Eric is hosting a Second Semester Online TP Club. To hear all of his great teaching, like the article below, sign up to be a part of the group. Sessions are recorded, and he’s giving away a free personalized coaching session- so what do you have to lose?!?!
…. You’re in out rounds and your opponent has just pulled out a new case and is expertly explaining the details of an organization you have never even heard of and why it needs to change to a panel of judges who probably know more about it than you do at this point. You’re panicking. You’re tournament life is on the line and you don’t have a single piece of evidence that even mentions the AFF case. Even still, throwing in the towel isn’t an option so you start thinking creatively…
There are two opportunities this week for digging deeper in the debate realm of Speech and Debate… specifically for our NCFCA friends (don’t worry Stoa friends… we are working on it)! If you want a little more guidance and direction come join one of the Debate Workshops or Second Semester Clubs start in February. Until then, here is how you can become an expert in Debate (video recordings HERE- https://lastingimpact.info/product-category/recorded-workshops/).
Now that self-timing has been introduced Speech and Debate there are new etiquette rules and techniques to learn so that this logistical task is carried out smoothly to facilitate good, competitive debates. Self-timing is commonplace in the collegiate policy leagues, poses no major issues, and will definitely benefit the high school leagues as well. Similar to attire, greetings, debate organization and overall presentation, self-timing doesn’t implicitly affect the outcome of a round. It can, however, be another small factor with which to get quickly comfortable in order to avoid any unnecessary technical speedbumps. Here are a couple simple “do’s and don’ts” to consider when it comes to managing your own speech time in debate...
You need to be a member to view this content. Please sign up or login.
Instructors: Joel Erickson and Hillary Kollsak
When: Tuesday Jan. 29, 8:00-9:00pm CT
Cost: $5 members/$20 non-members
We’ll overview the current debate landscape and discuss the different kinds of LD cases circulating in the league and explain various tactics for engaging the framework debate and practical applications. Additionally, we’ll look at ways to differentiate your argumentation from many of the pitfalls that plague current cases.
Joel has competed for five years in speech events, LD, parliamentary debate, and mock trial. He currently studies philosophy at Wheaton College with the intent to pursue graduate studies in philosophy or attend law school (or both, if his parents will let him). As a coach, Joel can’t wait to immerse you in the big ideas of politics, philosophy, and economics. He’s passionate about communication psychology and elegant organization, and wants everyone to understand that forensic competition is not about the accolades one achieves, but the person one becomes. Joel has coached hundreds of students in speech and debate through summer camps, private coaching, and local clubs, many of whom qualified to Nationals, won tournaments, or advanced to elimination rounds for the very first time. He is the founder of and head coach for Aspire Debate Camps and also coaches for Ethos Debate.
Hillary Kollsak has been a speech and debate mom for many years. She coaches LD for EverReady Debate Club outside of Chicago. She is excited about this years resolution and wants to bring clarity to your cases.
LD (NCFCA) Club for Intermediate/Advanced Club
Instructor: Joel Erickson
When: Feb. 12 8:00-9:00pm CT (meets weekly for 8 weeks)
Cost: $50 per member/$75 non member
We’ll be studying advanced strategy and drilling techniques, deconstructing cases, and collaborating on briefs. The club will be recorded weekly.
Click HERE for more information. https://lastingimpact.info/online-workshops/
Competition season is upon us! That crazy time of year where you forget what day of the week it is, whether or not pizza is an acceptable breakfast, and any sense of a routine. You may have weeks where you are gone for an entire weekend, get back Monday, and start another tournament Thursday or Friday. It’s busy, but it’s some of the most fun you’ll ever have. However, you are investing a considerable amount of time and money into these tournaments so making the most of your time is crucial!!
Join Eric on Jan. 30 where he will hold a mid-season workshop on how to survive and thrive during your tournament season as a team policy debater. Wondering if you should write an extra brief, change your aff case between tournaments, memorize your 1AC, or just do practice debates until you’re blue in the face? Well, as someone who once did four tournaments in two weeks, traveling over 2,000 miles in the process, Eric Meinerding knows or a thing or two about making the most of this hectic time, and will help navigate these questions during the workshop. Hope to see you all there!
Second Semester Team Policy Debate Club (NCFCA)
Dates: Starting Wed. Feb. 13 (all calls will be recorded)
Time: Approx. 1 hour/ 8:00-9:00pm CT
Instructor: Eric Meinerding
Cost: $50 per member/ $75 per non-member
Looking for additional Team Policy support for the competition season? Well you’re in luck! Eric Meinerding is hosting a second semester TP debate club exclusively through Lasting Impact. He’ll be meeting with students weekly for 8 weeks, all across the NCFCA nation to work through strategies against the popular cases, find the best arguments in the current climate, go over ballots, discuss debate theory, advanced impacting, and a host of other topics. Included with your enrollment is a free coaching session with Eric at any point during the season to get direct, personalized feedback tailored directly to your team’s needs. So whether you are without a club for the season, looking to go above and beyond, or are looking for innovative strategies, this club will provide what you’re looking for.
