we see similar parallels to Essentially, the guiding force behind this accomplishededucatesubject,"We should throughthat not thejust assume student theirthat. performances,that has. because we and have equally heard "everythingfeel that they about have a Stifling topics due to subject matter should be Students should be allowed to thrive and performingleastAmerican,writtenphilosophy does for notJewish,thisis a thespecific resemble literature. same etc.) asrace andthe gender orculturalthe culture studentoriented persona, (Hispanic, is pieces. not thenof If that aCaucasian,he/she piece background, ofshould literature African avoid or at is This idea appears the strongest when the piece avoided. Coaches should always strive to teach their students unique and 58 25 directly focuses on the particular issue of race. 59 The problem here is that students should be encouraged to explore and Yes, oral interpretation is, perhaps arguably, the most subjective of all technique.valiantforinteractstudy the foot other sakedirectly forward cultures. of learningwith in learning the culture.more and about getting their involved literature with and other performance cultures But this research comes to an end when, in performance, a Perhaps the best way to learn about a culture is to So many times students have put a bearing.judging,formsperformedalways Obviously,ofwhen placecompetitive piece following his objectiveof or literature,speech. her structure personal concerns style feelingslike and timesuch, andrestraints, should emotions not literary have into amerit, stricta well It is difficult to arguethis that one will almost is expected. However, objective howstandard.coach can or youjudge say tells this a about student a culture not to performwhen you something don't belong due to to it the ethnic "But you don't look Hispanic . . ." or, "That was offensive, . . ." are preferencespreferences"and physical to criteria thelimitations student. should will Maybe not always reflect he hadhave in ranking.never a role thought in judging. of it But before, "personal or Yes, mention these studentsprocess.wordsIf students uttered to expand areto students stifled their in knowledgeon their ballots performances, over of other and over cultures. then again. so too is the educational It is important that we not only support, but also encourage By doing so, we performanceholdpersonalperhaps hepreferences will of the adapt piece, in to how nothis anhowaudience. event it is set"should" up. be performed,this but do not standard against a performance. There is nothing wrong with Simply put, judge the Assumedopen-mindedallow for aFormats wider students. variety of performances as well as more rounded and thecourseTraditionally,The value Great educators of Debates oral oral interpretation in interpretation the past have, as hasan and educational not on been some the occasionspractice. subject ofstill ridicule. do, argue Of However, for general,stylesputofAs general atogether rule from evolutionary of "assumed which thumb,and judged. oral oral rules" judging interpretation interpretationWe and seem criteria. patterns to was have Suchevents to developed movedhow things have specific away as graduallyand teaser/intros, havefromevents nowtakenthe should creativecreated sociala path be theRecentlyan educational sakealternatives of it argument,seems tool. that that oral wecoaches interpretationwill assume and judges the has standard have taken. begun of oral to question interpretation many asof The current shifts in newinnovativeexpectedsignificance standards. norms. concepts and performance to "down formats ranking" have students evolved who from fail creative to follow styles these to Judges have shifted from rewarding students for amongtogether).debatesattitudes oral(hmm as well interpretation as coaching coaches philosophies and judges, have conjured creating up a several traditionalist heated Unfortunately, these debates seem. to have developed. a split . oral interpretation and debate, two terms seldom used accordingfollowbecomeThe major a tolimited teaser/intro the problem assumed in their with format rulescreative these format, for means.format her that prose, criteria student for iswhatever will that probably students, reason, suffer again, then If a student does not wish to middle.performingpoint of view oral and interpretation a non-traditionalist have pointinadvertently of view. Asbeen a result, caught students in the beginpeopleeventthe consequences. to to hisassumed poetry rules program, such as then social the significance same rules or apply. format structure, weto enforce Likewise,our own if a personalstudent chooses not to link a current beliefs into the Byindividual's limiting traditionalistsnote,vs.dramaticsArguments single though, pieceperformed over that alike poetry such when tend as topics have monologuelooking to judgebeenas first at debated with thesevs.person dialogue an issues, foropenprose years. andtraditionalists mindvs. programmedthird and person set personaland prose,poetry non- It is important to 60 interpretation, thus not allowing for individual styles and preferences. 26 preferences aside once in a round. boundariesstudents'However, performances. recent of oral arguments interpretation" have anddeveloped "what qualifiesover the aactual piece validity as having of Questions such as "how far can we stretch the OneWritten of the Material greatest debates currently facing the forensic community is that reachtakenthatinliterary separating we onany addressmerit both obvious traditionalist havesides. a few conclusionsdeveloped?" of these and major non-traditionalist toThese these debates issues issues and have is seeopinions. one takenthe sitting, logical a harder but arguments perhaps course It is important to realize that we will not be able to It is essential outsideoriginatedof valuematerialthe use authors. of oftopromotesadapting promotewritten By performing toamaterial. research lack different in educational andMany one's authors, further wouldown asstandards.studywork, arguewell and students as that readingaudiences.Oral the interpretationfail use from to of learn variouswritten the was What this Actingandwe maymend vs. be a Interpretationablefew of to these gain problems.a greater understanding of this split in attitudes performed."becausecreativeinterpretation,means interpretation is that whensimply andwritten because adapting material the authorto other is performed, is authors the interpreter. becomes there isThe irrelevant,no searchroom for the performer "already knows how the piece should be strongestliterature?questionPerhapsinterpretation, one argumentof ofwhat the so definesmost definingwe must frequent the look line criticisms further between into seen acting this on argument. andballots oral recently interpretation is the Certainly a book in hand does not solely justify the line between acting and interpreting Probably the oral old,Studentsmaterial,Essentially, and not shouldandtake athe the student striveidea easier of to can approachresearch fmd simply material ofand writingsit learning fordown performance, whatever throughand write they others whether allwant. performedis thus new nil. or literature,interpretationManyis the creative traditionalists one motivationover should acting usewould behind isone's movement. argue movementvoice that and facialor the absenceexpressions thereof. to suggest Simplythe put, basic when premise interpreting for oral emotionswriting.timesOn the students throughother hand, willthe performance fmdwritten a topic material ofwhich their promotes they personal really anwritten wish interest towords. perform, in creativeOften but Students are permitted to express their own opinions and Theacting.stage.emotions antithesis and character of this would development. be the argument of blocking an interpretive Interpreters should not freely move around, this is the nature of The art of movement suggests a thematerialand "one ideas piece" doesis that rare. have may some not have validity been and addressed should be before. considered As we've as such. seen with Writing materialruling provides on Programmed a means of Oral expressing Interpretation, views written piecemayutilizesaid,performance. be "Wethrough his able surroundingshave to "creative" express progressed more andblocking. fromallow emotion, basicmovement or standing, portray to set ato greatera allow scene." feelinga performerA performer for the to Non-traditionalists would argue creative motivations. As beenperformanceAAcceptable large a subject question Language pieces. of being controversy raised nowfor many. is that Aof great what manyis acceptable people feellanguage that the in. The idea of using offensive language has always movementmany.In either However, instance, and what the movement is debate acceptable. continues has developed over what into isan considered assumed "norm" too much by expressedLanguagefollowinguse of harsh argumentsallowsthrough language us words, toshow hearis simply bothoften the sidesvoice times unacceptable of of harshthis the issue. character. words. and unnecessary. True emotions are Oral interpretation The 62 27 allows the student one venue, and that is expression through words, thus 63 alternativesavenueinterpretation. possible is through to enable "foul" him language. to express Others these argueemotions. that this is just the Therefore, as interpreters, a student must rely upon every One of these throughencourage performance. students to strive for excellence, and more so, to educate notAllinterpretationway tooa peopleprivilege. often, will shouldhowever, often reflect studentstimes reality. express feel that themselves the use of languagein "real life" is a rightand oraland In other words, students take advantage of this use of itbehindfeelsinexpression isthe used heforensic this hasinappropriately. andvenue. the communitytake right Language it toto an use as inappropriate becomes"shockthe language, value." offensive level. thusThe and attitudeforgetting uncalled is that the for a purpose becausestudent Still many argue the logic that foul language is This is what we refer to privilege?questionableeithersonot why acceptable instance, does And it insuddenly if other wewe aredo realms becomethis, led ofwhereto forensics theacceptable doquestion, we like begin for debate shouldoral to interpretation?censorand we public whatcut address, out is and all language since some students take advantage of this In understandweAfterisn't intend questionable all thethat to discussion,do we to arelanguage "clean educators, we up" (a still longoral andseem arguedinterpretation. students to be debate left look with inAbove to and the us of forquestion,all itself)? guidanceelse, we what must in do isTrophiessomeonethrough ourall aspects.only competition. and else's,focus, awardsWe thenthe must areprimary we encourage nice--this have notgoal succeeded.issuccess for the allnature throughof us of shouldcompetition--but knowledge, be to educate.rather if this than Whether the student is a member of your team or learningremainstudentsIt is important stagnant process. may have to in collapse disagreement, the opportunity the differences then to students grow within as will performers. our remain community stagnant so in thatthe If a performer is told weekend after weekend that his When we Letfrustratedstudentpiece us is challenge willwrong and never simply due ourselves grow, to quit. personal or to worse bring issues a(as standard ratherseen many, thanof equality logical many in times)reasoning, performance. become that Avoid the personal preference judging philosophy as best as possible, and 28 A NEW DIRECTION FOR ORAL INTERPRETATION RETURNING TO OUR ROOTS: communicateentirety" (3). the The total authors effect ofgo the on literary to suggest work that of art" "your (5). concernThe emphasis is to Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR Director of Forensics Trischa Knapp text.andLeein InLee hisand other anddefinition Gura words, Gura's are of oral joineddefinitions oral interpretation interpretation, in this and emphasis counsel is about"the on studyis understanding theclearly oftext literature onby theWallace the bodythrough text. Baconof the examinationinterpretationthat,The textindeed, is ofdead--but the currenthave text been iscompetitivenot dead sacrificed in somein competitive oraltwistto the interpretation of idea Postmodern forensics. of "theme" practices Many logic. as witnessed texts Rather, reveals in oral byan ofthus,mustdefming" mediumoral assumesnot interpretation deny (6). of thatoralIndeed,to the the performance isbody literature Wallaceabout of performancethe mustgoes wherepoem retainon the theto (Bacon, rightitssuggest medium autonomy. to xvii) exist"that is itselfthe"the Though(38). performance interpretera Wallace,process the art of ofpieces retainsrevolvethetraditional recent of literatureits around sensetrendoral interpretationa oftoward tocentral completeness.create, interweavingtheme. essentially, practices, This Interweaving practice anotdifferent new just whole involves in literature pieces the since realm dividingof fliesno literatureof one forensics in multiple thepiece thatface live;anA is moreoral ayour means interpreter,simplified task to is an to end, definitionyourbreathe understanding responsibility energy is offered into the eachisby to literature.Teri makepage and of the Michael a selectedwords Gamble, of script" an author "As(3). matters;CatherinebutUltimately, in the performing Zizikarena we writes, ofmust oralthe ask "Toliterature interpretation ourselves the performer serves why as we ofaperformance vehicle engageoral interpretation, forin oralstudy" art, interpretation as (1). well.literature As as thatLiteraturehowdiscussionThe "contestantsideafree ofthe Policyof making interpreter oral mayprovided interpretation. words not is torewrite comeby bring the aliveYet, Americanathose prose, itas alsowords an a interpreter Forensicsraisespoem, to life. some or The aAssociationis dramatic questionscommon Ethical textUsein aboutstates any soof defineundertakecoachesof forensicsevents oral and to thisinterpretation. participants. studentsreflect study a we'llto more theThis We'll consider purpose pedagogical essay then advocateshowconsiderof engaging classic perspective where a reworking oralin oralsome interpretation ininterpretation. of directingof the the problems defmitions textsboth To illustrate,Aspracticesthat some the work beg theof the emphasisdiffers question:current from on practiceswhat textthe originalhasis fair beenof use? competitive text" sacrificed (AFA toInvitation). oral the interpretationidea of Current theme. studentsdefinitionsAssociationthecurrent American practices and forcoachesregarding Forensics the in oral to oralreturn interpretationinterpretation Association interpretation. to the roots lead.as events wellof Nextoral as that interpretation. we'llthe more National look closely at the Forensics rules direct of Finally, we'll propose new ofprop, interpretationWeSeveralhow thecan the lack explorepractices text of to hastitles eacha demonstratesecond been in of the thesedemoted player introduction, practices this rather inshift the thanto in and practicecome emphasis:the the star to interweaving aof attraction. greater competitivethe binder understanding of used texts. oral. as a InterpretationgreaterWhy We understanding Engage posits in thatOral of the"Interpretation Interpretation art of oral interpretation. is the art of communicating Lee and Gura's toOral an We can turn to classic texts of oral interpretation to come to a AssociationThepracticesthemanuscript idea rules that render be theand used. textthe the Onemanuscriptmust can be surmiseparamount as devotee that to this theto mandatetext performance. virtually has its useless. Yet genesis current The in for oral Nationalinterpretation by both the American Forensic Forensic Association mandate that a audience a work of literary art in its intellectual, emotional, and aesthetic 66 29 issue of memorizing the script has some relevance though may not be a 67 vocallifereaddirect since variety. from reflection the the audienceHowever, manuscript on the loses iflack anything, often theof emphasis benefitlose the some over-reliance of on facialability the text. expressionto Performersbring on the the manuscript and literature who some must to piecesandviabilityYet, more when the of closely use the delivering oftext damningprops in forensicsthe is introduction.apractice somewhat performance. is the debatablePerformers idea ofAn leaving trendeven will listmorein out determiningthe the disturbing genre titles and of the performersmoreandat least vocal to places dowho variety with have some performance tothe bring emphasisscript life memorized style to on the than the words. canthetext. centralbetter InOn the theuse issueend otherfacial memorizing of thehand,expression relevance those has interwovencreditThisthe authors, practice to their neglecting would name, seemingly ato highly illuminate assertunlikely the that individual prospect.the author work With had being but the one addressed.advent literary of literature, performers commonly present a plethora of thatTheof interpretation,text. movesuse of theperformance binder though as a awayno prop other fromdoes, event, an however, emphasis prohibit indicate on the text. use a growingRules of props. for trend duo Yet, theconvenience,hearindividual titles ten toof piecestwelvethe performers individual within different a pieces.will ten selections minuteabbreviate timewithin the frame. oneintroduction program. It is not be uncommonAs eliminating a matter to of givebooks.wheels,thanincreasingly, prop.the Often fishingillusion For inexample, the reels,recreatingof thebinder dance object.this is theauthor partners,used Yet, binder inhas why ways andseenas have a thatmore prop,binders the can logical themanuscript beused binder called aschoices steering isnothing if closed one such can't other asto misleadingisimportantdenyBy always not autonomy providing isprecariously sincethe genreto forthe the many titlesandpieces discussed, the ofprograms thatauthor.pieces they the performersWhile moreperform.mention thethan subjectInof eitherone essenceauthor selection ofknowingly authorseems what from becomes intentionat ortimes one not Thisanyusesread real ofit?author the Thisneed binder would strategyto use as suggest theprop illustrates manuscript are that done a thegood foras devaluing a theinterpreter prop. novelty of valueneedthe text. notrather useClearly, than the binderfor some wouldCatwoman"differentEdwardauthor consider may poems Field," and be each "Frankenstein." used.bywould of Mr. theseIn eliminate thisField works case, being Yet, asany an separate, this announcementperformed,understanding author autonomous is suresay thatsuch "Cursethat thereworks as Mr. "Poetry wereof inField theand two by isObergonneedas that athe prop for usecontendsin extraneous interpretationsince of both effective that bodily props.one props of vocaland Inthe vocaladdition,are differencesand not physicaldelivery used. the between art Heimagingto of conveywrites, oral acting wouldinterpretation meaning."Interpreters and eliminate interpreting Brent reliesmust any C. whataboutaddition,deniesof themselves. they the to thisefficacy arethe negligencehearing. author Lumping of a theprogram prohibits theability poetry because to the createtogether audience they a are diverseunder fromdenied the making body full phrase knowledge of judgements work."poetry" Inof aroundGordoncharactersuse ballet their at frombarNFA bodies in and the ClarionNationals. toperformingthe suggest presenceState The College at area"image theMs. presence(115). performingofGordon the Thisperformer of created author anypoetry objects, resting wasremembers in an indelible. hereliminationscenery, hand Laura on Aor genres.OraldelineationIn addition,Interpretation Contemporary of type the to mentionwhich satisfypoetry demands asevent of well genre criteria as thethe seems usesuch ofof asmore monologues two in the orthan casemore likely asof different dramaticProgram to be a . 6 8 interpretation, hoping andpointbinderperformer more here to onrecreate interpreting is the that words the when bar, andthe a sameantheir forensics easier resonanceliterature yet performer much into thecreate less 1990s engages affectingmeaning. might ingesture. use the a closedart The of to illuminate the text, will rely less on gimmicks overlistingAccordingly,interp the alsothe actual genre skew mentioning text, ratherthe a boundaries problem than the the forgenre title of the genreindicates isstudent appropriate for ofthe oral superioritylistener atinterpretation times. of theseof However, the types.as art. genre 30 competitiveThis practice forensics. indicates that the individual piece is no longer important in THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

7 0 ofcommon merelyYetthe eliminatingpedagogical method a byproduct of thepresenting and of title theethical frompractice multiple dilemmas the ofintroduction selections.interweaving of interwoven Knapp is, various this elucidates author literature texts, believes, the some (inmost EventsThe invitationRules Tournament to the American elucidates Forensic the rules Association for the engagement National Individual of oral press).that"Intertwinedliterature literature One of the literatureno longermajor woulddilemmasretains seem its autonomy." presented to deny the by literature the use of a rightinterwoven to exist if is the likelihood that an individual piece loses its identity, interpretation: cuttingsliteraryProse Interpretation: merit, and poetry which aremay A prohibited.selection be drawn or from Use selections moreof manuscript than of prose one source.is material required. Play of performerdifficultyaudienceisThe interrupted major in and gainingwhat dilemma listener by they meaningother facing highlightshould literature. anfrom take audience the the fromtheme The individual viewing eachtheme in the piece. selection ofliterature,the the interwoven In program essence when which that text bothtells is text notis thethe ThistheDramaticMaximum portrayal material Duo: time of may A istwo cutting10 be orminutes drawn more from charactersincludingfrom a play, stage, humorous introduction. presented screen oror by serious,radio. two individuals. This involving is not Sincethethannecessarily theme. many just what programs inappropriate. meets often the needs use However, several of the whenpiecestheme, the wethis literature must literature also has question is moresacrificed to how offer to includingoff-stageused.an acting Presentation introduction. andevent; not thus, to is each from no other.costumes, the manuscriptMaximum props, time andlighting, thelimit focus etc.,is 10 wouldare minutes to bebe timedevelopwithmuchmajor frame,a of thirty severalacutting selection prose second pieces. of rarelythe is introduction, representedpiece.While fits Incertainlyinto this insuch caseninea manyprogram. constraints, howand poems mucha Inhalf acan oftentherebyminutes theeasily minute actual requiringfit are programinto literature left this to a genressubstantialselectionsProgram used Oral of portionin literary the program. of merit,the total Different chosen time mustfrom genre betwo means devoted or threethe tomaterial recognizedeach of must the of competitive Interpretation: A program of thematically-linked interpretation (prose/poetry/drama) A typeshouldwhatselection?can actuallyof that illuminateinterpretation. partIn thesebe offers developedthe programs whole to the of theme. topart the give oftext Yet,the an is literatureobviously essencethe idea ofis thatnot performedthe theoral WHOLE goal interpretation ofbecause this of the of 10poetryshortappear minutes story genre). in separate includingthat Use appears of pieces original manuscript only of introductionin literature that is required.short (e.g., and/orstory Maximum a doestransitions.poem not included timeconstitute limit in isaa doneemphasisGiven to repositionthis on cursorythe text the examinationin textcontemporary as the of central the competitive problems subject associated inforensics, oral interpretation? with what the can lack be of drawncharactersMaximumDrama from fromInterpretation: stage,time a playlimit screen oris plays10 orA minutes cuttingradio. of literary includingUse which ofmerit. manuscript representsintroduction. This material is one required. may or more be . redrawingcanresurrectWhile aid individual in traditional ofthis the noble rules students, oral crusadefor interpretation, oral coaches, interpretation by offering and perhaps judges prescriptiveevents. the can forensics mount relief a community crusadethrough to a Maximumandmerit,Poetry prose which Interpretation: timeworks may limit beare isdrawn prohibited.A10 selection minutes from more including orUse selections than of manuscriptintroduction.one source.of poetry Playis required.of cuttingsliterary 71 31 72 similareventsThough thanguidelines the theNational American for the Forensic interpretation Forensic Association Association, eventsProse: offersthat aretheThe fewer offered:organization contestant interpretation willoffers present a program of prose literature. ForensicfollowingtheaddressSince rules oral events, Associationfor wordinginterpretation their these engagement. changes Nationalevents is lessrequire (indicated Individual obviouslyConsequently, more in Eventsdirection boldtitled italics)Championship thisthan in author theirmany for description the proposesof rules':Americanthe public theand minutes.Playspermitted.Original are not Programs permitted. may Manuscripts consist of single are required. or multiple Maximum selections. 10 introductory comments and transitional remarks are thematerialInterpretationselections text throughof may literary of be Prosethe used merit use Literature: when ofdesigned vocal the illuminated and Ato selection illuminate physical textsor delivery.an selections understandingshare a commonof prose of Multiple Manuscriptspermitted.OriginalPoetry: The Programs arecontestant required. may will Maximum consist present of 10a single program minutes. or multipleof poetic selections. literature. introductory comments and transitional remarks are humorousDualrequired.theme. Interpretation Play Maximum or cuttings serious, time ofand Dramatic limitpoetry is are10 Literature: minutesprohibited. including A Usecutting of introduction. manuscript from a play, is involving the portrayal of two or more permitted.theoffThisDramatic portrayal stage. is notPresentation MaximumDuo: of an two Aacting cuttingor 10more must event.minutes. from characters be from Thus,a play, manuscript presentedcostumes, humorous byand orprops, two serious,focus individuals. etc., would involving are be not fromnodrawnilluminatingcharacters costumes, the from manuscript stage, an props, understanding screen, and lighting, the or focus radio. etc., of should Thisthe are text. toisbe notbe off-stage This used.an acting material Presentationand event; not may to thus,each be is presented by two individuals for the purpose of Persuasionpurposeevents.What is In notablefor comparison, isengaging a "speechin both in thesets tothe publicconvince of event. rules address Tois to the wit,move lackevents the to of NFA actionarea purpose clearrules or toinprescribe for inspireterms any of onthat the a from(prose/poetry/drama)Programother. two or Maximum three Oral recognized Interpretation time limit genres is 10of minutesLiterature: of competitive including A program interpretation introduction. of literature for the purpose of illuminating an originalDinnerfulfillstate,significant "anspeechthe Speaking original,general issue." whose aim areInformativefactual purpose to informthe speech is point, to Speaking the make by audience." the a seriousstudent rules fromThe pointon NFAa the realisticthrough AFA rules invitationthesubjectfor useAfter to "[e]ach contestant will present an meansbesharedelivery.understanding devoted a the common material to each of theme. the ofmust the texts Aappeargenres substantial through usedin separate thein portion the use program.pieces of of vocal the of totalDifferentliterature and time physical genre(e.g.,must Literature should be chosen because the illuminated texts speaker,explanationofAnalysis. thehumor." event: movement, Yet, and/orPerhaps "An the AFAevaluationoriginal poem, the rules most poster,speech offerof complex a communication filma by succinct thecampaign, event student explanation of eventetc.all designed through such for astheto thea offer purposespeech, use anof is Communication and/orMaximumdoesA poem not transitions. included constitute time limit in a poetryshortis 10 storyminutes genre). that includingUse appears of manuscript only original in that introduction is short required. story. . clearwhatrhetorical as theto whataudience principles." the speakershould Given take should fromthese attempt the rules, speech. to both do inspeaker each speech and audience type and are rules1 that the authorSince choosesthe AFA to. Tournament rewrite as examples.offers the mostThe NFA events, and these other are the specific 7 3 32 organizations could and should easily follow suit. or illuminateInterpretationmore characters an understandingof Dramaticfrom a play Literature: ofor theplays text Aof throughcutting literary which themerit use representsdesigned of vocal to oneand CurrentConclusion practices in competitive oral interpretation reveal an alarming physicaltextslimitstage, share delivery. is screen 10 a minutes common orMultiple radio. including theme. Use selections of original manuscript may introduction. be isused required. when illuminatedMaximum time This material may be drawn from priorityinterpretationreturnachievingtrend whereover to aa the classicalthematically competitors whereby autonomy approach the linkeddevalue oftext individual ceases toprogram. theunderstanding toindividual betexts. In a thesemeans This text cases,the toessay for antext endthe advocates through themepurposes(the theme) takes oral a of selectionsthepoetryInterpretation text of through literary may of be the Poeticmerit used use designed Literature:ofwhen vocal illuminated toand illuminate physical texts andelivery. shareunderstanding a common of A selection or selections of Multiple someBybut firstrather of outlining thebecomes problems definitionsthe end with in and of current oralof itself. interpretation and then discussing practices in competitive oral These proposed rules do several things. First,introduction.manuscripttheme. the events is required. are renamed Maximum to time limit is 10 minutes including Play cuttings and prose works are prohibited. Use of coaches,illuminationinterpretationcompetitioninterpretation, and judges ofinevents the literature.interpretation. essay aoffer basis establishes bothIn for addition, approachingdirection The aproposed need the and proposed thefor method rulesinterpretationthe reworking forrulesfor achieving the offer variousevents. of students, rules the oral for proposedainterpretationthereflect means emphasis the torules importance achieving of makeon each the theof ofthe the idea the understanding genres. literatureof theme In addition, subsidiaryselection. of the these literature.Second,to theproposed understanding the Finally, rulesrules placeoffer the of text by offering a purpose for engaging in oncethisthemes,Refocusing way again. canthe returntheforensic rules oral community to interpretation place emphasis can resurrectto the on rootsthe the literature fromemphasis which rather on it literature came. than onIn eventsAsoundinterpretationthe more pedagogicalin practical terms to of thebenefitoffering base roots for is aof undertakinggoalthe oral parallel to interpretation be achieved thesea program offer by as text.the oftoart, oralperformer.the thus publicinterpretation. providing address a These proposed changes refocus the direction of oral Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Bacon, W. A. (1979). The art of interpretation. 3rd ed. New York: Works Cited judgesnewinterwovenIt is necessaryguidelinesto the events. texts. tofor noteRather, Inhelping addition, that these studentsthese the proposed rules proposed to engage do notrules rules inpreclude offera pedagogicallyoffer direction theboth possibility coaches for sound those and of interpretation. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.Gamble, T. and Gamble, M. (1994). Literature alive: The art of oral literatureunderstandingactivity bysuch providing asof thosetraditional explicated goals purposes for by the Lee for activity. undertakingand Gura, These and oral Bacon. goals interpretation reflect an of Houghtonmanipulation." Mifflin. Southern Journal of Forensics. In press.Lee,Goodnow C. I. &Knapp, Gura, T. T. "Interwoven (1987). Oral ethics: interpretation. The dilemma 7th ed. of literatureBoston: 75 33 76 contests. Colorado Springs, CO: Meriwether Publishing.Oberg, B. C. (1995). Forensics: The winner's guide to speech Association,paperthe Poetry presented Introduction New atOrleans, the annual More LA. meetingthan Perfunctory of the Speech Puffery.Zizik, Communication Unpublished C. (1994, November). Establishing a Critical Stance: Making

