At High School Debates, Debate Is No Longer Allowed

[FAUlty Gator]

PART 1

First, some background. Imagine a high school sophomore on the debate team. She’s been given her topic about a month in advance, but she won’t know who her judge is until hours before her debate round. During that time squeeze—perhaps she’ll pace the halls as I did at the 2012 national tournament in Indianapolis—she’ll scroll on her phone to look up her judge’s name on Tabroom, a public database maintained by the NSDA. That’s where judges post “paradigms,” which explain what they look for during a debate. If a judge prefers competitors not “spread”—speak a mile a minute—debaters will moderate their pace. If a judge emphasizes “impacts”—the reasons why an argument matters—debaters adjust accordingly.

But let’s say when the high school sophomore clicks Tabroom she sees that her judge is Lila Lavender, the 2019 national debate champion, whose paradigm reads, “Before anything else, including being a debate judge, I am a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist. . . . I cannot check the revolutionary proletarian science at the door when I’m judging. . . . I will no longer evaluate and thus never vote for rightest capitalist-imperialist positions/arguments. . . . Examples of arguments of this nature are as follows: fascism good, capitalism good, imperialist war good, neoliberalism good, defenses of US or otherwise bourgeois nationalism, Zionism or normalizing Israel, colonialism good, US white fascist policing good, etc.”

How does that sophomore feel as she walks into her debate round? How will knowing that information about the judge change the way she makes her case?

Traditionally, high school students would have encountered a judge like former West Point debater Henry Smith, whose paradigm asks students to “focus on clarity over speed” and reminds them that “every argument should explain exactly how [they] win the debate.”

In the past few years, however, judges with paradigms tainted by politics and ideology are becoming common. Debate judge Shubham Gupta’s paradigm reads, “If you are discussing immigrants in a round and describe the person as ‘illegal,’ I will immediately stop the round, give you the loss with low speaks”—low speaker points—“give you a stern lecture, and then talk to your coach. . . . I will not have you making the debate space unsafe.”

Debate Judge Kriti Sharma concurs: under her list of “Things That Will Cause You To Automatically Lose,” number three is “Referring to immigrants as ‘illegal.’ ”

Should a high school student automatically lose and be publicly humiliated for using a term that’s not only ubiquitous in media and politics, but accurate?

Once students have been exposed to enough of these partisan paradigms, they internalize that point of view and adjust their arguments going forward. That’s why you rarely see students present arguments in favor of capitalism, defending Israel, or challenging affirmative action. Most students choose not to fight this coercion. They see it as a necessary evil that’s required to win debates and secure the accolades, scholarships, and college acceptance letters that can come with winning.

On paper, the NSDA rejects what Lavender, Gupta, and Sharma are doing. Its rules state, “Judges should decide the round as it is debated, not based on their personal beliefs.” Founded in 1925, the NSDA chooses the debate topics and facilitates hundreds of tournaments, including the annual national tournament, starting June 11 in Arizona, where six thousand students from across the country will compete. (The NSDA did not respond to emails and phone calls asking for comment before this story went to press.)

A random scroll through Tabroom reveals there are still sane judges out there. “I have been a trial lawyer for 25 years,” reads Amanda Marshall’s paradigm. “I like clash, quality evidence from qualified sources, comparative analysis, and crystallization in last rebuttals. Don’t take anything for granted. You have to explain your arguments, why your evidence is compelling, and how the arguments weigh in the round. It’s your job to persuade me and communicate your positions in a way that is effective—that is how you will win my ballot. I don’t like whining, personal attacks, dominance, aggression, and disrespect. I do appreciate professionalism, kindness, and integrity.”

Or this paradigm, from debate judge Steven Macartney: “My favorite debates are rigorous, but friendly. I actually appreciate when one debater accepts one of their opponent’s arguments as valid, but still persuades me that they should win the round. I will make my decision based on who is the most persuasive, but persuading me will be done by showing with evidence that one side upholds their value and criterion better than the other side. In order to do this, a debater must speak slowly and clearly enough for me to hear and understand the arguments.”

