When I joined competitive debate, I expected to encounter controversial arguments. Debate exists to test ideas, challenge assumptions, and force participants to defend their positions under scrutiny. What I didn’t expect was for factually questionable, ideologically charged narratives about Israel to be treated as if they were beyond reproach. That’s exactly what I observed, not only from my peers but from the judges themselves.

At the recent Youth Online Debate League National Championship in Clemson, South Carolina, I was delivering a speech on the consequences of completely unrestricted political speech. As part of my argument, I noted that unmoderated online spaces can contribute to the spread of racism, sexism, antisemitism, and other forms of bigotry. In response, my opponent interrupted to ask whether hatred toward Jewish people could be justified because of the actions of the state of Israel.

Unlike the Harvard incident discussed later, the question posed to me was not challenged by anyone. When I raised concerns during and after the round, nobody responded. The main judge tersely replied “ok,” and we all left the room.

That silence stayed with me longer than the question itself.

Collegiate debate likes to present........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)