Give Youth a Voice also offers some simple campaign tools, including the ability to set a goal, display efforts towards that fund raising goal graphically, and the ability to upload specific photos of your team.

This a great resource that helps fill a need that all teams have. If your school is an NFL member, I highly recommend you check this out. (Alternatively, if you’re not an NFL member, your school can join the NFL).

A summary of the current proposal is below the break. Additional proposals are forth coming, and separate posts will be made as soon as they are available.

Double Enter plan
submitted by Lyn Luce, Waupaca

Rational:

• Ripon has the extra rooms needed to cover the extra entries.
• The number of entries has been down in the past few years, so this would help increase participation.
• Double entering would increase the judge pool, which would be a great benefit to the tournament director.
• The WFCA state has not been self supporting. Double entering would increase the revenue taken in for the WFCA state tournament making it more likely that the tournament would become self-supporting.
• The students would have audiences as double enter students would be in two rooms as an audience member. Additionally the WFCA State tournament has many non-competing audience members (parents, friends, college students etc.) who make up audiences.
• Double entering would enable more teams to have “full teams” of 25 entries which is at best an arbitrary number established long ago.
• Double entering is educationally sound with research showing that it would benefit gifted and talented students.
• Better competition adds to the competitive nature and credibility of the winners.
• This is an option for coaches. A coach does not have to have the max in any category, the max number in a group event, (i.e. group interp) or have a student competing in every event. WFCA gives many options to coaches; this would be one more
• 89% of the teams at the WFCA state in ‘07 did not have a full team. 95% in ’08, approx 89% in ’09. During those same years all teams receiving a first place, in any division, had teams of 25 entries. Clearly there is an advantage for the minority of teams who have “full” teams.
• There is an obvious advantage to schools where there is a larger general population of students to draw forensics team members from as the majority of the full teams are in division 1 and have been for almost a decade.
• There has been a 10 fold increase in the number of activities which now take place during the forensics season. This makes recruiting harder.
• The majority of the tournaments on the circuit offer double entering. Students and coaches are used to it.
• There is a financial benefit to WFCA; If each of 65 schools only double entered 2 students there would be an increase of at least $650.00 for WFCA without incurring any additional costs. If ¼ of those entries were group events and additional $300.00 could be gained.
• Drops in group events will not make teammates idle. There will still be an educational opportunity for them.
• Group events will be more available to smaller teams, who now have all group members do individual events because the team “need the numbers.” This may help increase the entries and competition in duo which has never gone over 20 students since it was adopted. (It is our smallest event.)
• New London, one of the largest tournaments in the state, uses multiple sites and has had double for years. That tournament runs on time and has great competition.
• Double entering is not for every student. The decision to double enter should be made by the coach and the student, not coaches from other teams.
• Decreasing budgets have caused teams to downsize. Transportation, over-night lodging, food, etc have increased costs. In an era of budget cuts, this allows a team to downsize yet remain viable and gain state recognition.
• Administrators understands placing at state. This would help smaller teams gain that.
• More options for coaches, more money and better competition for WFCA, more opportunities, more challenges and better education for students. A win-win scenario.

Plan:

• No school would have to have students double entered. It is only an option available.
• No double entering in Group discussion, Radio, or Extemp
• No last minute adds per status quo.
• No increases in the number of entries per team ( 25) or the max in each category (4)
• Schools would have to identify double entered students. The tournament director would assign the codes of the double entered. For example, 34×1 (prose) is double entered and is also 34y1 in (play acting) Students and coaches would not be allowed to exchange codes.
• This would only be for a 2 year trial-period
• The tournament director would need additional help before the tournament either from the Congress coordinator or volunteer coaches. (Many have already volunteered to do this.) This would not incur additional paid positions.
• An additional 15-20 minutes would be added the first year. To make sure that all judges know about the double entering. The need for the additional time would be reassed the second year. (There are only about 4 schools which the committee thought had not had experience with double entering) as suggested time table: 9:00, 10:30, 11:45 for prelim rounds, no changes for break rounds.
• Ripon can supply vans and extra transportation. The time frame would allow students to be in two different events even if it involved the college and the high school campuses. Travel time between the two is only minutes.
• The regional workshops could help inform coaches about double entering.
• To cover the additional costs for transportation, each double entered student would be assessed a $5.00 transportation fee. Students/ coaches could transport the students themselves, but would still have to pay the $5.00 transportation fee.
• Double entered students would not necessarily have to go first or last as the hour per round would allow extra time beyond the presentation time and movement times. Thus students could be an audience member in both events.
• The feeling from the WFCA State tournament Director, Chris Zoch, and Site Coordinators Jodi Becker and Deano Pape was, ‘We can do this!”

