NDT Book 2020

NDT Book 2020

Results 1947-2019

Results 2010-2019

Dedication

This book is dedicated to Ken Strange. Ken was a mentor, a friend, and one of the most brilliant debate minds in the history of the activity. He built a culture of excellence, not just as a measure of success, but as a way of life. I am forever thankful that I decided to spend ‘a year, maybe two’ working for him. Fifteen years later, and he’s still, forever, the boss.

Introduction

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 21st 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 7th title, while Kansas joined Dartmouth in third place all-time by claiming their 6th.

 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 2nd 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.

The history of the NDT: From West Point to the Internet

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

 

The Best of the Decade: 2010-2019

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 9th 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 4th and 5th 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 2nd and 3rd 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 5th and 10th 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

 

In Memoriam

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 2nd places, and nine NDT 3rd 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.

Debate Topics

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.

Qualification

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 17th 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.

Tournament scheduling

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!

Preliminary Rounds

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 3rd 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 4th seed (12 wins) and the 5th seed (11). The next two slots are 3rd (9 wins) and 2nd (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 22nd 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.

Elim rounds

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%

 

Team Victories at the NDT

Many of the statistics in this book concern individual records, or institutional ones. But the actual debate round involves a two-person team working together. This section recognizes the partnerships that stayed together. Obviously, to amass team victories, two people must debate together for an extended period of time. I have chosen to recognize teams who managed to accumulate at least 20 wins over their careers. In some cases, this was accomplished in just two years. Most often, debaters stuck together for three or four years to manage these results.

Historically, the mark of 20 team wins was a very tall mountain to climb. Some teams may have slipped through the cracks, but our historical work suggests that the total number of partnerships to accomplish this task through the first 63 years of the tournament was under twenty. However, things changed rather dramatically in the 2010s, with an astonishing fourteen new teams joining these ranks.

To explain this explosion of successful partnerships, the first place to look is the structures of the tournament. While the last big change—allowing third teams—significantly predates this decade, it’s still relatively recent in the history of the tournament. This makes it possible for younger teams from big schools to amass early wins. Going back even further to the West Point days, and it was virtually impossible for a team to attend three or four NDTs. You can see that of all the teams on this list, only Spicer and Wilson started before 1972.

In addition, this decade has also seen quite a few wire-to-wire partnerships. These teams weren’t necessarily dominant—several on this list only won a few scattered elims. They were just very good for four straight years. That compares to previous generations, where the most successful partnerships generally were also the teams to win the tournament. Of the seventeen pre-2010 teams on this list, eleven took home the title (and three did it twice). Only three of the fourteen new entrants can say the same.

However, that’s not to say there weren’t some exceptional records achieved over the decade. Leading the way, unsurprisingly, were Georgetown’s Andrew Arsht and Andrew Markoff, the runaway winners of Team of the 2010s. Despite debating with different partners in their first year, their astonishing 33 victories from 2012-2014 leaves them tied with MSU’s Stahl and Strauss for the all-time record for a partnership. To accomplish that in just three years—winning two NDTs and a Copeland award in the process—gives them a compelling argument for most successful team in NDT history.

But plenty of other teams produced impressive performances this decade as well. Harvard’s Bolman and Suo amassed 30 wins over four years, tying them for third all-time. And three separate Northwestern partnerships (Fisher/Spies, Miles/Vellayappan, Beiermeister/Kirshon) managed the impressive task of making this list despite each only working together for two years. Fisher and Spies’ record of 23-1 ties a previous Northwestern team (Gottlieb/Sparacino) for the all-time best winning percentage in NDT history.

A couple other historical notes here:

* One classic team could easily be on this list, William Welsh and Richard Kirshberg of (where else) Northwestern. They qualified as freshmen and won the tournament, they returned in 1959 and did it again. Obviously finding the activity too easy they retired, clearly one can only wonder “what if?”

* Two Dartmouth teams have asterisks by their elim record, indicating that their one loss was actually a walkover by another Dartmouth team. This makes Mark Koulogeorge’s NDT record most impressive. In his two NDTs he never actually lost a debate! Undoubtedly that explains why he and Lenny Gail were the Team of the 1980s.

* Greta Stahl and Dave Strauss might have won yet another NDT had they not met their own team in the quarters in 2003. Somehow they only managed to finish Third for team of their decade, must have been some decade!

Single team victories

Partnerships are ranked by total number of wins. Walkovers do not count toward team victories. New entrants to the list are marked in red.

 

Team

School

First Year

Prelims

Elims

Years

Total wins

1

Georgetown

Arsht/Markoff

2012

21-3

12-1

3

33-4

 

Michigan State

Stahl/Strauss

2001

24-8

9-3

4

33-11

3

Iowa

Coco/Smith

1989

27-5

3-4

4

30-9

 

Harvard

Bolman/Suo

2012

25-7

5-4

4

30-11

5

Northwestern

McCaffity/Terry

1993

20-4

9-1

3

29-5

 

Emory

Bailey/Ghali

1999

20-4

9-3

3

29-7

6

Michigan

Allen/Pappas

2013

20-4

8-3

3

28-7

7

Redlands

Spicer/Wilson

1950

19-5

8-1

3

27-6

8

Wake Forest

Gannon/Lamballe

2006

17-9

9-1

3

26-10

9

Wake Forest

Carrol/Hall

2004

18-6

7-3

3

25-9

 

Oklahoma

Giglio/Watts

2008

22-10

3-4

4

25-14

11

Augustana

Feldhake/Godfrey

1974

19-5

5-3

3

24-8

 

Berkeley

Muppalla/Spurlock

2014

21-11

3-3

4

24-14

13

Northwestern

Gottlieb/Sparacino

1998

15-1

8-0

2

23-1

 

Northwestern

Fisher/Spies

2010

16-0

7-1

2

23-1

 

Kansas

Cross/Rowland

1975

17-7

6-1

3

23-8

 

Minnesota

Crunkilton/Ehrlich

2012

20-12

3-3

4

23-15

17

Dartmouth

Gail/Koulogeorge

1983

16-0

6-1*

2

22-1

 

Harvard

Jacobs/Parkinson

2009

19-5

3-3

3

22-8

 

Georgia

Agrawal/Ramaman

2016

20-12

2-3

4

22-15

20

Northwestern

Beiermeister/Kirshon

2011

16-0

5-2

2

21-2

 

Northwestern

Miles/Vellayappan

2014

14-2

7-1

2

21-3

 

USC

Berger/Larsen

2015

20-12

1-3

4

21-15

23

Dartmouth

Martin/Wick

1987

14-2

6-1

2

20-3

 

Dartmouth

Lovitt/Sklaver

1991

14-2

6-1*

2

20-3

 

Redlands

Cole/Rubinstein

1990

13-3

7-1

2

20-4

 

Baylor

Loeber/Plants

1988

13-3

7-1

2

20-4

 

Dartmouth

Reyman/Reyman

1994

19-5

1-2

2

20-6

 

Whitman

Blank/Olney

2000

16-8

4-2

3

20-10

 

Berkeley

Sergent-Leventhal/Wimsatt

2014

16-8

4-2

3

20-10

 

Georgia

Rice/Stupek

2017

16-8

4-3

3

20-11

Individual victories at the NDT

The 2010s were a decade defined by individual dominance at the NDT. The top seeds and late elim rounds were controlled by a smaller group, and for a more extended period of time, than in any previous generation. As you can see on the chart that follows, of the sixteen debaters in NDT history to win 33 or more debates, twelve finished their career in the last decade. That includes the four debaters who now top the charts for individual success at the tournament.

For almost two decades, Sean McCaffity’s record of 36 individual wins held the top spot. But the record fell early in the day on elim day at the 2011 NDT, when Matt Fisher and Stephanie Spies from Northwestern won their octofinal debate, giving Fisher 37 wins over his illustrious career. And it didn’t stop there. With three more elim wins to take home the championship, Fisher accumulated an astonishing 40 individual wins over his career. That’s an average of ten per year. In an average year, only one single team will clear ten wins (it only happened twelve times in the whole last decade). To beat Fisher’s record, a future debater would need to average better than ten wins over four years. It’s hard to imagine anyone doing it.

At that same 2001 NDT, two other debaters were just beginning their careers. Andrew Arsht and Andrew Markoff of Georgetown did not start debating together until the following year, but each attended the 2011 NDT, going 5-3 but failing to win an elimination round. However, once pairing up together, they then went on an almost impossible run, winning 33 more debates over the next three years. If not for Fisher, they would share the top spot for most individual wins.

Arsht and Markoff did set their own record, though. With 12 elimination round victories, they cleared the old record of 11 (set by Tristan Morales and tied by Fisher). That record lasted only a single year, however, since yet another Northwestern debater was waiting to return the title to Evanstan. Arjun Vellayappan also achieved 38 individual wins, but he did it the hard way, winning ‘only’ 25 preliminary rounds. But his 13 elim wins sets the new standard for Monday performance at the tournament.

A few other records worth noting:

* Three debaters—Michigan’s Ellis Allen and Alex Pappas and Emory’s Stephen Weil—achieved 33 individual wins without ever winning the NDT itself. They join Kenny Agran as the only debaters to produce that sort of sustained excellence without the consolation of a title.

* Despite only attending three tournaments, Stephanie Spies accumulated 31 wins, with just four losses along the way. That 89% record in her debates is second place between Morales for best winning percentage among those with 25 or more victories at the tournament.

* McCaffity has been replaced at the top of the list, but it’s worth remembering just what an impressive career he had. Together with Jody Terry, he won two NDTs in three years. Terry then retired, but McCaffity continued for a fourth NDT, this time with Mason Miller. McCaffity and Miller were the unanimous winners of the Copeland award in 1996, before being eliminated in the quarterfinals. No one has ever won three NDTs, but McCaffity came very close.

 What follows below is the full list—as best we have been able to assemble—of the 93 debaters in the history of the NDT who have won at least 25 debates over the prelims and elims. 

The vast majority competed from 1987 onward—the year when elims were expanded to include all 5-3s. In many cases, the post-87 debaters on this list would have had an easier time—with a bye straight to the octos—but would have missed out on the opportunity to increase their tally. 

Another big change was the expansion of the tournament to include second, and later third, teams from the same school. This obviously allowed many teams more chances to attend in their younger years. In previous generations, they might have been crowded out until their junior or senior years.

Even accounting for the new, expanded pool, there are still plenty of incredible debaters who failed to reach 25 wins. Some bloomed late, retired early, or otherwise simply missed their chance to compete in the three or four years that are necessary to make the list. For example, the team of Beiermeister/Kirshon from Northwestern racked up 21 wins in their two years, stretching the limits of how much damage a team can do in just two chances. Following close behind, Eli Smith managed 20 wins (including winning the 2013 NDT) in his two years. Another title-winner, the Rutgers team of Murphy/Nave, managed 18 wins over two years.

From previous generations, debaters like Feldhake/Godfrey from Augustana, Tom Rollins from Georgetown, Jeff Jones from Kentucky, and Paul Weathington from West Georgia (all of whom debated in the 1970s and 1980s) found themselves in similar situations. Going back even further to the West Point days, it was virtually impossible for teams to even attend the tournament enough, much less find the wins they needed, to make this list. Dr. Southworth researched this question in previous books and was not able to find a single debater who even qualified for the NDT four times during those early years.

Individual victories at the NDT

Debaters are ranked by total number of wins. Walkovers do not count toward team victories. New entrants to the list are marked in red.

 

Debater

School(s)

First Year

Prelims

Elims

Years

Total Wins

1

Matt Fisher

Northwestern

2008

29-3

11-3

4

40-6

2

Andrew Arsht

Georgetown

2011

26-6

12-2

4

38-8

 

Andrew Markoff

Georgetown

2011

26-6

12-2

4

38-8

 

Arjun Vellayappan

Northwestern

2012

25-7

13-3

4

38-10

5

Sean McCaffity

Northwestern

1993

26-6

10-2

4

36-8

6

Ryan Sparacino

Northwestern

1997

25-7

10-1

4

35-8

 

Kenny Agran

Dartmouth

1989

27-5

8-4

4

35-9

8

Tristan Morales

Northwestern

2003

23-1

11-1

3

34-2

9

Alex Miles

Northwestern

2012

24-8

9-2

4

33-10

 

Hemanth Sanjeev

Harvard

2015

24-8

9-2

4

33-10

 

Ellis Allen

Michigan

2012

25-7

8-4

4

33-11

 

Alex Pappas

Michigan

2012

25-7

8-4

4

33-11

 

Stephen Weil

Emory

2008

25-7

8-4

4

33-11

 

Greta Stahl

Michigan St.

2001

24-8

9-3

4

33-11

 

Dave Strauss

Michigan St.

2001

24-8

9-3

4

33-11

 

Quaram Robinson

Kansas

2015

23-9

10-3

4

33-12

17

Marc Rubinstein

Redlands

1988

24-8

8-3

4

32-11

 

Seth Gannon

Wake Forest

2006

22-10

10-2

4

32-12

19

Stephanie Spies

Northwestern

2008

22-2

9-2

3

31-4

 

Brett Bricker

Kansas

2006

24-8

7-2

4

31-10

 

Lyn Robbins

Baylor

1984

24-8

7-2

4

31-10

 

Natalie Knez

Georgetown

2015

22-10

9-4

4

31-14

23

Nathan Coco

Iowa

1989

27-5

3-4

4

30-9

 

Charles Smith

Iowa

1989

27-5

3-4

4

30-9

 

Matt Shors

Michigan

1990

26-6

4-4

4

30-10

 

Brad Bolman

Harvard

2012

25-7

5-4

4

30-11

 

Michael Suo

Harvard

2012

25-7

5-4

4

30-11

 

Kevin Kuswa

Georgetown

1989

22-10

8-3

4

30-11

 

Alex Lamballe

Wake Forest

2006

21-11

9-1

4

30-12

 

Dan Shalmon

Berkeley

2001

24-8

6-4

4

30-12

 

David Ottoson

Georgetown

1975

21-11

9-2

4

30-13

 

Jonathan Paul

Northwestern

1999

21-11

9-2

4

30-13

 

Corey Rayburn

Iowa

1995

23-9

7-4

4

30-13

 

Rebecca Tushnet

Harvard

1992

22-10

8-3

4

30-13

35

Ara Lovitt

Dartmouth

1991

21-3

8-2

3

29-5

 

Jody Terry

Northwestern

1993

20-4

9-1

3

29-5

 

Stephen Bailey

Emory

1999

20-4

9-3

3

29-7

 

Kamal Ghali

Emory

1999

20-4

9-3

3

29-7

 

Andy Peterson

Iowa

1997

23-9

6-3

4

29-12

 

John Warden

Northwestern

2006

23-9

6-3

4

29-12

 

Toby Arquette

Wayne State

1991

23-9

6-4

4

29-13

 

Alex Berger

Dartmouth

1999

23-9

6-4

4

29-13

 

Brian Smith

Dartmouth

2003

23-9

6-4

4

29-13

 

Peyton Lee

Northwestern

2010

22-10

7-4

4

29-14

 

Jamie Carroll

Wake Forest

2003

21-11

7-3

4

29-14

46

Michael Gottlieb

Northwestern

1997

20-4

8-1

3

28-5

 

Rodger Cole

Redlands

1988

21-7

7-2

4

28-9

 

Josh Branson

Northwestern

2003

22-10

6-1

4

28-11

 

Michael Wimsatt

Berkeley

2014

23-9

5-3

4

28-12

 

Jonathan Massey

Harvard

1982

21-11

7-2

4

28-13

 

Chris McIntosh

Georgia

1996

22-10

6-4

4

28-14

 

Stacey Nathan

Berkeley

2002

22-10

6-4

4

28-14

 

Craig Wickersham

Berkeley

2003

21-11

7-4

4

28-15

54

Lenny Gail

Dartmouth

1982

21-3

6-1

3

27-4

 

Holt Spicer

Redlands

1950

19-5

8-1

3

27-6

 

James Q. Wilson

Redlands

1950

19-5

8-1

3

27-6

 

John Barrett

Georgetown

1980

25-7

2-4

4

27-11

 

Corey Stoughton

Michigan

1995

23-9

4-3

4

27-12

 

David Herman

Harvard

2013

21-11

6-2

4

27-13

 

David Coale

Harvard

1987

21-11

6-2

3

27-13

 

Malcolm Gordon

UMKC

2004

23-9

4-4

4

27-13

 

Michael Klinger

Harvard

2002

23-9

4-4

4

27-13

 

Tyler Thur

MSU

2013

21-11

6-3

4

27-14

 

Steve Lehotsky

Dartmouth

1996

22-10

5-4

4

27-14

 

T.A. McKinney

Kentucky

1988

22-10

5-4

4

27-14

66

Anthony Roisman

Dartmouth

1958

21-3

5-2

3

26-5

 

Andrew Schrank

Michigan

1987

20-4

6-3

3

26-7

 

Calum Matheson

Michigan St.

2001

19-5

7-3

3

26-8

 

Jason Sigalos

Emory

2013

23-9

3-4

4

26-13

 

Theo Noparstak

Kentucky

2015

22-10

4-4

4

26-14

 

Paul Barsness

Georgia

1997

24-10

2-4

4

26-14

 

Grant McKeehan

Kansas

1997

21-11

5-3

4

26-14

73

Neal Katyal

Dartmouth

1989

20-4

5-2

3

25-6

 

Steve Mancuso

Kentucky

1980

21-3

4-3

3

25-6

 

Stuart Singer

Northwestern

1976

20-4

5-2

3

25-6

 

Steven Sklaver

Dartmouth

1991

19-5

6-1

3

25-6

 

Eric Lanning

MSU/Houston

2008

19-5

6-2

3

25-7

 

Julie Hoehn

Emory

2006

19-5

6-2

3

25-7

 

Scott Phillips

Emory

2003

20-4

5-3

3

25-7

 

Ayush Midha

Harvard

2017

19-5

6-3

3

25-8

 

Phillip Hubbart

Augustana

1956

18-6

7-2

3

25-8

 

Martin Loeber

Baylor

1987

18-6

7-2

3

25-8

 

Mark Weinhardt

Dartmouth

1980

19-5

6-3

3

25-8

 

John Bredehoft

Harvard

1978

18-6

5-3

3

25-9

 

Brad Hall

Wake Forest

2004

18-6

7-3

3

25-9

 

Charles Olney

Whitman

2000

21-11

4-2

4

25-13

 

Maria Liu

Michigan

2009

23-9

2-4

4

25-13

 

Ryan Wash

Emporia

2010

20-12

5-2

4

25-14

 

RJ Giglio

Oklahoma

2008

22-10

3-4

4

25-14

 

Nick Watts

Oklahoma

2008

22-10

3-4

4

25-14

 

Shaun VanHorn

Michigan/MSU

2001

21-11

4-3

4

25-14

 

Mike Eber

Kansas

1997

20-12

5-3

4

25-15

 

Mark Fabiani

Redlands

1976

21-11

4-4

4

25-15

 

Speaker Records

Since 1948, the National Tournament has recognized outstanding individual speakers. Starting in 1950 the top two speakers were awarded wristwatches, first by the Elgin National Watch Company and later by Hamilton. For many years the Top Speaker watch was donated by Robert Feldhake, himself first speaker in 1976, in honor of Wayne Brockriede. In 2009, the Top Speaker award was renamed the Ross Kennedy Smith Award after Ross passed away. In 1980, District IX donated a perpetual trophy engraved with the names of all First Speakers. That trophy was replaced in 1989, by a magnificent Tiffany Bowl, donated anonymously.

This section looks at a number of different records concerning speaker awards. We will start with some team-level discussion, then dig into individual performances in a number of different ways.

To begin, it’s interesting to consider which schools have produced the most award-winning individual speakers. These lists compared two ways of thinking about this issue:

SCHOOLS , BY MOST FIRST SPEAKERS         SCHOOLS, BY MOST TOP FIVE SPEAKERS

  1. Northwestern 12                                             1.   Northwestern            39
  2. Kentucky 6                                              2.   Harvard                   27

      Georgetown              6                                              3.    Georgetown              18

  1. Redlands 4                                              4.   Kentucky                 16
  2. Augustana, IL 3                                              5.   Emory                     15

      Baylor                     3                                                    Kansas                    15

      Dartmouth                3                                              7.   Dartmouth                14

      Houston                   3                                                    Redlands                  14

      Iowa  3                                                                    Michigan                       14

      USC                        3                                              10.  Baylor                     11

                                                                                          Augustana                11 

The order of schools in the column on the left is essentially unchanged from ten years ago. Northwestern’s two first speaker awards extended their lead at the top, while Georgetown’s two awards brought them into a tie with Kentucky. It’s perhaps surprising that Kansas’s top award in 2019 wasn’t enough to bring them onto the list. But despite their significant success as a school at the NDT over the decades, this was actually their first top speaker award in 64 years. They first took the top spot at the 9th NDT but it took until the 73rd iteration to get their next one. That is unsurprisingly the longest gap between two awards for any school. 

The second list saw more movement. Not at the top, of course, with Northwestern again merely extending their lead on top of eight top 5 finishes in the 2010s. Harvard also managed eight and pulled away from the pack in second. But below there, we saw quite a bit of movement, with Georgetown, Kentucky, Emory, and Kansas all making progress. But the biggest change came from Michigan. With five top 5 finishes in the decade, they leapt into the list, tying themselves with the old powers, Dartmouth and Redlands.

Last decade, Harvard finally earned their first Top Speaker award. This decade it was Emory’s turn, with Stephen Weil winning in 2010. That now means that all eleven of the schools with the most top 5 awards can claim a Top Speaker trophy in the mix.

Schools with three speakers among the top ten

Since 1948, awards have been given to the top 10 speakers. Starting in 1993, hardware was presented to the top 20.

Over the full history of the tournament, one school has had two speakers among the Top Ten 141 times. That means it happens roughly twice a year. Not very rare. Far less common, however, is a single school placing three speakers in the top 10. This was obviously impossible before 1970 when only a single team could represent a school. But over the 49 years since second teams have been added, the trifecta has been achieved only eight times.

1970

UCLA

Alec Wisner (4th), Harry Howell (5th), Roy Schultz (8th)

1972

USC

Ron Palmieri (2nd), Geoff Goodman (9th), King Schofield (10th)

1973

Georgetown*

Stewart Jay (4th), Brad Ziff (5th), Jeff Ruch (7th), Tom Devine (8th)

1992

Iowa

Charles Smith (1st), Nathan Coco (3rd), Omar Guevara III (8th)

1993

Dartmouth

Ara Lovitt (2nd), Steven Sklaver (7th), Will Griffin (10th)

1994

Harvard

Fred Karem (2nd), Stephen Andrews, (7th), Rebecca Tushnet (8th)

1996

Dartmouth

Andre Hylton (5th), David Reymann (7th), Marc Wilson (8th)

1997

Michigan

Scott Hessell (2nd), Corey Stoughton (8th), Lesley Wexler (10th)

2012

Northwestern

Ryan Beiermeister (1st), Layne Kirshon (2nd), Peyton Lee (9th)

From this list, only Georgetown in 1973 was able to place four speakers in the top ten. Even more impressively, this was accomplished when only two teams per school could qualify. The Georgetown debaters were fourth, fifth, seventh and eighth.

 The 2010s introduced one new name to the list. Surprisingly, Northwestern’s trifecta in 2012 was the first for the school. Considering their dominance on all these lists, it took them quite a long time to accomplish this feat. Leading the way for Northwestern was the partnership of Ryan Beiermeister (1st) and Layne Kirshon (2nd), with Peyton Lee (9th) also earning a spot.

 Elim results for top speakers

An individual speaker award is no guarantee of elim success. That lesson was made clear right from the start, as the initial two Top Speakers in 1948 and 1948 failed to even clear to the elims. Potter Kerfoot of USC was a finalist in the initial NDT in 1947 and followed up that performance by earning the top speaker award the next year but failed to win enough debates to clear. Quite a roller coaster!

 Over the history of the tournament, the top two speakers have generally done quite well on Monday. But, somewhat surprisingly, it’s generally been better to finish 2nd than to win the Top Speaker award. Twenty second-place speakers have won the tournament, while only eleven Top Speakers have managed it.

 Of the four debaters to ever take home the Top Speaker trophy twice, half failed to ever win the tournament. That includes Tom Rollins of Georgetown, arguably the most dominant individual debater in the history of the tournament. Rollins was Top Speaker twice and Second Speaker once and never got beyond the semis. He shares this dubious honor with Paul Skiermont of Kentucky, who also was twice awarded the Top Speaker title, but never escaped the quarterfinals.

 The trend of second-place finishers outperforming the Top Speaker continued in the 2010s, with only two Top Speakers winning their final debate—Stephanie Spies in 2011 and Devane Murphy in 2017. Meanwhile, three penultimate speakers won the tournament—Eric Lanning in 2010, Nicole Nave in 2017, and the most recent winner: Anthony Trufanov in 2019.

 The following breakdown shows how the top two positions have performed in the elimination rounds:

Result

Top Speaker

2nd Speaker

Not Clear

2

4

Doubles

1

3

Octos

16

12

Quarters

19

16

Semis

19

12

Second

5

7

First

11

20

 Six times in NDT history, the top two speakers have been partners. The first three times this happened, the team went on to win the tournament. That streak broke in 2012, when Beiermeister and Kirshon from Northwestern lost in the finals. This was then repeated three years later as Harvard’s Bolman and Suo lost in the semifinals. The dominance of paired top speakers was restored, however, in 2017, when Murphy and Nave from Rutgers-Newark shared the spoils.

 The following chart displays the elimination performances of every 1st and 2nd speaker at the NDT over the years. 

Year

Rank

Speaker

Elim Result

1948

1

Kerfoot, USC

Not Clear

 

2

MacKenzie, West Point

Not Clear

1949

1

Sayre, Willamette

Not Clear

 

2

Stollenwerck, Kansas

Quarters

1950

1

Carey, Notre Dame

Octos

 

2

Ruffe, SMU

Octos

1951

1

Spicer, Redlands

First

 

2

Wilson, Redlands

First

1952

1

Wilson, Redlands

First

 

2

Spicer, Redlands

First

1953

1

Anderson, Augustana

Quarters

 

2

Reidy, Wisconsin Eau Claire

Quarters

1954

1

Spiro, Vermont

Quarters

 

2

Robinson, George Washington

Quarters

1955

1

Bell, Kansas

Octos

 

2

Maynard, Southwest Missouri

Octos

1956

1

Hubbart, Augustana

Third

 

2

Ruf, Macalester

Quarters

1957

1

Stallings, Houston

Octos

 

2

Hubbart, Augustana

First

1958

1

Miller, USC

Third

 

2

Hubbart, Augustana

Quarters

1959

1

Ray, West Point

Octos

 

2

Nicols, Kansas

Third

1960

1

Herrick, William Jewell

Quarters

 

2

Schell, Baylor

Third

1961

1

Schell, Baylor

Quarters

 

2

Tribe, Harvard

First

1962

1

Lawson, Emporia

Quarters

 

1

Huebner, Northwestern

Quarters

1963

1

Kolb, Holy Cross

Octos

 

2

Roberts, Alabama

Third

1964

1

Roberts, Alabama

Octos

 

2

Hempleman, Georgetown

Third

1965

1

Shrum, Georgetown

Third

 

2

Pipes, UOP

Not Clear

1966

1

Snyder, Northwestern

First

 

2

Holcomb, Augustana

Octos

1967

1

Flam, USC

Octos

 

2

Brewer, Dartmouth

First

1968

1

Zarefsky, Northwestern

Quarters

 

2

Brautigam, Michigan State

Third

1969

1

Seikel, Houston

Second

 

2

Perwin, Harvard

First

1970

1

Miller, Houston

Third

 

2

Caforio, Loyola

Quarters

 

2

Goss, Canisius

Second

1971

1

Loveland, North Carolina

Quarters

 

2

Angland, MIT

Not Clear

1972

1

McKnight, Canisius

Octos

 

2

Palmieri, USC

Second

1973

1

Minceberg, Northwestern

First

 

2

Kimball, UCLA

Not Clear

1974

1

Higelin, USC

Third

 

2

Isgur, Houston

Quarters

1975

1

Rollins, Georgetown

Quarters

 

2

Feldhake, Augustana

Octos

1976

1

Feldhake, Augustana

Third

 

2

Rollins, Georgetown

Third

1977

1

Skillman, Kentucky

Quarters

 

2

Walker, Georgetown

First

1978

1

Rollins, Georgetown

Third

 

2

Singer, Northwestern

First

1979

1

Fabiani, Redlands

Octos

 

2

King, Harvard

First

1980

1

Meagher, Dartmouth

Third

 

2

Dripps, Northwestern

First

1981

1

Jones, Kentucky

Third

 

2

2

Harris, Wayne State

Weathington, West Georgia

Quarters

Quarters

1982

1

Mancuso, Kentucky

Third

 

2

Barrett, Georgetown

Quarters

1983

1

Barrett, Georgetown

Octos

 

2

Gail, Dartmouth

Third

1984

1

Gail, Dartmouth

First

 

2

Brewster, Emory

Quarters

1985

1

Povinelli, U. Mass

Octos

 

2

Sigel, Northwestern

Quarters

1986

1

Robbins, Baylor

Third

 

2

Segal, Emory

Octos

1987

1

Robbins, Baylor

First

 

2

Culver, Kansas

Octos

1988

1

Cabada, Wake Forest

Octos

 

2

Pickens, Kansas

Octos

1989

1

Mitchell, Northwestern

Quarters

 

2

Plants, Baylor

First

1990

1

Rubinstein, Redlands

Second

 

2

Hugin, Texas

Octos

1991

1

McKinney, Kentucky

Quarters

 

2

Rubinstein, Redlands

First

1992

1

Smith, Iowa

Quarters

 

2

Goodman, Texas

Octos

1993

1

Shors, Michigan

Octos

 

2

Lovitt, Dartmouth

First

1994

1

Skiermont, Kentucky

Quarters

 

2

Karem, Harvard

Second

1995

1

Skiermont, Kentucky

Quarters

 

2

McCaffity, Northwestern

First

1996

1

McCaffity, Northwestern

Quarters

 

2

LaVigne, Wayne State

Octos

1997

1

Rayburn, Iowa

Octos

 

2

Hessell, Michigan

Third

1998

1

Gottlieb, Northwestern

First

 

2

Kouros, Emory

Second

1999

1

Gottlieb, Northwestern

First

 

2

Sparacino, Northwestern

First

2000

1

Sparacino, Northwestern

Quarters

 

2

Donald, Michigan State

Second

 

2

Grove, Texas

Third

2001

1

Ryan, Iowa

First

 

2

Lotz, Wake Forest

Octos

2002

1

Berger, Dartmouth

Quarters

 

2

Midence, Michigan

Doubles

2003

1

Olney, Whitman

Semis

 

2

Matheson, Michigan State

Semis

2004

1

Singh, Berkeley

Second

 

2

Ramachandrappa, Georgia

Octos

2005

1

Klinger, Harvard

Doubles

 

2

Morales, Northwestern

First

2006

1

Branson, Northwestern

Quarters

 

2

Klinger, Harvard

Quarters

2007

1

Murillo, Wayne State

Third

 

2

Yates, Idaho State

Doubles

2008

1

Osborn, Missouri State

Third

 

2

Hoehn, Emory

Quarters

2009

1

Cholera, North Texas

Octos

 

2

Bricker, Kansas

First

2010

1

Weil, Emory

Quarters

 

2

Lanning, MSU

First

2011

1

Spies, Northwestern

First

 

2

Parkinson, Harvard

Quarters

2012

1

Beiermeister, Northwestern

Second

 

2

Kirshon, Northwestern

Second

2013

1

Arsht, Georgetown

Semis

 

2

Lee, Northwestern

Second

2014

1

Campbell, Oklahoma

Semis

 

2

Miles, Northwestern

Quarters

2015

1

Suo, Harvard

Semis

 

2

Bolman, Harvard

Semis

2016

1

Spurlock, Berkeley

Octos

 

2

Brough, Vermont

Doubles

2017

1

Murphy, Rutgers-Newark

First

 

2

Nave, Rutgers-Newark

First

2018

1

Knez, Georgetown

Second

 

2

Sanjeev, Harvard

Semis

2019

1

Hegna, Kansas

Semis

 

2

Trufanov, Kentucky

First

Multiple speaker awards

No individual awards were given at the inaugural 1947 NDT. Ever since, the top individual speakers have been recognized. That means the First Speaker award has been given 72 times. Only four debaters have twice taken home the Top Speaker title—the most recent being Michael Gottlieb of Northwestern in 1999—but the majority of winners over the years have at least earned another top 10 finish. Thirteen of those earned a first and second place finish, most recently Michael Klinger of Harvard in 2006.

