Here are my comments on the three resolutions proposed for debate in the Stoa league for 2012-2013. While they are not all equally balanced or equally well-worded, I believe they would all provide interesting and challenging research and debate opportunities for students in the Stoa league. Any of the three, I predict, will be seen as having been a fun and educational season of debate when the academic year has ended in 2013.

Choice A: “Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reform its food policy.”

This resolution is very open-ended and could result in debaters coming up with all kinds of ideas probably not knowable in the early stages of analysis today. It could certainly include both foreign and domestic cases, and will probably lead to a lot of squirrely things being tried out as debaters discover various odd federal programs that involve food.

One broad area that comes to mind immediately is one debaters have discussed frequently in recent years: Agriculture subsidies. Either ending all of them, or specific ones (like sugar) that cause specific damage in certain areas, could again come back as a very viable plan option. “Cancel Ag Subsidies” was very popular case during Environmental Policy year and I expect it to make a big comeback if this resolution is chosen. The federal government also has programs to promote specific foods on behalf of the farmers and businesses that sell them. For example, there exists a National Pork Board (funded by a tax on pork producers) to promote the consumption of pork products in the United States. One wonders why it is the responsibility of the government to advertise consumer products rather than being the responsibility of those who profit from their sale. One of the things promoted by the federal government’s Pork Board is the McDonalds “McRib” sandwich, which comes into conflict with other federal programs designed to combat obesity.

The federal government both encourages and discourages consumption of such fat-laden products at the same time. Obesity prevention, food labeling, and nutritional awareness are tasks the federal government has taken on, for better or worse, that could probably be reformed by Affirmative debaters. The federal government also has a role in directly providing food to people in some cases. School breakfast and lunch programs, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as “food stamps”), and WIC (Women Infants and Children) are ways the federal government tries to assist the poor in obtaining adequate nutrition. The federal government also provides food aid, in the form of sacks of agricultural products, to impoverished regions overseas. Reform of foreign food aid could be a foreign policy application of this resolution.

Choice B: “Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reform its foreign military presence and/or foreign military commitments.”

Foreign military commitments are perenially in the headlines in the United States and provide fertile ground for debate. They also provide wide latitude for generic Negative arguments about the benefits or drawbacks of US foreign military involvement in general. Notice that this resolution is omni-directional, meaning that an Affirmative could increase, decrease or change US foreign military commitments.

This creates a large research burden for Negatives, who must be prepared for just about anything. Notice too that the resolution not only deals with actual current military involvement, but with “commitments” abroad. The US has lots of “commitments” to provide military support abroad even if we aren’t doing so now.

Old-timers will remember many of the arguments and issues raised under the NATO resolution, and certainly the US commitment to NATO could be revisited under this resolution. The US also has military commitments with, and troops present in, South Korea and Japan. Reform of, or removal of, US troops from Europe, Korea or Japan will surely be on the agendas of numerous Affirmative teams if this resolution is chosen. The US also has troops stationed in such places as Kuwait, Turkey, Bahrain, Honduras, and dozens of others.

US troops are still actively engaged in America’s longest war, the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan. There are lots of perspectives on this war and lots of experts who recommend changing our policies there. And associated with the war in Afghanistan are US military operations in Pakistan. Now that the Taliban is out of power and Bin Laden is dead, why are we still fighting these wars?

Such debates will also take into account broader issues. What is the role of “soft power” versus “hard power”? Does the US have too many commitments and can we afford what we are doing, or are we overstretched? What are the negative consequences of backlash when the US intervenes, and should we respect more the sovereignty of other nations when we decide whether to intervene? Does US military intervention stop terrorism, or fuel hatred and propoganda opportunities that create more of it?

Choice C: “Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially change its policy toward China, Taiwan, and/or Korea.”

Also a very broad resolution, this one invites us to focus on a region of the world that has a lot going on these days. The US has a long history of involvement with these nations and our policies matter greatly to them.

The US has a history of involvement with the People’s Republic of China and its relationship with Taiwan. Historically, the US has defended the semi-sort-of-but-not-really independence of Taiwan and deterred the mainland from absorbing it back under the sovereignty that controls the other 99% of the Chinese people. But with the People’s Republic now the second largest US trade partner, the number one foreign holder of federal debt, and an increasing economic and military power in the world, the US may have to reconsider how we relate to these two long-time rivals. Affirmatives could reconsider arms sales to Taiwan, which always provoke controversy and strain relations with the mainland — especially so, since Pres. Reagan promised to phase them out during his administration, yet they still continue.

The US also imposes export controls on sales of certain technology to China. Many believe these controls do nothing but block revenue and jobs for US manufacturers, while the Chinese buy the same products from our competitors. And trade with China is always a hot issue. Many believe China manipulates its currency to gain unfair trade advantages, and that the US should take action to retaliate. There are also various reasons proposed over the years for imposing sanctions on China to protest its problems with disregard for human rights and democracy.

The inclusion of Korea in the resolution raises another large set of issues. The US has troops stationed in South Korea under a policy of direct US support for the South that has continued since 1953. Shooting stopped in the Korean War that year, but the war never officially ended, and the secretive communist North Korean regime is perceived as unstable, unpredictable, and dangerous. Affirmatives could certainly propose changing US military commitments to South Korea under the theory that it may be better to have the South bear the burden of defending itself now that they are rich enough to do so, and are the ones who bear the risks and benefits of the results of any policies in the region. Affirmatives could also propose changing our negotiating strategies with regard to our policies on engaging in diplomacy with North Korea. Perhaps we should get tougher or perhaps we should offer more concessions. Or, perhaps we should pull out and let South Koreans manage the issue themselves.

Join us in Colorado for Training Minds Camp in 2012!

Register Here

Early-bird registration expires May 31

Join us at Colorado Christian University in Denver, Colorado, where speakers and debaters will meet for an awesome five days of forensics training. Here are the details:

• Camp: Training Minds Camp
• Dates: July 24-28, 2012
• 1 day of Limited-Preps, Interps and Platforms (and a little bit of Parli)
• 4 days of Team-Policy and Lincoln-Douglas Debate

What You’ll Learn

Campers learn from the best.

With over 10 years of history to back up the claim, Training Minds alumni are the most successful speakers and debaters in the NCFCA, Stoa, NFL, CCofSE and LFA leagues. You will be trained by top-notch coaches – several former national champions themselves – to help make your 2012-2013 competitive season your best ever. You’ll learn:

• How to cut and block literary pieces with the flair needed for champion success.
• How to write platform speeches that will place you consistently in final rounds.
• How to speak with the right balance of ethos, pathos and logos.
• How to argue and defend value debate topics with a grounded philosophical framework.
• How to promote sound policy topics for the upcoming year, and get a rundown for your specific league’s policy topic.
• How to master the intense theory surrounding champion debate competitiveness.

There is much, much more you’ll learn at Training Minds Camp, too much to list here. Bottom line: If you are serious about your upcoming competitive success, Training Minds Camp is the place you’ll want to be in July.

