kaff answers

7/30/2019 kaff answers

1/17

Banquet CP


2/17

1NC


3/17

Shell (0:40)

The _________ tournament director should schedule abanquet to exclusively focus on inequality within the

debate community and the topic area.Developing banquets at tournaments fosters broad community

participation, which creates the foundation for instillingreal change in the debate community

Atchison and Panetta, 09 (Jarrod Atchison, Ph. D Rhetoric University of Georgia, Assistant Professor andDirector of debate at Wake Forest University, and Edward Panetta, Ph. D RhetoricAssociate Professor University of Pittand Director of Debate at Georgia, Intercollegiate Debate and Speech Communication, Historical Developments andIssues for the Future, Intercollegiate Debate and Speech Communication: Issues for the Future, The Sage Handbook ofRhetorical Studies, Lunsford, Andrea, ed. (Los Angeles: Sage Publications Inc., 2009) p. 317-334)

Tournaments that already have banquets scheduled present an easyopportunityfor the beginnings of community discussion. The majority of these tournaments have banquets afterthe end of the preliminary rounds. Traditionally, the banquets serve as a place for announcing speaker awards and teams

clearing to the elimination debates. It would be difficult to use this time for a communitydiscussion because debaters are tired after two strenuous days of debate.Those debaters who are clearing to the elimination rounds are often concerns about getting resources for having enough

sleep and preparing for their potential opponents. Tournaments, however, that already haveallocated a banquet could consider moving the banquet to the end of thefirst day of preliminary debates. There are two primaryadvantages to moving thebanquet to the end of the first day. First, because most tournaments use preset pairingson the first day of preliminary debates, the day ends much earlier. Thesecond day requires more time to pair a tournament, and the judges oftenrequire more time to pair a tournament, and the judges often require moretime to decide debates. Moving the banquet would mean that debaters and directors would have more timeto enjoy the meal and engage in a community discussion. As currently scheduled, banquets are put on hold while

tabulation rooms attempts to determine speaker awards and teams clearing to the elimination rounds. Moving the

banquet means that debaters can get to bed earlier on the second night afterthe preliminary debated are finished. Second,by moving the banquet andcentering it on a forum for community concerns, the tournament increasesthe people who are exposed to the discussion. Most people attend the banquets for a variety ofdifferent reasons; having the communitydiscussion over prepaid food increases theparticipation ofthe entire community. Hosting a voluntary forum would be less likely to attract asmany participants as having the discussion at the banquet. Using tournaments with banquets for a community forum isthe easier scenario because the money and time have been set aside already for everyone to gather together. Under our

proposal, the banquet would mean more than eating and finding out the results of the preliminary debates. Thebanquet would be a place forum for a variety of potential topics, includinginvited speakers, public debates, or just public discussions of communityconcerns. We suggest moving the banquet, but tournaments may prefer to start small and test the idea of the forumfirst. Scenario Two: Voluntary Meeting Time Tournaments have the opportunity to schedule a voluntary meeting time that

is announced to all the participants in advance of the tournament.2 The major advantage to this typeof voluntary forum is that the people who attend are generally motivated totry and make a difference in the community. The major disadvantage to thistype of voluntary forum is that the people who attend are generallymotivated to try and make a difference in the community. The majordisadvantage to this type of voluntary forum is that the people who do notattend are not exposed to the concerns about their community. However, some formof community discussion is, better than not attempting anything at all. The lessons learned from the past meetings arethat it is important to publicize the forum well in advance, find a space that is large enough to accommodate the audience,and set aside enough time for people to have dinner before coming to the forum. Scenario Three: Public Debates After the


4/17

events of September 11, 2001, the Wake Forest Shirley Classic experimented with changing the eight-round preliminary debates to a six-round tournament. The final two debates became a series ofpublic debates concerning the issues in the war on terrorism. This type oftournament experimentation could be replicated with public debates over issues of concern in the community. As a debate

community, we should put a greater emphasis on public deliberation as a method for resolving problems. Publicdebates have several advantages. First, they are more accessible to everyone

in and out of the debate community. Although people not directly involved in the activity might beuninterested in some of the topics, our community problems might be similar enough to other groups concerns that thepublic might be interested. Second, public debates allow for a structured interactionsthat sometimes break in open-ended public forums . Having a set topic to discuss along withtime limits and speech orders can be helpful in directing a conversation in a more manageable way than public forums.

