1nc – Debate Pik

Debate PIK

We endorse the entirety of the 1AC minus its reading in this debate round.
The debate space is distinct from a debate round---the competitive environment makes it impossible to
build coalitions through the 1AC and instead results in exclusion
Atchison 9 [Jarrod Atchison and Edward Panetta, * Director of Debate at Wake Forest University, **
Director of Debate at the University of Georgia, “Intercollegiate Debate and Speech Communication:
Issues for the Future,” 2009, The Sage Handbook of Rhetorical Studies, pp. 317-334,
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412982795.n17]

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 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
the collective forgetfulness of the debate community reduces the
problems. In addition to the structural problems,
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 any one individual debate over the course of several generations of debaters.
given the focus on competition and individual skill, the community is more likely to remember
Additionally,
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. In addition to
there are many people who might want to contribute to a community conversation,
coaches and debaters,
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 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 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.

2NC/1NR
Performance PIK
Saying “the performance at the end of the 1AC” should be a reason to drop the team – drawing a line
between “performance” and “1AC” stifles black participation should be rejected in every instance
including in-round
Sciullo 19 [Nick J. Sciullo, assistant professor of communications at Texas A&M University, “The racial
coding of performance debate: race, difference, and policy debate,” 2019, Argumentation and Advocacy,
Vol. 55, Issue 4, pp. 303-321, https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2019.1672028, EA]

In order to better embrace black participation and stylistic differences in debate, debate participants should, as
a first step, refuse the performance debate label. Instead, debate participants should consider debate as
debate, always performative, and always contestable. Labels that differentiate certain types of performance with a
complicated racial history only serve to reinforce racial differences in debate. We must also call out exclusionary
practices that reinforce the history of exclusion in debate and make being a minoritarian debater difficult. While language
changing is helpful and necessary, it is also the responsibility of debate activity participants to call out exclusion and
empower those traditionally maligned in debate.

Denoting a type of debate as performance debate does not better explain plan-less debate or the persuasive
power of debating, nor does it make understanding any debate position easier. Absent a reason to prefer the performance debate label, and
with clear disadvantages to using it, the
best policy for policy debate is to resist using the label performance
debate and vigorously call out those who would insist on using it in order to inspire change for a more
inclusive and diverse activity.

As Louden (2004) argues, “Personalization, projects, and performance have reinvented the ‘game’” (p. 40), but that reinvention
does not necessarily mean we must continue to use the problematic nomenclature of performance debate.
Changing debate practices should also entail changing debate language to more inclusively account for
difference while not devaluing certain people’s participation and contributions. Put differently, what changes occur in
judging or debating strategy by not relying on performance debate? Judges will still rely on their paradigms and
beliefs about the Resolution, advocacy, argumentative positions, ground, fairness, education, and persuasion. Teams will still respond
to debate arguments using their preferred argumentative positions. Tournaments will still progress as slowly as
before. The only risk is that debate becomes a more accessible place for debaters of color, affording them
the opportunity to join or continue in the debate activity. It also means that all debate activity participants continue to think critically about the
stylistic and substantive norms around discussions of policy, rhetoric, and advocacy. These are important ideas regardless of one’s involvement
in the debate activity, major, future career plans, tenure status, or dissertation topic. That is, as opposed
to falling back on the
belief in debate participants’ progressivism (which is true in many instances), participants must raise awareness of
these issues and bring objectionable behavior up early and often with those who practice it. Debate rounds and the discipline’s journals
are places that can happen. This effort requires work and some of that work will be uncomfortable given the pervasive belief in
debate’s progressivism.

FW
Considering disparate impact dismantles the value-neutral antitrust status quo and ensures an
antiracist antitrust that breaks down market structures that perpetuate racism
Kritter, 21 -- California Law Review associate editor
[Dani Kritter, "Antitrust as Antiracist," California Law Review, March 2021,
https://www.californialawreview.org/antitrust-as-antiracist/, accessed 8-1-2021]

The federal antitrust laws—three statutes enacted over a century ago—are in the spotlight. The year 2020 brought a new reckoning with corporate power and a resurgent interest in using antitrust law as a force for populist change. The “hipster antitrust” movement argues that the focus

of antitrust policy should not be limited to market power and consumer welfare. Rather, antitrust can and should be a remedy for a suite of societal ills , from workers’ rights to
campaign finance and income inequality.

recent plans for

The year 2020 also marked an awakening to racial injustice in America. The deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery sparked nationwide outrage and demands to reform institutions built on systemic racism. Yet the

antitrust reform —which primarily focus on monopolies in tech— ignore the fact that the antitrust status quo perpetuates racial
injustice.

