Much has been written about the hypercompetitiveness of speech and debate. Aggressive post-rounding, plagiarism, and a cut-throat competitiveness that rewards harmful in-round behavior come to mind. However, a troubling trend I have noticed seems to be a more quiet, yet equally harmful practice—a growing trend supporting public shaming, rather than constructive criticism. 

Like any true policy debater, I spent the majority of my five years in competitive debate scouring OpenEv, downloading cases, and preparing docs. Increasingly, I have noticed what I can only describe as an immense lack of respect in descriptions of opponents’ arguments, especially when the team posting wins the round. Multiple teams have posted their round notes alongside snide parentheticals about how poor their opponent was debating, and how nonsensical their arguments were. If a team faces a poorly made home-grown DA, for example, they may write, “1NC: Hijacking DA (??? some extinction impact, wasn’t very good).” This odd form of public shaming seems to be a recent phenomenon, as I only began to notice this in the past two years. And, as Alyanna Chua explains in her article dissecting the competitive debate sphere, when debate is treated as a popularity competition rewarding perfect performance, sinking into the periphery can make somebody feel like a failure, and like their voice does not matter. This rhetoric is antithetical to debate, which is meant to be a supportive space to learn and grow as not just a competitor, but as a person.

I have seen this on both my local circuit and the broader national policy scene, where teams will brazenly mock their opponents’ attempts at rebuttal through small comments on their own OpenEv page, or through public conversations with coaches or teammates. It’s a deceptively simple habit, and very easy to overlook or brush off. However, the more I considered it, the more I realized the poor conduct it incentivizes. I, like most policy debaters, am familiar with the anxiety of facing a team that you know is better than you. I could only imagine how heartbreaking it would feel to see your attempts openly mocked on the internet, displayed for other top-tier debaters to see as a first impression of who you are as a debater. In a sphere that openly touts its inclusive nature, it is shockingly unwelcoming.

It is easy to make these statements where you know they will not be seen by people who would prevent it from happening. This is why I’ve only ever seen it on platforms frequented by national circuit debaters, rather than the competitors these people denigrate. It creates a sense of camaraderie between elite competitors while widening the gap between smaller or newer programs. Through mocking others, these teams find their footing both by emphasizing their knowledge in debate and creating a more aggressive, competitive persona. This sense of security amongst top-tier competitors is not true friendship. This creates a sense of unapproachability and acts as fuel to a fire of poor behavior and a lack of accountability that seems pervasive in many circuits.

Of course, I’m not claiming that debaters should not be allowed to privately complain or laugh with friends at the absurdity of an argument. Every debater has that one round where their opponents did something crazy, and that’s often worth talking about. Instead, I encourage competitors to care more about the type of person they want to be. Rather than venting on a public forum, speak with your teammates in private. If we claim to create an encouraging atmosphere for inexperienced competitors, our actions need to reflect that. Otherwise, we risk accidentally fostering a hostile space, which would be incompatible with personal and academic growth. Simply, if you would not feel comfortable saying these comments to your coach, why would you find it acceptable on a platform like OpenEv? People see these comments, and they are a direct reflection of the debater posting them. The easiest way to alienate the community around you is to insult them. 

Digital behavior is rarely addressed by coaches unless a concern is raised by a parent, coach, or competitor. This is for many reasons—many coaches do not care, trust competitors to be mature, or are busy with jobs or school. Most entrust round reports to their students, and do not regularly check their own OpenEv pages, nor the social media of their competitors. Why should they? Coaches expect their debaters to care about the image they cultivate. In many ways, these competitors do—it’s just not a welcoming one. It should not be a coach’s job to closely monitor online activity, but fostering a positive culture is extremely important. The debate space would be a better place if we removed open mockery from it altogether, and a coach's role cannot be overstated. Wiki admins and the NSDA itself are entirely powerless in these situations, as it comes down to individual discretion to post whatever someone pleases. Coaches must establish a clear code of ethics for competitors prioritizing grace and inclusivity over cruel comments. From the moment I stepped into my coach’s English classroom as an eighth-grader, he made it clear: I represented myself and my school, and I needed to carry myself with a certain amount of maturity, regardless of whether I actually had it. If thousands of debaters have understood this as novices, it makes little sense why juniors and seniors are unable to hold themselves to a similar standard.

Objective, analytical reporting must be prioritized in the debate community. We must describe what was run, rather than how. Neutral round reports should be a strict expectation, whether on the Wiki or at tournaments. I am not claiming that objective round reports are difficult to come by. The vast majority of reports are completely normal. However, something does not need to be common to be criticized. Competitors should save snark for private moments, and still be careful about how they describe their opponents. As a community, it both makes more sense to prioritize uplifting competitors instead of encouraging poor behavior, and signals respect amongst competitors, regardless of outcome. Ultimately, this careless conduct is harmful to all involved. It makes the poster look bad, it is harmful to the team being mocked, and it creates a poor team culture. Varsity debaters and coaches have a responsibility to present a courteous and mature image, and to ignore personal feelings. I implore my fellow competitors to be empathetic. Knowing that you did not present your best is a horrible experience that almost every debater has experienced. We should not make it worse through pointless comments, especially on a platform meant to be a helpful resource. The last thing I want is for people to view this article as an overly dramatic piece criticizing a small section of the community. While this might be restricted to only a handful of instances over the past few seasons, we should not accept it as a part of debate in the first place. Don’t take it from me, take it from the NSDA. Words matter.