"Somewhere on the extemp circuit in the last week, a competitor has looked a judge dead in the eye and cited something like a Brookings Institution article, an article that has never, and will never, exist. And it's working. That's the dirty little secret of extemp: half the room is reciting real research under a brutal 30-minute time crunch, and the other half is just really, really good at making up sources."

"And if you asked an extemper, 'Where did you get that statistic?' don't be surprised if the honest answer isn't something like 'BBC News,' but rather, 'I made it up four minutes ago in prep, and the judge didn't think twice.'"

Unfortunately, this is the harsh reality of the circuit right now. As many extempers continue to rely on faking sources rather than taking the time and effort to actually find them, the event risks rewarding the best liar over the best researcher.

"And if you asked an extemper, 'Where did you get that statistic?' don't be surprised if the honest answer isn't something like 'The Economist,' but rather, 'I made it up four minutes ago in prep, and the judge didn't think twice.'"

Certain rounds of NSDA and other prestigious tournaments like ETOC will verify sources and dates to check for fabrications, with disqualification on the line if a speaker gets caught. Some judges, especially long-time, experienced ones, fact-check too, and even when they aren't setting out to do so, a source can simply feel off. A citation might seem odd or nontopical to the fact it's attached to, like invoking the Center for Strategic and International Studies to back a partisan political claim, when CSIS is a bipartisan institution. Typically, it's the late outrounds at these big tournaments where this kind of scrutiny kicks in.

This well-known fact gives extempers a dangerous excuse: lie about your sources at lower-level tournaments, and even in the preliminary rounds of bigger ones, on the theory that you can simply switch on a "recalling perfect sources" button once it starts to truly matter. It might feel foolproof. It isn't. Like every other component of a strong extemp speech, source recall is a skill, and skills are built like muscles, through consistent work, not flipped on and off like a switch. Trying to change your habits at the exact moment the stakes are highest is unpredictable, and it can cost you a rank, or even get you disqualified. The simple lesson learnt from this should be to NOT take the shortcut. Memorizing your sources, not winging it, needs to be part of your prep routine from the start.

Now, in some ways it might seem like this article is stressing over something that isn't that important, making something big out of nothing. But it absolutely is. Fabricating sources is one of the most unethical things you can do in an extemp speech. It poisons the dynamic between competitors, creating an environment built on unfairness and cheating.

Consider the unfair advantage it creates. Extemp is supposed to test how well a student can research, synthesize, and recall real information under strict time constraints. A speaker who invents perfect, tailored sources bypasses the entire challenge of the event. This is especially true with what I'd call the "magic bullet" source: if a speaker needs a very specific, niche piece of data to prove a unique thesis, finding it in 30 minutes is genuinely difficult. Fabricating a source that says exactly what they need gives them an unearned advantage over opponents who are bound by what real-world data actually says.

Additionally, a fundamental thought that many extempers abide by gets abused in this process: the principle that you, as the speaker, has spent the last thirty minutes preparing your speech, and your judge hasn't. That's meant to build confidence, to help the speaker understand that their judge won't inspect the speech with a fine-toothed comb. But making up sources takes this innocent principle and corrupts it. In extemp, judges can't instantly fact-check every claim in real time. They rely on your sources as a proxy for truth. When you cite a reputable outlet, you're telling the judge, "You don't have to take my word for it, you can look this up." Fabricating the source abuses that trust completely. It creates a dead end for verification. A judge might extend the benefit of the doubt on a strange statistic if it's attached to a real “BBC” article, but inventing the article itself breaks the entire trust aspect of the event.

The impacts extend beyond high school debate, too. Extemp is often framed as training for careers in law, journalism, and policy, fields where evidentiary integrity isn't optional. Normalizing "confident fabrication" as a competitive skill teaches exactly the wrong lesson to students who may go on to write legal briefs, publish stories, or draft legislation.

To be clear, this isn't about punishing honest mistakes. If you accidentally misstate a source once or twice, and it's a rare occurrence, the impact is minimal, as long as there was no intent to deceive the judge or audience. The real problem is an intentional, consistent use of these tactics. That said, once a judge catches even a single fabricated source, a speaker's credibility is destroyed instantly. It’s hard to salvage a speech once your judge no longer trusts you. 

How can we fix this?

Extempers: The biggest fix is simply memorizing your sources so the problem never exists in the first place. Mnemonics help here. For example, if your first three sources, in order, are Reuters, The Economist, and The New York Times, repeating the acronym "REN" in your head can help you corroborate the sequence when the time comes. Or, you could set aside dedicated time solely for memorizing sources and their order, repeating them in isolation so the real citations come out smoothly under pressure. It's entirely possible to never fake a source. Plenty of the best extempers on the circuit have gone through this exact process, and it isn't outlandish to think anyone willing to put in the work can do the same.

Coaches and teams: Make source memorization and "citation drilling" a formal part of practice, the same way teams already emphasize speech structure and fluency, so recalling evidence under pressure becomes a trained reflex instead of a panic response. From my own experience as an extemper, sourcing has always been treated as a bottom-tier priority, something assumed not to need explicit teaching. Given how pervasive this deceptive tactic actually is, I'd argue that assumption is exactly backwards. It also helps for coaches to ask students to double-check a few sources on their computer right after a practice round. Doing this consistently keeps students alert and builds a habit of not taking the easy way out through careless invention.

Tournament directors: Extend the outround fact-checking norm downward. If NSDA, ETOC, and other major tournaments already fact-check late elimination rounds, that policy should be publicized more prominently in prelims too, and the same standard should apply at local tournaments. When the risk of getting caught feels concrete instead of theoretical, cooperation goes up substantially. This doesn't require extra personnel or resources. It mostly requires familiarizing judges with how common this practice actually is, and asking them to assess the authenticity of a speaker's sources with equal weight alongside rhetoric and fluency, rather than as an afterthought. Some judges already do this. But right now, they're outliers against a much larger wave of parents, community members, and former competitors who either don't know how to look, or don't care enough to.

Extemp was never meant to reward the best liar in the room, it was meant to reward the best researcher and speaker, and it's up to all of us, competitors, coaches, and tournament directors alike, to make sure it stays that way.