print page | send as email | email editor

Jackson Hole resident Oliver O’Connor, third from right, prepares for a debate round at the National Forensic League national tournament in mid-June in Kansas City, Mo. He got help from Sarah Kline, Duncan McLaurin and Mark Langer. NEWS&GUIDE PHOTO / BRANDON KAPELOW

View our entire photo gallery >>

At 9 a.m. on June 16, Oliver O’Connor sat in a high school hallway, ready to compete at the National Forensic League national tournament. Thirty minutes before the start of the event, organizers informed him of the side he would argue on a resolution involving Middle East peace talks.

If he had been alone while furiously cramming for the supplemental debate category, he might have faltered.

But teammate Brandon Kapelow, already eliminated from competition the day before, awoke at 7 a.m. to be there. Scouring the Internet on his iPad, Kapelow rattled off statistics to O’Connor, who shaped them into talking points and a logical argument.

Over the course of the day, O’Connor debated topics ranging from minimum wage to the establishment of charter schools. After advancing past two rounds of elimination, he cited help from his teammates as the primary reason for his success.

“I couldn’t have done it without them,” O’Connor said. “Sure, I was speaking, but it was a team effort, and it was nice because it showed that we didn’t just give up after getting out of our specialized events but that we continued to work together as a team.”

O’Connor, Kapelow and fellow Jackson Hole High School speech and debate team members Mark Langer and Duncan McLaurin all qualified for the national tournament and traveled to Kansas City, Mo., to compete June 14-18.

The Jazzin It Up in Kansas City tournament marked the end to successful high school careers for each of the teens.

Together, they acquired almost every possible accolade awarded to speech and debate competitors in Wyoming.

O’Connor was state champion in congressional debate for the 3A division.  Langer won a coveted honor referred to as the Ambassadors Award, and Kapelow and McLaurin were team captains.

But putting aside individual successes and failures, one essential truth remains: They are all part of a team.

This sense of camaraderie made the representatives for the Wind River District stand out against a backdrop of more than 5,000 of the nation’s finest “speechies.”

Coaches Mark Houser and Londe Gagnon accompanied the Jackson Hole competitors, who participated in two of the 10 official categories offered: public forum debate and congressional debate.

Kapelow and McLaurin made up the public forum team, while O’Connor and Langer acted as pseudo-lawmakers in congressional debate.

According to the National Forensic League, public forum is a partner event that focuses on current issues and forces teams to be skilled in “argumentation, cross-examination and refutation.” Competitors have a different topic each month and must have an in-depth understanding of both the pro and con side. A coin toss at the beginning of each round determines a team’s stance on the given topic.

The topic for nationals was “Resolved: that current trends in American political dialogue compromise meaningful democratic deliberation.” As a duo, Kapelow and McLaurin squared off against other competitors, discussing everything from filibusters and voter disenfranchisement to the infamous “baby killer” phrase resonating from the health care debate.

During six preliminary rounds, the team argued the affirmative side twice and the con side four times. With two judges in each round, there were two ballots. Teams needed to gain the approval of both judges to consider the round an official win.

While Kapelow and McLaurin never actually lost a round, they did “split” ballots on more than one occasion. In the end, the twosome failed to advance beyond preliminaries, missing the cutoff by only one ballot and placing 94th out of 260.

Nonetheless, they did have an exciting victory. The duo received both ballots and the official win against a team that went on to place fifth in the nation. Kapelow and McLaurin cite judges’ subjectivity as one of the primary reasons they did not continue on in the competition.

“It says a lot when you can go every single round and have one of the two judges give you a loss and the other a win,” Kapelow said. “It just shows how important personal paradigms can be and how they can influence you even though you’ve competed the exact same way for each judge.”

This was Kapelow’s second appearance at nationals in the event of public forum. Last year he qualified with partner Langer, and together they advanced further than any Jackson public forum team on record. Each year Kapelow has attended nationals, he has also qualified in congressional debate, a solo event. However, he chose to compete in public forum, allowing his partner to attend.

Houser, in his 15th year of coaching, commented on Kapelow’s decision. “It parallels with the overall team philosophy of teamwork and working together on various levels in speech and debate,” Houser said.

Kapelow said trusting your partner is crucial in group events.

“Any mistake you or your partner makes reflects on both of you,” Kapelow said.

O’Connor and Langer encountered different obstacles as solo competitors in congressional debate. Participants are expected to compose and debate legislation as if they were actual senators or representatives for the U.S. Congress.
Debaters are scored in two ways: judge rankings and speaker points. In points, O’Connor placed ninth overall in his preliminary rounds. He received three judge rankings and was able to give eight speeches total.

“Senator” Langer, competing in the event for only the fourth time in his career, placed 12th on the point scale. Even though he gave fewer speeches, he also received judges’ nods.

The competition was stiff compared to within the Cowboy State.

“It’s difficult to consistently place first and second in Wyoming,” said O’Connor, who served in the House, “and then come to nationals and find people who are just as good as you, if not better. You really have to be on top of your game to do well.”

Unfortunately, the students’ performances were not enough to propel them into the semifinal round.

The night before the competitors were set to return home, the boys reminisced about debate and their careers. Some recalled the friendships that formed among teammates and competitors from around the state, and they spoke of their respect for their coaches.

Each teen commented on the benefits that the activity offered them specifically. Public speaking skills, confidence, compromise and the forming of new opinions were popular talking points, but one theme resonated above the rest: love for the team.

“The main thing I took away,” McLaurin said, “is that nationals is somewhat melancholy because it isn’t just another speech meet. It’s the first time I’ve ever competed without my other friends and members of the team, and the team is the best part. It’s like being with a second family, and I’m going to miss that.”