Finally,we are a community of debaters who value seeing the method ofchallenging ideas in action. It might be difficult to attract people to come to a public forum a discussionabout community problems. A debate between two prominent members of the community, on the other hand, couldgenerate stronger community participation. The central problem with this scenario is that many debate participants wouldobject to the elimination of two preliminary debates. Moving to a six-round tournament means that a higher percentage ofteams with winning records would be unable to participate in the elimination rounds. However, there are a fair number oftournaments that already use a six round schedule and could easily rearrange the debates to enable a series of public

debates for the community to watch and participate in.Alternately, tournament hosts couldexperiment with the format of contest debate to enhance civic involvement .In addition to the well-documented formatting changes that resulted from changing time limits at the Franklin R. Shirleyclassic, the Owen Coon tournament instituted a judge cross-examination experiment in the late 1970s in an effort toimprove the quality for debates. Our position is that the value of lay audiences could be better discussed by the communityif it is a shared experience. We could keep an eight-round format and include two debated for lay audiences into theformula. To ensure that point disparities in these debates did not affect participants, we could simply record wins andlosses, using the points from the six preliminary debates judged by trained judged to determine seeding.

Incorporating these pseudo-public debates into a tournament with abanquet discussion session would serve to maximize a shared communityexperience for the debaters.


5/17

2NC


6/17

They Say: Perm

1. The perm flows negative the counterplan solves for all theadvantages of the 1AC without actually needing to give a

1AC or even have a debate round that means the affsevers from the 1AC and immediately forfeits the roundwith their perm

2. Make them prove how their perm can solve because by votingfor the perm you uphold their style of critical debate

which prevents the counterplan from actually happening that means that the counterplan is mutually exclusive

3. The perm kills limits because the affirmative widens theiradvocacy from the issue described in the 1AC to every

single instance of racism4. Voting Issue the affirmatives destruction of limits means

that theyre infringing on fairness and removing theeducation from analyzing different methods of solvency

5. Counterplan turns case using this debate as a basis forchange fails, which means that the aff doesnt have accessto their solvency

Atchison and Panetta 09 (Jarrod Atchison, Ph. D Rhetoric University of Georgia, Assistant Professor andDirector of debate at Wake Forest University, and Edward Panetta, Ph. D Rhetoric Associate Professor University of Pittand Director of Debate at Georgia, Intercollegiate Debate and Speech Communication, Historical Developments andIssues for the Future, Intercollegiate Debate and Speech Communication: Issues for the Future, The Sage Handbook ofRhetorical Studies, Lunsford, Andrea, ed. (Los Angeles: Sage Publications Inc., 2009) p. 317-334)This section will address the "debate as activism ~ perspective that argues that the appropriate site for addressingcommunity problems in individual debates. In contrast to the "debate as innovation" perspective, which assumes that theactivity is an isolated game with educational benefits, proponents of the "debate as activism" perspective argue that

individual debates have the potential to create change in the debate community and society at large. If the firstapproach assumed that debate was completely insulated, this perspective assumes thatthere is no substantive insulation between individual debates and the community atlarge. From our perspective, using individual debates to create community change isan insufficient strategyfor three reasons. First, individual debates are, for the most part,insulated from the community at large. Second, individual debates limit theconversation to the immediate participants and the judge, excluding many important contributors tothe debate community. Third, locating the discussion within the confines ofa competitiondiminishes the additional potential for collaboration, consensus, and coalition building . The

first problem that we isolate is the difficulty of any individual debate to generate community change. Although any debatehas the potential to create problems for the community (videotapes of objectionable behavior, etc.), rarely does anyonedebate have the power to create communitywide change. We attribute this ineffectiveness to the structural problemsinherent in individual debates and the collective forgetfulness of the debate community. The structural problems stem

from the current tournament format that has remained relatively consistent for the past 30 years. Debatersengage in preliminary debates in rooms that are rarely populated by anyoneother than the judge. Judges are instructed to vote for the team that does the

best debating, but the ballot is rarely seen by anyone outside the tabulationroom. Given the limited number ofdebates in which ajudge actually writes meaningfulcomments, there is little documentation of what actually transpired during the debate round. During the period when


7/17

judges interact with the debaters, here are often external pressures (filing evidence, preparing for the next debate, etc.)that restrict the ability of anyone outside the debate to pay attention to the judges' justification for their decision.

