The judge called time, I glanced at my partner, and we smirked– we were ready. We had blocks written, cards sorted and a clear plan through the resolution. Public Forum, at first, was designed to be a counter fit for complex debate structures –straightforward and easily understood.

The other team stood up, and instead of reading your average contentions, it was theory. Suddenly, the round changed. Instead of weighing impacts, it was about whether the round was even counted as a fair place to debate. Fairness, standards, voters, shell defences, all of it felt like a language my partner and I have yet to learn. I argued the topic I prepared for, but when the decisions came out, we were defeated for a single reason: “not answering theory”.

We lost because we didn't know the debate had changed. Public Forum was built to be accessible: two teams, a topic, and contentions grounded in current events and logic. But over the past few years, rounds at many tournaments have started to resemble more technical progressive debate styles. Prioritizing theory, kritiks, and debate about debate rather than the actual topic. That change harmed teams that were not taught those styles early in their career. 

In many well-funded programs, exposure to those styles started in freshman year or even before. Coaches send students to national camps, invest time in prep and build files of arguments. For teams with fewer resources, that kind of strategy training is not available. Debaters learn the basics, but they don't have the coaching or training to recognize or respond to advanced prog arguments. When they show up in a round, they often have to improvise. That gap is rooted in educational inequity.

A PMC study on debate access, post-COVID, explained that students at well-funded or independent schools are three times more likely to have a debate program than students at public schools with higher proportions of non-white students, demonstrating that access to debate is tied to school resources and demographics.

Steven Linkh's blog, “Let’s Talk Resource Accessibility in PF”, confirms the problem. Writing from the perspective of a debater at a lower-funded school, Linkh explains how he had to rely almost entirely on teammates for coaching rather than having access to professional camps or curated resources. His story furthers the point that the use of theory in PF widens inequities,  rewarding teams with more institutional support while leaving other teams behind. 

When comparing large debate programs to lower-income, smaller ones in the website OpenCaselist, you can see that in national “prog” heavy tournaments, competitors from private schools are far more likely to have access to curricular debate offerings than those in public schools. That gap has increased, suggesting that the styles used in advance debate rounds are concentrated within institutions with more resources.

That disparity matters beyond competition. Debate teaches research, public speaking, critical thinking, and academic confidence. Data from the Houston Urban Debate League proved that debate participation is linked directly to academic outcomes: students in the Houston school district who competed in Speech and Debate had higher GPAs and a much higher SAT compared to non-debaters. Urban debate programs have also been shown to improve graduation rates. Debaters from urban public schools are three times more likely to graduate high school and far more likely to meet college readiness benchmarks on standardized tests than their peers who did not debate in high school.

Debate helps close gaps for students from underserved communities. If access to the full length of debate is limited by resources, we will forever lose part of that promise.

All of this might feel like a problem that will forever be unsolvable, but there are paths forward to stop the gap theory has caused in public forum between high-income and lower-income schools. I lost that round because I didn't know the rules had changed, because coming from a smaller debate program myself, we didn't know how to respond to shells. Arguments are meant to make rounds more fair and to prevent teams from abusing loopholes or arguments that don't engage with the topic. When one team has years of prep and the other has never seen a shell, the round is no longer about who can argue but about who has access to advanced debate structure.

If PF wants to stay accessible, we can’t treat theory as an optional structure only some students can afford to learn. Expanding free resources, creating mentorship opportunities and integrating theory education into class or club curricula are ways to make sure all debaters can compete on equal footing. That way, “prog rounds” can truly award critical thinking, not prior access to debate camps and funding. 

Theories can strengthen debate only if students can understand them. Otherwise Public Forum stops being public and starts reflecting privilege.