The new slate of Lincoln-Douglas debate topics has launched heated discussion in the LD community. From conversations on Facebook to heated threads on Discord, members across the country have shared thoughts of disbelief, confusion, and simple annoyance, asking the question, “What should LD resolutions truly represent?” 

Despite well-intentioned posts and comments, many discussions have devolved into a conflict between traditional and progressive perspectives. With comments such as “Everyone else [on the LD committee is] 40+ and doesn’t care about circuit debate” and “It's value debate. If you want ‘actionable solutions’ go do policy,” the attention seems to have been drawn away from what makes a good topic to a conflict over traditional and progressive debate. 

LD debate was created to be a question of morality and values. Traditional debaters often do this through a paradigm of values and value criteria. On the other hand, progressive debaters usually approach topics from a variety of standpoints—philosophical, policy, and critical—all of which pose the question, “What makes an action justified?” Different approaches, and yet neither actually strays away from what LD is supposed to be. 

So, where does the issue originate from? The root of the problem comes from viewing the two as mutually exclusive and developing the mindset that one is “better” than the other. We can each have our preferences for debate, but it does not mean that one branch is superior to the other. Moreover, when we make homogenous claims like “older coaches don’t care about circuit debate,” we risk creating divisions that don’t need to exist in the first place.

Traditional debate has taught me the art of delivery, given me the backbone for being an effective presenter in school, and conveyed my ideas in an easy-to-understand manner. Participating in progressive debates has helped me think quickly and process large amounts of information. All of these skills have been vital. Consequently, I do not understand why we often force ourselves to pick one or the other.

Furthermore, there is a difference between wanting good, debatable topics and wanting “progressive” or “traditional” topics. I think we can discuss how topics are vague and don’t shift from the status quo, without it becoming a 

question of style. As someone who does a mix of progressive and traditional debate, there are topics I wouldn’t want to debate on either circuit—why aren’t we addressing the fact that some of these topics are just hard to discuss? 

When discussions come down to including both styles, we as community members need to work to find a middle ground, not try to push one style of debate over the other. In recent weeks, many conversations have begun from this, and yet devolved into comments that don't reflect this, preventing us from creating change whatsoever. In an activity that’s supposed to be about communication, isn’t it sad that conversations turn ugly so quickly? 

If we truly want to explore better topics, we need to start analyzing them together, rather than focusing on arguments that don’t lead anywhere. It would be ignorant of me to conclude this without exploring the ways traditional and progressive debate have come into conflict—this is apparent in the way traditional debaters often face barriers to success on the national level due to the influx of progressive debate. It’s apparent in the way that so many debaters view people like my mom or even my head coach as “too lay” to be valuable judges, when these judges are not only some of the most intelligent people I have met, but also the reason debate can even exist for thousands in the first place. 

Maybe we just need to be more open to the fact that traditional and progressive debate can co-exist—I often find it strange when debaters complain about having 1-2 conventional debates at national tournaments, when some of the best debaters in the country have gotten so good because they can adapt to any style of judge, traditional or progressive. 

Perhaps we should separate circuit-style and traditional-style debating, as some have recently suggested. Perhaps it's a question of progressive debaters choosing to have traditional debates with smaller school debaters at tournaments, rather than just “spreading them out”. I do not think it's up to me to say what the best solution is, but I do think we need to have civil discussions about what we should do. 

Judging is also a complicated question. Is it really fair for debaters to go into the semifinals of a national tournament with a panel of judges who have never judged before? Is it fair to expect all students to be able to hire judges who often charge upwards of $300 (and up to $1,000 considering lodging and transportation) per tournament? The answer to both is no. 

There’s a two-way burden here: first, on tournaments to do better, to preserve competitive equity and access for low-income students, rather than prioritizing profit maximization. The second is on debaters to adapt and not make broad assumptions about judges because they “seem lay”—this pushes people out of the debate community. As many have reflected, traditional does not equal inexperienced, and I think we, as debaters, need to be willing to explain our arguments to different types of judges.

Again, I think it's strange when this issue gets framed as “progressive” vs “traditional.” Just because I enjoy traditional debate doesn’t mean I want my finals round to be decided on cross-examination. 

Wherever LD ends up in a few years will undoubtedly depend on how we, as a community, react; I hope that we can work together to improve the activity rather than fighting over styles.