No debater has ever finished among the top 10 speakers four times. Stephen Weil came extremely close, finished just one point out of the top 10 in 2009, to go with a 7th place in 2008, a 1st place in 2010, and a 5th place in 2011.

 This list recognizes those individuals who earned a 1st or 2nd place finish in addition to another top 10 result, ranking them by their best finish, second best finish, and then third best finish.

 Tom Rollins with two firsts and one second edges out Lyn Robbins with two firsts and a third who in turn edges out Paul Skiermont with two firsts and a fourth. Michael Gottlieb rounds out the four multi-winners, but arguably even more impressive is the next person on the list, Phillip Hubbart, who managed a first and two second place performances.

 The following picture was taken in a reunion debate in 1991, pitting the Redlands Champs of 1951 & 52 against the 1991 Champs. Spicer and Wilson were the first duo to win back to back championships, and the only team to have first and second speakers twice. Rubenstein earned a first and a second award himself, while Cole ‘only’ ever managed a third place finish.

Rodger Cole & Mark Rubenstein    James Q. Wilson & Holt Spicer

                  1991                                     1951-1952

The following list tracks the debaters who received multiple top 10 speaker awards. New entrants to the list are marked in red.

Debater

School

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

6th-10th

Tom Rollins

Georgetown

1975/1978

1976

 

Lyn Robbins

Baylor

1986/1987

1985

Paul Skiermont

Kentucky

1994/1995

1993

 

Michael Gottlieb

Northwestern

1998/1999

Phillip Hubbart

Augustana

1956

1957/1958

John Barrett

Georgetown

1983

1982

 

1981

Sean McCaffity

Northwestern

1996

1995

1994

Bob Feldhake

Augustana

1976

1975

Lenny Gail

Dartmouth

1984

1983

Michael Klinger

Harvard

2005

2006

Robbie Roberts

Alabama

1964

1963

Mark Rubinstein

Redlands

1990

1991

George Schell

Baylor

1961

1960

Ryan Sparacino

Northwestern

2000

1999

Holt Spicer

Redlands

1951

1952

James Q. Wilson

Redlands

1952

1951

Herzel Spiro

Vermont

1954

 

1955

1953

Gil Skillman

Kentucky

1977

1976

1975

Josh Branson

Northwestern

2006

2005

Danny Povinelli

U. Mass

1985

1986

Bob Shrum

Georgetown

1965

1964

Tejinder Singh

Berkeley

2004

2003

William Snyder

Northwestern

1966

1965

Patricia Stallings

Houston

1957

1958

David Zarefsky

Northwestern

1968

1967

Stephanie Spies

Northwestern

2011

2010

Mark Fabiani

Redlands

1979

1978

1977

Stephen Weil

Emory

2010

2011

2008

Andrew Arsht

Georgetown

2013

2014

2012

Joe Loveland

UNC

1971

1972

Steve Mancuso

Kentucky

1982

1981

Terry McKnight

Canisius

1972

1971

Gordon Mitchell

Northwestern

1989

1988

Corey Rayburn

Iowa

1997

1998

Alex Berger

Dartmouth

2002

2001

Jeff Jones

Kentucky

1981

1980

Dan Kolb

Holy Cross

1963

1962

T.A. McKinney

Kentucky

1991

1990

David Seikel

Houston

1969

1968

Hubert Bell

Kansas

1955

1951

Bill Carey

Notre Dame

1950

1949

Mike Miller

Houston

1970

1969

Andy Ryan

Iowa

2001

2000

Chuck Smith

Iowa

1992

1991

Matt Shors

Michigan

1993

1992

John Spurlock

Berkeley

2016

2017

Natalie Knez

Georgetown

2018

2017

Hemanth Sanjeev

Harvard

2018

2016

2017

Calum Matheson

Michigan St.

2003

2002

2001

Bradley Bolman

Harvard

2015

2013/2014

Alex Miles

Northwestern

2014

2015

Eric Lanning

Michigan State

2010

2014

Peyton Lee

Northwestern

2013

2012

Brett Bricker

Kansas

2009

2008

Ron Palmieri

USC

1972

1971

Joel Perwin

Harvard

1969

1968

Doug Sigel

Northwestern

1985

1984

Stuart Singer

Northwestern

1978

1977

Paul Weathington

West Georgia

1981

1980

Ed Stollenwerck

Kansas

1949

1950

1948

Ryan Goodman

Texas

1992

1993

* 22 top speakers have not earned multiple top 10 speaker awards. They are: Kerfoot, ‘48; Sayre, ’49; Anderson, ’53; Miller, ’58; Ray, ’59; Herrick, ’60; Lawson & Huebner in ’62; Flam, ’67; Minceberg, ’73; Higelin, ’74, Meagher, ’80; Cabada, ’88; Olney, ’03; Murillo, ’07; Osborn, ’08; Cholera, ’09; Beiermeister, ’12, Campbell, ’14; Suo, ’15; Murphy, ’17; and Hegna, ’19.

Evolution in Speaker Points

The NDT has undergone several changes in speaker point assignment. In the early days, judges operated on a 50-point scale. The top speakers generally broke 1000, while most of the rest of the pool lived in the 900s. During this period, Robert Roberts from Alabama set the all-time points record with 1072 in 1964. Unless the speaker range expands significantly, no one will ever come close.

 Starting in 1967, the tournament switched to a 30-point scale, counting total points. This lasted for just two years, with David Zarefsky of Northwestern setting the new record at 666 points in 1968.

 The following year, the tournament began dropping high-lows, which was to remain the system for almost half a century. That long timeframe on the same system allows us to analyze the evolution of point distribution with some clarity over time. Obviously, point inflation is effectively guaranteed over any significant length of time. But there have been some extended periods in which top-level points remained stable or even slightly declined.

The following chart is a progressive list of every debater who has received the most high-lows points since 1969. As you can see, there have been long stretches with a single person owning the title, along with several condensed periods in which the record was broken virtually every year, including the most recent decade, which has seen six new debaters occupy the position of ‘most points’ for the modern era.

Progressive list of debaters who earned the highest ever point total in the modern (high-low) era

Points

Debater

Year

604

David Seikel

1969

605

Joe Loveland

1971

612

Terry McKnight

1972

620

Robert Feldhake

1976

623

Jeff Jones

1981

625

Steve Mancuso

1982

 

John Barrett

1983

630

Leonard Gail

1984

635

Lyn Robbins

1987

 

Michael Gottlieb

1999

 

Michael Klinger

2005

639

Josh Branson

2006

639.5

Martin Osborn

2008

640

Stephanie Spies

2011

642.2

Andrew Arsht

2013

645.7

Rashid Campbell

2014

647.7

Devane Murphy

2017

648.2

Natalie Knez

2018

For long stretches from the 1980s to the mid 2000s, the list of most points in the modern era contained debaters from a wide stretch of time. Lyn Robbins’ historic performance in 1987 shattered the old record, establishing a new high-water mark far beyond the existing standard. In fact, the top speaker in the two years surrounding Robbins’ result received 624 points (one of these was Robbins himself in 1986). It took until 1999 for Michael Gottlieb to tie Robbins’ mark, but the top speakers over the next five years still couldn’t quite clear the hurdle. Another Michael—Klinger this time—also tied the record in 2005. Klinger then broke the record the following year, but had to settle for second place since Josh Branson actually cleared the margin by an even wider margin, setting the new standard at 639. The next half decade saw two more incremental breaks, but in 2013 the deluge began.

 What changed? It’s simple, actually. Starting in 2012, judges were allowed to assign 1/10 points. This innovation was designed help judges who increasingly found the new inflated .5 scale insufficient to differentiate quality differences between debates. Unsurprisingly, the introduction of new more granular points only heightened the inflationary effect, with points rising significantly over the following years. In 2012, the 10th speaker—Sarah Weiner—received 635.2 points. This would have been the all-time record just seven years prior.

 And things only escalated from there. By 2014, the 10th speaker cleared 641 points—a fact that has been true for every year since. Remember that the all-time record of 640 was only set in 2011—just three years before!

 At the most recent NDT in 2019, the range had compressed to a tiny margin, with just a couple points separating the top speaker from the rest. Jacob Hegna was only 1.5 high-low points ahead of the 10th place speaker, with the 20th speaker only two more points behind.

 Those a bit removed from the activity would be shocked to see speaker point distributions at current debate tournaments, with 29s increasingly seen as bog standard for top teams, rather than as recognitions of truly exceptional performances. But taking into account the existence of .1 increments, judges still retain the ability to differentiate to roughly the same degree as they ever have.

 The following graph illustrates the progression of 1st and 10th speaker performances over the past five decades. As you can see, the march has been steadily upward, with a few punctuated explosions.

One final tidbit to illustrate the consistent progress of inflation: the top speaker in 1967—the first year on the 30 point scale—was Rick Flam with 650 total points. The new high-water mark set by Natalie Knez in 2018 is 648.2 high-low points. It’s probably only a matter of time before the tournament’s top speaker receives a high-low score that exceeds that 650 mark.

Z-Scores

The decade also featured another other important innovation in speaker points, one which renders a few of the above numbers slightly anachronistic. Starting in 2014, the first measure of assessment for speaker awards has been Z-Score, a metric which normalizes points by comparing the assigned value of a given round against the standard deviation of a judge’s average points. The idea is to smooth out results, and to prevent teams or debaters from moving up the ranks simply by virtue of happening to appear in front of judges with inflated point scales. Furthermore, since this measure already works to minimize the effects of outlier results, the tournament no longer dropped high-low results. As such, the point totals I mentioned above for debaters post-2014 do not actually reflect the measures used at these tournaments to determine speaker awards. 

In fact, there have already been two discrepancies between the actual winner and the debater who would have won according to the old high-low system. In 2015, Ellis Allen received 707.9 z-score points, good for third place behind the two members of Harvard BS. However, Allen’s 645.5 was actually the highest raw score awarded at the tournament. Similarly, in 2016 Will Morgan finished in 5th place despite earning the highest raw high-low points.

Nevertheless, the very highest point-earners listed in the chart above have all managed to dominate on both measures. Still, if the Z-Score metric endures for another decade, we will surely need to start measuring a new modern all-time top speaker according to this standard. In that case, the current champion is Michael Suo, who managed a 710.49 in 2015. Natalie Knez in 2018 almost reached this mark, but fell just short with a 709.6.

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 speakers 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 speakers of the 1970s

1

Tom Rollins, Georgetown

2

Joe Loveland,  North Carolina

3

Charles Garvin, Harvard

4

Gil Skillman, Kentucky

5

Mark Fabiani, Redlands

 

 

 

Best speakers of the 1980s

1

Lenny Gail, Dartmouth

2

Lyn Robbins, Baylor

3

Steve Mancuso, KY

4

Danny Povinelli, U. Mass.

5

 Jeff Jones, KY

 

 

 

Best speakers of the 1990s

1

Marc Rubinstein, Redlands

2

Mike Gottlieb, Northwestern

3

Paul Skiermont, Kentucky

4

Ara Lovitt, Dartmouth

5

Sean McCaffity, Northwestern

 

 

 

Best speakers of the 2000s

1

Michael Klinger, Harvard

2

Tristan Morales, Northwestern

3

Ryan Sparacino, Northwestern

4

Josh Branson, Northwestern

5

Dan Shalmon, Cal-Berkeley

 

 

 

Best speakers of the 2010s

1

Quaram Robinson, Kansas

2

Andrew Markoff, Georgetown

3

Arjun Vellayappan, Northwestern

4

Andrew Arsht, Georgetown

5

Stephen Weil, Emory

 

Coaching and Judging

Most of this book has concerned itself with the records of debaters. That reflects the reality the debate is fundamentally an activity for the students. Nevertheless, debate could not exist without the work done by those who stand behind the competitors. It’s therefore worthwhile to take a moment to reflect on the coaches and judges whose tireless work ensures the continuation of this activity over generations.

It is not an easy job. A successful coach or judge must balance two competing interests. First, they represent their own unique objectives and opinions. Team success depends on a coach able to put a signature stamp on the team dynamic and attitude. But a coach must also stand aside and let the debaters operate with independence. Striking this balance means understanding when to teach and when to learn. 

Since Dr. Southworth’s original book, he has asked for voters to identify the most successful coaches and judges from each decade. These results are included below.

I have been lucky enough to work with several names who feature prominently (and repeatedly) on this list: Ken Strange, Dallas Perkins, Sherry Hall, Will Repko, John Turner, Amber Kelsie. And I can say with confidence that it is impossible to overstate what each has given to this community. And the same is true with the hundreds of others who have given so much. While we celebrate a few names here, they should really stand in for everyone who devotes time, emotional labor, skill, and compassion to this job.

 

Best judges of the 1970s

 

 

Best coaches of the 1970s

1

James Unger, Georgetown

 

1

James Unger, Georgetown

2

William Southworth, Redlands

 

2

David Zarefsky, Northwestern

3

David Zarefsky, Northwestern

 

3

William Southworth, Redlands

4

Ken Strange, Augustana/Dartmouth

 

4

Donn Parson, Kansas

5

Tom Kane, Pittsburgh

 

5

John DeBross, USC

 

 

 

 

 

 

Best judges of the 1980s

 

 

Best coaches of the 1980s

1

Roger Solt, Kentucky

 

1

Ken Strange, Dartmouth

2

Ken Strange, Dartmouth

 

2

Donn Parson, Kansas

3

Dallas Perkins, Harvard

 

3

Dallas Perkins, Harvard

4

Dave Hingstman, Iowa

 

4

Robert Rowland, Baylor/Kansas

5

Ross Smith, Wake

 

5

Roger Solt, Kentucky

 

 

 

 

 

 

Best judges of the 1990s

 

 

Best coaches of the 1990s

1

Ross Smith, Wake

 

1

Scott Deatherage, Northwestern

2

Ken Strange, Dartmouth

 

2

Ross Smith, Wake

3

Roger Solt, Kentucky

 

3

Sherry Hall and Dallas Perkins, Harvard

4

Sherry Hall, Harvard

 

4

Ken Strange, Dartmouth

5

Scott Harris, Kansas

 

5

Bill Newnam and Melissa Wade, Emory

 

Bill Russell, Dartmouth

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Best judges of the 2000s

 

 

Best coaches of the 2000s

1

David Heidt, Emory

 

1

Scott Deatherage, Northwestern

2

Ken Strange, Dartmouth

 

2

Dave Arnett, Berkeley

3

Ryan Galloway, Samford

 

3

Ross Smith, Wake

4

Will Repko, Michigan State

 

4

Will Repko, Michigan State

5

Calum Matheson, North Texas

 

5

Scott Harris, Kansas

 

 

 

 

Ken Strange, Dartmouth

 

 

 

 

 

 

Best judges of the 2010s

 

 

Best coaches of the 2010s

1

Adrienne Brovero, Mary Washington

 

1

Jonathan Paul, Georgetown

2

Scott Harris, Kansas

 

2

Amber Kelsie, Towson/Wake

3

Amber Kelsie, Towson/Wake

 

3

Jeff Buntin, Northwestern

4

LaToya Green, Wake/Fullerton

 

4

Scott Harris, Kansas

5

John Turner, Dartmouth/Emory

 

5

Dallas Perkins and Sherry Hall, Harvard

 

David Heidt, Michigan

 

 

 

 

Will Repko, Michigan State

 

 

 

 

With five exceptions the above rankings were extremely close.  Those exceptions were all in the Coaching category of each decade.  In the 1970s, Jim Unger of Georgetown won by a landslide, undoubtedly a reflection of his teams dominance during the decade when they captured five First Round Top Bids.  Ken Strange and Dartmouth dominated the 1980s almost as thoroughly as Northwestern did for the next twenty years. In each decade, the head coach ran away with the top honors. Finally, the incredible success of Georgetown vaulted Jonathan Paul to an easy first place in the most recent decade. 

THE LUCY KEELE AWARD

With age comes growing respect, and appreciation for those individuals who have devoted so much time and effort into making the forensic community a more enjoyable and productive experience for so many students.  The First Annual Award for forensic contributors, was initiated by the NDT Board of Trustees in 1996.  The 50th NDT at Wake Forest was a festive event with many NDT alumni returning to see how the activity, that had so influenced their lives, had evolved. The Lucy Keele Award was named in honor of the former Director of Debate at CSU Fullerton and member of the Board of Trustees for many years, and was created to recognize outstanding service to the Debate Community.

1996     Donn Parson, University of Kansas

1997     Brett O’Donnell, Liberty University

1998     Melissa Wade & Bill Newnam, Emory University

1999     George Ziegelmueller, Wayne State University

2000     Bill Balthrop, University of North Carolina

2001     Rich Edwards, Baylor University

2002     Pat Ganer, Cypress College

2003     Frank Harrison, Trinity University

2004     Will Baker, New York University

2005     Al Louden, Wake Forest University

2006     David Zarefsky, Northwestern University

2007     Stefan Bauschard, Lakeland Schools, NY

2008     Bill Southworth, University of Redlands

2009     Jon Bruschke, CSU Fullerton

2010     Jim Hanson and Aaron Hardy, Whitman College

2011     Dallas Perkins, Harvard University

2012     Gary Larson, Wheaton College

2013     Tim ODonnell, Mary Washington University

2014     Sarah T Partlow Lefevre, Idaho State University

2015     John Fritch, Missouri State

2016     David Hingstman, Iowa

2017     Michael Davis, James Madison University

2018     Arnie Madsen and Cate Palczewski, University of Northern Iowa

2019     Adrienne Brovero, Mary Washington University

THE GEORGE ZIEGELMUELLER AWARD

A second award was initiated at the 1999 NDT.   Wayne State Alumni endowed an award in honor of their coach, George Ziegelmueller, for his almost 50 years of excellent coaching, timeless commitment to the activity and numerous contributions to the forensics community—not the least of which was saving the NDT in 1966.  Appropriately enough it is called The George Ziegelmueller Award, and is presented to a faculty member who has distinguished himself or herself in the communication profession while coaching teams to competitive success at the NDT.  Justifiably, George was himself the first recipient.

1999     George Ziegelmueller, Wayne State University

2000     Allan Louden, Wake Forest University

2001     Chester Gibson, State University of West Georgia

            Ken Strange, Dartmouth College

2002     Herb James, Dartmouth College

            Karla Leeper, Baylor University

2003     Donn Parson, University of Kansas

            Tuna Snider, University of Vermont

2004     Cate Palczewski, University of Northern Iowa

2005     William Southworth, University of Redlands

2006     Scott Harris, University of Kansas

2007     Scott Deatherage, Northwestern University

2008     Sarah T. Partlow Lefevre, Idaho State University

2009     Ross Smith, Wake Forest University

2010     Tim O’Donnell, University of Mary Washington

2011     Gordon Stables, University of Southern California

2012     Glen Frappier, Gonzaga

2013     Ryan Galloway, Samford University

2014     Mike Davis, James Madison University

2015     Jarrod Atchison, Wake Forest University

2016     William Mosley Jensen, Trinity University

2017     Michael Hester, West Georgia

2018     Jacob Thompson, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

2019     Joe Schatz, Binghamton University 

THE OVID DAVIS AWARD

That same year, 1999, a West Georgia Alumni endowed an award to be presented to the Coach of the Winning Team at the NDT.  The Ovid Davis Award recipients have been:

1999     Scott Deatherage, Northwestern University

2000     Melissa Wade, Emory University

2001     David Hingstman, University of Iowa

2002     Scott Deatherage, Northwestern University

2003     Scott Deatherage, Northwestern University

2004     Mike Eber, Michigan State University

2005     Scott Deatherage, Northwestern University

2006     Mike Eber, Michigan State University

2007     Bill Newnam, Emory University

2008     Ross Smith, Wake Forest University

2009     Scott Harris, University of Kansas

2010     Greta Stahl, Michigan State University

2011     Dan Fitzmier, Northwestern University

2012     Jonathan Paul, Georgetown University

2013     Sam Mauer, Emporia State University

2014     Jonathan Paul, Georgetown University

2015     Dan Fitzmier, Northwestern University

2016     Dallas Perkins , Harvard University

2017     Chris Kozack, Rutgers-Newark University

2018     Brett Bricker, University of Kansas

2019     Dave Arnett, Kentucky

JAMES J. UNGER COACHING AWARD

In 2009 the James Unger Award was established to recognize the coach of the top 1st round team/Copeland winner.

2009     Dan Fitzmier, Northwestern University

2010     Ed Lee, Emory University

2011     Ed Lee, Emory University

2012     Dan Fitzmier, Northwestern University

2013     Jonathan Paul, Georgetown University

2014     Dan Fitzmier, Northwestern University

2015     Dan Fitzmier, Northwestern University

2016     Sherry Hall, Harvard University

2017     Margaret Solice, Harvard University

2018     Scott Harris, University of Kansas

2019     Dave Arnett, University of Kentucky

2020     Michael Klinger, Berkeley

LAURENCE TRIBE DISTINGUISHED ALUMNI AWARD

In 2019, the National Debate Tournament introduced the Laurence Tribe Distinguished Alumni Award to recognize alumni from the debate community doing important work in the larger world. Fittingly, the inaugural recipient of the award was its namesake, Laurence Tribe, for his long career as a distinguished lawyer, scholar, and political advocate.

Final round transcripts

* Bill Southworth

In the West Point years there were different publications that would transcribe and publish final round transcripts; frequently this was in the Post NDT Book published by West Point.   Prof. Russel Windes of Queens College and Prof. Arthur Kruger of C.W. Post College compiled many final round transcripts, along with judges critiques in two different books: Championship Debating, Volume 1 covered 1949 to 1960; and Volume 2 covered 1961-1966.  They are very interesting reading.   After leaving West Point that task was undertaken by JAFA (Journal of the American Forensic Association), more specifically by Prof. John Boaz of Illinois State University and a former President of the AFA.  He continued this very demanding task into the early 80’s.  It was at this juncture that transcribing the debates became virtually impossible.  The following Word Count page should explain why. 

 John also suggested the debates weren’t exactly “easy reading,” any more than they were easy listening.  In 1987 I was on the Board of Trustees and took over administration of the NDT Alumni Association.  With the generous contribution of former Top Speaker, Donald Herrick (and father of my top debate at that time, David Herrick).

 I was able to re-institute the West Point Post NDT Book, including team photos and final round transcripts.  I quickly realized the problems Prof. Boaz was referring to, the 1990 final round was my last effort, and that was only because Marc Rubinstein, a participant, had a free summer and was willing to do the transcription. Unfortunately, as far as I know that was the last final round transcribed.

 As the Word Counts page suggests, debates definitely were speeding up, but the most dramatic escalation came in quoted material.  In 1949 Alabama devoted only 15% of their speaking time to evidence reading, by 1990 Redlands was up to 48%. 

 Hopefully the following three transcripts will give you a taste of what debates were like during those ever changing decades.

 First Debate, 1949 Final Round

Baylor University on the Affirmative vs. The University of Alabama on the Negative.

Topic: “That the Federal Government should adopt a system of pre-paid medical insurance.”

The Negative won 6-3.

 Second Debate, 1966 Final Round

Northwestern University on the Affirmative vs. Wayne State University on the Negative.

Topic: “That law enforcement agencies in the United States should be given greater freedom in the investigation and prosecution of crime.”

The Affirmative won 6-1.

 Third Debate, 1990 Final Round

Harvard University on the Affirmative vs. The University of Redlands on the Negative. 

Topic: “That the Federal Government should adopt an energy policy that substantially reduces non-military consumption of fossil fuels in the United States.” 

The Affirmative won 3-2.

 Word counts of selected NDT final rounds

Year and Schools

Total Words

Quoted Words

Percentage

Words/Minute

1949

 

 

 

 

Baylor (A)

6,361

852

13%

212

Alabama (N)

5,981

883

15%

199

1952

 

 

 

 

Baylor (A)

5,670

424

7%

189

Redlands (N)

5,999

275

5%

200

1957

 

 

 

 

Augustana (A)

6,107

1,597

26%

203

Army (N)

5,348

896

17%

178

1961

 

 

 

 

Harvard (A)

6,003

1,382

23%

200

Kings (N)

6,512

1,034

16%

217

1962

 

 

 

 

Baylor (A)

6,116

718

12%

204

Ohio State (N)

6,120

557

9%

204

1966

 

 

 

 

Northwestern (A)

6,295

1,644

26%

210

Wayne State (N)

6,532

1,310

20%

218

1969

 

 

 

 

Harvard (A)

5,910

1,140

19%

197

Houston (N)

5,874

1,483

25%

196

1970

 

 

 

 

Canisus (A)

6,360

1,796

28%

212

Kansas (N)

5,810

1,217

21%

194

1975

 

 

 

 

Redlands (A)

7,271

2,696

37%

242

Baylor (N)

7,623

2,294

30%

254

1981

 

 

 

 

Dartmouth (A)

7,859

2,376

30%

262

Pittsburgh (N)

8,420

3,502

42%

281

1984

 

 

 

 

Louisville (A)

8,997

3,625

40%

300

Dartmouth (N)

8,125

3,270

40%

271

1986

 

 

 

 

Georgetown (A)

8,635

2,808

33%

288

Kentucky (N)

8,629

3,729

43%

288

1990

 

 

 

 

Harvard (A)

9,867

4,580

46%

329

Redlands (N)

8,820

4,233

48%

294

 The winner of each debate is noted in red.

THE 1949 FINAL ROUND TRANSCRIPT

First Affirmative Constructive

SOCIALIZED MEDICINE

Baylor University — Affirmative vs Alabama University — Negative

Ladies and Gentlemen: It is a privilege to be here tonight and to partici­pate in this, the culmination of a great deal of work and effort, along with our friends, and the truly great team from the University of Alabama.

I would like to strike in your minds, now, a somber note.   During each of the sixty minutes that we are conducting this discussion two Americans will die whose lives could have been preserved by the application of the medical science that we now posses.  Over the term of a year the aggregate of these deaths will cost the nation in lost production and consumption and estimated eleven billion dollars.  Add to that another twenty eight billion which are lost each year from absenteeism caused by illness–a great deal of which is preventable, and you begin to picture the tremendous cost of ill health–both in terms of human suffering and in terms of social waste.  And so it is, in­deed, appropriate that we are debating tonight this resolution vital to all of us: “Resolved that the federal government should adopt a system of prepaid medical insurance.”

 By a system of prepaid medical insurance we of the affirmative mean a sys­tem of complete medical care available to every individual to be financed out of taxes.

 In upholding the affirmative of this proposition we will present for your consideration two major issues: First of all, that our present system of fi­nancing medical care is inadequate; and secondly, that the affirmative plan will obviate, will remove these inadequacies.  I will develop the first of these two issues for you.

 In the year 1932 President Roosevelt appointed a committee to study the cost of medical care.  After an extensive survey that committee reached this conclusion: that in the year 1932 one third of our nation’s people were able to purchase adequate medical care; one third of our nation’s people were able to purchase poor medical care; and one third of our nation’s people were able to purchase little or no medical care.  They set forth as the reason for this condition certain reasons and arguments that are within the observation of all of us.  Namely, that illness is unpredictable; that you cannot predict when you are going to be ill and consequently, illness is hard to budget for, and further, this fact, that illness, when it strikes, even if it could be pre­dicted, is oft times so expensive that there are many individuals who could not bear that expense.  And so, in 1932, the Committee on the Cost of Medical Care suggested that if we were ever to solve this problem and were to bring medical care to the people of this nation in adequate amounts that we must find some system of pooling our risks, of getting together and taking a col­lective approach to this problem.

Well, we stand here now, sixteen years later.  Yet, today, seventy five percent of the people in this nation have no type of medical insurance what­ever, and only four percent of the people of this nation have adequate health insurance.  And so, it is not surprising that when the National Health Assembly met a few months ago in Washington that they discovered that almost the same conditions that prevailed in 1932 prevail today, as regards the ability of the individuals to purchase medical care.  They estimated that eighty per­cent of the people in this nation cannot purchase all the medical care they need in the event of a serious or prolonged illness.  That fifty percent of the people in this nation who have an income of less than three thousand dol­lars have a difficult time in providing even routine medical care; and further that twenty eight percent of the people in this nation with an income of less than two thousand dollars per year, if they are to maintain any sort of stan­dard of living that would jibe out with the American concept of an adequate living, then, these twenty eight percent of our populace can afford little or no medical care at all.  And so, we are indicting the present system of pur­chasing medical care because we believe that today medical care is available to an individual in relation to his ability to purchase it, and not in rela­tion to his need for that care.

We can point to other facts which tend to bear out this particular last statement.  For example, we can examine the distribution of medical facilities upon a regional basis and we can see there a close correlation between the availability of medical services and the income of the people in that region.  For example, in the state of New York which has a high per capita income we find one doctor for every five hundred individuals. In the state of Missis­sippi, where the income of the people in low, we find one doctor for every fifteen hundred individuals.  One nurse for every four hundred and twenty people in New York; one for every twenty four hundred people in the state of Mississippi.  We would further point out that in the state of New York, ninety six percent of all births occur in hospitals.  In the state of Mississippi, thirty eight percent of all births occur in hospitals, and the infant mortali­ty and the maternal death rate, as we might expect, are three times as high in the state of Mississippi as in New York.  Bear in mind now, that we are not saying that this is the problem itself-this mal-distribution of medical fa­cilities.  It is an indication of the problem that we have already pointed to.  Namely, that medical care today is available in relation to the patient’s fi­nancial ability rather than the patient’s health needs.  We believe that this is a serious indictment to levy against the present system, one which warrants our seeking some solution to the problem.

 Well, the National Health Assembly, even, as did the committee on the cost of medical care, estimated, or rather were of the opinion that the only so­lution possible to this problem was the collective approach, as we of the af­firmative believe that there are only two types of collective approach or. ap­proaches open to us today.  Namely, the voluntary approach–voluntary insur­ance on the one hand, and the plan that we of the affirmative advocate, on the other.  And so, we would like to compare for you these two possible solutions to the problem and point. out to you for three definite reasons the superiority of the affirmative plan over the only alternate plan.

 In the first place, we believe that governmentally sponsored, insurance is superior to private insurance because under private insurance you have diffi­culty in enrolling large segments of the American population.  First of all, there are individuals who are chronically ill, who are classified as bad health risks by the insurance companies.  The insurance companies are reluc­tant to give coverage to those individuals. Then, there are good health risks that the insurance companies would like to enroll, but these people often, for psychological reasons, prefer to take a chance on being well in the future and so they do not come in under the program. But you realize that complete par­ticipation is almost an essential prerequisite to setting up one of these pro­grams and so we are frustrated in the very first analysis in our attempt to set up one of these voluntary programs upon a comprehensive basis.

In the second place, we would point out that under voluntary insurance you get a very partial and inadequate coverage.  I have in my hand two poli­cies—the Blue Cross policy and the Blue Shield policy—those are the most important insurance policies of a voluntary nature that exist in our nation today.  Let us look at them and see what they afford for an individual.  Well, in the first place, they do not provide for any of the routine medical pur­poses.  All they provide for under the Blue Cross is hospitalization, and un­der Blue Shield is surgery.  Yet all of us, by our own experience realize that many medical bills that are high in cost do not amount to hospitalization or surgery.  But then let us look and see what they provide as regards hospitali­zation.  Under the Blue Cross policy, we find that they provide four dollars a day for a dependent if that dependent is in the hospital.  Well, if any of you have had the misfortune to have tried to procure a hospital room in recent times you will know that that is just about half what you would have to pay for that room.  In addition, they provide fifteen dollars for X-ray. Again, and X-ray bill may well be one hundred or two hundred dollars for one patient.  They provide no drugs except those furnished by the hospital. And the hos­pitals today furnish only a negligible percent of the drugs used in the hos­pitals.  Now from the surgical policy we find again many limitations.  We find also that for the services of an obstetrician this policy will furnish fifty dollars.  Well, obstetrician services in the southern area from which I come, begin to cost from one hundred dollars and on up.  Again for a Caesarian sur­geon they would provide a hundred dollars.  The general fee is at least two hundred dollars for this particular service.  So first of all, these policies cover only a limited amount of an individual’s medical liability and then, they do not even cover that limited amount completely.

