¶ … NPDA Debate Between Mercer University and Morehouse College
Critical to the success of any formalized debate is the direct feedback debaters receive from the attending judges, because debaters anticipate and value the appraisal of their contributions provided by a completed debate ballot. The process of improving one's ability to persuasively present ideas is significantly enhanced when an objective opinion is provided, and by flowing a debate before submitting a decision via ballot, judges provide the impetus for aspiring debaters to hone their craft. Another crucial aspect of the balloting process is to assist the debaters -- whether they have been declared the victors or the vanquished -- to better understand the reasoning process used to inform each judge's decision. To that end, anybody attempting to accurately judge a debate must be prepared to provide insightful commentary, a rigorous analysis of each completed round, and the ultimate basis for their ballot decision. Although judges also deliver a verbal critique of each debate, the act of writing commentary and feedback on a paper ballot serves to help debate coaches and their charges to understand the motivations and machinations of the debate judging process. There is no formally accepted structure for a debate ballot, but several crucial elements should be integrated into this process in the name of uniformity, accuracy and integrity. The reasoning process underpinning a judge's decision should be fully explicated, direct commentary should be offered to debaters on an individual basis, and comparative analysis of argumentative merit from each round are extremely useful resources for debaters hoping to improve their oratorical skill set. The following flow and ballot was constructed while observing the NPDA Finals Debate between Mercer University and Morehouse College, which took place on September 21st of this year at the University of North Georgia's annual Chicken and the Egg Classic.
The debate opened with Lindsey Hancock
Ms. Hancock's speaking style was rapid in clip, which led to confusion as to her initial stance, but after a few minutes her nerves appeared to calm and her words were far easier to interpret. A few minutes after beginning, her first affirmative constructive, Ms. Hancock delivers a series of compelling arguments in favor of abolishing blood quantum laws as the determining factor in tribal status. She makes a valid point by equating the use of blood quantum laws by a White/European government the previous removal of sovereignty and self-determination from Native Americans via forcible means. By forcing the judge to consider the modern issue of blood quantum laws from a historical perspective, Ms. Hancock strengthens her overall argument by couching her support for abolition in the generally agreed upon disdain society now shares regarding prior atrocities committed against indigenous populations. At the five-minute mark of the debate, Ms. Hancock is directly queried by a judge or audience member, who asks how she proposes to effect identification of tribal status in the event that blood quantum laws were abolished. Her short and dismissive reply was rather evasive in nature, and although she contended that "we're not really trying to implement a plan here & #8230; we're just saying it's wrong and it should be abolished," this non-answer suggests a fundamental flaw in the validity of her…
