In partnership with

Is Speech and Debate Losing Its Edge? How Conformity Is Stifling Its Potential for Progress

Speech and Debate has been recognized as an opus of critical thinking, intellectual diversity, and advocacy for change. It is an activity that trains students to think independently, make nuanced arguments, and challenge prevailing norms.

However, a troubling trend has emerged: instead of being a place for diverse perspectives, speech and debate are increasingly becoming an echo chamber. Self-imposed intellectual constraints create a realm where conformity outweighs creativity, intellectual scrutiny, and progress.

A Note From the Author

The Rise of Intellectual Conformity

One of the core values of Speech and Debate is its embrace of diverse perspectives. You can’t have a debate without disagreement and an inevitable consequence of diversity is disagreement. Participants HAVE to advocate for both sides of contentious issues. Yet, more participants, coaches, and judges have begun favoring ideologies that align with mainstream or dominant sociopolitical narratives. Which completely undermines the ethos of debate: exploring and testing ideas, regardless of their popularity.

Many arguments are skewed toward prevailing social norms. Debaters adopt positions that align with widely accepted ideologies more and more—fearing backlash or lower speaker scores for presenting contrarian views. These things are just the tip of a scary iceberg, though. I’ll go through my evidence in debate style (Note: it was harder to get written-down evidence for speech and all the evidence I had was anecdotal so I opted to mostly focus on debate):

Contention 1: The Echo Chamber Effect

P1: Judge Paradigms: Judge paradigms increasingly prioritize politically correct language and align speaker evaluations with their ideologies. This creates an environment where debaters are judged not on their ability to argue but on their alignment with the judge’s worldview. This is a pernicious version of what we call “Truth over Tech.” For reference, this is one judge’s (of countless many) paradigm:

P2: The Myth of “Truth” Over Tech

A strict "Truth over Tech" philosophy is detrimental to competitive debate for numerous reasons. Debate thrives on creative argumentation. Debaters develop unique strategies and make their own nuanced positions. A strict "truth" focus discourages this. It just prioritizes pre-existing "correct" answers over intellectual innovation.

Furthermore, and more importantly, it creates an unfair and inconsistent judging environment. What constitutes "truth" is going to be deeply shaped by bias and subjective in MOST cases and will vary widely between judges (as seen within paradigms). Argumentation, on the other hand, can be evaluated more systematically (albeit still affected by bias and subjectivity) based on criteria like.

You may say, “That's just part of the game. Bias is inescapable and debaters should be able to adapt their arguments to convince the judge; that's the whole point.”

And you would be right to some degree. Still, this is incentivizing debaters to prioritize pandering over genuine critical engagement with the topic—which is also being limited by the judge’s imposed worldview on the debaters. Competitive debate is meant to develop important skills like intellectual discernment, reasoning, etc. If the goal becomes simply to win by any means necessary, it undermines the educational value of the activity.

This isn’t to say we should be completely tech over truth. Yet, it’s clear that truth over tech has its downsides. Would you want judges handing your opponent the win because they believe that eugenics is right? Or that Trump is good? Not saying that either of those beliefs is right or wrong but if you feel uncomfortable with judges handing out wins for those, then you should feel the same for the other instances

P3: Aversion of Discomfort:

There have been many cases at local, district, and even national levels where we’ve seen debaters avoid resolutions and speakers not give voice to topics. Frankly, debate AND speech are uncomfortable; that’s a good thing. You have to step outside the bounds of your own beliefs to seek the truth. And to reach more educated opinions. Speech & Debate is supposed to help students challenge their biases, not feed them. One major example of this was in the case of debate for the previous novice topic:

The Consequences of Conformity

The absence of ideological diversity undermines Speech and Debate’s societal impact. Debate should be a microcosm of democratic discourse and prepare students to engage with real-world issues outside rounds. When dissenting voices are silenced, the activity’s ability to serve as a “light for progress” diminishes.

Speech and Debate is a community that holds many of our prospective lawyers, social activists, politicians, and leaders. We must nurture them in a productive manner

Anyhow, those were just my thoughts; if you disagree, feel free to let me know why in the comments. Speech and Debate is a wonderful activity but nothing comes without its drawbacks. What matters most is preserving its essence: effective communication.

That’s all for now!

Happy Speaking,

Remi—The Forensic Funnel