civil rights and resolutional agents

[Jason Leviton]

I would agree that we should debate the substantive issues of civil rights,
but that would be too hard.  Why should the negative debate the moral imp.
of case, when they can easily counterplan out of it.  It is a much easir
debate to win to argue that the executive should do plan, rather then
deontology.  If you want to get into the deontology vs. utilitarian debate,
go for it, but that seems like the hard way to do things.  You are on the
wrong side of the debate to say we should not protect homosexuals, or
african americans, or whatever the case me be.  I also don't think that
debating counterplans and thier net benefits is all the bad.  It is still
educational to argue if Clinton or the courts or Congress should do plan.
If that is what the debate comes down to, so what?  It is more educatioal
then arguing the same old deontology debate.  Finally, just because the
negative runs a counterplan that solves case, doesn't mean that they also
cannot run case turns and/or other case attacks.  True they are
contradictory, but who cares, you can usually kick the counterplan anyways.

That is all






*******************************************************
Jason Leviton
jleviton at gonzaga.edu
Student of Philosophy and Political Science at GU
*******************************************************