College Policy Debate Forums
May 21, 2019, 06:50:24 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
 on: May 20, 2019, 09:23:44 AM 
Started by Dinger - Last post by Dinger
Space is the winner.

63 schools voted.

You can find more information and follow Topic Committee communications here:,150.0.html

Round by round breakdown:

Round 1
CT - 18
CYber 1
Labor - 6
IMF - 2
LA - 3
Russia - 0
Sahel - 3
Space 15
SR - 11
Arms - 4

Russia is eliminated

Round 2

CT - 18
CYber 1
Labor - 6
IMF - 2
LA - 3
Sahel - 3
Space 15
SR - 11
Arms - 4

Cyber eliminated

Round 3

CT - 18
Labor - 6
IMF - 2
LA - 3
Sahel - 4
Space 15
SR - 11
Arms - 4

IMF eliminated

Round 4

CT - 20
Labor - 6
LA - 3
Sahel - 4
Space 15
SR - 11
Arms - 4

Latin America elimincated

Round 5
CT 20
Labor 6
Sahel 4
space 18
sr - 11
arms 4

sahel 3
arms 1

Arms sales eliminated

Round 6
ct 22
labor 6
sahel 4
space 19
sr 12

Sahel eliminated

Round 7
CT 22
labor 6
space 21
SR 14

Labor eliminated

Round 8
CT 24
space 23
sr 16

State Recognition eliminated

Round 9
CT 31
Space 32 *winner

Voting schools:
Arizona State University
Binghamton University
Boston College
Concordia College
Dartmouth College
Emory University
Emporia State University
Fresno State
Fullerton College
George Mason University
Gonzaga University
Indiana University
James Madison
Johnson County Community College
Kansas State University
Michigan State University
Missouri State University
New York University
Northwestern University
Rutgers University-Newark
Samford University
Southern Methodist University
Southwestern College
St. Marys
The New School
Trinity University
UC Berkeley
Univ. of Florida
University of Central Florida
University of Central Oklahoma
University of Georgia
University of Houston
University of Iowa
University of Kansas
University of Kentucky
University of Mary Washington
University of Miami
University of Michigan
University of Missouri - Kansas City
University of Puget Sound
University of West Georgia
University of Wisconsin-Madison
University of Wyoming
UNLV Debate Team
Vanderbilt University
Wake Forest
Wayne State
Weber State University
West Virginia University
Wichita State University

 on: May 14, 2019, 09:14:59 PM 
Started by SJordan - Last post by SJordan
Pace Academy in Atlanta, GA is looking to hire a Director of Debate.

Posting is attached. Feel free to email me ( if you have questions.


 on: May 14, 2019, 11:01:27 AM 
Started by LQuinn92 - Last post by LQuinn92
Dear Community,

I wanted to post a few words to answer some potential questions before the topic vote Thursday. And thanks so much for the kind works Jackie. I also would love to turn Samford into a platform for helping local Birmingham schools be able to brainstorm and practice with our team.

First, please find attached the HS Topic Paper. This is largely for easy access.

Second, my paper is intentionally ambiguous about deviating from the HS topic. I felt as is if this would best be a process handled during the topic wording part of the process. In my opinion, I think the college topic should says "reduce its sale of arms and services” and provide a topic country list. This mechanism for college would be broader than the HS topic (not so much so as to make research irrelevant, just may permit one or two smaller affs in the college world) while a topic country list could help cleave out niches for high school teams who do not want to run into college arguments. For instance, if Egypt is not one of the topic country list for college, a high school team could read an Egypt aff. But, the fact of the matter is the HS topic does not have a country list. This is terrifying the HS community (rightfully so, not having a country list makes this topic massive) and so any amount of double-dipping by the community would directly benefit HS.

Lastly, I'll readily admit that the paper I submitted is not fully fleshed out in terms of evidence. The fact of the matter is that I was unaware of the deadline for submission (first time, some confusion, etc.) so. I merely wanted to advance the arguments about why parallelism in the community is good. I was not that concerned with fleshing out certain affs/da's on the topic, because I knew that the HS paper had largely done these things and people generally know what the arm sales lit is about (its pretty basic all things considered).

