Myth

This myth is alive and well in current society – Asian Americans vindicate the American
dream, they are living proof of the power of the free market and absence of racial
discrimination.

The Myth controls other minorities and distracts scrutiny of White supremacy and
structural issues
Poon, OiYan, et al. “Sci-Hub.” A Critical Review of the Model Minority Myth in Selected Literature on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders
in Higher Education, 11 Dec. 2015, sci-hub.tw/10.3102/0034654315612205. Accessed 22 Feb. 2020.
Because a key tenet of CRT is to combat ahistoricism in analyzing how White dominance operates and is reproduced, a critical race definition of the MMM must acknowledge how it aligns with the middleman minority thesis and consequently global structures of racial domination. The

middleman minorities have long served as

MMM applied to Asian Americans in the United States represents just one example of a middleman minority. First conceptualized by Blalock (1967),

“buffer groups or as pawns in the power struggle between the two major classes—elite and peasant”
(Jain, 1990, p. 28). Bonacich (1973) expanded on this definition of middleman minorities by highlighting the importance of these groups’ status as foreigners set apart from the host society. The popular notion of Asian Americans, a predominantly immigrant population in the United

Although middleman minority

States, as a model minority thus follows historical and global precedents of middleman minority groups such as Jews in Europe, Armenians in Turkey, and Indians in Uganda (Bonacich, 1973; Jain, 1990).

status brings some economic privileges, it does not grant political or social power, and engenders
hostility from both elites and masses in the host communities ). The MMM, as an example of the (Bonacich, 1973

middleman minority notion, is a tool that exploits Asian Americans, placing them in a racial bind
between Whites and other people of color. This racial arrangement benefits the White elite in the U.S.
racial hierarchy (Buenavista, Jayakumar, & Misa-Escalante, 2009; Osajima, 2000) as demonstrated by the concepts of racial triangulation (C. J. Kim, 1999) and cultural racism (Bonilla-Silva & Dietrich, 2011). The model minority label is often attributed to William
Petersen (1966), who presented socioeconomic success among a select segment of Asian Americans as an antithesis to African American claims of persistent racial oppression and barriers during the 1960s Civil Rights Movement and at the height of Black-led urban uprisings across the

Asian
United States. Figure 1 provides an illustration of C. J. Kim’s (1999) theory of racial triangulation, which illuminates the mechanisms of the middleman minority’s role in maintaining systemic White supremacy. According to the theory of racial triangulation ,

Americans are simultaneously limited in their political and civic voice and presented as an example of
success, despite being racially minoritized, It is, at its Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at TRENT UNIV on December 11, 2015 6 in order to preserve White supremacy (C. J. Kim, 1999).

core, a patronizing practice that maintains White dominance by disregarding the lived experiences of
one group to shame another group Asian Americans as a middleman . The MMM is also the embodiment of a process of cultural racism, whereby

minority are used to discipline other minoritized groups to ultimately distract scrutiny away from
systems of White dominance Cultural racism explains racial inequalities as
(Leonardo, 2009). , one of four elemental frames in color-blind racism,

outcomes of a racially minoritized group’s “lack of effort, loose family organization, and inappropriate
values the MMM, through the process of racial triangulation, bolsters cultural
” (Bonilla-Silva & Dietrich, 2011, p. 193). Therefore,

racism and color-blind racist ideology through the valorization of by discrediting one racially minoritized group’s real struggles with racial barriers and discrimination

oversimplified stereotypes of another racially minoritized group. , the MMM is not simply a Consequently

stereotype of self-sufficient, high-academic minority achievement. Instead, it is a much more insidious

racial device used to uphold a global system of racial hierarchies and White supremacy . Therefore, our sociohistorically accurate,
critical race definition of the MMM acknowledges two key, interlocked elements that symbiotically reproduce and reinforce White dominance. First, Asian Americans are strategically presented as a model of self-sufficient minority success. Second, the stereotype of success among Asian

