Lincoln-Douglas Debate: Kaleb Jessee (Western Kentucky University)

Prose Interpretation: Chris Fowler (Creighton University)

Extemporaneous Speaking: Seth Peckham (Western Kentucky University)

Informative Speaking: Dillon White (Northwestern University)

After Dinner Speaking:  Joe Cozza (Illinois State University)

Rhetorical Criticism: James McGraw (St. Josephs University)

Persuasive Speaking: Patrick Campbell (Bradley University)

Dramatic Interpretation:  Jerome Davis (Western Kentucky University)

Poetry Interpretation:  Dan Glaser (Ohio University)

Duo Interpretation:  Brian Gaston and Angelica Davis (University of Texas–Austin)

Impromptu Speaking:  Todd Rainey (Western Kentucky University)

It’s a perfectly natural occurrence.  With UIL, NFL districts, state tournaments, TOC, and more, there’s plenty of reasons to be on edge.  It turns out there was another forensics coach who was prone to major mood swings: Hitler.  Seriously.  There’s video footage of it, even.

Thank goodness students have time outside of rounds and school work to put together projects like this.  The video is a derivative of “The Hitler Meme” floating around the interwebs.  This particular iteration puts a speech and debate twist on it.  In jokes abound for forensics friends.

Know Your Meme gives the uninitiated a bit of context on the joke:

“The Hitler Meme” or “Hitler finds out” is a video meme involving the addition of new subititles to the dramatic scene of Hitler’s final meltdown from the German movie Downfall directed by Oliver Hirschbiegel. The subtitles are often anachronistically altered with humorous English subtitles surrounding current events.

From the NYTimes: “Fire up YouTube. There you can see the Hitler figure erupt in frustration over his Xbox. He flips out because his friends aren’t going to Burning Man. And, recently, he loses it because Sarah Palin isn’t working out as a running mate. Something in the spectacle of an autocrat falling to pieces evidently has widespread appeal.”

Clicky, clicky past the jump to check out the parody. (Note: the video does contain strong language some readers may consider inappropriate.)

The blog was initially created when we had an HTML website and wanted a quick and easy way to share site updates and news.  Since launching our new website last fall and offering our products through the Yahoo Store System, we haven’t really figured out what to do with SpeechGeek Postings.

We’ve been busy, mind you.  We partnered with Logan Scisco last fall to expand coverage at our sister site Extemp Central.  We’re now running DebateChamps.  Busy, busy, busy.

However, we’re looking for SpeechGeek Postings to make a comeback at this year’s Kentucky High School Speech League, Inc. state tournament in March.  Our goal to provide live coverage of the event.  Additionally, we’re eyeing offering live coverage of the 2010 National Forensic Association college national tournament.

Hope you stick around for the fun.

That doesn’t mean their admissions office doesn’t know how to have fun. Hitting the internet over the past few days has been a 17-minute musical titled “That’s Why I Chose Yale.” The student-produced film has almost 118,000 at the time of posting.

Current students applying to college have grown up accustomed to individuals breaking into song and dance for no reason whatsoever. Think about it: High School Musical, Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog, and the TV series Glee all rely heavily on bits of the old song and dance.

What’s particularly fun for forensicators is that the star of Yale’s YouTube sensation is Kobi Libii, a 2003 NFL National Finalist in Original Oratory. Check out Yale’s official YouTube channel to see the viral hit, or hop on over to NFLtv to see his final round speech titled “Spin Cycle.”

Keep reading to check out the video.

p.s. Don’t miss the cameo from NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams at the 6:50 mark.

Well, this is interesting. The National Forensic League and their Diversity Challenge Initiative have taken the wraps off NFLtv. The website describes the mission of the joint venture:

NFLtv.org exists to provide the forensic community and the general public a single source for high quality videos dedicated to speech & debate.

The website features a variety of videos across debate, congress, limited prep and interp events. Videos include showcases, instructional items and national final rounds. There’s even some blasts from the past circa the 1908s.

Of recent note, you can relive the entire Stars Fell on Alabama national tournament (including the awards ceremony).

What do you think? How can NFL make this an even more useful resource for coaches and competitors alike?

Keep on reading for a look at the Extemporaneous Speaking Showcase video.

How to Break Down a Question

There are five basic elements to breaking down a question: Subject, Actor, Type of Question, Question Word, and Comparison. If you can identify all of these elements within a topic, you will have all the information that is needed to formulate a complete answer.

Subject: The first thing you should identify when you pick a question is the exact subject of the question. Basically, this is just the topic area (the folder(s) that you would pull from the files). Sometimes questions will address multiple subjects, so it is up to you to determine which one is the most important. The other steps that we will address will help clarify this.

Example: In the question “What can the UN do to make sanctions against Burma more effective?”, the subject is sanctions on Burma. This is the subject matter that you would need to focus on through the entire speech.

Actor: After you have identified the general topic you need to identify the actor in the question. This is the entity that has primary control over the situation. By identifying the actor you are able to ensure that your analysis focuses only on the organization designated in the question. If no actor is identified, you have to make one clear in the introductioin.

Example: In the previous question, the actor is the United Nations. As such, your analysis should ONLY focus on what they can do. You shouldn’t bring in China, the United States, or any other actor. However, if the question was “What can done to make sanctions against Burma more effective?”, you would have to define what actor should be acting in the intro and then analyze just them.

