DOCSLIB.ORG

COLLEGE LD the NEXT STEP? by Jason Gordon

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
COLLEGE LD the NEXT STEP? by Jason Gordon COLLEGE LD THE NEXT STEP? by Jason Gordon When the National Forensics League and Paul Bellus at the University of Iowa was offended that these same individuals pioneered Lincoln Douglas debate in the recognized these experiences I had, and ap- would host LD at their tournaments for high early 80’s, no one had any idea that it would proached me when I came to Iowa. school, but not be willing to put their money be as successful as it is today. Lincoln Coming to Iowa, I realized that I could where their mouth is. Douglas debate is offered at many schools only debate NDT, because that was the ac- At this point, I want to commend Dr. around the nation, and is debated at the tivity offered by the program. Dr. Dave, David Hingstman and Paul Bellus for reach- three national tournaments. On local and Paul Slappey and I sat down to dinner one ing out, as Ted Belch did when I was in high national circuits alike, it is paired side by night, and Dr. Dave told us his mission. school. All of them have had very success- side with policy debate. My experience with “Jason, I would like to start an LD program ful policy teams in recent years, and yet they LD has been from the ground up. on the college level, and I want you to help still want to branch out. I thank them for As a freshman at Glenbrook North, I me do it.” I was flattered to be asked to their willingness to explore other forms of knew very little about debate, or the school’s pioneer an activity I love on the collegiate debate. success. LD was virtually non existent level. That being said, there are some stu- when Cheryl Niehaus, then LD coach at GBN After gathering information from stu- dents who wish to participate in college LD approached me to come after school one dents around the country, I have realized without speech clubs at their respective day in November. She introduced me to an there is a need for collegiate LD as it is de- colleges and universities. These individu- activity that she participated in at Isidore bated on the high school level. There exist als must work through their student gov- Newman when she was in high school: value other forms of debate, which appear as feed- ernments to receive funding. Without a debate. At the time, I was uncertain of what ers for high school LDers, none of which budget, it becomes hard for these individu- debate was, but I decided to take part in the come close to LD debate. However, I found als to travel. Learning how to request fund- new activity. After a few tournaments, I that most LDers stop debating after high ing from student governments may be the decided LD was very fitting, and I contin- school. It’s not that they don’t want to de- largest bit of red tape some debaters face. ued to work at it. bate (though this might be the case for a When they go at it alone, this burden would As spring neared, I was told that I few) but that they don’t have an activity deter a great number of individuals from try- could go to debate camp. Debate camp? which is similar to the one in which they ing to travel. They have camps for debate? That sum- participated in high school. The second challenge is convincing mer, I attended the Summer Institute in Fo- That spring, we hosted the first Baird existing programs to open their arms to new rensics at the University of Iowa. I was Collegiate LD Round Robin, with Michelin debate. As noted from the unnamed amazed to see how much I had to learn. I Massey from the University of Colorado- coaches response above, some programs came back excited to participate, and called Boulder defeating Jowei Chen from Yale on may feel LD is not something they want to Cheryl as soon as I got back. Ted Belch, a 2-1 decision, with Professors Nelson and pursue. I ask them why? I have yet to get a head coach at GBN recognized that I was Farrell on top, and Professor Slappey in dis- sufficient response. I will admit that some serious to take this program to new levels. sent. While this tournament was a large programs fear my attempts to start college He asked me if I would be interested in trav- step toward a national program, it also shed LD, as they feel it will take away students eling with the policy team, and as a sopho- some light on the challenges that the activ- from their existing infrastructure, but I ar- more, I began going to national circuit tour- ity faces as we move forward. gue that this activity will bring new kids to naments. The first challenge is funding. Some the program, not steal theirs. [Regardless, I Four years later, I got word that the students need to be able to go to their exist- cannot comprehend why so many are scared first LD debater from GBN was invited to ing speech clubs in college and ask for of a new program. Maybe it’s because they the MBA Round Robin. To imagine that a money to participate in college LD. This don’t want to spend the money on it, but I program that started from nothing is enjoy- becomes troublesome. While some organi- am offended at such a response] I should ing some success today is unfathomable. zations are small and tight for money, I have note that some of the participants at our My experiences working with Ted, Cheryl, found others that are too selfish to give it round robin paid for it out of their own and new coach Fred Noyes were amazing. up their existing funds. I spoke with an ex pocket. Though my success as a debater was lim- LDer now on one of the largest