NDT Book 2020

As the decade comes to a close, it inspires us to look back on the time that has passed. The mere fact of a year that ends in zero doesn’t mean anything by itself, but these momentary pauses are helpful even if the timing is arbitrary. It’s often difficult to see the forest for the trees when we’re in the midst of events, so these pauses for reflection serve an important purpose.

I was lucky enough to begin my college debate career in 1999-2000, which meant that I encountered the newest edition of Bill Southworth’s NDT book in my very first year. I was too young to really understand the history, much less my own place within it. Now, two decades later, I’m still not sure I’m able to fully grasp the scope of that history. Nevertheless, I have agreed to take on the monumental task of continuing this wonderful project. I can only hope that I do some justice to all of Bill’s work over the years, and provide a document that will inspire the current generation to reflect on its own place within our rich history.

 On the whole, I’ve largely chosen to follow Bill’s model for the book. This is an update on the existing model, not a new approach to the topic. We will still explore the results from the decade—speakers, preliminary records, individual wins, team participation, etc. We’ll also continue with Bill’s tradition of examining the Best of the Decade. There is only one big change, which you will already have noticed: the NDT Book has entered the 21^st century and gone digital. Hopefully this will make distribution of the material easier, and allow for more widespread consumption. There is so much history buried in the records—so many stories waiting to be told. I can’t hope to unearth them all here, but by a durable electronic version of this book should provide a stable framework into which others can start to fill in the gaps.

NDT Winners: 2010-2019

Year	Team	School NDT wins	Most recent win
2010	MSU (Lanning/Wunderlich)	3	2006
2011	Northwestern (Fisher/Spies)	14	2005
2012	Georgetown (Arsht/Markoff)	3	1992
2013	Emporia (Smith/Wash)	1	n/a
2014	Georgetown (Arsht/Markoff)	4	2012
2015	Northwestern (Miles/Vellayappan)	15	2011
2016	Harvard (Herman/Sanjeev)	7	1990
2017	Rutgers-Newark (Murphy/Nave)	1	n/a
2018	Kansas (Katz/Robinson)	6	2009
2019	Kentucky (Bannister/Trufanov)	2	1986

Copeland Winners: 2010-2019

2010	Emory	Weil/Inamullah
2011	Emory	Weil/Inamullah
2012	Northwestern	Beiermeister/Kirshon
2013	Georgetown	Arsht/Markoff
2014	Northwestern	Miles/Vellayappan
2015	Northwestern	Miles/Vellayappan
2016	Harvard	Herman/Sanjeev
2017	Harvard	Midha/Sanjeev
2018	Kansas	Katz/Robinson
2019	Kentucky	Bannister/Trufanov

This decade saw nine different teams take the ten titles, with only Georgetown Arsht/Markoff as repeat victors. In the Copeland race, there was far less diversity among winners, with Emory Weil/Inamullah and Northwestern Miles/Vellayappan each taking back-to-back titles. Harvard’s Sanjeev also won consecutive Copelands with different partners.

 There was some overlap between Copeland winners and the eventual tournament champion, with 2015 (Miles/Vellayappan), 2016 (Herman/Sanjeev), 2018 (Katz/Robinson) and 2019 (Bannister/Trufanov) seeing teams take home both awards. Strangely, Georgetown Arsht/Markoff won the tournament twice and also won a Copeland award, but never both at the same time.

 Northwestern’s two wins extended their record number of NDT titles to 15. Harvard claimed a clear second place in all-time victories with their 7^th title, while Kansas joined Dartmouth in third place all-time by claiming their 6^th.

 Ten years ago, no team had ever won both the NDT and the CEDA National tournament. Two managed it this decade, first Emporia in 2013, followed by Rutgers-Newark in 2017.

 Later sections will comb through the results of the decade—and across the whole scope of NDT history—in a lot more detail. But before embarking on that project, I want to take a moment and identify a few major themes that defined the 2010s in college debate. These will receive more discussion throughout the various pages of the book, but it’s worth taking a moment to reflect on the big picture developments of the community before diving into the details.

 First, the 2010s was the decade when debate went paperless. This process was already underway at the start of the decade, but quickly swept across the country. Within just a few years, the entire infrastructure of tournament travel changed. Gone are tubs, as well as the never-ending hassle of negotiating their transportation with airlines. Gone are the printers, and printer jams. Debate rounds now take place entirely on computers via speech docs. It hasn’t been a perfectly seamless transition. Certainly, those of us old enough to remember what things used to be like are often grumpy about the state of flowing. Then again, when have the old-timers not been grumpy about the present state of flowing. But on the whole the change came with far less disruption than many anticipated.

 The big question going forward is whether the increasing digitalization of the activity will continue, and whether this might provide alternatives to in-person tournaments, or at least an incentive to finally push the balance back toward regionalization and away from nationalization of the activity. The 2010s saw some meaningful activity in that direction, but it the ‘major’ tournaments which feed into the NDT remains largely the same as in previous generations.

 The second major theme of the 2010s concerns the substance of debates themselves. This decade saw major developments in the longstanding conservations within the activity about objectives, values, and the very idea of what debate is for. At times, it felt like debate was really two parallel activities. One concerned with traditional policy questions, disadvantages and counterplans, and the occasional ‘old school’ critique; the other concerned with tactics of political engagement, identity politics, and forthright challenges to the apparatus of policy itself. This was not a new phenomenon, but the extent to which the activity seemed to splinter has been relatively unprecedented, with perhaps the NDT/CEDA split as the only most apposite parallel.

 The arguments have also stepped outside of the debate rounds themselves to focus on the way structures of the activity promote and sustain particular modes of engagement. We have seen in recent years significant pushback against Mutual Preference Judging, which is regarded by some as a tool for excluding perspectives and insulating (policy) teams from the obligation to assess the broader implications of their arguments. These arguments have also attached themselves to the previous topic of how (and where) tournaments are held. The community has only just begun to seriously reckon with the indelibility of the tournament calendar.

 A third important theme: the increased prominence and success of women, particularly women of color. Women and people of color have mostly been absent from previous iterations of this book. That has sadly reflected the reality of college debate as an activity, and of the NDT in particular. Going back to the original NDT in 1947, the field contained just two women. For the following decades, many national tournaments separated the genders. West Point did not admit female cadets until 1976, and the early NDT hosts explicitly forbid entrants from women-only institutions. There was obviously no such restriction on all-male schools. Through the 2006 NDT, only 14 women had ever appeared in the final round. In 2007, three of the four finalists were women, with Emory’s team of Hamraie and Hoehn becoming the first all-woman team to win the title.

 When Stephanie Spies earned the top speaker award in 2011, she was only the third woman in NDT history to take that title, following Patricia Stallings (Houston 1957) and Gloria Cabada (Wake Forest 1988). Compared to that historical imbalance, the 2010s were far more balanced.

 To be clear, things still have hardly equalized, or come anywhere close to it, really. We still remain far, far from the ideal, and there is a lot of work still to do. But for the first time, these end-of-decade rankings include prominent positions for women across many of the categories. The debater of the decade was a woman of color, with several other women in the top 10. The judge of the decade was a woman, with two black women also in the top five. In addition to being rated the third best judge of the decade, Amber Kelsie was also assessed as the second-best coach. Just over a quarter of the final round participants in the 2010s were women, up a huge degree from the previous tally of 6.7%. Women made up close to half of the top and 2^nd place speakers. And overall participation levels have increased as well.

 These changes may be tied to the shifts in argumentation described above. While some of the most successful women over this decade fall clearly into the camp of ‘traditional’ debate, the expanded scope of advocacy has clearly not been limited to the debate rounds themselves. With powerful voices pressing the case for a form of politics that goes beyond tokenism and ‘diversity,’ the activity itself has also been at least partially reconstituted.

 Finally, this decade has also seen powerful conversations about openness and accessibility. The leading voices in the national organizations have been pressed to account for their practices, to attend to sexual abuse and harassment, to respond to their place within exclusive political systems. These have not been easy conversations, but they have been necessary. It remains very much an ongoing process of contestation and limited resolution.

 These changes within the activity have also played out within the NDT itself. The decade saw some very traditional tournament winners, with Northwestern, Harvard, and Kansas all among the four most successful schools in NDT history. But we also saw two first time winners—Emporia and Rutgers-Newark. Emporia were long-time NDT veterans, having attended over two dozen times before their win, first as Kansas State Teachers College and then as Emporia. But Rutgers-Newark did not even have a program until 2008. Both Emporia and Rutgers-Newark also broke barriers as the first two teams to win both the CEDA National tournament and the NDT. They were also both ‘non-policy’ competitors, expanding the range of what it was possible to argue, as well as how arguments could be made.

 There is perhaps no more fitting way of characterizing the structure of the decade than to note that Emporia’s groundbreaking victory was flanked by two wins from the Georgetown team of Arsht and Markoff—representing one of the most successful schools in NDT history, with argument choices and a debating style that would not have been out of place in many previous eras. This pluralism has not always been comfortable, or sufficient. But for better and for worse, it remains a core feature of the community’s identity as it enters the 2020s.

 Postscript: This book was prepared in anticipation of being released simultaneous with the start of the 2020 National Debate Tournament. Sadly, for the first time in its history, the NDT will not occur this year, having been canceled in response to the spread of the Covid-19 coronavirus. Obviously, there are larger problems in the world than the cancellation of a debate tournament, but it is nevertheless bittersweet for all of us who care deeply about debate as an activity. I find myself particularly moved, having just completed this immense project of combing through and collecting the history of the activity and tournament. I was already looking forward to seeing what new names would inscribe themselves into history at this tournament. Now, we are left with nothing but possibilities. I dearly hope that everyone who was denied their chance to shine at this tournament understand how much their pain is felt by those of us watching from near and far. 2020 will forever exist as an asterisk in NDT history. I fervently hope that everyone is able to come back stronger than ever and once again make this the culmination of a year spent working together as a community to advance understanding and political engagement.

Picture It: 

Date:                 Sunday, May 4, 1947

Time:                2:00 PM

Location:           United States Military Academy at West Point

The Cullum Memorial Hall

Occasion:           The FINAL ROUND of the FIRST NDT

Affirmative:       University of Southern California

George Grover & Peter Kerfoot

Negative:           Southeastern State College of Oklahoma

Scott Nobles & Gerald Sanders

Result:               Negative 3-2

Impact:              Intercollegiate debate would never be the same!

In 1986 Glenn R. Capp of Baylor University explained how and why the first National Tournament was born in his book Excellence in Forensics: A Tradition at Baylor University:

“The National Debate Tournament was an instant success largely because of the leadership of the West Point Military Academy in organizing it and because it embodied an idea whose time had come. Until 1947, the national fraternities (Pi Kappa Delta, Delta Sigma Rho, and Tau Kappa Alpha) had held national tournaments that restricted participation to member universities, but there was no organization that cut across existing fraternities to include all universities. I received a letter and questionnaire dated May 27, 1946, from William F. Gorog of the West Point Debating Society which stated in part:

We understand that your institution has been quite active in debating circles during the past few years, and we would appreciate having your opinion on a question which has been discussed recently to great length here at the Academy.

At present there is no all inclusive organization of intercollegiate debating societies, and as a result there has never been a national intercollegiate debate tournament. At present the Academy sponsors an annual tournament with some of the finest teams of the East and Middle West participating. Because of the success of these affairs, our Superintendent, General Taylor, has promised us every support in the organization of a National Tournament with participants representing every part of the United States. This would be a tournament which could at long last determine a National Intercollegiate Debating Championship.

It is our intention to invite the outstanding team from each section of the country. The question at hand at this point is the method of determining the team or teams to represent each district. Dr. Alan Nichols of the University of Southern California has suggested that the nation be divided into districts with a committee of outstanding coaches in each to determine the qualified teams. ” (Pages 140-141)

In his December 1946 issue of The Debater’s Magazine, Egbert Ray Nichols of the University of Redlands, described the progress that Cadet Gorog and his Tournament Committee were making:

“West Point’s National Debate Tournament is going full speed ahead! Backed by an overwhelmingly favorable response to a detailed questionnaire sent to many prominent speech-conscious institutions, the West Point Debating Society has its tournament blueprints in the final stage. The U.S. Military Academy’s debaters, with the aid and encouragement of Major General Maxwell D. Taylor, superintendent of the Academy, are out to make this first venture of this type a blazing success.

Selected on the recommendation of outstanding speech instructors throughout the country, members of the regional committees to choose teams for the tournament have already been notified of their appointment. Three-man boards operating in the districts shown on the accompanying map will nominate the 32 participating schools on the basis of their performance in intercollegiate forensics during the current season.

            Any team nominated by a regional committee will be eligible to participate in the tournament, which will consist of five preliminary and four elimination rounds. Plans are now under way to broadcast the final debate.

            The custom in the previous invitational tournaments held at West Point will continue into the National: There will be no entrance fees, and accommodations and meals will be furnished free of charge to all contestants.

            Army’s tournament, bringing together the outstanding debaters from all sections of the country, will undoubtedly prove a potent stimulus to American forensics after the inevitable decline of the war years.” (Page 263)

In the March 1947 issue of The Debaters Magazine Dr. Nichols described the details of the National Tournament the West Point cadets were planning:

“On the basis of a survey made early this year, outstanding speech coaches have been chosen in each of the seven districts to represent the National Tournament Committee in selecting qualified teams. It is felt that coaches in the regions themselves will be in a much better position to choose the representatives than any group located in one part of the country. The method of choice is extremely flexible, depending upon the facilities at the disposal of the various district committees. In most cases, sufficient tournament facilities are already available to provide the committeemen with enough information to determine the strongest teams. It has been requested that all selections be made and submitted to Tournament Headquarters by March 14, 1947. The names of two alternate teams in addition to the district quota will also be included in the selections. 

The Regional Committees have been organized as follows:

Region No. 1—Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah.

            Alan Nichols, USC; E.R. Nichols, Univ. of Redlands; W. Arthur Cable, Univ. of Arizona.

Region No. 2—Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, Wyoming.

            W.M. Veatch, State College of Washington; Herbert Rae, Willamette Univ.; John Leary, 

            Gonzaga University.

Region No. 3—Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas.

            R.S. Weatherell, TCU; Glenn R. Capp, Baylor Univ.; H. H. Anderson, Oklahoma A&M.

Region No. 4—Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Minnesota, Nebraska, North & South Dakota.

            Thorel B. Fest, Univ. of Colorado; Forest Rose, S.E. Missouri Teacher’s College.

Region No. 5—Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin.

1. Garber Drushal, College of Wooster; Glenn Mills, Northwestern Univ.; Leonard Sommer,

            Univ. of Notre Dame.

Region No. 6—Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North & South Carolina, Tennessee,

            Virginia, West Virginia.

            Wayne C. Eubank, Univ. of Florida; Albert Keiser, Lenoir-Rhyne College; J.T. Daniel, Univ.

            of Alabama.

Region No. 7—Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey,

            New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont.

            J.F. O’Brien, Penn State College; Brooks Quimby, Bates College; John Chester Adams, Yale Univ.

 The regional quotas for team representation is as follows:

            Region 1, 4 teams, 2 alternate teams.

            Region 2, 3 teams, 2 alternate teams.

            Region 3, 4 teams, 2 alternate teams.

            Region 4, 5 teams, 2 alternate teams.

            Region 5, 6 teams, 2 alternate teams.

            Region 6, 4 teams, 2 alternate teams.

            Region 7, 6 teams, 2 alternate teams.

 Teams will consist of two debaters and will be limited to undergraduate students. Each team will come prepared to debate both sides of the National Question. RESOLVED: That labor should be given a direct share in the management of industry. In order to provide adequate judging personnel, one qualified judge will accompany each team.

There will be a total of nine rounds of debate over a period of three days. The first five rounds will be judged on both a “win or lose” basis and on a point basis. After five rounds of debate (with all teams participating), the sixteen strongest teams will begin an elimination tournament. At least three judges will be assigned for each elimination round. “(Pages 61-62).

National Tournament Schedule

Friday, May 2, 1947

10:30 AM          Final arrival time and registration

11:00                Orientation meeting and drawing for position

12:00                Dinner

2:00 PM            First round of debate

3:30                 Second round of debate

6:30                 Supper

8:00                 Third round of debate

Saturday, May 3

8:30 AM           Fourth round of debate

10:00                Fifth round of debate

12:00                Dinner

2:00 PM            Sixth (1st Elimination Round 16 teams)

3:30                 Seventh round (Quarters. . .8 teams)

6:30                 Eighth round (Semi-finals. . .4 teams)

9:15                 Movies at War Department Theatre

10:30                Formal Dance

Sunday, May 4th

Sunday morning will be reserved for Chapel Services, Catholic, Jewish, and Protestant Services will be available to all participants.