34 AS A MEANS TO GREATER ACCESSIBILITY IN NFA-LD DEVELOPING FUNCTIONAL STANDARDS John M. Devine appropriate),Somestructure,thatthe part this examples of argumentation application, competitors types include of caseand, and judging addresses structureimplications,judges. paradigm Important validityarguments of arguments generic issues for (hypo-testing, my revolvingforms argument(which of arguments.are parametric aboutis validthe factthe or theA consistent attempt at theme an increased of debate focus league on innovation "substantive" and argumentalternatives along has beenwith University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI procedurecases,figurethewhole participantswhole intocategories for resolutionthe categories judge's recognizeof argument, arguments, decision). of arguments the the differences etc.), first (whether/how assumption,or arguments and implications or topicality over ideal, appropriate must of should various be that In these, and other issues relating to debatereasonabletheLincoln-Douglasincreased desire experience. accessibilityfor rate an of eventDebate delivery, towhich (NFA-LD)the which activity. promotes is isaccessible The one topic National of thespecific to more students Forensic argumentation, recent with Association's responses no formal at toa Theparticipantsforms, first assumptionor categories, have criteria contributes of for argument. selecting greatly among to theforms speed of argument. of rounds, the Second, we must assume that Theofexamining the argument desire the for interaction I less will speed, pursue of more the is, leaguesubstance, and and,event more structure accessibility. in the context NFA-LD's approach provides a reference point for first, defming a specific paradigm for onargument,takethesedecreased the resolution.the types debater focus of leagues. whoon the wants Toresolution illustrate to eschew at by hand, speed the leastand in favor the extreme lack of strategy, of example, accessibility and we focus can in the debater To make one strategic response to a whole-resolution must still understand (have the general judgingNFA-LDdisseminateAnd, second,was asan this therewellexcellent paradigm. asis stilldebate first a need step leagues fortoward a league-widein the general, above forummentioned to specify goals. and This development, in the specific situation of shifts paradigmatic The evenpossibleareargumentation to available make alternative one for response experiencechoosing types of about cases,among or whytheory and those thean background)possibilities. understandingoriginal argument regarding of which is irrelevant criteria both the These are requisite scenarios--aparadigmatic,bothpressureargumentation debaters to "speed" theory toand the isjudgesin organizationalreduced. rounds. are And, not finally,requiredlevel, accessibility to argue procedural, is increased asor "no-holds-barred" I will trace thisformat, progression through three the NFA-LD model andat which it belongs. a andofto increasedthe selecting round.debater and amongEven who accessibility wishesin arguments this minimumto is cover decreasedabout all typessituation, the through basesof arguments. much at the all necessity morethe levels, so ofin addressingspeedthe case is league-wideargumentationprocedural/paradigmaticmodified version consideration. is moved of NFA-LD, further away incorporating from individual a league-wide rounds and forum closer on to defmition. At each step, paradigmatic valuedefmedtheaThe more league. second argument subtle, reference, assumption, but, addressing Ior believe, criteria, the understanding more the opens question profound the door and of effect whichtoapplication an on ever criteriaboth more ofthe criteria, shouldround removed and hasbe Regarding speed, substance, and accessibility, the lack of a. paradigmofIThe am the No-Holds-Barreddefming tabula at therasa this judge's judge, form Format discretion.ofor debatethe freedom league for by the its judge incorporation to adopt anyof the judging ideal I believe there is little argument that requiredcasehappens,particular,employed. represents to for but represent example, what the should wholethe when whole we resolution the look resolution. argument for in to any Anywhether turns category justification from or ofnotwhether argument. it is should subject or not This beto a The argument is no longer about a category of argument in this demands a thorough knowledge of argumentation and debate theory on 7 9 35 the claim that the basis of the justification misconstrues what debate should 8 0 pathbe. At devolves this point to aa newdebate set overof criteria what isis "best"invoked. debate, or what is best for In my experience, this cause-solutionparadigm in which logic theto justify participants a policy are change. required to follow a motivation- This logic of justification Therebackground.considereddebate is as another an "good"activity. implication or "best" of compoundsallowing the valuethe necessity debate over for what speed is bestand The regression along the criteria defming what is counteractingthemotivationproofis delineated proposed of harm is byinherentthechange or the causeneed requirement will to (solution).in the thesatisfy current current thatthe policy motivation,thesystem affirmative system (motivation), or (cause), yield prove advantages, andstockproof proof issues--that that theby withdifferentstandards.infor rounds, debate the tournaments?league, to Whatrather be played itcan thanremains we out at say theon in about atheleague round-by-round round. debaters, level, The subvertswhich league basis. win isPlacing any reduceddifferent league-wide this to roundsdebate some The basis for comparison is no longer situated considered.obvioustoThis how approach debate example displacesrounds, is the inarguments decisiongeneral, overshouldas to classes which be run of form orarguments, decided. of case which should refer be In a "no-holds-barred" setting, the choice of which logic is The most ownarenathegoodgeneralizations arena standards coverage,of competition of the ofwithout abouttopic. judgment. in debaters favorever Thisbeing of having a isslew able the aof to functionalgood arenascomment arsenal, (rounds), equivalent on good their each strategy,competing of with allowing their and in Metaphorically, the league ceases to become the socialmotivation-cause-solutionargumentsatacceptable no point implications onformust this justifying a issue.debater of goals, a logicreferproposed or values,tocan a downplayspecific resolution which resolution underlay an is examinationan open theor case issue.identification ofto thecarry wider out of It would suffice to argue, for example, that the Further, comparisonsunworthydespitescore,individual or the stamina, approach. prejudicial referees(competitions) or I ball-handling,want to nature decide to whichdraw of who the attention orleagues wins metaphors,rebounds, a to claimbasketball the etc. differenceisto notMylegitimate, game thatargument between thisusing and here, either thethe is an thiswithoutform,assumption.a harm,structure, isfurther i.e.irrelevant iswe On unacceptablethought, are this towilling basis, NFA-LD and weto forthe accept couldconsideration. basedcase claimthatstructure on unemploymentthe that league promotesany case, rules iswhichthis requiring undesirable type follows of the This argument, in this comparisonsInandimportant summary, according inthat a it to politicalare the justified ideals climate held by the bywhich mostleague stress forensic structure. accessibility, programs. This is bothparticularly generally is tempting to hold a "no-holds-barred" league as the butrounds,Havingcase does structure. Ialready notwill eliminate use noted the above the the implication argument. example toFurther, of point allowing outdefming how the genericNFA-LD acceptable argument displaces, types inof clashItoffaceultimate isfreedom, aof over freedom, the in what widestfreedom which makeswhich range restrains for theshifts, ofdebaters possibilities.best the rather leaguedebate. and thanjudges, from broadens, advocating a "true test"the ideals possibilities of ability as a group. in tothe a It is,It ishowever, a freedom, a particular which demands form IcommandFinally,arguments refer to the of decreases theory,league-wide without the pressure decisions sacrificing for onspeed, accessibility.paradigmatic while increasing argument, accessibility. the stock the displacement of paradigmatic arguments still rewards a Theenactmentargument NFA-LD overof group Model what ideals makes for good what debate makes rounds,a good debaterather round.than stressing the roundargumentisdirections.issue displaced paradigm can that still to this be thein made, logicour league, example, downplays but or it theis asdisplaced league andisplacement element policymakers. to the important contextin two senses,toof deciding the topic or two the of First, the decision as to what generic form makes a good case Second, the 8 judgingNFA-LD criteria. moves away from the "no-holds-barred" model by specifying a Specifically, the rules call for adherence to a stock issue 36 unemployment,the resolution. A case, which claims the motivation as a need to reduce may be met with the argument that reducing againstunemployment"unemployment motivation-cause-solution would is not not bad" be beneficial.response. logic However, may guide the the volume negative of argument to the The paradigmatic argument theserequireThe issues heart league-wide areof thisbecause third consensus. they scenario depend In liesa generalon in the the goals sense,identification of I particularcannot of identify issues,leagues. what which I philosophynotdebaterssingleis substantially need claim becomes to regarding specificbe reduced able an to thetoadvantage, case from reciteappropriateness content. choices and but apply Second, notabout of a the requirement.variouslogical the generic theory forms argumentsgrounding A ofin debater cases.general These-of doestoand the a Thefocus,reductionhave previous taken briefly, as the thescenarios on goals referencethe goal of point accessibility, of points substantiveout the thus interaction far.substantive argument. of criteria argument, and judgment and speed in For this last scenario, I will becomesknowledgeunemploymentdisplacedgeneric arguments more to for a specificaccessible beenits involvingguidance proven impact by criteriato notin bewith makingrequiring a harm.for reference which specific Thus,judges form to while and/orarguments,a ofspecified case rewarding new to debaterschoose issue--hasthe theoryevent are to judges,Thegenericdiscussion)the defmitiondifference or "formsthe debaters,in theof betweenof substance. cases"way but the the argumentwhat stockscenarios criteria issues to isbe are notparadigm re-cast defmed the argumentation as ofandsubstantive NFA-LD which are theory,argument.forces left to the This is most evident (in the previous todefmedthebe aable event.wider tostock audience.verbalizeThe issue reference reducesthe paradigmatic point the of pressure the concreteargument, for speed, argument nor as to itjustify openswith therespect the rules debate to of a madeotherpossibilityofbe theselected logics, inrounds. terms toin in compare, theof the whatround. context thegenerically, This affirmative's of isbetter the thedecision, or motivation-cause-solutionworse--forcesclaims which do or definesdo the not argument accomplishthe substance logic to be into Taking away the value component of the argument--the construingThoughIncludingtoward I "hominga introducedthese League-wide as in"linear theseon thesteps.Forum three goals on scenariosof Paradigm accessible as and adebate progression, Definition leagues--accessible I am not I suggest this third scenario as a move Ifaccomplishthe the contextrules goal is is theofnot rounds thegoals questioned. purpose whereby way ofthe of the theargumentation round. rules? is expressed in terms of the The question becomes does the argument So, the goodness or badness of experience,andInaudiences,in termsthis how sense, ofto or deliverycarry be judgesthe able progressionout to thisand anarticulate promotion,audiencestudents involves the at whonuancesfrom whata reasonable may thewe of previousdecide notargumentation rate, have is scenarios. worthand four accessible promoting, theory.years toof In this Askingconcentratethecriteriacase value or forwhetherthe decisions provingresolution,on whether the orargument about disproving thenthe substance itwhat accomplishes is the a constitutes case. league'sof the In argumentsshort,the responsibility proof,goals the byleague meetforcing way those to shouldof roundsdecide the criteria. rules,make the to opportunitycontext,Theforum, pragmatics I outside suggest for an of of weongoing rounds, this follow suggestion forargument the debating lead are ofover fairly paradigmatic NFA-LD, just straightforward. such while issuesissues. incorporating as what case a I envision an Fromtheory.rules.leaves an the argumentation league to decide theory what standpoint, makes good I believe goals andthere what is much makes more good to This leaves the debaters to argue their arguments, not debate procedurecommunicationstructureinput,inherency, rendering to for require, etc. topics shouldn't decisions, what to consider, constitutes be and a problem. implementing time-frames a violation andrule of procedurestopicality,changes. what for getting proves Given the availability of e-mail, conference calls, etc., Any league could designate a character,besubstantiveastandards had direction from or definedvalue.the for argumentation distinctionleague Within by accomplishment,development the between scope at a reasonable ofargument, which this paper, allows ratewhich the theof scenarios must deliveryleague conform topoint which promote out to is versus standards defmed by 83 37 accessible to those without an expertise in argumentation or debate theory. 84 firstlittleInterestingly, identifyingto remove rules, these the which desirable pressures. address substance the issue of of rounds--the speed or theory function directly, theory do One direction for development rests in rounds--weofwhichevaluationseeks, the topic.legitimatethen at deciding have the anleague a affirmative better the level, criteria sense suchposition, forof as whatthese which forces debatersat thecase the league debatelogics had tolevel. toare accomplish.the best substance and/or Second, this approach allows for better comparison among Making becominglearnleague-widecanThird, influence and the ascenariosapply device forum the the character ofon presented specificsdiscouragement function-oriented of give roundsof debate some and in standards indicationareasexclusion. theory, such allows without of as how speed. all these thatparticipants expertisedecisions to Finally, a 85 86 38 MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO: Public argument, as discussed by Trapp, is defmed by its focus on RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRESERVING PUBLIC ARGUMENT IN PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE Steven L. Johnson publicoughtpersuasioninformation,inquiry. toargument be of enjoyable an education, isactual that and typeaudience and educational of even an ratherargument entertainment." forthan publicdirected an exercise audiences (1997b). toward in technicala seekinggeneral Trapp writes: "Parliamentary debate at its best is an event that In short, Accompanied by praise and criticism, the growth of parliamentary debate University of Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage, AK Co-Director of Forensics procedurespermitsOneaudience, of thea ratherpublic thatelements constrainthan argument toward of theand paradigma currentprescribe particular, form isthe technicallya type lackof parliamentary ofof argumentcodified astute audience. practicespermitted debate thatand almostour28,ofin recentthe 1997Championship National four yearsletter times hastoParliamentary asthe beenTournament many. membership exponential. Measured Debate has of grown As intheAssociation numericalRobert NPDA, from Trapp, just"(f)rom terms,points over current theout1994 fifty NPDAin President toteamshis 1997, May is toa perspectivestoparliamentarynewrequired permit ina and varietythe levelsdebate event. of of approacheshas experience developed. to on the the event. part ofAs adjudicators in any publicto still forum, seems the the forensic Because NPDA parliamentary'scene,' debate is relatively little Furthermore, in rounds,codified different theory particular to beenRegardlessparliamentaryhealthy written infant." of about debateone's whatperspective seems parliamentary appropriate. of what debateparliamentary should debatebe. In 1992 is, much Epstein has Given this growth, a discussion of the future of beavoidoftest embraced rationality: for creating "allowable" and ifan nurtured. it atmosphere makes tactics sense, or instrategies whichargue it.forgetting in parliamentary this focus debate is easy. is still that To do so, however, we must take care to This lack of codification should Westernofcommunityanddiscussed the suggested American States the is dissatisfactionthe Parliamentarythat developmentParliamentary lobe proposed with Debate of variousparliamentaryDebate alternative Association formsAssociation debateofto (WSPDA)."intercollegiatethis under(APDA)rift in the the auspices and debate,debate the Johnson peoplepenalizesharesIn continuing outside studentshis concern the his who activitydiscussion ". fail cannotto communicateof the understand" future of or parliamentary (1994).speak only indebate, jargon Johnson that . . that we, as professionals, lack the courage to In doing so, he debatecontinued "may the take discussion the same in 1994path asby CEDA,expressing which concern is taking that theparliamentary same path . othermayidentifies forms be afraid ofa contributing debate to penalize rather factor than increased theto the primary specializationincreased cause. specialization While and technicality,we as evident judges in I Thesewhichinformally,specialized perspectives, NDT tookstyles,serve several toandvocabularies provide the years manifold direction and ago judgingothers for parliamentary expressed criteria. both debate formally in relation and . ." by adopting increasingly Wheneverofbelieve atmospherehighly it technical in which argument, a move and toward use of increased jargon can specialization, occur. a prevalence is the very structurea of modern tournaments that createsgroup an sequesters itself, whether intentionally or debateundertaking,to argument,"Trapp'sother by alternatives whatconceptualization Iand proposeit is, will ratheravailable. offer that than ofpracticalwe parliamentary whatmake itrecommendations an is effortnot. debate To to that defme as end, a thatforum parliamentary I subscribeI believe for "public willto While this is certainly a worthwhile fertilebecomenorms,specializationunintentionally, environment professions more andnaturally more generate for the technical,occurs: natural their groupsown andevolution vocabularies, so develop on. of knowledge; their academic own cultures because disciplines and the in pursuit of an objective, Such a setting providesa a certain amount of further this conception. 87 39 members of our activity share a context developed and reinforced weekend 88 afterthe type weekend, of environment a high degree created of specialization by the current is sequesteredbound to occur. structure of This is commitmentdebate while preservingto aggressively its public market argument our debate focus: product, and 2) we must 1) we must make a ourselvesliesfromspecializationmodern with what debate theat we a inherenttournamentis dotournaments. without in our contradiction merit;forensic to competeI'm certainly not tournament arguing in anmuch event that laboratories.solid designedsuch thought concentration to Myhas teach emergedconcern skills and in the practice of sequestering sponsoredpopularcreateUnfortunately, a product by colleges that as is we andaccessible are universities. all tooand welldesirable aware, for adebate consumer. events are not as as other activities--such as Thus, theathletics first recommendation-- and theatre--typically abilityIEachnecessary believe new to the providetoincarnation persuade unique a genuine opportunity anof debateaudience--any setting brings inherent for with audience. public init aparliamentary hostdebate. of new When opportunities. debate asked is what its generated--ifIprofessionalto have aggressively faith thatmarketers: that interestmarket interest to indebate--adheres issell debate cultivated a product on the properly. you part to firsta of principle the have general to createvery public familiar a demand. can beto Successful creation of a programsdialecticgeneralmeexcites the meopportunitypublic that featuring about shapes with parliamentary parliamentarya perceptionsto venue bring in debate which debate, of debate fact, backthey Ivalue wefrequently mayto must the and observe people--to makepolicy. answer ora commitmentAsparticipate that provide directors it allows inthe ofto a eventhumor,public,Wemarket have that forbutwit here are parliamentaryandintegrates surea hecklingform to haveofwithin debateare debate an all its audience attributes that guidelinesis essential is not demanding of only elements ato successfully theaccessible health more. of popular of tostaged the the activity.appeal:general debate Emphasizing ofcollegestyle 'bringingthe debates public students, debate atought large" to .backclubs (1997b). to and the service people.' organizations, As Trapp argues, as well "[p]arliamentary- as to members . . to be made available to groups of high school and forthetimespublicitythese whatWorld ofattributes, thethey can Wrestling Romans thinkencourage with will duringFederation, word be people a theno-holds-barred of Colosseum to mouth,has attend. been topic able to fight. the to Salemassemble Witch an audienceTrials to Nearly everyone, since the selection, This natural human or pre-event debatestudentsourtheInvolving publicown and longevity.are argument'real' into learning audiences the Asfocusreal skills discussed world ofhas that parliamentary two is will above, todistinct maketransfer the advantages:debate,the only readily venue wayand outin second,tofirst, which ofensure competitiveit preservesit they ensuresthat testour beenscreamingcourse,predisposition"argument" an eloquent does and not parthair-pulling. tobalance mean voyeurism of debate.that of crowdsubstantive can What's easilypleasing moreinquiry be witexploited fun is coupled thannecessarily bya goodwith emphasizing sacrificed fight?insightful This, thefor of Some of the best debates of our times have courtroom,anobtained,unreasonablethose audience skills aat boardroom, the asmuch to very muchexpect like least like or thatthey wea thecampaignan owewill exactreal itencounter to world match ourwar studentsroom. asto in actualpossible. the to 'real provideconditions world,' them canbe with it be a With regard to the While it is wantFurther,holdanalysis. themthem we there to need consume. with to dothe more Whensubstance. to contrasting educate our American market about styles the of debateproduct with we In other words, once you get them there with the flash, you'll visible,portiondecreasesecond weof inadvantage, themust support student offer of wea body. productforensic can Tono that longer beprograms healthy,is accessible afford that we the mustserveto luxury all. be only visible.of bemoaninga minuscule the To be floorinformallyattendingBritish speeches--we housestyles, an through 'event.'seems. the first make heckling American thing the oneeventor audiences formally notices less of is tendthrougha howformal to much be opportunities"lecture" quite more reserved andraucous moresuch when the asof If we encourage them to become involved--either 8 (, minimumWith these of goals effort, in capitalize mind, I offer on the two unique recommendations accessibility of that parliamentary can, with a 40 an enjoyable participatory event. bookstores,events.Finally, we radio need and to be TV more stations, diligent and in so seeking on are sponsorshipprime targets for for our Local politicians, newspapers, libraries, literary societies, mayensures be "sold." that later debate events will have a market to which the events papernotTournament,support.sponsors. ask for one the ofThe with Championship our Irish proper national Debate publicity, newspapers Tournament?Series can't is sponsored develop to respond strong by in The kind?relationships Irish An Times, official with why Additionally, there's no reason National thatcoverage for a the Championship Contractvisitors'frontuniversity'sdebates" of anuniversity. comesdebates audience debating from are ofclub not the local a wouldearliest new supporters idea.invite form a and,oflocal intercollegiate hopefully, rival to campus boosters debating. to debatefrom the in The topic would be announced in advance so both In fact, the designation "contract A exposurenationalUnfortunately,But to event? properlyto a variety It seems marketwhile of only competitors an a product,intuitive.efficient inwe means a mustvery of shorthave creating aperiod product a ofgreat time,to market. deal the of thefootballseriesteams audiencecourse ofhave orcontract of basketballtime woulda semester. to debates prepare adjudicate games could adequately, are the be scheduled, event.scheduled and impartial with in much several guest the occurring same judges way and/or over that Inviting regional schools increases the 'local In its modern conception, a rounds.whilemembersmanyaverage those times interested forensic that I've understand tournament inseen debate bewildered the wandering is secretnot conducive parents, code aimlessly of topostings hosting around scurry observers. a tournament to their Frankly, your average member of the public seems to have little teachers, or conununity Too audienceaisemphasizerival' clashthat aspect it of createsensures local the of importance the rivals,a a more lively debate, school consumer-friendly house. of and the pride inviting event. is on The a theschool product: advantage line, from and the offurtherthe debate contract presence awayis billed debates ofmay anas tournamentsthatunfamiliarinterest may attract campus.in and committing contract new Instead, consumers debates. their I propose to thetwo product under-utilized of debate: alternate intramural venues entire weekend to plodding around an thatsuggestions.timeIt is with canwith thebe teaching, Torunrecognition me, with these research, assistance that seem the service,relatively average from and low-effort,directorthe coaching is alreadyhigh-reward that I pressedoffer events these for student team members. departmentssemester.weekhaveAn intramural great or weekend, appeal. to tournament, sponsor or it mayteams, hosted be orscheduled for may students be opento at take a toparticular place all members over campus, an ofentire canthe Such tournaments It can be either a short effort, over the course of a offer the opportunity for different SimplystudentsofAdditionally, forensic put,alike tournaments. we I'mand have notnecessary advocatingin parliamentary for the a departuregrowth debate of fromthe an event. opportunitythe current conception to elevate Such events are valuable for coaches and ofcheaplikeawards:student a localnot form body. onlyairline business's of provideOften, advertisement tickets, market.sponsorship incentive merchandise, Students to whatfor may students traditionally involvedrestaurantbe gained to in get from giftthe is involved, aforensiccertificates, localsignificant businesses programbut portion andoffer theforor a potentialdialectictodebate preserve benefitsonce that a again unique closely these to aspectasuggestions parallelsplace of of an prominence. eventprovide, that I givesbelieveWe also students the have time thean is educationopportunity right for in its real-world application. Given the. toeliminationdebate--whichtournament.faculty being from an format exceptionalAn various may informative make of coursedepartments for recruiting relatively sessionbe modified may ontool simple the servefor procedures administration. convenience--andthe as competitive adjudicators of parliamentary forensica forsingle- the In addition us to capitalize on those opportunities. program, such a tournament exposes the entire student body to debate, and 91 41 92 programs: An observation. ParliamentaryEpstein, S. (1992). What parliamentary debate can offer small References Debate: The Journal of the WesternNationalfuture Statesof Parliamentaryparliamentary Parliamentary Debatedebate. Debate Association, Parliamentary Association,Johnson, 3, 1-4.Debate: 1, 51-60. J.A. The (1994). Journal A veteranof the director of forensics looks at the http://www.willamette.edu/cla/rhetoric/debate/chapter.htmlnewsletter. Trapp, R. (1997b).(1997a). ParliamentaryNational Parliamentary debate. NPDA Debate Homepage. Association URL: fall

