Walk into any high school debate tournament, and you’ll quickly learn one of the local circuit’s best-kept rules: underclassmen are expected to concede rounds to upperclassmen. Those with fewer years of experience must be “walked over” by their seniors when facing each other in outrounds at tournaments that make or break state championships, or even national qualifiers. Sometimes framed as a gesture of respect, other times enforced through subtle pressure, this practice, known as “walkover culture,” has become an open source of unfairness in competitive debate. 

At first glance, it might seem harmless. A junior team steps aside so a senior can secure a better advancement. A novice debater forfeits to avoid “wasting” a varsity competitor’s time. But beneath the surface, this tradition distorts the very foundation of competitive debate. Tournaments are meant to determine the best arguments, not reinforce hierarchies of who should have an upper hand. When wins are given rather than earned, the results cease to reflect true skill. 

Some might argue that varsity debaters with more experience have earned the privilege of the walkover, because of the hard work. But arguably, this makes it difficult to distinguish between a senior who has fooled around for years and got into a break round due to a streak of luck, and one who has actually put in effort and has become team captain. Hard work should earn talent, which in turn should win a round, especially a break round where panels usually contain multiple judges. 

Walkovers don’t happen in a vacuum. They thrive in environments where younger debaters fear social backlash, coaches prioritize a star student’s record over fairness, and different grades exploit cliques and friend groups to keep prep and research to themselves rather than promoting an inclusive team culture. As a user on Reddit once reflected, “You end up with teams who hoard prep to avoid the very small risk of having a walkover, causing problems for all on the team to do well”. 

The consequences are more far-reaching than one may think. Inflated records for some, lost opportunities for others, and a system that rewards seniority over merit. Worse, it sends a dangerous message to young debaters, that compliance matters more than competition, and in the end, hard work in early years doesn’t really matter. 

Despite walkovers being seen as behind-the-scenes etiquette, perhaps it should also be framed within the context of competitive integrity. When a debater’s success hinges on unearned wins, the activity stops being a test of critical thinking and becomes a game of social capital. And for underfunded programs or isolated novices, the pressure to concede only adds to the haystack of debate’s existing inequities. 

The question now lies within why we’ve tolerated them for so long. If debate is truly about fairness, then it’s time to confront this practice head-on. Over the following sections, we’ll examine briefly why walkover culture persists, how it undermines the activity, and last but not least, what we can do to ensure a better landscape. In a sport built on arguments, the idea that some debaters “deserve” free wins might be the weakest case of all. 

Contention 1: Why does walkover culture persist? 

Walkover culture endures in debate circuits, because it’s framed as a mutually beneficial tradition. Upperclassmen justify it as a way to "maximize team success," arguing that conceding rounds helps stronger debaters secure

better seeds and qualification bids. Younger students often comply out of respect, fear of backlash, or the belief that they’ll "get their turn" someday. Coaches, meanwhile, often tolerate and support it because they see it as strategic, prioritizing a top debater’s chances over strict competitive fairness. 

There are a significant number of people who claim walkovers have benefits. They’ll argue that avoiding mismatches saves time, prevents discouraging blowout losses for novices, and fosters team cohesion. For example, at one school, juniors and seniors long defended the practice, insisting that underclassmen who prepared and practiced for almost triple their time were “too inexperienced”. The logic was circular, just like a link chain in debate: older debaters had supposedly earned their status, so they deserved deference in close calls. 

However, it’s important to note that these justifications crumble under scrutiny. The idea that novices benefit from forfeiting ignores the fact that real growth comes from competition, not avoidance. Surrendering and getting walked over encourages a mindset of not trying when going against more experienced debaters on other teams in more difficult competitions; after all, they’ll always be “more experienced” and “my turn will come later”. And the claim that walkovers help teams "strategically allocate wins" turns debate into a rigged system where outcomes are negotiated, not actually debated. Did people negotiate the outcome of the presidential debates, or did the presidential candidates actually debate for the public? This leads to questions about whether the practice erodes away at the true purpose of this event. 

Even schools that held close to the walkover tradition may tentatively abandon the practice, but only after a group of frustrated novices and underclassmen exposed its flaws. When younger debaters realized their forfeits were inflating seniors’ records without reciprocation, they would openly refuse. Some seniors’ records would dip, revealing that their "elite" status had been artificially propped up, and they were the ones playing Fortnite during every practice rather than discussing research with the intellectually curious, which paid off indeed. 

Contention 2: The harms despite the benefits 

Schools often initially defend walkovers as a harmless tradition, as discussed in the previous section, but the reality is far more damaging. Beneath the surface, this practice undermines competitive fairness, distorts skill evaluation, and perpetuates inequality, all while masquerading as team strategy and respect. Here’s how. 

The first warrant: It creates artificial rankings. No matter how minor or major, that is not fair. 

