High School Debate and Politics 1

High School Debate and Political Education

2015 Kalorama Summer Research Fellowship Report

Rebecca Kuang, SFS’17

Professor Becky Hsu

2

Introduction/Background

High school debate as a pedagogical tool has many advocates;

studies find that debate enhances critical thinking and problem

solving abilities (Colbert, 1995) and encourages awareness of

global issues (Snider, 2006). In the well-known book Gifted Tongues:

High School Debate and Adolescent Culture, Northwestern Professor of

Sociology Gary Fine calls debate a “valuable training ground for

adolescents” because it “captures the skills of competent

expression, self-confidence in public activities, the use of

logic, the gathering of evidence, and the presentation of policy

options that we expect of all citizens (2001). Debate

participation is tied to heightened academic performance; studies

of students in Chicago, Kansas City, St. Louis, Seattle and New

York found that debate improves students’ reading test scores at

statistically significant levels, decreases likelihood of high-

risk behaviors, and improves academic success and student

attitudes towards higher education (NAUDL 2004).

Debate participation also narrows the achievement gap across

race/ethnicity and social class. A study of debate programs in

the Chicago Public School district, found that even accounting

for the influence of self-selection, students who participated in

the Chicago Debate League were “more likely to graduate from high

school, performed better on the ACT, and showed greater gains in

cumulative GPA relative to similar comparison students” (Mezuk et

al, 2011). Moreover, debate has been shown to help bilingual high

3

school students master academic discourse in their non-native

language (Antilla-Garza and Cook-Gumperz, 2015).

Motivation

Quantitative studies back up the academic benefits of

debate, but less has been written about the way debate educates

students politically. Since debate often involves stepping into the

shoes of policymakers, participation may deepen understanding of

the political process. Writing in the context of exercises such

as crisis simulations, Esberg and Sagan argue that simulating

policymakers teaches “the importance of understanding foreign

perspectives…simulations can deepen understanding by asking

students to link fact and theory, providing a context for facts

while bringing theory into the realm of practice” (2012). More

generally, debate may foster a robust political culture by

emphasizing different perspectives; Stannard suggests that debate

programs are crucial for deliberative democracy because they

foster public discussion, removing stigma from disagreement and

confrontation, and empower citizens (2006).

The skills that make debaters more politically engaged

citizens are important in light of an unequal democracy. The

United States has deep, ongoing problems with political

disenfranchisement, especially among minority communities and

disempowered communities. This is especially relevant for

adolescents. Recent research argues that that social inequality

in civic engagement has grown for youth in the United States in

4

recent years (Wray-Lake and Hart, 2012). This builds on top of

wide documentation among all age groups that there is a strong

association between socioeconomic background and civic engagement

(Flanagan and Levine, 2010). Wray-Lake and Hart’s study, which

uses data from the National Election Study to examine the

political behavior of 18 to 29 year olds, indicates that civic

inequalities persist, documenting that ethnic minorities and

women are less politically involved. They conclude that “research

is sorely needed that suggests effective ways to engage

underrepresented groups in the political process” (2012).

Could debate be one possible answer to inequality in

political engagement? Can debate be used to facilitate a more

equal democracy? The purpose of this research project is

therefore twofold:

1. To paint a demographic picture of the type of student who is

invested enough in debate to attend a summer debate institute.

Is debate effectively reaching out to the students who could

benefit most from debate?

2. To explore the impact that debate has on students’ political

and civic engagement and development. Are debaters more likely

to participate in the political process? How does debate

participation influence students’ political views?

5

Research Design

Over the summer of 2015, a 29-question survey was

distributed to students at several national debate institutes.1

These debate institutes can last from one week to seven, with

Policy camps lasting longer and Lincoln-Douglas/Public Forum

camps usually lasting no more than three weeks. Institutes can

either be affiliated with a university, such as the University of

North Texas Mean Green Workshops, or can be run by a for-profit

organization such as the Victory Briefs Institute. These camps

are highly intensive and typically attended only by debaters who

intend to compete often throughout the school year.