9 3 42 parliamentaryeventsintoAbstract: in aThere limited debaters. are way.important These Parliamentary benefits benefits may to debate, integrating also spill if done over non-forensics well, intoassisting requiresindividual faculty that with the instruction and training of intercollegiate oftheirMore communicationadvanced more traditional experienced debate homes that theory requirelevels of intercollegiate and of a greaterparticipation, specific awareness debateknowledge into have ofmore the evolved,of specializedtechnical the jargon at leastaspects forms and at familiarityoccasionalofespeciallydebaters non-forensics with have currentmini-lecturesphilosophy, a broad professorsnational based historyon and educationdiverse from international and topics political covering can events. science,helpmany Enlistingimprove diverse and of thisdisciplines,the course aidbroad- a various departments to provide overandresolutionbeingtheoretical a encouragesspecific debated. allconstructs field year. aCEDA muchof This study. of prolongedbothdeeper and Without debateNDT and period moredebateinsuch general specificcomprehensiveof currentlyanalysis and knowledge the of specificdebate one research topic it thetopic can allows sameeffort bearea Nazarenetheinterdisciplinaryencouragingbased Forensics education. Col non-forensicsleg, Fellows academic in San Diego,program activity. faculty California. being Themembers model implemented to proposed share ownershiP andat Point discussed Lomaof this is Additionally, there are other unique benefits to extremelytaskaudiencevery ofdifficult followingrapid member, rate to follow oftheseparticipant, delivery formsthe more that critic, of is debatecompetitive common or coach. for inuntrained Further theof thesemore complicating listeners debatesexperienced isas thean FORENSICS FELLOWS: Manythatovercomelevels focus believe of onthese CEDA one entry or twoor barriers NDT topics debate. withinthe whole theMany moreyear. novices traditional find formsit too ofdifficult debate to there are less severe entry barriers to successful INTERCOLLEGIATE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE PROGRAMSINTEGRATING FACULTY PARTICIPATION INTO Lewis E. Rutledge resolutionexpertisearguments,speed,participation and of forandgeneralized thein the aparliamentary listeners.universal entire argumentation season Additionally,audience debate, in focusparliamentary which over by over notemphasizes specific relying designating debate uponknowledge eloquence therethe one technical centralis based overless Overview Point Loma Nazarene College, San Diego, CA Director of Forensics traditionalevaluateattemptsubjectpressure matter to onthe argueforms debaters apparent expert forof intercollegiate theonto appeal spendthesuperiority designated extensiveof parliamentary debate. of onetopic. hours Inform short,The in over debatetheabove parliamentary libraryanother, points over becoming themerelyare debatenotmore anto a primarytointercollegiateParliamentary other appeals forms forensicsis of intercollegiate over the past debate few years. for many It is areasons. popular Onealternative of its debate its public or audience centered focus,is designed to probably the fastest growing activity in Theresources,moreseems Problems level to provide experience playing an field environmentof coach, despite experience inherent where participantsofdifferences students, etc. incan program's compete size, on a substanceassubjectappeal format, tomatterof mostrules,the issues expertise. any debate audience,debated theory This and formand/orregardless less of jargon.on public the of meta-debate theirdebate debate focuses elements background more suchon the or associatedimportantfewerHaving entry suggestedwith to barriersstarting various orfor running programs reasons a parliamentary why and parliamentaryindividual debate debaters program.debate alike,may These have it is clarify that there are still some significant problems 43 problems can be subdivided into difficulties specifically 96 relating to parliamentaryFirst,intercollegiate to effectively debate, forensics train programs. successful parliamentary debate teams seemingly and larger issues common to directing most campusforensicstraditionallyThe Forensics programs plague Fellows mayforensics havemay programsgrownalso help too and aisolated few directors. other from problems the rest of that the communities. Trying to balance extremely hecticFor example, travel, activelydisciplinesdrawingareas,requires primarily participatinga broad as well. current base This inof events,this knowledgerequirement activity, philosophy overat may both a and tremendous intimidatethe political student some andscience,breadth coach away butof level. topicfrom also heavily from history, economics, psychology and other alsoconferences,facultylimitadministrative erode forensics professors' etc. anddirectors Forensics' practice opportunities interaction extensiveschedules toin extracurricular with conductthe morenormal academic traditional teaching responsibilities research loadsavenues often andcan of interaction, such as faculty meetings, committees, retreats, frominmainNDTAt anyleast debatablesixdebate), given with to 10parliamentary knowing there areasor more is for athat thechancecompletely tournament thereyear. to isIt prepareonecan different youbemain very onwill topic many,topic intimidating be debating,area areas,if not(as most,withinto or CEDAknow judging, just of thethat 15or talentedcontributecombinedadvancementpublish forensicstheir withto rapidfmdings,within a educators.lack burnout, some of thus institutional institutions. whichreducing costs recognition their our opportunities colleges and advancementsome for of academic our most can These extremely long hours studentsOnedeliveringminutes strategy that the have mayfirst already speech.be to just obtained recruit encyclopedic bright, well-educated knowledge and of all informed matters to gather your thoughts after hearing the motion, before debatersalltoThe tensionsanother isolated keep facultywith missingnature other memberof tests thefaculty forensicsor knowsactivities members aboutprograms scheduled in forensics various can onconceivably ways. is Fridays, that For several example,a contribute certain of the if debatetooltheseshouldof potential forskills rare never so students, andmany importance, be recommendturned others when away, asanddebate well. that itteach would can studentsAnother them be be such horriblyto become alternative debate. a wonderful limiting well While is read, tomind to suchsimply only knowing expanding students cater teach to conflicts,toschools.allowedlevel miss of orcommitteeresentment Likewise,to have miss reduced important somemaymeetings occur.office faculty academic or Ithours department membersmay duringappearassignments that meetingstheas coachif week, these just forensicsdue which studentsto travelto tournament may mayare to not beingother have collectivemanyonwhat any a uninformed hitgiven ignoranceor misssubject. proposition debatersand The calling probable trying this it a mightdebate. resultto build be ofThis for suchopposing toodeveloping anwould approach arguments be an inadvisable. awareness would from be all. It simply expensiveresentmentoverseem the fair weekends. it toisfrom tocolleagues run some Thea competitive ever-presentfacultyunfamiliar members forensics with budget the program.that long conflicts may hours Even not mayspent if nonealso on forensics createof the realize how diverseproblemhavecompoundsUninformed not pool embracedto overcome,ignorance.of debaters debate parliamentary This therefromcan type bemanyare worse otherof debate different debate possibilities.than thus is majorsno probably far. debate While and One the haveat itis reason is to them a recruitdifficult manyshare a opportunitiesnetworkinghoursfacultyother problemsrequired members of byoccur, the to forensics. facultynetwork there memberis withAll significantly of other theseand/or faculty areas lessthe administrativeopportunityofmembers resentment, due for supportto orforensics the missed long for opportunities, can ultimately impact the advancement . willascolleaguesbriefs,their well. be expertise etc.developed That thatThis is teach withwhatis inhelpful, greater others inthe other Forensics but throughdetail departments it should later. Fellows discussions, be to supplemented programshare mini-lessons,their attempts collective by inviting to prepared do.wisdom yourThis Thethe program Proposed as Solutiona whole. 44 infomercial,At the risk of the making Forensics claims Fellows, that sound or similarlike they approaches, are better suited can help for anto programsolve many designed of the topreviously cited problems. Forensics Fellows is a integrate faculty assistance with intercollegiate thelay tournament judging pool experience. of bright, Forensics educated, Fellows neutral may critics even that provide could a be good very economicsexpertisesemester,noinforensics individual former programs,is orassociation spread professorsevents. year, out withprimarilyThrough to with couldmanythe forensics speechinvitingin other discussparliamentary subjectandfaculty to pros commitdebate mattermembers and debate team, tocons experts. onebut that theof potentiallymini-lecture may free Forproblem have examplemarket alsohad of a Methodthroughouttrainedhelpful whenhow the to hostingyear. be an aeffective parliamentary critic debateby listening tournament. to squad They debates can be Commonrelationspolitics,capitalism,United professorsMarket.States' or communism. role Such could in contributions the discuss United Political China's Nations, should scientists most help or favoredthe couldto combatfuture cover nation of the thethird status,collective European party the or campaign fmance reform, or term limits. International forensicsForensics."Fellows:LomaAttached Nazarene facultytoA ThethisCooperative paper handoutincluding College is an contains an (PLNC)informational explanation some pilot important handoutprogramof the purpose prepared information entitled or visionfor the for ofPoint non- the Effort Between the PLNC Faculty "Forensics and year-longteamThisignorance enhancedwill topic. also issue offer interaction stemming an increased betweenfrom awarenessthe the lack faculty of to one the and central, Forensics the speech well-researched, Fellows and debate of the prepare,program,Championshipincludeddebate, and aa sectiondiscussion in a thesection Tournament, brieflypackage of on some explaininghow is topicsa andspecifically set several ofthecommonly rules fundamentals the for facultydebated the most of canand parliamentary recent help.how students AlsoNPDA sets of sample resolutions. encouragingreallythatsharpestacademic rather engaging than minds excellence this merely in broader froman intensive attempting associatedthe sense best form ofcolleges to withownership miss of higherthe academicthroughout activity. over learning thework, They the school's with country. ourwill some students soon forensics Throughof realize the are fellowsthoseliteraturesuggestionsFinally, interested would there to interpret, regarding and islike a aquestionnaire seriesto designed teach.other of questionsideas The to asking aid forquestionnaire coaching designed speechfor basic topicsindividual tocontact solicit also or favoriteinformation hasevents.what room areas works for thefrom of programprogram,forensicsandrelations. the speechby benefits Onceprogram. recruiting and others to debatethe A quality seesupportivestudents, canthe studentsreceiveamount they faculty should theof out workbest can of become possibletheirhelpthat issolidifyclasses, investedallies form for aofworking forensics inapublic qualitydebate presentationprepareselectedInvitations a presentation topic prior can of to begeneral the extendedonce session. interest.a week to The oneor It oncemaypresentation or two helpevery of to several thereview will forensics take weeks the place content onfellows ata pre- theof theto Additionally,and/orotherclosely ways scholarship with such thewith teamas committees,a throughgreater members awareness supporting etc. on missed of faculty the assignments, amount endorsements of time and and inon effortvarious budget it onmayskills.Studentsregularly noting consider Strong not should scheduled inviting only note be the taking encouragedmembers meetingbigger skills underlyingof time to shoulddebate arrive for classesalso theearly concepts, debate be and toencouraged, these practice team. but sessions also Eventually, active concentrating the as listening.major well. you evenquestions.decisions,facultytakes beto members directinvited Facultyclass a release toqualityinvolved. members attend time, program an This that occasionaland supportshow facilitythere a couldshouldgreater tournament allocation effect interestbe greater promotionor to additionalin see thesupport first activity and hand staffing fortenure may thethe Oneneedscurrentproponents, model of or the historical specificchiefmight opponents, have program.events, the etc. guestimportant The lecturer presentation dates, speaking supporting can for vary or30-40 contradictingbased minutes on the long hours and the contagious excitement for learning that are now part of 99 45 covering both sides of a controversial issue. While handouts are not 100 forformatnecessary, further that reading, thesuggests attached such one informationalaspossible breakthrough way of package outliningor seminal contains the works information. a forsample each brief Tipsside teamwhere members. the guest lecturers, or Forensics Fellows, are invited along with the styleinteractionarguments.thewould pro of be argumentsinteraction helpful. should Or,be on comfortable encouraged,you a particular may want butto issue tothe care invite guest and should one another speaker. guestbe taken tolecturer A posit toround arrive tothe tableshare conat a Regardless of the model employed, questions and/or upcomingtheThisDiscussion competitive program ofyear. wasBenefits The season,just programinitiated with at thewas PLNC advertised late last yearon the following campus the E endMail of intention of implementing it this discussed.haveFollowingtodiscussion take a debatein theofThea debatethe discussion, orguest central break can lecturer issues intobe time a can groups valuableandpermitting, either ramifications for stayfollow multiple it mightand upand critique even debatesto potential the be the presentation.a on good debate,approaches the idea issue or to if packagechanceForensicscommittedlistserv. toFollowingwas Fellows interact to discussed. help and athisover very speech program,The lunch.positive feedback team Following anresponse members informational was very rate, the both positivemealabout were lunch the20% invitedfrom wasinformational of faculty theprovided. and faculty had and a weeksprovideassigntime does ora somegivenmonths. not allowcentral debater may record to be brief excused that one the prioror entire two to teamsidesthe debate. couldof the Yourefer presentation may to in wish future to Politicalspecialnumberintereststudents effortareas.ofalike.Science political ThewasThe Department completed madegroup science towas see and werequestionnaires mostly thathistory aware all self-selected. membersrelatedof theshowed program. topics of a Duethewide encountered, It Historyto alsodiversity the helped large and of a alsotournaments.overworkSeveralspeaking don't items wanta assignmentsparticular You should to ignoredo notbe Forensic notedorwanteven shun to ifhere. Fellow.riskone'sthe assistanceFirst,burning areas Try be are tooutvery of evenlymore your others careful colleagues.often spread that not discussedmay toout try haveYou the to in campus.teamofmajors,that the a members numberhistory and are ofand mayoften the political studentsbe the the top bestscience students on recruitersthe professorsteam in their were of classes.their historyvolunteered. favorite Approximately or political professors The studentscience 80% on theywithaffirming.positivelyvolunteered. beingmay expect toLetchallenged the Second,the guest from students onlecturers. the be everything debaterssureknow Theyto that coach theysome shouldnot say. allmoreyour professorsbeAlso polite,directstudents alert involvement encouraging theare how lecturers comfortable to react andthatand yearsmightprogramIt is results experimenttoo so early far. can It tobe iswith discuss assessedhoped some thatthe andvariation relativeby compared. presenting of success this The theproposal or idearesponse failure in and this ofon in forumthis ourthe particularcomingcampus others experimenttotheReassureinteraction know ideas, both the not with with guest sidesa sign the various thatof ofideas an thisdisrespect. issue ideas, thanis aand positive they which mayRemind might playsignthey them normallydevil'sof may the that or studentsadvocate may goodencounter not debatersengaging to personallyexplore in class. want with or Somevolunteered.aseven the at of Vice this those earlyPresident The benefits stagepotential includeof has Student beenrewards but very areDevelopment to not positive. the limited activity Even to: and as administrators the a whole Registrar are large. havesuch colleaguesvolunteeringinexpensivetryfavor. to honorFinally, may long gift thosenot it hours itemisbe. alsotimes. Let might above important them Finally, not class know be to requirementsa howbefollowbad clear idea.appreciated upon While thank timefor this expectationstheiryou you activity, may timecard be is. or your used andOnesmall toto 2. 1. knowledgebyStrongerBetter experts understanding inbase. arguments their respective by debaters fields. of many diverse topic areas taught and better debates due to this increased possibility is hosting a thank you lunch or dinner each semester or year 46 3. studentsStronger and interaction professors. between students and professors, benefiting both potentialThe potential of poor harms management from such techniques a program in implementing mostly center the aroundproposal. the It 5.4. department.A Improvedwider debate faculty recruitment awareness of net forensics' for the high academic merit. top students in each Conclusioniffeedbackis necessary.important from to lecturers carefully and plan students out each alike step. and Be be sure ready to tosolicit make adequate changes 7.6. Greaterclass.Better faculty faculty cooperation and administrative when debaters awareness must of miss effort an requiredoccasional to withforensicswaysThe Forensicsa to much helpteam. smaller integrate FellowsThere scaleare programnon-forensics obviously effort isand onlymany reach faculty one others. out of intomanyto You just maydifferent one wish or two possibleto beginother assisting with the 8. releaseIncreaseddirect forensics. time, support etc. for forensics faculty in advancement, tenure, dothatvolunteeringapproachprofessors significantly if they is thatare that to being maymore. help.your becontacted colleaguesMany interested. hands individually may Onemake see of lightthemselves the that benefits work. you might asOr, of just theythe expect one larger might of them many scale fear to 9.10. A positive environment for supportingbudgetaryonCreation campus. forensics of and/or a potential withscholarship adequatejudging support. pool for hosting parliamentary debates wouldfornaturalOn publicthe these otherspringboard debates events hand, on advance someto matters an schoolseven public of larger interest maydebate campus find toand thatthe educateor public thiscommunity program your at large. students, wide provides Not forum theyonly a 12. Less11. burnout Better of forensics directors dueactivities. to increased job satisfaction. integration of forensics with other campus faculty and thousandholdadvertisingcommunityforensics the potential dollars team. for interest, programs. fora There year providing then through are charging programs a unique hosting a nominalfund-raisingthat public fmd entry debatesthey possibility feecan onand/or raise issues for severalselling your of 14.13. Non-debateFewer forensics critics programs provide abeing nice lostcheckargumentationdirectors. due against to burn debaters theoryout and abusingor loss jargon of without adequate explanation or thatsharetool.Theinvite arereal Ifmaterial handled clearly colleaguesgoal is that going towell, encourage tois importantshare beyondeveryone in directors theclassroom toshould excitement them of benefit. with expectations.forensics of bright, teaching Your to inquisitive bridge colleaguesThe through students the gulfthisstudents get uniquegainand to. 15. Individual events programs canliteraturetopicssupport. gain for strongto platform interpret recommendations matspeeches, may not and/or be forwell good known suggestions in forensics for circles. great faculty.wholewhichaccess.from the is also YouParliamentary verywealth benefits are important ableof knowledge fromto debate bringin criticalsharing isother thata unique thinking theperspectivesthey ownership activitymight exercises. not thatinto withnormally embodiestrainingThe the program rest besessions, many ableof asthe toofa 103 47 the best aspects of a college, empowering bright, 10 z: articulate students engaging in the critical inquiry of interdisciplinary issues. It is time that Appendix A Sample Forensics Fellows Packet we allow others to share in this excitement. In support of Parliamentary DebateA cooperative and Individual effort Events between Speaking the PLNC Faculty and Forensics Forensics Fellows: DebateThank1997-98 youteam PLNCfor by yourbecoming FORENSICS interest involved in assistingFELLOWS in the Forensicswith AN the OVERVIEW: PLNC Fellows. Parliamentary The purpose benefittopicsdepartmentsintercollegiateof this thatorganization the maystudents and debate lendbenefit isof themselvesteam to course,from allow to yourinteract thebut toyears studentit future withis ofhoped faculty studydebates.members that and and you Thisexpertise of staff thetoo will from Pointwill inprimarily variousbenefit Loma thinkingcompetestudentsclassroom.from interacting representingskills.for These the Many school withspeech allwill some and majorsteam be to of headed membersimprove ourand studentsthey to theirarevarious regularly some publicoutside graduate of commit speakingour the best confmesprograms many and and brightesthours critical of when the to themember.rounds,themthey excitement leave not but Theyonly us. more Yourofwithcan continuing seeimportantly meaningfulinvestment your enthusiasmtheir of subjectwith education a few a for rolematterhours yourbeyond model incontent area their just ofof lives aaforinterest B.A.caring future may or and afacultyprovide debateB.S. catch audience-centeredthatParliamentaryWHAT stresses IS PARLIAMENTARY both Debate critical is a new and DEBATE? exciting form of intercollegiate debate form of thinking and public speakingdebate rewards well-read, well-spokenskills. This preparationofround,teamscompetitors the thattopicroughly represent timeto that bebased betweendebatedcan either on think the 15speechesthe Britishquickly minutes Government Parliament.either. on before their Asor thethefeet. one The firstOpposition speakerThere contestants speech. are sits in twoThere down,onlyany person given learnis the no 105 48 next rises and contests the earlier speaker's arguments. speakersThis particular may engage debate one format another is intended in direct to questioning be highly interactive. throughout The the thisA list paper. of just For some example, of the manyone resolution potential topicsmay be is "Thisattached House to the Believes back of theifargumentsConstructive a rules,House,speaker the aremay lodges opposingspeeches being also a setbenew team (except drawnup argument or may sununarized).into for object during rulein a ontorebuttal thepoints The firstjudge speech,judge, of and whichorder. lastor which the Forwillminute Speaker example,isbe against askedwhen of revolutionchoosetheGovernmentThat: legitimacy to from may of bad choosesuch governments, a courseto focus from on instead one various or they more perspectives. may examples wish to to isolateThey illustrate may theViolent cite America's revolution from Great Britainaction to support to overthrow oppression is legitimate." The orspeakerhecklingareto rulehurtful encouraged immediately. says is remark. even something to encouraged, interact Finally, particularly through suchthe audience, as applause objectionable,someone or at "Memberssayingpoints such "shame"of agreement. aof sexist, Parliament," quietly bigoted Mild if a meritsbePeru,-suchGovernment's able oras suggested to Israel'sthe address Peruvian right raid therein, theto on take forcesspecifics Entebbe. stringent,they just shouldof Hopefully,accomplished the violent Government's also action thebe againstableOpposition to toliberate case thebring andrebel will its up argue citizen's- notsiegesimilar only the in summarizeattacksspeechThe mechanics wherein the theopponent's argumentskeyare fairlyvoting side. simple.are issues positedEach andEach team that reasons speaker supporthas onewhy has one's Rebuttal they one own feelConstructive side speech the and/or critic to seemmoreRevolution,orcounter used, topeacefully examplesbe far the less Oppositionaccomplished toplagued show whyby might rampant liberationand whenpoint violence fromviolenceout that Britaintoday Canadawas perhaps andeither andtheir notas Australia culturesa needed result. and/or where it misfired. In response to the American LeaderPrimelistedshould below: Minister's ofsupport the Opposition's their Constructive particular Constructive side. The order and times of speeches are 7 minutes8 minutes contracthelpcontinuingraid,Likewise, most you theory. forofmust cycle ourevery look studentsof successfulviolent to the will backlash more Peruvianalso bepredictable in able releasethe to Middle intelligently or Waco Israeli East. tragedy counter And discuss with terroristand/or social your MemberPrimeLeader Minister'sof of the the Opposition'sGovernment's Opposition's Rebuttal Constructive RebuttalConstructive 548 minutes TheyVARIETYHOW are CAN encouraged OF OUR TOPICS? STUDENTS to be well-read PREPARE in current FOR events THIS by WIDE keeping A up with usuallytournamentThereWHAT is TOPICScompletely a vast to tournament. array ARE unrelated of DEBATED? potential Each to round othertopics has round's to a beseparate debated. resolutions. resolution, They There vary which fromare, is PoliticalencouragedTheissues.at least Economist, Weone Science, alsodaily to subscriberead newspaper orand Theas to much enrolltoWorld magazinesand asin one Presspossiblethese of with theReview.courses news inan Philosophy,international whenevermagazines Additionally, possible eachHistory,focus theyweek such either and. arefor as arguments.knowncurrentpreparehowever, events,currentresolutions some politics,guidingor historicalthat focusprinciples.or philosophy. on controversial, Tournament Typically debatable hosts students are issues encouraged rely regardingon well- to situations as beginning points for their wherenoas way a youpart that come ofthey their in.can major possibly or for cover their everything electives. in But sufficient even with depth. this, That there is is 107 49 108 HOW CAN THE PLNC FACULTY HELP? oneRealistically lecture per we semester, are suggesting of approximately that each person 40 minutes plan onto bethe followed equivalent by ofa prepareabreastinterestversedBy allowing in ofneeda they broadmany our not can studentsbackgroundbeareas greatly limited of to expandstudy gleanto ofjust that familiarity theirfrom what would knowledge areas you greatly withteach.that youbase.important Many help are These our alreadyof you topicsstudents areas keepwell ofor notWHATmoreround take ortootable SPECIFICALLYless long type to though. prepare exchange your AREof notesideas YOU andforLOOKING thisstrategies. session. It FOR? Chancesmay take area few it would hours exploreAsidethesepotential students' from particular illustrations. just education. the topics debate In in short, greater implications, we depth. are seeking We certain also to studentscompete broaden mayin and Individual wantdeepen to studentsconsiderably.brandThe particular new learning and However, formatI know what is of youwhat very no would current Imuch am envisioninglike openmodel to toshare to suggestion. follow,is with about them.which an This hour This frees project with would us the up is theAdditionally,speeches,Events,10 students minutes a competitivesuch to many asinterpretand Informative ofare category the goodbased events or literature,which on Persuasiveare much ofincludes an again interpretivedeeper speeches, student using research cuttings preparedthat nature. last of andTheyfrom platform 8 to 8ask 10 to study. WhatsomeYouideally and sampleis be particularly I a could blend resolutions meetof helpfullecture earlier that andis weandif discussion.we may discuss can expect see an competing toappropriate encounter interests topicat tournaments. coveredscope and in lenddrama,muchminutes itself great or in poetry,to length.literature a strong or Most prose performanceas you of that our have. you students piece. found havecompelling, not encountered chances are nearly it could as If you can recall some very powerful generateinviteInsanitythea particular pros several Pleaandsome session. consin professorsreal one of dialectical settingFor Capitalism, example, at that the discussion. would same or if Democracy,we timebe could great.Some to havediscuss Anotherform or aCommunism, speakerof similar handoutsidea mightcover areas wouldor beboth andthe to manyWeIIMMM? know other BUTand commitments appreciate HOW MUCH howyou already busyTIME you have.WILL are Itand THIS would don't TAKE? be want a great to addhelp to if the we wouldofbe atstudentssomevery any also helpful ofparticular betheprepared very majoras well. helpful.format forworks I've last and attached oryear.' mostare openAs influentiala youfew to cansuggestions.examples see,thinkers we of have variousAin shortany not given briefs readingyet arrived area the list meetingfamiliar.perhapsavailablecould just withan There once knowhour the mayor toForensics that twice discuss also you abe Fellows semesterwoulda an topic occasional beoras ortopicsaavailable whole.year informational with to But meetor which thattry with towould you lunchmake the are be teamor yourselfoptionalalready group for mostToWHAT help interested. CANorganize I DO Knowing this NOW project yourTO I HELPneed scheduling to OUT? know constraints topic areas will in whichalso help. you The are, fondlythemopportunitiesstudentsand more than from interactto anything mygive to undergraduateinteract us with aelse. chance youcasually Those in to days. asay arelesswith thank some formalstudents youof the setting.for over times your a meal Sometimes supportI remember mean and more let thesemost the to (probablyorallowsattached specific you questionnaire onlytoas identify you two wish. awillareas month help of interest provideto begin orsome with)expertise. basic to informationaladdress Please be commonly as datageneral and I will try to organize a series of sessions 109 50 implementingI Editor's Note: this Student program briefs could have include been materialsomitted at prepared the author's by their request. students. Persons 110 weencountered will prepare topic a areas.schedule Based of onlecture your sessions.responses Due and yourto the availability, number of Appendix B NPDA Rules requestbeknowovertaxingprofessors related in ifan it toanyone.areainterested, is your not other convenient, interestIt thanmay we whatwillbe area. that interesting tryyou Please we -to listed, ask plan feel you tobecause for you,free if theyou orto it entire cantimeseemsbow share effective.outyear as if ofwhat withoutit such might youWe a sharedsoThe1997 that, purpose NPDA set to ofthe ofChampionshipexpectations. extentthese rules possible, isThese Tournamentto defme everyone rules goals are Rules willdesigned and enterprocedures to the apply debates of to the the debateswith goals a Thanksideas.towould our studentsalso so much like whoyour for your mightpermission help pick and yourto support. circulate brains thewith list regard of Forensics to other Fellows speech areChampionshipcreativity.waysand made, procedures that attemptcompetitors These Tournament of torules debate allow will are rathermanyhave essentiallybut may finaldegreesthan bedraft the theslightly of substance. of onesfreedom the revised. rulesthat in Theywill one regard In bemonth areany usedto framed revisions debaters prior at the into 1.RULESthe Debater tournament. OF Eligibility. ELIGIBILITY 2.governedEligibility Judge Eligibility by the by-laws of the NPDA. to participate in the NPDA championship tournament is 2B.director.be2A. an NoEach intelligent one judge will will be and assigned have well-read completed to judge lay his personany or team her hired bachelor's if he by or theshe degree tournamenthas had or willany 2C.personteamofficial Each he during orteamassociation she the willhas previous coachedhave with the fourthe in opportunity team'sthe years. past. schoolNo one to or strikewill with be a eitherassignedlimited member numberto judge of of anythe 2D.pool.determinedjudges. At anyThe by timespecific the after tournament number the first of director roundstrikes basedof (between competition, on the five size and any of theten) team judging will be may 111 51 present cause to the tournament committee why they should not be heard 112 casesby a particular including, judge. but not Such limited petitions to, verbal, will be physical, accepted or only sexual in very assaults serious or thepreparation, time for theboth debate the judge to begin. and the opposition must vacate the room until excusedJudges2E.threats, All whoseoccurringjudges after octafinals.teams should during do be not the availableAll qualify NPDA other for forjudgestournament. assignmentthe octafmalsmust be through available may, if the they through octafmals. wish, the be or4A.4. Duringresources Except the for fordebate notes the debater'smade during use preparationin the round time, may no be prepared brought materials into the In3.final Sanctionsthe round. case of serious violations of these Rules, debaters or judges may be someknowledge4B.debating Debaters cited chambers. information of may liberally refer to educatedto be any too information specific, and informed debaters which citizens. mayis within request If they the that realmbelieve their of RULESCommittee.withdrawn OF DEBATINGfrom the tournament AND JUDGING by a 2/3 vote of the Tournament Prime4C.opponent Format Minister explain of the Constructive specific debate information with which they are unfamiliar. 7 minutes fifteen1A.1. Resolutions Aminutes different prior resolution to the beginning for each ofround each will debate. be presented to the debaters PrimeLeaderMember Minister of of Opposition OppositionGovernment Rebuttal RebuttalConstructive Constructive Constructive 548 minutes 2.canThe 1B.Objective debateresolutions The them.topic of thewill ofThey debate eachbe maygeneral round be phrasedenough will be inthat about literal a well-educated current or metaphorical affairs college or language.philosophy. student 4D.speechesspeeches.Introduction Constructive exceptHowever, of thatnewand debaters the Rebuttalarguments Prime may Speeches Minister isnot introduce may introduce new arguments new arguments in rebuttal in appropriate during all constructive governmentresolution.The government has The successfully government team must defended must affirm, make the and andresolution, the defend opposition athey sufficient will must be case opposedeclared for the If, at the end of the debate, the judge believes that the speeches.whichofhis Oppositionor her support rebuttal previouslyConstructive. to refute introducedarguments New examples, thatarguments were analysis,first are raised permitted in the in Member rebuttal. analogies, etc. The3.the Before winner; government the otherwise debate team, the if theyopposition wish, maywill beuse declared the room the assigned winner. for debate rising--atA4E. debater Points any ofmay Information time request after the a point first minute of information--either and before the last verbally minute ofor any by for their preparation. If the government team uses the debating room for 52 acceptconstructive or refuse speech. points The of information. debater holding If accepted, the floor the has debater the discretion requesting to I floorstatementthe point continues of or information ask during a question. the pointhas Thea of maximum information. speaking of time fifteen of the seconds debater to with make the a completeddirector. The and judges returned should to the not tournament give oral director. comments before the ballot is hasIf4F. at Points violatedanytime of oneduringOrder of thesethe debate, Rules a of debater Debating believes and Judging,that his or he her or opponent she may refrainannouncingbrief5B. After constructive from returning theseeking decision. comments the further ballot, After information tothe these the judge debaters.comments, aboutmay, attheJudges debatershis debate or should her fromand discretion, coachesrefrain the judge. from givewill Houseaccusedfor,byaddress the the Speaker will pointthe may Speakerthen ofbriefly oforder. rule the of respondimmediately House, Atthe the House discretion theto the withdebater on point thea ofpoint mustpointtheof order. ofSpeaker state,of order. order The but ofOnce Speaker inmaythe one recognizedHouse, not of of arguethree thethe Committee.withdrawndecisions.5C. Debaters Debaters from or coachesthe or tournament coaches will refrain who on harassa two-thirdsfrom judges requesting vote for informationof that the judges Tournament may reveal be Abeconsideration.ways: pointdeducted point of order from well The isthe time taken,a speakingserious used point tocharge time state not of and wellthe addressdebatershould taken, notawith orpoint bepoint the raisedof floor. order taken for will minorunder not At40.violations. anyPoints time ofDebaters during Personal themay Privilege debate, be penalized a debater for raisingmay rise spurious to a point points of ofpersonal order. tothengrievouslyoneprivilege state ofrule theand whenon debaters, misconstruedaddress whether he or a has sheorpoint not madebelievesanother's of the personal ancomments thatoffensive words an privilege opponent orwere orarguments. tasteless acceptable.will has not personally beThecomment, deductedThe Speaker time insulted or from used willhas forshouldLikethe raisingspeaking a pointnot spuriousbe oftime raised order, of points thefor a pointdebaterminor of personalof transgressions. withpersonal the privilege. floor. privilege Debaters is a serious may be charge penalized and dismiss5A.5. After After thethe the debate teams, Prime complete Minister the Rebuttal, ballot andthe returnSpeaker it toof thethe tournamentHouse will 115 53 116 Appendix C - Sample Topics Parliamentary Debate Resolutions JanuaryPointTheParliamentary Sunset Loma 31-February CliffsNazarene Debate Classic 2, CollegeResolutions 1997 Invitational RoundPostedRegisThe Regis University 1:to THthe University supportsparli-1 11/12/96 Invitationalan across by the Marcus board taxParoske cut. RoundRound 3: 2:1:4:THB THBThis that Housethat America televisionit Believesis better neglects corrupts to(THB) give her than thattheyoung. mind.justiceto receive. is blind. Round 6:5:4:3:2: THBTH rejects competitionthe bloodtruthpoverty the is Americanof out ofisBosnia overthethere. third emphasizedwayhas world stainedof life. is American inthe the fault United ofhands. the States. first world. Semifmals:Quarterfmals:Octafmals:RoundRound 6: 5:THB THBTHTHB THB thatwould that that embracingthat gender dogssupport the makeends equality theEbonics dobetter impeachment not is apetsisjustify myth. a recipethan the of do formeans.Boris cats. failure. Yeltsin. Finals:Semifmals:Quarterfinals: The THBsystem THB privacy ofnegative justice, protections political in this House,haveadvertising become should is toosignificantly be extremeretributive, in the not United States. detrimental to the democratic process. TheParliamentaryFinals: Pacific THB Southwestthat Debate the inmates ResolutionsCollegiate are running Forensics the asylum.Association distributive. RoundFebruaryLosSpring Angeles 1:1997 This28- ValleyChampionships Marchhouse College would2, 1997 (THW) Tournament ban genetic cloning. RoundRound 6:5: 4:3:2:THWTH THB would exterminate thatspaceshipcomputers not patriotism worship earthcapital are the is atis misguided.punishment. thecrashing.answer. temple of sport. Finals:Semifmals:Quarterfmals:Octofmals THB (Novice(Open THB that THB wethatDiv.): Div.):that have crime THBreality THBsold pays. special ourisadvertising just souls interestsa linguistic for degrades financial have construction. ruined the gain. quality democracy. of life. 117 54 118 Appendix D Forensics Fellow1997-98 Member PLNC Questionnaire FORENSICS FELLOWS followingIn addition individual to parliamentary events: debate, our speech team participates in the NAME: MEMBER QUESTIONNAIRE INTERPRETATIONDuoPoetryProseDramatic Dramatic Interpretation Interpretation Interpretation SPEECHES Interpretation PLATFORMRhetoricalSpeechInformativePersuasion SPEECHES to EntertainCriticism OFFICEDEPARTMENT: PHONE: ThisPLATFORMLIMITED nextExtemporaneousImpromptu PREP section SPEECHSPEECHES Speaking is a Speaking chance IDEAS: to list any ideas you may have for innovative MAJORE MAIL AREAS ADDRESS: OF INSTRUCTION (TOPICS OR CLASSES TAUGHT): yourwillpreparationcompellingyet significantgreatly disciplines topicsassist speech topicor usand areas inor theideas these story. of studying study orevents. We titles that andhave There might research little are make howevercontrol for great Parliamentary overtopicsmany the topicsfor limited studentDebate from in literature that would make a OTHER AREAS OF INTEREST AND STUDY: comeshouldorprobablyresearched abortion. to also mind not andbe beThe here: sociallythe written more overdone cuttingsignificant. platform ideas edge, likespeeches. Please unique, Capital list These Punishment,andany currentsuch topic topic areasGunthe ideasbetter. Control, should that It ANTICIPATED SCHEDULING CONSTRAINTS: whatThisINTERPRETATION great section might is be)asking or SELECTIONenjoyable you to think works IDEAS:back of onliterature. great (use Can your you ownremember slant on semester.keepFridays)times,Please from standardlist from timesabusing 3:00 groupwhen to your 8:00 youmeeting time fromabsolutely you whichtimes, will can weetc. probably notwill We meet select are only dueprimarily potential beto standingasked lookingmeeting to obligationshelp attimes. atweekdays one Remember, such session as(except class per to itdramathe moved author that andyou titlehave chances of read a particularly orare seen others or heard compelling will lately be moved orpiece even of byfrom poetry, it longalso prose ago? if it or Ifis Mondays Tuesdays Wednesdays Thursdays thinktoideasfor interpretedit good as youof people others ideashave well. rememberlater.wouldof powerful What Thanks be appreciated. areothers. (orsoyour much.subtly Please favorites? We powerful) feel will Ourfree compile students toliterary drop an meareideaselections. aalways filenote and if looking Any youadd 119 55 120 paper,Abstract: which Presumption discusses Richard as a part Whately's of formal ideas debate about is presumption examined in and this begins,entity (belief, and that action, entity institution, is assumed person, to retain and its so argumentative on) before the ground interaction until paradigmsexample,aboutideasburden fitbroad of and intoand proof judging applicationssuggestionsthe in practice argumentation, criteria are ofof inmade parliamentarydebate competitive forhow "rules" future these debate, debate. study.are ideas drawn, and haveGeneral how then,been these conclusions appliedfrom same this as presumptionofstipulatedthe "Inproof" burden a formal dimension (p.of as proof debate, part ofis and fulfilled"therhetorical thenegative affirmative (p. communication, always144). alwaysThese has presumption same haswhile the authors perhaps corollary assigned stated helpful burden later,via as the 148). Of course, such a policy debate-based view of EXAMINING WHATELY'S IDEAS AND THEIR APPLICATION PRESUMPTION IN PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE: judgingargumentation,Whately'spossiblea way criteria of understanding coming in competitive how to athese decision of theideasdebate, theory. in have anddebate Thisbeenhow rounds, thesepaperapplied same will certainly as discussideasparadigms fitlimits Richard(or doand the writing about presumption and burden of proof in TO AN EMERGING AND EVOLVING DEBATE STYLE Tammy DuvanelDirecetor Unruh of Forensics Richardexample,conclusionsnot Whatelyand about suggestions broadwrote applicationare and made rewrote for of future thedebate sections study. rulesfit) areof hisdrawn Elements from this of into the practice of parliamentary debate. Finally, some chargesMost debate as a coachesnegative position by which one could argue that the status Bethel College, North Newton, KSintroduce the term "presumption" to their student Rhetoric(1)andoperatedduring proposeprevailing dealingthe in period favoralterations opinion. with of 1830 anthe "Asinexisting theoryto existing a1846. result, ofinstitution, institutions,presumption a burden an of accused (2)proof and make burden falls person accusations on of those or proof book, who in He first argued that presumption orain'tthequo "significance" affirmative. judge wasbroke, presumed could don't Thevote fixseemed to negativeit" forbe line "innocent" thequestionable ofaffirmativethat can reasoning, sit and back by had simplywinand, tothe anybe with "burden claimingproven round that infamousof"guilty"where presumption. proof" "harm" before "ifis on it presumptionp. Communicationcourtscourt118). andWhile of (3) lawis Whatelymaintainmuch to discuss more wasan opinionthan persuasion,the thefirst contrary convenient rhetorician to the mating to prevailing use termsof jurisprudential one" common (Sproule, in Monographs, asserted J. thatMichael Sproule (1976), Whately's theory ofin phrasethethatPolicy damagerisks advocating"innocent debaters of presentedchange. until changeare taughtproven by for the that,theguilty" affirmative sake most and of of changeagree tothe be time, withacceptable is rarely judgesthe line justified must understand of reasoning truly and offset thatthe Presumption functions as construct; a debate-rules understandingasofterms importantthedescribed toArchbishop's the instudyin ofstudying the argumentation ofearly theory rhetorical Whately versions from communication. andanis of not essentially persuasion.the his Elements, initial rule-based Sprouleclaims Sproule to an alone, sawaudience-based arguedor legalthe but gradual what evolutionentity,. is years,Argumentationrounds"given"; (Sproule, a monolithic and 1976, Debate, p. advantage 115). Hill and for Leeman the status (1997) quo in stated, most policy"For many debate scholars have treated presumption as In their textbook The Art and Practice of a fixed or stipulated advantageregardingdevelopment thegained asagency indicative [by ofthe assignment same]" of "substantial (p. [of123). presumption] changes in [Whately's] and the nature viewpoint of the convention of the debate process. Presumption is stipulated to a particular 56 122 discussionsargument.Most easily of presumption,observable is the Whately's audience attitudeis passive--merely toward audience. observing In theearly Later, Whately wrote "in any one question the Presumption makerworse"assumption paradigm, (p.145). that theThe would judge, consider following presumption a standard as the stock-issue negative's or "right policy- to status quo is good, only that the change might be presumptionfactors,willsociological(p. often such be found isas correctly novelty, to lie on rebuttedarguing different orthat sides, even at times, inoverturned 120)respect assigned and, of bydifferentby new 1836,or stipulated or parties" Whately novel saw presumption as determined by factors, such as group membership, and psychological advantageousevidencechangedo no more in the than current way ask of system 'Why?"(Cronkhite,performing unless a thetask affirmative that 273-4) existed and presented and thus was advocate compelling precluded no of significant, continuing harm or of a comparatively ofexpectculminateddetermining ideas.auditors. an Whately's otherwise in Whately's attitude plausible statement toward presumption audience that "advocates to and be perceivedtheir shouldrole inby notassigning a given always set and the Presumption was an advantage, importance of presumption inbut an unrecognized making decisions testingaL,ofpreoccupationadvocatemanifestation proof p. 147). paradigm.provides with Presumption byof presumption argumentativethesufficient In current their also reason discussionmethod has instructsground no to ofquestionresponsibility handlinguntil ofa judgethe the that hypo-testing advocatethe adopting preoccupation" sameto justify withsituation. a hypothesis- paradigm,theher (Hill burdenor "The his et -ademonstrableindividualadvantage far cry from seekscounted proof, the the passive convincesfor evidence, audience himself judges of ofWhately's its the merits, certitude early and, ofwriting in the the proposition"- (p.absence 123). of little." Instead, in making a decision, "the receivesoughtadditionally,bePatterson presumed to arest andthrough offer againstZarefskycorrect aand "normative the in rigorousassert theresolution absence that test"principle": presumption in (Lee of order argument & "the Lee,to "indicatesassurefundamental 1985, to thethat p. which contrary"169). the presumption resolution side and,will presumptionssystem.thought,Critics of Gary butWhately merelyin Cronkhite Whately--psychological, saw the no (1966),confusionsuch explainable for ofexample, the legal or Archbishop understandable and identified assertive--and about three evolution histypesclaimed own of presumption,maintainedIn by the "value" debate, presumptionas discussedstatus quo. above Rather than a legislative understanding of lies in withthe the realm of policy hierarchy of values debate, thesimplyconfusingdescribedthat audience these "He aswererule who deference as and notasserts the types or rulemust consensus. of best prove"(p.presumption employed He 270-271). went atin onall,extra-legal toThe but claim understandingwould thatargument be the better least ofis to what constitutes proof was not a part of the flawedthings:thepresumption--thatpresumption defendant. andeither should in theThe value thehierarchy burdenbe accuser rearranged,debate of ofthe (hereis values basedaffirmative, orthe some affirmative) moremaintained policy onthen, a legal orismust by togroup theprove understandingprove of onethepolicies guiltof two ofin status quo is considerationHavingproof.the duty discussed of provingof presumption; Whately's assertions, theorythe not purpose determiningof presumption, of presumption what an would examination was constitute to assign of thethat policiesaffirmativepresentedbeplace changed. inwould the toproposes demonstrate. prove athe reordering skew In the in of secondvalues--proof values, scenario, which ofchange a "guilt"--thenproposition in these forsame the. status quo In the first scenario, a policy or several policies are does not reflect the hierarchy of values and should statusdiscussedLeemanalignmentapplication quo above, point with of out,theseinWhately's traditional "the ideas legislative early policy writing modeldebate, about [of presumption presumption. presumption] lies withcarries the no and, therefore, the negative side of the debate. This view is in to competitive debate is appropriate. As As Hill and "chicken-and-egg"application/theoreticviolatinglinechange with of the a policyvalue hierarchy--the logic,or valuepolicies the structure"idea is presentedof legal argument presumption to bring may certain asbe a an negative policies exercise areainto in its own standards. While the status quo would be proven "guilty" of nature of the "real-world 57 1 1 of argumentation is clear. The negative can rest in the position of Madsen and Louden then go on to reason judgedecisionpresumptionsufficientin can that certainlyon values the reasonsuntil policy are thetake violated,proving affirmativechanges a traditional "guilt" advocated.maintaining shows policy-makerand bad justifying itsvalue-ordering "innocence" positionchange orare anduntil bad advanced. base goodpolicies a and A whichvalue"While debate,can thisapply tomay tothe both be extent correct, the affirmativeits requisiteit does andnot burden justifythe negative" of presumption proof (p. is 92). one in sideCEDAvalueHowever, more debate circuit, when adequately round, to making "weigh" especially upholds a decision,one as value valueone the against value,debate debaters oftenanotheris currently often through or ask to practiced thedecide means judge whichon ofin the a whenpresumptiondebateviewStipulated policyconsidering rounds, presumption, issues when butvalues anddetermining contention valueat then, odds. hierarchymay what exists serve a judgeissues as ato windowvalues asthe they role or throughemerge shouldof any whichin"weigh" sort value ofto personWhatelypresumptioncriterionapplied values calledfor "decision-rule" judgement.is andpsychologicala less what important Affirmativesthat based individualpresumption, construct on competing assert is for likelyreflecting that decision-making traditional,values--a to consider what atype stipulatedparticular a than "goodof whatan especiallyforstyleThis legislatively ismust the instep.milieu areas modeledPresumption, intooutside which policy policy parliamentary while debate, consideration. still may infmitely debatenot As be valuable Whatelyasuseful an emerging in as describedvalue a construct debate, debate the presumptionCronkhitereason" to considertakes at all: issue an withaffirmative this proposition (Hill et al., [T]he purpose of assigning presumption is to determine which sort of presumption as not being p. 145). mightmeansitsituation is not evoke to seen inadvocate the presumptionas nineteenthan advantagean action. in century, parliamentary inAn the examination presumptionmind of debate the of audience,may howrounds exist debaters is itin is theory,order. useless and critics but as ifa bepositionside 'whatevermorality,made has because]thewhich 'rectitude,'burdenaccords suggests arguments of with prooforthodoxy, the usually. natural the result laws 'true, from of right Providence,' conflicts or expedient,' between [cannot or that presumption always . . The . . . modification of this lies with thiscampaignConsideradoptionSome prescriptive rounds of financea adebate traditional of parliamentaryresolution reform." based legislative on Obviously, would the debate resolution orplace legal acertainly straightforwardthe understanding government"This suggest House interpretationofa in wholeheartedpresumption.would a position enact ofof AmericanArnie MadsenForensic Association,and Allan D.quoted Louden Mat lon: (1987), in the Journal of the presumptiontwo views of be what assigned is moral, to one true, or theor orthodox.other?" (p.271) How, then could causepresumedgrantedcurrentadvocating large regulationthe to enough presumption--the bechange adequate toof from mandatecampaign untilthe wayacurrent somechange fmances. things problem,practice is presentedare Either currentlyof abuse, campaign way, by the thebeing government. fmancingopposition handled or is the injustice or like. producetheme,in "Defmitionsrecent namelythe years preponderance of [s]he presumption who of assumes argument" have undergone the (p. burden 92). considerable of proof mustchange . . . [h]owever, all positions have one common anandthoseHowever, always-and-only ground practices the for current debate,of the government's negative/oppositionstrainpractices a traditional of parliamentaryright understandingto define advantage. debate,terms of in A presumptionand the debate especiallyresolution on as tit 2 6 125 58 metaphoric resolution "The house believes that blue is better than red, for"red" example, as Communism, in which the calls government for debate defmes about "blue" two competing as Capitalism economic and theirthe rhetorical interests force(p.170). of presumption speaks to intensify or redirect placegovernment(Assumingsystem;systems. themselves neither Both theteam teams debateside inhas a couldmustpositiondefined takes advance win place theadvocating the resolution's reasonsdebate Capitalism, byfor terms merely the superiorityin any suchasking presumption a way "Why?" of theiras to in the United States, when the majoralwaysaccessibilityIf the parliamentary reasonkeeping to for rules the decision. activity secondary debate as community toa goal,persuasive, surely wishes logical attention argumentation must be paid as the to Third, a rule-based approach regarding to maintain public thereforeeconomicformthebased government, exists, merely proves. systems it on is locatedthenot and idea the not inopposition.)that awardedthe this judge US by or statusCertainly, an audience's examination quo is if capitalist understandingpresumption of who is assertsawarded in of some these and to presumption.presumption cannot allow intelligent disagreement over the assignment of the"Competing deference topresumptions authority when characterize two disciplines church and clash, state and disputes, the Journal,existLeePresumption, in and all suggest roundsKaren then, fourofKing parliamentary at specific Leeleast (1985), of criticisms the debate. stipulated,writing Perhapsof in a constructtherule-based itCentral should variety, approach Statesnot. Ronald may Speech to not certainly the sort of arguments we all wish to hear in parliamentary debate (P.170);responsibilitycommon struggle or the between right to value know pairs and suchthe right as freedom to privacy" and present,tightlypresumptionofand what should it defming wishesthey incause call argumentation, constructto magnetism, the embrace parliamentary in debatepresumption notingthree rounds. ofthatcommunity which (or First, are any to especially the examinerule) authors as compellingcarefullyan cite always- a lack how Cronkhitevaryingtherounds activity andsides. stated theas theysort that ofare histopics forced purpose where to consider in students writing multidimensional receive was "not the to greatest determine issues benefit whatfrom of consequenceslogicallyRules"[a] rule are reports external of onthe procedure statement"to the feeling rather (p. 169). ofthan the the speaker speaker's and interests. do not commit the interlocutor to the psychological advancedcommunityobservationbestthe term be determined [presumption] by wishesand the discussion, NDT to empirically" use andmeans, the CEDAthen, current for its or understanding meaningto come forup withany of given presumptionits own group way can asof is whether(p. the parliamentary debate 270). A legitimate arena for Second, direction[a] rule-based of the approach listeners' tointerests. presumption Rules cannotdo not haveaccount persuasive for the prescriptivemustClearly,understanding assume the useresolution the of ideaburden presumption of indicates presumption. of proof tothat determineseems the government logical which in sidesituationsadvocate in an changeargument. where ina statementthistheaccompanyingimpact meaningan irrelevant about of sanctions presumptionprocedure consideration. may rather have.may thanTo entail,Whatever engage to suggest the dynamicause rule toof listenersisrules dimensionto make makes that a beyond whatever iniplicit or explicit force the oftengovernment.that,andpolicy. the no as Theopposition matterfresh judge Especially as how the is can small clearlymorning confidently considering their able news, territory to enteroccupy thepresumption is, factthe the the roundthat burden ground parliamentary andin a of thepolicy-makerit proofis risk given--secure fallsin topics scantly- on role, arethe 1 2 7 59 1 2 8 ableconsidered to argue change fluently are importantto overcome ideas the about audience's which theinterest opposition in the must "novel be thanour intelligent invoking use rules of thoseof debate-types types and theories past to instruct shape ourour emergingdebating rather and judge'stheHowever,and advantagecurrent" ideas demandingof overwhat of the parliamentaryconstitutes "trieda fixed and rule proof true" regardingdebate. and and who boring While presumption has statusto relying supply quo. it heavilywhatprobably amount on not the to evolving style of debate. Selected Bibliography dependentifandof itit, allowexists rounds for uponat in all.discussion which the If successdebaters' both of sides topics in abilities parliamentary must where assertto "read"the andpresumption debate an prove audience iscan going isn't be and educational easily to on remain his seen or argumentationSpeech Journal, and 17, debate. 270-76. Mountain View, CA:Hill,Cronkhite, Mayfield. G. (1966). The locus of presumption. Central B.States & Leeman, R. W. (1997). The art and practice of parliamentarythehertoimplementing the abilitygenre parliamentary thatto think rulesmean quickly fromformat. little other to and nothing formsnot on ofoutside some debate evocation of that a debate may of not rulesround, apply specific then readily the to debaters, coaches, and judges must guard against emotive177. treatment of presumption. Central StatesLee, R., Speech & Lee, Journal, K. K. 36, (1985). 164- Reconsidering Whately's folly: An ForpossibletraditionalSeveral example, areasapplication constructs thefor stockfurther or and misapplicationissue studystock of issuesaresolvency apparent. inin policy parliamentaryhas frustratedAn and analysis value debateteams debate of some attemptingis andneedful. of their the of topicality. Journal of the America ForensicMadsen,McKerrow, Association, A. & Louden, 24, 73-94. A. D. (1987). Jurisdiction and the evaluation R. E. examinedgovermnentResolutionality--theto in lightand how of topicality accurately theory. it mirrors thedebate actual resolution--could be the policy interpretation of the resolution advanced by the implications of parliamentary resolutions. theSouthern Speech Communication Journal, 53,Sproule, 211-226. J. Michael.evolutionary (1976). The psychological burden of proof: One development (1988). Whately's philosophy of language. of Richard Whately's theory of considerationprovideaboutAlso, a how reexamination an excellenttheir of these theories areaideasof the canof on standard primary applytheir own totheorists, source the merits new research likeand genre Whately,not andofas theydebate would and have musing would allow been presumption. Speech Monographs, 53, 115-129. responsiblethebyWhately'sfiltered his meaning assertion through was coaches, ofa policy "contextualist"that words use and judges, (McKerrow,is value "the view onlydebateand ofdebaterscompetent lenses1988,language inP. should the authority"and219). past. meaning, Certainlyuse ina varietydetermingevidenced we asof 12. arguments and argumentation theories to advocate our positions, and let 60 130 TOURNAMENT MANAGEMENTFORENSICS EDUCATION AND tournamentarerapidly retiring with directors orthe leaving growing a handbookthe number coaching ofexplaining experienced profession. how tournament to direct a tournament,directors who it Before handing novice South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD Director of Forensics Joel Hefling thetournamentRieke,may educationaltournament be and far Rhodes.moremanagement benefit director profitable of is andthe that to participants," staff heed a forensics should to more tournamentanddo admonitions everything they indicate should possiblefrom further be Faules, run that for They point out that "[t]he cardinal principle of "to rooms,componentsWhen one securing thinks of that judges, about process orderingmanaging that cometrophies a forensics to mindand food, tournament,are the scheduling tasks frequently of schedulingthe rounds the impromptuavaluemaximize tournament, and benefits thetopics. andeducational shouldespecially be value the of drivingthe of preparationthe factorsmeet" (1978).behind of extemp the management questions and of The educational tournamentbepossible.and some getting detailsAs thedirectorthrough timethat escapedrawsmay the awardsbecome nearer the director's forceremony painfully the tournament attention. awareas quickly ofto thebegin, and admonitions thereeasily may as At this time, the speechCoachingspeakingIt may beprepared and appropriateand impromptu Directing in advance to Forensicsspeaking.briefly but neither review Donaldthat writtenan the extempW. history Klopfout speechnor of (1990) extemporaneousmemorized." was indicates ". He in . . a resourcefulthepresented director by director ". Hunsinger, may Terry,take stock and Woodof what (1970) is left when to be theydone point and beginout that to . . should not try to do everything by himself." So the extempeitherfurther to pointscontests, persuade out other thator to contestants thaninform, that and the had thatsubject the there option areas was were oflittle presenting ". similarity speeches among . . usually . . . sheets,this"ofstudents,assign last-minute-but-essential jobs: makingtasks or preparing reluctant to fee overworked sheets, but ballots, well-intentioned preparing tasks graduatewriting falls impromptu extemp thestudents, colleagues. series questions, topics,of "Oh, ordering anyonesetting snacksupcan tab do eager undergraduate Into this cauldron againstcontests,"nationalderived"Impromptu the fromproblems" students position current and Extemporaneous(226). haveadvocated events, theWhile especially option in topics the Speaking," ofquestion are contemporarytaking stated (227).a McKissick, positionas questions international either Tannenbaum "in fora fewand or In their article ofpreparationplacedonfor these twocoaches muchdutiestwo ofand events extempearlierthat judges, probablydeserves onquestions making the greater shouldagenda directionaland attentionimpromptube for plucked the signs. thantournament topics. from it frequently the The cauldrondirector: management gets, and the This paper will focus (1995),Brentandthat areHoffmanextemp Oberg, usuallyintended topics (1994) in expressed primarilyForensics: ". point as forout a The highquestion Winner's school you students, are Guide expected indicatesto Speech to answer" that Contests extemp (70). . . typically concern themselves with current events, to extemporaneous speaking students challengingaWethe good resultsare remindedforensics probably responsibilities (Faules, tournamentwill justify Rieke of the can& director."extra Rhodes, be attention one 1978) of thegiven that most "[t]heto each. difficult direction and of The current experience of research,suggestionsandquestions.speaking support topicspreparation for ". the extemporaneousand delivery. There speakers are no suggestions and coaches or guidelinesregarding Students are therefore askedtheir to answer a designated question . . deal withanswer" current issues and events and are stated as. (67). Most sources include extensive accurate.mostauthors, tournament the position directors of a woulddirector suggest who has that no that previous statement experience is very in It is even more pertinent when we consider, along with the thatanygiven ". reference for the writers to the preparationof extemp questions of extemp or questions topics. with his comment. . topics may have been formulated by a qualified person who is Only Klopf makes running a tournament. The ranks of this group seems to be growing fairly 131 61 132 not connected with the forensic programs of any of the participating the amount of experience of the competitors. The challenge for the methodsavailableForschools" impromptu (226). aboutstudents the speaking, selectionmay use or to preparation prepare for of impromptu topics. speaking and there seems to be even less Klopf refers to the information speakersbeandwhichtournament appropriate impractical. are opportunities more director for experienced.The novices, is director determining to develop and thenIn atan willthe openwhichspeeches sameneed division, of timeto thethat develop speakersallow arethat more may questionsmore are becomplex experiencednovices impossible that andwilland studentOberg(232-233).qualificationsdiscusses (1995)) speakers, the merits needed provide with of virtuallyby impromptuexplanations students no mentionto speaking beof successfulthe made rules in general, of and impromptuthe guidelines types concluding of speakerstopics for with the to Others (McKissick, Tannenbaum and Hoffman (1994) and speakers.mayyearimportantmore bethat appropriate better the Asfor the tournament theserved competitive tournament for withtheir is topics levelheld. yeardirector of thatprogresses, experience. toare consider more the appropriate thequestions time in couldfor the beginning academic become Tournaments held earlier in the year It may be even more beextemporaneousItbe faced wouldexpected with seem aor dilemma, how thatspeaking to the prepare especially tournamentquestions the topics if and she/he director impromptufor thehas speakers. nowho experiencespeaking needs topicsto in develop those might theiroptionyear.thereprogressively levelwillSecond of selecting beof studentsexperience. semestermore topicschallenging. who topics or are developing needbeginning to allow speechestheir those competition thatbeginning are consistentthroughout speakers with the It is important to realize, however, that writequestions,topics.volunteersareas. extemp whobut questions this may probably or may or develop not won't have helpimpromptu any the better novice topics.knowledge director of learn developing how to The noviceForensics tournament colleagues director may may be be willing left at to the provide mercy topicsof and Sometimes those amountshouldinformationAnother have ofaspect material availablesimilar of Klopf's filesshould in theof question information.bestudent's similar. deserves files?" Some discussion. sources may In reality, this is rarely true. In theory, extemp speakers vary,"Is but pertinent the appropriatetournamentmaytopicswho havebe are important notexperience and directors much effective to better writingidentify and topics at their theextemp some for process the criteria,questions limited than thosewhich preparation and withdeveloping can no be events. experience. used impromptu to guide staff in the process of developing It programsclassroommayNovice have with speakerssetting limited large may maybudgetsresources have have evenand limitedavailable a more large material limited numberto them. inresources. of their returning files. studentsNew may Students coming from a Students from programs writerinKlopf choosing (1990)of extemp his/her identified questions: topic. two questions initially intended to guide the student Those questions can be helpful"Is inthe guiding topic significant, the interesting to the andofelectronichave thesethe resources more categories factors retrieval extensive available and to developattemptsystems. resources to them. toappropriate The write Knowingavailable tournament topics speeches, that somethingto them,director will utilizing allow including about needs students the the to experience thebe in use each of programs aware questionsinformationspeaker and deserve available the audience, closer in thescrutiny. andstudent's suitable files?" for (228).the contest? Two aspects of these "Is the topic . . . suitable for the Is pertinent seemdeterminethat to will be the beinappropriate most attending effective the to way assumetournament to approach that willall topicstudents help development. the will tournament have access director. to It would . ofsuitable schoolappropriatecontest?"the competition for students. more for experienced collegiateyear may not competition speakers. be appropriate may fornot competition be appropriate at the for end high This may be an important factor to consider. Topics appropriate for novice competitors may not be Topics written at the beginning Topics theirthetwo-yearelectronic tournament students. schools, retrieval setting or systems schools as an if extensionwith the schoolsbudget of problems,attendingthe classroom theor schools tournament experience who usefor are of the year. Suitability may be dictated by the level of competition and by 62 literature.herethetopics/questionsThus development is far, a reflection this discussion for of of extemporaneousimpromptu the lack has offocused speaking discussion speaking, primarily topics. found with onin little muchthe attentiondevelopment of the forensics given ofto It is possible to find detailed suggestions for the impromptu That lack of discussion Atstudents"of viewthe First in (22). all Developmental his work. His purpose Conference should on be Individual primarily Eventsthe education in 1988, of verystructure,possiblespeaker difficult aboutto preparation, fmd tostructure, some locate hints delivery,suggestions preparation, for the topic coach for delivery, analysis, the of tournamentthe andimpromptu and topic practice. director analysis. speaker that about will But it is It is opportunitySheryloreducatorsEducators," other Friedley, for must indicatedall striveparticipants toanother treat regardless all perspective students of sex, fairly to race,be and considered. physical promote handicaps, equality of potentially in her article discriminating variables" "Ethical Considerations for Forensic (85). Sound ethical "Forensic aboutconclusionssomeprovide hintswhere help from from toin look developingthe the advice to sample fmd given topics.topics, topics to orspeakers provided, how to and develop but coaches, little a helpvariety and is draw available of topics some The director may be able to glean Discussions about capabilitydisadvantagedonpractices,impromptu sex, race, andas a or federal novicetopics physical laws, speaker.that considerations. aretend beyond to prevent the discriminatory scope of their behavior experience based or when they encounter extemporaneous But some students may feel questions or readprevailingdiscussionsimpromptufor speakers the event attitude speakingabout with description seemsvaryingextemporaneous at leastto and belevels includethatintuitively theof speaking proficiency.sometournament know samples generallyhow director to of write possible do will appropriatenot. be topics;able to The topics.thebecauseas implied part they of expectationsa areclassroom not privy inherentexperience to the inmeaning somemay be extemp of discouraged some questions of the and terminology or feel impromptu demeaned or There are far too many writers of questions and developers of Students who participate in a tournament canInorquestions be findinga willingvery frustrating orsolutions but develop untrained toand effective the discouraging. dilemmaassistant topics. orof developingstaff member, high the quality, whole appropriateexperience For a novice tournament director, diminishdifficultWhileobscuretopics itwho tasks,impromptu maythem seem beit as is appropriatea tonot person. topicstake appropriate pleasure or to complex challenge to inprovide watching and students difficultthem studentswith to extemp accomplishobstacles struggle questions. that more withwill It is not possible for a coach to prepare all thatconsideredbroadback,extemporaneous we althoughpicture use forensicsforensic of not forensics,and a educators,stepcompetitionimpromptu backward. we mustthat topics,as wea beIn tool steppingareremindedit mayto in educate the be back fieldfrequentlyessential our and of students. education, looking to that take weThose aat step andarethe aboutseverallearningthatstudents may themselves hours in experienceappear advance after inand ofaextemp hastournamentthe every notefforts questions tournamentbeen they tryingprovided have and toto expendedexpect impromptumake when allthe the inof students coachtrying topics.the idiosyncrasies mustto Afeel deal positive spendbetter with Rhodes,departmentalare the arguments as mentioned administrators that earlier, Directors and fundingare explicitof Forensics organizations. in their frequently admonition Faules, Riekeuse to with theand Currentcapriciously research developed and topics.information about learning styles and multiple . andtheistournament that participants" Wood a forensics in director. Managing (1978). tournament Forensic should Tournaments. be run for the educational benefit of "The cardinal principle of tournamentThis management position is supported by Hunsinger, Terry They point out that the potentiallydevelopmentintelligences discriminating indicateof extemp that andvariables" more impromptu careful (85) attentiontopics.could easily should include be given students to the Friedley's ". . . other indicatetournament thatthat director thethe tournamenttournament ". directoritself is ".a larger educational experience, and . . is a teacher, first and foremost." They go on to . . should take the educator's point allowvarietydevelopedwith students ofvarious typestopics. greater oflearning questions flexibility styles in extempin developing or topics their in speeches.impromptu in order to It would seem to be appropriate to develop a greater that are not accommodated by poorly 135 63 136 Some of the steps to be taken by tournament directors to improve the These suggestions may seem fairly conservative and traditional. They are ofthedevelopedobvious.opportunities impromptu tournament further. topics. for director studentsEach or also the in implies writersextemp someof and extemp additionalimpromptu questions work may and on seem developers the part fairly of Each of the following suggestions can be expanded and procedures,theimprovementsofintended the activity. educational towe beA must reminderscloser notexperience look lose that atsight the progressof of educationalthe the students educationalshould roots involvednot begoalsof madethis in and activitythe at benefits activity.the expensemay of Asbe are made in tournament management practices and capriciously.Assigning the task of developing topics should not be taken lightly or Those who write questions or develop topics need to be Friedleyin order. points out that ". . . forensic educators must preserve the reinforcegivenend.sonecessary that someall the formembers educationalguidance the tournament of theby aspects tournamentthe director tournament of the to stafftournament identify aredirector, working those experience. so educational towardthat topics the goals, same will It may be arehertournaments.educational met.or his own goals tournament, of the activity" and then (85). take steps to ensure that those goals Forensic educatorsgoals and the activityEach can tournamentbenefit from director greater needs to identify those goalsof for not only the activity It will be helpful to identify the but also of individual particularpositiveorderCare must to abilities,educational allow be taken students experience, valuein word greaterin usingchoice, and opportunitieslanguageresources. especially that instudent to extemp speakers questions, cannot in There is utilize little or notheir own educationalclassroom,Ifutilization we are willingof techniquesthen information we to promotemust implemented about be willingforensics learning in tothat stylesasutilize classroom. an extensionand in forensicsmultiple of intelligences.a practice traditional the educationalextempTheunderstand. tournament and tournamentimpromptu. director experience Inneeds reality, to proofread the rests fmal with responsibilitythe the topics director. developed for a rewarding for both Proofreading Denver: Morton Publishing Company, 1978.Faules, D. F., Rieke, R. D. & Rhodes, J. References Directing forensics. complexInresponsibility. theextemporaneous topics ones. will Less help experiencedspeaking, the director simpler speakers, feel questions more or those comfortable may with be limited better in accepting thanresources, more that Events.Events:Schnoor, ProceedingsMankato, L. & Karns, MN: of the MankatoV. First(Eds.). Developmental State (1989). University.Friedley, Perspectives Conference S. A. on Ethicalon Individual Individual considerations for forensic educators, in fact,resources,expectedwill notthey be approach.probably willdisadvantaged be ableshould to bybeutilize theexpected complexity their toexperience do that.of the questionand their or sources. the implied Experienced speakers, or those with more extensive In IL:tournaments. National Textbook Skokie, IL: Company. National TextbookKlopf,Hunsinger, Company. D. W. P. (1990). Terry, CoachingD. R. & Wood, and directing V. (1970). forensics. Managing Lincolnwood, forensic proverbsstimuli,In impromptu orneed quotations, to speaking, cany with whether topics them that some they move explanationare away cartoons, from of thewhatobjects more is expected ortraditional other of Intercollegiateand McKissick, A., Tannenbaum,Extemporaneous S. & Hoffman, D. (1994). Impromptu forensics. Speaking, Dubuque, in IA:Winebrenner, T. C.Publishing (ed.). 1 3 guidelinesthe student. for evaluating the students' efforts. That information will also provide the judges with some 64 Company. Kendall/Hunt contests. Colorado Springs, CO: Meriwether PublishingOberg, Ltd. B. C. (1995). Forensics: The winner's guide to speech intelligences. (2nd ed.). Arlington Heights, IL: IRI/SkylightLazear, Training D. (1991). and Seven ways of knowing: Teaching for multiple Supplemental Resources Divisions.sources,Publishing, many Inc., available1991. from most college and universityInformation Education about learning styles can be obtained from a number of

