New to campus this year is the Gustavus Parliamentary Debate team. With its fifteen-plus members, ten of whom are active, the new group hopes to represent Gustavus in numerous debate tournaments throughout the year.

Current members of the Parliamentary Debate team are former members of the Gustavus Forensics team. These are members who left the Forensics team due to issues with its coach, Kris Kracht, and who had certain scruples over the requirements needed to stay on the team.

To be a part of the Gustavus Forensics team, it is required that one goes to half of the weekend meetings and also participates in at least three events minimum per tournament. This proves to be a time constraint for those who are only on the team to improve and make use of their debate skills, rather than to work on speeches.

It is because of these problems that the Parliamentary Debate team was established. The new team, founded by Junior Political Science Major Mary Depuydt, was created for students who wanted to participate in debate without the added requirements and time issues.

“We’re argumentative people by nature, and we think that competitive debate is essential to … teach improvisational discussion,” said Depuydt.

Junior Political Science Major Nick Harper is one of the members who used to be on the Forensics team but left to join the Parliamentary Debate team.

“Just because you speak well doesn’t mean that you debate well,” said Harper. “Forensic speaking can be very useful, but in some senses very impractical. It’s memorized by script. There is no point where a scripted speech is needed in someone’s life. However, immediate and logical arguments will occur.”
It is not just the difficulties of time constraint and rules that caused Harper and Depuydt to form a new student organization. They also had problems with Forensics Coach Kris Kracht.

“I respect Kris a lot, but … I lost faith in him due to his feelings toward parliamentary debate. I sense that he does not approve of parliamentary debate as much as forensic speech, which comes out in the way he schedules agendas for practice. There is not enough time or money spent on debates or tournaments,” said Harper. “He has standards, and that is good; it’s just that sometimes it’s very difficult for students to live up to them. He is unchanging about flexing requirements for debate. You have to join forensics. He pushes you to go to and do more events.”

“Though he’s stern, and that can be a good thing, for a system as dynamic as debate, he is not lenient enough,” said Depuydt.

In response to these critiques, Kracht said, “To compete at a national level, it takes a great deal of commitment and hard work. Because of this, forensics is not for everyone.”
When asked about his thoughts on the new organization, Kracht said he “know[s] very little about the organization and their intentions.”

“I have nothing to do with it, its formation or its funding. I couldn’t even tell you who’s involved,” said Kracht.

Department of Communications Chair Leila Brammer has been working at Gustavus  12 years and has seen Forensics change over the years. “The [Forensic] debate back then [was] very different from debate now,” said Brammer.

She went on to explain that current Forensics members must compete in three events because it is more cost effective. To have multiple students going to tournaments to compete in multiple events costs less than having just a few students going to a costly tournament and only competing in one event.

This system “existed prior to Kracht working here,” said Brammer. “The department is so pleased to have Kracht as a coach. We are pleased that he has such high standards for the quality, work ethic and character of the team,.”

Since Kracht has been the coach, the Forensics team has done well for itself, earning a top 20 national ranking for the second consecutive year at the American Forensics Association National Individual Events Tournament.

The Parliamentary Debate team was approved by SAO this past week and therein given the school’s official approval of the group.

“I was hesitant as to how the college community would respond to a secondary team. There was resounding support,” said Depuydt.

The Parliamentary Debate team was given $1,050 by Student Senate at the budget meeting last week. Harper, a member of the debate team, as well as a member of Senate, said, “We have the minimal of minimal. We got less than 10 percent of what [Forensics] has.”

Because Parliamentary Debate is a student group, Student Senate funds it. Forensics is funded by the Department of Communications.

Now that the Parliamentary Debate team has been recognized as a group, both teams will be attending tournaments.

“I don’t think it’s a bad thing. Some Forensic speech team members have expressed concern over the image for Gustavus, but I honestly think [the] image issues are [for the] Forensics team. … It will not reflect negatively on the school as a whole because it’s still Gustavus students competing,” said Harper.

“When you think of the idea of having essentially two teams from Gustavus going to tournaments, I mean how does that really look upon us? … I’m not necessarily OK with them going to tournaments, because they’re almost kind of taking away from what the Forensics team is doing,” said Sean Maertens, a junior political science and communication studies major, a member of the Forensics team and a Student Senate member.

“The purpose is to get better at debate; it doesn’t matter who we compete against. Either way we carry the Gustavus name, and both teams represent Gustavus,” said Depuydt.