Elimination debates do not provide for a much better audience becausedebates still occur simultaneously, and travel schedules dictate that most ofthe participants have left by the later elimination rounds . It is difficult for anyone tosubstantiate the claim that asking a judge to vote to solve a community problem in an individual debate with so fewparticipants is the best strategy for addressing important problems.

Developing a forum is the only way to open up discussion the to all relevantmembers of the community to create real change

Atchison and Panetta, 09 (Jarrod Atchison, Ph. D Rhetoric University of Georgia, Assistant Professor andDirector of debate at Wake Forest University, and Edward Panetta, Ph. D Rhetoric Associate Professor University of Pittand Director of Debate at Georgia, Intercollegiate Debate and Speech Communication, Historical Developments andIssues for the Future, Intercollegiate Debate and Speech Communication: Issues for the Future, The Sage Handbook ofRhetorical Studies, Lunsford, Andrea, ed. (Los Angeles: Sage Publications Inc., 2009) p. 317-334)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 is largelymade up ofparticipants who debate and then move on to successful careers . The coachesand directors that make up the backbone of the community are the people with thelongest cultural memory, but they are also a small minority of the community whenconsidering the number of debaters involved in the activity. This is not meant to suggest that the

activity is reinvented every year-certainly there are conventions that are passed down from coaches to debaters and fromdebaters to debaters. However, the basic fact remains that there are virtually no transcriptionsavailable for the community to read, and, therefore, it is difficult to substantiate theclaim that the debate community can remember anyone individual debate over the courseof several generations of debaters. Additionally, given the focus on competition and individual skill, thecommunity is more likely to remember the accomplishments and talents of debaters rather than a specific winningargument. The debate community does not have the necessary components in place for a strong collective memory ofindividual debates. The combination of the structures of debate and the collective forgetfulness means that any strategyfor 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.A second problem with attempting to createcommunity change in individual debates is that the debate community iscomprised of more individuals than the four debaters and one judge that arepresent in every round. Coaches and directors have very little space forengaging in a discussion about community issues. This is especially true for coaches anddirectors who are not preferred judges and, therefore, do not have access to many debates. Coaches anddirectors should have a public forum to engage in a communityconversation with debaters instead of attempting to take on their opponentsthrough the wins and losses of their own debaters .


8/17

They Say: Debate Good/Solves

Using the debate space for social change creates backlash and fractures

coalitions. The neg becomes a scapegoat for the movementAtchison and Panetta 09(Jarrod, PhD. In Speech Communication. Edward, Ph.D. in Communication.Intercollegiate Debate Speech Communication: Historical Developments and Issues for the Future; The SAGEHandbook of Rhetorical Studies, Pg. 28-9)JFS

The larger problem withlocating the "debate as activism" perspectivewithin thecompetitive frameworkis that it overlooks the communal nature of the communityproblem.If each individual debate is a decision about how the debatecommunity should approach a problem, then the losing debaters becomecollateral damage in the activist strategy dedicated toward creating community change. Onefrustratingexampleof this type of argument might include a judge voting for an activist team inan effort to help them reach elimination rounds to generate a community discussion aboutthe problem. Under this scenario, the losing team serves as a sacrificial lamb on the altarof community change. Downplaying the important role of competition and treating opponentsas scapegoats for the failures of the communitymay increase the profile of

thewinning team and the communityproblem, but it does little to generate the criticalcoalitions necessary to address thecommunityproblem , because the competitivefocus encourages teams to concentrate on how to beat the strategy with littleregard for addressing the communityproblem. There is no role for competition when a judge decidesthat it is important to accentuate the publicity of a community problem. An extreme example might include a teamarguing that their opponents' academic institution had a legacy of civil rights abuses and that the judge should not vote forthem because that would be a community endorsement of a problematic institution. This scenario is a bit more outlandishbut not unreasonable if one assumes that each debate should be abou t what is best for promoting solutions to diversity

