Principles and Practices

The following principles and practices are the product of years of observation, analysis, and refinement by forensics educators and members of the Civic Debate Consortium. This document reflects a shared commitment to maximizing the educational value, accessibility, and impact of Civic Debate Competitions. It is a living document and may be updated periodically based on community feedback and emerging best practices.

• The Nature of Civic Debate: Civic debate is characterized by a collaborative interface between higher education and civil society. Students present arguments and engage in dialogue before audiences that include professionals with real-world expertise on the topic of debate.

  • Civic Debate Consortium competitions are designed to be accessible, good-faith debates and dialogues that emphasize principle and evidence-based reasoning, and cogent argumentation over jargon, speed, or hyper-technical rules.

  • Civic debate is primarily rhetorical and audience-centered, asking debaters to adapt to real-world persuasive situations rather than hypothetical or artificial rule sets.

  • Faculty and student preparation includes:

    • Analyzing the likely values, knowledge, and perspectives of their judge audiences,

    • Using that information to shape advocacy that is both persuasive and palatable, and

    • Presenting arguments that are technically proficient and grounded in credible evidence.

• Competition Design and Execution

  • Civic Debate Consortium competitions do not have a particular “format” but often utilize hybrid versions of traditional formats. Experimentation with novel and evolving formats is encouraged. Flexibility in form serves the goal of accessibility and engagement.

  • Civic competitions prioritize education, community building, and experiential learning over traditional “win/loss” dynamics.

  • Tournament topics and competition formats must be clearly explained, including policies regarding speaker roles, time allocations, cross-examination, and use of evidence.

  • Civic competitions feature topic experts/stakeholders adjudicating at least during the semi-final and final rounds. Some competitions are judged entirely by topic experts/stakeholders.

  • Adjudication criteria for preliminary rounds—often judged by debate coaches, educators, and argumentation experts—should be explicit, tabulation should be transparent, and reasons for decisions must be robust and shared with student competitors.

    • While competition hosts can instruct judges about rules and norms, we recognize there is no mechanism by which judges can be forced to leave unconscious biases, values, and assumptions about praxis out of their decisions.  Competitions, however, do discourage their use.

    • Competitors should do their best to understand who their judges are and what their expectations and values are likely to be prior to competition and craft their arguments to be palatable and persuasive to their judges.

      • Topic-expert judge feedback often functions more like clues about what the judges found persuasive than in-depth argumentation analysis.

      • Just as jury nullification is an inherent possibility in a jury trial, judge nullification of rules and norms is an inherent feature of the Civic debate format.

• Civic Debate as a “Mutually Supportive, Dangerous Space” Civic debate competitions strive to create “mutually supportive, dangerous spaces”—spaces where civil disagreement is welcomed and intellectual risk-taking is encouraged.

  • These environments emphasize respect, good faith engagement, and courageous conversation about complex and controversial topics.

  • Equity and inclusion are central:

    • Every voice deserves to be heard.

    • Civic competitions welcome and support students from all backgrounds and origins.

    • Formats that allow participation by students with disabilities or other barriers to accessing debate are supported and encouraged.

  • Equity policies are included in tournament materials, and tournament directors should address equity concerns in a timely and thoughtful manner.

• Best Practices for Hosting Civic Debate Competitions. To preserve the integrity and unique pedagogical goals of Civic debate, tournament hosts should adhere to the following best practices:

  • Stakeholder Judges: The recruitment of stakeholder judges—individuals with lived, professional, or scholarly expertise in the topic—is a defining feature of Civic debate. Every effort should be made to include these judges, especially for elimination rounds. Judge recruitment should begin early and be framed as an opportunity for civic engagement and mentorship.

  • Judge Training: All judges should receive a brief training that clearly outlines

    • The purpose and philosophy of Civic debate,

    • The expectations for feedback and fairness,

    • The role of values and expertise in deliberation, and

    • The importance of clear, reasoned explanation of decisions. Barring strong pedagogical reasons for doing otherwise, feedback should happen immediately after every debate.

    • Where possible, training should be recorded or repeated to accommodate judges’ schedules.

  • Format Flexibility: Hosts should be open to using a variety of debate formats—including traditional, present-and-defend, or Venn diagram models—to suit the topic and audience. Format flexibility allows events to reflect the real-world complexity of public discourse and broaden access to participation.

  • Topic Design and Transparency: Topic statements accompanying the resolution are strongly encouraged to reduce ambiguity and minimize unproductive meta-debate about what the debate is “really about.” Both the resolution and topic statement should be released publicly in advance of the tournament, giving all participants a fair and reasonable opportunity to prepare.

