U.S. speech and debate league
The Christian Speech & Debate League, also known as the National Christian Forensics and Communications Association, is a speech and debate league for Christian students in the United States. The NCFCA was established in 2001 after outgrowing its parent organization, the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), which had been running the league since it was originally established in 1995. NCFCA is now organized under its own board of directors with regional and state leadership coordinating various tournaments throughout the season.
Since 2001, the NCFCA seeks to provide students with the opportunity to apply and communicate their worldview with skill and clarity through competitive debate. The mission of the organization is to "challenge and equip ambassadors for Christ to communicate truth with integrity and grace." As a Christian organization, NCFCA's statement of faith is the Nicene Creed. NCFCA claims that "...their training and competition will provide a supportive opportunity for them to apply a biblical worldview to real-life issues."[3]
Structure of the organization
The NCFCA is a volunteer-run, non-profit organization. Tournaments are run by volunteers, who are usually parents, club directors, and league officials in the area. The judging pool includes parents of competitors, NCFCA alumni, and members of the community. Coaches also serve as judges on a volunteer basis. The NCFCA is governed by a board and divided into eleven regions. Each region has a regional coordinator and each state has a representative.
National Opens
Additionally, a certain number of national invitational slots are awarded each year at competitions known as National Opens. Currently, each national open awards two nationals slots for every individual speech event and debate event and four slots for moot court. These are large tournaments held mostly at colleges or large convention centers and are open to the entire nation.[4] Qualifying at a National Open tends to be more difficult than a regional qualifying tournament because of their increased size.
National opens since 2005:
- 2005: California National Open (San Diego, CA); Colorado National Open (Colorado Springs, CO)[5][6]
- 2006: California National Open (San Diego, CA); Tennessee National Open (Jefferson City, TN); Colorado National Open (Colorado Springs, CO)[5][6]
- 2007: Washington National Open (Seattle, WA); Ohio National Open (Cedarville, OH); Texas National Open (Houston, TX)[5][6]
- 2008: Virginia National Open (Virginia Beach, VA); Colorado National Open (Colorado Springs, CO); Texas National Open (Houston, TX)[5][6]
- 2009: Texas National Open (Houston, TX); Alabama National Open (Trussville, AL)[5][6]
- 2010: Texas National Open (Houston, TX); Massachusetts National Open (Wenham, MA); Colorado National Open (Denver, CO)[5]
- 2011: Texas National Open (Houston, TX); Georgia National Open (Lookout Mountain, GA)[5][6]
- 2012: Texas National Open (Houston, TX); Illinois Open (Joliet, IL); Washington Open (Spokane, WA)[5][6]
- 2013: Alabama National Open (Montgomery, AL); Massachusetts National Open (Wenham, MA)[5][6]
- 2014: Idaho National Open (Nampa, ID); Minnesota National Open (St. Paul, MN); North Carolina National Open (Black Mountain, NC)[5][6]
- 2015: North Carolina National Open (Black Mountain, NC); Massachusetts National Open (Wenham, MA); Idaho National Open (Nampa, ID)[7][6]
- 2016: California National Open (San Diego, CA); North Carolina National Open (Black Mountain, NC); Oklahoma National Open (Shawnee, OK); Wisconsin National Open (Oshkosh, WI)[8]
- 2017: Washington National Open (Spokane, WA); Massachusetts National Open (Wenham, MA); and North Carolina National Open (Black Mountain, NC).
- 2018: Wisconsin National Open (Oshkosh, WI) and North Carolina National Open (Black Mountain, NC).
- 2019: North Carolina National Open (Black Mountain, NC).
- 2020: North Carolina National Open (Black Mountain, NC) and Kentucky National Open (Louisville, KY).
- 2022: North Carolina National Open (Black Mountain, NC).
- 2023: North Carolina National Open (Black Mountain, NC).
- 2024: Online National Opens, North Carolina National Open (Black Mountain, NC), Minnesota National Open (St. Paul, MN), Idaho National Open (Post Falls, ID), Texas National Open (Fort Worth, TX)
National Mixers
National Mixers debuted in the 2017–2018 season and have been recalled for the 2022–2023 season. Mixers are competitions, now mostly online, incorporating competitors from two or more regions. They were officially known as March Mixer, because they only occurred in the month of March. As national level tournaments, they hosted moot court, but they only gave out one national championship slot in each individual event and debate event and two slots in moot court. In the first year, there were eight March Mixers, all occurring in the first two weeks of March. There was a mixer in a city inside every region except 1 and 3 (which are much smaller than the other eight regions). Because of the large number of mixers and their close proximity in time, most competitors went to only the mixer closest to their home in the first year even though they could technically attend any mixer in the country.