 And then there is one last reason why we believe that governmentally sponsored insurance is superior to voluntary insurance rind that is, simply this, that the man who buys a Blue Shield policy pays a flat rate for that policy.  That is to say that a man caking two thousand a year with five chil­dren in his family to support would pay tine identical amount of money for one of those policies as would an individual making, say, two hundred thousand dollars a year.  They simply are not based, or the payment for them, upon the ability of the individual to pay, and for that reason many people in our na­tion are unable to purchase even these limited policies of insurance for their health.  On the other hand, we of the affirmative are proposing to you a plan based upon the ability of the individual to pay.

 In brief summary, then, we have pointed out to you that our present sys­tem of purchasing medical care is inadequate because it is based upon the patient’s financial ability to procure medicine.  That is, medical services are available in that relationship, and not in relationship to the need of the patient for medical services, and again, we have pointed out that of the two possible approaches to the program that the plan of the affirmative is superior for three definite, different reasons.

FIRST NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE

Oscar L. Newton, Jr., Alabama University

Gentlemen of the Opposition, Ladies and Gentlemen: I’d like to point out at the inception of this debate that my colleague and I are just as concerned as the members of the opposition in–wanting the highest possible health stan­dards in the United States.  However, it is our contention in this debate that the inherent evils introduced by a system of compulsory sickness insur­ance would tend to depreciate rather than to improve the quality of medical care in the United States today.

Now, let us consider the arguments advanced by the affirmative team in this debate.  In endeavoring to establish a need for compulsory sickness in­surance the members of the opposition have first said that there are a large number of man-days lost allegedly because of illness.  Now let us consider the facts on this.  The Bureau of 11%ndical Economics points out that people who are so anxious to increase and extend the Federal government’s social welfare program have through the careful misuse of the meaning of available statistics on man days lost on production attempted to create the belief that the major cause of time lost is illness.  The Bureau of Labor statistics which has had considerable experience in collecting and interpreting labor statis­tics indicates that there were two classes of absenteeism–voluntary and in­voluntary.  And that with the present records no statistical distinction can be made between the two.  And then it concludes, “It is significant. however, that in a study of absenteeism among workers in 1942, none of the companies reported sickness as a major cause of absenteeism.”  We see then that this contention of the members of the opposition fails to stand.

Next the members of the opposition say a committee in 1932 decided that many people were unable to afford adequate medical care.  We have here a study of the Brookings Institute which was published on February 17, 1948.  And here was the conclusion reached. “A large majority of American families have the resources to pay adequate medical care if they elect to give it a high priori­ty among the several objects of expenditure.”  The issue is not whether they can afford medical care, but whether they should be compelled by law to pool their risks and to give payment for medical care a top priority.  We see, then, with this contention of the members of the opposition that a committee in 1932 which is obviously out of date at this present time and will neces­sitate that the program of compulsory sickness insurance likewise fails to stand.

Next the members of the opposition read a report that implied that com­pulsory health insurance was recommended by the National Health Assembly.  Dr. J. F. Seashore in the pamphlet–A COUNTRY DOCTOR ANSWERS THE HUMAN REPORT-­points out in relation to the recommendation made by this National Health As­sembly the following facts: No agreement was reached with respect to National Health Insurance and then he goes on to point out with respect to the Federal Security Administration that Mr. Hewing brushed aside the recommendations of eight hundred delegates and substituted his own ideas on compulsory health insurance.  So we see then that this point of the members of the opposition likewise fails in this debate.

Next, the members of the opposition say there is a maldistribution of doctors.  We must distribute the doctors more equitably throughout the United States.  Lewis H. Boyer in the A.M.A. Journal, December 1942 points out: “Why are certain areas devoid of doctors?”  The reason is simple.  It is be­cause these areas are so sparsely settled that there is no attraction for a doctor—not only because there are unsufficient patients but because there are no educational or social facilities with which to bring up their children.  In other words they are in the areas today because of the greater cultural and social advantages and we challenge the members of the opposition in this debate to prove that  they can force doctors to move from these areas where there are these advantages into the rural areas under any program of compul­sory sickness insurance. 

Next, the members of the opposition think many people are not able to re­ceive adequate medical care.  We would like to point out that there is not a single area in the United States which does not have provisions and facilities for those persons unable to pay.  And I again challenge the members of the op­position to prove that needy persons have been denied access to these facili­ties and until they can do so certainly they cannot contend in this debate that many people are unable to receive adequate medical care.

Now there are certain problems and obstacles inherent in a proposal of prepaid medical insurance which we feel must be considered by the affirmative team if they are to bear their burden of proof in this debate.  I shall prove that these points are pertinent to this debate, and I trust that the affirma­tive team will seek to consider them.

First, is the United States today in a financial position to undertake such a vast program of medical care? Today the United States has a national debt exceeding two hundred and fifty billion dollars.  Find it significant, likewise, of the fact that we are today undertaking the vast program of defense spending and the task of foreign aid spending.  Dr. Paul R. Holy who is former Chief of Medical Officers of the Veterans Administration states that a government program of compulsory medical insurance would cost at least fifteen billion dollars a year.  How can the United States at this time afford this additional drain on its already over-taxed resources?  Likewise what pro­visions would be made for those persons not earning a taxable income?  The term prepaid medical insurance implies that the person receiving the aid pays for it in advance.  If that person is unemployed or is not receiving a taxable income, who then will pay for his insurance?  It is interesting to note that today there are six million unemployed persons in the United States and we would like to know then what provisions would be made for these unemployed persons and those persons not earning taxable incomes.

Likewise what would happen to the various voluntary health insurance agencies under the affirmative proposal?  Would they be abolished or would they be incorporated into the affirmative plant And can such a program function without the good will of the A.M.A.?  The A.M.A. with a backing of over ninety percent of it’s membership has expressed it’s unalterable opposi­tion to any program of compulsory medical insurance.  Since nine out of ten people in the United States oppose such a plan how then can the plan possibly function? 

And furthermore, considering the fact that the federal government should not adopt a program of compulsory sickness insurance we find that such a pro­gram would have undesirable repercussions upon the entire nation.  This is true first, because such a program would result in a trend toward socialism.  The dangers of the welfare state were emphasized by Dr. George Benson, presi­dent of Forting College when he stated: “Freedom and prosperity throughout the history of man have gone hand in hand while ignorance, regimentation and standardization have likewise gone hand in hand.”  Greece lost her freedom and lost her greatness, Rome lost her republic and ushered in the dark ages.  England and France are losing their freedom as they move along the road of socialism and nationalism.  France demonstrated the agonies of the road not long ago when government owners were fighting government employed coal miners to protect government owned coal mines.  England adopted a scheme of national­ization in 1945 which she was forced to poll to the Lord-giving the government power to tell any man or any woman where to work, what to do and with penalties for failure to obey, or perhaps for absenteeism.

 The American public doesn’t want to follow that dismal rule, but govern­ment intervention in the fields of education and medicine would be decisive steps in that direction.

Furthermore, we find that such a program would tend to depreciate the quality of medical care in the United States today. D. J. McCormick in Re­publican Magazine points out: “Compulsory Medical insurance will introduce political patronage as the main factor in securing medical service.  Such in­terference will destroy the confidential relationship between doctor and patient that is fundamental in the maintenance of the dignity of the indi­vidual human being.

Perhaps worst of all this communication of medical care will serve to de­preciate the quality of medical education which is now higher in the United States than anywhere else in the world-and will not be careful in the study of medicine and the type of young man who has come to seek medicine as a dis­tinguished career of service to humanity.

 Furthermore we find that such program would tend to destroy the initia­tive of the physician.  Dr. G. J. Klarinoff, former secretary of the State Medical Society of Wisconsin, points out sickness insurance is a leveling de­vice which assures the mediocre physician just about the same reward as the man who renders outstanding service.  The incomes tend to be level, but that is not all, the dependency over the years is to level the services, that is neither good or bad, through the destruction of the initiative of the phy­sicians.  Such a program then, would destroy the initiative of the physicians since it would tend to result in socialism and such a program would have un­desirable repercussions on the populace and such a program is undesirable.  So the members of the opposition then have failed to establish a need for compulsory sickness insurance in this debate.  It therefore follows that the Federal government should not adopt the program of compulsory insurance.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE – CONSTRUCTIVE

 Jack Lowery, Jr., Baylor University

Ladies and Gentlemen: It is rather obvious they did not expect me to reach the finals in this particular debate because they built this thing a little high, but nevertheless let us go into this particular debate and see what has been presented thus far.

You will recall the affirmative set the fire line of this debate as the affirmative in any debate has the prerogative of establishing the need and proving that there is a reason for a change today.

 Now the gentlemen of the opposition in inference have actually not disa­greed with that need, but the gentlemen of the Opposition have several so called objections to the affirmative plan of a system of pre-paid medical in­surance.  Now let us take the objections of the gentlemen of the opposition to the affirmative tried theory that have been offered in this particular de­bate.  You will recall that the gentlemen of the opposition took the statis­tics that my colleague presented in regard to the number of people that do not go to work each day because of illness.  And the gentlemen of the opposition say that is negligible, “Actually people are not going to work because of other factors, illness is rather negligible in this particular case.”  And the gentlemen of the opposition  have an authority for their statement and we have one for ours so we are at a tie there.

 But here is one thing we did present to the gentlemen of the opposition and that is, three hundred and sixty thousand people are dying today who could be saved if they were getting medical attention.  Now gentlemen of the opposition that is a need in this particular debate and I daresay that the other is a need too.  But basing it on that particular statistic that there are three hundred and sixty thousand people dying today because of the ill attention of the medical system at the present time.  We point out a little bit further that the gentlemen of the opposition say, “That the Brookings Institute tells us that we can actually afford medical care,” and he attacks our statistic which was based on a survey made in 1932.  Furthermore, I can explain about that; it is the Brookings Institute survey which was based upon the survey of 1932.  In other words the Brookings Institute drew its conclu­sion from the statistics, the original statistics, that we quoted that were made in 1932 so we are at a tie there.

 Then he says, “Mr. Oscar Ewing has usurped the authority of this particu­lar group that did not authorize medical care or free paid medical insurance.”  We never said that the group endorsed it, gentlemen of the opposition, we said, “Mr. Ewing had endorsed it,” but my colleague presented the findings of the group and upon those findings my colleague said, “We should have a system of prepaid health insurance.”  He never said that the individual committees nor delegates proposed that they should have a system of free paid health insur­ance, but at this point in the debate we believe that there is actually a need.  The gentlemen of the opposition at the present time are not denying that these people are ill-cared for at the present time.  He merely makes one statement, “That if they wanted medical attention they could get it.”  The affirmative have proved in this debate that there were certain people living within the bounds of the United States, that because of economic factors are not receiving adequate medical care and that fact stands in this debate.  We of the affirmative believe that that particular plan of pre-paid health in­surance should be adopted in order to meet this dire need with the following situations, that the policy be adopted, here, today and now.

The policy of pre-paid health insurance whereby this is a fact that at the present time or in past years the item of insurance, the principle of in­surance, has been applied to one degree or another, or has been intended to be applied to one degree or another in the past in regards to medical care.  Need­less to say there are some doctors who treat charity patients.  There are some doctors who charge a minimum fee, and if an individual has the true ability to pay they charge him even more than they do the medical fee.  And so the doctor has taken that group of individuals on whom the liability of medical care has fallen and tried to pro-rate that particular of liability over the period of his entire faith.  And so we see that the doctor himself has tried to pro-rate the cost of medical care, but he has not, that is, like taking everybody in an automobile wreck and pro-rating the entire cost of item over those on whom the liability is actually to fall.  But that is not the true basis of insur­ance so it should be applied to those on whom the liability is susceptible to fall.  Yet to those on whom the liability is fallen, for example, when you have a fire at your house you do not rush down and take out an insurance policy.  You foresee the possibility of a fire, you take out the insurance policy prior thereto.  And so private insurance attempted to do just that some sixteen years ago, and private insurance tried to pro-rate that over a particular group of people.

 My colleague pointed out three definite reasons that have not been de­nied by the gentlemen of the opposition in this debate, but private insurance today is not alleviating the conditions that are existing.  They are not pro­rating the cost over the entire area because of those three factors, and the gentlemen have not denied that.  Producing gifts-this as logical conclusion of the application of the insurance policy, everyone in this room is sus­ceptible during the period of his life of having to have medical attention of some kind, doctor’s care, drugs or something of that nature. Yes, everyone in the United States is susceptible from birth to death to the needs of Medicare during the entire period of his life.  Since they are all susceptible to the liability of a medical death, that they are susceptible, we believe in applying the insurance.  The broad base of insurance would be the equi­table and just way of applying it. Applying it equitably and justly on this principle that you pay taxes according to your ability to pay.  And at the present time you cannot procure a partial insurance coverage policy unless you have that minimum amount.  But if you can afford to pay any taxes at all, you can bay part of your medical bill, thus paying it in accordance with your ability to pay, thus receiving you insurance policy.  We believe that the policy should be adopted to do just that; a Local Health Trust should be created; but taxation should provide part of the bonds and a payment of deduction should provide the other part of those bonds.  And a little bit further, we believe that the physician should be reimbursed today in the same rate he is being reimbursed at the present time, that is in the fee for services system according to the services he performs.

 We could tell you all about the statistics of the organizations of the affirmative plan and yet not conceive just how well such a particular plan carries more weight than anything that we could mention this evening and we do not have to look to a foreign nation to determine as to whether this particular system could work, but look within your own entire United States and the Federal government at one time set up an act known as the Farmer’s Security Administration whereby they loaned farmers money and they labored under the illusion that a healthy farmer could easily repay the money that they had lent them and so they set up an initial plan just as we of the af­firmative have conceded to do this evening, a plan of pre-paid health in­surance and the plan was so successful under the Farm Security Administration that the Federal government took seven counties under the experimental role of health program.  They took seven counties in the southern states among the poorest class of agricultural workers and experimented to determine as to whether or not you could actually raise the health standards of those individuals by giving them adequate medical coverage. It covered the poorest people, the cost in those particular groups for an entire family was sixty dollars for total coverage and yet if those individuals would have been able to procure private insurance their total coverage there would have been one hundred and fifty dollars.  We point out that actually those individuals un­der this total coverage plan had the benefit of going to the doctor for pre­ventive medicine which is surely an important measure to be taken into con­sideration.  They had the right to get the doctor to come to their home; which they do not under private insurance at the present time, but the most telling thing is not the disaster to gymnastics, as I have said, but the re­sults.  And it is pointed out that the biggest results were procured in one of these experimental camps in Camp County, Texas.  The proportion of cures obtained by a physician were from fifty five point three percent in 1948 to seventy eight point four percent.

 Second Negative Constructive

 Mitchell. G. Lattof, Alabama University

Mr. Martin, former commissioner of the Federal Securities Administration says, “That the Federal Security Administration, which overlords the office of the Surgeon General is a model of confused bureaucratic administration.”  Now, what is going to be in store for this proposal by the admission of one of the men that works in it?—This particular agency he says, “Is a model confused and proferating type of administration.”  The fact that the gentle­man cannot administer adequately and efficiently his own bureau agency, how can he possibly help administer adequately and efficiently a vast nation­wide program?

First of all continuing the plan—it’s obligations—and you have positively failed to prove its practicability. We pointed out two glaring weaknesses in it.  It is going to be controlled by a model bureaucratic agency, it is going to utilize a free for all spending system, which is sure to offer any person who favors such a system a particular mans of payment of the doctor.

 The Head of the Physician’s Group, a small segment of the Medical As­sociation, which favors this plan might point out, that you cannot possibly have a National Compulsory Health System and utilize this scheme.

 Let us move on now to the meeting.  And before I consider that at great length I would like to deal perforce with the atmosphere of emergency here because of the sense of preview in your minds. 

The vast majority of Ameri­cans are not sick nor about to be.  They are not dying nor are they about to die.  Let us see what the facts are concerning this.  The gentleman says, “That there is tremendous need because three hundred and fifty thousand people are dying every year, that we have the medical knowledge to save.” 

I think it significant he gave no source for these figures, because they came from this same Head of the Federal Administration, Mr. Oscar Ewing, in the Ewing Report, which was not based upon the sight hundred delegates to the National Health Assembly quoted now two times.  Yet they quoted from this organization or assembly so they must think they are fairly reliable and valuable people in a position to know.  Yet the facts are, these eight hun­dred delegates to the Assembly refused to sanction a compulsory health sys­tem.  Now let us see what the facts are about these three hundred and fifty, thousand people who die annually.  They gave no source for their figures, but apparently they came from this same Oscar Ewing.  Let us see how genuine these facts are.  I am quoting from Mr. Maurice H. Friedman on the Council of Medical about these particular figures—He says as follows: Mr. Ewing makes much of three hundred and fifty thousand preventable deaths each year.  He says of the three hundred thousand—and there is a fifty thousand discrepancy right there— we think that is considerable.

Let us move on and consider further—(laughter)—about these figures which they estimate justify a vastly radical system.  He says further–­Mr. Ewing gives no explanation of how these figures were arrived at, or how they could be saved simply by making every doctor in this country a govern­mental employee.  Here is the significant part.

I wrote him (Mr. Ewing) a long time ago how this figure of three hundred thousand was arrived at, asking him to explain the methods of how this figure of three hundred thousand was arrived at, but he has not answered my letter up to the present time.  We think that is significant.  The Head of the Se­lective Service System pointed out that not one single doctor of the one hundred and sixty thousand that oppose this system has been able or willing to endorse this estimate of the people dying every year in this country.  We think that this is significant.  I do not say that Mr. Ewing fabricated the figures, but I say perchance he gazed into some crystal ball in that mystical and magical manner of a gentleman bureaucrat and came up with the thing he set out to substantiate and is unwilling to evacuate.  Let us look further at this meaning.

The gentleman says, “This Brookings Institute report is based upon figures of 1932.”  I have it in my hand. He did not give the source of that either, and I am rather curious to procure it.  It says in the front of this report that our needs cannot be met with a compulsory system.  Let us ex­amine what the gentlemen have said.  They say, first of all, the government thought of a voluntary system.  Let us see what they say about the govern­ment and the field of medicine.  What a commission has found in the general field of health and welfare administration came in for a terrific basting in recent reports of the Hoover Commission.  The Commission found that Uncle Sam was now assuming a varying amount of chaos for twenty four million Ameri­cans, and it found that the Federal Medical Services in the field of Govern­ment Medicine unaware of any central plan.  Now get this.  They found the government spending tens of millions of dollars for hospital facilities fre­quently not needed.  They found a hundred thousand veteran administration beds utilized for the care of men whose disabilities had no connection with military service.  The investigators found a working force of five million carrying for four hundred and fifty veterans insurance policies as against four million seven hundred and sixty two parties—that is one given medi­cal—(undecipherable)—The government s previous record in medicine has not been a good one.

How can we meet the need when vast segments of people are not covered?  In my colleagues initial constructive speech he challenged our opponents to show that anybody in this country that is in need, or actually is sick, or is handicapped by this ailment or by this other cannot obtain medical service. Vie think this is significant.  To set up a need for this proposal they say that three hundred and fifty thousand people are dying needlessly annually.  We think we have disproved this rather thoroughly.

They say next that government voluntary plans cannot work, but they failed to prove to us that under the existing system, that with improvement made possible under the frame work of a voluntary health proposal that this need cannot be met without departing to a compulsory health insurance system, a plan for which they have not given us-.!and cannot give us, a satisfactory proof.

First Negative Rebuttal

Oscar L, Newton, Jr., Alabama University

 Members of the Opposition, Ladies and Gentlemen: My Colleague and I have established in this debate that nine out of every ten doctors in the United States are opposed to nationalized insurance and therefore would not par­ticipate.  But the plan originating in an appraisal of state administered medicine points out, the Surgeon General must obtain the participation and the cooperation of the medical profession if a national health insurance plan is to work.  Without that participation and cooperation, including that of the more competent men of the profession, the plan would be an empty gesture.  Whatever the justification for their attitude, the violent reaction of the organizations representing the major portion of the medical profession would indicate that such cooperation cannot be achieved at this time or in the near future.

We would like to point out likewise that in the affirmative proposal it is purely voluntary on the part of the doctors, and yet we see that the over­whelming majority of doctors are opposed to this plan. We would like to ask the members of the opposition, in view of the fact the doctors are opposed to this proposal, how then could their plan function even if adopted? We find likewise in considering the practibility of that plan that the members of the opposition have stated that the fee for service method would be em­ployed.  Well, let us see what Oscar Ewing, the Chief proponent of compul­sory sickness insurance has to say about the fee for service method. He says, and I quote, “The fee-for-service method is most open to abuse by physicians and is the most costly to administer; adequate control of the services re­quires fiscal and national supervision which is expensive and also vexatious.  The use of the fee-for-service method should therefore be discouraged except for special services under certain conditions,” yet we see this is the method employed by the affirmative during this debate.  The method which the chief proponent of compulsory sickness insurance himself admits is impractical.  Let us proceed further.

The members of the opposition next in attempting to answer our challenge that they should prove that the doctors could be forced to go to the rural areas asserted that the doctors would go to the rural areas because they would be paid.  I would like to point out that this is an assertion on the part of the members of the opposition, it has not been substantiated.  We pointed out facts including Louis H. Boya’s article in the Union Aid Journal who pointed out that certain areas are devoid of doctors.  The reason is simple.  It is because these areas are so sparsely settled that there is no attraction for a doctor.  Not only because he will have insufficient patients but because there are no educational facilities for him to bring up his children, and yet we find that the members of the opposition have assert­ed that the doctors would go there simply because they will be paid.  And we find that the facts indicate that they concentrate in the cities because of the greater social and cultural advantages.  We assert then that the af­firmative team have failed to prove under their plan that a more equitable distribution of doctors could be achieved.

Once again, we view this need which the members of the opposition have endeavored to establish in this debate.  The gentleman first contended that a large number of man days were lost because of illness, and we pointed out that the bureau of statistics itself had indicated that there were two classes of absenteeism, voluntary and involuntary, that the present records show no statistical distinction could be made between the two.  And we point out likewise that in a study of absenteeism among workers in 1942, none of the companies reported sickness as a major cause of absenteeism. We find then that this point still fails to stand in the affirmative case.

The members of the opposition next quoted from a committee of 1932, and we point out that the Brookings Institution in 1918 had indicated that the people were able at the present time to afford adequate medical care if they desired it.  The members of the opposition next pointed out the maldistri­bution of doctors and they have failed to prove under their plan a more equitable distribution could be achieved.  They next contended that many people were unable to receive adequate medical care, and I challenge the members of the opposition to prove that these needy persons had been denied access to the facilities and the provision which exist today, and they have failed to do so.

Finally, we have pointed out the undesirability of their proposal.  We have shown that it would result in a trend toward socialism.  We have pointed out that it would tend to depreciate the quality of the medical care in the

United States.  We have shown that it would destroy the initiative of the profession.  That a well qualified doctor would be paid the same as a less qualified doctor.  We showed likewise that it would eliminate the confi­dential relationship between doctor and patient by placing the Federal govern­ment between the two.  We have likewise shown the impractibility of that plan –that the necessary machinery to administer such a program would be extreme­ly cumbersome and inefficient— that it would necessitate a gigantic bureauc­racy.  We have shown the inauguration of such a program would lead to a severe impairment of efficiency in medical facilities.  That nine out of ten doctors in the United States are opposed to such a plan, and, therefore, probably would not participate.  And we showed that the United States is not in a financial position to undertake such a proposal.  Since we then have proved the impractibility of that proposal, since we have shown its unde­sirability, and since the affirmative team has failed to establish a need for compulsory sickness in this debate, it therefore follows that the Federal government should not adopt a program of compulsory sickness insurance.

First Affirmative Rebuttal
Joseph Allbritton, Baylor University

 Ladies and Gentlemen: Let us look now at these two basic points—that the affirmative undertook to establish in this debate.  First of all, is our present system of purchasing medical care, adequate or not?  We pointed out quite a few things in regard to this matter, for instance that twenty eight percent of the people of the nation have an income of less than two thousand dollars and we ask not only in relation to authorities which are highly con­tested in this debate, but in the light of your own experience.  Can a family of that income maintain a decent American standard of living and at the same time pay a two or three hundred dollar medical bill if they are called upon to do so?  We believe that such a consideration from your own experience, in your own mind–is more conclusive and convincing to you than any of their authorities which might be in dispute.  But let us go into this dispute over authority.

They tell us a lot of things about Oscar Ewing and they quoted him many times, but, ladies and gentlemen, we have not quoted him once.  We did quote the National Health Assembly consisting of eight hundred individuals.  Now the National Health Assembly did not endorse pre-paid government insurance; it did not vote against pre-paid government insurance.  The Assembly simply pointed out the objective facts, and from those facts we are the ones that are advocating government insurance.  They did point out that three hundred and fifty thousand persons die needlessly.

Your friends tell us, “They want to challenge us to show that just one man cannot get medical care that needs it today.”  All right, gentlemen, the Life Extension Institute took an examination of three hundred thousand in­surance policy holders; now this is a private insurance company, gentlemen, not one of these inefficient bureaucrats that you were talking about, selected at random it showed that fifty nine percent of these three hundred thou­sand people, a representative cross-section of our population were so physic­ally impaired as actually to be in need of a physician’s service at the time the examination was made.  The Medical Statistic Institute conducted a survey of those persons and the overwhelming majority of them gave this one reason for their not having the medical attention that they needed, financial in­ability to do so.  That gentlemen is your challenge.  But then you tell us that the Brooking Institute is your authority.  All right, I will read you from page one of the Brooking Institution the request made in 1917 and, if the results were to be of use to the committee, they had to be available early in 1918.  Limitations in vital resources necessarily restricted the scope of the analysis in the original research.  They base their report upon a previous report made in 1932.  You say that is fine.  It seems miraculous to me, ladies and gentlemen because they believe sixteen years later that a conclusion diametrically opposed to that earlier report upon which they base their own findings.  That is indeed miraculous.  But then our friends in ad­dition to attacking the need have pointed out about thirty questions that I have been able to count.  I do not vouch for having counted them all.

They tell us first of all that we have presented no plan.  Evidently they did not listen.  My colleague presented a plan.  It was not a veteran ad­ministration plan, it was not the British Clan, nor the French plan, it was not the Ewing plan, gentlemen, all of these you have heard in the debate.  Come and listen to our plan and the case we have presented.  The plan is the Noble Health Trust.  It gives pay to the physician upon the service the physician renders. And we do not care what Mr. Swing or what any of your other authorities say, that it cannot be done, for we have prove to you that it has been done.  And what could be more conclusive of what is possible than what has actually been accomplished?  We pointed out to you in this book on Material 1&-dical Care Insurance in the United States by the author Dolman that in nine experimental cases they have not set up the type of pro­gram that we had supposed and if you will listen to the final rebuttal we believe that you can find an answer to many of your questions.  You say, “How about the doctors?”  Well, we did get the doctors down under this plan.  You say, “Doctors will not come South because of the social conditions.”  A strange thing for the gentlemen of Alabama to be saying, but incidentally, that       (laughter) but regardless of your theory gentlemen as to what the doctors will or won’t do under this plan when they can get paid, they de­cided to stand even through the social conditions that exist in the southern states.

Then finally, one of the objections that the opposition leveled is this thing about national defense.  They say, ‘Why don’t you realize that we are spending to promote national defense?”  Yes, I realize the government is.

Do you realize they selected a hundred Africans for the draft in Alabama and thirty seven of them were rejected because they were useless to their coun­try?  And I say, if we are spending billions for national defense; if we are spending billions for tanks; then we better spend a few dollars to have some men to fly those planes and man those tanks.  Then the gentlemen tell us finally that this program is so futilistic.  They just levy a name.  They say socialism is paternalistic in your mind you are supposed to reject the af­firmative proposal.  If a free enterprise and if a free government cannot provide its people with the fundamental, basic things that they need, and surely health is one of them, then that type of government will not continue to exist.  We believe that the greatest guarantee for free government is to measure up to the responsibility that falls upon its shoulders and that is what we are advocating our government to do today. 

SECOND NEGATIVE REBUTTAL 

Mitchell G. Lattof, Alabama University

Mr. Chairman, Gentlemen of the Opposition, Ladies and Gentlemen: After the storm, a still small voice.  I’d like now in a still small voice before reviewing the entire negative stand in this debate to re-state the arguments from the storm just waged by my good friend, Mr. Webb, and see just exactly what he said.  First of all, he said we have tried to scare you with social­ism.  May I say to all, I am not opposed to this program because it is a trend toward socialism.  I think most of us understand and appreciate the fact that it is transferring the responsibility to the Federal govern­ment.  We oppose because it cannot meet the need which these gentlemen have set up.  In regard to fear of the Federal government because it is the Fede­ral government I am an Alabamian and I am not a Dixiecrat. Now the gentle­men said, “Thirty seven percent of Alabamians were rejected simply because of physical reasons.”  I wonder where he keeps getting these figures.   He said, “He is not quoting Mr. Ewing but every case would coincide with Mr. Ewing’s figures from the case of the people who are dying at three hundred and fifty thousand or more, that Mr. Ewing himself states.”  Doctor Leonard Ryltry says, about these people having been rejected (he is one time director of the Selective Service System that controlled these drafts) the following facts were reached, “That all of the rejections, that is those who were in need of medical care could have only been six percent of all men examined.”  That statement is by the head of the Selective Service System.

The gentlemen next got rather furious about our saying about this Oscar Ewing business, that there were people who are dying or about to die.  You gave no source gentlemen for your figures, and since they were an approximation of the figures Mr. Ewing used, since he has not presented any other for that assertion, I just assume that was true.  And up until the last appear­ance of the negative he had not come back and said where he got them, and I think at this point in the debate they cannot stand for the existence of a need.  As regards the amount of man-days lost, my colleague has shown, point­ing to the bureau of labor statistics, (we think that is about the most valid survey) that those statistics have afforded no decision whatsoever about what a compulsory system could do to correct the ills that were existing. 

We think the most important thing here in this debate now is whether or not the plan which they have proposed can meet the need which they have set up.  They said, “‘We have not disagreed with their need,” as I point out now we are employing direct refutation.  We think that within the voluntary framework, what need does exist in the present system can be corrected and can be met, I think that need significant to understand. It is the opinion held by ninety percent of the physicians in this country, and apparently held by a number of delegates that did not come out and say so.  They have had adequate time to endorse the system if they wanted to.  It is the atti­tude held by the majority of the Congress apparently.  Just yesterday on the Senate floor, Senator Murray who has proposed one of these health proposal bills on the national scale admitted that he expected to take a sound shellac­ing on this proposal in the Congress.  It has been discussed for decades but because the doctors have been opposed to it, and the legislatures have been opposed to it, it has not been enacted.  We think that is a good thing. Let us see again their proposal.  They said we have not listened.  We have invited you to come here to debate out the proposal and we certainly tried to do that.  I tried to look for and search for and thus far I have found but very little need. 

Let us go back to see how much they presented to us.  They say “Now we are going to have a local trust.”  I want to know who is going to con­trol this local trust?  Who is going to be in the local trust?  Is it going to be a doctor?  They have not told you.  Is it going to be a I lay member?  Who is going to pay you?  How are these trusts going to be administered?  Who is going to be the head of the thing, of the national level; or the state level, or the regional level?  They are very necessary parts of a plan, if you are going to prove the practibility of your plan by which you hope to meet the need which you have sought to set up.  We think it signifi­cant that this plan again contains two important fallacies and they seek to discredit our authorities here about this fee for service system.  The Secre­tary of Defense says, “You cannot even have this Service on a national scale if you use the fee for service “system.”  And this is, the exact point upon which these gentlemen are impaled.  We do not think they can prove the prac­ticability of any proposal so long as they are offering this method; of payment.

