Civil Rights

[MGWalton]

Eric Slusher writes: " A domestic topic that touches us personally can offer
rewarding and enlightening discussion.  We can only uncover the othernization
that debate tends to perpetuate by engaging head on the issues we most fear."

Let us hope that the debate over civil rights, if that is what is chosen,
lives up to these lofty goals. Unfortunately, that seems to be the opposite
way things are going. Instead of debating the issues, it seems everyone wants
to wimp out and debate the agent of action, something that 99 percent of
America cares crap about, Instead of the policies which would theoretically
affect us.

First of all, Mr. Slusher seems a bit perturbed about the dialogue on his
topic paper, which I think is unfortunate. It seems to me that his paper is
getting the most discussion so far -- a good thing, I hope. Plus, I don't
think anyone is making negative comments. Actually, I think people are sort of
helping define a good interpretation of the topic area.

In a message dated 98-03-29 23:40:44 EST, slusher at LEXIS-NEXISMAIL.COM writes:

<< 2. Agents vs. Issues.  How silly.  Like 90% of the civil rights discussion
in
 the LITERATURE(you know, where the cards come from) isn't about the
appropriate
 implementation mech for the plan.  Someone hasn't been doing their homework.
 This is a gut reaction.>>

I was not arguing against CR as a topic. But, I do not want a topic where the
only significant debate is about the agent of action. I know the literature
isn't about agent of action, but the discussion so far indicates that people
will be too afraid to say something that may be considered politically
incorrect, so they will choose to debate agent of action rather than the
issues surrounding civil rights. That's my concern, NOT the quality of the
topic. In fact, I think it is a wonderful topic idea. I may not debate it,
knowing my own intensely emotional reactions to civil rights issues, but I
think it is a topic which can make people face their fears, as Slusher
indicates in his topic paper.

<<  Now, as far as this being a reason to vote against cr
 as a topic...I disagree.  This just means its debate friendly...escpecially
if
 we decide we wanna have a resolution that doesn't say USFG in the begining.
 Issues still get their service....that's the 1AC.  Sometimes, I dare say,
 someone will decide to debate the case....or the mech....without a
counterplan.
 And let's be frank....how many debates are really won these days without a
 counterplan?  And when's the last time you really had a case debate with
anybody
 on any topic?  And when was the last domestic topic that didn't have exec
order
 or courts as a generic counterplan?  I'm saying that on this topic...those
 counterplans will be sooooo much better and supported in the Lit all the more
 than in the past.  What a great limiting function the actor in the rez can
 serve.  Geez...the actor IS the issue in a lot of contemporary legal/CR
 discussion.>>

This is exactly the problem. No one debates case anymore, leaving good debate
to just counterplan and generic disad ground. I WANT and look forward to good
case debate. If the civil rights topic does not affrod us an opportunity to
actually debate the issues and leaves us debating congress over executive
action over the supreme court over the states. If the intention of your
proposing this topic is to allow better ground for generic disads and
counterplans, you have cheapen whatever noble intentions you may have had by
writing this paper. I assumed the reason behind this topic was to actually
debate a controversial issue, not to allow a bunch of debaters to run and hide
behind the mantle of political correctness. That is one of the problems with
the civfil rights movement in this country. For so long, those of us on the
left have been able to silence our critics and they have built up a resistance
and a following that has now risen and is biting us in the ass. Why? Because
we REFUSE to allow ANYONE to say: Maybe affirmative action needs to be
abolished or at least revamped. Because we refuse to allow people to argue
against the liberal idea, we have destroyed any chance we have to actually
debate the issues. A reporter for the New york Times Magazine (I don't know
the cite right now, but I'll find it eventually) argued that one of the
reasons affirmative action and other civil rights measures are under attack is
because we have silenced its critics and we have gotten soft in the defense of
what we believe, while the Right has grown stronger by fending off the attacks
of the left.

<<  You're right...no body wants to be called a racist...and I doubt
 many people will be.  This argument is REALLY TIRED...it already got played
out
 last year.  Racism is easy to debate and as the year progresses will become
hard
 to defend as a case impact.  Someone seems to have started the rumor that
 everybody will claim racism as the case adv and then the negative will sit
 dumbfounded before the 1NC.  That's ridiculous....go cut some CRS
 cards...Derrick Bell is a good place to start.  Oh, and the race debate is
 primarily an agent one.  See...agents are the issue.  Check out the Bib at
the
 end of the paper...I saw plenty of Affirmative ideas in there and I bet there
 will be a discussion of the actor and mech in there. >>

See, I disagree that agent is the issue here. The issue is the policy itself.
It doesn't matter if the President does it, the Supreme Court does it or if
the NAACP suddenly gets Congress to do it. If the policy stinks IT F*CKING
stinks. And unfortuantely, we have put up with far too many bad policies
because they are the politically correct thing to do. So if this community
decides to punk out and debate agent of action instead of actually debating
the POLICIES THESE AGENTS PUT INTO ACTION you ought to be ashamed of
yourselves.

In the first paragraph of his topic paper Eric writes: "In the twentieth
century, America witnessed a dawn of legal awareness.
There has been growing sense of the role that law has in shaping our lived
experience.  We exist in a construct of law and legal norms. Always evolving,
our world and our fellow inhabitants strive to maintain order and justice.  We
hold equality, peace, and happiness in the highest esteem. These principles
comprise a system of rights. "

This legal awareness came about not just through changes in the agent of
action (considering the executive branch, congress and the judicial branch all
had MAJOR roles in creating this awareness over the objections of many state
and local governmental entities) but through changes of policy.

