The 2022-23 Social Justice Debates will challenge students to engage the question of whether worker cooperatives are a desirable priority in the fight for social and economic justice in the United States.  The 2022-23 Topic and Topic Statement were developed by Morehouse College Director of Debate Ken Newby with input from Civic Debate Conference participants

Selected Scholar & Chair of 2023 National Championship Final Round

Jessica Gordon Membhard

Topic : To create a more equitable economy in the United States, a worker cooperative model should be broadly adopted.  

TOPIC STATEMENT :

The 2022-23 Social Justice Debates Topic was inspired by the scholarship of Professor Jessica Gordon Nembhard and her seminal book, Collective Courage: A History of African American Cooperative Economic Thought and Practice (you can find a summary here). Professor Nembhard’s book highlights the role of Black cooperatives as a force for change in critical periods throughout American history, especially during the 1880s, 1930s-40s and 1960s-70s, and argues that, by promoting horizontal accountability and shared voting power, worker cooperatives are powerful tools for challenging economic injustice and encouraging just conditions of employment.

Worker cooperatives are businesses owned, controlled, and managed in most part, or in whole, by the workers themselves with the intent to meet the social, economic and environmental needs of its members and community. This business model stands in contrast to traditional firm models in which employees supply labor in exchange for compensation, but do not necessarily possess ownership or management rights over the business for which they work. While there are other types of cooperatives owned by the people who use their services, we are specifically focusing on worker co-ops in this debate, as opposed to mutual aid societies or credit unions. Mutual funds (for example a retirement pool) and credit unions (for example, a union of internal lending by workers to the business) can exist within a cooperative structure, but teams who only restructure investment within businesses, have not provided an adequate worker cooperative model. Since this debate addresses the economy in aggregate, agricultural cooperatives, which fall under the umbrella of worker-owned businesses, are considered worker-coops.

Specifically, the 2022-23 Social Justice topic challenges students to assess the desirability of the worker cooperative model as compared to traditional firm models and competitive alternatives proposed by the negative team. This should include affirmative teams defending the proposition that it would be desirable for worker cooperatives to supplant traditional firm models as the dominant economic model across most if not all sectors of the U.S. economy. In order to promote focus on this core topic proposition, Affirmative arguments regarding the desirability of policies and measures unrelated to or related to, but above and beyond the implementation of worker cooperatives, should be deemed irrelevant to the judge’s decision.

Negative teams may win by either (1) rebutting the proposition that the worker cooperative model is more desirable than traditional firm models or (2) by winning the argument that a competitive counterplan proposed by the negative team is more desirable than the broad adoption of the worker cooperative model.  In the first instance, this would include winning the argument that some form of traditional firm model is as - if not more - desirable than the worker cooperative model across most, if not all, sectors of the U.S. economy. In the second, this would include winning the argument that a competitive alternative to the worker cooperative model other than a traditional firm model is more desirable than the worker cooperative model; i.e., by winning the argument that the negative’s counter proposal is a superior alternative to either the worker cooperative model alone or some combination of the worker cooperative model and elements of the counterproposal. Because the topic directly raises a comparison between worker cooperative and traditional firm models, negative teams defending the traditional firm model do not have to win that the traditional firm model is competitive with the worker cooperative model, only that the worker cooperative mode is not more desirable; competition between these two models is presumed for the sake of these debates.

Examples of negative arguments include arguing that the focus on worker cooperatives is a mistake, contending that they undermine and distract from efforts to address more serious, underlying problem(s), and that even a mass cooperative movement can never pose a legitimate challenge to the economic injustice. For example, some argue that by withholding labor, workers can interfere with the capitalist logic of profit maximization and advance workers’ interests and demands. Worker cooperatives, on the other hand, can be characterized as a retreat from the class struggle and can be argued to entice workers into participating in the “real enemy” - the capitalist system.

While the topic statement provides that Affirmative should argue that worker cooperatives will promote a more equitable economy, the Negative can argue for any goal that it desires, as equity is not the only presumed societal goal for the debate. Negative teams may want to promote a desirable economy and not necessarily an equitable one, for example. If the Negative’s goals are different than the Affirmative, it should be prepared to justify why its goals are more important. In this sense an equitable economy can be understood as one that meets human needs, enhances the quality of life and allows us to live in balance with nature. It aims to create jobs that provide fair wages and desirable working conditions that support workers, their families and communities.

