Seven of our Division 2 clubs (Falcon, Firehawk, Husky, Polar Bear, Tiger, Lion, and Eagle) are squaring off at our fourth online tournament of the 2020-2021 year. Only participants and their friends and family are permitted to attend, but check our video page after the event for selected video from the tournament.
The topic for this next tournament is “”The U.S. federal government should establish a maximum annual tuition that colleges and universities can charge while remaining eligible for funding via federal student loans.”
April 10, 2021 – “The United States should adopt a universal basic income.”
February 14, 2021 – “In the U.S., fines should be scaled based on a person’s income.”
November 21, 2020 – “The Electoral College should be replaced by a national popular vote.”
August 8, 2020 – “U.S. public schools should not reopen for in-person teaching until a vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 is broadly available.”
May 30, 2020 – “From a strictly educational standpoint, online learning is better than in-person learning.”
December 2019 – ““The federal minimum wage should be increased to $15 per hour.”
READY SET DEBATE Statement to Debaters: You will benefit from a clearly stated and appropriate framework, and you’ll gain a significant advantage on the ballot if you implement your framework consistently throughout the debate. A full line-by-line rebuttal as very important, and you are encouraged to ask clarifying questions in CX if you missed any of your opponents’ case. A great way to persuade the judge to vote for you is to bring in clear and realistic impacts and convincingly demonstrate that they outweigh your opponents’ impacts. Judges won’t vote against you based on speed, but be aware that they can only flow so fast, so speak quickly at your own risk. Judges are commonly impressed by debaters who adopt a “confident, friendly, open-minded educator and collaborator” approach in their presentations. They generally look poorly upon disruptive, disrespectful, and/or belligerent conduct from debaters. While they generally will not vote against you for this conduct alone, it will guarantee you low speaker points. Judges should have a policy of viewing a round “tabula rasa” (clean slate), unless they know the competitors have been instructed to expect that the judge will be familiar with aspect(s) of the resolution. This means a judge would generally expect debaters to clearly explain any aspects of the resolution that I might not be familiar with. Judges do not tolerate dishonesty in debate, and they almost always vote against otherwise competent debaters who clearly exhibit intentional dishonesty.