A common misconception about interpretation events in Speech and Debate is that they are just performances. And fundamentally, that statement is true. However, the misconception lies in the adverb "just." Interpretation is so much more than "just" a performance from the first word; a competitor's performance attempts to persuade the judge on a topic of their choosing. Every movement, every word, every pause, and every facial expression works in interpretation much like cards and contentions do in debate. Despite being widely dismissed as mere performance, interpretation is a legitimate and powerful form of advocacy. It equips students with argumentative tools, empathy, and a platform to give voice to causes and stories that matter most. 

This is not a new observation. Forensics scholar Trischa Knapp noted as early as 1998 that while interpretation is about performance, the performance itself is simply a means to an end. The real goal has always been to illuminate the literature and the truth within it, not to put on a show. This is evident in the structure of the events themselves; Program Oral Interpretation (POI), for instance, is explicitly defined by the Texas Forensics Association as a social argument. The event requires students to conduct extensive research, exploring literature from different perspectives to create their piece. The student selects the topic, chooses the literature, and constructs the argument from scratch. The intentionality is what makes it advocacy, not just performance. 

Adrianna Rodriguez, 2025 POI finalist, illustrates this process well. Her program, War Against All Puerto Ricans, wove together history books, news articles about the US invasion of Puerto Rico, memoirs, and Puerto Rico's national anthem, La Borinqueña. Individually, each text offered a different perspective on Puerto Rico's history. Arranged together, however, they form a compelling, cogent argument about Puerto Rico’s ongoing colonial status under US rule. To describe Rodriguez’s POI as merely a performance is a tremendous oversimplification. The raw emotional intensity and intentionality of the program make it clear that interpretation is not merely a performance: it is advocacy.

That intentionality is not unique to POI. Even Humorous Interpretation (HI), arguably the event most dismissed as pure performance, is described in the NSDA's Interpretation textbook as intended to "explore an author's work through a humorous lens to uncover some truth in the human condition." In fact, the HIs on the national stage have increasingly begun to use comedy to address real-world issues such as racism, prejudice, fatphobia, and sexism in the workforce. For example, in 2025, every single National HI finalist connected their piece to a topical issue. That trend reflects a broader reality across interpretation events. Over 141,000 students compete through the NSDA, and interpretation gives them something rare: a stage where they choose the topic, they choose the message, and the audience has to listen. In a climate where many students feel their voices are overlooked or dismissed, it is more imperative than ever that students understand the power of their voices. 

Such advocacy, however, does not exist in a vacuum. To truly advocate for a particular cause, a competitor must first understand it, and that is precisely what interpretation demands. When a competitor performs a piece, they are not simply reciting words. According to psychologist Raymond Mar, engaging with a story causes the performer to step into the character's experience, learning real-life lessons through the narrative's journey. In other words, interpretation does not just ask students to perform an issue; it asks them to live inside it. In interpretation, the performer experiences their literature on a neurobiological level. According to the National Federation of State High School Associations, "Performing literature activates the same brain networks as real-life social interactions, allowing the performer to experience the mental state of the character they are portraying." Such a phenomenon is called theory of the mind, which the American Psychological Association defines as "the understanding that other people have intentions, desires, and emotions different from our own, and that those differences shape how they move through the world." This cognitive process is central to interpretation. Interpretation applies theory of the mind every time a student steps in front of a panel of judges. Consider a student who has never experienced racism performing a piece about racial injustice: Through interpretation, they are not simply explaining the concept to an audience. They must immerse themselves in it, understand and feel it in a way that they could not possibly do through lectures and texts alone. A student who has learned to understand a perspective different from their own is not simply a better competitor; they are a better advocate. Advocacy without understanding is simply noise. 

And yet, despite all of this, interpretation remains one of the most underestimated events in the Speech and Debate community. I have watched my friends roll their eyes at it. I have heard competitors from other events dismiss it as easy, stupid, or just "going up there and looking like an idiot." But even the smallest moments, like a comment from someone who connects with your performance, can remind you that it is far from being "just a performance.” This year, I competed in Humorous Interpretation at the Harvard National Speech and Debate Tournament. My piece was about growing up Asian American under the weight of academic expectations and what happens when the pressure becomes too much to bear. After my first round, a spectator approached me and introduced himself. He told me that he was half Chinese, that he loved my piece, and that it really resonated with him. And then he said, "It felt like you were speaking my truth." 

That moment reminded me of exactly what interpretation is capable of: making a stranger feel seen in a room and giving voice to stories and issues that deserve to be heard. That is advocacy. That is what interpretation does that no other event can. The next time you watch an interpretation round, do not just watch the performance. Listen for the argument. Feel for the empathy. Look for the student behind the piece and ask yourself what they are trying to tell you. 

Interpretation is not just a performance. It never was. And it is time we started treating it that way.