Competitive debate in the United States

Last updated

Debaters from High Point Central High School pose with their championship trophy in 1965 HPCHS National Forensic League 1965 members with trophy.png
Debaters from High Point Central High School pose with their championship trophy in 1965

Competitive debate, also known as forensics or speech and debate, is an activity in which two or more people take positions on an issue and are judged on how well they defend those positions. The activity has been present in academic spaces in the United States since the colonial period. The practice, an import from British education, began as in-class exercises in which students would present arguments to their classmates about the nature of rhetoric. Over time, the nature of those conversations began to shift towards philosophical questions and current events, with Yale University being the first to allow students to defend any position on a topic they believed in. In the late nineteenth century, student-led literary societies began to compete with each other academically and often engaged in debates against each other. In 1906, the first intercollegiate debate league, Delta Sigma Rho, was formed, followed by several others. Competitive debate expanded to the secondary school level in 1920 with the founding of the National Speech and Debate Association, which grew to over 300,000 members by 1969. Technological advances such as the accessibility of personal computers in the 1990s and 2000s has led to debate cases becoming more complex and to evidence being more accessible. Competitors and coaches have made efforts to reduce discrimination in the debate community by introducing new arguments and recruiting debaters from underprivileged communities.

Contents

There are a wide variety of competitive debate formats, including the 2v2 Public forum debate, the 1v1 Lincoln–Douglas format, and the 2v2v2v2 British Parliamentary. Regardless of format, most debate rounds use a set topic and have two sides, with one team supporting the topic and the other team opposing the topic. Teams work through a series of speeches presenting their cases, responding to their opponent's arguments, and defending their case. Participation in competitive debate has been associated with positive outcomes for competitors across a wide variety of metrics, including standardized test scores, civic engagement, and future career outcomes, but has been criticized for forcing participants to defend positions they may not agree with and for its inaccessibility to laypeople at its highest levels. Notable former debaters include U.S. senator Ted Cruz and Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

History

Debate as an intramural activity

Competitive debate in the United States can be traced back to colonial times. As the earliest colleges in America were modeled after British universities, they adopted in-class debates as a pedagogical tool. [1] : 28  Initially, these took the form of "syllogistic disputations," highly-structured conversations in Latin which were expected to follow the strict rules of logic. [1] : 29  These conversations often focused on the nature of public speaking itself, rather than broader social issues. [1] : 29  Students quickly took a dislike to the conversations, with one student at Harvard University describing them as "packs of profound nonsense." [2] : 24  Benjamin Wadsworth attempted to continue the practice after becoming the university's president in 1925, but encountered such difficulty getting students cooperation in the exercises that within ten years the number of required disputations was halved. [2] : 25–26  The last recorded syllogistic disputation at any university was held at Brown University in 1809. [2] : 28–29 

This early form of debate was replaced by "forensic disputations," which were first introduced at Yale University in 1747. In 1750, Yale's President Clap introduced debates in English alongside the old method of syllogistic disputations in Latin, which earned the approval of Benjamin Franklin. [3] The structure of forensic disputations was informal and allowed for more natural conversations. Students were not assigned sides, rather, they were allowed to contemplate the topic and defend whichever side they believed in. [1] : 29  While a student at Harvard, John Quincy Adams regularly participated in forensic disputations, noting in a 1786 letter to his mother that "It comes in course for me to affirm...Whatever the question may be, I must support it." [2] : 42  Unlike syllogistic disputations, the topics for forensic disputations often veered towards the hot-button issues of the time: A list of topics debated at Yale in 1832 included questions relating to Native American civil rights, universal suffrage, and capital punishment. [2] : 51  Despite their similarity to modern forms of debate, forensic disputations eventually fell out of fashion as well, with student discontent again being a factor. The disputations relied on heavily researched and pre-written cases on each side, but by 1843 most American universities were stressing extemporaneous and oral debate. [2] : 60–62 

Around the time of the forensic disputation's decline, university literary societies began gaining prominence. Institutions would often have multiple student-led societies, each of which would compete with the other academically. [1] : 30  Students preferred debating within the societies instead of classrooms as it gave them more control over topic selection and the structure of the round. [2] : 58  The first of these societies to admit women was the Oberlin Young Ladies Association, which was founded at Oberlin College in 1835. [4] : 25  Meetings of the association typically involved the discussion of a controversial question followed by a debate between two members on the question. [4] : 28  Literary societies saw substantial decline during the American Civil War, with the few remaining becoming full-fledged debating societies, teams, and clubs. [2] : 91–93  By the 1890s, literary societies had created standardized structures for debate rounds consisting of prepared cases and extemporaneous rebuttals in a close approximation of modern-day practices. [2] : 74 

Development of intercollegiate debate

In 1873, a group of public speaking enthusiasts at Knox College organized the first intercollegiate public speaking organization, known as the Interstate Oratorical Association, which held a yearly competition. The group quickly grew to include chapters in fourteen states and was followed by several other leagues in other regions of the country. [5] : 4–5  The first, informal, intercollegiate debate was held between Harvard and Yale in 1892 and was followed by similar contests on the West Coast and in the Midwest. [6] : 213 

From 1904 to 1911, a flurry of intercollegiate debate activity led to the establishment of four different honor societies, or leagues, for debate. Those organizations were Delta Sigma Rho, Tau Kappa Alpha, Phi Alpha Tau, and Pi Kappa Delta. [7] : 30–34  Delta Sigma Rho was founded by a conglomerate of state universities in Chicago in 1906 and quickly became known as the honor society for large universities and Ivy League institutions. Columbia, Harvard, Princeton, and Yale were all members. [7] : 30–31 Tau Kappa Alpha, founded in 1908 by a committee of students from various Indiana institutions, established a system where each state could only have one chapter. Because of this, it became highly selective with its membership. [7] : 31–32  Phi Alpha Tau, founded in 1904 at Emerson College, allowed debaters and non-debaters alike to join, provided they could show an interest in rhetoric. [8] [7] : 32  Delta Sigma Rho and Tau Kappa Alpha would eventually merge in 1963, while Phi Alpha Tau is now a communicative arts fraternity at Emerson College. [9] [10] : 2 

