New Tournament Reporting Notebook
The Tournament Reporting Notebook is now current as of two tournaments this season. (To provide apples-to-apples comparisons, we included the RCC tournament participation data based on the RCC’s T2 registration — we’ll revise based on the RCC’s T2 actual levels after the RCC’s T2 this weekend at Niles West, if and as necessary.)
Overall, the most significant piece of news is this: after two tournaments, the Chicago Debate League is involving 17% more debaters in competitive academic debate this season than it did in its historic season last year. That puts us on a three-year course of growth of over 50%, having grown 44% over the previous two years. We are on-course to take an 11-year old Urban Debate League in 2008 and expand it over the next next three years in the scope of its student involvement by more than half of its previous already large level.
Who’s responsible for this, if it holds up? By far and away, the coaches in this League, with the support and encouragement of a revitalized CDC and of course the continuingly visionary leadership at CPS. It is the coaches who inspire, motivate, educate and coach the students in this League, no one else does that. But of course we all need to keep the levels of interest and involvement among our students high throughout the next five months of the season for this overall outstanding performance to hold up.
After two tournaments, here are the top-20 schools in tournament participation.
1. Payton (RCC)
1. Whitney Young (RCC)
3. Lane Tech (RCC)
4. Northside (RCC)
4. Urban Prep (LCC)
6. Phillips (“A”)
7. Brooks (LCC)
7. Chicago Ag. (“A”)
7. Taft (LCC)
10. Phoenix (LCC)
11. Alcott (“A”)
12. Schurz (LCC)
13. Lincoln Park (LCC)
13. Morgan Park (LCC)
15. Thomas Kelly (LCC)
16. School of the Arts (“AA”)
17. Amundsen (“AA”)
17. Hope (LCC)
17. Jones (LCC)
17. King (LCC)
After two tournaments, here are the top-20 schools in participation increase over last year.
1. Alcott (“A”)
2. Phillips (“A”)
3. Morgan Park (LCC)
4. Thomas Kelly (LCC)
5. Douglass (“AA”)
6. Champaign Central (“A”)
7. Michele Clark (“AA”)
8. School of the Arts (“AA”)
9. Urban Prep (LCC)
10. Little Village (“A”)
11. Chicago Ag. (“A”)
12. Farragut (“AA”)
13. Northside (RCC)
14. King (LCC)
15. Taft (LCC)
16. Hope (LCC)
16. Hubbard (“AA”)
16. Rowe-Clark (“A”)
19. Schurz (LCC)
20. Mather (“A”)
Whole lot of season left to crack these lists, or move up on them . . .
Just thought I’d share some new ideas that I developed for both JV and Varsity debaters. I am devising a system that teaches debaters how to become more attentive to the line by line and to avoid dropping arguments throughout the round. What I am creating are checklists to use during prep time for each speech.
For example, a 2AC checklist would ask the following:
– Did the 1NC run any DAs against you? How many?
– What were the links and impacts?
– Did they run T? Which violation (i.e. substantial, reducing does not include removing, military presence, etc.)
– Did they run a CP?
– What is the CP text?
– What are their net benefits?
– Can the CP be permed?
– Did they run a K? What was it?
– What is their alternative in the K?
– How are they running the CP and/or the K (conditional, dispo, or unconditional)?
– What case arguments did they run, if any?
These checklists will be generated for each individual speech in the round, and I’m sure you will get the general idea from my 2AC example. Hopefully this will help your debaters in the future. I think it’s an excellent prep time tool that will teach them to become more aware of their own choices as well as their opponents’ arguments.
Fonda