The National Forensic League has released the following message:

NFL is a finalist for Pepsi’s Refresh Everything grant, which helps groups from across the country improve their local communities. NFL’s proposal will create weekend-long communication leadership summits in six major cities for students and teachers in Title I schools. Most of the grant money will be given directly to students, teachers, and coaches in the six major cities we serve. That’s over $210,000 directly into the hands of deserving students and educators.

We need your help to reach our goal! Grant recipients will be decided by community votes. Voting is open now! You may vote every day from today through the end of February. Visit NFL Online to read our entire proposal and vote to make speech and debate education available to new populations.

Also, here’s my random plug for Pepsi: Mountain Dew Throwback has been re-released. You’ve been notified.

The Duties of  Good Second Negative by Paul Hager.

In order to be a good Second Negative. You must first do the necessary pre-round preparation. Here’s what you need.

Pre Round Prep-

2NC Overviews – Should be about 10-15 seconds long.

Kritik- A paragraph explaining the argument, the specific link to the aff (go through 1AC and find a specific reference which links or use something you got out of CX) the implication, the alternative and the role of the ballot.

CP’s – Again a short overview of the argument itself, why you can solve or solve better and why only a risk of the net ben means you win.

2NC Impact Analysis -

K- Why the impact outweighs because its pre-fiat, why it outweighs even in a world of fiat, why impact turns case or makes case impacts inevitable.

CP- this is more for the net ben. but the usual here. Why your time frame is better, why it’s more probable, why it’s bigger and why it turns case.

2NC Link Dump -

Kritik- From the beginning of the round start writing down card references from 1Ac or 2AC, words/statements the aff makes which are links. Alternate one of their specific in round links with a group of 2-4 cards which are DIFFERENT links. For Realism for example: Heg is realist, The Government is inherently realist, and Energy Policies are realist. Really make sure that the cards have DIFFERENT warrants to prevent grouping.

CP – new link scenario for the net benefit. Politics this looks like another Link-InternalLink scenario.

2NC Impact Extension (New Scenario) – In a Kritik or CP round you want to read a 2nd impact scenario. It is one of the great unequal parts of debate but you can always get away with a new impact scenario (internal link and impact based on the same link) that the 1AR has no hope of covering. Some debate strategist believe that you should save your best impact and link scenarios for the 2NC, I disagree, I make sure all of mine are good.

Blocks you need before the round:

K’s
AT: Do both perm ( you need one card here that if called for after the round actually specifically says doing both is bad, if you lack this card don’t run the argument)
AT: Do plan as the first step perm
At: Do plan reject in every other instance
AT: Need state action
AT: We don’t uniquely increase the evil over SQ
AT: Impact Inevitable

Framework and Theory

CP’s
AT: Do both perm (even if it is crazy)
AT: Cp doesn’t solve
Link and Impact extension for net ben
Make sure to have impacts which are economic/war/environment and adjust scenario based on Aff impx

Theory

Holy S*^% Paul that’s a lot of work! Yep it is, deal with it – do it once and you are set for the year.

Practical Advice for engaging the above strategy:

Here we go- how to be a negative speech by speech and argument by argument from the perspective of the 2N (because only the 2′s matter)

CX of the 1AC. I love debate! The 2N, the guy who is in charge of the strategy which will control the round gets to set it all up because 1A’s are dumb. “Paul that’s not fair you say 1A’s are smart people..” That may be true but high school debaters don’t think about the questions they are being asked in CX they just say the opposite of what you say. The 1A always wants to disagree don’t ever ask a question in which you want them to agree it’s not worth your time. Even if you asked them “hasn’t the Packers defense been an absolute failure down the stretch this year…” 99% of 1A’s will disagree. Proving my point completely.

How do I employ this mind control, Paul? It is simple. CX should first be about getting the arguments right. Know what they are saying. Move through that portion of CX as quickly as possible, it is important, but not the most fun. Next step to CX of the 1A is the head fake. Go down a line of questioning which makes them believe you are going to do something you are not. This is where Vaugness has a place in the world. Or questions like “How are you really a substantial increase?” (note: ask T questions UNRELEATED to the T you will be reading, they will prep for the wrong ones) Lastly but MOST important ask questions which get you links to the positions you want to go for in the 2NR. Let’s assume I am trying to get them to link to the Kritik of Realism. If you don’t know the argument, shame on you, then ask someone older then you about it (if you want to know put that in the comments section below requesting I write an article about it). Anyway, Here are the goals for my link scenarios in the 1NC and eventually the 2NC (since I have already written my link dump block I know them already)

Goals:
1) Admit they are a large change over status quo in the direction of state control (Pre-empt to the argument “We are not different then SQ”)
2) Admit that they believe in the system of control and war we currently have and proport that image (Link War)
3) Admit they believe in the nation state system and that the US is the leader of that system (Link US Heg)
4) Admit that the US believes it self to be right and the “savior” of other states ( Link US as savior)

Questions:
1) Isn’t your plan exactly like the current government, it really doesn’t change anything? Oh it does… Well isn’t state control key how do you make sure the government can do all that? Why is the government key to solve?

Aff dumb response: Oh yes we do we change great wide things and the government is key per our ___ card in the 1AC. (Got you)

2) There is no way X country or terrorist would attack us ever right?

Aff dumb response: you bet they would china hates us for being sexy and will attack us immediatly if we don’t do plan killing us all ( cute but got ya)

3) Your advantages assume international solvency, why would turgekastan care about the US?

Aff dumb response: The US is the leader their modeling is key (Bingo was the Link-O)

4) Couldn’t another country just do your plan the US cant really save everyone can they? (this one is classic because its also a head fake to an alternate actor CP)

Aff dumb response: The US has to do it because we are the best and greatest and most magical of all… (get out the shovel they be digging a hole)

Alright CX is out of the way now its time for the 1NC strategy. Work this out before the round and you can take prep to make sure you get this right if needed.

I will now impart to you a great secret of debate. Debate is all about time allocation. Paul, I thought it was about seeing how great I can look in dress pants and sneakers? No – it’s time allocation, but that is pretty funny. In all my rounds, I watched a timer constantly during my opponent’s speeches. How much time they allocate to an argument shows either strength or weakness. As a negative I knew which 1 or 2 strategies would most likely be in the 2NR. (Side note if you don’t know what you could go for from your 1NC in the 2NR, take more prep and figure it out). I then fill the 1NC with arguments which have little to no risk of being turned AND a high probability of getting the other team to waste more time. Why focus on time allocation? Because judges are lazy, the truth is the easiest thing for them to say to other team why they lost is “You just undercovered X, you were behind, they beat you.” everyone nods and smiles on that one. EZ for judges = EZ to win. Remember that contrary to your coaches belief, judges are always right. (Thank you, Tom Noonan)

Ok Paul I kind of believe this time trade off thing how do I do it?

Topicality is almost always a great time trade off, especially if you can find out what T that team has lost on before, they will overcompensate and spend too much time. Your 1N should be able to read a T shell in 20-30 sec. The 2AC will spend at least 30-60 seconds, sweet we are ahead already. Next step was a stupid off case argument they have never heard of, this is the true purpose to vagueness ASPEC and OSPEC. I would set it up in CX by specifically hinting that something was “vague” the bigger deal you make of it the more they will make of it in the 2AC. 1N time on vagueness 20 sec, 2AC time 1min, sweet that head fake worked.

Now to the motherload, the case debate. 2A’s are horrible at the case debate because most 2A’s are handed their aff by their coach and the dirty secret is they haven’t really read their own cards and thus will be ineffective in cross applying or making warranted enough arguments to be efficient. Dirty secret of debate #2 by Paul, read link cards from your kritik which apply to the specific advantages on each advantage in amongst regular case debate cards. So go ahead and read a “your case doesn’t solve because the government is ineffective” but then read another link card which implicates that the environment will be destroyed. The aff won’t have the time or ability to address it appropriately and we will use it later in the 2NC. Also interweave the very Cedarburg style “They have a plan flaw, their authors don’t actually advocate doing X”. Why interweave everything? Time. It’s a puzzle only you know the answer to and the more you can “hide” your kritik link cards the better off you will be. Alright have you 1N spend 90 seconds here. This should get you 120 seconds of the 2AC even if it’s an even trade its time they will spend before the off case since coaches have been telling 2A’s to go in order of T, Case, other offcase. (side note coaches stop doing this and teach your kids time allocation, case can go last because all case is never the strategy)

Here is where we are now in the war of time allocation:

Alright we are way ahead.

