National Speech and Debate Season Opener

2024 — NSDA Campus, KY/US

• Invite
• Entries
• Judges
• Pairings
• Live Updates
• Results

Public Forum (In-Person)

Event Description:

Whole tournament procedures document can be found here.

Public Forum Debate Specific Details Topic

The Season Opener will use the September-October Public Forum topic chosen by the National Speech and Debate Association.

• Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially expand its surveillance infrastructure along its southern border.

• Details can be found on the NSDA website.

Event Format

Public Forum will use the National Speech & Debate Association format and rules, including recent changes to speech times, Grand Crossfire format, and evidence paraphrasing. For more details see pages 30-31 in the High School Unified Manual 2023-2024.

Automated Coin Flip

Teams will be notified within 5 minutes after release of pairing as to which team has won the Tabroom auto-coin flip.

The team that wins the flip may choose one of two options: EITHER the SIDE of the topic they wish to defend (pro or con) OR the SPEAKING POSITION they wish to have (begin the debate or end the debate). The remaining option (SIDE OR SPEAKING POSITION) is the choice of the team that loses the flip. Once speaking positions and sides have been determined, the debate begins (the con team may lead, depending on the coin flip results).

The team winning the flip will have 5 minutes to choose and report their choice to Tabroom, and the team that loses the flip will then be able to report their choice. If the winner does not report their choice within 5 minutes, the first team to report will get their choice, leaving the other option choice to the latter reporter. If one or neither team reports within 10 minutes of the result of the flip, then Tabroom will assign outstanding sides and/or speaking positions for the debate.

Flight B flip happens 60 minutes after the Flight A flip.

Tech Time – Online Competition Only

There will be a 10-minute timer for each team that will run in the event of technology failure. This timer will be managed by the judge. A team forfeits if their 10-minute allocation of time runs out and they have not resumed debating.

Start Times

Teams will be allowed at least 20 minutes of prep time from the release of the pairings until the official start time of the A flight debate. Coaches should conclude their coaching 5 minutes prior to the debate. Judges should report to their rooms no later than 5 minutes until start time. For online competition, all participants in both flights and judges should check into their rooms within 10 minutes of the pairing being posted to check connections and audio.

Forfeit Times

Any team arriving later than 15 minutes after the posted start time will be at the risk of forfeit by the tab room. Any team experiencing what they believe to be a legitimate delay should make every attempt to communicate with the tab room if they are going to be late.

Tiebreakers

1. Wins

2. High low points

3. Total points

4. Opp wins for prelim rounds

5. Opp seed for prelim rounds

Speaker Tiebreakers

1. Points from preliminary rounds, minus 1 high/low

2. Points from preliminary rounds, minus the 2 high/low

3. Total points from preliminary rounds

4. Opponents’ average wins from preliminary rounds

5. Judge variance

6. Coin Flip

Maverick Debating Rules

A "debate team" entry in this event is a two-person partnership. "Maverick" teams are not allowed to enter prior to the tournament - an entry must be composed of two persons. If a team becomes a maverick (one person) during the tournament due to an emergency, the entry may be "maverick" no more than 2 debates to be able to return and for the entry to continue debating. A maverick may win the debate. If a team has more than 2 maverick rounds, they are not eligible for elimination rounds. Mavericks will not be permitted to debate in elimination rounds.

Novice Definition

The novice division is intended to be for students truly in their first year of debate competition. If they debated at more than one tournament prior to the current season, they are no longer novices.

Novices are debaters who at the start of the season do not have tournament competition experience in any debate format (Policy, Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, Congressional Debate) prior to the current academic year.

• If a student debated at a single tournament in a school year, that does not count against their eligibility.

• Debating in another debate format (Congressional Debate, Lincoln Douglas, Policy, or Public Forum) does count against eligibility. Competing in speech events only (Oratory, Extemp, etc.) does not.

• Competing in middle school debate divisions does count against eligibility.

• Attending a summer institute does not count against eligibility.

Please ask us if you have any questions or need to check on a specific scenario. We’d be much happier to discuss a specific situation in advance than to have to remove your competitor(s) from the tournament.

Strike Policy

Each team will be permitted to strike a set number of judges as determined by the tab room.

Judging One Winner

Judges must vote for one and only one team within the allotted decision time.

Obligations

Judges are obligated through at least the last elimination round on Sunday and then one round after their team is eliminated in the elimination debates.

The tournament will assess a $100 penalty for judges who miss a round when obligated in prelims, and $150 in elims.

Philosophies

Judges are required to post a judge philosophy on Tabroom. No entry will be considered complete until all affiliated judges have submitted a judge philosophy.

