I love politics, but conversations about politics regularly include name-calling, shaming, and vitriol. That's why I signed up to be on my high school’s debate team and join the National Speech and Debate Association. I wanted to converse respectfully with my peers about important domestic and international topics.

Unfortunately, high school debate is not what I thought it would be.

At the NSDA National Qualifier debate tournament in March, my judge warned me not to mention former President Donald Trump in a debate on President Joe Biden’s foreign policy record. The judge said that mentioning Trump was "inappropriate." I was baffled. I had planned to argue that Biden’s foreign policy had fallen short in comparison to the previous administration — a perfectly valid approach, yet one I was not allowed to use, according to the judge. Put simply, I had to conform to her ideology if I wanted a chance to win.

Of course, my argument wasn’t "inappropriate." It was based on facts and evidence: Trump's presidency was enormously consequential, and Biden’s has paled in comparison. Trump convinced NATO members to increase their contributions, he was the first president in a generation not to start a new war, and perhaps most notably, he brokered the Abraham Accords. Those agreements established diplomatic recognition between various Muslim-majority states and Israel. I wasn’t allowed to say any of that. My preparation and research had gone to waste. I was censored and I lost.

I wish this was a solitary incident.

The progressive bias of the National Speech and Debate Association also shows up in the topics it releases. Take this topic for example: "How has race-based affirmative action supported Black Americans?" With a topic worded as such, there is no opportunity for a two-sided debate in which I could challenge the idea that affirmative action is good. Instead, I’d be forced to accept it as good and then proceed to argue how it’s good. That’s not a debate.

Another topic: "A Resolution to Oppose Oppressive Voter ID Laws." Why is the word "oppressive" in what is supposed to be a neutral, two-sided topic? We should absolutely have a debate on voter ID, but not one that is tilted in favor of one side and deems voter ID laws as "oppressive" right out of the gate. If one side wants to argue that, fine by me, but the topic shouldn’t try to rig the debate before it starts.

In December, I judged a middle school tournament in Broward County, Florida. And the topic, of all things, was whether every school in America should have a Gay-Straight Alliance club. This was a congressional debate, so students chose their sides. Of the 12 students in the round, 10 spoke in favor of adding the clubs and two against. The two students who spoke against it brought up excellent points about necessity and overreach. Their opponents, rather than addressing their arguments, attacked their character and called them "homophobes."

Even if I get a fair judge in high school debate, I’m stuck with peers who decry mainstream ideas, words, and actions as "toxic." If I say that sex is binary, I’m "transphobic." If I say that COVID-19 originated in China, I’m a "racist." If I say that I’m proud to be an American, I’m a "nationalist."

Debate is the last area on Earth where students should be shamed for making fact-based arguments. Unfortunately, it happens all the time. I just want to debate without being ridiculed or censored by either my judges or my peers.

The essence of a debate is to provoke thought, challenge prevailing views, and prepare young men and women like myself to analyze different perspectives and build persuasive arguments. If we allow ideology to overrun high school debate, it will no longer be debate. Instead, it will be a mindless activity where curiosity is nowhere to be found.

Briana Whatley is a high school student in Florida.