Where You’ll Be

Colorado Christian University is located in Denver, Colorado, a most beautiful venue in July. On-campus apartment housing is available, giving you the opportunity to be well-rested and attentive for your training. Lunches and dinners are also included throughout your stay. Our goal is to make your stay as productive and enjoyable as possible.

Speech and Debate are aggressive activities that demand an incredible amount of brain work. Mixing this “brainy” activity with the mountainside atmosphere at CCU strikes a perfect balance between fun and excellence, relaxation and drivenness, beauty and academia.

Our host will be Dr. Chris Leland (bio), Professor of Communications and Director of Debate for the university. Dr. Leland has contributed greatly to several forensics communities over his 20+ years of involvement. We’ll also be honored to have him coach some of the sessions during the week.

Your Renowned Coaches

You'll be taught exactly what to do.

Training Minds Ministry has been around for 11 years, and we’ve pulled together some of the best coaches in the country. Visit our coaches page to explore their bios, expertise and history. You’ll be impressed!

May we show you a bit of our hand? There are some secrets to the success that makes Training Minds Camp a head above the rest. Consider:

• We have an exclusive partnership with Monument Publishing, publisher of the best-selling curriculum for speech and debate.
• We hire many of the authors of this curriculum, those who write the sourcebook material, and they’re ready and willing to make the best learning experience for you.
• Bring your hometown coach with you, and they’ll get trained too! We hope entire clubs with their coaches come for a week of club development through Training Minds.
• We don’t just lecture; we engage the students. We merge debate rounds and extemp/apologetics practice into the week for students to be coached on the spot.
• Our coaches remain advocates for your success throughout the year, willing to help as help may be given. We believe in you!

As you can see, Training Minds campers are personally coached for success.

Training for Action

Shane Baumgardner, top-10 in the nation in 2010, is now one of our coaches.

We train for action (1 Peter 1:13 sic.). Though the program is easy to love, it is purpose-driven and agressive. We are training you to excel in competition because we know that your excellence ultimately makes you trainers of the world. We’ve got high hopes for you!

The record of Training Minds Ministry speaks for itself. You can almost count on it: Our campers end up in tournament out-rounds. (Keep up to date with our Success Page.) We’ve hosted students from all over the country, and year after year they return home to shake up their tournaments and intensify the competition. We are quite proud of our alumni!

But Training Minds Ministry is out to make you better people. We strive to instill in every competitor a sense of purpose. You are a child of God who has a calling specifically for you. The competitive environment is training grounds for participation in a larger story. To us, this is most exciting, and we’re in this for your long-term success.

Cost: Half the Price of Last Year!

We’re super excited about our venue at CCU. With help from the Dr. Leland and the forensics department, we have been able to drop our price to less than half  it was last year, a fantastic deal for competitors. Here’s a breakdown of costs…

• Camp: $399
  Includes tuition, lunch & dinner during camp.
  Save $100 for the first 100 registrants who register before May 31.
• Room & Board: $199
  Includes apartment lodging on campus.

This package cost over a thousand dollars last year. Campers in 2012 enjoy a total of $498! And commuters only $299! This is, we believe, the best deal in the country.

There is one caveat to this: Register by May 31 to receive this great deal. We need to have numbers secured by then to get the great rates that CCU is offering us. After May 31, there will be $100 charged to both camp and room & board. Still a great deal, but prior to May 31 is way better!

Five days in Colorado for under $500…this will definitely be a great place for you. We fear the camp will sell out quickly, so make your plans and get registered!

Seeing Is Believing

You’re probably sold on the idea of coming to Training Minds Camp. But seeing some pictures from last year may just add some elements to the persuasive speech you’ll likely have to prepare for your folks. Click on any of them for a slideshow…

Training Minds Alumni have a history of fairing VERY well at tournaments later in the year. Scroll through the success pages to prove it. Colorado is the place to be in July: cool evenings, mountain views, crisp air. Your training will definitely pay off!

Register Here

Early-bird registration expires May 31

SpeechRanks.com measures the success of homeschool speakers and debaters, all they way up to available national tournaments in both NCFCA and Stoa. We’re very pleased to see Training Minds Alumni on top of their game right off the bat.

These two young men have kicked off nicely. As of January 16, they are 1st Place in Apologetics, Extemp, and Impromptu. Way to go, guys!

No doubt, things will shake up throughout the year, but it’s fun to see the top two in the nation former Training Minds Campers.

The Apples of Gold Tournament in Denver was the largest tournament Colorado has had in several years. It’s theme is taken from Proverbs 25:11, “A word aptly spoken is like apples of gold in settings of silver.” Aptly stated, we must say.

The successes of the tournament were largely all Training Minds Alumni. Check out these validating results:

• 1st Place Team-Policy: Meghan McKinley and partner Reesey Rea
• 2nd Place Team-Policy: Jenna Kazoyan and Amanda Vaughan
• 3rd Place Team-Policy: Benjamin Griffith and Kacey Leander
• 4th Place Team-Policy: Sara Carr and David Cecil-Few
• 2nd Place Lincoln-Douglas: Matthew Erickson
• 4th Place Lincoln-Douglas: James Byrnes
• 5th Place Lincoln-Douglas: Haley Greer

Can you believe it? These results aren’t made up, folks. And speech wasn’t too shabby either! Check these out:

• 1st, 2nd and 3rd Place Apologetics: Benjamin Griffith, Kasey Leander, Brandon Yeates
• 1st, 2nd and 3rd Place Extemp: Benjamin Griffith, Brandon Yeates, Tess Enos
• 1st Place Duo: Leander/Leander
• 1st Place Impromptu: Brandon Yeates
• 1st & 2nd Place Impromptu: Benjamin Griffith, Brandon Yeates
• 1st Place Original Interpretation: Micah Jeub
• 2nd Place Original Oratory: Sarah Carr

As of making this post, we are very close to opening registration for our summer Training Minds Camp. Stay tuned! You’ll definitely want to reserve your spot to train the mind for action!

Join Travis as he teaches and coaches you in time for your next tournament!

Now is the time for expert coaching, to push your literary interp over the edge into champion territory. If you see yourself taking the top award at nationals, it will take more than your grandparents giving you pointers in your living room. You’ll need coaching from the best.

Travis Herche wrote the book, Keys to Interp, and has coached national award winners for the past four years. He custom made the Training Minds Ministry camp curriculum for competitors, and he has transformed the weakest of speeches into title champions.

Wouldn’t a day with Travis be absolutely perfect?

Travis is coming to three locations in January, and it is worth your time to travel. He will give his best coaching tips and help train you to pull off a stellar performance at your next qualifier. Travis is opening these teaching times to only 50 students, so space is limited. You’ve put so much time into your speech already. Don’t hesitate…register today!

When & Where?

• Monday, February 5 → Colorado
• Tuesday, February 6 → Texas
• Wednesday, Febraury 7 → California

Schedule

• 9:00 am → Registration
• 10:00 am → Session 1
• 11:30 am → Lunch
• 12:00 noon → Coaching sessions
• 2:00 pm → Session 2
• 4:00 pm → Coaching sessions
• 5:30 pm → End

Price

All students $99 each, coaches $49. Lunch is included. Capacity at 25 students.