Debaters at several camps were also asked to participate in

group interviews. These interviews involved between 10-15

students and were recorded, then transcribed. Interviews took the

form of an open discussion on students’ attitudes towards debate

and whether or how debate has changed they approach political and

civic engagement. Aside from minimal moderation to guide the

course of the discussion, students largely controlled the

interviews.

Participants

The target demographic was K-12 students who chose to attend

a summer debate institute. The students ranged in age from 13 to

19, and were between 8th and 12th grades. The majority, 37%, were

rising juniors in high school, and the mean age was 15 years old.

1 See Appendix A

6

The students surveyed participated in either Policy,

Lincoln-Douglas, or Public Forum debate. These events differ by

speaking time and partners, but are all adversarial (team against

team) formats. Although camps exist for other forensics

activities such as Oratory or Extemporaneous Speaking, this study

includes only adversarial debate formats.

The camps surveyed include a range of geographical

diversity, target student population, and debate styles. They

include:

The Victory Briefs Institute at Occidental College (Los

Angeles, CA)

The Victory Briefs Institute at the University of Chicago

(Chicago, IL)

The Victory Briefs Institute at Swarthmore College

(Philadelphia, PA)

The University of North Texas Mean Green Workshops (Denton,

TX)

Premier Debate Institute at the University of Minnesota

(Minneapolis, MN)

The Texas Debate Collective (Austin, TX)

These camps tend to attract debaters who intend to be

competitive on the national circuit. The debate community

distinguishes between the “local circuit”, a casual track of

tournaments with a low entrance barrier, and the “national

circuit.” Local circuit tournaments are attended by schools from

that geographic region (for example, the Dallas metropolitan

7

area) and are often attended by less experienced or committed

students. Judges at local circuit tournaments are often referred

to as “lay judges” because they may include adults with minimal

debate knowledge.

The “national circuit” demands much more time, resources,

and training. A typical year for a debater who competes

nationally might involve traveling to cities such as Chicago, New

York, and Las Vegas to compete against top-tier debate programs

from around the country. Unsurprisingly, debaters who compete

nationally tend to come from programs with greater financial

resources and a strong debate history. Judges at circuit

tournaments usually have greater debate experience; they are

either former high school debaters, current college debaters,

and/or debate coaches.

Regardless, the survey respondents represented a good mix of

both national and local circuits. Of the 520 students surveyed,

50% reported that they competed on both circuits, 33% reported

that they competed exclusively on a local circuit, and 13%

reported they competed exclusively on a national circuit.

8

Students who attend summer institutes instead of doing

others things during their vacation tend to be quite committed to

debate. Debate is one of their primary extra-curricular

activities, and their survey responses reflect this commitment.

91% of students will go to at least four tournaments next year.

89% spend three or more hours per week on debate, and 20% report

that they spend more than 10 hours per week on debate

preparation. 88% have done debate for at least one year.

Demographic Results

An analysis of the demographic breakdown of survey

respondents yielded a number of interesting observations about

the high school debate community. In this section I will analyze

each of the demographic attributes one by one and discuss the

larger implications for high school debate.

Race

Surprisingly, white campers were only 36% of the camp

population, despite comprising over 70% of the US population. In

contrast, Asian-American campers comprised a solid 50% of the

entire camp population, despite only being less than 5% of the

general population. This is fascinating. Why are Asian-Americans

so drawn to debate? How are Asian-Americans represented in debate

compared to other extra-curricular activities? This question

should be the subject of further study.

9

It is troubling, however, that only 5% of students were

Hispanic and 4% of students were Black/African-American. This

indicates that at national camps, Hispanic students (17% of the

general population in 2013) and Black students (12% of Americans

in 2013) are severely underrepresented. If one of debate’s

purposes is to encourage minority communities to become more

politically active, it is problematic that debate is reaching so

few students of color.

There are problems with racism that are inherent to debate.