NDT team The third challenge is forming a na- ited, I learned how to build a program from in the country, and asked her if her coach tional organization. After this is accom- nothing. I attribute the success of the ac- was interested in traveling debaters to our plished, we see many other challenges be- tivity at GBN to Ted. His willingness to try tournament. The coach said she could not coming easier. Membership to a national new things, and take risks make the LD pro- justify the expense, because she felt the organization could allow students to form gram what it is today. Dr. David Hingstman money would be better spent on NDT. I local chapters and request funding. Fur- thermore, regional contests could attract very important in cross ex, and are unique Critical thinking serves an important func- students who cannot travel far. Finally, the to LD debate. Unlike collegiate parliamen- tion in the fields of academics, business, activity could be held at tournaments side tary debate, collegiate LD forces individu- law, medicine, and many other professional by side with NDT, as Policy and LD are on als to make quick decisions about which fields. My point here is simple, continuing the high school circuit. arguments to emphasize in rebuttals, time to think this way, through debate, will allow At this point, some questions still re- allocation, word economy, and flow cover- success in both undergraduate, and post main. First, why not participate in parlia- age. Finally, LD provides a unique activity undergraduate experiences. mentary debate, instead of Lincoln Dou- that discusses issues of value. The devel- Ultimately, it is each student’s deci- glas? The answer to this question is rooted opment of a value premise, criteria and ar- sion to debate in a post high school atmo- in the fundamentals of Lincoln Douglas guments that circulate around a central the- sphere. My argument is simple. Despite debate. LD is a unique activity that encour- sis are all distinctive to LD. the initial hurdles that the activity faces, a ages careful preparation. LD requires ex- The second question that many are greater benefit exists to the student, both in tensive research on a topic, and careful asking is why participate in Collegiate LD academics, and as an alternative to parlia- preparation. I am finding more frequently, at all, instead of focusing more on academ- mentary debate. Collegiate LD serves that high school debaters who do exten- ics. My response is that LD has a close unique functions in the fields of research, sive research are those with well-developed relationship with academic research, writ- critical thinking skills, and breadth of knowl- arguments. Students moving away from the ing and learning in the humanities and so- edge that students would not be exposed stock evidence towards quality literature are cial sciences. Specifically, topics including to otherwise. those debaters who are in the later elimina- philosophy, political science, political tion debates. Further, with the changing of theory, communication studies, journalism, (Jason Gordon is a double major in politi- topics on a frequent basis, LD debaters gain fine arts, history and sociology. Students cal science and economics in the honors a greater depth of knowledge on different who debate are exposed to core issues in all program at the University of Iowa. Jason current issues. of these fields. As noted above, LD forces is a member of the A. Craig Baird Debate Lincoln Douglas debate also allows students to research extensively. Not just Forum at the University. Each spring, Ja- individuals to participate in an activity the ability to research effectively, but the son hosts the Iowa Juniors Round Robin.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • DEBATING AGENT of ACTION COUNTERPLANS (I): MORGAN POWERS & EXECUTIVE ORDERS by David M
    DEBATING AGENT OF ACTION COUNTERPLANS (I): MORGAN POWERS & EXECUTIVE ORDERS by David M. Cheshier By the end of last year's academic wider than those few discussed here. This Court enforces, then the counterplan to sim- achievement season, agent of action essay does not review the merits of state ply have the Court initiate action which it counterplans were well established as a legislative or judicial action, although those then enforces as it would other decisions generic of choice, and the early indication will obviously be viable strategies in cer- might well be plan inclusive. Or is it? Even if is that they will have a similarly dominant tain debates. It does not review the compli- the outcome is very similar, one might ar- influence in privacy debates. While the cated literatures surrounding the Congres- gue the mandates of the plan are essentially summer experience of students at the sional delegation power, though in some different from the counterplan. And if we Dartmouth Debate Institute may be atypi- debates the delegation/nondelegation issue decide otherwise, wouldn't every cal, almost every round there came down to will arise. Nor does it review the range of counterplan become plan-inclusive, if only an agent counterplan, a Clinton popularity/ potential international action counterplans because both the plan and counterplan political capital position, a privacy critique, available on this topic, most of which would share similar language regarding "normal and associated theory attacks. The strate- presumably involve either consultation or means", "enforcement," and "funding"? gic benefits are plain to see - agent harmonization of American privacy policy Since there is, in certain quarters, a counterplans often capture the case advan- with the European Union - it was only little growing hostility to plan-inclusiveness, and tage and open the way for political process more than a month ago that U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Debate Association & Debate Speech National ©