  • Accessibility and Accommodation: Hosts should provide reasonable accommodations within their means to ensure access for all participants, including but not limited to physical accessibility, dietary needs, language interpretation, or schedule flexibility. Whenever possible, events should be free to all participants. No one should be excluded due to financial hardship whenever possible.

  • Scheduling with Quality of Life in Mind: Tournaments should strive not to exceed eight hours per day, recognizing the cognitive, emotional, and physical toll of extended debate. Ample breaks, lunch time, and rest periods should be built into the schedule.

  • Experiential Learning Opportunities: Hosting schools are encouraged to design experiential events that connect students to the topic in embodied or community-based ways. Examples include:

    • Volunteering at a food bank when discussing food injustice,

    • Visiting a homeless shelter when debating homelessness policy,

    • Attending a lecture at the beach when debating ocean policy.

    • Such events help participants build a deeper, more personal connection to the issues under discussion.

  • Topic Lectures: Though not required, topic lectures delivered prior to the tournament—online or in person—can greatly enhance understanding and elevate the discourse.

• Recognition and Awards: Civic Debate Consortium competitions recognize excellence in a variety of forms:

  • Awards for top speakers, team performance, and final round victories,

  • Recognition of programs and faculty for innovation, service, and leadership,

  • Acknowledgement of contributions that advance equity, access, and community-building within the Consortium. 

The Civic Debater’s Code of Ethics[1]

A Commitment to Integrity, Equity, and Public-Minded Advocacy

As a participant in a Civic Debate Consortium event, I pledge to uphold the highest standards of humility, equity, integrity, respect, leadership, and service in pursuit of excellence in public advocacy.  Whether engaging topics of policy, philosophy, science, economics, identity, or justice, I recognize that debate is not merely a competition, but a form of civic engagement—an opportunity to think critically, speak persuasively, and participate meaningfully in democratic life. To that end, I affirm the following:

1. Commitment to the Public Good

I will strive to advance fairness, understanding, and truth in all aspects of debate. I recognize that public discourse has real-world consequences, and I commit to contributing to discussions that promote dignity and inclusion for all.

2. Well-Researched Advocacy

I will thoroughly research the topic of debate and respect its complexity. I understand that credibility, intellectual honesty, and critical thinking are essential to responsible argumentation.

3. Nonviolent Communication

I value persuasion over coercion or personal attack. I will seek to change minds through respectful and reasoned dialogue, not intimidation, hostility, or aggression.

4. Good Faith Participation

I will be a good faith actor in every debate I enter. I will represent my arguments and evidence honestly, respect my opponents and teammates, and treat judges, coaches, and tournament officials with professionalism and courtesy.

5. Grace and Accountability

I will presume good intent in others and extend grace for unintentional mistakes. At the same time, I will hold myself and others accountable for harmful behavior or language—always addressing issues with respect and a commitment to growth and repair.

6. Community Over Competition

I understand that while competition may structure debate, we are ultimately part of a shared learning community. I will celebrate the success of others, collaborate across difference, and contribute to a culture of mutual support and collective advancement.

7. Humility and Empathy

I will engage with humility and listen with empathy. I will not elevate myself over others and will strive to understand the perspectives, experiences, and identities that shape how people approach the issues we debate.

8. Respect for Diversity

I will respect people of all backgrounds, including but not limited to race, gender, religion, nationality, disability, sexual orientation, and economic status. I will do my part to create inclusive environments and eliminate barriers to full participation for all.

9. Ethical Communication

I will communicate truthfully, transparently, and ethically. I will abide by the rules of the tournament, the policies of the host institution, and the standards of academic and professional conduct. My advocacy will reflect integrity and responsibility.

10. Civility in Disagreement

I will engage with civility even when I disagree. I will uphold the right of others to express their views and contribute to creating a safe and respectful environment for deliberation.

11. Intentional and Thoughtful Language

I understand that words have power. I will speak with care, avoiding language that is inflammatory or demeaning, and strive to communicate in ways that are thoughtful, impactful, and respectful.

12. Service and Leadership

I will use my voice and abilities in service of my peers, community, and the broader purposes of debate. I recognize that debate is not just about self-improvement but also about leadership and positive contribution to public life.

13. Let the Best Arguments Guide Me

In competition, I will present the best arguments available to support my assigned position. In life, I will remain open to the best arguments—especially those that challenge me—and use them to guide my beliefs and actions.

By living out this Code, I affirm that debate is not just a contest of words, but a civic practice—an act of learning, listening, and leading. I am proud to participate in a tradition of ethical argumentation that strengthens both individuals and democratic communities.

[1] Adapted in part from the Code of Honor of the National Speech and Debate Association and Dr. Alfred “Tuna” Snider’s the Code of the Debater.