Unfortunately for students and their parents, there are countless judges at tournaments across the country whose biased paradigms disqualify them from being impartial adjudicators of debate. From “I will drop America First framing in a heartbeat,” to “I will listen to conservative-leaning arguments, but be careful,” judges are making it clear they are not only tilting the debate in a left-wing direction, they will also penalize students who don’t adhere to their ideology.

In the past year, Lindsey Shrodek has judged over 120 students at tournaments in Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey. The NSDA has certified her with its “Cultural Competency” badge, which indicates she has completed a brief online training module in evaluating students with consideration for their identity and cultural background. Until last month, Shrodek’s paradigmtold debaters, “f you are white, don’t run arguments with impacts that primarily affect POC [people of color]. These arguments should belong to the communities they affect.” Recently, her paradigm was updated to eliminate that quote. When I asked Shrodek why, she told me she didn’t “eliminate the idea itself,” and that she “doesn’t know if it’s exactly my place to say what arguments will or won’t make marginalized communities feel unsafe in the debate space.”

I disagree. In debate, “unsafe” conversations should be encouraged, even celebrated. How better for young people from all backgrounds to bridge the divides that tear us apart, and to discover what unites them? The debate I knew taught me to think and learn and care about issues that affected people different from me.

We’ve come a long way from the 2004 Democratic National Convention, when an obscure state senator from Illinois named Barack Obama said, “If there’s a child on the south side of Chicago who can’t read, that matters to me, even if it’s not my child. . . . If there’s an Arab American family being rounded up without the benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It’s that fundamental belief—I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper—that makes this country work. It’s what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family.”

Twenty years ago, the NSDA I knew encouraged me to think and speak about how policies and issues impacted different communities. Not anymore.

One judge gives people of color priority in her debates. In general, students voluntarily, and mutually, disclose their evidence to their opponents before the debate round, as both teams benefit from spending more time with the other team’s evidence. But X Braithwaite, who’s judged 169 debate rounds with 340 students, has her own disclosure policy in her paradigm, which uses a racial epithet: “1. N****s don’t have to disclose to you. 2. Disclose to n****s.”

This is racial discrimination, of course: If you’re black, you get to keep your evidence to yourself and have a competitive advantage. If you’re not black, you must disclose all of your evidence to your opponent and accept a competitive disadvantage. Students who win under this rubric may view their victory as flawed, as if their win isn’t a reflection of their hard work. Those who lose may view this as the singular reason for their loss, even if it wasn’t. Students suffer and so do the sportsmanship and camaraderie that high school debate was once known for.

 

[FAUlty Gator]

It’s not just that certain arguments are no longer welcome; it’s also the students who make those arguments. At the 2018 NSDA National Tournament in Fort Lauderdale, a student was publicly ridiculed by peers for making conservative arguments. She later posted an “Open Letter From A Deplorable Shitbag” on Reddit, which read, “To the judge(s) and student(s) wearing the “**** trump” shirt(s), Tears stream down my face as I write this. I have never felt so hurt in my entire life. I really did not appreciate your words towards me after the round. I did not appreciate the spectators/competitors wearing shirts with matching sentiment with you following me to my next rounds. . . . I understand I speak fast sometimes, and that I often unknowingly use words that offend certain groups of people. . . . Also, I am sorry that my attire did not fit your standards. I know about the stain on my shirt, but it really is all I had.”

During my time as a coach, I saw many students lose interest and quit. They’d had enough of being told what they could and couldn’t say. A black student I coached was told by the debate judge that he would have won his round if he hadn’t condemned Black Lives Matter.

In 2019, I gave up on the NSDA and formed a new debate league, Incubate Debate. To judge debates, we recruit elected officials, members of the armed forces, business executives, faith-based leaders, and others. At the eighteen no-cost tournaments we’ve hosted this year, thousands of students have come together to debate, have fun, and learn from each other.

Think back to that high school sophomore who’s nervously pacing before an NSDA debate. Before she enters her round, she reads her judge’s paradigm and says to herself, “I’m going to lose.” Her loss won’t be because her argument lacked evidence or support. Her argument simply doesn’t conform to her judge’s ideology. Imagine her disappointment and hopelessness, imagine her weeks of research and rehearsal. She never had a shot.

