Are My Judges Ready?

The "one speech fits all" approach is commonly echoed through many events within the speech and debate community. You never know who is writing that ballot. Before we step foot into our rounds, their experiences or their likes and dislikes are completely unknown to us. As such, coaches and teammates alike preach the value of “accessibility” in a speech. Not too lofty, not too aggressive, but just right. A question arises among these assertions: to what extent should competitors cater their delivery to their audience? Some speakers, such as Anthony Sanni, a communication coach and author of The Law of the Vital Few, call for a passive approach to content; yet this method unduly implicates the presenter as the issue. 

In Original Oratory, this issue became a pertinent thorn in my side. The subjectivity of judging is most noticeable in events like Original Oratory, where presentation is expected to be perfect, and the deciding factor on many ballots is the preference of content. Naturally, my delivery has been refined after three years, and I have written some of the punniest and impactful one liners I could think of. Yet when it came to rankings, my ballots always seemed to have outliers: 1…, 3…, and 8? For the longest time I presumed it had been a simple difference in style or preference, until I received a specific ballot for an asynchronous tournament: 

“Maybe stay away from the word genocide.” 

Well, it was to be expected after all. My oration centered on the issues of transactionalism and privilege, and made a point to reference the ongoing genocide in Gaza. I had curated a handful of sources to explain the erosion of empathy with examples ranging from relationships to war veterans, all in an attempt to be inclusive. The Achilles heel of my speech was always my stance — not on the governments involved, but rather the denotion of the war as a genocide. Initially I dismissed these comments, but as I saw my scores slipping, I decided to cave in. Eventually, I removed the word 'genocide' from my speech altogether, opting for 'destruction' instead. This concession, while not altering my message completely, had stripped some of my truth away from my speech. In my pursuit of placement and earning the judges’ favor, I had seemingly lost one of the key elements of the event: originality. 

While the competitive season still lingers on, with state and nationals laying ahead in the coming months, the damage has been done. In an attempt to seem less confrontational and more peaceful, I had altered a significant part of my speech. Not only had I failed myself, but for those who my voice was supposed to uplift, I had set them aside under the guise that it was a “necessary sacrifice.” And my story is far from a unique one — students across the country compete with difficult subject matter ranging from personal traumas to geopolitical inequality, all of whom are subject to the whims of a judge. And while my naivety is understandable, it cannot be separated from the environment that has cultivated it. Speech and debate heralds itself as a platform for the disenfranchised, yet it is often the most comfortable narratives that are given a reward. As noted in articles like How To Speak About Controversial Topics, a combination of vulgarity and controversy is bound to be in an unsuccessful speech. But what does it mean when someone’s “vulgarity” is your identity? Better yet, when someone’s humanity is called into question? 

It certainly cannot be dismissed that differing viewpoints exist, but inversely, should it be the responsibility of the speaker to hold their tongues on certain phrases? The answer I hope most competitors come to is no. Ironically, I implore competitors to take a lower rank. Speech is an activity about communicating your thoughts and beliefs whole heartedly, and simply put, you can’t win them all. There is a reason that in the now 100-year history of the NSDA program, there is no documentation of a finalist ever scoring straight ones on their ballot. Instead of neutering the subject matter of your speeches, consider providing more context to educate your audience. If you know your content is unlikely to be received well, don’t pull your punches. Consistency above all else will take you into the next level of competition. 

The key takeaway here is not to mask your content out of fear of the judges disapproving. Every speech you give is a form of advocacy. Treat it with more weight than just a score online. Your language does not always need to be palatable. This applies not just to oratory, but to any individual or debate event. Admittedly, there are some hills you don’t need to die on, but that doesn’t discount the importance of authenticity. Although it is important to avoid excluding language in your speech, it is just as important to convey your honest thoughts on important societal issues, and expect them to be unpopular at times. Speech and debate gives you a special opportunity to help deconstruct stigmas and place your experiences at the forefront of the conversation. It is certainly vital that these thoughts are communicated in a productive way; nevertheless, a speaker's concern should not always be, “Are my judges ready?”