Stop the Spread

Spreading (/ˈspriːdɪŋ/; a blend of "speed" and "reading") is the act of speaking extremely fast during a competitive debating event, with the intent that one's opponent will be penalized for failing to respond to all arguments raised. The tactic relies on the fact that "failing to answer all opposing arguments" is an easy criterion for judges to award a win on.

When our parents signed us up for debate, they likely imagined us developing flawless communication skills and unflappable charisma. Instead, we’ve learned to give 1200-word rebuttals, read cut cards without a semblance of grammar, and compile speech docs within minutes. The proliferation of spreading in debate has poisoned the portable skills we gain from debate, but more importantly, raises the barrier of entry for everyone involved. Many key groups are disproportionately affected, and these groups are the glue that holds debate together. 

New Novices. Every great debater started with humble origins. Stuttering your way through 2-minute speeches, learning the ropes of public speaking, learning to flow, etc. The people who initially started your debate career likely kept debates at a conversational pace so you could understand it and grow to love the activity. Spreading decimates this cycle of life. Instead of baby steps, imagine walking into your first round having studied recent presidential debates, only to watch someone ramble incoherently for 4 minutes, alter your worldview, and steal the win. You wouldn’t be just thrown in the deep end, but shark-infested waters, and one may never want to think of debate again. The exclusion of novices and future talent from debate creates a thin funnel of participation that affects the activity greatly in the long run.

Small Schools. Debate is already pay to win. Larger schools have access to prep, and thus the available content to spread through. Larger schools have access to coaching, and thus the strategies needed to effectively spread. Larger schools have access to camp, and thus the skills needed to engage in faster debates. Rigging the game even further only kills the diversity small schools bring to debate. 

Disabled Debaters. My friend Cruz wrote a fabulous article that goes far more into detail on how we currently build up debate to be an ableist institution that I strongly recommend anyone to read. However, in the context of spreading alone, people may have processing disorders that physically can’t handle spreading within debate. Even with speech docs, an unnecessary overload of information still limits proper engagement. Disabled debaters are already playing catch-up. It is our responsibility to make debate as inclusive as possible for everyone. 

Lay Judges. You may not have much sympathy for this group of people in debate, but they are still integral to our community. They facilitate locals and even bid tournaments to run properly by filling the judging pool. Even if they are inconsistent, they are better than no tournament at all. It is our job as debaters to convince them through professionalism and accessibility within arguments that they should continue supporting this activity. When put on a panel with two more experienced judges, we may be inclined to kick the lay for the win. I personally have been guilty of this behavior more than once. However, having to evaluate an hour of what sounds like a foreign language isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, and keeping debate accessible is of greater importance than any in round strategy. Go fast, sure, but dial it back a notch or slow down in certain areas for the lay judge to comprehend. A 3-0 looks better than a 2-1 on tab after all. 

Real world skills. As mentioned previously, spreading may tally up wins, but removes the educational value from deabte. You lose in depth clash between arguments when you spread 70 and pick 7 to go for. It doesn’t require critical thinking to read faster than your opponent. There’s a lot more to be gained from slightly slower, more comparative debate that necessitates strategy in exchange for speed. 

Spreading doesn’t have to be exclusionary. If all sides agree, there is good that comes from hypertech rounds. Problems only arise when we put ballots over people. Fortunately, there are easy solutions to address the growing (spreading) spreading problem.

First is to level playing fields. It is no secret debate is inaccessible for multiple groups. The Debate Hotline is committed to offering small schools and novices proper resources, camp, coaching, etc in order to try and fill in the gaps of inequality within debate. Second is far simpler and perhaps even more effective: choose decency. It is not hard to ask before round if your opponent or judges need any accommodations. Email chains bridge the gap and are easy to follow along with. Most importantly, just read the room. You can tell when you are hitting a novice, when you have a lay on the panel, when you’re opponents clearly have less debate experience than you. Debate has become too focused on winning to notice how it is actively ripping itself apart. Stomping over others to reach the ballot is far less beneficial than winning while still keeping the round enjoyable for everyone. 

An unfair game is no game at all. Spreading belongs in debate, but does not define it. We have all benefited from this activity: research, speaking skills, friendships, let the next generation do the same. Stop the spread of toxic “winning is everything” culture. Stop the spread of magnifying inequities. Stop the spread.