AT: Flow Bad
ALREADY READ
Policy debate isn’t exclusionary and can empower minorities --- attempting to increase participation by changing traditional
practices such as flowing eliminates the progressive potential of debate
Bailey ‘04
(Stephen, Fmr Debater at Emory, Email Correspondence with Will Repko, 2-4,
http://www.geocities.com/caseyharrigan/bailey.html)
Feel free to quote me on this...I think that it is essentializing and very troubling theoretically to argue that African
Americans can only be attracted to debate if it is in a rap-type format and does not include traditional techniques such as
rapid delivery, flowing, cutting evidence, etc.. Louisville's argument is troubling because it seems to imply that African
Americans do not possess the skills necessary to compete in debate as currently structured or there is something about our
race that makes us less apt to excel at such an activity. Obviously, I do not believe that this implication is inherently true. At the same
time, ironically enough, Louisville's argument does seem to have some practical appeal to me given the inequitable educational system
that exists in this country. Unfortunately, the lack of quality educational opportunity that currently exists for the average African
American student means that, practically, it is very difficult for the average African American student to successfully compete in
debate as currently constituted. It is also difficult to attract such students to debate when they do not possess the relatively high level
of academic training that is necessary to perceive debate as a rewarding activity. That being said, I do believe that Louisville's
argument can validly be framed as a reification of the status quo. If African Americans are always discussed as being
unable to participate in activities that require high levels of academic achievement, it seems unlikely that the achievement
gap will ever be effectively remedied. The success of U rban D ebate L eague programs and the enthusiasm that many inner
city African American students show for conventional debate structures (I know from personal experience teaching such students)
militates against Louisville's claim that such conventional structures are inherently exclusionary. Overall, I am of the belief that
it is best to give African American students the opportunity to participate in activities that expand the academic horizons that
have been set for them in woefully inadequate public schools rather than encourage them to participate in activities that seek
to conform to such horizons. Louisville's vision of debate might increase African American participation in the activity, but at
what cost?
AT: Ballot agency
ALREADY READA single round produces virtually no change – their project is not going to change the
community
Atchison and Panetta ‘05
(Jarrod, PhD Candidate – U Georgia, and Ed, Professor of Communication – U Georgia, “Activism in
Debate: Parody, Promise, and Problems”, NCA Paper)
The first problem is the difficulty of any individual debate to generate community change. Although any debate has the potential to create problems
for the community (videotapes of objectionable behavior, etc…), rarely does any one debate have the power to create community wide change. We
attribute this ineffectiveness to the structural problems inherent in individual debates and the collective forgetfulness of the debate community. The
structural problems are clear. Debaters engage in preliminary
debates in rooms that are rarely populated by anyone
other than the judge or a few scouts. Judges are instructed to vote for the team that does the best debating, but the ballot is
rarely seen by anyone outside the tabulation room. Given the limited number of debates in which a judge
actually writes meaningful comments, there is little documentation available for use in many cases. During the period when judges interact with the
debaters there are often external pressures (filing evidence, preparing for the next debate, etc…) that restrict the ability for anyone outside the debate to pay
attention to why a judge voting a particular way. Elimination debates do not provide for a much better audience because debates still occur simultaneously and
travel schedules dictate that most of the tournament has left by the later elimination rounds. We find it difficult for anyone to substantiate the claim that
asking a judge to vote to solve a community problem in an individual debate with so few participants is the best strategy for addressing important
problems. In addition to the structural problems, the collective forgetfulness of the debate community reduces the impact that individual debates have on the
community. The debate community has a high turnover rate. Despite the fact that some debaters make their best effort to debate for more than four
years, the debate community is largely made up of participants who debate and then move on. The coaches and directors that make up the backbone of the
community are the people with the longest cultural memory, but they are also a small minority of the community when considering the number of
debaters involved in the activity. We do not mean to suggest that the activity is reinvented every year—certainly there are conventions that are passed
down from coaches to debaters and from debaters to debaters. However, given the fact that there are virtually no transcriptions available for everyone to
read, it is difficult to assume that the debate community would remember any individual debate. Additionally, given the
focus on competition and individual skill, the community is more likely to remember the accomplishments and talents of debaters rather than what
argument they won a particular round on. The debate community does not have the necessary components in place for a strong collective memory of
individual debates. We believe that the combination of the structures of debate and the collective forgetfulness means that any strategy for creating
community change that is premised on winning individual debates is less effective than seeking a larger community dialogue that is recorded and/or
transcribed. The second major problem with attempting to create community change in individual debates is that the debate community is made up
of more individuals than the four debaters and one judge that are a part of every debate. The coaches and directors that make up the backbone of the
community have very little space for engaging in a discussion about community issues. We suspect that this helps explain why so few debaters get involved
in the edebates over activist strategies. Coaches and directors dominant this forum because there is so little public dialogue over the issues that
directly affect the community that they have dedicated so much of their professional and personal lives. This is especially true for coaches and
directors that are not preferred judges and therefore do not even have a voice at the end of a debate. Coaches and directors should have a public
forum to engage in a community conversation with debaters instead of attempting to take on their opponents through the wins and losses of their own
debaters.
Any change is compensated by competitive backlash
Atchison and Panetta ‘05
(Jarrod, PhD Candidate – U Georgia, and Ed, Professor of Communication – U Georgia, “Activism in
Debate: Parody, Promise, and Problems”, NCA Paper)
The simple point is this: if we are serious about creating real community change then it is more likely to occur outside of a
traditional competitive debate. When a team loses a debate because the judge decides that it is better for the community
for the other team to win then they have sacrificed two potential advocates for change within the community. Creating
change through wins generates backlash through loses. Some people are comfortable with generating backlash and see
the reaction as a sign that the community is at least responding to what they are saying. We believe, however, that any
change that is developed as a result of these hostile situations is a pyrrhic victory. Instead of giving up on hope for
change and agitating for wins regardless of who is left behind, we believe that the debate community should try public
argumentation in order to generate a discussion of necessary community changes. We do not believe that debate rounds as
currently constituted represent the best atmosphere for community change because it is a competition for a win. Beating a
team does not generate comrades in the struggle for change.
Debate is insulated --- individual rounds have no impact inside or outside the community
Atchison and Panetta ‘05
(Jarrod, PhD Candidate – U Georgia, and Ed, Professor of Communication – U Georgia, “Activism in
Debate: Parody, Promise, and Problems”, NCA Paper)
A quick glance through most squads’ backfiles reveals arguments that might sound ridiculous to the average person such as Malthus, Spark, and
Wipeout. However, all three of these arguments have been used to win debates. Why has the debate community been so tolerant of these types of
arguments? We believe that the answer to that question is that for much of its existence, the debate community has had a strong norm against
censoring arguments while simultaneously presuming a strong insulation from the communities that support it. If an administrator
asked what topic is being debated, directors are quick to point to the timely resolution and recite some of the major affirmative cases.
When a director reports on a successful season they can strategically leave out the fact that a final round that was won on extinction
good. The debate community has been quick to defend the use of these arguments because every idea should undergo rigorous testing and if the idea is truly awful
then it should be easily defeated. Although this approach to intercollegiate debate arguments has been accepted for many years, we believe the recent push trend toward
alternative argument approaches warrants reconsideration of intercollegiate debate’s status as an insulated activity. In an era of tightened budgets, directors are
increasingly pressured to defend the benefits of intercollegiate debate. This is occurring at a time when debate is becoming more and more publicized. The two C.S.T.V.
documentaries and the increase use of video and audio recording by debate programs have combined with college newspapers, blogs, and internet list serves to
challenge the presumption that debate is an insulated activity. Argument choices, on the other hand, have moved further and further toward the exotic. The norm against
restricting arguments has expanded to include actions that performance artists have deemed resistance, but would not be covered by even liberal interpretations of
academic freedom. The presumption of insulation, however, has remained the same. Some people still believe that what takes place in
an individual debate has no bearing on anyone else inside or outside the debate community. There has been little community wide
response that demonstrates that directors, coaches, or debaters are concerned that argument choices may negatively impact their or
other programs. The norm of argument freedom has become so strong that all an individual debater needs to win is that they are making an
argument to engage in a behavior in a debate. It does not take a very experienced argument scholar to recognize that there are few behaviors that
cannot be construed as making an argument. As we have written elsewhere, we believe that the combination of intentionally provocative argument
choices and the increased politicization of debate risks the continued institutional support of intercollegiate debate.