Npda Debate Between Mercer University and Morehouse

¶ … 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 acting as the Prime Minister and delivering a seven-minute first affirmative constructive (1ac) arguing against the practice of applying blood quantum laws to determine Native American tribal status. 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 overall position. The fact that an alternative method of tribal status identification could not be readily identified by Ms. Hancock serves to confirm the legitimacy of the position she opposes, because her opponent is sure to pounce on this opportunity by claiming that blood quantum testing represents a necessary evil of sorts.

Ms. Hancock's first affirmative constructive is followed by the first negative constructive delivered by Hunter Pilkinton, who is acting as a representative of the government interested in perpetuating the practice of blood quantum testing. Mr. Pilkinton's impassioned oratorical style immediately acts to strengthen the tone and delivery of his overall argument, which is premised on the concept of blood quantum testing representing the necessary corrective action to assist native populations in reversing the insidious effects of colonial rule. The idea that blood quantum testing can be used to effectively screen individuals seeking native tribal status, thus preventing non-natives from abusing the system and further exploiting resources to which they are undeserving, is a novel proposition, one which Mr. Pilkinton advocates with sincerity and steadfast belief. Especially compelling was Mr. Pilkinton's argument that people of indigenous ancestry have come to embrace identification techniques such as blood quantum testing as a viable method through which to exert their emerging sense of autonomy. As Mr. Pilkinton states in his first negative constructive, "self-identification is a major development in the 21st century," and this cogent observation helps to further the efficacy of his overall argument, in that colonial governments should not maintain an archaic sense of authority over indigenous populations by exerting control over the processes used to determine tribal status. By establishing the foundational premise of his overall position in the notion that native identities -- as delineated by natives themselves -- must be preserved despite the modern sensibilities shared by Western societies, Mr. Pilkinton succeeds in postulating a convincing argument against the abolition of blood quantum testing laws as they pertain to tribal status identification.