Now you can take great negative liberties. You should choose positions like DA’s or CP’s that serve 2 purposes. They should be different arguments but ones that have little risk of being turned and DO NOT CONFLICT with you Kritik or Cp game plan. Whoa hold the train Paul, I am the negative I do what I want. Yes, I have run conflicting arguments but rarely. I would read a DA with an environment impact not nuke war while running realism or threat con. Why? Because it doesn’t conflict out of the 1NC. If I want to go the DA CP route in the block I can kick the Kritik then and read the war add on. Don’t conflict in the 1NC because you don’t have to. It only has a risk of giving the AFF’s a way out by conceding a position and using it against you. Judges also hate disingenuous kritik debaters. Politics serves a decent purpose here because the other team will have a big fat file they will want to read and they always give you defensive arguments (non unique and no links) to kick out of the position. Again think about time trade offs. Even if the DA’s are a wash in time trade off – they keep the Aff away from the Kritik, which is the main game plan. Let’s pretend we ran 2 DA’s

Here is the scoreboard:

Now we could have read 2 T’s one we cared about and one we didn’t or we could have spent more time on case, either is fine they give you great tradeoff. You will notice we now have ample time to read a complete Kritik Shell with fiat and framework arguments IN THE 1NC PEOPLE! And we predict that the 2AC will have 1 min of time to spend on the kritik. My 2NC can now be 6-8mins of the Kritk and my partner can take case (which are kritik links) and keep some other procedural hanging around to put pressure on the 1AR. I am so blocked out as a 2N that I don’t take much if any 2NC prep putting even more pressure on the 1AR.

2NC game plan- take the core position for 4-8mins depending. Put it last in your speech to give the 1AR the least amount of time to spend on it. If there is theory maybe leave that to the 1NR. 2NC overview is already prepped and you just pulled out the blocks to the generic arguments the aff made so your pretty much ready to go. Practice the 2NC on your key position so you can do it in 4, 6 or 8 min versions. If you are way ahead use the 4 min version and spend the other 4 on T or something else they mishandled. If you are doing just ok, spend 6 on the Kritik on 2 on T or a DA that is a possibility. 2N should kick everything else that isn’t needed. Blame the 2AC for poor time allocation to get the judge thinking and give reasons why the 1AR cannot be new. Game is pretty much over at this point.

2NR- This is the hardest speech in debate. I could write a whole article on that alone. The 1AR will either continue the bad time allocation or try to hit the breaks and cover the Kritik but it will be new and too little too late. I often had 1A’s reading cards in the 1AR, that was funny and judges hate it. 2NR overview is why the judge should vote on the K, how consistent you have argued it from the CX of the 1AC all the way through. Include the specific links you found throughout the round and that they admitted to, concede T means they have to link to being a new increase in government evil action and then apply the usual BS about the alternative and the role of the ballot. Then slam the door on the 2AR by predicting that they will have new arguments and that they will try to go back to case outweighs. Say that everytime they save case solves ignore it because the system will coop their action. The Kritik is the first step to solving the aff problems and more….. Game.

Get it now? In my opinion with this kind of pressure in the neg strategy and a good handle on a well prepped Kritik or CP debate the negative can rock the house every time. Congratulations, if you are still reading this article. If you like it and want me to explain the AFF side of the world please leave a comment requesting more. If not then all negs will win next year.

What follows below is a list of next year’s dates. I’ve listed the possibilities of tournaments on a particular date as well. I’ve tried to note what is going on with the National Circuit where appropriate:

Sept 12-13: Wake Forest, WDCA Fall Meeting
Sept 19-20: Marquette
Sept 26-27: Nicolet?, Valley?
Oct 3-4: Rufus King, Merrill?, New Trier
Oct 10-11: Hortonville, West Bend
Oct 17-18: LaCrosse, South Milwaukee?
Oct 24-25: Open,
Oct 31-Nov 1: Teachers Convention, Mukwonago?, Caucus/EGR?
Nov 7-8: (Sheboygan North if can’t move), Michigan
Nov 14-15: Janesville/Madison Memorial
Nov 21-22: Sheboygan South, Glenbrooks
Dec 5-6: Sheboygan North/Appleton East, Greendale/Hale
Dec 12-13: WDCA-WHSFA State, location TBA

If the first weekend of December is open (as in Appleton East is not hosting), then Sheboygan North would like to take that weekend and continue the tradition of running the challenge.

I can bring fresh energy to the Council, coupled with a decade of experience coaching every event the NFL offers, while working within an Urban Debate League framework and juggling the challenges of fundraising and traveling. I have also worked in a public relations firm, as a legislative assistant, and as a board member of a local professional theatre company; therefore, I understand how nonprofits work, and how to network to get things done.

As I complete my three-year term as president of one of the several leagues in Wisconsin, I worked to build consensus despite a history of contentious differences. When we merged two state debate tournaments under one banner, the unity of an activity lagging in numbers contributed to growth in participation and pooling of resources. My purpose in any forensic leadership positions I have held in the past eight years is the same: maximizing opportunities for the most children as well as eroding egos of old to make way for cooperation anew. Most importantly I listen: to coaches and students.