    © National SpeechDebate & Association DEBATE 101 Everything You Need to Know About Policy Debate: You Learned Here Bill Smelko & Will Smelko DEBATE 101 Everything You Need to Know About Policy Debate: You Learned Here Bill Smelko & Will Smelko © NATIONAL SPEECH & DEBATE ASSOCIATION DEBATE 101: Everything You Need to Know About Policy Debate: You Learned Here Copyright © 2013 by the National Speech & Debate Association All rights reserved. Published by National Speech & Debate Association 125 Watson Street, PO Box 38, Ripon, WI 54971-0038 USA Phone: (920) 748-6206 Fax: (920) 748-9478 [email protected] No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, now known or hereafter invented, including electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, information storage and retrieval, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without the prior written permission of the Publisher. The National Speech & Debate Association does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, gender identity, gender expression, affectional or sexual orientation, or disability in any of its policies, programs, and services. Printed and bound in the United States of America Contents Chapter 1: Debate Tournaments . .1 . Chapter 2: The Rudiments of Rhetoric . 5. Chapter 3: The Debate Process . .11 . Chapter 4: Debating, Negative Options and Approaches, or, THE BIG 6 . .13 . Chapter 5: Step By Step, Or, It’s My Turn & What Do I Do Now? . .41 . Chapter 6: Ten Helpful Little Hints . 63. Chapter 7: Public Speaking Made Easy .
    [Show full text]
  • Is the Consultant Counterplan Legitimate
    THE D G E IS THE CONSULTATION COUNTERPLAN LEGITIMATE? by David M. Cheshier The most popular category of counterplan on the “weap- ons of mass destruction” (WMD) topic involves consultation. The negative argues that instead of promptly adopting and imple- menting the plan, the United States should consult some speci- fied government beforehand, only moving forward if the plan meets the approval of our consultation partner. Many versions were produced over the summer, including counterplans to consult NATO, Japan, Russia, China, Israel, India, and Canada. On this resolution, the consultation counterplan is often an irresistible strategic option for the negative. Because most plan texts as written advocate immediate implementation (if they don’t the affirmative may be in topicality trouble), the counterplan is mutually exclusive, for one can’t act and consult about acting at the same time. Because the resolution locks the affirmative into frequently defending policies the rest of the world would agree to, the counterplan consultation process would usually culminate in the eventual passage of the plan. Thus, the negative is able to argue there is little or no downside to asking for input. Consulta- tion promises to capture the advantages, with the value added benefit of an improvement in America’s relations with NATO, Rus- sia, or China (from here on I’ll use Russia as my example). The view is also prevalent that the consultation counterplan cannot be permuted by the affirmative, since to do so invariably commits the affirmative either to severance or intrinsicness (more on this shortly). Consultation is here to stay. For the counterplan to work, the negative must include lan- guage, which gives the consultation partner a “veto” over the plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Ccofse Policy Debate Glossary Advantage: a Description Used By
    CCofSE Policy Debate Glossary advantage: a description used by the affirmative to explain what beneficial effects will result from its plan. affirmative: The team in a debate which supports the resolution and speaks first and last in the order of the speeches. affirmative case: The initial affirmative position (presented in the Affirmative Constructive) which demonstrates that there is a need for change because there is a serious problem (harm, or need) which the present system cannot solve (inherency) but which can be solved by the affirmative plan (solvency). affirmative plan: The policy action advocated by the affirmative burden of proof: 1) The requirement that sufficient evidence or reasoning to prove a claim should be presented; 2) the requirement that the affirmative must prove the stock issues. burden of rebuttal or clash: The requirement that each speaker continue the debate by calling into question or disputing the opposition's argument on the substantive issues. comparative advantage case: An affirmative case format that argues desirable benefits of the plan in contrast to the present system. It claims advantages in comparison to present policies. constructives: The first four speeches of the debate, the two Affirmative Constructives (1AC, 2AC) and the two Negative Constructives (1NC, 2NC). Arguments are initiated in these speeches and extended in rebuttals. criteria case: An affirmative case format that posits a goal and then outlines the criteria necessary to achieve the goal. cross-examination: a three minute period following each of the constructive speeches in which a member of the opposing team directly questions the speaker. disadvantage (“DA” or "disad"): An undesirable, effect of the plan.
