Trivium Pursuit

Homeschool Speech and Debate Discussion Loop 3

Archives Page Three

Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998

This is Rebecca Berg from Massachusetts. Just a real quick note on fiat power over state legislatures. In the HSLDA debate forum, I believe we only have fiat power over the U.S. Congress, not individual state legislatures. I know that that was the case in 1997 and 1998, but if I am wrong, please let me know. Best wishes as you all research and practice.


Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998

No problem, Chris, I love talking about debate. I must admit, having all 50 states simultaneously enact the same law does sound very improbable, if not impossible. But no one can argue that your policy will not be enacted because you have fiat power. The purpose of a debate is to argue the effects of a policy once it has been enacted. Arguing that a policy will not be enacted not only defeats the purpose of debate, but also detracts from it's academic value. The only danger here is that your judge will misunderstand the concept of fiat. However, the Constitutionality issue is a legitimate fear. Although a negative team will run into trouble arguing that your policy will be struck down in the courts (fiat power again comes into play), they will probably be able to argue quite convincingly that your policy is unconstitutional. Are campaign contributions a function of free speech? I believe that is debatable. Plus, (this is killer) your policy does not have to deal with campaign contributions at all. Make a policy that deals entirely with government funded campaigns, leave private contributions alone. Read the resolution and you’ll see what I mean. On top of this, how much are states really restricted by the constitution? I think you can interpret the Constitution such that a state can restrict speech while the federal government cannot. However, this is quite risky, and I wouldn't recommend it. Let's analyze the idea of government funded campaign finances. 1) These laws would probably have to be enacted by the states. Just as (most) police and (most) roads are provided by the states, Constitutionally, I believe the states would have to provide the money for these government funded campaigns.2) The problem with having the states fund these campaigns is that the resolution stipulates federal campaign finances. It could be unworkable to have states pay for federal campaigns. It's a sort of catch 22. 3) It's questionable that taxes are needed to pay for things like roads. In fact, our society would be better if roads were privately owned. It is not the government’s responsibility to provide us with roads, and I think that it hints of socialism for the government to do so. It fits in with the welfare mind set. I know these are big claims, but please try to find fault with them. It is oxymoronic to claim that taxes should pay for roads and other such 'necessities of democracy' because having taxes pay for roads is not especially democratic. Voters are also 'necessary' to democracy but must taxes provide for voters? A more wealthy nation is required for a democratic form of government, but must taxes pay to make our nation wealthy? this is another oxymoron. More taxes can only make us poorer, the less things taxes pay for, the richer we become and the more healthy our democracy.—El Jojo (Joseph Rose)


Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998

Dear El Jojo,

It sounds like you are one of those right-winged radical home schoolers, alright. (he he). Things would be much better without government-funded roads? A bit anarchic are we? I studied the theory of anarchy in a debate topic two years ago—LD value debate—and found the idea fascinating, but not ideal. Government in many ways is good, only if it serves the needs of the people. It is when government starts being self-serving, where individuals in government begin using their power to benefit themselves rather than the people, is when government weighs on being tyrannical or corrupt.

So that leads to the resolution. If a policy to establish government-funded campaigns on the federal level (remaining resolutional; states can do whatever they want), many harms would be done away with. Campaigns wouldn’t get out of hand, the danger of political favors would lessen, the work involved in raising money would lessen, and the people would not be bombarded with political money raising. This policy would take care of the problems challengers frequently face when coming against incumbents who have all ready a healthy fundraising equity. The only thing that would need to be hammered out is who would "govern" the campaign finances. A bipartisan committee, I suppose. This is something my case would have to articulate.

Good rhetorical twist there with taxes providing voters. Clever. But back to the road analogy, no one I think ever said government is NEEDED to build the roads, it just makes things easier. Our system is helped along much better avoiding the hassles of free market when it comes to something people want consistency and standards in. Personally, I don't want to pay a toll to drive on a county road—and when I go to Denver, I want to know that the cop who pulls me over for speeding isn't privately paid for. See what I mean? It's just easier, that's all.

You need to explain something to me, Jojo. What do you mean by "fiat"? I am a tad bit ignorant in policy debate, so please fill my brain in here.

