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 itself as one of the most intellectually serious spaces on campus. Students are encouraged to interrogate power, call out oppression, and think carefully about the impact of language. Judges are supposed to ensure that arguments meet a basic standard of reasoning and evidence. Yet when the subject turns to Jews and Israel, those expectations often seem to break down.
In competitive debate, students are assigned topics, defend their positions, and challenge their opponents before a panel of judges. Judges are responsible not only for evaluating arguments but for establishing what reasoning and conduct are considered acceptable. The culture of debate is shaped not only by the arguments students make but by the judgments that reward, ignore, or legitimize them.
Earlier this year, the Harvard College Debating Union made headlines for proposing a tournament topic that questioned the legitimacy of Jewish emancipation in Europe. As former Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights of the United States Dr. Kenneth Marcus observed, “questioning whether Jews deserve equal rights without muting their identity is not a neutral intellectual exercise,” and neither is blaming Zionist Jews and Israelis for global antisemitism.
I had seen something similar before. During a tournament in October 2024, a competitor noticed the hostage pin I was wearing and informed me that “the Jews killed Jesus.” The comment had nothing to do with the topic under discussion and clearly violated the spirit of the competition. Again, nobody intervened. No one explained why the deicide libel is false and harmful. The lack of consequences effectively validated the remark.
These incidents point to a broader problem. The line between legitimate criticism of Israel and prejudice toward Jews is often blurred, creating space for hostility that would not be tolerated if directed at other groups. Judges play a central role in that dynamic. Their job is not simply to record what happens in a round. They determine which arguments carry weight and what kind of conduct becomes normalized.
The structure of debate makes this worse. Once a narrative becomes common, it gets repeated and refined with little room for pushback. It has become common to hear the genocide libel casually introduced and treated as if it were settled historical fact, sometimes even in unrelated debates.
There is a term for this phenomenon: the “Big Lie.” The concept describes how relentless repetition can cause disputed claims to acquire the appearance of settled fact, regardless of the quality of the underlying evidence, and Jews are intimately familiar with its consequences. Goebbels institutionalized this strategy to persuade millions of Europeans to enable the Holocaust, Hajj Amin Husseini and his successors in Hamas have been manipulating Palestinians in a similar fashion.
Debate is supposed to remain a place for difficult, and even uncomfortable arguments. Yet instead of learning how to defend ideas under scrutiny, students begin to learn that some assumptions do not need to be questioned at all. That weakens debate’s educational purpose and leaves students less prepared for real disagreement.
I have met many thoughtful competitors and judges who care deeply about fairness and intellectual honesty. They are the people I hope to reach. If debate organizations want to live up to their stated standards, they need to take responsibility for how consistently those standards are applied. Rhetoric that justifies prejudice against Jews should receive the same scrutiny as rhetoric directed at any other group.
What goes unchallenged in academic debate carries into public discourse, and it is time for judges to enforce the same standards of scrutiny everywhere they apply.
This article was originally published in the Times of Israel Blogs. Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of CAMERA.