13C 65 activitiesAbstract: hasAmong been the the most growth significant of specialized changes participation, in the evolution with of students, forensic AlternativesI first outline thewill situation be suggested as it exists that today allow and all the members problems of that the itforensic creates. withoftournamentsmanifestationseducators, competition. the growing and offering Whileofprograms popularity this opportunities some specialization focusing preservation of parliamentary for on studentsare debate of seen broad-based formats, toinor compete theindividual decreasing the participation in move both events. awaycategoriesnumber is from seen of The Thefocus.community Situation the freedom to choose without perpetuating an environment of tobroad-based offered.educators,its negative participationand impact the forensics on is forensics clear. laboratory. pedagogy, the training of forensics This trend is argued to be alarming due Suggestions for compromise are teamgrowingdebate.andIt has professional andbecome into individual a increasinglycompetitive members formats) arenadifficultto actively through that for offers embraceforensic several research-oriented programsboth organizations, individual and debate their eventsas studentswell(in bothand as The notion of debate has changed significantly in recent years, ON FORENSICS PEDAGOGY, FORENSICS PROFESSIONALS,THE IMPACT OF SPECIALIZED TOURNAMENTS AND THE FORENSICS LABORATORY EQUAL OPPORTUNITY? fraternitiesregionalareandparliamentary availableeffective and with statetopresentational debate--a competitors which groups. programs format Added skills.through that andto Meanwhile, encouragesthesetwo their national opportunitiesmembers at a leastorganizationsblend can 11 areofaffiliate. individual critical three and honorary thinldng several events Webster University, St. Louis, MO Director of Forensics Scott Jensen inSuchbudgetoptions a breadth range resources,available in of choice forensic to having makesprograms, events. ita problematicforensics writes, "without program for programs comprehensive to encompass that wish to staffall compete types and Preston (1997), in outlining competitive ThedebateBy some activity formats accounts has and more collegiate individual organizations forensics events andare has availablenational never been tournamentsto the stronger. forensic than Countless student. Willy (1996),studentsreportedpedagogicallymentioned in (Jensen, that perhaps in they contradictory"this 1993). thesought most The to comprehensive climate(p.provide 274). now Earlierbroad-based seems assessment in thisto have opportunitiesdecade, of changed. forensics most programs Bartanen forto date, their article would be illusory and in some instances pedagogicalpaththattheWonka forensicthis of has disunionproliferation chocolate. studentvalue thatof and forensics.of Never should forensic educator. before be alternatives alarming As have positive so many tois leadingasthose choicesthis concernedmay our been activityappear, available with downI argue the to a The time has come for members of our tooandinregardingreports participation factionalized,argument. several diversity, Mean alarmingwas and meandiscouraged scoresthat survey scoresthe also forensic results. inrevealedconsistently terms community When ofthat teaching, revealed respondentsasking is doing respondents communicationfeelings tooview littlethat forensics questions diversityto styles,attract as forensicbasedcooperativeness,activity forensic totournament. dismiss laboratory. and competitive educational The placespecialization richness to begin that thisand is associated reversalembrace in thewith trends diversity, a broad- is the forensicmajorityAdiverse review studentevents (113)of the (debate,participation, of1997 the Intercollegiate225 individual tournaments educators, events, Tournament and listedor studentjudging offer Calendar congress). pools.only one revealed Furthermore, category that of a 141 66 142 most tournaments that offer both debate and individual events include only The Problem becauseopportunitiesofferparliamentaryindividual team many policy events and/orof for the and multiple tournaments (Hefling,Lincoln-Douglas individual debate 1997). that events). formatsallow formats team (including(60, policy compared debate team with and policy) sevenindividual thatand These numbers are further misleading Only 43 tournaments advertise onsuchdocumented.The Forensics: move focus. of Parson Whatcollegiate merits(1984) forensics further noted atdiscussiontoward the Second increased are Developmentalthe problemsspecialization that Conference stem has beenfrom competingeventsfor broad-based are inadministered both programsindividual within do events exist, a schedule and these debate. tournaments that While precludes some are hostedstudents opportunities in severalfrom fragmentationThe major problem facing American forensics in 1984 is increased . . . Someone once remarked that where you will fmd aClearly,programdifferent variety it can ofregions is forensic becomingattend of more events the extremely thancountry, during the fewdifficult onemaking that weekend. mayfor it unlikelyprograms (or may not)that to enter bea broad-based in students its region. in budgets,Besiegedunity,offour Lutherans. Lutherans and unmanageableby the outside gatheredsmaller forces--by thetopics--thetogether unit, inattentive youthe problem morewill administrators, fmd tendency in fourAmerican denominations to inadequatesplit forensics up. It is as if there is more strength in diversity than in participateprogramsregional,Exacerbating andaffiliate in post-seasonthestate present with organizations these ills tournaments. organizations,within that our are activity vyingthey ispurchase for the memberships. number opportunities of national, to With the exception of honorary As Houseorthatis compoundedmore one's Divided; substantial particular howby increased area longthan of itother specializationstands fragmentation areas depends . is to better,and large the measuremore desire important, to on show how . . Forensics is, indeed, a communityofpositionfraternities, nationaldebate. of As tournamentsfocus,forensicare programs recognizing unless organizations joinand their winnerseventthese resources focusgroupsformats. of the onallow they specializedindividualMore themoften and topush events,more, nationalcompete themselves members or tournaments singlein a variety ofintoforms the a This 1997.warning, While now the 13 overriding years in the concern past, iscreated more appropriateby specialization than ever is the in very long it remains divided (p. 47). tournamentsFinally,as the "true" there are national isless the competitive program champions, that or offers illegitimate creating both adebate asperception national and individual events. that the eventsfraternal to WithStudentsurvival fewer Specialization ofopportunities forensics, this available paper forconsiders students four wishing more to specific cross-over problems. between embracesforalmostindividualits students,students thealways eventbreadth to but benefit withand through of debate separateour from activity, independent squads,a broad student it sometimes rangefrequently memberships. squads. of forensic withis not independent structurallyparticipation. budgets, possible Further, but These schools sponsor While the school parliamentarychallengesWhiletodebate be the individualand result individual students debateof ourevents present events,tofocuses thinkteach trends.more oncriticallya variety quick specialized Each thinking of andforensic ways defend forensic toand event communicate, apositions. students blendhas its of own are effective debate certainmerit. While. participants.soundthe separation than breadth, within furthering the program support may sendfor specialization the message thatin the focus mind is ofmore its participants'recognitionOurgreatlyargument laboratory to formationresearch growth that caneach abilities whenand reach activity communication, it and its providesdefendinggreatest teamitspotential ideas own policy through unique of debate contributing cross benefits can examination. contribute (see, to itsfor includes a breadth of opportunities and 143 67 144 thisexample, potential Adamo, is lost. 1995; Derryberry Treadaway, (1991) 1995). argues When that "students our students gain morespecialize from weekends.travel an incredibly diversified schedule or frequently split their squads on Either of these manifestations result in the same problem: Educatorrestrictions"forensic Specialization involvement (p. 170). if their preparation is varied and free of narrow drawbacks,oneCertainlyresources of a number someare the stretched programs more of reasons. pressing beyond opt for While issuetheir an individual capacity.theseis the choicesprogram events have orthat debate bothfocuses focusbenefits not for out anyand of positionsgenerationstheireducatorsAs our coaching as students forensicthrough of and focused become educatorsa teaching. cyclical studentsmore they dynamic.As specialized, theirbring programs Intheir short--as specialization so tooreflect our do studentsspecialization,our with future themgraduate forensic into new to further ingrain the environment of whochoicechoices desires but are out orto willexperienceteachof budgetary soon a breadth become a breadth necessity. of the forensic of norm forensic This exposure.as resultspecialization exposure, is not norfair grows. toto thethe educatorstudent I fear that such forced professionalthem"whenspecialization. a theselimited educators" students frameworkJensen [specialized](p. (1996), 3). of experiences in discussing pursue thatforensic trends they positions, willin forensics, use to they guide argues bring them withthat as experienceIndividualactivityAs an educator fromEventsthe best participants andwhoand Debateworst is active ofin as both the Competitorsin bothother.worlds. individual I often hear events criticism and debate,of each I Whether it is an individual includingunqualifiedheof Bartanen thenotes future that specialization, to(1996), training "theyteach in debate" mayof his forensic istextbookfeel that(p. comfortable 7). "thiseducators. Hison doesdirecting conclusion, notRegarding teaching bode forensics, in well lighthighpublic fortouches ofschool thepresentspeaking long-term onteachers, histrends but view growing.debate,minimizesdebaterevent student whoit seems the criticizes or lack thatcoach of anan intensity who atmosphereindividual insults they event a ofperceive CEDA/NDT competitiveness or its toparticipants, accompany debater, between or a parliamentary someoneCEDA/NDT events who is MostProgramshealth forensicof the are activity Forced programs at into either survive a Choice the high through school their or college competitive level" (p.ventures 7). at defend(p.encouragesAlexander 278). what He (1997) "the weadds 'outsider'do notesthat and such thatwhy perspective separatinga we perspective do it" that individual(p. these279)."contradicts areThe event two ultimate andhowdisparate debate we danger defme activities" activities in andthis travelalldebate,offeringtournaments. of their schedules programs only students individualThere for are can twois having noparticipate. events,programs doubt more onlythat, difficultyinAs differentdebate, witha person the selecting or breakdownpartswho both hasof individualtournaments the recently Unitedof tournaments eventsdeveloped States,at which and I separation is what Alexander calls borders of distinction: intrinsicallyWesternThis formal tradition combative,separation of creating oppositionalof the activities oppositional categorization feeds intopairs. inevitablya longstanding Though lends not programsevents,canlisted.experience attest Second, tryparliamentary, to tois the competerepresentative, programs difficulty inand that the in CEDA/NDT findingdobroadtwo compete conclusions range tournaments in studentsof a forensic range can at can beof which events drawn. eventscompete. my previouslyare individual forced to First, few If my interpretativeaseparation.fact/fiction,itself derision to distention: ofThe debate/I.E. thestance insidious other black/white, vs. that debatenature questions ofdelivery; private/public,this divisionform I.E. and judge results functions real/imagined, vs. in debate).derision; (e.g., These borders of distinction demand 1 4 68 prioritizationThe current oftrend focus creates (p. 279). gaps, chasms of difference, and debaterspromote diversitybeing only are able not toarbitrarily enter certain penalized events. by having perhaps some of That way, schools that individualtheeventsSuch majority competitiveness have events fewer of individuals participantsor debate. is probably At atthat tournamentsawards not cross a surprise, intoassemblies other to given be events. Iparticipants thatsee individualincreasingly in eventseither these It is common for DesigntheirMuch best Tournament hasentries been disqualified said Schedules and written for noto aboutreasonAllow how beforeCross-Over to aadminister tournament tournaments begins (p. 8). in a factionalizationevent.standspeakers.participants to Such honor Not stand competitiveness long the thatfor accomplishmentsago pentathlon is it already seems will thatwinners becoming inevitably everyoneof students and commonplacedebate furtherin andan awards participantsprograms, the specialization ceremony in regardlessthe stand forensic wouldfor and top of to individualandmannerthe idealdesires that tournament events, ofis boththe forensicor humane separate schedule community.and some efficient, has debate been Some while toformats either tournament being from offerresponsive individual onlydirectors' debateto the events.answer needs or ThisSolutions?community. paper argues that steps should be taken to endorse and provide Thebetweencertainburdens,While rarest Iforensic am CEDA/NDTI offear sympathetic tournaments that opportunities. the debate commonly within thisand the year'sother callaccepted factionstoAFA reduce answercalendar of the has average forensicis thebeen one tocommunity.tournament thatdisregard offers It appears that the greatest tension exists ofsuggestopportunities a broad-based that this that mayprogram, further in fact breadth provides be the in minorityathe rationale forensic view. for community. his West choice: (1997), Present a director trends I cannot justify a thesis that in-depth teaching of critical thinking rangeparticipatebothinfluential CEDA/NDT of participation in in debate welcoming and (anyat individual their format) the tournaments. programs events. and individual and their eventsparticipants by allowing who choose such to Tournament managers can be analysisplatformcanhumanskills I justifyis condition available ofpublic more a speakingclaim through"value"through that eventspolicy toperformance the our deliverydebate.is society of greater and skillsthan goodanalysis learning inherent than of the abouttexts. indepth some Northe of I also believe that different tournamentWhenalmostmaximumFirst, thetournament certainly availability cross-over makes must itdirectors easierofbetweentake rooms place to candodebateand in things experimentacritics long and in twoallow,individual two days days, witha two-flight or events. schedulesalthoughinto a partialSuchindividual an that aearly third schedule allow event startday. While programs and their administrators must ultimately choose their possibletostudents be (by have(p. my 263). different own choice) needs toand meet interests, as many and that of thosemy job needs happens as noteventsSecond,on the be firstforavailable tournament cross-over day is toessential. debaters, directorsfrom debate. canthere Whilereserve would some one remain individualor two some flights events opportunity of individualwould still to shouldethicalexperienceprovidingresponse considerationsbe toscheduledoptions a forensic'svariety that ofin when make forensicaspecialization, way managing it such possible opportunities. that tournaments, debatersfor tournament participants Preston are argued not directors (1992), desiringlimited that tournamentsin caninbreadth outlining terms aid intoof andswing.Third,experience individual tournaments Some the swings valueevents, can ofnow capitalize whilebroad-based feature the on secondone theparticipation. tournament increasingly tournament that popular offersincludes individual just both individual debate event 69 148 eventscanevents. run in Within them the second concurrently this format tournament. the and tournament still offer offeringdebaters both exposure categories to individual of events assignmentscross-over as arenegative. worth the effort. Still, the potential gains to be made from such judge popularity.Theformats fourth to suggestion also participate for tournament in individual scheduling events. seems to be growing in Tournament directors can allow participants in some debate While this makes sense, TheCelebratealso fmalbe the suggestion Ourmost Differences important is one step. that Wemay must be the find most ways difficult to celebrate to achieve. the diversity It may over.parliamentarygivenalternativeremaining the length factionsthan debate notof timeround,ofallowing the it forensic ittakes alsostudents seversto community. complete any CEDA/NDT debate aNevertheless, or Lincoln-Douglas individual debaters itevent from is a cross-better theor performance"understandingofborderthat knowing continues between (p. and both, to281).individual discussinggrow realizing in eventsour the community.the andother. potency debate infusesof logic each and with the alternate power waysof It offers participants a wayAlexander of (1997) writes "the bestWhileForensic solution allowing Issue to Forumsa specialization, breadth of competitive another opportunitiesalternative is at to tournaments provide forensic is the teamindividualwhoI recently coaches policy discussedevent debate.debaters and the debateHowever, in issue a competitively activities. of specializationshe also She successful has clearly training with prefers programa CEDA/NDT in toindividual be that involved separates colleague events, with its assembliestournamentofCreatingforums reducing that an orarena atmosphere.feelingsfocus during that on of mealcenters issues competitiveness breaks. aroundcritical They concerns to the thatcan entire focusincreasinglythat unite forensic on issuesparticipants characterize community. ranging is afrom waythe Forums might be scheduled before awards praiseseventsofrespects respect programs and the fordebate. time differences that and opt effort to participate canthat helpis necessary to in maintain a variety to excel bridges of events.in individual between events, individual and This attitude Expandstudents.diversity Critic in Poolsforensics to graduate and career opportunities for forensic program'sdirectorsSimerlyWhileforensic students (1997) fmd events.opportunities, ways suggestwill for make students "compassionatethey their can to ownbe compete influenced ideological specialization," in areas by theirchoices outside educators. wherein withof regards McGeeprogram toand Such a philosophy can further the notion of inclusion a specialized students,likelycriticsofI don't a better refuse inknow thosesuch way theof exposureevents. manyto"opportunity" expose tournamentsWhile can educators doseveral to wonders judge that debate to events turnnew to openand critics eventsin individualwhich eyes away. than and they to Ibuildevent havealso assign respect. don'tcriticsnot them entered know may My as opportunitiesaccomplishmentsparticipateforensicwithin an opportunities. environment toin experienceevents Additionally, differentthat newmight forensic from otherwise insisting your events appear onprogram, courtesy can unaccepting communicate praisingtoward thoseof student certain the who across the forensic spectrum, and even allowing willtherewilleventexperiences benefit utilize willcoaches from always their with in insights skills a placing bedebate the in they adaptationdebate debateround may have and coachesnot for individual havealmost their in seen critic. individualalways onparticipants past been eventsballots. positive. who or No individual view Debatersdoubt this Individual event students TheConclusionmessage trend toward that room specialization exists for all in under the forensic the forensic community tent. is difficult to 149 70 ignore. While a number of rationale exist for this specialization, there are Bartanen, K. M. (1996). A preliminary assessment of the professional broad-basedfoundfollowstournamentreasons in logically tothe fear participationarenatournament. such that serving answersa trend.and as interaction a to center our community's for among much participants of problemswhat is from practiced. can all often forensic be Adjusting our tournaments so as to allow more Our activity is a laboratory, with the It AZ:climate Gorsuch of forensic Scarisbrick. education, part 2. The Forensic,Bartanen, 882, M. 1-15.D. (1996). Teaching and Directing Forensics. Scottsdale, Conferencesargumentandevents expose can styles. help forensic such our as community thisparticipants individual to realizeto eventsa wide its developmental potentialarray of tocotmnunication teach conference diverse skills and are AR:curriculum: Pi ProceedingsKappa Options Delta, to 161-174.and the strategies1991 Professional for development.Derryberry, Development In B. S. R.Conference. Roden, (1991). (Ed.). Forensic Conway, preparations and the undergraduate createHowever,muchparliamentaryimportant. todivision. celebrate, we But must debate,even also notwith its be the focusthecognizant least attention is ofindividual ofwhich theit is potential givingis events. its diverse to expanded Lincoln-Douglas opportunities. choice has and to It has been 13 years since a national developmental Our community has programsNewsletter, and competitive19, 18-45. trends in collegiateJensen,Hefling, forensics. S. L. The Forensic, 78, J. (1997). (1993). Intercollegiate tournamentA calendar. survey analysis of regional and national AFA onargumentationopportunityPiconference panels Kappa at Deltaprofessional on to forensicsconferences,discuss developmental problems meetings. has individualbeen conferencesof held.As factionalization concerned event With developmental thethat exceptioneducators, began have inbeen of 1989,conferences,we the at must bi-annualbi-annualour see only or at thefor1-10. annualthe transition meeting from of the forensics Speech competitionCommunicationJensen, to education. Association,S. (1996, November).Paper San presentedDiego, Unifying research and teaching: Pedagogy andbeyond should our unite "specialty" students and and look educators toward in the a commonrichness ofbond. an activity that can Works Cited CA. The Southern Journal of Forensics, 1,McGee, 282-285. B. R. & Simerly, G. (1997). On compassionate specialization. Charles,Proceedingsas ways LA:to maintain FromPi Kappa the the PiDelta, Kappaintegrity 110-117. Delta of debate.DevelopmentalAdamo, G. L. Conference. (1995). Reform Lake vs. abandonment: Supplemental activities In S. L. Jensen (Ed.), tournamentAnnandale, operations.VA: Speech Paper Communication presented at Association. thePreston,Parson, annual C.meetingD., T., (Ed.). Jr. of (1992, the Speech. November). Ethical practices and choices in (1984). American Forensics in Perspective. Journaltensions of Forensics,between supporting 1, 276-281. individual eventsAlexander, and debate. B. (1997). Border crossing or forging gaps?: Pragmatic The Southern Forensics,ChoosingCommunication 1,activities 267-275. Association, for forensics Chicago, programs. IL.Preston, The C.Southern T., Jr. Journal of (1997). Principles, participation, and particulars: 151 71 152 (Ed.).complimentary Proceedings debate From and the individual Pi Kappa events DeltaTreadaway, Developmentalprograms. G. Conference. (1995). A pedagogical rationale for re-establishing In S. L. Jensen JournalandLake individual Charles, of Forensics, eventsLA: Pi 1,in Kappa 261-266.int6rcollegiate Delta, 17-24. forensicsWest, competition. T. L. (1997). The Breadth Southern vs. depth: The tension between debate