Nice arguing with you, Jojo. I love debating, and I hope to hear a rebuttal to the above. In Christ, Chris Jeub


Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998

I am NOT a right-winged home schooler, in fact I don't have any wings at all. That's just a name made up by the media. Actually, I'm a sensible, even-minded person who thinks things through. Being homeschooled is trivial ;). I am a radical though and proud of it.

I am not suggesting anarchy, I am merely suggesting a society with less reliance on government and more on the free market. There are several things for which government is needed, such as national defense, foreign relations, etc. But there are many things for which government THINKS it is needed. Such as welfare, building roads and controlling "business practices." I think our government today IS a little too self-serving, although American's still have it better off than anyone else.

It's funny you should mention political favors and buying votes. You see, these are problems not with our lack of finance regulations but with a spineless electorate. It is the people's loss of integrity that causes this problem, not the absence of regulation. And a government cannot be better than the people it governs. The fact that campaigners can "buy votes" means that voters are corrupt (or not informed) enough to sell them.

Again, back to the road analogy. Government, in fact, does not make it "easier." Roads would be more efficient if left to the free market. If fact, this is evident in the cases of toll-bridges. In the Bay Area of California there are lots of bridges, and the traffic backs up to the toll booths because the tolls are collected manually. The technology exists to provide instant toll collection (on way to do it could be to have a token in your car which a sensor reads as you drive by and it charges it, much like a calling card). But the reason better and more efficient technologies are not adopted for toll collection is, I believe, because the government is in charge of it. The government doesn't want to fire the toll collectors, the government doesn't really care because there's no one to compete with etc. If roads were privately owned they would be adopting new, more efficient technology as fast as it appeared. Regarding the cop analogy, I am NOT suggesting that police should be privately owned. Government might set standards, but the market would be in charge of fulfilling them (it would do a much more efficient job than the gov). finally, fiat is short for "fiat power." This guarantees that your proposed policy will be adopted—that it will pass, be enacted. It is a violation of policy debate theory to argue that an affirmative team's plan will not be adopted by Congress. The purpose of policy debate is to argue the merits of the policy ONCE IT HAS BEEN ADOPTED. If I try to pass a law banning gun sales, you can't argue that it will not get through the legislative process. You can only argue the merits of banning gun sales and the effectiveness and workability of my policy.

Well, I'd better stop before my fingers fall off. Nice having this little "discussion" with you. In Christ, El Jojo (Joseph Rose)


Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998


Thanks for setting me straight with "fiat power." It makes perfect sense now that you explained it. A campaign finance amendment would definitely be substantial change to the present rules governing campaign finances.

Yes, you home schoolers do think things through. Perhaps you're not as close to the neo-nazi skinhead anarchist I alluded to in the last e-mail. It is nice to know you are not a knee-jerk commoner who agrees with every opinion the media musters up. Look at Clinton's approval rating (I am writing this e-mail just 2 hours after Clinton’s "apology" speech!). He's riding on the image the media has tried so desperately to maintain. Good thinking, Jojo.

But back to the discussion. It isn't really fair to say politicians are "bought" when they receive contributions. People who contribute to campaigns generally are people with the same political goals as the candidate for office. Just because the NEA donated money to the Clinton campaign doesn't necessarily mean Clinton is a puppet to the NEA, but rather Clinton is of the same liberal mind set of the NEA. And just because tobacco companies funded Dole over the years doesn't mean Dole provided favors to the tobacco industry—just that they were both conservative-thinking.

However, something inside of me wrestles with the idea that things would be much more easy if tax dollars paid for the post-primary campaigns. Yes, there is the slippery-slope argument that says once we surrender some of our freedoms we will lose them all, but the millions and millions of dollars within the present campaign system needs to be simplified. Simple and fair may be the affirmative values upon building a case for campaign finance reform.

Keep debating, and keep in touch, Chris Jeub


Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998

I'm not sure if I'm doing this right, but I'd like to join the debate discussion loop. A friend told me about and gave me an E-mail saying I should send a message here to join the loop. My name is Joshua Sikora. I'm a freshman in high-school and live in Redwood City, California. I'm part of a debate club in the bay area, coached by my mom.

