A Culture of Toxicity: Modern Forensics

“How did THEY win?” 

I’m sure we’ve all seen some form of that sentence after any round. After decisions come out, teams often throw around words like 'rigged' or 'unfair' when they disagree with a judge’s decision. Most of us have probably been on either side of this problem before. Muttering under our breaths about how the judge made the wrong choice, or unknowingly being the victim of someone else saying we were undeserving of winning a round. Either way, this sentiment contributes to a growing problem in our community. 

For many, debate is an important part of our academic lives that serves as a way for us to express our thoughts and refine our ability to research, speak and problem solve. We are competitive people who are passionate about winning rounds that we’ve prepared hard for. However, that same passion for competition manifests into many of the underlying issues that exist in the activity today. These hurdles can affect both the debate community as a whole and individuals within it.

On a communal level, debaters have become quite exclusionary. In a recent Equality In Forensics article, West Virginia competitor Josephine Gilbert discusses the importance of making friends within debate, saying, “Even becoming friends with competitors can boost your morale and wellbeing. The idea is that becoming friends with anyone you can will ultimately help you have a better experience on both your team and at tournaments.” While I agree with many of the points she makes in her piece, making friends in the current competitive space is not quite as simple as it seems. From my own personal experience at a debate camp, the amount of people who would be nice to other debaters’ faces while talking bad behind their back was unbelievable. Everything from making fun of how someone looked while speaking to talking trash on a certain group of friends, it seemed that being mean when people weren’t there to hear just came with the program of debate. In a paper published through ScienceDirect, gossiping behind someone’s back has many harmful consequences including depersonalization and emotional exhaustion, showing us that the effects are not just limited to the victims of the gossip, but also the perpetrators. I believe that this heavily contributes to the exclusionary nature of the current debate sphere. 

The issue for individual competitors is that the environment of debate has become extremely toxic. The pressure to come out of every round victorious if you’re known to be “good” exists everywhere, whether it's the national circuit or just a small local one. As an anonymous former high school debater explains, “The competitive nature of debate has also caused some serious problems for the debaters in the activity. It is sad and frightening to see top nationally ranked teams quit the activity or cry over debate rounds.” Extremely talented competitors walk away because they feel like failures as a result of doing worse than they expected to do at a few tournaments. They feel that unless they live up to their reputation as being some of the best in their event by breaking into semis or finals at every tournament, they should just step away because they are no longer good at debate. Feelings of inadequacy are detrimental. In an article by MasterClass, they explain that the idea of not being “good enough” can lead to imposter syndrome, lack of self realization, lowering of self-confidence, and other negative effects on individual mentality. With how fragile mental health could be, we must try to mitigate these problems.

So, what’s the solution? 

To become more inclusive, I think that we, as debaters, have to self-reflect on our own behavior. Sure, not all of us contribute to the issue of exclusion in the forensics community. However, the issue is drastic enough for all of us to try to resolve the problems that exist within the debate world. The solution to breaking down the hate within our community begins with us, and we should all try to be nicer to those around us. If we foster a welcoming environment in debate, we will see growing participation in the activity. This is especially important for smaller circuits, such as in my home state of West Virginia, where debate is rapidly losing popularity. In an EIF article by John Mueger, he explains that there may be a decreasing popularity in debate among some areas of the nation. I believe that one way to help push for involvement is to be more accommodating for new members, and allow them to join a welcoming community free from constant judgement.

To improve debate for individual competitors, the solution would be to emphasize the importance of mental health in the activity. Many people who join the activity are most likely trying to compete for a spot in a top university as a senior, and they feel the pressure of the expectation of needing to do well in everything. This often leaves mental health as a last priority in the face of extremely difficult competition. As explained by High Focus Treatment Centers, not addressing mental health issues can cause disorders such as anxiety to continually worsen, as well as bring on a slew of physical health detriments. In order to help our debaters, providing access to mental health resources such as using available school counselors, making sure students are aware of available hotlines, and other helpful methods to help with the mental health issues many of our competitors face.

For me, debate is a passion of mine that has changed my life. I’ve become a better speaker, learned how to research effectively, and made friendships that have lasted all throughout high school. Let’s become more inclusive to try providing those benefits to more people while also ensuring our community is healthy and happy to compete by resolving the toxicities within our own community.