My involvement in Forensics Debate began when I was a Sophomore in high school. Being rubbish at acting, and unable to get cast in a play, I decided to join my school’s Speech Team.  I had several friends who were active members in both Speech and Theatre. They enjoyed Speech. Could not quite explain to me what it was (“competitive speaking and acting…sort of”), but their obvious jovial nature aroused when speaking of Forensics was plenty to transform me into a Speech Kid.

Three years later I qualified to compete at Sectionals, was a Team Captain, and had sharpened my acting/analysis skills so I was successful in high school drama. Despite some strain on the team my Senior year, I loved the experience. Even my decision to attend Bradley University was influenced by the knowledge that if I continued involvement in Forensics I would be competing on one of the Nation’s strongest teams.

Although I might not have joined Bradley’s Speech Team, opting instead to pursue my dream of obtaining a Minor in Theatre, Forensics has been a constant source of growth, development, and confidence since when I entered my first round to perform a scene from Alice in Wonderland. I could not imagine having not been in Speech. Where would I be? Who would I be? If people truly are a composition of their past experiences and what was learned through them, I doubt I would be who and where I am now. Frightening. It is impossible to know how a lack of Speech would have transformed my life. What is possible to measure is the positive influence it has had. Every student should be so fortunate.

But the fact is they are not. I have no idea the scale of high school’s with Forensic or Debate teams. With The National Forensic League, at least one State run Speech and Debate League per State, and there exist various other leagues as well, Forensics is strong. Yet, there are still an enormous amount of students without access to Forensics. Especially with the current economy, school’s are being forced to make challenging decisions to cut “unnecessary” programs. And Speech and Debate can become expensive with travel costs. Couple that with a small program and disaster occurs.

There are sources of good though. Educators and Forensics alum know of Speech and Debate’s benefits. So much so that there are independent organizations that exist to provide students with access to Forensics. For instance the National Association of Urban Debate Leagues (NAUDL) is a network of Urban Debate Leagues across the country. Started in 1997, or 1985 if including the first Urban Debate League ever from Atlanta, the NAUDL recognizes Debate’s importance for students. Debate has been linked to a higher GPA, a higher chance of attending college, a lesser chance of dropping out of high school, increased communication skills, improved analytical and critical-thinking skills, more confidence/motivation/community awareness, et cetera for most students who participate (Urban Debate Value). As you read there are currently over five-hundred high schools which are part of the NAUDL. The number continues to grow with newly formed Urban Debate Leagues across the country.

Leagues like The Duval Urban Debate League (DUDL) of Jacksonville, Florida. The DUDL is “a public-private partnership operated by the Duval Urban Debate League Community Debate Council…a private group of civic and business leaders, and [the] Duval County Public Schools”. The goal can be simply stated: provide a league and activity that can help a child achieve both character and educational development. The means to do so are not so easy. Finding backers to fund the League, train and organize teachers and parents to operate tournaments, teach educators and adults how to Coach Debate, getting the community and students involved, integrating a Debate course into the curriculum, and so on.  Forming an Urban Debate League is NOT an undertaking for the weak. Yet, the Duval Urban Debate League has not succumbed and is a growing League after only being formed in September of the 2009-2010 school year.

Jermyn Shannon-El leads next wave of Great Debaters

I have been fortunate enough to be able to speak with a leader of the Duval UDL, Jermyn Shannon El.  More of this in Part II.

Thus concludes Part I.  Stay posted for the release of Part II.

Works Cited:

“About.” dudl.org. Duval Urban Debate League, n.d. Web. 25 May 2010.

“Urban Debate Value.” urbandebate.org. National Association of Urban Debate Leagues, n.d. Web. 25 May 2010.

Created to enrich the academic experience for Duval County Public Schools’ students through debate, the Duval UDL is especially interested in students with untapped potential, who are disengaged from the contemporary classroom setting.  Although debate is not an entirely new phenomenon,  it is a powerful venue to encourage critical thinking, confidence, personal expression and tolerance for the opinions of others among our youth.

“Our young debaters can’t seem to surprise me enough! Their confidence, performance, and passion for speech and policy debate is a clear indication that Jacksonville will deliver national contenders in a few years. This last event was a tremendous showing for what’s in store when you raise the expectations and provide students with variants in learning,” said Jermyn Shannon El, DUDL Developer.