Thank you for considering my candidacy,
Adam J. Jacobi – Rufus King HS – Milwaukee, WI

I can bring fresh energy to the Council, coupled with a decade of experience coaching every event the NFL offers, while working within an Urban Debate League framework and juggling the challenges of fundraising and traveling. I have also worked in a public relations firm, as a legislative assistant, and as a board member of a local professional theatre company; therefore, I understand how nonprofits work, and how to network to get things done.

As I complete my three-year term as president of one of the several leagues in Wisconsin, I worked to build consensus despite a history of contentious differences. When we merged two state debate tournaments under one banner, the unity of an activity lagging in numbers contributed to growth in participation and pooling of resources. My purpose in any forensic leadership positions I have held in the past eight years is the same: maximizing opportunities for the most children as well as eroding egos of old to make way for cooperation anew. Most importantly I listen: to coaches and students.

Thank you for considering my candidacy,
Adam J. Jacobi – Rufus King HS – Milwaukee, WI

To facilitate that relaxation in a positive way, we are providing some State Tournament Trivia. There are no exclusions on who can participate in this trivia game. The rules are the same as last weekend. Send results through the WFD forum and I am the sole arbiter of points. Hopefully more teams will participate than last weekend. (If you were curious, no one participated last weekend, and so I didn’t even post the results).

One last reminder: Bring your laptops to the tournament! Or if you’re a parent, stay close to your computer and away from the snow! We will be providing live updates from South Milwaukee. (South Milwaukee has an open wireless network and has allowed WFD to post round-by-round updates in the previous years that the State Tournament has been held there.)

1.) The Wisconsin State Debate Tournament was a new entity last year, marking the first time that the WHSFA and the WDCA had hosted a joint state tournament. Previously, the WDCA offered its own tournament, which has been known by two different names. What are they? (two points).

The Wisconsin State Tournament of Champions (STOC)*
The Tournament of Champions (TOC)* (Also T of C in some doccuments)
The Wisconsin State Tournament
Coaches
*- these were the names were were looking for

2.) The WDCA has offered a Varsity Switch-Sides competition since 1991. What program has won the WDCA switch side championship more often than any other? What years did they win the championship? (two points)

Brookfield Central (7 times): 1995-1996, 1998-1999, 1999-2000, 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006

3.) True or False: For the old WHSFA State Debate Tournament, Varsity-Four Person and Varsity-Switch Side were once held on completely separate weekends in completely separate locations. (one point)

True The size of the tournament was once so large, that two weekends were needed.

4.) Many final rounds of the VSS division are memorable for their intense competition. One such round was the 2001-2002 final round. To this day, the round remains controversial. Who participated in the round? What happened? Why was it controversial? (five points)

Neenah BH affirmed and read their critical disarmament case; Marquette went for Irony Good. Controversial because of the Negative Strategy and the decision from the round. (3-2 for Neenah. Marquette openly critiqued the judges after the round)

5.) As long as we are talking about memorable rounds, we shouldn’t forget Lincoln-Douglas. In the semi-finals of the 2004-2005 State Tournament, one round was particularly memorable for the non-traditional affirmative strategy. Who were the debaters? What was the strategy? What was the decision? (five points)

Brookfield East’s Liz Viera was aff and read a narrative; Marquette’s Nicky Smith was neg. Liz won on a 2-1 decision. Nicky never answered the standards argument, dropped his own case, and went for narrative bad.

6.) The WHSFA is the older organization than the WDCA. Unlike forensics, debate was a competitive event in both organizations. Why did the WDCA create its own State Tournament? (two points – there are two main reasons).

To have a JV/Novice State Tournament and to allow multiple teams to participate. The WHSFA used to allow only one team per school

7.) The WDCA used to offer one now-defunct division. What was it? (one point)

Open-Switch Sides or Non-Varsity Switch Sides

8.) In order to determine the first place team in Varsity Four-Person, the WDCA has utilized more rounds than 3 and power pairing. In the past the WHSFA used an alternative method. What was that method? (one point).

Elimination Rounds

9.) The WDCA has awarded scholarships to senior debaters since 1992. What program has received the most amount of scholarships? (one point)

Cedarburg.

10.) The WDCA Hall of Fame is the older of the two WDCA coaches awards, despite the fact that it is given out that the organization’s spring meeting. Two of the Hall of Fame coaches are on this year’s tab room staff. Who are they? (two points)

They rhyme: Mike Traas and Rolland Faas.