    [Show full text]
  • A Student's Guide to Classic Debate Competition
    Learning Classic Debate A Student’s Guide to Classic Debate Competition By Todd Hering © 2000 Revised 2007 Learning Classic Debate 2 Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: Understanding the Classic Debate Format Chapter 3: Argumentation & Organization Chapter 4: Delivery Chapter 5: Research & Evidence Chapter 6: Writing Your Case Chapter 7: The Rules of Classic Debate To The Reader: Welcome to “Learning Classic Debate.” This guide is intended to help you prepare for Classic Debate competition. The Classic Debate League was launched in the fall of 2000. The classic format is intended to produce straightforward debates that reward competitors for their preparation, argumentation, and delivery skills. If you find topics in this guide to be confusing, please e-mail the author at the address below so that you can get an answer to your question and so that future editions may be improved. Thanks and good luck with your debates. About the author: Todd Hering debated for Stillwater High School from 1989-1991. After graduating, he served as an assistant coach at Stillwater from 1991-1994. In 1994, Hering became head debate coach at Stillwater, a position he held until 1997 when he moved to the new Eastview High School in Apple Valley, MN. Hering is currently a teacher and head debate coach at Eastview and is the League Coordinator for the Classic Debate League. Contact Information: Todd Hering Eastview High School 6200 140th Street West Apple Valley, MN 55124-6912 Phone: (651) 683-6969 ext. 8689 E-Mail: [email protected] Learning Classic Debate 3 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Competitive interscholastic debates have occurred in high schools for well over a century.
    [Show full text]
  • POLICY DEBATE: “Two Versus Two” Debate
    WNDI 2014 p. 1 of 12 Policy Debate http://www.whitman.edu/academics/whitman-debate POLICY DEBATE: “Two versus two” Debate. CONDUCTING THE DEBATES THEMSELVES Each debate will have four constructives, four rebuttals, and four cross-examination periods. In a single debate, each student will deliver two speeches—a constructive and a rebuttal. 1AC: 5 minutes First Affirmative Constructive : This speech is almost fully prepared before the debate starts. The First Affirmative constructive speech is expected to defend the resolution in the most compelling way possible. This means at least 3 (and probably 4) components should be part of the 1ac: The existence of a problem, the consequences (impact of significance) of that problem, the need for a solution provided by the proposition, and (optional) arguments against what the negative side might say. In other words, the task of the 1A is to explain the resolution and provide arguments defending the resolution. The format is flexible, but most good 1As will defend an interpretation of the resolution and then establish 3-5 arguments in favor of the resolution. Each argument should have a claim, data, and warrants. Each argument should independently prove that the resolution is valid or true. Each argument should be given weight (significance)—why does that argument matter? Each argument should also link itself directly to the wording of the resolution. Most importantly, each argument should have evidence to back it up—quotations from experts, statistics, narratives, other reasoning, etc. CX of 1AC: 3 minutes The negative team cross-examines the affirmative speaker. These 3 minutes can be used to clarify information, set up future arguments, expose weaknesses in the speech, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Lincoln-Douglas Debate Textbook
    © National SpeechDebate & Association LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE Dr. Seth Halvorson & Cherian Koshy LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE Dr. Seth Halvorson & Cherian Koshy © NATIONAL SPEECH & DEBATE ASSOCIATION LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE Copyright © 2013 by the National Speech & Debate Association All rights reserved. Published by National Speech & Debate Association 125 Watson Street, PO Box 38, Ripon, WI 54971-0038 USA Phone: (920) 748-6206 Fax: (920) 748-9478 [email protected] No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, now known or hereafter invented, including electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, information storage and retrieval, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without the prior written permission of the Publisher. The National Speech & Debate Association does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, gender identity, gender expression, affectional or sexual orientation, or disability in any of its policies, programs, and services. Printed and bound in the United States of America Contents About the Authors . iv About This Text . v. Unit 1: Introduction to LD Debate . 01 Unit 2: How do I write a case? . 09 . Unit 3: During the debate round . 25 Unit 4: Refutation . 33 Unit 5: Rebuttal Speeches . 43. Unit 6: Go with the flow: taking notes and tracking arguments . 51 Unit 7: Delivery . 55 Unit 8: Sample Affirmative Case . 61 Unit 9: Sample Negative Case . 69 . Unit 10: The Debate Round: A Timeline . 73 . Unit 11: Practice suggestions and drills for debaters . 77 APPENDIX A: Glossary of commonly used debate terminology .
