Every extemper has had an extemp crush at some point. For me, it was the prolific Robert Zhang after watching his 2023 Blue Key finals speech, which just so happened to be my first Natcirc ever. I later saw him at Longhorn, and I mustered the courage to go up to him and congratulate him on his Blue Key speech. I wasn’t expecting much (and I’m sure he doesn’t remember this), but he actually had a conversation with me about how he got better at extemp.

After meeting him, I was shocked at how down to earth Robert was, and how he genuinely wanted me to succeed later down the line. However, I quickly noticed a worrying trend: Robert was an exception, and most top extempers only hung out or even spoke with other top extempers. If it weren’t for my teammates, I wouldn’t have anybody to talk to as a developing competitor. Unfortunately, this doesn’t end in Extemp. Fabrizio Cavalieri, a friend and teammate of mine, would tell me how the top interpers used to ignore him. However, after racking in placements like runner-up at TOC, those same people then decided to engage with him.

Almost three years later, I now realize why this is. There are a couple of key factors that explain why the top of speech and debate is socially exclusive. The first factor is pride. Speech and debaters take pride in their work and skill, but sometimes, it goes too far. Pride’s role in social exclusion is best explained by the Social Comparison Theory. Humans have a tendency to compare themselves to others, and the easiest way to do so is use others’ success as a benchmark. When others succeed, top competitors feel less proud of their craft. Competitors in speech and debate primarily go to tournaments to place, compete and win. By putting others down, top competitors can maintain their status as “elite”. This theory has another implication: people feel like success means reaching this group — as this group of competitors are at the “top” — meaning the prestige of the upper echelon of the activity is perpetuated with every new cycle of competitors. The second factor is the economic mindset competitors employ in speech and debate, best backed by the Social Exchange Theory. The theory postulates that humans perform a cost-benefit analysis for every interaction they engage in, seeking to minimize risk and maximize rewards. Minimizing risk explains why competitors would not want to engage with other members of the community. Maximizing reward would explain why top competitors only converse with other top competitors: to keep up with the meta or to simply feel important.

Speech and debate cliques are extremely problematic for the health of the activity. If the path reaching the top of speech and debate is a ladder, the disconnect between competitors shatters it, because it insulates the upper echelon. Cliques destroy the mobility that thousands of competitors like myself sought in speech and debate. They also work against what this activity should be for. I joined speech and debate to improve my confidence and argumentation skills. I am currently my team’s Vice President, and the most common reason people say they join our team is to be more confident. When top performers form elite social groups, new members become insecure and discouraged from even competing. This is a self defeating cycle about the nature of the activity.

Solutions

The first change that needs to be made in order to end social exclusivity in speech and debate is at the individual level. Every competitor needs to ask themselves why they joined the activity, and have that be their driving purpose. Too often, the motivations of competitors become corrupted by the hierarchy at play. If we refer back to our true purpose in the activity, we will realize that speech and debate shouldn’t be a zero-sum activity, but rather an activity that uplifts everybody. This way, success is a byproduct, and genuinely improving ourselves and building a community are the primary driving forces. I don’t say this from a moral high ground of any kind. I also once lost sight of why I started, looking forward to placing for reputational purposes. Sasha Morel, a founding member of EIF, gave me a talk at the Extemp TOC. He asked me why I still do extemp and I didn’t really have an answer. When all I could give him was anecdotes, he pointed out that I did extemp for the people and community. I reflected on my early freshman year and realized how right he was. The talk gave me a true purpose that ensured success was limited to a small part of my calculus when engaging with the speech and debate community.

Melinda Zhao, a rising junior extemper at Monta Vista high school in California, had a breakout year in 2026 and is someone I am proud to have worked with. Melinda is an extemper who serves as a model for how competitors should act after seeing success. She writes that she “already talk[s] to people on the circuit who are not top extempers, so [she] would continue talking to people in the prep room and be friendly and inclusive if others approach [her] and want to talk”. 

The second change is one well underway: organizations like Equality in Forensics. I really wanted to improve before my sophomore year, and EIF’s YouTube channel was exactly what I needed. That fall, I participated in scrimmages and the intermediate extemp lab. Due to EIF’s resources, I was able to connect with people I formerly thought were too far above me to interact with me. People like Tea Shouldice, Max Guo, and Rohan Dash decided to share their skills with the community instead of insulating themselves. To make sure EIF and other organizations continue to serve this function, we must be self-reflective. Competitors must continue filling organizational roles, whether it be a lecturer or a judge at a scrimmage. When speech and debate functions more like a community and less like a competitive circuit, people of all backgrounds can feel included in the activity.

Speech and debate is a phenomenal activity, and the people within it need to safeguard accessibility. Exclusivity is the antithesis of accessibility, so we as competitors must transition speech and debate away from an era of cliques and toward an era of equality.