In 1911, Pi Kappa Delta was founded at Ottawa University by John A. Shields and Edgar A. Vaughn. [11] : 19  Shields, an undergraduate at the university, had been corresponding with Egbert R. Nichols, a former professor at Ottawa who had recently moved to Ripon College. Upon learning that there was not a nationwide debate league that recognized competitors from smaller colleges, Nichols suggested that students from both institutions form their own league. Shields collaborated with Vaughn, a student at Kansas Agricultural College, to lobby other Kansan debate teams to join their newfound institution. [12] : 3  Concurrently, Nichols promoted the organization to fellow professors in Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska, and Iowa. Students at Ripon College wrote a charter for the organization, which was signed in January 1913 after several rounds of revisions. [12] : 4  In the first two years of the organization, it granted 14 institutional memberships and hundreds of individual memberships across seven states. [13]

Women were generally not allowed to participate in intercollegiate debate until the 1920s. In 1897, the University of Wisconsin refused to allow female debaters from the University of Iowa to participate in a competition, saying that "ladies in that capacity do no credit either to themselves or to co-education in general." [14] : 269  The first female debaters were from the University of Indiana and participated in their first intercollegiate debate on May 12, 1921. [14] : 270  Carly Woods, an American professor of communications, writes that female debaters faced opposition because men assumed that they would "only be interested in frivolous topics." [4] : 11  By 1927, the number of women participating in intercollegiate debate had grown to such an extent that 90% of debate teams had female competitors. [15]

Advent of high school debate

Competitive debating stayed a primarily intercollegiate activity until Bruno E. Jacob founded the National Forensic League (NFL)–since renamed as the National Speech and Debate Association  (NSDA)–in 1925. A professor at Ripon College, Jacob was inspired by a letter he received asking if a debate league for high school students existed. Upon learning that there was no nationwide league, Jacob established the NFL on March 28, 1925, and within a year the league had 100 member schools around the country. [16] [17] While some high school organizations like North Carolina's High School Debating Union and the Montana State High-School Debate League existed, they only allowed students to compete up to the state level. [18] [19] In 1937, the NFL established a "National Student Congress," a debate event in which students roleplay as members of the United States Congress. During World War II the NFL suspended all operations except for Congressional debate, receiving a letter of commendation from President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. [17] In 1950 Jacob resigned from his teaching post to devote himself to the NFL on a full-time basis. By the time of his resignation in 1969, the league had grown to over 300,000 student members. [17]

In 1963, U.S. Senator B. Everett Jordan introduced a bill to require the Librarian of Congress to prepare a report on the Policy debate topics at the high school and intercollegiate level each year. [20] This bill was eventually adopted into law, with annual reports published to this day. [21]

Rise of "progressive" debate

The activity of debate continued to grow, eventually becoming large enough to not require invited judges, such as policy experts or professors of rhetoric. By the mid-1970s, tournaments were often judged by former or current competitors. In 1972, the Tournament of Champions was founded by J.W. Patterson, director of debate at the University of Kentucky. The tournament was specifically designed as a tournament without inexperienced judges. [22] With these developments, team strategy began to move away from a "public model" geared at a general audience and towards a "policy-making" model. Allan Louden, tracing these developments at the National Debate Tournament, noted that "as speed rapidly increased...debate became more analytical, geared to expert audiences." [23] : 22 

In the 1980s, a new argument called a "kritik" was introduced to intercollegiate debate. [24] Kritiks are a unique type of argument that argue "that there is a harm created by the assumption created or used by the other side" – that is, there is some other issue that must be addressed before the topic can be debated. [25] : 19  Early pioneers of the kritik used them primarily as a supplement to other arguments rather than as stand-alone cases. [24] Kritiks faced criticism from traditional debaters and judges because they did not require competitors to directly debate the assigned topic. [24] [25] : 24–26  Nevertheless, they took hold and remain a stable of intercollegiate and high school debate today. Most recently, some debaters have advanced an argumentation style known as "performance debate" which emphasizes "identity, narrative understandings, and confrontation of life's disparities." [23] : 23  This argumentation style, advanced predominantly by Black debaters, has been used by debaters to discuss issues related to identity and difference. [26] : 304–305  An early pioneer of these styles of debate was the University of Louisville debate team, led by Ed Warner. [27] : 4–5 

As debate techniques continued to become more progressive, new debate leagues were formed to accommodate different styles. The Cross Examination Debate Association  (CEDA) was established in 1971. Jack Howe, the first president of CEDA, described the association as being "a reaction against a prevailing style of debate that both participants and their directors found increasingly difficult to support. [28] : 78  CEDA prioritized an "audience-oriented" form of debate which required strong presentation skills along with evidence. [29] [28] : 78  It grew quickly, becoming the largest intercollegiate debate league by 1990. [28] : 79  In 1985, the American Debate Association was founded, also as a reaction to new debate techniques. [30] : 58–59  Seeking to revitalize intercollegiate policy debate, the American Debate Association set clear rules for both competitors and judges: Among the rules were a ban on kritiks, a limit on speech speed, and a restriction on judge's ability to read evidence after round. [30] : 61–63 

