The world of speech and debate was built to give young people a voice. From the very beginning, the National Speech & Debate Association has emphasized values like equity, respect, leadership, and service. Yet somewhere along the way, this united community has started to divide itself. What used to be speech and debate has, in many ways, become speech versus debate. Whether it’s friendly teasing or deeply ingrained bias, competitors often find themselves pitted against each other. When we step back, we begin to see that this division is not only unnecessary, but it’s harmful to the community.

The rift between speech and debate can be traced back to differences in skill sets, preparation styles, and perceptions of what “hard work” looks like. Debate events like Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, or Congressional Debate prioritize analytical thinking, argumentation, and evidence-based reasoning. Competitors must research policies, defend their cases, and think on their feet. In contrast, speech events such as Original Oratory, Informative Speaking, or Dramatic Interpretation highlight artistry, memorization, and emotional connection. These students spend hours writing, revising, and rehearsing performances designed to persuade or move audiences. As the Stanford National Forensic Institute explains, "Speech is primarily a persuasive activity… Debate is an adversarial activity." Because of these fundamental contrasts, it’s easy for participants to view one style as superior to another, creating invisible hierarchies that shape how events and their competitors are perceived.

The cost of this divide extends far beyond personal feelings. The split between speech and debate limits collaboration and contradicts the very mission of the NSDA of fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion. According to the American Association for Speech and Debate, students involved in these activities develop exceptional communication, research, and critical thinking skills that benefit them for life. But when internal rivalries distract from these shared goals, the community risks undermining the transformative impact the activity can have. A debater could learn empathy and delivery from speech competitors; a speaker could learn logical precision and adaptability from debaters. Yet because of this division, many students never explore outside their own events.

Ultimately, speech and debate share far more in common than they differ. Both require rigorous research, countless hours of preparation, and emotional resilience. Both demand confidence, clarity, and the courage to stand before an audience to share one’s voice. Whether that voice is telling a heartfelt story in Original Oratory or defending a resolution in Public Forum, the skills developed are universally valuable. As Lone Star College describes, these programs “build the communication, leadership, and reasoning skills necessary for success beyond school.” The essence of the activity has never been about which event is "harder" or "better", but instead, it has always been about growth, connection, and the ability to articulate ideas that matter.

To heal this rift, the community must make a conscious effort to celebrate all events equally and to recognize excellence in every form. Coaches and teammates should highlight the dedication behind each discipline, whether it’s the countless hours of research for Congress, the emotional range required for Interpretation, or the precision and creativity behind Informative Speaking. Encouraging competitors to step outside their comfort zones or to try an event they’ve never done before can cultivate empathy and understanding. Peer education sessions, where competitors explain what makes their events challenging and fulfilling, can also bridge gaps in perception. Moreover, judges and tournament organizers can play a vital role by standardizing respect across events and ensuring that different categories receive equal visibility and recognition.

The simplest, yet most powerful, way to repair this division is through listening and appreciation. When we listen to others’ experiences and understand the passion that drives them, we rediscover the shared spirit that connects us. The NSDA’s own mission statement reminds us that the activity is meant to model diversity, integrity, respect, and service. Those values cannot thrive in a community divided against itself. Instead of asking, "Which event is better?" we should be asking, "What can I learn from the other?" When speech competitors and debaters alike begin to see themselves as parts of the same movement rather than opposing forces, the foundation of the entire activity strengthens.

Speech and debate have never truly been opposites. The divide that has grown over the years does not have to define the future. If we can shift our perspective, treat every event with the respect it deserves, and remember why we started in the first place, we can restore the harmony that made this community special. The goal has never been competition among ourselves—it has always been collaboration. We are not speech versus debate; we are speech and debate. One community, united by the shared power of voice.