Walk into almost any varsity debate tournament in South Dakota, and one thing becomes immediately clear: There is no LHS debate team in sight. This absence is not due to chance or skill, rather choice — one based on longstanding beliefs about what debate should be.
Competitive debate has deep roots at both the state and national levels. Specifically in South Dakota, there are two types of SDHSAA-sanctioned debate: public forum, a partner event and Lincoln-Douglas, an individual event. Both varieties are ingrained in state history, with 2026 marking the 24th year of public forum competition and the 46th year of Lincoln-Douglas competition, according to data from SDPB. Missing from this list, however, is policy debate, which would have celebrated its 112th year in South Dakota if it had not been de-sanctioned approximately five years ago. This, however, does not stop LHS from making policy debate a priority.
“So this year we brought back policy debate, and I think that is very much at the center of a lot of the differences of opinion…between different coaches or different debaters in the state,” said Anthony Welter, the head coach of LHS’s debate team.
This shift to policy debate not only produced varying reactions but also points to a broader trend in debate. Specifically, in most states outside of South Dakota — which are members of the national circuit — a shift from traditional to progressive debate is occurring. Traditional debate — a broad classification that includes the public forum style — emphasizes slower speaking, persuasiveness and accessibility. On the other hand, progressive or technical debate — which includes policy debate — is centered around fast speaking, nuance and critical argumentation. These stylistic differences are at the heart of LHS’s individuality.
“The big, novel difference between Lincoln and the rest of the state is technical versus traditional debate,” said Grant Wiessner, a senior debate team leader at LHS. “Lincoln chooses to debate more on the technical side than the traditional side, which means we speak a lot faster; we do a lot more critical argumentation.”
For Wiessner and his partner, senior Callaway Weeks, this move towards progressive policy debate occurred just last year. After competing in public forum debate for three years — and even earning a bid to the University of Kentucky’s Tournament of Champions in 2025 — Wiessner and Weeks decided to spearhead a team-wide shift towards policy debate this season.
“I wish, honestly, we had just switched to policy sooner. It’s just so much better; everyone enjoys it more,” said Weeks. “This year, I know Grant and I would have qualified [for public forum] again if we would have just continued pushing, but we gave it up because something about the team means more…We’re pushing them in a way that we think is more educational and a better activity in general.”
LHS’s transition towards policy debate is not just about the debaters’ personal preferences. For Welter, embracing progressive debate means pursuing both innovation and solutions to some of the flaws seen in traditional debate. For one, in progressive debate, it is common for teams to publicly share their evidence before rounds begin — a practice that Welter believes enhances transparency and depth. Furthermore, judge disclosure — the practice of judges explaining why they chose a winner — is an aspect of progressive debate that Welter deeply appreciates. Perhaps his favorite characteristic of progressive debate is the way it allows for more student-led discussion.
“The content of the debate, the direction of debate…and what students are allowed…to care about in more traditional circuits is largely dictated by the judges and coaches,” said Welter. “I think in more progressive circuits…if the guiding principle is that [judges] adjudicate the debate in front of [them] no matter how much [they] disagree with it, I think that leads to a point where the students actually lead the direction of it.”
For LHS, participating in policy debate and the benefits it holds comes at a cost — literally. In order to compete in progressive national circuit tournaments, LHS prioritizes out-of-state competitions, which add up fast. To offset this, the team debates virtually for tournaments in Texas, Washington and Washington, D.C., and travels by bus to Iowa and Nebraska. Still, a heavy virtual schedule is not ideal for the team.
“That’s not a sustainable solution because you’re not traveling, and travel tournaments are a pretty big part of the whole experience,” said Welter. “The other thing that helps is we actually save money…by not doing a fair amount of the tournaments in state, which is also a source of controversy on its own.”
Controversy is a central theme in LHS’s transition from traditional to progressive debate. South Dakota takes pride in its public forum debate, which many see as an opportunity to develop the next generation of public speakers. Not only that, but the state-wide unity around traditional debate creates connections across county lines — connections LHS is giving up.
“With debate, we traveled to places like Milbank and Brookings and Vermillion and Rapid City and Aberdeen,” said Kidus Hiruy, a junior debater at JHS. “And not only did I get to explore more of my home state, but I got to see how people were in these different cities.”
Along with choosing to compete primarily out-of-state, LHS must also continually wrestle with how they are viewed by the broader debate community. In Weeks’ opinion, he is confident that most schools respect LHS’s unique version of success. Wiessner is still aware of the division LHS’s actions have brought up.
“There are some schools that definitely don’t like what we’re doing: moving to policy, arguing more critically, speaking faster, debating more technically,” said Wiessner. “There’s some schools that I think dislike us personally for that and choose to dislike us. There are other schools that we still have connections with.”
In the wake of moving to policy debate, Welter has had a similar experience as a coach.
“We’ve gotten a mixed reception so far. We’ll be able to show some people that policy debate isn’t actually the same boogeyman that the state has feared for the last decade, but that fear won’t go away overnight,” said Welter.
Prioritizing policy debate, however, does not mean the LHS is completely opposed to public forum debate. In fact, Welter sees policy debate as a means to improve the quality of public forum in South Dakota.
“The existence of policy debate also helps keep public forum valuable and distinct,” said Welter. “Public forum doesn’t need to be policy debate — or vice-versa — when students have the opportunity to choose either.”
Although the debate community’s reaction has not been entirely positive, Welter, the LHS debate team and others believe there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Specifically, LHS and RHS have begun to incorporate policy debate into the tournaments they host — exposing other South Dakota high schools to progressive debate. For debaters like Hiruy, this is a valuable learning experience.
“So Roosevelt and Lincoln…have been starting to stay in state more and more,” said Hiruy. “And I think that’s fixing a lot of the problems that we used to have about this divide over national circuit debate and traditional debate, where now we’re kind of coming together as a community now. We aren’t thinking that Lincoln’s polarized.”
Regardless of what other schools believe, Welter and the LHS debate team will continue to pursue their version of excellence, setting their sights on national circuit tournaments while increasing awareness for progressive debate in South Dakota.
“I would describe it as friction. It’s because there’s movement, there’s change, there’s things that have to happen, there’s discussions that won’t go away,” said Welter. “But hey, I think there’s just a certain amount of discomfort that always is gonna have to be there to hopefully push things in the right direction.”
To learn more about policy debate, read this article by the National Speech and Debate Association:
https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/MS-Policy-Guide.pdf