Eric is studying Policy and Law at Liberty University. He competed in the NCFCA for six years focusing mostly on limited preparation events and both styles of debate, qualifying to nationals in both TP and LD his senior year, along with multiple speech events. Eric competed on Liberty’s Policy Debate Team for three semesters at both the junior varsity and varsity levels. Eric sees competitive forensics as way to develop one’s communication and argumentation skills to use in all facets life. Eric loves looking at debate from the perspective of a game, meaning he wants to help debaters process and execute the most strategic arguments and preparation methods for all styles of debate, along with effective rhetorical skills to present those arguments in debate rounds as well as forensics categories.
When – Saturday Jan. 26, 2019
Time – 10:00am – 11:00am CT (approximately 1 hour)
Cost: $5 members/$20 non-members
Are you looking to enhance your Moot Court skills?
Come join Chris Baldacci as he will cover both how to prepare and execute college-level moot court arguments. We will discuss how to understand and memorize caselaw efficiently, how to use precedent more effectively in arguments, and how to think about your arguments before a round. Then we will talk about formulas for responding to certain types of questions, the unique way to make moot court arguments impactful, and how to set yourself apart on respondent and in rebuttal.
Chris Baldacci was a two-time national champion in collegiate Moot Court and the top individual speaker at the national championship in 2018. He is the only orator in American Moot Court Association history to win three titles. He was also the runner-up in last year’s national brief-writing competition. Chris has competed on the varsity Moot Court team for four years at Patrick Henry College and has been active in coaching underclassmen and serving as a volunteer judge. He will attend law school in the fall.
Humor, when used correctly, can be a huge asset in a debate round, a great tool for your debate toolbox. When used incorrectly, humor can damage your credibility and/or likability. In my opinion, those who have truly mastered debate are able to incorporate humor in seamlessly in an engaging and relevant way.
In this video I’ll be talking about how to use humor in debate: telling some pretty cringeworthy stories of my attempts at humor, giving some examples of funny quotes to use, and some do’s and don’ts…
Catherine graduated high school this past year and is taking a gap year to do a business internship through the program “Praxis.” After that, she is not sure if she will go to college or pursue other career paths, but she is interested in business, politics, and loves cooking, biking, and traveling. As a coach, she is passionate about helping debaters actually understand the arguments they are running, and focusing on quality over quantity of arguments. Catherine competed in TP with NCFCA for 5 years, and qualified to Nationals all 4 years of high school, finishing first in at-large her junior and senior years. She enjoyed partnering with both her older sister and younger brother, both of whom taught her very different skills. She won four debate tournaments over the years and was honored to get a 4th place speaker award at Nationals in 2015.
CX designed to undermine your opponent’s case is a lot like CX designed to support your case, with two key differences: you don’t know what your opponent is running ahead of time, and the questions aren’t written beforehand (usually). Judging from these differences, you may think that you’re doomed to wait until you hear your opponent’s case and then pray you come up with something intelligent to ask… let me discourage this thinking. While you can have strokes of brilliance in the moment, just thinking a bit about the resolution can give an idea of what you might want to ask.
Much like I can’t tell you what questions to ask to support your debate cases specifically, I can’t know what your opponents are going to run. However, I can give you the keys (learned over the course of several years) to attacking your opponent’s case in CX.
You have an inherent advantage when writing questions to build up your own case: you know exactly what you’re running in said case. This means that, with proper guidance, you can know exactly what to ask. While I can’t tell you which questions to write for your specific case, I can give you some principles which will hopefully make those questions much easier to formulate. Before I do, though, let me tell you what not to do.
Have you ever walked into a debate round wondering in the world are you doing? Have you ever walked out of a round thinking you won that round, but ended up pathetically losing? Or have you ever walked out of a round thinking that you lost pathetically but actually won by a huge margin?
I’ve been there before, feeling inconsistent in my debate rounds, not knowing how I won or lost. We either go through a debate round feeling rushed and nervous, or confident and pragmatic. But regardless of how we feel, sometimes the judge votes for what we least expected. Why is this? Why can’t we find consistency in our competition? How is it that the really good people keep on winning tournament after tournament and we are just chilling here getting 3-3?
If you’re in this boat and want more consistency in your debate rounds, then I have 5 tips to share with you that will lead you down a more successful path! Join me, on Thursday for my LD Online Workshop, or keep reading…
I hope you found the last installment (purposes of cross-examination) helpful! Of course, understanding what you should aim to accomplish in CX is crucial to actually being effective in your rounds — but head knowledge means nothing unless you can actually implement it. The first question of implementation is this: how should you conduct yourself in cross-ex?
What if we spoke less and listened more? It seems like a silly question to ask in the context of competitive speech and debate, but fortunately for us, in debate it includes a built-in Q&A segment after each constructive speech. Debate is often thought of in terms of argument, counterargument, counter-counterargument, and so on — and it is therefore easy to overlook those three minutes of Q&A after each constructive. However, those six (for LD) or twelve (for TP) minutes may be more important than any speech in the round…
You must be logged in to post a comment.