Wisconsin Forensics Daily

From Hortonville to Hopkins, WFD interviews Michelle Tellock

Wisconsin Forensics Daily is proud to announce its first interview. Throughout the year WFD will be interviewing former students and coaches on what it means to be apart of debate and forensics in Wisconsin. We begin our batch of interviews by talking to Michelle Tellock, a former Hortonville debater and forensicator. Join us as we talk about issues ranging from the influence of dedicated coaches, to parlimentary debate, to the perceived necessity of attending a debate camp.

Michelle Tellock, currently attending Johns Hopkins Univeristy in Baltimore, Maryland, debated and participated in forensics for four years in the state of Wisconsin. As a debater for Hortonville she and her partner Scott Weeman became a huge force in Wisconsin Debate their senior year, culminating in a final round appearance in the WDCA VSS Final round, numerous out-round appearances in national circuit tournaments, and qualifying for NFL and CFL Nationals.

Nick Bubb (NB): Since most of our readers can only remember Zac Brown and Amit Brinda when they think of great Wisconsin Debaters, could you tell us a bit about your experiences. Just so they get a sense of who you are?

Michelle Tellock (MT): Well, I guess you could say I’ve done a little bit of everything with regards to WI debate. I debated for a little bit in each of the 4-person categories, and a handful of LD tournaments; for the most part, though, I was active in VSS with my main partner, Scott Weeman. We debated together for 4 years, starting with JVSS @ Appleton East our freshman year. Thanks to Clif Morton and Cory Puuri, we were active on the national circuit starting our sophomore year. We went to NCFL and NFL nationals in policy debate (I also went to both tournaments in student congress/extemp [extemporaneous speaking]). Most people who debate in WI now probably have an idea of who we are due to our senior year of WI debate, where we were something like 48-2 in state, not losing a round till the state tournament, where we were beat in finals by Zac and Akansha.

NB: Since you brought it up the final round with Zac and Akanha, would you mind talking about that? It is highly surprising for a senior-senior team to lose to a sophomore (at least to me). Sorry for sticking the knife in…

MT: No problem. It actually wasn’t very surprising for us, given as we had had a very close record with that team nationally throughout that year. I think we beat them @ Wake, then they beat us @ EGR( I think). So we knew they were going to be tough competition; we were glad not to hit them earlier in the tournament. It’s one of those rounds that will forever be engrained in my mind.

MT:We lost on a 4-1, on one of Brookfield’s new 1NC points to our Ecopsychology Aff. In the 2AC, there just wasn’t enough of a coherent story from our side (it was the *only* argument we didn’t have a specific 2AC block written for); by the 1AR it was too late. We (well, I take most of the blame since it was my job to prep that flow for the 2AC) deserved to lose.

NB: That ecopsychology affirmative was pretty notorious, not just around Wisconsin, for its originality. Care to elaborate on what that was?

MT: Our senior year was the mental health topic. Neither Scott nor I went to debate camp that summer, save Camp Puuri @ the Appleton Public Library. Cory did most of the research, and we did some additional reading. The case centered on the idea that mental health problems could be solved by becoming more connected with nature. It was a pretty kritik-like affirmative. We loved how original it was, and how it didn’t really link to much. We lost 1 aff round in state; only a handful overall that year. I still get asked about it by former HS debaters from across the country.

NB: That’s pretty cool and impressive. Not many debaters can produce an affirmative that only loses once without spending time at a camp.

MT: Definitely; we had a ton of fun on aff that year. And we also got pretty good at arguing Topicality that way, too.

NB: [Laughs] Do you feel that you were adequately prepared for your senior year without attending a camp? So many debaters feel that they need to go to a camp to be successful.

MT: Great question. I think after our junior year, when we traveled quite a bit, we were ready to rest a bit. But beyond that, we were both extremely busy with other activities. We were looking for something that would prepare us, but give us some flexibility. We still had to do work, we just had the chance to do it on our own schedule. I don’t think we would have been nearly as successful without the help of Cory, Mr. Morton, Carl Schaap, and Bill Batterman that we got that year, though - they kept us motivated and made sure that not going to camp wouldn’t hinder us.

NB: I’m going to change gears. Let’s go back to the very beginning, what made you want to get involved in debate and forensics?

MT: I was in forensics since 6th grade - I started out in Prose. I really enjoyed performing in front of people, and my mom is a semi-professional storyteller, so I was always comfortable reading out loud and talking in front of groups. Debate was something that I had always wanted to do, because I hate hearing sound bites on television and not hearing the whole argument. I loved that debate (at least switch-side) required you to know both sides of the argument. Plus, the people on Hortonville’s team are so fun and welcoming.

NB: You spoke before about nature of Clif Morton’s character, could you elaborate on that?

MT: I know that I didn’t totally appreciate how much he gave of himself until I was out of school, but Clif gives everything of himself to the program and his kids.

MT: I know that on at least two occasions during my 4 years, he missed his anniversary because he was taking us to tournaments. He got his bus driver’s license so that he could drive us to tournaments on the other side of the country. He understood that we were students, debaters, and overall, people…and he always spoke to us as though we were on his level. I think my four years as his debater and student made me a more enlightened person overall; I can’t thank him enough for what he’s done for me. I know others feel the same.

NB: It’s truly an amazing thing to see dedicated coaches like that. I think students get the most out of us coaches when we can reach that level. I imagine that a coach like that instills a life long love of the activity. You are currently involved on Hopkins’ parliamentary team, right?

MT: Yeah. I took freshman year of college off of debating myself, but I helped to coach and judge for a Baltimore Urban Debate League school. Sophomore year, I joined Hopkins’ team, and I now serve as the Vice President - Tournament Director for the team.