1. Collective Courage: A History of African American Cooperative Economic Thought and Practice by Jessica Gordon Nembhard

2. Social Justice and Worker Cooperatives by Gurveer Shaan Dhillon

3. Humanizing the Economy by John Restakis

4. No Bosses: A New Economy for a Better World by Michael Albert (Prefaces By Noam Chomsky and Yanis Varoufakis)

5. Stolen by Grace Blakeley

6. Building the New American Economy by Jeffrey D. Sachs (Foreword by Bernie Sanders)

7. Another Now by Yanis Varoufakis8. Democracy at Work by Richard D. Wolff

Social Justice Debates Fall Opener

Co-Champions: University of Vermont & Morehouse College

Social Justice Debates Fall Championship

Champions:  The George Washington University

Finalists: Claremont College

Social Justice Debates National Championship

Friday-Sunday, February 10-12, 2023 

Morehouse College, Atlanta GA

2023 Social Justice Debates National Championship Invitation 

With great enthusiasm, I extend a warm invitation to your program to attend the 2023 Social Justice Debates National Championship. The Social Justice Debates are an annual intercollegiate debate series founded seven years ago by Morehouse College in partnership with The George Washington University. The only intercollegiate debate series in the world dedicated to social justice topics, the Social Justice Debates aspire to promote productive and rigorous debates challenging current and future thought leaders to consider issues of justice in relation to the distribution of wealth, opportunity, and privilege in U.S. society. The Social Justice Debates are a civic debate education program supported by the Civic Debate Conference. One of the unique aspects of the Social Justice Debates is that we bring in judges from the social justice community such as attorneys, sitting judges, activists, academics, and others with real world topic experience to judge the elimination rounds for the Social Justice Debate. We believe their inclusion enhances the educational experience for all participants. You may also find some in your preliminary rounds.

The 2022-2023 Social Justice Debates will challenge diverse groups of students drawn from across the nation to come together to engage the question of whether the promotion of worker cooperatives is a desirable priority in the fight for social and economic justice. We are honored to be joined by Dr. Jessica Gordon Nembhard Professor of Community Justice and Social Economic Development in the Department of Africana Studies at John Jay College, of the City University of New York (CUNY). Dr. Gordon Nembhard is a political economist specializing in community economics, Black Political Economy and popular economic literacy. Her research and publications explore problematics and alternative solutions in cooperative economic development and worker ownership, community economic development, wealth inequality and community-based asset building, and community-based approaches to justice. She has recently completed a book on Black cooperatives: Collective Courage: A History of African American Cooperative Economic Thought and Practice (2014 The Pennsylvania State University Press). Collective Courage was a finalist for the University of Memphis Benjamin L. Hicks National Book Award for 2014, and served as inspiration for this year’s topic

The schedule has been designed to include training for judges who need it. The Social Justice debates rounds will utilize the same civic debate format used in the past for these debates, which includes six minutes for speeches and four minutes for cross-examination of every constructive speech. During cross-examination we strongly encourage that the student who is being cross-examined is the one who answers the questions and “tag team” cross-examination is strongly discouraged. Discretion is left to the student teams as to who shall deliver the final rebuttal but teams are encouraged to rotate the final rebuttal speeches between partners. All students are encouraged to dress professionally for the final rounds and Awards lunch on Sunday.

Lastly, we are pleased to offer the tournament free of charge except for judging fees. If you would like to make a donation to the program, of course, that is always welcome. The tournament will provide lunch on both days. We kindly ask that you email be immediately to provide your school contact, number of teams and judges and observers, and any special dietary needs. If you have questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me by phone or e-mail. We look forward to seeing you.”

Sincerely,

Professor Kenneth A. Newby, Esq.

Director of Morehouse College Forensics

(Speech and Debate Team)

Work 404.239.2224

knewby@morehouse.edu

Friday, February 10th

5:00 p.m.        Registration/Check-In

5:30 p.m.        Judge Briefing

6:00 p.m.        Round 1

Judge Handbook

Thank you for judging at the Social Justice Debates on this important topic! We greatly appreciate your willingness to share your expertise and experience with our debaters. This document provides an overview of your role as a judge. If you are judging preliminary rounds on Saturday, please attend to the final section of this handbook entitled, “Additional Instructions for Preliminary Round Judges.”

Summary

Each round will last about an hour and will involve two competing teams of two debaters each. You will be judging on a panel of 3 jurists. Although the debate format is specified below, the debaters will be responsible for timing and attending to the order of their speeches and/or there will be a timekeeper in each round. Your only responsibility during the round is to listen with an open mind and take notes on the debate.