EDITOR’S NOTE: One day after this story published, the NSDA released a statement on Twitter, stating in part: “Our judge training materials in partnership with the National Federation of State High School Associations provide best practices for adjudicating speech and debate, such as ‘Judges should decide the round as it is debated, not based on their personal beliefs.’...Tabroom.com is a project of the National Speech & Debate Association, and its purpose is to provide a tournament management system for debate and speech tournaments worldwide. The 47,000 judge paradigms housed therein represent the opinions and viewpoints of the individual paradigm authors. Schools or other organizations that use Tabroom.com to hire judges are free to evaluate those paradigms before engaging their services.”

At High School Debates, Debate Is No Longer Allowed

At national tournaments, judges are making their stances clear: students who argue ‘capitalism can reduce poverty’ or ‘Israel has a right to defend itself’ will lose—no questions asked.

www.thefp.com

 

[mnole03]

This will inevitably lead to thermonuclear war.

 

[FAUlty Gator]

PART 2

The NSDA has allowed hundreds of judges with explicit left-wing bias to infiltrate the organization. These judges proudly display their ideological leanings in statements—or “paradigms”—on a public database maintained by the NSDA called Tabroom, where they declare that debaters who argue in favor of capitalism, or Israel, or the police, will lose the rounds they’re judging.

This has fundamentally changed the culture of high school debate—or so scores of students are telling me. One of them is former high school debater Matthew Adelstein, a rising sophomore studying philosophy at the University of Michigan, who was a member of the NSDA in high school.

Adelstein told me that, in April 2022, he competed at the prestigious Tournament of Champions in Lexington, Kentucky, where he debated in favor of the federal government increasing its protection of water resources.

In his final round of the two-day tournament, Matthew was shocked to hear the opposing team levy a personal attack against him as their central argument. The opposing team argued: “This debate is more than just about the debate—it’s about protecting the individuals in the community from people who proliferate hatred and make this community unsafe.”

Then they pulled up a screenshot of a tweet from earlier that month, which Matthew had responded to.

The tweet read: “Name one thing that you, personally, feel is morally disgusting, but that you think, rationally, should be legal and accepted by society.” Matthew had replied: “Calling people racial or homophobic slurs.”

Suddenly, Matthew’s six-word tweet and an accompanying Discord message became the focus of the round, U.S. water policy be damned. You can read his opponents’ entire argument—a rambling 25-page treatise in a multi-font format with no real mention of U.S. water policy—here.

But what is most incredible is that this argument actually won Matthew’s opponents the round.

In his written decision, Judge Jacob Wilkus explained his reasoning for giving Matthew’s opponents the win. “A debate space where racist or violent people are not allowed is preferable to one where they are,” he wrote, adding that “the ballot has a transformative power to challenge white debate norms where it is okay to just let racist or violent activity slide.”

Matthew, who considers himself a progressive, told me he had misread the tweet, and thought it was prompting comments only on what “should be legal” not “accepted by society.” He had made a mistake. But that’s beside the point.

Wilkus, who has judged 488 debaters at dozens of tournaments, had allowed a personal attack to outweigh a reasonable argument between debaters.

What’s more, he sent a signal to all high school debaters that they can be penalized in a tournament on the basis of their personal conduct. (I reached out to Wilkus twice via email, asking him for comment, and did not receive a response.)

After hearing Matthew’s story, I looked deeper into the problem and found that some judges actually state outright they will punish debaters for comments or actions they’ve made outside the debate arena.

Zachary Reshovsky is one of these judges. His paradigm tells students, “I will consider indictments of an opponent on the basis that they have done [or] said something racist, gendered, [or] -phobic in their personal behavior. The indictment, however, needs to be clearly documented (e.g. a screen shotted Facebook post, an accusation with references to multiple witnesses who can corroborate the incident) and the offending violation/action needs to fall into the category of commonly understood violations of norms of basic decency surrounding race/gender. . . ”

He continues by stating that “microaggressions will be considered” even if “they are more difficult to prove/document.”

What defines a microaggression? The answer is broad. The University of Minnesota offers a two-page sheet listing scores of examples, including the phrases “America is a melting pot,” “There is only one race, the human race,” and “I believe the most qualified person should get the job.”

