Jump to content
lolwut5

Help finding research on marginalized debaters

Recommended Posts

Hello y'all,

 

I am researching academic publications that study policy debate, and specifically I am looking for any sort of data/research/empirics on marginalized group's participation/success in policy debate (eg. my ideal article would be a somewhat recent survey of the structural trends preventing lower income/disabled/black/queer/female from the same kind of participation/success affluent white males enjoy in the activity with data and context on that situation) that I can use for evidence. In fact, it doesn't necessarily have to be a peer reviewed source, but then it ought to come from a qualified source. I noticed that community familiar Dr. Shanara Reid-Brinkley has been published in a journal called Argumentation and Advocacy by the American Forensics Association, which does contain some useful articles, but are either a.) not in the context of competitive debate or b.) decades old and not relevant to the changing culture of debate. Also note that my argument is less interested in explicit theory (eg. Wilderson/Black Ontology applied to Debate) and more interested in actual data/experience. 

 

I apologize if this question has already been properly addressed on Cross-x, however I could not find it. 

 

Best and appreciate the help,

Lolwut5

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check out resistanceanddebate.wordpress.com it's run by Shanara, Amber Kelsie and a few others.

 

Also the contemporary argumentation in debate journal might interest you on the ceda website.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is helpful, thank you Charlie. Resistance and Debate (at least the wordpress site I got) is mainly one long rebuttal of a certain debater's thesis (which critiqued Dr. Brinkley's doctoral thesis). However, Contemporary Argumentation in Debate is actually quite helpful, and I am looking at it at the moment. Are there any other publications along that vein that you could refer me to? again, I sincerely appreciate the help. :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd look into UDL statistics, especially places where UDLs compete against non-UDL schools.  If you can get race/gender data for debaters (and socioeconomic status of debater or high school), some interesting patterns would probably emerge.  Yeah, this means interpreting primary data rather than finding secondary sources,  but you'd gain much better data, and it would probably be publishable!

 

You might, for example, check the debaters who qualified for NAUDL from various UDLs.  Chicago's qualifiers were very much not underprivileged minorities.  Chicago will be represented by Whitney Young and Northside, who both have strong national circuit programs, and participate in the UDL as regionally affiliated schools. 

 

Don't get me wrong, its great that we have top-quality schools involved in the UDL, it gives our kids some excellent role models to aspire towards.  But it also disproves the idea that non-traditional affs somehow advantage small school programs.  Whitney Young runs Maquiladoras, which was the only non-traditional aff in the top 6 at the qualifier.  I can't think of a single successful underprivileged school running a non-traditional aff. 

 

(To qualify as a traditional aff in my mind, it must offer a plan text enacted by the USFG or a part thereof, and provide solvency evidence about how the plan would actually solve the harms.  Being kritikal can still be traditional).

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is helpful, thank you Charlie. Resistance and Debate (at least the wordpress site I got) is mainly one long rebuttal of a certain debater's thesis (which critiqued Dr. Brinkley's doctoral thesis). However, Contemporary Argumentation in Debate is actually quite helpful, and I am looking at it at the moment. Are there any other publications along that vein that you could refer me to? again, I sincerely appreciate the help. :D

 

Awesome Lao. Yes the latest post is the response to the bankey thesis but that too can be helpful (don't know specifically what you're looking for ) along with earlier posts.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd look into UDL statistics, especially places where UDLs compete against non-UDL schools.  If you can get race/gender data for debaters (and socioeconomic status of debater or high school), some interesting patterns would probably emerge.  Yeah, this means interpreting primary data rather than finding secondary sources,  but you'd gain much better data, and it would probably be publishable!

 

You might, for example, check the debaters who qualified for NAUDL from various UDLs.  Chicago's qualifiers were very much not underprivileged minorities.  Chicago will be represented by Whitney Young and Northside, who both have strong national circuit programs, and participate in the UDL as regionally affiliated schools. 

