Está en la página 1de 17

Banquet CP

1NC

Shell (0:40)
The _________ tournament director should schedule a banquet 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 instilling real change in the debate community

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

Tournaments that already have banquets scheduled present an easy opportunity for the beginnings of community discussion. The majority of these tournaments have banquets after discussion because debaters are tired after two strenuous days of debate.

the 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 community 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 have

allocated a banquet could consider moving the banquet to the end of the first day of preliminary debates. There are two primary advantages to moving the banquet to the end of the first day. First, because most tournaments use preset pairings on the first day of preliminary debates, the day ends much earlier. The second day requires more time to pair a tournament, and the judges often require more time to pair a tournament, and the judges often require more time to decide debates. Moving the banquet would mean that debaters and directors would have more time
to 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 after the preliminary debated are finished. Second, by moving the banquet and centering it on a forum for community concerns, the tournament increases the people who are exposed to the discussion. Most people attend the banquets for a variety of different reasons; having the community discussion over prepaid food increases the participation of the entire community. Hosting a voluntary forum would be less likely to attract as
many participants as having the discussion at the banquet. Using tournaments with banquets for a community forum is the 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. The

banquet would be a place forum for a variety of potential topics, including invited speakers, public debates, or just public discussions of community concerns. We suggest moving the banquet, but tournaments may prefer to start small and test the idea of the forum
first. 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 type

of voluntary forum is that the people who attend are generally motivated to try and make a difference in the community. The major disadvantage to this type of voluntary forum is that the people who attend are generally motivated to try and make a difference in the community. The major disadvantage to this type of voluntary forum is that the people who do not attend are not exposed to the concerns about their community . However, some form
of community discussion is, better than not attempting anything at all. The lessons learned from the past meetings are that 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

events of September 11, 2001, the

Wake Forest Shirley Classic experimented with changing the eightfinal two debates became a series of public debates concerning the issues in the war on terrorism . This type of
round preliminary debates to a six-round tournament. The tournament 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. Public

debates 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 be
uninterested in some of the topics, our community problems might be similar enough to other groups concerns that the public might be interested. Second, public debates allow for a structured interactions

that sometimes break in open-ended public forums. Having a set topic to discuss along with
time 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 of challenging ideas in action. It might be difficult to attract people to come to a public forum a discussion
about community problems. A debate between two prominent members of the community, on the other hand, could generate stronger community participation. The central problem with this scenario is that many debate participants would object to the elimination of two preliminary debates. Moving to a six-round tournament means that a higher percentage of teams with winning records would be unable to participate in the elimination rounds. However, there are a fair number of tournaments 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 could

experiment 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. Shirley classic, the Owen Coon tournament instituted a judge cross-examination experiment in the late 1970s in an effort to improve the quality for debates. Our position is that the value of lay audiences could be better discussed by the community if it is a shared experience. We could keep an eight-round format and include two debated for lay audiences into the formula. To ensure that point disparities in these debates did not affect participants, we could simply record wins and losses, using the points from the six preliminary debates judged by trained judged to determine seeding.

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

2NC

They Say: Perm


1. The perm flows negative the counterplan solves for all the advantages of the 1AC without actually needing to give a 1AC or even have a debate round that means the aff severs from the 1AC and immediately forfeits the round with their perm 2. Make them prove how their perm can solve because by voting for 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 their advocacy from the issue described in the 1AC to every single instance of racism 4. Voting Issue the affirmatives destruction of limits means that theyre infringing on fairness and removing the education from analyzing different methods of solvency 5. Counterplan turns case using this debate as a basis for change fails, which means that the aff doesnt have access to their solvency
Atchison and Panetta 09 (Jarrod Atchison, Ph. D Rhetoric University of Georgia, Assistant Professor and
Director of debate at Wake Forest University, and Edward Panetta, Ph. D Rhetoric Associate Professor University of Pitt and Director of Debate at Georgia, Intercollegiate Debate and Speech Communication, Historical Developments and Issues for the Future, Intercollegiate Debate and Speech Communication: Issues for the Future, The Sage Handbook of Rhetorical 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 addressing community problems in individual debates. In contrast to the "debate as innovation" perspective, which assumes that the activity 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 first

approach assumed that debate was completely insulated, this perspective assumes that there is no substantive insulation between individual debates and the community at large. From our perspective, using individual debates to create community change is an insufficient strategy for three reasons. First, individual debates are, for the most part, insulated from the community at large . Second, individual debates limit the conversation to the immediate participants and the judge, excluding many important contributors to the debate community. Third, locating the discussion within the confines of a competition diminishes 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 debate has the potential to create problems for the community (videotapes of objectionable behavior, etc.), rarely does anyone debate have the power to create communitywide change. We attribute this ineffectiveness to the structural problems inherent 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. Debaters

engage in preliminary debates 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 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 of what actually transpired during the debate round. During the period when

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 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 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.