problems in the debate community. If the debate community is serious about generatingcommunitychange, then it is more likely to occur outside a traditionalcompetitive debate.When a team losesa debatebecause the judge decides thatit is better for the community for the other team to win, then they havesacrificed two potential advocates for changewithin the community. Creating changethrough wins generates backlash through losses. Some proponents are comfortable withgenerating backlash and argue that the reaction is evidence that the issue is being discussed. From our perspective, thediscussion that results from these hostile situations is not a productive one

where participants seekto work together for a common goal. Instead of giving up on hope forchange and agitating for wins regardless of who is left behind, it seems more reasonable that the debate communityshould try the method of public argument that we teach in an effort to generate a discussion of necessary community

changes. Simply put, debate competitions do not represent the best environment forcommunity change becauseit is a competition for a win and only one team can win anygiven debate, whereas addressingsystemic century-long communityproblems requires atremendous effort by a great number of people .

The affirmative team sacrifices the community portion ofcommunity change through their use of individual debate

rounds as activist strategy.Atchison and Panetta 09(Jarrod Atchison, PhD. In Speech Communication. Edward Panetta, Ph.D. inCommunication. Intercollegiate Debate Speech Communication: Historical Developments and Issues for the Future;4The SAGE Handbook of Rhetorical Studies, Pg. 28)JFS

The final problem with an individual debate round focus is the role of competition. Creating communitychange through individual debate rounds sacrifices the "community"portion of the change . Many teams that promote activist strategies in debates profess that they are moreinterested in creating change than winning debates. What is clear, however, is that the vast majority ofteams that arenot promoting community change are very interested in winning debates. The tension


9/17

that is generated from the clash of these opposing forces is tremendous.Unfortunately, this is rarelya productive tension. Forcing teams to consider their purpose indebating, their style in debates, and their approach to evidence are all critical aspects of being participants in the

community. However, the dismissal of the proposed resolution that the debaters have spent countlesshours preparing for, in the name of a community problem that the debaters often havelittle control over, does little to engender coalitions of the willing. Should a debate

team lose because its director or coach has been ineffective at recruitingminority participants? Should a debate team lose because its coach or director holds political positions thatare in opposition to the activist program? Competition has been a critical component of the interest inintercollegiate debate from the beginning, and it does not help further the goals ofthe debatecommunity to dismiss competition in the name ofcommunity change.


10/17

They Say: No Banquet Solves

Individual debates cant create changeno audience andforgetfulness

Atchison and Panetta 09(Jarrod Atchison, PhD. In Speech Communication. Edward Panetta, Ph.D. inCommunication. Intercollegiate Debate Speech Communication: Historical Developments and Issues for the Future;The SAGE Handbook of Rhetorical Studies, Pg. 27)JFS

The first problem that we isolate is the difficulty of any individual debate to generatecommunity change. Although any debate has the potential to create problems for the community (videotapesof objectionable behavior, etc.), rarely does any one debate have the power to createcommunitywide change .We attribute this ineffectiveness to the structural problems inherent in individualdebates and the collective forgetfulness of the debate community. The structural problems stem from the current

tournament format that has remained relatively consistent for the past 30 years. Debaters engage inpreliminarydebates in rooms that are rarely populated by anyone other than the

judge. Judges are instructed to vote for the team that does the best debating, but the ballot is rarely seenby anyone outside the tabulation room. Given the limited number of debates in which a judgeactually writes meaningful comments, there is little documentation of what actually transpired during the debate round.

During the periodwhen judges interact with the debaters, there are often external

pressures (filing evidence, preparing for the next debate, etc.) that restrict the abilityof anyone outside the debate to pay attention to the judges' justification for their decision.Elimination debates do not provide for a much better audience because debates still occur simultaneously, and travel

