Size Matters: The Discrepancies Between Large and Small Schools

Debate is a game played without a scoreboard. A subjective determination of wins and losses means you can never predict the result until it comes out, and it crafts debate in a way so the best don’t always win. Although competitively beneficial in theory, debate’s structural flaws prevent such effects. Normally, any other game starts with everyone on equal footing so everyone has a chance to win. However, debate’s prep and resource-dependent nature has flipped the script, digging small schools into insurmountable deficits before the round starts. Teams enter rounds with predetermined outcomes, and countless schools are squeezed out of the competitive sphere.

As someone who competed for Bellaire High School freshman year before transferring to Strake, I know the difference between small and big schools is night and day. Nevermind resource inequities that limit small schools from entering many national tournaments, or a disconnect from the circuit that prevents proper involvement in norms or strategies. Debate was created without small schools in mind.

There are a couple of areas where small schools are disadvantaged, the first being prep. The more people you have grinding away, the more cards you will produce, and the more evidence you will be able to access and use in rounds. Large schools easily outprep smaller schools. Furthermore, larger schools utilize their notoriety to get into prep groups, widening the prep gap even more as big schools band together while smaller schools remain isolated. Besides the lack of prep, a disconnect from the circuit tends to mean smaller schools are never taught to properly cut evidence, so the quality of their evidence is just as disadvantaged as the quantity. 

In my experience, the difference is astronomical. Strake’s prep tends to work as a well-oiled machine, compiling hundreds of pages of blocks before the topic starts. We often trade prep with other schools to fill our gaps and go into tournaments armed and loaded. On the other hand, at Bellaire we were scrambling for prep before every tournament, trying to piece together what little we could find, often losing the prep battle even at locals.

The second large area of discrepancy is coaching. Yes, larger schools have the 

resources to find coaches who can watch rounds and give feedback on redos. They also have coaches who can cut even more prep, something small schools can’t afford. However, something often overlooked is the coaching upperclassmen give and how much that aids you in your debate journey. For me, I lucked out, as my upperclassmen at Bellaire were some of the greatest people I’ve come to know, and in my eyes, are second to none as mentors and instructors. Most of what I’ve learned about high school debate comes from them, but I know that many others can’t say the same. There are an immeasurable amount of small schools that only have one team, or have a brand new debate program, which can’t offer this type of mentoring. They have to enter the debate space blindly, getting lost in the quest for success without anyone to guide them.

The last major area of difference has to do with connectivity. Whether that be through camps, national tournaments, or prep groups, larger schools know more people on the circuit than smaller ones. Like it or not, debate is hierarchical, and this leads to disadvantages that stretch past just prep. I mentioned subjectivity in debate can lead to more competition, but this aspect of debate is often used in the wrong way. Every judge has predetermined biases that affect outcomes, so when there’s a close round, more often than not, the larger school with a bigger name wins. But connectivity stretches past just in-round disadvantages too. Some of my best memories in debate come from traveling to national tournaments and going to camp, getting to meet amazing people all over the country who enjoy debate as much as I do. Small schools don’t get to fully experience this aspect of debate, an aspect that makes debate so enjoyable and keeps people engaged.

Initiatives to address this disparity have already started. Practices such as disclosure attempt to bridge the prep gap between schools, and organizations such as Potomac and NDC try to connect small schools and form a sort of collective big school to compete. Although both are fantastic steps in the right direction, we need more.

It all comes back to accessibility and resource inequities. A great way to combat prep, coaching, and connectivity issues is getting to meet people at camp and learn from the best. At camps, prep groups get formed, debaters learn necessary technical skills, and labmates are often lifelong friends. But these experiences cost thousands every year. We need to remove the price tag of these opportunities for schools and students who can barely even go to national tournaments, let alone two-week-long camps. Another way to address this issue is to offer affordable coaching services that double as prep services, a simple way to bridge the prep and skill gap between schools. 

Small schools in debate should be our utmost priority, not only for inclusivity but also for debate’s continuation. If debate continues to be an uphill battle for small schools, where rounds are harder and tournaments are less fun, then we are only hurting ourselves as fewer and fewer schools join the activity. Remember, big schools come and go, and only small schools can take their place. We must allow the next generation of schools and debaters to emerge through fair competition in this game we all play.