One problem that has recently been widely discussed in the high

school debate community is how a culture of privilege can cause

students to make arguments that have racist and hostile

implications, even if they don’t realize it (i.e. “The Holocaust

was not morally wrong because according to realism, states are

not moral actors,” or “Slavery was justified according to

utilitarianism because it had economic benefits for the American

10

south.) In an activity where students are encouraged to argue

topics from all possible perspectives, debaters sometimes cross

the line between innovative, interesting arguments and blatant

prejudice. In 2014, two high school debate coaches of color

reported that “Our students have come to us wanting to quit—and

some of them have quit—because they did not feel safe or were

tired of fighting in an environment that tells them it is okay

for society to rape and kill them and people who look like them”

(Alston and Timmons, 2014). They report that the following

statements have been uttered by judges during their RFDs (reasons

for decision):

“Slavery was bad, but it was worth it. It is the way we were able to get the

wonderful society that we have today.”

“I wanted to vote for you, I just didn’t see the impact to racism.”

“His moral philosophy does not take a stand on the possibility of you being

lynched. I’m not saying that lynching you would be a moral action; I’m just

saying that his moral philosophy doesn’t condemn it, and that’s perfectly okay.

We need to have the freedom to argue those positions in high school debate.”

Though there are certainly features inherent to the debate

community that could partially explain the racial disparity, it

is also true that the racial disparity could be caused by a

variety of other social factors that discourage minority youth

from participating in extra-curricular activities. A 2004 study

found that Hispanic youth were the least likely to have

participated in extracurriculars: only 63%of Hispanic youth had

participated in some kind of extracurricular activity compared to

11

74% of African American youth and 80 percent of white youth

(Cadwallader et al, 2004.)

Gender

Women remain underrepresented at national debate camps; they

only 41% of students at camps surveyed. This corroborates

existing literature; multiple studies have found that women are

underrepresented at all levels of competition. Most recently,

Yuill analyzed tournament results from seven League Districts’

National Qualifying Tournaments to compare the number of female

and male entries and qualifying spots for the National Speech &

Debate Tournament. He found that although participation rates are

somewhat equal (48% female to 52% male), male competitors were

far more successful: not only were 23% of national qualifiers on

Public Forum debate and 16.7% of qualifiers on Policy Debate

female, but not a single one of the Public Forum or Policy Debate teams

that qualified were all-female (2013).

12

The gender barrier in debate has been attributed to multiple

factors. The community generally agrees that double standards

exist for male and female competitors; when male debaters are

acting assertive, their behavior is seen as “confident”, while

female debaters come off as “bitchy” or “shrill”. Similar

standards apply to the ways women are expected to dress and

behave. Friedley and Manchester argue that men tend to do better

because debate rewards skills like critical thinking and logical

appeals, which are associated with masculine forms of speaking,

as compared to traditionally feminine rhetorical techniques of

emotional appeals (1987). The lack of female staff at debate

camps and female judges at debate tournaments contributes to a

vicious cycle where girls are discourage from competing because

they don’t see many female role models or support sources.

What this study adds is the discovery that not only are

females less likely to do well at tournaments, they are also less

likely than males to register for camp in the first place. This

raises worries about the perception of such a high entrance

barrier to competitive debate for women that it doesn’t seem

worth registering for a summer debate institute. Coaches and

program directors need to do a better job of recruiting women to

their teams and ensuring that they remain committed to the

activity.

13

Socioeconomic Class

The vast majority of respondents fall in the “middle-class”

to “upper middle-class” range. This is no surprise, as debate can

be an extremely costly activity, especially for students who

frequently travel on the national circuit. Though a handful of

programs subsidize debate costs, the majority of students must

pay out of pocket or pay school fees for hotel rooms, flights,

ground transportation, and meals during travel. For most circuit

tournaments, students are also expected to supply a judge (which

means paying for that judge’s transportation, room and board for

the weekend), or pay judge fees if they can’t find one.