They say next of all under this proposal, “It is going to provide ade­quate medical facilities or at least abate medical standards,” we suppose that is the argument, for that is the inevitable consequence of  a program like this in other places where it has been tried in other counties.  Just yesterday from Washington the report that the Catholic Association came to protest against President Truman’s Proposal.  Let us see what they were.  It was the National Catholic Welfare Conference–The National Conference Of Catholic Charities and the Catholic Hospital Association. And their conclusion was briefly.  Their statement expressed fear that compulsory tax would put an end to private initiative with detriment—ultimate detriment to the health of the nation.  In view of the fact that some have failed to see the force of that fact, they urged that the need to be met be made up by voluntary methods.

Second Affirmative Rebuttal

Jack Lowery, Jr., Baylor University

Ladies and Gentlemen: I am the little still voice that comes after the little still voice that comes back.  The gentleman of the opposition that.. just left the floor keeps asking us,—“Where are getting all these statis­tics?”  He says, “The way we have logically deduced; the entire situation, you are getting them from Mr. Oscar Ewing.” He has discovered, the source; of about fully a third of them. (Laughter)  My colleague pointed out that we were getting them from the National Health Association.  That is the authority that you are quoting too, gentlemen of the opposition.  And you say, “What about all these draft rejectees?”  I am sure the army personnel present will recognize this selective service admits that these persons were rejected from Alabama.  So that is one source gentlemen, Mr. Oscar Ewing might be another source.  And another source the National Health Congress. But the gentlemen of the opposition has indicted but one authority which he himself drug into this debate, Mr. Oscar Ewing.  He indicted him in this manner.  A man wrote a letter to Mr. Oscar Ewing and that man did not get an answer from Mr. Ewing, Consequently, Mr. Ewing must not be telling the truth. (Laughter)  You see the logic in that! But seriously for a moment,  ladies and gentlemen, you will recall that the gentlemen of the opposition said he was employing the system of direct refutation in this particular debate.

The affirmative assumes that there is a need.  There are people today who are dying because of the fact that they cannot purchase medical care at the present time.  There are people today, three hundred and fifty thousand of them, regardless of who said it, who justify such statistics, who cannot afford medical attention today, because of the fact that they haven’t the benefits to purchase them with.  And the gentlemen of the opposition tell us they are using direct refutation.  And his line of direct refutation hat consisted of some seventeen questions.  My colleague and I lost the count as they came rather rapidly.  But we point out to the gentlemen of the op­position again that those seventeen questions are the refutation, and we’d like to take a typical example of what the gentlemen call refuting and de­nial, of all it means in the existing plan at the present time, one of his questions—True to his line, when he says, “Who is going to administer?”  And nay colleague said, “It is going to be administered by a local trust.”–­ and I gave that in my plan.  And the next question is, “Who is going to ad­minister the local trust?”  “And who is going to be appointed to the local trust?”  And I suppose if you had another speech you would want to know who are the personalities that will be appointed on the local board.  But gentle­men of the opposition, we can stand here all evening and you can ask ques­tions about the details of the affirmative plan, and we can supply the answers. But in one hours debate we cannot tell you down to the very degree and the county in Alabama who is going to sit on that board.

And we have debated the policy with you here today.  We have indicated that there is a need, that there are people being denied medical care, at the present time, that they are not getting medical care on their need, but on their ability to pay at the present time.  And the gentlemen of the op­position have some more questions and some more answers.  You recall the doctor situation–we pointed out the doctors go where the money is at the present time.  The gentlemen of the opposition say, “That is just an as­sertion; it is not a fact.”  We point out to the gentlemen of the opposition that his saying that they were not going to advertise that the social con­ditions were not conducive to the doctor’s needed atmosphere is more of an assertion than say this, ladies and gentlemen, that if a man receives an adequate salary he will go where he can get that salary—and that is why you do not have your doctors adequately distributed at the present time.  We can take the gentlemens’ questions and answer them all evening long.

The gentlemen of the opposition have made several charges. They say the plan is socialistic.  They quoted us an authority saying that the de­preciation of the quality of medicine is going to be rather serious.  We pointed out gentlemen of the opposition that this is our authority too–­at present the doctors differ on this particular plan, that people need Medicare, that they want medical care, that it would be more reasonable than if it were based on private insurance, that this particular plan is the best that we’ve been standing on through the entire course of this debate, and this has not been indicted.

 We point out here that if the gentlemen of the opposition had one more question remaining it would be the question of, “‘Where are you going to get your money?”  “And is it actually feasible to adopt such a plan when it is going to cost a lot of money?”  We can answer that question.  But we believe that is the significant one if he has any further question about the plan.  Are you able to buy it?  He told us at the present time what it is worth to foreign agents, told us at the present time we had to keep up our national debts.  We pointed out that three hundred and fifty thousand people are dying of disease that could be prevented and that the government realizes that some people do not go to work some days because they are sick.  And we believe, gentlemen of the opposition, that if you are willing to put that much into your National Health Program here, especially since the remunera­tion even in that initial plan would be more than you would ever hope to pay out under a system of  pre-paid health insurance: because of the existing of that three hundred thousand people for one year longer would pay for your entire cost of that particular plan.

So in conclusion we believe that the need has been established, the plan meets the need; the gentlemen have not denied the Affirmative prima facie case in this debate.

THE 1966 FINAL ROUND TRANSCRIPT

First Affirmative Constructive

Michael Denger, Northwestern University 

In their statement before the House Appropriations Committee on March 1, 1965, officials in the Justice Department acknowledged that, despite the gains made since 1961, organized criminal activity continues to be a major social, political and economic prob­lem.  To better combat syndicated crime, Bill and I are “Resolved: That Law Enforcement Agencies in the United States Should Be Given Greater Freedom in the Investigation and Prosecution of Crime.”  Specifically, we are concerned with organized crime as defined by the President’s message on crime of March 8, 1965.  Organized criminal activities embrace gambling, narcotics and prostitution, usurious loans, racketeering, stock and bankruptcy frauds, and the infiltration of labor unions in legitimate businesses. Further, by way of definition, I’d like to outline the proposal Bill and I would advance to better attack organized crime.  It has two parts: First, all forms of organized crime would be made felonies under both State and Federal Law, with penalties up to twenty years in prison.  Second, special agencies under each State Attorney General and in the United States Department of Justice would be given the authority and the responsibility of investigating and prosecuting local violations committed by organized crime when local agencies are either unable or unwilling to do so.

Now Bill and I do not claim that this proposal will eliminate the entire problem of organized crime. But we do feel, however, that by eliminating three substantial barriers to effective law enforcement, our proposal will have three distinct advantages.  First; it will remove jurisdictional barriers to effective law enforcement.  As Earl Johnson, Special Attorney for the Department of Justice, wrote in the Journal of Criminal Law, December, 1962: “Most of the activities of organized crime are not now illegal under federal law. Thus, jurisdiction over most of the crimes committed by the criminal organization is en­trusted to a patchwork of local and state law enforcement agencies, each segment of which is hemmed in by limited powers, artificial boundaries, and restrictive responsibilities.  Thus, primary responsibility to attack organized crime is given to local officials. The result is twofold: First, organized criminals can avoid violations of laws, and they can locate in jurisdictions with weak units of law enforcement.”  As Special Attorney Johnson wrote further on in that article: “By concentrating its illegal enterprises in those self-governing hamlets within a metropolitan area which have small, largely untrained police forces and no investigators, a criminal organization is often able to protect its operations from effective prosecution.”  For example, Detroit Commissioner Edwards reported, in his 1963 testimony before the Senate Committee on Government Operations, that organized criminal operations have left Detroit proper and have sought easier soil to till in suburban areas which have weak units of law enforcement.”

Now the second problem created by giving primary responsibility to attack organized crime to local officials is that the syndicate leaders can escape prosecution by living out­side the jurisdictions where their illegal operations exist. William G. Hundley, Chief of the Justice Department, Organized Crime and Racketeering Section, wrote in the 1963 Notre Dame Lawyer that “artificial jurisdictional boundaries that divide state from state, county from county, and city from city prevent local law enforcement officials from pursuing a criminal whose operations are conducted within his jurisdiction but who remains outside of it.”  Thus, Milton Russell, the Assistant Attorney General, wrote in 1961: “By committing crimes within only local jurisdiction, prosecution can be splintered into a large number of local districts, and the syndicate leaders thereby effectively insulate themselves from vigorous law enforcement.”  Tampa Police Chief, Neil Brown, indicated this problem of splintered jurisdiction in his 1963 testimony before the Senate Committee on Government Operations.  He reported that the Tampa Police Department has been unable to do anything about the activities of Santo Tropicanti, a major Florida racketeer, because it has no  jurisdiction of his affairs elsewhere in Central Florida.

 Now, clearly, by making all organized criminal offenses violations of state and federal law, as well as local law, our proposal will remove these jurisdictional barriers to effective law enforcement. Since the syndicate must face nation-wide jurisdiction and uniform law enforcement, it no longer will be able to capitalize on jurisdictions with weak units of law enforcement, nor will it be able to operate in one area and reside safely in another. As Professor Louis B. Schwartz of the Pennsylvania Law School stated: “you can count on more effective law enforcement through Federal agencies than through local agencies which may be immobilized by jurisdictional restraints.”  The first advantage of our proposal, then: It will remove jurisdictional barriers to effective law enforcement.

Our second advantage is that it will remove political barriers to effective law enforcement. As the American Bar Association concluded: “The largest, single factor in the breakdown of law enforcement agencies in dealing with organized crime is the corruption and connivance of many public officials which exists in most American cities.” This collusion is so wide-spread that Virgil Peterson, Director of the Chicago Crime Com­mission, estimated in 1963, that fully half of the syndicate’s nine billion dollar income from gambling is earmarked for protection money paid to police and politicians.  Now, the result is simply that local police, prosecutors, and judges will not vigorously in­vestigate and prosecute organized crime.  Special Justice Department Attorney Johnson wrote in December, 1962, Journal of Criminal Law: “Through corruption, the criminal organization has been able to purchase virtual immunity, not only for its management level members, but also for its lower echelon members and its vulnerable enterprises.”  For example, Charles Adrian, Professor of Political Science at Michigan State University wrote in his 1961 book, Governing Urban America, that “the City Council of Camden, New; Jersey, stripped the mayor of control over the Police Department after he tried to eradicate organized gambling in the city.” Corruption, then, we might say is a normal condition of American local government.

Our proposal will better attack corruption in two ways: First, if the local law enforcement is corrupt, the state, and if need be the federal government, can quickly move in and eliminate the organized criminal operations themselves without having to wait months or years to eliminate the corruption.  Secondly, our proposal will make it more difficult for the syndicate to corrupt law enforcement since the organized criminal will now not only have to buy out the local officials but state and federal authorities as well, if it is to make its local operations safe from prosecution.  Both Mr. Hundley and Mr. Johnson of the Department of Justice say that the cost to organized crime of having to corrupt all three levels of law enforcement would be much more difficult than it is under the present system when only one authority of law enforcement has responsibility.  Our proposal, then, will remove political barriers to effective law enforcement.

Third and finally, it will remove penal barriers to effective law enforcement.  As Morris Ploscowe, Professor of Law at New York University, notes: “Every prosecutor must be selective in choosing the cases in which he will set the machinery of the criminal law in motion.  He does not have the time and the resources to punish all law violations.  Thus, if the expense to the government in carrying out a prosecution far outweighs the advantages to be gained by obtaining a conviction, it is the prosecutor’s statutory duty to exercise his discretion not to prosecute.” Now, since most organized criminal offenses on the local level are only misdemeanors, carrying the penalty of a small fine or a short prison sentence, the prosecutor often legitimately exercises the statutory discretion not to prosecute. Chicago’s own Superintendent of Police, Orlando W. Wilson, testified be­fore the Senate Committee on Government Operations in 1963 that a long, drawn-out in­vestigation to implicate the higher-ups in a large-scale gambling enterprise would simply not be worth the time and effort, as they would only be convicted of a misdemeanor.”  Now, our proposal will remove these penal barriers by making all organized criminal offenses felonies, carrying penalties up to twenty years in prison.  These penalties will, number one, make it worth the time and the effort the prosecutor has to spend to gain a conviction; and, number two, will at the same time provide a more meaningful deterrent to the criminal activity itself. The third advantage of our proposal — it will remove penal barriers to effective law enforcement.

              Finally, I’d like to cite a precedent for the affirmative proposal.  The Federal Bureau of Narcotics has authority similar to the provisions of the affirmative plan.  Both state-wide and Federal law enforcement agencies are available with complete jurisdiction in this area, and the penalties are severe, ranging up to twenty years in prison. As the only type of organized crime which has these unique provisions, narcotics has been particularly susceptible to the attack by the Bureau of Narcotics and the state law enforce­ment agencies. We’d simply remind you that, in 1951, the American Bar Association’s report on organized crime and law enforcement and the Kefauver Committee both concluded that narcotics was the most serious problem of organized crime.  Today the Bureau of Narcotics can report, however, that since 1956, we have had 206 important gangsters who’ve been convicted of narcotic law violations, eliminating 19% of the Genovese, 40% of the Luchese, and 20% of the Gamino criminal organizations.

Secondly, this pressure of law enforcement was so intense that high-ranking Mafia leaders prohibited their members from dealing in the narcotics trade.  Third, those few members who defied the Mafia’s prohibition have been arrested, indicted, and convicted in such impressively large numbers that Professors Bloch and Gieis of Brooklyn College can conclude in their 1962 book, Man, Crime and Society, that narcotics no longer re­presents a serious law enforcement problem.

Bill and I would like to see the day when we could say that about all forms of organized crime, and we suggest the best way to achieve that goal is to tailor our efforts after those used by the Bureau of Narcotics in approaching the narcotics problem.  We propose to do so by giving complete federal and state jurisdiction and by making organized criminal offenses felonies, carrying up to twenty years in prison.  While we are not claiming to eliminate the entire problem, we feel such a proposal can be of comparative advantage in combating the syndicate.

First Negative Constructive

Kathleen McDonald, Wayne State University 

As many of you probably know, the case that Northwestern has is very similar to the case that Doug and I have been using all year.  And now that the debate season is just about over, let me tell you what’s wrong with that affirmative case.  Doug and I are going to be contending in today’s debate that number one, the police have all the weapons necessary in order to be able to effectively combat organized crime; and number two, that if we gave the police greater freedom in the areas the gentlemen suggest, it would not only be seriously disadvantageous, but it wouldn’t be of any greater help to the police in combating organized crime.

Now before I go to that first contention, I’d like to take note of the fact that the gentlemen have presented us with a comparative advantage case.  And we’d like to be very clear as to what the goal of this affirmative team is because we don’t want a double standard to develop.  In other words, we don’t want the gentlemen to tell us that on the one hand the present system hasn’t eliminated organized crime but, on the other hand, they just want to do a little bit better than the present system.  We want some reasons why the present system can’t do a little bit better. I don’t think we have been given those reasons.  Let’s turn to that affirmative case.

 They said, first of all, that they would remove the jurisdictional barriers that cause law enforcement to be ineffective, and they began by telling us that the activities of organized crimes don’t violate any federal laws.  Well, the piece of evidence that Doug just handed me is crucial here, because we are going to contend that the activities of organized crime do violate federal laws.  We are going to turn to an article by Mr. Earl Johnson, who is Special Attorney for the Organized Crime Section of the Department of Justice.  He says: “Various phases of organized crime’s enterprises have been made federal crimes through legislation based upon one or sometimes more of these constitutional provisions.  Of the six chief sources of organization profits, four are susceptible to federal jurisdiction, at least in some circumstances, whenever they violate a federal law.”  I don’t think the gentlemen ever indicated that these activities don’t violate these specific federal laws.  The federal government can move in.”

 Has the federal government been doing a very effective job?  That’s our second position. The federal government has been doing an effective job against the activities of organized crime. Ever since those anti-racketeering laws were passed in 1961, the federal government has been very effective in the area of gambling. Robert Kennedy, the former Attorney General, tells us: “Because of these new laws, the hoodlums who control gambling have curtailed or shut down their activities. Some are even making plans to dispose of their homes and move to other countries.”  In 1963, the Attorney General reported: “Internal Revenue Service figures further indicate a decline in illegal gambling.  Gamblers across the country reported accepting bets of fifty-three million dollars, and this represented a 20% drop from fiscal year 1962.”  We’re going to suggest that if the federal government can get a 20% drop in gambling activities in only one year, they’ve got jurisdiction, and they’re doing a pretty effective job with that jurisdiction.

 What about the second major area of the activities of organized crime — narcotics?  We’re going to turn to the Attorney General’s Report of 1963. They tell us: “Although it may be expected that some racketeers will continue to engage in illicit narcotic trafficking, informants have reported that many racketeers will not now handle illicit drugs as a result of effective enforcement of these laws.”  We’re going to suggest the federal government has jurisdiction, and it has been very effective.  So even if we accepted everything the gentlemen had to say about the corruption on the state level, about the jurisdictional prob­lems on the state level, we’re going to suggest we can solve the problem.

 Secondly, they told us that organized crime can avoid prosecution merely by con­centrating in those areas of the state where they don’t have very effective law enforcement.  Now, the position that Doug and I are going to take here is, that localities can cooperate with the state government, and the localities can cooperate with the federal government, and they can get at these organized criminal activities. Because, you know, it really doesn’t make very much difference whether the localities have a very effective law en­forcement agency.  Because if the federal government will come in and use all of its weapons, and then turn the information over to the locality, then any locality in the country can do a pretty effective job against organized crime.  And that’s exactly what’s happening. J. Edgar Hoover, in the U. S. News and World Report, April 18, 1966, reported: “The F.B.I. daily develops from its sources within the underworld and from its investigations, considerable information which does not relate to violation within its own jurisdiction.  This is promptly passed on to the proper law enforcement agency, either federal, state, or local.”  We’re going to suggest, then, that the federal government can use the weapons in any of these localities where their law enforcement is weak.  If the federal government doesn’t want to do it, the state governments can do it.

You know, the gentlemen told us that there are no laws that allow the state to go in, but the gentlemen never told us that the state couldn’t go in if they were asked to come in.  The gentlemen never said you couldn’t have cooperation between the states and localities and I don’t think there can be any reason why there wouldn’t be any cooperation, unless of course, there was corruption, and I’m going to deal with that when I get down to the second point.  So we’d like to know why, with cooperation, all the weak localities couldn’t fight any organized criminal activity.

Well, then, the gentlemen suggested to us that the leaders escape prosecution, either by living in another state from which the crime was being committed or by living in another locality within the state.  We are going to suggest that jurisdictional barriers are not a problem at getting at the leaders of organized crime either, and for exactly the same two reasons: Number one, if the leaders live in a different state than the organized criminal activities engaged in, you can have cooperation between those states as a result of the Extradition Law of 1955. William G. Hundley, the Chief of the Organized Crime Section of the Department of Justice, points out: “This provision of the Uniform Extradition Act illustrates that states can work together in coping with the inter-state aspect of organized crime, insofar as no person will be able to secure immunity from prosecution solely because he never enters the state where his illegal activities are being carried on.”  Through this Extradition Law, then, we can eliminate the problem if it’s between states.  Again, if it is between localities, I think I’ve already indicated there are no in­herent barriers to the localities cooperating with each other; so there is no reason why any leader needs to escape prosecution merely because of jurisdictional barriers.

What have we seen on this first contention then?  We’ve seen, number one, that the activities do violate federal laws. As a result of this, the federal government has been very effective against organized crime.  We’ve seen, number two, that jurisdictional barrier are not a problem in getting at the activities of organized crime.  We’ve seen, number three, that jurisdictional barriers are not a problem in getting at the leaders of organized crime.  I think we’re going to have to reject that first contention.

Let’s turn to that second contention, where the gentlemen told us that they are going to remove the political barriers to effective law enforcement.  Let me preface my arguments on this point by saying that even if we accepted this entire contention, we could still conclude that the present system can be effective against organized criminal activities because all the gentlemen have told us is that we have corruption on the state and on the local level. And if that’s true, then the federal government, through its jurisdiction, can clean up the activities of organized crime, and it really doesn’t make much difference whether or not the corruption exists.  That’s my first position.  My second position is that this corruption, while it may be widespread, is not protecting the activities of organized crime.  And the reason it isn’t protecting the activities is because, apparently, there are enough honest officers left so that they are doing a pretty effective job against organizes crime.  I’m going to turn to signed evidence in order to indicate this. The Detroit News of January 13, 1966, pointed out that it was because of the cooperation we have been receiving from the courts and prosecutors, both at the state and the federal level, that traffic in narcotics is no longer the lucrative business it used to be.  They had to get cooperation on the state level — apparently, that corruption isn’t so widespread — they were able to get that cooperation.

Number three, we’re going to contend, if corruption is a serious problem, it can be eliminated under the present system.  The gentlemen never really talked about the possibilities of eliminating corruption. I’d like to suggest to you five mechanisms that can be used in order to eliminate the problem of corruption so that we don’t have to turn to this affirmative plan:

Number one, we have special prosecutors.  Earl Johnson pointed out that as a tech­nique for circumventing a corrupt local prosecutor, substitution of a special prosecutor has much to recommend for it. In other words, if a locality has a corrupt prosecutor, then the state Attorney General merely appoints another prosecutor who isn’t corrupt, as sub­stitution for the local prosecutor. 

Secondly, we have the Grand Jury, which is particularly effective against organized crime because, you know, the purpose of all of our County Grand Juries is to seek out that corruption on the local level. Robert G. Scigliano tells us: “Special inquisitorial powers are vested in the Grand Jury.  It may subpoena witnesses and compel testimony; it may grant immunity in exchange for possible incriminating testimony.”  We’re going to suggest that’s a second mechanism.

A third mechanism is our self-check units.  The local police have units within themselves to see that there is no corruption in that particular unit. The Saturday Evening Post of July 31, 1965, reports: “It is the job of the Bureau of Internal Affairs to make sure that we have no corrupt police, and they do their job very well in Los Angeles.”  There is no reason why it can’t work in other areas.

Four, we have crime commissions. Newsweek reports that in Massachusetts the Crime Commission has been very successful as of October 19, 1964.

 And finally, the federal government has jurisdiction over corruption.  The reason is that the individual getting a bribe obviously cannot report it on his income tax as illegal funds.  Therefore, they have to violate federal laws and, therefore, the federal government has jurisdiction over all of this corruption.  So I think we have indicated that we can eliminate the problem of corruption. 

Finally, as far as those affirmative advantages were concerned, the gentlemen said their proposal would be faster.  I think we’ve indicated the present system is pretty fast.  The gentlemen indicated that it would be harder to pay off four levels.  I think Doug is going to be able to indicate to you, if it means they won’t be corrupted, they’re going to pay off in four levels.  And what about those penalties?  The gentlemen said they weren’t stiff enough. You know, that’s not unique to the affirmative plan.  If we want stiffer penalties, then we can legislate stiffer penalties, but that’s not any greater freedom.  We’re going to suggest that we reject this affirmative case.

Second Affirmative Constructive

William Snyder, Northwestern University

I’d like to discuss my three advantages that we believe greater freedom for law enforcement agencies can provide in the attack against organized crime.  I don’t think that the lady’s analysis really denied that the plan would be advantageous in three respects.  Before doing that, let me respond to the introductory comment.  She wanted to know what is the goal of the affirmative proposal.  We certainly mustn’t impose a double standard upon the negative team concerning the present system.  We don’t intend to impose a double standard; our goal is to substantially reduce the organized criminal activities.  We don’t pretend that we are going to entirely eliminate them.  We don’t expect the present system to do that either, but we think there is a great deal of room for improvement and we think our proposal can substantially fill the void.  President Johnson in his message to Congress on March, 1966, said that “despite the fact that we’ve reached record levels of indictments, these programs are only initial steps on a long road, and the plainest fact we can see is that piecemeal improvements will not be enough.”  Now when the President of the United States calls the present system “piecemeal improvements, ” Mike and I think there are pretty good grounds for believing that the present system leaves a great deal to be desired.  We think that our proposal can substantially fill the void in three ways.

Now let me take these out of order.  I’d like to begin with our third advantage be­cause I don’t believe the lady of the negative team said very much about it; I believe that advantage stands at the present time.  What did we argue?  Concerning that third point we argued that penal barriers can be removed by the affirmative proposal.  We pointed out, first of all, the penalties employed in most forms of organized crime are extremely weak, usually small fines.  The lady doesn’t deny that.  We pointed out, number two, that the result of this is that if we had vigorous law enforcement, it wouldn’t produce any really valuable result to society; they’d only escape with a fine and go right back to their activities.  Well, what was her argument?  She said, after all, we could legislate these penalties and that doesn’t constitute greater freedom for law enforcement agencies.  Now if the negative team disagrees that it constitutes greater freedom, we hope they’ll respond to the reason­ing of the affirmative team for believing that it does.  Our reasoning goes as follows: The legal duty of the law enforcement agencies requires them to invest society’s resources only when they know that it will produce some tangible result to society.  If they know that the penalties are so weak that a vigorous law enforcement campaign would not produce a valuable result to society, they don’t have the freedom to invest the resources as is necessary.

First of all, let’s go to the legal duty.  Newman F. Baker, Professor of Law at Northwestern, writes in the Journal of Criminal Law: ‘To decide whether or not to prose­cute, the District Attorneys’ legal duty requires them to determine if it will serve any good purpose to society or if it will be an expensive waste of time.”  The Michigan State Supreme Court in Gowen v Smith held that the Police Commissioner is bound to use his discretion with which he is clothed.  He must use sound discretion as to how the resources the community will be applied for the good of the community.  Now, are penalties so weak as to render this freedom absent to commit themselves to a strong law enforcement campaign?  Yes, indeed, the penalties are too weak. Orlando Wilson, Police Chief in Chicago said: “A long investigation to implicate the higher-ups would simply not be worth the cost and effort.  They would only be convicted of a misdemeanor.”  The result is cited by Morris Ploscowe, Professor of Law at New York University: “One of the most common reasons for

failure to prosecute is that the expense may far outweigh the advantages of obtaining a conviction.”  We’d like to give law enforcement agencies the freedom to invest society’s  resources in a vigorous attack against organized crime, and the only way we can do that is to make meaningful penalties.  We believe we can claim a third advantage; I don’t think the lady of the negative refuted it. 

All right, now let’s go back to the top of the case.  We said, first of all, we can remove jurisdictional barriers to effective law enforcement. My colleague pointed out that at the present time, while most forms of organized crime violate only local law, it results in concentration of organized criminal operations in units with weak law enforcement and splintering the operations across jurisdictional boundaries.  The negative speaker did not deny that these things take place, nor did she deny the conclusion of Mr. Brown in Tampa Florida, Mr. Edwards in Detroit, and Mr. Schwartz speaking in general terms, that these boundaries in fact impair the attack on organized crime. All right, what did she say?  She said, first of all, we have many federal laws which can be used against organized crime, according to Earl Johnson of the Department of Justice.  Now, Mr. Johnson said four out of the six major forms of organized crime in some circumstances violate federal law, but his quotation in the first constructive speech said that, by and large, the organized criminal operations violate only the local law.  The lady recommended, for example, that we could turn to the area of inter-state gambling, and indeed in 1961 we passed some laws to re­gulate inter-state gambling, but the problem with those was cited by J. Edgar Hoover in the DePauw Law Review, Spring, 1964. He says, “The first arrests made by the F. B. I. for violation of the new 1961 laws have had the profound effect of causing the underworld to tailor their operations so that they exist on the intra rather than the inter-state level, therefore, avoiding violations of Federal Laws.”  Mr. Nicholas Alga, formerly of the F.B.I. , wrote in the Nation, December 20, 1965, that “the primary problem with the federal government in enforcing the laws against organized crime is establishing a violation of the federal criminal law.”

All right, then, what were the two examples? She said, first of all, that we’ve been very effective in gambling; that’s right.  What did we do?  We caused them to go to the intra-state level, and Mr. John Scarney, Consultant of the Department of Justice on organized crime, stated in the Wall Street Journal of January 29, 1964, that this has not produced any decrease in the total revenue of organized gambling.

Well, then, the second example was in the area of narcotics.  We’re glad she read that example; that was our precedent for the affirmative proposal.  The Bureau of Narcotics is the only law enforcement agency that really has nation-wide jurisdiction to enforce its laws.  We think that kind of freedom should be given to all law enforcement agencies.  The lady suggested that at the state and local level, we can have cooperation.  She said, aft all, the federal government can come in and cooperate and solve this particular problem.  Now we’re not denying that the federal government sometimes can come in and participate in a raid, particularly if they think that there’s a violation of inter-state commerce. That possibility doesn’t deny the fact that when you don’t have a strong patrolling force in the community and when the operation is splintered across jurisdictional lines, the result inevitably has been weak law enforcement.  We gave you examples in Tampa, Florida, in Detroit, Michigan, and the lady really didn’t discuss them.  The conclusion, for example Milton Wessall was that, by committing crimes within local jurisdiction, prosecution is splintered and effectively insulated from vigorous law enforcement.  The negative speaker said, “Well, the state government can come in, if asked.”  Now, of course, the total government won’t come in. Which agency did she have in mind?  She didn’t tell us. Perhaps she was thinking of the State Police. But Frank D. Day, Professor of Police Administration at Michigan State, wrote in the Book of the States, 1965, that, “State Police exercise state-wide jurisdiction, but it is subject to prescribed restrictions, like limitations on police in urban and semi-urban areas.”  We don’t think the state has any agency at the present time so designed.  Our plan creates that kind of agency.  We believe we have a very substantial advantage over the present system.

Well, finally, she suggested that we could always cooperate between states by means of extradition. That would be fine if the jurisdictional problem we were talking about were the state boundaries, but the trouble is they tailor their organization so that they don’t cross the state lines; they stay within-the state, but splinter them over jurisdictional barriers within the state.  We suggest, then, that extradition isn’t going to solve the problem.

We suggest, then, that we have jurisdictional barriers now.  We suggest that creat­ing an agency at the federal and at the state level can substantially remove those juris­dictional barriers, we think, substantially enhancing the attack on organized crime.

And we believe, secondly, that we can remove penal barriers to effective law en­forcement.  Now we pointed out, first of all, that corruption has been the most significant barrier against organized crime, to the tune of four and one-half billion dollars per year.  The lady didn’t really deny that takes place.  What she did say, first of all, is that the federal government can come in and clean them up with its own jurisdiction, and her only example was in narcotics.  That’s right, the Bureau of Narcotics is the one federal agency that has that jurisdiction.  Those other agencies rely on inter-state commerce, which the organization has tried to tailor its operations to avoid.

Well, then, she suggested that corruption in fact does not protect the organized criminal operation.  Mike and I find that very difficult to believe on two counts.  First of all, the authorities seem to have found that it does. Attorney General Katzenbach, in an interview in Look magazine, said that one of the primary reasons why the federal govern­ment or all law enforcement is ineffective is because the organization has been able to corrupt many local officials.

Well, she went on to point out, after all, we can always have a local policeman within the area to check up on these particular people.  She said if it takes place, we have five mechanisms which can be effective.  She suggested, first of all, special prosecutors.  Now, the article she was quoting by Mr. Johnson said that we have special prosecutors, but he says that it is in a limited number of states; by and large, this is not available.

  1. S. Babcock, Professor of Political Science at Vermont, says that in almost every state, the District Attorney is completely autonomous from any state official and the Attorney General of the state has no real authority over the District Attorney. Then she suggested we could use Grand Juries. That might be good, except that J. C. Phillips wrote in Municipal Government and Administration that the Grand Jury is usually at the mercy of the local prosecutor.  He is the one who must call it into session. If he’s been corrupted, obviously the organized criminal operation will remain impregnable.  Then the lady suggested we could always have a unit within the police force which is going to solve the problem.  Once again, we’ll admit that this might be a possibility once in a while, but it doesn’t deny the fact that we could have a greater advantage or the fact that you can corrupt a few policemen and render the effect virtually unimpregnable of the organized criminal, J. C. Phillips, Professor of Political Science, says: “While a few police department are under direct control or have their own efficiency units, in most cases they have not been able to prevent the corruption of state and local officials.”  We suggest that we continue to have the problem.