The Social Justice Debates provide college debaters a rare opportunity to test their skills debating for judges from both inside and outside of the college debate community, including distinguished professionals and topic experts. Please do not worry if you do not have experience judging college debate rounds. The most important thing to remember when judging a debate is that if a team convinces you they have won the round, they have won the round!

The primary question you should ask yourself as a judge is which team has done the better debating on the question raised by the tournament topic. First and foremost, this question asks which team has been more effective in meeting their basic burdens of advocacy and rejoinder. This means “constructing” complete and persuasive arguments supported by logic and evidence, as well as directly responding to the key arguments constructed by their opponents. Secondarily, judges should consider factors such as public speaking skills, organization, and command of the subject matter.

There is no single formula for determining which team did the best debating. In short, you are attempting to assess which team presented the most powerful advocacy when considering all of the many factors that advocacy entails.

Although judging is subjective, it is important that you do not allow personal bias or beliefs about the issues being debated to influence whom you choose as winner. Indeed, you may conclude that a team has been more powerful in making its case even if you do not personally agree with the team’s arguments.

Topic Interpretation

Although it is discouraged and should be disfavored by judges, debaters will sometimes attempt to interpret topics in a manner that “tilts” the playing field to their advantage. A topic statement provided above has been provided to all judges and all teams to clarify the topic’s intended meaning. As a judge, you should attempt to interpret the burden the topic places on the Affirmative and Negative teams in a manner consistent with the topic’s plain language and the context provided by the topic statement. When in doubt as to the plain meaning of the topic, you should adopt a “centrist” interpretation of the topic that allows both teams a fair chance to engage the core questions raised by the topic as described in the topic statement.

Cross Examination

Cross examination is an essential element of the debate format chosen for this weekend’s competition. It is also an element that requires debaters to cooperate in good faith with their opponents to some extent, which may be a complicated proposition in a competitive debate. Cross examination can be an invaluable tool for moving debates “forward” by clarifying areas of agreement, isolating areas of dispute, and allowing rigorous examination of opposing arguments. Cross examinations may be far less productive, however, if debaters waste cross examination time and avoid having their arguments clarified and scrutinized by answering questions that haven’t been asked, filibustering, and otherwise failing to directly and succinctly answer questions to the extent possible. In such cases, debates may even become hostile as cross examiners may be forced to talk over their opponent to prevent their opponent from dominating the cross-examination period.

In a court of law, judges will often instruct hostile witnesses (i.e. witnesses who are bias or adverse to the cross examiner) to directly and succinctly answer questions to the extent possible so as to avoid wasted time and to allow cross examiners to clarify the facts and arguments relevant to the judge’s or jury’s decision. “To the extent possible” is an essential qualifier to this requirement. Debaters should be allowed reasonable time to answer “open” questions or any other questions that cannot be answered in a straightforward manner.

Equity Statement

While a judge may not consciously privilege the arguments or positions of particular groups of people over others, studies have shown that decisions nevertheless may be influenced by societal biases or prejudices in regards to, inter alia, race and gender. Daniel Kelley and Erica Roedder (2008) have found implicit bias in a number of settings analogous to debate including job hiring practices, grading, and sports officiating. Deborah Tannen (1998) has shown that in the field of competitive argument men are sometimes presumed to be more reasonable and less emotional and that these presumptions may lead a judge to implicitly give more weight to a man’s argument than a woman’s. We therefore ask each judge to consider their implicit biases in evaluating participants’ arguments and performance before making their decision.

Format

1st Affirmative 6 Minutes

Cross examination by 2nd Negative 4 minutes

1st Negative 6 minutes

Cross examination by 1st Affirmative 4 minutes

2nd Affirmative 6 minutes

Cross examination by 1st Negative 4 minutes

2nd Negative 6 minutes

Cross examination by 2nd Affirmative 4 minutes

2 minutes of preparation time

Affirmative Rebuttal 6 minutes

2 minutes of preparation time

Negative Rebuttal 6 minutes

Students will compete in teams of two or three each.  Each speech will be assigned speaker points, however, if an individual speaks twice only one speech will count for purposes of determining speaker awards.

Teams will be assigned to affirm or negate the topic.

On teams of two, each speaker will give one 6 minute speech, be cross examined for 4 minutes, and cross examine an opposing debater for 4 minutes. In addition, one speaker on each team will also give a 6 minute closing rebuttal. Over the course of the four preliminary rounds, each speaker on teams of two must give two closing rebuttals for their team and their partner must give two closing rebuttals for their team.

Thank you again for the generous commitment of your time to this program and the wonderful students involved in it!

Additional Instructions for Preliminary Rounds Judges

Elimination rounds will be judged by panels of topic experts—listed above—who will be given the SJD topic, topic statement, and judge handbook provided above. This means that as a prelims judge you are preparing students to debate before topic experts who will be using the published topic, topic statement, and judge handbook to guide their decision making process. Your most important task as a prelims judge is to judge rounds in a manner that prepares the students advancing to elimination rounds to excel in these debates.

Judges are asked to interpret the research questions raised by the topic in a manner consistent with the topic statement. Students are responsible for analyzing the topic and topic statement and understanding the research questions raised for debate. Students may quote from the topic statement as necessary to establish the parameters of the research questions raised by the topic.

Debaters are asked to provide direct, succinct responses to direct questions in cross examination. Filibustering, answering questions that haven’t been asked, and otherwise failing to provide direct, succinct answers to direct questions should result in lower speaker points and--in very close debates--assigning a loss. (Obviously open ended questions may require open answers.)

Students introducing evidence should be ready to provide copies of relevant portions of the introduced sources to their opponents for review upon request.

Speaker points should be assigned on a scale of 90-100 with no ties. Judges should be "reluctant" to give speaker points between 97-100; i.e., absent an exemplary performance reflecting high level research, argumentation, delivery and performance, judges should not give speaker points in this range. "Very Good" performances should receive scores in the 95-96 range. "Good" performances should receive points in the 93-94 range. Performances reflecting a serious lack of preparation or need for obvious improvement should receive scores in the 90-92 range. No ties. Half points are allowed.

Suggested Tournament Hotels 

While we do not have a block of rooms reserved here, we recommend the following hotels for the tournament which are reasonably close to campus, have excellent rooms, and good rates.  Most schools in the past have stayed at the Hilton Atlanta. 

• Hyatt Place Atlanta Downtown $128/night 

• Hyatt Place Atlanta Centennial Park $169/night 

• Hyatt House Atlanta Downtown $147/night 

• Atlanta Marriott Marquis $179/night 

• Reverb by Hard Rock Atlanta Downtown $189/night 

• Hilton Atlanta $122/night 

• Westin Peachtree Plaza $188/night 

**Prices are based on a search performed on Hotels.com. Rates may vary.

Entry Deadlines, Fees and Judges 

The entry deadline will be 4:30 p.m. Friday, February 3. Changes will be accepted at no charge until 4:30 pm on Wednesday, February 8.  

Please email Ken Newby to register your teams if you have not yet received the Google registration link.

PLEASE BRING JUDGES: Missing judge fees are $75.  Morehouse will have some judges, but not necessarily enough to cover all of the tournament prelims.  Please note we prefer your judges to your hired money.

Registration and Parking

Registration will be held in the Shirley Massey Executive Conference Center on Friday.  Parking spots are available on campus at no charge on the weekend, but you must park at cost in our parking deck on Friday. 

Please see the campus map for more details about location of buildings and parking: https://www.morehouse.edu/about/pdf/Campus-Map.pdf

Directions 

From the North/Downtown From I-75/85 South to I-20 West. Take Exit 55B, which is Lee Street/Ft. McPherson/Atlanta University Center. Turn right at the traffic light onto Westview Drive and proceed two blocks to the campus. 

• From the South/Hartsfield International Airport From I-75/85 North to I-20 West. Take Exit 55B, which is Lee Street/Ft. McPherson/Atlanta University Center. Turn right at the traffic light onto Westview Drive and proceed two blocks to the campus.

• From the East From I-20 West. Take Exit 55B, which is Lee Street/Ft. McPherson/Atlanta University Center. Turn right at the traffic light onto Westview Drive and proceed two blocks to the campus. 

From the West From I-20 East. Take Exit 55A, which is Joseph Lowery Blvd./West End. Turn left onto Joseph Lowery Blvd. and proceed through four traffic lights. At the fourth traffic light, turn right onto West End Avenue. Turn left at next light, which is Westview Drive, and proceed to campus

Tournament Guidelines and Procedures 

The process of topic creation is an iterative process.  Accordingly, we invite all attendees to send comments/suggested edits they have to the topic or the topic statement based on their experience at the Fall Social Justice tournament. Please submit all comments to Kenneth.Newby@morehouse.edu. 

A final revision to the topic and/or topic statement will be released by February 6, 2023. Depending on the comments received further changes may/may not be made.