Incubate Debate: Offering an antidote to GenZ mind poisoning


Colleges across America see the first signs of a repeat of what happened in California after 1996.


By Bill Freza

Heterodox STEM - Substack

September 8, 2024


I recently had the pleasure of serving as one of the judges for a high school debate program called Incubate Debate held at the New College of Florida. It also included an evening speaking to and with the students involved, who ranged in age from 12 to 18. They had spent an entire week in this residential program training for the big event, learning how to research and debate complex and controversial issues with vigor, clarity, and civility.


I was shocked by how outspoken, courageous, courteous, studious, poised, well-informed, attentive, and totally uninfected by the Woke Mind Virus these kids were. It gives me fresh hope for the next generation.


If you haven’t been following the news on national high school debate programs, in particular the tournaments run by the high-profile National Speech & Debate Association (NSDA), you may not be aware of how hopelessly politicized these have become. All of the pathologies spawned by university DEI and CRT programs have filtered down into this once respected organization, leading to self-censorship pressures and effective cancellation for any students who don’t toe the progressive line.


Lest you think I exaggerate, take a look at the profile statement of one of the judges of the 2024 NSDA finals, who was herself the 2019 national debate champion.

“Before anything else, including being a debate judge, I am a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist. . . . I cannot check the revolutionary proletarian science at the door when I’m judging. . . . I will no longer evaluate and thus never vote for rightest capitalist-imperialist positions/arguments.”

When you’re done digesting that, watch and listen to the 2024 NSDA Duo Champions give their award-winning speech. This is real, not the Babylon Bee. Pericles’ funeral oration it’s not.


Painfully aware of this deterioration, former high school debate champion James Fishback founded Incubate Debate in 2019 as a donor supported not-for-profit that enables students from all socioeconomic backgrounds to participate. He set out to Make Debate Great Again and judging by what I saw he’s delivering on his promise.


Watching these kids debate you know right away that something is different when they formally address each other as Mister and Miss. Disrespect and ad hominem attacks are out.


Facts and reason are in. A tremendous comradery was in evidence even as they went at each other hammer and tong, reminding me of those precious midnight bull sessions that were such a big part of my college experience fifty years ago. 


Unlike the NSDA, which front-loads its debate questions with heaping helpings of wokeness like “How should the education system be reformed to address systemic inequities?” the last Incubate Debate finals tackled the vexing question “Should college DEI programs be abolished?”


What was perhaps most inspiring interacting with these kids is how eager they were for constructive criticism and feedback, as well as how supportive they were of each other. It’s as if they escaped the toxic identity-besotted ideological swamp into which K-12 education has devolved, seeking an oasis of open discourse where heterodoxy can thrive. What a concept.


To date Incubate Debate has only been active in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, but this fall it will be launching Incubate Leagues in New York and Los Angeles. Taking the program directly into the heart of Progressive Mordor, they plan to welcome over 10,000 students to their no-cost, in-person tournaments.


If you have school-age children in these areas, encourage them to participate. And if you have the means and are so inclined, consider supporting this worthy program.


Bill Frezza is a retired engineer, entrepreneur, and venture capital investor, now co-founder and secretary of the MIT Free Speech Alliance.



December 10, 2025
Written by John Craig December 10, 2025 On October 27, the Manhattan Institution’s City Journal published a major, breakthrough analysis of the performance of 100 prominent US (and one Canadian) universities and colleges, “Introducing the City Journal College Rankings,” For the first time, this new performance system includes data on measures (68 in all) like freedom of expression, viewpoint diversity tolerance, quality of instruction, investment payoff, and campus politicization that are not considered in the other major higher ed ranking systems. How did Davidson measure up in City Journal’s performance assessment? On a scale of one (bottom) to five (top) stars , Davidson is among the 63 schools that received 2 stars. Schools that, according to City Journal, have “Mostly average to below-average scores in all categories with no particularly noteworthy strengths. Significant, focused policy changes are needed at these schools.” (Full rankings available here College Rankings | Rankings ) To summarize the methodology, the City Journal team selected 100 schools that are highly touted by other ranking systems, widely known to the American public, and/or of high regional importance. The researchers gathered data on 68 variables across 21 categories covering four major aspects of on- and off-campus life. The Educational Experience categories were Faculty Ideological Pluralism, Faculty Teaching Quality, Faculty Research Quality, Faculty Speech Climate, Curricular Rigor, and Heterodox Infrastructure; the Leadership Quality categories were Commitment to Meritocracy, Support for Free Speech, and Resistance to Politicization; the Outcomes categories were Quality of Alumni Network, Value Added to Career, and Value Added to Education; and the Student Experience categories were Student Ideological Pluralism, Student Free Speech, Student Political Tolerance, Student Social Life, Student Classroom Experience, Campus ROTC, Student Community Life, and Jewish Campus Climate. No other higher ed ranking system includes as many variables. (Read more about methodology at College Rankings | Methods ) The data included publicly available information from sources such as the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), the Department of Education’s College Scorecard, and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s College Free Speech Rankings. The researchers also developed original measures for the project, such as the ideological balance of student political organizations and the partisan makeup of faculty campaign contributions. Each variable was coded so that higher values mean better performance and was weighted to reflect relative importance. For example, student ideological pluralism (as measured by self-reported student ideology and the left-right balance of student organizations) accounts for 5 percent of a school’s score while City Journal’s estimate of how many years it will take the typical student to recoup their educational investment to attend a given college accounts for 12.5 percent. A school’s overall score is the sum of points across the 21 categories, with the top possible score being 100. While the assessment system is for the most part hard-data-based, it has, like other ranking systems, subjective elements—like the weighing system. So methodological challenges will come and will doubtlessly lead to improvements the next time around. That said, the methodology strikes me as defensible and a marked improvement over that of other popular rating systems. I will conclude with some comments on the findings. Note that the Average score (out of 100) for the 100 institutions is 46 and the median score is 45.73—so overall, this is not a “high performance” group of institutions. No institution receives a 5-Star rating, and only two receive a 4-Star rating (University of Florida and University of Texas at Austin). Only 11 schools receive a 3-Star rating—Having “Mixed results across the four categories, showing strengths in some and weakness in others. These schools typically have several clear paths to improvement.” Because assessment scores are generally low and tightly clustered in the middle, the rankings by score are misleading: Davidson, at 51.16 with a rank of 25, looks to be in the top quartile (between Princeton and Georgetown), but in fact gets just a 2-Star assessment
November 11, 2025
Report from Ivy League school finds rampant grade inflation, but students complain administration is moving goal posts
October 30, 2025
Decades of big spending, new federal funding cuts and a changing view of higher education created a perfect storm; ‘Spending Your Tuition On Its Mistakes’
Show More