Competitive debate in the United States

Add links
This is a good article. Click here for more information.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Photograph of high school debaters standing with a trophy
Debaters from High Point Central High School pose with their championship trophy in 1965

Competitive debate, also known as forensics or speech and debate, is an activity in which two or more people take positions on an issue and are judged on how well they defend those positions. The activity has been present in academic spaces in the

Delta Sigma Rho, was formed, followed by several others. Competitive debate expanded to the secondary school level in 1920 with the founding of the National Speech and Debate Association
, which grew to over 300,000 members by 1969. Technological advances such as the accessibility of personal computers in the 1990s and 2000s has led to debate cases becoming more complex and to evidence being more accessible. Competitors and coaches have made efforts to reduce discrimination in the debate community by introducing new arguments and recruiting debaters from underprivileged communities.

There are a wide variety of competitive debate formats, including the 2v2

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson
.

History

Debate as an intramural activity

Competitive debate in the United States can be traced back to colonial times. As the earliest colleges in America were modeled after British universities, they adopted in-class debates as a pedagogical tool.[1]: 28  Initially, these took the form of "syllogistic disputations," highly-structured conversations in Latin which were expected to follow the strict rules of logic.[1]: 29  These conversations often focused on the nature of public speaking itself, rather than broader social issues.[1]: 29  Students quickly took a dislike to the conversations, with one student at Harvard University describing them as "packs of profound nonsense."[2]: 24  Benjamin Wadsworth attempted to continue the practice after becoming the university's president in 1925, but encountered such difficulty getting students cooperation in the exercises that within ten years the number of required disputations was halved.[2]: 25–26  The last recorded syllogistic disputation at any university was held at Brown University in 1809.[2]: 28–29 

This early form of debate was replaced by "forensic disputations," which were first introduced at

extemporaneous and oral debate.[2]
: 60–62 

Around the time of the forensic disputation's decline, university literary societies began gaining prominence. Institutions would often have multiple student-led societies, each of which would compete with the other academically.[1]: 30  Students preferred debating within the societies instead of classrooms as it gave them more control over topic selection and the structure of the round.[2]: 58  The first of these societies to admit women was the Oberlin Young Ladies Association, which was founded at Oberlin College in 1835.[4]: 25  Meetings of the association typically involved the discussion of a controversial question followed by a debate between two members on the question.[4]: 28  Literary societies saw substantial decline during the American Civil War, with the few remaining becoming full-fledged debating societies, teams, and clubs.[2]: 91–93  By the 1890s, literary societies had created standardized structures for debate rounds consisting of prepared cases and extemporaneous rebuttals in a close approximation of modern-day practices.[2]: 74 

Development of intercollegiate debate

In 1873, a group of public speaking enthusiasts at Knox College organized the first intercollegiate public speaking organization, known as the Interstate Oratorical Association, which held a yearly competition. The group quickly grew to include chapters in fourteen states and was followed by several other leagues in other regions of the country.[5]: 4–5  The first, informal, intercollegiate debate was held between Harvard and Yale in 1892 and was followed by similar contests on the West Coast and in the Midwest.[6]: 213 

From 1904 to 1911, a flurry of intercollegiate debate activity led to the establishment of four different honor societies, or leagues, for debate. Those organizations were

Tau Kappa Alpha, Phi Alpha Tau, and Pi Kappa Delta.[7]: 30–34  Delta Sigma Rho was founded by a conglomerate of state universities in Chicago in 1906 and quickly became known as the honor society for large universities and Ivy League institutions. Columbia, Harvard, Princeton, and Yale were all members.[7]: 30–31 Tau Kappa Alpha, founded in 1908 by a committee of students from various Indiana institutions, established a system where each state could only have one chapter. Because of this, it became highly selective with its membership.[7]: 31–32  Phi Alpha Tau, founded in 1904 at Emerson College, allowed debaters and non-debaters alike to join, provided they could show an interest in rhetoric.[8][7]: 32  Delta Sigma Rho and Tau Kappa Alpha would eventually merge in 1963, while Phi Alpha Tau is now a communicative arts fraternity at Emerson College.[9][10]
: 2 

In 1911, Pi Kappa Delta was founded at

Kansas Agricultural College, to lobby other Kansan debate teams to join their newfound institution.[12]: 3  Concurrently, Nichols promoted the organization to fellow professors in Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska, and Iowa. Students at Ripon College wrote a charter for the organization, which was signed in January 1913 after several rounds of revisions.[12]: 4  In the first two years of the organization, it granted 14 institutional memberships and hundreds of individual memberships across seven states.[13]

