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.
2.5 School Participation
Schools participating in the Metro Memphis Urban Debate league are required:
(1) to assign one regular Coach and are encouraged to assign two regular coaches
(2) to promote the academic debate team within the school environment
(3) to provide class coverage for Coaches on the afternoons of the Fridays of travel tournaments and the City Championship Tournament when such situations may arise.
(4) to equitably share Tournament hosting responsibilities; and
(5) to provide the debate team regular access to a copy machine for team practices. Funding for copy costs will be covered by the debate stipend for each school.
2.6 Roster
Each school must keep an accurate, updated roster of the students participating on its debate team on file with the Metro Memphis Urban Debate League. This list should be available upon request by the director of the UDL, whether s/he is a district or independent employee. At the end of the debate season, this roster must be submitted to the League Director and must include the names of every student who has participated in at least one tournament during the season. 6
2.7 Transitioning Students or Schools
If a school in the Metro Memphis UDL discontinues participation, students from that school may debate for the Metro Memphis UDL school of their choice, until such time as their school re-starts its own debate program, pending the approval of the chosen school. Likewise, students from a Metro Memphis UDL school who transfer to a non- Metro Memphis UDL MCS school can continue to debate for their former school. However, in both the above instances, an adult chaperone (teacher or parent) from the school that the student currently attends must take supervisory responsibility for that student at all Memphis UDL events, and must submit all necessary paperwork at the student’s current school, to be approved by the student’s current principal.
Neither elements of this Policy should be construed as endorsing a school’s decision not to begin or maintain a debate program; rather, this Policy accommodates students’ interest in debating until such time as their school re-starts or develops a debate program, which the Memphis UDL encourages all MCS high schools to do.
7 3. Tournament Entry
3.1 Tournament Registration Procedure
Tournament registration is done online on www.SpeechWire.com. Registration for each school must be completed at least eight days prior to the tournament date. Late registration can be accommodated only as availability of space and judging allows -- it cannot be guaranteed. No registrations will be accepted after the Tuesday prior to the tournament. Confirmation of registration will be posted either on the Metro Memphis UDL website or via email, after registration closes. Schools are strongly encouraged to make their final registration confirmation by Tuesday close of business prior to the first Round of a tournament. The Tab Room Director reserves the right to disallow any team reconfigurations or adds on the day of the Tournament Team reconfigurations potentially cause major schedule delays that impact the entire league event.
3.2 Judge Obligation
Each school is responsible for registering one judge for every two teams it registers at a Metro Memphis UDL Tournament. Only teams that are covered by the school’s fulfillment of its judge obligation can participate at the Tournament. Schools that fail to bring enough judges may risk having their teams take bye rounds for lack of judge coverage.
Each school is obligated to keep one of its judges (which may be a coach) at the Tournament site, ready to judge, one round after the farthest round to which any one of its teams advanced. For example, if School X advanced a JV team as far as the semi-finals, but didn’t clear any Varsity teams, School X’s JV judges would be obligated to judge through the Final Round, and its Varsity judges through the Quarter-Finals.
Judges cannot be registered unless they have attended at least one Judges’ Seminar which shall be offered the day of the tournament. Judges are exempt from this requirement only if (a) they have participated in Policy Debate themselves within the last fifteen years, (b) they have judged at four or more tournaments in the Memphis Urban Debate League in previous years, or (c) they are a regular Coach at one of the participating schools.
3.3 College Student Judges
First-year college students (“freshmen”) are permitted to judge, at the registering school’s discretion.
3.4 Maverick Teams
Single-person teams in policy debate are called “Maverick” teams; policy debate is designed for two-person teams. Schools may register Maverick teams at Tournaments I – V, but any team that is Maverick for three or more Preliminary rounds during a Tournament is ineligible to debate in the Elimination Rounds of that Tournament. Maverick teams are allowed at the City Championship but may not “break”.
* 3.5 Hybrid Teams
No hybrid teams are allowed. That means that debaters from different schools cannot debate with each other on one team at Metro Memphis UDL Tournaments if both debaters have teams at their own schools. 8 3.6 Combining Divisions
If there are fewer than 8 teams entered in either the JV or Varsity Division, the Divisions are combined for the Preliminary Rounds. In the Elimination Rounds, the Divisions are once again separated, with as many Elimination Rounds being held per Division as is consistent with the policy debate principle that not more than half the teams in a Division can participate in the Elimination Round bracket.
In the event that the number of teams that break would result in an odd number of teams in the elimination rounds, byes will be allocated on a top-down basis.
See 5.7 for the relevant argument limit policy in Inter-Division debate rounds.