153 72 1990 DSR-TKA NATIONALJUDGE FORENSICS AGREEMENT TOURNAMENT AND STUDENT ROTATION: A REAL-LIFE STUDY OF TILE SEC.Round One: A71 B82 93C 4D10 5E11 612 Department of Communication & Journalism Suffolk University, Boston, MA Vicki L. Karns 31251913 32262014 33272115 34282216 35292317 36302418 rounds.theNationalDuring same Afterthe Tournament,people third examining were round acompeting student of the Poetry schematics, approached against competition iteach wasthe otherTab determinedat theRoom in 1990the and firstthat, DSR-TKA asked and indeed, thirdwhy RIGHTTo schedule of each Round preceding Two ofline the (or event, you run you your shift diagonal lines 2-6 to onethe left): slot to the tournamentschedule,the first and it continued wasthird impossible rounds as originally were to identical.reschedule scheduled. At or that redoInstead point the of inschematic, treating the tournament this so as the a Round Two:SEC. 12A 1 72B 83 49 105 611 studentandcrisis,study Three it rotation/scheduling. examinesbecame and One an the excellentto ranks see what between real-life we can Rounds opportunity learn One about and for judge Two,research. agreement Two Thus, and Three, andthis 32272217 33282318 34292413 35301914 36252015 31262116 TheBACKGROUNDIndividual scheduling Events for theTournament 1990 DSR-TKA Director priorTournament to arriving was at donethe University by the right).toFinally, the LEFT to schedule of each Round preceding Three lineof the (or event, you yourun shiftyour lines diagonal 2-6 one to slotthe It is imperative that you use ROUND ONE plots to schedule doneThereaof graduate Nebraska-Lincoln on were a simple classnine sectionsdiagonalin Forensics (the of hostformat: six institution). wascompetitors utilized While infor Poetry. some all work Theof the wasscheduling scheduling.' supervised, was RoundRounds Three:SEC. Two and Three! A B 2215 81 239216 2417310 4191811 2051312 217614 speakers1 in the actualThi. rounds s diagram of competition. is simply for illustration. There were nine sections with 6 3629 3130 3225 3326 3427 3528 155 73 156 RoundApparently, Two; thus,the person' the round scheduling looked like Round this: Three of Poetry plotted off werecumulativethe recorded,tally sheetsballots were were then then used used asto thecompile "official" the data. ballots. First, After all ranks the results for all of the judges' tally sheets were copied. These ActualSEC. Round Three: A71 28 39 410 511 126 wasregion.Datacontestants used.was To then Ifcompare in a organizedRounds student's the One, ranksandrank Two,analyzed betweenstayed and the forThree rounds, judgesame, were agreementa it simple recordedwas coded coding by by round "S;" section. system ifand it 31251913 32262014 27332115 34282216 35292317 36302418 Panelstandardsappropriately.codedincreased Composition byused one in rank,Kay to Scoring andit was Aden's codedat the article 1984+1; if N.F.A."The decreased Relationship Nationals" by one were rank,of Judging used it was to -1; subsequent While differences increases/decreases were recorded in rankand reported,were coded the schematic!changed;oneSince noticed section however, It the was order similarities. also was so curious Roundsscrambled It thatis Oneironic only when and onethat the Three studentthe schematics speaker were noticed identicalorder were the was typed,problem. on NOT the no RESULTSassignmentinterpret ANDthe in data. assigning DISCUSSION Finally, ranks a comparison was conducted. of judge region and agreement in secondsheparticularentered,Most realized of speaker theso student theystudents she spoke, rarelyhadwas whonotcompeted she hear double-entered, thoughtcompete their against entireit in was events sectionoddhimso after inatin an DSR-TKA Roundofthe event competitors. first One. withspeaker are 9After double-sections spoke, the This expectationinbeinitialThe Roundvery study expectation similar. Oneof was the Thewould, notPoetry was assumption met. that no competition Thethedoubt, results followingwas receive that fromat theDSR-TKA chart Rounds thempeople indicates in whoOne Roundwas receivedand surprising. the Three.Three changes the would This onesThe in otherdiscoveredcompetitorshe competitorshad competed theto arrive,error! heard against Therethe enoughstudent thatis something person, startedof their too. inherentlyexamining sections While waitingto sad the realize that schematic for none theya subsequent of were and the -3-4Changesstudents' in Rank ranks round by round.' 2Rd. (4%) 1ONE (2%) to THREE 2Rd. (4%) ONE to TWO 0Rd. TWO to THREE PROCEDUREnotcompeting comment against on the the problem same people!since no Itone was judged not surprising the same personthat judges twice. did S+1-1-2 8204 (18%)(7%)11 (37%) (20%) 374 (13%)(6%)(7%)156 (11%) (28%) 72 (13%)(4%)101611 (20%)(30%) The1990 Tab Tournament. Room at DSR-TKA All ballots used were judges' checked section against scoring these tally sheets sheets, at the and COMYARISON+4+3+2 OF RANKS BY ROUND (Percentages are approximate.) 52 (10%)(4%)1 (2%) 2 (4%)114 (2%) (27%) 35 (6%)(10%) 2important for the integrityWhile names of the oforganization the individuals to note involved that the are people not necessary who were for this research, it is 3 157 scheduling the tournament at that time are no longer working in the Tab Room. 74 of +/-4. DSR-TKA only ranks contestants 1-5, so it was only possible to have a variance fromAswasIn addition seen sorted the inUniversity theintoto exploringchart two ofdifferentbelow, Nebraska-Lincoln. the thedifferences demographic vast majority between categories of the ranks judges and in rounds,then in Poetry compared. the weredata Fromandestablish Aden a research aused causal the perspective,followinglink. In their definition: previous study of judge agreement, Kay statistical significance is necessary to ASECTION USDMURRAYRD ONE UABUNLRD TWO BAMAHIRRD THREE example,contestantJudgesother aregave ifthe considered one the same judgestudent rank gaveto ora berank if theinthey ofagreement student differedthree, thea by rankif judges onlythey of oneawardedtwoare rank.considered and theFor UNLHIR(UNL) BAMAHIRHASTINGSUNL HIRMURRAYUNLUNL Their purpose in examining judge agreement was in the context of four,rankedin agreement. the the case student isWhen treated two ranks as and a differ disagreement the otherby two ranked or (Kay/Aden, more, the e.g., same 87). one student judge affiliates;JUDGES' other SCHOOLS HIR's may BY also ROUNDhave beat affiliated(Some ofthewith UNL, HIR's but were were identifiednot identified.) as UNL HIR(UNL)UNL HIRCORNELL UNL ofKay/Aden4theactivity"forensics the first critic-judge Nationalis as certainlystate, a laboratory theevaluation.Developmental notvalue a setting.new of Ifthe one. the experience TheConference judgesIt was idea givean ofis idea dependent"forensicsrankson whichForensics based wasupon as upon ainpresented laboratorythe 1974. a lackquality As ofat createdThelocation)ofDue regions differencesto were the and were small"regional" "non-regional" in problematic.pool rank of by judges region (judgesSo, in are two this recorded from differentevent, outside below:attempts demographic the to"regional" create categories a variety area). (judges from UNL and close geographical judging,"evaluativeknowledgereliability.the laboratory judge process.or upon agreementexperience someClearly, set woulddiminishes.inof researchsubjective/personal indicate designedThus, a consistency it is to biases,important look at theand "quality toquality level study ofof the -2-3-4Changes in Rank 72REGIONAL (10%)(2%) JUDGES 54NON-REGIONAL (5%)(4%)10 (11%) JUDGES WhileinamongBy a applyingthesocial Regional72% scientific agreementthis judges definition, research rateand would53% weproject, canagreement be seeconsideredthe that53% among there agreement statistically Non-Regionalwas 72% rate significant agreementamong judges. the -1+3+2+1 34923 (14%)(5%)(7%)17 (33%) (25%) 42030 (4%)10 (20%)(31%) (11%) judgesthanlowexaminedNon-Regional rateinthe the 55%of the Kay/Aden53% differencesagreement agreementjudges study was inrate judgeamong(Kay/Aden, below of regional agreement Non-Regionalthe low 88). judges agreement and The regional(Kay/Aden, Kay/Aden judges rate differences. was of study95). 65.22%also Again, alsolower The. of all (PercentagesCOMPARISON+4 are approximate.) OF JUDGES' RANKS 2 (2%) BY REGION 4agreement.different evaluativeIt standardsbe should be wouldnoted that seem in subsequent to account articles, for Aden the haslow suggested rate of we reevaluate our 15f) 75 Forensicsstance on Forensicsas a liberal as art, a Laboratory " National experience,forensic journal, see "Reconsidering IX (Fall, 1991), the pp. laboratory 97-108. metaphor: 160 staff.ofThere the Therefore,areRegional several judges itpossible is safe were explanationsto assumehired judges that for the whothese judges were differences. weretrained looking Theby the majority for UNL the differencesexplanation,the lack thereof--whether in judging. you are a judge or competitor. Regardless of the the data strongly supports the existence of regional competition.season,expectations.Regionalsame criteria and judges TheDSR-TKA and differencesalso standards. suggests is also between The one that higherof there theregional firstrate are nationalregionalstylesof agreement and tournaments preferences formats among is inoften and thethe it is the first time some people see "out of region" seemssameevaluatedOne fmal rank to be andcomparison from where tabulated. one there round of Forwas the to example, thedata the most next,was everyconsistency. made. the ranktime The wasa rankscontestantOne recorded. might of "Same" received be This quick were area the to and,andregionalstandardmost Three agreement apparent biasesof was agreement 75%; is whenbetween further agreement toviewed the strengthened.Rounds Comparison for between Twothe first Agreementand Roundsof Rankstime.Three One If bywas between we round,and 70%. apply Two theRounds Intuitively, wasthis notion 47%;same One of DSR-TKAimportantleastassume"5" given that to equalized therein remember each is "universalsection. all thereranks In were agreement"toother "5." six words, Therefore, competitors on there performances therewere in wereeachtwice which twosection, aseffective; many ranks are and the"5's" of however, there might be another explanation. It is regionalagreementofsince agreement the distributioncontestants rates would between werebeof judgesexpected. Roundsidentical in Round TwoIronically, in Rounds and Two Three. it Onethan is almostandSince the Three,other thereidentical two a was high rounds tomore rate the RANKSagreement,awarded than but any it does other have rank. an impactClearly, on it the does study. not (seeaccount chart) for all of the RD. ONE (20 "S's") RD. TWO (15 "S's") RD. THREE (16 "S's") Three,expectationregionalfive(Round butnon-regional One notjudges/six is withhadthat two Roundconsistency judges/fourregional), non-regional Two. morewould regional; judges/seven judge exist inconsistencyRound between regional; Three Rounds isRoundhad expected. Onethree Two and non- Thehad FifthThirdSecondFourthFirst 25 (25%)(10%)101(5%) (50%) 7 (48%)31(6%) (20%)1 (6%) 82 (50%)(12.5%)2 (12.5%) non-regionalpool,established,There one are or athere two couplejudges judgeswas in aof limitedRound canpossible make Twopool a of thandifference. judges. in Round With There One,such were aso small regionalism three judging more explanations. First, as previously IMPLICATIONSCOMPARISON OF & "SAME" CONCLUSIONS RANKS (Percentages are approximate.) judgeswithwascould alsohigher.had the have seencloserprocess. hadIt several was betweenmore also roundsof the anRounds thirdimpact. of competition roundTwo The and of ratio theThree, and tournament.of were regional thus more the toagreement Inexperiencedcomfortable non-regional rate Competitors had seen other styles and had the notadvantageous,suggesteddistinctionsThis be study who that youhasdo it existwhile providedcompetemay and notdiversity do beagainst, support haveas important an but impact by aswhom onpreviously judging. you are believed. It judged has also thatIt beenmay. is in scheduling students for the perception in thatrounds regional is TwoagreementCompetitoropportunity was at rates. to 7:45and adjust Round p.m.judge performance The Onefatigue day took started might stylesplace at alsoatand/or 8:0012:30 have introductions/transitions.a.m. p.m. had and on an RoundSaturday; impact Two onRound was the toaroundWhilesignificant. when therethe scheduling country, are no "universal"thereand running are some guidelinesa tournament.general principlesused Students by tournament most cannot coaches be directors judgedadhere 1 6 _1 _ morning.the last round It is difficult of the today. determine Round theThree impact was of at a 10:15good night's a.m. Sundaysleep or 76 by their own coaches; students should not be judged by the same judge in morecompetesamethe same personthan againstevent one more judgemore people than thanis usedonce from once; in their preliminary thestudents same own shouldevent;school. rounds, and,not At twocompetetournamentsstudents judges againstshould from where notthe robin"assignedevents.most effective approachJudging to compete when panels to covering inyou arespecific have created events smallerrooms and when withplacedevents, different judging in and, a room. again,events. is tight. Students you Of Again, course,mix are up thenit the is guidelineDuetogethersame to school the more which realities should them remains ofonce. not tournament judge uncompromised together management, and istwo coaches most judges of judging shouldthe time nottheir the judge onlyown judging!Ironically,againstdisadvantage 2 other many to people ofthese the solutionsapproachesat a time; to however, dealing is that studentswith it does regionalism provideare only havediversity competing evolved in Unfortunately,thefinalstudents. panel rounds) Although, with to puta "neutral" ait coach is not from uncommon(usually each defmedschool at smaller represented "hired!") tournaments judgein the (oftenroundor two! onin the criterion which may be the most influential, rotatedirector,philosophicalout of yourdesperation instead coaches. and of pedagogicalrotating and lack your of ideals! students judges For throughand the nottruly the a daringpursuit schematic, tournament of highersimply Scheduling would be simple and quick and judgingbedwindlingfewregionalism, too tournaments pools little judging intoo is outrounds far late. have down pools. As the forensicthedoes luxury Superimposing priority try of budgetsto imposing addresslist. Even also regional this regional atcontinue inequity,the nationalcontstraints contraints to butdwindle, level, it mighton on veryever thisthe sinceexpensemaking.mightduplication it consider seems of Instead your costs to re-evaluating bejudging wouldof rotation opting pool,be ofsignificantly for the judgesthe maximum basic judging that guidelines isdecreased! pool most rotation might significant! of tournamentSeriously, forbecome students the directors decision priority at the beFromeffective,may to have insista tournament fmanciallyan that even schools greater management and cover competitively, impact a certain pointon regional of percentageto view, travel tournaments. the a studentof easiest their than entry.solutionIt is a more judge. It would cost personneltournaments,atWhile national the aresheer tournaments judgingthe magnitude concept in-between would of of a attempting stand-bybe tabbing!), counter-productive judge to "regulate"we is cannot non-existent; judge(atdismiss many regionalism thetab national issue.room tournamentsunattractive.figure,increase tournament thethe choicesinjudge connection directorspool for scheduling.(or with decreasecould debate also Instead the fees,raise size ofandfees ofmandating has tothe make mettournament!) with hiringa percentage very judges littleand This particular approach has been used at several computerization,AsmoreForTournament nationalexample, than once directorstournaments the might it rule becomes might notthat be continueprevents re-evaluate imperativeas important twoto somemovethat peopleas ourproviding of ever their prioritiesfrom closer basic judgingregional are assumptions.toward in togetherbalance. order total to arePerhapsdosuccess. not small show moreInstitutions entries up. creative (two that orsolutions threecan afford sections), are into order.pay scramble do At so; tournaments thosethe competitors who cannot,where to there justuse everyone.productionFinally,design the as necessary Thisofwith a "judge isany not programs. problem traininga plea for ormanual" concern,the creation would education be of an a "nationalinvaluable is essential. book tool The for of judgethethreeSpeakingall of sameto ADS'ersyour listen eventand judges. to Rhetoricaland them.and Forthree the Most example, students RC/CA'ers Criticism/Communication judges ifsometimes youappreciate in the have same gettwo the sectionto sections breakhear Analysis, andevents from of scheduleAfter 5 they scheduleor Dinner 6 have ofone publicationlistedseecountry.guidelines the all variety Itof is forthethe amazing trainingvariousofpossible events to guidelines the eventsget offered novice tournament and andat judge." theirtournaments. tools results descriptions people from are A acrosspublicationusing and had acrosscountry copies whichthe and of It is a suggestion for the never heard before. Some tournament directors have also used a "round 163 77 training materials coaches use for training at their individual tournaments 164 theThiscoacheswould basic real-life be for assumptionsuseful national situation in understandingtournaments. offered of our anactivity. excellent regional While opportunity differences this limited to andexamine study helping does some train not of endangerwithoutissues.regionalpresume Change judging,judicialtoits mandatefuture! should itre-examination does we not eliminatesuggest be entered we studentand re-examineinto evaluation lightly rotation ouror and frivolously; ofpriorities ourdictate aboutmandatory however, these activity, we composition'ournal to scoring at the 1984 NFA nationals.Kay, National J. & Aden, forensic R. (1984). The11, relationship 85-97. of judging panel References

165 78 AND ITS EFFECTSTHE CULTURE ON FORENSICS OF QUALIFYING AFA-NIET: InThe 1.my ProblemsThe region, Problem of Pulling Slots it is quite common for a competitor, once they have Rice University, Houston, TX Director of Forensics Daniel A. West Whiletheirothernationals.qualified eventsstudents all offorCountless theseat the thehome; AFA-NIET, canopportunity reasons itbe gives valid can themnottoreasons beearn to agiven compete chancelegs; for tomaking it justifytogives with compete that themthatthis decision, practice:event timein other toagain we work itevents. offersbegin until on ForBackgroundlet those me offer unfamiliar a brief with explanation. the qualification The AFA-NIET procedures sponsors for the AFA-NIET,competition in toWhenexpect viewwalk wecompetitors competitiona expectdangerous qualified to with stop line acompeting eventswhen qualified we,to be afterevent as pulled coaches they as unacceptable.from have and competition,qualified students, an event.beginwe begin to The student which,tournamentelevenratio: differentwhen by totaled, earningindividual equal three events. 8 or"legs" less. (fmal round placings) in an event 2 - 3 contestants (per event) Students may qualify for the national Legs are earned in the following1 leg becomesballotThisculturalcompeting can like, our norms. happen responsibility "Iwith thought And inthe any ifqualified this we number to waschoose right qualified."event of this toways. perpetuate wrongis, We Or and maya studentthe to make showculture might a themcomment of talkqualifying the to way. on other the it in effect, breaking one of our 6481210 or more contestants 975 contestants11 contestants 42 legs653 legs rankletforqualifiedstudents theletting the fact round. aboutProse. the that student theyso-and-soWe mightare compete competing wonderfrom with school with witha qualified others Xa qualifiedwho about event, is competing eventtheir or we coach'seffect may with howactually reasons their we Regardless of how it happens, if we are expecting them TheopportunityThis Culture system to of compete Qualifying at the National Individual Events Tournament. is designed to reward our best competitors with the Thisnorm.intolerantto pull intolerance that culture slot when may that itthen willhas spread qualified,not accept to similarwe behaviors have situations. laid thatthe groundworkare outside offor the an If our forensic otherexcellencequalifyingIt is culture: my concern in for performance. a nationalthat we have tournament created a culturerather thatthan is onprimarily the pursuit focused of on it has norms, rules and rituals. This "culture of qualifying" is just like any It has expected behaviors werehand.goingfittingculture trying tothat is use tofocused schools make those aon legs,thatdecision earning don't don't as attend qualifyingdeserve to how the manythem. AFA-NIET,legs contestants for nationals, and to therefore advance then it seems toaren't aRecently I was working in the tab room at a tournament and we I have witnessed this first threesupersedestoand those offers problems who rewards other don't.result. missions to those or who goals meet of forensicsthose expectations competition, and thepunishments following When this "culture of qualifying" replaces or thenwithcumulativefmal,final madea rank round.we the wouldscoreof Therefollowingseven ofhave wasfivewould to statement:a orgo clear advance.less. to pointsbreak Thetoof figurefive person contestants out doing which thewho of calculationsthose had earnedstudents a To bring a sixth competitor"Oh into wait. the They're from a junior 167 79 168 momentswithcollege--they five into thegather don't fmal gomy round." to wits AFA's. and voiceThey don'tmy concern need the about leg. this attitude. I was dumbfounded. It took me a few Let's just go Iwashim, trying only "Just to later accomplishgo outthat there I realized by and telling getthe theimplications my three, student and toof then aimthat we'llforstatement. third work place? Whaton it." Did was I It reasonfosterscommentUltimately, forthe stillcompeting attitude six scares students that andme. earning perpetuatesThe were belief AFA-NIET advanced thatintolerance qualified toqualification the of slotsnon-AFAfinal should round, is programs.the be ultimatebut pulled this hissighthetournament?want hadn't ofhim why qualified to Didhe think was I wantyet? Icompeting viewed Becausehim to him feelin I thewas asthat first incapabletrapped he place.wasn'tcraft in He theworthof and was actuallyquest myto trying learnfor time winning legs,to because howperfect I lost to a give increasingly better and better firstspeakingtournamentsLooking2. The introduced, Problem toat coachesthe have ofAFA it "Looking isbecome from clearTournament Texas that quitefor they Legs"who popular Calendar, werewere invented aroundthroughout it is when apparent to cope thethe country."swings"with that the"swing" greatwere In eventsLast3.performances. The year Lackfor Ithe hadof AFA-NIETAndCompetition a very our talentedquest before Problem for student legs the endwas on ofgetting my September. team in the who way. qualified three Being the good withoutyoutoSincedistances their got many closest havingthere, some schools contest, thustoschools travel hadgiving it neededeveryto only travel students weekend.made to between travel sense the inopportunity eightto order have and to two fourteenattend totournaments compete tournaments. hours twiceto once get While this may have been the havesomethingschoolsmostcoach thecompetitions, that couldsame Iwas thought sparkearn missing their ofIso was, intensity that fromlegs I otheradvised forthat I nationals.had studentsstudent's the seen student before, onperformance, our to that pullteam she those and didn'tthat eventsfrom she shine. didn'tother from At nationals I noticed that moremeearningarguecase to in thatattend thequalifying fourmost past, fourteen hours schools I contendlegs. from tournaments attend Houston.that swingthis justification intournaments eight weeks, is forno allthelonger without sole true. purpose driving of In Texas, during Fall semester, it is possible for While you might think that this is I will competition,thatultimatelyI had thought help I that robbedher pullingand herthe thisofother the student's students opportunity events on my to from team,perfectI competition but her the craft reality andwould was to actually hurt everyone. By pulling her qualified slots from qualification.performstudentshavedue, inhad part, andsimilarlyat totheir Whencoaches location, best, short this no mostbuthappens, drives. longer as schools places seetournaments tournamentsin to attendance earn are the no as atlegs longer anthese opportunitynecessary tournamentslaboratories for to With so many tournaments available, justhassublime.work as proven well toward in me practice awrong. performance as it can bethat at would a tournament. propel her audience into the I have often heard and made the argument that this can be done But my experience piecemoretheyfor students become togetherthan hoop-jumping to academic thepractice right combinationtheirgames, for craft our reducing and students of perfect legs the through where qualification their performances. theystrategy must process and struggle patience. Instead, to little to throughoutqualifyingnationalsintercollegiateThis problem intime the track, is forensicsyear.set even bya competitor themore andNCAA apparent track mustat anyand when run onefield. his/her weof thedraw qualifyingevent an analogy underneath tournaments- between the Just because a student achieves this at the first In order to qualify for wasaloneandexcellenceThis nothaving hoop-jumpingin on perpetuating the bysome encouragingoverall difficulty further thisquality problem. qualifyingour takesof students their our performance.his tofocus persuasive set their away goals speech from on the forspecific pursuitnationals. legs, of This past Spring, a student of mine I know that I am not runnotcompete.fortournament thefasteronly rest at Oneach ofhome,does the the time, contrary, notseason, but preparingmean in competition,or that that that student him/herthe other coach willcoaches perfectingto pullsrun continue on him/herexpects any his/her to type practice thatfrom skill,of student trackcompetition thathoping against eventnot toto 169 All he needed was a third place leg to qualify and I remember saying to 80 different competitors and under a variety of conditions. This is where the "culture of qualifying" once again cheats our students. of us want our students to walk away from a performance of which they nothingInperfectingnationals,By essence, expecting more theirwe we competitorsIare performancecanare sending teachsaying you tothe to hasstop andmessagethem, little competing nothing "onceplace that morein you qualifyingonce regular haveyou they canseason qualified, haveis learn the tournaments.qualified goal, from there while your for is Solutionshadcould not not taught be proud? him how to perform. I had taught him how to qualify for nationals, but I tournamentoftruth.fellow my life,competitors." and I attend. I am stillAndWhey learning this, then as is wefrom it know,so the hard performances could for us not to besend farther I watch our qualifiedfrom at each theI have been in forensics for nineteen years, which is more that half qualifying,moresystemThe solutions difficult for the tothatAFA-NIET these that. problems or any have other nothing national to tournament.do with the qualifying I fear that we will If we continue to perpetuate the culture of ultimately doom individual It is far events Thenationalstostudents learn? attitude back asOr possible haveof into getting wecompetition? that become qualified we want so Do wrappedstudentsthose we reallycompetitors outup thinkinof sendingthe that"out way they ofas only themany have way"?carries slotsnothing the to tournaments.AFA-NIET.ofbelievecompetition performance, that theto We nothinggoal we have haveof tocompetitionmore quitto change than asking an is our exerciseeachto attitudeshelp other, our in mediocrity. "howstudentsabout many qualifying perfect slots the dofor craft you the We have to allow ourselves to forget about legs If we truly at thiscultureimportantly,studentslack Springof competitionof to qualifying whenwatch to figure I finalrealized problem on out rounds the why that qualityto totheyanothermost figure are ofof performance level.what notout there.how I was to seeing do became an inevent, fmal clear or rounds, to more me For years I have told my But the effect of the tournamentamchangelegshave I there foradvocating our nationals?" were attitudesthroughout in thateach aboutWe a eventthe studentmust competingyear. at stop awards. compete announcing with And, withqualified most howall theirimportantly, slots.may eventsAFA qualifying atwe every must What we must do is consider factors By no means CEDAThestudentsand question,most debatewho of gave what"Would for quality my years, you students performances want pointing your were Deanto doing,were the to already factsee was this?"that just out has notof the beengood. way. asked of if viewed, most The owebesideslearnin themeachit to qualificationfrom our week.the studentsyouopportunity as whena tojudge, listen todeciding go or to backfrom their what into your performances events competition. students' a student performances,objectively should compete and then to I If my students who have qualified still have something to We, as judges, programsdistrictspring,notadministrators careful, tournament.Ibecause had thea student wouldofsame the unintelligibilitythingwho most had couldlikely not happen qualifiedeliminate of the to performances.for individualfunding nationals for events. even their after debate our If we are This Allperformances,owehelp of themit this to themselvestofails, polish qualified however, their toor skills seeknot.if we ways andallow perfect theyone comment cantheir learn craft. like, from "Why each are others' they And competitors cost?tournamentsfor-legs"Nationals tournaments.Warm and Up qualified Swing, My two instudent reality events ended nothing for the up more AFA-NIET.being than top two speaker "last-chance- at both He was embarrassed to be top speaker So, the week after districts we attended a local at the last-chance But at what tournamentsourselvesunchallenged.competing and in away Impromptu?fromWe frommust our qualifyingstudents. demand tolerance and toward for excellence competitive in choicesperformance, from' I thought they wereIt is qualified," only when we shift the focus at to go myself,nationalsqualifiedweretournament. not what becauseofearlier thekind caliber in ofhe themessage was year. of the other wasbest that studentsof what sending was on him? hisleft. own Why team would who any hadone He was not proud of his performances and he knew they 171 He realized that he had qualified for And I had to ask that wewe do.can truly move our discipline forward and be proud of the work 172 ME USE OF LEARNING STYLES IN FORENSICS COACHING TEACHING AND COACHING INDIVIDUALS: opportunities.withsituations, the students and then in theconsider classes how that often we teach, we wish we wecan could clearly do recognize more of thatthe In order to take advantage of these, we have to see Southwest State University, Marshall, MN Thomas Bartl coaching.Mostshouldourselves coaches include as teachers are teaching active as wellin methods the as classroom coaches. and ways and to know use thesewhat worksmethods for whilethem Thus, the training of coaches thesecoachesItcompetitiveWhen seems coaches I effectivelyaskthat speech myselfbefore are expected orand Ihow can to debate, train ascertainto to approach effectivedo. I find The what myself answer thecoaches could issue posing toor I ofthisneedshould traininga question differentto beknow done coaches mustquestion.what to train thenit in is beeninpanelsassistantsthere teaching, foundand at conventions, whatwho toshow be aredoes effective us trying newnot. among techniquesto after fmd other all. that things, or out. lead expose us back us toto oldnew ones developments that have Many "coaches in training" are also teaching Thus, we continually try to improve Classes, journal articles, and successfulfunctionTheredetermine are of what manyand the "good"kind forensics approaches of coach.training coach. oneAn would intimate could be appropriate.take knowledge when trying of the to activity define andthe Many things are required of the thesedevelopments.Itour seems new classroom ideas to me and teachingthat fmd for waysthe by forensicstrying to incorporate new coach things themthe and next in keeping ourstep coaching. should abreast be Quite ofto newtake wepossiblyofits Itheserequirements, seefind no andmyselfbecause need all tooughtcoming motivationalit state is soto it muchbackbe explicitly. included skillstoa partone andThe ofinaspect ourthe administrativeforensics trainingimage that often coachof of a coaches.forensicsskillsseems is a areteacher. to However, coachjustbe ignored, a fewthat mightIthemoften have competitivelywe betried mightuseful to takefmd for as newthe well conceptforensics ways as in to other ofteach coach learning areas. our and competitors, stylescompetitor. and waysfind aspects that benefit that I will briefly thatthisinForensics such activitythese high isare an than esteemnot educational competitiveimportant is our activityknowledgeaspects; success and competition and thatone "hardware." ofstudents the is reasons an can integral This gain why is more partwenot holdtoof from saythe it howimposedLearningexplain it could what set stylebe incorporatedofthe has personal concept been defmed entailscharacteristicsinto forensics andas a thenbiologically coaching. thatmake make some and the suggestions developmentally same teaching as to victorywheninterpretForensics,activity. to or bendliterature, defeat mythem gracefully. immediate criticala little, thinking,research answers skills,learning include organizational when such to things follow skills, as the the acceptingrules ability and to But when I ask myself what can be gained from participation in Clearly, this is not a comprehensive list, but modelsdescribingbeindividualmethod adapted acknowledge effective learning learningtoward for thesestyle, styles thesome uniqueness individualand usingand thus ineffective varying instruction of styles. every nomenclature. for learner. andothers. teaching methods may There are various models Everyone has an However, all thatWhatspeechit does we does and showhave thisdebate. tothat mean recognize what for forensics the the training great can opportunity of teach coaches? goes we far have beyond to teach. the realm of It appears that it means If we Preferencedevelopedone'sBecause personal there bySurvey" Rita arepreferences. variousand is usedKenneth models to determine Dunn. there Their are the alsolearning"Productivity various styles tools Environmental of tostudents discover in One of the most widely respected is that 173 look at the time we spend with competitors in small groups or one-on-one 81 various aspects, including the environment, emotional, psychological and brightthesociological studentsurvey-questions, or dim learns aspects, light, most and coola effectively.scale physical or iswarm created preferences.These temperatures, that conditions tells us under andinclude the what suchtime conditions things of day. as Based on the answers to morningsaveleadThe determinationusus tothe with make frustration those appointments ofat whatus of who having time work for of verythat betterthe time unproductiveday during ofa studentday, the if afternoon. possible. sessionsfunctions during best the This may may thosethentheorAdditionally, with student be elements others,used wants byit whetherthat gives the a may highstudent us auditory haveinformation or lowto been introduce orlevel missingvisual whether of structure. intolearning before. the their student is learning most learns effective, environment best aloneand if It can alsoThis be information used by can mayGivingfromThose beclear students deadlinessomething assignments who for that prefer such givenwe aarethings structuredto hesitant them as duringoutlines, toapproach do, the but research, process tofor learning those of and speech*riting. students maya first benefit draftwho assumeForcompletedthe teacherthe thatforensics successfully. toat structurethe coachbeginning thisassignments informationof a student's and could activitiesforensics be very careerso that helpful. we they have may them be Let us coachingManyneededwant amore togreat assuresessions possibilities deal successful ofwith structure otherexist. completion students in their of in processthe the project. room. it may Some be mayjust whatwant tois For some it may be effective to have learningmaydonecompleteNot thisvery only takes andone well will sosuch less manybewe survey.timeable be of able thantothe Thisuse toresults ineffective adapt themay mayresults besome thecome learning, offirstin ourasother timea coachingsurprise and classes.that thus the to butwe thestudent themight student. student has be Effective to wantacompositionmakebe short alone to visual amountwrite in a process.clean their of space.debatetime, Some and cases may then in want leavethe squadto itwork alone room very for while hard a while. otherson one Some may event mayneed for representations of their speeches to aid them in the are.thethingsmoreblessed resultMore timeto with do; maythan on aif student Forensics.bejustwe students can giving whohelp We uswho canthem students alluse are doknow timenot these who quitemorethat other are students aseffectively, more things"stressed" effective havemore and as manyeffectively, theylearnersthus spendoftenother in wesuccessfullyAsForensics adaptcan be our seen, coachincoaching many learning and educational andfor thelearningstyles competitor. cansettings to thebe individuala and highly can easilyvaluable styles work of toolthe for students for us. theAs Learning styles have been used manyOnemoregeneral, exampleindividually. students however, ishave the the troublepesky results problem memorizing of the survey of memorization. their can speeches be used to or design pieces. coaching As we all know In this Learningeasily.we can use styles our timeare only more one effectively, example of and an goalseducational may be concept achieved that more can thatprovidingcancase, bethey the extremely maydetermination students use helpful.to who memorize whetherare A auditory lot it. of someone On time learnersthe and other is frustration a with hand,visual a tapefor or may visualauditory of theirbe learnerssaved speechlearner by a techniquesconsiderspendweeasily have muchbe aadaptedourselves greatand time ideas opportunity withto theteachers that them. special will Whatever toduring let needs work us fulfill much ofwith else the that westudentsForensicsof thatdo,role it timemore inis world. importantclose and fully. Ascontact, coaches that to use those When we. clean,bewatchingFor harder clearlythose intelevisionto legible Extemporaneousfile, the copy or information listening may be Speaking the to learned theanswer. radiothis from may is not thesebe useless.another sources indication is valuable that While it may onestrainingstudentsForensics is tocoaches whileknow coach coaching. wehow needs cannot to to use know forget the and most this to either.learn,effective and oneways of ofthe teaching most important our There are many things a and may be easier to access for the auditory learner. 175 82 176 theAbstract:coach structure burnout An forimportant andsuch improper training link has trainingis been in place made of directorsvia in thecurrent graduate of forensics.research programs between Although of (Bartanen,improper1993; Jensen, or1996; non-existent 1993). Burnett and training Danielson, of those 1992; pursuing Gill, 1990; such Hassencahl, a career Jensen (1996) goes as far as to state, "With thosecallandcompetency-baseduniversities non-curricularfor programs national offering with standards methods.model graduateforensics, of toward trainingSixassistantships competency the is development presented in areasforensics. utilizing are of established,future both coaches curricular with by a this arena has been underutilized. A untrainedfoundationtrainingevidence orforof pointing poorly forthethose forensicprofessionals entering trainedtoward education. thecoacheslimited thatforensics teach careers begin profession, it" their in(p. forensic 2). positions, we cancoaching theysee the are and tenuous not poor Our activity is only as strong as the One notion is that, as FOR TRAINING FUTURE DIRECTORS OF FORENSICS SOLVINGCREATING FOR A HEALTHYNATIONAL FUTURE: STANDARDS competitionexperienceMoreover,arrayfully equippedof skills--from in is they publicundermined to may handle speaking, bookkeeping be approachingthe by sheer the day-to-day tomagnitude public these relations.tasks operations of tasks in ineffective that of require a program. and a widenon- oral interpretation, Theirdebate training and andeven University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE Thomas A.Director Workman of Forensics coachwork,burnout.efficient tobut work ways, it can more creatingbetter productively prepare more the stress and coach efficiently. and for hence those a stresses higher probabilityand enskill the of Training cannot remove the stresses that surround a director's haveMost acoaches cause, and of collegiatethat once theoratory cause teach is fully their determined, students thata set all of problemssolutions Casselton,handfuleducator.andWith program such of a models1991). clear-cut burn-out Wepresented cause, seems as a community one to(Bartanen, be solution better are1996; educationto thejust Hassencahl,growing beginning for the problem future 1993;to realize forensicsof Larson- coach our Yet very little has been written on the subject, with only a concernarticles,forensicsproblem.can be createdpapersof Thoughdirectors career and and burnout,labeling aspresentations setproblematic into theprogram actioncurrent have may reduction that trendscalled be shouldan in our overstatement,and/or the attention eventuallycareers elimination, toof theaour numbersolve growing nation'sand thethe of graduateLuckily,surpriseneed for thatformal programsthe we've basic training not andstructure yet assistantshipsin begun forensics for to such build administration offered training the road. at currentlyuniversities and education; exists across init's the no careersEducatorsofDanielson,declining a national healthnotes 1992; survey that ofBartanen, thewell sponsored activity over 1996; half for Jensen,by of coaches the respondents1996).Guild and of directors American did not (Burnett expect Forensic theirand to continue beyond five years, with nearly two-thirds of Bartanen's 1996 report graduatewhilesadly,educationcountry. enrolled Bartanenprograms begins in a(1996)have masterssuch a courseworkreports program as in that a forensics graduate inless Communication than direction assistant half of and allwith Studies.administration,universities a speech teamwith Historically, a student wishing to pursue a career in forensics Yet,. 1 7 7 Manytherespondents century causes (p. statingfor 17). this thatproblem they havewould been be leavingexplored, the yet activity substantial by the evidence end of throughLeland,keystudents,and foundationHassencahl 1996;experience, despite Workman, to consistentformal(1993) which, instruction 1996).paints fmdings though Withoutan in eventhatmeritorious forensics suchcurriculum, bleaker a educationcourse (Leland, picture training can (Jensen, 1996),prove is received toleaves1996; be a for doctoral exists correlating the decline of long-term careers in forensics education to 83 training as widely disparate and unstructured (Jensen, 1996). Clearly, the thatapprenticeshipcurricularperfectgraduate only place program,six and Ph.D. for forexperiential suchany andprograms established professional the Ph.D.training offer profession. program courseworktraining,for the in futureHassencahl particular, in coach,forensics (1993) servessimilar (p.2), remarks as to theyet an as it can provide both andstandardthedimensions, functionsinclude areas accounting tasks of publicthe and director. worker andspeaking, bookkeeping, characteristics debate oradministering oral associated interpretation the with speech/debate performinginstruction, These dimensions go far beyond the utilizationtheperhapsforensics quality it is ofeducation.of not trainingthese the numberprograms these programs of programsby those provide, wishingoffering and on-the-jobtomore pursue importantly, atraining career the asin Without a clear sense of what such training entails, college/universityspeech/debatecoachingprogram,17). speech/debatearranging program. and student community Lesser participants, participation tasks service, include andpublic tournament relations, hostingcoordinatingIt is (pg.interesting to note that only two of these dimensions--coaching and recruiting in off-campus tournaments, students for the Clearly,educationor theynational must it's remains standardstimetravel. to no begin morefor suchbuilding than training, a dirt the path, road. the and roadThis one topaper thatcareers fewis an ineven attempt forensics realize to Anotherinspeech/debate 1996.the survey area of studentsof forensic skill liesand position inprogram guidance advertisements administration--were and counseling. conducted commonly by Shelton listed in Colvert (1993) graduatepresentthecreate literature a six foundationstudentstraining competency concerning wishing for areas both skills to become thatcurricular and I believetasks directors and of need the non-curricular of director/coach.to forensics. serve as theI trainingfirst core review of forall in forensics education if we are to create better Next, I ethicaldisorders.fromdegreefound relationship thatandof personal Thoughappropriatecoaches issues counseling clear across personal and lines careerthe with must countrycounseling, decisions undergraduate be drawn were theto involvedsubstance aroundevidence students the inabusesuggests forboundariesat least everythingand that eatingsome the of nationalthecompetencypresentdeveloped, development several standards stronger,in the curricular ofsix for future andareas, developing longer-lasting and forensicsestablishing non-curricular future educators. that directors coaches both approaches arenas ofand forensics. administrators are necessaryto achieving for in Finally, I argue for I then giftedAlonginterpersonalrelationship and the talented, same betweeninteraction. lines, many however, a of coach whom and are find the a homestudentsskills in needed our will forensics involve to work programs.this with level the of Theinstructionprogram,forensics, Skills aandsoof future athat, development. Director/Coach: despitecoach from the individual anyCurrent university Research differences can receive of any consistent particular perform,Beyondissues,literature,Little and developing isand yet mentionedapproaches out-do it coaching the about todirector the styles thisexceptionally in type accomplishments,for a of student student bright who inor may new thetalented majorityout-read,coaches student. must out-of the is imperative that a new coach recognize the needs, writesfewtasksSeveral textbooks of that theapproaches "Individuals coach/director currently have whoserving been of teach forensics. thosetaken and trainingtocoach better forensics in understand forensics must administration, thebe dedicated, skills and Bartanen (1996), in one of the teamtoortemperamentsbe takedirector.able effort, a to variety work Leadership notthat ofwith simplypersonalitiescan, what withoutskills forare are theoftenandproper critical sakepersonal highly training, ofhere, sensitiveteamissues as exasperate a trophies anddirector and create oftenthe mustbut a best collective difficult forbe coach. ablethe jackpurposeso,created of'jack-of-all-trade' produced more a here. job-analysis trades a comprehensive than teachers" approachsimply teaching.(p. for list xiii). the of evaluation job-specific of coaches,skills that and serve in doing our Through a survey of current directors, they determined In reality, however, they need to be Danielson and Hollwitz (1993) stagefright,medicalAnecdotally,educational emergencies goal the the specificof list helping of on tasks theskills talented road and and skillsto people duties helping could workof a a benew forensicswith endless. competitor others. directorFrom overcome handling 1.80 are as masterythisuniqueincluded paper as before the is in tomany aentering trainingfocus programs onthe program, those field existing askey aallowing full-fledged skill across areas athe graduate director.thatcountry. can student Yet,and theshould to goaldevelop be of 3. b.LeadershtPa.guide, and & take Responsibility charge of others. Competency:Demonstrates The abilitythe ability to motivate, to motivateproblem-solve. others. setTherefore,Six ofCompetency competencies in order Areas to must establish for beForensics created national Directors to standards serve as forgoals training, for the a trainer.specific C.e.d. Demonstrateslimitations.Demonstrates the the ability ability to maintaintowork handle within professionalism. crisis. departmental policy headingacrossinFrom the the thearea.is followedcountry, literature bysix mentioned a key set ofareas skills earlier of that competency and would the manydemonstrate emerge. anecdotes competency of coaches Each area 4. projects.Administrative8.f. Competency: TheDemonstrates ability to administrate the ability to tasks maintainestablish and safetyleadership for the over group. a group. 1. a.Instructional inDemonstrates an interpersonal Competency: a general or small The knowledge group abilitytheories structure. to teachof and speech practices.undergraduate communication students c.b. Demonstratesa. Demonstrates the the ability ability to tointeractmanage organizeprojects. withmultiple tasks and andinfluence projects.simultaneous others. d.c.b. Demonstrates aspecific knowledge expertise of educationalormethods. in competition. an area styles, of speech needs performance and issues. a general knowledge of coaching styles and g.f.e.d. Demonstrates the ability to establishmanageDemonstratesprocedures. paperwork. priorities. the ability to work within deadlines. a general understanding of administrative g.f.e. Demonstrates the ability to assessgoalsDemonstratesmethod student and to methods theability learning thethe and whenability ability needs. style necessary. to to and evaluate adapt needs teaching/coaching studentof the student. progress and style adjust and 5. interpersonalIntopersonalh. Demonstrates settings.Competency: the ability toThe work ability with to administrative communicate technology.effectively in 2. a.recordsFinancial and Management operations. Competency:Demonstrates The ability the to ability manage to createfmancial a budget. c.b.a. Demonstrates thea general abilityability knowledge toto provideadaptandothers. problems. styles empathy. of resources of listening for tostudent the needs issues of e.d.c.b. Demonstrates the ability to communicatesolvecomprehendmanage fmancial funds fmancial fmancial usedproblems. for statements. issuesoperations. to others. f.e.d. Demonstrates the ability to createDemonstratesinterpersonal functional settings. the relationships. ability to create professional relationships. the ability to express themselves clearly in 1 8 I f. Demonstrates the ability to raise funds. 84 g. Demonstrates the ability to use referrals effectively. 6. professionalismProfessional Competency: in the field. The ability to establish and maintain whereDirector. a Both formal and informal approaches should be developed, graduate student has both course requirements for the b.a. Demonstrates a formulated philosophyapproaches,program administration. of and speech practices performance in a variety and of competitive arenas. a general knowledge of competitive rules, contributiondifferencesmentoringindividualaccomplishment mentorship. relationships toin the the ofeducation interpretation competencies Carver do of exist& new Larson-Casselton of withincoaches. as the well term, the as community gainsproduced competency an and, important despite from (1990) found that such f.e.d.c. Demonstrates an interestability to in evaluatewrite scholarlyDemonstrates educational performances activities critiques. an of interest thein competition. field. in continued development. whomisServing the person the as graduatethe most trainer likelyassistants would to mostteach in forensics likely the Directing be most the Director often Forensics report. of Forensics, course This is and oftenwho to NationalTrainingIn an attempt Methods to andaddress Approaches the many needs of training future coaches, the Developmental Conference on Forensics set forth competenciesactivity.providedecisionsthe person the regarding who letter in providesall of sixfuture recommendation areas, an funding, evaluation but moreover, and for theof futurethe one must graduate who employment be willable assistant most to commit inlikely thefor Obviously, such a person must be able to demonstrate instructionforensicsinrecommendations speech program communicationand supervised for(Mc a Bath,degree experience. and program supervised in forensics, experience involving with courseworkdirecting a 1975). Proponents exist for both curricularJensen (1996) writes, "The ideal ofDirectortheirsignificant the departmental program of timeForensics asand andthey resources can professional can pay to astothe themuch training duties. training attention of of future future to the coaches coaches competitive without as a partneeds the of It is absurd to believe that a thatregardingdimensionsotherdirecting face coursework, forensicsthem concerns of asdirecting forensics course, of the a aside students forensiceducators, from inprogram, integrating theand course, (3) (2)culminates the allowsas knowledge well forasin theinteraction gained studentchoices in (1) provides activities that reflect the integral educationalforstandingassistantprovision and places directorormission. ofwhether resources a value to administerit simplyon bythe the traininginvolves the department, daily of defining tasks graduate of whether amaintaining position students that that as a includes partcompetitiveallows of theirtime an It is my guess that few university departments have andcomplete"Instructionbeingunderstanding educational able paperwork, to can communicate the missionsbe importance as to simplediscussing of that the asof vision" program"followinghavingdeeper issuesa philosophy (p.basic 9).of balancing directionsHe adds, of forensics competition later,on how "It and tois (p. 7). Leland (1996) states, minortrained,madealready adjustmentsthis we existlevel must and of beginin commitment, arecurriculum, readybuilding to line producethe yet redressment,training in ordercompetent facilities--many for and coaches coachespromotion. to with of be whom wellsevetal Obviously,thetheessential leadership" actual thatin day-to-day order (p.graduate 11). for competencies and students weekend get ato chance beweekend reached, to learn activities both by coursework being of the involved team and and in trainingactionsWeA Call all knowforspeak National that,louder when Standardsthan detailing words. Producing elaborate bettersolutions, coaches talk through is cheap better and will require forensic individuallyassistantshipendlessguided experience number orwhich within of will serve models abe small perfectlyessential exist group, undercomponentsfor as training, teams the structure ofofwhether GTAsa training ofreportingor thealongside program. graduate occurs theAn similarcompetitorstheuniversity important competencies department who recruiting will consideradministrators, officers a career for and thein individualcoaching. new army coachesBy of adopting undergraduate who theseserve oras intosupport from national national standards for training, organizations, national 183 85 184 coachesforensics associations can serve a vital role in paving the road to better without becoming involved in prescribing or demanding thestudents,universityforcurriculum nation.director/coach and programs from provide university training striving consistency would, programs.to provide in in fact, the excellentA legitimizescopestatement of training training theof nationalactivities to offeredtheir standards graduateof acrossmany thosesuccess,CompetenciesThere whois certainlyand are training must attempting more be methods thoroughly to study,to raise must totested the discuss, be next exploredto be crop and proven to ofand explorecoaches. valid communicated indications in this area. ofto Yet, our todiscussions get the work must started. not override As Jensen initial (1996) action, so aptlyor the warns laying us, of a foundation poorly". trained educators. To do so is not fair to our institutions,. we can ill-afford to place our programs in the hands of The first step is to declare a standard that serves as a map for those itabilitiesto healthythemake, educators of norfor their our to faced theteachers.activity" students with (p.Most making 12).who importantly, arechoices directly they it is impactedare not not fair, prepared bynor the is welltraveling. worth The the effort.construction of this road may take time, but the results are References Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarlsbrick. Bartanen,Bartanen, K. M. (1996). A preliminary assessment of the professional M. D. (1996). Teaching and directing forensics. programclimate1-21. of administration: forensic education, What Part will I. the The 1990's ForensicBurnett bring? ofPettus, Pi National Kappa A., & Delta, ForensicDanielson, 81, M. A. (1992). Analysis of forensics `--) Journal X. 11-18. 86 forensicsAbstract:willsees explaintoas Theaa swingingdangerous author what she willpendulum trend sees present inas publicwillthe her current first personal speaking be stateexplained. and events.of frank public Then ideasA speakingloose the of authorwhatanalogy events, she of makemeasurespredictspots, us some allas that thinkwell outcomes we aboutas should the wherefor warty possibly the are futureareas. we consider. in ofFinally, thispublic quest The Ispeaking will foraim excellenceattempt of events this paperbravery andin public someis toand publicgothisspeakingand from paperfinally,speaking here? events is anto events? makeattempt and ussomeHow tothink: predict didsuggestions wherewe some get are to outcomesfor wherewe our in this weconsideration. for arequest the and forfuture where excellence The of do publicaim we inof itselfMostdospeaking we to ofgo aus fromevents?swinging have here? heard How pendulum. didthe weanalogy Forget toinstance of where either fashionwe various are andtrends. things where What in in life isthe trendyor heck life NEW DIRECTIONS FOR PUBLIC SPEAKING:THE PERFECT PENDULUM SWINGS looselynylondependingpendulumin fashion shirts be identifiedtodayhason and your swung wasblouses. prospective with inback fashion the It to ispendulum where myof back bell belief it in bottoms theory:was thethat before--forlate ourto or the60s widefield far and leggedofleftbetter early forensics is mediocrity or pants70s. worse, Thecanand Speech Instructor and Director of Forensics Tyler Junior College, Tyler, TX M'Liss S. Hindman excellenceforensicslefttheand pendulum'sto the do faroncedoldrums not right again.right come is swingexcellence.of up mediocrity with and tactics that I believe itif of iswe howabout weas toeducatorsare to perpetuate currentlycome crashingin atthethe the pursuitworld apexback ofofto mid-forties,twenty-threeForensics has one of been thoseof myan as overpoweringcolleagues a coach. Evenin Texas part though of last my Iyear havelife announcedfor not over quite thirty reachedthat years--he and the overlivelyandFor theimprove. the sense vast years ofmajority Speakers togetherease and of becamewith naturalnessmy theprofessional more vast in majorityfluent, delivery. life, wittier, ofI have Topicsspeakers and seen haveimproved choosingforensics developed greatly topics grow a feelcollegetitle?Grandmothersome old? Amidst other level No, younger forthe itof justthe current,Texas longestmade coaches forensics. active me amount feelhadcoaches Why weird;determinedof time. in or this becausehow Did state, thisdidthat Itheyrevelation Ihavestill was determine internallycoached the makereigning at thatsee methe redundant.(orcommentsschoolof depth whatever program and toDuring significance.my the begancolleagues event) the last to that turn Ifive haveof I've "I outyears beenjust everaccomplished orjudged fascinated heard"so I foundthe became best asorators. that school round I embarrassinglybegan Regularly, programof Persuasion to expect after my panel'sgivesdragons,"myself topic me as a aboutof etc.bit New ofWhat 28 credibility Directions years does old, my to forstill discusspersonal Public out towhat Speaking?conquerlongevity I see theas Well,have a world dangerous Ito hope anddo with"slaythat trend itthis the in also2-4theknowevery middlepoints, to notround know only andof of andthe thetocompetition room,practicehave basic a toskillsconclusion thehave to fmer ofbe an orators near introductionskills which pofect. suchof summarizes public as:I withexpected how speaking: a preview,to the standevery main how up tostudentideas; tofrontdevelop make but into . seebusinessobservationsanalogythis as wonderfulthe of currentof competitive andforensics myart state gutof to public ofinstinctsspeaking a publicpendulum speaking. honed speakingevents. swinging. from Mostly First, events, these Next,today thirty the I bright,willintend odd explainyears tobeautiful share in what the my I I will present a loose expectations.gesturescommentseye contact eveneffectively within with a relatively every person dry topic,in the toroom, use tomovement include witty and effectively, etc. And obviously I was not alone in my 187 87 188 thatI havethey hadclearly dozens were of expecting conversations near perfectionwith colleagues as well. who And made I have statements read we have created a cookie mold by which we seek to stamp out nearly whodozens were of almostballots--and bitter youwhen have they as judged well, Ione am of sure--from our students our who colleagues did not fewthereidentical more are differencesspeakers. chocolate Oh chips,between sure, one there any may aretwo be differences cookies plump, in while ain batch. our the speakers otherOne may is fiat, have but . just as a possibilities,fitsignificanceWorkdeveloped" this moreimage orbefore on of butworse youra perfect youthe "your organization, nexthave orator. competition."topic a long Conunentshas wayyourpotential to delivery golike and before "your perhaps and speechit your you topicsense do, too. has of What is worse still, I admit is effectively Now,approval,thefactories taste don't hoping wheretake that my we few cynical present or none analogy our will current be the rejected wrong batch to theway. for crumb examination heap. and . . is identical. And our tournaments have become giant cookie I am all for victimcompetitionmeanttellingthat I have tothemwas the preventedI where, thatpendidn't theirof bythinkthe speech mythe super theyownluck wassleuth wereorstudents notfate ofready quite oforation--the fromthe readyfor draw, goingthe yet, wolftrapyourjudge to when tournamentsstudent on what ofyour forensic may Icircuit really fallby wemotivationalwhatforcompetition. studentshave forensic let toIthefactor valueshowcase tournament tocompetitive encourage their settingabilities forensics. our students becomein a Aftertournament to "the all,work. creatingend" Thesetting and danger opportunities is"defining much is that of activity is all about. Tournaments can be a great narrowly.toleratingneverwho will include listthis every anyperfection words single craze.of mistake encouragement. We thatare guiltythe student By of definingmy mayown makeperfectionactions, and I was willtoo succumbeddangersafterforensics--thesetting" all in ofand the theirto weskills questthe nationalare temptation thatfor forgetting perfectour eligibility students of orators writingabout can is thethatusetheused. everyrealspeechesmany And world dayof one our forof applications theirofcolleagues their the lives, students. severest longhave of thatofthis amNow,perfection. conferenceone as pleasecompetitiveof our I believe lovesdon'tprincipal asforensicsget strongly the the aims rest wrong any inofas what you. forensicmore impression. weI thanalso do educators stronglyIas do. forensicNo And one believe should I educators.willin this admit inbe roomthe to I that pursuit helpfeel or I at admittotimethe"After write student to it. all," teach it before inthey them all probably ofcompetition how the intricaciesto reason,fmd startsa topic, "I of havein perfect howSeptember." a hardto delivery--I research enough And a timedon't topic,yes, preparingcomealso and havehow on, Don't we expect to see cookie cutter perfect little speeches in the Bayhusband'scanstudents become.Packer strive favorite coach Ifor even ofperfection--to quotation old: dare to isrepeat by become Vince what the Lombardi, my very sports best the oratorcompetition legendary that he Greenorcrazy she judges,severaltotallyintoearliest the have memorized--many ofmemoryspring tournaments?grown semester glitches.to expect beforeI remember,During perfectlyused the some themajority memorizednot past notes so few ofmany orstudents years, speecheshad years to we, had stumbleago, byas their thatcoachesthe speechesendthrough ofand we were excellence."never"We attain must striveit, but for in perfection. the pursuit In of striving perfection for perfection, we will attainwe may judgetochangesSeptember! see that that student in studentitsAnd development, duringafter with we the critiquethe very completelyif bynext a speechsome weekend's quirk revampedone weekend of tournament, fate speech, we and are suggest we completelyselected expect major to . doingevents.endeavors--but"perfection,"That's events not correctly. a here badwe ishave motivational where Instead become I feel of settingweconvinced motto have up gone forgeneral that anywrong there modelsof in us--inis public only by which any onespeaking ofway we our of In our pursuit of what be have grown to accept as being theyownre-memorized. didn'tstudents have before. classes, I admit Are a it.job, we I have andfor real? otherasked Whoresponsibilities this impossiblehas that much besides task time--even of forensics? some of if my I can show our students what a good speech is or what effective delivery is, 88 ofThis hand quest in myfor opinion.perfection Even in all in elementsthe lower of preparation public speaking speaking has events, gotten out we collegeesotericdocumentedread snide examples commentsquotations in Impromptu. on in ballots Extemporaneous Getabout real. students For Speaking the who majority don't and have ofat beginningleast at least two five speech students, it is an accomplishment to deliver an Iperfection.who am sadlystill not come advocating to the realization doing away that with they competition. will never attain I am that advocating level of becauseeachnotes.fiveExtemporaneous and Whyyears, I everyknew are thatcompetitor?we insistent theyor Impromptu did not Ion shudder haveall ofspeech the the to academic rememberother with perfectionclear background that organization within trappings to thefurnish andpast for no I have discouraged students from entering those events, Wethewhotakethat fmals mustweawalks longer, take notof into aAFA forgetharderlong our or hardroom thePRPlook lookvalue to at bethewhat at ofjudged ourend constructivewe standards of write may the year.noton of thecriticismhave excellence.We ballots. asmust their for Everybe Andgoaleducational less studentthatto jaded. be we in happenedmore?Worldfilesthem withwith Report to the thethe impressiveesoteric credibilityany way? examples journals Whyof Time, aren'tor and I Newsweek,didn't theymagazines. have "good the and Byenough" funds U.the S. toway, Newsfurnishsources whatever and their any DirectorOverspecialistspurposes. twenty-five for insteadWe the dare 1972 years of teachingnot National ago, continue George them Developmental tolife W. teach skillsZiegelmueller ouras Conferencewell. students was tothe on be ConferenceForensics. forensic pattern,sametwoBottom calamities: thebasic line, same organizational our genuine (1) current the "sameness"smile, narrow patterns, the definitionsame of forensicthe type same of of "pelfection"orators.medical triangle Speakersor shaped technological has resulted usingwalking the in was.GeorgeIn speaking He remarkedstated: about as the to howevolution diverse of the forensics current andAmerican forensics forensics education, scene "The activities programs may be competitive (tournament compete.topics.colleagues,meetingstudents The My ofandsecond who"slap"one perhaps weof (2) tothewould calamitythe sixtoo face probably forensic many reality is that programsidentify organizations camewe have whileas from"not-very-serious discouraged sitting I even belong. in attempting a too Onebusiness about many of mythe to necessitycommunicationcompletelyoforiented) both. I orprotestof noncompetitivetake having overasthat anall weour audiencepublic have field (audience letspeaking and centeredthe have tournamentoriented) events forgotten activity, orbeing orienteda combinationourthereby audience roots strain the of commentsformat,"sosemester,activity" rudely orbecauseas: stoodand "this "not unprofessionally. uptopic shea in competitive theonlywill meeting nevertravels goHowtopic," andher anywhere." squadhadberated "you're we to behaved?us one fornot or treatingusing two By tournaments awriting herwinning students such a lionstheTennyson cat." are Thatgoing once indeed to wrote, eat us.is "Charm a Directors great skillus, oforator, to forensics attain. till Butthe will lionif become we're look not nodiscouraged, carefullarger than the oriented." thattackyAt first, they comments I canadmit, be." toI justImake, rationalized, hung but my we headare "We trying a arebit toandjust make thought,trying our to students "yes, educate those the these bestare MannmediocrityThestudents pendulum remarked ofwill sameness: isthatdrop moving. out greatness, of Is programs, it headed but with programstoward no lasting excellence will substance?fade orfrom toward existence.Thomas the . sport.wokerewardingstudent,students upBy to writing "You tothe sameness--the try reality. areharder, those not We goodsortsto havestrivestudents enoughof made commentsfor who perfection." tocompetitive play best we infit our hadthe But forensics ballpark.perfect essentially several cookie into Go weeks toldhome."an mold elitist later, that forBy I wenewthunderstorm mortals "Mimemonth who or has or year. ringblare no divisionsEvenbells of trumpets and when fire to a markto offnew announce pistols." centuryits passage, the begins beginning there it is is only ofnever a a how a speech should be done--we have discouraged hundreds of students 191 89 192 thunderstormThis is also trueor blare with of thetrumpets pendulum to announce of forensics. the approaching There willmoment be no of Associationcolleagues.shouldourits demise. pistols be. Weconvention to ItAs ismustmake Sherylonly treatthe panelwe A.necessary forensicmortal Friedleyin 1992: coaches competition changes spoke who in at ourcan asa Speech theattitudesring learning the Communication bellsand tool thoseand that fire of it ouroff diversity--diversity in the myriad of skills forensics develops,. forensic educators (must be) able to capitalize on . . . activityemphasizeasoutletsdiversity well the mayas in forensic thiscommunitythe well studentsdiversity limp, community rather forensics service.both thanto provides students attracts, leap, into for andand thecompetitive administrators,diversity 21st century." in success various this If forensic educators fail to theirthatPerfection ownown. we neglectmerits, These is a notallgreatodd of being cookies,thegoal, odd summarily but cookies these it should students, rejectedout notthere become because arethat worth have so they an narrowevaluating uniquedon't offit taste athe ongoal of defmenoticking,now,customary one thiswhat "pvfect"the grandmother perfectpendulumforensic mold mold. excellence is for swinging--only wouldAnd public ifis. likeyou speaking areto remind wenot can totallyevents. directeach sick Only itsof ofcourse.us weanalogies that can Theretime truly by is is Speechsuccess Communication in the 21st century, Association Paper presented Convention, at the Chicago, annualFriedley, IL. meeting S. of A. the (1992, November). Diversity: Key to forensics Works Cited Communicationconjunctionargumentative with Association. perspective. the American Skokie, Forensics IL: National Association TextbookMc and Bath, the Company J.Speech H. (Ed.). in (1975). Forensics as communication: The 90 FISHER'S NARRATIVE PARADIGM THEORY: analog for the event. Borrowing heavily from Fisher's Narrative Paradigm A MODEL FOR DEFFERENTIATING AFTER DINNER FROMSPEAKING INFORMATIVE AND PERSUASIVE SPEAKING C. Thomas Preston, Jr. afterthreeconcerningTheory1987b, dinnercontroversies (Cragan 1988, speakingevent and& descriptions, in Shields, to 1989)presenting other as original1995; well this a unifying Fisher,aspaper events. Conga seeks approach1985, lton to 1985a, &address to Olson's the 1985b, relationshipeach (1995) of 1987a, these ideas of As Schnoor and Karns (1992) have noted, a great spirit of camaraderie University of Missouri-St. Louis, St. Louis, MOAssociate Professor of Communication surroundedDriebelbisThe Controversy: & the Redmon after What dinner (1987) is a Goodevent, reinforce Afterand the that Dinner notion even Speech?that as of controversies the last decade, have Conference,improvetheIndividualand questionscooperation the Events originalwe posed existedask concerning thespeakingat thisafterquestion, conference, the events. Seconddirection "How At Developmentalthedothis of we authors eventsthe discover Third (pp. note, Developmental 13-16).Conferenceeffective was how One new ontoof howdefmingTheyandcritics NFA todid, disagreed persuade ADS rules,however, as noting on a speechandseekhow that makeitto shouldtheywhoseclarify amay serious beprimarythe bejudged. purpose the point sourcepurpose They of throughafter forcited was some dinner theto humor. teachdisagreement.different speaking students They AFA by directionsbackgrounddiscussionbothdirections tried andin of the innovativethe original speakingnew directions events?" in afterToday, dinner my paperspeaking, will withassess a should be assessedmaterial. on their other Particularly, original speaking eventsI shall ability address how these new to as differentiate necessary thefor andargued,overdifferentiatedSpeaking good the had persuasive taste tothe Entertain, this (pp.identical event value101-102). which,traits offrom the ofSince Phispeech.they structural Rho argue,many Both Pi development,schoolsstressesand STE Pi and Kappathatthe ADS, entertainment attend a Delta'sserious the Pi authors Kappa eventpoint, value Apedagogical suitableinformativediscussion to thevalueon speaking thepublic of ie-1 this arena.and from event persuasive May from and those speaking, June derivedof 1995, and fromto plus make participationa review the event of themore in throughlatter,theDelta biennial the humornationals trend provincial in in recentalso both have tournamentseventsyears. students has followed who for theattend formermore the the AFA are lines qualifiers nationals, of persuasion forand the since dinnerRedmon,Congaliterature1990, speakingIton, 1992), 1987;concerning & indicates Olson,Kay,in particular, Borchers the 1995, that original in variationsBallinger each& Williams, speaking original andand even 1992;eventBrand,events controversies inMills, before1987;general 1984; Driebelbis then and/or exist Preston, (e. inas after&to g., madeThistedious,"entertaining. trend five the seems years authors,Decrying to have nonetheless, that occurred after dinner argueddespite speeches thatthe argument"an