Walkovers inflate records, making some debaters appear stronger than they truly are. THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE IN SMALLER TOURNAMENTS, WHERE IT IS EASY FOR TEAMMATES TO HIT EACH OTHER. When upperclassmen accumulate an unearned win or two, they enter elimination rounds with advantages they didn’t legitimately earn. Meanwhile, underclassmen who refuse to concede may face tougher brackets or quit the tournament altogether because their honest records don’t get the same artificial boost. Over time, this distorts tournament results, rewarding social maneuvering over actual debating ability. 

The second warrant: It stunts development and helps kill the growth mindset, particularly in areas where this happens often.

Debate is supposed to be about growth through competition. Yet walkovers teach younger debaters that their role isn’t to engage, but to simply step aside. Missing rounds means missing critical feedback, strategic adaptation and the confidence that comes from facing strong opponents. Even worse, it reinforces a toxic mindset that many personal experiences reflect: that novices should be passive rather than competitive. Teams that rely on walkovers often find their younger debaters stagnate, unprepared when they’re finally expected to perform. 

The third warrant: It reinforces debate’s privilege problem that already exists. 

Walkovers don’t happen equally. Well-established schools with big numbers and rigid hierarchies enforce them most aggressively to earn more team sweepstakes and strategic advantages, while smaller or less-resourced teams including one-person teams and independent entries may not even be familiar with the practice. This widens the gap between elite and underfunded groups, turning walkovers into yet another way privilege compounds in debate. Additionally, debaters with less social capital, like quiet students and those without mentor relationships or membership in exclusive informal groups, often face disproportionate pressure to comply. 

The fourth warrant: It normalizes unfairness as strategy, which could snowball into more practices. 

When walkovers and similar practices become routine, they erode the “ethos” of competition. Debaters start seeing rounds as transactions rather than tests of skill. Some teams even weaponize the expectation, guilt-tripping novices into forfeiting with lines like, "If you really cared about the team, you’d drop".

This shifts the debate down a slippery slope that makes other forms of cheating seem more acceptable. 

The fifth and final warrant: It breeds resentment, division, and a non-inclusive team culture. 

Beginning as "team strategy," walkovers often end in frustration. Underclassmen who repeatedly concede start to question why their efforts matter less. When seniors’ records faltered without walkovers, it exposed an uncomfortable truth, that some top debaters weren’t as strong as their inflated records suggested. Maybe they’d be the Invitational quarterfinalist, not the champion, every time; and in their place is a younger and more hardworking individual. The resulting tension from these projections fractured team dynamics, proving that walkovers disguise inequality until it boils over. It even adds pressure to those who benefit from the walkovers, who may experience imposter syndrome or criticism. 

Contention 3: What do we do? 

Unfair walkover culture won’t disappear on its own. Every member of the debate community can take concrete steps to dismantle this practice when it becomes abusive. 

Don’t hesitate to tell your coaches. Many tournaments turn a blind eye to pre-round or in-round concessions because they’re seen as "unofficial" or "between teams." But passive tolerance perpetuates the issue. Talk to your coach about how it’s unfair for the debate community, and especially if you are a leader in your Speech and Debate club, adopt guidelines on forfeits.

Don’t be afraid to use anonymous reporting systems provided at tournaments so debaters can expose pressure, disrespect, or oppression faced without fear of retaliation. Walkovers aren’t always about seniority, because they may only be enforced for select groups and people that are “disliked” by the debate team. Discrimination is not okay. 

Don’t be afraid to email local tournament organizers and your team’s administrators. Praise and encourage your fellow novices and teammates who challenge upperclassmen fairly in a round, even if they lose, and encourage a growth mindset. 

Talk to your friends and debaters you know about how walkovers hurt everyone, even the seniors that rely on them. When more people agree about systemic inequities, it’s more likely for the practice to develop to benefit everyone. If you’re a captain, hold a team meeting or share this blog post. Mentor novices on how to handle pressure, because it’s especially present when practices like this are around and deals are made. If you can, share stories of how walkovers hurt yours and others’ development. Truth-telling shifts culture.

But most importantly, resist the pressure and redefine “respect”. People often concede because they fear being labeled "selfish" or "disrespectful." Say no firmly. We’re here to debate. If you’re better, you’ll beat me. Flip the script. Expose hypocrisy, especially if people start getting rude and aggressive towards you. If you’re so good, why do you need me to drop? Why do I have to give up a dream I’ve been working towards the whole year because you’re a little tired?

When we stand up, we will see changes. Wins are earned, not bargained like someone trying to get a ring for cheap in a flea market. Novices are proud to challenge champs, and become the next champs. 

Debate every round if YOU want to. If pressured, screenshot/report disrespectful and rude behavior. Stop letting "team strategy" justify unfairness. Silence enables people to literally walk over you.

Closing statement: Conclusion 

This article aims to provide a new perspective from those who view walkovers as unfair because of the merit-based nature of debate, rather than completely challenging the practice in all contexts. Hopefully, you’ll understand that in some significantly harmful cases, time is only saved for beneficiaries while novices lose precious rounds they need to improve in, mismatches aren’t avoided because real growth only comes from facing challenges, short-term gains for a few debaters weaken the team’s long-term depth rather than encouraging success. 

