Civil Rights and Back to Work Because It's Time

[M. Roston]

Alan Dove said:

>
> Heidegger is muddy, and can be run on just about any topic.  I don't think it
> independently de-justifies biotech.  Also, if there are more specific critiques
> which can still be applied to just about all cases on the topic, don't you
> think debaters would go for those?  There are some fascinating arguments about
> the morality of genetic engineering which don't require the invocation of
> post-modernism, so debaters with critique fetishes won't have to go running to
> Heidegger.
don't misread me here, Alan.  I was answering sarge's idea that there
would be less kritik and more disad debate on a biotech topic.  my
argument is that all the things that get anti-kritik people into lockjaw
during their 2AC's will continue to come up. . .I'm attempting to head off
the idea that by choosing biotech, we will stick more to "conventional"
debate arguments.

> Yes, that contrived case area sounds pretty boring, but it seems highly
> unlikely that we will be hearing it.  How about whether or not biological
> prospecting constitutes a new form of imperialism?  Or whether information from
> genetic testing will lead to a revival of eugenics?

sorry, but I gotta call bullshit on your lack of contrivance idea.  we all
took a look at SA to SEA this year and said "hmmmm, not much," and I
remember people positing that this would mean more focused debate on a
few issues.  and we all know that the result was that most cases run on
this year's topic were quite contrived and not immensely interesting
because it was hard to have good hard debates on solvency issues for which
there was no real literature on because no one advocated the plans.  it'll
happen on any topic, what we're left to argue over is other merits:  you
and janas say better knowledge of science that will affect everyone's
lives, doyle says better knowledge on why everyone's april gets ruined(I
know a 17 year old who has been doing his parents' taxes for 5 years),
meany says better knowledge on some sexual issues(I'd love to see what
they are), mancuso and hernandez say better knowledge about fidel's beard,
and slusher says and I agree better knowledge about what commands
interactions everyday between every kind of people in America.

before we get deeper into the process of arguing which topic is better, I
say let's not try to kid each other with the idea that "x topic has better
negative ground and less contrived aff ideas."  it's the merits of the
knowledge we gain that should be most important.

> Precisely why we should strive to learn a bit more about biotech.  Civil rights
> literature is familiar ground for most debaters, whereas very few of them are
> going to become molecular biologists.  This means that they will likely remain
> in the dark about technologies which are going to have a profound effect on
> their lives.  As one example, chosen almost at random, shouldn't informed
> citizens be able to determine whether a law banning human cloning should be
> enacted?  How many debaters (who I think should set the standard for informed
> citizens) could give a coherent analysis of that issue?
how many debaters could give a coherent analysis of current sex harassment
statutes and how many debaters can giver a coherent analysis of how
current federal policies disenfranchise native americans?  I'm not sure
how many debaters are familiar with civil rights literature in the cozy
manner you are suggesting.

maybe I'm biased a little bit.  my school doesn't have an incredible
science library as far as agricultural things go, and I don't want to be
driving three hours away to ames, IA where all that stuff is so I can keep
up with half the topic.  I'm wondering how accessible a lot of this stuff
is to other debaters who are at small or not so large schools with
libraries that don't have all the hottest genetics literature.  with the
exception of rogue states, I don't think any of these topics are really so
lexis friendly.  and this might be a cheap shot, but I think more people
have easy access to CR literature than biotech.  unless, of course, we
work from the idea that we can get a lot of that debate from things like
popular science, and I don't think that it would be accomplishing your
objectives very well.

beyond that, and I'm not sure how deep I'd like to go into this argument,
but I keep hearing about how biotech *will* affect my life.  I know that
civil rights issues, especially as pertaining to issues of discrimination
on whatever basis, have a dramatic effect on my life now today, and will
continue to in ways I'd like them not to.  and a lot of those things are
very much out of the laboratory and on the floor today, in congress,
courtrooms, and kitchens everywhere.

> misdirected.  I've come around to the belief that covering biotech for a season
> will get around those problems and probably lead to the kind of understanding
> which the subject really requires.

I also remember two anecdotes from the environmental topic:  1)We ran a
turn against an emissions trading aff that said emissions trading was
enviornmental racism. the aff team said "there's no impact to racism."
2)bill newnam's anecdote that an african-american debater had a very
difficult time articulating to a pushy negative team what the impact of
racism was.

I think understanding of that subject requires far more, and yields so
many more important results.

-michael roston
iowa