As technology advanced throughout the late 1990s and early 2000s, debaters consistently adopted newer techniques to incorporate technological developments. For much of the 1900s, debaters cataloged different pieces of evidence on "cards," which were photocopied sections of newspaper articles and books pasted to index cards. [31] For policy debaters, who debated the same topic for an entire year, the number of cards could quickly become overwhelming, sometimes requiring 100,000 pieces of paper and 50 boxes of cards per team. [32] As internet research became more accessible, teams began moving to entirely paperless debate, storing research on Word documents. [23] : 4  In 2008 the Whitman College debate team, led by Jim Hanson, became the first college-level team to go entirely digital, leading them to be described as "the greenest in the country." [32] As cases moved to electronic formats, debaters began posting their work in publicly available wikis to make research more accessible to debaters from smaller schools. [23] : 4  These "caselist wikis" have been described by G. Thomas Goodnight and Gordon Mitchell as creating "intricate and detailed map[s]" of various controversies falling under debate topics and as being a valuable resource for a slate of non-debate professions as well, including legislators, journalists, and policy analysts. [33]

Structure of competitive debate

Lincoln-Douglas debaters at the 2014 NSDA National Tournament Debaters compete at NSDA Nationals 03.jpg
Lincoln-Douglas debaters at the 2014 NSDA National Tournament

In the United States, there are a wide variety of debate formats and leagues to support them. At the high school level, the predominant league is the National Speech and Debate Association, which offers seven debate events and eighteen speaking events. [34] Other high school leagues, such as the National Catholic Forensic League, National Christian Forensics and Communications Association, and Stoa USA, offer similar events. [35] [36] [37] Intercollegiate leagues vary, but generally only offer a single style of debate. [38] [39] [40]

The basic structure of most debate rounds, regardless of the specific format, is as follows: A topic is presented to the teams, who either choose a side of the topic or are assigned one. The "affirmative" or "aff" defends the topic and the "negation" or "neg" opposes it. Throughout a round, each team has the opportunity to present a case, respond to their opponent's case, defend their case, and ask questions of their opponent. At the end of a round, the judge evaluates the arguments and determines the winner, awarding "speaker points" to both debaters to grade their presentation separately from their argumentation. [41] [42]

Formats

Competitor outcomes

Participation in competitive debate is associated with positive outcomes for competitors. Advocates for debate education, such as former United States Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, cite debate education as being "uniquely suited" to developing "critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity." [51] [52] Former competitors generally describe their time as competitive debaters positively, describing it as leading to broadened worldviews and a more well-rounded education. [53] : 28–30 

At the high school level, debate competitors outscore non-debate competitors on standardized tests and have higher grade point averages  (GPAs). [54] One study found that competitors in the Chicago urban debate league  (UDL) were more likely to graduate high school, scored an additional point higher on all portions of the ACT test, and had significantly higher GPAs. [55] : 630  Another study, also focused on the Chicago UDL, found that "debaters report greater social, civic, and social engagement than non-debaters." [56] : 371  A study of Colorado students found a small yet statistically significant relationship between debate participation and higher standardized test scores. [57] : 49  This effect has been especially noted among at-risk and African American students. Briana Mezuk found in a 2009 study that African American male students who participated in debate were more likely to graduate and have stronger reading comprehension than their peers who did not participate in debate. [58] : 299 

Similar results have been observed among intercollegiate competitors. A two-decade cohort study by Rogers, Freeman, and Rennels recorded competitors' civic engagement, career trajectory, and continued education. [59] Intercollegiate competitors were more likely to vote, volunteer, have diverse friend groups, and have healthier personality profiles. [59] : 16  They were also more likely to receive pay raises and promotions. [59] : 18 

Controversies

Discrimination within the community

Multiple studies have noted that female debaters tend to underperform male debaters, a disparity has noted at both the high school and intercollegiate levels. [60] [61] [62] [63] One study, comparing 125,087 high school debate rounds across two different seasons, found that female-female teams were 17.1% less likely to win and male-female teams were 10% less likely to win when competing against a male-male team. [61] : 4  Female debaters were also found to be 30.34% more likely to quit the activity. [61] : 18  This disparity can be at least partially attributed to the subjective nature of a debate round, with a 2022 qualitative study of high school debate competitors finding that the "norms surrounding what it means to be a 'good' debater" often played into gender biases. [62] : 12 

Racial minorities have also been historically underrepresented in the debate community, although the issue is less studied than that of female participation. [64] A 1987 study by Brenda Logue found that only 11.1% of participants in CEDA tournaments were minorities, despite 17% of college students being non-white. [65] Later studies have found similar rates, with Pamela Stepp noting that the "community has not kept up with the changing college population" in 1997. [64] A 2004 analysis of competitors in the American Forensic Association found that intercollegiate participation was dominated by European Americans but that minority participation in most programs was over 25%. [66] In the 2019 season, only 8.6% of college debate directors were Black, slightly over half what would be representative. [67]

Efforts were made to increase minority participation in debate as early as the 1980s, when the Barkley Forum funded the creation of an urban debate league in Atlanta focused on increasing inner-city school participation in debate. [68] Similar programs were created in other cities over the following years, with programs in 20 cities by 2012. [68] At the intercollegiate level, the Louisville Project was started at the University of Louisville in the 1990s. [27] : 4-5  The team's coach, Ede Warner, made a concerted effort to recruit African American debaters and required the team to utilize race-based arguments. Under his leadership, the team heavily criticized the use of expert evidence in rounds and argued that arguments from personal experience offered a unique lens through which the topic could be examined. [27] : 5  The response to the Louisville Project has been characterized by Shanara Reid-Brinkley as being "defined by anger," with coaches who disagreed with Warner forming competing leagues that barred race-centered argumentation and releasing out-of-context footage of Black debaters in attempts to encourage colleges to shut down their debate teams. [27] : 6–7 

