FTR, I am staunchly opposed to banning off card speeches. It is a legitimate mode of communication. In fact, it is much more similar to a real-world format, where you don't have a card with sources. Why NCFCA decided to ban it is beyond me. Sure, there might have been some people who didn't fully memorize their sources, but we shouldn't be punishing the people who go above and beyond by memorizing their sources for the infractions of a couple people who can't. I watched the winner of NITOC 2015 give a fantastic speech without a card. For some students, the no-card method really helps them do well, and now NCFCA has taken that away.
I'm proud to say that NCFCA isn't run by the students. This is a competitive league and Democracy shouldn't be valued for the competitors. Perhaps you're familiar with something called biased interests?
We've been over this extensively in other threads, so I don't see a need to unearth those hatchets.
All I'll say on the matter is that NCFCA operates more like an oligarchy. Stoa is a representative democracy. Not a pure one. Democracy should be valued for the competitors and their families, because that's who the league is all about - enabling students to become winsome communicators for Christ. "Biased interests" is not a valid argument against the Stoa model. It's worked for the past six (going on seven) years now. You can't deny that. The leagues have different approaches to attain the same goal. As long as you are happy with remaining placated under the influence, direction, and personal whims of an oligarchic leadership, I guess you suit yourself.
Easy. As computers are cycled in, the actual need for time decreases. As such, the extra time is removed. It keeps the event challenging. This isn't Bingo in a retirement home, this is a speech competition.
Also, from a practical level it will help with tournament run times. Extemp is often the category that gets in the way and delays tournaments. This just gives a whole new level of flexibility to competitors who are entered in multiple events. I'm sure that the board took this into account.
Now these are legitimate points. Extemp does take up a lot of time and effort from tournament staff. Like I said, I'm sure students will adjust, even though I'm not too big of a fan of the move.
It makes it more challenging. I don't really have a problem with this. I would quite honestly be game for single topics.
In real life you don't normally get to choose between topics if someone is talking to you.
Plus, on a practical side it lightens the load of the tournament organizers. They don't have to come up with quite so many topics. Not a big deal, but I'm sure it will be a slight help to them.
What JMP said. You might be happy with a single topic, but the novice just starting out and who only has 15 Apol cards at the first tournament probably will not be.
That will only serve to build up our mental capacities to new levels.
Again, what I was saying is that while "building up your mental capacities to new levels" is good, I'm not convinced this is the best way to accomplish that goal.
Oh come on, anyone who knows what they're doing in Impromptu/Apol will not be harmed by only have two topics. They're prepared to speak on anything, that's how the event works. Even the newer people won't be harmed because let's face it, they won't be able to speak any better on this topic vs. this topic. I've been helping new students for a long time and I still remember competing as a newb myself, this won't actually harm any of them. Quite honestly, it might help them because they won't waste so much time picking a topic because there are only two choices.
This point is really a wash tbh. Even when I was in my senior year of competition, I appreciated having three choices. Sometimes I had two out of the three or even all three that were fantastic picks, and I had the chance to deliberate a little bit on which one would work. More choices serve to give students more options to talk about - and that's a good thing.
So why not four topics or five? Because three is a pretty standard number in speech and debate. Three points, three contentions, three-minute cross examinations, etc. Having three choices is a good continuation of the trend. There's some students who may be harmed by two topics, some who it won't make a difference, and some newer people who may be helped. But I'm willing to bet that the proportion of people hurt by the move vs. the people helped tilts much more in the direction of people hurt.