    [Show full text]
  • Policy Debate Manual
    The National Debate Project's Policy Debate Manual Dr. Joe Bellon Director of Debate, Georgia State University with Abi Smith Williams NDP 2006, version 1.2 National Debate Project © 2006 Dr. Joe Bellon for questions concerning copyright permission, electronic copies, and permission to post this publication online contact Dr. Bellon at: [email protected] Contents What Is Debate? ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 2 Speech Cheat Sheet ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 5 The Constructive Speeches ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 8 The Rebuttals ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 9 Flowing Tips ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������10 Symbols and Abbreviations ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������11 This Is What It Sounds Like In a Speech �����������������������������������������������������������������������12 This Is What It Looks Like On the Flow �������������������������������������������������������������������������13 Introduction to Speaking Style �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������14 Delivery and Staying "In Shape" for Debate ���������������������������������������������������������������17
    [Show full text]
  • Introducing Parliamentary Debate
    Introducing Parliamentary Debate A resource for teachers and students Compiled and written by Kate Shuster & John Meany Claremont Colleges Debate Outreach [email protected] Table of Contents Introduction to Parliamentary Debate ---- 3-6 Basic Rules of Parliamentary Debate ---- 7 Speaker Responsibilities ---- 8-14 Types of Motions ---- 15-17 Constructing a Case for the Motion ---- 18-20 Making the Most of Your Preparation Time ---- 21-22 Points of Information ---- 23 Taking Notes ---- 24-25 Web Sites for Further Information ---- 26 Glossary of other terms ---- 27-31 2 Parliamentary Debate Guidelines and Conventions I. Parliamentary debate is a formal contest featuring critical analysis and rhetorical skill. Participants represent the advocates for and against a motion for debate (also known as a resolution or topic). One or more judges deliberate on the outcome of the contest. II. A motion is presented as the subject for debate. A different topic is used for each round of debate. Two teams, each with two persons and designated as “Proposition” (also known as “Government”) and “Opposition”, prepare to debate the topic. The teams have twenty minutes of preparation time from the announcement of the motion to prepare for each debate. Students may consult other students, dictionaries, reference materials, and prepared notes during the preparation period. There is no preparation time once the debate commences. No prepared materials may be brought into the debate round for the debater’s use. Debaters are not permitted to read published material in the speeches of the debate to support their argument claims. III. There are two types of formal speeches in each round of debate: constructive speeches and rebuttal speeches.
