Eliminate Competition Caps in Debate: A Call to Action 

Idaho debate coaches are about to vote on a proposed rule change that is terrible for Idaho debaters. I am urging all debaters to talk with their coaches to get them to vote no. While they are at it, the coaches should scrap Idaho’s 10 tournament cap. Let me explain what is happening.

In most states, mainstream sports and activities associations regulate debate. In my state we have the Idaho High Schools Activities Association. The organization regulates everything from football to wrestling to debate. These organizations (especially the IHSAA) often lump debate into the same category as other activities even though it just so happens that debate is decidedly different. The failure to recognize that debate is different can lead to situations like a proposed rule change here in Idaho. 

Currently, the IHSAA caps the number of tournaments that a STUDENT can attend in any given year to 10. If an individual student exceeds the cap, the student is disqualified from competing in the state tournament. While I will explain why any tournament cap is problematic, the current cap at least places the limit on the individual and can be somewhat workable, allowing students to choose the tournaments they want to attend. 

Apparently in response to failures to police the individual cap, the IHSAA has asked Idaho coaches to come up with a solution. Some Idaho coaches are now proposing to change the rule so that the 10-tournament cap applies to SCHOOLS, not individuals. Putting the proposed change in context, if my school goes to 9 local tournaments during the season, and I do not attend any of those tournaments, and I then compete in 2 national circuit tournaments (the minimum number of tournaments I would need to attend to qualify for the Tournament of Champions), my ENTIRE TEAM would be disqualified from the state tournament. If passed, this rule change will make it impossible for students to access the national circuit outside of entering as an independent (which is a difficult process in the current landscape because many tournaments, including the TOC do not allow independent entries). It would effectively cut off Idaho students from the national circuit, contribute to a lack of diversity, and keep capable students from the opportunity of earning debate scholarships at prestigious universities like Emory and Wake Forest. 

Now, there must be a good reason for such a restrictive rule, right? Well…No. The justifications for a tournament cap just don’t hold upon closer examination.

Argument 1: “The tournament cap ensures competitive equity.”

Response: On its face, this seems like a good argument. Afterall, I am publishing this article under an organization called Equality in Forensics. But a tournament cap does not ensure competitive equity, and, in fact, it does quite the opposite. A team-based tournament cap makes national circuit debate entirely inaccessible for students from Idaho. Just by attending a few tournaments those students could get themselves and their entire team disqualified from the state tournament.

Under the proposed rule change, the most significant opportunity that students are excluded from are TOC bid tournaments. These tournaments offer an entirely different style of debate otherwise known as progressive debate. This type of debate is only able to be adjudicated by previous competitors and coaches due to the highly technical nature of the activity and it is not available in Idaho and other small states due to a vicious cycle wherein the style is not able to be brought back to the state by those who compete on the national circuit because of judging pools and because there are so few that actually compete (namely due to the existing tournament cap). I am certainly not diminishing the importance of state tournaments; I am illuminating the fact that there is much to be achieved outside of the state level.

In response to this, some coaches will say that “Well, not all students can compete on the national circuit, so it’s more important to maintain the current skill of the state tournament.” There are 3 important elements to consider with this statement. First, online debate has now made it possible for smaller schools to engage on the national circuit. Take for example the bid tournaments that are online this year and likely will continue to be in the future:

• The National Speech and Debate Season Opener 

• The Yale Invitational

• The TOC Digital Debate Series (there will be three of these tournaments throughout the year with varying bid levels)

• The Stanford Invitational 

My early count is that there will be at least 6 guaranteed bid opportunities where a student from a small state would only have to pay an entry fee and have an internet connection to compete. The only thing that prevents even the most disadvantaged students from competing in these tournaments is the IHSAA tournament cap. Online debate has been a game changer for equality in the debate space, and in the future, it would be ideal if the number of online tournaments could be increased (of course in addition to in person tournaments). Even if the IHSAA were right (it is not) about how tournament caps ensure equity on the state level, online debate addresses alleged disparities by giving more competitive opportunities that are accessible to everyone.

The second problem with the equity argument is that the proposed rule change (and tournament caps in general) tries to create equity by hacking programs down, not building programs up. This opens a larger conversation about the movement to create a fairer activity. We shouldn’t try to make debate fairer by decreasing the skill level of the average competitor. We should make the activity fairer by increasing the opportunities that small schools have. A great example of a project that creates a more equitable activity is Equality in Forensics. If you are not familiar with the programs that the organization offers, I encourage you to explore its website after reading this article. It provides high quality resources for all kinds of speech and debate formats. 

This conversation about how we can bring equity to this activity leads me to my next point about why the IHSAA’s equity position is wrong. Education. Debate is fundamentally different than other activities in that its purpose is not solely to be a competitive activity. While competition may be a large part of debate, education is the reason why we participate. Let me translate the IHSAA’s strategy for equity to illustrate how bad it is for education: “We want to ensure competitive equity by making sure that no individual gets too good so that those from small or under-resourced programs have a chance to win”. I agree that students from small and under-resourced programs should have a chance, but that should not be out of pity while not solving the structural problems that they face. Students should not be excluded from opportunities just because some other students may not have as many. We should strive to give those without opportunities more opportunities. Moreover, the purpose of debate is not solely to win. The purpose is to be a fun educational tool and increase the skills that competitors can take into the real world. It generally follows that the better you are at debating, the more portable skills and knowledge you will take with you. 

