Cornerstone: A Collection of Scholarly and Creative Works for Minnesota State University, Mankato
Abstract
This article investigates the causes of ableism and inaccessibility in policy debate, and also envisions alternatives to the current conception of debate that could open doors to more participants at all levels of ability. We argue that the rhetorical theories of Kenneth Burke help to illuminate symbolic practices in debate which function to exclude disabled voices. We also forward the argument that the competitive nature of policy debate, along with its dominant discursive practices and speech codes, constitutes an example of what Kenneth Burke calls ‘entelechy’. We further argue that the entelechial nature of policy debate is at the root of ableism in the activity. Finally, we further employ Burke’s theory of the comic frame to elucidate how the institutions and individuals in the policy debate community might engage in self-reflection as a way to generate fresh approaches to the problem of ableism and exclusion in policy debate