1:15 PM            Banquet at Cullum Memorial Hall

2:00                  Final Round of Debate

The original twenty-nine teams at the first NDT:

Southeastern State College, OK.     (Scott Nobles & Gerald Sanders)                8-1        First

USC, CA                                   (Potter Kerfoot & George Grover)              5-4        Second

Army, NY                                  (John Lowry & George Dell)                     7-1        Third

Notre Dame, IND.                       (Frank Finn & Tim Kelley)                       6-2        Third

Navy, MD                                  (Jack Jones & Robert Miller)                     6-1        Quarters

Louisiana College                        (H.A. Munderup & Chandler Clover)          5-2        Quarters

Northwestern Univ., IL                 (James McBath & Fred Zeni)                     4-3        Quarters

Univ. of Mississippi                     (Brinkley Morton & Jesse Holleman)          4-3        Quarters

Univ. of Vermont                        (Leona Felix & Norman Vercoe)                5-1        Octos

Univ. of Virginia                         (Charles Ide & William Pierce)                  4-2        Octos

Augustana College, IL                  (Harold Brock & John Swenson)                3-3        Octos

Yale Univ., CN                           (Richard Shapiro & Holt & Westerfield)      3-3        Octos

Rutgers Univ., NJ                        (Milton Anapol & Donald Yawitz)             3-3        Octos

Wake Forest Univ., NC                (Sam Behrends & Henry Huff)                   3-3        Octos

Univ. Texas, Austin                     (Harold Sanders & Jack Skaggs)                3-3        Octos

College of St. Thomas, MN           (Thomas Ticen & Martin Haley)                2-4        Octos

Oklahoma Baptist Univ.               (Eugene Craighead & Dean Emery)            2-3

Washington State                        (Dick Downing & Janice Loschen)             2-3

Ohio State                                  (Charles Vernon & William Holleran)         2-3

Wheaton College, IL                    (Roy Fanoni & David Howard)                  2-3

Texas Christian                           (Charles Matthews & Bob Hearn)               2-3

Univ. of Colorado                        (Roger Dotens & Robert Polkinhorn)          1-4

Purdue Univ., IND                       (Archies Colby & Norris Sample)               1-4

Oregon State                              (Donald Rowland & Donald Dimick)          1-4

Penn State                                  (Peter Giesey & Fred Keisler)                    1-4

Gonzaga Univ., WA                     (Don Shahan & Tom Foley)                      1-4

Indiana State Teachers College      (Ellis Anderson & Gene Moore)                 1-4

Univ. of Utah                              (Adam Duncan & Wallace Bennett)                        1-4

Arizona State                              (Gene Turner & Howard Thompson)           0-5

Coverage of the NDT

The United States Military Academy, as both sponsor and host of the National Debate Tournament for the first twenty years offered numerous unique advantages. Financially the Army covered many expenses, like banquets, which now must be covered by tournament entry fees. After leaving West Point the AFA assumed sponsorship of the NDT, but its financial contribution was minimal, in 1976 the Ford Foundation came aboard with a small, but significant, yearly contribution that was increased in 1996, but abandoned a few years later as car sales began to decline. However, a big advantage of West Point was its geographic location, just a short distance from the media capital of the world—New York City! Combined with their own prestige they were able to insure significant coverage in the New York Press. However, beginning in 1948 they achieved several publicity coups through the use of radio and a new medium that was gaining popularity—Television!

“We the People” a CBS interview show was the first to have the final round participants as their guests. Radio coverage was apparently rather extensive. Beginning in 1957 the New York Times “Youth Forum” TV program, first on WRCA TV and then WNBC TV, began a ten-year run of hosting the finalists for discussions of the topic they had debated and researched all year. In 1958 “The College News Conference Show” on ABC was added to the list, although it aired from Washington, DC. In 1959 the winners were featured on the Dave Garroway “Today Show” on NBC. In 1961 “GE College Bowl” on WCBS TV was where you could find the NDT finalists being interviewed. By 1962 West Point in cooperation with the National Educational Television/ Radio Network, produced, “The National Debate Tournament at West Point” this show ran until West Point ended its administration of the NDT in 1966.

When the AFA sponsorship began they started publishing a transcript of the Final Round in the American Forensic Association Journal, which became the Argumentation and Advocacy Journal in the Summer of 1988. Following the 1985 final round, John Boaz, former AFA President and JAFA Editor, found transcribing the final round too difficult an endeavor and ended that process. I tried to revive the process when the Post Tournament Book was re-introduced in 1988, but that lasted a few short years, it became obvious that virtually no one could accurately decipher the tapes of current debates.

Obviously, successful teams receive press coverage of their accomplishments on a local level, but national exposure has been quite limited. That is until 2004, when College Sports Television (CSTV) produced an hour-long documentary on the NDT. They met with several teams prior to the tournament and then followed them throughout the event. The ultimate show was quite interesting and insightful for any viewer. They followed a similar procedure for 2005 and 2006 NDT’s. Prior to the 2006 NDT Liberty University received national coverage with two glowing articles. One in Newsweek (147 no6 56 F 6 2006, “Thrust and Christ”) and the other in the New York Times Magazine (March 19, 2006; “Ministers of Debate”) Both articles focused on the conservative religious emphasis of Liberty and the political implications of such a successful program, not much about the NDT. Unfortunately, not all publicity is good, a few months after the 2008 CEDA National Tournament some explosive video made its way to YouTube and ultimately to CNN; it showed a bitter argument quickly getting out of control and resulting in a very visible mooning by one coach. The ensuing media uproar cost one person his job and the elimination of an entire program.

In the “good old days” the media viewed debate much differently, as found in this 1963 Newsweek article analyzing the Dartmouth team who had just captured the National Championship.

Tournament Hosts

West Point hosted the National Championships for twenty years. Suddenly during the 1966 tournament” Colonel Lincoln, the West Point Tournament Director, met with the district chairs and advised them that at the tournament banquet he would announce the Military Academy’s decision to discontinue hosting the NDT.” George Ziegelmueller of Wayne State University, Anabel Hagood of the University of Alabama and Herb James of Dartmouth formed a committee to discuss the possibility of West Point hosting the event for one more year while plans were made for the transition. “The Superintendent explained that because of the United States’ growing involvement in the war in Southeast Asia the number of men admitted to the Academy was scheduled to increase and that both space and money were in short supply. In a reappraisal of the mission of the Academy, the sponsorship of the NDT was not judged to be a high priority. . .he refused to approve an extension.” The District Chairs then requested of Prof. Ziegelmueller that, as the then President of the American Forensic Association, he take to the AFA the possibility of that organization sponsoring the National Championship. George was busy coaching his own team at the tournament (they would later place second) but when contacted he agreed and the process was begun. (Argumentation & Advocacy Journal, Vo. 32, No. 3, Winter 1996) 

Departure from West Point changed the tournament considerably. The Military Academy had provided a rather unique atmosphere and a rich tradition that would be hard to replace. The first non-West Point host was the University of Chicago in combination with Northwestern University and was generally regarded as a success.

The next non-West Point NDT, however, went over less well. As Dr. Southworth wrote:

“It was my first NDT, and what a disaster, both for me, and the tournament. Brooklyn College was the host, but the only housing facility was a local motel that also served as a “brothel.” If there was any doubt about the normal function of this motel it was made clear the first night when many returned to find their baggage outside their rooms and the doors bolted. When Prof. Ziegelmueller confronted the management, he was informed that some rooms were needed to take care of his more shady patrons who wished to rent by the hour. When George introduced Laurence Tribe, then the Harvard debate coach, as the NDT’s legal counsel, the manager became quite cooperative. (Argumentation & Advocacy, Winter 1996, Vol. 32, No. 3, Pg. 146) Unfortunately, Brooklyn, on-balance was not the ideal location. I can remember watching the final round, Wichita vs. Butler in an auditorium which had very little lighting and equally bad acoustics, thus, most of the judges could barely see or hear the debate to even take notes. Suffice to say the University of Northern Illinois was a most welcomed host in 1969.”

Soon enough, though, everyone settled happily into the process of rotating tournament hosts, as reflected in the following list of tournament sites and hosts.

YEAR	SITE	HOST	DIRECTOR
1947-1966	West Point Military Academy
1967	University of Chicago	Richard Lavarnway & Thomas B. McClain	Stanley G. Rives
1968	Brooklyn College	Charles E. Parkhurst	Richard D. Rieke
1969	Northern Illinois Uni.	M. Jack Parker	Rodger Hufford
1970	University of Houston	William English	David Matheny
1971	Macalester College	W. Scott Nobles	John C. Lehman
1972	University of Utah	Jack Rhodes	John C. Lehman
1973	U.S. Naval Academy	Philip Warken	Merwyn A. Hayes
1974	U.S. Air Force Academy	David Whitlock	Merwyn A. Hayes
1975	University of the Pacific	Paul Winters	Michael D. Hazen
1976	Boston College	Daniel M. Rohrer	Michael D. Hazen
1977	Southwest Missouri State Univ.	Rita Rice Flaningam	Michael D. Hazen
1978	Metropolitan State College, CO	Gary Holbrook	Michael D. Hazen
1979	University of Kentucky	J.W. Patterson	Michael D. Hazen
1980	University of Arizona	Tim A. Browning	Michael D. Hazen
1981	Cal Poly Pomona Univ.	Robert Charles	Michael D. Hazen
1982	Florida State University	Marilyn J. Young	Michael D. Hazen
1983	Colorado College	James A. Johnson	Michael D. Hazen
1984	University of Tennessee	Russell T. Church	David Zarefsky
1985	Gonzaga University	Darrell Scott & Joan Archer	David Zarefsky
1986	Dartmouth College	Herbert L. James	David Zarefsky
1987	Illinois State University	Arnie Madsen	David Zarefsky
1988	Weber State College	Randy Scott	David Zarefsky
1989	Miami Univ. of Ohio	Jack Rhodes	David Zarefsky
1990	West Georgia College	Chester Gibson	Al Johnson
1991	Trinity University	Frank Harrison	Al Johnson
1992	Miami Univ. of Ohio	Jack Rhodes	Al Johnson
1993	Univ. of Northern Iowa	Bill Henderson	Donn W. Parson
1994	Univ. of Louisville	Tim Hynes	Donn W. Parson
1995	West Georgia College	Chester Gibson	Donn W. Parson
1996	Wake Forest Univ.	Allan D. Louden	Donn W. Parson
1997	Liberty University	Brett O’Donnell	Donn W. Parson
1998	University of Utah	Rebecca Bjork	Donn W. Parson
1999	Wayne State Univ.	George Ziegelmueller	Donn W. Parson
2000	Univ. of Missouri, KC	Linda Collier	Donn W. Parson
2001	Baylor University	Karla Leeper	Donn W. Parson
2002	Southwest Missouri State	John Fritch	Donn W. Parson
2003	Emory University	Melissa Wade & Bill Newnam	Donn W. Parson
2004	Catholic University	Ron Bratt	Donn W. Parson
2005	Gonzaga University	Glen Frappier	John Fritch
2006	Northwestern University	Scott Deatherage	John Fritch
2007	Westin Convention Center	Dallas, Texas	John Fritch
2008	Cal State Fullerton	Jon Bruschke	John Fritch
2009	University of Texas	Joel Rollins	John Fritch
2010	Cal Berkeley	Dave Arnett & Greg Achten	John Fritch
2011	UT-Dallas	Chris Burke	John Fritch
2012	Emory University	Bill Newnam	John Fritch
2013	Weber State University	Omar Guevera	John Fritch
2014	Indiana	Brian Shah-Delong	John Fritch
2015	Iowa	Paul Bellus	John Fritch
2016	Binghamton	Joe Schatz	Sarah Partlow Lefevre
2017	Kansas – Edwards Campus	Scott Harris	Sarah Partlow Lefevre
2018	Wichita State	Jeffrey Jarman	Sarah Partlow Lefevre
2019	Minnesota	David Cram Helwich	Sarah Partlow Lefevre

Ranking NDT Hosts

Since 1980, Dr. Southworth’s ‘Best of the Decade’ polls have asked for an assessment of the different hosts. Unfortunately, no such survey was taken during the West Point years or for the 1960’s. Only Dartmouth for the 1980s and the Westin Hotel for the 2000s received overwhelming support. In every other decade, there was considerable division among voters over the favorite hosts. 

BEST NDTs of the 1970s
1	Metropolitan State College, Denver, Colorado	1978
2	University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky	1979
3	U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colorado	1974
4	University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah	1972
5	University of the Pacific, Stockton, California	1975
BEST NDTs of the 1980s
1	Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire	1986
2	Gonzaga University, Spokane, Washington	1985
3	University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona	1980
4	University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee	1984
5	Cal Poly Pomona, Pomona, California	1981
BEST NDTs of the 1990s
1	Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan	1999
2	Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina	1996
3	Liberty University, Lynchburg, Virginia	1997
4	West Georgia College, Carrollton, Georgia	1995
5	West Georgia College, Carrollton, Georgia	1990
BEST NDTs of the 2000s
1	Westin Hotel, Dallas, Texas	2007
2	Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois	2006
3	Gonzaga University, Spokane, Washington	2005
4	University of Texas, Austin, Texas	2009
5	University of Missouri at Kansas City	2000
BEST NDTs of the 2010s
1	Weber State University, Ogden, Utah	2013
2	University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota	2019
3	University of Kansas Edwards Campus, Overland Park, Kansas	2017
4	Wichita State University, Wichita, Kansas	2018
5	University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa	2015

 

For the past four decades, Dr. Southworth conducted a poll of coaches. The key questions: who were the best individual debaters? The best teams? The best judges? Which topics were good and which were bad? Which hosts did the best? These questions invite rankings, but more importantly they give us all a chance to reflect on what makes the activity great.

Taking over the project this year, I continued this tradition. In total, I received 41 responses, though not every voter answered every question. The following details the results of those responses.

Outstanding Debater

Kansas’s Quaram Robinson, the overwhelming choice for Debater of the Decade

Voters were asked to “provide a ranked list of the top 10 outstanding debaters of the decade.” Total points are based on 10 points for a 1st place vote, 9 for 2nd, etc.

68 different debaters received votes, including 16 different first place votes.

There was clearly an enormous amount of talent spread widely around over the decade. But there was also a clear standout at the top. Quaram Robinson from Kansas raced out to an early lead in this category and never looked back. Her performance record speaks for itself: with two final round appearances, winning once, a Copeland Award, and 33 NDT debates won (tied for 9^th all-time) over her four-year career. The truly incredible thing is that she did all of that with four different partners! As far as I can tell, there is no debater in NDT history who comes remotely close to this level of sustained excellence with a new partner each year.

Taking second place was Andrew Markoff, who finished just one point ahead of Arjun Vellayappan in third. The razor thin margin is perhaps unsurprising, since the two are tied (along with Markoff’s longtime partner Andrew Arsht who came in at #4) for the second-most victories in NDT history, with 38. Moreover, Vellayappan stands alone at the top with an astonishing 13 elimination round victories. He is also notable for being one of two debaters to show up twice on the Outstanding Team list below, first for his partnership with Alex Miles (#10), second for his partnership with Peyton Lee (#12). The other such debater was Hemanth Sanjeev (#8), who appeared first with David Herman and then with Ayush Midha (#17)

Emporia’s record-setting team of Wash (#7) and Smith (#11)—the first team to unite the CEDA and NDT titles—both also appear toward the top of the list, while the team of Murphy and Nave from Rutgers-Newark, who repeated that feat a couple years later follow closely behind at #12 and #14.

Several debaters on this list split significant time with the last decade. Both Stephen Weil and Stephanie Spies only debated for fifteen months during the 2010s, but were so dominant in those years to assert a place on the list.

Seven of the ten NDT Top Speakers of the 2010s appear on this list and are noted with an asterisk. However, the top three debaters on this list never managed to earn a Top Speaker award, suggesting that overall acclaim does not necessarily correlate perfectly with speaker points in the round.