Registration

Registration will open January 14.

Who wouldn’t want to be part of this community?

Who doesn’t appreciate Buzz Lightyear’s clarion call, “To infinity, and beyond!” We laugh at it, but it evokes an enthusiasm we respect, we admire. I feel this way about speech and debate. And homeschooling, for that matter. Growing up in the homeschool speech and debate community is not only fun and educational, it’s got potential!

I took a Ford Excursion full of Jeubs to a homeschool graduation party in June. Six students were graduating—all speech and debate students—several Training Minds alumni. More than 100 people assembled on a ranch and, despite some hefty rain, celebrated these young people graduating from high school.

I made a point of congratulating all the seniors, but also enjoyable was connecting with older students who were back from college.

One will be graduating from college next year. She interned for Congresswoman Michele Bachmann last year. We jabbed back and forth about the presidential options out there and if Rep. Bachmann would throw her hat into the ring. (Neither of us knew at the time that she would.) I was surprised to hear that Bachmann and her husband had helped raise 23 foster girls. That’s conviction, and it’s exciting to hear of such a strong leader making strides in the political world. And it was all the more exciting to hear it firsthand from a former debate student.

I talked with another former debater—back from New York—who is starting up a window-washing business this summer in Denver. We had a fun conversation about entrepreneurship and making some “good money” serving others. He is also volunteering for some significant pro-life causes in Mississippi, a cause he is most passionate (and correct) about. He was a semifinalist at Nationals a few years ago, and is making progress in some significant issues.

Before the party I received a phone call from a mom whose children attended our debate camps over the years. Back in the day, her kids got into hot water with me and another coach when they tried to run some faulty evidence. It was a tough lesson at the time that turned out fine in the end. Actually it turned out much better than just fine. She shared with me just how important that lesson eventually became. Her team is now graduated, but the very plan they were running is now being analyzed by U.S. congressmen, and her kids are an active part of its lobbying effort. They’ve come to realize firsthand how important it is to have solid ethical evidence to back their claims up.

Beyond Competition

I could go on and on with examples of how these debaters’ lives are turning out. These were just from one day! I had the privilege of being involved in these kids’ (now young adults) lives. Camps, tournaments, classes, coaching. They did well in competition and took home trophies that are now collecting dust in their attics. I was so proud of them back then.

Today, my pride is almost too much.

I had to remember, I was there for the six who were graduating. One of them was Matthew Mittelberg, mentioned earlier as the No. 1 Lincoln-Douglas debater in the nation! I don’t want to belittle their hard work; they deserved every hug of encouragement and congratulation. I can see it in their eyes: They’re on top of the world.

But this is my subtle conviction: I hope they’re not. Because they’re actually just starting off!

You see, all this “training for action” stuff isn’t for the accolades. The competition is the training. Now that they’re moving on, they’re positioned, geared up for flight. I can’t wait to see them a few years from now. And in a few decades, the world itself will be a better place because of them.

This experience amplifies the central goal of Training Mind Ministry. Competitions aren’t the goal, nor are the awards. They’re still important, but in this sense: competitions are arenas of preparation. Students learn the skills of speaking, persuasion, thinking, rhetoric, logic—so many of the academic tools needed for doing great things in the future—in speech and debate.

Maybe Buzz’s attitude is one we should all have. “To infinity, and beyond!” Perhaps this is the same enthusiasm Christ had when he emphasized to his disciples, “Everything is possible with the Lord!” Such optimism is limitless, the boundless possibilities for the follower of Jesus.

Successful competitors give attention to “training for action” with camp, curriculum and coaching.

There are a ton of good speakers and debaters among the sport’s several thousand-strong homeschool competitors. Observe any tournament for even half a day, and you’ll be energized by the quality of youth walking the halls, preparing their speeches, engaging in their debates. It’s invigorating, it gives you hope for the future, it brings home educators inline with their purpose and calling.

But what turns the “good” competitor into a “great” competitor? What helps get a student on the top of the charts? What can you do to fully engage in the competitive arena and stay ahead of the rest?

Don’t settle for mediocrity. The masses settle there, but the great communicators and leaders of the future climb up to higher ground. The competitive environment encourages you to press yourself, to strive for greatness. This isn’t a haughty or proud attitude—blow that thought away. Striving for greatness in all you do is a noble goal indeed.

In fact, it’s arguably a biblical model for the Christian walk. If God is calling you to great things (and I believe He is!), keep Philippians 3:14 close to your heart: “I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.”

This chapter is about the specifics of what exactly you can do to best prepare for the action of upcoming tournaments. Let me lay out some opportunities you can take full advantage of this school year.

Camp

Training Minds Ministry hosts an annual summer camp which I lead. This year it will be held in beautiful Estes Park, Colo., at the YMCA of the Rockies. I hire Training Minds coaches to do the good work of coaxing the most and the best out of the campers. If you’re reading this book before August 8-13, 2011, then by all means try to nab one of the fast-disappearing slots! If you’re reading after those dates, I can only tell you that you missed one dandy of a camp. And I can rub it in a little!

• Comedian Ken Davis, a professional speaking trainer and extremely funny coach is joining us. He’ll entertain us and help train us.
• Another big name: Mark Mittelberg. He’s a best-selling author and apologetics expert. He, too, has a lot to teach you!
• I hire coaches who have been around for a while, many of them established authors of some of the resources we publish. Such coaches as Vance Trefethen and his old debate partner Rob Parks. They’ve been running camps with me for years.
• And we’re bringing in title champions, too. (We want their secrets!) Some of these competitors have become household names in homeschool speech and debate circles: Herche, Baker, Mittelberg, Baumgardner, Nelson, Jeub, Garcia.
• The venue is perfect. Choosing the YMCA of the Rockies is one of our strategies for success. The training can get intense, but a Bible camp atmosphere is perfect. Plus, Estes Park is one of the most serene places on the planet.

I know what you’re thinking right now, though! “I probably can’t afford this.” Camp in Estes Park is an all-expenses-paid camp (we provide the lodging and we feed you), but even local camps in church basements find it difficult to beat our price. There are two ways we do this. First, we offer some incredible deals. Working with the YMCA of the Rockies, we are able to offer 1/2 off to all 12-year-old novices. We extend this to coaching parents too. Small children are able to come for free.

Second, Training Minds Ministry is able to accept tax-deductible donations on behalf of attending students. This means that campers can solicit friends, families and businesses for donations to raise money for camp. The process is a little complex (due to IRS guidelines), but it has served as an incredible opportunity to make camp affordable. In the past five years, over $40,000 in contributions has been raised for camp tuition.

My bottom line is this: I don’t want anyone to turn away from camp because of finances. Anything is possible, right? Sure, we have bills to pay, but we’ve also got a ministry to run. If you have the will, you can find the way. Training Minds Ministry is ready to work with you to make it happen. Spend some time on our website looking over the deals that are offered, and contact us if you need to talk through your particular situation.

Still, if you aren’t able to make it to camp, Monument Publishing produces some extensive CD audio sets. We record some of the sessions at camp and product sets of CDs coupled with the slideshow presentations the coaches prepared. These sets come out in October, and previous years’ camps are available now. A good use of time in your homeschool would be to work through the lessons in the CD audio sets.