These statements are hardly controversial, but for Reshovsky, they could be enough to torpedo a debater’s chances in the ring. What’s more, encouraging debaters to comb through competitors’ social media accounts in order to publicly shame them in a tournament is reprehensible.

 

[FAUlty Gator]

It also begs the question: why would students subject themselves to high school debate if these are the consequences?



Steve DuBois, a high school teacher in Lenexa, Kansas, who has been an NSDA coach for 27 years, said he has noticed that a majority of high school debates now occur “within fairly narrow ideological parameters.”

“There’s the moderate left, there’s the far left, and that’s essentially the range in which debates occur,” DuBois told me. Students, he said, “are told that there are certain things that you shouldn’t say in debate rounds because they create an unwelcoming environment for people in the community.”

This obsession with safety conceals a disdain for anything the NSDA deems unsafe. Here is just one example of the problem DuBois noted that I found from a debate event online:

In this video, Quest Sandel, the tournament parliamentarian at the 2019 NSDA Nationals, urges students to refrain from using gendered language in the realm of debate:

I don’t want to hear Mr. or Miss from anyone. That would be greatly appreciated, as we try to respect the differences of every single person here.”

When I asked Quest via email why he warned students not to refer to each other as Mr. or Miss, he told me his warning was in “direct alignment with the spirit of equity and inclusion that the NSDA promotes.”

The irony of the NSDA’s obsession with “safety” is that it actually fuels an atmosphere of fear among students—the fear that they will lose if they once said the wrong thing on Twitter or accidentally refer to their competitor as Miss. This fear is palpable. The NSDA debates—once a forum for the open exchange of ideas—have become a minefield of political correctness, says NSDA student Briana Whatley, 15, of Miramar, Florida.

“At NSDA tournaments I am not guaranteed a win based on my reasoning, facts, or delivery, rather if I can reinforce my judges’ ideology throughout the debate,” Whatley told me. “It’s antithetical to what true open debate is.”



In reporting my first piece about high school debate, I reached out to the NSDA for comment three times via email and three times via phone before it was published. Each time I was ignored.

But less than 48 hours after the story came out and stirred national outrage, the organization issued a statement on Twitter saying in part: “The NSDA prohibits all forms of discrimination, and we continue to provide training and resources to combat any behavior that is contrary to our policies and goals so that every member of our community feels included in an atmosphere of anti-bias.”

The NSDA did not announce that it would remove or even reprimand the ideological judges who punish students for what they say. In fact, just weeks later, the NSDA went ahead with its National Speech and Debate Tournament in Phoenix, Arizona, from June 11–16, and employed biased judges in several of its rounds.

John Hollihan, debate coach at Pittsburgh Central Catholic High School, judged three rounds at NSDA nationals. His paradigm tells students that “I am EXTREMELY skeptical of ‘capitalism good’ arguments. If you go for them, you better do a lot of analysis to convince me.”

Chaz Wyche, who judged the final round of middle school policy debate, states in his paradigm that “I reserve the right to end the debate due to anti-blackness.”

What does Wyche mean by “anti-blackness”? He did not respond to my request for comment, but his 2021 master’s thesis on the topic argues that “anti-blackness created the concept of policing” and that “police are a direct extension of the slave master.”

 

[FAUlty Gator]

To say that ‘All Lives Matter,’ ” he wrote in the thesis, “is to ignore the way that anti-blackness produces unequal life chances for Black people.”

Wyche, who has judged 1,192 debate students over his tenure, was given the honor of judging the final round of this month’s NSDA national championship.

Rich Kawolics, a recently retired debate coach who also judged June’s NSDA Nationals, tells students in his paradigm that “any argument or behavior that is racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, ableist, or diminishes any person’s humanity because of their identity will earn you a loss.”

I agree with this. Any student attacking his or her peers because of their race, sex, disability, or identity is abhorrent and disqualifying. But Rich also says that arguments related to these ideas will “earn you a loss.”

What’s a “xenophobic” argument? Is it a student arguing that the U.S. must secure the southern border? And what exactly is a “transphobic” argument? Is it a student arguing that teenage girls cannot consent to double mastectomies?