Criticisms of debate

The basic format of competitive debate, in which competitors are required to research both sides of a topic, has faced criticism. In 1954, amid the Cold War, a group of colleges refused to debate the topic "The United States should diplomatically recognize the People's Republic of China" because doing so would require them to argue against the current U.S. policy. In the wake of this controversy, Richard Murphy, a professor of speech at the University of Illinois, published a series of articles criticizing the practice of debating both sides of a topic. [69] : 103  He argued that debate, as a form of public speaking, required debaters to publicly commit to their positions within a debate round. Quoting Brooks Quimby, a prolific debate coach at Bates College, Murphy claimed that debaters needed to be "men and women of principle" rather than "men and women trained to take either side at the flip of a coin." [70] In 1964, a survey of debate coaches across the country found that 95% believed debating both sides of a topic to be ethical, and the authors declared the controversy to be "pau," or finished. [71]

Other criticisms of the format of debate have been presented. Jonathan Ellis wrote in The New York Times that competitive debate promotes biased reasoning by giving debaters a specific view to work backward from rather than allowing them to come to their own unique position on a topic. [72] James Dimock, a debate coach at Minnesota State University, presented two objections to competitive debate in a 2009 paper: First, as debate topics have grown more complex debaters are incentivized to be concise over complete in their analyses, and second, debaters are often rewarded for making arguments from authority rather than logically sound arguments. [73] Neal Katyal has responded to some criticisms of debate by arguing that taking a position in a debate round, which exists to interrogate arguments, is different from advocating a position in a public square. He furthered that debate topics tend to avoid forcing debaters into advocating for positions widely considered ethically indefensible. [74]

Spreading, the practice of reading arguments at speeds incomprehensible to a layperson, has faced criticism for creating an environment where the team that can read more arguments wins, regardless of persuasiveness. [75] [76] Former national champion debater and U.S. Senator Ted Cruz described it as "a pernicious disease that has undermined the very essence of high school and college debate." [77] Defenders of the practice, such as Justin Eckstein, claim that it prioritizes critical thinking and research and that debaters will inevitably prioritize speed to read more arguments. [78]

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is a former debater KBJackson.jpg
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is a former debater

Notable former competitors

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Speech and Debate Association</span> American interscholastic association

The National Speech and Debate Association (NSDA) is the largest interscholastic speech and debate organization serving middle school and high school students in the United States. It is also the national authority on public speaking and debate.

The Canadian University Society for Intercollegiate Debate is the national organization which governs all English language competitive university debating and public speaking in Canada. It sanctions several official annual tournaments and represents Canadian debating domestically and abroad. Its membership consists of student debating unions, sanctioned by their respective universities, from across Canada. CUSID has been described as "a student-run, parliamentary debate league with close ties to the American Parliamentary Debate Association".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Debate</span> Formal conversation, often between opposing viewpoints, on a topic

Debate is a process that involves formal discourse, discussion, and oral addresses on a particular topic or collection of topics, often with a moderator and an audience. In a debate, arguments are put forward for common opposing viewpoints. Debates have historically occurred in public meetings, academic institutions, debate halls, coffeehouses, competitions, and legislative assemblies. Debates have also been conducted for educational and recreational purposes, usually associated with educational establishments and debating societies. These debates emphasized logical consistency, factual accuracy, and emotional appeal to an audience. Modern forms of competitive debate also include rules for participants to discuss and decide upon the framework of the debate.

Lincoln–Douglas debate is a type of one-on-one competitive debate practiced mainly in the United States at the high school level. It is sometimes also called values debate because the format traditionally places a heavy emphasis on logic, ethical values, and philosophy.

Policy debate is an American form of debate competition in which teams of two usually advocate for and against a resolution that typically calls for policy change by the United States federal government. It is also referred to as cross-examination debate because of the 3-minute questioning period following each constructive speech. Evidence presentation is a crucial part of policy debate. The main argument being debated during a round is to change or not change the status quo. When a team explains why their solvency is greater than the opposition's, they compare advantages. One team’s job is to argue that the resolution— the statement that we should make some specific change to a national or international problem —is a good idea. Affirmative teams generally present a plan as a proposal for implementation of the resolution. On the other hand, the Negative teams present arguments against the implementation of the resolution. In a single round of debate competition, each person gives two speeches. The first speech each person gives is called a “constructive” speech, because it is the speech when the first speaker positively, without rebuttal that has not occurred, presents the basic arguments they will make throughout the debate. The second speech is called a “rebuttal”, because this is the speech were each person tries to rebut the arguments made by the other team, while using their own arguments to try to convince the judge to vote for their team. The Affirmative has to convince the judge to vote for the resolution, while the Negative has to convince the judge the Negative's position is a better idea.

Individual events in speech include public speaking, limited preparation, acting and interpretation are a part of forensics competitions. These events do not include the several different forms of debate offered by many tournaments. These events are called individual events because they tend to be done by one person unlike debate which often includes teams. This distinction however is not entirely accurate any more given the addition of duo interpretation events and forms of single person debate. Competitive speech competitions and debates comprise the area of forensics. Forensics leagues have a number of speech events, generally determined by geographical region or league preference. While there are several key events that have been around a long time, there are several experimental events around the country every year that can be limited to individual tournaments. Forensics leagues in the United States includes the National Speech and Debate Association, the National Christian Forensics and Communications Association, the American Forensics Association, the National Forensics Association, the Interstate Oratorical Association and Stoa USA. Organized competitions are held at the high-school and collegiate level. Outside of the rules for each event provided by the individual leagues, there are several cultural norms within each region that are not written into law but are almost always followed. Rules for time limits vary by event and by individual tournaments, but there are penalties in every event for exceeding the time limits though the severity of the penalty widely varies.