Finding Good Coaching

I’ve been coaching since 1995 and will continue to coach for years to come. I can’t get enough of it! But a decade into this, Training Minds Ministry has better coaches on the roster than me. So while I don’t personally boast that I’m the best there is, I can boast that we have the best coaches in the nation at our camps and making resources for publication. And we’re having a ball doing it!

Getting coaching support is a difficult thing for homeschool families. But it isn’t impossible. A few homeschool moms scoping the local area could turn up some fabulous speech and debate coaching. Here are some suggestions:

• Colleges. If you live close to a college, try to find out if it has a forensics department. You should prefer students who graduated from Stoa or NCFCA. Sometimes theory in college is more aggressive than homeschoolers desire, but this isn’t a general rule. I’ve seen some marvelous, faith-centric coaches come from collegiate circles.
• Alumni. They’ve walked the walk, so why not pull them in to talk the talk? Invite your graduates to come back to club and coach the next generation of students. If they’re heading out of town for college, set up times for when they’re back in town for “special sessions” of coaching.
• Mom and/or Dad. There is nothing wrong with parents learning alongside students. I know many coaches—some with teams that have done extremely well in national competition—who started out as ambitious parents. They started knowing perhaps no more than you holding this book, and they fared very well in the long run.
• Coaching Brokering System. This year Training Minds Ministry is starting a coaching brokering system. What that means is this: Our coaches are open to being contracted to help individual students and even entire clubs. Get more information about this new venture by visiting www.trainingminds.org/coaches.

Don’t get discouraged if none of these things happen. Students who have ambition and teach one another sometimes do nicely. It may take a while to build a club with mature coaching support. That’s not the end of the world. Do what you can, and watch your club grow.

Curriculum

A tournament “ironman” is a competitor who competes in five speaking events and debate. She is often given a special award for such enthusiasm and dedication.

Now, I’m not saying that everyone in your club must or even should be ironmen. However, it is good to be exposed to all the speech and debate categories sometime during middle school and high school. This is the purpose of the Ironman Curriculum.

I’ve mentioned the Ironman Curriculum here and there in previous chapters. This is Monument Publishing’s all-inclusive, quite hefty three-ring binder of lessons for each speaking event.

The curriculum releases every year in August and is made for parent-coaches seeking supplemental material to teach their children. Even so, some mature, established coaches have gone with this material which is written by Training Minds Ministry coaches and can be easily adapted to the classroom or co-op setting.

The Ironman Curriculum consists of five 12-week sessions specifically tailored for students who desire to excel in any of the speeches offered in Stoa or NCFCA. The lessons may be purchased separately too. The idea of the Ironman Curriculum is to teach everything a students needs to know to become an ironman competitor at a tournament (all 10 events plus one format of debate) in 12 weeks. Naturally, students won’t participate in all the events, but they will at least be exposed to their details in case they would like to pursue them for competition.

How the Ironman Is Set Up

The Ironman schedule is divided into five sections, and two of these sections are further divided into sub-sections. Most sections are taught in a 12-week span; the final section (Extemp) is taught in eight weeks. These are typically taught in the fall months of the school calendar year (September, October and November), as most tournaments begin after the New Year.

1. Team-Policy Debate
2. Lincoln-Douglas Debate
3. Speech
1. Limited-Prep
2. Interp
3. Platform
4. Apologetics
5. Extemp

Students who dedicate as little as three hours per week for 12 weeks will gain the knowledge necessary to take on every speaking event available to them come the spring competitive season. Like I said before, not everyone needs to be an ironman, so taking one of the sections may be a perfectly viable option for a homeschooler.

Clubs that offer each section can fit them into a schedule conducive to a particular community. I live in Monument, Colo., and my family is active in our homeschool community. We’re offering these sections on Mondays. Here’s our schedule:

3:00 – 4:00 p.m. — Advanced Debate

4:00 – 5:30 p.m. — Debate

5:30 – 6:30 p.m. — Speech

7:00 – 8:00 p.m. — Apologetics and/or Extemp

Some families will take all three sections for the 12 weeks. Others may go out for one section. Parents can (and should) consider the learning styles of their children when deciding where to plug them in. The Ironman Curriculum allows parents to make the best decisions for their children, and with an adaptable schedule suited for their individual needs.

We published three example syllabi online for coaches to copy and use as they wish. The syllabi may be used as is or adjusted to fit a club’s needs. The links to the syllabi can be found on the Ironman Curriculum product page: www.monumentpublishing.biz/Ironman_Curriculum_p/bd90.htm.

You get the picture. The Ironman Curriculum can fit into all sorts of homeschool schedules. Teachers who get the Ironman Curriculum are able to adapt to co-op schedules and offer customizable classes for homeschool students in their communities.

Sourcebooks & Textbooks

I’ve covered sourcebooks in earlier chapters, so I won’t spend too much time on them here. In short:

• “Blue” = Team-Policy Debate
• “Red” = Lincoln-Douglas Debate
• “Gold” = Extemp, Impromptu & Parli Debate
• “Silver” = Apologetics
• “Emerald” = Literary Interp
• “Platinum” = Platforms

Sourcebooks are coil-bound study helps, not quite the year-by-year textbook that students can also find handy. We have developed quite a collection of foundational texts for students and coaches to learn from. They are “Keys” to ensuring the best practices for each discipline.

Keys is the title of our line products, some of which are still in the making. Unlike sourcebooks, textbooks may be used year to year and do not come out with new editions very often. These are the ones that have already been released or are to be released this year.

• Keys to Extemp by Cody Herche (2008)
• Keys to Interp by Travis Herche (2010)
• Keys to Cross-Examination by Cody Herche (2011)
• Keys to Team-Policy by Vance Trefethen (late 2011)
• Keys to Lincoln-Douglas by Kaitlin Nelson and Shane Baumgardner (late 2011)

Speechranks.com

The National Christian Homeschool Speech & Debate Rankings is an inclusive ranking system for all homeschool competitors: www.speechranks.com. The site is underwritten and owned by Stoa, but may include any Christian homeschool competitor who opens a profile. Scores from tournaments that have transparent tabulation rooms are able to upload results that are placed automatically into personal profiles. Otherwise, students are able to upload their own data manually.

• Stoa uses speechranks.com as their criterion for inviting students to NITOC.
• Students who obtain two green check marks are considered for an invitation to NITOC 2012.
• For debaters, a green check mark is awarded for successfully completing a qualifying tournament with a winning record in preliminary rounds.
• For speakers, a check mark is awarded for successfully completing a qualifying tournament in the top 40% of competitors.
• Points are awarded depending on the success rank of the competitor, with larger tournaments awarding more points.
• The bottom 15% of tournament results are not shown publicly (but are visible in personal accounts).

There are two ways data is entered into speechranks.com. First, students may enter data themselves. If a student knows the number of people who competed in their event, and he knows the placing of how well he did, he may enter the data accordingly. If errors are discovered, a flagging system is managed to correct bad data. If a student does not know her placing, she at least receives one point but is assumed to have placed last.

