The NSDA’s National Speech and Debate Tournament is as glamorous as you’d expect it to be. In just the 4 years I’ve been competing, they’ve gone to numerous lengths to ensure the experience felt one-of-a-kind for every competitor. From hosting congress finals in the Iowa state capitol, to using multiple schools to be able to allow each Extemporaneous Debate competitor the opportunity to compete, it seems the NSDA puts a genuine amount of work into making their tournament seem like the most grandiose in the country. However, as any extemper who’s given a speech about economic recovery would know, it's easy to forget about the most rudimentary details when trying to project a big image, and this year, that’s exactly what the NSDA has done.

The Problem:

Speech and Debate is a particularly challenging event to compete in because it brings a unique aspect to competition that doesn’t exist elsewhere: subjectivity. Take, for example, a game of soccer. If a soccer ball crosses the goal line and no rules are violated in the process, a goal is scored (barring the referee being paid). As a result, nearly every match of soccer ends with the team that played better being named the winner in an objective sense. Speech isn’t so easy. While there is somewhat of an agreed-upon status quo in which speeches should be judged, that status quo only exists given that the judge is experienced/and or makes an honest attempt at judging the round fairly. Usually, at least one of those criteria is met, and at 90% of tournaments, rounds are judged fairly. These criteria are met far less often at NSDA. Fortunately though, the reasons as to why are easily identifiable. At a tournament like the National Individual Events Tournament of Champions (NIETOC), participation is not required, meaning that the only attendees are coaches and competitors that generally wish to attend a national circuit style tournament, and as such, will judge accordingly. The problem arises when the tournament isn’t (or at least doesn’t feel) optional. Nationals seem not just like something schools have to attend, but also like something they should want to attend. It’s easy to get wrapped up in large circuit names and tournaments, but to the general speech populace, this is it. It’s shocking to realize just how many coaches and competitors have never heard of ETOC, or Glenbrooks, or FBK, etc. That means that while judges at the aforementioned tournaments may have a litany of experience judging the national circuit norm, for judges at NSDA, locals may be the only indicator of how to properly judge a round. This can sometimes leave judging in a state even beyond lay appeal, in which a competitor is simply hoping that they can fill whatever niche their judge is from in hopes of not receiving a 7 and immediately being booted from the tournament. 

Sometimes speaking styles aren’t even enough. In round six of this year’s tournament, I received a rank of 3,6. If I had received a second 3, my score would have been enough to advance. Of course, just knowing that is heartbreaking, and as a result, I did some research. After a quick google search of who exactly my judge was, I was no longer saddened, but angry. I had answered the question “How can the international community improve access to girls' education in conflict-affected countries?”. As a result, the speech largely focused on providing educational resources to young, low-income, Muslim women. The judge, who I now know is a coach at an Oklahoman christian charter school, didn’t just leave the 6. Her ballot wasn’t critical, but downright argumentative. Now, as I write this weeks later, I can’t shake the feeling that my arguments against faith-based education (the very thing blocking girls in some areas) may have swayed her ballot against me. Her ballot was also called upon in USX finals, a round in which one easily could line up her ranks to rank those who agree with her on a partisan basis a higher score. She judged next to Andy Litinsky, the co-founder of Truth Social, a platform exclusively used by President Trump and his followers. Since its creation, Truth Social has shown record high rates of hate speech and “toxic content” in comparison to other social media platforms like X or Reddit. The hate speech on Truth Social is particularly dense in posts attacking/slandering transgender people. Placing Litinsky on the USX ballot sent a message that if speakers wanted to win they would need to cater the content of their speech to meet a certain political stance. This very message is exactly how the NSDA may run into speeches that are not accurate or made with any genuine passion, but simply curated not to anger certain types of judges, ruining the integrity of this event. 

Solutions:

NSDA judging doesn’t need to be this way. In fact, many tournaments already implement various safeguards to prevent this same issue from happening. 

Ballot Auditing: 

The easiest and most common option available to the NSDA is to expand upon their ballot auditing operations. Other tournaments like the NIETOC already use features like this to prevent unfair adjudication. When students pay anywhere from a few hundred to thousands of dollars to compete, it's not at all unfair to ask for a thorough and detailed ballot (or at least a ballot in general), so the NSDA should implement a system for it: no ballot, no coverage. Judges that don’t leave ballots, or leave one sentence of feedback should be contacted by tab staff and told to write feedback in for students. If they don’t write, their team's entries should not be covered by their judging. Students put countless effort into writing their speeches and cases, and they spend even more time practicing their events. Asking judges to write ballots would make the balance fair and give a basis for equity. It would allow tab staff to identify potentially biased judges and, at the very least, remove them from potentially polarizing rounds later in the tournament. 

Merit Based Judging 

Currently, the NSDA uses a sign up form in which any registered judge is capable and allowed to judge final rounds as long as they agree to. This should change. Judges within the judging pool for the course of the regular tournament should be eligible to judge finals regardless of whether they are signed up, similar to a draft system. The NSDA should use student points and past experience to determine who in the pool has the best skillset for judging an event. Ex: If John has 1,200 student points in DI, and Sarah has 2,000 in IX, John will be picked for DI and Sarah will judge IX finals. That way there is a guarantee that judges will at the very least be experienced in the event they are tasked with judging. “Celebrity” judges also should not be allowed. Litinsky judging finals isn’t just an issue because of his creation, but also because of the fact that he has no prior experience and is taking the final round judging opportunity away from coaches who could not only give a better ballot, but also have a larger passion for speech. 

At the end of the day, the National tournament still serves to elevate some of the best and most impactful speeches available within this community, and it's important to recognize the work the NSDA has done to provide students from across the nation with a platform. It's also important though, to recognize the flaws in its judging system. Each student deserves a fair opportunity to have their voice heard, and when that opportunity is taken away, the entire community (even those unaffected) will feel the effects. Implementing solutions like these won't solve all of the problems within the tournament or community, but taking steps towards equity and fairness can and will pay off for the activity we love and the students who participate in it.