	Team	School	Points	1st Place Votes
1	Quaram Robinson	Kansas	218	6
2	Andrew Markoff	Georgetown	169	4
3	Arjun Vellayappan	Northwestern	168	6
4	Andrew Arsht*	Georgetown	158	1
5	Stephen Weil*	Emory	152	3
6	Stephanie Spies*	Northwestern	123	4
7	Ryan Wash	Emporia	106	4
8	Hemanth Sanjeev	Harvard	104	1
9	Natalie Knez*	Georgetown	93
10	Alex Miles	Northwestern	83	2
11	Elijah Smith	Emporia/Rutgers-Newark	74
12	Devane Murphy*	Rutgers-Newark	59
	Peyton Lee	Northwestern	59	1
14	Nicole Nave	Rutgers-Newark	57	1
15	Ellis Allen	Michigan	46	1
16	Rashid Campbell*	Oklahoma	37
17	Ayush Midha	Harvard	29	1
18	George Lee	Oklahoma	28
19	Ameena Ruffin	Towson	25
20	John Spurlock*	Berkeley	22
	LaToya Williams-Green	Emporia	22

Other debaters receiving first place votes: Miguel Feliciano, Taylor Brough, Michael Barlow.

All other debaters receiving votes: Alex Parkinson, Alex Pappas, Anna Dimitrijevic, Anthony Joseph, Anthony Trufanov, Beau Larsen, Brad Bolman, Carly Wunderlich (Watson), Charles Athanasopolous , Chris Randall, Corey Fisher, Corinne Sugino, Damyr Davis, Dan Bannister, David Herman, Eric Lanning, Ignacio Evans, Jack Ewing, Jacob Hegna, Jalisa Jackson, James Mollison, Jasmine Stidham, Jason Sigalos, Jeffrey Horn, Joe Krakoff, Joe LeDuc, Jyleesa Hampton, Kaine Cherry, Kenny Delph, Kevin Whitley, Khalil Lee, Kyle Broughton, Layne Kirshon, Marquis Ard, Matt Fisher, Michael Barlow, Miguel Feliciano, Miles Gray, Mimi Sergent-Leventhal, Miranda Ehrlich, Nate Cohn, R.J. Giglio, Ryan Beiermeister, Srinidi Mupalla, Taylor Brough, Vida Chiri, Will Morgan.

Outstanding Team

Georgetown’s Arsht/Markoff celebrating their first NDT win

In this category, 38 different teams received votes, including 11 different first place votes.

Topping the list, by a significant margin, was the team of Georgetown Arsht/Markoff. They were the only team to win two NDTs in the decade, notching an astonishing 33-4 record as a partnership over three tournaments. They also won a Copeland award (interestingly, not in one of the years they won the NDT), as well as a second and third-place finish in the first round rankings.

Overall, the first half of the decade fared more strongly than the second, with the top five spots all being filled by teams who debated from 2010-2015. Indeed, the two teams who won the NDTs that surrounded Geogetown’s second win (Northwestern’s Miles and Vellayappan and Emporia’s Wash and Smith) finished second and third. Meanwhile, the 4^th and 5^th place finishers (Emory’s Inamullah and Weil and Northwestern’s Fisher and Spies) each only two years in the 2010s at all.

All ten of the decade’s NDT winners (marked in red) finished in the top 15. In fact, only Emory IW and Michigan’s team of Allen and Pappas (#9) broke the top ten without an NDT victory to their name. All ten Copeland winners from the decade are also represented on this list and are marked with an asterisk for each victory.

Two debaters appear twice on this list. Northwestern’s Vellayappan came in at #2 with Miles and then again at #13 with Lee, while Harvard’s Sanjeev appears both with Herman (#8) and with Midha (#11).

Possibly the greatest ‘what if’ on the list is West Georgia’s team of Davis and Feliciano, who finished at #18 despite retiring early in their career. They were certainly among the most talented teams that I had the pleasure to judge and would certainly have appeared on a list of the ten best teams I personally watched over the decade.

A note on vote tabulation: in most cases, the voter’s choice was obvious. But in a few instances, partnership turnover produced some overlapping teams. For example, Quaram Robinson of Kanas received votes for each of her four partnerships. However, by far the most commonly cited partnership was with Katz, so I have listed KR, rather than trying to disaggregate the other scattered votes. However, in the case of Harvard’s teams from the latter half of the decade, I chose the opposite approach. Here, the lion’s share of votes were for the partnership of Herman and Sanjeev, but a significant number also came in in for Sanjeev and Midha, as well as a few votes for Midha and Cooper, with many individual voters listing two or even all three of these teams in their lists. I therefore chose to let each partnership stand alone. If you wish to regard Sanjeev as the connecting force between Harvard HS and MS, the total partnership would have received 130 points and placed slightly higher.

	Team	Points	1st Place Votes
1	Georgetown (Arsht/Markoff)*	268	17
2	Northwestern (Miles/Vellayappan)**	183	3
3	Emporia (Smith/Wash)	163	9
4	Emory (Inamullah/Weil)**	162
5	Northwestern (Fisher/Spies)	161	1
6	Kansas (Katz/Robinson)*	135	1
7	Rutgers-Newark (Murphy/Nave)	107	2
8	Harvard (Herman-Sanjeev)*	101	1
9	Michigan (Allen/Pappas)	96
10	Kentucky (Bannister/Trufanov)*	81
11	Harvard (Midha/Sanjeev)*	61	1
12	Harvard (Bolman/Suo)	56
13	Oklahoma (Campbell/Lee)	53	1
	Northwestern (Lee/Vellayappan)	53
15	MSU (Lanning/Wunderlich)	50
16	Northwestern (Beiermeister/Kirshon)*	29
17	Towson (Johnson/Ruffin)	28
18	Michigan (Krakoff/Morgan)	27	1
	West Georgia (Davis/Feliciano)	27
20	Loyola (Ewing/Mollison)	20
	Berkeley (Muppalla/Spurlock)	20
	Oklahoma (Giglio/Watts)	20

Other teams receiving first place votes: Harvard Cooper/Midha.

All other teams receiving votes: Berkeley Sergent-Leventhal/Wimsatt, Georgetown Knez/Louvis, Georgia Agrawal/Ramanan, Gonzaga Kanellopoulos/Moczulski, Harvard Cooper/Midha, Harvard Jacobs/Parkinson, KCKCC Casas/Nave, Liberty Byram/Chiri, Oklahoma Chiles/Yahom, Rutgers-Newark Randall/Smith, Towson Thomas/Whitley, UMKC Fisher/Joseph (AT), University of Central Oklahoma Hilligoss/Stidham, UNLV Gomez/Horn, Vermont Brough/Lee, Wake Forest Athanasopolous/Sugino.

Outstanding Coach

Georgetown celebrating with their coach, Jonathan Paul

Voters were asked to rank their top five coaches. 41 individuals received votes, with 14 different first place selections.

Once again, the voting produced a runaway winner, with Jonathan Paul receiving more first place votes than the next four challengers combined. It’s not hard to understand when you consider that Georgetown went from not qualifying for the NDT in 2007 to clearing a team in 2011 to four final round appearances and two victories over the rest of the decade. Of course, the last of those appearances came under the tenure of Mikaela Malsin, who also received votes. Georgetown has certainly been blessed.

Finishing a strong second was Amber Kelsie. Unlike most of the others on this list, who have been firmly entrenched at a single (long-dominant) school, Kelsie spent time coaching at Towson, Pittsburgh, Wake Forest, and Dartmouth. The votes for her therefore represent not only top-level success (though her teams have certainly had plenty), but also a wider commitment to the activity as a whole.

Rounding out the top five were Jeff Buntin at Northwestern, Scott Harris at Kansas, and the team of Dallas and Sherry at Harvard. Each ushered multiple teams to the late elimination rounds throughout the decade.

Tabulation note: as with the votes for outstanding team, there was some occasional overlap, with voters focused more on a coaching team than a single individual. The only case where I simply combined a pair was the Harvard duo of Dallas Perkins and Sherry Hall. Most voters who mentioned one also included the other. And having been lucky enough to work with them for a season, I know firsthand how collaborative they are. It felt silly to try and separate their contributions.

The other most prominent cases were the Northwestern and Michigan squads, where Buntin/Fitzmier and Kall/Heidt received some double votes. Scott Harris and Brett Bricker from Kansas also received a handful of combined votes. These were far less common, however, so I simply chose to count a vote which mentioned both as a vote for both individuals and tabulate their points independently.

	Coach	Points	1st Place Votes
1	Jonathan Paul	83	14
2	Amber Kelsie	49	4
3	Jeff Buntin	48	3
4	Scott Harris	45	3
5	Dallas Perkins and Sherry Hall	31	1
6	Adrienne Brovero	23	1
7	Ryan Wash	19	1
	Rashad Evans	19
9	David Heidt	18
	Shanara Reid-Brinkley	18	3
	Dave Arnett	18	3

Other coaches receiving first place votes: Dan Fitzmier, Aaron Kall, James Mollison, Matt Moore, and LaToya Green.

 All other coaches receiving votes: Aaron Kall, Brett Bricker, Carlos Astacio, Casey Harrigan, Dan Fitzmier, Dave Stoecker-Strauss, Ed Lee, Edmund Zagorin, Ignacio Evans, Jackie Massey, James Herndon, James Mollison, Jarrod Atchinson, Jillian Aleja, Jonah Feldman, Justin Green, Ken Strange, Kevin Hirn, LaToya Green, Mathew Petersen, Matt Moore, Mikaela Malsin, Neil Burch, Rashad Evans, Ryan Galloway, Sam Mauer, Sean Kennedy, Tiffany Dillard-Knox, Travis Cram, Willie Johnson, Will Repko.

 Outstanding Judge

Voters were asked to rank their top five judges. 61 individuals received votes, with 15 different first place selections.

 The clear favorite was Adrienne Brovero, who appeared on over a third of the ballots, an incredible achievement given the wide range of highly qualified judges, and the idiosyncrasies that go into identifying what counts as ‘best’ in this category.

 Finishing 2^nd and 3^rd here were Scott Harris and Amber Kelsie, who share the impressive feat of being the only two individuals to appear in the top five of both the coaching and judging categories. Rounding out the top five were LaToya Green and John Turner, who narrowly edged out the field to claim a space at the top.

 Interestingly, only two individuals appear on both this list and the list for the 2000s: Will Repko and Ryan Galloway.

	Judge	Points	1st Place Votes
1	Adrienne Brovero	52	7
2	Scott Harris	34	6
3	Amber Kelsie	23	2
4	LaToya Green	20	2
5	John Turner	18	1
	David Heidt	18	3
	Will Repko	18
8	Kevin Hirn	17
	David Cram Helwich	17
10	Brett Bricker	15	1
	Ryan Galloway	15	1

 Other judges receiving first place votes: Shanara Reid-Brinkley (2), Teddy Albiniak (2), Geoff Lundeen, Sarah Lundeen, Allison Harper, Courtney Schauer, David Heidt, Patrick Kennedy, Brian McBride.

 All other judges receiving votes: Adam Symonds, Aliyah Shaheed, Allison Harper, Becca Steiner, Brian Delong, Brian Manuel, Brian McBride, Calum Matheson, Carly Wunderlich, Casey Harrigan, Courtney Schauer, Darron Carrol, Dave Strauss, David Heidt, Deven Cooper, Eric Morris, Gabe Murrilo, Geoff Lundeen, Greta Stahl, Heather Walters, Ignacio Evans, James Herndon, Jarrod Atchison, Jeff Buntin, Jeff Roberts, Joe Krakoff, Joe LeDuc, Jyleesa Hampton, Kevin Whitley, Leah Moczulski, Lindsey Shook, Marquis Ard, Matt Moore, Michael Hester, Mikaela Malsin, Nate Cohn, Patrick Kennedy, Phil Samuels, Philip DiPiaza, Ryan Wash, Sarah Lundeen, Sean Kennedy, Shanara Reid-Brinkley, Stephen Weil, Taylor Brough, Teddy Albiniak, Tiffany Dillard-Knox, Travis Cram, Warren Decker, Whitney Brown, Will Mosley-Jenson, Willie Johnson.

 Best Topic

The broad theme here was plurality of opinion. Nine of the ten topics received at least one first place vote, with the roughly half finishing fairly close to one another in the middle. However, most voters did seem to agree that the Executive Authority and Democracy Assistance topics were the least favored, while there was a relatively clear top three in Nuclear Weapons, Climate, and Military Presence.

 But the first-place finish for the nuclear topic is actually even more impressive than it looks. Due to an error on my part, voters were not provided with a list of the topics and by the time many voted, they were well into the 2019-2020 Space topic. As such, a few voters included Space and left the Nuclear topic out. For the Nuclear topic to still finish first despite the missing votes suggest that it was in fact pretty heavily favored.

 On the bottom, the Executive Authority topic was generally not well received, finishing second to last. It was also the only topic to not receive a single first place vote. But it still finished ahead of the Democracy Assistance topic, which finished in last place by a decent margin.

 Two sidenotes: First, since a number of voters ranked the current Space topic, we got a sneak peak of its favorability ratings, or rather its unfavorability ratings. Only time will tell, but it looks like there’s an early frontrunner for least favorite topic of the 2020s. Second, one voter identified “impeach/remove” as the best topic of the decade, even though it was not selected.

	Topic	Points	1st Place Votes
1	Nuclear Weapons (2009-2010)	160	7
2	Climate (2016-2017)	159	3
3	Military Presence (2015-2016)	157	6
4	War Powers (2013-2014)	141	3
5	Energy (2012-2013)	128	1
6	Health Care (2017-2018)	124	1
7	Legalization (2014-2015)	109	2
8	Immigration/Visas (2010-2011)	104	1
9	Executive Authority (2018-2019)	80	0
10	Democracy Assistance (2011-2012)	68	1

Best NDT Hosts

Voters generally agreed on their four favorite NDT hosts, with Weber, Minnesota, Kansas, and Wichita each finishing very close to the top. Iowa just barely edged into the top five, but the gap between 5^th and 10^th was fairly small.

	Host	Year	Points
1	Weber	2013	160
2	Minnesota	2019	158
3	Kansas	2017	150
4	Wichita	2018	141
5	Iowa	2015	111

 Best Regular Season Hosts

This category produced the single biggest runaway winner, with Wake Forest claiming nearly half of the available votes. They certainly run a good tournament, and the people have made clear that they appreciate the good work. Apart from Wake, a few of the other traditional majors received support, as did quite a wide range of others.

	Host	Votes
1	Wake Forest	15
2	Northwestern	4
	Harvard	4
4	Kentucky	2
	Weber	2
6	Dartmouth	1
	Fullerton	1
	Liberty	1
	Rutgers-Newark	1
	Indiana	1
	Texas	1
	Gonzaga	1

 

Over the last decade, the debate community lost far too many of its key historical figures. I can’t possibly hope to discuss everyone who was taken from us, but I will try in this space to identify at least a few who gave so much—especially those who have contributed as coaches. By its very nature, debate is a transitory activity. Every four years an entirely new set of debaters arrive, rise to great heights, and then move on. But there are a few who stick around, who form the institutional memory that ties generations together. This is the chance to celebrate those titans, to reveal just a little bit about their lives and their accomplishments.

Ken Strange

[prepared by John Turner – Ken’s student, colleague, and successor in charge of the Dartmouth Forensic Union] 

Ken Strange devoted his life to coaching debate and fostering a debate community committed to in-depth research, well-reasoned argument, and good faith competition.  For Ken, the NDT served as both the epitome and embodiment of these ideals. Though Ken’s impact on debate is impossible to fully measure, his legacy includes the many students he coached at the University of Iowa, Augustana College, Dartmouth College, and Wake Forest University alongside the thousands of students who attended the Dartmouth Debate Institute.  For every one of those students Ken held both high standards and high hopes.  Their testimony across myriad memorials illustrated his fierce competitiveness and passion for improvement alongside his compassion and kindness for all those hoping for their opportunity to debate.

 Ken’s squads qualified enough teams to the NDT to hold more than an entire NDT among themselves.  His coaching achievements with the Dartmouth Forensic Union from 1980-2015 included winning three National Debate Tournament Championships, five NDT 2^nd places, and nine NDT 3^rd places.  His peers selected him the coach of the decade for the 1980s, reflecting Dartmouth’s semifinals or better showing at every NDT that decade save two.  In a coaching feat that may never be equaled, Dartmouth teams won at least one elimination round at the NDT every single year from 1980-2009.  He set the standard for a Director of Debate contributing comprehensive research, guiding strategy discussion, and driving argumentative innovation.  He produced winning strategies across all five decades of his coaching career. 

Ken’s judging displayed his love of argument and his appreciation for the hard work of others in the debate community.  In another record unlikely to be equaled, he was voted one of the top five judges in the nation for the 70s, 80s, 90s, and 2000s.  No one doubted Ken’s thoroughness in reaching a decision or his commitment to rendering a fair and helpful critique.  

Everyone who spent time with Ken encountered his legendary laugh and terrific temper.  No one could forget the consequences of disappointing Ken, or the fact that he would be the first to share a joyful story after a memorable blowup.  Ken’s retirement speech contained no mention of his own accomplishments as he chose instead to provide an impressive recitation of the foibles of generations of Dartmouth debaters.  He treated his program and community as family and clearly relished his life’s work.

Ken refused to say “the NDT.” Ever insistent on word economy, he dropped the article in favor of simply “NDT.”  Ken, NDT owes you a great debt of gratitude and your many friends, colleagues, and debaters mourn you.  

Ken, celebrating an NDT victory and first place Copeland finish with his team of Ara Lovitt & Steven Sklaver. 

George Ziegelmueller

George Ziegelmueller was a professor of communication and debate coach from 1957 to 2006 where he led Wayne State debaters to hundreds of championships in the college debate circuit. Under his direction, Wayne State was established as one of the most successful programs in the nation. During the 1999 National Debate Tournament, the George Ziegelmueller Award was created to recognize Professor Ziegelmueller for his over 30 years of excellent coaching, timeless commitment to the activity, and numerous contributions to the forensics community. The George Ziegelmueller Award is presented annually at the National Debate Tournament to a faculty member who has distinguished himself or herself in the communication profession while coaching teams to competitive success.

 

Frank Cross

Professor Frank B. Cross of the University of Texas Law and Business Schools was a national debate champion at the University of Kansas (1976), Harvard Law School graduate, former practicing attorney, and long-time professor and scholar in Austin. By general acclamation, he was one of the best debaters of the 1970s, widely referred to as the best 2N of his era. His partner Dr. Robert Rowland wrote the following: “Frank B. Cross demonstrated that an ordinary kid from Kansas could through hard work go on to become one of the best KU debaters of all time and win the NDT, excel at Harvard Law School, work at an elite Washington law firm, and teach with distinction as a named professor at both the School of Business and the Law School at the University of Texas.  His success as a famous legal scholar came as no surprise to anyone who ever debated him. He was always the brightest person in any room he occupied, but wore that gift with grace and wit.  We mourn the loss of one of the greatest debaters of his generation, but celebrate the life of a dear friend.”

1976 NDT champions Frank Cross and Robin Rowland compete at the Heart of America Debate, April 1976. Image courtesy of University Archives, Spencer Research Library, KU 

Alfred “Tuna” Snider

Alfred “Tuna” Snider attended Brown University, where he was a top-ranked national debater. He earned a master’s degree in rhetoric and public address from Emerson College and his doctorate in communication studies, personal and social influence, from the University of Kansas. He then moved on to direct the Lawrence Debate Union at the University of Vermont for the next forty years. Anyone who grew up in debate over the past three decades did so in Tuna’s shadow. I remember my own early ventures online to learn about debate and discovering his Debate Central website. Tuna was a tireless advocate for debate and critical engagement, a campaign he took all across the world. From the University of Vermont’s statement on his death: “Snider traveled to 45 countries on nearly every continent to advance the art of debate—in developing nations, under communist regimes and in war-torn territories—including Serbia, Iraq, Pallestine [sic], Botswana, Afghanistan and Chile. Since 1984, he served as director of the World Debate Institute.” Dr. Snider consistently promoted debate as a vital instrument of democratic engagement. One of his favorite slogans was “replacing weapons with words,” and he truly lived that ideal. According to Jairus Grove: “Tuna Snider is a planetary scale phenomena. We would need google earth to show how many debaters, debate programs, thinkers, activists, carry his passion with them.”

Holt Spicer

Holt Spicer was truly one of the giants of the early years of the NDT. He and his partner shared the two top speaker awards in 1951 and 1952, winning the tournament both years. You will find his name littered through this document, with records for individual and team wins, multiple NDT victories, and as one of the contestants in a debate across generations in 1991. After graduated from Redlands, Spicer served as the debate coach at Missouri State University from 1952 until 1965. In 1965, Spicer became the head of the Department of Communication, but continued to remain involved in the team over the following decades. Even after his retirement in the 1990s, Spicer remained engaged with the team, including serving on the search committee that found current coach Eric Morris. The Missouri State debate team continues to bear his name.

Neil Berch

Neil Berch served as a West Virginia University associate professor of political science since 1992 and as coach of the WVU Debate Team since 1997. Samantha Godbey, his longtime assistant, said the following: “He was a great educator and mentor. The debate team and the University are really going to miss him. His main priority was the students – he wanted to make sure every student had equal opportunity and equal access and he also wanted to inspire them to be better people.” Christy Webster Dunn: “Neil fought a valiant battle for almost a decade and I was in constant awe of his tenacity and resourcefulness. He was a uniter, a mediator, a right-fighter and an all around brilliant man.”

Arnie Madsen

Arnie debated for Buffalo High School in Wyoming and then debated for Al Louden at Northwest Community College and then went on to complete his career as a debater at Eastern Montana College. He earned a master’s degree in Communication Studies from Wake Forest University, and then taught and coached debate at Illinois State University. He earned his PhD from Northwestern University in Communication Studies, and then taught and coached debate at the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Northern Iowa. He served as NDT Committee chair for several years.  He hosted the NDT at Illinois State, and worked in the NDT tabroom for over a decade. Several people commented that when Arnie was working in a tabroom, he was the person they would send out to ask people to judge extra rounds because no one could say no to him. In addition to his contributions within the activity, he was also an active scholar, publishing regularly in argumentation and rhetoric, and touching the lives of many students and colleagues.

Chester Gibson

Chester received his BA, MA and PhD all from the University of Georgia.  He began coaching debate at West Georgia College in 1971 where he served as the director of debate for 25 years. As Michael Hester said, “he is the reason you know anything about West Georgia debate… WG Debate had functionally been a student club for most of its then-40+ year existence. Within three years of his arrival, West Georgia had earned an NDT First Round, and within his first 12 years as Director, West Georgia had reached the NDT semifinals, had a 2nd place speaker at the NDT, a 2nd place ranked FRALB team… It is not an exaggeration to say that the last half-century of West Georgia being one of the top debate programs in the nation – every trophy, every champion, every success – Chester Gibson is responsible for it. I was the first member of my family to go to college – because Dr. Gibson offered me a free ride, which was the only way I was going to afford any school. I became the DoD at West Georgia College in 1995 because Dr. Gibson pulled me aside my senior year and told me that if I would go get a master’s, he’d hire me to coach the team.” Chester hosted the NDT twice.  He qualified a team for the NDT 22 consecutive years and earned a First Round bid at least 8 times.  He served as chair of District 6 for 13 years and helped to secure the funding for the Copeland Award.  He also personally funded the Ovid Davis Award – the watch given to the coach of the NDT champions. 

Skip Eno

Skip was the Director of Debate at UT San Antonio from 1982 until his passing in 2017. During that time the UTSA debate team earned numerous awards including regional and national championships.  He earned many personal accolades including coach of the year by the Southern Speech Association and was named an All-Star Coach by the CEDA South-Central Region in 1996.  Skip was also the recipient of the Jeff Jarmon Person of the Year Award in 2016. According to Kate Richey, one of his debaters: “Skip lead a UTSA debate team comprised of weirdos, burn-outs and adult students on their third second-chances. … I was working double shifts at … restaurants, babysitting rich people’s children, and taking a full course load+ to get through school. Finding time for debate wasn’t easy, but no matter what, Skip wanted us at tournaments and he did everything in his power to make that happen. …. He could argue with you until he was blue in the face, but he would also argue for you with his every breath. Skip believed in his debaters when nobody else would and he saw the best in the most difficult people. … Skip loved to talk, loved to argue, loved to genuinely laugh.” 

Bruce Daniel

Bruce Daniel was a debate coach at West Georgia College. His debate career has D3 roots, having attended Southwest Missouri for his bachelor’s and was in the doctoral program and Kansas. In between he earned his master’s at Eastern Illinois. While debate coach at WGC, Bruce coached teams to the NDT every year, including First Round teams.

Michael “Bear” Bryant

Michael “Bear” Bryant was the longtime coach at Weber State, and a famous (and enthusiastic) presence in the early days of online national debate communication. According to Doug Dennis, one of his former debaters: “Debating for him wasn’t always easy – in fact, it was rarely easy – debating for Bear was hard because he had expectations for you, and it always seemed, at least for me, those expectations were well beyond my reach and rarely did I meet those expectations, which was simultaneously infuriating and motivating…but he never stopped caring. That’s the part most people never got to see. He cared about his debaters in a way most can’t or won’t.” Bear also took that passion out into the world. He was a strong supporter of the Southern Poverty Law Center, and devoted tireless efforts to fighting against racism both online and in person. In the words of Ken DeLaughder, “he was full of piss and vinegar, but his heart was also filled with love.”

Jack Kay

Dr. Jack Kay, twice graduated from Wayne State University, championed student academic success and the study of communication throughout a thirty year career in higher education. He was a member of the nationally recognized Wayne State debate team and coached the team as a graduate student. A decade later, he returned to his alma mater as a professor of communication and chair of the Department of Communication. In his later career, he also served in several administrative roles at Wayne State, including dean and provost.

Dave Matheny

Dave “Pops” Matheny received his PhD in Rhetoric from the University of Oklahoma. He taught and coached debate at Texas Christian University and later retired from Emporia State University. He was past-president and inducted into Hall of Fame at Kansas Speech Communication Association. His two daughters also both debated in college and coached for a while.  He served in the United States Army during the Korean Conflict, stationed at the Panama Canal Zone. According to one of his former students: “When you got past the thunderous timbre of his voice and towering presence, I found an educator that took the time to care, identify talent and offer opportunity simply because it was the right thing to do. I’m eternally grateful for that. 

Tom Kane

Tom Kane taught at the University of Pittsburgh from 1965 until his retirement in 1999, coached the University of Pittsburgh to the National Debate Championship in 1981, and was twice named National Coach of the year by Emory University (1973) and Georgetown University (1981), named Honorary Citizen of Texas in 1982 for his work with high school debaters at Baylor University.

Al Johnson

James Al Johnson was the Director of the National Debate Tournament from 1990-1992. He was former professor of economics, registrar, and debate coach at Colorado College, was named outstanding forensics educator by the American Forensics Association. During his nearly 50-year career at CC, Johnson directed three national debate tournaments, co-founded the Cross Examination Debate Association in 1972, and founded the National Parliamentary Debate Association in 1993.

The early NDT’s had a national topic available to them, however, the West Point Debating Society took considerable liberties with that process. This was not unusual, since debate prior to the NDT was largely regional in nature, with the exception of the Speech Fraternities National Tournaments, which involved all types of events and large convention settings. In 1949 the national topic was, Resolved: That the Federal Government should adopt a policy of equalizing educational opportunity in tax-supported schools by means of annual grants. In January of 1949 Lt. Col. Chester L. Johnson, Officer-in-Charge of the Debate Council at West Point, wrote the regional chairpersons the following letter:

“I am writing to solicit your advice concerning a major question which has been raised concerning this year’s West Point Tournament (April 21-24).

We are somewhat concerned about using the Federal Aid to Education topic in this year’s tourney.

There exists a 50-50 possibility that within the next three and a half months the Congress may render this topic sterile. Whether or not enacted legislation would fit the Need, be Practical, and Desirable, it would raise hob with our debating–not that fait accomplis are not inherently debatable but because of the psychological atmosphere that such governmental action would generate.

Were we to choose an alternate question as a safeguard it should be settled prior to 1 February.

I should, therefore, appreciate your considered opinion first as to the general proposal as to whether or not a subject other than the present national question should be used at West Point, and second your preferences among the following questions:

(1) Resolved: That a system of pre-paid medical insurance be adopted by our Federal Government

(2) Revolved: That the Federal Government should adopt a policy divided towards government ownership and operation of the steel industry and the major sources of energy.

My political prognosticator assures me that a medical insurance program is not as likely of adoption at an early date as Federal Aid to Education. The second question of course raises even more clearly the ghost of socialism. I have not suggested a foreign policy question because the dynamics of world relationship move with such speed today that even the more general topics might jump the tracks.”

 

Thus, after several exchanges between West Point officials and the Regional Committees, it was decided that the topic to be used at the 1949 National Tournament would be; RESOLVED: That the Federal Government should adopt a system of pre-paid medical insurance.” Perhaps inspired by their “topic changes” in 1949 the West Point Debating Society decided upon even more innovative changes for the 1950 Tournament. My research over the years has enabled me to locate some invaluable sources of information. After the 1950 NDT West Point began publishing a post book which described, in detail, the previous NDT. What follows is a most interesting review of how the tournament was organized and structured from the 1950 West Point National Invitational Debate Tournament and Brief History of Debating at West Point. Note how the topics varied throughout the tournament.

 

“As in the past years, those participating in this year’s tournament at West Point–debaters, coaches, and invited judges–were guests of the West Point Debate Council. Meals were provided male guests in the Cadet Mess Hall, while female guests were fed at the Officer’s Mess. Lodging was provided male students in the Visiting Athletic Team rooms. Female and faculty personnel were guests of officers’ families on the Post. No fees were charged participants for food, lodging, or administrative expenses–these being met by the normal revenues of the Debate Council, cadet dues and an appropriation from athletic funds. Debate groups interested in coming to West Point experience one major item of expense–transportation to and from West Point.

During the past four years we have been interested in noting the ingenuity several “poverty stricken” groups have used in overcoming the cost of transportation obstacles. Those who were unable to

budget normal revenue either succeeded in enlisting further appropriations from Student council funds or sought aid from extra-mural sources. Thus, newspapers, bar associations, business men’s clubs, and interested alumni have voted affirmatively on a proposal to underwrite travel costs.

The 1950 Tournament included eight seeding and four elimination rounds. After their arrival at West Point teams were paired by lot for the first two seeding rounds. Pairings were so arranged that teams from schools at a great distance from each other would meet in these first two rounds. In seeding rounds 3-8 pairings were determined on the basis of comparative records, provided that teams from the same districts would not meet and that teams would not meet twice. Thus, at the end of the two seeding rounds the cadet statistical and control group matched those teams having a 2-0 win record against other teams with the same record, 1-1 teams against others having won one and lost one, and 0-2 teams against others having lost two debates. To prevent the “bunching” of teams with top records as might happen if they progressed from affirmative to negative to affirmative, etc., the pairings for the third and seventh seeding rounds only were made without reference to the side a team had last defended. Even so each team debated both affirmative and negative sides of each of the four topics chosen for debate in the seeding rounds.

The 1950 West Point Tournament provided a departure from normal topic designation. In accordance with the vote of District Committeemen as to whether we should employ a topic other than the National Question, as in 1949, or to use the National Question and three sub-topic related to the National

Question, the tournament progressed as follows:

Seeding Rounds 1 and 2: RESOLVED, That the United States should Nationalize The Basic

Non-Agricultural Industries.

Seeding Rounds 3 and 4: RESOLVED, That in the Interest of National Security the United States should Nationalize The Basic Non-Agricultural Industries.

Seeding Rounds 5 and 6: RESOLVED, That in Order to Control The Business Cycle The United

States should Nationalize The Basic Non-Agricultural Industries.

Seeding Rounds 7 and 8: RESOLVED, That the United States should Nationalize the Steel Industry.” 

For the elimination rounds they reversed the order, using the Nationalize Steel Industry topic, in the octos, and the Basic Non-Agricultural Industries in the Finals. The 1951 book stated, “It has been decided to debate only the National Question this year,” and that has been the policy ever since. This is reasonably certain because in 1955, despite having a guaranteed invitation as the host, West Point, along with the other military academies did not compete. The topic, Resolved: “That the United States should extend diplomatic recognition to the communist government of China,” was considered too politically sensitive for representatives of the military to take a position.

