What does it take to win: the rhetoric of able-normativity in debate

Abstract

This thesis will research disability in college policy debate. Specifically, I am looking at how rhetorical norms of ableism structure policy debates' discussions of its own values and practices. In order to do so, I am looking at the rules of college policy debate (CPD) for ways that ableism structures them, then looking at how documentaries/videos about debate portray ability within debate and comparing the findings in each. Throughout, I will also provide analysis on how those rules are enforced or how the video portrayals of debate reflect the experience of debating based on my own experience. CPD is a space that has had fairly active conversations going on about race, class, gender, queerness and disability for years in round, on social media, at tournaments outside of rounds, and in other places. By studying the charter documents and constitutions of CPD's governing organizations, promotional material about the activity, and an auto-ethnographic investigation of my own experiences as a disabled debater and coach, this thesis will explore how rhetorics of disability affect the way that disabled people access debate and the way disabled debaters are perceived. CPD has a variety of benefits to students that disabled students are denied access to due to ablenormativity and through illuminating those process we can work to change them and make debate accessible to disabled students.