For Champions, the minimum number of teams will be set at 4 for the division. Should there be less than 4 teams, the division shall be merged with the Varsity division and will debate under evidence limitations of that division.
In the event that the league moves to a three division format, the middle division will merge with the higher of the two divisions if not enough teams register.
3.7 City Championship Awards
In addition to the top speakers and the Elimination Round awards, the following awards will be given out at the City Championship Awards Ceremony.
Excellence in Coaching – For Excellent Coach, voted by peers League-Wide Leader - Chosen by Memphis UDL Adjudicator of the Year Award – Chosen by Memphis UDL Jim Sdoia Award for Participation in Urban Debate – Goes to School with highest participation Most Improved Debaters – Three per Division, Nominations accepted from anyone, Votes only for students not on your squad * Top Five Schools in Each Division - Determined by statistical analysis MMUDL Champions Award – Top Team determined by statistical analysis
3.8 Qualifying for the –NAUDL National Tournament
In the past, the NAUDL has hosted two Metro Memphis UDL teams to compete at the National Championship Tournament. If they do so next year, the two teams that will go will be chosen by performance at the City Championship in the following manner. The two Champions division finalist teams in the City Championship Tournament will automatically qualify to attend the National Championship tournament.
Any varsity team is permitted to debate in the Champions division if they wish to do so at this tournament in order to compete for the chance to go to The NAUDL National Championship. A JV team may jump to champions only if they debated in at least one varsity tournament previously that year.
***All members of the teams advancing to the NAUDL National Tournament will be required to attend preparation sessions. Failure to attend will result in that debater not being able to participate. The debater’s coach will choose his/her replacement from that school’s Varsity squad. (Item #9)
9
4. Tournament Round Procedure
4.1 Punctuality
All rounds must begin within 10 minutes of their scheduled starting time, or a forfeit will be charged against the team that is unready to begin. Double forfeits are possible. Judges have the authority to insist that the round begin earlier than this limit, if both teams are present at the Tournament. Judges are encouraged to begin debates as soon as possible, so that the Tournament can adhere to its schedule. Timelines will be left to the discretion of the judge in the room. Any question about a team being on time shall be directed to the tournament manager.
4.2 Observers
Observers are allowed in debate rounds, which are considered open forums. Observers must remain silent during all speeches and must keep a distance from debaters. The Judge shall instruct where the observers can sit. Observers shall adhere to the judges requests at all times.*** Violators will be asked to leave the debate. Observers cannot under any circumstances speak to a judge about a decision. Violators will be asked to leave the Tournament. At the conclusion of a debate round, especially an elimination round, it is essential that the room be silent until the judges have made their decisions. Coaches, teammates, and observers may not talk to or signal debaters after the debate round starts, inside or outside the room or via electronic communication – this will be investigated as cheating if it is determined to be an attempt to aid the debaters unfairly during the course of a debate after the first speech has begun.
4.3 Use of Electronic Devices
Laptop computers and tablets are not allowed to be used during the debate round by debaters (not even for flowing), but may be used at the tournament between rounds. No electronic devices (including cell phones and smart phones) may be used at any time during rounds to access the Internet for data retrieval or communications purposes (such as e-mailing, instant messaging, texting). Use of such devices between rounds is not prohibited. The use of audio and/or visual media players to introduce evidence in the round is not prohibited, provided that the team intending to use one or more of these devices provides the opposing team access to the same device(s) during the opposing team’s speeches and prep time. Teams may use cell phones for timing purposes only
4.3.1 Use of Timers***
Debaters are allowed to use personal timers during the debate rounds (Item # 15), which may include cell phones. If a judge suspects that a phone is being used for purposes other than timing, it is within the judge’s prerogative to request the device for the duration of the round and to inspect it, as well as bring it to tournament officials.
4.4 In-Round Evidence Sharing
Teams are required to “share” with their opponents any evidence that is read, upon request – i.e., they must provide their opponents a copy of the evidence. Debaters can hold an opponent’s evidence during their own speech and prep time, but must return the evidence when it is their opponent’s speech and prep time.
10 10 4.5.a Unethical Use of Evidence
Evidence read into the debate that has intentionally missing or added text that significantly distorts the meaning of the author, or evidence that is intentionally inauthentic or fictitiously cited, places the offending debater in violation of the activity’s basic academic integrity. As such, unethical use of evidence shall result in round forfeit and disqualification from the Tournament at which the violation occurs and disqualification from the City Championship.
