DOCSLIB.ORG

Metro Memphis Urban Debate League Policies for 2015-16 Season

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Metro Memphis Urban Debate League Policies for 2015-16 Season Metro Memphis Urban Debate League Policies for 2015-16 Season 9/13/2015 This handbook contains all rules and regulations governing tournaments for the Metro Memphis Urban Debate League for the 2015-16 season. Contents 1. League Principles 1.1 Origins 1.2 Overall Governance 1.3 Coach-Directed Policy-Making 1.4 Foundational Objective: Participation 1.5 Guiding Principle: Lay Judges 2. League Structure 2.1 Memphis Style 2.2 Divisions 2.3 Student Participation 2.4 Coach Participation 2.5 School Participation 2.6 Roster 2.7 Transitioning Students or Schools 3. Tournament Entry 3.1 Tournament Registration Procedure 3.2 Judge Obligation 3.3 College Student Judges 3.4 Maverick Teams 3.5 Hybrid Teams 3.6 Combining Divisions 3.7 City Championship Awards 4. Tournament Round Procedure 4.1 Punctuality 4.2 Observers 4.3 Use of Electronic Devices 4.4 In-Round Evidence Sharing 4.5 Unethical Use of Evidence 4.6 Closed Out Elimination Rounds 1 4.7 Tag Team Cross Examination 4.8 Prompting 5. Judging Procedure 5.1 Interruption of a Debate Round 5.2 Independent Decisions 5.3 Judge Evidence Reading 5.4 Judge Disclosure and Critique 5.5 Debater-Judge Colloquy 5.6 Speaker Points 6. Argument Limits 6.1 Specific Argument Limits and Core Files 6.2 Argument Limit Enforcement 7. Amending These Rules 8. Rule changes for 2015-16 Note: * denotes a rule that was changed or added at the Debate Centers during the 2009 – 2010 season. Note:** denotes a rule that was changed or added during the 2010 – 2011 season. Note:***denotes a rule/procedure change for the 2011-2012 season 2 1. League Principles 1.1 Origins The Metro Memphis Urban Debate League (MMUDL) is the program for high school and middle school policy debate within Shelby County Schools, both public and charter. The Memphis UDL was founded in 2008 by the Memphis UDL Advisory Board. The name was changed to the Shelby Debate Society when the districts merged. The league will now be changed to reflect its new status as an entity of the school district. Middle school policy debate will be added during the 2012-13 season. The founding objectives of the then-Memphis Urban Debate League were to: Provide the opportunity for as many urban high school students as possible to participate in competitive policy debating; Provide an educational vehicle for MCS (now SCS) high school students to develop skills in critical thinking, literacy, research, public speaking and verbal persuasion, so that they increase their academic achievement, improve their access to college, build cells of academic excellence within their local schools, and eventually become leaders in their communities and in society at large. 1.2 Overall Governance The Shelby City Schools (MCS) directs and administers the Metro Memphis Urban Debate League (UDL). SCS determines the overall framework and rules within which the Memphis UDL conducts its program and achieves its educational goals. 1.3 Coach-Directed Policymaking Within the parameters set by SCS’s administrative governance, all League policies and practices are established by the community of debate coaches, with each participating school represented by one or more regular coaches for this purpose. In this regard, the coaches may establish and alter the program frameworks as they deem appropriate in meeting their educational objectives. The coaches are empowered to alter, delete, or add policies, as they see fit, in order to best achieve the academic objectives of the program overall. Prior to the start of each season, League Guidelines and Policies are formally reviewed by the coaches and changes are proposed, discussed, and decided upon. Changes can be proposed once the season has begun, though past practice has established a presumption against changing the rules in the “middle of the game.” Generally, but not always, a simple majority of the coaches is sufficient to change the Guidelines and Policies set forth herein. A supermajority may be required for policies that would have a fundamental impact on the practice or objectives of most or all of the constituent debate programs, at the discretion of SCS. 3 The coaching community as a group reserves the right to discuss and interpret the application of the Guidelines and Policies as they see fit. 1.4 Foundational Objective: Participation The Memphis Urban Debate League was founded on the belief that participation in a competitive and curricular policy debate league is inherently educational. The founding vision of the Memphis UDL also posits that most of the educational and social benefits of debating can be achieved within the boundaries of a local circuit. Its most basic objective is to involve as many Shelby County High School students in structured and rigorous debate activities as possible. 