The second way to enter data is for tournament directors to enter it with a spreadsheet. And Stoa works with TDs—both in and out of Stoa—to enter data with a simple upload. The process works quite smoothly, automatically correcting any student-entered errors. All Stoa tournaments and many non-qualifying NCFCA tournaments have open tabulation rooms, which are, as the name implies, tabulation rooms where results are open to observation by all competitors.

I’ve worked in tab rooms over the years, and though data is entered into software under several eyes, mistakes still happen. Open tab is the solution. When competitors are able to view the results of the data and how the data came about, the students identify errors very quickly. Tabulation software such as Joy of Tournaments can minimize errors, but when they do occur, competitors figure out the problem, flag it, and adjustments are made accordingly.

Stoa tournaments all have open tab rooms, but NCFCA does not. It is customary for Stoa tournaments to print the results in ballot envelopes, but results from NCFCA tournaments are kept confidential. Unless competitors advance to elimination rounds later in the tournament where placings can be figured out, students don’t know where they place in the results. One of the downsides to this is that on speechranks.com, the NCFCA students are given only one competition point instead of multiple points being assigned based on their ranking in a competition, as they are for Stoa competitors. It’s better than nothing, of course, but it’s often not representative of how well they really did.

If a student wishes to abstain from speechranks.com, he may do so by deleting his profile. Doing so will remove the competitor from consideration for NITOC invitation, but his privacy is honored.

The way I see it, though, keeping track of student performance is fun—and beneficial. It heightens the sense of sport in speech and debate. And it can spur participants on to greater achievement. I have literally sat in front of speechranks.com and clicked for hours, just like a kid reading stats on baseball cards. And one of the most exciting things to realize is that colleges and employers may do the same! Indeed, the founders of the site hope that students can point online to their competitive results, and those results can lead to scholarships, job offers and other opportunities.

Aim for Nationals

NITOC was impressive this past year. Training Minds Ministry wrapped up the final rounds with 1st-place champions in nine competitive categories, the best showing in the ministry’s history. Check out the list of title award winners at the Tournament of Champions:

• Lincoln-Douglas Debate: Jon Bateman, 1st of 97 debaters, 2nd in the nation. 1st place LD speaker: Brooke Wade.
• Apologetics: Luis Garcia, 1st of 88 competitors, 1st in the nation. (Note: Luis Garcia took 1st place in every tournament he competed in throughout the year. He is now a Training Minds coach.)
• Dramatic Interp: Creighton Deems, 1st of 64, 3rd in the nation.
• Duo Interp: Benjamin Griffith and Kasey Leander, 1st of 64 competitors, 2nd in the nation.
• Expository/Illustrated Oratory: Lydia Jeub, 1st of 37, 4th in the nation.
• Extemporaneous: Ty Harding, 1st of 81, 2nd in the nation.
• Humorous Interp: Steven Bailey, 1st of 57, 1st in the nation.
• Impromptu: Luis Garcia, 1st of 168, 3rd in the nation.
• Persuasive: Matthew Mittelberg, 1st of 63, 1st in the nation.

NCFCA Nationals wasn’t too shabby either! Check out the extraordinary success of our debaters …

• Lincoln-Douglas Debate
  #1 Ethan Green, SC (3rd seed with 5-1 prelim record)
  #3 Sarah Evans, VA (Top seed with 6-0 prelim record)
  #4 Christian Fernandez, FL (2nd seed with 5-1 prelim record)
  #6 Andrew Mouser, AL
• Team-Policy Debate
  #1 Cameron Rentschler and his partner, AL
  #3 Kaitlyn Johnston and her partner, FL
  #1 Speaker Chris Riegg, OR
  #2 Speaker Mark Edmondson, UT
  #3 Speaker Kaitlyn Johnston, FL

Another success: Brooke Wade, a 1st-year debater and extemper from Florida, took the title for extemporaneous speaking. Brooke had been coached personally by Training Minds Ministry coach Shane Baumgardner since camp in October 2010.

These marvelous competitors started out when they were young. I was privileged—along with all the Training Minds Ministry coaching staff—to be a part of their foundational training. We watched and helped as they made it a top priority to use the skills learned at camp and through our resources to climb to the top.

Allow me a few more paragraphs to zero in on a few of the students listed above. They have great stories that will motivate you to follow in their footsteps.

Matthew Mittelberg is the No. 1 Lincoln-Douglas debater on speechranks.com for 2011, and he secured the NITOC Title Award for persuasive. He graduated on top of his game, but didn’t suddenly become good. I remember him at the 2007 Summer Camp in Estes Park. We taught him the ropes in debate, and today we’re extremely proud to count him among our alumni.

Luis Garcia also graduated at the top of his game. He attended four tournaments throughout the season—many of the largest tournaments in the nation—securing 1st place at every one. He attended our speech and debate camps during his junior and senior years. And he is the only speaker to take two titles at NITOC (apologetics and impromptu).

Jon Bateman won the Lincoln-Douglas title at NITOC, and he sits under only Matthew Mittelberg as No. 2 in the nation. He has loyally traveled from Illinois every summer to attend camp. He has excelled in more events than most students—seven total, plus debate and pari—and is the No. 3 competitor in the nation on speechranks.com’s 2011 results.

Notice something with each of these master competitors: They’ve been at it for a while. I can point to example after example of students who enter as 12-, 13- or 14-year-olds, clunk along for a couple of years, then shoot to the stars.

I believe all students have it in them to do just as well in competition! Take the tools provided in Jeub’s Guide to Homeschool Speech & Debate to the limit. Dive in, and I’ll see you at Nationals!

Tournaments create memories of a healthy educational heritage.

If you’ve never attended a tournament, you are in for a rush. They can be the most fun events in a student’s life, as well as the chance for them to stretch their competitive muscles. Depending on where you live, you may have a robust schedule of tournaments to choose from. If not, there are several opportunities to travel outside your area. Any which way you slice it, students are able to connect with other students and form friendships that will last a lifetime through speech and debate.

There are a number of important expectations competitors should have to help prepare for competition.

Calendar

My wife, Wendy, and I have been homeschooling for nearly 20 years. Today we view each year as one big cycle. We measure up our goals for our school and for each child, we sign them up for activities and classes, we order the related materials, we join the right programs, etc. We love it, of course, but we don’t fool ourselves into thinking it is simple and easy.

Gearing up for a year of speech and debate competition is a similar year-round process. Sure, the tournament season lasts only three months (or a little longer if you are diehards like us). But to fully capture the spirit of the competition and reap its full rewards, good homeschool parents will make it a point to plan ahead and get involved.

Here’s a typical year in preview:

• August: Go to speech and debate camp.
• September-December: Go through curriculum with a club or individual study.
• January-March: Preliminary tournament season.
• April-May: Qualifying tournament season.
• June: Nationals.

Script Submission

All homeschool speech tournaments require script submission before the tournament begins. This is to help tournament directors quickly solve rules violations. If a judge or other competitor raises an issue during the tournament, officials will pull the script and review it to validate the claim.