Guidelines published by the National Forensic League for the ethical use of evidence will be followed, but enforced by the Metro Memphis Urban Debate League administration only. Judges are not authorized to enforce the guidelines, and should judge a debate in which the issue is raised as if no violation has occurred. If a team believes that an opponent has used evidence unethically in a round, that team should see its Coach after the round; the Coach should then contact a League official who will investigate and issue a ruling after conferring with the MMUDL rules committee, who will consult our files of past grievances to ensure consistency in applying MMUDL league rules across similar grievances.
4.5.b MMUDL Rules Committee
For the 2015-16 season, the MMUDL rules committee will be established by the league director. It shall include at least 5 individuals with an odd number always. These individuals should be coaches or league operations staff and should have at least 2 years of coaching or policy debate experience individually. Any technical questions regarding clarification of rules can be ruled on by one member of the committee.
Any questions of the unethical use of evidence or case files shall be ruled upon by no less than 3 members of the rules committee. In the event that one of the rules committee members teams is involved in the allegation, that committee member shall recuse him or herself from the decision and another rules committee member shall take his or her place in making the decision.
In the event that the committee finds itself with an even number for a tournament it may “deputize” an individual to serve on the rules committee for that tournament provided that they meet the criteria set out in the first paragraph of this section.
After the 2015-16 season, future league operators may choose to replace the rules committee with another body or individual as they see fit under the criteria for amending the rules set down in section 7 of these rules.
4.6 Closed Out Elimination Rounds
Elimination round brackets will not be broken in the event that two teams from the same school are scheduled to debate each other (i.e., a round that is “closed out”). In a “close out,” the higher seed will presumptively advance to the next round, unless the school’s Coach notifies the tab room that the lower-seeded team has been chosen to advance.
* If the Coach so desires, a schools teams may debate each other to determine which advances.
4.7 Tag Team Cross Examination*** (Item #8)
“Tag Team” cross examination refers to the practice of opening each cross examination period to questions and answers from any of the four debaters, rather than the prescribed two. The Memphis Urban Debate League disallows “Tag Team” questions, but does allow “Tag Team” responses. The 11 11 judge can consider an inability to answer questions (or inappropriate assistance offered to a partner not in need of it) when assigning speaker points at the end of the round.
4.8 Prompting
“Prompting” occurs when a speaker is helped by the speaker’s partner, through written suggestions, during a speech. Oral prompting is not allowed and should be addressed by the judge in the round. The Metro Memphis Urban Debate League allows “prompting,” though judges may consider prompting as having marred the stylistic impact of a speech (and therefore as having a negative influence on the assignment of speaker points).
12 12 5. Judging Procedure
5.1 Interruption of a Debate Round
Judges should not terminate a debate before the completion of the Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR) speech, even if the decision is certain. Nor should judges interrupt the time schedule of the debate for any reason except to maintain debating protocol. Judges are expected to remain attentive throughout the debate round.
Judges should not provide debater guidance during or between speeches, whether through words or actions. Judge comments should be limited solely to matters of procedure such as speech sequence, speech timing, speech clarity, and preparation time. Extraneous comments tend to disrupt debater concentration.
5.2 Independent Decisions
The judge must decide solely based on his or her best individual effort to resolve the substantive claims of the debate and should not, at any time, ask anyone else for help with their decision. Judges on elimination round panels should NEVER discuss how they decide or disclose their decision until all judges have independently signed their ballots without discussion. Coaches and observers are not to ask or pressure judges to change their decision during post-round discussion once it has been made. Judges are required to provide a written explanation for their decision.***
Any disagreement with judges should be brought to the individual or individuals responsible for handling complaints. The coach of each team should bring the complaint, not the individual students registering the complaint.
5.3 Judge Disclosure and Critique
Judges should not reveal their decisions to debaters after the debate. This unduly heightens the competitiveness of the activity, has the potential to demoralize debaters, and isn’t necessary pedagogically. Judges must write out full ballots explaining their reactions to the debates. Judges are encouraged to give an oral critique (of up to 5 minutes in duration) to the debaters following a round, but should do so without revealing the decision.
5.4 Debater-Judge Colloquy
After a round, debaters can ask questions of the judge, respectfully, about how the judge resolved specific issues. Debaters cannot comment or complain to the judge about the decision or any portions of the explanation. They also should not use a sarcastic, condescending, or insulting tone in their colloquy with judges. Judges have the authority to lower a debater’s speaker points for an infraction of proper decorum (5 or more points, depending on the severity, is reasonable), even after the ballot has already been turned in to the Tab Room.
