Interested in the mechanics of rhetoric and argument, I joined speech and debate. However, there was one major problem: my crippling social anxiety. 

Many people with anxiety related to public speaking do not have an outlet to express themselves, partially because they have no platform or encouragement to do so. 

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, it has been difficult to place a number on what percent of the population has clinical social anxiety (labeled social anxiety disorder, or SAD). It is known that, “...there has been an estimated additional 76.2 million cases of anxiety disorders globally, an increase of 25.6%, and it is unlikely that mental health will recover to pre-pandemic levels for some time.” More specifically, the prevalence of social anxiety disorder increased in Australia from 4.7% to a dire 7% — the highest prevalence of any mental disorder.

The fascinating characteristic of social phobia is not the disorder itself, but instead its cause. Social interactions are feared not necessarily because one does not know what to say, but because they fear they will be judged for speaking. It is crucial to remember that communication goes past what is said verbally, and often that those with social anxiety fear that what they are conveying is the wrong message unintentionally. This — coupled with a daunting, rigorous social environment — may assist in the lack of self-confidence that numerous are afflicted with. Anna Lock, Ph.D. states, “Social anxiety is often associated with low self-confidence in relationships. While treating the anxiety ultimately leads to increased self-confidence, the development of effective social skills can also facilitate this process. Effective communication is one of the most important social skills that contribute to developing and maintaining healthy relationships.” It is blatantly evident that working towards active communication in a more theatrical space can assist in tackling social phobia. More specifically, it challenges and changes the way we think. 

Sean Grover, L.C.S.W. states, “When your attention is on yourself, you get anxious. However, when your attention is focused on another person or an activity, your anxiety usually dissipates… People with social anxiety are worried about the future rather than the now… Learning to be present and a better listener is a big part of our actor training. Being in the moment and building an experience organically — be it a conversation or scene — is the quickest and simplest way to catapult yourselves out of an anxious headspace and into contact with another human being.” Access to competitive resources — which can be anything from debate briefs to socks and shoes — can help solve the acute difficulty of interpersonal speaking via public speaking. Seeing that we are involved in yet another academic event centered around adolescents, we inevitably will be exposed to a vast variety of people who come from a multitude of different circumstances and backgrounds. Speech and debate can assist in building a sense of intrapersonal pride, respect, and esteem. 

Speech and debate can solve this growing obstacle by providing a safe environment for students to raise their voices, gain self-confidence, and desensitize themselves to public speaking. Since speech and debate events can be impersonal, this can act as a buffer or facade to assist in lifting one’s voice. But there’s still a problem associated with this — criticism from judges or other competitors. 

Judges can unfairly critique a person based on their appearance or piece, both of which can have deep cultural or personal ties. We must educate our judges that these things cannot be a deciding factor in who gets the win or the 1 — and this is non-negotiable. Secondly, competitors need to be able to have enough confidence to perform their piece in order to negate social anxiety. A remedy is rendered useless if one is unable to use it, and the same applies here. Many students don’t have the “proper” clothing, access to training, or resources, and this does not fare well when seeking a more equal activity. Some competitors may be deterred from going to tournaments because they do not feel adequate enough for the stage, and this needs to end. When encouraging people to join the activity this summer and in the following months, remind them that all they need to bring along is themself. 

As competitors, we need to treat everyone with the respect and dignity that any human deserves. We represent the future of society. If we cannot refrain from passing poor personal judgments off to other competitors, what does that say about the benevolence of our generation? We need to stop viewing our events as something to be done to win a cheap medal or trophy, and as something that can help cultivate real change within individuals and society.

As members of the speech and debate community, we ought to prioritize fair resource distribution — whether that be in specific, tangible needs such as advocating in local school districts for funding, or coaching those that may be the only competitor on their team. We simply can not expect this activity to help anyone if it is not a truly universal, equitable, and openly accessible experience. It is important to note that we also ought to publicize and endorse speech and debate so that teams can grow, and more people can access the aid that so many with mental health disorders and more specifically, social anxiety, need. If we can help people with this problem before they go out into college and into the workplace, we can reform society and create a more peaceful and successful environment for all.

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.