The Superficial Impact

Trigger warning: brief mentions of eating disorders and abuse.

Speech and debate was meant to be a community where students can gain new perspectives on different topics, whether it’s researching politics or developing commentary on how writing has become oversimplified. These events give us the platform to show the world a piece of our true selves, from our writing in events like World Schools to our speaking skills in Dramatic Interpretation.  Most members of this community joined to leave a lasting impact on our competitors, judges, and even ourselves by exploring our authentic, powerful voices through words. Recently, however, I’ve noticed that many performances have a similar nature in their topics, ideas, and even speech modulation, leaving an impact that’s superficial rather than meaningful upon both us and our audience. This left me with a question: why do we see so much repetition in every event, whether it’s speech or debate?

Within speech and debate, the goal of leaving an emotional impact leads students to the same few ideas, creating a lack of originality in forensics. This is something that I’m pretty sure all speech-and-debaters know about. We might run a case purely with stock contentions, or use the same frameworks, like mitigating capitalism or utilitarianism, for every case. To some extent, this is due to using standardized resources like the Champion Briefs and Open Case List. While these websites provide a solid and accessible foundation to start, it’s spiraled into an overarching problem where we see the same cases with the same contentions and the same cards being pitted against each other. Every round repeats itself. 

This is also common in forensics. In Dramatic Interpretation, for example, many competitors perform pieces about topics such as eating disorders (ED), abuse, and depression, with the same type of introductions, voices, and gestures. These are undoubtedly important topics, but their frequent usage takes away the performances’ freshness and loses part of that powerful emotional impact. When you hear similar performances about the same ideas every time, whether it’s as a competitor or a judge, eventually, you’ll become de-sensitized and less impacted by them. Even in events like Oratory, where the idea is for students to be as original and personal as possible, we still see the same topics dominating the floor(e.g. diversity, oppression, and mental health). The overuse of these ideas takes away their meaning, leaving an impact that seems superficial - it gives the impression that students discuss these topics not because they matter to them, but because they can rank well.

There’s an artificial nature to the speech and debate community where there’s a formula for everything: how you speak, when to use hand gestures, and most importantly, what kinds of things you can speak about. Speech and debate is supposed to be a place where we allow the voiceless to speak about their experiences, whether that’s in the form of an Oratory or a Congress bill - a place to gain perspectives, not confine them. When there’s a formula that you ‘need’ to win, it limits us to hearing the same performances every time, defeating the purpose of this community. This trend also defeats the purpose of the NSDA’s mission and core values, as stated right on their website: fostering creativity and critical thinking. How can we think outside the box when we feel pressured to do the same things as everyone else? When we’re told that we have to use this gesture or that joke to make our performances an  “NSDA-champion Oratory” or a winning Congress speech? These formulas, beaten to death in these events, have been called out within the speech and debate community before. Notably, YouTube comments under a 2018 NSDA finalist’s Oratory discussed this, with one stating that when “everyone copies this type of speaking, it’s not ‘Original’ Oratory anymore.”

However, it is also important to talk about the influence of judges and coaches in this issue. This formulaic approach is often encouraged by our mentors, especially when it comes to qualifications for major tournaments such as NSDA Nationals or the TOC. These tips can help students who have problems coming up with something original, like writer's block with an Informative (I’ve had that many times), but all too often pushes them into a mold. We’re constantly told to follow the way that a finalist from 2018 wrote their case or note how the 2023 NSDA champion made jokes about Prickles in their speech. Students who don’t speak about these topics or use these techniques, students who try to be creative, are often reprimanded for 'not following the norm’ in the form of a loss or lower rankings, and it discourages them from speaking out about their ideas and interests. We're told to stay inside a box for fear of being labeled a ‘bad’ competitor.

How can we solve this?

3 main solutions can steer us to a meaningful impact. First, the path of originality, which is likely the hardest one. Remember that this event was created for US - take the  first step and create that unique speech or bill you’ve been hesitant about. Venture into different ways that you can deliver a speech that suits you. Don't cater to a bunch of judges, write what feels right. Wear your heart on your sleeve, because your ideas and emotions are valuable. Trust me - when you start to think like this, it makes a world of difference. A great example of an Oratory that steps outside the box is  “Disrespectful” by Myles Bell, a highly contentious and incredible performance. 

Another solution (though dependent on your school and team’s resources) is to hold workshops or have one-on-one practice sessions where you can present to your peers and get genuine feedback. If you’re lost and don’t know how to start writing, this would provide a great foundation to decide whether your idea should be pursued further.The final solution, and the one that students have the least amount of control over, is for coaches and judges to encourage original voices. This starts change from the bottom up: it solidifies from the very first lesson that not every HI should be the same, promotes unique methods of writing and cutting, and gives students the freedom to explore different options that feel like us. Coaches have the power to shape the future of this activity - for new speech-and-debaters, the lessons we learn first are the values we internalize.

Speech and debate allows people from different backgrounds, from their region to their political views, to express their thoughts. This should be a platform encouraging youth to think critically and creatively, and a place where students can be exposed to performances that change their ideas about the world in a matter of minutes. It’s long overdue: we need to stop making overused jokes or writing pure Champion-Briefs cases. Even though these changes take time, we're bringing this community back to its roots. Speech and debate has become the exact opposite of its original intent: an activity that forces students, regardless of who they are, into a box and tells those who break the mold that their ideas aren’t as valuable. We’ve taken education out of speech and debate - so let’s pull off the mask, abandon normalized superficiality, and make a real impact.