More information about the event, click here >

A.  Framework of Competitive Academic Debate:

A debate team is comprised of two debaters from the same school. These two people operate together as a team throughout a tournament, alternately arguing both sides of the resolution. An individual debate consists of two opposing teams from different schools. In policy debating, one team, labeled “the Affirmative”, identifies a specific problem that falls under the agreed-upon resolution, and proposes a specific “Plan of Action” to solve the problem. This is a process similar to proposing legislation in Congress. The opposing team, labeled “the Negative,” argues that the Plan of Action is flawed or is no better than the current situation – the Status Quo. The fifth person participating in the debate is the judge, who is not from affiliated with either school. In the end, a judge listens to the arguments presented by both teams and decides who wins; whether or not the Affirmative Plan should be implemented. If so, the Affirmative team; if not, the Negative team wins. There are no ties.

Debate is a structured competition, with procedures and rules designed to maximize educational value and competitive fairness. Because they must debate both sides of the resolution debaters cannot win by simply having a stronger viewpoint. Debaters cannot interrupt a speaker, therefore voice level, aggressiveness, and even raw eloquence cannot dominate a debate round.  Rather, debaters learn to understand and argue both sides of an issue, even if they personally favor one viewpoint. Debating is structured to provide a fair opportunity to win on either side of each issue, based primarily on the persuasiveness of logic, evidence and emotion presented.

B.  Mechanics of a Debate Round:

In the competitive academic debate activity, each debate is called a “debate round.” In a “round” every speaker in the debate gives two speeches. The first is an 8-minute “constructive” speech where they build their arguments. Their second speech is 5-minutes long and called a rebuttal speech where the constructive arguments are refuted. Each of the four debaters gives their constructive speech. Then each of them gives their rebuttal speech. The Affirmative team goes first and last. In the first constructive the Affirmative presents their Plan of Action and the rationale behind it. Next, the negative in their first constructive speech has the burden to respond to the specific arguments in the Affirmative case and plan. Then the teams alternate speeches rebuilding and extending their original arguments.

The negative team begins the rebuttal speeches. Then the teams alternate speakers, with the affirmative giving the last speech in the debate. Rebuttal speeches are similar to jury summation in a court. No brand new arguments are permitted in the rebuttal speeches. Effective arguments are generally supported by facts, examples and expert quotations that provide credibility to their arguments. Effective arguments are generally repeated and refined throughout the debate. Debaters try to “cover” as many arguments in the debate as they can while working within their time constraints. Much of debate strategy revolves around the choices debaters make in which arguments to emphasize as the debate goes on.

There are question and answer periods in the debate as well. Each debater asks questions for three minutes and also in a separate period has to answer three minutes of questions. These “cross-examination” periods follow each constructive speech. Usually these periods are used for clarification, understanding and previewing upcoming arguments. Debaters must base their questions on the previous speech. The judge when deciding the debate does not consider points made during the cross-examination unless they are formally introduced in a later speech.

C.  Deciding the Winning Team:

The judge listens to the entire debate, taking notes of all the arguments in the round. At the end, the judge reviews the notes and decides whether the Affirmative or Negative is the winner, based solely on the arguments presented during the debate. If time permits, the judge normally provides explanation and feedback to the debaters verbally. The judge may also write a “ballot” explaining their reason for voting one way or the other, as well as offering suggestions to the debaters for improvement.

The judge must be totally impartial and may not use their own personal beliefs, values or opinions to decide the debate, even if they are directly contradictory with the debaters’ arguments. Judges decide based on the issues in the debate, not speaking style. While style will always have an indirect influence, the judge places greater emphasis on logic, evidence and clarity of explanation. Debate is primarily a contest of analytical thinking, careful listening and logical explanation. The judge does, however, rate the speaking ability of each debater.

Defining Debate (wikipedia)
Debate or debating is a formal method of interactive and representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than logical argument, which only examine the consistency from axiom, and factual argument, which only examine what is or isn’t the case or rhetoric which is technique of persuasion. Though logical consistency, factual accuracy as well as some emotional appeal to audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting superior “context” and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic.

In a formal debating contest, there are rules for people to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will interact. Informal debate is a common occurrence, but the quality and depth of a debate improves with knowledge and skill of its participants as debaters. Deliberative bodies such as parliaments, legislative assemblies, and meetings of all sorts engage in debates. The outcome of a debate may be decided by audience vote, by judges, or by some combination of the two. Formal debates between candidates for elected office, such as the leaders debates and the U.S. presidential election debates, are common in democracies.

Policy Debate (as defined by Wikipedia):
is a form of research-based speech competition in which teams of two advocate for and against a resolution that typically calls for policy change by the United States Federal Government. It is also referred to by institutions such as the Cross Examination Debate Association as cross-examination debate (sometimes shortened to Cross-X, CX, or C-X) because of the 3-minute questioning period following each constructive speech. Affirmative teams generally present a plan as a proposal for implementation of the resolution. However, many teams also partake in alternative forms of argumentative presentation that do not focus on the acceptance or rejection of a specific plan.

Urban Debate Leagues (wikipedia)

Fiat (Latin for “let it be done”) is a theoretical construct in policy debate—derived from the word should in the resolution—whereby the desirability rather than the probability of enactment and enforcement of a given plan is debated, allowing an affirmative team to “imagine” a plan into being.

There are different theories regarding fiat:

“Normal Means”— Going through the same political process comparable with normal legislative processes. There is no overarching, accepted definition of the legislative pathways which constitute “normal means,” but clarification about what an affirmative team regards as “normal means” can be obtained as part of cross-examination by the negative team.

“Magic Wand” aka “Pixie Dust”—The plan is instantly instituted and enforced. It avoids politics disadvantages because it avoids the part of the process that goes through the government and subsequently avoids any sort of political affiliation. However, such fiat is generally considered abusive and is generally not used. It is still subject to disadvantages having to do with the effects of the plan.

Public Speaking (wikipedia)
is the process of speaking to a group of people in a structured, deliberate manner intended to inform, influence, or entertain the listeners. The art and science of public speaking, especially in a North American competitive environment, is also known as forensics. The word forensic is an adjective meaning “of public debate or argument.” The word is derived from the Latin forensis, meaning “of the forum.”

In public speaking, as in any form of communication, there are five basic elements, often expressed as “who is saying what to whom using what medium with what effects?” The purpose of public speaking can range from simply transmitting information, to motivating people to act, to simply telling a story. Good orators should be able to change the emotions of their listeners, not just inform them. Public speaking can also be considered a discourse community. Interpersonal communication and public speaking have several components that embrace such things as motivational speaking, leadership/personal development, business, customer service, large group communication, and mass communication. Public speaking can be a powerful tool to use for purposes such as motivation, influence, persuasion, informing, translation, or simply entertaining.

Civic Engagement (wikipedia)
has been defined as “Individual and collective actions designed to identify and address issues of public concern.”

“Civic engagement” can mean not only a set of actions and efforts, but a feeling of belonging, an experience of investment and ownership in the local, regional, national, and/or international communities to which citizens belong. According to the New York Times, “Civic engagement means working to make a difference in the civic life of our communities and developing the combination of knowledge, skills, values and motivation to make that difference.”

Beginning in 2001, a major international research initiative on civic engagement was initiated by the Global Service Institute (GSI) at the Center for Social Development, at Washington University in St. Louis to more carefully define this term.

Other Common Debate Terminology
(cited from http://lelandsd.org/home/node/5)

Break – verb
Speech & debate usage: to qualify into (a) elimination round(s).

Example: “Hey, Taman, did you break in Extemp?”
“Why yes, I broke into semi-finals.”

Wild Card – noun
Speech & debate usage: a privilege earned by doing well at a League tournament which allows you to attend the State Qualifying tournament in addition to our allotted slots.

Example: “Gosh, Mohit is practicing every day this month! He is definitely going to get a wild card at League!”

Out Rounds – noun
Speech & debate usage: elimination rounds such as finals, semifinals, quarterfinals, etc.

Example: “Hey, Grace! You made out rounds… again! Congratulations.”

Postings – noun
Speech & debate usage: pieces of paper that are posted on the walls before each round; these tell competitors where their next round will be and against whom; postings have magnetic powers for speech and debaters, and are known for creating buffalo stampede-like phenomena in high school cafeterias.

Example: “Hey Zade, postings are up!”
“Alright Ronak, let’s do this!”

Pick Up – verb
Speech & debate usage: to win a debate round.

Example: “I’m so happy I picked up that debate round!”

Drop – verb
Speech & debate usage: to lose a debate round.

Example: “Geez, Brian! I can’t believe you dropped that debate round! There goes your letter of recommendation!”
“I’m so sorry, Mrs. Brasher! I really should have practiced more!”

Flow – verb
Speech & debate usage: to take notes during a debate in shorthand; also flowsheet – the piece of paper you take notes on; also flow judges – judges who are familiar with debate format and jargon and can take notes in flow.

Example: “Hey Aparna, my flow looks like random scratches.”
“Hmm, you’re right Ryan. I think you should practice flowing more often.”

Spread – verb
Speech & debate usage: in team debate, to read your cases and evidence as fast as humanly possible, in an attempt to cram as much information into a given time span as possible.

Example: “Wow, Edwin is really good at spreading in debate rounds!”

Picket Fence – verb
Speech & debate usage: to earn first places from all your judges in all of your rounds at a tournament; on tabulation sheets, the ones resemble a picket fence.

Example: “Oh, wow! Sam picket fenced at the last tournament!