Type of Question: There are three types of questions: fact, value, and policy. By understanding what type of question you are answering, you can identify what you need to prove to answer the question. Questions of fact deal with what is, what will be, or how much effect something will have. To answer these questions you are only evaluating the state of things – do not say if things are good or bad or what should be done. Questions of value tend to focus on if things are good or bad, and as such call for your judgment of the situation. However, it should be noted that you should base this judgment on specific criteria, rather than your personal beliefs. Finally, questions of policy are outlining what should be done. For these questions you should give as specific of a policy solution as possible. Don’t just say economic reform – give the specific policies that need to be enacted/changed.

Question Word: How do you tell what type of question you have? By analyzing the question word, you can not only evaluate if a question is fact value or policy but also glean more specific details about what the question is asking. I will now break down the more common question words, and give some insight into the more specific insight each word gives you.

• Questions of Fact
  Is – just wants to know the CURRENT state of things
  Will – looks for the definitive future.
  How will – wants the techniques that will be used, not the ones that should (note the difference)
  Can – wants you to evaluate the capability of an agent to accomplish a goal.
  To what extent OR how much* – asks you to quantify the impact of something
  What effect – asks you to identify the impact of something
• Questions of Value
  Should – asks you to evaluate if a plan of action will be good or bad
  Which is better – directly compare stated concepts
  Boon or bane — evaluate if something is good (boon) or bad (bane)
• Questions of Policy
  How should* – wants you to provide the best policy to accomplish a goal
  What steps* – wants you to identify the best policy(ies) to accomplish the stated goal
  How can* – wants you to evaluate the best solution that the agent is capable of (note that this is different that how Should — which allows for a more utopian analysis

While this is by no means a definitive list of all of the question words, it should help highlight not only how to determine the type of question by the question word, but also how each word has its own idiosyncratic impact on the nature of your answer.

*It must be noted that some “when” questions imply that something will occur, should be solved, or will have an impact. There are judges who don’t like you to negate that with your answer. For example, if the questions says “how should,” you shouldn’t say that they shouldn’t, or if the question is “to what extent” you shouldn’t say there will be no effect. Basically, they argue that if the question implies that something will happen, you are changing the question by negating that implication. While we at Extemp HOTtopics do see the logic of this argument, we believe that if there is enough evidence to negate the implications of the question – and that is what you believe the best answer is – it is the most honest to negate the implication. All that being said, some judges will still drop you for it, so negate implications at your own risk (and by that we mean avoid doing so unless you feel you absolutely must).

Comparison: Because all questions have an inherent controversy (otherwise they wouldn’t be worth asking – or answering) there is some type of comparison that all questions require. By identifying this, you can direct your analysis towards resolving this controversy. Questions of fact tend ask you to compare two competing versions of truth – i.e., McCain will win vs. Obama will win; or the surge is working vs. the surge is not working. Value wants you to compare the different evaluates of the policy — i.e., social security reform is good for America vs. social security reform is bad for America; or Medicare should be reformed vs. Medicare should not be reformed. Finally, questions of policy should compare what is happening now with the proposed policy to prove that it is a good idea – i.e., current economic policies compared to reform package to prove that the latter is better. By finding the intrinsic comparison implied by the question, you can better direct your answer and ensure that you have covered all relevant counter arguments.

Loquitur is an Internet podcast dedicated to interviewing academic and professional experts on current National Forensic League debate topics for the free educational benefit of high school students competing in Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum Debate. Loquitur is brought to you courtesy of Trinity Briefs and Georgia Forensics Daily.

For more information, or to have a listen, visit their website: http://loqdebate.com.

1. To provide current competitors and coaches with access to new performance-friendly material.
2. To create a place for writers, poets, playwrights and forensics alumni to publish innovative and creative works of literature.

We believe that oral interpretation teaches students to look at a piece of literature from a variety of angles – as an analytical critic, as a creative performer as well as a forensics competitor. Furthermore, we believe that the greatest educational value comes from the student performing literature written by an author whose vision and intent for the material is unknown to the performer. We consider this to be the heart of oral interpretation.

SpeechGeek does not encourage nor condone the act of students or coaches publishing scripts with the intent of performing their own material in forensics competition. SpeechGeek does not participate in “instant-publishing” single pieces for individual use. Any piece published by SpeechGeek is available to all middle-school and high-school forensics programs.

While the staff at SpeechGeek is always on the look-out for performance-friendly material that is accessible to coaches and students, we do not believe in sacrificing education in the name of competition. Currently, we at SpeechGeek are doing what we can to ensure that the material we publish will not be used in an inappropriate or an ethically questionable manner for forensics competition. As we examine and review all submissions for publication, authors will be notified of the intent and view of forensics.

As forensics alumni, we understand that most devoted speech competitors read dozens of scripts each season in search of the perfect piece that will bring them competitive success and push the creative envelope. We also know that in the process of searching for the perfect piece and reading countless other, competitors feel the urge to tell the stories that haven’t been told. At SpeechGeek, we don’t want to discourage current forensicators from becoming future authors, playwrights and poets. Anyone is welcome to submit material for possible publication once they have completed their eligibility for high school forensics competition.