As of the 2022–2023 NCFCA season, there were two online Moot Court national mixers and one online national mixer. Mixers between two or more individual regions happened throughout the season, from January into March.
Competition
During the 2022-2023 season, there were roughly 38,000 students participating, making the NCFCA the third largest national high school speech and debate league after the National Speech and Debate Association and the National Catholic Forensic League.[9]
Speech
The NCFCA offers ten individual events for speech from three categories: Platform (memorized, 10-minute speeches), Interpretation (short interpretations of written works), and Limited Preparation (impromptu or limited preparation speeches).[10] The rules for each of these events are published in the Speech Guide each season.
Competitors may only compete in five out of the ten events at a given tournament.
At qualifier tournaments, competitors compete in three rounds of speech and are judged by three judges. Afterwards, the top competitors enter into elimination rounds.
As of the 2023-2024 NCFCA season, these events are:
- Platform: Persuasive, Informative, Digital Presentation
- Interpretation: Duo Interpretation, Open Interpretation, Biblical Thematic, Original Interpretation
- Limited Preparation: Apologetics, Extemporaneous, Impromptu
From 2002 to 2007 and 2013–2014, the NCFCA also provided a different Wildcard event each season:
- The 2002–2003 Wildcard was Duo Impromptu. Two competitors would randomly draw three pieces of paper with the words for a person, place, and thing. Then they would have four minutes to prepare a five-minute skit incorporating all three nouns.
- The 2003–2004 Wildcard was Impromptu Apologetics. It was later renamed Apologetics and has become a standard NCFCA event.
- The 2004–2005 Wildcard was Oratorical Interpretation. The competitor would interpret a famous and/or historical speech.
- The 2006–2007 Wildcard was Thematic Interpretation. Competitors select several pieces of literature and weave them around a common theme. Thematic interpretation became a standard event for the 2009–2010 and 2010–2011 seasons but was retired in July 2011, and became a standard event again for the 2013–2014 season.
- From 2007 to 2012, there were no new Wildcard events.
- The 2013–2014 Wildcard was After-Dinner Speaking, a sort of humorous, persuasive or informative speech.[11]
- The 2018–2019 wildcard event was Biblical Thematic. Competitors select several pieces of literature, including one biblical selection exceeding 300 words, and weave them around a common theme. Biblical interpretation became a standard event for the 2019–2020 and 2020–2021 season.
- The 2019–2020 and 2020–2021 wildcard event was Humorous Interpretation. Similar to Open Interpretation in both speech structure in execution, Humorous Interp. requires competitors to interpret a published literary selection with elements of humor, and allows for a self-authored introduction or conclusion.
- The 2023-2024 wildcard was the reintroduction of Original Interpretation and the removal of After Dinner Speeches.
Debate
The NCFCA offers three types of debate: Team Policy Debate, Lincoln-Douglas Value Debate, and Moot court.[12] The NCFCA discourages the use of overly complicated theory and extremely fast talking (also known as "spreading"), instead encouraging effective communication of complex topics to lay judges.[13]
At tournaments, competitors speak in six rounds and are judged by one judge in preliminary rounds. In elimination rounds, competitors are judged by three judges and are judged by five judges in the qualifier tournament final.
- Team Policy (TP): A policy-centered debate, with rounds typically lasting 90 minutes. Two teams of two competitors form the 'Affirmative' and 'Negative' sides to the debate, with the Affirmative arguing for a reform to the system and the Negative arguing against it. The debate is set by a resolution that is published before a season starts. The resolution for the 2023 - 2024 season states that "the United States Federal Government shall significantly reform its domestic transportation policy implemented by the Department of Transportation".[14] The resolution is voted on by competitors and alternates between domestic and international policy.
- Lincoln-Douglas (LD): A value-centered debate, with rounds lasting around 45 minutes. Two competitors form the 'Affirmative' and 'Negative' sides to the debate, with the Affirmative affirming the validity of the resolution and the Negative negating it. As in Team Policy, the debate is governed by a resolution affirming one value above another. The resolution for the 2023 - 2024 season states that "rationalism should be valued above empiricism".[14]
Debate resolutions
NCFCA resolutions are chosen annually by affiliate families through a voting process. The Debate Committee proposes three resolution options, and each family is allowed one vote per each style of debate.