But it doesn’t have to be this way lax antitrust enforcement has

. This blog identifies consolidation in healthcare and vertical restraints in franchising as two examples of how

disproportionately harmed people of color . It also argues that by dusting off existing antitrust tools, antitrust
enforcement can be antiracist.
Background: The Antitrust Toolbox

Congress enacted the federal antitrust laws to check the power of massive corporations run amuck. These laws—the Sherman Act, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act, and the Clayton Act—were originally designed to control corporate power, protect individual economic freedom,
and ensure a fair and equal society.

But beginning in the 1970s when Robert Bork published the still-influential “Antitrust Paradox,” courts slowly narrowed the focus of antitrust law to protecting consumer welfare. Today, antitrust enforcement prioritizes preventing the anticompetitive acquisition, exercise, or maintenance
of market power that threatens consumer welfare and competition—a much narrower goal than its populist origins.

Dusting Off the Tools

Recent years have seen bipartisan interest in reining in powerful corporations with more aggressive antitrust enforcement. One of the few agency voices calling for an antiracist approach to antitrust is Rebecca Slaughter, the acting chair of the FTC. Slaughter has recently spoken out about
using antitrust enforcement to “right the wrongs of systemic racism.” She challenges what she views to be a faulty premise of antitrust law: “that antitrust can and should be value-neutral, and therefore social justice problems like racism do not have a role in antitrust enforcement.”

antitrust has never been and never will be value-neutral Antitrust addresses market structures,
Slaughter argues that .

and racism is entrenched in the historic and current market structures in the U S When agencies nited tates.

make decisions about how to deploy antitrust tools, they can choose whether to reinforce these
structural inequities or to dismantle them.

Healthcare and franchising are two examples of how a shift in antitrust enforcement from “value-
neutral” to antiracist can break down market structures that perpetuate racial injustice .

Honing in on Healthcare Monopolies

Consolidation in healthcare is a driving force behind the sky-high cost of medical care and
the industry pharmaceutical

drugs Due to a wave of healthcare mergers

. the dominant , most hospital markets in the United States are dominated by a single corporate entity. The lack of competition means

hospital is free to exercise market power by raising prices and restricting output . Recent studies of prices for hospital and outpatient treatment
report that healthcare mergers have resulted in large networks charging private insurers 2.5 to 3 times more than Medicare rates for the same patient care. These rising costs lead to higher insurance premiums paid by employers and individuals.

Artificially inflated healthcare costs disproportionately burden people of color and create a barrier to
accessing quality care. Black families spend a greater share of their household income on health care
premiums of the thirty million uninsured half are people of color
and out-of-pocket costs than the average American family. And individuals in the United States, . The COVID-19
pandemic has put this health inequity in sharp focus: racial and ethnic minority groups are more likely to contract the virus, get severely ill, and die from coronavirus infections.
What can antitrust do? First, antitrust merger review can be antiracist . Mergers between competitors are scrutinized under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, which

When determining whether a merger lessens competition, the FTC

prohibits mergers that may substantially lessen competition or create a monopoly. , Department of

DOJ), and courts consider the likelihood of anticompetitive effects. An antiracist application of the
Justice (

Clayton Act would consider racially disparate outcomes like health care costs, insurance premiums, and
the quality of care provided as anticompetitive effects.

Business practices that perpetuate systemic racism are anticompetitive because they exclude people of
color from full participation in the market. there is And this exclusion is expensive: a study by Citigroup estimates that discrimination cost the U.S. economy $16 trillion since 2000. Moreover,

precedent for applying a broad conception of anticompetitive effects in merger review . In Brown Shoe Co. Inc. v. United States, the
Supreme Court held that a meager 7.2 percent combined market share of two merging shoe manufacturers was unhealthy market concentration under the Clayton Act. Chief Justice Earl Warren acknowledged that concentration in the shoe industry might offer some efficiencies and

Therefore, agencies can and should argue that mergers that

lower prices for consumers, but “the protection of viable, small, locally owned businesses” was a priority.

reinforce racial inequity substantially lessen competition.

antitrust enforcement actions can hone in on industries like healthcare where the anticompetitive
Second,

effects are acutely felt by people of color. As California attorney general from 2011 to 2017, Vice President Kamala Harris prioritized taking on healthcare prices through antitrust. Her investigation laid the
groundwork for California’s suit against Sutter Health for using its market power to raise prices and extort better deals from insurers, which resulted in a $575 million settlement. The DOJ and FTC should follow in California and Vice President Harris’s footsteps and crack down on
healthcare, utilizing an antiracist approach.

Achieving Fairer Franchising

Franchising—a business form where a firm owning a brand outsources the delivery of goods or services to a separate firm or individual in exchange for a royalty off of gross sales—is a dominant mode of industrial organization in the United States. Because buying into a franchise bypasses
the necessity of acquiring capital and working industry connections to get a business off the ground, economists have long lauded franchising as a straightforward path to economic independence. Franchising has become an important source of income and opportunity for minorities and
immigrants. And in occupations like the restaurant industry, franchised businesses employ a significant share of workers of color.