Again, I strongly believe that this is a wonderful opportunity to share a great topic and experiment with ways to grow the community.


 on: May 07, 2019, 02:57:23 AM 
Started by NSDAChina - Last post by NSDAChina
Hi everyone!

NSDA China is looking for someone to join the Academic Department team. The attached job description mainly focuses on the curriculum development aspect of the job but there are also coaching opportunities available with this position. NSDA China does not have policy debate tournaments yet, but this is still a great opportunity for anyone that would like to expand their horizons. Our offices are in Shanghai. The attached job description gives more details on the position and who we are. You can also visit our website ( or find us on Youtube to learn more about us. Interested parties can send their CVs to

Thank you!

 on: May 06, 2019, 02:33:38 PM 
Started by SherryHall - Last post by SherryHall
Kevin Kuswa
May 6 at 3:12 PM
Ken Strange was a major force (of Yoda levels) in the debate community for a long time and I was lucky to work for him for a few years in the 90s. Unfortunately, it looks like I will have to miss the gathering in June to celebrate his life so I want to share a story or two here. It’s hard to choose—there are so many great stories about his many stellar teams, about rounds he’s judged, about tournaments we attended, about the Dartmouth debate institute, or just about hanging around Hanover. The one I’d like to relate includes a little lesson about teaching that might be interesting to many of you, even if you did not know Ken.

It was the mid-90s and I was an excited young coach working for a great Dartmouth program with lots of motivated and talented debaters. In preparation for the Kentucky tournament that year, we all pitched in and tried to produce a viable case file against most of the big teams. My assignment was Michigan’s Afghanistan aff and I was asked to work with a few of the first-years to broaden our research base and give them a sense of what a decent case file should look like. Ken was optimistic about what we would produce, giving some key pointers on how to dismantle the aff and what the overall file should include. He was always really good at cutting to the core of an affirmative and isolating its weaknesses and what evidence was needed to really take a dent out of it.

We moved forward and the file started to take shape—all the bells and whistles: links to our big off-case DAs, a couple of advantage CPs that avoided the links to politics and a China influence DA (that Ken wrote—it was awesome), recent and nuanced case answers, including unique offense (Hekmatyar backlash, Paki border crossing, tribal moderation, etc.). It was a pretty sick file, well-organized, evidence highlighted, extensions written, copies made, and I even remember Steven Sklaver chipping in with some solid uniqueness cards for the case turns and Bill Russell found links to our BJP DA. So we head to Kentucky and, lo and behold, the round 5 pairings come out—posted on a wall at the time—and one of Dartmouth’s younger teams is debating one of the top teams from Michigan...and we were negative!

The round takes place, I forget who was judging, but the Dartmouth team ends up winning on a risk of the China DA and very little left on case. It was a huge win and we were all very excited. At the end of the day, Ken gathers all of us together before dinner and we’re going over the results from the day to allocate assignments for the elims. Ken tells the team how proud he is of everyone and how we still have work to do for the morning. Then, in a moment I will never forget, he stops for a second until he has everyone’s attention. In his deep voice he says, “You all, we had a really big win in round 5 against Michigan and I think we need to give props to the folks who put together our Afghanistan file, especially...,” (at this point I’m thinking he’s going to thank me for the work on the file and how useful it was, but, instead, he continued), “...especially young Jonathan for all his great work!”

Everyone started clapping for Jonathan and I was somewhat surprised. The young debater Ken was praising had been in the research group, but he hadn’t really turned anything in and was not a big part of the effort that went into the file...what was going on here? I thought about it a little more and it began to dawn on me—the coaches and experienced debaters did not really need recognition for their work on the file, but the young debater who received Ken’s praise really did. The more I thought about it the more it not only made sense to me, it became a microcosm of Ken Strange’s pedagogy: encouragement is currency and a team must use its currency wisely. Sometimes the best recipient of accolades is not necessarily the person who put in the most effort. Sometimes a little nod to someone learning the ropes can go a long way. What a lesson to learn! Recognition and encouragement can happen in many ways, making the craft of coaching about extending support to those at the bottom of the totem pole, not just a race to cut more cards. It was a profound moment and the lesson about the role of teaching was not lost on me.

