United We Stand, Divided We Fall: The Small State Conundrum

For the better part of the national circuit’s history, some of the most heralded and sought after championships have been won by five states: California, Florida, Minnesota, New York, and Texas. An observation of TOC champions across all main events for the last decade tells us that 66 percent of champions hail from these debate-enriched states. This trend is also present over the last five years at NSDA Nationals where, once more, just over 67 percent of champions hailed from just these five states. Similar research will confirm this trend over and over across high-tier national circuit tournaments like Harvard, Florida Blue Key, Glenbrooks, Sunvitational, Barkley Forum, and others on an annual basis. Therefore it is fairly straightforward for onlookers to conclude, with a good amount of accuracy, that final rounds will be made up of students from these states with only a mere handful of students from other states being sprinkled in. 

It is no secret that these five states have enriched speech and debate cultures, while also encompassing some of the nation’s best programs, coaches, and resources. However, the purpose of the aforementioned observations isn’t to say that these five states are doing something wrong, rather the fact that these states and the institutions within them consistently foster the careers of some of the brightest minds in the NSDA’s history should be a point of pride for those states. In all actuality, this observation is necessary to shed light onto the disadvantages small states already inherently face in terms of resources and opportunity, and to examine how (and why) debaters across the country, especially those in smaller states and districts, can advocate for the improvement of their community’s chances on being heard on the biggest of stages. 

The ‘small state conundrum’ for which this article is named after, can be described as well-intentioned competitive natures going too far and ultimately causing the stagnation of a community’s access and utilization of resources that promote the betterment of Speech and Debate as a whole. In essence, the balancing act of wanting to succeed individually is placed in contention with wanting to help those against you in round grow as debaters. Gatekeeping knowledge is the predominant problem facing many smaller states, and oftentimes in less-resourced circuits, we continue to weaken one another’s chances at representing our state by hiding the tools to learning from one another that constantly results in us being left behind larger states. Simply put, we cannot reach for the final stage when we don’t foster a local community to stand upon. 

To better illustrate this problem, understand the following: in small districts and states where access to resources are already limited, each piece of information obtained from travel tournaments or participation on the national circuit is akin to gold and seen as a ticket to that same community’s ability to progressively improve their competitors across the board. However, all too often knowledge gained doesn’t translate into knowledge shared. In many cases, that piece of information or that particular resource is kept hidden away and only serves to benefit a handful of competitors or a few teams alone. Not only is this frustrating for debaters who are left on the outside of these circles, but it poses a serious threat to that district and that state’s chances of constantly building upon the knowledge of debaters of past years and translating those lessons to upcoming generations of speakers. 

Here’s why that ultimately matters to small state debaters: the ability to build upon the knowledge of your varsity as a novice is critical to your progression as a competitor. Then, as competitors, we continue to learn from the varsity around us, who in turn learned their tricks of the trade from someone else. However, in small areas where the gatekeeping of resources is prominent, multiple steps in that chain of learning events are cut off. Instead, competitors are left to build from the ground up repeatedly, leading to small states often staying stagnant in their ability to unlock and nourish the talents of brilliant competitors. This issue has become so prominent, that in some of the hardest to reach regions of the debate community, we are no longer playing by the same rules. In fact, in some states such as Colorado, parts of the Midwest, and some districts on the East Coast, certain competition procedures are drastically different causing competitors to quickly learn new procedures in hopes of keeping up with national rules, something that could be aided by the influx and sharing of new resources. Further, concepts such as substructure in Extemporaneous Speaking or the nuances of late-round speaking in Congressional Debate are not common knowledge in smaller states, a gap in knowledge that can be remedied by debaters in these communities helping one another improve through sharing knowledge. When we as a debate community allow our peers to be left behind due to gatekeeping, we cannot claim that we are all standing on equal footing. Nor can we declare that we truly encompass opportunity for competitors from all states. 

This is not to say that small states are the only ones being left out of all of the opportunities that this community has to offer. This issue is present in small and poorly-funded districts in larger states too where there are wealth disparities that can cause regions of states to fall behind, only adding an extra layer to the inequities spurred on by the gatekeeping and lack of accessibility of some resources . In this way, many of us can share a similar experience of being outmatched by our well-resourced peers in larger states such as Texas, California, and Florida during our first few trips to the national circuit. As a result, when progress is stalled due to the gatekeeping of resources on the local circuit, a decisive message is sent to the competitors who venture beyond their smaller states: no matter how hard you may work in a state such as Nevada, Maine, or South Dakota, you’re almost always going to face a disadvantage against others on the national circuit. Overmatched and out-resourced, most small state and small circuit competitors are often pushed back to their district and don’t return to the national circuit, robbing our community of the chance to hear their messages on behalf of their states. 

Hearing this conundrum can be quite discouraging, but the debate community is nothing if not resilient in our ability to figure out how we can promote equality of resources and knowledge in these smaller states. 

Beginning with addressing gatekeeping itself, we can ensure that small states get the chance to experience the ‘learning chain’ where resources are passed down to younger competitors and amongst varsity competitors by creating a culture that is eager to see representation on the national circuit. From personal experience as a competitor I was fortunate enough to see my home state of Nevada have finalists at NIETOC and our first NSDA Nationals finalists in the same-year for the first time in nearly a decade. This was, and still remains, a massive source of pride for our state and for many of these finalists’ peers. Yet, at one point or another in their debate careers all of these finalists learned from a peer or a varsity member in some fashion that helped move along their progress. This is to say that, even in the smallest of parts, creating a community culture where we are eager to see our peers improve so that some day one of us will break through onto the final stage is an integral part of changing our mindsets away from gatekeeping resources for our personal benefit. 

After we take steps to change our mindsets away from the dangerous allures of hiding away information for our personal gain, we can then begin to hold a detailed dialogue amongst our peers of what resources are necessary to improve the quality of debates we are having, and to improve our states’ chances of breaking through onto the largest stages. 

In the spirit of that dialogue, we should all strive to find and share resources online. A few fantastic places to find resources would be through various organizations such as Space City Camp, Impact Institute, Academy37, Outreach Debate, and other places such as Equality in Forensics’ event guides and lecture content that discusses tools for debaters of all levels, and covers things such as the nuances of navigating the national circuit which is crucial to small state and small circuit debaters. Further, debaters should take steps to locate and share camps that occur within their state or online at accessible financial rates. Not every state provides these, but it is worthwhile to ask coaches and peers in your community and surrounding states if they have heard of any of these programs so that students and coaches can continue to participate and form bonds with these camps. Another great way to promote the chances of small state debaters having the opportunity for growth in the speech and debate world is to establish or join your local Equality in Forensics chapter. This is crucial to small states in particular because being able to organize your community and locate subjects of need before contacting a national organization is a great way to get immediate and efficient assistance in infusing your community with resources. 

This article couldn’t hope to locate every single resource available online and in-person, however allow this article to spark us into action. Remember once more, utilizing these resources for ourselves is great, but sharing these resources with those who face barriers to excellence is entirely game-changing for the landscape and future of speech and debate. At the end of the day when we are divided in our pursuit to gatekeep resources from one another, small states fall off the map. However, when small states and districts are united together to foster improvement, we forge the path to stand on the final stage.