Joshua Sikora

Video Producer, Graphic Artist, & Web Page Designer


Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998


I was not referring to ordinary campaign contributions when I wrote of votes being bought. But, in the cases when votes are bought (when a politician really is controlled by his/her finance) the problem there is not the absence of regulations that prohibit that from occurring. Rather, the problem arises when the people still vote for political puppets—and when the people do so, it is no one's error but the people's.

I think that the simplest and fairest way to reform the campaign finance laws would be to basically do away with them—with some exceptions, of course. We would keep laws prohibiting contributions from foreign sources and the like, but any American citizen should be allowed to give as much money as he/she likes to whomever he/she seems fit. There is a Constitutional and a Biblical basis for this.

The Constitutional basis is the correlation between campaign contributions and free speech which we've heard so much about.

The Biblical basis—and this is open for argument—is shown in Matthew 20:15 when Jesus rhetorically asks "Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?" This is in the context of the parable of the Workers in the Vineyard. Read it for yourself, it starts at the beginning of Matt. 20. Personally, I do not believe in government financed campaigns. I believe it detracts from the democratic process, from the freedom of our society (the dark side of gov financed campaigns is that American citizens are then restricted from doing what they want with their own money), it hints of socialism and of the welfare state mind set, and finally because it is, in some ways, Unconstitutional and Unbiblical.

All these points are arguable, I'm not pretending that they are absolute truths. This is what I think right now, and will probably continue to think until someone convinces me otherwise. In Christ, El Jojo BTW, I am also from the GREAT LAND OF FRUITS AND NUTS (and flakes), SKALIFORNIA!


From: "Connie Brzowski"

Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998

I would like to subscribe to this loop. We are starting a debate team with our high schoolers in our small co-op. Thank you, Connie Brzowski, Dayton, TX


Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998

Subject: Debate Invitation


INVITATION: Dear Debate Enthusiast,

The Alexandria Home School Group is proud to announce Minnesota's first home school debate tournament. We invite all home schoolers to attend Saturday, October 17th, starting at 8:00 A.M. and concluding after five rounds of debating and awards are given. This is history in its making, and we invite qualifying home schoolers to make up debate cases and register. It will be a most exhilarating experience. The tournament will be held at First Baptist Church in Alexandria. The resolution to be debate will be "Resolved: that the United States should substantially change its rules governing campaign finances." Each debating home schooler must come with a prepared affirmative and negative speech ready to compete. Rounds will be one hour apart with an extended break for lunch. This debate style will be one-on-one Lincoln-Douglas format instead of two-on-two; there will be no teams in this tournament, only individuals. The debate rounds will consist of:

Affirmative Case.............................7 minutes

Negative Cross-X............................3 minutes

Negative Case & 1st Rebuttal..........8 minutes

Affirmative Cross-X.......................3 minutes

Affirmative 1st Rebuttal..................4 minutes

Negative 2nd Rebuttal.....................6 minutes

Affirmative 2nd Rebuttal................3 minutes

Total:............................................34 minutes (3 minutes prep time allowed for each)

If you receive a mailed invitation, fill out the registration form enclosed and send it in with a $10 registration fee plus $25 per judge needing to be hired. If you would be bringing your own judge, only the registration fee is necessary. Any adult who is familiar with Introduction to Argumentation and Debate by Christy Farris and has studied the debate topic somewhat will qualify as a debate judge. Since there may be a shortage of judges, we encourage debaters to bring parents or other adults as judges. If you have someone who may want to judge as an extra, let us know and we can hire him or her.

If you do not receive a mailed invitation, mail, e-mail, telephone to: Mac Bryant, 2647 Co. Rd. 22 N.W., Alexandria, MN 56308 (320) 846-0553

To qualify, a debater must be between ages 14 and 18 on September 1, 1998, and home schooled at least 51% of the 1998-1999 school year. To prepare, we recommend Christy Farris's book as well as MACHE's information packet. You may acquire a packet form the MACHE office for $5. All information needed to debate are in these publications. If you have specific questions, you may e-mail Chris Jeub at Registration will be open at 7:30 A.M. There will be an informal gathering around the pool at the Holiday Inn on Friday night for all those who wish to attend. L.E.A.R.N., Alexandria's home school group, will provide a snack/lunch bar with a reasonably priced menu on Saturday. We sincerely hope you prayerfully consider attending this first home school debate tournament. The program's success will be measured by the number of people joining in, preluded by God's blessing.


