Preface We live in a world that would rather silence a disagreement by calling the other person a loser , a snowflake , a libtard , a right-wing nutjob or simply offering a condescending we''ll have to agree to disagree or good day than have a meaningful conversation, hear the perspective of someone else, lend an empathetic ear, or engage in constructive dialogue. We tend towards a quick Google search, a meme, or cursory reading of headlines in place of research and understanding. Today, more than ever, we must focus on structured debate that encourages one to hear the other side, challenges our assumptions, and builds toward something better. That venue exists within our secondary schools and post-secondary institutions. An extracurricular and cocurricular activity, academic debate fosters growth in the individual, with benefits not just for the participants, but for all society. My involvement with academic, competitive debate spans over three decades. During that time, my experiences have been incredibly diverse. As a competitor, I was introduced to debate on the traditional and audience friendly circuit in the southwest corner of Missouri.

In college, I experienced a bit of whiplash as I entered the world of high speed, jargon-laced policy debate while at the United States Air Force Academy. Over the years, I continued to work with students and coaches on audience-friendly circuits, the high school national circuit, urban debate league programs, and the international world of debate as practiced at the World Universities Debating Championships. Despite their disparate approaches to the activity, I found that good debate is good debate, as the director of the Seawolf Debate Program, Steve Johnson, likes to say. While the styles, emphasis, and contestants themselves appear incredibly different, there is more that connects them than separates them. Regardless of the style embraced or approach taken, the activity has immeasurable benefits. Throughout my time with these programs, I listened to non-debate educators disparage the activity as something devoid of merit. I observed rifts within the debate community that highlight the limitations of it. I witnessed the political and social discourse in our nation poison society.

Nevertheless, I found that taken together, the unique approaches to the activity offer a path forward, a path of understanding, and a path of healing. When examining the world of competitive debating, we clearly see three distinct stylistic approaches: audience-centered, progressive, and nontraditional. Different formats, circuits, and regions tend to preference one of these styles over the others. While radically different in their presentation, they all provide incredible value for participants. To explore those benefits, I turned to individuals with a range of experience in competitive debating. At the high school level, many were immersed in policy, Lincoln Douglas, student congress, public forum, and world schools debate. At the college level, contributors participated in formats such as the National Debate Tournament, Cross Examination Debate Association, National Parliamentary Debate Association, and British Parliamentary (or World Universities) debate. That said, they all share a common background in policy debate.

I specifically sought contributors with some policy debate background because that format most clearly incorporates all three stylistic approaches. As a nexus for the three divergent perspectives on debate, it affords a unique look at why they exist, how they interact, and the insights they provide participants. Debate is not perfect. It has shortcomings. It has room for improvement. Participants regularly highlight the disparities and inequalities that exist between programs and competitors. Even more accessible formats, like British Parliamentary debate with its emphasis on public-facing discourse, has begun to confront these issues. At the 2021 United States Universities Debating Championships, Morehouse College withdrew from the national championship tournament after "they faced racist taunts from opposing teams" and their concerns went unaddressed in a timely manner.

Despite significant improvement in equity and access, the activity (largely) remains the purview of white, economically privileged males. To explore the benefits of the activity, I turned to individuals with diverse backgrounds. Some earned national championships. Some were midlevel debaters. Some are from rural areas, whereas others are from the suburbs or urban centers. Some competed for public schools and others private schools. Some come from relative places of wealth and others from poverty. Some have lived the life of cisgender white males and the privilege that comes with it.

Several identify as LGBTQIA. More than half are Black, Indigenous, and People of Color. More than half are women. Hopefully, by drawing upon this diverse group of authors, you will find someone who speaks meaningfully to you and your students. At times, I found it difficult to compartmentalize authors to one stylistic approach. In truth, most of us have significant experience with multiple formats of debate and two or more of the stylistic approaches. When determining where to locate their chapters in the text, I made decisions based on their primary experience with the activity, what they considered to be their most meaningful involvement, or the specific theme of their chapter. What follows is an immersive journey into the world of academic, competitive debate.

This work grants insight into this unique activity and, by extension, our educational system. While the narratives paint, at times, diverging views of the activity, the net result is a glimpse at the profound impact the participants have on the activity and its impact upon them. [end of excerpt].