ROB Bad

ROBs which place the judge as one who needs to solve a

community problem excludes the majority of judges and
those who do not directly engage in debate
Bankey 13
Brendon Bankey is a PhD student at Kansas and has a MA in
communication from Wake Forest University. He debated for Trinity
University. THE FACT OF BLACKNESS DOES NOT EXIST: AN
EVOCATIVE CRITICISM OF RESISTANCE RHETORIC IN ACADEMIC POLICY
DEBATE AND ITS (MIS)USE OF FRANTZ FANONS BLACK SKIN, WHITE
MASKS, August 2013, Pg. 51-52, AFGA)
For Atchison and Panetta, the ballot a judge casts at the
conclusion of a debate should signify nothing more or less than
that persons decision to vote for the team that does the best
debating. This understanding encourages judges to limit their
analysis of a debate to the arguments presented within each
teams allotted times to speak. It would exclude decisions focused on
resolving external abuses such as: determining the appropriateness of
statements or events between a team or program that occurred
outside of the immediate debate; challenging a schools success at
recruiting minority participants; criticizing the civil rights legacy of
participants academic institutions; or increasing the presence of
underrepresented bodies in elimination debates. By contrast, some
non-traditional teams interested in challenging the
marginalizing effects of policy debate formats have begun to
advocate what I call a ballot as currency model for judges to
evaluate debates. While the specific terminology is not
universally employed, the ballot as currency approach
establishes that a judges ballot signifies what bodies and
practices she deems appropriate for policy debate. Within this
model, a non-traditional teams ability to accumulate wins is a
referendum on the perceived acceptableness of their bodies for
academic spaces.
Beyond the structural factors that limit the visibility of any individual
debate, Atchison and Panetta identify two problems with the ballot as
currency method for evaluating debates. First, the ballot as
currency approach presents the dilemma of asking a judge
to vote to solve a community problem with very few
participants (generally the other people in the room) allowed to
take a stake in the process. This places the course of

community change on the shoulders of those who judge

debates between traditional and non-traditional teams and
excludes those coaches and directors who are not preferred
judges and, therefore, do not have access to many debates.
Furthermore, it excludes those who might want to contribute to
community conversation, but are not directly involved in
competition. Prioritizing the ballot as currency approach
fails to recognize that debate community is broader than the
individual participants of a given debate and risks the
creation of an insulated community that has all the answers
without ever engaging those concerned individuals who do not
attend every competition. The result is that a very narrow set
of judges, usually those that often judge Framework debates,
are granted the authority to determine the outcome of
communal change.