11.) The WDCA established LD as a State Tournament event in 2001-2002. Despite it being a young event, this program had one year of completely dominating it. What was the program? What was the accomplishment? What year did it happen? (three points)

# Close-Out Champion – Paul Bender, 2002-2003
# Close-Out Champion – David Mark, 2002-2003
# Close-Out Champion – Casey Metz, 2002-2003
# Close-Out Champion – Nikolai Smith, 2002-2003
# Close-Out Champion – Matt Clark, 2002-2003

12.) This year’s event is at South Milwaukee. Name the location of the last twelve WDCA State hosts. Do not exclude multiple hosts. (Twelve really hard points – despite the fact that one is a free bee… We also have counted multiple schools if the tournament was hosted at two schools.)

2007-2008 – South Milwaukee
2006-2007 – Hortonville
2005-2006 – South Milwaukee
2004-2005 – South Milwaukee
2003-2004 – Wausau West
2002-2003 – Bradley Tech
2001-2002 – Hortonville
2000-2001 – Nathan Hale
1999-2000 – Appleton West & Appleton North
1998-1999 – UW-Oshkosh & Sheboygan North/South
1997-1998 – Waukesha South

13.) Going back to the scholarship winners. Two scholarship winners have become head coaches. Who are they and who did they coach for? (four points)

Kristi Plamann – scholarship 1995, coach at Hortonville
Jessie Wachs – scholarship 1999, now Jessie Hager, was coach at Madison West.

14.) Dating back to the WDCA’s start of start of switch-side policy debate competition, there have been several tournament directors. Can you name them all? (six points)

2006-2007 Traas
2005, 1999-2002 Noonan
2003-2004 Adam Jacobi/Laura Maly – also know as the terribly run years.
1998 Alex Inman
1994-1997 Bill McBride (I’m not sure about the years, but I know he was the STOC tournament director)
1991-1994 Jeff Holt (again, not sure about the years, but I know he preceded McBride.)

15.) This person is the only to win the WDCA top speaker award in the VSS division multiple times. (one point)

There are actually two – Gaurav Bhatnagar and Peter Klein.

16.) Between 2002 and 2005 one high school was the undisputed best program for Varsity Switch Sides in the WDCA. Name that program and how many teams they cleared to elimination rounds each year. (twelve points – big hint)

Brookfield Central –

2002-2003: HL in the quarters, MW in the semifinals, BB won.
2003-2004: HK in the octas, TY in the octas, HL in the octas, MW in the octas, BB won
2004-2005: LP in the quarters, LW in the semis, BB won.
2005-2006: LW won

17.) Up until last year, the WHSFA State tournament was always during January. When did the WDCA switch from January to December? (one point)

After the 1998-1999 tournament, before the 1999-2000 tournament.

18.) During the debate season, the Lincoln-Douglas topic was not always the current NFL topic. What was used instead? (one point)

They made their own

19.) True or False: During the 1980′s it was not uncommon for all of the coaches in at the tournament to judge the final round at WHSFA state.

True

20.) Name the affirmative read in the final round of Varsity Switch at WDCA State for the last six years. Name the team too. (Another 12 pointer)

2006-2007: Rufus King, Peace Corps
2005-2006: Brookfield Central, Homelessness
2004-2005: Brookfield Central, UN Arrears
2003-2004: Appleton West, Flags of Convenience
2002-2003: Hortonville, Deep Eco Education
2001-2002: Neenah, Disarm

21.) Two coaches have won championships as a debater and as a coach. One in LD and one in Policy Debate. (they’re may be others, but only two to my knowledge.) Name them. (two points). [Big hint, read the question carefully]

Nick Bubb. 2002 WFCA State Champion in LD and coach of Noah Triling, 2006 WDCA/WHSFA State Champion in LD.

There is now a third. Bill Batterman. 1999 WFCA State Champion in LD and coach of Marquette

22.) This is the only family to win the WDCA top speaker award twice. (one point). [I could be wrong here, if what we have on WFD is incorrect.]

Bhatnagar: both Manav and Gaurav were top speakers

After studying communication at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, Sexton returned to her alma mater and began her tenure at West Bend East in 1975. Since then, she has taught thousands of students the art of speech as both a teacher and coach and has been an indispensable contributor to the Wisconsin Debate Coaches’ Association, the Wisconsin Forensics Coaches’ Association, and the Southern Wisconsin District of the National Forensic League. Her students have won numerous state championships and hundreds have qualified for the National Forensic League National Tournament and the National Catholic Forensic League Grand Nationals.

Sexton became a member of the National Forensic League in 1966 as a high school debater and speaker. As a coach, she earned her first diamond in 1984, her second in 1990, and her third in 1997. She was elected to the Wisconsin Debate Coaches’ Association Hall of Fame in 1992-1993, becoming just the twelfth inductee into this prestigious circle of coaches. She received the Wisconsin Forensics Coaches’ Association Bill Hintz Memorial Coach of the Year Award in 1995.

