A. Interpretat Interpretation: ion: In the 2014-15 2014-15 policy debate season, season, high school school competitors competitors should not spread. B. pponen pponentt is using using e!ces e!cessi" si"ee speed speed #. $tan $tanda darrds 1. %he standard standard is accessibil accessibility ity.. &sing e!cessi"e e!cessi"e speed is un'air because not all debaters can understand e!cessi"e speed and so are put at an immediate disad"antage (ithin the round. I' I can)t understand and 'lo( your arguments arguments it)s impossible impossible 'or me to respond to them. 2. %he standard standard is e!clusion e!clusion 'rom the debate space. &sing &sing e!cessi"e speed is un'air because not all debaters can use speed to the same ability. I' I can)t read as 'ast as you you I)m not able to put out the same number o' arguments so I)m put at a disad"antage. Additionally I can)t respond respond to all o' you arguments so you can *ust e!tend them the m and (in the round. +. %he standard standard is is the the ability ability to chec chec abuse. abuse. I' I can)t can)t chec abuse there is no possible (ay (e can ha"e a 'air debate because abuse is allo(ed to run rampant. &sing e!cessi"e speed is un'air because *udges (ho don)t understand e"erything you)re saying are 'orced to accept the implications you dra( 'rom your case in your 'inal speech. %his allo(s the debater using speed to dra( ne( implications and (arrants out o' their cases in their 'inal speech because i' (e didn)t understand the speech the 'irst time (e ha"e no (ay o' no(ing (hether those implications (ere there initially or not. 4. %he standard standard is strategy strategy se(. se(. I ha"e ha"e to (rite (rite my a''irmati"e case be'ore be'ore I come into the round. round. I can)t possibly predict ho( 'ast the negati"e debater is going to deli"er their arguments so I can)t preempt their use o' speed. I' I simply simply engage in speed speed 'rom the beginning, I open mysel' up to all o' these arguments against against speed. I' I don)t read 'ast ho(e"er, I can easily get spread out o' the round by the negati"e debater. %here)s no (ay 'or me to (in. %his abuse happens be'ore the round e"en begins. hen they use speed they perpetuate this negati"e
ad"antage because i' the threat o' speed ceases to e!ist, so does the ad"antage. ou should re*ect the debater because doing so delegitimi/es the use o' e!cessi"e speed in debate rounds and ensures that debate as an acti"ity is not lead do(n a path o' intrinsic un'airness. . %he "oter is 'airness, which serves as an internal link to education for three reasons: a.
&n'airness in the acti"ity (ill decrease the number o' students (ho do debate, and thus (ill decrease the amount o' education they gain 'rom debate. %hus 'airness comes 'irst because it is necessary in accessing education in debate. ebaters need to be structurally eual be'ore other considerations are looed at. ther(ise, they (ill ha"e no incenti"e to debate because people (ill not engage in a competiti"e acti"ity i' they are structurally disad"antaged. b. An acti"ity that promotes un'air practices degrades the educational "alue o' that acti"ity and the sills learned by participating in it. %hus 'airness comes be'ore education because un'air practices are uneducational.
2. Fairness is an objective way to evaluate arguments, because what is fair is determined by the same factors, but each individual contextualizes what is educational. Thus education is vague, and leaves more room for judge intervention and judge bias. a. ducation is in!uenced by many outside factors such as the amount of "re" one does on an argument, thus determining the level of substance that we can get from a "articular discussion. b. The value of education is contextualized by the knowledge and skill sets that will be "articularly hel"ful later, which is vague because individuals do not know what their future will look like, or if their future will be similar to that of their o""onents. c. #nfairness in a round has a greater im"act on the decision than education, so "refer im"acts back to fairness, over im"acts back to education.
The roll of the ballot is to "romote debate that advocates real world "olicies, the only way to ground our discussion is to remove the inclusion of s"eed in $olicy. %ebate is a uni&ue educational activity that can teach students to become critical and engaged citizens. Thus, you as a judge have a "re'(at duty to vote for the debater who best challenges o""ressive norms.