From: "Patricia A. M. Ingram"

<Greetings! I have been reading the news on the "Debate Loop" for over a year now. I keep hoping that there will be some serious information provided about how to start a debate team. — I have soooooo many questions: What is required of a coach?>

Ideally, a coach would have some debate experience from high school or college. Unfortunately, many of us homeschooling parents have no debate experience and are not located near anyone else who has experience. So we will have to learn along with our kids. If you are going to be the coach you will first need to find the students who want to participate. Advertise through this loop or through your state or local homeschool newsletter that you are interested in starting a debate team in your area. You could also advertise on one of the homeschool Newsgroups. After you determine who is really serious about studying debate you need to set up a schedule for meeting. I suggest once a week for an hour or an hour and a half. Or maybe once every 2 weeks would be enough. Students should expect to study debate on their own at home for about an hour a day. Find a place for your weekly meetings. We used a library study room last year. You will need to use the library a lot in debate, so find yourself a good one. We use either the local college library or the University of Iowa Library. If your students don't know how to do research in the library then you will have to start by teaching basic research skills. They should also know how to research on the Internet (see Trivium Pursuit catalog for a tape on Internet research). As a coach your job will be to direct their research, give them ideas, and just generally learn along with them.

> What kinds of things are done during practice? <

During your weekly meetings you will brainstorm, share research, do interviews, decide who will research what, prepare arguments.

>How frequently would a team need to practice? What constitutes a team? <

Can someone answer this? Is the debate team just the 2 debaters on each side? What is the whole group of students studying debate called?

>How does a non-debate oriented parent become debate literate? Is there an "Idiot's Book to Debate/Debate Coaching" that would be basic and useful? <

The best book to start with is the HSLDA book and video. Does anyone out there recommend another book? We also have a getting started in debate tape in our catalog.

>I am part of a homeschooling high school co-op and would LOVE to get a debate team going. But, I have NO clue how to do it or where to begin. Unfortunately, there are no former debate team parents in our group! Can someone out there offer some assistance, please! Thank you.

—Pam Ingram


Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998

Hello Bluedorns, this is Aaron White, the sporadic mad emailer from the land of the fruits and nuts (and flakes as was so graciously pointed out by my compatriot, Joseph =). (phew, wasn't that an opening?) I first want to apologize for not having responded to any of the earlier posts, but as my schedule would dictate, my E-mail time is very limited. Anyway, I just have a quick response to some of the questions posted by Mrs. Patricia Ingram. First, which books would be a help to debaters. David Eastman Jr. (my long time buddy and most excellent debate partner) and I took a JC class last year on formal debate, and used an excellent text by a Mr. Ziegelmueller (you may want to check on the spelling of that name) called Argumentation and Debate, I believe. It is an invaluable resource for all debaters, both students and coaches/co-learners alike. Second, in response to her questions of: >>How frequently would a team need to practice? What constitutes a >team? < I can only give testimony to my personal experience. I know that the Napa Valley group and the Bay area group studied together in a group setting countless times and did extremely well at State Championships this past year, but my partner, coach (i.e., our dads) and myself practiced alone prior to the actual State tourney. The Napa group had run several pre-tourneys, I believe, and was well prepared with their own cases when they came. However, a lot of their cases had the same flaws or the same plan to them, which spoke of their practice once again. When David Jr. and I (and our dads) began preparing for last year's debate, we met once or twice a week during the two months prior to the actual Tourney. In the final week or two, we met about 3 to 4 times, JC schedule allowing. Although we had not been able to practice our case openly before the actual State Tourney, David and I had analyzed and re-analyzed, criticized, solidified, and fossilized our case ad infinitum. =) We each took an opposing view (as debate partners are likely to do) and went through our Neg. Cases and our Aff. Cases (it's usually a good idea to have a back up AC in case your first AC gets "well known" throughout the course of the tourney) as though we were debating each other. This seemed to work fairly well for our Aff. case, but we sincerely lacked in our Neg. dep. not knowing where most people would be coming from. Of course, last year's reso was EXTREMELY open ended, and even those who had been running practice tourneys weren't prepared for some of the cases they came up against. In my experience, a debate "team" consists of the two debate partners and their coach, period. I think that you may call the debate group that you study with a... debate group =) but I'm not sure. I sincerely hope that my extraneous ramblings will be of some help to you all. Thank you for your time.


Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1998


I finally got to read what everyone has been writing, and I couldn't help but notice the idea about the fifty states passing laws simultaneously. Interesting idea; and yes, the affirmative does have fiat power...but is that topical? The resolution is: "Resolved: That the United States should substantially change the rules governing federal campaign finances." Now, it doesn't say "the United States Congress"..but it does have the key world "Federal." Can "the rules governing federal campaign finances" be changed on a state level?

I don't believe they can. Now, I'm writing this on the assumption that "campaign finances" and "campaign fundraising" are the same thing. There are two different types of campaigns...the state and the federal. When referring to the laws over state-wide elections (such as the state legislatures), the states have jurisdiction. BUT on the federal level, it is the Congress. It is not stated...but it is implied that the resolution is referring to the Congress. If I am incorrect, pleas inform me. God Bless, Leah Puryear


Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998


I'm Pat Sikora, one of the coaches of unCommon Sense, the debate club of CHAMPs (Christian Homeschool Association of the MidPeninsula) in San Mateo County, CA. We are located directly in between the home teams of Joseph Rose and Janai Hess, who everyone now knows by now are the 1998 HSLDA champs! Yeah Janai and Joseph! We look forward to round robins with you. And any help we can get-neither of us has debate experience, but we are learning fast. Please include me on your loop.


From: "Chris Jeub"

Subject: Re: Campaign Finance Debate

Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998

Dear Jojo,

As the HSLDA tournament champion, I am honored to start this discussion with you about the new topic on campaign finance reform. I am sending carbon copies to the host of debaters I have on my e-mail list, and if you do the same, many home schoolers around the country will be able to keep up with this discussion.

I'd like to start with talking harms. The current system is flawed. The last real campaign finance legislation passed in 1974 capping individual donations at a mere $1000 and "hard money" donations at $20,000. Since it costs much more to run a successful campaign as we approach the new millennium, the past three elections have tripled upon the prior elections in spending. The 1996 political money filtered through the Republican and Democratic parties reached 1/4 of a billion dollars! That's a lot of commercials. Boring commercials, too, along with defaming and negative ones that bring the image of our political process to new lows.

A clear stand for the Affirmative would be to change. How to change? Well, maybe we can discuss that if you have no more to add to harms.


From: "Chris Jeub"

Subject: Re: Loop response

Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998


You are absolutely right—the getting all 50 states to agree with federal law is confusing. I can't remember who brought it up first, but I think he/she was alluding to an Amendment to the Constitution. Some campaign finance bills have passed in the past and were declared unconstitutional by the court system. In 1972 (I think?), the most radical law passed, but was shot down in 1974 by the Supreme Court because (if my memory is right) the law outlawed personal financial contributions. The courts ruled that people have the constitutional right to give to whomever they please under the 1st Amendment (i.e. free speech).

Now this makes many people's goal against Constitutional law. Some wish to have totally government-funded elections. Raise taxes a little, and then cap the spending on all elections to make it fair and equal for all primary election winners. I know that the League of Women Voters are big supporters of public funded elections.

How to reach that point? Well, we could pass laws and hope the courts have changed their mind enough to overrule the previous 1972 law. Or, another Amendment to the Constitution limiting the 1st Amendment to disclude campaign finances as a means of free speech would sidestep the Constitutionality argument.

This approach would be a "substantial change," but personally I would stick to federal change. There are many more less-radical changes floating around out there that are more agreeable.

I hope that answers you questions. If there are anymore, send them my way. I love discussing this stuff! In Christ, Chris Jeub


Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998

Subject: Re: debate camps

Hi Bluedorns,

We'd love for you to post the debate and public speaking conference dates. Thanks so much for thinking of it. The Communications Conferences (CC) are 1 day of public speaking skills for approx. age 8 up with parents, followed by 2 days of debate conference for jr and sr high students and parents or coaches who wish to attend. The public speaking day is highly recommended as a prerequisite to participation in the debate conference. The public speaking workshops (PS) are one day workshops on delivery skills and a variety of speaking types and styles.


Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998

In response to the question of what constitutes a debate "team": A debate team can be used to mean two different things. One, the coupling of two debaters that face another team of two debaters in a debate round; Two, the sum total of all the teams under one coach. At Cedarville College, where I debated, we had about 20 individual debate teams on our whole college team. I hope that makes sense! In response to Leah Puryear, who wrote: "Can "the rules governing federal campaign finances" be changed on a state level? I don't believe they can." Leah is right. The resolution makes it clear that it is only dealing with FEDERAL campaigns and their finances. An affirmative case on state campaign finances would be nontopical.

"The United States" in the resolution can be defined in such a way as to allow the affirmative to change rules emanating from any branch of the United States FEDERAL Government that controls federal campaign finances, for example, the Federal Election Commission. The U.S. Congress would also be a perfectly appropriate agent to act on behalf of the United States in regard to changing federal campaign finance rules. God bless! Christy Shipe (formerly Farris)


From: "Joshua Sikora"

Subject: Fiat power

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998

Hi all! I just wanted to put in my two cents regarding the whole discussion of fiat power. I’ve read messages saying that only congress has fiat power and that enacting the same law in all 50 states would not be topical. Let me first say that I've only been debating since January, so I could very easily be wrong on this, but if my interpretation of this year's resolution is correct, it would seem we have fiat power over ANY organization that could govern federal campaign finance. Now in the constitution it says that senators and house representatives are elected according to the legislature of their own state. So if they are campaigning in their own state, it would seem to me that they would have to obey any campaign finance laws in that state, but since they are running for a federal office, they also would have to obey federal campaign finance laws. That would mean that enacting a law either at the state or federal level, would probably be topical. Also, since the resolution says "United States" instead of congress, I think that would mean, we probably have fiat power over everything in the US, not just congress, as was the case of last years resolution. Now this may sound unrealistic, but I think that you can use anything in the US thay could have rules govern campaign finance, not just congress and the FEC. If I'm interpreting this wrong, let me know. Thanks!



Welcome to Minnesota's first home school debate tournament! This small packet contains the schedule and important information you need to know to make this tournament run smoothly and successfully.


7:30 Helpers and workers meet

8:00 A.M. Registration begins

8:30 General information meeting hosted by Mac Bryant and Chris Jeub

9:00 Round 1 in assigned rooms

10:00 Round 2 in assigned rooms

11:00 Round 3 in assigned rooms

11:45 Lunch (about an hour to eat)

1:00 Round 4 in assigned rooms

2:00 Round 5 in assigned rooms (hidden semi-finals)

3:00 Final Round in main sanctuary — all attending.

3:45 Awards

General Rules

Rules listed in the HSLDA handbook and 1999 revision rules will be adhered to. The resolution, "Resolved: That the United States should substantially change its rules governing campaign finances," will be debated. The format for all rounds will be as follows:

Affirmative Case: 7 minutes

Negative Cross-X: 3 minutes

Negative Case & 1st Rebuttal: 8 minutes

Affirmative Cross-X: 3 minutes

Affirmative 1st Rebuttal: 4 minutes

Negative 2nd Rebuttal: 6 minutes

Affirmative 2nd Rebuttal: 3 minutes


Total: 34 minutes (3 minutes prep time allowed for each)

Each debater is required to be on time to each tournament, though tournament schedules may fall behind a bit. Allow at least 10 minutes for opponents to show, then contact the front desk for information on a possible forfeit.

Judges Information

All judges should make a flow sheet during the round. The flow sheet is made to record the affirmative and negative cases on paper as the speeches are being given and to serve as a guide for deciding the winner. Remember, the affirmative must convince you that a substantial change should be made in governing campaign finances; and the negative should convince you either a substantial change should not be made, or the change the affirmative gave will not work.