Well, finally, she suggested crime commissions.  We’d like to hear some evidence that says that not only do they exist, but they have any law enforcement ability whatsoever, I don’t believe her evidence said they could get at corruption.  Finally, she said that the federal government could establish jurisdiction by means of taxes, but Earl Johnson of the Department of Justice wrote in the Journal of Criminal Law, that “most organized criminals and the people they’ve corrupted are able to conceal their financial interests in such a way that a tax violation is very difficult to establish.”   We’re not denying that once in a while ,the federal or the state can come in, but by and large we do claim a substantial advantage by creating agencies at the state and federal level, and by giving meaningful penalties, we think we can substantially enhance the attack on organized crime.

 Second Affirmative Constructive

Douglas Frost, Wayne State University

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, before the debate started, I asked Captain Tompkins if he had some matches.  He handed me a book of matches and said, “Wonderful for nervous stomachs.”  They light my cigarettes well, but that’s about all they do!

I am going to be discussing this affirmative case primarily by analyzing the plan that they presented. Before I examine that plan, however, I want to go back and make two observations on the need contentions.  First of all, Kathy said, “Making the penalties greater is not giving greater freedom.”  Now Mr. Denger came back with some rather interesting reasoning that said, well, the law states that the prosecutors can prosecute only if they are spending their money wisely and if they are going to get convictions; and he said, when they spend it in gambling, you see, they are not spending it wisely. You know, the Uniform Crime Report said that we had 100, 000 convictions in gambling last year.  I suggest every one of those convictions, then, and investigations were illegal according to the reasoning of that affirmative team.  The point I am making here is that giving greater penalties is not giving greater freedom. We can do that under the present system.

The second comment I’d like to make on this particular affirmative case is that Kathy told you the federal government has jurisdiction.  You know they came back and said, well, no, they really don’t — only if they violate federal laws.  Yet Kathy read Mr. Johnson evidence to you that said that the four major sources of funds came under federal juris­dictions. Let me read you the footnote at the bottom of the page.  He tells us that “organization profits appear to be derived primarily from the following: gambling, shylocking, racketeers narcotics and prostitution.”  He said these all come under federal jurisdiction if any facility of inter-state commerce is used.  What I want Mike to do in his rebuttal is to tell me that these organized criminals, number one, never use the mail, number two, never use the telephone, number three, never travel inter-state.  I think the federal government has clear jurisdiction.  The fact that they do is pointed out by the Attorney General Katzenbach in 1965. He said the F.B.I. , for example, has done excellent work.  The new racketeering laws gave the F.B.I. clear statutory weapons to deal with organized crime.  How effectively the F.B.I. has used those weapons is readily evident in the fact that they have already undertaken 18, 355 investigations.  Of course, Mr. Denger is going to come back and tell us those were illegal investigations, because, you see, they are using the taxpayers’ funds unwisely because the penalties are so low.

I am going to go back now and examine that affirmative plan in two overall areas.  First, I want to discuss with you some reasons why there is no assurance of a significant advantage from that

affirmative proposal and, secondly, discuss some disadvantages with you.  My first position is going to be that the gentleman’s analogy is inaccurate.  You know, they told us that the narcotics prosecution has proved that federal jurisdiction will solve the problem.  Well, they got that little gem of an idea from Mr. Johnson’s article.  I have a photostat of it here, but Mr. Johnson goes on to explain this is not a fair analogy in all areas because: (1) narcotics are a physical commodity; (2) narcotics must be trans­ported intra-state and into the country; (3) that narcotics leave a corpus delicti in the form of an addict; (4) that the narcotics necessarily have to be sold and this results in continual contact. He tells us in the footnote at the bottom of the page that “the narcotics traffic, in turn, however, requires a high degree of cooperation between persons located at different geographical locations in order to accomplish the many steps involved in producing, processing, importing, reprocessing and distributing this particular product.”  The analogy is very weak.  I am going to have more to say about it when I get back to those disadvantages.  I don’t think they can talk about the narcotics law and say this is going to solve all areas of organized crime by extending federal jurisdiction.

Secondly, I am going to suggest to you that they can’t prove corruption any more effectively than can the present system. Robert F. Kennedy in the hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, said, “We have information now where major political leaders and figures in those communities are being corrupted and are on the payroll of some of our big time gangsters and racketeers.”  The first point, of course, is that means that the federal government has the jurisdiction to investigate that corruption.  He goes on to say, however, that “we cannot move in on these areas.”  Now, if legislation such as this pro­posed wire-tapping legislation is passed, we could then prosecute.”  I suggest the problem, of course, is the federal government may well be able to investigate but they can’t prove that corruption. Mr. Kennedy said they needed wire-tapping.

The third objection I am going to raise to this plan is the fact that corruption and the protection of illegal activities depends on not merely a political drive but on many other factors that the gentlemen cannot solve.  First — political influence. Morris Ploscowe, formerly Director of the A.B.A.’s Commission on Organized Crime, in 1963, said, “Mob money is used not only for direct payments to police and law enforcement officials, but it is also used to insure the election of key officials who will be sympathetic to its aims.”  I suggest then that this political influence is not going to be able to be pro­secuted by that affirmative team.  Secondly, I am going to suggest that organized crime is protected if they have incapable prosecutors.  Earl Johnson, in that same article, tells us: “Consequently, if they can be blessed with a less than capable chief prosecutor, the members of the criminal organization are usually satisfied.”  I want the gentlemen to tell us how they are going to assure that all prosecutors are going to be capable. 

Moving on, I am going to suggest that another reason that organized crime exists is not because of corruption but because of lack of funds. Concerning gambling and organized crime, the Report of the Senate Committee on Government Operations, in 1963, said: “It must be conceded that for various reasons, mostly justifiable and understandable, local law enforcement agencies cannot adequately cope with the grave national threat-Posed by organized crime.  Lack of sufficient funds to provide adequate manpower or modern equipment are among the most frequently cited obstacles to the attainment of these objectives.  Another factor, then, is that the affirmative team is doing nothing about inadequate funds.

Another problem is a lenient judge.  This was pointed out to us, by the New York Times; when they said, ”A Senate Committee was told today that gambling was flourishing as a multi-million-dollar industry partly because of the leniency among judges, sheriffs, and policement.”  Not necessarily that they were corrupt, but that they were just lenient.  I want the gentlemen to explain to me how they are going to do away with lenient judges.

Finally, organized crime protects itself not by bribery but by blackmail.  Williarn G. Hundley, in the Notre Dame Lawyer — he’s the chief of the Organized Crime Section of the Department of Justice — said: “The organized criminal does not hesitate to use blackmail if he cannot buy off an official.”  I suggest then, that what I am telling you here are a number of reasons why that affirmative team cannot guarantee to you and me that they are going to be a great deal more effective than the present system is.  Problems such as blackmail, lenient judges, lack of adequate funds, incapable prosecutors, political influence — all

reduce the assurance of a significant advantage.  The fact that Mr. Kennedy said the federal government had jurisdiction but couldn’t prove the corruption because they didn’t have wire-tapping, casts further doubt on the efficacy of this plan.  And their analogy by their own source, Mr. Johnson, is unfair and inaccurate, and I ask you to reject it.

Now I am going to discuss with you some disadvantages.  Number one, interestingly enough, the significant advantage of this proposal is that now the organized criminals are I going to have to corrupt all levels of the government.  My first disadvantage is going to be that they will corrupt all levels of government.  What about their wonderful analogy con­cerning narcotics?  Time, Inc. , in their book, The Drug Takers, told us that last April, Miami federal Narcotics Bureau Chief, Eugene Marshall, shocked his colleagues when he was arrested for accepting a bribe from a narcotics peddler.  That’s my first disadvantage If the gentlemen think it is only applying to the Narcotics Bureau, I am going to turn to the Committee Report on “Investigation of Organized Crime and Inter-State Commerce,” when) they said the committee found evidence of corruption and connivance at all levels of government — federal, state, and local.  My first disadvantage is, the federal government will be corrupted. 

My second disadvantage is going to be that their plan will reduce the financial support of our local law enforcement, because they are telling us that we are going to set up all these agencies in every state and let them handle the problem.  You know what Elliot, H. Lumbard tells us in the American Academies; he says that “a properly compensated, trained, equipped, and supervised police force with community stature and support is not likely to be receptive to improper measures or corrupting influences.”  I think it would be better, then, to give them the money that they need and not rely on the federal government to come in to every state and observe these individuals, to try to prove that they’re corrupt and take the responsibility for enforcing the laws away from them. 

My third disadvantage to this affirmative proposal is that what the gentlemen are really telling us is, let’s admit defeat to the corruption on the local level.  Now they’re telling us that the local levels can’t be expected to clean up their own corruption.  I think Kathy cast significant doubt upon that — that the local levels can and are cleaning up their corruption.  Yet, Northwestern would say, “No, let’s give up and call in the federal government.” Kathy and I just don’t think that’s desirable.  We suggest that’s a rather serious disadvantage.

My fourth disadvantage to this affirmative proposal was voiced by Mr. J. Edgar Hoover.  He told us that such a proposal as a national police force was undesirable.  And I ask you, if you now have the federal government in every state, enforcing all of these laws, trying to prove corruption, it is tantamount to a national police force. Mr. Hoover said: “I vigorously oppose such a system in the United States, including any clearing house established by the federal government.” That’s my fifth disadvantage.

Finally, I’m going to suggest that such an intervention on the part of the federal government will sap the morale of our local police force.  Newsweek, last week, said that police officials countered that any outside watchdog unit saps police morale and panders to troublemakers who are trying to undermine respect for authority.  I suggest, then, it saps the morale of our local police.

And finally, I’m going to suggest that it’s been indicated that the local police forces are the most effective in dealing with this problem of organized crime; because they are more familiar with the activities at the local level, they can more adequately cope with them.  It would be better to let the local police handle them.

It would be better to let the local police handle them; a federal watchdog unit saps morale; a national police force is undesirable; it admits defeat to corruption on the local level and calls in the federal government immediately; it reduces the financial support of our law enforcement agencies.  I suggest greater financial support would be more effective; and it will force the corruption of not only the narcotics bureau now but of all the federal agencies. Moreover, I told you a number of reasons why they cannot assure significant advantages accruing from that program.  I turned to Mr. Johnson, who said the analogy is really unfair.  And we’ve still got that curious reasoning that says that every time you prosecute a gambling law now, it’s really a violation of law because it is a misuse of our finances.  I don’t think that’s greater freedom. If all we need are greater penalties, let’s repair the present system and have greater penalties.  Kathy and I reject the affirmative analysis.

First Negative Rebuttal

Kathleen McDonald, Wayne State University

I’d like to go back and re-examine those areas of advantage and suggest to you why the present system can obtain all of those advantages without the affirmative plan.  First, you remember, I began by asking the gentlemen what their goal was.  They told us their goal was a more effective prosecution of organized criminal activities, and they said our present laws had just been a beginning.  Well, of course, the laws we have at the present time haven’t totally eliminated the problem.  Of course, they are only initial steps to eliminating the problem; they were only passed in 1961.  I don’t think that denies the fact that where they’ve been used, they’ve been very effective.  If we continue to use them, they can continue to be very effective.  What’s the prospect for their success within the future?  George Edwards, formerly Police Commissioner of Detroit, told us in May of 1965: “I think that a ten-year period could beat the Mafia.  I don’t mean that we could put them all in jail, necessarily, but we could drive them out of the rackets.”  I am going to suggest that present laws can be pretty effective against organized criminal activities.  Let’s see why. 

Number one, they said they were going to remove the jurisdictional barriers. 

They said that most of the activities of organized crime didn’t violate any federal laws.  I suggested to you

that all of them violate federal laws wherever they cross any state lines.  And the gentlemen came back and said that they are attempting to conduct their activities on a totally local basis.  Well, perhaps they are attempting to operate their activities on a totally local basis, but it is impossible.  Because, you know, the gentle­men are talking about organized crime.  Organized crime is a national crime syndicate run by a national hierarchy, as any of you know from the affirmative case.  The Report of the Committee on Government Operations tells us the Attorney General testified that federal investigative agencies are now certain, because of intelligence gathered from Joseph Valachi and other informants, that the national crime syndicate is operated by a commission of top-ranking criminals.  It’s a national syndicate whenever they come into contact with those national leaders, whenever money crosses state lines, whenever there are any runners between the activities and the leaders of organized crime, then they violate that travel law that says that you can’t use any facilities or cross any state lines in furtherance of organized criminal activities.  We think the federal government can be effective.  When the gentlemen tell us that, according to Mr. Scarney, the federal govern­ment hasn’t been very effective, I don’t think that is very impressive evidence compared with the Attorney General’s three reports of 1962, 1963, and 1964, which tell us that organized crime in the area of gambling has been declining.  I think the federal govern­ment’s been very effective.

All right, secondly, the gentlemen told us that organized crime locates in those jurisdictions in which they don’t have very strong law enforcement.  And I suggested that wasn’t a very serious problem, because if they locate in these areas, then that weak jurisdiction merely needs to cooperate with either the state government or with the federal government.  The federal government uses its law enforcement agencies and then gives the information to the local government.  Now, I don’t think the gentlemen ever answered that argument.  They said that there are restrictions on the State Police going in when they are not asked.  We’re going to suggest that’s simply not the case. We’re going to turn to Academic Lectures on Lie Detection in 1956.  I don’t know why this piece of evidence was in Lectures on Lie Detection.  It said: “Most states have law enforcement divisions directly under the government’s supervision.  They offer services and facilities to any authorized law enforcement agency in the state and they have jurisdiction throughout the state.”  We’re going to suggest, then, that they can go in.  But that only says that even if they are not asked, they can go in; and my whole point was, if they are asked, they can always go in — and I don’t think the gentlemen ever denied that.  As far as the federal government was concerned, the gentlemen just said he didn’t think it would be very effective.  I gave you examples of where it had been very effective.  I don’t think there is any reason why you can’t have cooperation.  I don’t think these activities are being protected.

What about the leaders of organized crime?  I said the same two arguments apply. You can have cooperation between the states.  The gentlemen merely suggested that they didn’t think it would work very effectively.  That was the whole purpose of the Extradition Law passed in 1955, so that if a criminal living in one state violates a law in another state, then the police can cooperate with each other.  I don’t think the gentlemen have given us any reason why this can’t be effective.  We can have cooperation, and jurisdictions don’t have to be a very significant barrier. 

All right, then, let’s go on to that second contention where the gentlemen talked about corruption.  I said it wasn’t a very widespread problem.  The gentlemen said, “You were just talking about narcotics.”  But the point of the piece of evidence I read was, they had cooperation on the state and local levels, and that’s the reason they were effective.  Apparently, corruption wasn’t a very significant problem.

Well, what about those ways of eliminating corruption?  I don’t think Mr. Snyder answered them. The special prosecutors.?  The gentlemen merely said, “We don’t have them in all states.”  Well, we do have them in some states, so it can be effective, and in the other states, we use the other means.  What about the Grand Jury?  The gentlemen suggested to us that this wasn’t very effective, because they rely on the local prosecutors.  No evidence that it was the local prosecutors who were corrupt.  It wasn’t a problem in New York, where they now have three Grand Juries in Manhattan working on the problem of organized crime.  What about self-checks?  The gentlemen didn’t think they would be very effective.  I read evidence saying that it was effective in Los Angeles.  I don’t think the gentlemen gave us any reason why it wouldn’t be effective. Crime Commissions?  Do they have any law enforcement power?  The same piece of evidence  I read you in my first speech — “Since its creation in 1962, the Massachusetts Crime Commission has trudged through the jungle of Bay State politics, bagging Democrats and Republicans with equal vigor.”  Apparently, they do have law enforcement power.  We’re going to suggest this is a very effective way. The gentlemen never denied the fact that the federal government always has jurisdiction.  We’re going to ask you to reject this affirmative case.

First Affirmative Rebuttal

Michael Denger, Northwestern University

Ladies and gentlemen, let’s first turn to the precedent of the affirmative proposal.  They suggested it was not analogous because narcotics is a physical commodity, it has to be smuggled into the country, and there is an addict left over.  I don’t think that denies the essential points of the analogy.  First, we have federal jurisdiction and stiff penalties, both commencing in 1956, and it brought a decline in the narcotics problem. Let’s turn to Henry Elcourt Giordano, Director of the Bureau of Narcotics: “Strict enforcement and severe penalties have curtailed narcotics traffic.  Many of the principal underworld traffickers will no longer risk dealing in narcotics.”   I don’t think they showed how these particular descriptive points denied the analogy. 

All right, their second point was that we can’t prove corruption now, but the federal government could have jurisdiction if it could use wire-tapping.  There are two points we are going to make here.  The key point is effective jurisdiction. Having jurisdiction in­volving phones and inter-state commerce over those phones is no good unless you can convict those individuals.  You need broad jurisdiction so you can go in and circumvent the corruption. I suggest that is not a very useful tool unless they advocate wire-tapping. 

Then they suggested there is going to be a problem of political influence, incapable prosecutors, and a lack of local funds.  I am going to suggest these cause us to turn to the affirmative proposal.  If political influence hinders them on the local level, I am suggesting it is advantageous to have the state and federal governments come in to get the organized criminal operations.  Our advantage was as much to circumvent corruption as it was to eliminate it.  I suggest we can do that.  If we have incapable prosecutors on the local level, that’s simply cause for giving it to the state and federal authorities.  They have told us themselves the federal government are capable prosecutors. Again, that’s merely cause for going to the federal level.  What about lacking local funds? That’s simply cause for going to the state and the federal government to come in. I don’t think it denies the work­ability of the affirmative proposal.  And as to the leniency of judges and sheriffs, I am going to suggest that we can go to the federal and state courts here.  I don’t think it denies the advantage of the affirmative proposal circumventing those areas.

Remember, our proposal had two advantages in the area of corruption.  The first one was that it would be harder to corrupt the federal government.  His analogy here was to turn to the area of narcotics to suggest there were a few corruptions of federal officials.  Three points to make: One, Earl Johnson notes that the Mafia’s been impressed by the relative incorruptibility of federal law enforcement officials; two, we said it is harder to corrupt all three levels of government. (You heard the documentation way back in the first speech.  I don’t think he denied the point).  Three, we’re going to suggest a deterrence in this area.  Charles Adrian, Professor of Political Science at Michigan State, tells us: ”As far as narcotics are concerned, local officials will not make an alliance with the purveyors of narcotics since it would be futile, as state and federal law enforcement officers are particularly alert and active in seeking out the narcotics rings.” Three points; I don’t think they denied the problem.

All right, then, they suggested we should give them money on the local level.  This is quite inefficient for the following reason: we’re going to suggest that the reason it is inefficient is that if you are going to give them money in one little local hamlet, they are simply going to move to another.  The American Bar Association says: “A state-wide effort to fight organized crime is necessary because no single community alone can effectively deal with organized crime.  Efficient policing in one community simply drives the gangster and racketeer to other areas where law enforcement is more lax.”  The point we are making here is very simple: You don’t throw tons of resources into one little municipality so that they can move to another one.  I suggest that it is more advantageous to have the state and federal government come in.  I don’t think they denied the advantage. 

As far as the national police force goes, we’re not taking away original local power; they still have their initial responsibility.  I want to know the harm of the affirmative pro­posal. Simply labeling it a “national police force” doesn’t mean it’s disadvantageous. 

Then he suggested that we’re going to sap morale at the local level.  Here’s the very important point: If the local officials are doing an effective job right now, we’re not going to come in.  It is only when they are lax, when they are corrupt or they lack jurisdiction, and here it doesn’t sap the morale.  Orlando W. Wilson testified in 1963: “We not only accept but welcome federal agencies in the enforcement of narcotics laws.  Federal par­ticipation in the organized crime drive does not undermine local law enforcement agencies. It has been helpful.”

What was his last disadvantage?  It is better to let the local police handle it because they are more familiar with the problem.  If they lack jurisdiction in areas, if they are corrupt, if the penalties aren’t significant, it doesn’t do any good to let the local police handle it.  I suggest that the federal government can be just as effective by coming right in.

All right, let’s go to that affirmative need analysis.  First, I don’t think the federal government has jurisdiction in a good many areas.  They suggest it is easy to establish federal jurisdiction, but they didn’t adapt to the evidence.  The Wall Street Journal, January 29, 1964, reported: “The more knowledgeable gamblers, says the justice Department, have tailored their operations so that they don’t become part of inter-state commerce.”,  William Hundley tells us: “We are looking for possible violations of federal law.  If we find any, we will prosecute.  But we haven’t found any in Hot Springs, Arkansas, and a good many other localities.”  I don’t think we have those federal jurisdictions in many areas.  I suggest they’re going inter-state.

What about that cooperation?  They can cooperate all they want, but that doesn’t let the federal and the state governments investigate and prosecute.  They can cooperate but that still doesn’t overcome those investigative and prosecutive barriers.  What about those areas in corruption?  We suggest you’re not solving the problem.  We suggested many states don’t have Grand Juries.  They suggested that we could use the other techniques.  This is very interesting.  They suggested that prosecutors may not be the problem in calling Grand Juries.  Yet, before they are going to appoint people to replace prosecutors who may be corrupt, I don’t think they’ve shown us that we haven’t solved the problem of organized crime.  I think there is a serious problem of corruption.

Second Negative Rebuttal

Douglas Frost, Wayne State University

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, letme begin with my plan objections.  First of all, you remember I told you there was no assurance of a significant advantage resulting from this affirmative proposal, because Mr. Johnson himself admitted that the analogy really could not be extended to all forms of organized crime because it was the nature of the narcotics industry which resulted in the

success of the federal prosecution.  The gentle­men came back with another piece of evidence that said strict enforcement and severe penalties caused this decrease in narcotics but nothing about federal jurisdiction — nothing about what the gentlemen really are proposing in this plan.  I suggest Mr. Johnson denied his own analogy, and the gentlemen could never come back and deny that fact.

 Secondly, I said, you can’t prove corruption. Mr. Kennedy said, we have the jurisdiction to investigate it,  but because we didn’t have wire-tapping we couldn’t prove it.  I don’t think Mike really answered that one.  Then I indicated that there are a number of other factors which resulted in the protection of organized crime.  I thought Mike’s answers were interesting.  First of all, I said, you know political influence is used to protect gamblers.  He said, let’s circumvent the corruption, let’s give up to it, in other words, and have the federal government do it.  I will suggest to you this political influence could thwart the federal government’s attempts to get at organized crime; yet they are not doing anything about that political influence.

 Secondly, I spoke of incapable prosecutors.  The gentlemen said, well, now, let’s do it on the federal level.  I suggest the gentlemen now are going to have all crimes prosecuted on the federal level, still having incapable prosecutors on the local level by which these other prosecutions will be ineffective.  They didn’t do anything about that.  I said we have lack of funds and the gentlemen said, but let’s call on the federal government if there’s a lack of funds.  Remember what my evidence said to you?  It said, we can beat corruption if we properly compensate, train, and equip our law enforcement officers.  I think in a comparative advantage case it would be better to give them the money and train them pro­perly, not give up and go to the federal government.  Then I said, lenient judges are going to be a problem.  Again, Mike came back with what seemed to be the same answer for all of my objections: Let’s go to the federal courts.  I suggest those lenient judges, number one, are a serious problem, and the gentlemen really aren’t doing anything about it.  And then I said, you know, blackmail protects organized crime, and Mike didn’t even want to talk to you about that.

 What about my disadvantages?  First of all, I said it is going to force them to corrupt the federal government.  He came back with a curious piece of evidence that said that the organized criminals were impressed with the relative incorruptibility.  One, they got the narcotics chief in Miami.  Two, the evidence said that there was corruption at all levels of the government, and I suggest to you if those organized criminals have to corrupt the federal government, they’ll get over their impressed state of mind and they’ll corrupt them. I want that disadvantage answered in that last speech.

Finally, I said, it reduces the support of this organized crime.  We pointed out to you, I think, that the money will result in incorrupt and honest police forces if we give it to the local level.  But, no, Mike just wants to have the federal government come in and do everything.  Then I said, a national police admits defeat to local corruption.  And I think Mike admitted that earlier when he said, We’ll circumvent this corruption — that’s only one part of our case.”  I suggest that we use the present system and get at that corruption.  A national police force is bad.  What’s the harm?  I pointed out to you that the harm was that it saps the morale.  Now O. W. Wilson doesn’t mind the federal government participating according to Mr. Denger.  But I’ll bet you O. W. Wilson would mind plenty much if the federal government were in there supervising all of the activities and looking for corruption under every rug.  I think it does sap the morale and I don’t think Mike answered it.

Finally, I said the local efforts are most effective because organized criminal activities primarily are there on the local level, operating even though in violation of federal laws.  We can’t expect Washington to know where the local bookies are in New York, but the New York Police Department will know.  There are five serious disadvantages to this affirmative proposal. In a comparative advantage analysis, I think they’d better be answered very satisfactorily in that last rebuttal. I don’t think they can be.

Now let’s go back to those need contentions.  First, they told us, we’ll remove jurisdictional barriers.  All Kathy was telling you here is, first of all, the federal govern­ment has jurisdiction in this area, specifically in terms of gambling.  Now Mike came back with the Wall Street Journal article that said the

more knowledgeable gamblers have tailored their operations so they don’t become part of inter-state commerce.  Mr. Denger, in his eagerness, forgot to read two words in that quotation.”  The more knowledgeable gamblers have attempted to tailor their operations so they stay out of inter-state commerce.”  I want proof that they have.  I want proof that they don’t use the telephone, that they don’t use the mails, and that they don’t use that inter-state commerce in any way whatsoever. As proof that the federal government does have jurisdiction, Mr. Kennedy said they had investigations.  He goes on to say: “We have investigations of this nature now going on in twenty-two states.  That was in the report to the President from the Attorney General, January 10, 1963.  I think the federal government has jurisdiction.

What about cooperation?  We’re telling you that if the localities may not be able to go in, but if they need cooperation because a gangster lives outside their jurisdictions, there is no reason why they can’t cooperate.  They came back and said, “Well, they won’t cooperate because they are corrupt.”   These are the investigative and prosecutive barriers they are talking about.  Yet Kathy said, number one, that the federal government has jurisdiction to deal with this corruption.  Number two, we have special prosecutors; we have Grand Juries; we have the Internal Revenue Service; we have the self-check units which haves been effective in Chicago and Los Angeles. And that all Northwestern has done is to commit what I consider the fallacy of division by telling us, “well, each one of these is either in all the states or each one of these alone can’t solve the problem.”  But I want to know why all of these in conjunction can’t solve the problem.  I think they can be pretty effective.  I want some legitimate indictments of these mechanisms.

And finally, they are going to remove the penal barriers.  You know, Mike never  did explain why those 100,000 prosecutions were illegal, because, see, our prosecutors are legally bound to prosecute only in that area where the money is spent most judiciously.  Yet they are getting 100,000 convictions in gambling every year.  We reject that analysis.

Second Affirmative Rebuttal

William Snyder, Northwestern University

Let’s begin with the objections to the affirmative proposal.  First, the narcotics analogy is not an accurate one. Mr. Earl Johnson says, after all, you always have the corpus delicti, you have the smuggling operation, you have the inter-state level.  Now that was Mr. Johnson’s description.  We never heard an exact quotation that said that the Nar­cotics Bureau’s effective law enforcement had nothing to do with the effective fight against organized crime.  My colleague in his rebuttal speech pointed out to you from Mr. Seraguzza, in 1963, a major reason for the decline in narcotics addiction and traffic in recent years has been the tougher legislation adopted in 1956 aimed at ending the narcotics.  What did the legislation provide?  Complete jurisdiction and strong penalties.  We think it’s a rather remarkable coincidence that in 1956 we gave that freedom to the Narcotics Bureau.  They had extremely great success.  We think all those characteristics of narcotics operations applied before 1956 just as much as they did afterwards.  We think we have identified the reason for success. 

Second, the gentlemen said we are not going to be able to get the corruption.  You can’t prove it unless you have the right to wire-tap.  Now, perhaps once in a while there’ seen a case of corruption in which we needed wire-tapping to prove it.  The gentlemen themselves told you that we had gotten corruption in some cases without the right to wire­tap.  What did we come back to say?  We pointed out the success of the Bureau of Narcotics was what?  Mr. Charles Adrian, Professor of Political Science at Michigan State: “While quite a few public officials will cooperate with underworld vice operations, few will make an alliance with the purveyors of narcotics, since it would be futile, because state and federal law enforcement is particularly alert here.”  They don’t have the right to wire-tap.  We don’t think that there is going to be a severe problem with regard to corruption if we can give jurisdiction to state agencies and to the federal government.

 Third, the gentlemen suggested that we are not going to solve the problem of pro­tection.  Sometimes it is not in the form of a bribe.  Let me make two remarks: (1) Often it is in the form of a bribe — four and one-half billion dollar’s worth.  We suggest that they don’t deny the advantage there. (2) When it isn’t in the form of a bribe, such as a lenient judge, the possibility of little money, an incapable prosecutor, political influence, isn’t it more of an advantage to rely not on one local agency, but to create an agency also at the state and federal authority so that we can go in and get this?  Even if it is leniency, even if it is a lack of money, even if it is an inept prosecutor at the local level, I don’t believe they’ve denied the advantage there.

All right, then, finally they suggested some disadvantages.  First, there is always the danger of corrupting the federal government.  We pointed out (1) If they had to corrupt all three levels of government, it would be prohibitive.  That’s in the first constructive speech and the negative haven’t replied. (2) We pointed out that it has been extremely difficult to corrupt at the federal level.  They think one example disproves that. We pointed out that when we have had corruption, we have been able to get them in the Bureau of Narcotics. (3) We suggested that if we can have three levels, it makes much more sense to have a check on three levels of government rather than relying on one level of government I don’t believe we are going to have complete corruption throughout the United States.

Then the gentlemen suggested that we would reduce financial support for the local law enforcement agencies.  They told us that a national police force would sap morale and they said that it would be an admission of defeat. These were three separate disadvantages but we think they are all virtually the same thing. My colleague’s comment: We only send in these agencies when jurisdictional barriers prevent or corruption prevents an ability or a willingness to attack organized crime.  We didn’t say that they would be looking over Orlando Wilson’s shoulder, supervising all of his operations.  Mr. Wilson indicated that they welcome that kind of jurisdiction.  We don’t think we’re going to sap the morale.  We don’t think there is an admission of defeat. We think we can do better against organized crime.  How?  In three ways.

First, we can remove jurisdictional barriers to effective law enforcement.  The lady of the negative team and her colleague have told us that we can always get federal jurisdiction.  In four out of six cases, in a few instances, but the conclusion was in most cases that the federal law is not violated.  They don’t have jurisdiction. They suggested we can have cooperation.  We pointed out that we don’t have any agency at the state or federal level to provide that cooperation.  It only takes place in one or two cases. We’re trying to argue comparative advantage. We’re not saying that it is absolutely impossible ever to have that kind of cooperation.  But when we review the conclusion of the New York Times, “Most states lack any centralized control over law enforcement”, and Mr. Hundley tells us that “without centralized authority to enforce the criminal laws, the state is unable to move in on local enclaves of organized crime.”  We think we can substantially reduce those juris­dictional barriers which in Detroit, Tampa, and throughout the nation continue to impair the attack upon organized crime.  And I don’t believe that the negative team has ever de­nied the fact that they impair that attack.

 Second, we suggest we can remove political barriers to effective law enforcement.  The lady of the negative team read five specific mechanisms.  I pointed out that most of them weren’t available in most of the states. I pointed out that the Crime Commission isn’t a law enforcement body.  All she did was re-read her evidence that said it exposed a few things, not that it was able to enforce the law.  What did we argue here?  Isn’t it more ad­vantageous to have an agency at the federal and state level that can move in when these particular mechanisms are unavailable or when they break down?  I don’t think that she denied the conclusion of the American Bar Association that it would be far superior to have federal and state agency jurisdiction to go in and attack corruption when they’re un­able to do it at the local level.  We claim an advantage there.

Third, and finally, we can remove penal barriers.  We’re not saying that it is illegal to attack this particular organized crime if you have raids and a few convictions.  We talked. about the major conspiracy case in which a great deal of time and effort is necessary.  That cannot be done at the present time because the penalties are too weak to justify it. Mr. Ploscowe said that was the major reason for non-enforcement of the law.  We can remove the penal barrier.  We think we can emulate the success of the Bureau of Narcotics and have a far more effective attack on organized crime.

THE 1990 FINAL ROUND TRANSCRIPT

First Affirmative Constructive

David Coale, Harvard

OBSERVATION I: The Status Quo has adopted a policy of reducing fossil fuel consumption through the increased use of nuclear power.

