The Dilemma of Docket Group Chats

Picture this: It is the week before a major debate tournament. You are sitting in your dark bedroom, with your only light source being the glow of the legislation packet pulled up on your iPhone 6. "Ah, midnight, the perfect time to start prepping for my first bill,” you say to yourself.  But soon the panic and regret of under-prepping turns to pure exasperation. Overcome by annoyance, you realize just the sheer amount of bills that you need to prep, as often national circuit tournaments will have around twenty different pieces of legislation. 

"What can I possibly do to reduce this astronomical number?” and “Do I really need to prep all of the bills?” are questions that begin to eat away at your mind. That is, until the light bulb goes off. “What if I make a group chat with the other debaters that are attending the tournament and make a quick docket so I only need to prep on a couple of bills?” 

The group chat is a success; your covert deliberations pay off and save you, and others, hours of strenuous writing and research. While the members in your group chat are all aware of what will be debated, those who aren't as lucky to get an invite are left in the dark. They've spent hours traveling to get here, likely paid hundreds, even thousands of dollars, to compete, and wrote continuously just to be shunned and disadvantaged by your lethargic last-ditch effort. This secret network could be the golden ticket to victory, but is it fair play or simply a betrayal of the spirit of debate? As tournament directors and students alike grapple with the ethicality of these group chats (and as the debate season truly starts for this next school year), the question begins to loom: do group chats belong in pre-tournament congressional debate?

As someone who has been a member of these group chats in the past, I can see both the benefits and extremely real ethical dilemmas that arise from them.  In defense of these group chats, it could easily be argued that group chats enhance the efficiency of debate prep and limit the amount of strain that you have to put into your preparation. This, in turn, can reduce stress and alleviate the pressure of having to prepare for every possible bill. By having more time to prep on certain bills, you can write and research a lot more for each bill, which will thus lead to a more captivating and engaging round of debate. Time is something that a lot of debaters find of the essence- being a student often lends itself to always being busy with something, whether it be debate prep, homework, or virtually anything else. Having more time also allows you to get more sleep before a tournament, which is often something that hardcore debaters find themselves lacking. 

It is also important to note that group chats warrant communication and collaboration among debaters, fostering teamwork and unity. Some of my closest friends from debate were those that I met in group chats after chamber assignments were released. If these group chats were never created, I would never have been given the opportunities and the moments that I have cherished with them. 

Many tournaments like Harvard and NSDA Nationals wait until the morning of the round of debate to release the chambers, barring debaters from communicating with their fellow competitors until they are just about to enter their chamber. Some tournaments have even gone to the extent of hiding entry lists with hundreds of debaters on them, just to ensure that group chats are not created. While the Harvard Congressional Rules Document from the 2024 tournament explicitly states that there is no prohibition of outside communication, it still gravely discourages students from partaking in such discussions. Harvard notes that “competitors in the past have reported feeling undue pressure and even harassment [due to group chats]” which are “unsound from a social-emotional learning (SEL) standpoint.” 

By leaving students out of group chats (which is bound to happen due to the very nature of these chats), members of the chat are essentially perpetuating exclusivity, which is toxic and unfair. Debaters who are not in the group chat are at a significant disadvantage, as they do not know what to prep, and are left in a similar situation to you at the beginning of this article, finding themselves drowning in work and left to prep over twenty (if not more) speeches within the span of a single week or two. 

Sidelining others who may not have social media or friends within the congressional debate community is simply immoral and unethical. Why do you deserve a better chance at success than another debater? Why do you deserve more sleep and less stress? Surprisingly, you’re not only hurting just those who are excluded, but you're also hurting yourself. By consistently creating group chats, you are reducing your individual competitive drive and initiative and making yourself overly dependent on others. What happens if the table turns? You and your group chat may be a minority in any chamber. If you and your fellow group chat members only prep on a certain number of bills, and the rest of the chamber votes on a different docket, you will be disadvantaged. Equity and compassion for others is vital, and it should be a hallmark of congressional debate. 

But what is the solution to these ultra-private prep groups being formed in the first place? The answer to this question lies on the shoulders of the congress community to recognize when something is not right—it just is not fair for some competitors to have such a large margin of competitive success over others when some competitors are left in the lurch. With that being said, the question I raised at the beginning of this article of whether docket group chats belong in congressional debate in any circumstance can finally be answered. The answer is a resounding no. I do not stand for communication among debaters prior to the round as it perpetuates exclusivity, inequity, and indolence.