A tournament cap limits the skill development of competitors and thus reduces the education that we can receive from the activity. That is an afront to all educators and limits the value that debate can bring to those who participate. A high tide makes all boats rise. What I mean by this is that a higher level of skill in Idaho would not make it impossible for small or under-resourced schools to compete.  It would raise the average skill level in the state. Debaters only get better at debate by seeing and competing against the best. Take for example my experience at nationals this year. I went to the tournament in congressional debate, and I got substantially better at the event because I saw the best competing and I was able to take inspiration from them. They motivated me to be better. Those who go to more than 10 tournaments would not automatically dominate the competition. As their skill levels rise, they would motivate the competition to be better. Raising the competitive bar would increase the educational value of debate in Idaho and benefit all students. 

Argument 2: “You are students first, debaters second.”

Response: This argument ignores the educational purpose of debate and the differences between debate and other activities. While there is certainly educational value to athletics, sports are not explicitly educational in the same way that debate is. While efforts to keep athletes balanced between competition and education may be warranted (I take issue with competition caps in sports too, but that would not be relevant to the point I am making here), those types of restrictions are pointless in debate. Debate is an education in and of itself. You learn to research, write, and use logic in ways that are nearly impossible in a traditional classroom setting. It puts these important skills into a competitive framework so that kids can have fun doing research and more. In all forms of debate, you learn how to be a persuasive speaker. In Policy and Lincoln Douglas, you learn about international relations and high-level philosophy and literature. In Congressional Debate you learn parliamentary procedure and how our government works. In Public Forum you learn how to debate head-to-head about core issues. In World Schools you learn how to debate on any topic at the drop of a hat. I could go on and on about the educational benefits of debate, but I’ll let the studies do the talking. Lauren Giella, writing about a study conducted by Beth Schueler, an assistant professor of education and public policy at the University of Virginia explained “students who participated in debate gained extra learning "equivalent to 68 percent of a full year of average [ninth] grade learning . . . . ". This only scratches the surface of the raw educational benefits that debate offers. 

This is all to say that the dichotomy put forth between being students and debaters is a false one. Debate is complimentary to, and is, in and of itself, an education. Restricting the number of tournaments that a student can attend is detrimental not only to the ability to get scholarships and compete at the highest level but is detrimental to education. In the IHSAA bylaws, the organization states that its purpose is to “Assure that all interschool activity and athletic competitions governed by the corporation shall be subservient to and complementary with the academic and curricular functions of the member schools which are their primary purposes” and that they must “Protect the activity and athletic interests of high schools and the student participants”. By limiting the educational benefits of debate through tournament caps, the organization is actually acting contrary to its stated purpose and harms the mission of all IHSAA member schools. 

Argument 3: “All the other sports and activities have a tournament cap, so debate needs to have one too.”

Response: This argument points me to another reason why debate is unique. Other sports and activities that are governed by the IHSAA have a much shorter season than speech and debate and have very different tournament caps. Let’s look at wrestling as an example. The IHSAA rulebook for wrestling dictates “An individual may compete in a maximum of sixteen dates (no match limitations). Friday after 1:00 p.m. and Saturday may count as one date. Two-day tournaments held during Christmas break when no school is in session that start at 8:00 a.m. count as only one date.” The rulebook also dictates that the first match will be held on November 29th and the state tournament will be held on February 23-24. This means the wrestling season is less than 3 months long. 

In contrast, debate tournaments are held from Labor Day weekend all the way up until mid-June. This means that the IHSAA allows wrestlers to compete exponentially more than debaters, in a shorter time period, in an activity that is not explicitly educational. And this does not even begin to address all the off-season competitive opportunities that wrestlers and other athletes have when they are part of private teams or clubs. An Idaho wrestler can compete nearly year-round nationally and internationally. And those opportunities are paying off big.  In July, Idaho wrestlers brought home 19 All-American finishes and our first team title from Fargo, ND, one of the world’s most prestigious wrestling tournaments. It was big news – and rightly so! Debaters just don’t have competition opportunities outside of the IHSAA season. And it shows. How many national debate titles has Idaho brought home? I looked all over the NSDA and TOC websites and could not find a single Idaho name. And if Idaho passes the team-based tournament cap some coaches are proposing, you can bet we won’t have a national title any time soon.

Argument 4: “Increasing the number of tournaments creates more work for teachers.”

Response: There is no doubt that being a debate coach is a demanding profession, but this does not mean that students should be negatively affected by that reality. It is up to the coach to set the schedule for the team, but that team schedule should not prevent students from going to more tournaments. Signing students up for national competitions takes a few minutes on a website. Parents and other volunteers are the ones who do the judging. And, if there is any travel involved, they are the ones who pay the expenses.  

Call to Action

To be clear, I advocate for getting rid of all tournament caps. But the new team-based cap that is being proposed makes the competitive landscape in Idaho even worse. The team structure is important for the activity, but it is not like football or basketball where it is only playable with a team of other people. Disqualifying an entire team because of the actions of one individual would be a travesty and would unfairly take away opportunities from students who had nothing to do with the offending party. All this proposed rule change does is institute an unjust punishment that discourages overall participation in the activity.

To ease any concerns that some may have, here are some ideas that would help to create more competitive equity in the state and encourage higher levels of participation:

• Educators, coaches, parents, and students should urge their districts to allocate more funding to debate.

• Promote and create organizations that provide low cost and free coaching to all students in the state.

• The IHSAA could create low cost/free debate camps during the summer.

• Promote and encourage online debate.

• Do more outreach within schools to encourage participation in speech and debate.

• Compile comprehensive resources for speech and debate on the IHSAA website.

There is still time to voice your concerns. The Idaho Speech Arts Teachers Association will vote on whether to propose the rule change to IHSAA on October 6-7. 

Please, if you are a coach, go to this conference, make your voice heard, vote against this change and ensure that students can access all that this activity can offer. 

If you are a student reading this, please either email me to voice your concerns (brodydebate@gmail.com), join the Equality in Forensics discord, or message me on Instagram @c_brody07. 

Please sign this petition: https://chng.it/rYPVqYxcyq