by Christopher Sung ‘17

It was not his first debate, but it would be his last. From the first speech, his opponents began listing facts and statistics in quick succession, preventing him from giving any strong rebuttals or any opportunity to develop his own case. This was followed by a punishing crossfire that left him stumbling and mumbling for an eloquent retort. By debate standards, Mathiyan Zewdie’s final debate was an utter massacre, and it would seem that hours of self-preparation by the former debate participant had amounted to nothing. Yet what Zewdie, now a senior, did not know after his stinging defeat was that the plethora of convincing arguments made by his opponents were not, most likely, their own.

In law, briefs refer to legal documents that enumerate arguments for why a particular party should prevail. In debate, briefs refer to premade research packets that include statistics and arguments on a specific topic of contention. These debate briefs are often made by private debate institutes and are sold to students for yearly subscriptions that can amount to as much as $180.

On the day of his losing debate, there is a good chance that Zewdie’s opponents were utilizing these debate briefs. Many of the biggest debate teams in the county, such as Blair, regularly utilize these resources for meets.

Undoubtedly, debate briefs are a powerful resource. An annual brief subscription can eliminate hours of tedious independent research for busy students. However, the cost of such subscriptions often make these resources available to only schools with enough funds. While Zewdie’s opponents probably came from a school that could afford briefs, Zewdie was a member of a small debate team that was already struggling to find adequate funding for regular debate participation dues.

“It’s an unethical practice that marginalizes our students,” said ESOL teacher Anne Gallahan, Sherwood’s debate team sponsor. “Are case briefs destroying the notion of fair play in debate? Yes, they are. Because only a few teams can afford case briefs, all of the other debate teams that can’t afford this resource are at a disadvantage.”

The frustration was not limited to Gallahan. Senior Ritesh Edwards, who debated competitively during his freshman and sophomore years, gave up his involvement in student debate after learning about the use of case briefs by other schools in the county.

“The main reason I left after several successful meets was that I found out a number of schools in the county were using resources that gave them an unfair advantage,” said Edwards. “I felt that it wasn’t worth my time debating schools that clearly had an unfair advantage over other students who actually did diligent research. Those students with briefs had all of the cards, and those without briefs didn’t.”