# data[].attributes.body
In the fall of 2000 The Louisville project was founded at the university of Louisville, under the guidance of Dr. Ede Warner.

# data[].attributes.body
Shanara R. Reid-Brinkley is currently a professor and Co-director of forensics at California State University Fullerton and previous professor and director of debate at the University of Pittsburgh. She wrote an essay called “CELEBRATING THE LEGACY OF THE LOUISVILLE PROJECT AND GRAPPLING WITH THE ANTIBLACKNESS STILL PLAGUING COLLEGE POLICY DEBATE” which I will be pulling from for this section.

# data[].attributes.body
The arguments prepared by the Louisville project follow a specific strategy they must include:

"The three-tier methodology required the use of personal experience, organic intellectuals and expert research, in building debate arguments about public policy considerations" (Shanara R. Reid-Brinkley, 5)

# data[].attributes.body
Louiville offers "that speaking from one’s personal experience (particularly black folks) offered a different view of the potential consequences or benefits of public policies that might implicate the well-being of Black-people." (Dillard Knox, 2014)

They posit that first hand accounts should be deemed relevant and credible information as relates to their debate topics. In the inclusion of this kind of research the debaters are able to bring their full selves to the debate as opposed to having to cut off pieces of oneself in order to fit into a narrow paradigm.

# data[].attributes.body
As mentioned above the intended goal of the Louisville project was to develop "Meaningful participation." not simply to increase black participation as a whole. They intentionally avoided the acquisition in quantity in the pursuit of quality. "They knew that Black meaningful participation must be meaningful if the policy debate community hoped to create and retain a vibrant community of Black debaters and coaches" (Warner and Bruschke, 2001).

# data[].attributes.body
The people who pushed back dubbed themselves not a white supremicists but rather "Traditionlists"

# data[].attributes.body
Austerity policies as defined by britannica is "a set of economic policies, usually consisting of tax increases, spending cuts, or a combination of the two, used by governments to reduce budget deficits."

These can and have been historically weaponized against black and brown folks. In the context of the debate it was through the use of "cleverly hidden in the language of anti-harassment guidelines." (Shanara R. Reid-Brinkley, 6)

# data[].attributes.body
Black debaters who placed highly in the competition were targeted by white supremacist groups.

# data[].attributes.body
There was a clandestine meeting held during a major national tournament. The purposes of which were to discuss the creation of a new organization that would explicitly preclude the infringement on the normative form of the competition.

I'd offer that this isn't a terrible idea, but my one stipulation would be this organization to call themselves what they are. Rather than relying on coded language such as "Traditionalists." I'd assert their title needs to reflect what it is, an organization meant to preserve the exclusionary and eurocentric ideals of traditional historically accurate debate. May I offer "The whites are talking."

# data[].attributes.body
The louisville project created a home for themselves within an institution that was not made with their needs in mind. The legacy of this group is one of creativity and perseverance. I find it inspiring that they were able to bring their full selves into a space and be unapologetically whole and ferociously black.

# data[].attributes.body
Scott Harris's First debate was in 1985, a time where he says most of the other judgers he was working with on this specific debate had yet to be born.

In his words he is a  "Just a guy who lucked into a world that has allowed a strange bird like me to have a place."

Scott now resides in New York and is a General Manager at AFA protective systems, Inc.

Scott wrote an essay titled "This Ballot" detailing the intricacies of his choice to vote for Emporia.

In this section I will be synthesizing the rationale behind his choice as explained in his essay.

# data[].attributes.headline
1.  Too narraw a paradigm (The negative) 

# data[].attributes.subject
1.  Too narraw a paradigm (The negative) 

# data[].attributes.body
In his words, “The negative side of the debate is based on the claim that all debates must be oriented around the pursuit of government policy as advocated by the resolution." He elucidates how narrowing the lens of debate to serve only a political vocation excludes the breadth of possibility that the tools learned in debate can offer, for purposes of advocacy or general public speaking just to offer a couple of examples.

# data[].attributes.body
Harris goes on to discuss the affirmative in saying “The positive (Emporia) “ traditional policy debate is good for those skills but that there should also be a space for individuals whose needs are to performatively challenge oppressive structures in their everyday lives” Harris was persuaded by the nation that this particular skill set extends past official paradigms of debate and for some, Specifically marginalized individuals, are utilized in everyday life in order to perpetually qualifying, explaining, and calling attention to structural, social, and, economic inequality.