Both NCFCA and Stoa have script submission guidelines for all platform and interpretive speeches. (Note, though, that limited-prep does not have guidelines.) Cover sheets and instructions are available on the organizations’ respective websites. Students are to print the cover sheets, their required documents and works-cited page. I don’t exhaust the details of script submission in this book, so be sure to visit the websites for complete up-to-date information.

An exciting new project piloted last year by Stoa is electronic script submission. Quite a few tournaments established an e-process where students email or upload the required documents. This option is still in development, but it won’t be long till all tournaments get it up and running. Stay tuned!

Ethical Evidence

Debaters—particularly team-policy debaters—must have evidence printed and properly cited before submitting it into a debate round. Students sometimes get themselves into trouble when their citations do not measure up and their opposing team raises an ethical violation. Most often when evidence issues are brought up, sloppiness is the case. However, it is never justified to have tampered-with or fabricated evidence in the round, sloppy or not, and teams can be disqualified for it.

The Blue Book goes into great detail for the team-policy debaters on how to properly cite evidence, what is or isn’t legitimate, and how to sniff out the foul play of opponents. Lincoln-Douglas or parliamentary debaters don’t need to wrestle with this issue much, but ethical debaters do.

Read the Rules

Any law enforcement officer knows the most common excuse from lawbreakers: “I didn’t know.” This is not an excuse for breaking the law, and neither is it an excuse to break the rules of speech and debate. When called on the carpet, students and coaches should be prepared to defend their actions. Speech and debate is a competitive sport, and everyone is expected to play within the rules. Ignorance is not a free pass to break them.

We make it a club practice to read the rules together (both organizations have downloadable documents available) and we answer all associated questions.

Adjudication

Individual success relies on the expectation that others are playing within the rules. So when speakers or debaters are suspected of breaking one (intentionally or not), an adjudication team is assembled to investigate. This usually consists of area coaches or tournament staff who are respected leaders in the community.

There is no set rule on how adjudication committees ought to run. I’ve seen healthy adjudication and unhealthy over the years, and have served on many different committees. Every issue will bring its own unique flavor to the adjudication team, but these steps have helped in making sure the issues are taken care of and people are handled with respect.

1. The Tournament Director, or TD, gathers the information about the infraction from the person making the complaint. The TD has the choice to either handle it on the spot (which solves the issue) or assemble the adjudication committee.
2. The TD relates the situation to the committee, but keeps names as anonymous as possible. This is fact-finding time as the adults in the room try to figure out the truth.
3. The committee runs through scenarios on how to handle the adjudication. Serious infractions lead to turned ballots or forfeiture, less serious turn into talks with coaches and a learning situation.
4. The committee either meets with the student or coach, or a person is assigned to take care of the situation. For more serious situations, the tabulation room is notified of any changes that need to take place.
5. The tournament returns quickly to schedule.

A goal of adjudication is to handle the problem as quickly and fairly as possible so that the tournament can continue on track. Warning: Adjudication committees that fish for intent rarely come out ahead. Stick to the rules and avoid deciphering theory or nuances. A common practice in Stoa is for the TD to open up the rule book and ask, “What rule was broken?” If a rule cannot be pointed to, then adjudication is usually not needed.

Registration Deadlines

There are two main calendars (one each for NCFCA and Stoa) available to students, and both of them are on a Google Calendar system. This means you can plug data automatically into your personal calendar through Gmail and keep track of tournaments available to you.

Tournaments have two dates: “open” dates for registration and “closing” dates. Don’t assume the tournament will have slots for long. Popular tournaments have been known to fill up within a day or two—maybe even hours. For those tournaments you want to get into, make sure you are at your computer ready to register when the tournament is scheduled to open.

Connor McKay is a former homeschool speech and debate student who developed FlowPro, a registration system that many tournament directors use to set up their tournament registration. The first page of tournaments using FlowPro has all the necessary information for tournament, and sub-pages are listed on the navigation bar. All FlowPro websites are easy to manage and registration is easy to do. You can find out more at www.homeschooldebate.net.

Judging Requirements

Depending on the number of events you enter, you will be required to bring judges to your tournament. They will not judge you, of course (that would be a conflict of interest), but they are needed to keep a tournament rolling along. There are three kinds of judges at tournaments.

1. Parent Judges. These are moms and dads of competitors. Most often competitors register their parents for judging when they are registering themselves for a tournament.
2. Alumni Judges. These are students who have graduated and are at least 18 years old. Tournaments scheduled during spring breaks typically draw several alumni judges.
3. Community Judges. These are judges who are not parents or alumni. These could include grandparents or relatives of competitors, co-workers of parents, church friends, neighbors and the like.

The first two types of judges are pretty common at tournaments, but all tournaments need a pool of community judges to succeed. Students are encouraged to solicit community judges and are sometimes awarded prizes for their efforts. I can’t emphasize enough the importance of a healthy community judge pool. Tournament organizers should treat community judges like royalty (thank them often and feed them well), because they want them to return.

Family

You will find that NCFCA and Stoa tournaments are centered around family. This makes sense, because homeschoolers are all about family, and tournaments become bastions of family fellowship. Competitors aren’t the only ones to enjoy one another at tournaments. Here are ways other family members can be of service and have a great time too.

• Timers. Children 9-11 years old (not yet old enough to compete) can time rounds. The timer table is a popular area at every tournament. And that’s only partially because they can earn awards for their efforts!
• Judges. What better way to get relatives involved in homeschooling than judging at a speech and debate tournament?
• Staff. Families can pitch in by overseeing or helping with facilities work, orientation, way-finding, etc. It always ends up being more fun than drudgery, and we have had parents enjoy staffing tournaments even after their own kids have graduated and moved on to college-level debate.

You will find that tournaments are exhausting, but so totally worth it. Speech and debate families form a wonderful hub of community. The fellowship is fantastic. And friendships formed at these tournaments will last a lifetime.

My heart goes out to the beginning debater, especially the beginning parent or coach of a debater. Debate is an entire sport full of rules, new terminology, and a host of jargon to go along with it. Wading through the how-to’s is enough to scare off the most determined individual. But hang in there! Debate may be the most rigorous academic activity out there, but it is also the most rewarding. Students—even the most academically challenged homeschooler—eventually gets it and enjoys it.

Debate is much like American football to a European. “Football” to a European is padless joggers kicking a checkered ball around the field. What does a Manchester United fan know of touchdowns, touchbacks, field goals, blitzes, offsides, clipping, facemasks, interference, 15-yard penalties or extra points (either 1 or 2)? Following the NFL for the uninitiated is like trying to understand a foreign language!

Only when the game is understood does it become enjoyable. Football fans enjoy arguing over calls, discussing game strategies, debating draft picks. There is so much culture intertwined in the American sport of football that people from the outside usually throw up their hands, thinking Americans are almost cultish in their frenzy.

I have had the opportunity to teach and coach many debaters. My curriculum always includes time for lengthy class sessions in which I teach the basics of academic debate. Sometimes the students get frustrated at the complexities; sometimes they want to quit. But once they get the chance to jump into a round at their first debate competition, the pieces fall into place. They see their studies pay off and find it to be a lot of fun!

