Critical debate encourages a model of “rev rev” argumentation that encourages clash, education, and minority participation.

Two decades ago, the Louisville Project intervened in competitive intercollegiate policy debate by challenging traditional research paradigms that limited “meaningful black participation” in the activity. From their perspective, traditional norms guiding both the content and form of debate were demonstrative of an elite white male space that was inaccessible to black college students. Since the 2005 special issue of CAD, debate has continued to become increasingly split between traditional debate and critical/performance debate. One of the primary questions raised by traditional debaters is, how can debates in which both the affirmative and negative refuse to affirm a hypothetical interpretation of the resolution produce clash, switch-side debating skills and an equitable division of ground? This article seeks to further intervene in this conversation by arguing that “Revolutionary vs. Revolutionary” debates – in which both the affirmative and negative teams present non-traditional strategies – do not diminish these aspects but instead present an alternative framework for engagement and clash that can push debate to better address structural violence.

Introduction

The inception and success of the Louisville project two decades ago caused ripples in debate still present today. During the time of their emergence, several scholars and participants in the traditional policy style of debate responded with anxiety about what Louisville and other critical/performance debaters meant for the future of the activity. Since the inception of modern policy debate, debaters and coaches alike have shared concerns over the construction and maintenance of a healthy argument culture (Zarefsky, 2009). Though the community had engaged in hotly contested discussions about different styles of debate in the past - such as hypothesis testing versus policy making - concerns over critical debate were magnified. Reflecting on this rift in the activity, Roger Solt (2004) wrote “the split in debate between critical and policy approaches has gone beyond culture war to full-blown clash of civilizations” (p. 44). Solt’s qualifier that this clash moves beyond any normal culture war reveals a deep anxiety over the collision, implying critical debate presents not a simple stylistic disagreement but an antagonistic challenge to the very foundations of policy debate. Concerns amongst the community arose over whether or not critical debate deviated too much from the stasis point of the resolution and policy debate norms, lamenting a perceived anti-intellectualism, dogmatism, and a “loss of civility in the activity” (Parcher, 2004). However, as Amber Kelsie (2019) highlights, the rhetorical move to rally the community around a shared stasis point functions to enforce liberal sovereignty’s constant state of emergency against the wretched of the earth. Indeed, critical debaters - in particular Black and minority critical debaters - are often framed as uncivilized, undisciplined, and a threat to the integrity of the activity.

Ironically, this community has become engulfed in a debate about debate. As a previous editor of Contemporary Argumentation & Debate (Louden, 2004) has noted, “the debate about debate simultaneously tears at the fabric of community and builds shared norms, an unending search for an ‘acceptable’ balance.” (p. 40). Taking the concern that critical debate presents a threat to the ability to produce adequate clash into consideration, we explore the potential for alternative approaches to policy debate that have heretofore been discounted. Put another way, this article seeks to articulate the nuanced debates and clash offered by the uncivilized. Building on scholars such as Amber Kelsie, Shanara Reid-Brinkley (2008), Tiffany Dillard-Knox (2014), Rashad Evans (2015), and others, we argue that these debates -- what we refer to as “revolutionary v. revolutionary debates” or “rev v. rev debates” -- produce nuanced and generative clash over the nature of resistance to structures of domination. We choose to use the term “revolutionary” in contrast to traditional approaches to top-down, U.S. governmental reform, to designate those approaches that seek to move beyond reformulation of particular institutions to a reorientation of societal foundations. We seek to displace the presumption that debates ought to solely entail consideration over reform and the desirability of governmental action. Consequently, the label “revolutionary” does not imply the purity of these alternative approaches. On the contrary, we suggest they can and should be critiqued, examined, and debated. In doing so, we highlight how centering Black and minoritarian knowledge produces thoughtful debates about the resolution concerning the analytical frameworks, methodologies, and representations deployed by opposing teams.

In what follows, we explore the scholarly challenges to critical debate and some of the responses by critical debates’ interlocutors. Intervening in this debate about debate, we contend that these interlocutors present a rich basis for considering alternative forms of policy debate that do not result in anti-intellectualism but instead in new approaches to clash. By exploring emerging communication scholarship on race, social movements, and critical theory, we argue that this clash in rev v. rev debates has a grounding in evolving theoretical debates about social change between scholars and activists outside of the activity. We conclude by reflecting on the legacy of Louisville and the potential scholarly engagements offered by rev v. rev debates that counteract the overdetermination of these debates as ungrounded in critical thinking.