    [Show full text]
  • "Permanent Adaptation" - the NDT's Last 50 Years Allan Louden
    Speaker & Gavel Volume 50 Article 5 Issue 2 50th Anniversary Issue January 2013 "Permanent Adaptation" - The NDT's Last 50 Years Allan Louden Follow this and additional works at: http://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/speaker-gavel Part of the Speech and Rhetorical Studies Commons Recommended Citation Louden, A. (2013). "Permanent Adaptation" - The NDT's Last 50 Years. Speaker & Gavel, 50(2), 18-28. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Cornerstone: A Collection of Scholarly and Creative Works for Minnesota State University, Mankato. It has been accepted for inclusion in Speaker & Gavel by an authorized administrator of Cornerstone: A Collection of Scholarly and Creative Works for Minnesota State University, Mankato. Louden: "Permanent Adaptation" - The NDT's Last 50 Years Speaker & Gavel, 2013, 50 (2) 18 “Permanent Adaptation” – The NDT’s Last 50 years Allan Louden It remains a surprise I have been involved with competitive debate for five decades, a sobering self- reflection. Viewed more charitably, participating in history imparts a certain authority, a wisdom reserved to longevity, even as one’s memory reconstructs. This essay purports to provide a history of the Na- tional Debate Tournament for roughly the last 50 years. Doing justice to the historical sweep would be a book-length project, this summary much more mod- est.1 The essay is inevitably selective, recounted from a particular point of view. History never allows more. It has been my experience that there are enduring prospects for organiza- tions across time, especially those defined by competition. A historic lens dis- closes how the NDT has changed and what that may suggest for the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Answers to FAQ's for Debate Students/ What to Expect / What to Bring What Are the Goals of the Camp? What Will the Class Sched
    WNDI 2014 p. 1 of 5 Speech & Debate http://www.whitman.edu/academics/whitman-debate Answers to FAQ’s for Debate Students/ What to Expect / What to Bring Updated June 2014 Welcome to Debate Camp! It’s also commonly referred to as “Debate Institute,” “Debate Workshop,” or simply “The WNDI.” Keep an open mind and work hard and you will learn a lot, meet some great people, and have lots of fun. This is an experience you will value and remember for a long time—many students who attend the WNDI or a similar workshop say it was the most significant training they ever received in terms of argumentation and research. We hope you will say the same thing after this summer. What are the goals of the camp? We hope you will learn a lot and have fun, all while getting used to a college atmosphere for your future endeavors. In terms of the instruction and the improvement that will occur here, we do not think you could find a debate workshop more oriented toward helping students to become better speakers, more effective advocates of real-world policy, and the type of researcher who can apply critical thinking to a complex problem. In short, whether you come to learn policy, Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, or Extemporaneous Speaking, the faculty will have an emphasis and communication skills and effective forms of expression. The days will be well-balanced between work on general skills, focus on particular topics, guided research in small groups led by an experienced faculty member, and rigorous practice debates.
    [Show full text]
  • Donaldson UTA Getting Started in CX Debate
    GETTING STARTED IN CROSS – EXAMINATION DEBATE UT ARLINGTON SAC | MICHAEL ALLEN DONALDSON | COBA 245E “IMMIGRANT SONG” – LED ZEPPELIN WHO AM I? ¡ Michael Allen Donaldson ¡ Speech, Debate, and Journalism Coach ¡ UIL Academic Coordinator ¡ China Spring HS (District 18 – 4A) ¡ Contact Me: ¡ [email protected] Not a 12 year old, but just as immature as one. WHAT ARE OUR GOALS? ¡ What the UIL says: “Policy debate is challenging but produces lifelong skills that will benefit you. Come listen to CX debate made user-friendly. Learn CX debate format, speaker responsibilities, and basic terminology.” ¡ What Donaldson says: We’re gonna’ take a quick look at the structure of CX debate: the arguments, the terms, and the structure. We’re going to move quickly, but deliberately. I’m not saying that this is going to be the greatest hour and a half of your life, but it probably will. LET’S BEGIN WITH A QUOTE FROM A FAMOUS MODERN PHILOSOPHER: “Esketit.” - Lil Pump WHAT IS POLICY DEBATE? ¡ Policy Debate (also known as Cross-Examination Debate or CX Debate) is a partner debate event that tasks teams of 2 students with debating a year-long topic concerning a matter of policymaking or governmental affairs. ¡ Each year a resolution is selected by a national delegation of coaches and other authority figures. The 2018 – 2019 resolution is – Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce its restrictions on legal immigration to the United States. ¡ Fun fact: This topic was authored by Nicole Cornish of Athens ISD here in Texas! She’s pretty awesome. WHAT IS POLICY DEBATE? ¡ Each team in the debate has an assigned job that is (usually) assigned on the round posting.
    [Show full text]