We’ll turn to nuclear power because of rising electricity demand and maintaining environmental integrity. J.C. Levine of the Electric Power Research Institute testified in March of 1989:

“We strongly believe there will be a market in the United States for a new generation of nuclear reactors … new base loaded plants will be essential to accommodate the steadily increasing demand for electricity and to replace existing older plants. Furthermore … it is clear that nuclear technology is fundamentally sound and that nuclear economics are fundamentally attractive.”

The industry has already mobilized the support both of the Congress and Bush, Marriott continues in 89:

“The nuclear industry believes that a resurgence is on the horizon. With the help of the greenhouse effect and an amenable administra­tion and Congress, the industry hopes that the 1990s and beyond will bring a nuclear age. There is reason for such optimism: Congress has in recent years repeatedly shown itself to be far more pro-nuclear than the public it represents … and President Bush, and his chief of staff John Sununu, represent the most vocally pro-nuclear administration ever.”

Nuclear power plants reduce fossil fuel consumption; here’s why, as S.D. Thorns of the Energy Programme at the University of Sussex detailed in 1988:

“Electricity supply systems are run in what is known as a `merit order’. This means that a plant available for service is brought on or shutdown to meet fluctuations in demand in order of marginal generation cost; that is, all things being equal, the cheaper the operating costs, the higher the utilization. The effect of adding a new nuclear power plant to an electricity generating system will be that, since it will be placed near the top of the merit order, all other things being equal, the utilization of the stations beneath it in the merit order, predominantly fossil-­fired plants, will be lower than it would have been without the nuclear plant.”

We have no quarrel with this general idea of nuclear policy. However, we find the policy which the status quo  has chosen disastrous.

OBSERVATION II: Flaws in the nuclear regulatory process tempt disaster.

Every power-generating reactor currently operating in America is a light water reactor design. These were good for the Navy once upon a time, but not good for civilian today. The Commission structure of the NRC is incompatible with effective safety enforcement.  Marcus Rowden, who served on both the Atomic Energy Commission and the NRC, testified in July of 1985:

“The commission structure (of the NRC) impedes the agency’s regulatory (effectiveness) … One of the principal findings of both the Presidential and NRC post-TMI studies was that, as a result of its collegial management, the NRC was (in the words of the NRC-sponsored study) “An organization that is not so much badly managed at all.” The managerial inefficiency of the NRC, those studies concluded, is directly attributable to the diffusion of authority among the five commissioners.”

Two problems with this.  First, it perpetuates light water reactors. Priory, Vice President of Duke Power Company, in December of 1985:

“… the SDC [Standard Design Certification] process leading to pre-approval of designs would initially be based on current reactor designs … Thus current light-water reactor technology is the prime candidate for  standardization.” 

Second, once outmoded designs are standardized, however incompletely, the process will exclude all further improvements. Mariotte in 89:

“The NRC’s proposed rule would also make it virtually impossible for the public, or even the NRC itself, to make safety improvements in reactors using standardized designs.”

Hence, the plan.

First, legislation shall be adopted which abolishes the NRC and replaces it with a Nuclear Power Safety Administration, NPSA, under the direc­tion of a single Administrator. Procedural changes in the licensing process shall be Mandated.

  1. The NPSA shall promulgate a rule providing for the licensing of standardized reactor designs, provided such designs are 90 percent com­plete; have been the subject of hearings which allow full public participation, at least equal to that previously allowed for construction or operating permits; and a working example of the reactor has been experimentally demonstrated to be safe from catastrophic failure. In all cases, the re­quirements for standardized licenses shall be expressed in terms of performance; however, graphite modulated modular high temperature gas cool­ed reactors shall receive early consideration.
  2. The NPSA shall promulgate a rule which provides for one-step, construction and operating licenses.
  3. Standardized design approvals shall be reviewable after a period of 10 years, and one step licenses may be reviewed, at the discretion of the NPSA.
  4. The NPSA shall promulgate a rule which requires that existing nuclear plants comply with performance standards including comprehensive safety reviews and safe operation.
  5. the plan . If necessary will guarantee a substantial increase in the use of nuclear power. The intent of the plan is to increase the use of nuclear power.

         Second, enforcement through normal provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. Any funding possibly necessary will be guaranteed.  Aff. speeches shall serve to clarify intent.

Marc, here’s the plan, two advantages, the first is accidents.

Subpoint A: Nuclear Accidents are Common

NRC Regulations promulgated after the TMI accident haven’t done anything. New York Times in 1989:

         “… (Congressman) Markey … said the data shows that “we may be as vulnerable to a meltdown in the 21st century as we were in 1979.” Only 24 of the nation’s 112 licensed commercial reactors have completed all the changes outlined in the TMI Action Plan … (The Congressman) said. “The difference between coming close and getting the job done can mean the difference between safety and catastrophe.”

A single malfunction snowballs. Former NRC Commissioner Asselstine in 1987:

        “… actual plant operating experience demonstrates that losses of reactor safety systems, multiple and simultaneous equipment failures, human error, poor maintenance practices, poor management, and rapid unplanned reactor shutdowns, known as SCRAMS, still frequently occur at American nuclear power plants. These vulnerabilities in plant performance can both trigger accidents and act as com­plicating factors to turn less serious operating problems into severe accident situations.”

Subpoint B: A serious accident is devastating.

The radioactive release is ruinous. Physicist Jan Beyea of Audubon in 1982:

  “The “first wave” of radioactive materials released … would spread far beyond the ten-mile evacuation radius … contaminating land … hundreds … hundreds of miles from the reactor … thousands of cancer deaths would  result years later, regardless of weather conditions or the effectiveness of evacuation within the ten-mile area.”

Subpoint C: The plan improves power plant safety.

First, the single administrator format improves the agency’s safety effectiveness significantly. The Edison Electric Institute reported in 1985:

“The NRC should be structured to better carry out its complex duty of managing a Comprehensive nuclear safety program. It is clear that the Commission-type organization as currently administered by NRC does not result in an efficient and effective decision-making pro­cess … The NRC Chairman has recommended abolition of the Commission in favor of a single administrator …”

Second, the Modular HTGR design offers near-perfect safety; a core meltdown is physically impossible. Lidsky, Professor of Nuclear Engineer­ing at MIT testified in 1988:

“It is possible to design a commercially attractive power reactor with demonstrable inherent passive safety. In the case of the MGR, this is a direct result of the unique capability of the fuel to maintain integrity and contain fission products at extremely high temperatures. These properties make it possible to build a reactor that has no chance of a core damaging accident due to any combination of system failures and operator actions … Not even the combined effect of instantaneous loss of coolant and full withdrawal of all control rods would lead to either core damage or radioactivity release. Either of these events would be catastrophic in our existing commercial reactors.”

 The unique structure of HTGR and the fact that it may be buried assures safety. U.S. News ’89:

“The key is the encapsulating of tiny pellets of uranium fuel in the four layers of ceramic and carbon coatings that could withstand high temperatures without failing. Even if all the plant’s helium leaked out while its operators were asleep, heat produced would be conducted through the reactor walls into the earth fast enough that fuel could never get hotter than 2,900 degrees Fahrenheit, far below the (melting point of) 3,600 degrees …”

      It’s been empirically proven in West Germany. Gray President of MIT in ’89.

“Such “passively safe” reactors can be designed to suffer the simultaneous failure of all control and cooling systems without danger to the public. And their safety can be demonstrated by an actual test: a West German modular reactor has passed such tests three times.”

The second advantage, Prolif. The A subpoint, we’re on the brink.

U.S. Panel on New Approaches to Nonprolif. ’86

“The risk of several additional countries acquiring nuclear weapons is clear and present. It is particularly acute in some of the world’s most volatile areas where the addition of a nuclear dimension to regional hostilities could have disastrous consequences.”

     American power stops indigenous capability which will develop without the plan. Eibenschutz, former member IAEA,

     ’85

      “… as long as assurance of nuclear fuel supply is not fully established, the pressure will persist – despite economic considerations – toward indigenous self-sufficiency in the nuclear fuel cycle.”

The time frame is overnight once the initial decision is made. Meyer, Associate Professor of Political Science at MIT, in ’84:

“The convergence of motivation with pre-existing technical capability … can give rise to rapid changes in nuclear propensity. The classical admonition that “capabilities change slowly, but intentions can change overnight” is particularly accurate in describing … the nuclear proliferation … Here, “overnight” connotes about a year’s time, since in all cases proliferation decisions lagged no more than a year or so behind the convergence of motivation and technical capability.”

    It snowballs once it starts. Sokloski, senior aide to Senator Quayle for Intl. Security, ’85:

       “… a series of countries “going nuclear” in the 1990s, could bring down the whole structure. Israel and South Africa may well be followed by Pakistan, Iraq, South Africa, Taiwan, Argentina, or Brazil. With increased safeguard commitments, IAEA inspection failures are more likely to increase.”

    Subpoint B: Prolif. is bad.

    Initially, it undermines crisis stability. Potter, CISA, ’82:

“The possibility of inadvertent superpower involvement in a regional conflict among nuclear armed parties is increased by the absence in most Nth countries of many of the technical and political conditions which in the … (superpowers) limit the unauthorized and unintended use of nuclear weapons…. these are systems of command, control, and communication; effective intelligence-gathering and -processing capabilities; reliable early warning systems; and domestic political stability. The absence of these conditions, together with the lack of secure and reliable second-strike forces, would undermine deterrence stability in a crisis situation involving Nth countries and would increase pressure for one of the parties to preempt.”

Prolif is the most likely scenario for war. Sheinman, Cornell, ’85.

       “…world attention is focused on ways to avoid nuclear war. There is little doubt that this is the paramount challenge facing contem­porary civilization. Political competition, mutual mistrust, and the nuclear … arsenals of the superpowers are the major causes of the prob­lem. Soviet-American relations, however, are not. .. even … the most probable, cause of this challenge. It is the spread of nuclear weapons to even more states that affords the most danger to U.S. security and international peace.”

Independently, causes accidents and miscalculation. Kennedy, Assistant Secretary of State, ’85.

“The notion that more proliferation may be better is equally false. Proliferation can only increase global instability and adversely affect the interests and well-being of all. It would threaten international order as we have known it and could lead to the breakdown of the nuclear peace … not only by choice, but also by accident or miscalculation.”

Independently, fast rate of proliferation is uniquely bad, more stuff on this below. Waltz the source on all the prolif. good cards in 1984.

        “Rapid change may be destabilizing. The slow spread of nuclear weapons gives states time to learn to live with them, to appreciate their virtues, and to understand the limits they place on behaviour.”

Even if wars become less likely, one is all it takes to go nuclear. We outweigh the impact turns. Gallucci, State  Department, ’83:

     “…. those who manage to be sanguine about the spread of nuclear weapons may or may not be

correct … in believing that strategic relations among new nuclear-weapons states will tend to be stable, essentially dominated by minimum deterrence. War may indeed be less likely … Even if that very unlikely prediction turns out to be a good one, however, when war does occur, it will have the potential to be many more times destructive than ever before. More proliferation will not be better unless we are willing to accept the greater probability of catastrophic nuclear wars in exchange for less frequent conventional regional conflicts.”

     Independently there are many other scenarios for war. Ramberg, CISA-UCLA ’86:

“In a Hudson Institute report, Lewis Dunn and Herman Kahn suggest that unintended or inadvertent nuclear war could result from a low-level conflict escalating under pre-emptive pressures, or accidental or unauthorized nuclear attacks. Catalytic war might result from one country attempting to provoke an exchange between two others. Even anonymous nuclear attack is conceivable. History provides numerous examples of first strikes or preventive wars. Finally, the taboo surrounding nuclear weapons may erode and the weapons may be viewed as   (legitimate) conventional alternatives.”

      Subpoint C: We solve.

      First of all, increasing American power increases American leadership, U.S. leadership in the non-proliferation regime. Wolfe, Vice President, General Electric, in ’85.

“If the U.S. wants to help control the future of a vital energy option and to successfully pursue its  nonproliferation objectives, it can only do so through a strong domestic nuclear power program and technological  leadership.”

     American leverage stops proliferation. Wolfe continues in ’89:

“… the success of the U.S. non-proliferation policy in the past was due to our technical leadership that allowed us to constructively in­fluence nuclear energy development and use in peaceful directions … If we hope to continue such leadership, we must provide consistent support to key programs aimed at timely advanced reactor development and build upon the excellent results in these programs to date. Other­wise the U.S. will send a message to the world that it is giving up its nuclear power leadership role.”

     A second reason we solve. We save the non-proliferation treaty. Small reactors are important to it.

    Weinberg, director of the IEA, in ’85:

“… certain new technical ideas for accident-proof small reactors might be incorporated into new approaches for nonproliferation. Ar­ticle IV of the Non-Proliferation Treaty commits the weapons states to helping the other signers of the treaty to develop their own nuclear power programs.”

We continue with Mr. Griffith from the Department of Energy in ’89.

“The HTGR forms an excellent future reactor because … it has passive safety and … export potential. Many people think we will never be able to penetrate Third World market with nuclear power…. I believe the HTGR gives us an opportunity to consider … that because it comes in power sizes and a manageability that Third World countries should be able to handle with support from the advanced countries.”

 The plan has to act before the 1995 Review Conference even if nobody ever actually orders a reactor or builds one.  Williams, Senior Research Physicist, and Feiveson, Center for Energy and Environmental Studies at Princeton, in April of 1990:

“The fundamental reorientation of nuclear policy cannot be accomplished overnight. It is critical, however,  that it be well underway before the 1995 Review Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, when the international regime for nuclear power will be renegotiated.”

    This will stop the snowball.

    Scheinman, Professor of International Relations at Cornell University, in 1985:

“… these states more likely than not would have succumbed to the pressures of garrison-state mentality and sought countervailing capabilities. Barring the establishment of some form of nonproliferation treaty, the metaphor of the “nuclear armed crowd” would have become a reality.”

    The next reason we solve.

A black market exists through emerging suppliers, we’ll solve it. The black market exists, evidence from McGrew, Open University, ’84:

“A related, but much more intractable problem, is that of what one author refers to as `nuclear grey and black marketing’. Evidence exists of covert nuclear deals involving Third World states and sometimes so-called `reliable’ suppliers.”

     The plan solves waste and proliferation issues which incidentally means there’s no way we can’t beat Amory Lovins’ arguments about why technology causes proliferation. Gray, of MIT in ’89:

“These new reactors do not eliminate the waste disposal problem, but their … encapsulated fuel does simplify it. A fuel that can sur­vive unscathed … during an accident is obviously securely packaged for disposal under more benign conditions … This same feature also makes it much more difficult for the discharged fuel to be processed to produce unauthorized nuclear weapons.”

     Solving waste solves the pressure to sell in the black market.

     Gummett, of the University of Manchester, in ’84:

“The settling of public concern about waste management could, moreover, have some positive non-proliferation implications if it stimulated a resumption of nuclear orders in the developed world, thereby reducing the pressure on suppliers to offer whatever inducements seem necessary to secure export orders to developing countries.”

    Even if people don’t accept the reactors from America, non-accepting signals a proliferation risk, we’ll still be able to act. Keely, of University of Calgary, in ’87:

“… the spread of nuclear capabilities changes the basic nature of the safeguarding function: where once it was above all a means for suppliers to guard against misuse of nuclear assistance …, now perhaps it is better  regarded as a means by which nuclear recipients might of­  for public assurances, partially symbolic given the limits of safeguarding, of their peaceful intentions.”

    The final argument is that politics is more important than technology. Even if every nuclear power plant disappeared from the world tomorrow, there would still be sufficient knowledge to cause proliferation. Avory, a physicist at Argonne National Lab, and Bethe, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, ’82:

“… any nation determined to make an atomic bomb would surely choose a more direct route. The basic driving force of nuclear pro­liferation is motivation, since the knowledge to build nuclear weapons exists and will certainly not vanish even if all nuclear power ac­tivities were to cease. Thus the real question is political.” 

First Negative Constructive

Rodger Cole, Redlands

     First observation is substantially reduce. The A Subpoint, the definition. First, substantial must have meaning. Random

     House in ’87:

“Substantial: of ample or considerable amount, quantity, size.”

Second, the burden is to compare.

Words & Phases in 1966:

“The word `substantially’ is a relative term and should be interpreted in accordance with the context of claim in which it is used.”

  1. Affirmative violates: in comparison to the status quo, there is not net reduction in the consumption of fossil fuels. Contention one claims that it is the status quo policy to reduce fossil fuel consumption using light water reactors. HTGR’s may be claimed to be safer, but they do not reduce fossil fuel consumption more than light waters.
  2. Subpoint, superior interpretation:

First, the affirmative destroys negative ground. The basis of negative position on this topic is that reducing fossil fuel consumption is disadvan­tageous. None of these disadvantages could be unique according to the affirmative case, contention one.

Second, negative provides clear meaning to the term `substantial’. It will be the negative position that the affirmative must prove some way in which the status quo consumes fossil fuels and reduce that consumption. Instead, the 1AC only proves two ways fossil fuel consumption can be reduced and makes safety comparisons.

The second violation is reduce consumption.

The A Subpoint is the definition. First, reduce means to lessen. Random House, ’87:

“… to bring down to a smaller extent, size, amount, number.”

Second, consumption end use.

Dictionary of Energy, ’88:

“In economic usage, the act by individuals of using goods and services to satisfy wants, which is the end purpose of economic activity.” The B Subpoint, the violation, the Affirmative does not reduce consumption. The status quo reduces consumption just as much as the Affir­mative does especially compared to the 2AC turns. Listen to these.

C Subpoint, superior interpretation. First, fair limits. It makes sure the Affirmative reduction, makes Aff not read its turns. Second, it moots the word substantial, no real reduction is achieved if you allow this interpretation.

Now the counter plan: we ban nukes.

Through all necessary means the following proposal:

A safety board identical to that of the affirmative will be established to monitor the decommissioning of all civilian nuclear power plants and those currently under construction in the United States. In addition, all future construction of civilian nuclear power plants will be prohibited. All necessary personnel, research for disposal of plant components, and other essential resources will be guaranteed. Negative speeches will clarify in­tent.

Observation: dejustify affirmative.

A Subpoint. Structurally: The affirmative promotes the utilization of HTGR’s, the negative prohibits it.

B Subpoint. Net Benefits: The counter plan solves the risk of accidents in the status quo while preventing future nuclear use, thus avoiding the disadvantages.

C Subpoint. Is Permutation Standards:

First is, ground must be divided; no permutations allowed. The affirmative must defend nuclear power while the counter plan eliminates it. The permutation cannot oppose atomic power.

Second is, anti-topicality illegitimate: the affirmative will permute with do the counter plan. This clearly increases fossil fuel consumption.

D Subpoint is, we solve the Japan agreement. Banning Nuclear power would break the U.S./Japan agreement, and that agreement violates the NPT, flipping the prolif advantage back on them.

Leventhal in ’88:

“Original sponsors of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978, including … Cranston… and … Glenn, regard this arrangement as a violation of the law’s basic requirement for careful case-by-case review of plutonium-related requests.”

Now the first disad. CO,. The A Subpoint is you need an increase in CO, to stop hunger. Idso ’89:

“… it would be like cutting our own throats – or, more properly, the throats of “generations yet unborn” – to attempt to thwart the very phenomenon (the steady rising atmospheric CO, concentration) which has the proven ability to dramatically boost crop yields, enhance plant water use efficiencies, and give us the edge we need in our fight against world hunger.”

B Subpoint. Affirmative decreases CO,, fossil fuel consumption is key.

Houghton ’89:

“The largest source of carbon dioxide emissions is the combustion of fossil fuels, which releases about 5.6 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere annually. Industrial nations contribute about 75 percent of these emissions …” C Subpoint. Hunger equals war.

Soth ’82:

“Relieving hunger and malnutrition seems to be an essential short-term as well as long-term strategy for reducing tensions and the causes of war. The relief of hunger is the best foundation for attacking poverty and inequality, the underlying causes of unrest, revolution, and war in the world.”

Only an increase in CO, solves. Idso ’82:

“… the already burgeoning world population continues to grow at a rapid rate, and that this increase in humanity will put great pressures on the world’s agricultural systems in the days ahead, such that we may not be able to meet the demand for food without the added productivity edge provided by a high atmospheric CO, content, which could also mean the difference between war and peace.”

Second disad is Gorbachev.

A Subpoint, he’s on the brink. Parks, March 26th:

“The Soviet Union is now facing the gravest dangers, both political and economic, since it began the process of reform five years ago … further policy mistakes could plunge the country into chaos.”

B Subpoint, Affirmative causes. Oil fired plants, spurred by rising electricity demand, cause high oil demand. U.S. Council for Energy Awareness ’89:

“Eighty percent of our reserve electrical capacity is in oil-fired plants. Reserve capacity maintains the reliability of our electricity. As the demand for electricity increases, these plants will be used more and more. Full use of these reserve oil-fired plants would lead to an increase in oil imports of almost two million barrels per day – over twice the amount we import from the Persian Gulf.”

U.S. is key to the world market. Renner ’87:

“America’s energy problem … is a global problem … consumption trends and fluctuations in the U.S. market have a tremendous impact on the world oil market: U.S. domestic policies can tip the scale toward either stability or instability.” Oil price swings kill the Soviet economy. Arbatov ’90:

“Oil plays a particularly important role in the country’s economy … Western goods and equipment with the aim of alleviating food shortages, raising the technological standards of industry and improving the internal trade balance. The Soviet economy is therefore extreme­ly sensitive to price changes on the world oil market.”

Economic failure kills Gorbachev. Goldberg ’90:

“… a collapse of the Soviet economy could give Moscow’s hard-liners a chance to regain power and reinstitute the kind of “hostile foreign policy” that prevailed during the Cold War.”

C Subpoint. Soviet lash out, crisis causes. Hyland ’88:

“At some point, probably by the early 1990s, Gorbachev may well face an internal crisis. If he prevails, he may profoundly change the Soviet Union; if he fails, he may lose power. If he senses that he will fail, a period will follow that could be dangerous for the United States; in either event the temptation to attempt foreign adventures to compensate for domestic failures may prove irresistible …”

The impact is nuclear war. Krickus ’87:

“[A] societal crisis in the Soviet Union could lead to a situation that contains all the elements of an international crisis … [The] Soviet leaders may make miscalculations that lead to a nuclear war.”

Now the second advantage, A and B Subpoints. Group it.

 Number one, this is empirically denied, we’ve had lots of prolif nations in the past and it  hasn’t snowballed. Number two, number of nations irrelevant, numbers irrelevant.

Lefever in ’79:

“There are now 5 or 6 nuclear states and there may be as many as 10 by the year 2000 but an increase in number does not necessarily in­crease the probability of nuclear war.”

Number two. Recent Prolif Disproves Intrilligator in ’78.

“… the predictions of global nuclear warfare that were to have ensued upon the Chinese acquisition of nuclear weapons have not been realized.”

Also, also prolif doesn’t mean war.

Intrilligator, no.

No snowball.

Dunn, ’81:

“Historical experience clearly indicates that each new member of the nuclear club has sought to close the door after its entrance. Doing so may be important to preserving its newly gained prerogatives from lesser countries.”

Also, no miscalculation. Wektman, ’80:

“The dangers represented by a nuclear forces actually or prospectively in the hands of an opponent do not make a situation com­plicated; instead they simplify it.”

Now the C Subpoint, solvency, nothing but turns.

Number one, the time frame evidence is bad. Don’t let them claim this 95′ thing in the 2AC.

Number two, IAEA solving Third World prolif now. Spector ’89:

“There is, fortunately, a very successful regime in place helping to restrain the spread of nuclear weapons … The IAEA sends carefully trained inspectors to nuclear installations throughout the world and verifies that material is being used only for peaceful purposes and is not being used for weapons. The inspectors now inspect about 95 percent of all of the plants in the world.”

Now also turn: increased nuclear material destroys safeguards. Bolt ’88:

       “… safeguarding standards can only decline as the amount of material within the margin of error, based on throughout, increases. And throughput or inventories will increase sharply as (reactors increase) …”

Also, turn, U.S. nukes allow materials diversion. Booth in ’89:

“Another problem is the diversion of fissionable materials to make nuclear weapons … if a `born-again’ nuclear industry were to play a significant role … there would have to be a tenfold increase in nuclear power generation. This would produce more than 1 million pounds of plutonium a year … It is difficult to imagine a human institution capable of safeguarding these plutonium flows against occasional diver­sions of significant quantities to nuclear weapons …”

Also, turn: influence which turns their Avery card back on them. Rejection of nuclear sets the precedent, proving the advantage to the counter plan. Kraushaar ’88:

“… since nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons originated here, we have a moral obligation to set an example for the world by renoun­cing entirely the use of nuclear energy. Such a step, it is argued, would be a moral deterrent to any nation further developing a nuclear reactor program.”

Also, turn: grids. Modular reactors allow Third World use of grids. Auer ’85:

“Should nuclear power plant suppliers conclude that there is enough of a market for smaller reactors to warrant design, demonstration, and supply of smaller units, far more countries could join the civil nuclear power club. Bennett of IAEA claims that as many as 20 additional countries could accommodate nuclear power reactors in the range of 200 to 600 MWe on their electrical grids.”

Also, turn: costs. Modular reactors financially allow Third World nukes. This is, Ryan ’89:

“Moreover, most developing countries can’t afford the nuclear giants. Cost has stalled plans for 1,000-MW plants in Turkey, Egypt, and China …”

Also, turn: Nuclear use justifies military programs, causing the prolif internal link; it’s better evidence. Bojcun ’88:

“… the civilian and military applications of nuclear power have become inseparable and interdependent. The former grew out of the latter; today it provides the latter with its indispensable explosive fodder. Unless the civilian nuclear industry is dismantled, the proliferation of nuclear weapons will not be arrested, let alone reversed.”

Also, turn: it improves access to technology. Also this takes out black market solvency specifically. Lovins ’89:

“They (civilian nukes) provide the materials, skills, equipment, data and above all the innocent cover for bomb programs … all these ingredients, though obtainable on the black market, would be harder to get, more conspicuous to try to get, and politically far costlier to be caught trying to get – because for the first time the reason for wanting them would be unambiguously military.”

Also, the last argument is uniqueness: the slow rate of prolif now is due to the collapse of U.S. nukes, which takes out the political argument below. Lovins ’89:

“The global collapse of the nuclear enterprise … is thus a timely opportunity to inhibit proliferation. Nuclear capacity in 2000 will be at most 6-8 percent in industrialized countries and 2-3 percent in developing countries … this double edged venture is dying of an incurable at­tack of market force (and) is the best possible news for world peace …”

 

Now, the first advantage, the A Subpoint.

Number one, accident risk is low. Woodhouse in ’89:

“Calculations showed that nuclear reactors posed much lower risks than other technologies widely accepted by the public … it estimated the probability of such a severe accident to be one in a billion per reactor per year.” Also scientific consensus proves. Rothman and Lichter, ’87:

More significantly, among scientists who have published on nuclear energy in professional journals, only 1 out of 10 believes that the possibility of an accidental release of radioactivity from reactors is a very serious problem.” Also containment structures prevent now. U.S. Council for Energy Awareness in ’89:

“As a further backup, a formidable containment structure is designed to `contain’ the radioactivity, in the unlikely event of an accident. U.S. reactors have containment structures that include four-foot-thick outer concrete walls and a steel lining.” Now the C Subpoint solvency. Number one is turn around.

New technology carries unknown risks. Please star this evidence. Rogers ’88. “While the MHTGR fuel configuration and the passive features of the overall design do indeed appear to offer very significant safety benefits for a wide range of postulated accident scenarios, there are still some scenarios, particularly those involving primary coolant leaks and certain low probability severe events, where the presence of a containment could im­prove safety by preventing the release of primary coolant to the environment … Perhaps more important than these low probability identified events are the unknowns. The history of technological development, in the nuclear industry, as well as in other industries, amply demonstrates that we have seldom if ever embarked on the development of a new technology with a thorough understanding of all the problems well in hand. We have always discovered, over the course of time, technological problems we hadn’t envisioned, synergisms we hadn’t expected, and societal impacts we couldn’t have imagined.”

Also, turn: HTGR’s are vulnerable to graphite fires. Hamins ’89:

“HTRs are operated with hundreds of thousands of uranium filled graphite pebbles. The nuclear industry claims that an HTR is `inherently safe’ because, they say, a core meltdown is impossible. But if the primary cooling system fails in an HTR due to loss of a cooling agent, then air, steam or water may get into the cooling circuit where it would rapidly react with the graphite or liquid sodium – leading to tremendous pressures and the possibility of fire or explosion.

Also, turn: lack of containment increases the risk. Hamins ’89:

“Without a containment system, large amounts of radioactivity could be released into the environment. The NRC’s own … has challenged HTR designs over safety questions. In a … letter to the NRC Chairman, the ACRS stated that it does not accept the notion that advanced reactors can operate safely without conventional containment structures.” Also, turn: it increases vulnerability to earthquakes.

Franklin in ’89:

“There are other safety concerns about the new designs. The gas-cooled system, for example, relies on vents that could get blocked by earthquakes. GE’s liquid sodium system has a built-in danger. Liquid sodium is extremely chemically reactive, … so the coolant itself could catch fire.”

Also, empirically, the St. Vrain HTGR has failed. King ’89:

“It is true that Fort St. Vrain has had a variety of operational problems over its service life which have affected plant availability and that Public Service Company of Colorado … notified us in December 1988 of early termination of Fort. St. Vrain operations.”

Also, the next argument is, they wouldn’t get any snowball of success, their evidence assumes that once they get the nuclear weapons they would all commercialize, but the St. Vrain HTGR denies that. Also, the particle coating is not successful, HTGRS doesn’t solve. Franklin in ’89:

“The company has been unable to prove … that the particle-coating theory would work in actual commercial operation. The ACRS … has shown an unwillingness to do away with the containment structure. But the containment itself presents a different problem – it would hinder the helium’s ability to circulate and cool the reactor, effectively undermining the passive design.”

Also, advanced reactors do not solve management problems. Rader ’88:

“Finally, many of the worst safety problems associated with the current generation of nuclear reactors have been the result of the utilities’ own management failures rather then poor reactor design …”

Last argument is HTGR has not been proven safer than light water. Cohen ’85:

“Improving reactor safety is frequently advanced (time) as a motive for introducing new reactor types. A new reactor with a new coolant and moderator (e.g., the HTGR) will require many years of operating experience before its relative safety can confidently be assessed (com­pared to light waters) …”

Second Affirmative Constructive

Alex Lennon, Harvard 

At best we only offset future oil demand, we would be able to solve for any fossil fuel disads and outweigh. The substantially debate. First, the plan mandates, the plan mandates a substantial decrease, we solve it. Second subset enough, can pick a subset like electricity, no case covers all. Third, is don’t know what set, what is all fossil fuel, don’t know what substantially is. You don’t know what the whole set is. Fourth, is over limit, no case would be topical, you could never meet their interpretation. No case could be substantial if nuclear power isn’t. Fourthly, the narrow version of the topic, the narrow version of the topic says reduction of fossil fuels can be expected from nuclear power, we uniquely do that. Sixth, not in con­text, what energy policy is substantial? We will define. Seventh, substantial changes are tiny, Yergin, Cambridge Energy Research Association in ’78:

“After all, in 1973, the countries that embargoed the United States were supplying only about five percent of total U.S. demand.”

The next is all the answers below will cross-apply. The reduce violation. The first is you don’t have to compare to the status quo, even if status quo is topical so are we, the status quo is one policy of reducing fossil fuels through light water reactors, we are a different policy by using HTGRS. Second, immediate effects crazy, any case requires building plants with fossil-fuels to set up the technology i.e. solar power etc., requires fossil fuel input in order to get the solar technology decreasing it in the long run. The third or fourth, effects forever crazy. If status quo did conservation when status quo ran out of fossil fuels, because of effects, at that point plan would be not-topical, since conservation would exist, rather than fossil fuels existing. Next, our standards are reasonable technological inputs. Since both immediate effects and forever are crazy, our standard is to allow the plan to be fully implemented and allow interpretation. Next is merit order meets, the Thomas ’88 evidence at the bottom of observation I. Next, can’t have evidential interpretation, determination of topicality, based on card wars. Next is we meet the narrow version of the topic. Last we solve by shutdowns, that’s the case evidence. Now, the counter-plan. We’ll first turn accidents, that’s Wolfe in ’85:

“We may soon see a shortage of trained technical personnel – the people we need to keep existing plants operating safely or regulated

soundly – as our young people are discouraged from entering the nuclear field.”