Team Policy Resolutions
2023-2024: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should significantly reform its domestic transportation policy implemented by the Department of Transportation.[15]
2022-2023: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should significantly reform its import and/or export policies within the bounds of international trade.[16]
2021-2022: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should significantly reform its policies regarding convicted prisoners under federal jurisdiction.[17]
2020-2021: Resolved: The European Union should substantially reform its immigration policy.[18]
2019-2020: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially reform its energy policy.[19]
2018-2019: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially reform its foreign policy regarding international terrorism.
2017-2018: Resolved: The United States should significantly reform its policies regarding higher education.[20]
2016-2017: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially reform its policies toward the People's Republic of China.
2015–2016: Resolved: That the United States Federal Court system should be significantly reformed.[21]
2014–2015: Resolved: The United States should significantly reform its policy toward one or more countries in the Middle East.[21]
2013–2014: Resolved: That federal election law should be significantly reformed in the United States.[21]
2012–2013: Resolved: The United Nations should be significantly reformed or abolished.[22]
2011–2012: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should significantly reform its criminal justice system.[22]
2010–2011: Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should significantly reform its policy toward Russia.[22]
2009–2010: Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should significantly reform its environmental policy.[22]
2008–2009: Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should significantly change its policy toward India.[22]
2007–2008: Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should substantially change its policy on illegal immigration.[22]
2006–2007: Resolved: That the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) should be significantly reformed or abolished.[22]
2005–2006: Resolved: That medical malpractice law should be significantly reformed in the United States.[22]
2004–2005: Resolved: That the United States should change its energy policy to substantially reduce its dependence on foreign oil.[22]
2003–2004: Resolved: That the United States federal government should significantly change its policy toward one or more of its protectorates.[22]
2002–2003: Resolved: That the United States should significantly change its trade policy within one or more of the following areas: The Middle East and Africa.[22]
2001–2002: Resolved: That the United States federal government should significantly change its agricultural policy.[22]
2000–2001: Resolved: That the United States should significantly change its immigration policy.[22]
1999–2000: Resolved: That the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution should be repealed and replaced with an alternate tax policy.[22]
1998–1999: Resolved: That the United States federal government should substantially change the rules governing federal campaign finances.[22]
1997–1998: Resolved: That Congress should enact laws which discourage the relocation of U.S. businesses to foreign countries.[22]
1997–1998: Resolved: That the United States should change its rules governing foreign military intervention.[22]
Lincoln Douglas Resolutions
2023-2024: Resolved: rationalism should be valued above empiricism.[23]
2022-2023: Resolved: The individual right to property ought to be valued above the economic interest of the community.[16]
2021-2022: Resolved: In the context of innovation, the proactionary principle ought to be valued above the precautionary principle.[17]
2020-2021: Resolved: In democratic elections, the public's right to know ought to be valued above a candidate's right to privacy.[18]
2019-2020: Resolved: Preventive war is ethical.[24]
2018-2019: Resolved: When in conflict, governments should value fair trade above free trade.[25]
2017–2018: Resolved: Nationalism ought to be valued above globalism.[20]
2016–2017: Resolved: Rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in criminal justice systems.
2015–2016: Resolved: When in conflict, the right to individual privacy is more important than national security.[21]
2014–2015: Resolved: In the realm of economics, freedom ought to be valued above equity.[21]
2013–2014: Resolved: National security ought to be valued above Freedom of the press.[21]
2012–2013: Resolved: That governments have a moral obligation to assist other nations in need.[22]
2011–2012: Resolved: In the pursuit of justice, due process ought to be valued above the discovery of fact.[22]
2010–2011: Resolved: A government's legitimacy is determined more by its respect for popular sovereignty than individual rights.[22]
2009–2010: Resolved: That competition is superior to cooperation as a means of achieving excellence.[22]
2008–2009: Resolved: When in conflict, idealism ought to be valued above pragmatism.[22]
2007–2008: Resolved: That the United States of America ought to more highly value isolationism.[22]
2006–2007: Resolved: Democracy is overvalued by the United States government.[22]
2005–2006: Resolved: That the media's right to protect confidential sources is more important than the public's right to know.[22]
2004–2005: Resolved: That the restriction of civil rights for the sake of national security is justified.[22]
2003–2004: Resolved: That when in conflict, cultural unity in the United States should be valued above cultural diversity.[22]
2002–2003: Resolved: That human rights should be valued above national sovereignty.[22]
2001–2002: Resolved: That the restriction of economic liberty for the sake of the general welfare is justified in the field of agriculture.[22]