The National Parliamentary Debate Association (NPDA) is one of the two national intercollegiate parliamentary debate organizations in the United States. The other is the American Parliamentary Debate Association. Its membership is national with participating schools throughout the country. In 2015, NPDA was the largest debating organization in the United States with around 200-250 participating schools in any given year.

Public forum debate is a widespread form of pre-k elementary and middle and high school competitive debate which centers on current events and relies on both logic and evidence to construct arguments. Invented in the US, Public Forum is one of the most prominent American debate events, alongside policy debate and Lincoln-Douglas debate; it is also practiced in China and India, and has been recently introduced to Romania. Individuals give short speeches that are interspersed with 3 minute "Crossfire" sections, questions and answers between opposed debaters. The winner is determined by a judge who also serves as a referee. The debate centers on advocating or rejecting a position, "resolve", or "resolution", which is usually a proposal of a potential solution to a current events issue. Public Forum is designed to be accessible to the average citizen.

The American Debate Association began in 1985 as an intercollegiate debate association. It uses the resolution selected by the Cross Examination Debate Association and the National Debate Tournament. Currently they have 40 member schools. Its current president is Danielle Verney-O'Gorman, Director of Debate at the United States Naval Academy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">American Forensic Association</span>

The American Forensic Association is an American organisation which promotes and supports competitive debating and public speaking in high schools and colleges in the United States.

Parliamentary debate is an academic debate event. Many university-level institutions in English-speaking nations sponsor parliamentary debate teams. In addition the format is currently spreading to the high school level. Despite the name, the parli is not related to debate in governmental parliaments beyond formal speaker titles such as "Opposition Leader" and "Prime Minister".


Extemporaneous Speaking is a speech delivery style/speaking style, and a term that identifies a specific forensic competition. The competition is a speech event based on research and original analysis, done with a limited-preparation; in the United States those competitions are held for high school and college students. In a Extemporaneous Speech competition, enrolled participants prepare for thirty minutes on a question related to current events and then give a seven-minute speech responding to that question. The extemporaneous speaking delivery style, referred to as "off-the-cuff", is a type of delivery method for a public presentation, that was carefully prepared and practiced but not memorized.

An urban debate league (UDL) is a group of high school policy debate teams from urban high schools in the United States. UDLs are generally located in large cities throughout the United States and work predominantly with minority students.

Inter-collegiate policy debate is a form of speech competition involving two teams of two debaters from different colleges or universities based on a resolution phrased as something the United States federal government "should" do. Policy debate also exists as a high school activity, with a very similar format, but different leagues, tournaments, speech times, resolutions, and styles.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Baltimore Urban Debate League</span> Non-profit, urban debate league

The Baltimore Urban Debate League, is an American, non profit, urban debate league that aims to educate and mentor inner city middle school and high school students in the Baltimore, Maryland area.

The Bancroft Literary Association and the Carrollton-Wight Literary Society are two competitive forensic societies at the Baltimore City College and are the formal names for the school's speech and debates teams. Founded in 1876 and 1878 respectively, the Bancroft and Carrollton-Wight Societies are the oldest literary societies at a public high school in the United States. Historically, the two societies competed mainly between themselves. The rivalry culminated each year with an annual debate. In the 20th century, the societies began to compete with other secondary schools and some universities. At the time, the teams' most notable rival was Baltimore Polytechnic Institute, City College's chief rival in sports and academics. The Bancroft and Carrollton-Wight Societies disbanded for a time in the 1980s and early-1990s, but were revived in the late-1990s. Baltimore City College is a charter member of the Chesapeake Region of the National Forensics League and the National Catholic Forensic League, and is founding member of the Baltimore Catholic Forensic League and the Baltimore Urban Debate League.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">William Pitt Debating Union</span>

The William Pitt Debating Union (WPDU) is the debating society of the University of Pittsburgh. Falling under the auspices of the Department of Communication, the WPDU is a co-curricular program and hub for a wide range of debating activities, including intercollegiate policy debate, public debate, and debate outreach. One of the oldest collegiate debating organizations in the nation, the WPDU grew from the University’s Division of Public Speaking in 1912. Throughout its history, the WPDU has regularly participated in national and international competitions, including capturing the affirmative team two-man debate national championship at the 1947 Grand National Forensic Tournament, and appearing 45 times at the National Debate Tournament, where it captured the 1981 national championship. The WPDU is located in the heart Pitt's campus and is housed on the fourteenth floor of the Cathedral of Learning. The WPDU also offers scholarships to top team participants.

James John Unger was the premier coach, teacher and theorist of intercollegiate policy debate in the United States during the 1960s through the 1980s.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Yale Debate Association</span>

The Yale Debate Association (YDA) is Yale University's only competitive intercollegiate debate team. Founded in 1908, it is the most prolific winner of the American Parliamentary Debate Association's Club of the Year award. The YDA was also the first American team to win and have the top speaker at the modern World Championships. Currently, the YDA is the fourth-ranked collegiate debate society in the world, and the highest in North America.

Stoa USA, also referred to as Stoa, is a Christian homeschool forensics organization in the United States. It is one of the four major national high school forensics organizations: the others are the National Speech and Debate Association (NSDA), National Catholic Forensic League (NCFL), and the National Christian Forensics and Communications Association (NCFCA).