Giroux 1 1:
%he argument presented here suggests that it is time 'or educators, community leaders, parents, young people, and others to tae a stand and remind
themsel"es that collecti"e problems deser"e collecti"e solutions and that (hat is at ris is not only a generation o' young people, but the "ery promise o' democracy itsel'. %he
Debate 3eagues &3s represents a promising, inno"ati"e e''ort to reinforce[s] substantive democratic education and tradition by fostering rigorous and passionate discussions about social change and how it is to be achieved. %he &rban Debate 3eague approaches matters o' school euity, re'orm, and agency through the use o' academic debate as a (ay to help[s] urban public school students learn the skills, disciplines, [and] knowledge, and "alues that enable them to become critically literate and e''ecti"ely engaged citiens. It organi/es
ational Association o' &rban
debate teams in urban public schools, holds competitions among schools all o"er the country, and supports the ongoing education o' urban school teachers helping them to recogni/e the political, pedagogical, and ci"ic "alue o' debate leagues (hile acti"ely learning ho( to organi/e and engage students in such debates. hat is so important about the &3 program is that it is not merely interested in teaching debating sills to students6 though learning ho( to do library research )skills*, electronic retrie"al, critical
policy evaluation is not inconseuential, it is simply not )aren+t* enough. Instead, debating is "ie(ed as a form of critical literacy that empowers students, especially underrepresented races, ethnicities, and 'emales, not only (ith high-po(ered academic sills but also (ith the essential critical no(ledge and belie' necessary to con"ince them that they can analysis, and
7enry 8irou!. 9#hapter 14: %he &rban ebate 3eague and the olitics o' ossibility.; In America on the .
become both e!ective advocates for democracy
and leaders in a (orld that t hey must learn ho( to
in?uence and go"ern. perating (ith the assumption that to be "oiceless is t o be po(erless, the &3 organi/es high school debates around the understanding that
to
have a voice students must learn 'rom and construct pedagogical practices that make knowledge meaningful in order to be critical and critical in order to be trans'ormati"e. And the space o' the debate provides exactly the public sphere where students learn how to invest in ideas, engage in dialogue (ith others, respect the positions o' those di''erent 'rom their o(n, and do so in the spirit o' contributing [contribute] to both a wider public discourse and a more "ibrant public li'e. %he &3 belie"es that e!cellence cannot be abstracted 'rom euity, and that historically academic debate (as largely the pro"ince o' (hite, pri"ileged youth 'rom a''luent suburban and pri"ate schools. %he interscholastic debate e!perience pro"ided these students (ith important communicati"e sills, modes o' literacy, research opportunities, and the ability to tra"el and meet students 'rom similar pri"ileged bacgrounds. eedless to say, such students en*oyed all the pri"ileges debate leagues a''orded them, but the bene@ts (ere e!clusi"ely class-based, and the "ery notion o' the debate as a per'ormati"e e"ent (as "ie(ed as limited to the rans o' the elit e. %he &3 has attempted to change the class dynamics o' the sphere o' high school debating by purposely enlisting (oring-class youth, minorities o' color, and young (omen into debating leagues in order not only t o raise
crucial to engaged forms of citienship" [and] public policy , democratic "alues, and (hat it might mean to imagine a 'uture that their possibilities 'or going on to higher education, but also to connect them to those discourses that [is] are
does not merely imitate the present. %he &3 belie"es that matters o' literacy, critical understanding, and inter"ention in the (orld are lined to matters o' ad"ocacy, (hich presupposes that notions o' critical consciousness and learning are is ine!tricably connected to social change. I belie"e in &rban ebate 3eagues because their organi/ers and participants belie"e it is not only possible to thin against the grain, but crucial to act in (ays that demonstrate political con"iction, ci"ic courage, and collecti"e responsibility.