1.5 Guiding Principle: Diverse Judge Pool The Metro Memphis UDL UDL has a pedagogical commitment to maintaining a judge pool that is diverse in important ways: academic debate experience, age, demographics, and professional background. This commitment includes support for the use of judges without extensive policy debate experience. Metro Memphis UDL debaters must become proficient at understanding and articulating debate arguments in a way that is understandable to an educated layperson. Debaters have the additional burden of interpreting the experience level of the judge in their individual rounds and, if necessary, explaining their arguments at a moderated speed and in terms of general language (rather than relying on debate jargon), as they may need to do in most “real world” situations. At the same time, the Metro Memphis UDL is committed to including a segment of debate expert practitioners or professionals in its judge pool (university debaters or coaches, primarily). These persons help advance the debaters’ technical sophistication and advanced knowledge about debate practices and the topic area. 4 2. League Structure 2.1 Memphis Style The primary elements of the Metro Memphis Debate Style are: When necessary, debaters must adapt their speech (e.g, speed, volume, clarity) and use of jargon to the judge, so that lay judges can understand the arguments of the debate. Debaters should explain technical debate jargon and topic jargon the first time it is used in the debate when in the presence of inexperienced judges. Judges are assumed to be educated laypersons. Debaters should not assume that the judge is fully conversant with debate technicalities, the topic background, or the case specifics. Argumentative depth is preferred to argumentative breadth: judges will expect fewer arguments to be made, but for those arguments to be developed and explained in greater depth. Students will be allowed to present arguments at whatever speed is most appropriate for the judge in front of them. The judge reserves the right to inform the speaker that they need to slow down their speech and should do so in a non-intrusive manner. A standard debate method is to use the term “clear” to tell the debater that they need to slow down and/or clarify their speech. Ignoring a judge’s direction can lead to lower speaker scores. 2.2 Divisions Metro Memphis UDL Tournaments include two Divisions: Junior Varsity (JV), Varsity and Champions. The JV Division is for debaters in their first year of academic debate. The Varsity Division is for debaters with one or more years of previous academic debate experience. Champions is for debaters who have won or broken in a varsity tournament in previous years. Rules for Champions can be found in sections 6.1 and 8. Junior Varsity debaters may enter the Varsity Division in a Tournament without losing their JV eligibility for the remainder of their first year of debate. Debaters who won a varsity tournament previously MUST enroll in champions. Students who broke in a varsity tournament may enter Champions in a tournament without losing their varsity eligibility for the remainder of the year. Students who have debated in fewer than ten total rounds in a previous year (or years) are eligible to debate in the JV Division for the year: they are considered still to be in their “first year” of debate, for purposes of JV eligibility. ***When a JV teams wins two JV Tournaments in a season, they may enter the Varsity Division for all subsequent tournaments but this is not required. * Experienced and inexperienced debaters may debate together as a team, but if one teammate qualifies as Varsity, the team must debate together in the Varsity division. 5 2.3 Student Participation Schools are required to enter at least two two-person teams per Division per Tournament. First- year schools are required only to enter one two-person teams in the JV Division per Tournament. Schools are strongly encouraged to conduct at least 120 minutes of formal academic debate practice after school per week at which at least six students and one regular coach should be present. 2.4 Coach Participation*** (Item 4) The Coaches from each school or a designated responsible adult from that school must be present at each Tournament at all times. If students will ride the Memphis City School bus to and/or from the Tournaments, one coach from the team or one parent from the team must ride on the bus as well. Stipends for the 2015 year will be commiserate with what has been provided to coaches in the past. Stipends for subsequent years will be determined in collaboration between Shelby County Schools and the coaches of the Metro Memphis UDL to best determine the appropriate level of compensation based on coaching demands. Coach stipends are dependent upon attendance at tournaments and coach workshops. Stipends may be reduced or withheld at the discretion of SCS if the school’s coaches miss more than one mandatory tournament.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Debate Tips & Tricks
    Debate Tips & Tricks – Rhode Island Urban Debate League 2019/02/14 623 Home About Us ∠ For Debaters & Coaches ∠ News & Events ∠ Join the Movement Debate Tips & Tricks Partners & Partner Supporters: Schools: Alvarez Central Click Here to download Debate 101: This is a helpful guide to Policy Debate written by Bill & Will Smelko detailing everything 3 you need to know from Rudiments of Rhetoric to Debate Theory. E 5 tips to help you win Juanita every debate round: Sanchez 1. Think as if you were your judge, not yourself. Remember, the only person whose opinion matters at Mount the end of the round is the judge’s, not yours! A Pleasant common mistake everyone in public speaking makes is assuming that because you understand the argument that your audience does as well. Take into account the Paul Cuffee judge’s debate experience before using a lot of debate http://www.riudl.org/debate-tips-tricks/ Page 1 of 4 Debate Tips & Tricks – Rhode Island Urban Debate League 2019/02/14 623 lingo, and make sure you look up at your judge while making a key point. This will both reinforce your argument because of the eye contact you will make, and it will allow you to look for signals from the judge (ie, Woonsocket shaking her head) that she understands you. 2. Always think comparatively. Every argument that you make, at the end of the round, will be compared against something the other team said. If you’re affirmative, for example, you should always be thinking in the mindset of “how does my plan compare to the status quo?” [i.e., doing nothing, what the negative frequently advocates].
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Debate Newsblast March 2007 Vol
    Urban Debate NewsBlast March 2007 Vol. II, No. 1 You are receiving this NewsBlast because you are a believer in and backer of urban debate and the National Association for Urban Debate Leagues. We thank you very much for that support. Through our NewsBlasts, we intend to keep you aware of the highlights of the work of the NAUDL, and of the state of urban debate in the U.S. The NAUDL upholds and advances the urban debate mission by building, institutionalizing, expanding, and connecting Urban Debate Leagues. Your support helps make it possible for us to serve thousands of urban youth across the country. We also would welcome and look forward to your feedback. Please email us at [email protected] or call (312-427-8101) with your views. The NAUDL Launches Three Year Expansion Plan with New UDLs and a National Championship Among Objectives Over the past several years the NAUDL has focused hard on its mission of increasing the number of urban students participating in debate programs. Its reach has effectively been restricted, however, by the organization’s limited “bandwith” – the fact that Executive Director Les Lynn, with some modest assistance from the board, part-time staff and volunteers, has essentially been working alone. The NAUDL has embraced an ambitious Expansion Plan that seeks dramatically to expand the organization’s bandwith over the next several years. Its goals include establishing seven new Leagues in seven major cities, institutionalizing an additional four existing leagues, developing debate-related curricula, and, beginning in May 2008, hosting a National Urban Debate Championship.
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 Starter Packet SSRA Aff and Terrorism Disadvantage
    2015 Atlanta Urban Debate League Starter Evidence Packet (SSRA Affirmative and Terrorism Disadvantage) 2015 Starter Packet SSRA Aff and Terrorism Disadvantage Topic – Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially curtail its domestic surveillance. More resources at 1 2015 Atlanta Urban Debate League Starter Evidence Packet (SSRA Affirmative and Terrorism Disadvantage) Table of Contents ***How To***............................................................................................................................................. 4 What Is Policy Debate? ............................................................................................................................. 5 Speeches and Speech Order ..................................................................................................................... 6 The Constructive Speeches ....................................................................................................................... 7 The Rebuttal Speeches .............................................................................................................................. 9 How to write a block and why? .............................................................................................................. 12 Judge Adaptation ...................................................................................................................................... 14 Cutting Cards .........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Participating in a Policy Debate Program and Academic Achievement Among At-Risk Adolescents in an Urban Public School District: 1997–2007
    Journal of Adolescence xxx (2012) 1–11 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Journal of Adolescence journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jado Participating in a policy debate program and academic achievement among at-risk adolescents in an urban public school district: 1997–2007 Susannah Anderson a, Briana Mezuk b,* a Department of Global Community Health and Behavioral Sciences, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, USA b Department of Epidemiology and Community Health, Virginia Commonwealth University, USA abstract Keywords: This study investigates the relationship between participating in a high school debate Adolescent program on college-readiness in the Chicago Public School district over a 10-year period. Education At-risk school students were identified using an index including 8th grade achievement, Debate poverty status, and enrollment in special education. Regression analyses were used to Graduation assess the association between debate participation and graduation and ACT performance. At-risk Overall, debaters were 3.1 times more likely to graduate from high school (95% confidence interval: 2.7–3.5) than non-debaters, and more likely to reach the college-readiness benchmarks on the English, Reading, and Science portions of the ACT. This association was similar for both low-risk and at-risk students. Debate intensity was positively related to higher scores on all sections of the ACT. Findings indicate that debate participation is associated with improved academic performance for at-risk adolescents. Ó 2012 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Introduction There are substantial disparities in educational attainment according to race, income, geography and ethnicity.