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Bartanen, Michael D.; Littlefield, Robert S. (2014). Forensics in America: A History. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN   978-1-4422-2620-3.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Potter, David (1944). Debating in the Colonial Chartered Colleges: An Historical Survey, 1642 to 1900. Contributions to Education, No. 899. New York: Columbia University.
  3. ↑ Kelly, Brooks Mather (1974). Yale: A History. United States of America: Yale University Press. p. 81. ISBN   0-300-01636-0.
  4. 1 2 3 Woods, Carly S. (2018). Debating Women: Gender, Education, and Spaces for Argument, 1835-1945. Michigan State University Press. ISBN   9781628953381.
  5. ↑ Thueblood, Thomas C. (1926). "A chapter on the organization of college courses in public speaking". Quarterly Journal of Speech. 12 (1): 1–11. doi:10.1080/00335632609379597.
  6. ↑ Nichols, Egbert Ray (1936). "A historical sketch of intercollegiate debating: I". Quarterly Journal of Speech. 22 (2): 213–220. doi:10.1080/00335633609380186 – via Taylor & Francis Online.
  7. 1 2 3 4 "Forensic Honorary Associations" (PDF). The Forensic. 1 (1). 1915.
  8. ↑ "Phi Alpha Tau Installs Chapter". Baraboo News Republic. Baraboo, Wisconsin. February 2, 1905. p. 5. Retrieved April 9, 2023– via Newspapers.com.
  9. ↑ Blake, A. P. (March 1, 2013). "Phi Alpha Tau: an example for us all". The Suffolk Journal. Retrieved September 8, 2022.
  10. ↑ Walker, Ben (2015). "The 2015 State of Delta Sigma Rho-Tau Kappa Alpha". Speaker & Gavel. 52 (2).
  11. ↑ Norton, L. E. (1982). "The History of Pi Kappa Delta" (PDF). The Forensic. 67 (2).
  12. 1 2 Krenmyre, J. H. (1915). "Pi Kappa Delta, A Historical Sketch" (PDF). The Forensic. 1 (1).
  13. ↑ Vaughn, Edgar A. (1915). "Chapter Roll of Pi Kappa Delta" (PDF). The Forensic. 1 (1): 23–29.
  14. 1 2 Cowperthwaite, L. Leroy; Baird, A. Craig (1954). "Intercollegiate Debating". In Wallace, Karl R. (ed.). History of Speech Education in America: Background Studies. Appleton-Century-Crofts. pp. 259–276.
  15. ↑ Berry, Mildred Freburg (1928). "A Survey of Intercollegiate Debate in the Mid-West Debate Conference". Quarterly Journal of Speech . 14 (1): 90. doi:10.1080/00335632809379725.
  16. ↑ "Throwback Thursday: The History of the National Forensics League". Ripon Press. April 22, 2021. Retrieved September 5, 2022.
  17. 1 2 3 "History". National Speech & Debate Association. Retrieved September 5, 2022.
  18. ↑ "High School Debating Union". The North Carolina High School Bulletin. 4 (4): 222–224. 1913. JSTOR   43822086 – via JSTOR.
  19. ↑ Coffman, George R. (1917). "A New Plan for High-School Debating in Montana". The English Journal. 6 (2): 108–110. doi:10.2307/801507. JSTOR   801507 – via JSTOR.
  20. ↑ "Congressional Record – Senate – Friday, November 15, 1963". Congressional Record. 109 (16): 21928. November 15, 2022.
  21. ↑ "44 U.S. Code § 1333 – National high school and college debate topics". Legal Information Institute. Retrieved September 14, 2022.
  22. ↑ Cruz, Jon (March 10, 2008). "Good Evening Mr. and Mrs. North and South America and All Ships At Sea, Let's Go to Press!". Victory Briefs Daily. Archived from the original on May 17, 2008. Retrieved September 10, 2022.
  23. 1 2 3 4 Louden, Allan (2013). ""Permanent Adaptation" – The NDT's Last 50 Years". Speaker & Gavel. 50 (2).
  24. 1 2 3 Smith, Elijah J. (2020). The kritik-focus model of debate (PDF). Proceedings of the Tokyo Conference on Argumentation. p. 138.
  25. 1 2 Bennett, William (1996). "An Introduction to the "Kritik"" (PDF). Rostrum. 70 (8).
  26. ↑ Sciullo, Nick J. (2019). "The racial coding of performance debate: race, difference, and policy debate". Argumentation and Advocacy. 55 (4): 303–321. doi:10.1080/10511431.2019.1672028. S2CID   210570486 – via Taylor and Francis Online.
  27. 1 2 3 4 Reid-Brinkley, Shanara (2023). "Special Issue Editor's Introduction: Celebrating the Legacy of the Louisville Project and Grappling with the Antiblackness Still Plaguing College Policy Debate". Contemporary Argumentation and Debate. 38 (1): 3–10.
  28. 1 2 3 Schiappa, Edward; Keehner, Mary F. (1990). "The Promise of the Cross Examination Debate Association". Argumentation and Advocacy. 27 (2): 78–85. doi:10.1080/00028533.1990.11951512.
  29. ↑ Bigelow, Bruce (February 3, 1983). "Little William Jewell looms large in debate". The Kansas City Times . p. 11. Retrieved February 22, 2023– via Newspapers.com.
  30. 1 2 Decker, Warren D.; Morello, John T. (1990). "The American Debate Association: Rule-Based Policy Debate". Argumentation and Advocacy. 27 (2): 58–67. doi:10.1080/00028533.1990.11951510.
  31. ↑ Zhou, Lawrence (March 18, 2020). "How to Cut a Card by Lawrence Zhou". VBriefly. Retrieved November 20, 2022.
  32. 1 2 Brown, Robbie (April 16, 2010). "The Paper Debate". The New York Times. Retrieved November 20, 2022.