The topic selection process became formalized by the 1960’s into a committee made up of one representative from SCA, AFA and one each from the major Speech Fraternities (Phi Rho Pi, DSR-TKA and Pi Kappa Delta). In 1995 the NDT Committee formed a group to develop topic options for the tournament, which of course meant it was the national topic. The very next year the NDT Committee voted to adopt the CEDA National Topic in an effort to bring about a merger of the two debate organizations. Thus, beginning in 1996 the topic debated at the National Debate Tournament has been written by the CEDA Topic Committee. In the spring, the community votes on a problem area. In June a committee of twenty or so coaches formulate a slate of topic options which are then voted on by the community. 

What follows are the topics that have been debated at the past seventy-three NDTs. You may note that the topics seem to grow longer each year. There may well be a correlation between length of topic and the size of the committee!

Topics at the NDT over the years

1946-1947          RESOLVED: That labor should be given a direct share in the management of industry.

1947-1948          RESOLVED: That a federal world government should be established.

1948-1949          RESOLVED: That the Federal Government should adopt a system of prepaid medical insurance.

1949-1950          RESOLVED: That the United States should nationalize the basic nonagricultural industries.

1950-1951          RESOLVED: That the non-communist nations should form a new international organization.

1951-1952          RESOLVED: That the federal government should adopt a permanent program of wage and price control.

1952-1953          RESOLVED: That the Congress of the United States should enact a compulsory fair employment practices law.

1953-1954          RESOLVED: That the United States should adopt a policy of free trade.

1954-1955          RESOLVED: That the United States should extend diplomatic recognition to the communist government of China.

1955-1956          RESOLVED: That the nonagricultural industries should guarantee their employees an annual wage.

1956-1957          RESOLVED: That the United States should discontinue direct economic aid to foreign countries.

1957-1958          RESOLVED: That the requirement of membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment should be illegal.

1958-1959          RESOLVED: That the further development of nuclear weapons should be prohibited by international agreement.

1959-1960          RESOLVED: That Congress should be given the power to reverse decisions of the Supreme Court.

1960-1961          RESOLVED: That the United States should adopt a program of compulsory health insurance for all citizens.

1961-1962          RESOLVED: That labor organizations should be under the jurisdiction of anti-trust legislation.

1962-1963          RESOLVED: That the non-communist nations of the world should establish an economic community.

1963-1964          RESOLVED: That the federal government should guarantee an opportunity for higher education to all qualified high school graduates.

1964-1965          RESOLVED: That the federal government should establish a national program of public work for the unemployed.

1965-1966          RESOLVED: That law enforcement agencies in the United States should be given greater freedom in the investigation and prosecution of crime.

1966-1967          RESOLVED: That the United States should substantially reduce its foreign policy commitments.

1967-1968          RESOLVED: That the federal government should guarantee a minimum annual cash income to citizens.

1968-1969          RESOLVED: That executive control of United States foreign policy should be significantly curtailed.

1969-1970          RESOLVED: That the federal government should grant annually a specific percentage of its income tax revenue to the state governments.

1970-1971          RESOLVED: That the federal government should adopt a program of compulsory wage and price controls.

1971-1972          RESOLVED: That greater controls should be imposed on the gathering and utilization of information about United States citizens by government agencies.

1972-1973          RESOLVED: That the federal government should provide a program of comprehensive medical care for all citizens.

1973-1974          RESOLVED: That the federal government should control the supply and utilization of energy in the United States.

1974-1975          RESOLVED: That the power of the Presidency should be significantly curtailed.

1975-1976          RESOLVED: That the federal government should adopt a comprehensive program to control land use in the United States.

1976-1977          RESOLVED: That the federal government should significantly strengthen the guarantee of consumer product safety required of manufacturers.

1977-1978          RESOLVED: That the United States law enforcement agencies should be given significantly greater freedom in the investigation and/or prosecution of felony crime.

1978-1979          RESOLVED: That the federal government should implement a program which guarantees employment opportunities for all United States citizens in the labor force.

1979-1980          RESOLVED: That the federal government should significantly strengthen the regulation of mass media communication in the United States.

1980-1981          RESOLVED: That the United States should significantly increase its foreign military commitments.

1981-1982          RESOLVED: That the federal government should significantly curtail the powers of the labor unions in the United States.

1982-1983          RESOLVED: That all United States military intervention into the internal affairs of any foreign nation or nations in the Western Hemisphere should be prohibited.

1983-1984          RESOLVED: That any and all injury resulting from the disposal of hazardous waste in the United States should be the legal responsibility of the producer of that waste.

1984-1985          RESOLVED: That the United States federal government should significantly increase exploration and/or development of space beyond the earth’s mesosphere.

1985-1986          RESOLVED: That the more rigorous academic standards should be established for all public elementary and/or secondary schools in the United States in one or more of the following areas: language arts, mathematics, natural sciences.

1986-1987          RESOLVED: That one or more presently existing restrictions on First Amendment freedoms of press and/or speech established in one or more federal court decisions should be curtailed or prohibited.

1987-1988          RESOLVED: That the United States should reduce substantially its military commitments to NATO member states.

1988-1989          RESOLVED: That United States foreign policy toward one or more African nations should be substantially changed.

1989-1990          RESOLVED: That the Federal government should adopt an energy policy that substantially reduces nonmilitary consumption of fossil fuels in the United States.

1990-1991          RESOLVED: That the United States should substantially change its trade policy toward one or more of the following: China, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan.

1991-1992          RESOLVED: That one or more United States Supreme Court decisions recognizing a federal Constitutional right to privacy should be overruled.

1992-1993          RESOLVED: That the United States should substantially change its development assistance policies toward one or more of the following nations: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka.

1993-1994          RESOLVED: That the Commander in Chief power of the President of the United States should be substantially curtailed.

1994-1995          RESOLVED: That the federal government should substantially change rules and/or statutes governing criminal procedure in federal courts in one or more of the following areas: pretrial detention, sentencing.

1995-1996          RESOLVED: That the United States government should substantially increase its security assistance to one or more of the following: Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Palestinian National Authority, Syria.

1996-1997          RESOLVED: That the United States Federal Government should increase regulations requiring industries to substantially decrease the domestic emission and/or production of environmental pollutants.

1997-1998          RESOLVED: That the United States Federal Government should substantially increase its security assistance to one or more of the following Southeast Asian nations: Brunei, Burma, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam.

1998-1999          RESOLVED: That the United States Federal Government should amend Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, through legislation to create additional protections against racial and/or gender discrimination.

1999-2000          RESOLVED: That the United States Federal Government should adopt a policy of constructive engagement, including the immediate removal of all or nearly all economic sanctions, with the government(s) of one or more of the following nation-states: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea.

2000-2001          RESOLVED: That the United States Federal Government should substantially increase its development assistance, including increasing government to government assistance, within the Greater Horn of Africa.

2001-2002          RESOLVED: That the United States federal government should substantially increase federal control throughout Indian Country in one or more of the following areas: child welfare, criminal justice, employment, environmental protection, gaming, resource management, taxation.

2002-2003          RESOLVED: That the United States Federal Government should ratify or accede to, and implement, one or more of the following: The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; The Kyoto Protocol; The Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court; the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civilian and Political Rights aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty; the Treaty between the U.S. and the Russian Federation on Strategic Offensive Reductions, if not ratified by the U.S.

2003-2004          RESOLVED: That the United States Federal Government should enact one or more of the following: Withdrawal of its World Trade Organization complaint against the European Union’s restrictions on genetically modified foods; A substantial increase in its government-to-government economic and/or conflict prevention assistance to Turkey and/or Greece; Full withdrawal from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; Removal of its barriers to and encouragement of substantial European Union and/or North Atlantic Treaty Organization participation in peacekeeping in Iraq and reconstruction in Iraq; Removal of its tactical nuclear weapons from Europe; Harmonization of its intellectual property law with the European Union in the area of human DNA sequences; Recession of all or nearly all agriculture subsidy increases in the 2002 Farm Bill.

2004-2005          RESOLVED: That the United States Federal Government should establish an energy policy requiring a substantial reduction in the total non-governmental consumption of fossil fuels in the United States.

2005-2006          RESOLVED: That the United States Federal Government should substantially increase diplomatic and economic pressure on the People’s Republic of China in one or more of the following areas: trade, human rights, weapons nonproliferation, Taiwan.

2006-2007          RESOLVED: That the United States Supreme Court should overrule one or more of the following decisions: Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992); Ex parte Quirin (1942); U.S. vs. Morrison (2000); Milliken v. Bradley (1974).

2007-2008          RESOLVED: That the United States Federal Government should increase its constructive engagement with the government of one or more of: Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, and Syria, and it should include offering them a security Guarantee(s) and/or a substantial increase in foreign assistance.

2008-2009          RESOLVED: That the United States Federal Government should substantially reduce its agricultural support, at least eliminating nearly all of the domestic subsidies, for bio-fuels, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, corn, cotton, diary, fisheries, rice, soybeans, sugar and/or wheat.

2009-2010          RESOLVED: The United States Federal Government should substantially reduce the size of its nuclear weapons arsenal, and/or substantially reduce and restrict the role and/or missions of its nuclear weapons arsenal.

2010-2011          Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase the number of and/or substantially expand beneficiary eligibility for its visas for one or more of the following: employment-based immigrant visas, nonimmigrant temporary worker visas, family-based visas, human trafficking-based visas.

2011-2012          Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its democracy assistance for one or more of the following: Bahrain, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Tunisia, Yemen.

2012-2013          Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially reduce restrictions on and/or substantially increase financial incentives for energy production in the United States of one or more of the following: coal, crude oil, natural gas, nuclear power, solar power, wind power.

2013-2014          Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase statutory and/or judicial restrictions on the war powers authority of the President of the United States in one or more of the following areas: targeted killing; indefinite detention; offensive cyber operations; or introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities.

2014-2015          Resolved: The United States should legalize all or nearly all of one or more of the following in the United States: marijuana, prostitution, online gambling, the sale of human organs, physician assisted suicide.

2015-2016          Resolved: The United States should significantly reduce its military presence in one or more of the following: the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, the Greater Horn of Africa, Northeast Asia.

2016-2017          Resolved: The United States Federal Government should establish a domestic climate policy, including at least substantially increasing restrictions on private sector emissions of greenhouse gases in the United States.

2017-2018          Resolved: The United States Federal Government should establish national health insurance in the United States.

2018-2019          Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase statutory and/or judicial restrictions on the executive power of the President of the United States in one or more of the following areas: authority to conduct first-use nuclear strikes; congressionally delegated trade power; exit from congressional-executive agreements and Article II treaties; judicial deference to all or nearly all federal administrative agency interpretations of statutes and/or regulations; the bulk incidental collection of all or nearly all foreign intelligence information on United States persons without a warrant.

In the early years, West Point hosted the National Debate Tournament for more than just competitive reasons. In 1958, qualifying teams from District II found themselves unable to pay the heavy transportation costs. The cadets voluntarily restricted their own travel to save sufficient funds so that coaches in Districts I and II could attend the tournament as guest judges. This enabled most teams to attend and began the tradition of guest judges at the NDT. It also helped considerably with the quality of judging. There had been growing concern over the fact that so many judges were “lay” and not well versed on the topic or the procedure. It was decided that at the end of the year, for the National Championship Tournament, every effort should be made to have the most qualified critics available. This was not contradictory to the other use the debates were put to by the Military Academy, as the following report indicates:

“Six of the twelve rounds of the tournament were held before cadet classes. Cadet classes in the Department of English studying a sub-course in debate and classes in security economics and international relations found the technique and knowledge of the debaters a valuable educational experience.”

For context, many “tournaments” at this time consisted of a few schools getting together and having some audience debates. Glenn Capp of Baylor received the following letter from the West Point Debate Council in 1948:

“You were of such valuable assistance to us last spring as a member of the nominating committee for our tournament that we are again turning to you for help. Our council is planning a trip to your region between March 17th and 20th this spring, and we need some suggestions as to which tournaments to attend and which schools we might schedule debates while we are in that area. Our trip must extend over the above dates since that is the period of Spring Vacation here at West Point, and in order to get the authority for the trip it must be scheduled then.”

Prof. Capp’s response is just as revealing:

“We are pleased to hear that you are bringing the West Point debaters to our section. I have not heard of a tournament scheduled on that date down here. For individual debates, I would suggest that you schedule debates with the following four schools: Southern Methodist University, Texas Christian University, Baylor University, and Texas University. . . Should you be able to get to our place for 10 o’clock on a school day, we might be able to arrange an audience of some 2500 people holding it before our Freshman-Sophomore assembly.” 

It is not clear when the Military Academy reduced the use of debates for instructional purposes. One thing is certain; once the NDT left West Point, NO debates were heard in front of classes, or for that matter any significant outside audience.

Not only did West Point finance virtually every aspect of the tournament, it is clear the cadets took special pride in hosting the event. Their job was made easier by the spectacular facilities at their disposal. For those who have been to West Point, no description is necessary. For those who haven’t been, no description is possible! Suffice to say it is one of the most beautiful locations in America. Tournament visitors were given ample time to receive campus tours.

Several traditions, undoubtedly born out of military pomp and circumstance, were begun at West Point. Rounds were orally announced and teams and judges would meet under numbered locations in the auditorium and then were escorted to their rooms by cadets. It is no wonder that qualifying for The National Tournament quickly became the goal of most competitive teams. Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on your perspective, like old soldiers some of these traditions have just faded away. Big boards are rare, and not really necessary since every preliminary decision is announced at the end of the debate. Pairings are now distributed to save time. No one has escorted anyone to a round since 1966.

As described, West Point established the framework by which teams qualified. However, the District Committees had total discretion on how their allotment was filled. For the most part that is the same process employed today. Just as West Point determined the configuration of the Districts, so too does the NDT Committee today. It also determines the allocation of team bids to each district based on various competitive and geographic formulas. In 1968 the NDT Committee decided that qualifying for the tournament had become so competitive that there needed to be a safety valve to ensure that all of the top teams would in fact qualify. Thus, a Post District At-Large System was adopted where the committee would rank all applicants and invite the best among the teams still left outside. At this point, eight slots were opened for this supplemental process. This represented the first major expansion of the tournament.[1]

At-large qualification

Around this time, proposals began to emerge for a pre-district at-large system, which would serve two purposes. First, it would ensure smooth access for the top teams, freeing up the district process for other teams. Second, it would provide a mechanism for honoring those teams for their season-long success. The Macalester NDT introduced the most significant qualifying change, as the 1971 Post NDT Book indicates:

“Nine of the participants qualified this year by winning or debating in the final rounds of specifically designated tournaments. Eight more teams were selected at-large by the National Debate Tournament Committee on the basis of outstanding records prior to the District Tournament. Twenty-seven additional teams representing all sections of the country were invited on the basis of their superior debating in District Tournaments. Finally, eight additional teams were selected by the National Committee on the basis of their season record, completing the tournament roster.” (Page 6)

This brought the total teams up to fifty-two. In 1972 two additional teams were added to the process representing the two major national speech fraternities (Delta Sigma Rho-Tau Kappa Alpha and Pi Kappa Delta). However, it was obvious to most that the politics of designating the Top Ten Tournaments each year was unsustainable. Thus, in 1973 the current First Round At-Large process was formalized, and sixteen teams were selected based on their year-long record. This expanded the tournament to sixty-two teams. Therefore, in just six years since leaving West Point, the new NDT Committee had expanded the size of the tournament from 38 to 62 teams.

Despite all the changes, the District structure has remained reasonably constant. Obviously when Alaska (1958) and Hawaii (1959) were added to the Union, District I and II were expanded. In 1972 another significant change occurred when District IX was created. As part of the expansion process it was determined that California and Hawaii would comprise District I. The formula by which districts are allocated bids has evolved over the years, with the number susceptible to change depending on the total number of eligible teams competing at the District Tournaments.

Second teams

There was another justification used by the NDT Committee for expanding the size of the tournament, and that stemmed from their 1970 decision to allow two teams from one school to qualify. This was a major break from the West Point tradition of one team per school, but the growth of larger programs with multiple teams seemed to warrant such a move. Justification for the expansion was provided that very year when the University of Kansas had two teams in the semi-finals and UCLA two in the octos, a pattern that would continue to grow. Consider the following statistics covering the seventeen years from when two teams were initially allowed in 1970 to the expansion of the NDT in 1986. After 1986 the number of teams competing grew by twelve, and the elimination rounds were expanded from sixteen to an average of twenty-five, with all 5-3 teams clearing. When third teams were allowed in 1992, these comparisons became less revealing. Since 1970 when second teams were allowed, there has not been a single year that at least one school did not clear two teams.

The following schools had both their teams reach the elims:

1970     Kansas, UCLA

1971     Loyola

1972     Northwestern, USC

1973     Georgetown, Northwestern

1974     Kentucky, Redlands

1975     Baylor, Redlands

1976     Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern

1977     Macalester

1978     Harvard, Macalester, Northwestern, Redlands

1979     Harvard, Northwestern, Redlands

1980     Augustana, Il, Dartmouth

1981     Dartmouth

1982     Arizona, Kansas, Northwestern

1983     Dartmouth, Emory, Northwestern

1984     Dartmouth, Emory, Loyola

1985     Kentucky

1986     Baylor, Eastern Illinois, Emory

Starting in 1987, the tournament expanded to a partial double octofinal round, with all teams that achieved a 5-3 record and 13 ballots being admitted. This made multiple qualifications for the elims easier, with an average of 5.5 schools managing the feat for the next half-decade. 

Schools qualifying multiple teams for the NDT

The NDT was opened to multiple teams from the same school in 1970. That has produced 50 iterations of the tournament in which it was possible to bring multiple teams. Incredibly, Northwestern and Kansas have both managed to accomplish that feat over 90% of the time, with Northwestern missing only two chances in the entire span. 

Dartmouth has long held the record for consecutive years managing the feat. They were still riding a streak of 32 consecutive years when the decade began. But it came to an end in 2015, locking the record at 37 years. That total was finally passed by two teams at the most recent NDT, with Northwestern and Emory now the pace-setters. Amazingly, Emory has qualified three teams for the last seven years, and nine of the ten years in the last decade.

Harvard, Wake Forest, and Michigan were the other three schools to qualify multiple teams every year of the 2010s, with Harvard matching Emory by sending three teams nine of the ten years.

SCHOOL	TWO	THREE	TOTAL	CONSECUTIVE YEARS	CURRENT STREAK
Northwestern	27	21	48	38	38
Kansas	37	9	46	10	6
Dartmouth	29	11	40	37	3
Emory	16	24	40	38	38
USC	36	2	38	17	2
Harvard	21	16	37	16	16
Baylor	34	2	36	7	5
Georgetown	30	3	33	8	0
Wake Forest	13	20	33	15	15
Texas	22	8	30	7	4
Wayne State	28	2	30	?	0
Kentucky	23	4	27	7	7
Georgia	20	6	26	17	8
Michigan	14	12	26	10	10

Third teams

Once the tournament was expanded once, it was only a matter of time before it was opened further. Eventually, the NDT Committee decided to add six more at-large bids which could be filled by a third team. This change was first implemented in 1993 and remains the last major revision to the NDT qualification process. 

In the 27 years that third teams have been eligible, 165 have qualified. However, from that group only 42 schools have ever qualified all three of their teams for the elims. Leading the pack, by a long way, is Emory who have managed this feat an amazing eleven times. Wake Forest have done it second-most with six, and Northwestern is third with five. Of the 42 times a school has qualified three teams, only a handful were able to place all three teams in the top 16—the line that was previously required to reach the elims. The teams that managed this feat are marked in red in the list that follows. Deserving special attention: in 2000, Emory not only cleared all three teams, they finished the prelims as the top three seeds.

The following schools have sent three teams into the elimination rounds:

1993     Texas, Wake Forest

1994     Emory

1995     Northwestern, Wake Forest

1996     Dartmouth, Wake Forest

1997     Michigan, Wake Forest

1998     Emory

1999     Emory

2000     Emory

2002     Berkeley, Northwestern

2003     Berkeley, Dartmouth, Emory, Michigan State

2004     Berkeley, Emory

2005     Dartmouth, Texas

2006     Harvard, Emory

2007     Emory

2009     Berkeley, Emory, Harvard, Wake Forest

2010     Emory, Northwestern

2011     Northwestern

2012     Northwestern

2013     Wake Forest

2014     Harvard, Oklahoma

2015     Michigan

2016     Emory, Kentucky

2017     Kansas

2018     Harvard

2019     Georgia

 

There have been discussions over the years suggesting the NDT move to an Open Tournament accommodating as many teams as wish to enter. As the number of teams attending the average tournament continued to decline the position gained support. However, the selective image of the NDT, and the tradition of qualification remains the distinguishing trademark of the event and would seem to be a major barrier to an open tournament. Such selectivity offers yet more opportunity for historical study and statistics.

First round bids

As noted in the previous section, the opportunity for third teams to qualify is exclusively available through the second-round process. This means a school remains limited to two first round qualifiers. Schools are free to submit as many teams as they like for voting but only the top two can qualify this way. Since 1993, ten schools have produced three teams that would have qualified if not for this restriction (Kentucky in 1994; Dartmouth with four teams in 1996; Emory in 1999, 2000, 2003 and 2004; Northwestern in 2002, 2011 and 2012; Harvard in 2007.)

Since 1973 only three non-first round teams have reached the final round. First, in 1976, Georgetown’s Ottoson and Chafer, who not only did not receive a first round; they didn’t even qualify through districts. Because their district limited schools to one team at the event, and another Georgetown team took priority, they had to join through the second round process. Much later, in 2000, Emory had three teams among the top four First Round applicants. But since only two teams can be awarded a First Round per school, the ultimate champions Michael Horowitz and John Paul Lupo were forced to apply for a Second Round. Not surprisingly, all three teams verified the initial At-Large rankings by finishing first, second and third seeds. Horowitz and Lupo, the second seed, advanced in the semis over their other team who was seeded third.

 In 2016, the Kansas team of Bell and Robinson became the third to join this group. Kansas BR missed a first round by the barest of margins, finishing 17^th in the balloting. But a strong run through the elimination rounds took them all the way to the final round. It was obviously no fluke, however, since Quaram Robinson earned first rounds each of the next two years—including the Copeland Award in 2018. She also eventually returned to the final, winning on her second try in 2018. There is a reason Robinson was chosen as the debater of the decade!

In the 47 years since the inception of the First Round At-Large System, 188 teams have reached the semi-finals yet only seven (SMS in 1973; Georgetown in 1976; Samford in 1980; Dartmouth in 1990; Georgia in 1997; Emory in 2000; Kansas in 2016) were not from the First Round At-Large pool. The 1990 Dartmouth duo had only become a team for the district tournament, and obviously made the most of qualifying.

On the reverse side, Georgetown team from 1980 remains the only Top Bid team to ever fail to qualify for the elimination rounds.

Seven NDT final rounds have featured the top two vote-getters in the First Round process. The first came in 1973 when Georgetown—a unanimous top bid—lost to number two Northwestern. In 1993, the top bid team, Dartmouth defeated the second bid team, Georgetown. In 1998, Emory was top bid but lost to Northwestern who had slipped to number two bid. The following year in 1999, things were reversed. This time Northwestern was the top bid against #2 Emory. But again, Northwestern was victorious. In 2004, Berkeley was the top bid but lost to second place Michigan State. In 2012, Northwestern’s top bid lost to second-place Georgetown. And finally, Northwestern claimed both the Copeland Award and the NDT title over second-place finishers Michigan in 2015. 

Only three times have the top four bid teams taken up all four semifinals berths. It first happened in 1978 (Georgetown, Northwestern, Redlands and USC) then took 31 more years to duplicate that feat in 2009 (Northwestern, Kansas, Wake Forest and Berkeley). The third occasion happened only a few years later in 2012 (Northwestern, Georgetown, Loyola, Gonzaga).

Record of Copeland winners

Starting in 1973, At Large bids were awarded to the top teams in the nation, as determined by the NDT Committee. Since 1990, the highest-ranked team in this process has received the Copeland Award. This is named after Rex Copeland, who had debated at Samford University but was tragically murdered before the start of his senior year. For many in the community the Copeland Award is as treasured as the Larmon Trophy, since it recognizes the full year’s accomplishments.

The question: how did the top seed entering the tournament fare once the rubber met the road? The short answer: generally pretty well. Only one top-ranked first round has failed to clear, five have lost in the octofinals, 13 in the quarters, 7 in the semis, and 6 in the finals. But the modal result is probably not surprising. Fifteen of the top-ranked teams have gone on to win the tournament, roughly one in three. Those are pretty good odds. It’s certainly better than the performance of the top seeds, who have only won 22% of the time (16/73).

The following chart tracks the performances of these top-ranked teams at the NDT.

YEAR	TEAM	RECORD	RESULT
1973	Georgetown (Stewart Jay & Bradley Ziff)	6-2	Finals
1974	Harvard (Charles Garvin & Greg Rosenbaum)	6-2	Winner
1975	Georgetown (Thomas Rollins & Bradley Ziff)	6-2	Quarters
1976	Augustana (Robert Feldhake & Richard Godfrey)	7-1	Semis
1977	Georgetown (David Ottoson & John Walker)	7-1	Winner
1978	Georgetown (David Ottoson & Tom Rollins)	5-3	Semis
1979	Northwestern (Chris Wonnell & Susan Winkler)	8-0	Quarters
1980	Georgetown (James Kirkland & John Thompson)	4-4	Not Clear
1981	Dartmouth (Cy Smith & Mark Weinhardt)	6-2	Finals
1982	Kansas (Mark Gidley & Zac Grant)	5-3	Octos
1983	Samford (Melanie Gardner & Erik Walker)	7-1	Semis
1984	Dartmouth (Leonard Gail & Mark Koulogeorge)	8-0	Winner
1985	Claremont McKenna (David Bloom & Greg Mastel)	7-1	Quarters
1986	UMass Amherst (Dan Povinelli & Mark Friedman)	6-2	Octos
1987	Baylor (Griffin Vincent & Lyn Robbins)	7-1	Winner
1988	Northwestern (Ben Attias & Gordon Mitchell)	7-1	Quarters
1989	Baylor (Martin Loeber & Daniel Plants)	7-1	Winner
1990	Harvard (David Coale & Alex Lennon)	6-2	Winner
1991	Redlands (Roger Cole and Marc Rubinstein)	6-2	Winner
1992	Dartmouth (Kenny Agran & Ara Lovitt)	7-1	Quarters
1993	Dartmouth (Ara Lovitt & Steven Sklaver)	8-0	Winner
1994	Kentucky (Paul Skiermont & Jason Patil)	7-1	Quarters
1995	Wake Forest (John Hughes & Adrienne Brovero)	6-2	Semis
1996	Northwestern (Sean McCaffity and Mason Miller)	6-2	Quarters
1997	Michigan (Scott Hessell and Corey Stoughton)	6-2	Semis
1998	Emory (George Kouros and Anjan Sahni)	7-1	Finals
1999	Northwestern (Michael Gottlieb & Ryan Sparacino)	8-0	Winner
2000	Iowa (Kristen Langwell & Andy Ryan)	6-2	Octos
2001	Berkeley (Randy Luskey & Dan Shalmon)	6-2	Quarters
2002	Dartmouth (Alex Berger & Ben Thorpe)	6-2	Quarters
2003	Northwestern (Geoff Garen & Tristan Morales)	7-1	Winner
2004	Berkeley (Dan Shalmon & Tejinder Singh)	7-1	Finals
2005	Northwestern (Tristan Morales & Josh Branson)	8-0	Winner
2006	Harvard (Michael Klinger & Nikhil Mirchandani)	7-1	Quarters
2007	Georgia (Brent Culpepper & Kevin Rabinowitz)	7-1	Octos
2008	Berkeley (Jacob Polin & Michael Burshteyn)	5-3	Octos
2009	Northwestern (Matt Fisher & John Warden)	7-1	Semis
2010	Emory (Stephen Weil & Ovais Inamullah)	6-2	Quarters
2011	Emory (Stephen Weil & Ovais Inamullah)	6-2	Finals
2012	Northwestern (Ryan Beiermeister & Layne Kirshon)	8-0	Finals
2013	Georgetown (Andrew Arsht & Andrew Markoff)	8-0	Semis
2014	Northwestern (Alex Miles & Arjun Vellayappan)	7-1	Quarters
2015	Northwestern (Alex Miles & Arjun Vellayappan)	7-1	Winner
2016	Harvard (David Herman & Hemanth Sanjeev)	6-2	Winner
2017	Harvard (Ayush Midha & Hemanth Sanjeev)	6-2	Quarters
2018	Kansas (Will Katz & Quaram Robinson)	6-2	Winner
2019	Kentucky (Dan Bannister & Anthony Trufanov)	8-0	Winner

 Historical ‘Best of the Decade’ results

We now possess five decades worth of records from the ‘Best of the Decade’ polls. This section identifies the top five teams named for each decade from the survey. Many of these names have already been mentioned regularly in the above section, suggesting that the voters definitely knew what they were talking about. 

	Best teams of the 1970s
1	North Carolina, Loveland/McGuire
2	Harvard, Garvin/Rosembaum
3	Augustana, Feldhake/Godfrey
4	Kansas, Cross/Rowland
5	Georgetown, Rollins/Walker
	Best teams of the 1980s
1	Dartmouth, Gail/Koulogeorge
2	Baylor, Robbins/Vincent
3	Kentucky, Jones/Mancuso
4	Harvard, Bredehoft/Foutz
5	Kansas, Gidley/Payne
	Best teams of the 1990s
1	Northwestern, Gottlieb/Sparacino
2	Redlands, Cole/Rubinstein
3	Dartmouth, Lovitt/Sklaver
4	Northwestern, McCaffity/Terry
5	Harvard, Coale/Lennon
	Best teams of the 2000s
1	Emory, Bailey/Ghali
2	Northwestern, Branson/Morales
3	Michigan State, Stahl/Strauss
4	Northwestern, Garen/Morales
5	Berkeley, Shalmon/Singh
	Best teams of the 2010s
1	Georgetown, Arsht/Markoff
2	Northwestern, Miles/Vellayappan
3	Emporia, Smith/Wash
4	Emory, Inamullah/Weil
5	Northwestern, Fisher/Spies

[1] In his report on this change, Dr. Southworth provided some personal perspective. He was debating at San Fernando Valley State College at the time, and on two occasions was the first team selected through this process.

The West Point years found the NDT administered by the cadets and the staff associated with their Debating Society. Their commitment was substantial as they paid attention to every detail. As previous and future chapters will indicate, West Point presented a formidable and impressive environment in which to host a tournament. However, despite previous experience with hosting the West Point Tournament, the NDT Staff was not perfect, and of course computers had not yet been adapted to such tasks, even by the military. The 1947 tournament had an odd number of teams. The original goal was 32 but three were simply not able to make the trip. Remember such travel was formidable at the time and new for most programs. That year only five preliminary rounds were held with five teams initially receiving byes—one in each round. In terms of final scheduling the staff was innovative posting a “round 2 1/2” in which four of the “byed” teams debated and only one fifth team received a win in round five. All this within the constraints of side imbalance caused by an odd number of preliminary rounds. By 1948 they had an even number of teams at 34. By 1949 they decided to have an even number of prelims, eight, but because twelve round tournaments were unheard of, they only broke to quarters. It wasn’t until 1950 that the schedule was set, eight prelims to a sixteen team octofinals. It was a structure that would remain in effect until 1987.

 The process by which teams were paired often varied. There was no ranking system entering the tournament. West Point focused on geography. You did not meet a team in the preliminary round from your own district. To indicate how ingrained that philosophy was, it was not until the 1970 NDT that teams from their own district could meet in the preliminary rounds. Only then, had it become obvious to tournament administrators that this earlier restriction severely distorted the power-matching. Similarly, at West Point and even at future NDT’s you were never going to have a judge from your own district. This rule was changed in 1971 but only to the point where efforts were made to balance panels: one from one team’s district and another judge from the other team’s district. Debate in the early years was primarily regional in nature and West Point hoped to avoid the inherent favoritism associated with in-district judging, and at the same time expose teams to different competition and judges. The goal of diversity took on greater importance and preference, then equity in pairings and results.

