First, I need to thank the National Speech & Debate Association (NSDA) alongside the Equality In Forensics community for providing a space for young students like us to develop essential skills in in-depth analysis and communication. Without their support as a backbone, we might not even be here today. That said, in my short time in the speech and debate sphere, I’ve noticed what I believe is a major challenge for the activity. 

Equality in Forensics has always been a major advocate for the Speech and Debate (S&D) sphere. The term “forensics” literally refers to “evidence-based analysis”. Yet the way questions are framed in S&D can unintentionally favor certain political perspectives and limits diverse viewpoints. This is not just a critique of Equality in Forensics alone—the entire S&D community, particularly under the NSDA, seems to have overlooked one of the most important principles of speech and debate: the freedom to foster nuanced and open discussion. This paper examines how biased question framing can restrict many speakers’ ability to present their own perspectives fully.

Humans are inevitably biased in some ways, making truly equal handling of opinions nearly impossible. However, it is crucial to reduce and mitigate these effects, especially for an association as influential as the NSDA, which encompasses the entire S&D community.

Since joining speech and debate, I’ve learned a great deal of skills, yet I’ve always felt something was off about its political leanings. Personally, I test as politically centrist, but as I continued my extemp career, it became clear that most speeches leaned left. Even my own speeches and those of my conservative friends tended to reflect mainly Democratic viewpoints. This raises an important question: why does this happen? Is it because the Democratic perspective is always valid, or is there something else influencing the formation of opinions? These questions prompted me to examine the political setup within speech and debate.

Once I became aware of the political framing used in S&D, I realized that the way extemporaneous (Extemp) questions are framed significantly influences the responses they elicit. For example, consider this extemp question from National Speech & Debate Association:

"What can be done to address the bias in American pregnancy care that is killing women of color at higher rates than white identifying women?"

Many people accept this question because they agree with its perspective on racial disparities in healthcare or on systemic bias in medical institutions. However, the problem lies in the question’s lack of neutrality. While I may agree with parts of the question, opinions should be explored within the speech itself, not assumed in the prompt. My concern isn’t whether the assumptions are true—it’s that there are assumptions at all. People should choose what they truly believe in rather than be implanted with assumptions they are forced to make to win.

This question presumes that bias is the primary cause of maternal mortality disparities and establishes a specific cause-and-effect link. A speaker who believes multiple factors contribute—such as access to care, insurance coverage, or pre-existing conditions—would find it difficult to argue against these embedded assumptions. But the same things apply the other way around; If the question instead assumed that maternal mortality disparities were caused solely by lifestyle choices, it would similarly restrict the ability of others to argue structural factors.

P.s (I am not criticizing question writers—they are to be respected. Even when I tried to rewrite this extemp question myself, I encountered the same challenge. This analysis is meant as a call to evaluate biases, not a personal critique.) 

How I would rewrite this question to remove the bias would be:  

“What can be done to address racial disparities in American maternal health outcomes?”        

This question now removes personal assumptions from the subject and is broad enough to allow different opinions to prosper while also preserving the original intent of the question.

This example illustrates what The Decision Lab, an applied research and innovation firm, calls the “framing effect,” in which “[humans] are influenced by the way information is presented. Equivalent information can be more or less attractive depending on what features are highlighted.” They give this example:

“John is shopping for disinfectant wipes at his local pharmacy. He sees several options, but two containers of wipes are on sale: Bleachox and Bleach-it. Both are the same price and contain the same number of wipes. The only difference is that Bleachox claims to ‘kill 95% of all germs,’ whereas Bleach-it says ‘only 5% of germs survive.’ John chooses Bleachox, preferring the positive framing of killing germs rather than the negative framing of germs surviving.”

Through the framing effect, decisions are influenced by presentation. In S&D, this can push competitors toward one-sided arguments. While question writers aren’t to blame, it’s important to recognize the dangers of such bias. It can silence diverse viewpoints and prevent multifaceted discussion, undermining the main goal of speech and debate: fostering open and critical dialogue on real-world issues.

Solutions

Addressing biased framing in S&D requires three steps: self-evaluation, developing an open mind, and advocacy

Self-evaluation: Before deciding to write questions, question writers must first reflect on their own biases, beliefs, and backgrounds. By understanding why they feel certain ways and analyzing their agreement or disagreement with political ideas, they can better identify potential framing traps in question writing and cultivate more neutral questions.

Developing an open mind: Questions writers need to also understand opposing ideas deeply, including the reasoning behind them. Understanding these motivations fosters nuanced discussion and reduces barriers between groups in the S&D community. This open mindedness allows writers to consider multiple perspectives and craft questions that do not favor one side over another.

Advocacy: Whilst the previous two solutions may be targeted to question writers, addressing biased framing requires action from everyone in the debate sphere. Bias is a root cause of many challenges in both the political and S&D communities. Making biased question framing visible through club meetings, discussions, or awareness campaigns can help make aware of the severity of this matter. Only through the combined effort of officials, coaches, and competitors can S&D ensure that questions allow all perspectives to be expressed fairly.

Biased question framing in Speech and Debate has the potential to limit diverse perspectives, marginalize differing opinions, and reinforce preexisting assumptions. While competitors, question writers, and officials may not intend to create bias, the framing effect shows how even subtle wording can influence responses and shape the direction of discussions. By engaging in self-evaluation, developing an open mind, and advocating for greater awareness, the S&D community can take meaningful steps toward creating a more balanced and inclusive environment. Ultimately, fostering neutral and thoughtfully framed questions ensures that all participants have the opportunity to present their ideas freely, promotes critical thinking, and strengthens the core mission of speech and debate: to cultivate informed, respectful, and open dialogue on real-world issues.