[eDebate] Accusations of illegality

Andy Ellis andy.edebate
Fri Nov 2 11:56:56 CDT 2007

I think that instead of running away from accusations of illegality we
should embrace them. For example a lot of negs seems to be running arguments
that advocate invading iran, or attacking iran. Under normal means this
would mean wide scale attacks against civilian targets in order to hold the
population to a collective responsibility for the government. Explicit
targeting of civilian infrastructures is according to some interpretations
of international law genocidal. Using public or private resources to spread
rhetoric which leads to the committing or tolerating of genocidal acts is
punishable under international law. There is at least as good of a case to
be made that these iran arguments are violations of international laws
against propagandizing and promoting  genocide as there is to be made
against the SFSU debaters. Here is the rub, either switch side debating
necessarily suspends such judgments when you are the one who is offending or
when you are the one who is offended, or it doesent, and if its ok to go
after sfsu when you are threatened perhaps its time to make world citizen
arressts against the majority of the debaters who promote and sustain
American war crimes.

I hear the "it is different" rising up on peoples key boards now, but thats
subjective some people have conservative sexual norms and others care about
the people of the world, a whole matrix of laws could be applied, oh and by
the way some people think that fast debate discriminates against people with
disabilities and thusly denies educational services based on the grounds of
ability...that might just be illegal...be careful what doors you start to
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20071102/232e4a3c/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list