5.5 Speaker Points
Judges award speaker points to each debater as part of the decision process at the end of each round. By Memphis Urban Debate League custom, speaker points are normally awarded in the range of 20 to 30. Points below 20 should be given infrequently except for unusually poor 13 13 performance or conduct, and points over 29 should be given sparingly, except for exceptional performances and memorable speeches. Judges may award Speaker Points less than 20 in the case that a debater acts in a way that violates the spirit and customs of debating in order to transmit a message of punitive reprimand by the judge. The most common reasons for such low points are rudeness to the judge, debaters, or other participants, or unethical or “unprofessional” speech or behavior. A written explanation for the Speaker Points awarded should be provided.***
14 14
6. Argument Limits
6.1 Specific Argument Limits and Core / Evidence Files
Season:
JV Teams will not be allowed to use Counterplans or Kritiks outside those provided in the core files. Evidence rules for JV will be determined by the coaches at a meeting at the beginning of the year for year specific cores files. .
Varsity Teams may use outside evidence (evidence obtained from sources other than the “core files” at all tournaments beginning with Tournament I). Evidence rules for Varsity will be determined by the coaches at a meeting at the beginning of the year for year specific core files.
JV Teams MAY NOT use outside evidence in Tournament I, but, beginning with Tournament II, MAY use outside evidence.
For 2015-16, teams in the Champions league will be allowed to use any evidence they see fit, as long as that evidence is posted to a public location designated by the individual responsible for setting up and running tournaments 2 weeks in advance. Using evidence not uploaded will be grounds for forfeiture of that round.
At the beginning of each season, a coaches meeting shall be called by the individual in charge of the league. Evidence rules for that season shall be decided by all coaches who attend that meeting and will be considered as evidence rules for all tournaments for that year.
6.2 Argument Limit Enforcement
Coaches may protest violations of argument limits to a League official at any time during the preliminary rounds, or prior to the beginning of the subsequent elimination round. Only Coaches may lodge such a protest.
Protests of alleged violations of the policies on argument restrictions should not be made to the judge in the debate round. Instead, debaters alleging such violation should first describe the instance to their Coaches, who should then take the protest to a Metro Memphis UDL official if they believe the protest may have merit. The Metro Memphis UDL official will interview the judge (or judges) in the presence of both the objecting and defending Coaches, who are not allowed to speak during these interviews. The League official will then issue a ruling after conferring with the MMUDL League Director who will consult our files of past grievances to ensure consistency in applying MMUDL league rules across similar grievances. A first-time violation results in a forfeit. A second violation, by the team or by the school, will result in disqualification of the offending team from the Tournament.
15 15
16 16 7. Amending These Rules
7.1 These rules may be amended at any time by a the coaches of the MMUDL. In order to amend the rules, the current director or person designated as responsible for tournament and league regulations by another entity that may support the league fiscally shall call a meeting of all coaches.
In order to vote on rule changes to these rules and regulations, coaches from a majority of schools in the league must be in attendance at that meeting.
Said meeting shall be chaired by the person designated as responsible for tournament and league regulations or by another person that shall be designated in writing by that individual.
Those coaches who attend may propose and vote on any changes to these rules and regulations as they see fit. They may also vote to add new rules or regulations to these rules as they see fit.
Changes to the rules must be approved by a majority vote.
7.2 The individual designated as responsible for tournaments and league regulations may find it necessary to add additional language to these rules and regulations during the course of the season for the purpose of clarification.
These changes can be enacted as long as the added language does not change the intent, impact or purpose of those changes and as long as those changes are sent to the collective group of coaches no less than 2 weeks before the next tournament that those rules may impact.
If no coach registers a complaint or disagreement, the additional language shall stand for that year and be added to these rules and regulations.
7.3 If any coach feels that the spirit of 7.2 has been violated and wishes to, they may call a coaches meeting under section 7.1 and vote on the language change proposed by the individual responsible for tournaments and league regulations. The rules in 7.1 regarding the requirements for language change shall be in effect for that meeting.
17 17 8. Changes for 2015-16 – these changes were voted on by the coaches at a meeting on 9/3/2015. All changes were approved by a majority vote per section 7 of these rules.