NB: Could you elaborate on what college parliamentary is? I am sure we have some seniors out there that are interested in debating in college?

MT: Parliamentary debate is organized into two leagues in college - NPDA and APDA. While there are stylistic differences, most of the difference is geography - APDA tends to be private schools in the northeast/mid-Atlantic regions, and NPDA is everyone else.

MT: Basically, parli is a mix of LD, policy, student congress, and extemp - it requires all those skills. It’s a 2 on 2 style. We debate on any number of topics - each round the affirmative team chooses a topic (ANY topic!). Rounds last about 45 minutes, and are centered on both analysis and rhetoric. There’s little to no research involved, and it’s a very fun atmosphere.

NB: That’s cool. So if I was doing parli, I could debate which is better: the red pill or the blue one? (The Matrix)

MT: Honestly, yes, that has been a case that’s been run. But mostly the topics center on philosophy/history/economics/current events. I will admit, though, that my partner and I currently are known for running a (philosophical) case about werewolves.

NB: [Laughs] Awesome.

MT: I really enjoy it. I don’t think there’s any better way to travel the world and meet new people than on your university’s bill. Plus, you have a great way to balance being a college student and a debater.

NB: That’s really important, I’d like to note as a college student and a coach. You mentioned before that you participated in forensics. Could you talk about NFL your junior year?

MT: My junior year we had a heart-breaking result at NFL qualifiers in policy. I ended up doing extemp that year in forensics, so I went to NFLs in IX (international extemporaneous speaking). While I was eliminated from IX on a tie-breaker, I participated in supplemental events and made it to the final round in Extemp Commentary. I ended up being 4th overall, which earned me a really cool trophy and a chance to be on stage at nationals, which was pretty cool. That year, the three schools that traveled together (Hortonville, New London, and Waupaca) had 3 students, and all 3 of us were on the stage; it was a great week.

NB: What was it like it like to be in an NFL final round?

MT: I remember that the whole experience went REALLY fast. From having my number posted as being in the final round till the awards was all a blur. But the actual round was pretty relaxed; Clif and I got breakfast first, and he helped me stay calm. The other competitors and I were friendly by that point (I think it was round 7 or 8 of commentary), so it just felt like I was drawing my question and doing my thing. I will admit that I was scared to death that I’d fall walking up the stairs in my high-heeled shoes. But once I started talking, the lights were so bright I couldn’t see anyone - my brain just took over, and it was done in a flash.

NB: I can only imagine.

MT: The whole nationals experience was always fun. Hanging out with New London, Waupaca, and way back when Winneconne…plus all the rest of the WI people…was always the best part.

NB: What is your favorite debate and forensics memory?

MT: Okay. Well, I actually have tons. But two come to mind immediately. First, the first round that my mom (now an asst. coach @ Appleton North) ever saw me debate was @ CFL quals my junior year against Appleton West [Watson/husband & Brandon]. My mom, afterward, told me that she thought we lost. (We didn’t.) How comforting. [Laughs]

2. Senior year we got snowed in @ Harvard, and Scott, Bill and I stayed to watch finals (the ONLY observers left). On the way home to our hotel, Bill had to pick me up over the snow banks b/c there was SO much snow. We got lost in a winter wonderland and had a great snowball fight. Perfect end to a snowy, successful weekend.

NB: That’s excellent. I know from personal experience that being singled out, among the thousand people or so that attend the WFCA State tournament to receive a one of four scholarships is an amazing experience, could you share some of what that was like?

MT: I had won the WDCA scholarship that year, and I remember knowing that no one had won both, so I figured I wouldn’t get it. I hadn’t broken in the tournament, so I had changed clothes somewhat and was sitting next to Kristen Jobe, a Hortonville grad and asst coach. They started reading a profile of a winner and they said “this person has done forensics since 6th grade.” I was thinking, “Wow, that person is really dedicated.” I didn’t think they were talking about me till I saw Kristen and Clif smiling at me. Then it suddenly made sense why my parents had shown up unannounced. It was a great feeling, especially because Venus and Stef also won that year, and they’re such great people. It was nice to be seen in the same group as them.

NB: That’s kind of funny. I remember having a similar experience. But in my case, no one, save me, Pat Taylor, and Paul Seymour, knew it was me. The rest of the North Forensics Team was far too young. I’m losing my ability to transition, so here it goes: With the recent developments regarding Public Forum, and other developments, what do you think the future holds for debate in Wisconsin?

MT: Honestly, I’m not sure where I stand on the Public Forum issue. I think that debate in any form is beneficial for students, the question is simply who PF is attracting. I’ve seen great things from PF here in Baltimore; whether that can translate to WI is yet to be seen. Overall, though, I think that the fact that we’re having these sorts of discussions bodes well for WI debate. We seem to have a strong group of veteran coaches as well as a new breed of younger coaches (Alison Eggert, Bill, Nick, the Hagers, the Degeneffes, Andy Nolan, etc.) who have the best intentions and the determination/excellence to make things happen. I’m excited to see what develops - I only hope that the school systems can see the value of debate and continue to fund it as a crucial activity.

NB: Awww… Thanks.

MT: Oh, add Matt Olson to that list.

NB: For sure.

NB: Alright, well, I’m pretty much out of questions, is there anything else you’d like to add?

MT: Yeah, just one thing. As much as I gained academically and intellectually from debate, I think the greatest thing I got was my network of personal connections with people from other schools, other states. In college as well as in HS debate, I’ve met some amazing people, and I don’t think it can be overstated how much the personal aspect of debate is valuable. After the round is over, the friends [or more, in my case] still exist. And that’s the best part.

NB: Agreed. Thanks for spending time with us!

MT: Thanks for talking with me - it’s great that WI debate has such far reach both geographically and historically, now with the addition of WFD.

Posted in Interviews |