came after off dinnerKay as et "stilted speech al. (1992) andis a later that after dinner speeches should be more (Lewisoften,how each such & Larsen, event disagreements should 1981). be judged.can confuse As has more been than pointed educate out our and students quoted patterns,(p.afterinformativepersuasive dinner delivery speech speechand techniques, persuasive andmore an creative, informativeand messages" cleverly enjoyable speech,andcited "innovative to sources175). watch,using would humorand organizational educational" make to sell the the. shouldhumorrevolvedThe controversy beand around used, the roleand three surrounding of3) issues:what,the serious if anything, after point, dinner should2) the speaking extentbe the toreal-worldhas which sources master 1) the purpose of the event in terms of traditionally speaking.whichcarriedtechniques is to fine an certainly extreme,if we accept can can vivify the prove view after deleterious that dinner ADS speeches, tois informativethe entertainment the use of sources, value-- if Although innovative organizational patterns and delivery or persuasive 19'5 91 196 event,Yet ifespecially after dinner with is the informative time pressures or persuasive already placed speaking, on students why have in athe be impersonation,use to supplement or comic or reinforce dialog. the Audiovisual message. Minimalaids may notes or may are not authorsuccessfulsellCarver,stressful a "real" has 1989, tournament speeches ofteninformative and noted Littlefield inenvironment these or(e.g., persuasive genres & Preston, Sellnow, (see, use speech, for humor1990, 1990)? example, and1992),to sell Can'tdon't Hatfield, themselves? for humorsome an eventofHatfield, be the Asused tomore this be &to Clearly,asrules, the doesbothof these notsets specifythree of rules events, the state, use after studentsof sources dinner do in spealemg,not after have dinner to as use speaking.is sources,true of NFAIn just fact, as permitted. Maximum time limit is 10 minutes. (Jensen,Thus,whenoffered,1990, asjuxtaposed it in1992)1990), must the case asbe some towell justified of the extemporaneous differentiationas aggregate the in caseterms ofof of informativevalue andbetweenits incremental impromptu offered events and by educationalpersuasivespeaking thein terms other (Preston, of events. speakingvalue, both studentsdiscussionobservations,notthey specified do not and onhave coachesanythingsource the to ie-1 use citations alike Iaboutvisual mention have source haveaids. mixedwhich tendedHowever, citation, reactionsoccurred to proliferate frominasmuch in tomy 1995both own, inas thisthetheindicated independent extentevent.rules have Thethatand judgesinthe(howmission after previous teach students dinner (the them analysis,written speaking. feelwins) compelled ruleswouldthe Forsecond and be points necessary.officialto controversy perform of clarification event As the hasconcernsdescriptions) events been and touched the ininformation, termsuse and ofupon practice ofsources whatin the contesteventInimplications addition disagree after to ofdinner this thison both conflict, perceivedspeaking, a) whether scholars convention. and, ifthere so,of after b) should what dinner bethat a speaking masterreal-world analog as analoga contest should to follow:andAmerican to which Forensic many tournamentsAssociation's adhere--for rules--the threeones original,which govern prepared the events"legs" Informative speaking: an original, factual speech by the student controversyFirst,plethoranecessitybe. Students differences of of metaphorseven a and real-world amongabound coaches for psychologists. about analog what alike "what should infor the aftermakes Second, constituteie-1 dinner usthread somelaugh"--a speaking, success disagreedargued, subject in presentingADS this over of shouldevent. some the a permitted.citedoraudience.on reinforcea realistic in the Audiovisual Maximum thedevelopment subject message. time aids to fulfill isMultiplemay of10 theminutesor the may speech. sourcesgeneral not including be Minimalshould aimused introduction. toto be supplementinform notes used andarethe disagreeAssumingonecircuit'sappeal another, culture,on to therewhata real specialized and shouldworldthat that analog applications asbeaudience ana should real event worldwhich be.provedwhere For analogconstitutes academics example,to be forinappropriate thewhereas communicate event,national Driebelbis analogs.scholars forensics with shouldusedactionstoPersuasive inspire, to supplementbeof thereinforceusedspeaking: audience. and and orcitedan change reinforce originalAudio-visual in the the speech thedevelopment beliefs, message. aids by the attitudes,may studentMultiple ofor themay values, designed speech. sources not be or Washingtonof(1992)shouldand the Redmon bestadvocatebe a potentialpersuasivepress (1987) changing corps differentiateanalogs speechGridiron the rules towhich Club ADS--comedy to ADS empower usesroasts. from humor theSTE ascontestantsclub anda vehicle, speaking claim to thatKay use and ADSsomeet the.al. coherence,student,AfterMinimal Dinner designeddirectnotes Speaking: arecommunicative topermitted. exhibit An sound Maximumoriginal, public speech speaking humorous time composition, limit skills, isspeech 10 and minutes. thematic goodby the ofToAn them, helpAssessment ensure attempts that of have Past the studentsbeenRemedies made, have mainly a clear on idea the ofreal that world which analog is expected level, taste. The speech should not resemble a night club act, an 92 expectedto make sure in this the event.students Because and coaches the rules have reject a clearer the comedynotion of club what and is academicsifrejectionimplicitly not quality, would of the the Gridiron denyof"tacked sources that on" Clubeach was serious speechanalogs perhaps subpoint should by inevitable. banning makeand a a trendstandup point As towardwell, salient routines, since quantity, to the few the Wejudgesthe were event. the enthusiastic event One comedy, goes about to thesolely, the comedy event,on its club entertainmentbut eachto be yearentertained value.it was offered solely, itthus was one problemhumorhaveaudience been plays on and willingthe or provide real-worldnumber to attackdocumentation of analog sources the levelcontroversy cited. seemto Asestablish towell, haveat the attempts credibility, mixed levels results.to of address fewwhat if role anythe atandby Feedbackfiftyleast far radio the contestantstwenty broadcasting,smallest on at the the each,event partGateway; the andofat otherthesome even comedy tournament experimental communicationparticipants never (typically, attracted events,concerned analysis attractedmoreduo aboutattractsimprovisation than well fifteen).taste annually over was withofMills audience,First,national the (1984) STEsince circuit one andevent the fmdsDriebelbis after National at Phi itdinner difficult Rho andForensic speaking.Pi. Redmon However,to assess Journal As (1987) well, tohaving what reaches hadthis observedextent onauthor thea relatively articles developmentis the unfamiliar event such small at as rulesentrylanguage,tastenegative. asbecamestill the Byremainedand second themore another third similarfinanciallyyear yearwith saw to ofextreme ADS,atthe nonproductive least event, weobscenity, two relented we speeches had to in andtorun the modify abandonedlastwith fmal year, grossly round.our and stance comedy. Assexistas thethe on Kappaknowstandupthereboth thewould of Deltaroutines Pifew Kappa appear studentsto at"make PKD--andDelta to be who it littleand more attend theAmerican change funny," ADS both betweenat Forensicwhoorthe students April change the Associationnational STE--which who their tilttournaments. speech toward nationals, also for bans the Pi I clarifydinnerBecauseSo enjoy thespeaking ofADS event these fmals forexperiences,at theeither at thisreal-world coaches year's this Gatewayauthor oranalog students. is level,Karaokeskeptical Since as toparty aboutwritten do Octoberso reforming wouldrules 31.already fail after to Rhodifferenceappear,persuasion Pi. based between speech-style on anecdotalhow ADSthe two whenimpression events they are go practiced.and to AFA. observation, InThis short, may thereto vary be would atlittle Phi haveneedeventnecessarydifferentiate emergedto be be enjoyed tomade ensure thein contest oninmission codifyingthedifferential publicafter of dinnerthe thearena. educational activity,perceived speaking, At the changing sameunwrittenvalue, and time,while or them to conventions some doingensure may decisions so, that not focus that thebe theonlyMissouri-St.inAnother after 1994 to dinner theat concrete the extent Louis.event Gateway thatexperiment rather Here, we Individual offeredthan we in tookreplace defining an Events Kay event it. et afterWeTournament called al. feared updinner "comedy"on thattheir speaking at wethe suggestion, to wouldUniversity supplement was losebegun but of theseSeveralaafteron practical two dinnerends. criteria proposals, level,speaking for improvement:returning if fromadopted informative after nationally, 1) dinner on an and educational speakingmight persuasive contribute to level, speakingthe publicdifferentiating to achieving and arena. 2) an thestudent-theAFAADS students time qualifierparty,entries limitcould which if inwas weuse that was onlychangedthe event. same setseven in We thetopic aminutes comedy triedrules, as into (so asaftermake club/discotheque well that dinner the weas comedy losecould speaking. our have event format),standing Ourfmals attractive- rules and atas the an InDifferentiatingSteps light Toward of the stress Improving ADS felt from at Contest tournamentsInformative After and Dinner thePersuasive emphasis Speaking on wellness that organization,"thatsourcesstated the event that were comedy ordid discouraged a not"serious havewould point" theas be the same judged as event did standards ashouldon traditional "level befor of"100 "taste,"after humor percent dinner "traditional solely," original,"speech, that distinctionouremergedshould participants. atavoid theon eventsFirsttwo The Developmentalexisting that offer rules little about Conferenceor no after incremental dinner in Denver, speaking educational our make activity value that to levels--first, they don't mention documentation and, ultimately, that the comedy club was clearly the real world analog for 199 93 requirements for after dinner while they do for informative and persuasive 200 speaking.thatspeaking, dimension and Since they unwrittenthe mention differences inhumor the seem rules for after tofor occur dinnerinformative on speaking a micro and while level, persuasive leaving using differentiatedocumentationdefine between (for this informative study we'll andkeep persuasive unresolved speaking) how Fisher and might after the differences between informative/persuasive speech thatsinceformightreal-world afterthe such explain comedy dinner an analogs analog the clubspeaking failures to maywhich make change maynoted constitutes the prove above.constantlydifferentiation undesirableone Yet of (Kayalthough their mightet realor al. aillusory note, world real-worldbe difficult, for analogs especially example, analog andis a thedemandssupportingspeakingdinner traditional speech forrules, material informative documentation.sense, guidelines expectations whereas and should persuasive thoseI would of be forthe provided argue afterevent--and speaking dinnerin additionto stressall thatspeaking critics the tological thedocumentation toshould after reflect reasons dinnerstress the in relativelyapplicationtellingtogrounded coaches stories theoretically andof Fisher's eitherstudents asnarrativein alike.pointsthe study Because paradigmor ofas communication the successful theorybasis for(NPT) ADS a might speech, might requires prove prove a flexible helpfulskill to bein recent, and perhaps ephemeral, development), an analog distinctioncanspeakingbegood entirely see reasons wherein should in different, whatin the remain--yetthe constitutes values difference the persuasive sense. withgood as Note thistoreasons howelements distinction,that to wouldsince persuade involved noalso the events focus studentwould in can moreafter be. andor backdinnerSuchshould coach on a Cragantheoretically-basedsimilaritieshelpful andas a Shieldsdescriptive, and differences paradigm(1995) analogic, summarize would in prepared and be Fisher'scriticalproactive speaking evaluativeNPT rather as follows: events.than tool reactive. for As locating well, a Fisher'straditionaldetractingthe humor structural sense. fromand entertainment those concepts who choose provide value to of notuse after sosome dinnermuch documentation the speaking, areas of without eventin the includevalue-ladenreasonsNPT's three character, basicnarrative emplotmentconcepts sense. include NPT's (plots), narration and two (stories), structuralmaster analogs: logical terms in the traditional sense, and good reasons in the treatmentperformstopicdifferentiation, of unemployment. ofan the element but characters what of to this Regardlessdifferentiate (the topic, boss, wethe of about. willthegovernment, eventForsee, example, within in whichthe theunemployed let's a story, studenttake the a fidelity.termsidealistic-moralistic include audience, and materialistic. NPT's three evaluative narrative probability, and narrative supportsOneyourrags"person, masterrealor his"a friends funnyor analog her thing are"),relatives, could happened and be etc.),a competitionan onidealistic-moralan theemplotment way between to work" (such master two or as "findingmaster "fromanalog analogs. richesout which who to (Cragan and Shields, 1995) "an egalitarian myth that performance.whethercommunicationassumesIn assuming theythat As allthatbe theory, such,humanlimited humans these NPT communicationpreparation, are wouldmessages storytellers apply original wouldconstitutes to (homo any prepared, constitute, of ournarrans), stories. individual or interpretative inAs Fisher Fisher's a generalevents, also Thiscompetitivematerialistictolerance,characterizes myth implies charity,myth master all suchthat humanstrustworthiness, analogcharacterizesembedded as which created values love,all"concerns humansequal.as and pleasure, justice," individual as striving self-aggrandizement, the success.other to get could ahead.. be a It implies such values as It is a respectWhileoccurringforms(1987a) applicable to of inafterwords, support time, dinner to and all("logical shapedspeaking.events, byreasonssuch Whereashistory, elements in culture,the Fisher ringtraditional andrecognizesparticularly character" sense"), traditional true (p. hewith xi). also "symbolic interpretations of aspects of the world, responsibilityformerimpliesachievementpolitical would a acumen, different [Fisher, be for a self-reliance, government waybeing 1987a. out unemployed, of the"safety competitiveness, unemployment net," and the the latter playing situation--whereashope would to the climbbe game, accepting out and the of the 202 . .1" (p. 103). Obviously, each master analog 201 value-ladenrecognizes as sense"). persuasive It is alternative at this the formsbasic-term of support level ("goodthat we reasons can begin in the to 94 informative,situation through persuasive, individual or after initiative. dinner, Whetheraccording the to Fisher'sstudent speechnotions, be it differentiatesInwill the address unemployment the all events. of these after notions. dinner It speech,is how thesethe student notions could are treated "play" thatthe theforstudentto it" theculture (p. critic/auditors should 105). surrounding adhere On the of to one thethe activity. normshand, assuch TheHowever, well astudent asnotion the to shouldrules thewould extent established certainly imply that culturesthatadapt by andthe to withofunemployed ledironicbecoming characters to thisinteractions condition.character,unemployed. (spouses, with withBy back-stabbing the Thetelling humor unemployed mind's these being fertile friends,humorous the person imagination vehicle an (the yeteccentric for speaker)plausible tellingmight boss) might comestoriesthe whose story uphave and insomeaudienceconstitutesmay an varyafterminimal, is dinnerfromgood important, written regionreasons speech, agreement a toin caseregardless region,after begins dinner on teaching of whatto thespeaking be regiona made trainedstudents may offor criticthe judgebe the nation confusing. shouldbasics training, in whichlookof Since what and for it happenhumanizeidealistic-materialisticplayingserious themand point the how tounemployed which the perceptions hilt, continuum.could the choosefigure speaker change byits notingcanpersuasive (the weave thrown-awayall ofpoint the the speech somewhereironic orange aroundthings along half thatthe the The ADS contestant could choose to adaptationoccurs.wewhoconstitute would decide Just likeour of notas studentsto culture aonly competeculture whether consider and such in judges,after or as notour a dinner "national toaudience--the compete speaking! forensics in forensics, entire circuit" pool but requiresof those students who the it is just as necessary as we who fromweabouthavingbecomes the this how audiencecharity illustration--1)a thedelicacy narratortoward could if theavoid causedit's unemployed, still the the cold) same predicament tosituation. or, promote alternatively, toTwo tellthe observations theidealistic he/she story aboutcould notion emerge howjoke of it is the treatment of the structural elements probabilityprobability."performanceSecondly, "deals "hangsjudges with together"of the any audience's speaking or possesses, evaluation event in should Fisher's of the consider story'swords, coherence, whether"narrative the According to Cragan and Shields (1995), narrative unemployed?"persuasivefocusthemselves;(humor) of thatconvincing and would or2) whereas"Candetermine the audience we traditional help the speech ofthe which unemployeddocumentation type, master not the analog too structuralwould much?") to serveaccept elements asor in thean a message (such as "How much should we help the probabilitycompetingconsistency,Fisher (1987a) ofand noncontradiction, a storyaccepted gives (or after stories"the dinner and (p. comparisonspeech,104). As or Craganany and other contrast and event): Shields with note,prior critic three ways to assess the narrative dinnergoodunemployedunemployed,"informative reasons speaking. and messageorcould "Thehow hold topsychological ("Here's cope"), the story alternative, how together aspects to you experiential,as well can expectif not and betterif temporarilyvalue-laden in after approach a friend recently 2. 1.Check Check a storya story for for its its material argumentativecontradictions?For coherence. example, and structural For is theexample, story coherence. internallyare consistent or are there audience,reasons,Realizing the narrative that critic the can locusprobability, understand of the anddifference how narrative Fisher's lies fidelity--apply criticalin what evaluative constitutes differently terms-- good to 3. Check a be factspresent left in out; competing are counterarguments stories? ignored that are known to story for its characterological coherence. For evencompetitorsincriticsafter applying thoughdinner and the ofthehisspeaking. forensics after speechother dinner means maycommunityThrough speaking have of conveyingreceivedhis as astress audience means much on a ofspeech, audience,members laughteraccepting and somein Fisher a providesthe low flexibilityround. rankingallows the As Again, as a general communication theory, Fisher's NPT can be applied to consistentconsistent,example, arewith and the those arecharacter's theof the story story? attributes teller's andattributes actions and in the actions story Fisher (1987a) notes, "a story is as good as the audience that would adhere 203 95 any forensic event. However, the application of the method and how to 204 shouldtheoretically-basedapply the stress critical argumentative evaluative difference. notions and In structural this should case, differ coherencerules ifand/or the forevents event informative are descriptions to have and a persuasionthatreasons can than be and stressedthose informative of traditionalin after speaking. dinner documentation, Thatspeaking, way, studentstheand theory de-emphasized and offers critics criteria alike in persuasivespeakingcharacterologicalforefrontconsiderations asin theboth primaryfor coherenceinformative ADS, consideration. and dimension materialand persuasive shouldOn coherence balance, be speaking. stressed narrativeshould for However, come afterprobability dinnerto thethe speaking as primary considerations and as secondary wouldReturningsuchdifferent as haveafter communication After dinnera means, Dinner speaking grounded Speaking skills which in to communication the can Public be stressed Arena theory,in different events to locate Ainpersuasiveshould, thirdafter dinnerconsiderationaside and fromspeaking. informative audience, in assessing speaking, be the any primaryalthough communication consideration it cannot according be ignored when to judgingentirely NPT is NDT,TwocontroversyWithin forms on the of hasotherdebate debate existed hand, argueportion ashave to yes--the whether chosenof our NPDA to debate stress and belongs hard, NEDA academic, to forms. the public specializedCEDA arena. and forensics activity, a splintering analyzedtraditionaltheClearly,whether critic/audience the in speechesordercommunication to will assess and prove performances the "rings successmost true," successful. ofof or aany speech.possesses event In theHowever, which narrative real "ring world, in fidelity. true"the both real to supports and experiential, value-laden supports must be informationmaterialrequiresenablesdebate. studentsThe themin age. alatter short to to process, group communicateperiod argues ofsynthesize, time--as thatto a suchspecialized isand increasinglyactivity analyze audience is largevaluable required in amounts a wayin inthat thatour of it world,However,differentiategeneral speeches application the after dodimension dinnernot of always whetherspeaking of neatlynarrative afrom speech into the fidelityour other"rings event events. as true" categories.a critical does notevaluative Thus, help a us Gridironaftercertainly,Nonetheless, dinner Clubafter publicspeech dinnerroast, communication, atspeeches,fall the toward Rotary regardless the Club,as public well, of a is comedywhethercommunication considered our club analog important--and routine, end be ofa orreal the a oftraditionalmaywhichconcept the vivify event.facts can forms areahelpIn speech persuasive included,of us documentation, differentiate but whetherandwhere informative betweenhumorincluding they are is speaking, what considerationnotaccurately necessary,proofs where presented,are of some requiredwhetheragain, humor and theall in activities,(policyrhetoricalinpublic-specialized forensics, debate) butcriticism) to activities engage which continuum. which thatintend events don'ttend to As go toward need(suchwell, all replication of studentsas specialization, the extemporaneous way. have in These the many eventas are wellopportunities, speaking after beneficial as othersdinner and documentationtrue"speaking,whether key that arguments whichshould makes be arestressed identified,us laugh less. is, should arguably, be stressed. that irony In which after dinner "ringssuch that specific information as is included in traditional bothimproved,thatafterspeaking. wouldits dinnermission and firstThus, speakingsecond and determine the practice: howquestion as a it publicto could what arises, speakingbe extent improved, what theevent?steps event if can necessary,I would beADS taken suggest needs in to terms promote toseveral be.of Fisherlevel,clearlyOverall, all applied then,of the Fisher's notionsto all events, theory noted andasabove a ongeneral must a structural becommunication applied and to critical have theory aevaluative complete can be analysis of performance effectiveness, regardless of event. comparethroughoutI. Find out them the nation,toexistence persuasive I intend and/or speaking to extentcollect and of after theinformative dinner problem. speaking speaking At tournaments ballots ballots. and 205 However, by recognizing that the student has different, alternative good 96 Similar1992) to conducted the ballot earlier analysis this studies decade, Jensen (1990) and Preston (1990, I plan to categorize and count 206 events.makingcomments By to determineoncomparing these ballots what these tois numbers, importantdetermine we inwhat should after types dinner be commentsable and to comethe judges other up with twoare mattershouldamong to beother the met, audience," things, humor specify should and, bethat, the "clearly, primary althoughmeans of standardsrelating the of subject tastes differentiatingbeenandhypothesissome emphasize furtheridea willas todemonstrated this be humor.how thatevent differently after If from these dinner that others arethese wespeaking disproven,we have events offer, ballotssome arebut I will beingthat difficultyde-emphasize argue,we treated. have itin allowedwill notMysources, have onlynull it aredominateand"just optional just as as thevisual they inmessage, afteraids should aredinner documented optional supplement speeches. in sourcesinformative ratherClearly, in thethan and nontraditionaltraditional structureafter speeches, vein or 2.andmightto Havedrip that argue from themore controversy thatthe public publicADS performances, is is arena. relatedmoot. On to theaudience including other considerations,hand, mass-judged the study's final is different,evidence rounds. As well, the description could end with, pointdocumentation'good through reasons' the in primary arethis to event beuse considered ofas humor."a means equallyof making with the traditional serious followedtheAtstudentsWhen theaudience ansame tend ataudience the time,members.to tournamentadapt when constitutes to At what this ashould minimum, iswould thosetried, be be usedwithoutclear humorousthe in AFAinstructions the as mass-judgedwellrules to this aswhich musttypewithin ofthefmals,be audience.our studentsgiven field,until to yourto thatbe "Although primaryconsidered, it goes considerationhand all theelements in speech'shand when withof speechentertainment the judging serious preparation this raison event."value, and d'etre, to presentation the should extent be are provideattendeesaleastthey first aresome step, achanged firstnot familiarity the attending step Gateway and/or toward with the eventwill, a whatschools more atdescriptions skillsits general Karaokerepresented should audience, added. party, be bystressed These the handsuch fmalists. outinwouldas thisis ballots being event.ensureThis totried will As allat whileelementsSuch"humor" descriptionsgiving of and an the after"good critic would dinner reasons." some representspeech flexibility would an inagreement be, determining and what over skills what what are constitutes thestressed, basic 3.effectivenessassess,at ourProvide mass-judged a ofthorough this exercise.parliamentary event description debate fmals.for all Itevents, will also including enable usafter to with survey and anecdotal impression information, the speaking.4. (CongaltonclearHave, judging at a minimum,& Olson,philosophy 1995) all forschool in individualsome and parts experienced events,of the west. including critics Especially provideafter in dinner light a Again, this experiment has been tried and has worked notenonconduciveconstitutesnoted,dinner that speaking,relying in a additiongood to on makingto afterunwritten assist to dinner the the critics. rules eventtrends speech Asfor consumable and Congaltonconstitutesthe conventionseach event,to andan the elitist, Olson public ato thorough "bad (1995) arena. science" event Theyhave "guess" what critic/audienceevaluativedinnerof tothe their normspeaking, audiences, that a havingrigid students both criteria philosophies in may a generalwould refer availablebe fashion,to stifling, each offersandother's and as thewould in speeches Fisher'sstudents ignore key into manyafteradapt critical. term "audience." As noted earlier, forcing on the nationalinformativespeakingcriticsdescription, and tournament rules, students. andwith persuasive. all similar ofThere the tobasic However,is those really expectations, employed no a written need atto guideline--adoptedshouldsome change district be the provided aftertournaments dinnerfor to theall as are, to achieve differentiation between ADS and appropriatesomedinnertogetherspeech-specific degree speaking's and/or within of considerationsadaptation rangeducational Fisher's true framework,toto value itsaudience of critic. whether is discovered butwouldAlthough anmoreover, after prove and ifdinner the a moreadditionally problem event message theoretically is changed,in useful hungafter in the west--for after dinner speaking would help. This guideline could, 207 97 for similar situations in the real world. 208 5. As Congalton & Olson (1995) have noted, thorough judge training important in determining whether a story is accepted or rejected, and, withmakingthesesuggestionswould both guidelines, bethe Fisher's aevent 2-4must above. accountabletheory for all Tournamentand those the to netthe involved benefitgeneral, directors of in outside this shouldjudging event. audience, be the sure event toconsistent explain as in in training sessions, in comprehensible terms, thus needed,thedifferencesabove skills all, such of4) in adaptationprovides critic could taste enhancea unifyingeven hence as challengingthe fundamentalperspective educational the that expectations student stillvalue, allows to continue are for clarified. individual to learn If as well as the Today,Conclusion I have, based on observations of the literature, anecdotal rathernon-academiccommunitywithincamaraderie than the it being framework could and settings the social assert other should of responsibility, its way the leadership approach around.present rules. audienceroleoffered in In defining indoingexpectations after so, howdinner the speakersfor forensicsspeaking humor, in usthisidentifieddiscussioninformation, as weevent, try disagreementsover theto improverole the ie-1,of documentation onassessed over the the event some role in after ofof the thehumor traditionaldinner potential and speaking. thechallenges vein, serious and whetherthatpoint face in participant-observation as a tournament critic, Iand have a Ballinger, B. J. & Brand, J. D. (1987). Persuasive speaking: A References havespeakingbutFisher'sand/or especially attempted shareswhat Narrative to toshould in after offer common Paradigm dinner behow the fromwith speaking, real-worldTheory otherFisher's that communicationI have theory, analogsapplies noted what tofor areasall constitutes thisactivities, individual afterevent. dinner and good Usingevents I 5(1),review 49-54. to enhance the educational experience.Congalton, National R. J. &Forensic Olson, Journal,C. (1995). Judging individual events: Art Havingdifferentiatedreasons shouldnoted from that be thethecritics mainother will areaevents. vary wherein regardless after dinner of the speakingrules and should that real be Hampton.communicationor science? The research: Forensic Bormann.of Pi Kappa Burke Delta,Cragan, and 81(1), J.Fisher. F. 9-18. & Shields, D. C. (1995). Symbolic theories in applied Cresskill, NJ: speaking,sufficientlyCertainly,eventworld thatanalogs and leavefrom alsofailed, openthese reflect the implications, possibilityan approach that that the would event gois practicedover well wellin front as is. of differentiate I offered five suggestions towardthe improving event from this persuasive and informative it would appear that AFA rules dinnerfolks...": speeches. Suggestions National and Forensic considerations Journal,Driebelbis, for5(2), writing 85-103. G.competitive C., & Redmon, after K. R. (1987). "But seriously, judgedanalysisspeakinga general, fmals. andreflects public study, audience. in addition However, to continuing whether experiments the practice such of after as mass dinner this mission remains a question worthy of further forensics: Contest and debate speaking.Fisher, 2nd.Faules, ed. W. Denver: G. R. Morton. F., Rieke,(1984). R. D. & Rhodes, Narration as a human communication J. (1976). Directing accompanyspeaking,spurBy applying a discussion 2) this Fisher'sleads and thattoperhaps NPTmore at onceto otherspecific the 1) eventsADS helps guidelines event, as to is betterdone it isat in hopedthe defme the national west, this after paper3) level leadsdinner will toto CommunicationMonographs,paradigm: 51, Monographs, 1-22. 52, 347-367.Fisher, W. R. (1985a). The narrative paradigm: An elaboration. The case of public moral argument. Communication 2 0 0 better judge training consistent with Fisher's notion that audience is 98 Journal of Communication. 35, 74-89. Fisher, W. R. (1985b). The narrative paradigm: In the beginning. Carolinaphilosophy Press. of reason value, and action.Fisher, Fisher,Columbia: W. W. R. R (1988).University (1987a). The Human of narrative South communication paradigm and as narration:the interpretation Toward a 49-53.Communicationand assessment Monographs,of historical 56.texts. 55-58. ArgumentationFisher, And Advocacy, 25, W. R. (1989). Clarifying the narrative paradigm. Schnoorwellness and & forensics:V. Tournament managementHatfield, as S. a startingR., Hatfield, point. T.In L.L., & Carver, C. (1989). Integrating Karns (Eds.), Perspectives on individual events: University.(pp.Proceedings 26-29, 32).of the Mankato, First Developmental MN: Speech ConferenceJensen, Department S. L.on (1990).ofIndividual Mankato A content Events, State analysis of public address critiques: comedyNationalIn search clubs,Forensic of uniqueness and Journal, after dinner in8(2), evaluative 145-157.speaking: Kay,criteria Prescriptions J., andBorchers, judging from T. realpractices.A. & world Williams, S. L. (1992). Gridiron nights, forensicanalogs.1-14. Argumentationcompetition. Journal and Advocacy. of the American 28,Lewis, 168-177. Forensic J. J. & Larsen,Association, J. K. 18,(1981). Inter-rater judge agreement in coaches.stress: NationalThe perceived Forensic effect Journal, of tournament 10(1), 1-10.Littlefield, atmosphere R. S. and & Sellnow,students andT. L. (1992). Assessing competition and 211 ARE WE SHORT-CHANGING THE ART OF PERSUASION? THIS MUST BE PERSUASIVEIF IT'S PROBLEM-CAUSE-SOLUTION SPEAKING: purposesforensicselectedtoday: narrowofto thisfocus paper,topics my paper Iand use onoverly these the three eventformulaic differentalternately patterns labels known of interchangeably; organization. in intercollegiate I've as Persuasive Speaking, Persuasion, and/or Oratory. For University of Alaska, Anchorage, Anchorage, AK Co-DirectorShawnalee of Forensics A. Whitney particulartermsforallegiancemy the use(e.g. event. competitiveof Persuasive to one aFor particular label clarity, event; orSpeaking anotherforensicit is when important or organizationdoes I Persuasion),do notto note indicatecapitalize thatthat I maywhenam concerns the referringuse I termscapitalize a given about (e.g. to title athe or listeningtimeblindfoldEvery in so the to firmlyoften theactivity first inI think place. speaker(s)--probablywould we Those likelyshould of beus be ablewho taken by spendto listening identify to ajudge significant to the athe roundevent introduction amount justwith by ofa communicationcomprisesofpersuasive persuasion, speaking theand body other or persuasion), ofdisciplines theory and acrossI am concepts, referring the academy. and to theother art research and practice that the study of persuasion as put forth by scholars in thismanneraddressandalone. purposeactivity--so Don't ofevents. public explicitget Inthisme speaking--in addition, wrong.withinis not the the II thinkgenuinely fact, disgruntledfirst thatit'sminute probably speakers enjoy voiceor two coaching my shouldof of someonefavorite the makespeechand dimension teachingwho their in shouldpublic topic all of effortcompetition.nonotThe doubtunique difficulties to illuminate exist to ThisPersuasive I see paper the stemming problem willSpeaking. address from in aIn focused thePersuasion fact, conventions problems fashion, alone, of thus ahowever,competition similar providing nature in are in other public address events featured in forensic an a ourAttwohave the activity. decadessame stepped time,In that outparticular, however,I've gracefully been involvedI amsomewhere concerned in speech back about anddown debate.things the path I am of seeing the almost in I am concerned about practices in public IConferenceevents. provideraisedtouchstone More aboutthis on as importantly, forIndividualPersuasive an exploring exploration Events Speaking this the of paper held samewhere at in servesthe problem we1990 Second are asin going, Denver,a in followNational other and Colorado. up publicwhere Developmental to concerns we speaking Thus, have organizationalFrequently,thatconventionsspeaking the content events of patterncompetition, thatand seempurposeand a allowing todesire suggestshould to ourselves give thatdrive a wespeech a andcommunicativemay our that be students givinglooks like into effort. toforget other the I see speeches that seem to be driven by the dominant ProceedingsTHOSEbeen with WHO regard from DO to thePersuasive NOT Second REMEMBER Speaking. National THEDevelopmental PAST... Conference on potentiallycompetitioncompetitivespeeches.approaches, In lackluster, forensicsshort, get and the whilefresh better affordsformulaic ideas,the wideof plenty all us speeches toorange and of often opportunityour of that events itstudents. seems have available for thatrelatively The creativity, the endto conventions studentslittle result unique to doisin of ineventsthefocusingIndividual public importance (Kanter, onaddress Events concerns of1990), (Friedly,allowing provide aboutwhile judges1990). publicthecopies other to speaking of ask explores two questions papers events. the ethical offrom One competitors thepaperuse conferenceof considers.evidence in such While both of these papers address ; Theknowwith purpose the as publicrichly of speaking.thistextured, paper highlyis to explore challenging, the implications incredibly of complex two significant art we Persuasiveguideinsignificant the conferencemy Speaking thinkingissues, proceedings,onein aboutparticular. paper public presented has That addresscontinued paper, at the events"Safe conference,to stand Sex in generaloutand but inSafe my not and Topics" mind included about and 2 challenges that exist in Persuasive Speaking on the competitive circuit 100 (1990), was written by Captain Mike Dalby of the United States Air Force Academy. In it he argued that students were being limited in what they passed at the 1990 conference indicate that many other conference Dalbytowardsteeredcould learnargued topicsthem about awaythat competitivewere,persuasion from as topics he termed conventionsbecause of a genuinelythem, the led"safe."conventions students controversial to of seek competition nature out topics and problemsattendedWhileattendees not agreedin all a resolutionsbroad with categoryhim asaddressed well. labeled Persuasion Public Spacing. specifically, While conferencethose who the conference endorsed fourteen resolutions focusing on betweensignificantlyaninfor or offerPersuasive discord "safe the challenge listenersex" for Speaking andjudges couldn'ta "safe listener's thator topics"other wererefuse. system audience notin That the likely of title isbelief, members, whyto of spark hisandhe paper.drew anywere were truethe likelyThe not connectiondiscomfort idea likely to beof to DespiteanddimensionPublicattendees forensics Speaking the weighed of fact the pedagogy thatconference.' category in manyon a continues wide offeatured us range seem to moreof beto issues shareof resolutions concern through concerns for resolutions,than aboutmany any publicof other us.the Clearly, this area of forensic competition themaddressedenactpossibility"safe werethemselves sex" on oftruly theissaving fairly controversial?circuit during lives noncontroversial--few during sexual through the intercourse.How pastsimple many competitive procedures ofThink peoplethem ofseason. really thethat would topics listeners Howchallenged object you many could sawto of athe henotIcircuitaddress were and seen seemothersto events,much run to raisedinto changebecome however, Mike at thein more DalbyPersuasive Second practices entrenched today, National Speaking in I thesewould with Developmental eacheventsin have response passing to on report the to Conferenceyear. thecompetitive that concernsSadly, I have on if ofnotThesystem competition so problem, antiseptic, of values as often Dalbyornot beliefs? soone sawcut must andProbablyit, wasovercome dried. that not To persuasion many.persuadedeep-seated peoplein the objections "real outside world" and a round givewas oncecomeThereIndividual the toare think season dimensionsEvents. of themstarts of as the forensics certainties. charges that of It seemwhathas almost sois commonplaceand become is not aa trendcertainty that wewill maythat be argumentcompetitivewaysconsideration than as we to speakersto generallywhy the thelisteners' audiencehave see beliefsonlyin competitiveshould 10 in minutesfar act more in rounds.a certaincomplexin which way and to or presentchallenging embrace an a I will grant that Individualwidely bandied Events about in 1990 on in the Denver, ie-1, aColorado, listserve endorsed devotedThose who ato total the attended ofintercollegiate 65 resolutions the Second National Developmental Conference on Mikeandresponsibilityparticular it Dalbydoes notbelief, was toabsolve teachtrying but thespeakersthat to fullremind does range of not the of relievenecessityforensics possible forensic of communityapproaches mastering educators thattothose persuasion speakers skills.of the endorsedissuesDevelopmentalNationalon six differentof concernat those Conferencetopics. (Porter,conferences The 1990). previouson Individualcontinue Many two of toconferences Events the be concernstopics held of in raised discussion,a1988, similar throughitemized nature, the resolutions subjectover the 1984fifty of Developmental Conference on Forensics and the First National speakerstopics,educationmust not issues, beshouldwith afraid and the prepare so toability addresson. a speakerto controversialaddress to address such issues. issuesthe widest A in complete a possible manner forensicrange that ofis Moreover, forensics pedagogy should provide conferences.encouragedwishforensics to review research, to theseek specific andout soa copy areason even of concern13the years proceedings fromafter theeach firstfrom of conference.the each conferences of the Those three are who . thansometimes,hand.effective a round and the atappropriate topic,a tournament. the audience,to the I topic,think and thehe the wasaudience, occasion right andand are the themore resolutionsoccasion complex at Mike Dalby was encouraging us to be mindful of the fact that forensicsconcernsPublic12, TrainingSpeaking aboutcommunity NewPractices events. Programs& itsThe for organizations remainingcoaches receivedAs & noted categories judges 9had resolutions, in12, receivedthis and broke paper, the Oral 10,downEducational/Competitive 14 Interpretationthe of as Hierarchy the follows: 1990 resolutions featuredof the focused on concerns about 215 101 Duality of forensic activities received 8. 216 postprogramindividual to the listat eventsCornell discussing community University. "the current and I have generously trend to admit in (fill-in-name-of-event)." overseenthat I cringe by whenthe forensics I read a Why20/20folks are watch andstudents Dateline television and coachesNBC reports hoping drawn such to to asfmd suchprime the topics? disease-of-the-month,time news Why magazinesdo forensics likethe practicecompetitors,discussionsisThe a trendclaim in a isthatparticular often coaches, a particular based round. and on practice, theWhileso on,fact thetypewe that ie-1 need of one topic,is topersona greatbe type quick saw placeof piece, thisto for remind particular diverseand so liston between new students, experienced students, former thepresentothercanproblem-of-the-week, coursebe folks takenus with atof byDateline a workable onealmost hour andNBC anyone? solutions hopingbroadcast, can explore Ifthat for Stone itthreesurely cana problem,Phillips, tobe membersfour solved differentexplainJane by ofPausimple its theissues ley, causes, forensics steps and during andthatthe speechesfromPersuasiveproblemssubscribers national such I Speaking,put that as tournaments,forth Championshipone inspeechreviewing this paper doesand Debatesvideotapes reviewingarenot basedconstitute and of Speeches on thecompilations judging finala trend. and round many theThat ofofmanuscripts roundswinningthesaid, event the of TelevisionsamecommunityPerhaps reason thecanprograms that forensics do they the topic(andare community so printjustice popular sources in has10on minutes! newsbeen that providemagazines--viewerdrawn to topics "safe" of topics a appeal.similar for the particularPersuasiveOnfrom the past other tournaments organizational Speaking. hand, this Iof have paper the pattern, Interstatenot is countednot nor a Oratoricalstatisticalhave the Inumber done Association.analysis a ofcontent times of practices analysisI've seen in ofa rankthinkballots.speechesnature) persuasiveviewers Consequently,survive are seen will only speeches asnot when"competitive" like,just asontheystudents news the have basis media whenmay viewers of havetheymay their orashyare personalsense readers. endorsedaway of fromfear Inbeliefs bycompetition, judgestopics judges or theirtheymay on competitorskeepPersuasiveaddition,each speechthese the Speaking inissuesI've problems order reviewed inacross to mind strengthenI theto as comecountry. we our judgeto activity.Nonetheless,the conclusionsand as we I believe teach I offer we forensic here. should In cite may not be evident in Specifically, I believe all rounds of formsandabilityfashion,"safe" shy of to away audiencetopics, enact thus from personallimitingthose analysis topics with the solutions. thatand a need broad-based speechcannot for This construction.bemore solved fear appeal challenging can or andactedlead individual students uponand more in ato solvency, simple complexselect CHALLENGEthecompetitivethere limited are two number forensics: key NUMBER challengesof organizational (1) theONE: narrowfacing patterns Persuasivefocus ofin topicsuse. Speaking in the eventat present and (2) in anddecision?thisHave motivations,effect your While students me?" it Haveacan received judge be suchdifficult need ballots comments not to that divorcebelieve had played comments oneselfthe speaker a from role such personal within as the "howhis judge's beliefsor does her encouragedasPersuasiveTHE "safe" RANGE topics. Speaking to OFseek InTOPICS out seemsother topics words,toIS continuethatOVERLY arecompetitors not to NARROW featureterribly seemwhat "controversial." Dalbydrawn referred to or Such are to thepersonalcontent,"heart taskparameters a organization, attitudes ofjudge hearts" faces of or the inbehaviors is and ordereventto effectivelydelivery. toguidelines, as evaluate a resultThe evaluate judge ofthe hearing thespeaker'sneed persuasive notthe change speech.effort effort hisin In terms withinshort,or her of standards of sound, ethical . manyasactiontopics challenging of ongenerally them. the part as do of one nota listener, might call for hope and a significant as and a result there changethe is aspeeches certain of attitude "sameness"are not or alwayscourse to asidewhichfromaspersuasion, an thepersonalindividual. reads: Second and "Tournament opinions soNational This on, not argumentregarding Developmental on directors the subjectbasiscorresponds inform of Conferencematter how and directlythe in encourage publictopic on with Individualeffects address judges a resolution the events" Events tojudge set 217 102 broadestOnebeen(Public enactedmight Speaking, possible argue across audiencethat Itemthe forensics selecting5), but appeal, itcommunity. does"safe" because not topics seem few becausethat people this theyresolutionobject have to such hasthe offertheyriskyouReports neveryou(2) simple explainand knew stepsspeechesyour theexisted, lovedanyone causes of ones whilethis canof thistype faceand at thesignificant shouldgenerallyas samea result take time problem, (1)of to explainingtheinform ameliorate problem. and you fmally the theof In significanta problem.addition, problem(3), they preparedanyoneaddressesoftopics, a judge and from speech at reflectsbecause tournaments a college to soundthey adapt professorare changesaudience it unlikely to a particular tofrom analysis. toa lay"offend" round person. audience After to the round Moreover, all,personal poses theand audience may sensibilitiessignificant altering include one a ThepersuasiveitMost proceedings of us effort,know thisbutof the organizationalit is Second not isthe a National onlyperfectly pattern approach. Developmental aslegitimate problem-cause-solution approach Conference to andstructuring on your ideas in a judge,Persuasiveimplicationnodifficulties chance as an individual, forSpeakingto is investigatetheclear--if speaker, bysolve students overarching theparticularly this nature problem" are limited considerationsof when his we heor inare ortheher teaching she rangeaudience. like has "how ofhadstudents topics virtually Butcan athefor organizationalandpublicpersonalIndividual encourage address feelings Events events.patterns judges and endorsed Thebeliefs suchto resolutionset aaswhen asideresolution problem-solution evaluating reads:personal calling "Tournament organizationalopinions for(Resolutions judges directorswith to patternsregard setSection, inform aside toin changewantThevery questionlimited the of event attitude form then to of beis orpersuasion. what the course presentation do we of wantaction Persuasiveof aimed an argument at Speaking the broadestthat encouragesto be? possible Do we a hearingcommenthasrationalePublic faded, problem-solution onSpeaking, for organizational the resolution Item speeches" 6).patterns. and While my are memoryComments the inappropriate proceedings of oursuch discussion because as "Ido am not they soon indicate tired thisare not issueof a it seems entirely appropriate for coaches and judges to Nationalandlearnaudience? we about have Developmental If persuasion so,not weyet mayfollowed inConference be a succeeding.broader up on onthe sense, Individual concernsIf, however,I believe expressedEvents. we wantare at falling thestudents Second short to Mypurpose,constructive,forensics concern and pedagogy. regarding appropriatenessbut comments organization regardingof structure is that the what seem interface we completely see inbetween rounds in linesuggestscontent, with selectiontheavailableI am conventions not arguing andin order we thatmustof to competition learnstudents fmd aboutways must thetocontinue seekexpand process out tothe the of drive fieldpersuasion,most theof controversial topics process but that Iof believe can topicstopic be problem-solutionSpeakingthatstructuring students as a are competitivepersuasive learning and problem-cause eventarguments.only followa very Mostonelimited of of two numberthe organizational speeches of approaches in Persuasive patterns: to solution. While both of these CHALLENGEandopinionscompetitive. judges, regarding we We mustNUMBER need subject respond to repeat matterTWO: to that the in call. Persuasivecall for judges Speaking to set and,aside as personal coaches Miller,reviewThereapproaches are of manyseveral are perfectlydifferent nationally acceptable,ways recognized to organize they public area persuasive just speaking the tip message. textsof the (Ayres iceberg. A brief. & 1994; Jaffe, 1998; Lucas, 1992; Osborn & Osborn, 1997; referredTheLITTLE type to VARIETYof by persuasion some as IN "info-suasion" seen PATTERNS on Dateline onOF theNBC ORGANIZATION forensics and 20/20 circuit is affectionately and it is just andstatementsatisfaction,persuasiveZarefsky, 1996)of reasons/topical reveals a wide ordering, range of comparative approaches toadvantages/compare the organizationcontrast, of messagesnegative residual methodincluding: reasoning, pattern/refutation, categorical proposition-to-proof, organization, sequential Monroe's design,criteria as common at forensics tournaments as it is on prime time television. 219 103 motivational sequence, problem-solution, and problem-cause-solution. 220 purposeorganizationalAs forensicsand content pattern. educators, of a Theremessage we are must calls persuasive help forth our or messages studentsdemands that understandan doappropriate not fit that into the JudgesstudentsAs judges, should to explore we not must punisha wider use speakers therange ballot of whotopics to reward employ and organizational creativity problem-solution and patterns. encourage or areparticularshouldbethe the problem-solutiona wide hallmark not patterns, rangeshy awayof of sorather approaches and/ormanyfrom coaches topicscompetitive problem-cause-solution to andbecausethe judgesart speeches of they persuasion should do in not Persuasion.patternremember conformand that that Studentsseemsforensicto thosethere to exemplarymarriageorganizationorganizationalproblem-cause-solution of persuasive simplytopic, for messages their difference. regardless Instead, of perceived we should conventions evaluate the pattern. content, purpose, and organization,solelyNor should we reward because they employ other a patterns rewardingparticular orof persuadeofsolelystructuringcompetition theory because others.and such shouldpersuasive it messages. seems reflect to strategies fit Employing competitivethe diversity that a areparticular convention availableof approaches organizational todenies those availablethe who vast structure seek body for to Inmodesthroughtrends order inof repeated toapractice. particular evaluate use inevent.our competition progress After all, onand the the they conventions issues may beexplored changed became in through thisconvention paper, new withPublicRECOMMENDATIONS a wideaddress range events of experiences have the potential relevant to providethe effective forensic construction competitors and areresearchandgivemembers usingorganizational us a may clearerforensic of be the appliedindication forensicpatternscompetition to incommunity otherof Persuasive the to events diversityteach should Speechesstudentsin orderor undertakelack toinabout of accesscompetition. diversity aresearch wide how rangeinwell Similarthat topics of may we Astodisposaldelivery public teachers, toofspeaking encouragemessages. coaches, events--in ourandI believe community judges, this wecase, we must Persuasiveto must embrace continue encourage Speaking. a tovariety use students the of toolsapproaches to atthink our organization,comparativelyStandardstypes of and approaches and delivery. to the Thus, art ofit iscommunication. not surprising that we would likely exist evaluate in our student performancesforensic event in order in terms of content,to enable us to Persuasionofimportantmustabout competition. helptheir and themchoicein particular,interesting, Wesee of topicsthemust to importancenot introduceuseand just publictheir those usestudents of thataddress ofseeking meetorganizational to events the out currentfull topics in range general,patterns. conventions that of public seem andWe wediversedifferentonbe themust able potentialrange remindapproaches to identify of speeches ourselvesfor atheto wide persuasion, event in of eachrange the we rangeround wereof however, topics of wejudging options judge. and we even theAsshouldavailable forensics existenceif blindfolded. expect in persuasioneducators, ofto manyhear Based a wemorestepcriticalspeaking introduce closer mentally thinking toexperiences. studentsthe aware aboutkind of toof topics their Iftheforensic we full choice-making anduse range educationpublicapproaches of speakingapproaches that processes" to helps expression, experiences to students persuasion,(Aden, we to "become1991). areengender they one If competitiveorthemselvesand two encourage approaches andcircuit. theour "boundaries" students to Persuasion to expandof the that event their seem by horizons mostlooking common beyondand challenge theon the. one theperceivedneeded"will art have of (Schnell, public "aas firmcompetitive speaking. theoretical 1992). shortTo foundationlimit changes students' students, from experiences which forensics to build solely education, and to referwhat and asis Forensic Educator, 6(1), 15-18. Aden, R. (1991/1992). The goals of a forensics education. The Works Cited 2°1 4. 104 paperDubuque, from IA: the Brown Second & NationalBenchmark. Developmental ConferenceDalby,Ayres, on J.M. Individual & (1990, Miller, August). J. (1994). Safe Effective sex and public safe topics. speaking, Unpublished (4th ed.). Events.Nationalevents. Denver, In Developmental Schnoor, Colorado. L. &Conference Karns, V. on (Eds.), Individual Proceedings Events.Fried Denver, ly,of S.the A. SecondCO. (1990). The ethical use of evidence in public address judgesProceedingssociety, allowed (2nd ed.).toof query the Belmont, Second competitors? CA: National Wadsworth. In Schnoor, Developmental L. &Kanter,Jaffee, Karns, Conference C. V.E. (1998). T.(Eds.), (1990). onPublic A speaking: question Concepts of oral questions: and skills forWhy a diverse aren't York:Individual McGraw-Hill. Events. Denver, CO. Osborn,Lucas, S. M. E. &(1992). Osborn, The S. art (1997). of public Public speaking, speaking, (4th ed.).(3rd ed.).New Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Porter, S. (1990). When we don't know where we're going . . . IndividualProceedingsperhaps it's Events. time of the weDenver, Second fmd CO.a map.National In Schnoor, Developmental L. & Karns,Schnell, Conference V. J. (Eds.),(1992/1993). on Persuasion as a developmental sequence for Boston:Educator,the beginning Allyn 1(1), & competitor17-19. Bacon. Zarefsky, D. (1996). in Public interscholastic speaking: forensics. Strategies The Forensicfor success. 223 105 367