schedules dictate that most of the participants have left by the later elimination rounds. It is difficult for anyoneto substantiate the claim that asking a judge to vote to solve a communityproblem in an individual debate with so few participants is the best strategyfor addressing important problems. In addition to the structural problems, the collective forgetfulness ofthe debate community reduces the impact that individual debates have onthe community. The debate community is largely made up of participants who deb ate and the n m ove on tosuccessful careers. The coaches and directors that make up the backbone of the community are the people with thelongest cultural memory, but they are also a small minority of the community when considering the number of debatersinvolved in the activity. This is not meant to suggest that the activity is reinvented every yearcertainly there areconventions that are passed down from coaches to debaters and from debaters to debaters. However, the basic fact

remains that there are virtually no transcriptions available for the community to read, and, therefore, it is difficultto substantiate the claim that the debate community can remember any oneindividual debate over the course of several generations of debaters . Additionally,given the focus on competition and individual skill, the community is more likely to rememberthe accomplishments and talents ofdebaters rather than a specific winning argument. The debatecommunity does not have the necessary components in place for a strong collective memory of individual debates. The

combination of the structures of debate and the collective forgetfulness means that any strategy for creatingcommunity change that is premised on winning individual debates is lesseffective than seeking a larger community dialogue that is recorded and/or transcribed.


11/17

Framework


12/17

2NC

1. Counter-interpretation: the role of the ballot is to support theadvocacy that generates the most community awareness

and/or change2. Our framework solves the affirmative: their goal is to spread

awareness of > inside the debatesphere

3. Real-world framework is better for debate because we canfind a way to create actual change instead of fiatting aplan and feeling agood that we stood up

4. If you vote affirmative the plan wont actually happen, so thatmeans we have a better link to their solvency with outframework

5. Preserves ground: it was the affirmatives idea to createawareness with the 1AC. Were giving them more groundto support that.

6. Increases education: community change allows us to findways we can actually do something to help the debatesphere, and because we live inside the community, weaccess that change better as debaters

7. We meet their framework (explain)


13/17

Overviews


14/17

2NC Overview

The purpose of the Banquet CP is to hold a tournament banquetin order to actually produce the change that the

affirmative wants simply because it produces actualcommunity change. The affirmative case is based on fiat,which means that theres no way possible for the problemtheyre trying to solve to actually go through because once

you sign your ballot, the debates over, someone wins, andthis round might as well not have happened. Thecounterplan, however, solves the 1AC better than the plan

because it does two things: (1) it generates discussionwithin the debate community about the 1AC in order tobring awareness to the topic and (2) it transforms theballot into a means of acting instead of an article ofconclusion. Signing the ballot will guarantee change

because a banquet counterplan isnt a very traditionaldebate argument, so a vote up for the counterplan meansa step up within the debate community itself.


15/17

2NR Overview

You can sign your ballot now, because the affirmative doesnthave access to their solvency advocate. Six reasons why

the counterplans solves better:1. They dont have a single piece of evidence proving a solvency

deficit or turn on the flow, so that means you weigh thecounterplan against the affirmative before you considerany of their counter-arguments

2. Extend Atchison and Panetta 09 from the 2NC the only waythat the change the affirmative calls for can have a changeof happening is with a banquet

3. Dont buy their argument that their advocacy will be moreeffective in the outrounds. Atchison and Panetta 09 saysthat there arent enough people in the outrounds to let theaff solve any better

4. Prefer the counterplan over the 1AC: we have the only twosolvency cards on the flow and our evidence proves that

banquets have a better chance of solving

5. Prefer our authors: theyre actual debate coaches whichmeans that our evidence outweighs any of theirs

6. They concede that theyre only debating for education butextend Atchison and Panetta 09 we access education

better because we reach a wider range of people (explainmore)

7. The aff doesnt have any access to the perms they makebecause theyre in a triple bind (1) they sever the aff andlose the round and/or (2) they concede the counterplanand/or (3) they dont have access to their solvency


16/17

Net Benefits

Opening up discussion in a forum is the only way to increaseinvolvement inside and outside of the debate community

to foster improvementAtchison and Panetta 09 (Jarrod Atchison, Ph. D Rhetoric University of Georgia, Assistant Professor andDirector of debate at Wake Forest University, and Edward Panetta, Ph. D Rhetoric Associate Professor University of Pittand Director of Debate at Georgia, Intercollegiate Debate and Speech Communication, Historical Developments andIssues for the Future, Intercollegiate Debate and Speech Communication: Issues for the Future, The Sage Handbook ofRhetorical Studies, Lunsford, Andrea, ed. (Los Angeles: Sage Publications Inc., 2009) p. 317-334)In addition to coaches and debaters, there are many people who might want to contribute to a community conversation,but are not directly involved in competition. For instance, most debate tournaments take place at an academic institutionthat plays host to the rest of the community. For that institution to host everyone, they must make tremendous sacrifices.