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Debate Newsblast December, 2006 Vol
    Urban Debate NewsBlast December, 2006 Vol. I, No. 3 Editor’s Note: If you are receiving this NewsBlast you are a supporter of urban debate and the National Association for Urban Debate Leagues. We thank you very much for that support. We plan through this NewsBlast to keep you aware of the highlights of the work of the NAUDL, and of the state of urban debate in the U.S. The NAUDL is the nation’s urban debate national organization entrusted to uphold and expand the urban debate mission; your support makes it possible for the NAUDL to serve thousands of urban youth across the country. We hope that they will help you have a closer appreciation of the value and meaningfulness of your support for us. We also would welcome and look forward to your feedback to this NewsBlast. Email ([email protected]) or call (312-427-8101) with your views, which will help us refine future editions. St. Louis and Detroit School Districts Reinstate UDL Coach Stipends About 10 months ago, the NAUDL became extensively involved in revitalizing the St. Louis and Detroit UDLs. The NAUDL had been working closely with these two long- standing Urban Debate Leagues for a couple of years, as they have both encountered mounting challenges to their sustainability several years after the last of their Open Society Institute grants ran out. These Leagues actually faced roughly parallel situations: they have enjoyed solid school district support (though not yet institutionalization) and have had a high degree of teacher and principal investment, but they have not had an external partner – in the form of a collection of civic leaders organized into a UDL Advisory Board or the like – since the years when national OSI funding came to university partners in each city.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Forum Curriculum
    Atlanta Urban Debate League Public Forum Curriculum Find us online at: youtube.com/atlantadebate facebook.com/atlantadebate instagram.com/atlantadebate twitter.com/atlantadebate Public Forum Curriculum Atlanta Urban Debate League Table of Contents Contents Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................................. 2 What Is Public Forum? ...................................................................................................................................... 3 What’s New?: An Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3 What Is Public Forum? ................................................................................................................................ 3 Who Should Debate In Public Forum? ........................................................................................................ 3 Which Is Better: Policy or Public Forum? .................................................................................................... 3 What’s Different?: Policy v. Public Forum ....................................................................................................... 4 Topic Release (Calendar) ........................................................................................................................... 5 Sample Resolution .....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Susannah Anderson
    Susannah Anderson Assistant Professor Temple University College of Public Health Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences [email protected], 215-204-5111 Education Doctor of Philosophy (Community Health and Behavioral Sciences), Tulane University 2015 Master of Public Health (Epidemiology & Community Health), Virginia Commonwealth University 2011 Bachelor of Science (Neuroscience, magna cum laude), College of William and Mary 2006 Professional Positions Assistant Professor, Temple University College of Public Health, Philadelphia, PA 2017- Senior Research Analyst, Policy & Research Group, New Orleans, LA 2015-2017 Adjunct Professor, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, LA 2015-2017 Diabetes Epidemiologist, Virginia Department of Health, Richmond, VA 2011 Honors and Awards Diversity, Inclusion, & Belonging in SBS Award Recipient 2020 Temple University College of Public Health, Department of Social & Behavioral Sciences Dean’s Research Council Scholarship 2011-2013 Tulane University School of Public Health Charles C. Clayton Research Award Recipient 2011 Virginia Commonwealth University Honors, Neuroscience 2006 College of William and Mary Monroe Scholar Research Grant Recipient 2002-2004 College of William and Mary Service National Public Health Week Planning Committee, Temple University College of Public Health 2018- Social and Behavioral Sciences Undergraduate Committee 2017- Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging Committee 2017- • Presenter in the Lunch and Learn seminar series: “The