There is an entire language and rapport in the sport of debate. It may seem foreign at first, but don’t panic! Once you see a few rounds, study up on the topic and give it a try for yourself, you’ll soon fall into an understanding that will bring great reward.

There are three types of debate offered to homeschool students, two of which are offered at both NCFCA and Stoa national tournaments. Each has a unique topic for the year. And each format offers a unique skill set. A resolution is the league-approved topic laid out in a carefully worded statement. This is the first year the NCFCA and Stoa have adopted different resolutions for the two formal types of debate.

People in dual-affiliated states (meaning they can enjoy tournaments from both NCFCA and Stoa) have argued that this means they will have to choose one league or the other. I don’t agree; I believe students may still compete in both. For Lincoln-Douglas, the NFL changes its resolution every two months, so juggling two resolutions is hardly a stretch. Team-Policy debaters will have their work cut out for them, but it won’t be impossible.

Don’t worry about that quite yet, though. Let’s get our brains around what each debate event requires first.

Team-Policy Debate

I’ve been coaching team-policy debate, also referred to by the initials TP or TD, since 1995. It is my pleasure to judge TP, coach TP and watch TP. It is the most demanding event of either league. So it’s worth our time here to take apart the two words of TP and explain each of them.

Team

Team means that debate teams consist of two debaters each. A TP round is 2-on-2. The debaters enter the room knowing which speeches they will run and will have trained for a division of labor between them. Here is a rundown of responsibilities between the two sides, and an explanation of the duties for each speech:

1. First Affirmative Constructive (1AC) - 8 min.
   The 1A gives a prepared eight-minute speech presenting his case to the judge. This is followed with a three-minute cross-examination.
2. First Negative Constructive (1NC) – 8 min.
   The 1N addresses much of the 1A’s case within the eight-minute timeframe. This is followed with a three-minute cross-examination by the 1A.
3. Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC) – 8 min.
   The 2A refutes the 1N’s speech within eight minutes. This is followed with a three-minute cross-examination by the 1N.
4. Second Negative Constructive (2NC) – 8 min.
   The 2N runs various arguments against the affirmative case. This is followed with a three-minute cross-examination by the 2A.
5. First Negative Rebuttal (1NR) – 5 min.
   The 1N gives a five-minute rebuttal primarily to the 2AC.
6. First Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR) – 5 min.
   The 1A gives a five-minute rebuttal to the two negative speeches in the round.
7. Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR) – 5 min.
   The 2N sums up the round and urges a negative ballot.
8. Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR) – 5 min.
   The 2A sums up the round and urges an affirmative ballot.

It seems complicated, especially if you’re new to this. But that stress will melt away when you watch it work and get used to the even exchange of ideas. Monument Publishing’s Blue Book is helpful here, too, as it walks the debater through the demands of the speakers. There are editions for both NCFCA and Stoa. NCFCA debaters may still qualify to NITOC through an NCFCA competition, so getting the Blue Book to prepare may be necessary.

In summary, notice the following things in the typical 90-minute debate round:

• The affirmative team speaks first and last. This is because the affirmative team has what’s called the burden of proof. They must convince the judge to change the status quo. The negative team rests with presumption, meaning that if the affirmative fails to uphold their burden of proof, the negative should win. Of course, this is debate theory (there is no rule that states this must exist in every round), but it helps us understand why the affirmative has the first and last word in the round.
• The negative team has 13 minutes of speaking time in the middle (speeches 4 and 5), right next to each other. This is called the negative block, and it is a strategy for negative debaters to split the responsibilities between the two speeches.
• The debate round is divided into two parts: the constructives and the rebuttals. The names reflect what happens. The constructive speeches build arguments, and the rebuttals simply refute what the constructives bring up. New arguments should not appear in the rebuttals.
• The cross-examinations, also called CX, are the most fun parts of the round. They take place in the constructives, but they should not be confused with the speeches. Debaters should not make arguments in CX, but should carry the admissions in the CX to their speeches.

Policy

Policy refers to the type of resolution the debaters will be debating. The resolutions are political in nature. Every year the homeschool organizations switch between foreign and domestic issues. Last year we debated Russian foreign policy, this year we’re debating U.S. revenue generation policies (Stoa) or criminal justice (NCFCA). Both resolutions will deal with domestic policy, not foreign policy.

Here are the resolutions for the 2011-2012 school year:

• (Stoa) Resolved: That the United States federal government should substantially reform its revenue generation policies.
• (NCFCA) Resolved: The United States federal government should significantly reform its criminal justice system.

It is important to note that in order to make it to NCFCA Nationals, you must compete and qualify in NCFCA’s tournaments. Stoa’s NITOC allows any debate team to make it to NITOC no matter what resolution is debated. NITOC is a tournament for champion debaters, not champions at the resolution. If a team qualifies in team-policy debate under another resolution, their invitation is still valid. Note, however, that NITOC will be using the Stoa resolution in their tournament.

“Blue” = Team-Policy Debate

Stepping into the resolutions takes up an entire book in and of itself, and that book is the already-mentioned Blue Book. It’s a great resource (if I do say so myself) that we’ve published every year since 1998, and it’s currently a research-and-writing collaboration between Vance Trefethen and myself. I encourage all debaters to get a copy.

There are two editions: Stoa and NCFCA. Each is published with introductory chapters designed to help students learn and grow in their debate ventures, especially novices trying to figure out the ins and outs of team debate. And expert debaters will be very pleased to know that we’re releasing cases and briefs from subsequent sourcebooks for free.

Here’s how it works: Team-policy debaters will order the Blue Book in the edition relevant to their competition plans. The book will serve as an introduction to the resolution and will include 12 foundational cases meant for kicking off the year. The debaters then will register their Blue Book in our downloads section online (www.monumentpublishing.com/downloads) where briefs are released to the owners. Here are the releases as scheduled:

• Blue Book: Stoa Edition
  06/01/11: Blue Book 1 (Primer) and 2 (Cases & Briefs)
  10/31/11: Blue Book 3 (Advanced)
  01/01/12: Blue Book 4 (Midseason Supplement)
• Blue Book: NCFCA Edition
  09/01/11: Blue Book 1 (Primer) and 2 (Cases & Briefs)
  10/31/11: Blue Book 3 (Advanced Edition)
  01/01/12: Blue Book 4 (Midseason Supplement)

If you’re reading this book after those release dates, the sourcebook downloads are available now. These downloads represent hundreds of dollars worth of competition material that we’re making available for a fraction of the cost. You’ll be pleased to see the savings:

• Blue Book Cases (regularly $54.95)
• Blue Book Primer (regularly $29.95)
• Blue Book Advanced (regularly $59.95)
• Blue Book Midseason (regularly 39.95)
• Blue Book Digital Files (regularly $54.95 per league)

All this to say: Get your Blue Book! That’s my sales pitch to every team-policy debater. Now, on to Lincoln-Douglas debate, where we’re doing the same kind of thing.

