The Ballad of Speechies and Debaters

One of the most memorable lines of Suzanne Collins’ 2008 book, The Hunger Games, reads: “May the odds be ever in your favor.” Re-watching the movies again now draws some interesting parallels between the infamous games and the activity we dedicate almost every one of our weekends to. The cornucopia as the concessions stand that every competitor rushes to, the reaping as they announce breaks, and all of our favorite Peacekeepers: the tabroom officials. I think the greatest similarity between the two though, is the unyielding desire to be a victor. The famed winners from District 12 showed us the most striking resemblance: the willingness to do anything to secure that victory, even if it means playing a broken game. The key difference, though, is that too many in our activity fail to realize the game they themselves might be participating in. 

Through the heat of forensics, it is easy to forget the underlying purpose of the activity: to have meaningful discourse and function as a decision making process. Too often, it is misconstrued as a means to an end, the end being a trophy, a title, or simply pride. Forgetting this foundational tenant of Speech & Debate has led to paradigm shift in the conduct of competitors and even the way certain events function. Simply put, seeing debate as only a “game” to win instead of considering the discussion done along the way has led to unhealthy competition and a narrative of forensics being an adversarial activity rather than a communal one. This development of a negative atmosphere is present in circuits across the country showing itself in several ways, from perceptual event hierarchies, to utilizing problematic strategies to win over ballots, and ultimately to forming an adversarial environment limiting individual development.

At its core, the platform forensics provides exists for people to express their individual, unique ideas, but as the activity has evolved, the focus has shifted towards what competitors believe is the surest path to victory. Debate is intended to mean discourse, discussion, and open conversation, but when the entirety of this discussion is skewed to what a judge wants to hear, it is not discussion at all. Winning this game often means individuals sacrificing genuine advocacy for empty rhetoric that creates a guise of true compassion. 

Broader than that, events have developed structures that pit competitors against one another, leading to counterproductive behavior as competitors focus their energy on bringing down opponents rather than uplifting themselves. When this line between refutation and belittling an opponent gets blurred, it creates a negative atmosphere where others feel unable to speak or express their opinions. After all, if people see forensics as simply a game to win, the biggest barriers that seem to exist are those around you, and unfortunately, the state of competition today has highlighted this idea too clearly. This trend disproportionately affects individuals and schools who are often underrepresented or underfunded as they are often left out of the discussion entirely, because for a large portion of the competitor base, winning comes in the way of helping others improve.

Any competitive activity inherently fosters an environment where individuals want to win, and stripping that away from forensics would be taking away the very foundation upon which the activity stands. However, the problem underlying these issues stems from the idea that the central component of the activity is adversarial rather than communal, not the notion that it is competitive. Changing the narrative back towards a more inclusive, friendly, and uplifting environment starts by understanding that Speech & Debate is not a game against others, but rather, a process by which students can work towards becoming more effective communicators and work with others to create a space for discourse. Competition fuels this development, but the fire of competition should never burn through genuine advocacy and an equitable environment.

This solution is not made in an effort to reject the existence of trophies, awards, or material recognition, as they rightfully symbolize the effort and hardwork that one puts into the activity. Rather, it is aimed to make sure that the road to success isn’t one fueled by empty rhetoric or accelerated by belittling other competitors. The necessary mindset shift involves ensuring the journey towards that trophy is a process grounded in self-improvement rather than one climbed off the backs of others. To truly feel accomplished in the activity and promote a healthier environment for all, it is imperative to recognize and avoid playing into the “game” we often see debate as. Curiously, forensics might be the only place where the best way to win the game is by escaping it. It was best articulated in Collins’ sequel Catching Fire: “If we burn, you burn with us.” Recognizing the problem allows us to extinguish the fire in ourselves before it burns through the positive effects Speech and Debate intends to bring.