Speaking from the Margins: Confronting Homophobia in the Debate Space

Debate is a very important space to people around the U.S. and the world,  serving as a second home to many. Some may view it as an inclusive space to escape the real world and dive into a world of research and strategy. However, those who are a part of the LGBTQIA+ community experience a different side of forensics that is exclusionary and discriminatory. When debaters express their feelings of marginalization, they are often met with nasty comments and losses when expressed in rounds, and they sometimes face more hate outside of rounds. The question of whether or not queer debaters should be allowed to bring forward this issue is an easy one, though it is not as widely accepted as it should be. So, are debaters bringing up this issue wrong, or is the debate space truly homophobic? The sad truth is debate is a homophobic space, and this is only perpetuated by the debaters who lack education on queer literature. 

One of the spaces in which many debaters see and feel this struggle is through acceptance of their identities and queerness. Debaters often bring in several pieces of themselves when debating, which puts queer people in a difficult space. “Many also noted concerns they had felt pertaining to their acceptance in the activity, and almost all participants noted that the activity can be quite harmful for them at times. These rejections of acceptance include rejection of the queer style, rejections of queer argumentation, and misgendering” (Roberts 46). When this rejection of queerness occurs in the debate space, we see queer people being put in a place where they won't ever be accepted; worse, they may constantly feel marginalized. However, this isn't the only problem with acceptance. Queer debaters often see judges discredit their arguments immediately upon hearing their style of debate due to a misunderstanding. Bee, a queer debater, explained that they saw the judges in the back of the room often lower their speaker point or vote them down because they didn't understand experiences of queer debaters (Roberts 47). When debaters feel that they are not being listened to or understood, it takes away the fun and accessibility of debate, and the space surrounding it loses its appeal, which ultimately results in a debate community with a lack of queer acceptance and lower queer participation. 

The next question of homophobia in debate is queer argumentation. Queer argumentation usually falls into the realm of progressive debate, but it is scrutinized even more harshly than regular progressive argumentation. “The act of running a queerness K is becoming harder and harder… Coaches are scared to teach debaters queer theory, competitors don’t want to answer it, and judges don’t want to evaluate it, and turn to banning instead of learning. If all we do in the debate community is ban the things that we don’t understand, how are we supposed to create a safe and inclusive place for queer debaters to express their identities?” (Aubuchon). This demonization of queer debate styles has only contributed to the already large inequity and marginalization that queer debaters face. This problem has several severe consequences. Many queer debaters see queer argumentation being repressed and vote down in the circuit, which creates a situation where queer debaters withhold their identity and essentially return to the closet (Aubuchon). These small microaggressions that the majority of the debate space is unaware of or unwilling to acknowledge attribute to the larger problem of the marginalization of queer debaters. 

Many people will simply look at the debate space and say that it is a space in which it is impossible to actually eliminate this inequity. It is impossible to actually have queer debaters meaningfully engage in the heteronormativity of debate due to constraints such as speech times. However, Nicholas Lepp addresses how to make a space like debate more accepting, stating, “Rather than try to resolve this tension by either limiting queer or unlimiting debate, I have suggested that we might consider reading it as an instance of aporia, an irresolvable impasse which is nevertheless generative insofar as it invites us to reconsider thinking in the face of this incommensurability” (Lepp 12). While on a surface level, debate and queerness are mutually exclusive, in depth we see that a new model of debate is required to ensure the acceptance of queerness in debate. More and more we have seen queer debaters switch to performance and kritikal models of debate. Queer debaters often describe that when their queerness feels attacked, they want to respond in queer forms such as performances or K’s (Roberts 59). Ultimately, when judges vote and accept these styles of debate and queer debaters feel affirmed, we see a cultural shift towards the acceptance of queerness. 

So while currently the debate space isn't safe or equitable for queer debaters, we still have hope in what the space can become. While homophobia is still present throughout the debate space through inaccessibility, judge bias, rejection of argumentation and the current resolutional model of debate, the rising progressive style of debate leaves queer debaters with hope. Hope that eventually we can express our

queerness in round without scrutiny, or the potential of being voted down. Hope that the space can feel like home again.

Works Cited 

Aubuchon, Meilyn. "Out of the Closet, Into the Round: Queerness in Debate." _Equality in Forensics_, 20 Nov. 2024, 

(https://www.equalityinforensics.org/blog/out-of-the-closet-into-the-rou nd-queerness-in-debate). 

Lepp, Nicholas. "Toward a Queering of Debate." Argumentation and Advocacy, vol. 60, no. 3, 2024, pp. 123-145 DOI: 

10.1080/10511431.2024.2365518 

Roberts, Douglas. Contention One Is Our Identity: An Exploration of Queerness in the Collegiate Debate Sphere. 2024, Minnesota State University, 

(https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2459&cont ext=etds).