Keep track of time for each speaker. Timers may be available to assist you, though you as judge are responsible for keeping time. Be sure to give "signs" as the students are speaking: four, three, two, one minute remaining, 30-seconds, 15-seconds, 5-4-3-2-1, stop. You may have someone in the room to keep time for you while you record a flow sheet.

Please give a clear reason for the final decision on the ballot in the space provided. Give as much feedback as possible on the ballots. The debaters will read these carefully upon leaving, so be as encouraging as possible as well as accurate. Having the debaters leave the room and the judge taking 5-10 minutes to record information on the ballots is common after a round.

Return the debate ballot to the ballot drop-box as soon as possible without showing anyone the ballot. Withhold any specific information and especially the decision of any debate round till after the tournament. Keep this top-secret!


Awards will be given according to the win/loss record. In case of a tie, winners will be credited according to speaker points. If there still is a tie, we will drop the highest and lowest points received and calculate until the tie is broken. Awards will be given as follows: 1st Place trophy, 2nd Place trophy, Semi-Finalist trophies (2), and Quarter-Finalist ribbons (4).

Additional Information

As stated in the cover letter, food will be available in the cafeteria for reasonable costs. There will be plenty of parking at the church.

If you feel nervous, unsure of yourself, and like a total rookie, don't fret! Everyone feels nervous, for virtually everyone is a rookie. E-mail me anytime for specific information about case development, construction, insight, or whatever Even if you have no idea what to do, but you still want to join, e-mail me and ask me about it. I can only help if you let me know you need help!

The fees on the attached sheet are fees needed to run a smooth tournament. We are hiring judges at $50 each. For every debater not bringing their own judge, a $25 fee will be required (see attachment). If for some reason you pre-registered asking for us to hire a judge but ended up dropping from the tournament after October 9th's deadline, we will have to hold you to the judging fee since we will already have hired the judge.

If you are bringing the whole family, let us know if you would be willing to help out. There are some jobs that need to be filled, and the more hands the merrier.

Lastly, I encourage you to consider hosting your own debate tournament. It is not as hard as you may think. You may want to join us on October 17th for the sole purpose to learn how to host a tournament. MACHE will sanction the event, and I can help out. Just let us know!

L.E.A.R.N.'s 1st Annual A MACHE Sanctioned Event

Alexandria Home School Debate Tournament

Saturday, October 17, 1998

For you e-mailers receiving this information, type the info we need and e-mail it back to me at jeub. I will write back to you affirming your registration. You may either mail the fees to Mac Bryant, or pay when you arrive at the tournament.

Debater Name: ___________________________________________ Age: ________

Home School Name:_______________________________ Home Educated_________%

Home School Contact Group:________________________________________________

Phone Number: _________________________ e-mail:__________________________

Registration Fees

# of Contestants: _____ x $10.00 = $___________

# of Judges needed _____ x $25.00 = $___________

(1 judge per contestant)*

Late Fees

Those who beg me to get in after October 9th's deadline _____ x $10.00 =



*At debate tournaments, judges for every two debaters are required to judge each round much like a referee is hired at a sporting event. These judges are paid $50 for judging the entire tournament. Therefore, every debater is accountable for ½ a judge. We do have a limited amount of judges available to judge in Alexandria. If you are unable to supply your own judge, a $25 fee noted above is required. We do ask, if possible, for Mom or Dad to read along with their son or daughter the rules and process of debate so that they may be able to judge on behalf of their son/daughter. Then the $25 fee would be waived. If you will provide a judge, you must list any debaters you may have an ethical conflict in judging. For example, Mom would not be allowed to judge for Junior, or for any home schooler she knows personally. If you have an excess number of judges able to attend the tournament, please let us know by phone. We will write names down and, if needed, we may hire to fill the need.

Name(s) of Judges and Students they cannot judge:

1. _____________________________________ ____________________________

2. _____________________________________ ____________________________

3. _____________________________________ ____________________________

Mail to: Mac Bryant, 2647 Co Rd 22 NW, Alexandria, MN 56308, or e-mail the above information to jeub. You may include a check in with mailing, or fees will be due at registration table on the morning of the tournament. The only fees we will hold you to in case of a drop would be a judge's fee ($25), since we will have already hired a judge.

Go to Archives Page Four