The Shelby Debate Society shall hereby be known as the Shelby County Urban Debate League Tournament Schedule: Our high school tournament schedule will be as follows by unanimous vote of all coaches present. The only change from what Mr. Fryer sent out was the second tournament, moved from November 7th to November 14th. Locations are yet to be determined: I. Tournament 1: Saturday, October 3rd II. Tournament 2: Saturday, November 14th III. Tournament 3: Saturday, January 23rd IV. Tournament 4: Saturday, February 13th V. City Championship: Friday and Saturday, March 11th and 12th
Core Files: Our core files for the 2015-16 season will be as follows by unanimous vote of all coaches present: AFF and NEG cases o Immigration surveillance AFF and NEG o End the War on Drugs AFF and NEG o NSA AFF and NEG (there is a NOVICE file and a regular file) Disads o Organized Crime Disad o Terrorism Disad o An unknown politics disad once put out by NAUDL to be introduced later Counterplans o Executive Order Counterplan Kritiks o Surveillance Reform K
Division Structure: We will have our JV and Varsity divisions as in the past. This year coaches voted by a majority to establish a third division, called the Champions division. This division will consist of the top teams from varsity and will be selected based on the following criteria: JV: 0 years of experience Varsity: 1+ years of experience Champions division: shall consist of teams who have won a varsity tournament previously or those teams that have been selected by their coaches. Criteria for selection will be as follows: o If you won a tournament in varsity the previous year you automatically move up to the champions division. o All other teams that appeared in the semi-finals in varsity and beyond in the previous year are eligible for inclusion in the champions league in the first tournament. o Each school can pick two teams maximum to appear in the champions division for all tournaments beyond all automatic qualifiers. Coaches are no required to select 2 teams if they do not believe they are ready. o If a team appears in the semi-finals or beyond at any point during the current year, they are eligible for inclusion in the champions division. o Teams that win a varsity tournament in the current year are eligible to move up to the champions division and do not count against their school's 2 extra teams. Teams that win 2 tournaments in varsity will automatically be moved up to the champions division for the next tournament. o If one partner on a team won a varsity tournament in a previous year, they must move into the champions division. o Teams that do not automatically qualify for the champions division are not locked into that division as long as they are not an automatic qualifier; that is, a team may be placed in
18 18 champions for one tournament but may be moved back to Varsity by a decision of the coach for the next tournament. o In the final tournament of the year, any team may enter into the champions division that has appeared in a semi-final during the year from any school. o This division shall be higher level. It is expected that coaches and teams will use discretion in selecting teams for this division and only select those that are prepared to put in the work that it will require. o Only those teams that debate in the champions division will be eligible for qualification for NAUDL nationals. o All case files to be used by the champions division must submit the first constructive speech for their case files 2 weeks prior to the tournament. These files shall be uploaded to a public site for other teams to view. Teams that choose to run files that are not uploaded shall be disqualified.
Evidence Rules: evidence rules for each division shall be as follows by unanimous decision of all coaches present: JV (0 years exp) Varsity (1 year exp) Champions (by automatic qualification or selection by coach) Tournament 1 NSA NOVICE file and NSA and Immigration Students may run any case (oct) Terrorism DA cases plus all NAUDL file they wish as long as No outside evidence disads (no counterplans). they submit the first Outside evidence allowed constructive to be uploaded Tournament 2 Immigration Surveillance All NAUDL core files and Same as previous (nov) and Organized Crime DA counterplans minus the K; tournament Outside evidence permissible Tournament 3 End the War on Drugs and Students use any files that (Jan) Organized Crime DA they wish, including files from outside the NAUDL core files Tournament 4 All NAUDL files Same as tournament 3 (Feb) permissible except for the Surveillance reform K Tournament Same as tournament 4 5/Championship (March)
Shelby county schools will print the evidence and send it to schools prior to the first tournament. Digital copies of the evidence will be uploaded to a website for easy access.
Tournament Structure: the coaches present voted by unanimous vote for the following tournament structure for the first three tournaments to modify what we have done in the past (oct, nov and jan) Breakfast Round 1 Round 2 Lunch Round 3 Round 4 Dinner/Awards Final playoff round
The final playoff round will replace the 3 quarter/semi/championship rounds we have done in the past. The top 8 teams from each division will compete in four rounds and will be matched as follows: #1 vs #2 #3 vs #4
19 19 #5 vs #6 #7 vs #8
There should be 3 judges for every playoff round. Varsity and Champion level teams who have not broken may judge JV rounds provided that they have at least 2 years of debate experience under their belts.
The February tournament will tentatively consist of 2 rounds: semi-finals and a championship round for each division (no semis)
The March tournament (city championship) shall consist of quarters, semis and championship round over two days.
Awards: we voted unanimously to modify speaker awards to award speaker awards to the top 15 speakers in each category instead of the top 20. Teams in each round will be given 1st – 8th place awards (TBD) Speaker Points: we voted unanimously to adjust the speaker point range from 25 – 30 to 20 – 30 to provide for more range in speaker points, contingent on ensuring that this is possible with the software we use. Time between rounds: we shall establish hard start times for rounds 1, 2, 3 and 4 and strive to ensure we meet those round times during the course of the tournament.
20 20