[eDebate] reparations question
Wed Apr 16 10:21:49 CDT 2008
A2 some questions
that makes a lot of sense, i think we would criticize the particular
reparations scheme, there is a lot of authors who primarily do a variety of
race scholarship who are very very critical of specifc reparations
solutions, in a sense the end goal is so important that there is a lot of
importance put into getting it right, because if you dont the power you give
to the status quo is huge.
2)sure there would still be people who find themselves in david marks 3
catagory, but i would guess more of the teams that depart from the
resolution would come back to it, to me unless there is a risk of more
people not debating the topic then uniqueness as it where is on my side...
Disclaimer: 1) I haven't kept up with 100% of the recent posts and 2) I
> haven't read much literature about reparations 3) I know you can't speak for
> others or predict the future.
> Qat mauestions:
> 1) what would those who advocate reparations (as a topic and personally
> advocate in "real" non-debate life) do on the negative? I don't want to
> make assumptions, but I think it is fair to say that you would come down
> pretty cleanly on the "aff" side of a reparations topic. Yes, I am sure the
> politics links would literally jump off of the internet and into the tubs
> but I have a feeling that isn't the debate you are looking for (peru FTA o/w
> racism...judge). Maybe I am missing something but I would be hard pressed
> to think of a negative strategy that YOU would find compelling against a
> reparations case. (again this is based purely on a reading of only a few
> eDebate posts so I could be way off). I would assume that most people have
> similar concerns about the balance of arguments on this topic. (and as far
> as I know next year people will be arguing against the resolution next year
> 50% of the time). I predict there will be ever increasing calls to
> "re-think traditional notions of competition". Translation: Plan-Plan
> debates. I don't think that is good. You may disagree.
> 2) what if a team doesn't defend the USFG? I think you are kidding
> yourself if you think that all of the sudden teams who refuse to defend the
> topic will jump on this one. I am pretty sure this objection has been
> raised before, but I don't think adequately answered.
> I think this boils down to my belief that debate is not, can never be, and
> should not strive to be a search for "truth". The more that you think a
> topic is "true" the less you should want to debate it because you will
> (should) spend half of the entire year discrediting it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman