Get a headstart on your speech and debate season with the help of experts in debate theory, research, and practice tactics! The early season can be the most disorganized and confusing time of the year for any level of competitor as you try to tackle an overwhelming amount of resolutional information or speech ideas. Headstart can give you direction to use your time effectively early in the season to acheive your goals later!
Kim Cromer, the Executive Director of NCFCA, reveals the reasons behind some of the most dramatic rule changes, addresses competitor concerns, and shares some brand-new NCFCA updates. We talk about some new types of Extemp topics to expect, the Apologetics structure, technology in in-person debate rounds, rules for asking judge philosophy, age limits, and more.
James Russell, the head of DFW Speech and Debate, gives us a bird's-eye view of the NCFCA Team Policy resolution by looking at how TP has changed over the years and how this resolution will continue to shape it, as well as the practical side of how these predictions can streamline your prep.
A lot of the main questions of prison policy are philisophical. A few years ago, NCFCA had an LD resolution that debated the philosophy of prison policy. The national champion from that year, Mac Mann, gives us a springboard to get to the heart of those issues.
NCFCA's 2021 Extemp champion, Sophie Schenkel, and Impromptu champion, Alina Rodriguez, discuss how to succeed in limited preps and how they interact with debate.
Drew Magness is a legend in NCFCA and Stoa, a coach with six years of experience, and one of the top coaches at Ace Peak. We discuss how to research for Team Policy Debate over the summer to build a firm foundation for your competition season.
Jadon Buzzard, CEO and head coach at Ethos Debate, dives deep into the question "what must the Affirmative do to win a policy debate?"
This first episode talks about how to rise to the next level of team policy debate over the summer: starting by taking a big picture view of debate as a whole. What seem to be nitty gritty rounds are often decided by big picture arguments about what winning a debate means in the first place.