It would be beneficial to the debate community to have some of theadministrators who make decisions about supporting debate come to apublic forum and discuss what types of information they need when theymake decisions about program funding. Directors and coaches would

benefit from having administrators explain to the communityhow they

evaluate the educational benefits of debate . Additionally, every institution has unique scholarswho work in some area and who could be of benefit to the debate community. The input of scholars who studyargument, communication, race, gender, sexuality, economics, and the various other academic interests couldprovide valuable advice to the debate community. For example, a business professor couldsuggest how to set up a collective bargaining agreement to reduce the costs associated with travel.Attempting tocreate an insulated community that has all the answers ignores the potentialto create very powerful allies within academic institutions that could helpthe debate community. After all, debate is not the first community to have problems associated withfinances, diversity, and competition. These resources, however, are not available forindividual debates. The debate community is broader than the individual participants and can achieve betterreform , through public dialogue than individual debates. The final problem with an individualdebate round focus is the role ofcompetition . Creating community change

through individual debate rounds sacrifices the "community" portion of thechange. Many teams that promote activist strategies in debates profess that they are more interested in creatingchange than winning debates.What is clear however, is that the vast majority of teamsthat are not promoting community change are very interested in winningdebates . The tension that is generated from the clash of these opposingforces is tremendous. Unfortunately, this is rarely a productive tension. Forcing teams toconsider their purpose in debating, their style in debates, and their approach to evidence are all critical aspects of being

participants in the community. However, the dismissal ofthe proposed resolution that the debatershave spent countless hours preparing for, in the name of a community problem that the debatersoften have little control over, does little to engender coalitions of the willing . Should adebate team lose because its director or coach has been ineffective atrecruiting minority participants? Should a debate team lose because itscoach or director holds political positions that are in opposition to theactivist program?

Competition within debates alters the focus from focusing on acommunal problem to winning

Atchison and Panetta 09 (Jarrod Atchison, Ph. D Rhetoric University of Georgia, Assistant Professor andDirector of debate at Wake Forest University, and Edward Panetta, Ph. D Rhetoric Associate Professor University of Pittand Director of Debate at Georgia, Intercollegiate Debate and Speech Communication, Historical Developments andIssues for the Future, Intercollegiate Debate and Speech Communication: Issues for the Future, The Sage Handbook ofRhetorical Studies, Lunsford, Andrea, ed. (Los Angeles: Sage Publications Inc., 2009) p. 317-334)


17/17

Competition has been a critical component of the interest in intercollegiatedebate from the beginning, and it does not help further the goals of the debate community to dismiss competition inthe name of community change. The larger problem with locating the "debate asactivism" perspective within the competitive frameworkis that it overlooksthe communal nature of the community problem. If each individual debate is a decisionabout how the debate community should approach a problem, then the losing debaters become

collateral damage in the activist strategy dedicated toward creatingcommunity change. One frustrating example of this type of argument might include a judge voting for anactivist team in an effort to help them reach elimination rounds to generate a community discussion about the problem.

Under this scenario, the losing team serves as a sacrificial lamb on the altar ofcommunity change. Downplaying the important role of competition andtreating opponents as scapegoats for the failures of the communitymay increasethe profile of the winning team and the community problem, but it does little to generate the criticalcoalitions necessary to address the community problem , because thecompetitive focus encourages teams to concentrate on how to beat thestrategy with little regard for addressing the community problem. There is no rolefor competition when a judge decides that it is important to accentuate the publicity of a community problem. An extremeexample might include a team arguing that their opponents' academic institution had a legacy of civil rights abuses andthat the judge should not vote for them because that would be a community endorsement of a problematic institution.This scenario is a bit more outlandish but not unreasonable if one assumes mat each debate should be about what is bestfor promoting solutions to diversity problems in the debate community.

Documents

kaff answers