[eDebate] reparartions ans stone

Andy Ellis andy.edebate
Sun Apr 20 19:08:15 CDT 2008

chris stone says something to the nature of...either there is no
ground or people will counterplan out and no one will talk about
race...hmmm well it seems llike at worst all topical affs will be
about race, and then the counterplans will be about how best to talk
about it...even if its not all of the debate it is a starting point, a
race concious approach, and seven out of eleven judges seem to think
thats needed (you can check this out by going to google video and
typing in ceda nationals 2008)...then stone says an arms control topic
can capture all the policy ground of a reparations topic? huh...how
exactly is that the case? because people can talk about it if they
want? it being a broad discussion of race, not a targeted remedy, but
even accepting that (minor) difference we always have topics where
people can talk about race if they want, but we never have one where
the topic drives the lit base there...there is unique educatonal
benefit to that, footnoting the subject of racial justoce to those who
would like to talk about it leaves it all but unencountered in the
vast majority of debates, while we discuss for the millionth time the
ins and outs of arms control or american foreign policy....presumption
for once should be with a forced confrontation withthe underlying
structures that have forged the amrrica that interacts with russia and
nuclear weapons...and look at it this way, if you really think its
less important to talk about than russia or nuclear weapons then you
can run an aff whch says you wont talk about race till american forign
policy with russia vis a vis nukes is fixed...this at least might make
others think twice about avoding topics you think are important when
they realize therir fw args are being used to invert epistemic

More information about the Mailman mailing list