Lincoln-Douglas

Lincoln-Douglas, or LD, debate is named after the famous 19th century debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas. The two traveled the state of Illinois and debated the heated political issues of the day while racing for the Illinois senate seat. History shows that debate isn’t all about winning rounds. Lincoln lost to Douglas in the senate race, but the skills learned during the process helped galvanize his run for the presidency.

If you think LD is just a scaled down version of TP, think again. The event is sharply different in structure and approach.

One-on-One Format

LD debates are one-on-one timed sessions over the course of approximately 45 minutes. Here’s how the round unfolds:

1. Affirmative Constructive (AC) - 6 min.
   The affirmative gives a prepared six-minute speech presenting her case to the judge. This is followed with a three-minute cross-examination.
2. Negative Constructive (NC) + First Negative rebuttal (1NR) – 7 min.
   The negative builds a case of his own within the seven-minute timeframe, but also leaves time to rebut the affirmative’s case. This is followed with a three-minute cross-examination by the affirmative.
3. First Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR) – 4 min.
   The affirmative refutes the negative’s speech within four minutes.
4. Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR) – 6 min.
   The negative refutes the affirmative’s speech within six minutes.
5. Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR) – 3 min.
   The affirmative has the last word on the debate within three minutes.

This structure has to be, of course, different from team-policy since this is one-to-one debate. But there are some similarities. First, each speaker gets the same amount of speaking time and the affirmative gets the first and last word. Both sides get to lead (ask) and follow (answer) cross-examination.

The stark difference between team-policy and Lincoln-Douglas is the kind of debate it is. As I’ve already noted, values debate is philosophical in nature, not political. Students are tasked to analyze the resolution within the framework of a value. Furthermore, each side (affirmative and negative) carry a burden of proof to show how their value best upholds the resolution. There is no presumption in values debate.

Values

LD is values debate, different from policy debate. Policy debaters argue over the same sorts of topics as politicians, while values debaters argue more as philosophers. Policy is concerned over what course of action is better or worse, while values is concerned over what is right or wrong.

This year homeschoolers will be debating conflicts between personal freedom and economic security (Stoa) or legal due process and fact finding (NCFCA). Here are the resolutions for the 2011-2012 school year:

• (Stoa) Resolved: When in conflict, personal freedom ought to be valued above economic security.
• (NCFCA) Resolved: In the pursuit of justice, due process ought to be valued above the discovery of fact.

“Red” = Lincoln-Douglas Debate

Since 2001 we have published a sourcebook for Lincoln-Douglas debaters called the Red Book. Today it is written by champion LD competitors and coaches. Since there are sides to the resolutions rather than “presumptions,” the Red Book consists of papers of philosophical positions along with sample cases. These cases can sometimes be run on either side of the resolution.

One of Lincoln-Douglas debate’s stars of the past is the current editor for Red Book. Kaitlin Nelson heads up a writing staff of other champions. They write philosophical papers and sample cases meant to lead the LD debater through analysis of the resolution. You can check out the biographies of the Red Book authors at www.moumentpublishing.com. You’ll be impressed!

We’re releasing the Red Book in similar (knock-out great deal) fashion as the Blue Book. Three Lincoln-Douglas books (regularly priced at $100) will all be released to original Red Book owners through the download section of the website. Here they are:

• Red Book: Stoa Edition
  06/01/11: Red Book Print Edition
  09/01/11: Red Book Primer / Student Guide
  01/01/12: Red Book Midseason Supplement
• Red Book: NCFCA Edition
  09/01/11: Red Book Print Edition
  09/01/11: Red Book Primer / Student Guide
  01/01/12: Red Book Midseason Supplement

Lincoln-Douglas debate is an excellent format for philosophically minded students. We’ve covered the demands of the competitor here in a nutshell. The Red Book carries the debater through to become a champion.

Parliamentary Debate (Stoa only)

Stoa ran parliamentary debate, or parli, as it’s sometimes called, as a pilot project last year, and they are running it this year as a legitimate event with its own national tournament. It carries a similar acronym of Stoa’s national tournament: PITOC, standing for the Parliamentary Invitational Tournament of Champions. At the time of authoring this book, the second annual PITOC is being planned for April 2012.

I’m personally excited about this new event. Texas, in particular, has led the charge with parliamentary debate. The state ran six parli tournaments last year. My daughter and one of her previous TP partners attended one, and they had a blast.

Parliamentary debate fits nicely into homeschool speech and debate, but it should be viewed as a third event: There’s speech, there’s debate and then there’s parli. The format of parli is so unique that it is difficult to run as a speech event or another debate event. This shouldn’t intimidate competitors. Quite the contrary, parli is very simple to run on its own. Here are some bullet points on how parli works.

• Parli involves advanced skill sets, recommended only for 16- to 18-year-old competitors. Younger students are allowed to compete with coach approval, but keep in mind that these students should first have a grasp of values and policy debate already.
• Resolutions are different every round, and they are different in structure. Resolutions may be policy, values, or even fact. Stoa plans to assist tournament directors who want to run parli with sample resolutions.
• These resolutions are announced 15 minutes before the round begins. Students are dismissed to prepare for their rounds as either the government (affirmative) or the opposition (negative).
• Internet access, computer use, conversations with coaches, and use of any pre-tournament preparation is allowed in the 15 minutes of prep time.
• Parli speeches are limited-prep speeches. Students appeal to general knowledge and a broad perspective of current events or philosophy rather than cited evidence as proof of positions.
• There is no preparation time allowed in parli rounds. Interruptions are allowed in the form of questions, much like cross-examinations in TP and LD, called “points of information.” Debaters may also make “points of order” that are like objections to a formality of the round.
• Respectful audience participation is encouraged. Knocking on tables or chairs as good points are made, or a “Hear! Hear!” is not uncommon.
• Internet access, coaching conversation, use of any pre-tournament preparation is allowed in the 15 minutes of prep time. Prep time closely resembles extemporaneous speaking prep.
• It is very possible for a debater to continue debating in Team-Policy or LD and also compete in Parli. The preparation is almost exactly the same as Extemp. Over 90 percent of the the students who competed in the parli pilot, last year, also competed in TP or LD.

Stoa is sponsoring the Parliamentary Invitational Tournament of Champions, or PITOC, in 2012. For more information on how to fit parli into your competitive schedule, visit www.stoausa.org.

“Gold” (also) = Parli

Being such a new event, there isn’t a dedicated Monument Publishing parli resource, but I’m not sure there needs to be one. Parli speakers are experts at current events, just like an extemper. Gold Book products will work perfectly for the parli debater.

In fact, this year we’ve included an article by parliamentary debater Samantha Nasser. Samantha is a current undergraduate student at Hillsdale College and an avid parli debater. Her family was instrumental in running parli debates throughout Texas last year. Her article goes into the basic components that make a strong parli debate happen.

I hope to see parli grow. It’s an exciting event that older homeschool competitors are able to excel in, and it prepares them for collegiate debate. I look forward to seeing how this event impacts homeschoolers in coming years.

Summary

Students are encouraged to choose one type of debate for the entire year. Personally, I encourage students to do both TP and LD formats by the time they graduate from high school (at least one year of each). The skills learned in each are unique, and both add incredible value to an individual student’s high school career. And if you can fit parli in, do it.