    [Show full text]
  • Open Society Institute: You
    Youth Initiatives Grants Education New Visions for Public Schools New Century High Schools Consortium $10,000,000 over a five-year period. New York, New York | $10,000,000 | Five Years | 2001 | http://www.newvisions.org Campaign for Fiscal Equity To support a youth engagement program based on Judge DeGrasse's ruling in January of 2000 in CFE V. State, which challenged New York State's school funding formula. New York, New York | $40,000 | 1 Year | 2001 | http://www.cfequity.org LISTEN A grant to provide general support. Washington, DC | $100,000 | Two Years | 2001 | Funders Collaborative on Youth Organizing A grant to support the program activities of the Collaborative. New York City | $100,000 | One Year | 2001 | Student Press Law Center A grant to provide general support. Arlington, United States | $75,000 | One Year | 2001 | New York University To support the Institute for Education and Social Policy Community Involvement Program. New York, New York | $75,000 | 1 Year | 2002 | http://www.nyu.edu/iesp/programs/community.html © 2009 Open Society Institute. Some rights reserved. Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform To support youth participation in community organizing for urban school reform. Chicago, Illinois | $50,000 | 1 Year | 2002 | http://www.crosscity.org Philadelphia Student Union To support youth organizing around education reform. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | $20,000 | 1 Year | 2002 | http://www.phillystudentunion.org Youth in Action To support youth organizing around issues of equity and social justice. Providence, Rhode Island | $20,000 | 1 Year | 2002 | Educational Video Center To support professional development around youth media projects for teachers and community partners in the Bronx New Century Schools.
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Schools Argue in Favor of Debate Teams November 28, 2005 Learning to Make a Point Has Paid Off in Myriad Ways and Drawn White House Attention N a W O
    THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, “Urban Schoos Argue In Favor Of Debate Teams” Urban schools argue in favor of debate teams November 28, 2005 Learning to make a point has paid off in myriad ways and drawn White House attention n a w o By Dahleen Glanton G c Tribune national correspondent M a c i s s e ATLANTA -- Two years ago, just as she was about to become a teenager, Michel- J : o le Parks' life was at a crossroads. t o h Her friends in the public housing development where she lived were engaged in P an all-out effort to recruit her into their gang. And at school, teachers who saw po- tential beneath her tough, street-smart exterior were urging her to join a debate pro- gram that was about to get under way. "It was a big decision," said Parks, now 15, speaking with the confidence of some- one twice her age. "I had to listen to my conscience. I knew the gang was going to keep me in trouble and debate was going to keep me out of trouble. So, in the end, I followed my own mind." The decision to take up debate changed her life. A girl who had never been much farther than the boundaries of her public housing apartments now has been places she never dreamed of seeing, including the White House at the invitation of First Lady Laura Bush. Debaters Gerakd Norwood (from left), Joshua Simmons, Shavarious Render, Parks has become a poster child for urban debate teams, a trend that has taken the Robin Ayers and Ron Shirley rehearse in Atlanta art of debating from the clutches of wealthy private schools and spread it to public schools.