Beyond the contributions she has made to her own program, Sexton has made incredible sacrifices to serve the greater Wisconsin debate and forensics community. She has served as the Chair of the Southern Wisconsin District for many years, earning a District Chair Gold Award in 1995. She served as President of the Wisconsin Debate Coaches’ Association in 1983-1984 and 1991-1992 and as President of the Wisconsin Forensic Coaches’ Association in 1994-1995. She has also served as Treasurer of the latter organization for the past ten years after taking over for Ty Wesley of Sheboygan South for the 1996-1997 season.

Sexton’s career was honored in an article in the West Bend Daily News on July 3rd. The full text of that article is reproduced below; because the Daily News does not archive its stories online, consider this a WFD exclusive.

Maersch, Mitch. “Vigor of Speech: Sexton Took The Intimidation Out Of Class,” West Bend Daily News, July 3, 2007, p. B10.

It took all of one high school debate practice for Doris Sexton to make an impression on Rebecca Ryan.

Sexton’s acronym for how to win every debate stood out, in part because she wrote it in huge letters on the chalkboard: Significance, Harms, Inherency, Topicality and Solvency.

“She then went on to explain how to structure each of the ‘SHITS’ arguments,” Ryan said. “At the end of her session, I knew I’d never forget how to structure my case, and I thought ‘She is cool!’”

Sexton and her husband, Steve, coached the West Bend East debate team for about 30 years, winning a state title in the mid-1990s, and coached forensics for about as long. For 34 years, Doris taught the class that perhaps shoots fear down students’ spines more than any other: speech.

Sexton last month received a note from a student who admitted dreading her class at the beginning of the semester. By the end, the student had gotten the hang of it.

“Better than paychecks, those little notes,” she said.

Sexton retired this year, leaving some big shoes to fill for the next person to teach taking the scare out of speaking.

“It’s so funny that they’re terrified. You know it really isn’t as tough as you think it is,” she said. “Very, very seldom over all these years have I had somebody freeze up.”

It wasn’t as tough for the dynamic Ryan (formerly Rebecca Schwoch), who qualified for national debates several times in high school. She went on to found Next Generation Consulting and she regularly charges thousands of dollars to give speeches to hundreds of people about attracting and retaining Generation X employees. Ryan called Sexton one of her “most influential high school teachers.”

“Doris is no one’s fool. She’s skeptical–sometimes she seemed cranky–but I think that’s because she expected kids not to be jerks,” Ryan said. “Debate can be very intense: It’s your evidence and ability to argue compared to the other team. And sometimes, the other team had better evidence, or more persuasive debaters. I don’t think Doris cared so much if we lost on evidence or skills, but I always sensed that she expected us to do our best. For me, this was very motivating. I don’t remember Doris ever yelling at me or criticizing me; I always remember feeling like she had high expectations, which was far more mobilizing.”

Sexton remembers her former star debater as well.

“She was amazingly talented,” she said.

Talented or not, Sexton emphasizes the importance of speech.

“I think communication is the important part of life, period,” she said,” whether it’s on the job, diplomatic or talking with friends over the dinner table.”

Talking and listening is done so often “it’s like breathing,” she said. Newspapers, books and TV don’t add up to the amount people talk.

Being able to teach that became her passion.

“To be honest, I don’t know I would have been happy doing other things,” she said.

A debater and forensics member herself, the 1967 West Bend High School grad came to know longtime coach John Steinbach, who helped inspire her career.

“That kind of sealed the deal,” she said.

The two became friendly rivals when Sexton began coaching East and Steinbach headed up West.

“I didn’t dare let those East kids come in second to those West kids,” she said.

Kids, she said, are where it’s at.

“If I weren’t around people who were lots younger, I’d be feeling a lot older than I am today,” she said.

Sexton is quick to catch on to teen lingo and pop culture, and she is savvy enough to use it.

“If someone says something first hour, I can impress second hour,” she said.

She sure impressed her principal.

“When Doris enters a room, the energy of the room changes–she is so dynamic, energetic and infectious that she brings everyone around her to a higher level. She is a favorite teacher among all students from our most gifted to our studnets dealing with the greatest challenges,” said Cassandra Schug. “She always takes the time to recognize all the people who make this school work, for example, every year, she makes a home-cooked meal complete with homemade cheesecake for the office staff.”

Sexton ate plenty in class. Students often cooked for demonstration speeches. Teens’ talent in the kitchen ran as big a gamut as their speaking skills.

“They all walk around with samples,” Sexton said,” and I’m thinking, oh my goodness.”

Sexton did, however, learn from her students as well.

“I could probably beat out Ken Jennings in ‘Jeopardy,’ I’ve heard so many speeches about everything,” she said. The Loch Ness monster seems to be an annual favorite, she said.

