Frank and Fugate both demonstrate concern for the problem of diversity in debate. While disagree on important specifics, their comments indicate the growing commitment to face the diversity issue. I want to highlight one point of disagreement with Frank and two points where agree, but come to different conclusions. In relation to the point of disagreement Frank fears that my proposed changes would reduce the rigor of the activity by de-emphasizing linear thinking in favor of the feminine idea concerning nurturing, cooperation and personal narrative. Frank misses the point that both forms of reasoning can be combined to improve the activity. The feminist legal scholar, Catherine MacKinnon (1987), argues that female inequality stems from living in social world organized from male perspective: [V]irtually every quality that distinguishes men from women is . . . affirmatively compensated in this society. Men's physiology defines most sports, their needs define auto and health insurance coverage, their socially designed biographies define workplace expectations and successful career patterns, their perspectives and concerns define quality in scholarship, their experiences and obsessions define merit, their objectification of life defines art, their inability to get along with each other - their wars and rulerships - defines history, their image defines god, and their genitals define sex. For each of their differences from women, what amounts to an affirmative action plan is in effect, otherwise known as the structure and values of American society. (p. 36) Debate is an activity that has been designed by white men and until the structure is changed the organization will continue to privilege the white male debate experience. I am not alone in making this point. Scholar and first female president of CEDA, Ann Gill (1994), explains that If society is to embrace and to value all of its members, it must break the silence of women, ethnic minorities, and others in the margins of society(p. 1). She emphasizes that we must listen to all the voices, and individuals must find an authentic voice of their own. During exploration of how both male and female students develop voices in debate, Kristine Bartanen (1995, p. 10) found that we need to incorporate more ways of knowing into our activity, to re-evaluate our use of authority and to supplement research on debaters' critical thinking ability with investigations of their intellectual development. She suggests that receiving interpersonal, and inter-individual reasoning patterns, such as narratives of experience and judgments based on intuition that are identified as women's ways of knowing, should be encouraged as form of argument in debate. This does not mean that objective patterns of reasoning should be condemned or excluded, but that connected knowing, the method of reasoning used by many women, should be legitimized. Until voices are heard and different methods of reasoning are tried and promoted the structure of debate will continue to close out women and minorities. There are two points where Frank and I agree but come to different conclusions. Frank writes that the most serious problems relative to diversity are verbal aggression and sexual harassment. He argues that we need to develop 'red lines' that place restrictions on the verbal behavior in the debate classroom. I agree with the conclusion, but wonder if it is enough. One additional problem may be the metaphor that dominates the activity. Feminist debate scholars (Bjork 1993; Crenshaw, 1992) have argued that the debate activity excludes women because it is a game of wordy war. Roxanne Knutson (1996) recently noted that the accepted metaphor in our debate communities ARGUMENT IS WAR may turn women away from our activity. The type of language that is prevalent at our tournaments may create strong obstacle for women who are strongly encultured against violence in all forms. …