    [Show full text]
  • Civic Connections: Urban Debate and Democracy in Action During Out-Of-School Time
    Civic Connections: Urban Debate and Democracy in Action during Out-of-School Time Georgia Hall Executive Summary This paper examines the approach of urban debate leagues, and specifically the New York Urban Debate League, to democracy skill building and civic engagement. In the face of concerns about lack of civic engagement and knowledge among young people, such out-of-school-time programs can often reach youth bypassed by traditional sources of civic and democracy development, providing a vision of what “democracy in action” for underserved youth might look like. Such democracy skill-building experi- ences can empower youth to become engaged learners and participating citizens. n a crisp Saturday morning in March bound, Internet users, well-educated, or registered to in the Bronx, about 200 youth are vote (Soule, 2001). The political advantages of socio- packing into the Wings Academy economic status, stockpiled over a lifetime (Verba, Oschool cafeteria for one of many New York Urban Schlozman, & Brady, 1995), may result, in part, from Debate tournaments. It’s eight in the morning. The more opportunity to engage in clubs, youth organiza- teens are in their usual attire, sporting baggy jeans, tions, and public service. Research on communities baseball caps, and knapsacks. They talk on cell and youth civic engagement has suggested that youth- phones and keep the soda machine active—but they serving organizations—Little League, YMCA, 4-H, also are working: holding portfolios, tapping on lap- Boys and Girls Clubs, and the like—are less repre- tops, and shuffling manila envelopes labeled sented in poorer neighborhoods. Socioeconomic “Negative” and “Affirmative.” One middle-school-aged advantage apparently affords youth opportunities for girl is practicing debate dialogue while her peer listens civic connection and civic practice (Connell & and then offers some advice: “You should add more Halpern-Felsher, 1997; Flanagan & Faison, 2001).
    [Show full text]
  • 2018-2019 AUDL MS and HS Novice Resource and Evidence Packet
    2018-2019 Atlanta Urban Debate League MS & HS Novice Evidence Packet (Open Borders Affirmative and Negative) ***How To Section*** What is Policy Debate? Policy debate is a type of debate competition in which teams of two advocate for and against a resolution that typically calls for policy change by the United States federal government, this format tests a student’s research, analytical, and delivery skills. It involves the proposal of a plan by the affirmative team to enact a policy, while the negative team offers reasons to reject that proposal. Throughout the debate, students have the opportunity to cross-examine one another. A judge or panel of judges determines the winner based on the arguments presented. 3 2018-2019 Atlanta Urban Debate League MS & HS Novice Evidence Packet (Open Borders Affirmative and Negative) Speeches and Speech Order There are eight total speeches in a debate round. Each debater gives two speeches: one “constructive” and one “rebuttal.” The speech order looks like this: Middle School Middle Middle School High School & High School School Junior Varsity Open Novice Varsity 1AC (1st Affirmative Constructive) – Read the 4 minutes 4 minutes 5 minutes 6 minutes affirmative case and the plan CX (Cross-Examination) – 2nd Negative Speaker asks 2 minutes 2 minutes 2 minutes 2 minutes the questions 1NC (1st Negative Constructive) – Makes all the major negative arguments (disadvantages, case 4 minutes 4 minutes 5 minutes 6 minutes arguments, etc.) CX – 1st Affirmative Speaker asks the questions 2 minutes 2 minutes 2 minutes 2 minutes 2AC (2nd Affirmative Constructive) – Answer ALL negative arguments. Rebuild and strengthen the case.
    [Show full text]
  • Examining Academic Achievement and Engagement Outcomes Of
    What’s in a Game? Examining Academic Achievement and Engagement Outcomes of Baltimore Urban Debate League Participants by Daniel Shackelford A dissertation submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Baltimore, Maryland March, 2019 DISSERTATION SHACKELFORD ABSTRACT The following dissertation research contributes to the understanding of whether participation in extracurricular debate influences the academic trajectories of urban youth and is organized as three separate but related journal articles. It reviews the research around Urban Debate Leagues, as well as the literature on academic games in general, and proposes a theoretical argument for their importance in student learning. Despite major advances in the research justification for Urban Debate Leagues, a population largely absent from analysis thus far is elementary and middle school students. This dissertation research fills this gap in the literature by examining observational data from a diverse school district to understand how preadolescent participation in an Urban Debate League is related to a variety of student outcomes. Among a 10-year longitudinal sample of Baltimore City Public School System students, results show that the effect of preadolescent Baltimore Urban Debate League participation for debaters is associated with increases in standardized test scores, a decreased likelihood of chronic absenteeism, and an increased likelihood of attending a selective entrance criteria high school. These results are based on models that mitigate observed selection bias by using inverse probability of treatment weighting to create statistically matched samples for comparison. Sensitivity analysis techniques are also utilized to determine the magnitude of hidden bias that would change inferences about the treatment effects of debate participation on high school outcomes both for preadolescent debaters (those that participate in grades 4-8) as well as for adolescent debaters (those that participate in grades 9-12).
    [Show full text]