 

Don't get me wrong, its great that we have top-quality schools involved in the UDL, it gives our kids some excellent role models to aspire towards.  But it also disproves the idea that non-traditional affs somehow advantage small school programs.  Whitney Young runs Maquiladoras, which was the only non-traditional aff in the top 6 at the qualifier.  I can't think of a single successful underprivileged school running a non-traditional aff. 

 

(To qualify as a traditional aff in my mind, it must offer a plan text enacted by the USFG or a part thereof, and provide solvency evidence about how the plan would actually solve the harms.  Being kritikal can still be traditional).

I second this, and note other teams showing success by race and style within CDL:

 

Top conference: RCC (Regional Circuit Conference) - these are all teams that debate on the national circuit as well as locally; they are all either suburban (Evanston) or magnet (Northside, Lane Tech, Whitney Young, Walter Payton). They dominate tournaments against other conferences when they compete against them; in last year's Chicago Debate Championships, they took 14 spots in Varsity Octas and 10 in Novice Octas; no non-RCC teams made quarters in Varsity and only 2 did in Novice.

 

Whitney Young runs a performance Aff, this year, as does Evanston. At the invitational CDL national qualifier, 4 RCC schools were there out of 10, and they finished in the top 4 places. Northside (which runs a policy Aff) was first, Whitney Young was second. None of these schools feature a large minority population.

 

Next conference: LCC (Local Circuit Conference) - these are all teams that aspire to real policy debate but don't have the resources and quality to compete on the national circuit; the school I and Squirreloid coach (Marshall) is in this conference. We have not seen any performance Affs come out of this conference, but there are a few teams that run kritikal Affs. Whether schools run policy or K Affs here is largely a function of coaching. Within Novice, schools that run Ks have had a tendency to do better by winning through confusion (Thomas Kelly, a largely Hispanic neighborhood school, runs kritiks it doesn't understand at the JV level and closed out finals last tournament through confusion). At the varsity level, diversity is the name of the game; Woodlawn is a K team at the varsity level thanks to its strong team and K-happy coach, and regularly wins tournaments. Lincoln Park does well in both divisions and is policy-heavy and is a neighborhood school that appears to be mostly white. Marshall and Lindblom are both policy heavy teams that are mostly black (Marshall because of its coaches; Lindblom at least in part because most of its best debaters go to camp at Northwestern); Lindblom regularly does well in both varsity and JV; Marshall's had some success but is in a bit of a building year having just moved up from a lower conference (Lindblom is a magnet; Marshall is a neighborhood school). We do have a JV team at Marshall that has gone 4-1 and 5-0 at tournaments including RCC teams on policy-focused debate.

 

Bottom two conferences: A and AA - These are schools that aren't up to the challenge of regular policy debate; all Affirmatives are previewed, and most teams stick to the core Affirmatives the CDL distributes at the start of each season. These schools tend to be more minority-populated. North Lawndale here is a performance-heavy team, and they haven't had much success.

 

I don't know how other UDL's look. I can say that in CDL, the best black debate teams appear to be Woodlawn, Marshall, and Lindblom--one K and two policy teams. And we'll see how Woodlawn does in future years once their Baudrillard-loving top debaters graduate. I imagine watching Whitney Young DS stomp on lower conference teams with their Maquiladoras Aff will give you a new appreciation for how performance debate affects minority debaters at the high school level.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd look into UDL statistics, especially places where UDLs compete against non-UDL schools.  If you can get race/gender data for debaters (and socioeconomic status of debater or high school), some interesting patterns would probably emerge.  Yeah, this means interpreting primary data rather than finding secondary sources,  but you'd gain much better data, and it would probably be publishable!

 

You might, for example, check the debaters who qualified for NAUDL from various UDLs.  Chicago's qualifiers were very much not underprivileged minorities.  Chicago will be represented by Whitney Young and Northside, who both have strong national circuit programs, and participate in the UDL as regionally affiliated schools. 