Yet franchise contracts empower franchisors (the parent company) to hold franchisees (the individual business owners) and their employees in a vice-like grip. Under most franchise contracts, the parent company limits the franchisee’s ability to make decisions regarding prices,
customers, and suppliers. Because the contract deprives franchisees of discretion over virtually every aspect of the business except for wages and hours, underpaying and overworking employees becomes the only way to maximize profits. Franchisors exacerbate this dynamic with “no-
poach” clauses that prevent franchise operators from hiring employees of another operator within the same franchise business. No-poach clauses suppress wages because franchisees cannot compete for employees with better pay and working conditions.

At the same time that franchisors make it nearly impossible for franchisees and employees to prosper, they force franchisees to bear the risk if the venture fails. By using contract terms to reduce what franchisees can earn outside the franchise relationship relative to within it, parent
companies induce their franchisees to work even harder than the value of the franchise contract warrants. Most franchise contracts include noncompete agreements, forum selection clauses that highly favor the franchisor, and a right of first refusal to any sale of the franchisee’s
business. And most require franchisors to sign personal guarantees, which gives the franchisor a right to claim the franchisee’s personal assets in the event of bankruptcy or litigation.

Antitrust law labels these contractual limitations as “vertical restraints:” restrictions on competition agreed to by firms at different levels of the distribution process. Vertical restraints empower large corporations to control workers and reduce labor costs without taking on the traditional
legal responsibilities for that control. And this control can be implemented on a discriminatory basis. In September 2020, fifty Black former franchisees sued McDonald’s for forcing them to operate in “economically depressed” communities and “dangerous locations” where profits were
lower.

A shift in antitrust law is largely to blame for the proliferation of vertical restraints. Vertical restraints were once considered per se illegal restraints of trade under the Sherman Act. But in a series of decisions beginning with Continental Television v. GTE Sylvania in 1977 and culminating in
Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS in 1997, the Supreme Court held that vertical restraints were presumptively lawful and thus subject to a more searching and defendant-friendly rule of reason analysis. Since that shift, antitrust enforcement has largely stayed away from
challenging restrictive franchise contracts.

An antiracist approach to antitrust would not shy away from challenging these exploitative business models. First, federal agencies could follow in the steps of states like Washington that investigated the use of restrictive no-poach clauses as per se illegal restraints of trade. The pressure
created by Washington’s investigations led seven major fast-food chains to agree to end no-poach deals. An investigation by the FTC or DOJ into no-poach clauses and other anticompetitive vertical restraints common in franchising could have even more impact, given their national scope.
Second, franchising demonstrates that antitrust reform should not narrowly focus on big tech monopolies. Instead, antitrust reform should include industries like franchising, where large corporations restrict the economic freedom of minority business owners and employees.

Scrutinizing the use of vertical restraints in franchising is just as essential to preventing abuses of market power and would remedy a structural inequality
that disproportionately harms people of color.
Conclusion

antitrust enforcement
Antitrust enforcement is not a replacement for more aggressive reforms, and by nature can only address one transaction or firm at a time. Moreover, it is limited to fines rather than sweeping conduct remedies. But can put a

can leverage the power of the federal government to be

dent in the structural problems driving the health care affordability crisis and the extortion of franchisees. And in doing so, it

actively race-conscious and to take actions to end racial inequities . Backed by the push to reform antitrust, the demands to dismantle structural racism, and a new

an antiracist approach to antitrust could

Democratic administration, dismantle the “value-neutral” antitrust dust off the toolbox and begin to

status quo.

There’s a topical version of anti-statist activism that doesn’t foreclose making normative statements
about state obligations.
Saul Newman 10, Reader in Political Theory at Goldsmiths, U of London, Theory & Event Volume 13,
Issue 2

There are two aspects that I would like to address here. Firstly, the
notion of demand: making certain demands on the state –
say for higher wages, equal rights for excluded groups, to not go to war, or an end to draconian policing – is one of the basic
strategies of social movements and radical groups. Making such demands does not necessarily mean
working within the state or reaffirming its legitimacy . On the contrary, demands are made from a
position outside the political order, and they often exceed the question of the implementation of this or
that specific measure. They implicitly call into question the legitimacy and even the sovereignty of the
state by highlighting fundamental inconsistencies between, for instance, a formal constitutional order which
guarantees certain rights and equalities, and state practices which in reality violate and deny them.