When I asked Kawolics over email whether arguments like the one above were transphobic, he replied that he could not answer my specific question “outside the context of a debate round.”

When a judge’s “rules” have no definition, any student can be guilty of them.

At NSDA nationals, there were at least two dozen judges who warned students against “transphobia” in their paradigms. These ambiguous warnings instill fear in students about the arguments they can’t make. This fear drives self-censorship and eliminates certain viewpoints that need to be heard.



I wrote the piece for The Free Pressbecause I care about high school debate. When I competed as a high schooler, it helped me overcome a stutter and gave me confidence. The censorship going on in debate today concerned me so deeply that, in 2019, I launched my own nonprofit called Incubate Debate, where I offer no-cost, free-speech debates for kids in my home state of Florida.

A few critics have pointed out that my piece was written out of self-interest. That all I was trying to do is publicize my own organization. And it’s true that since my first piece was published, hundreds of students have contacted Incubate Debate asking to compete in our tournaments, and more than 50 volunteers have reached out to me, offering to judge our debates. These volunteers include former debaters, school superintendents, veterans, and even an assistant U.S. attorney.

I also admit I am a capitalist. I believe in competition in the free and fair marketplace. I would love nothing more than for the NSDA to return to its liberal roots of allowing the best argument to win—and to give my organization a run for its money. In the meantime, I would also love to see others like me, who care about high school debate, to start similar grassroots organizations in their own states.

Yes, I am self-interested. I love high school debate, and I want to preserve the tradition for other kids. I want them to experience the joy of hearing a diverse range of ideas, and to discuss those ideas freely without feeling fear, or the shame of saying the wrong thing.

Surely, this is what we want for all kids, even if they don’t aspire to become debate champions. And surely, it’s what we want for all of society, too.

Part II: At High School Debates, Watch What You Say

Kids are losing high school debates because of their personal tweets, reveals James Fishback in a new exposé.

www.thefp.com

 

[runkpanole]

 

[Dr. Spaceman]

 

[seminoleed]

Exhausting read, but worth it.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

This will inevitably lead to thermonuclear war.

No...but this is a horrible trend that needs to be called out.

 

[BelemNole]

My kid was in S&D for 4 years. Capitan of the team. The biggest problem they had was judges who didn't know how to judge - because they're all volunteers. If she lost a round because the judge was bad.....she went on to the next one. She didn't write a pity piece about how the judges were mean to her. The good kids won more and the less good won less.

 

[Slappy Pappy]

The real problem is states making topics that "may hurt peoples feelings" illegal to teach, like CRT, which is a great topic for classroom debates, but makes snowflake Cons whimper and hide.

 

[ConvenientParking]

"Begs the question" abuse noted. Entire piece disregarded. Author should be barred from publication until completion of course which explains what it means to "beg the question"

 

[Rudedolph]

The real problem is states making topics that "may hurt peoples feelings" illegal to teach, like CRT, which is a great topic for classroom debates, but makes snowflake Cons whimper and hide.

This. 100 fücking percent this. Opee’s piece exposes just exactly the type of thing one would expect from the developments over the last few decades in media and social media.

This is the push-back (@goldmom collect your royalties), one could argue resultant from decades of misinformation and disinformation, and algorithmic misrepresentations.

I don’t like it, but I can also understand this is the world we’ve all created, and this piece and its story will be used by RWers to press on with their projection-fueled takeover attempts of education, of media, or narrative-control.

 

[TarponSpringsNole]

I would disqualify myself immediately because being in a debate club is gay.

 

[Rudedolph]

I would disqualify myself immediately because being in a debate club is gay.

I went to a gifted school. We took debate class for a full year, and had a killer debate team. I loved that class. And the teacher was (still is, I suspect, if still alive)… gay.

 

[FAUlty Gator]

I went to a gifted school. We took debate class for a full year, and had a killer debate team. I loved that class. And the teacher was (still is, I suspect, if still alive)… gay.

I was in a debate class in college, taught by the former VP of ABC News. He gave us a team and a topic. The next class we came back and were told 5 minutes before the debate what side we were taking. One of the best classes I ever took. Was very fun watching the very liberal kids squirm while they argued the pro-life agenda. Same for the Alex Keatons having to argue for prison reform.