The arguments contained in this year’s novice evidence packet are:

• An Afghanistan Affirmative and related case negative arguments.
• A “Sphere of Influence” disadvantage to the Afghanistan Affirmative and affirmative answers
• A Japan Affirmative and related case negative arguments
• A “China Containment” disadvantage to the Japan Affirmative and affirmative answers
• A South Korea Affirmative and related case negative arguments
• A “North Korea” disadvantage to the South Korea Affirmative and affirmative answers
• A Hegemony disadvantage and affirmative answers
• A Topicality File and affirmative answers

The plan texts in the packet are as follows:

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce its military and/or police presence in one or more of the following: South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey:

1. by phasing out its military presence in the Okinawa Prefecture of Japan
2. by phasing out its military presence in the Republic of South Korea.
3. by phasing out its military presence dedicated to counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan.

Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons.

The September 2010 Public Forum Debate topic is:

Resolved: Allowing deep water offshore oil drilling is in the best interest of the United States.

This individual promotes enrollment and retention of students in a comprehensive, nationally competitive interscholastic debate program including managing all aspects of the day-to-day coaching of students in Policy, Lincoln-Douglas, and Public Forum debate. Marquette University High School has a distinguished history of success in academic debate and the administration is committed to supporting a competitive program.

Specific duties include:

1. Recruits, retains, and evaluates members of the debate team.
2. Registers, manages, coaches, mentors, and evaluates students.
3. Travels with students and manages all logistics related to student participation in tournaments, including approximately 25 competitions per year.
4. Supervises and coordinates student research and preparation.
5. Hires and directs a staff of assistant coaches.
6. Represents Marquette in state and national organizations.
7. Hosts and manages the Hilltopper Classic, a final round qualifying invitational for the National Tournament of Champions.

Interested candidates should send a letter of interest and resume to:

Bob Herman, Dean of Students
Marquette University High School
3401 W. Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, WI 53208

Or via email:
herman@muhs.edu

Forensics background preferred, but no experience necessary. You do not have to be a teacher. College students are strongly encouraged to apply.

Pay is competitive and includes a coaching salary and judge pay.

Whitefish Bay High School is a premier Southeastern Wisconsin high school in suburban Milwaukee County with 950 students. Team affiliations include WFCA, NCFL, and NFL. We’re 7 minutes from UWM, 15 minutes from Marquette University, and on a direct bus line from both schools. We’d love for you to join our growing, award-winning program.

Send an informal resume and November-June availability to head coach Shawn Matson at shawn.matson@gmail.com or phone 262.224.3209.

Below is a running list of individual results, gathered together from what I know. Feel free to leave additions or corrections in the comments.

Archdiocese of Milwaukee:
Isaiah Grady, Bradley Tech – Octofinalist in Oral Interpretation of Literature
Alexis Wilkinson, Nicolet – Octofinalist in Original Oratory
Jake Tully, Brookfield East – Semi-finalist in Dramatic Performance
Gabby Termühlen, Brookfield East – Octofinalist in Oratorial Declamation
Jennifer Vosters, Brookfield East – Octofinalist in Dramatic Performance
Aditya Trivedi and Chih-Wei Wu,  Brookfield East – Double-octofinalists in Public Forum Debate
Jenna Huebner & David Mullins, Appleton East – Quarterfinalists in Duo Interpretation
Claire Zhuang, Appleton East – Octofinalist in Dramatic Performance

Diocese of Green Bay:
Alice Zhao, Sheboygan North – Quarterfinalist in Original Oratory
Caitlin Holzem and Amen Okundaye, Neenah – Double-Octofinalist Policy Debate
Kris Harmelink, Sheboygan South – Octofinalist in Dramatic Performance
Maria Giannopoulos, Sheboygan South – Semifinalist in Student Congress

Diocese of Eau Claire:
Megan Marquardt, Eau Claire North, Octofinalist in Original Oratory

Special congrats are in order to the kids at Bradley Tech and their coach Ernest Chomicki who saw their first student break to elimination rounds at nationals – an exciting and historic event in the life of a forensic program. Congratulations to Bradley Tech, and to everyone who represented our state with class this weekend!

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).

Round 1
1. What can be done to effectively combat Mexican drug cartels?
2. What should be done to ensure that banks are not too big to fail?
3. Did the Citizens United decision kill Stare Decisis?
4. How can democrats prevent massive losses in the 2010 midterm elections?
5. Will crumbling nuclear infrastructure collapse the credibility of America’s deterrent?
6. Is Obama bullying Israel?
7. What, if anything, can be done to remedy US-Iranian tensions?
8. Is it time for the Fed to raise interest rates?
9. Why were Haiti, Mexico, and China so unprepared for their earthquakes?
10. Will health care legislation negatively impact state budgets?
11. Are Obama’s fears of nuclear terrorism justified?
12. Is Syria moving toward nuclearization?
13. Has the American presence made Afghanistan safer?
14. What is the state of Asia’s economy?
15. What should be done to improve America’s critical infrastructure?

Round 2
1. Given foreign debt, who owns America?
2. Why is China outpacing America in alternative energy investment?
3. What can be done to curb piracy in the Horn of Africa?
4. Is Iraq prepared for an American withdrawal?
5. Is the American auto industry worth saving?
6. Is Hugo Chavez’ Venezuela a threat to South American stability?
7. START: Substantive or Symbolic?
8. Will the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” affect unit cohesion?
9. What should be America’s role in rescuing European economies?
10. Why were GOP efforts to block health care ultimately unsuccessful?
11. Does India’s possession of nuclear weapons threaten stability in South Asia?
12. Are recent congressional efforts to improve domestic cybersecurity sufficient?
13. Who will replace Justice Stevens?
14. Are Ahmadinejad’s accusations of American “nuclear blackmail” accurate?
15. To what extent are GOP criticisms of financial regulation accurate?

Round 3
1. What can health care’s passage tell us about Obama’s legislative prowess?
2. What should be the international community’s reaction to Syrian missile sales?
3. Is Blanche Lincoln an “awful democrat”?
4. What can be done to repair relations between Obama and Karzai?
5. How can America deter Al Qaeda from expanding its presence in the Arabian Peninsula?
6. How can Toyota regain the confidence of American consumers?
7. What can be done to stabilize Kyrgyzstan?
8. Has France fallen out of love with President Sarkozy?
9. Was the CITES conference a failure?
10. Is there a solution to America’s nuclear waste problem?
11. Will China ever properly value the Yuan?
12. What can the Republican National Committee do to regain its legitimacy?
13. Should the US pursue a free trade agreement with South Korea?
14. What can be done to resolve the state budget crisis?
15. What does the future hold for the Nuclear Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty?

Semifinals
1. Does America’s military alliance with Taiwan endanger the United States?
2. Should America “fight terrorism like Iran”?
3. Should air traffic control standards be reformed?
4. Will China’s gasoline sales to Iran offset the effectiveness of sanctions?
5. Does recent passage of health care legislation make more substantial health care reform likely in the next decade?
6. Will Israel deport Palestinians to Gaza?
7. Will Obama’s changes to the Nuclear Posture Review enhance global security?
8. What will be the result of the Iranian-hosted nuclear summit?
9. Who controls Russia?
10. Will congress renew Obama’s Trade Promotion Authority?
11. Can Spain save its banks?
12. How will Kyrgyzstan’s instability affect America’s reliance on the Incirlik air base?
13. What should be America’s role in pursuing ratification of the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty?
14. Are protectionist accusations directed toward the National Export Initiative accurate?
15. Will attempts to reform banking succeed in achieving market stability?

Finals
1. Will federal block grants targeted at job creation effectively curb unemployment?
2. Does Obama’s backtracking on detainee rights signify a broader ideological change?
3. Was Obama’s decision to cut funding for airborne laser technology a mistake?
4. Will Cuba’s free market experiment achieve success?
5. What can the 2009 Recession tell us about the viability of pro-cyclical economic policies?
6. Will internal conflict collapse the Tea Party?
7. Are Thailand’s legal crackdowns justified given protests in Bangkok?
8. Is the War Against Terrorism an acceptable justification for extraordinary rendition?
9. Will Villepin’s new party present a credible challenge to Sarkozy?
10. What can the Tories do to prevent a conservative majority in the upcoming British elections?
11. Will Sotomayor become the new liberal leader in light of Justice Stevens’ retirement?
12. Should Germany bail out Greece?
13. Given health care, has ideology replaced pragmatism on Capitol Hill?
14. Are Syrian allegations of Israeli “ethnic cleansing” accurate?
15. Why was Khatami barred from leaving Iran?

{Slight spoiler, one team is from James Logan. Another is from Eagan. Perennial final round contenders… so you know it’s going to be good.}

The screening is scheduled for this Thursday, May 13, 2010 at 7:oo pm. The show is at Brookfield East high school. Need an address to put in your GPS? Here you go: 3305 Lilly Road. Brookfield, WI 53005.

Tickets are just $5. There will also be snacks. All proceeds go to the Brookfield East Forensics Team.

If you are available and in the area, go out and see the show. It should be good and you end up helping a team out in the process – a win, win for everyone.

The National Forensic League topic is great for encouraging students to think about issues of national importance, but rarely do students consider public policies that exist on a smaller scale. There are plenty of important and easily researchable public policy topics that are considered in state government. The 2009 James Madison Memorial domestic extemp final round experimented with using state-focused extemp topics, for similar reasons. A state-focus topic would allow students to explore a high profile, important public policy issue that exists “in their own backyard.”

The National Forensic League has been using the PF topic as a vehicle to enhance outside involvement in speech and debate. It was suggested that the WDCA do something similar. For example, we could contact rhetoric and public policy professors around the state to develop a state-focused PF topic. Those academics could then be invited as distinguished guests of the tournament. And those academics could potentially become further involved and more supportive of high school speech and debate.

A couple noteworthy examples were mentioned. They were:

• Resolved: That Wisconsin should increase its investment in high-speed rail.
• Resolved: That the Qualified Economic Offer policy should be discontinued.

There are a couple of ways that this could be enacted. First, the Wisconsin Topic could be a substitute for the December Topic. Second, the Wisconsin topic could be only for the WSDT. This means that the first weekend in December could still be using the December topic. Alternatively, the first weekend in December could also just be a continuation of November topic. We could also just do away with the December topic in general and extend the November topic two extra weeks.

What are your thoughts? Would this be an enhancement to debate? Would this be a detriment?

Read on below the break.

Honorable «Title»:

Few people have difficulty seeing the value of high school debate. In addition to the abilities to research effectively, reason logically, and speak persuasively, high school debate teaches students to consider both sides of an important question—a level of understanding that cannot be easily earned just by reading a book. No one denies that our schools should be teaching these skills, but high school debate has nonetheless become an activity on the brink of extinction in Wisconsin.

The numbers are staggering. At this year’s state tournament—the culminating event of the season—only 29 high schools fielded teams. In comparison, 427 schools across the state competed in football during the fall. This means that less than one school in each football conference competes in debate, and that number continues to shrink. With retirements for several coaches looming, it is possible that there will be less than 20 schools actively competing in high school debate in Wisconsin in 2010.

I compare debate to football for good reason. Football is a resource intensive sport. Debate, too, requires resources—but it is a much cheaper activity, necessitating only a dedicated coach and the ability to cover travel expenses. Despite the undeniable academic benefits that the activity provides, many schools have eliminated their debate programs in order to cut costs. The result is a vicious cycle: as fewer schools participate in debate, the activity grows more expensive as those that remain are forced to travel longer distances just to attend competitions. And unlike football, debate brings in little revenue to support its academic mission.

Debate seems pressed into a losing game. Frequently, a dedicated coach retires and no one is hired as a replacement; within a few years, the program ceases to exist. The elimination of debate in one school district means it is more likely for another to dismiss the activity. Each of the debate coaches that I represent struggle to keep their program active. My organization does what it can to promote the activity, but we alone cannot keep it afloat.

I write to you, «Title», because I feel debate has nowhere to turn in Wisconsin. It is impossible for debate coaches alone to convince school administrators across the state to preserve and support this activity. Because of the economy, school officials are forced to make shortsighted decisions to shore up their budgets. Eliminating the activity that best instructs our students to research, reason, and communicate effectively will only deprive our future labor market of the talent that it needs to thrive.

Something needs to be done to preserve high school debate in Wisconsin. The greater political community must become involved if debate in Wisconsin is to endure.

Sincerely,

Nick Bubb

President
Wisconsin Debate Coaches Association

The point of my letter was to contact Wisconsin’s political leadership in hopes of finding a potential solution to address our current situation. I do not know what is necessary in order to ensure that debate endures and it is not unreasonable to assume that conversation with policy makers might be fruitful. I do know that without some kind of effort debate and its educational benefits will cease to be available to Wisconsin’s students.

Few of the responses I have received seem open to addressing the problem. To be fair, I did not ask for a particular action. Rather – I asked for a conversation. Instead, staffs of various representatives have told me that Wisconsin/the Federal Government does not handle these issues – school districts do. Which is precisely my point – school districts are making poor decisions because of the environment that state and federal policies/funding decisions have imposed on them.

Moreover, the civics lesson response is a bit insulting. I am fully aware of what each level of government is empowered to do. I had faith that my political system could address an important problem if made aware of it. Political representatives have more power than simply changing policies. Is it unreasonable to assume that people could exercise leadership on important issues? Is the real problem that we did not pay a lobbyist to tell political leadership the solution we would like to propose?

I have received responses from the following individuals:

Representative Baldwin (WI-2)
Representative Sensenbrenner (WI-5)
Senator Feingold
State Senator Risser
State Senator Lehman
State Representative Townsend
State Representative Davis
State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Evers (far and away the best response).

I am working on a method of posting their responses.