The second is the Japan stuff. First, we solve this. We solve for Japan by increasing nuclear power. Second is turn, necessary for the NPT. In­oue from Kansai Power in ’88:

“The agreement was reached with a view to promoting peaceful use of nuclear energy in a predictable and stable manner, taking into

consideration the long lead time required for planning and development of nuclear power. For these reasons, the revised agreement is of great importance to both Japan and the United States as well as to the assured worldwide nuclear non-proliferation …”

Next, is necessary to stop proliferation. Smith, a former director of the ACDA in ’88, remember we’ll qualify our sources, Redlands does not qualify one card.

“The new nuclear agreement does two basic things. First, it strengthens American influence over the Japanese nuclear energy program as compared with the existing agreement. This is in compliance with the enactment of our stiff non-proliferation law as approved by Presi­dent Carter in 1978. Second, the agreement provides greater stability in nuclear commerce between the two countries. It does this by replacing a lengthy and contentious case-by-case review of certain American exports …”

The first disad to the counter plan is energy wars.

The A Subpoint. Lack nuclear power equals energy wars. Blair in 1983:

“If there is insufficient development on a world scale of such a major energy source as nuclear power this  could possibly lead, in the not too distant future, to an ugly scramble for the remaining reserves of fossil fuel. This also carries the risk of sparking off a major war.”

        The B Subpoint is this causes escalation to nuclear war. Ehrlich in ’80:

“One must note also that the ultimate breakdown of the ecological systems might not come gradually. One potential abrupt cause is thermonuclear war, which itself could be triggered by increasing competition for increasingly scarce resources.”

The second disad is economy. Economy, the A Subpoint is you need expansion of nuclear power. Jones in August ’89:

“If it seems difficult to envision the construction of more nuclear plants in the future, it seems impossible to imagine our economy .. .remaining healthy for long without them. A great deal depends on how well we get on with the job.”

       The B Subpoint is banking collapse, it will be caused. Spero in ’89:

“A major mechanical breakdown, liquidity problem or, even worse, default in one of these systems has the potential to seriously and adversely affect all other direct and indirect participants in the system.”

C Subpoint, this causes a depression. Miller ’87:

Each of these authors . . . believes that the next recession in the U.S. economy could trigger a debt crisis that ultimately leads to a monstrous world-wide crash and depression in the 1990s.”

The impact is war. Silk in ’79:

“If the world economy breaks down, the nations will resort to war – both economic and military – as they always have in the past when they saw no other way to avoid their own destruction.”

The Disad, off the top. CO,. The first is emissions decreases minimal. Bossong and Rader from Critical Mass in ’89:

“Nuclear power can at best eliminate just a small portion of the gases causing global warming – specifically, those from fossil-fueled electrical generating plants.”

Second, can’t build plants fast enough. Mintzer of the World Resource Institute in ’88:

       “… It would require us to build nuclear power plants at a rate between now and the year 2000 where they’d be opening one about every couple of weeks. It’s unlikely that this could be accomplished.”

The third is time horizon is too long. Mintzer of the World Resources in ’88:

“Nuclear power is not and could not make a large enough contribution to U.S. energy supply over a time horizon of interest to policy makers to substantially reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases.”

The fourth is all our answers from below will cross apply to this, we’ll answer more on the second disad. The second disad, now the first is, the link is only in the future. The link only indicates future oil consumption. There is no reason why this is important. Second, the brink card says you need present revenues, there’s no reason we decrease this. In other words, we only offset a future increase, we don’t decrease which is their fink card. The third, not-unique more increases to come. Coal Magazine February ’89:

“It will be more than two years before the bulk of the nuclear bubble is absorbed by the utility industry. In the meantime, we can look for nuclear generation to grow by at least another 30 bkwh in 1989.”

Next, observation one disproves. Even if they counter plan it out, it’s empirically false.

Next, gas will come on line, not oil. Business Week in August of ’89:

deregulation has lifted a decade-old prohibition … against using the fuel to fire electric power plants. Gas claims only 11 percent of that market. But nearly 50 percent of the new power facilities planned in the U.S. will run on gas …” Next, can get currency from gold, oil isn’t important. Bush in 1990:

“Several courses are open that could alleviate the situation. Partial and swift relief could be obtained by selling more gold from the Soviet reserves on the world market.”

That’s not the president; that’s an economist I’m using from Munich. Next can get hard currency from US-USSR Trade Agreement in June. Robinson, a former National Security Councilman, March of 1990:

“The Soviet Union intends to use the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Trade Agreement to be signed in June to eliminate two major legislative obstacles to its financial strategy: the restrictions on access to U.S. Export-Import Bank credit programs and to the U.S. securities market.” Next, no more gains to be made in electricity, from Public Utilities Fortnightly in ’88:

“Second, oil consumption has been reduced by a sharp shift in the mix of fuels used for electric generation from oil to coal and nuclear fuel. Between 1973 and 1987, the share of the nation’s electricity generated with oil fell from 17 percent to 5 percent …”

Next, any decreases will be offset by the transportation sector which we don’t effect. Public Utilities Fortnightly in ’88.

“Between the increasing penetration of electricity in energy consumption and the shift away from oil to coal and nuclear fuel in electric generation, the nation’s oil consumption … was mostly offset by an increase in oil consumption in the transportation sector of 2.6 million barrels per day.”

Next, is only 4 percent of electricity generation is oil. Abbots of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists in February of ’89:

“Despite the industry’s advertisements, atomic energy saves very little oil … Moreover, electrical generation accounts for only 4 per­cent of U.S. oil use. Any serious oil-saving measures must concentrate on motor vehicles, which represent 63 percent of national oil consump­tion.”

Next is, link cards are biased. Link cards are from nuclear energy hacks, that card specifically indicts it. The next card is turn we trade off with conservation. Investor’s Daily, September ’89:

“Conservation advocates say half or more of the country’s projected need for additional electricity supplies in the 1990s could be avoid­ed through aggressive conservation programs. They bemoan the use of scarce government research money for nuclear projects.” These gains are greater which is a net turn. Mintzer, of the World Resources

        Institute, in ’88:

“What seems to have been demonstrated in the last 10 years is that improving the efficiency of energy use is the cheapest, safest, cleanest, most direct way to increase the level of energy services that are available to the economy, and it’s not by waiting 10 years to build another nuclear plant.”

Next is turn, we trade off with energy innovations. Sylvan from Ohio State 1985:

“Seldom, if ever, would a potential energy innovation draw any serious attention . . . unless it was well along in the innovation process. In other words, any potential innovation that had the status of either a recently conceived idea or one in which the initial application had just been . . . developed would be highly unlikely to garner attention in a marketplace dominated by nuclear power.”

Next, these gains are greater. Bossong and Rader of Critical Mass in ’89:

“… investments in nuclear power would divert funds that could be used to pursue more promising solutions that can be effective in ad­dressing not only electrical generation as a source of global warming emissions …”

The prolif debate, he says empirically denied, empirically denied. However, it doesn’t assume the NPT will collapse which we’ll win down below. He says numbers irrelevant, however doesn’t assume fast prolif. That’s the Waltz in ’84 evidence who is an advocate of prolif good. It’s the fifth card on the B Subpoint. He says is recent evidence. First of all, is ’78 evidence, like it all assumes, and it goes to the NPT. In other words, the NPT slows it down which is our solvency evidence, that’s the Sheinman card which is the sixth card on the C Subpoint. He says no snowball. First of all, doesn’t assume the NPT. Second of all, it will. Meyer, assistant professor of political science at MIT, in ’84.

“In the case of the former, many countries have gone on record as declaring that they will remain non-nuclear weapons countries only as long as the global non-proliferation regime holds up. In other words, if the acquisition of atomic weapons seemed to be becoming the rule rather than the exception, they would feel compelled to follow suit.”

He says fifth, no miscalculation. However, we have four other scenarios including accidents. Also, it’s the most likely scenario for war. Also card says stability. Our card says it causes miscalc. Brenner ’87:

“The stakes, though, will remain high. The presence of nuclear weapons in the hands of the regional foes could make them more recalcitrant.

Moreover, as Dunn has argued, nuclear weapons can be expected to increase the tempo of events and, thereby, the risk of miscalculation.”

Please extend the third card on the A Subpoint. Meyer ’84, indicates a one year time frame, 1975. That gives us the time frame scenario. Also the second card on the B Subpoint, the Sheinman evidence indicates it’s the most likely scenario for war, on balance means superpower competition which includes Gorbachev which means it outweighs the disad. C Subpoint. He says at the top that, the time frame is bad. It’s excellent evidence, Williams in 1990. Look at the card fifth in the IAC. He says, IAEA solves. First of all, we uniquely stabilize that, that’s Epstein in ’85. It must be remembered that in 1995 the conference will be held to decide the future treaty of the NPT, which is the chief holder against proliferation who’s viability or even credibility is subject to the whole non-proliferation regime, and that includes the IAEA. He says, third and fourth. Please group these. First of all, the Avory evidence, the bottom of the C Subpoint, political link. Second, Gray evidence, fourth card from the bottom indicates we have non-proliferation now. In other words, there’s no technology. He says third is, tech shift, the second card on the A Subpoint indicates they will develop them indigenously, and if they don’t get them from us, in other words they’ll inevitably get nuclear power, and it they don’t get them from us there’s no safeguards, because they’ll do it themselves. The fourth is turn, we need leverage in order to stop technological dominance from the real proliferation threats. Simpson in ’84:

“… the greatest causes for concern in sustaining a system of physical denial of nuclear-weapon production capabilities probably lies in the limited scope of the safeguards regime and the shift in the center of gravity of the global nuclear industry away from the USA.” Next is power doesn’t cause prolif. Alonzo, executive director of FITRE, in ’85:

“The connection or linkage between nuclear power and nuclear weapons, to date, has been hypothetical. None of the five nuclear weapon states … has relied upon civilian fuel cycle facilities …”

Next is not unique: Other routes besides power. Scheinman, ’85:

          “… the peaceful nuclear fuel cycle is neither the normal nor the preferred route to nuclear weapons and that its abandonment would not materially change the risk of proliferation . . . (a bit)”

Next is 35 countries will proliferate if you don’t do the plan. Christian Science Monitor in ’87:

“First, the technology and infrastructure required to develop nuclear weapons has spread significantly in the past two decades. Roughly 35 ad­ditional countries now have the financial base, technical know-how, industry, and resources for a nuclear weapons program, according to prolifera­tion experts.”

That’s all I want there. Now I need number five, indicates precadent. The first, he indicates the ’78 card. Second of all, third world not follow. Kennedy, special advisor on nonproliferation, which is a much better source than they have, in ’85:

“… more importantly, there is no evidence that self-denial on the part of the industrialized world is likely to lead to similar forbearance on the part of Third World nations.”

Next, quick shifts will cause them to proliferate, Kennedy in ’85:

“It is quite apparent that the sharp turns in U.S. nuclear policy in recent years have led to serious friction with our nuclear trading part­ners and a consequent decline in our ability to win their support for important nonproliferation objectives.”

The next is all the stuff off number four turns above. Next is, Lovins is a hack, he doesn’t know anything about the non-proliferation treaty, he doesn’t know anything about the nuclear process, he’s just flaming. Number six he says Modulars and cost, please group these. That’s exactly our solvency evidence, we can use these to give it to them. However, they will get them anyway, that’s the Weinberg evidence, remember he’s the co-­writer of the NPT. They will inevitably prolif, the only way you can stop them is through politics. He says eight is, access to military. However, that’s only symbolic. That’s number three. He says, access to technology. That’s a Lovins hack, I’ve also answered that above. He says, they solve because they decrease nuclear power; however, a lot of this evidence, he has no qualification for Lovins. We’re reading experts on non-proliferation, which we’re reading our sources, they don’t even have the qualifications on the blocks. Observation one on inherency indicates the disads are empirically false, it should have caused the perceptual disads anyway. The accidents stuff. He says, risk is low and scientific consensus containment solves, three cards off this. My accidents will increase in future. Weiss in ’85:

“… there is much reason to believe that they are optimistic . . . Moreover, as the current generation of plants age, one can expect to see more safety problems attributable to that process.”

C Subpoint. Solvency. He says, new technology. First of all, it doesn’t assume that the technical issues are resolved. Lanning and Lidsky in ’85: 

“… the outstanding technical issues with regard to the use of the MHTGR for electric power production can be entirely resolved by 1990 …”

Second, administration stats are independent. He says, graphite reactors, however they’re too small. Kerr in ’89.

“… oxidation of graphite would be so slow that after many hours only a small fraction of the graphite would be consumed …” 

        Three through seven, please group. First of all, not modular HTGRS, St. Vrain was a big HTGR. Second of all is, fuel design is unique. Hoffman, ’89:

“The modular HTGR by its design is one in which the specifics of the fuel design itself provide, in our view, its own containment.”

  Eight, he says, advanced reactors not solve management, (time) That’s all the answers up above. Remember he’s dropping the US Electricity in ’85 card in the 1AC. 

Second Negative Constructive

Mark Rubinstein, Redlands

I think we’ll win this debate. They’re never denying that if you ban nuclear power that ends the Japan nuclear agreement, which flips both the advantages to the case.

Counter  plan.

All current fossil fuel consumption will be maintained at least at existing levels. Future increases concomitant with rising electricity demand are allowed. All efforts at conservation or renewable energy technology will be banned for at least 20 years. The loss of electricity from the riddance of nuclear power will be replaced with fossil fuel powered plants.

Little a., it’s not topical – it does not decrease consumption – in fact it would increase consumption.

Little b., it’s mutually exclusive – you cannot build nuclear power plants and replace them with fossil fuel plants at the same time.

Little c., net benefits – the counter plan solves for the turns to the disads and the economic collapse scenario. In addition it gets the net benefit

of allowing CO: to be pumped in the air and Gorbachev to get his necessary revenue.

Little d., permutations can’t be anti-topical – apply from the INC. They’re never answering the arguments out of the INC which means they can’t get any new answers to the permutation standards, which means they can’t be antitopical.

Next argument, the counter plan is feasible.

Oil is incredibly abundant meaning we can use it. Sperling, ’88:

“This planet has been blessed with large quantities of easily accessible petroleum . . . petroleum is a superior source of energy. It has a high energy density, is easily and inexpensively transported, and can be transformed into a large number of products at relatively low cost. And despite our rather profligate use of petroleum, the planet Earth still has tremendous quantities of petroleum stored away in its crust.”

This counter plan takes out their turns to the disad. Now, please go to the top of the counter plan. He says turn, accidents. First, no the

counter plan solves for this, his evidence says personnel, but the counter plan text hires the personnel, it maintains them. Also we do the same.

Safety board as the Affirmative, guaranteeing all safety solvency, taking out the turn.

Second, turn: lack of trained staff increases the risk of HTGRS. Kerr, ’88:

“Little is said in the staff paper about requirements for operation and staffing of advanced reactors. We find this to be a serious over­sight. Experience with LWRs has shown that issues of operation and staffing are probably more important in protecting public health and safety than are issues of design and construction.”

Now, please go to the Japan nuclear agreement. He says, we solve because we increase the NPT. This is not an argument; a lot of arguments in the 2AC are simply not arguments. You can’t understand them. Our second argument here is that the banning of nuclear power ends the US-Japan agreement. The Japan nuclear agreement depends upon us trading nuclear technology with Japan. The counter plan would ban any and all U.S. nuclear power, which means we could never do it anymore which would turn the advantage. Now they say second and third, necessary for the NPT to stop prolif., group them. First, U.S. Japan agreement violates the NPT, that is the Leventhal evidence, he’s the President of the Nuclear Control Institute, more evidence from Leventhal in ’88:

“But critics argue that the administration has renegotiated the current agreement, which will not expire for 15 years, in order to weaken U.S. nonproliferation laws, since Congress would never agree to amend these laws. The principal sticking point is the so-called programmatic consent: advance U.S. approval for Japan to transfer, separate, and use in its power program …”

Next the Agreement allows Diversion of Plutonium. Epstein ’88:

“Traffic in plutonium creates opportunities for “acts of nuclear terrorism involving mass destruction,” the Pentagon warned. The NRC said Japan might lose track of so many kilograms of plutonium that terrorists would be able to build hundreds of nuclear weapons,” Next argument, the Agreement Gives Japan Permission to Reprossess. Epstein ’88:

The Administration submitted a new U.S.-Japan nuclear-cooperation agreement to Congress in November that appears to violate the 1978 Nuclear NPA . . . Under a current agreement that expires in 2003, the United States controls Japan’s use of plutonium contained in spent nuclear fuel obtained from the United States. The United States supplies 80 percent of Japan’s nuclear fuel in the form of low-enriched uranium, and Japan needs to get approval from the United States before reprocessing the burned fuel into plutonium. But the new agreement which would supersede the old one, would grant Japan thirty years of “programmatic” approval to reprocess and air-ship plutonium without case-by-case clearance from the United States.”

The next argument, the slow growth in nuclear power prevents reprocessing, it alleviates prolif risks proving the turn is unique. Rose ’85:

“The nuclear slowdown delays for decades the commercial deployment of breeder reactors; this, plus hopes to extract uranium from seawater . . . leads to the possibility that the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle could consist only of disposing permanently of spent fuel under international supervision, without any chemical treatment. That would sever a major link between civilian nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

The next argument, there’s no reprocessing now, it proves turn unique. Aver ’85:

“Given the present unfavorable economic climate for reprocessing, it would not be surprising to see a complete lack of major commit­ment to reprocessing at least until the end of the century.”

The final argument here is that reprocessing causes prolif. Spence ’84:

“The technical points of linkage between ‘peaceful’ and military nuclear programs should be briefly spelled out . . . More modern reactors have tended to use enriched uranium as a fuel, which involves the construction of enrichment plant. Once again, plutonium can be extracted after the use of enriched uranium fuel, but enriched uranium itself can serve as a nuclear explosive. Once uranium has been enrich­ed to reactor grade, it requires only a comparatively little extra work to bring it up to weapons grade … it is possible to use plutonium taken straight from a reactor in order to construct a crude but effective nuclear weapon.”

Now an underview here. First, the U.S. Japan-Nuclear agreement results in air crashes and plutonium accidents. Epstein ’88:

“A mere speck of plutonium causes lung cancer if inhaled. And Japan would be flying a lot of specks: as much as eighty-five tons of plutonium by the year 2000, according to a report by the Nuclear Control Institute . . . Planes carrying plutonium would make two to three trips each month, the Institute estimates. A crash by one of these planes could have devastating consequences. “A tiny amount of can kill half a million people, which is about all we have here …”

Also the risk of an accident is greater than in power plants which outweighs the case. Epstein ’88:

“The risks of such air traffic are, indeed, enormous. Transporting plutonium by air is dubious because of the large possibility that a plane will crash, . . . Commercial plutonium flights could make nuclear-power reactors look safe by comparison …” Now, I think we’re flipping the case, now please go to the top of the accidents advantage.

  He doesn’t get here in time. Extend accident risk low, and Light Water Reactors are safe which takes out the perception argument. Also, the scientific consensus proves that Light Water Reactors are safe which is the reason why we should not do HTGRS. He says that, increases the risk, but that assumes there’s a containment structure on the HTGR, which there isn’t, which is our third argument, and the Light Water Reactor has containment structures. Now, extend all the turns. He says not assume tech issue, but remember this evidence is from Lidsky, he designed the HTGR, what do you think he’s going to say? Also, the Rogers evidence says that any new technology carries unknown risks, which increases the risk of an accident, this evidence is specific to HTGRS. Also, extend graphite fires and the lack of containment structure. Remember, there’s not a con­tainment structure within the HTGR which means that there would be more radiation released, flipping it back on them. Extend, that increases vulnerability to earthquakes, earthquakes are inevitable, which means that there is a possibility that an HTGR could catch fire and cause an accident. Also, extend the St. Vrain HTGR has failed which proves that empirically there’s no safety from an HTGR and also the particle coating is not suc­cessful, their evidence assumes that there is a particle coating on the HTGR which prevents an accident, but our evidence says it’s not any safer. Ex­tend the last card which says it’s not any safer than a light water reactor. I think we’re flipping accidents. The impact to this is a hundred thousand lives. Now, please go to prolif. I’ll grant them the impacts to prolif, but I think we’re going to flip the links. At the top, extend the second argument, the IAEA solves. He says we’re prolifing now, First, no, there’s no indigenous production. It proves only voting Aff risks prolif. Weinberg ’85:

“Part of the reason for this fortunate development can be traced to the measures created since 1945 to inhibit proliferation directly .. .

Probably more important, however, has been the general absence of motivation to obtain nuclear weapons. Many nations with the capabilities to produce nuclear weapons have concluded, at least for now, that their security would not be furthered by development of indigenous nuclear weapons.”

Second, slow nuclear power growth proves no prolif breakout, proving it’s a unique turn to the case. Weinberg ’85:

 “… only modest expansion in the number of countries involves in the nuclear power enterprise is expected over the next decade and a half, countering fears of a “nuclear breakout” prevalent as a recently as four or five years ago. Incremental nuclear power growth is seen, on balance, as positive for nonproliferation since it reduces fuel requirements and the subsequent demand for fuel cycle facilities. It also allows the international community the time to reassess the efficacy of our trade and nonproliferation regime and to suggest new elements that can be incorporated within them.”

Third argument is, those with capability have no motive it proves that there’s no indigenous production. Aver ’85:

   “… those non-nuclear weapon states . . . with the most advanced capabilities are clearly with superpower spheres of interest, with their security concerns guaranteed by the respective superpowers. with credible pledges of superpower support, these nations have little in­centive to develop indigenous nuclear weapons capabilities for national defense.

Now extend off the third and fourth arguments, where he groups them. His first is, Avory. Great, but our evidence in the INC says the cause is technology transfer which increased the risk of prolif, which takes out his evidence. Now group three through six, here, is first, that’s handled above where we say there’s no indigenous production, now, second increased nuclear power increases the risk of diversion. Tech Review ’87:

    “… this technology also increases the risk of nuclear proliferation and terrorism. Spent fuel is too radioactive to handle directly and cannot be used in a bomb, but extracted plutonium is relatively easy to handle and can be so used. And as noted, safeguards may not always be able to detect diversion of plutonium from either reprocessing plants or plants where fuel assemblies are fabricated.

Also, even small amounts equal prolif which means we don’t have to win a big link. Epstein ’88:

“All a terrorist has to do is divert a tiny fraction, fifteen pounds to have enough plutonium to fashion a nuclear bomb of the type drop­ped on Nagasaki …”

The next argument, now extend off, no, he says six, no his last argument is thirty-five countries prolif without the plan, but our evidence above says there’s no countries prolifing indigenously right now. Now the fifth argument, turn.

Influence, that we set a counter precedant. Extend that stopping prolif requires banning nuclear power-which means you must vote for the counter plan. Spence ’84:

   “… nuclear power and nuclear weapons are, in the nature of the thing, inseparable. So-called `peaceful’ nuclear technology is being bought and sold in the full knowledge that it will be applied to military ends. A strategy for nuclear disarmament must therefore entail the abandonment of nuclear power, for the maintenance of ‘peaceful’ facilities would constitute a standing invitation to re-open the military op­tion.”

Second, the Aff doesn’t solve the political link – this takes out their Avory card, which he’s going to flame about in the 2AR. Zaleski ’85:

   “… using civilian nuclear power as a means of pressure seems inefficient and can only suppress potential civilian nuclear power development . . . convincing some states that nuclear weapons capability is not in their interest is not so easy for weapons states, which themselves have made the opposite decision.”

Which proves the CTBT argument which I made in cross-examination.

Now the 6th argument grids, he’s granting these arguments. If I win that smaller grids cause proliferation I win the debate. Extend that the turn is unique – small grids prevent nuke power spread now – it proves that it won’t prolif if the grids are large. They don’t prolif now because of large grids. Aver ’85:

“Perhaps the most fundamental drawback, however, is the mismatch between reactor size . . . and the limited electricity grids in developing countries. Since a generally accepted guideline is that no single power plant should represent more than 15 percent of the capacity of a power grid, only those developing countries with relatively large grids can safely add a 600 MWe nuclear plant to their power systems.”

Second, modular reactors increase prolif threat because of grids. Rose ’85:

Smaller reactors in the future – a topic of recent lively debate could lead to more widespread nuclear power, to fit smaller electric power grids of many countries, thus increasing the risk of weapons proliferation somewhat on that account.”

Third, the plan will equal small reactor sales to the Third World – given the connection between prolif and power proven on number seven – this guarantees prolif. Aver ’85:

“Whether there is, indeed, a market for relatively small-scale nuclear power reactors has been a matter of speculation for years . . . If the utilities in OECD countries were to seek power reactors this size . . . suppliers would have a strong incentive to supply reactors suitable for meeting the needs of both developing and developed countries.

Also, there is no risk of prolif now   Light Waters have empirically not led to prolif only the Aff can equal prolif. Fisher ’85:

   “… it is also interesting that no proliferation has so far directly resulted from the export of light water reactors (LWRs) whether for research or power generation. Nor has an LWR research or power program been used as a cloak for developing a nuclear weapons capacity. Yet the LWR accounts for the vast number of power reactors built or being built today.”

Now the cost argument, he grants this to an extent. The turns are unique, the high cost of current large reactors is why prolif is stalled now. Rose ’85:

“Regarding the first of these – reactors and cadres – the’ fact that power reactors these days come only in very large sizes and at great expense is some impediment to weapons proliferation by that route. What rational government would spend several billion dollars on a civilian program, with the aim of subverting it in secret.”

Now the 8th argument turn, nuclear use justifies the military. That’s the evidence in the INC, more evidence from Spence ’84:

“Nuclear weapons proliferation in the Third World is not a random process. It has a clear pattern, and that pattern is comprehensible only within the context of sharpening inter-imperialist rivalries in recent years. In the nuclear export market generated by those rivalries, the `peaceful atom’ is a fiction: nuclear power is inseparable from nuclear weapons.”

Also, nuclear power provides cover for prolif – nations will do it. Holden, 1983:

“Most importantly, a commercial nuclear power program provides a legitimate cover for nuclear-energy-related facilities and activities, that, without the manifest rationale of electricity generation, would be unambiguously weapons related.”

Now the 9th turn, improve access to technology, extend the evidence, more evidence that U.S. policy key – banning power will make the non­proliferation effort successful. Bhatia ’88:

“U.S. policies towards nuclear energy … may be characterized as stop-go … As the Americans have been the world’s largest suppliers of nuclear technology, their policies have a direct bearing on the nuclear programs of countries outside the Communist Bloc. They can make or break the non-proliferation effort.”

Also, it’s empirically true – past prolif is from U.S. nuclear exports. Steinberg, 1984:

“… the second section clearly shows the link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons and nuclear power in the Third World … the United States gave countries such as India, Pakistan, Brazil and Iran their first practical experience with nuclear materials by eagerly pro­viding `civilian’ nuclear reactors through the `Atoms for Peace’ program. These reactors usually enabled these countries to manufacture nuclear weapons.”

 (time) empirically proving the turn, with several indications of specific countries that have prolifed because of U.S. nuclear export.

First Negative Rebuttal

Rodger Cole 

I think we’ll win a link to the disad as well as turning the case.

Now number nine, one more card the turn outweighs the blackmarket – decreasing availability of materials decreases risk of prolif, only the counter plan will solve this. Weinberg ’85:

“Imposing technical and institutional barriers on a nation’s capabilities can increase the economic and political costs of weapons acquisi­tion. By increasing the costs and obstacles associated with weapons acquisition, one influences the cost-benefit calculus that national leaders invariably perform.”

Now number ten. Extend this, it’s the Lovins card. All turns unique – slow rate of prolif now is because of slow growth of nuclear power which means the counter plan solves. Eibenshbutz: ’85:

“… proliferation is less of a risk now because nuclear power has not proliferated to the degree that was expected a decade ago. Fewer countries are installing or planning to install nuclear power plants. All over, less nuclear power is being installed.”

Now the disad to the counter plan. The first one, energy wars, first argument is it will never happen. The SPR solves. Wampler ’89:

“The greatest value of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve … it is an insurance policy, if you will.” Also Soviet cooperation is more likely than conflicts, no impact  to escalation. Murarka ’90:

“Soviet foreign policy is being transformed under Gorbachev, and nowhere more so than in the Middle East. . The Middle East is now more likely to become a region of superpower cooperation than confrontation …”

Also the U.S. won’t protect our interests, we won’t intervene. Khazin in ’86:

“And, like many of the Third World regions, the Middle East will become a conglomeration of marginal states. The United States is no longer a power that needs to intervene in the Middle East either to end conflicts or to defend vital interests.” Last, the Soviets recognize our oil interests, and won’t counter-escalate. Fukuyama ’84:

“… while the balance of superpower stakes may seem to be comparable, the Soviets appear to have tacitly recognized the superiority of the American interest throughout most of the postwar period, particularly its interest in oil.”

Now the second one, nothing but turns. First argument, it’s empirically denied, we’ve had the bank collapse and recessions in the past with no impact. Number two, there’s no scenario why would a bank collapse cause a depression, the silk card is so old and awful. Also economic downturn won’t cause conflict. Russett ’83:

“At moments of greatest economic crisis, those who are most economically deprived may be too busy just surviving to achieve enough political organization for successful revolt. Thus the rough of an economic cycle is not necessarily the time of greatest conflict.” which takes out the Silk card.

Also, turn – arms race.

Little a. A poor economy prevents an arms race. Cohen in ’83:

“Economic problems will probably lead to reversing the arms race more  than any other issue.”

Little b., arms race inevitably equals war. UN study in ’85:

“The build-up of arms, far from helping to strengthen security, erodes it. It aggravates the many divisions and tensions which cast a dark shadow over the world. It increases the threat of nuclear war.”

Next turn, turn 3rd World Development.

Little a., a depression in the U.S. is good. It’s the only way to free up enough resources for Third World development and avert a nuclear war. Trainer ’85:

“… the Third World’s most serious problems cannot be solved unless the rich nations de-develop and shift to far lower per capita resource use rates so that the Third World can use more of the available wealth to produce the things it needs … If we refuse to face up to de-development … we must accept a situation in which our affluence can be guaranteed into the future only by an increasingly unequal distribution of global resources, by the increasing use of force on our part, by intensifying struggles between countries for dwindling resources and therefore by further deterioration in global security.”

Now CO, we’ll concede number one, we’ll concede this out emissions increasing, they won’t build plants fast enough, that’s lime. Now Gor­bachev, he says future links, he says future link, but the INC proves this, remember rising electricity demand guarantees an increase in prices, in­creases Soviet revenue in the future.

He says the brink, but the brink only says that chaos equals overthrow. Remember the initial links, is if you decrease demand in the nineties, which will kill Gorbachev. Now number three and four, he says, more nukes to come. First, the counter plan solves for this, the counter plan prevents future nukes and the ones in the status quo. Second, increase in nukes is bad that will be on point link evidence below. Number five, gas not oil. First argument, oil imports will still increase because natural gas increase in electricity demand would have been substituted for oil imports now. DOE ’87:

“Without adequate advance planning, utilities or others may once again have to rely on combustion turbines for extended periods to maintain reliable service. This could lead to an uneconomic use of gas that otherwise could be substituted for oil in many applications throughout the economy.”

Second, the oil links take this out, that will be below. Number six, he says gold solves. First, gold just crashed, which means it wouldn’t be prof­itable for the Soviets to sell it. LA Times, March 27th:

“Gold prices … as a strong dollar and rumors of heavy selling by the Saudi Arabians … panicked the market. . .gold prices … fell $23.”

Also, gold is too important to the Soviets to sell. Shelton ’89:

“The most obvious alternative, rarely mentioned in Moscow, is to sell gold. The Soviets seem to attribute near-mythical qualities to their gold holdings …”

Third, South Africa prevents – if the Soviets start doing it, South Africa would retaliate, meaning they wouldn’t get any revenue.

