Lost in Translation:  The Struggle to Adapt Between Circuits

I’ll never forget the feeling when after calling for the first questioning block of the session in which I was the presiding officer at Sunvite 2024 and heard “point of order.” To only make matters so much worse, the individual who raised their placard was a well-known debater on the national circuit and someone I greatly respected. I could recall feeling the color drain from my face as she proceeded to call me out on the list of mistakes I had made in the last five minutes, leading me to anxiously glance back and forth between my judges and parliamentarian, seeing disappointed expressions followed by quick typing. 

After the tournament, when reviewing my feedback, I read a comment that stuck with me: “I would suggest maybe getting some more experience on your local circuit if you would like to continue as a PO on the national circuit so that you are more sure of rules and procedures.” 

But the thing is, I did have experience as a presiding officer at my local circuit. To be fully honest, I did pretty well at my local circuit, with several gavels sitting in my room to show for it. So why didn’t these skills transfer to the national circuit? 

In the world of high school speech and debate, students are constantly asked to adapt—whether it’s mastering new topics, honing their public speaking skills, or adjusting to the chamber. However, one challenge often goes unspoken: the inconsistency in rules and structures across different debate circuits. As someone who has competed in both the ICDA circuit and the national circuit, I've experienced firsthand how difficult it can be to navigate the differences in speech formats, procedures, and judging expectations. 

While these inconsistencies may seem minor to outsiders, they can significantly impact competitors, particularly those who lack access to specialized coaching or resources to prepare for multiple formats. For students competing in circuits like the ICDA (Illinois Congressional Debate Association), the challenges are even greater when transitioning to national circuits like NSDA or TOC. The differences in rules—from speech structure to evidence presentation—often leave students scrambling to adjust, leading to an uneven playing field. 

A PO with a thorough understanding of parliamentary procedure is the backbone of an efficient chamber. But once there are inconsistencies in the rules that run our chambers, everything begins to fall apart. 

I remember one of the most significant procedural inconsistencies between ICDA and the national circuit is recency. In the last three years, I’ve experienced several rule changes in recency procedures, and from what I’ve heard, there were numerous changes even before my time. 

For now, let us look at the most recent rules of ICDA where preset recency is nonexistent. ICDA ruling states: “Recency is at the discretion of the Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer should indicate their methodology for selecting speakers at the beginning of the session in which they are presiding.” 

This system introduces several potential issues. First, it leaves room for bias to take place among presiding officers. For instance, if I have fellow debaters from my school or friends from other schools in my chamber, I might be more inclined—consciously or unconsciously—to call on those I know first rather than giving equal opportunity to others. It’s human nature. Another bias is that even though questioning and speaking precedence are kept separate if I call on a peer for a question, I would be much less inclined to pick them for the following speech. 

However, this not only leads to unfairly disadvantaged competitors at tournaments but also affects the presiding officers themselves. Looking back at my experience, I was unaware that questioning recency followed guidelines that differed from tournament to tournament, as I thought it was up to my discretion, as in the ICDA circuit. This lack of clarity led me to make mistakes in front of my entire chamber, ultimately affecting my performance and resulting in a lower score. 

Another significant procedural difference lies in how sessions are started. In ICDA, competitors simply agree on a docket before the session and write it on the board. No formal docket nominations are needed, and no motion is required to open the floor for debate. This simplicity makes ICDA feel more accessible, but it also means that competitors used to this system may struggle when transitioning to national tournaments, where formal motions are required to begin the debate. For me, this lack of experience with formal procedures left me unprepared when I attended national tournaments as a presiding officer. 

So, when my parliamentarian advised me to get more local experience before returning to the national circuit, I realized that the advice wasn’t going to help. The problem isn’t just a lack of experience—the inconsistency in rules between circuits makes it difficult to adapt. 

However, these inconsistencies go beyond procedural matters and affect how we write and deliver speeches. In ICDA, we’re taught to structure speeches methodically, even to the point of punishment if we don't follow the same structure each time: Introduction, Point 1, Point 2, Conclusion—checking off boxes as we go. This approach works well at local tournaments, but when competing on the national stage, speeches often require more fluidity and adaptation to the specific debate. Judges at national tournaments are looking for more than just a formulaic approach; they value adaptability and nuanced arguments that respond directly to the debate as it unfolds. 

So, as someone who frequently switches between the local and national circuits, it is often a struggle to cater to each tournament and to find the balance between knowing when to use a structured or flexible approach and when to use niche or more broad ideas.

Perhaps one of the most frustrating discrepancies between tournaments is scoring. At ICDA tournaments, you can get nominated by judges between the three sessions. At the end of the day, your name gets written on the board if you are nominated, and your chamber will vote on who places. That’s right—your chamber, not your judges. Not only this, but first place is based on the speaking average rather than the overall ranks by the judges. 

So, referring back to a situation that happened this past weekend, my friend got the following ranks between the three sessions: 1,2,1,1,3,3. This means she got nominated by four of the six judges she had throughout the day. Despite getting ranked first three times, she didn’t place. Why? Because another individual who got one second-place nomination got more votes. So essentially, your rank is determined by a popularity contest. 

Yet, if we applied her scores to standard NSDA rulings, she would have placed first in her chamber. 

That is why it is vital that measures be taken to standardize rules. In each tournament, dozens of debaters find themselves unfairly overlooked and miss out on the placements they undoubtedly deserve. 

These inconsistencies—whether in procedures, speech structure, or scoring—create an uneven playing field, making it difficult for debaters to transition between circuits. Standardizing rules across circuits could help eliminate these disparities and ensure that all competitors, regardless of their local circuit, are judged fairly and consistently. Each tournament leaves dozens of debaters unfairly overlooked, missing out on placements they've clearly earned. It’s time we take measures to standardize rules and make high school debate a more equitable and accessible space for all. Creating a national set of guidelines for presiding officers or having a unified recency and scoring system could make the transition between local and national circuits smoother.