 The history of errors

The actual recording was done on a large chalkboard in the West Point Debate room. Despite military precision, errors were made. Some examples: in 1955 a tabulation error placed Notre Dame in the elimination rounds instead of Baylor. The “luck of the Irish” continued as they actually won their octo’s round over Illinois before losing to Northwestern in the quarters; in 1964 North Texas State was supposed to be the sixteenth seed instead of Dartmouth. However, Vermont (the Top Seed) emerged victorious in that 1-16 pairing. It would appear 1950 was riddled with mistakes. 1950 marked the first “Post NDT Book” and the results found in this publication vary substantially from those distributed immediately after the tournament. It appears that the University of Tennessee should have cleared at 5-3 not the University of Pennsylvania at 4-4. This becomes even more amazing given that Penn was a last minute substitute for St. Peters who had to withdraw due to a sudden family death. Penn beat Top Seed SMU in the octos before losing to Augustana. However, the cadets apparently also forgot some speakers. The SMU team, which was correctly seeded #1, had on the original list no Top Twenty Speakers, and yet in the Post Book they have the Second Speaker. Given the points SMU had accumulated it would appear here the book is accurate and the initial results reflect errors and omissions. These are only the mistakes we are aware of, suffice to say the Army Tab Room was not all spit and polish when it came to recording results!

Their civilian counterparts haven’t fared much better! At the 1970 NDT at the University of Houston, after the teams supposedly reaching the octos were announced at the evening banquet it was discovered that Florida had been listed in the qualifiers when it was Ohio State which had legitimately made the “Top 16.” That error was realized in time to be changed. Unfortunately, the next problem was discovered too late. Somehow the 3-4-5th seeds had been juxtaposed in the bracket. This was especially troublesome since after lengthy and often heated debates the NDT Committee had approved second teams from a school just that year. The condition for allowing second teams was that NO alteration for school would be made in either the prelims or elim power matching. If they were scheduled to debate, “by the numbers” then they would debate. That was the rule. This 3-4-5 “skewing” placed the University of Kansas on opposite sides of the bracket, as well as changing the pairings for three octos. Had the Kansas teams kept winning they should have met in the semis. After this experience it was almost the end of second teams. However, despite the error the success of the two teams from Kansas, as well as UCLA, who also had two teams qualify for the elims, seemed to endorse the original decision to allow two teams. The rule requiring preliminary match-ups of two teams from the same school if the power matching produced such a pairing, meant that on a few occasions two teams did meet in the prelims. It was finally determined it was awkward and often unfair to make them debate, and given the frequency with which prelim pairings are adjusted for side constraints and previous match-ups, the rule change was made in 1979.

Not all errors emanate from the tab room. After the 2000 NDT a review of a team’s speaker points raised a question about a certain judge’s recording. After consulting the judge it was determined he had reversed his points for the first and second negative. That one point error cost John Miller of Redlands Top Speaker, he finished fourth .5 out of top speaker. We can only imagine how many other similar mistakes are made by judges who are frequently rushing to turn in their ballots after painstaking and time consuming efforts to render the best possible decision.

Bracket structures

The elimination round brackets have remained a constant source of controversy. Interestingly, in the early days of West Point they would randomly break-up the brackets to preclude teams who had met in the prelims from meeting in the elims. This was consistent with their goal of exposure of teams to different competition from around the country. However, West Point was adamant about one team per school. Recently the issue has been rekindled largely due to the growth of several programs who find themselves continually meeting in the elimination rounds. A few invitationals break brackets to preclude teams from meeting. There have been proposals to do it at the NDT. The argument offered is it unfairly benefits the school who does not have to debate, because it allows them greater time to prepare for the next debate. Being a sound supporter of the sanctity of the brackets and the inherent problems in changing them I did a little study on this theory.

 What follows are the results of every elimination pairing of two teams from the same school, and the ensuing result. Since 1971 two teams from the same school have met in the elims 28 times. Since 1979 it has not been necessary to “stage” debates. In those first three encounters (1972, 1973 & 1974) full panels were assigned, but in each instance the result had been decided upon and the debate was a joke. In 1972 USC advanced the seniors, as did Northwestern in 1973. In 1974 both teams were juniors, but the higher seed advanced. After 1979 it was no longer necessary to stage a debate and no one has ever required their two teams to actually debate to determine who advances.

Of the 28 times a team advanced, they proceeded to lose their next elimination round 16 times. Obviously similar results may have emerged even if the brackets had been altered. However, it does not appear that teams getting a break gain much of an advantage.

Teams from the same school meeting in the elims

Year	School	Round	Result in next round
1972	USC	Semis	Lost
1973	Northwestern	Octos	Won
1974	Redlands	Octos	Lost
1982	Northwestern	Octos	Lost
1983	Dartmouth	Semis	Lost
1984	Dartmouth	Octos	Won
1988	Michigan	Quarters	Lost
1991	Emory	Octos	Lost
1993	Wake Forest	Doubles	Won
	Wayne State	Octos	Won
1995	Northwestern	Octos	Won
1997	Northwestern	Doubles	Lost
	Georgia	Semis	Lost
1999	Emory	Semis	Lost
2000	Emory	Semis	Won
2003	Michigan State	Doubles	Won
	Michigan State (same team)	Quarters	Lost
	Emory	Doubles	Lost
	Georgia	Octos	Lost
2004	Michigan State	Semis	Won
2007	Emory	Doubles	Won
2009	Harvard	Octos	Lost
	Wake Forest	Doubles	Won
2012	Northwestern	Quarters	Won
2015	Berkeley	Doubles	Won
	Oklahoma	Octos	Lost
2017	Emory	Doubles	Lost
	Berkeley	Quarters	Lost

Daily schedule

The procedure for scheduling and power matching at the NDT has changed quite often. In the early years it was a three day tournament with four rounds on each day. 1976 marked the first four day tournament. It varied between having two or three rounds the first day, depending on room allocation and starting times. 

The current practice, begun in 1987, is for five elimination rounds. There are three rounds on the first day, three on the second day, and two prelims on the third day as well as the first elimination round which now includes all teams with 5-3 records up to thirty-two. The remaining four elimination rounds are held on the fourth and final day of the tournament. While most NDT’s have run Friday through Monday, given the necessity to schedule some events during Spring Breaks those days are flexible, the 2002 NDT at SMS (now Missouri State) ran Saturday through Tuesday.

Power matching has also had a controversial road to hoe. For the most part West Point, after pairing the first two rounds randomly, used straight power every round afterwards, high vs. high. With only thirty-four to forty-four teams, this meant that teams with 4-4 records would invariably clear. However, as the tournament grew, so too did the power matching distortions. When the tournament left West Point, tournament directors enjoyed power-matching discretion. In 1969 Roger Hufford, of Clarion State, directed the tournament and pre-set the first four rounds. He argued power-matching took up too much time. Prof. Hufford was very committed to a tight schedule, so much so that at the Awards Banquet, after reading a telegram from then President Nixon he announced he only had time to read the Top Two Speakers since the banquet had to end on time. Suffice to say the pre-setting of the first four rounds was abandoned the next year under a new director. The system returned to the first round being randomly paired between districts and the next seven rounds paired high-high.

The high-high powering approach was brought into question in 1972 when North Carolina, Joe Loveland and Joe McGuire, went 4-4 and did not clear. One might wonder why one team could make such a difference. The team was generally regarded as the best in the country, and as future chapters will reveal a majority considered them the best team of the decade. While any team can have an off tournament, North Carolina was brought up to meet a team with a superior record in EVERY round after the third. The inequity of high-high powering was altered the next year. The current approach employs the district and at-large rankings to seed the teams and pre-set rounds one and two in a balanced manner. Then there is only one high-high power matched round, the rest are high-low within record.

Tournament administration

The ruling body of the Tournament is the NDT Committee. Comprised of the Chair of each of the nine districts and four regional representatives appointed by the President of the AFA. This committee makes all the rules for the administration of the tournament, including qualification, voting on the first and Second Round At-Large bids, and appointing the tournament Director. The business end of the tournament is run by the NDT board of Trustees; these five individuals are also appointed by the President of the AFA. Generally, but not always, they are former coaches who volunteer their time and effort. The run the finances, evaluate cite options and try to insure the ongoing existence of the event.

 Scheduling and administering the National Tournament has been a constantly evolving process. The NDT Committee has adopted modifications and later altered even those changes. It was once forbidden to disclose decisions, now it is virtually required. In 1976 twelve minutes of cross-examination time were added, perhaps to counter the growing appeal of that component in CEDA (the initials stand for Cross-Examination Debate Association). However, to counter the expanded time and the growing length of debates a ten minute total prep time per team was added.

While the NDT rules and guidelines apply only to the National Debate Tournament, most standards are enacted by other tournaments. The NDT serves as a model, by which the rest of the debate community is measured!

Over 73 years, the NDT has seen a total of 17,423 preliminary rounds, along with 1464 elimination debates. This section explores some of the ins and outs of all those rounds.

We’ll start by looking at the prelim records of the most successful schools in NDT history. 

Most prelim wins by school

The following chart tracks the record of the most successful schools in NDT history, identifying their record across the whole scope of the tournament, as well as just over the past decade. 

		All-time							2010s
SCHOOL	TEAMS		WINS	LOSSES				TEAMS	WINS	LOSSES
Northwestern	133		701	352		66.6%		26	146	62	70.2%
Harvard	118		584	360		61.9%		29	149	83	64.2%
Emory	113		578	326		63.9%		29	138	94	59.5%
Dartmouth	117		564	369		60.5%		21	68	100	40.5%
Kansas	122		557	400		58.2%		27	128	88	59.3%
Wake Forest	111		521	361		59.1%		27	134	82	62.0%
USC	107		436	414		51.3%		16	54	74	42.2%
Georgetown	92		425	311		57.7%		20	98	62	61.3%
Baylor	98		405	376		51.9%		20	82	78	51.3%
Michigan	73		368	216		63.0%		24	119	73	62.0%
Kentucky	78		361	263		57.9%		18	85	59	59.0%
Wayne State	86		345	339		50.4%		12	41	55	42.7%
Georgia	73		327	260		55.7%		21	97	71	57.7%
Texas	77		326	295		52.5%		20	66	94	41.3%
Iowa	68		291	253		53.5%		15	53	67	44.2%
Redlands	59		290	182		61.4%		0	0	0	0.0%
Michigan State	58		284	180		61.2%		22	100	76	56.8%
West Georgia	65		283	237		54.4%		13	59	45	56.7%
Berkeley	55		261	179		59.3%		21	105	63	62.5%
Pittsburgh	59		219	266		45.2%		6	17	31	35.4%

Most total wins (prelims+elims)

This next chart combines prelim and elim debates to assess the total number of wins for the most successful schools in NDT history. With another dominant decade, Northwestern is inching closer to passing 1000 total victories. If their 2020s resembles the last one, they will be right on the verge of that threshold by the next edition of this project. Certainly something to keep an eye on!

SCHOOL	WINS	LOSSES
Northwestern	845	429	66.3%
Harvard	675	424	61.4%
Dartmouth	666	433	60.6%
Emory	649	405	61.6%
Kansas	634	460	58.0%
Wake Forest	587	422	58.2%
Georgetown	493	355	58.1%
USC	474	448	51.4%
Baylor	445	407	52.2%
Michigan	418	263	61.4%
Kentucky	399	300	57.1%
Wayne State	372	365	50.5%
Georgia	348	289	54.6%
Texas	345	327	51.3%
Redlands	332	216	60.6%
Michigan State	332	214	60.8%
Iowa	318	282	53.0%
West Georgia	302	264	53.4%
Berkeley	295	213	58.1%
Augustana, IL	237	211	52.9%

Schools qualifying multiple teams for the elims

This chart tracks the prelim results of schools with more than one team at the tournament. This only became possible in 1970 when the tournament was opened to second teams. Over the fifty years when second teams have been possible, only two schools have managed to clear two teams at least half the time. These are, of course, Northwestern and Emory.

SCHOOL	TWO	THREE	TOTAL
Northwestern	24	5	29
Emory	13	14	27
Wake Forest	14	6	20
Harvard	14	4	18
Dartmouth	14	3	17
Kansas	15	1	16
Michigan	11	2	13
Michigan State	10	1	11
Berkeley	9	2	11
Georgetown	8		8
Kentucky	7	1	8
Iowa	7		7
Texas	5	2	7
Redlands	6		6
Baylor	6		6
Georgia	4	1	5
Oklahoma	4	1	5
Wayne State	4		4
USC	3		3
Gonzaga	2		2
Loyola-Marymount	2		2
Macalester	2		2
UNLV	2		2
University of Arizona	1		1
Augustana, IL	1		1
Concordia	1		1
Eastern Illinois University	1		1
Fort Hays	1		1
George Mason	1		1
Louisville	1		1
North Carolina	1		1
Southern Illinois	1		1
UCLA	1		1
West Georgia College	1		1
Whitman	1		1
North Texas	1		1
Minnesota	1		1

 Seeding

The point of the prelim debates is both to determine who will enter the knockout stage as well as to seed that phase. So it’s worth taking a look at how prelim results correlate with ultimate success.

 Since 1949, at the 3^rd NDT, the tournament has featured eight prelim debates. Over those 71 years, 31 teams have managed to go 8-0. Surprisingly, this hasn’t turned out to be a particularly good predictor of elim success. Only seven of those teams managed to win the tournament. Two of the nine undefeated teams in the 2010s won the tournament (Northwestern FS in 2011 and Kentucky BT in 2019).

 Twice the tournament has seen two undefeated teams in the same year. Generally, powered pairings and a small tournament pit all the undefeated teams against each other enough times to clear the field. But in 2006, Michigan State and Emory managed to avoid meeting each other. In 2011, the feat of two 8-0 teams repeated itself. This time, though, the explanation was simpler. Both of the top seeds that year were from Northwestern, and obviously couldn’t meet in the prelims.

 The #1 seed, unsurprisingly, has the most tournament victories. They’ve won 16 times over the years. But that record only narrowly exceeds the next most-likely winners: the 4^th seed (12 wins) and the 5^th seed (11). The next two slots are 3^rd (9 wins) and 2^nd (7 wins). That means 55 of the 73 NDTs (75.3%) have been won by one of the top five seeds, suggesting that the prelims are a pretty good predictor.

 For fifty years, the lowest-seed to win the tournament was #14 (Northwestern in 1958). That mark was shattered in 2007, when Emory won the tournament from the 22^nd seed. Prior to 1987, they would not have even cleared!

 Schools with the most top seeds

1	Dartmouth	11
2	Northwestern	9
3	Augustana, IL	5
	Harvard	5
5	Kentucky	4
6	Alabama	3
	Georgia	3
	Houston	3
	Kansas	3
	Michigan	3
11	Michigan State	2
	Redlands	2
	West Point	2
	USC	2
	Wake Forest	2
	Emory	2
17	Eleven tied with	1

 This is one of the rare categories where Northwestern doesn’t lead. They earned several more top seeds in the 2010s, drawing them closer to the top, but Dartmouth remains dominant here, with eleven top seeds.