perpetuating the deficit thinking model prevalent in education

Americans is used to blame another minority group for its struggles thus . In both elements, factual
information is not necessary, as they depend on racial generalizations and stereotypes.
The expectation to be the “model minority” causes psychological violence, higher
rates of suicide AND fear to seek help due to cultural stigma
Lee, Sunmin, et al. “Model Minority at Risk: Expressed Needs of Mental Health by Asian American Young Adults. Journal of Community
Health, 34(2), 144–152 | 10.1007/S10900-008-9137-1.” Sci-Hub.Tw, 18 Oct. 2008, sci-hub.tw/10.1007/s10900-008-9137-1#. Accessed
23 Feb. 2020.
Mental health is an extremely important, but commonly overlooked health topic in Asian American
(hereafter, AA) youths. highlights significant mental health disparities
The 2005 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s ‘10 Leading Causes of Death’ [1]

among racial/ethnic groups. Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPIs) have the highest
Among females 15–24 years old,

rate of suicide deaths (14.1%) compared to other racial/ethnic groups (White 9.3%, Black 3.3%, and Hispanic 7.4%) [1]. AAPI males in the same age range have the
second highest rate of suicide deaths (12.7%) compared to other racial/ ethnic group males in the same age range (White 17.5%, Black 6.7%, and Hispanic 10%) [1]. Although the recent Virginia Tech shooting incident serves as a reminder of the tragic consequences of untreated mental

these statistics point to the large numbers of youths whose lives are severely impaired by
health problems in youth,

mental health problems but do not come to the attention of the public. Despite alarming suicide rates
and other indicators of mental health problems such as depression, this issue continues to be ignored in
AAs in general, and particularly in AA youths. Traditional Asian culture suggests that mental health
problems exist because one cannot control oneself, and therefore it is considered shameful to reveal
that one has mental health problem or to seek help. Consequently, AAs oftentimes hide the problem
because they fear the associated stigma. AA youths may experience additional challenges that stem
from their position as 1.5 or 2nd generation immigrants (we define 2nd generation as people who were born in the U.S., 1.5 generation as immigrants who came to the US before age 16, and

Since the level of acculturation differs from that of their

1st generation as immigrants who came to the U.S. when they were 16? years old) [Kim D, 2008, Personal communication].

parents’ generation or their non-immigrant friends at school, it often creates stressful situations for
them in daily life. However, the difficulties of this generation are rarely recognized and addressed.
Considering the significance of untreated mental health concerns for AA and their potentially negative
impact on the larger society (e.g., Virginia Tech shooting), it is critical to identify factors affecting mental well-being and mental health care utilization in this group.
 Framework
The debate space is an extension of the classroom in which students have to learn
how to break down the barriers of privilege, and have discussions about such. Debate
is not merely a game: it is an educational activity which can have a real impact on
lives.
VBriefly. “‘Nobody Knows the Trouble I See’ (And In National Circuit Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Does Anyone Really Care?).” Briefly, 28 Apr.
2014, www.vbriefly.com/2014/04/28/20144nobody-knows-the-trouble-i-see-and-in-national-circuit-lincoln-douglas-debate-does-
anyone-really-care/. Accessed 22 Feb. 2020.
Kristof et al intimate that the role of the judge is solely to make a decision in any given debate and to vote “for the better debater." If a debater says that they are going to kill millions of Africans for Malthusian justifications, the authors would believe that the role of the judge is simply to
vote for the “better debater.” If utilitarianism is the standard, they would have no problem voting for killing millions of Africans: these arguments are just lines across the flow. Kristof et al write: “Judges have no jurisdiction to vote to make the world or the debate community a better
place. Do judges need to do the Macarena if debaters say they should? No, and for the same reason, they don’t need to act as some kind of critical educator even if debaters say they should. In fact, they can’t use the ballot to do so, since that runs counter to its instructions.” They

A
compare an obligation for judges to care about the perpetuation of structural violence with doing the Macarena. The writers of the article are so deeply rooted in their own privilege that they cannot imagine the destruction they cause to the people caught in their considerable wake.

person of color who is told by judges that it is okay if people who look like them are slaughtered isn’t
listening to the conclusions of a hypothetical debate Being . People who look like them have been slaughtered in various forms in various ways for over four hundred years.

white means not ever having to think about it. The suggested role of the judge according to Kristof, Massey, and Reiter is to care nothing about the safety of the environment and the people in the room.