Evidence & Ethics Challenges

If a team believes an opponent committed an evidence or other ethics violation (except in the cases of prohibited outside assistance – see end of this section), the accusing team should stop the debate and ask the judge to adjudicate the challenge.

This type of challenge includes the following situations:

• a team reads evidence is that fabricated

• a team reads evidence that is meaningfully altered to change the author’s original meaning

• a team misrepresents how much evidence they have read in a debate, such as improperly highlighting their evidence, “clipping cards” (the team says they read more than they actually did by clipping a card short of the indicated end), or “cross reading” (the team skips words or sentences in the middle of the text, but indicates that they read all the highlighted words)

The accusing team will explain to the judge what alleged violation is being asserted. The judge will evaluate the violation based on the evidence available to the judge. Prior to evaluating the challenge, the judge should inform both teams whether the round will continue after the challenge if the accusation is found to be false or if the judge cannot determine the challenge based upon the evidence available to the judge. After the judge informs both teams of the consequences of a failure to sustain the objection or challenge, the accusing team will be given an opportunity to withdraw the challenge. If the accusing team decides to pursue the objection or challenge, then the consequences announced by the judge for a failed or indeterminable objection or challenge will be binding on the teams.

If the judge finds that an ethics or evidence violation was committed, the offending team will be assigned a loss. If a single team member committed the violation, that debater will receive zero speaker points. The judge may assign speaker points to the non-offending debater.

If the violation occurs prior to the non-offending team member delivering a speech, the judge may award points based upon the cross-examination, if applicable. If the non-offending team member has not delivered a speech or participated in a cross-ex, then the tab room will assign the average of the non-offending debater’s speaker points from prior debates.

Any decision to challenge evidence violations or unethical behavior must be made during the round in which the infraction occurred before the judge submits a decision to the tab room. No challenge can be made to conduct committed in any round after the ballot has been submitted to tab room. The judge assigned to the round will decide the challenge made in the round based solely on the evidence submitted by the teams in the round. No appeal, modification or reversal of the judge’s decision regarding the challenge or the consequences resulting from the challenge is permitted.

Outside Assistance Situation

The above type of challenge does NOT include an outside assistance situation (in which a team receives argument assistance or reads or responds to communications from a coach or other person after the debate has commenced, whether verbal or electronic, including the transfer of evidence after the round starts).

In the event of an outside assistance situation, the provisions on Prohibitions on Outside Assistance and Appeals and Ombuds Procedure will be invoked. The outcome of the process will also determine the outcome of the debate.

In the event of this type of challenge, the accusing team should explain the alleged violation. The judge should inform the accusing team that invoking this process means it will go to the Ombuds, and it will also result in a binding outcome for the debate (i.e. if the accuser is found to be wrong or has not provided sufficient proof, they lose). The accusing team may have a brief moment to determine whether or not they wish to proceed. If they choose to do so, it gets directed to the event’s tab room, which will begin the Ombuds process. If they choose not to, and withdraw the challenge, the round should promptly continue.

Evidence Norms

Debaters may request evidence from the opposing team. Debaters reading evidence must immediately present full carded evidence with full citations to the requesting team.

In an online debate, this should be exchanged with the participants immediately via email. An email chain should be established prior to the debate in anticipation of such situations, such that all that is necessary is attaching and sending.

In in-person instances where evidence is stored on an electronic device, students must hand over the electronic device to the requesting team and cannot try to withhold the electronic device for purposes of personal preparation.

Prep time for the requesting team will not start until evidence has been turned over to the debater requesting said cards. Teams may prep during this evidence request time, this should encourage teams to have their evidence ready and available to present immediately. Judges should discourage teams from attempting to “game the system” if evidence requests become overly burdensome or create excessive delays in the debate.

For evidence used in Public Forum debates, we recommend as a best practice that all evidence be cited using one of the prominent citation styles (MLA, Chicago, APA, or the standard Policy debate citation style). Failure to do so is not itself a violation of the rules set forth in this document, but following these norms constitutes an educational and ethical citation practice.

The Season Opener will utilize the National Speech & Debate Association rules for evidence paraphrasing. For more details see page 34-41 in the High School Unified Manual 2023-2024.

Tab Discretion

• The tab room will only remove a judge for an operational failure to follow tournament instructions and procedures.

• An official complaint of discrimination/harassment must go to the Equity Office for review in consultation with the Tournament Director and if appropriate, the University of Kentucky Office of Institutional Equity and Equal Opportunity.

• The content of debates and decisions will not be re-litigated by tab or the tournament, and judges will not be removed or otherwise sanctioned for the way they voted or decided a debate except in the event of an official complaint of discrimination/harassment (above).