 Elim record of top seeds

Year	Top Seed	Prelim	Finish		Winner	Prelim	Seed
1947	West Point	5-0	Semis		Southeastern	4-1	4
1948	Augustana	5-0	Quarters		North Texas	3-2	6
1949	Alabama	7-1	Winner
1950	SMU	7-1	Octos		Vermont	5-3	10
1951	Redlands	7-1	Winner
1952	Utah	8-0	Octos		Redlands	6-2	4
1953	West Point	7-1	Octos		Miami	5-3	11
1954	Houston	7-1	Quarters		Kansas	6-2	5
1955	Alabama	6-2	Winner
1956	Princeton	6-2	Quarters		West Point	6-2	3
1957	Augustana	7-1	Winner
1958	Dartmouth	8-0	Octos		Northwestern	5-3	14
1959	Augustana	7-1	Octos		Northwestern	5-3	8
1960	Dartmouth	7-1	Winner
1961	Alabama	7-1	Octos		Harvard	6-2	5
1962	Ohio State	7-1	Winner
1963	Holy Cross	7-1	Octos		Dartmouth	6-2	4
1964	Vermont	7-1	Quarters		Univ. of the Pacific	6-2	4
1965	Redlands	7-1	Quarters		Carson-Newman	5-3	9
1966	Dartmouth	7-1	Quarters		Northwestern	5-3	8
1967	USC	7-1	Octos		Dartmouth	7-1	2
1968	Houston	7-1	Octos		Wichita	5-3	8
1969	Oberlin	7-1	Octos		Harvard	6-2	5
1970	Houston	7-1	Semis		Kansas	6-2	3
1971	Georgia	8-0	Semis		UCLA	5-3	12
1972	USC	7-1	Finals		Santa Barbara	7-1	2
1973	Northwestern	7-1	Winner
1974	Kentucky	7-1	Semis		Harvard	6-2	3
1975	Augustana	7-1	Octos		Baylor	5-3	9
1976	Augustana	7-1	Semis		Kansas	6-2	4
1977	Northwestern	8-0	Quarters		Georgetown	7-1	2
1978	Wake Forest	7-1	Quarters		Northwestern	6-2	3
1979	Northwestern	8-0	Quarters		Harvard	5-3	11
1980	Harvard	7-1	Finals		Northwestern	6-2	3
1981	Kentucky	8-0	Semis		Pittsburgh	6-2	5
1982	Dartmouth	7-1	Semis		Louisville	6-2	4
1983	Dartmouth	8-0	Semis *		Kansas	6-2	6
1984	Dartmouth	8-0	Winner
1985	Baylor	7-1	Quarters		Harvard	6-2	5
1986	Dartmouth	7-1	Quarters		Kentucky	7-1	3
1987	Kansas	8-0	Octos		Baylor		2
1988	Dartmouth	7-1	Winner
1989	Michigan	8-0	Finals		Baylor	7-1	2
1990	No. Iowa	7-1	Octos		Harvard	6-2	5
1991	Dartmouth	8-0	Semis		Redlands	6-2	4
1992	Iowa	8-0	Quarters		Georgetown	6-2	8
1993	Dartmouth	8-0	Winner
1994	Kentucky	7-1	Quarters		Northwestern	7-1	4
1995	Harvard	7-1	Finals		Northwestern	6-2	7
1996	Dartmouth	7-1	Octos		Emory	7-1	4
1997	Kansas	7-1	Octos		Wake Forest	6-2	9
1998	Michigan	8-0	Semis		Northwestern	7-1	4
1999	Northwestern	8-0	Winner
2000	Emory	7-1	Octos		Emory	7-1	2
2001	Wake Forest	8-0	Octos		Iowa		5
2002	Michigan State	7-1	Quarters		Northwestern	5-3	13
2003	Georgia	8-0	Quarters		Northwestern	7-1	3
2004	Northwestern	8-0	Semis		Michigan St.	7-1	5
2005	Northwestern	8-0	Winner
2006	Michigan State	8-0	Winner
2007	Georgia	7-1	Octos		Emory	5-3	22
2008	Emory	8-0	Quarters		Wake Forest	6-2	5
2009	Kansas	7-1	Winner
2010	Northwestern	8-0	Finals		Michigan State	7-1	2
2011	Northwestern	8-0	Winner
2012	Northwestern	8-0	Finals		Georgetown	6-2	3
2013	Georgetown	8-0	Semis		Emporia	7-1	3
2014	Oklahoma	8-0	Semis		Georgetown	6-2	5
2015	Harvard	7-1	Quarters		Northwestern	7-1	4
2016	Michigan	7-1	Semis		Harvard	6-2	7
2017	Harvard	8-0	Semis		Rutgers-Newark	6-2	4
2018	Harvard	8-0	Semis		Kansas	6-2	5
2019	Kentucky	8-0	Winner

 * In 1983, Dartmouth advanced a lower-seeded team when the two met in the semifinals.

Every part of the NDT matters, but the ultimate goal, of course, is to win the tournament. This section discusses the performances in the closing stages of the tournament—when it is win or go home.

We’ll begin by looking at the simplest ranking, which schools have won the NDT the most often:

1	Northwestern	15	1958, 1959, 1966, 1973, 1978, 1980, 1994, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2011, 2015
2	Harvard	7	1961, 1969, 1974, 1979, 1985, 1990, 2016
3	Kansas	6	1954, 1970, 1976, 1983, 2009, 2018
	Dartmouth	6	1960, 1963, 1967, 1984, 1988, 1993
5	Georgetown	4	1977, 1992, 2012, 2014
6	Redlands	3	1951, 1952, 1991
	Baylor	3	1975, 1987, 1989
	Emory	3	1996, 2000, 2007
	Michigan State University	3	2004, 2006, 2010
10	Alabama	2	1949, 1955
	Kentucky	2	1986, 2019
	Wake Forest	2	1997, 2008
13	Southeastern State College	1	1947
	North Texas State College	1	1948
	Vermont	1	1950
	Miami	1	1953
	United States Military Academy	1	1956
	Augustana College (IL)	1	1957
	Ohio State	1	1962
	University of the Pacific	1	1964
	Carson-Newman	1	1965
	Wichita State	1	1968
	UCLA	1	1971
	UC-Santa Barbara	1	1972
	University of Pittsburgh	1	1981
	University of Louisville	1	1982
	University of Iowa	1	2001
	Emporia	1	2013
	Rutgers-Newark	1	2017

As you can see, when it comes to winning the NDT, there is Northwestern, and then there’s everyone else. With two more titles in the 2010s, they extended their lead at the top.

 In many ways, the history of the NDT is the history of Northwestern. For example: the first NDT took place in 1947. Only one school has placed a team in the elimination rounds every single decades, from the 1940s all the way up through the 2010s. As is often the case throughout this book when it comes to extraordinary records, that school is Northwestern.

 However, the 1940s included only three tournaments. If we slightly narrow the range to cover only the full decades in which the NDT has existed, four more schools join Northwestern in clearing a team every decade: Dartmouth, Georgetown, Harvard, and USC. Two schools fell off this list in the 2010s, with neither Pittsburgh nor Redlands managing to send a team to the elim rounds.

 What that shows is that the story of the NDT is far more than any single school. As we will see, there have been plenty of dominant performances and impressive runs. This section will explore the results from a number of different angles.

 Top elim performances over the decades by school

Dr. Southworth has tracked the top results by squad over the decades. His charts identify the most successful schools at sending teams to the elimination rounds, as well as those schools that have won the most elim debates. I’ve added the data for the 2010s. Dr. Southworth also charted which teams were most consistent—those who cleared a team in the most years of the decade, as well as those who won a debate in the most years.

 Astute readers will note some significant jumps in the numbers over the decades. That is thanks to two big changes. First, the tournament has expanded in size, allowing two teams per school to qualify (1970) and later three (1993). Second, the rules were changed to allow for a double-octofinals. Starting in 1987, all 5-3s with at least 13 ballots were allowed to clear. Then in 1998, the rules were changed again to permit all 5-3s to clear, up to thirty-two. It is theoretically possible to produce 33 teams with a 5-3 record or better, but the most the tournament has ever seen was 31 teams in 2016.

 All of these additional teams and elimination rounds produced a lot more chances for schools to accumulate appearances and victories, as you can see.

	TOTAL TEAMS IN ELIMS IN THE 1950s			MOST ELIMS WINS IN THE 1950s
1	Augustana, IL	8		1	West Point	11-6
2	Wisconsin	7			Augustana, IL	11-7
	West Point	7		3	Northwestern	10-3
	Kansas	7		4	Redlands	9-2
5	Houston	5		5	Vermont	8-4
	Dartmouth	5			Kansas	8-6
	Northwestern	5
	Miami	5
	Most Years Clearing a Team: 8. Augustana, IL
	Most Years Winning an Elim Round: 5. Augustana, IL
	TOTAL TEAMS IN ELIMS IN THE 1960s			MOST ELIMS WINS IN THE 1960s
1	Dartmouth	6		1	Dartmouth	15-3
	USC	6			Harvard	11-4
	Northwestern	6		3	Northwestern	10-5
	Harvard	6		4	Wayne State	7-5
5	Wayne State	5		5	Georgetown	7-5
	Georgetown	5			Baylor	7-4
	Augustana, IL	5
	Alabama	5
	Most Years Clearing a Team: 6. Harvard, Northwestern, USC, Dartmouth
	Most Years Winning an Elim Round: 6. Northwestern
	TOTAL TEAMS IN ELIMS IN THE 1970s			MOST ELIMS WINS IN THE 1970s
1	Northwestern	12		1	Kansas	18-8
2	Redlands	11		2	USC	17-9
3	Georgetown	10		3	Georgetown	16-9
	Kansas	10		4	Northwestern	14-10
	Harvard	10		5	Harvard	11-8
	Most Years Clearing a Team: 9. Kansas
	Most Years Winning an Elim Round: 7. USC
	TOTAL TEAMS IN ELIMS IN THE 1980s			MOST ELIMS WINS IN THE 1980s
1	Dartmouth	16		1	Dartmouth	32-14
2	Northwestern	13		2	Northwestern	18-12
3	Emory	12		3	Baylor	14-8
4	Kansas	11		4	Harvard	13-6
5	Kentucky	10		5	Kentucky	11-9
	Baylor	10
	Most Years Clearing a Team: 10. Dartmouth
	Most Years Winning an Elim Round: 10. Dartmouth
	TOTAL TEAMS IN ELIMS IN THE 1990s			MOST ELIMS WINS IN THE 1990s
1	Wake Forest	23		1	Northwestern	24-12
2	Emory	18			Dartmouth	24-16
3	Dartmouth	17			Emory	24-17
4	Iowa	16		4	Harvard	19-11
	Northwestern	16		5	Iowa	18-15
	Most Years Clearing a Team: 10. Dartmouth, Emory, Michigan, Northwestern, Texas, Wake Forest
	Most Years Winning an Elim Round: 10. Dartmouth
	TOTAL TEAMS IN ELIMS IN THE 2000s			MOST ELIMS WINS IN THE 2000s
1	Emory	26		1	Northwestern	34-15
2	Michigan State	19		2	Michigan State	29-17
	Berkeley	19		3	Dartmouth	29-17
4	Northwestern	18			Emory	26-17
5	Dartmouth	17		5	Berkeley	22-20
6	Wake Forest	15		6	Wake Forest	19-14
7	Harvard	14		7	Harvard	13-14
8	Kansas	11			Kansas	13-10
	Most Years Clearing a Team: 10. Berkeley, Dartmouth, Emory, Michigan State, Northwestern, Wake Forest
	Most Years Winning an Elim Round: 10. Dartmouth, Emory, Northwestern
	TOTAL TEAMS IN ELIMS IN THE 2010s			MOST ELIMS WINS IN THE 2010s
1	Northwestern	21		1	Northwestern	33-19
2	Emory	19		2	Georgetown	26-11
	Harvard	19		3	Wake Forest	22-16
4	Kansas	17		4	Harvard	21-18
5	Wake Forest	16		5	Kansas	20-16
6	Michigan	15		6	Michigan	18-15
	Oklahoma	15		7	Oklahoma	17-15
8	Berkeley	13		8	Emory	14-19
	Georgetown	13		9	Cal-Berkeley	12-13
10	Michigan State	12			Michigan State	12-11
	Kentucky	12
	Most Years Clearing a Team: 10. Emory, Harvard, Michigan, Northwestern
	Most Years Winning an Elim Round: 10. Northwestern

 Dartmouth shows up regularly on these lists. Famously, under Ken Strange they maintained a seemingly-impossible streak of having a team debating on Monday of the NDT for 30 consecutive years. That streak did not survive into the 2010s, and for the first time in a long while, Dartmouth does not make an appearance here.

The list of teams for the 2010s features a lot of familiar names. Once again, Northwestern was the standout performer, clearing a team and winning an elim in every year of the decade. They were joined by Emory, Harvard, and Michigan on the first count, with three other schools (Kansas, Oklahoma, and Wake) almost making the cut, clearing a team in nine of the ten years. Similarly Emory and Harvard came close to achieving an elim win in every year of the decade, managing it nine times. Behind them were Michigan and Wake at eight, and Kansas and Oklahoma with seven.

 But there is one very new name on the list of top performers this decade. Oklahoma had four total elim wins at the start of 2010—already an impressive number since the program was only begun in the mid 2000s—but they managed to quintuple that number over the course of the decade. In many ways, their 17 elim wins over the decade are the most impressive result of any school on this list.

 Elimination round totals

Dan Bannister, Anthony Trufanov, the 2019 NDT champions from the

University of Kentucky, with their coaches and teammates

The following Elimination Round Totals page details the record for every institution that has accumulated at least four wins at the NDT, thus covering all the tournament winners. Unfortunately, it does not cover all the Second Place teams because a surprising number of these teams have actually never managed to win another elimination debate. Each of Butler, Kings, Oberlin, St. Joseph’s and Wilkes is a co-owner of this dubious record. Each qualified again, and some even reached the elims again, but none managed to win another debate. This is partly because they had the misfortune of competing prior to 1987 when the elims were expanded to cover all 5-3 teams thus ballooning elim opportunities. But it’s also a story of changes in competition over the years. Many schools have canceled their programs, or simply seen them wither away. Others have disappeared, only to return after a long hiatus. And new programs do continue to emerge as well.

On the chart, you can see the total number of wins for each school, as well as the results of every school on this list over the course of the 2010s. Oklahoma was already mentioned above as a relatively new entrant to the field, but you can observe several other new faces as well. Each of these emergent teams has an interesting story to tell. It’s no easy thing to make the NDT, much less win multiple elimination rounds there, so it’s worth celebrating those who have taken a big step forward over the last ten years.

		All-time			2010s
SCHOOL	WINS	LOSSES		WINS	LOSSES
Northwestern	144	77	65.2%	33	19	63.5%
Dartmouth	102	64	61.4%	1	2	33.3%
Harvard	91	64	58.7%	21	18	53.8%
Kansas	77	60	56.2%	20	16	55.6%
Emory	71	79	47.3%	14	19	42.4%
Georgetown	68	44	60.7%	26	11	70.3%
Wake Forest	66	61	52.0%	22	16	57.9%
Michigan	50	47	51.5%	18	15	54.5%
Michigan State	48	34	58.5%	12	11	52.2%
Redlands	42	34	55.3%			n/a
Baylor	40	31	56.3%	4	7	36.4%
Kentucky	38	37	50.7%	11	11	50.0%
USC	38	34	52.8%	1	3	25.0%
Cal-Berkeley	34	34	50.0%	12	13	48.0%
Iowa	27	29	48.2%	1	4	20.0%
Wayne State	27	26	50.9%	0	1	0.0%
Georgia	21	29	42.0%	8	11	42.1%
Oklahoma	21	20	51.2%	17	15	53.1%
Augustana, IL	19	19	50.0%			n/a
Texas, Austin	19	32	37.3%	1	3	25.0%
West Georgia	19	27	41.3%	4	7	36.4%
Loyola-Marymount	16	17	48.5%	3	2	60.0%
Alabama	15	10	60.0%			n/a
Louisville	15	13	53.6%	2	3	40.0%
West Point	14	10	58.3%	1	1	50.0%
Pittsburgh	12	13	48.0%			n/a
Emporia	11	9	55.0%	5	3	62.5%
Vermont	11	13	45.8%	0	1	0.0%
Houston	10	13	43.5%	1	1	50.0%
Miami, FL.	10	8	55.6%			n/a
North Texas	10	14	41.7%	0	3	0.0%
Boston College	8	6	57.1%			n/a
Florida	8	7	53.3%			n/a
Minnesota	8	10	44.4%	3	5	37.5%
UCLA	8	7	53.3%			n/a
Univ. Missouri KC	8	10	44.4%	3	3	50.0%
Whitman	8	11	42.1%	0	1	0.0%
Rutgers-Newark	8	3	72.7%	8	3	72.7%
George Mason	7	9	43.8%	1	2	33.3%
Missouri St. (SMS)	7	15	31.8%	0	3	0.0%
Samford	7	8	46.7%	1	1	50.0%
San Diego State	7	4	63.6%			n/a
Mary Washington	7	8	46.7%	4	5	44.4%
George Washington	6	14	30.0%			n/a
Ohio State	6	5	54.5%			n/a
Wichita State	6	5	54.5%	2	2	50.0%
Canisius	5	6	45.5%			n/a
Holy Cross	5	4	55.6%			n/a
North Carolina	5	8	38.5%			n/a
Southeastern Ok.	5	1	83.3%			n/a
Gonzaga	5	12	29.4%	1	3	25.0%
Carson-Newman	4	0	100.0%			n/a
N.E. Oklahoma St.	4	6	40.0%			n/a
Naval Academy	4	3	57.1%			n/a
Princeton	4	4	50.0%			n/a
UC Santa Barbara	4	0	100.0%			n/a
Univ. of Pacific	4	2	66.7%			n/a
Wisc. Eau Claire	4	7	36.4%			n/a
Liberty	4	10	28.6%	4	7	36.4%
Towson	4	7	36.4%	2	4	33.3%
UT-Dallas	4	5	44.4%	4	4	50.0%