Women were generally not allowed to participate in intercollegiate debate until the 1920s. In 1897, the

University of Indiana and participated in their first intercollegiate debate on May 12, 1921.[14]: 270  Carly Woods, an American professor of communications, writes that female debaters faced opposition because men assumed that they would "only be interested in frivolous topics."[4]: 11  By 1927, the number of women participating in intercollegiate debate had grown to such an extent that 90% of debate teams had female competitors.[15]

Advent of high school debate

Competitive debating stayed a primarily intercollegiate activity until Bruno E. Jacob founded the National Forensic League (NFL)–since renamed as the National Speech and Debate Association (NSDA)–in 1925. A professor at Ripon College, Jacob was inspired by a letter he received asking if a debate league for high school students existed. Upon learning that there was no nationwide league, Jacob established the NFL on March 28, 1925, and within a year the league had 100 member schools around the country.[16][17] While some high school organizations like North Carolina's High School Debating Union and the Montana State High-School Debate League existed, they only allowed students to compete up to the state level.[18][19] In 1937, the NFL established a "National Student Congress," a debate event in which students roleplay as members of the United States Congress. During World War II the NFL suspended all operations except for Congressional debate, receiving a letter of commendation from President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.[17] In 1950 Jacob resigned from his teaching post to devote himself to the NFL on a full-time basis. By the time of his resignation in 1969, the league had grown to over 300,000 student members.[17]

In 1963, U.S. Senator B. Everett Jordan introduced a bill to require the Librarian of Congress to prepare a report on the Policy debate topics at the high school and intercollegiate level each year.[20] This bill was eventually adopted into law, with annual reports published to this day.[21]

Rise of "progressive" debate

The activity of debate continued to grow, eventually becoming large enough to not require invited judges, such as policy experts or professors of rhetoric. By the mid-1970s, tournaments were often judged by former or current competitors. In 1972, the Tournament of Champions was founded by J.W. Patterson, director of debate at the University of Kentucky. The tournament was specifically designed as a tournament without inexperienced judges.[22] With these developments, team strategy began to move away from a "public model" geared at a general audience and towards a "policy-making" model. Allan Louden, tracing these developments at the National Debate Tournament, noted that "as speed rapidly increased...debate became more analytical, geared to expert audiences."[23]: 22 

In the 1980s, a new argument called a "

kritik" was introduced to intercollegiate debate.[24] Kritiks are a unique type of argument that argue "that there is a harm created by the assumption created or used by the other side" – that is, there is some other issue that must be addressed before the topic can be debated.[25]: 19  Early pioneers of the kritik used them primarily as a supplement to other arguments rather than as stand-alone cases.[24] Kritiks faced criticism from traditional debaters and judges because they did not require competitors to directly debate the assigned topic.[24][25]: 24–26  Nevertheless, they took hold and remain a stable of intercollegiate and high school debate today. Most recently, some debaters have advanced an argumentation style known as "performance debate" which emphasizes "identity, narrative understandings, and confrontation of life's disparities."[23]: 23  This argumentation style, advanced predominantly by Black debaters, has been used by debaters to discuss issues related to identity and difference.[26]: 304–305  An early pioneer of these styles of debate was the University of Louisville debate team, led by Ed Warner.[27]
: 4–5 

As debate techniques continued to become more progressive, new debate leagues were formed to accommodate different styles. The Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) was established in 1971. Jack Howe, the first president of CEDA, described the association as being "a reaction against a prevailing style of debate that both participants and their directors found increasingly difficult to support.[28]: 78  CEDA prioritized an "audience-oriented" form of debate which required strong presentation skills along with evidence.[29][28]: 78  It grew quickly, becoming the largest intercollegiate debate league by 1990.[28]: 79  In 1985, the American Debate Association was founded, also as a reaction to new debate techniques.[30]: 58–59  Seeking to revitalize intercollegiate policy debate, the American Debate Association set clear rules for both competitors and judges: Among the rules were a ban on kritiks, a limit on speech speed, and a restriction on judge's ability to read evidence after round.[30]: 61–63 