This does not include the cost of attending a summer debate

institute, which can be prohibitive. During the summer of 2015,

the tuition cost for a Victory Briefs Institute was $2500 for two

weeks. Tuition at the Victory Briefs Institute was $2695 for

residents and $1895 for commuters. The University of North Texas

14

Mean Green Workshops, which is considered a more affordable

option, still costs students $1800 for two weeks.

Despite efforts to make debate camps more accessible (for

example, through scholarships and urban debate programs), debate

remains a rather expensive activity. Current efforts include the

Texas Debate Collective, which strives to make camp affordable to

low-income students. Camps such as the Victory Briefs Institute

have also increased efforts to provide greater numbers of

scholarships for students, but the cost of debate camp is still

too high for many. If debate is meant to reach those populations

most in need of higher political engagement, greater efforts must

be made to spread debate to low-income students.

Politics

The most interesting finding from the study was the

students’ reported political orientation. The majority of

debaters identified as liberal; 32% identify as “liberal” and 24%

identify as “very liberal.” In comparison, only 6% of students

identify as “conservative”, and only one student as “very

conservative.” There are also far more liberals than moderates,

which comprised 21% of respondents.

15

The debate community appears to be much more liberal than

general population surveys would project. The debaters’ reported

household political orientation, however, was much more

proportional to national averages, although it is still

overwhelmingly moderate and liberal.

However, even debaters from conservative households did not

adopt their parents’ political orientations. Of the 22 students

16

that reported a “very conservative” household, 7 reported that

they themselves were “very liberal”, 7 said they were “moderate”,

and 3 identified as “liberal.” Clearly, debaters are very likely

to be liberal despite parental influence.

Unsurprisingly, the survey population also leaned left in

their party affiliations; 50% of students identified as

Democrats, 16% identified as Independent, and only 8% of students

identified as Republican. This differs radically from national

trends; the most recent Gallup poll finds that 27% of Americans

identify as Republican, 41% are independents, and 31% are

Democrats (2015).

It’s true that younger people tend to identify more strongly

with the Democratic Party, but a Pew Research report found that

51% of “millennials”2 identified as Democratic or leaning towards

the Democratic Party, while 35% identified as Republicans or

leaned Republican (2015). The debate community is still

disproportionately Democratic in comparison.

The Democratic bias of survey respondents might partially be

explained by the overwhelmingly proportion of Asian students. As

discussed above, the sample demographic was overwhelmingly Asian,

and Asian-Americans are reported to be more liberal: Pew reports

that Democrats lead by a three-to-one ratio among the Asian

American population (2015). However, Republicans hold a 49-40%

advantage among White voters, so it is still not mathematically

2 18-33 years old in 2014; data was not available for a younger age group

17

possible for the racial composition of the sample to fully

explain the liberal-leaning tilt.

During group interviews, students shed light on why a strong

liberal bias might exist. One student, who had been raised in a

conservative environment, reported:

“I think I’m a little more liberal now. Right now I live in more of a Republican and

Conservative environment. But debate kind of like—you know, you learn about

structural issues that affect you, or other groups, more in depth when you’re

forced to either read it or pay attention, and it definitely contributes to your

learning process.”

Another student raised the suggestion that the debate

community is primarily liberal because students discuss social

issues and topics of inequality and social justice rather than

discussing financial topics:

“I think as a whole, the debate community values social issues a lot more than

fiscal issues. We don’t really talk much to fiscal issues as much as we do things

about philosophy, and we don’t concern ourselves as much with that sort of

thing. I think the conception of the debate community as being more liberal is

because we talk about general ideas in the social realm, not the realm

conservatives usually live in, or the realm of economics- I shudder to say the

word.”

However, this liberal bias may not purely be the result of

higher awareness of social issues. Peer pressure may also play a

role in the overrepresentation of liberals in the community.