A few weeks later the team was preparing for a regional tournament prior to Wake (probably West Point or Liberty) and we were getting together some new case files. The DUF was in Robinson Hall at the time and we would usually gather around the copy machine in order to make copies of the new assignments before leaving town. I was standing at the machine, double checking some of the files and stuffing manila folders with the fresh copies of our new material. As I was about to leave the office after most of the teams had collected their files and headed off to pack, I heard a voice from the hallway, “Wait, Coach, don’t turn off the machine yet, I have my file!” It was Jonathan. He had been given some of the new environmental cases to work on and handed me a thick folder of evidence. It could have used a bit more organization, but overall was really impressive—new research, recent cards, lots of case defense, and even some links to a few of our generics. Exactly what you would want—and he had done it all on his own. Would he have put that file together without Ken’s encouragement from Kentucky? Maybe—but maybe not. The point was that he felt connected to the team and wanted to put together a good file—he was invested. That’s something I always felt Ken was so good at—encouraging people to give 100%, to care what they were doing, to work together for a common objective. I owe Ken a lot for that message among many other things. RIP my friend.

 on: May 06, 2019, 02:22:32 PM 
Started by jamesherndon3 - Last post by jamesherndon3
Apology for delays, I sent it to the teams and forgot to post. 


 on: May 03, 2019, 10:28:46 AM 
Started by SherryHall - Last post by SherryHall
Stephen Griffin
Monday, April 29, 2019

Frank B. Cross, In Memoriam (1955-2019)

I wanted to record the passing of my wonderful friend Frank Cross, a longtime faculty member at the University of Texas, Austin.  Other obituaries will recall that he was one of the best (NDT) college debaters of the 1970s and a gifted teacher.  I wish to highlight the tremendous loss to academia and legal scholarship.  Frank contributed enormously by continually challenging himself.  Already a UT faculty member, he embarked on a course of study in statistics that transformed his work and gave us new insights.  He began an extraordinary run of publication in leading law reviews with an article that questioned work that downplayed the contribution of lawyers to the economy.  He published many noteworthy books including Decision Making in the U.S. Courts of Appeals (2007); Measuring Judicial Activism (2009)(with Stefanie A. Lindquist); The Failed Promise of Originalism (2012); The Theory and Practice of Statutory Interpretation (2012); and Constitutions and Religious Freedom (2015).  Frank contributed as long as he could.  Robert Prentice, his friend on the UT faculty, said in his obituary: “Frank bravely battled adrenoleukodystrophy his entire adult life.  This cruel disease slowly robbed Frank of his ability to move, but never took away his love of life or sense of humor.  ALD ultimately defeated Frank, but it did not define him.”  Everyone who knew Frank will miss him.  He had this rare gift: an independent mind and an independent heart.

 on: May 03, 2019, 10:24:19 AM 
Started by SherryHall - Last post by SherryHall
Thad Swiderski

 I was lucky to have spent time with Frank. I saw your post and wanted to let you know that YOU had the same impact on me. It was you and Matt Caligur and Dick Lesiko that convinced me that debate at UT would be fun. Matt and Peter and Dick kept me in but later it was You and Carla and Melonie that made me realize it WAS fun.

 on: May 03, 2019, 10:23:59 AM 
Started by SherryHall - Last post by SherryHall
Steven Dolley

There are a lot of pretty brilliant people in debate. And most of them were in awe of Frank Cross.

 on: May 03, 2019, 10:23:10 AM 
Started by SherryHall - Last post by SherryHall
Joel Rollins

RIP Frank Cross. A brilliant and brave man, a wonderful teacher and inspiration.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!