Developing a forum is the only way to open up discussion the to all relevant members of the community to create real change Atchison and Panetta, 09 (Jarrod Atchison, Ph. D Rhetoric University of Georgia, Assistant Professor and
Director of debate at Wake Forest University, and Edward Panetta, Ph. D Rhetoric Associate Professor University of Pitt and Director of Debate at Georgia, Intercollegiate Debate and Speech Communication, Historical Developments and Issues for the Future, Intercollegiate Debate and Speech Communication: Issues for the Future, The Sage Handbook of Rhetorical 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 largely made up of

participants who debate and then move on to successful careers . 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. 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 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 difficult to substantiate the claim that the debate community can remember anyone individual debate over the course of several generations of debaters. Additionally, given the focus on competition and individual skill, the
community is more likely to remember the accomplishments and talents of debaters rather than a specific winning argument. The debate community 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 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 create

community change in individual debates is that the debate community is comprised of more individuals than the four debaters and one judge that are present in every round. Coaches and directors have very little space for engaging in a discussion about community issues . This is especially true for coaches and directors who are not preferred judges and, therefore, do not have access to many debates. 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 .

They Say: Debate Good/Solves


Using the debate space for social change creates backlash and fractures coalitions. The neg becomes a scapegoat for the movement
Atchison 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 SAGE Handbook of Rhetorical Studies, Pg. 28-9)JFS The larger problem with locating the "debate as activism" perspective within the competitive framework is

that it overlooks the communal nature of the community problem. If each individual debate is a decision about how the debate community should approach a problem, then the losing debaters become collateral damage in the activist strategy dedicated toward creating community change. One frustrating example of this type of argument might include a judge voting for an activist 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 of community change. Downplaying the important role of competition and treating opponents as scapegoats for the failures of the community may increase the profile of the winning team and the community problem, but it does little to generate the critical coalitions necessary to address the community problem, because the competitive focus encourages teams to concentrate on how to beat the strategy with little regard for addressing the community problem. There is no role for competition when a judge decides
that it is important to accentuate the publicity of a community problem. An extreme example might include a team arguing that their opponents' academic institution had a legacy of civil rights abuses and that 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 that each debate should be about what is best for promoting solutions to diversity problems in the debate community. If the debate community is serious about generating community change,

then it is more likely to occur outside 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 losses. Some proponents are comfortable with generating backlash and argue that the reaction is evidence that the issue is being discussed. From our perspective, the discussion that results from these hostile situations is not a productive one where participants seek to work together for a common goal. Instead of giving up on hope for
change and agitating for wins regardless of who is left behind, it seems more reasonable that the debate community should 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

for community change because it is a competition for a win and only one team can win any given debate, whereas addressing systemic century-long community problems requires a tremendous effort by a great number of people .

The affirmative team sacrifices the community portion of community 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. in Communication. 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 community

change through individual debate rounds sacrifices the "community" portion of the change. Many teams that promote activist strategies in debates profess that they are more interested in creating change than winning debates. What is clear, however, is that the vast majority of teams that are not promoting community change are very interested in winning debates. The tension

that is generated from the clash of these opposing forces is tremendous. Unfortunately, this is rarely a productive tension. Forcing teams to consider 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 of the proposed resolution that the debaters have spent countless hours preparing for, in

the name of a community problem that the debaters often have little control over, does little to engender coalitions of the willing. Should a debate team lose because its director or coach has been ineffective at recruiting minority participants? Should a debate team lose because its coach or director holds political positions that are in opposition to the activist program? Competition has been a critical component of the interest in intercollegiate debate from the beginning, and it does not help further the goals of the debate community to dismiss competition in the name of community change.

They Say: No Banquet Solves


Individual debates cant create changeno audience and forgetfulness
Atchison and Panetta 09 (Jarrod Atchison, PhD. In Speech Communication.
Edward Panetta, Ph.D. in Communication. 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 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 communitywide change. We attribute this ineffectiveness to the structural problems inherent 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. Debaters engage in preliminary debates

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 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 of what actually transpired during the debate round. 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 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 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 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 is largely made up of participants who debate and then move on to
successful careers. 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. This is not meant to suggest that the activity is reinvented every yearcertainly there are conventions 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 difficult

to substantiate the claim that the debate community can remember any one individual debate over the course of several generations of debaters . Additionally, given the focus on competition and individual skill, the community is more likely to remember the accomplishments and talents of debaters rather than a specific winning argument. The debate
community 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 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.