Students who have conservative opinions may feel they need to

18

cloak their political beliefs to avoid mockery and ridicule from

their teammates. As one student puts it,

“I think the debate community is primarily liberal because—and this is a very

cynical way of looking at it—but almost because of peer pressure. I see a lot of

kids who feel like they are trying to act liberal, and that could end up being a

good thing because those kids, because of that peer pressure, are influenced to

be—to actually understand things. But there are like a lot of kids, on my team

even, who you can tell don’t really understand the issues—and I don’t really

understand some of the issues. And they either go to learn more or they do it to

kid themselves….A lot of times it makes you read and it makes you pay attention

to actually having a real impact, but at the very outset, I think that it is a little bit

fake or superficial.”

It’s possible, and somewhat ironic, that an activity

designed to welcome a plurality of ideas is almost dogmatically

liberal. Another student claims the liberal bias is so strong

that debaters are encouraged to make “liberal” arguments to win

ballots:

“I feel like the actions of the debate community—they remain biased to how

things used to be. But in the debate community, it’s always advantageous to be

liberal, so that you can get the ballot. I think that reality has a strong bias to

what we’re calling liberal right now.”3

Political Engagement

Oddly, debaters’ interest in politics did not translate into

many political actions. For example, only nine respondents (less

3

19

than 2%) reported that they “very frequently” attended a

political rally or speech. The majority (58%) had never attended

a political rally or speech. 84% had never worked for a political

party or candidate. 75% had never contributed money for a

political cause. However, debaters tended to be more political

active in the digital sphere: 43% reported that they had

“somewhat frequently” or more participated in politics-related

social media online. Only 37% reported that they had never done

so.

On the other hand, debaters firmly believed that knowledge

of political issues was important. On a scale of 1-5 (5 being

“strongly agree”, 1 being “strongly disagree”), most students

believed agreed with the statement that “Being a good citizen

requires that one know about political issues.”

20

When asked about the statement “Being a good citizen

requires that you take action to support your values,” students

were slightly more neutral, but most agreed.

Similarly, students mostly agreed that being a good citizen

required voting in important elections (although none had ever

voted in an election; only a handful were of voting age.)

21

Discussions from focus groups shed some light on why

debaters may be interested in political issues, but not

necessarily act on them. One student reported that because of

debate, he tended to view current events updates in terms of

their strategic value in a debate round as opposed to their gravity and

implications for real people:

“I also feel like it starts to trivialize a lot of important issues, because we start to

see certain current events and stuff for their strategic purpose in rounds, like

cutting uniqueness updates instead of the actual, like, events that are occurring

and taking that in.”

Another student admitted that though the competitive element

made him read the news in the interest of winning debates, debate

was still good training for being a good policy maker after

graduation.

22

“I think at one end we’re better able to see critically what’s going on and the

importance of it, but at the same time we’re just- we understand its importance

but it’s on the back burner. But I think in the long term after we graduate, that

understanding will transfer into our real lives. But in the short term, the strategic

value of real events…”

As another student concludes:

“The very nature of debate is competitive, so everything we see now we’re going

to see for its competitive value. Our ultimate goal is to win rounds. But I’m sure

that years from now information that we learn about in the debate space does

have, like, real impacts outside of just this game that we play.”

Another student explains that even if debate does not have

an immediate impact on how he engages with the political realm,

it has strongly affected his future plans:

“I started debate when I was in seventh grade, and I remember a time when I

really wanted to do computer programming. But after two years spent on debate

and learning about issues on a global scale, I’ve learned about how things that

other people do have real effects on me, and we can change global barriers. Now

I want to go into foreign service, or be a politician, or something like that, so I

can be one of the people who actually has control over something like a handgun

ban, so I can help other people. After looking at topics like this, I realize that

there are some people who do have this power, and I want to be one of those

people so I can help other people out.”

Indeed, the awareness that stems from debate seemed to be the

strongest influence on the students who participated in focus

groups. One student explains:

23

“I think the point of debate is to make you aware, and you can’t look at the civil

disobedience topic and ignore the fact that certain groups are being oppressed

and being hurt; you can’t look at the living wage topic and ignore the fact that

some parents are struggling to feed their children; you can’t ignore people who

are currently starving with the food security topic. You have to look at these

things- you have to look at both sides- and you can’t be a good debater and not

care, or not know. It makes you ignorant.”