As technology advanced throughout the late 1990s and early 2000s, debaters consistently adopted newer techniques to incorporate technological developments. For much of the 1900s, debaters cataloged different pieces of evidence on "cards," which were photocopied sections of newspaper articles and books pasted to index cards.[31] For policy debaters, who debated the same topic for an entire year, the number of cards could quickly become overwhelming, sometimes requiring 100,000 pieces of paper and 50 boxes of cards per team.[32] As internet research became more accessible, teams began moving to entirely paperless debate, storing research on Word documents.[23]: 4  In 2008 the Whitman College debate team, led by Jim Hanson, became the first college-level team to go entirely digital, leading them to be described as "the greenest in the country."[32] As cases moved to electronic formats, debaters began posting their work in publicly available wikis to make research more accessible to debaters from smaller schools.[23]: 4  These "caselist wikis" have been described by G. Thomas Goodnight and Gordon Mitchell as creating "intricate and detailed map[s]" of various controversies falling under debate topics and as being a valuable resource for a slate of non-debate professions as well, including legislators, journalists, and policy analysts.[33]

Structure of competitive debate

Two men wearing suits and ties stand at a podium facing the camera
Lincoln-Douglas debaters at the 2014 NSDA National Tournament

In the United States, there are a wide variety of debate formats and leagues to support them. At the high school level, the predominant league is the National Speech and Debate Association, which offers seven debate events and eighteen speaking events.[34] Other high school leagues, such as the National Catholic Forensic League, National Christian Forensics and Communications Association, and Stoa USA, offer similar events.[35][36][37] Intercollegiate leagues vary, but generally only offer a single style of debate.[38][39][40]

The basic structure of most debate rounds, regardless of the specific format, is as follows: A topic is presented to the teams, who either choose a side of the topic or are assigned one. The "affirmative" or "aff" defends the topic and the "negation" or "neg" opposes it. Throughout a round, each team has the opportunity to present a case, respond to their opponent's case, defend their case, and ask questions of their opponent. At the end of a round, the judge evaluates the arguments and determines the winner, awarding "speaker points" to both debaters to grade their presentation separately from their argumentation.[41][42]

Formats

  • Policy debate is a 2v2 style of debate and the oldest format still regularly practiced in the United States. It features a year-round topic which tends to be vague, requiring affirmative debaters to present a detailed plan explaining how they would implement the topic. Because there are a substantial number of plans the affirmative could run, policy debate requires substantially more research than other topics.[41][43]
  • Lincoln-Douglas debate is a 1v1 style of debate based on the structure of the Lincoln–Douglas debates of 1858. Lincoln-Douglas topics change every two months and are typically statements of value that require the sides to discuss the merits of different philosophical schools of thought.[41][44]
  • Public forum debate is a 2v2 style of debate with topics that change every two months in the fall and every month in the spring.[45] The event was developed by Ted Turner, the founder of CNN, specifically so that there could be an event focused on being accessible to laypeople. Public Forum debates tend to focus on current events issues and require debaters to defend either the status quo or a specified change to the status quo.[46][47]: 1–8 
  • Big Questions is a 1v1, 2v1, or 2v2 style of debate with a year-round topic related to morality, religion, and science. The event was created by the John Templeton Foundation and competitors have previously debated topics such as "Science leaves no room for free will" and "Objective morality exists."[48][49]
  • Congressional Debate is a simulation of government proceedings with many debaters in a room together roleplaying as legislators. Students typically begin by electing one member to serve as the "Presiding Officer," equivalent to the position of Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, who sets an order of bills. Competitors generally use a packet of bills submitted by schools across their competition area that were written by students.[47]: 11–17 
  • World Schools Debate is a 3v3 style of debate with a topic that changes every round. Tournaments typically consist of multiple impromptu and prepared rounds. In impromptu rounds, teams have some time between the topic announcement and the round beginning to prepare cases. In prepared rounds, the topic is generally announced before the beginning of the tournament so that teams can write cases beforehand.[50]: 4–7 
  • British Parliamentary is a 2v2v2v2 style where four teams, two on each side of the topic, debate each other. Each round is impromptu with the topic announced shortly before the beginning of the round. Despite there being two teams on each side of the topic, the teams are ranked out of four and may not collaborate with each other.[51]

Competitor outcomes

Participation in competitive debate is associated with positive outcomes for competitors. Advocates for debate education, such as former United States Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, cite debate education as being "uniquely suited" to developing "critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity."[52][53] Former competitors generally describe their time as competitive debaters positively, describing it as leading to broadened worldviews and a more well-rounded education.[54]: 28–30 