What she couldn’t do is help students if they had problems with their Power Point presentations.

“They’ll say I can’t make it work. Oh please, make it work. I’m from the pencil and gradebook era,” she said.

Whether it worked or not, students received respect.

“She expected us to behave like grown-ups and she treated us that way,” Ryan said. “And even though her humor was dry and her demeanor was sometimes acerbic, she always had a good word for you. We’d run into her after a round of debate and she’d ask, ‘How’d it go?’ We’d always tell her the truth. We didn’t have to sugar coat it for her, because she was so even in her temperament. The best compliment you could get from Doris was, ‘Good for you, kid.’ I remember her calling us ‘kid’ a lot.

“I also remember that she didn’t care if we called her ‘Doris.’ We didn’t have to call her ‘Mrs. Sexton.’ She wasn’t much for formalities, if they didn’t tie to results.”

Once a kid herself, Sexton remembers seeing some of those same teachers as colleagues after she earned her education degree from the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater. Some of those teachers she considered “ancient.”

“What are they still doing here?” she said. “Lo and behold, I have become the ancient.”

Sexton still lives in West Bend. She and Steve have two children, both of whom were in debate and forensics. Steve is an economics teacher at Greenfield High School.

Hours after Doris finishes teaching summer school, her plane for Europe leaves. Other retirement plans including talking to the dog and walking around the block.

And perhaps she might head up a new organization.

“She would cringe if we formed a fan club, but I’d certainly be in it,” Ryan said.

Judges Preference is not Judge’s Bias
by Nick Bubb

Judge’s preference is simply a method of breaking ties. The Tab room is not asking the judges, “who would you like to see win the competition?” Judges Preference is merely a method of calculation. The calculation is objective and logical based on the ranks that judges submit. There’s no subjectivity.

For example, if during the final round of Oratory two speakers have the following ranks, how can we tell the difference?

Speaker A: 1, 3, 1
Speaker B: 2, 1, 2

Normally we evaluate who wins the round with the lowest rank total, but each of these speakers are tied in their total ranks at 5. How then can we evaluate who receives first place and who does not? The first tie breaker at any tournament is judges preference.

Since each judge ranks all of the speakers in the round, we look to an agreement among TWO judges among the ranked ballot they submitted. This is not an agreement upon a rank, although, from the example that I have used above that is certainly the case. The agreement we are seeking, is one based on rank. If two judges rank one speaker above another, then that speaker is said to be preferred over the other.

In the example above, Speaker A should win on judges preference because the first judge and the third judge preferred (ranked) speaker A above speaker B. This is what we look for when establishing judges preference, that two judges clearly prefer one competitor over another.

Judges Preference can be used to break ties among many speakers. For example, consider the following situation.

Speaker A: 3, 3, 5 = 11
Speaker B: 1, 4, 6 = 11
Speaker C: 4, 6, 1 = 11

Speaker A is preferred over Speaker B (3 over 4, 5 over 6) and Speaker A is preferred over Speaker C (3 over 4, 3 over 6). Thus, Speaker A should win the tie-breaker. After, we break the three-way tie, then we still have to break the tie between Speaker B and Speaker C.

Seemingly, this tie is unbreakable. Each of the speakers have received identical ranks, shouldn’t they end up being completely tied? The answer is no. We have to look closely. Speaker B should win the tie-break with Speaker C (1 over 4, 4 over 6).

There are some instances where judge’s preference cannot break ties. Consider the following situation:

Speaker A: 1, 2, 3
Speaker B: 2, 3, 1
Speaker C: 3, 1, 2

This is an example of an unbreakable tie. Speaker A is preferred to Speaker B (1 over 2, 2 over 3), but is not preferred to Speaker C. Speaker C is preferred to Speaker A, (1 over 2, 2 over 3). And Speaker B is preferred over speaker C (1 over 2, 2 over 3).

There are other methods of breaking a tie. They are reciprocals and preliminary ranks. Often though, these methods are rarely used. The reason for this is that judges preference is quite a powerful method of breaking ties.

This initial explanation started with the statement that Judges Preference is a method of breaking ties. This prompts the question – do ties need to be broken? For our average weekly tournament – the question is yes and no. Breaking ties between 6th, and 7th place seems pointless. Both places receive the same awards. On the other hand, breaking ties between 4th and 3rd, often the difference between receiving an award and not, does seem to make sense. At other, more special tournaments, the situation is a bit different. At the state tournament, where we award all of the places in the final round, clearly the answer is yes.

Hopefully, this explanation has alleviated some misunderstandings of tournament tabulation and can silence some boos.