Conclusion

This research is the largest study of debaters at summer

debate institute to date, and provides valuable insight on the

debate demographic. Quantitative survey data backs up many

intuitions that coaches have held about the debate community for

a while, and raises the question of how to make debate more

accessible for those students who might benefit the most.

The demographic makeup of debate is particularly

illuminating. When Gary Alan Fine surveyed a 400-student large

sample of policy debaters at the National Forensic League

tournament in 1989, he found that 64% were male, 83% of students

were Caucasian, and approximately 10% were Asian. Even then, he

wrote that Asian-Americans were a “significant

overrepresentation,” that overrepresentation is even more

severely exaggerated at summer debate institutes today. He also

found that African-American or Black students represented only 2%

of the total, and the 4% of Black students that this study finds

is not a significant improvement. Fine also found that families

24

of debaters were comfortably middle class or upper middle class.

That has not changed. Since Fine’s study, debate is still

overwhelmingly white, male, and comfortably middle class.

Educators must ask themselves what can be done to make debate a

more accessible activity.

At present, a handful of institutions exist to attract

minority students to debate- for example, Urban Debate Leagues

and camps such as the Texas Debate Collectives and the Women’s

National Debate Institute. This study shows that there is still a

need for the work of such programs, which should get more funding

and attention.

Finally, I tentatively conclude that debate can be

instrumental in shaping political awareness and opinions, but does

not make debaters more likely to be active politically while

still in high school. This doesn’t moot the positive effects of

debate. Many reasons can explain why high school students are not

as politically active—they face pressure from school, they work

after-school jobs, or they are simply too busy preparing for

debate tournaments to be politically active at the same time.

When Fine surveyed policy debaters in 1989, he discovered

that “politically, high school debaters are hard to define.” His

survey found that Republicans outnumbered Democrats by 52% to

26%, which is the opposite of the results from my survey.

However, he found that the debaters’ attitudes were “more liberal

than the general public.” That has not changed. Debate seems to

be a bastion of liberal thought, to the degree that it seems

25

hostile to students who are not liberal. More research on the

political indoctrination caused by the debate community would be

interesting.

Debate should be conceived of as a very useful game. The

motivation of competition makes students more likely to research

things and expose themselves to new opinions and theories.

However, we should not expect debaters to immediately act on

them, or even indeed to realize at the time that they are really

training to become better public decision-makers. The skills that

debate inculcates manifest into political and civic engagement

after students graduate high school.

26

References

Antilla-Garza, J., & Cook-Gumperz, J. (2015). Debating the world – Choosing the word: High

school debates as academic discourse preparation for bilingual students. Linguistics and Education.

Colbert, K. (1999). "Enhancing Critical Thinking Ability Through Academic Debate."

Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 16, 52-72. A Deep Dive Into Party Affiliation. (2015, April 7). Retrieved August 20, 2015, from

http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/Mezuk, B., Bondarenko, I., Smith, S., & Tucker, E. (2011). Impactof participating in a policy

debate program on academic achievement: Evidence from the Chicago Urban Debate

League. Educational Research and Reviews, Vol. 6(9), 622-635.Esberg, J. & Sagan, S. (2012). Negotiating Nonproliferation: Scholarship, Pedagogy, and

Nuclear Weapons Policy. The Non Proliferation Review, Vol. 19(1), 95-108. Fine, G. (2001). Gifted tongues high school debate and adolescentculture. Princeton, N.J.:

Princeton University Press.Flanagan, .C, & Levine, P. (2010). “Civic Engagement and the Transition to Adulthood.” In

Transition to Adulthood, eds. Mary Waters, Gordon Berlin, and Frank Furstenberg.