At the high school level, debate competitors outscore non-debate competitors on standardized tests and have higher

grade point averages (GPAs).[55] One study found that competitors in the Chicago urban debate league (UDL) were more likely to graduate high school, scored an additional point higher on all portions of the ACT test, and had significantly higher GPAs.[56]: 630  Another study, also focused on the Chicago UDL, found that "debaters report greater social, civic, and social engagement than non-debaters."[57]: 371  A study of Colorado students found a small yet statistically significant relationship between debate participation and higher standardized test scores.[58]: 49  This effect has been especially noted among at-risk and African American students. Briana Mezuk found in a 2009 study that African American male students who participated in debate were more likely to graduate and have stronger reading comprehension than their peers who did not participate in debate.[59]
: 299 

Similar results have been observed among intercollegiate competitors. A two-decade cohort study by Rogers, Freeman, and Rennels recorded competitors' civic engagement, career trajectory, and continued education.[60] Intercollegiate competitors were more likely to vote, volunteer, have diverse friend groups, and have healthier personality profiles.[60]: 16  They were also more likely to receive pay raises and promotions.[60]: 18 

Controversies

Discrimination within the community

Multiple studies have noted that female debaters tend to underperform male debaters, a disparity has noted at both the high school and intercollegiate levels.[61][62][63][64] One study, comparing 125,087 high school debate rounds across two different seasons, found that female-female teams were 17.1% less likely to win and male-female teams were 10% less likely to win when competing against a male-male team.[62]: 4  Female debaters were also found to be 30.34% more likely to quit the activity.[62]: 18  This disparity can be at least partially attributed to the subjective nature of a debate round, with a 2022 qualitative study of high school debate competitors finding that the "norms surrounding what it means to be a 'good' debater" often played into gender biases.[63]: 12 

Racial minorities have also been historically underrepresented in the debate community, although the issue is less studied than that of female participation.[65] A 1987 study by Brenda Logue found that only 11.1% of participants in CEDA tournaments were minorities, despite 17% of college students being non-white.[66] Later studies have found similar rates, with Pamela Stepp noting that the "community has not kept up with the changing college population" in 1997.[65] A 2004 analysis of competitors in the American Forensic Association found that intercollegiate participation was dominated by European Americans but that minority participation in most programs was over 25%.[67] In the 2019 season, only 8.6% of college debate directors were Black, slightly over half what would be representative.[68]

Efforts were made to increase minority participation in debate as early as the 1980s, when the Barkley Forum funded the creation of an urban debate league in Atlanta focused on increasing inner-city school participation in debate.[69] Similar programs were created in other cities over the following years, with programs in 20 cities by 2012.[69] At the intercollegiate level, the Louisville Project was started at the University of Louisville in the 1990s.[27]: 4-5  The team's coach, Ede Warner, made a concerted effort to recruit African American debaters and required the team to utilize race-based arguments. Under his leadership, the team heavily criticized the use of expert evidence in rounds and argued that arguments from personal experience offered a unique lens through which the topic could be examined.[27]: 5  The response to the Louisville Project has been characterized by Shanara Reid-Brinkley as being "defined by anger," with coaches who disagreed with Warner forming competing leagues that barred race-centered argumentation and releasing out-of-context footage of Black debaters in attempts to encourage colleges to shut down their debate teams.[27]: 6–7 

Criticisms of debate

The basic format of competitive debate, in which competitors are required to research both sides of a topic, has faced criticism. In 1954, amid the

Brooks Quimby, a prolific debate coach at Bates College, Murphy claimed that debaters needed to be "men and women of principle" rather than "men and women trained to take either side at the flip of a coin."[71] In 1964, a survey of debate coaches across the country found that 95% believed debating both sides of a topic to be ethical, and the authors declared the controversy to be "pau," or finished.[72]

Other criticisms of the format of debate have been presented. Jonathan Ellis wrote in The New York Times that competitive debate promotes biased reasoning by giving debaters a specific view to work backward from rather than allowing them to come to their own unique position on a topic.[73] James Dimock, a debate coach at Minnesota State University, presented two objections to competitive debate in a 2009 paper: First, as debate topics have grown more complex debaters are incentivized to be concise over complete in their analyses, and second, debaters are often rewarded for making arguments from authority rather than logically sound arguments.[74] Neal Katyal has responded to some criticisms of debate by arguing that taking a position in a debate round, which exists to interrogate arguments, is different from advocating a position in a public square. He furthered that debate topics tend to avoid forcing debaters into advocating for positions widely considered ethically indefensible.[75]

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson
is a former debater

Notable former competitors

In popular culture

  • The 1989 drama film Listen to Me is about a collegiate debate team who receive the opportunity to argue in front of the Supreme Court of the United States.[89]
  • The 2007 film Rocket Science directed by Jeffery Blitz is about the fictional New Jersey High School student Hal Hefner who is recruited to the debate squad by classmate Ginny Ryerson, who has lost her debate partner and wants to transform Hal into a debate prodigy.[90]
  • The 2007 biographical film The Great Debaters is about the Wiley College debate team coached by Melvin B. Tolson.[91]
  • The 2017
    young-adult novel Dear Martin, by Nic Stone, follows the captain of a high school debate team as he responds to racial discrimination within his school.[92]
  • The 2017 film Speech & Debate is about a group of high school students trying to revive their debate team.[93]
  • The 2018 romantic comedy Candy Jar is about two rival high school debaters competing for college scholarships.[94]
  • The 2022 documentary Girl Talk follows five female high school debaters in Massachusetts.[95]

See also

References

  1. ^
    ISBN 978-1-4422-2620-3
    .
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i Potter, David (1944). Debating in the Colonial Chartered Colleges: An Historical Survey, 1642 to 1900. Contributions to Education, No. 899. New York: Columbia University.
  3. ISBN 0-300-01636-0
    .
  4. ^
    ISBN 9781628953381
    .
  5. doi:10.1080/00335632609379597
    .
  6. doi:10.1080/00335633609380186
    – via Taylor & Francis Online.
  7. ^ a b c d "Forensic Honorary Associations" (PDF). The Forensic. 1 (1). 1915.
  8. ^ "Phi Alpha Tau Installs Chapter". Baraboo News Republic. Baraboo, Wisconsin. February 2, 1905. p. 5. Retrieved April 9, 2023 – via Newspapers.com.
  9. ^ Blake, A. P. (March 1, 2013). "Phi Alpha Tau: an example for us all". The Suffolk Journal. Retrieved September 8, 2022.
  10. ^ Walker, Ben (2015). "The 2015 State of Delta Sigma Rho-Tau Kappa Alpha". Speaker & Gavel. 52 (2).
  11. ^ Norton, L. E. (1982). "The History of Pi Kappa Delta" (PDF). The Forensic. 67 (2).
  12. ^ a b Krenmyre, J. H. (1915). "Pi Kappa Delta, A Historical Sketch" (PDF). The Forensic. 1 (1).
  13. ^ Vaughn, Edgar A. (1915). "Chapter Roll of Pi Kappa Delta" (PDF). The Forensic. 1 (1): 23–29.
  14. ^ a b Cowperthwaite, L. Leroy; Baird, A. Craig (1954). "Intercollegiate Debating". In Wallace, Karl R. (ed.). History of Speech Education in America: Background Studies. Appleton-Century-Crofts. pp. 259–276.
  15. doi:10.1080/00335632809379725
    .
  16. ^ "Throwback Thursday: The History of the National Forensics League". Ripon Press. April 22, 2021. Retrieved September 5, 2022.
  17. ^ a b c "History". National Speech & Debate Association. Retrieved September 5, 2022.
  18. JSTOR 43822086
    – via JSTOR.
  19. JSTOR 801507
    – via JSTOR.
  20. ^ "Congressional Record – Senate – Friday, November 15, 1963". Congressional Record. 109 (16): 21928. November 15, 2022.
  21. ^ "44 U.S. Code § 1333 – National high school and college debate topics". Legal Information Institute. Retrieved September 14, 2022.
  22. ^ Cruz, Jon (March 10, 2008). "Good Evening Mr. and Mrs. North and South America and All Ships At Sea, Let's Go to Press!". Victory Briefs Daily. Archived from the original on May 17, 2008. Retrieved September 10, 2022.
  23. ^ a b c d Louden, Allan (2013). ""Permanent Adaptation" – The NDT's Last 50 Years". Speaker & Gavel. 50 (2).
  24. ^ a b c Smith, Elijah J. (2020). The kritik-focus model of debate (PDF). Proceedings of the Tokyo Conference on Argumentation. p. 138.
  25. ^ a b Bennett, William (1996). "An Introduction to the "Kritik"" (PDF). Rostrum. 70 (8).
  26. S2CID 210570486
    – via Taylor and Francis Online.
  27. ^ a b c d Reid-Brinkley, Shanara (2023). "Special Issue Editor's Introduction: Celebrating the Legacy of the Louisville Project and Grappling with the Antiblackness Still Plaguing College Policy Debate". Contemporary Argumentation and Debate. 38 (1): 3–10.
  28. ^
    doi:10.1080/00028533.1990.11951512
    .
  29. Newspapers.com
    .
  30. ^
    doi:10.1080/00028533.1990.11951510
    .
  31. ^ Zhou, Lawrence (March 18, 2020). "How to Cut a Card by Lawrence Zhou". VBriefly. Retrieved November 20, 2022.
  32. ^ a b Brown, Robbie (April 16, 2010). "The Paper Debate". The New York Times. Retrieved November 20, 2022.
  33. S2CID 140850101
    – via Taylor and Francis.
  34. ^ Competition Events Guide (PDF). National Speech and Debate Association. September 6, 2022.
  35. ^ "Competition Events". NCFL. Retrieved September 9, 2022.
  36. ^ "Speech Events". Stoa. Retrieved September 9, 2022.
  37. ^ "Debate Resolutions". Stoa. Retrieved September 9, 2022.
  38. ^ "About the Cross-Examination Debate Association". Cross-Examination Debate Association. Retrieved September 16, 2022.
  39. ^ "About the APDA". American Parliamentary Debate Association. Retrieved September 16, 2022.
  40. ^ "The Mission & Philosophy of IPDA". International Public Debate Association. Retrieved September 16, 2022.
  41. ^ a b c Whitman, Glen (September 5, 2000). "Debate Formats". Glen Whitman Debate. Retrieved November 28, 2022.
  42. ^ "How to Debate". University of Alaska Anchorage. Retrieved November 28, 2022.
  43. JSTOR 23367737
    .
  44. JSTOR 4120983
    .
  45. ^ "Public Forum Pilot Rules 2019-2020" (PDF) (Press release). Pg. 2: National Speech and Debate Association. 2019. Retrieved April 13, 2024.{{cite press release}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  46. ^ Durkee, John. "Ted Turner Debate: Establishing Theoretical Grounds" (PDF). Rostrum. Retrieved December 2, 2022.
  47. ^
    ISBN 978-1-61770-038-5
    .
  48. ^ Wanzer-Serrano, Nicole. "Expanding Big Questions Debate". John Templeton Foundation. Retrieved December 5, 2022.
  49. ^ "Big Questions Debate". National Speech and Debate Association. Retrieved December 5, 2022.
  50. ISBN 978-1-932716-55-9
    .
  51. ^ "The World Universities Debating Championships Debating and Judging Manual" (PDF). The Debate Correspondent. pp. 5–11. Retrieved March 8, 2023.
  52. ^ Duncan, Arne (April 12, 2012). "The Power of Debate – Building the Five "C's" for the 21st Century". U.S. Department of Education. Archived from the original on May 1, 2012. Retrieved September 5, 2022.
  53. ^ "The Power of Speech & Debate Education". Stanford National Forensic Institute. Retrieved September 5, 2022.
  54. ^ Copeland, Kristopher; James, Kendrea (2016). ""My College Education has come from My Participation in the Forensics Team": An Examination of the Skills and Benefits of Collegiate Forensic Participation". Speaker & Gavel. 53 (2).
  55. ^ Alegria, Penelope (October 10, 2020). ""Bro Culture" Is Debate Culture". Harvard Political Review. Retrieved September 5, 2022.
  56. ^ Mezuk, Briana; Bondarenko, Irina; Smith, Suzanne; Tucker, Eric (September 5, 2011). "Impact of Participating in a Policy Debate Program on Academic Achievement: Evidence from the Chicago Urban Debate League". Educational Research and Reviews. 6 (9) – via ERIC.
  57. S2CID 146869747
    – via JSTOR.
  58. ^ Peters, Tammie L. (October 1, 2009). "An Investigation into the Relationship Between Participation in Competitive Forensics and Standardized Test Scores" (PDF). Rostrum. 84 (2).
  59. JSTOR 25608747
    – via JSTOR.
  60. ^
    S2CID 256968041
    .
  61. ^ Dhillon, Kiranjeet; Larson, April. "Biological Sex as a Predictor of Competitive Success in Intercollegiate Forensics" (PDF). National Forensic Journal. 29 (2).
  62. ^
