Dis/ability: Ableism in Debate

We’re told debate is the ultimate intellectual equalizer, but it isn’t for students with dis/abilities. 

Debate naturally privileges those who can “market themselves” to the judge, who can conform to the rapid flow of the information economy in a tech round, and conform to the speaking skills in lay rounds. The truth of the matter is that there’s no one size fits all solution for “fixing” an ableist structure, but there are things we can do to help make the space more equitable for dis/abled students. 

In order to find solutions, we first have to look at the problems that exist. Firstly, speaker points. The most glaring way in which debate can be hostile. Those who stutter, for example, are literally punished for having their disability, by having lower speaker points in rounds, and then being forced to hit higher seed opponents in out-rounds. Speaker points are incredibly arbitrary and forcefully exclude those who may never be able to conform in speaking ability the same way abled debaters can. Judges should be taking disabilities into consideration when filling out every part of their ballot, while they may think about it can influence their decision, the perception of speaker points “not really mattering” means they can be cast out of direct thought and have ableist biases interjected into them. 

Secondly, the relationship between debaters is critical to examine in order to find ways in which we can repair it to be accessible. In an activity obsessed with speed, dis/abled debaters with many different kinds of processing or auditory processing disorders can struggle with being tasked with taking in so much information at once. This is the most important reason why sending speech documents, an email with the contents of your speech (typically for constructive and rebuttal as they tend to be faster and prewritten), before you actually give it is so vital. Using speech docs, dis/abled debaters are given a chance to see as well as hear the content, which can aid them, as well as simply using the document to see what they missed which can aid them as well. Other than this, listening for when your opponents clear you for speed/clarity is integral, and too often debaters are ignored for doing this for the sake of “getting more information out.” 

Thirdly, asking for consent or any accommodations of your opponents before round is critical for dis/abled inclusion. It can be hard to speak up at times and “out” yourself in order to have equal grounds, so opening the conversation to everyone in the round and allowing people the opportunity to ask rather than appear “deviant” from the flow of the round for doing so. 

Accommodations can come in many forms, whether it just be asking you to slow down, send all the parts of the speech you have prewritten, or allow them a moment to pause if they need to without taking from their prep time; being accommodating requires us to be open to all of these possibilities without considering it “unfair” and an “advantage” for your opponents, but rather something they need to be on the same playing field.

Debaters should be fostering inclusion in their community instead of exclusion for the ballot.