Princeton, NJ: Brookings. The Future of Children 20(1): 159–80. Friedley, S.A. & Manchester, B.B. (1985). An Analysis of Male/Female Participation in Select

27

National Championships. National Forensic Journal, Vol. 3(1), 1-12.Snider, A & Schnurer, M. (2006). Many Sides: Debate Across the Curriculum, New York, NY:

iDebate Press.Wray-Lake, L., & Hart, D. (2012). Growing Social Inequalities in Youth Civic Engagement?

Evidence from the National Election Study. PS: Political Science & Politics APSC, 456-461.

Party Affiliation. (2015, August 1). Retrieved August 20, 2015, from

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspxStannard, M. (2006). Deliberation, Debate, and Democracy in the Academy and Beyond. Spring

2006 Faculty Senate Speaker Series Speech, Laramie Wyoming. Yuill D. (2013). "Female Success and Participation in High SchoolForensics." NSDA Rostrum,

Vol. 87(6).

28

Appendix A

Questionnaire

1. What school do you attend?

2. Which debate camp are you attending this summer? VBI: Swarthmore VBI: Los Angeles VBI: Chicago UNT Mean Green Workshops Texas Debate Collective Northwestern Debate Institute Michigan 7-Week Premier Debate Institute

3. Which event are you attending camp in? Lincoln-Douglas Policy Public Forum

4. What grade will you enter in the fall?

5. Please indicate your gender. Male Female Other

6. What is your race? Black/African-American Asian/Asian-American Hispanic Native American White I don't know I prefer not to answer Other:

7. How would you describe the socio-economic category of the household where you live?

29

Upper Class Upper-Middle Class Middle Class Lower Middle Class Lower Class Poor I prefer not to answer Other:

8. How many years have you participated in debate? 1 year 2 years 3 years 4 years Other:

9. Do you consider yourself: Democrat Republican Independent I don't know Other:

10. How would you characterize the political environment in your household? Very conservative Conservative Moderate Liberal Very liberal I don't know Other:

11. How would you characterize your own political orientation? Very conservative Conservative Moderate Liberal Very liberal

30

I don't know Other:

12. How old are you? 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 Other:

13. How would you describe the debate circuit you compete on? Local National Both Other:

14. How many tournaments do you attend per year? 10-12 7-9 4-6 0-3

15. Which debate experience level do you consider yourself? Varsity Junior Varsity Novice

16. How many hours per week do you spend at debate practice and/or on debate prep? More than 10 6-10 3-5 2 or fewer

31

17. How often have you done volunteer work to help groups like the poor, homeless, or elderly? (1 to 5, 1 = Never, 5 = Very Frequently)

18. How often have you done volunteer work to benefit your community? (1 to 5, 1 = Never, 5 = Very Frequently)

19. How often have you worked on solving a problem in your community? (1 to 5, 1 = Never, 5 = Very Frequently)

20. How often have you participated in a church-organized serviceproject? (1 to 5, 1 = Never, 5 = Very Frequently)

21. How frequently have you attended a political rally or speech?(1 to 5, 1 = Never, 5 = Very Frequently)

22. How frequently do you engage in politics-related social mediaonline? (1 to 5, 1 = Never, 5 = Very Frequently)

23. How frequently have you participated in a political protest activity? (1 to 5, 1 = Never, 5 = Very Frequently)

24. How often have you worked for a political party or candidate?(1 to 5, 1 = Never, 5 = Very Frequently)

25. How frequently have you contributed money for a political cause? (1 to 5, 1 = Never, 5 = Very Frequently)

26. How strongly do you agree with the statement: "Being a good citizen requires that you know about political issues" ? (1-5, 1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree)

32

27. How strongly do you agree with the statement: "Being a good citizen requires that you take action supporting your values." ? (1-5, 1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree)

28. How strongly do you agree with the statement: "Being a good citizen requires that you volunteer in your community." ? (1-5, 1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree)

29. How strongly do you agree with the statement: "Being a good citizen requires that you vote in important elections." ? (1-5, 1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree)