English in Debate: Global Barrier and Tool

Ananya Nair | 5 min read

Debating in English feels like a given; a natural idea that nobody really thinks about a lot, if at all. English is the language that so many of us have grown up speaking and is the globally accepted lingua franca. Though the use of English has provided a medium for international debaters to communicate with, it has simultaneously acted as a barrier against those who struggle to access it. While I’m not saying we need to throw out English as a whole, I think it is clear that changes need to be made to include people in a community that values diverse voices. 

There are many reasons for difficulty with the English language. Many people who struggle with English have learned it as a second language, so even when these people have incredibly strong arguments, their lower proficiency at English keeps them from expressing the arguments in formal terminology. This is difficult in World Schools, but the plight is worse when it comes to events where spreading or heavy jargon is used–words rarely used in everyday life that become round-winning if used correctly. This lends an advantage to native English speakers who only really need to ask what “delta” means or what a “weighing metric” is. If even I, with English as my first language, struggle to parse through the dense jargon of a Policy speech, I can only imagine the struggle of someone who learned English or is still learning it. These formats become fundamentally inaccessible. That is a large reason why you don’t see the same level of international participation in events where spreading is used as opposed to more conversational ones such as speech or WSD. Another member of the Hotline staff, Roger Li, wrote a great blog (“Stop the Spread”) that details this exact idea of language being a harmful barrier; novices to debate struggle, and novices to the English language don’t even feel able to join these formats. 

So where exactly does this whole issue stem from, and why don’t we question it? This idea that English is the “academic” and “professional” language of the globe is long-standing and embedded into our daily lives. Linguist Ivan Vulchanov gives a name to this idea of English proficiency being the indicator of social/professional status: “linguistic social capital” (the irony being that poor Norwegian Ivan had to write his findings in English). Somewhere along the road, this value signaling became set in society’s minds: professional equals English and anything else equals unprofessional, unfit for business and unfit for debate. Thinking English is the best language for these interactions may not be logically flawed, but it doesn’t flip a switch and make everyone in the world suddenly fluent. What it does is make life easier for those who are and set a high bar for those who aren’t. 

That being said, English as a language for debate has benefits. The idea has always been that English could be a language that the globe could share and use for communication, regardless of background. It was meant to foster cultural exchange through a common channel. Hotline co-founder and Team USA member Arrman Kapoor experienced this firsthand at the 2024 Winter Holiday Open in Zagreb, Croatia when he experienced a cultural fair where people could share snacks and souvenirs. He noted that the ability to communicate in English and form relationships brought everyone closer together. It is important to applaud the huge jumps in inclusion that World Schools debate has made. The sole existence of an event like WSDC has created a space for international teams, for team USA to meet team India, Singapore, Britain, Italy, and more. The international debate community is a diverse, skilled place, but like any other, it has room to grow. 

Anjana Boppana and Katy Yan, high school debaters, have made strides in accessibility through their nonprofit (Project Be the Voice) that teaches children all over the world the basics of WSD. Most of their challenges are attributed to the initial confusion of debate and its many terms, but Boppana says, “Even when they don’t always understand what I’m saying, they always have the biggest smiles on their faces.”

We’re debaters; we know that there is a profound power in words. What we need to remember is that if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will go its entire life thinking it is incapable. Similarly, if the debate community continues to hold people to a standard that it doesn’t help them meet in the first place, those people will lose faith in their words. It should not be that only some of us have the opportunity to hold that power–all of us should.