# data[].attributes.body
What Harris would have liked to hear was the negative addressing "How traditional policy debate positively creates a home for debtors." The negatives failed to acknowledge debate as a home in reference to the affirmative argument, in doing so they didn't adequately include the subjects that arise in the debate but rather doubled down on their original arguments.

# data[].attributes.body
In this essay Harris goes on to explain that the topical arguments made by the negative were not his reason for voting against them.

Topicality arguments as defined by the Minnesota Urban debate league is "an argument where teams debate the meaning of certain words in the resolution in an attempt to prove that the affirmative either is or is not debating the topic."

Harris argues that his issue with the negative debate "Had more to do with aspects of the execution of the argument rather than with the strategy itself." Here Haris posits that "Topicality is a real argument in debate...It is an argument that challenges many affirmatives." he goes on to cite an example of a law passed in that misinterpreted by a couple of different districts due to a misplaced comma. He urges the importance of topicality arguments as pertains to future law students.

# data[].attributes.headline
"I've neer pretended to be anyone other than Scott Harris." 

# data[].attributes.subject
"I've neer pretended to be anyone other than Scott Harris." 

# data[].attributes.body
This is where Scott misinterprets one of the points made by Emporia. He begins this section by quoting an argument of the affirmative which is " The oppressed people should not be forced to role play being the oppressor." How I interpret this Emporias claim is reminiscent of the famous title of Audre Lorde book " The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house." That until debate allows for a shift in its structural foundations, rather than reinforcing conformity, that the house of debate will never truly be a home. Harris however goes on to explain how he is "puzzled" by this postulation, stating how "He has no idea...why it would be oppressive for someone to form an opinion about whether or not they think the government should do something." He contended that debate itself is about forming opinions, and he doesn't see how forming an opinion through debate can be oppressive.

# data[].attributes.body
While they were met with backlash such as the ones described by SHANARA REID-BRINKLEY, where they had to contend arguements "This isn't research, this is me-search," as if Black scholars, noted Black scholars in their fields are not real experts, right? They would say things like, "Hip hop does not belong here. Your argument style doesn't belong here." And I'm saying these things in really nice ways, you know what I mean? But there could be really angry screaming matches at tournaments."

# data[].attributes.body
Through the utilization of rap, spoken word, street scholars and other forms of artistic expression they changed the game entirely. Their arguments were viscerally and emotionally engaging; this style of debate drastically juxtaposed their competitors' debate style which were strictly persuasive in a logical sense.

# data[].attributes.body
Ryan's team utilizes this tool in an innovative way, by pushing the norms of typical debate they discuss the idea of how debate should be a home for everyone. Ryan discusses in the podcast he says "Okay, so they put out things like the NDT Rule Book, which is like affirmative teams must be topical. But in the world of debate, what does it mean to be topical? What does it mean to be "On topic?"

# data[].attributes.body
Through the innovative use of Ethos, Pathos, and logos Ryan's team was able to show the judges a style of debate that the majority of the judges had not been privy to. I believe it is the uniqueness of their approach as well as the dedication to creating space for themselves in a system that had long since been exclusionary that really opened up the judges mind to a world of new colors.

# data[].attributes.body
Bondarenko, Peter. “Britannica Money.” Www.britannica.com, 20 Dec. 2023, www.britannica.com/money/austerity.

‌

# data[].attributes.body
(2023) "Contemporary Argumentation and Debate: The Journal of the Cross-Examination Debate Association Special Issue: Identity, Performance, & Debate: Celebrating the 20th Anniversary of the Louisville Project," Contemporary Argumentation and Debate: Vol. 38, Article 1.

# data[].attributes.body
“The Best Ballot Ever: Scott Harris’ NDT 2013 Final Round Ballot.” DebateUS, debateus.org/the-best-ballot-ever-scott-harris-ndt-2013-final-round-ballot/. Accessed 17 July 2024.

‌

# data[].attributes.body
“PPT - a Firm Foundation: CX Debate Basics (Part II) PowerPoint Presentation - ID:2487715.” SlideServe, 27 July 2014, www.slideserve.com/dinesh/a-firm-foundation-cx-debate-basics-part-ii. Accessed 17 July 2024.

‌