Framework

2NC
1. Counter-interpretation: the role of the ballot is to support the advocacy that generates the most community awareness and/or change 2. Our framework solves the affirmative: their goal is to spread awareness of << insert advantage >> inside the debate sphere 3. Real-world framework is better for debate because we can find a way to create actual change instead of fiatting a plan and feeling agood that we stood up 4. If you vote affirmative the plan wont actually happen, so that means we have a better link to their solvency with out framework 5. Preserves ground: it was the affirmatives idea to create awareness with the 1AC. Were giving them more ground to support that. 6. Increases education: community change allows us to find ways we can actually do something to help the debate sphere, and because we live inside the community, we access that change better as debaters 7. We meet their framework (explain)

Overviews

2NC Overview
The purpose of the Banquet CP is to hold a tournament banquet in order to actually produce the change that the affirmative wants simply because it produces actual community change. The affirmative case is based on fiat, which means that theres no way possible for the problem theyre trying to solve to actually go through because once you sign your ballot, the debates over, someone wins, and this round might as well not have happened. The counterplan, however, solves the 1AC better than the plan because it does two things: (1) it generates discussion within the debate community about the 1AC in order to bring awareness to the topic and (2) it transforms the ballot into a means of acting instead of an article of conclusion. Signing the ballot will guarantee change because a banquet counterplan isnt a very traditional debate argument, so a vote up for the counterplan means a step up within the debate community itself.

2NR Overview
You can sign your ballot now, because the affirmative doesnt have 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 the counterplan against the affirmative before you consider any of their counter-arguments 2. Extend Atchison and Panetta 09 from the 2NC the only way that the change the affirmative calls for can have a change of happening is with a banquet 3. Dont buy their argument that their advocacy will be more effective in the outrounds. Atchison and Panetta 09 says that there arent enough people in the outrounds to let the aff solve any better 4. Prefer the counterplan over the 1AC: we have the only two solvency cards on the flow and our evidence proves that banquets have a better chance of solving 5. Prefer our authors: theyre actual debate coaches which means that our evidence outweighs any of theirs 6. They concede that theyre only debating for education but extend Atchison and Panetta 09 we access education better because we reach a wider range of people (explain more) 7. The aff doesnt have any access to the perms they make because theyre in a triple bind (1) they sever the aff and lose the round and/or (2) they concede the counterplan and/or (3) they dont have access to their solvency

Net Benefits
Opening up discussion in a forum is the only way to increase involvement inside and outside of the debate community to foster improvement
Atchison and Panetta 09 (Jarrod Atchison, Ph. D Rhetoric University of Georgia, Assistant Professor and
Director of debate at Wake Forest University, and Edward Panetta, Ph. D Rhetoric Associate Professor University of Pitt and Director of Debate at Georgia, Intercollegiate Debate and Speech Communication, Historical Developments and Issues for the Future, Intercollegiate Debate and Speech Communication: Issues for the Future, The Sage Handbook of Rhetorical 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 institution that 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 the administrators who make decisions about supporting debate come to a public forum and discuss what types of information they need when they make decisions about program funding. Directors and coaches would benefit from having administrators explain to the community how they evaluate the educational benefits of debate. Additionally, every institution has unique scholars who work in some area and who could be of benefit to the debate community. The input of scholars who study argument, communication, race, gender, sexuality, economics, and the various other academic interests could provide valuable advice to the debate community. For example, a business professor could suggest how to set up a collective bargaining agreement to reduce the costs associated with travel. Attempting to create an insulated community that has all the answers ignores the potential to create very powerful allies within academic institutions that could help the debate community. After all, debate is not the first community to have problems associated with finances, diversity, and competition. These resources, however, are not available for individual debates. The debate community is broader than the individual participants and can achieve better reform , through public dialogue than individual debates. The final problem with an individual debate round focus is the role of competition. Creating community change through individual debate rounds sacrifices the "community" portion of the change. Many teams that promote activist strategies in debates profess that they are more interested in creating change than winning debates. What is clear however, is that the vast majority of teams that are not promoting community change are very interested in winning debates. The tension that is generated from the clash of these opposing forces is tremendous. Unfortunately, this is rarely a productive tension. Forcing teams to
consider 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 of the proposed resolution that the debaters

have spent countless hours preparing for, in the name of a community problem that the debaters often have little control over, does little to engender coalitions of the willing . Should a debate team lose because its director or coach has been ineffective at recruiting minority participants? Should a debate team lose because its coach or director holds political positions that are in opposition to the activist program?

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

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

Competition has been a critical component of the interest in intercollegiate debate from the beginning, and it does not help further the goals of the debate community to dismiss competition in the name of community change. The larger problem with locating the "debate as activism" perspective within the competitive framework is that it overlooks the communal nature of the community problem. If each individual debate is a decision about how the debate community should approach a problem, then the losing debaters become collateral damage in the activist strategy dedicated toward creating community change. One frustrating example of this type of argument might include a judge voting for an
activist 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 of

community change. Downplaying the important role of competition and treating opponents as scapegoats for the failures of the community may increase the profile of the winning team and the community problem, but it does little to generate the critical coalitions necessary to address the community problem , because the competitive focus encourages teams to concentrate on how to beat the strategy with little regard for addressing the community problem. There is no role
for competition when a judge decides that it is important to accentuate the publicity of a community problem. An extreme example might include a team arguing that their opponents' academic institution had a legacy of civil rights abuses and that 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 best for promoting solutions to diversity problems in the debate community.