Debate PIC
The role of the judge is to discourage debaters from trying to use debate rounds to create change---
allows for moving outside of it to create broader movements
Ritter 13 [Michael J. Ritter, J.D. from UT School of Law, President-Elect of the San Antonio LGBT Bar
Association, The Forensic Files, “Overcoming The Fiction of “Social Change Through Debate”: What’s To
Learn from 2pac’s Changes?,” September 2013, The National Journal of Speech & Debate, Vol. II, Issue I,
https://de0864aa-27a1-4329-abd2-7ae4dded9e96.filesusr.com/ugd/9896ec_8b2b993ec42440ecaab1b0
7645385db5.pdf, Date Accessed: 07/02/20]

Many students who participate in debate in high school argue during debates that
competitive interscholastic and college20 frequently

their speech acts, performances, or presentations criticizing a particular concept in a debate round
could actually affect social inequities or issues inside and outside of the debate community. To
, just like 2PAC’s Changes,

preserve the activity, coaches and judges should discourage debaters from to use deceiving others attempting —or

that they are using competitive debate to create social change.

— interscholastic Those in the debate community who believe (or argue) that competitive interscholastic debate21

Those who have wed

can reach an audience beyond the debate room, and their opponents, coaches, and judges, should consider this question: “What can I learn from 2PAC’s success in communicating his message in Changes?”

themselves to the fiction that in-round speech acts does create actual social change in a competitive interscholastic debate setting can and

will have a difficult time reaching the honest answer to that question: “ I am
(due to either some strategic reasoning or simple denial)

wrong.” The structure of competitive debate renders any message communicated in a round interscholastic debate virtually

incapable of creating any social change in the community or general society to the extent that , either debate in . And

the fiction of social change through debate can be proven or disproven through studies or surveys, empirical

academics have analyzed debate with nonapplicable

instead theory that fails to account for the unique rhetorical

aspects of competitive debate Rather debate relating to activism

interscholastic concerns the
. , the current and competitive interscholastic debate

following: “What is the best model to promote social change?” a more fundamental question But that must be addressed first

is: “Can debate cause social change?” proponents of the fictionDespite over two decades of opportunity to conduct and publish empirical studies or surveys, academic

that debate can create social change have chosen not to prove this fundamental assumption, which —as this

is merely a fiction that is harmful in

article argues— all, respects The position that competitive debate most, if not . interscholastic

can create social change is fiction not provable by any

more properly characterized as a than an argument. A fiction is an invented or fabricated idea purporting to be factual but is

human senses or rational thinking capability or is unproven by statistical studies valid . An argument, most basically, consists of a claim and some
support for why the claim is true. If the support for the claim is false or its relation to the claim is illogical, then we can deduce that the particular argument does not help in ascertaining whether the claim is true. Interscholastic competitive debate is premised upon the assumption that

debate is argumentation. Because fictions are necessarily not true or cannot be proven true by any means of argumentation, the competitive interscholastic debate community should be
incredibly critical of those fictions and adopt them only if they promote the activity and its purposes.

Investing in debate as a space for social change creates false dichotomies between teams, which results
in exclusion and violence---turns case
Ritter 13 [Michael J. Ritter, J.D. from UT School of Law, President-Elect of the San Antonio LGBT Bar
Association, The Forensic Files, “Overcoming The Fiction of “Social Change Through Debate”: What’s To
Learn from 2pac’s Changes?,” September 2013, The National Journal of Speech & Debate, Vol. II, Issue I,
https://de0864aa-27a1-4329-abd2-7ae4dded9e96.filesusr.com/ugd/9896ec_8b2b993ec42440ecaab1b0
7645385db5.pdf, Date Accessed: 07/02/20]

The fiction of social change through debate abuses the win–loss structure of debate and permits debaters
to otherize, demonize, dehumanize, and exclude opponents. The win–loss structure of debate rounds requires a
judge to vote for one side or the other, as judges generally cannot give a double win. This precludes the possibility of
compromise on any major position in the debate when the resolution of the position would determine the ultimate
issue of “which team did the better debating .” Thus, the fiction of social change through debate encourages
debaters to construct narratives of good versus evil in which the other team is representative of some evil
that threatens to bring about our destruction if it is endorsed (e.g. capitalism). The team relying on the fiction
of social change through debate then paints themselves as agents of the good, and gives the judge a George W.
Bush-like “option”: “You’re either with us or you’re against us.” The fiction of social change through debate—
like Bush’s rhetorical fear tactics and creation of a false, polarizing, and exclusionary dichotomy to justify all parts
of the War on Terror—enables the otherization, demonization, dehumanization, and exclusion of the opposing team.
When the unfairness of this tactic is brought to light—particularly in egregious situations when a team is arguing that the other team should
lose because of their skin color—all
can see that the debate centers on personal attacks against opposing
debaters. This causes tensions between debaters that frequently result in debaters losing interest or quitting. By
alienating and excluding members of the competitive interscholastic debate community for the purpose of winning
a debate, it also makes the reaching of any compromise outside of the debate —the only place where compromise is
possible—much less likely. By bringing the social issue into a debate round, debaters impede out-of round
progress on the resolution of social issues within and outside the debate community by prompting backlash.