[eDebate] answers for jim's 2 questions..

debate at ou.edu debate
Sat Jun 16 18:03:35 CDT 2007


two questions for you: 

1. you/your team is negative. the affirmative case is "the usfg has 
committed atrocities against native americans with multiple examples of 
these harmful acts." what arguments do you/your team use against this case 
(focusing, I'm assuming, one that maintain your convictions)? 

2. a conservative christian straight male joins your team. I'm assuming you 
let him compete. :) he wants to argue bearden, mead, and us heg good. after 
3 years on your team, it is clear, he isn't changing--he remains a 
conservative christian. do you let him compete for his fourth year even 
though you are quite certain that he will become a conservative leader that 
you apparently despise? 

jim :) 
hansonjb at whitman.edu 

---- My answers ----

1.  We find a place to disagree with them.  They must affirm something.  This happens at least twice a hear, so not a 
hypothetical.  We dont say kill all the dirty indians.  Your still misinterpreting what i am saying on convictions, i am saying you 
should have the option of affirming without saying stuff you disagree with.  I got some good arguments i am holding back on 
such as the effects of a year long topic etc......  But short answer, find a place to disagree and then have a debate.
With all social problems, the debate is not over by just identifying X is bad, but the question of how to approach resistance/
change is the second level.  These are very debatable on all forms of discrimination. 

Example - Yesterday my neighbor was robbed by a black guy, while telling me the story he and his friend say nigger a couple 
of times.  Now, how do i deal with this?  He had a gun in his face 10 minutes previous threatening his life.  Do I stand up and 
stomp out of the room mad?  Do i correct them, knowing the fight is on for me then, i mean real fists banging and shit, not a 
verbal edebate spat.  Or do I take the alternative of setting the example, offering another word to identify this person like 
hoodlum or thug.  (not relevant to skin color)

2. My parents are conservatie christians, and so I am not sure that I am anti-conservative christian.  I have debaters that read 
mead and beardon right now, and I travel them to tournaments.  The key, they get to debate what they want, and  fortunately 
for them the resolution allows them to affirm things they think is a good idea.  I suspect they will see some NDT rounds at 
some point.  BUt i know being around my team they also learn how to include ethics within their decision making process.  
They would have a free choice.  It's not about me, but the debaters.  I had some great students quit on the China topic because 
they did not want to be mean to china.  Honestly.

Not anti debate, just looking for more good ideas to be advanced on the affirmative.



More information about the Mailman mailing list