The truth is, walkovers don’t always help debate, because they help a select few at the expense of everyone else. And until the community stops tolerating the practices when they are outright unfair, the activity will remain less just, less competitive, and less legitimate than it claims to be. What’s important is that YOU learned a new perspective. And regardless of whether you agree, the choice is yours. Will you be part of a problem, or part of a solution? Debate is better than this, let’s prove it. 

Share this article with a teammate or coach. Commit to debating every round this season when YOU want to. Call out unfair walkovers when you see them, anonymously if needed.

That’s how much competing at one national tournament can cost — it’s important to note that that doesn’t even factor in NSDA memberships, resources, like briefs, travel expenses, including gas, or even food and other essentials. Not to mention it’s not calibrated to any specific tournament, meaning entry fees, the cost of a hired judge, and travel expenses can be much higher. Competing at the national level isn’t cheap; and, for many competitors from financially disadvantaged teams, success at that level is hardly realistic simply because of the monetary hurdles one has to face.  

Obviously, not every national tournament is thousands of dollars. Still, that's a possible figure one school or competitor may have to pay for a single tournament. 

Besides financial stress, this has several implications:

1. Disadvantaged competitors, whether they’re from low-income or rural backgrounds, who can’t afford to compete at the national level lose representation and opportunities. Rarely do we see competitors from such backgrounds in final rounds. Within the last three years I’ve competed in forensics, my state has only had three competitors advance to the final round of a national tournament. These competitors are extremely talented, and worked hard to succeed at the level at which they did; but can you imagine how many opportunities they missed by being unable to compete at other national level tournaments due to the financial constraints their team faced?

For teams in rural states like West Virginia, fundraising is a constant; most teams lack adequate funding from their schools, and the little funding they do receive only goes so far. Between entry fees, travel expenses, and lodging, among other things, competing at a tournament out-of-state can be costly — hence why many teams do not venture far from the local circuit. So, not only are less and less financially disadvantaged competitors represented at the national level due to the cost of competition, but the ability to gain those experiences of competing at such tournaments, alongside earning bids and recognition, is all but a dream.

2. Competition at the national level is discouraged. When you consider how much it costs to compete, added with the issue of gaining the funds for such a mission in the first place, it’s easy to understand why many teams are hesitant of competing at the national level — it’s not cheap or accessible.

Even if you, as a competitor, can afford to travel to out-of-state tournaments on your own, the lack of acceptance of independent entries at the national level, coupled with the burden of school fees, is daunting. Independent entries could be a temporary solution, but it glosses over the real issue with money and forensics. If you are not financially privileged, competing in speech and debate is costly, overwhelming, and troublesome. Instead of worrying about breaking in your event, your career becomes more focused on not breaking the bank. 

As someone who regularly competes as an independent entry, it’s arguably harder and more expensive to compete that way as opposed to competing with my team. I have to cover my own fees, judging is extremely time consuming, hotel rooms don’t get any cheaper, and driving often takes longer, as we have to drive further for tournaments that allow independent entries, as they’re often barred at local tournaments and completely outlawed in West Virginia (though, since my team goes to every local tournament, that isn’t as huge of an issue for me).

Furthermore, coaching in debate or speech is pricey, at times being hundreds of dollars for a few sessions. Above all, where does this leave the little guy? Where does this leave competitors, who have so much potential, but can’t afford to attend national level tournaments or receive coaching they would have access to if they had the funding to do so? 

Forensics is an amazing activity, but sometimes the costs of competing end up outweighing the benefits. The most important thing is to not give up hope; it may take a while and a lot of hard work, but any money you are able to receive, whether it’s from donations or fundraisers, is better than nothing.

It’s a terrible card disadvantaged competitors are dealt; no matter what, the financial barriers to compete in forensics are a hindrance to all, even if they don’t totally debilitate one from competing. As someone who went through an adjacent experience, my advice is to firstly, keep trying and work on current initiatives to receive more funding, but secondly, to make the best of what you have. I know it’s corny, but as disadvantaged competitors, there is only so much one can do to overcome that financial obstacle. Even if it’s not a lot, attending free tournaments, such as the NSDA Springboard Series or Equality in Forensics’ Free Weekly Scrimmages, is a tiny way to compete at a lower cost. Finding someone who will judge you for free, including a coach, a parent, or a former competitor, removes the worry of having to hire a judge.

If you’re not in that situation, I urge you to appreciate the time you have in forensics. Many kids don’t get to compete due to the financial barriers they face, and it’s easy to overlook the privilege we have in being able to compete without having to worry about funding. I’m not saying you have to donate to your friends or fellow competitors if they lack appropriate funding (though that would be nice), but support your friends who are in that situation, whatever that may look like.