Number seven, U.S./U.S.S.R. Agreement. First, this is only in agriculture. There is no evidence that indicates this would solve other hard cur­rency needs. Number two, oil exports are critical, which is the link evidence in the INC. Number three is turn, oil key to other parts of the economy. The INC link evidence from Arbatov says that oil is key to do other parts of the economy like the technical standards and the stuff for the people which would take out agriculture now. Number eight. First argument is rising electricity use of oil key to revenue in the future. Stauffer – March 20, ’90:

“The Saudis … now believe that their strategy of cutting prices to encourage demand and to increase competition has worked well … Much of the increased demand is from the United States, where lower prices have … led to rapidly-growing imports. With U.S. electric utilities burning more and more oil, OPEC sees the U.S. as a key factor in its future.”

Also utilities shifting back to oil, now, it will continue PIW on March 12th.

“The reasons for U.S. utilities’ revived appetite for fuel oil are chronic … financial constraints, cancellation of nuclear orders, en­vironmental opposition to new plant construction … high electricity demand growth coincided to force utilities back to old, often inefficient oil-burning units that had been partially or wholly retired over the previous 15 years … virtually all forecasts show a significant upswing by 1995…”

Last argument, electricity shift is the key determinant in increasing oil consumption this is PIW on March 12, ’90:

“… there is now strong evidence that worldwide use of the bottom-of-the-barrel product has flattened after a 15-year plunge and will begin an extended upswing . . . This sudden reversal can be traced to one dominant factor – a resurgence in oil burning for electricity generation.”

Now number nine, he says the evidence doesn’t say this, they’ve underlined the cards so the evidence doesn’t say anything. Number two, elec­tricity is key to the future market, which is Nuclear Engineering International in ’89:

“Despite heavy spending by utilities on efficiency programs, electricity demand is rising much faster than new capacity to meet it is being installed, and there is a return to dependence on imported oil for electricity generation.” Also, electricity demand increases oil prices. DOE ’87:

“… consumption of oil . . . by electric utilities could increase significantly after 1995 . . . Demand for such large quantities of oil .. . for electricity generation would help to drive up oil . . . prices.”

Also, increased electricity demand equals the Soviets have revenue. Beckmann ’89:

“Furthermore, almost the entire spare capacity of the United States is oil-fired . . . When demand exceeds supply, these oil-fired plants will come back . . . We are back to 1973 where the energy, which means the economy, of the United States lies in the trustworthy hands of the Soviet Politburo …”

Now number ten is the same as Number eight. Number eleven, the Affirmative can be dependent on this as well. Number twelve, first argument is, turns empirically untrue – should have happened in the past.

Number two, no increase in consumption – they don’t prove this.

Number three, utilities not spending dollars on it now. They don’t prove this.

Number four, nukes don’t compete with conservation. Rossin ’89:

“As any utility engineer knows, solar and nuclear energy are natural partners, never competitors. All solar energy comes during the day when the sun shines and when electricity loads are the highest.”

Also, it’s not unique, we’re not pursuing soft path now. Progressive ’89:

“Through the U.S. Government has generously subsidized the production of nonrenewable fuels, it plays only a negligible role in energy con­servation or the development of renewable sources.”

Also, soft path will cause an electricity shortage, no, I don’t want that. Okay, now Thirteen. First argument, it assumes the Affirmative spends money for building nukes. They don’t. The second arguments they don’t prove an increase in consumption. They would have to do this to increase consumption, but they don’t. Also, it’s irrelevant, the immediate perception would kill oil prices. Lennox ’89:

“The loss of oil markets brought about by nuclear power’s displacement of oil has had a demonstrable effect on oil prices . . . Since nuclear power displaces the marginal barrel, and changes in world oil demand of only a few million barrels of oil per day can be critical in determining oil prices, nuclear effect on oil prices may be much greater than 20 percent.”

Also, the link turn is long term: even if oil consumption is eventually increased it will not come for awhile.

Also, it’s empirically disproved: If the turns were true, the status quo, because we do not currently encourage nukes, should be reducing oil con­sumption, which we haven’t been doing.

Also, there’s no solvency, conservation doesn’t reduce oil. Coltrane ’86: (time)

“One study of this phenomenon concluded that ‘no correlation existed between reported household conservation actions and amount of energy actually saved in the households.”

First Affirmative Rebuttal

David Coale

Last one will be the best one. Accidents, group it together. First, no, they won’t solve it, there’s no economic incentive; they get a bunch of bad workers without the industry. Second, there’s no evidence. I’ll show you the Lidsky evidence, they have all the staff and everything right now. Also, administration will solve, that’s the evidence on the case, our evidence is on balance better. Japan, group his arguments together. The first and that is there’s incredible perceptual value elsewhere in the world before they ever actually get anything. He says, no reprocessing now, means there’s no im­pact on the underview. The second argument, evidence says nothing, says there’s potential but there wouldn’t be any actual impact. Here’s why. The third argument here is safeguards, which means that all the NPT has deliberate safeguards and there wouldn’t be any argument or impact. The next argument is the quick change arguments on the case side takes this out. What it proves is there would be mixed signals sent by the counterplan which would cause on balance, the destruction of the non-proliferation treaty. Their next argument is that, otherwise they would develop indigenous sources, cross-apply the Eibenschutz evidence on the case side, that takes out this argument. Next argument, we could solve with the case side, we could do HTGRS for god sake. The next argument is the agreement doesn’t cause proliferation. Smith in ’88:

“In any event, allowing Japan to see its plutonium is not a binding precedent for either. The Reagan policy is clear; that we will allow long term approval for the processing and use of plutonium only for those importing countries having advanced nuclear programs and which poses no risk of proliferation. There is no better example of such a country than Japan.”

The next argument is that even former critics agree, indicting all his sources. Washington Post in ’87:

“Solarz, a leading critic of the agreement, said the policy statement “goes a long way” toward resolving his questions. “Even those who had deep concerns about the agreement can rest easier …”

The next argument is that Japan uses breeders right now, meaning the diversion impacts are not unique. Washington Post in ’88:

“If Japan should reprocess all its spent fuel, however, it could end up with more plutonium than exists in the entire U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal. Although the material is destined for peaceful uses, the agreement has raised questions about the safety of treating plutonium as a global commodity.”

The next argument is, there’s nothing moved by air, there’s no link to this Japanese AAPS thing. New Scientist, February ’90:

“The Japanese government’s first choice was to cut the risk of hijack by transporting . . . over the North Pole . .  However, the American government has effectively prohibited this by refusing to set technical specifications for containers that would survive a plane crash.”

The next argument is, the technology link isn’t unique, the case side evidence proves this. Next is that reprocessing, is incredibly important sym­bolically. Inoue, Kansai Power in ’88:

“Revision of the U.S.-Japan Nuclear Cooperation Agreement . . . will strengthen efforts to guarantee nuclear non-proliferation, the sine qua non of world-wide promotion of peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and will mark acceptance by Japan, ahead of any other major na­tion, of nine requirements as stipulated in the U.S. Nuclear Non-proliferation Act, thus significantly strengthening the United States’ power to control nuclear proliferation. Acceptance of this agreement by Japan demonstrates its strong commitment to nuclear non-proliferation and willingness to support significantly the nuclear non-proliferation policy of the United States.”

We’re reading perception links, energy wars, group it together, first argument is that the Third World is our scenario; if we don’t export technology they will fight otherwise. Secondly, even if there’s plenty of oil in the transition there would be problems with this. Absent that there would be nuclear war. Wolfe of General Electric in ’85:

“In the first part of the next century the 3 billion energy-starved people in the Third World will double in number when conventional oil and gas supplies, now providing two-thirds of the world’s energy, will be in steep decline. Studies indicate that nuclear power may have to ex­pand many-fold to make possible an economically healthy and stable world.”

Next, this escalation evidence applies to the LDCS, attacking outside sources to provide for themselves. Second disad, which is a unique scenario. Extend the Ehrlich evidence more from Higgins ’82:

“Heilbroner sees `wars of pre-emptive seizure’ among the potential strategies. As resources dwindle, the desire to lead to desperate acts of self-preservation.”

Now, off the next disad which is economy. Group it together. First, our arguments are nuclear power has unique multiplier effects on the economy and it generates a uniquely reliable electricity source. It would cause economic instability and a banking collapse, as a result would collapse. Next is, empirically there’s never been conflict from a, uh, the next argument is group arms race together. First, there’s no recession, there’s no growth right now which means the turns are unique. Time, February of ’90:

“Said Sinai, chief economist of the Boston Co.: “It shows that the economy ground to a virtual halt in the fourth quarter, with signs of weakness everywhere. The economy is flirting with a recession.”

The next argument is, empirically, there haven’t been any arms races in the past, empirically it’s resulted from depressions. Altaf Gauhur in ’83. “A little reflection would show that the reverse is also true, prolonged periods of depression invariably lead to conflicts between nations and major wars.”

Next is, it would cause unimaginable Hitlers, which would turn arms race back on them, Brookings in ’76 – actually it’s Silk in ’76:

“If there should be a breakdown in the world economy, the new nationalism might be transformed into old nationalism with the present generation of leaders giving way to a new generation of unimaginable Hitlers who would arise to establish a new order over economic and political chaos and who would see utility in foreign ventures leading to World War III.”

Also proliferation outweighs all of this. He says development. Group it together. First, this is solved elsewhere; the nuclear power takes this out. Second, what resources? Whatever, there’s no scenario, however our evidence gives it. Next, scenario, it would decrease living standards if we had a depression. Futurist ’80:

“The possibility of a second Great Depression in the 1980s is not something to be taken lightly . . . The collapse of living standards would be calamitous for many millions of people, and the political and social consequences would threaten the stability of democratic institu­tions . . .

Also the counter plan leaves it at the same level, also energy wars turns it. CO,, extend the three takeouts, they prove it takes too long which takes out all the technology links to proliferation and the links to Gorbachev. All the perceptions happen in the short run which we will solve for now on the solvency contention. Off the first answer, from INC group his arguments together. First, is the IAEA’s screwed right now because we do not have nuclear power, extend the evidence it’s a more qualified source, it’s an expert on the non-proliferation treaty. Second, the second arguments prove the case, there’s no motivation right now because of the non-proliferation treaty, it works now. Third, it also proves that technology doesn’t cause proliferation. I’ll argue below that with light water reactors there should be proliferation now, because the link evidence is fundamentally true. Extend now off Alex’s dump. Please extend the Avory, our links outweigh theirs, the Gray evidence proves we are prolif proof. Now, everything else off Alex’s dump, group it together. First, the HTGR doesn’t have any spent fuel. Ryan in ’89:

“GA has changed fuels for its MHTGR . . . For the MHTGR, however, enrichment is reduced to 19.9 percent U-235, slightly below the 20 percent weapons-grade limit.”

Extend also the Gray evidence in the IAC. Next argument is, this is terrorism, not proliferation. He’s reading cards that say why no escalation is bad, there’s no reason why this is uniquely bad. Next, there’s no qualification on any of this evidence. We’re reading qualified sources throughout the constructives. Next is denial is important; it was a blanket denial which is on number 4. On balance we would get better denial, flipping back all of his arguments. Next argument is the 2NC evidence assumes leverage not leadership, our scenarios are independent. Extend number six, through eight, and seven through eight on everyone has capability. Everyone can build one right now who wants to; he gives no reason why any of his turns are unique. Number five, group his arguments, extend all the arguments. Quick change is incredibly bad which means the counter plan locks in all sorts of trouble. The evidence is from Kennedy, Special Advisor on Nonproliferation in ’85:

“It would damage the national interest to jeopardize these hard-won gains by taking actions that would prompt our close nuclear trading partners once again to question the constancy and reliability of the United States as a partner in peaceful nuclear cooperation.”

Proving they erode the non-proliferation treaty regime. Group grids together. First, the political value of these things outweigh. He’s just prov­ing there’s a link to technological, we’re proving we save the entire non-proliferation treaty. On balance would be better. Second, what the hell is the escalation risk, sorry about that; what the heck is the escalation risk of these countries if it’s too small to fit a reactor in? What is the escalation risk? Next is this is all answered above on technological link. Next is, this supply evidence indicts the status quo, we have light waters now, it should be happening. There’s no indigenous suppliers. He says no alternate suppliers, but they can develop, that’s the technology link. Also measures have separated any link. Alonso in ’85:

“… the measures taken to date to sever the connection between nuclear power and nuclear weapons have been quite successful. There is no justification therefore, for a radical departure from established practices.”

He says, no distinction. There’s no qualification on any of this evidence. Secondly, it’s never happened. Third argument is, none of the coun­tries he says right now have built anything, the impact is, there’s no impact to an undisclosed proliferation. Also, we solve more. Extend all the evidence from the IAC. Also, you have to have leverage to get this which we uniquely solve for. Remember 35 countries go away otherwise. Now the second negative counter plan, group it. First is you can do both, you can do the Affirmative and you can maintain the current level of fossil fuel con­sumption. Second is, permutations don’t have to be topical, just a test of competition. The next argument is second negative counter plans are il­legitimate, you shouldn’t listen to it, we don’t have time to answer it. Next argument is time constraints. next is new counter plan; that’s why I have new answers here. Next is, if permutations have to be topical you can run WOMP and things like that, also if the resolution is the focus of the debate it would justify counter warrants. Now, Gorbachev. At the top, of the first two link presses, group together. First, the counter plan locks in at the pre­sent level which means he would never increase. Second, if he’s on the brink right now there’s no offsetting increase in the future. Extend number three, nuclear bubble, which means there’s a big change right now, which is coming post-brink. Four and five, proving the gas increasing right now. His evidence does not assume the regulatory change. Number six, gold. Group his arguments. First of all INR, empirically denies the disad. There was a big economic downturn past the brink which proves it won’t happen. Number seven, he says, `just agriculture’, what does that mean? It’s talk­ing about all the arguments up above. He says other oil increases. This is talking about Saudis, an OPEC country, there’s no link to anywhere else in the world. He says, not possible, but it proves it’s a very small set. Extend only 4 percent, there’s no evidence that proves perception of anything like that. Off the turns, group them together. First is, not unique, there’s conservation now, Brown in ’89:

“Strong electricity demand and public opposition to new power plants have made conservation a must. Moreover, no utility wants to be blamed for the greenhouse effect …”

Extend the evidence which empirically proves that they’ll have to invest. Also ideology and things like that will inevitably cause a tradeoff. It’s happening right now. Also, they would perceive the turns as much as they would perceive the link. Advantage one, safety. Group it together. First is, empirically proven, extend the evidence from Gray. Secondly, there’s no empirical proof. Nothing in graphite could cause a fire. Third, don’t need reactor containment, fuel containment is sufficient. Also, St. Vrain, the only example he’s extending is an HTGR, not a modular HTGR. (time) The NRC is independent, proving that better safety would overwhelm all these things. We’re comparative safer if nothing else. They’re winning no link for years and years to Gorbachev or the technology turns on proliferation. We’re winning a clean reason why you want to decrease the political in­centives to stop proliferation right now. Thanks, I really enjoyed it. (applause)

Second Negative Rebuttal

Marc Rubinstein

Don’t allow 2AR explanation of blips in the IAR, the 2NC counter plan answers are virtually incomprehensible. He says, do both. Why? You can’t. Remember, the permutations make them anti-topical because that would mean they’re increasing oil consumption. He says, It doesn’t make them not topical, which is not true, the counter plan mandates fossil fuel plants replace nuclear power plants, they are physically incompatible. It’s mutually exclusive. Also to do a permutation would prove they are anti-topical which is illegitimate permutation standard. They say it’s not unlimiting. Why? There’s no explanation. They say it’s true to the countries, or something like that. I don’t understand all these arguments. He says this would justify WOMP, for some reason, but I have no idea why. The counter plan does the opposite of the Affirmative. The plan mandates nuclear power, the counter plan keeps fossil fuel consumption, it solves the disads to the counter plan, the original counter plan, and it gets the net benefit of, by solving the turns to the disad. Now, CO2, he says it takes out Gorbachev. It’s not true. All the evidence says is that it doesn’t solve fast enough for warming, which doesn’t mean the power plants don’t come on line quick enough to get the link to prices. Also, he’s dropping the Lennox evidence at the bottom of Gorbachev which says perceptually they crash the price of oil which would kill Gorbachev. Now, the top of Gorbachev. He virtually has no answers here. He says that demand is never increasing. Remember we’re reading three cards from March 12th of 1990 which says that right now the electricity sector is key to the revenue of the OPEC countries, and given that it’s key to the oil market which proves that it is key to Gorbachev as well because that’s where the electricity demand goes. Extend off number three. He says, not soon enough, remember increased nuclear power will come quick enough and even if they prove that it’s not going to come for awhile, it doesn’t matter because the Lennox evidence says they crash the world price of oil, and he’s dropping it at the bottom. Number five, gas not oil. He says, not assume, but that’s not true, the DOE ’87 evidence says that oil imports are substituting for natural gas, and also the evidence below proves that oil is increasing in the electricity sector. Number six, gold. He says, empirically denied. Remember, it’s crashed, the price has crashed now. Also, the gold, the Soviets will never sell their gold, which is the Shelton evidence, that South Africa would prevent them, this is a logical argument. Number seven, our card, he says, not true. He says, the Saudis, but no, the oil is key, the electricity is key to maintaining the high price on the world oil market. Three cards on March 12th which he’s not answering, extend that rising electricity demand is key and it’s useless unless we do this. Now, he’s dropping the evidence off number nine that says electricity is key. Also extend the Beckmann evidence which says it directly goes to the Soviets, and please star that card. Read it after the round. Now, off number twelve. He extends the turn, he says, not unique. Remember, first the counter plan bans existing conservation which takes out the turn, which proves the only thing there is a link. Second, extend all the cards. There’s no trade off with conservation, not unique we’re not doing conservation now. In addition, conservation probably doesn’t solve anyway; there’s no evidence that says it would decrease consumption. Ex­tend the answers off numbers fourteen and fifteen. Remember if there’s any risk of a turn the counter plan solves for it, all there is, is a link. The Len­nox evidence says, indicates we get the impact which is a nuclear war, which would outweigh the case. Now, the top of the original counter plan. He says, not solve. Remember, we do all the mechanisms of the plan to solve the safety as well as they do. Also extend the personnel turn from Kerr which says that advanced reactors increase the risk. Now, the Japan debate. His arguments are not easy to understand. He says, incredible percep­tion; but this violates the NPT directly, which is the two Epstein cards, he’s the president of the Nuclear Control Institute in ’88. He says, not say anything, but the cards are good. They say it allows diversion, even if we have extra safeguards, the agreement violates the safeguards, proving the uniqueness to the turns. He says, quick change, but the agreement is a break with the past which proves we flip this back on them. He says, develop­ment, but we’re beating this on prolif because there’s no indigenous production now. He says, it solves case, which is not true. He says, it equals pro­lif. First, no this causes the NPT, this allows diversion even if it doesn’t break the NPT directly, it allows diversion which causes the NPT to breakup and flips their 35 countries argument back on them. Off number eight, he says that, all the evidence is wrong, they’ve admitted it, but our evidence is from ’88 which empirically proves that the ’87 people might be wrong, but our evidence is not. Now, off the reprocessing stuff, he says, they have breeders now, but the agreement allows the breeders to be diverted, which increases them. Also, this only applies to Japan, not other places. He says, they will develop, that it’s not important. First argument here is that reprocessing is unique now, also it increases the risk of prolif, which turns the case back on them. Now, energy wars. He says, it’s a Third World. First the counter plan solves, remember we have unlimited supplies of energy, also, oh that’s right. He says they’re not moved by air, but this evidence only says there’s no risk of a hijack by air. It also says it won’t go over the Arctic. Extend the accidents turns, which says it’s more likely than a nuclear power accident and that it could kill half a million people. These are deaths you should prevent. Now, energy wars, he says. First argument here is there’s no escalation. His evidence is old; it’s from ’85 and ’82. Our evidence is from ’86 and ’90, which says it won’t escalate beyond a regional war. Second, the counter plan solves for this; we have lots of oil. Also, we import it which means, we’re protecting the economy. Now, the economy disadvantage, he says, we won’t effect it, remember there’s no scenario for this. Also, the counter plan maintains the current electricity demand, which means we replace nuclear power, so the economy never collapses. I’ll grant him the arms race, but this Hitler’s card is the same card read in the 2AC. Now off the depressions stuff, he says, they solve for this. No, the evidence says it causes de-development which reverses nuclear war in the Third World and turns the scenario back on them. I think this flips the Silk in ’76 nationalism evidence, also, remember the counter plan from the 2NC solves because we have enough oil to solve. Now, please go to the top of the prolif advantage. He says, it’s because of nuclear power, but no, there’s no indigenous production, we’re reading three cards from Weinberg who’s an incredibly qualified source. He says, tech not equal prolif, remember that even small amounts of diversion allow for prolif. Now, the third argument in the 2NC, he says, Avory outweighs, but the evidence comes from Auer, that I read in 2NC specifically denies that they can solve for the political link, which takes out their Avory card. He says, it is specific to terrorism not prolif. First, it doesn’t matter, even small amounts, this doesn’t depend on waste, it depends on diversion which comes from the increased amount of nuclear power, subsumes his arguments. Please extend the evidence. He says, do not qualify sources. He is just making an ad hominem attack, I don’t think it applies. He says, 2AC, it assumes prolif, but we’re flipping this below. Remember, the reason that nuclear prolif is decreasing now is because of the collapse of nuclear power, which the counter plan collapses completely. Now, the 5th turn, incluence. He says, lack in ’85, remember there’s three cards in 2NC from Auer, that says they can’t solve the political link. Also, you can only stop prolif by banning nuclear power. Now he says, we flip delay. We’re beating that. He says, what in the heck is escalation, but he’s dropping all the grids cards, the turns that modulars fit grids, that modulars increase prolif. and that the plan will cause small reactors to be sold to the Third World, which increases the risk of prolif. The Auer evidence and the reasoning were not taken out because of the grids cards. He says, they’re not going to be built, but the plan causes them to be built. Now remember, there’s never been prolif from Light Water Reactors which proves that the only way there is ever going to be prolif is if you decrease this size which allows them to prolif. Also, the cost evidence is dropped which proves that since small reactors are cheaper that increases the risk of prolif. Extend, that this outweighs the black market, the Weinberg evidence, that he’s dropping. At the bottom, all the evidence, that it’s unique, that the escalation risks are low, that the Weinberg turn says it outweighs the black market. Off the 10th argument, extend the evidence that the Spence evidence, that is the only card that says empirically all these countries have only prolifed when we have given them. India, Pakistan etc. Even, if they are small, extend the U.S. policy is key, the Bhatia evidence. And it’s empirically true, which is the Steinberg evidence at the bottom. We’re flipping cold, we’re flipping their Avory evidence. Now, he’s dropping the accidents debate. I think this is something important to weigh in the debate. He just says, empirically and graphite, remember future tech carries unknown risks, which is the Rogers evidence. He is reading evidence in the IAC that says there is a high risk and that 100,000 people could die, he’s dropping all the evidence. Extend the third argument, the lack of containment structure increases the risk, and the in­creased vulnerability to earthquakes, the St. Vrain HTGR failed, and they’ll never solve. There’s no particle coating which proves they cause an acci­dent. Only the counter plan can solve for this. This debate is all very cohesive, the counter plan solves for the turns to the disad. The counter plan also solves for the disads to the original counter plan. (time) It also turns prolif. I just want to say one more thing at the end. Answering Marty Loeber’s 2NR from last year. I really like this activity, and it’s taught me, I think, more in an educational sense, more than the fifteen years I’ve been in school. I really have no regrets. I’m really glad to be here in the final round of the NDT. It’s sort of the culmination of a lot of work and time that I’ve spent in the activity. I want to thank, one thing keeps me interested is my friends. I’d like to thank Rick Fledderman, Jay Unick and a lot of other people keeping this activity fun. You’ll probably be up here one day too. Thanks a lot. (applause)

Second Affirmative Rebuttal

Alex Lennon

This debate is extremely easy; there is no way they can solve 35 countries proliferating in 1995. It’s the most likely scenario for war which is the Sheinman evidence, this occurs within one year. All the disads become completely irrelevant. All I need to do is win any hint of solving proliferation. We solve an inevitable war by 1996, the most likely nuclear war. He says off the top, there’s no indigenous suppliers. First of all, this only occurs with indigenous suppliers. Remember, he’s dropping the evidence that says no country has ever caused technology. All his cards talk about the technology availability, and the capability to proliferation. Our evidence on point says that they have never transferred this availability into an actual capability to proliferate decision. None of this has ever happened empirically. There’s never been a decision, and they sacrifice 35 countries proliferating into the most likely scenario for war. He says technology allows, that’s exactly right, it only allows it, no country has ever made the decision. He says not solve political motive. First of all, that’s false. It’s empirically worked. That’s the Sheinman evidence in the IAC which is the sixth card down, in­dicates we solve it. Second of all, this is only talking about leverage. Remember, the distinction we make is that leverage is talking about cutting off electricity supplies. However, leadership in the non-proliferation regime is not answered. That’s the Avory evidence on the bottom. It’s also the Williams evidence in 1990, the fifth card down, and they indicate it’s because of leadership. Their evidence is only talking about leverage, talking about cutting off electricity supplies. Please read it. He says only small amounts diverted, however there is no link to technology. Extend number five, says, power has never caused prolif. Extend number six, its not unique, other ways to proliferation. Extend number seven, 35 countries will pro­liferate, remember he says in cross-ex, there’s no way for him to solve that. He says the qualification is a pimp, bull, the qualifications we’re reading is from the non-proliferation negotiators, not like Lovins and all the hacks that they do.

They say prolif can only collapse with nuclear power. However, the Avory evidence answers this. Also, the sixth answer, it’s not unique. In other words, proliferation. Please read both these cards. It says even if nuclear power collapses you would still have nuclear proliferation because the materials would still exist everywhere. These cards are very old, they’re from the early 1980’s. In the 1980’s, we had all this nuclear development. We had fuel supplies everywhere. There’s no way you could ever shut this off. The only way you could ever stop proliferation is through political motives, that’s the Avery evidence, at the bottom. He says, off the Simpson cards, not stop and only ban. Please group these. First of all, the only way to stop is the real technology threats. The only way to stop the capabilities in the countries that have massive motivation like Libya etc. is to have leverage. That’s the sixth evidence in the IAC. I implore you to read this evidence, it’s excellent. It says it’s the only way to get real, meaning even if their link is true on technology, the only way to get effective technological denial is for leverage, and the United States, Simpson evidence, and there’s no coherent answer in the 2NR. He says, extend the Kennedy evidence, says Third World will not follow the United States, if we give it up, that’s in the 2AC. Also extend, quick shift, this takes out the Japan argument up above. He says grids increase risk, however, the Weinberg evidence, the third card in the IAC answers this. The grids uniquely, because they can be coupled with the grids, and because we get the small kind of nuclear power, incorporates it into Article IV of the NPT and fulfills our commitment and means we uniquely solve that, solve at that level. He says the plan, leads to no light water reactors, and that light water reactors have never caused prolif. Right, the light water reactors have never caused proliferation. Remember that, there’s never been any instance in which this technology caused proliferation. There’s never any capability, in which the technology itself, and he’s dropping the Gray evidence which says you cannot make a modular HTGR into proliferation and he’s reading evidence that says em­pirically they’ve never made that decision, which means we’re the only one that can solve the most likely scenario for war in 1996. He says escalation risk is low, where is this coming from? The Sheinman evidence in the IAC, second card on the B Subpoint says it’s the most likely scenario for war. He says all this stuff at the bottom. Please group it. First of all, quick change takes it out. That’s the Kennedy evidence, remember we’re qualifying that. I don’t need to win anything on the disads. The world goes nuclear and it blows up in a heap of radiation in 1996 without the plan. The counter­ plan he says no coherent answer except for anti-topicality. However, David’s permutation is to do nuclear power and do oil. All we need to do is to do more nuclear power than we do oil. They still get their revenues. We’re just displacing other types of fossil fuels. There is no coherent answer to this; this is not anti-topical. He says off the top, is why, and anti-topical. Please group these. First of all, you could do it. He’s dropping David’s answer. Number two is we don’t have to have a topical permutation. It’s only a test of competition. He’s making an artificial permutation. The se­cond answer is we just offset other fossil fuels. We just don’t offset oil. There’s no answer to this. We put oil plants on line, we do more nuclear power than oil, there is no coherent answer to this. They say it’s still anti-topical. There is nothing on this, and don’t vote against us because David isn’t clear. This is a brand new 2NC counter plan. It makes no sense whatsoever, and he could have asked us what the heck the permutation was, if he really had a problem. He says permutation equals anti-topical, however he’s dropping the arguments that you don’t need a permutation to be topical. That’s number two, in the 1AR. Also number six, is that if the resolution is the focus it justifies counter warrants, there’s no answer to that in the 2NR. He says, why, it’s the opposite of the Affirmative. That’s not true, it’s not the opposite. We offset other types of fossil fuels, we just don’t offset oil. We permute to put oil on line which gives the Soviets their future revenues, and solves the disad. Remember proliferation outweighs anyways. CO,, there is no answer to this. He says it just doesn’t come on fast. But the reason why, extend number three, it takes too long to build the nuclear reactors. This means in five to fifteen years it comes on line. This means we don’t offset electricity for five to fifteen years, we don’t get the technology link to proliferation for five to fifteen years.

Additional evidence from Mintzer in ’88:

“Commercial nuclear power plants produce substantially less than 10 percent of the world’s electricity. Because they require 5 to 15

years to build, their contribution can only be increased slowly under the best of circumstances.”

The Gorbachev debate, off the top. He says electricity occurs quickly. First of all, the counter plan solves this. Second of all, we don’t offset for a long period of time, that’s five years, all the stuff above. He extends down below, the Soviets need the price because they sell it. However this is only talking about OPEC perceptions and doesn’t make any rationale, also the perception evidence is taken out by observation one. He doesn’t answer David’s IAR argument, which is number two off this. He says it’s necessary for high prices. However, this is very long term, in the future. You don’t get it on fine, remember, for five years to fifteen years which is up on CO,, which he drops and I clearly crossapply at the bottom of the CO, disad. all the answers to the other disad and he has no answer to that before. That’s the fourth answer on the CO, disad up above. I crossapply that. There’s no justification for the new arguments in the 2NR. He says at the bottom that the counter plan solves for conservation; however, the permutation solves this. Remember, he is fiating in the link to the disad. The only way he can fiat this in is by mandating oil plants on line. However, we permute it, we get out of that disad. and the only way to solve is through nuclear power. The top of the counter plan. He says increase accidents, but remember the administration solves for that. The Japan debate, please group at the top. First of all, empirically false. Remember, the agreement already exists. It has never collapsed the NPT. Nobody has proliferated, hence there’s no link turns. The only possibility is for a turn. Extend the perception evidence; he has no answer to this. We’re reading better perception evidence that says the perceptual link, that we would solve prolif. He extends that the agreement equals proliferation, diversion; however, it doesn’t assume the big industrialized countries are allowed to do reprocessing under this, which is the Smith ’88 evidence in the IAR, please extend. He extends ’87 evidence, however we’re answering that below. He says they’ll reprocess with the plan, however Japan is reprocessing now, which he has no answer to, which would take out the link. He says at the bottom is ac­cidents, however extend the New Scientist, February ’90 card, which says we don’t send by air anymore. Now, grant our energy wars on no escala­tion. The debate on the depression stuff. Please extend the turns to the arms race. There’s no answer to this. Marc does not answer the links on any of this stuff, all I need to do is win the link to energy wars up above. He’s only claiming no escalation. Also extend the Futurist 1980 card, the third card in the IAR, which says the collapse of living standards occurs. The only thing I need on accidents is the administration independently solves. The world explodes (time) in 1996 unless you vote for the affirmative. None of the rest of this debate becomes relevant. I don’t need to win anything .but a hope of solving (applause.) There’s a lot of pressure at these tournaments and I think that it tends to get in the way of things. This is specifically applying to Marc and I, because of the pressure of some of these tournaments. I implore all of you, please in the future, keep present standards for revealing in debate. Don’t get too competitive with other people in debate and remember what this activity is for. It’s for friendship and development and fun. I’d also like to thank David. He’s the best damn partner I’ve ever had. (applause)