    SSRN 3715996
    .
  63. ^
    S2CID 250588340
    .
  64. S2CID 146189044
    .
  65. ^
    doi:10.1080/00028533.1997.11978017
    .
  66. ^ Logue, Brenda J. (1987). Minority Students in CEDA Debate: Involvement, Success, and Barriers. Eastern Communication Convention. Syracuse, NY.
  67. doi:10.1080/00028533.2004.11821605
    .
  68. ^ Martin, Shauntrice (2023). "Fear of a Black Planet: Capturing the Benefit of White Guilt to Forward Black Excellence". Contemporary Argumentation and Debate. 38 (1): 187.
  69. ^
    doi:10.1080/00028533.2012.11821781
    .
  70. S2CID 145240375
    .
  71. doi:10.1080/03634525709376840
    .
  72. doi:10.1080/10510976409362721
    .
  73. ^ Ellis, Jonathan; Hovagimian, Francesca (October 12, 2019). "Are School Debate Competitions Bad for Our Political Discourse?". The New York Times. Retrieved November 27, 2022.
  74. ^ Dimock, James P. (2009). "Critiquing Debate". Speaker and Gavel. 46 (1): 81–92.
  75. ^ Katyal, Neal (November 11, 2009). "The Project and Switch Side Debate". University of Georgia. Retrieved November 27, 2022.
  76. ^ McCordick, Jack (September 26, 2017). "The Corrosion of High School Debate – And How It Mirrors American Politics". America: The Jesuit Review. Retrieved September 8, 2022.
  77. ^ Kang, Jay Caspian (January 20, 2012). "High School Debate at 350 WPM". Wired. Retrieved November 27, 2022.
  78. ^ Kruger, Daniel (February 7, 2018). "How to Win a High-School Debate: Talk Like a Cattle Auctioneer". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved September 8, 2022.
  79. ^ Eckstein, Justin (September 17, 2012). "Easy Listening: Spreading and the Role of the Ear in Debating". Sounding Out!. Retrieved September 9, 2022.
  80. ^ "Justice Alito offers lessons from the bench — and a distinguished career". Duke Law. October 1, 2013. Retrieved September 23, 2022.
  81. ^ Schneider, Nathan (July 1, 2013). "The New Theist". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved September 23, 2022.
  82. ^ "Hall of Fame | Princeton Debate Panel". Princeton University. April 16, 2012. Retrieved September 9, 2022.
  83. ISBN 978-1-4985-3963-0
    .
  84. ^ Mazzei, Patricia (February 26, 2022). "How a High School Debate Team Shaped Ketanji Brown Jackson". The New York Times. Retrieved September 23, 2022.
  85. ^ Ray, Justin (March 12, 2018). "Amid a sea of voices, Vox's Carlos Maza breaks through". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved September 23, 2022.
  86. ^ Clark, Lucy (July 16, 2022). "'There's no substitute for listening': what being a champion debater taught Bo Seo about arguing over the dishes". The Guardian. Retrieved November 28, 2022.
  87. ^ Sotomaayor, Sonia (August 28, 2010). Clip of Diversity and the Legal Profession (Videotape). Retrieved September 23, 2022.
  88. ^ Tavernise, Sabrina (June 24, 2019). "How Elizabeth Warren Learned to Fight". The New York Times. Retrieved September 23, 2022.
  89. ^ Dinicola, Dan (May 11, 1989). "'Listen to Me' an Insult To Viewer Intelligence". Schenactady Gazette. p. 25. Retrieved November 20, 2022.
  90. Washington Post
    . Retrieved November 19, 2023.
  91. ^ Holden, Stephen (December 25, 2007). "Leading the Charge to Inspire Underdogs". The New York Times. Retrieved November 20, 2022.
  92. ^ Green, Adrienne (November 1, 2017). "What Would Martin Do?". The Atlantic. Retrieved November 19, 2023.
  93. ^ Genzlinger, Neil (April 6, 2017). "Review: 3 Teenagers Seek a Voice in 'Speech & Debate'". The New York Times. Retrieved November 20, 2022.
  94. ^ Strait, Eddie (May 2, 2018). "Netflix finally made a high school comedy about the debate team". Daily Dot. Retrieved November 20, 2022.
  95. ^ Girl Talk | PBS, retrieved January 6, 2024
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Competitive_debate_in_the_United_States&oldid=1218840531"