U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) ERIC Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) (.5 5-109 e,3 REPRODUCTION RELEASE (Specific Document)

I. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION: Tide: Proceedings from the 3rd NationalDevelopmental Conference on Forensics

Author(s):various authors (edited by Shawnalee A. Whitney) Corporate Source: Publication Date: National Developmental Conference on Forensics Fall 1997

II. REPRODUCTION RELEASE: In order to cfisseminate as widely as possible timely and significantmaterials of interest to the educational community, documents announced in the monthly abstract journal of the ERIC system, Resources inEducation (RIE), are usually made available to users in microfiche, reproduced ERIC vendors. Credit is paper copy, and electronic/optical mecla, and soldthrough the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS) or other given to the source of each document, and, if reproduction release isgranted, one of the following notices is affixed to the document.

If permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identifieddocument, please CHECK ONE of the following two options and sign at the bottom of the page.

The sample sticker shown below will be The sample sticker shown below will be affixed to all Level 1 documents affixed to all Level 2 documents

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND El DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL DISSEMINATE THIS HAS BEEN GRANTED BY MATERIAL IN OTHER THAN PAPER COPY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY Check here Check here Shawnalee A. Whitney ForLevel1 Release: For Level 2 Release: Permitting reproduction in Permitting reproduction in Proceedings Editor microfiche (4' x 6' film) or microfiche (4 x 6' film) or TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES other ERIC archival media other ERIC archival media TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) (e.g., electronic or optical), (e.g., electronic or optical) INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) but not in paper copy. and paper copy.

Level 1 Level 2

Documents will be processed as indicated provided reproduction qualitypermits.If permission to reproduce is granted, but neither box is checked,documents will be processed at Level 1.

(ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce anddisseminate I hereby grant to the Educational Resources Information Center other than this document as indicated above. Reproduction from theERIC microfiche or electronicloptical media by persons for non-profit ERIC employees and its system contractors requirespermission from the copyright holder. Exception is made reproduction by libraries and other service agencies to satisfy informationneeds of educators in response to discrete inquiries.' .

Prinjed Name/Position/Tale: Sign Signatur Shawnalee A. Whitney here--+ Assistant Professor of Communication please .0** Department of Communication, K205 (907) 786-4393 (907) 786-4190 University of Alaska Anchorage Anchorage, AK 99508-8219 [email protected] March 13, 1999 368 DOCUMENT AVAILABILITYINFORMATION (FROM NON-ERIC SOURCE): ivailability of the document from another source, If permission to reproduce is notgranted to ERIC', or, if you wish.ERIC to cite the (ERIC will not announce a document. unless it is please provide the following informationregarding the availability of the document. Contributors should also be aware that ERIC selection criteria are publicly available, and a dependable sourcecan be specified. EDRS.) significantly more stringent for documentsthat cannot be made available, through

Publisher/Distributor:

Address:

Price:

IV. REFERRAL OF ERICTO COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTIONRIGHTS HOLDER: the-addressee, please provide the appropriate name andaddress: If the right to grant reproduction releaseis held by someone other than

Name:

Address:

V. WHERE TO SEND THISFORM:

Send this form to the following ERICClearinghouse:

ERIC, return this form (and thedocument being However, if solicited by the ERIC Facility, orif making an unsolicited contribution to contributed) to: ERIC Processing andReference Facility 1100 West Street, 2d Floor Laurel, Maryland 20707-3598

Telephone: 301-497-4080 Toll Free: 800-799-3742 FAX: 301-953-0263 e-mail: [email protected] WWW: http://ericfac.piccard.csc.com (Rev. 6/96)