 

Don't get me wrong, its great that we have top-quality schools involved in the UDL, it gives our kids some excellent role models to aspire towards.  But it also disproves the idea that non-traditional affs somehow advantage small school programs.  Whitney Young runs Maquiladoras, which was the only non-traditional aff in the top 6 at the qualifier.  I can't think of a single successful underprivileged school running a non-traditional aff. 

 

(To qualify as a traditional aff in my mind, it must offer a plan text enacted by the USFG or a part thereof, and provide solvency evidence about how the plan would actually solve the harms.  Being kritikal can still be traditional).

Whitney ran cuba rice at naudl qualifyer.

 

Edit: I also agree with Squirrelloid and Edgehopper. My coach who flowed and watched most of the rounds we debated in said we probably picked up every ballot according to the flows but, 3 out of the 4 ballots (which we lost) for the Magnet schools I competed against at the NAUDL Qualifiers addressed the "continually striving debate programs" that these magnets schools have, rather than the actual arguments presented. Fortunately, I was not discouraged by this but this seems to send the message that we just didn't have a chance walking into the round, not because of skill but because we don't have a huge debate program. This makes debaters with underfunded debate programs have to work hard to be 10x better than what people expect them to be in order to be competitive in a judges eyes which is a next to impossible task  due to lack of resources and support a lot of debaters in UDL's have.

Edited by glg1995
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whitney ran cuba rice at naudl qualifyer.

 

Interesting.  After previewing maquiladoras for city, and i believe running maquiladoras at national tournies, i assumed they had used it at NAUDL quals.  Especially since Cuba Rice is such a screwball case in non-strategic ways.  Not that I was there to see it - Marshall wasn't strong enough this year in varsity to have a team invited.

 

Sorry to hear that about NAUDL qual judging.  That sounds awful.  Who the heck judged those things, and what does 'continually striving debate program' mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting.  After previewing maquiladoras for city, and i believe running maquiladoras at national tournies, i assumed they had used it at NAUDL quals.  Especially since Cuba Rice is such a screwball case in non-strategic ways.  Not that I was there to see it - Marshall wasn't strong enough this year in varsity to have a team invited.

 

Sorry to hear that about NAUDL qual judging.  That sounds awful.  Who the heck judged those things, and what does 'continually striving debate program' mean?

If Marshall had a 2 person varsity team at T5 I think they very much could've went. and we hit them aff, and they go for T-EE is trade, loans and direct investments and the violation is creating legal framework is not an investment in trade. Apparently "the plan is normal means/a direct investment in trade" isn't a good answer and they drop reasonability and no in round abuse still didn't vote. Judges were from A/AA I think. :/ It's cool though; they were the best competition we've had all year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whitney ran cuba rice at naudl qualifyer.

 

but this seems to send the message that we just didn't have a chance walking into the round, not because of skill but because we don't have a huge debate program. This makes debaters with underfunded debate programs have to work hard to be 10x better than what people expect them to be in order to be competitive in a judges eyes which is a next to impossible task  due to lack of resources and support a lot of debaters in UDL's have.

I have this same experience in Texas on the TFA circuit with major schools. For example, when my partner and I cleared to quarters at Plano East, there was one judge in particular that laughed and said, "Lindale broke!? How did that happen?" Then, when we cleared to semis, the same judge said, "Who the hell is this Lindale team and why the fuck do they keep breaking!?" Eventually at TFA state, we had this judge in a break round against a higher-budget school than us, and a lot of the observers said that my partner and I should have picked up the round, but the judge ended up voting us down on a reason that even the team we hit disagreed with. 

 

You're pretty much right. If you are not considerably better than a national-circuit team or even a team that has had a history of being good and has high funding, then it's an uphill battle before the round even starts. To me, it seems like this divide is specific with private schools vs public schools. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...