Eric also writes: " As "diversity" and "racism" and "sexism" become ever more
prevalent
concerns in our activity and our academic institutions, it only seems
appropriate that we devote a topic to the exploration of issues that affect
our
daily lives.  This area gives us a unique way to explore these issues that
other
topics have not provided.  A policy topic that questions values could be a
uniquely rewarding exercise."

I agree. Now let us all remember that when it comes to the way these policies
affect our day-to-day lives, the agent of action has little affect on us, but
the policies that are to be enacted do.

Go ahead, get mad. Flame me. See if I care. And Eric, its a great topic paper.

Marcus Walton
SJSU Debate

>From  Mon Mar 30 00:56:35 1998
Message-Id: <MON.30.MAR.1998.005635.0600.>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 00:56:35 -0600
Reply-To: Joeb at media-net.net
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: "Boyle, Joseph" <joeb at MEDIA-NET.NET>
Organization: FHSU Debate
Subject: Re: Some NDT news
Comments: To: Doyle Srader <srader at IMAP3.ASU.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I imagine that should be:

Kansas: Ardebelli and McKeehan
Kansas: Eber and Miller

Joey
Doyle Srader wrote:
>
> Top speaker: Michael Gottlieb, Northwestern.
> Second: George Kouros, Emory.
>
> Octofinalists, from memory:
> Dartmouth, Hung & Lehotsky
> Emory, Fitzmeier & Heidt
> Emory, Kouros & Sahni
> Emory, Todd & Tabak
> Georgia, Cates & McIntosh
> Harvard, Engstrom & Starr
> Iowa, Peterson & Rayburn
> Kansas, Ardebili & France
> Kansas, Eber & McKeehan
> Macalester, Alme & Garen
> Michigan, Stoughton & Wexler
> Michigan State, Cornellier & Sullivan
> North Texas, Holloway & Morrow
> Northwestern, Gottlieb & Sparacino
> Redlands, Miller & Weitzel
> State University of West Georgia, Bonilla & Carver
>
> Doyle Srader
> Arizona State University
> (602) 649-6033
>
> "All in all, brick by brick, I'll come and build my house
>  While I try to get real good at putting words in people's mouths."
>    -- Bill Mallonee, _Five Miles Outside of Monroe_

>From  Sun Mar 29 23:59:54 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.29.MAR.1998.235954.0800.>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 23:59:54 -0800
Reply-To: slusher at LEXIS-NEXISMAIL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Eric Slusher <slusher at LEXIS-NEXISMAIL.COM>
Subject: CR-A2: Walton
In-Reply-To: <caaa61a3.351f487c at aol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

This is way off base.  I wonder WHY you think debates over agents of action and
the "issues" are exclusive?
I've answered your argument....I'll try one more time.

On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, MGWalton <MGWalton at aol.com> wrote:
>
>Eric Slusher writes: " A domestic topic that touches us personally can offer
>rewarding and enlightening discussion.  We can only uncover the othernization
>that debate tends to perpetuate by engaging head on the issues we most fear."
>
>Let us hope that the debate over civil rights, if that is what is chosen,
>lives up to these lofty goals. Unfortunately, that seems to be the opposite
>way things are going. Instead of debating the issues, it seems everyone wants
>to wimp out and debate the agent of action, something that 99 percent of
>America cares crap about, Instead of the policies which would theoretically
>affect us.

Policies that effect us all, eh?  Yup.  How those policies come about is pretty
important.  And that's where the cards live, bro.  That's exactly where the
controversy lies.  Sure, if you wanna read cards from USA No Cards Today about
why Joe Six-Pack thinks affirmative action is fucked as your case go right
ahead.  The good lit supports my idea...go read some law reviews and legal
journals.  Look where the controversy is.  How plan's are implemented can have a
profound influence on the issue at hand.  Controversies like Race policy find
heavy debate in the lit over mechanisms.  You see, the implication of action is
what you wanna talk about....and the agent is what creates the implications one
way or another.  You're knee-jerking....you making an uninformed judgement...do
your homework...and I think you'll realize that the quotes you snipped from my
paper are not out of step with the idea that negative and affirmative ground
should be equalized.  It's not about fear of saying something un-"PC" - it's
about strategic debate over something like racism or sexism.  Like I already
said, some may choose to debate the case head on, but strategically speaking,
counterplans are critical to the viability of the negative to beat a prepared
aff.  It's almost the 21st century...we've been doing it this way for a few
years now.  I just say, divide ground up from the get-go and make everyone's
summer a tad more manageble.  There is NO reason why the "issues" are ignored in
a debate over the proper agent....a lot of the time that IS the issue!
You seem to think the 1NC would run a generic court counterplan....but what does
the court do as the cp mech?  They have to act on a case....probably one that
deals with the issue contained in the case impact.  Those are 2 different
actions(the aff and the cp).  What a lively debate that is....and the disad to
one is a confrontation of the issue.  Case debate involves more than Good vs.
Bad.  You wanna divide everyone up on 2 sides and go at issues like aff action
like a head butting contest.  That's not how the contemporary debate is going.
Sophisticated legal literature is not reading like an editorial from the
Sacramento Bee these days.  The issues are hot, timely, and vibrant...debate
will be the same from round to round.  Your raising a straw-person but fail to
defend it.

Why are the two exclusive?  Is a negative gonna run a counterplan to have the
courts act and read no case cards?  C'mon...that's a silly proposition.  Debate
will go like it always does - A healthy 1NC with different strategic looks.

slusher