  33. ↑ Goodnight, G. Thomas; Mitchell, Gordon R. (February 2, 2017). "Forensics as Scholarship: Testing Zarefsky's Bold Hypothesis in a Digital Age". Argumentation and Advocacy. 45 (2): 91. doi:10.1080/00028533.2008.11821699. S2CID   140850101 – via Taylor and Francis.
  34. ↑ Competition Events Guide (PDF). National Speech and Debate Association. September 6, 2022.
  35. ↑ "Competition Events". NCFL. Retrieved September 9, 2022.
  36. ↑ "Speech Events". Stoa. Retrieved September 9, 2022.
  37. ↑ "Debate Resolutions". Stoa. Retrieved September 9, 2022.
  38. ↑ "About the Cross-Examination Debate Association". Cross-Examination Debate Association. Retrieved September 16, 2022.
  39. ↑ "About the APDA". American Parliamentary Debate Association. Retrieved September 16, 2022.
  40. ↑ "The Mission & Philosophy of IPDA". International Public Debate Association. Retrieved September 16, 2022.
  41. 1 2 3 Whitman, Glen (September 5, 2000). "Debate Formats". Glen Whitman Debate. Retrieved November 28, 2022.
  42. ↑ "How to Debate". University of Alaska Anchorage. Retrieved November 28, 2022.
  43. ↑ Cridland-Hughes, Susan (November 2012). "Literacy as Social Action in City Debate". Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy . 56 (3): 194–195. doi:10.1002/JAAL.00128. JSTOR   23367737.
  44. ↑ Alan Fine, Gary (Winter 2000). "Games and Truths: Learning to Construct Social Problems in High School Debate". The Sociological Quarterly . 41 (1): 107. JSTOR   4120983.
  45. ↑ Durkee, John. "Ted Turner Debate: Establishing Theoretical Grounds" (PDF). Rostrum. Retrieved December 2, 2022.
  46. 1 2 Hannan, Jeffrey; Berkman, Benjamin; Meadows, Chad (2012). Introduction to Public Forum and Congressional Debate (PDF). New York: International Debate Education Association. ISBN   978-1-61770-038-5.
  47. ↑ Wanzer-Serrano, Nicole. "Expanding Big Questions Debate". John Templeton Foundation. Retrieved December 5, 2022.
  48. ↑ "Big Questions Debate". National Speech and Debate Association. Retrieved December 5, 2022.
  49. ↑ Quinn, Simon (2009). Debating in the World Schools Style: A Guide (PDF). New York: International Debate Education Association. ISBN   978-1-932716-55-9.
  50. ↑ "The World Universities Debating Championships Debating and Judging Manual" (PDF). The Debate Correspondent. pp. 5–11. Retrieved March 8, 2023.
  51. ↑ Duncan, Arne (April 12, 2012). "The Power of Debate – Building the Five "C's" for the 21st Century". U.S. Department of Education. Archived from the original on May 1, 2012. Retrieved September 5, 2022.
  52. ↑ "The Power of Speech & Debate Education". Stanford National Forensic Institute. Retrieved September 5, 2022.
  53. ↑ Copeland, Kristopher; James, Kendrea (2016). ""My College Education has come from My Participation in the Forensics Team": An Examination of the Skills and Benefits of Collegiate Forensic Participation". Speaker & Gavel. 53 (2).
  54. ↑ Alegria, Penelope (October 10, 2020). ""Bro Culture" Is Debate Culture". Harvard Political Review. Retrieved September 5, 2022.
  55. ↑ Mezuk, Briana; Bondarenko, Irina; Smith, Suzanne; Tucker, Eric (September 5, 2011). "Impact of Participating in a Policy Debate Program on Academic Achievement: Evidence from the Chicago Urban Debate League". Educational Research and Reviews. 6 (9) – via ERIC.
  56. ↑ Anderson, Susannah; Mezuk, Briana (2015). "Positive Youth Development and Participation in an Urban Debate League: Results from Chicago Public Schools, 1997–2007". The Journal of Negro Education. 84 (3): 362. doi:10.7709/jnegroeducation.84.3.0362. JSTOR   10.7709/jnegroeducation.84.3.0362. S2CID   146869747 – via JSTOR.
  57. ↑ Peters, Tammie L. (October 1, 2009). "An Investigation into the Relationship Between Participation in Competitive Forensics and Standardized Test Scores" (PDF). Rostrum. 84 (2).
  58. ↑ Mezuk, Briana (2009). "Urban Debate and High School Educational Outcomes for African American Males: The Case of the Chicago Debate League". The Journal of Negro Education. 78 (3): 290–304. JSTOR   25608747 – via JSTOR.
  59. 1 2 3 Rogers, Jack E.; Freeman, Nicole P. M.; Rennels, Arthur R. (Fall 2017). "Where Are They Now(?): Two Decades of Longitudinal Outcome Assessment Data Linking Positive Student, Graduate Student, Career and Life Trajectory Decisions to Participation in Intercollegiate Competitive Debate" (PDF). National Forensic Journal. 35 (1). doi:10.56816/0749-1042.1029. S2CID   256968041.
  60. ↑ Dhillon, Kiranjeet; Larson, April. "Biological Sex as a Predictor of Competitive Success in Intercollegiate Forensics" (PDF). National Forensic Journal. 29 (2).
  61. 1 2 3 Nie, Alyssa; Yi, AJ (2020). "An Empirical Study of Gender Differences in Competitive High School Debate". SSRN. SSRN   3715996.
  62. 1 2 Robertson, Stella; Zuniga, Petra; Christenson, Hannah; Young, Jason (May 23, 2022). "Gender dynamics in high school policy debate: propagating gender hierarchies in advocating 'better' futures". Gender and Education. 34 (8): 1025–1040. doi: 10.1080/09540253.2022.2094348 . S2CID   250588340.
  63. ↑ Matthews, Nicholas C. (2016). "The Influence of Biological Sex on Perceived Aggressive Communication in Debater–Judge Conflicts in Parliamentary Debate". Western Journal of Communication. 80 (1): 38–59. doi:10.1080/10570314.2015.1114140. S2CID   146189044.
  64. 1 2 Stepp, Pamela (Spring 1997). "Can we make intercollegiate debate more diverse?". Argumentation and Advocacy . 33 (4): 177. doi:10.1080/00028533.1997.11978017.
  65. ↑ Logue, Brenda J. (1987). Minority Students in CEDA Debate: Involvement, Success, and Barriers. Eastern Communication Convention. Syracuse, NY.
  66. ↑ Allen, Mike; Trejo, Mary; Bartanen, Michael; Schroeder, Anthony; Ulrich, Tammie (Winter 2004). "Diversity in United States Forensics: A Report on Research Conducted for the American Forensic Association". Argumentation and Advocacy . 40 (3): 180–181. doi:10.1080/00028533.2004.11821605.
  67. ↑ Martin, Shauntrice (2023). "Fear of a Black Planet: Capturing the Benefit of White Guilt to Forward Black Excellence". Contemporary Argumentation and Debate. 38 (1): 187.
  68. 1 2 Reid-Brinkley, Shanara R. (2017). "Ghetto Kids Gone Good: Race, Representation, and Authority in the Scripting of Inner-City Youths in the Urban Debate League". Argumentation and Advocacy . 49 (2): 80–81. doi:10.1080/00028533.2012.11821781.
  69. ↑ Greene, Ronald Walter; Hicks, Darrin (2005). "Lost Convictions: Debating both sides and the ethical self-fashioning of liberal citizens". Cultural Studies. 19 (1). doi:10.1080/09502380500040928. S2CID   145240375.
  70. ↑ Murphy, Richard (1957). "The Ethics of Debating Both Sides". The Speech Teacher. 6 (1): 1–9. doi:10.1080/03634525709376840.
  71. ↑ Klopf, Donald W.; McCroskey, James C. (1964). "Debating both sides ethical? Controversy pau!". Central States Speech Journal. 15 (1): 36–39. doi:10.1080/10510976409362721.
  72. ↑ Ellis, Jonathan; Hovagimian, Francesca (October 12, 2019). "Are School Debate Competitions Bad for Our Political Discourse?". The New York Times. Retrieved November 27, 2022.
  73. ↑ Dimock, James P. (2009). "Critiquing Debate". Speaker and Gavel. 46 (1): 81–92.
  74. ↑ Katyal, Neal (November 11, 2009). "The Project and Switch Side Debate". University of Georgia. Retrieved November 27, 2022.
  75. ↑ McCordick, Jack (September 26, 2017). "The Corrosion of High School Debate – And How It Mirrors American Politics". America: The Jesuit Review. Retrieved September 8, 2022.
  76. ↑ Kang, Jay Caspian (January 20, 2012). "High School Debate at 350 WPM". Wired. Retrieved November 27, 2022.
  77. ↑ Kruger, Daniel (February 7, 2018). "How to Win a High-School Debate: Talk Like a Cattle Auctioneer". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved September 8, 2022.
  78. ↑ Eckstein, Justin (September 17, 2012). "Easy Listening: Spreading and the Role of the Ear in Debating". Sounding Out!. Retrieved September 9, 2022.
  79. ↑ "Justice Alito offers lessons from the bench — and a distinguished career". Duke Law. October 1, 2013. Retrieved September 23, 2022.
  80. ↑ Schneider, Nathan (July 1, 2013). "The New Theist". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved September 23, 2022.
  81. ↑ "Hall of Fame | Princeton Debate Panel". Princeton University. April 16, 2012. Retrieved September 9, 2022.
  82. ↑ Voth, Ben (2017). James Farmer Jr: The Great Debater. Lexington Books. ISBN   978-1-4985-3963-0.
  83. ↑ Mazzei, Patricia (February 26, 2022). "How a High School Debate Team Shaped Ketanji Brown Jackson". The New York Times. Retrieved September 23, 2022.
  84. ↑ Ray, Justin (March 12, 2018). "Amid a sea of voices, Vox's Carlos Maza breaks through". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved September 23, 2022.
  85. ↑ Clark, Lucy (July 16, 2022). "'There's no substitute for listening': what being a champion debater taught Bo Seo about arguing over the dishes". The Guardian. Retrieved November 28, 2022.
  86. ↑ Sotomaayor, Sonia (August 28, 2010). Clip of Diversity and the Legal Profession (Videotape). Retrieved September 23, 2022.
  87. ↑ Tavernise, Sabrina (June 24, 2019). "How Elizabeth Warren Learned to Fight". The New York Times. Retrieved September 23, 2022.
  88. ↑ Dinicola, Dan (May 11, 1989). "'Listen to Me' an Insult To Viewer Intelligence". Schenactady Gazette. p. 25. Retrieved November 20, 2022.
  89. ↑ Talcott, Christina (August 17, 2007). "Director Jeffrey Blitz, Movie Rocket Scientist". Washington Post . Retrieved November 19, 2023.
  90. ↑ Holden, Stephen (December 25, 2007). "Leading the Charge to Inspire Underdogs". The New York Times. Retrieved November 20, 2022.
  91. ↑ Green, Adrienne (November 1, 2017). "What Would Martin Do?". The Atlantic . Retrieved November 19, 2023.
  92. ↑ Genzlinger, Neil (April 6, 2017). "Review: 3 Teenagers Seek a Voice in 'Speech & Debate'". The New York Times. Retrieved November 20, 2022.
  93. ↑ Strait, Eddie (May 2, 2018). "Netflix finally made a high school comedy about the debate team". Daily Dot. Retrieved November 20, 2022.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.