While the role of the judge is to vote for the better debater, we feel strongly that
Kill Africans, rape women, don’t let people of color vote.

the judge in any given debate must adopt both the role of a decision-maker and educator . Evaluating
the better debater must be considered as a matter of both performance and substance . Most scholars agree that the judge’s role is

judges have the obligation to serve

twofold. Richardson writes: ”A judge describes what occurs in the round while a critic/educator prescribes what should have occurred in the round. However, the prevailing opinion is that

beyond the role of descriptor, and they are indeed capable of performing two types of evaluations
simultaneously – that of a judge and that of a critic debate is first and foremost an (Patterson and Zarefsky). In fact,

educational activity (Decker and Morello). If indeed the purpose of debate is to teach, judges must serve as educators also (Rowland, Ganer). Debate, while a
competitive game, is an educational game—an extension of the classroom . The idea that regardless of what is done in a debate, the judge has no

The
jurisdiction or obligation to act as a critical educator seems short sighted at best, and sociopathic in our current environment. In a world of “just vote for the better debater”, judges would be under no obligation to give a reason for decision in either a written, or oral form.

concept of “just vote for the better debater” absolves the judge of any real responsibility to give
constructive feedback to students a student could use language that was racist, sexist
, either good or bad. In a worst case scenario

or homophobic, and if they won the “substance” of the debate, the language and behavior would be
ignored. judge
In fact, if things became physical between the students, and the aggressor “won” the debate, using a literal interpretation of the position of Kristof et al, the judge would be under no obligation to act. Morris and Herbeck elucidate: “Such

passivity is responsible for the often dramatic decline in the quality of debate arguments and the
promotion of shallow practice nearly devoid of educational utility . Ganer (1987) has observed: Many of the problems in contemporary debate can be traced to those
who persist in divorcing debate from general academic concerns of argumentation and viewing debate as nothing more than a "game," in the antitheoretical rather than theoretical sense, to be played under the sponsorship of an academic institution.” (p. 387) Muir adds in a discussion of

viewing debate as a game violates a

Ehninger: "Questioning the power of such a perspective (the gaming model of debate), Ehninger offers several concerns about the game metaphor. Pedagogically, Ehninger cautions that

balance of technique and subject matter, fragmenting the instruction of the whole. The emphasis on
technique reduces the real world applicability of debate skills ; a specialized terminology, coupled with a focused perspective on how the game is played, renders debate
increasingly esoteric and irrelevant. Morally, the game metaphor is questionable because if debate is just a game, then it is very easy to cheat and distort the truth. Even if 'the game' is played ethically, Ehninger argues, it is separated and isolated and makes 'little or no direct contribution
to the solving of mankind's present and future problems.'" Muir furthers his characterization of Ehninger's argument, "Fostering the idea of debate as a game renders a discussion of contemporary predicaments and their solutions a mere pastime, rather than a way of learning how to

participate democratically in such solutions. Debate , Ehninger concludes, cannot afford to be ethically neutral- it must be a positive force for
good ." Morris and Herbeck impact our position by stating: “We insist that coaches, competitors, and judges stop treating debate as a game. If debate is merely a game, it may be appropriate for judges to act as referees assigning points to the participants. By contrast,

debate should be an educational exercise designed to serve as a "laboratory for teaching argumentation skills". (McBath, 1974; Thomas, 1980). Forensic educators must intervene as necessary to redress some of
the "irrational practices currently emphasized in academic debate" (Rowland & Deatherage, 1986, p. 246). What makes the Kristof et al article so despicable is that they want judges to beat students down who implore those judges to resist privilege and stand for something more. We are
not calling for judges to randomly intervene against racist, sexist and homophobic arguments. In our current climate, that is too much to ask, and we are not that optimistic. The adults in the Lincoln-Douglas community have consistently failed to do anything to protect young people and
have actively encouraged the sociopathic pseudo pedagogy embodied in the Kristof, Massey, and Reiter article. We can’t help but think that the role of the judge demonstrated by too many adults strongly resembles the actions of bystanders who watched as Kitty Genovese was
murdered in the streets of New York. But when students understand that the debate space is hostile to women and people of color and try to do something about it, don’t join the attacker. Don’t murder them. Don’t wish they go away. Be constructive. Be educational. Be humane. We
must prove why genocide is bad? They should be ashamed, and we should be ashamed for accepting it. Being white in America means never having to think about it. But they should think about it. People who face structural oppression have to think about it. We are assaulted without
warning and dismissed with smiles and politeness or barbs and arrows. The debate community by deliberate aggression or privileged non-consideration declared war on students of color long before Chris Randall’s rallying cry. Being white in America means never having to think about it.
Never thinking about it makes for ignorant, destructive, careless people without any clue how they relate to the rest of the planet. They believe that they live in a hostile world without any understanding that they are the source of the hostility. They want people who call out their

adults
privilege to just go away. The good news about our community is that a critical mass of students have decided to not go away. It is up to the adults in our community to make space for them. We cannot know how this conflict will end. But in the process, must not remain

silent and watch structural violence replicated and reinforced. In our community, we must encourage people to expand their libraries, read new literature , and
enter new search terms in Google in order to understand and engage these positions. The conversations and debates will often be hard, but they already are.
We believe our role as educators is to welcome hard conversations that question and deconstruct privilege ,
not reinforce it . There is no neutral ground.

Speaking out and engaging in the context of educational spaces is uniquely key for
Asian American students.
Osajima 4, Keith. "Internalized Oppression and the Culture of Silence: Rethinking the Stereotype of the Quiet Asian American Student"
Race and Racism in the United States (n.d.): 152-55. Web

A good student is quiet, obedient, [and] unquestioning , prompt, and attentive. They do well on tests designed by the teacher. They can give the right answer. In
return for this behavior, “good” students are rewarded with good grades, praise from teachers, honor rolls, and col- lege entrance. A “bad student”, who is loud, rebellious, defies and questions authority, skips class or comes in

these messages are so strong that they become a natural,

late, and doesn’t do the home- work, is stigmatized and isolated from the rest. For many of us,

internalized indicator of our self-worth. We come to believe that our abilities and our intelligence are best measured
by our grades, or by the opinions and praise we receive from our teachers. This creates a tremendous pull to adhere to the image of a “good” student. At the same time those rewards [which] become a
means to control students, for in the process we lose sight of the fact that we are smart enough to think and figure many things out ourselves, and we also lose sight of our

critical, reflective abilities that allow us to question the ways that schooling may be oppressive . I think for Asian
students, the pull to be “good” students becomes even stronger when we place that student oppression in the context of the way Asians have responded to racial oppression
in this country . For many Asian-Americans, silence and education lies at the heart of how we have dealt with racial

oppression. As Colin Watanabe and Ben Tong argued in the early 1970’s, Asian-Americans often adopted a passive, quiet, con- forming behavior as a means to survive racial hostilities. It was deemed safer not to rock
the boat than to call attention to oneself and risk oppression. Many of us learned these lessons from our parents as we were growing up, internalized them, and came to believe that we too might be in danger if we speak out, or

call attention to ourselves. Thus, even when the situation may not be threatening, the internalized oppression often makes us feel that we need to
be quiet in order to be safe.
 Yellow peril advocacy
We unleash the Yellow Peril as a form of rage to break the model minority myth. The
AC is an embracement of the violent shadow projected on to the Asian identity and
serves as a reconceptualizing of our existence to break the throne of supremacy. CX
specs check T interps.
 Yellow peril method
The ROB is to vote for the debater that best deconstructs the model minority myth 

Anger is the torch that lights an uncontrollable bonfire and disrupts the squo. The AC
paints out the silenced oppression faced by Asian Americans, which becomes a
construct that arbitrarily defines us and prevents us from effectively engaging in the
debate space.
Chandra 14
Ravi Chandra, M.D. is a psychiatrist, poet and writer in San Francisco. 2014. “Asian American Anger – It’s
A Thing!” #dvchallenge Pacific Heart Books, San Francisco, CA
Anger, researchers found, travels more quickly, broadly and definitively across the social network than the other wan-by-comparison emotions, tying users together in tighter bonds of hell-yeah-me-tooism and retweeted rage. The internet is the angernet, a handy transmitter to
broadcast one’s discontent and rage, and connect with discontented others in a rising chorus of ire-amplification. Complaints are contagious. Notes of protest propagate prolifically, passionately pal-literative punctuation points of public pique, replicating clonally and sometimes

Anger arises as a means to overcome

pandemically, perhaps more polemic than poetic. powerlessness, isolation and weakness,
pops. What one’s own

to rise up against a menace, a survival-brain boost of energy, is naturally strengthened when joined in
tribal, primal scream. There is, always, strength in numbers. Oppositional Facebook rants and tweets are as attractive as they are polarizing, drawing the like-minded into their magnetic “like” orbit. Anger is pure unbridled power, pushing an
individual’s synapses into full alert, and readying the body for a fight. We all are easily enticed and entrained to the flow of anger’s yellow bile, which draws us to our most vigorous heights of surly strength and wished-for vanquishing of the triggering, and thus dangerous-in-our-minds,

offender. It is the most active, urgent and actionable of our emotions. When the conditions are right, or perfectly “wrong” and therefore unacceptable, they spark us to righteous rage, and a bonfire is
sure to follow. When conflict catches us, we catch fire. Social discourse is most powerful and noticeable when people unite against a common threat. Social media have become a spontaneous, rapid response engine that can quickly take aim at issues and

incidents that are felt viscerally by hundreds, thousands, or even millions. Clearly, the consequences for racist, sexist or homophobic comments and actions
have changed dramatically in recent years. The anger of the masses – the conscience of the masses – holds leaders, businesses, and governments more accountable. All seemingly for the better. Online activists defend social media as if it
were their mother – or messiah. They point to concrete examples where a chorus of tweets and posts cause real world change. L.A. Clippers owner Donald Sterling’s withdrawal from the NBA after his racist comments drew widespread disapproval. The book deal of the Trayvon Martin
juror that was canceled after online protest, a notable Twitter-takedown. George Zimmerman, who shot Trayvon Martin, who was charged only after an online petition forced the issue. The outpouring of social media messages after the Mike Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri.

Emerging protests the world over that are enhanced and organized with social media tools. All are examples of a population’s anger crystallized and made crystal clear on liquid crystal displays. The people can speak and , in numbers, be
heard. Attention can be focused. Conversations started . Social media can turn heads, and if the expressions of anger are noted by a receptive party or government, they can catalyze change.
In a democracy, the will of the people is a force to be reckoned with – and now, Facebook and Twitter can make that will known with immediacy. The nightly news spotlight is increasingly aimed by trending conversations on Twitter and Facebook. The complaints of the community can

The power of righteous rage

become nothing less than a call to conscience, and certain, palpable evidence of communal mood. Important issues of civil and human rights resonate around the world, share-by-share, tweet-by-tweet.

and indignation is undeniable moving us closer to solving the problems of racism, sexism,
. Is it not

homophobia, and other forms of discrimination, persecution and bondage ? Isn’t social media part of a sea change in the life and strivings of humanity,

oppressors have reason to fear rapid communication and dissemination

reinforcing and advancing our highest values? Certainly. Dictators, and one-party states

of ideas, and the easy spread of anger

even more so, against them. Social media pushes creatively against control. Censors may impose some limits, but people find ways to skirt those prison bars. The network, the loosely

It is a genie that can’t

organized or completely unorganized online “flash mob”, is taking aim at hierarchical power structures across the globe. If people power is a forbidden fruit, then social media seems like a blossoming orchard of possibilities.

be put back in the bottle, a necessary torch to combat the darkness of ignorance and tyranny. Perhaps, even, a spur to
enlightenment, as our newfound connection can inspire us to rise above greed and hatred, and towards compassion and wisdom. Our collective compassion and wisdom certainly will determine our fate. Anger is part of our struggle to make sure that there is an end to all forms of the

Anger is a vital component and provocateur of our egos – and must be heard, met and
gulag. In case of emergency, break silence.

resolved in our advance towards a healthier, more inclusive society. Anger disrupts the status quo – and
the modern mantra of technological change is “disruption” . Anger spreading through social media may be the ultimate disruptive force in our global tweet-à-tweet. Facebook and

When we feel
Twitter are conveyance mechanisms for our angry prayers and insistent demands. We become the “hearer-of-all-cries”, the bodhisattva responsive to the suffering of all, the bodhisattva who delays enlightenment to help others become free.

and observe anger, we recognize suffering We become restless . We are reminded of the First Noble Truth – “Life entails suffering”. Something deep within us is compelled.

until we find the cure for what ails, the remedy for the wails and woes of a world in distress.

Prefer:
1. self-identification- the AC is a means of breaking the labels that have been placed on
us and becoming a powerful Yellow Peril that is beautiful, and the embodiment of the
Empire’s worst fears
Chow 18 (Kat Chow, 9-27-2018, "If We Called Ourselves Yellow," NPR.org,
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2018/09/27/647989652/if-we-called-ourselves-
yellow)
Yellow
In 1969, a Japanese American activist named Larry Kubota wrote a manifesto called "Yellow Power!" that was published in Gidra, a radical magazine created by Asian American activists at the University of California, Los Angeles. His words were a rallying cry. "

power is a call for all Asian Americans to end the silence that has condemned us to suffer in this racist
society and to unite with our Black, brown and red brothers of the Third World for survival, self-determination and the creation

Still
of a more humanistic society," he wrote. it's about an entire
, if there were no term like "Asian American" — if it didn't exist, if we gave up on it entirely — then what could we have to anchor ourselves? After all, it's not just about a word;

identity we're always craving

. Ellen Wu, the historian from Indiana, digs into that point: "To circle back to this question of, do we use something like yellow or brown? ... Why do we even feel like we have to?" Wu acknowledges that

words that might come closer to encapsulating who we are . "I think that invisibility — that feeling that we don't matter, that worse, we're statistically insignificant — in some ways

yellow as a term of empowerment —

really fuels that desire to have a really concise and meaningful way of talking about ourselves," she says. In the pinnacle of the civil rights era, activists used a term they chose for
themselves. In some ways, I'm still seeing that today. When the director of Crazy Rich Asians, Jon Chu, wanted to include a Mandarin version of Coldplay's song "Yellow" in a pivotal scene of his movie, some people were concerned that including it might not fly in such a high-profile movie

about Asians. But that was exactly Chu's point. He wrote a letter to the band pleading his case — he wanted to attach something gorgeous to the word. " If we're going to be called yellow ," Chu wrote, "we're
going to make it beautiful ." I can't help but think back to a group of people I spoke to late last year. The Yellow Jackets Collective is an activist group, the name an echo of the 1960s. They're four people in New York City who identify themselves
with a wide swath of terms, in addition to yellow: she/her, womxn, brown, Asian American, femme, child of Chinese immigrants, Korean American, 1st gen., first gen. diasporic and "collaborating towards futures that center marginalized bodies." I send them an e-mail. "Why yellow?" They
point out that they don't just walk around the world calling every East Asian person they meet "yellow." "Identity ideally is about you and how you feel and what you believe has shaped you," Michelle Ling responds. I let Ling's words percolate. I don't know if I'll walk around in the world
calling myself yellow — maybe to people who have similar experiences to mine; certainly not around people who've flung slurs at me. Even so, having different words to choose from is itself a comfort. Having yellow in my arsenal makes me feel like my identity doesn't hinge on just one

We say Yellow
thing — one phrase, one history or one experience. After a back-and-forth with the group, something they've written stops me in my metaphorical tracks. It's from the Yellow Jackets mantra; a snapback comment that I can't help but appreciate: "

again because at our most powerful we are a YELLOW PERIL and those who oppress us should be afraid.
We are watching you. We are making moves."

2. In round resolution of psychological violence- Exclusive forms of debate are nothing

but another way to exclude minority debaters by making debate a technocratic and
elitist event. It desensitizes debaters to real racism and inequality, but rather makes
everything a game to win the ballot.
Fine 13 (Todd; Founder of project Khalid and coaches the debate team at Washington Latin Public
Charter School in Washington, D.C. and is Vice President of the High School D.C. Urban Debate League
and writes for the huff post; “Qatar Conference on Scholastic Debate Examines Activity's Role in
Empowerment”; Huffington Post; 3/10/13 @ 5:12 am; Accessed 2/17/15 @ 12:43 pm;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/todd-fine/qatar-conference-on-schol_b_2429645.html)
Meanwhile, the National Association of Urban Debate Leagues (NAUDL), a nonprofit headquartered in Chicago, has supported the expansion of this policy format into urban school districts across the country, with large nonprofit leagues in Atlanta, Chicago, Baltimore, Boston, and other
cites. Because the sponsors are mostly college debaters, many of them now accomplished lawyers, who believe in the "policy debate" format and its transformative power as an intense, total experience, the association has largely focused on the establishment of leagues based
exclusively on this policy format. These developments, combined, have created an inverse bell curve of wealth in the policy debate community, with a handful of elite schools and a growing cohort of extremely poor schools being all that remains. Middle class suburban schools and rural
schools, overwhelmed by the rising costs of travel to far-away tournaments as the total numbers in policy debate dwindle, are hard to find at all.This unusual socioeconomic makeup has prompted more than just a culture shock, but a highly-contested and ongoing ideological war in the

debate itself reflects the racism and inequalities of the broader

debate rounds themselves. Poorer schools, largely black and other minority, now often argue that

society topics serve the highly-specific technical needs of the elite national circuit
. The year-long national , which , are often "critiqued" as

symptomatic of a training system that forms cynical technocrats who will tolerate injustice as part of a
never-ending, brutal game where real consequences are always "debatable." As the American economy continues to flounder and urban schools face

these violent communication collisions in debate rounds are causing some young
heavy challenges and criticisms,

participants to question the possibility of ever addressing racism or structural inequality in America. Yet, without

these potent and uncomfortable challenges float without resolution and are
some direct link between Urban Debate Leagues and activism itself, even

reduced to a win/loss statement written by a judge on a ballot . In exasperation, many of the urban league debaters, and their coaches, now argue that policy debate can only
ha[s]ve value as a fierce training ground for blacks to gain survival skills to engage a hopelessly irredeemable America.
 Underview2:
Psychological violence outweighs;
1. Verifiability - no impact in the post-fiat world is something we can measure or predict but
the act of resolving psychological violence is a feeling we can feel within ourselves.
2. Disengagement—prevents marginalized people from wanting to speak up and identifying
problems they experience because they cannot resolve internal struggles.
3. Pre-req to debating because of psychological limits.
4. Controls internal link to oppression because it’s the basis of exclusion that is impossible
to escape through white supremacy.

Aff comes prior to Neg T/Theory;

1. Ground - forces 1ar restart, which eliminates 6 minutes of offense from the AC.
2. Endorses white supremacy by disengaging from my advocacy that attempts to
deconstruct psychological violence, allowing them to win off a shell means the
continuation of oppression against Asian Americans in the debate space.

Truth Testing Fails:

1. Fairness- Judges need to evaluate debate skills in the round, and forced use of truth-
testing that does not reflect all debate skills e.g. the implementation of Ks, is thus unfair.
- independent reason to drop them if fairness is a voter because they disallow me from
substantively engaging in the debate when my prep is for Ks.
2. Education- Debate is a learning experience all about learning to think on one's feet.
When people just read what they have prepared under the expectation of truth testing,
educational value is not extracted from the debate.
3. Oppression DA: Truth Testing excludes marginalized bodies by eliminating the
possibility of understanding psychological violence. If my opponent can read truth testing
and convince you to ignore any other ROTB, oppression is never acknowledged.