[eDebate] Reparations Topic

Josh jbhdb8
Sat Apr 5 21:35:17 CDT 2008


In fact, I suspect the real debate would be over "making" the affirmative
use the USFG because its "inherently" racist etc.

Josh

On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Josh <jbhdb8 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey,
>
> I rarely disagree with Doctor Glass but,
>
> That is the sq....we have that debate all the time whenever we debate
> not-T race affirmatives.  Better when at least we have a predictable
> affirmative to base debate around (cps etc).  And its a valuable topic for
> consideration,
>
> Josh
>
>   On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 10:27 PM, David Glass <gacggc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > I dunno... you need to give ground to the negative... and in the debate
> > climate it is highly doubtful spending disads will outweigh claims of racial
> > justice... (and it is the sheer cost that is the most common argument about
> > reparations, in addition to even more problematic args about who are the
> > true "victims" deserving reparations)
> > good luck finding a wording that doesnt force one side or the other to
> > defend a position they or others might find to be offensive
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 10:18 PM, Josh <jbhdb8 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Over many years I have consistently supported the idea of a race topic
> > > as an alternative to "no topic/race based alternatives" I would certainly
> > > support a topic (if well-worded) on a subject like this,
> > >
> > > Josh
> > >
> > >   On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Andy Ellis <andy.edebate at gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >  I am thinking about   a paper that focuses around the controversy
> > > > of reparations. It could be as narrow as to be tied to a specific
> > > > aggrieved community or it could be expanded to include more. Inclusion and
> > > > exclusion make for core ground in a wide variety of  disciplines.
> > > >
> > > > There are a few reasons this is good
> > > >
> > > > 1) Mainstream Policy Literature- Plainly there is a ton, reparations
> > > > for various American injustices have been a wildly popular discussion in law
> > > > reviews and policy literature for at least the last 50 years, there is so
> > > > much internal disagreement amongst various scholars that there is a nuance
> > > > to the debate that can sustain year round debates. The fact that we as a
> > > > community may find that claim dubious until we do some research or see the
> > > > topic paper is perhaps even more reason to debate this topic.
> > > >
> > > > 2) Literature based impact comparisons that get to the heart of the
> > > > discussion. The full big stick reparations for slavery case links hard to
> > > > politics, hege, econ disads, and extinction level link chains...Give back
> > > > the land does too. No contrived links, but instead a head on literature
> > > > based debate between risk calculus based authors and justice calculus based
> > > > authors. This is the best in depth risk calculus debate we will ever have.
> > > >
> > > > 3)This community often builds mechanisms of skirting or relegating
> > > > the debate about race to the teams that want to engage it, as some of you
> > > > found out in the last few weeks this literature base is deep and responsive,
> > > > yet many of us dont have to touch into the depth of scholarship ever if we
> > > > dont want to. This topic provides a good entry point into the core of the
> > > > literature with a specific policy focus.
> > > >
> > > > 4)Uniquely timely--There has not been a time in the last 200 years
> > > > when reparations for injustices would not be a timely topic, but perhaps
> > > > here and now in a community that may be well poised to talk about the
> > > > racialized nature of its practices, we have a unique opportunity. Perhaps
> > > > though we will push the uncomfortable topic to the side...again.
> > > >
> > > > 5) Stupid Stem and branch topics and an over determined focus on
> > > > terms of art do not rob as much from this topic as others. For example at
> > > > its worst:
> > > >
> > > > r: the usfg should provide one or more of the following aggrieved
> > > > communities: people of African descent: Asian American immigrants:
> > > > indigenous Americans; middle eastern Americans, or Latino/as reparations
> > > > consisting of:land, sovereignty, wealth transfers, social institutions.
> > > >
> > > > Because of where it starts it survives that process better.
> > > >
> > > > much better wordings than that can be crafted.
> > > >
> > > > 6) Recruiting. Tell people the topic is reparations. i guarantee
> > > > they will have a stance on it. Honestly i cannot think of a better topic for
> > > > on campus recruiting. I know some of you will say but not on my campus...i
> > > > think urban reform or intellegence reform are less likely to excite interest
> > > > than reparations.
> > > >
> > > > 7) More to come as the paper gets written
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > eDebate mailing list
> > > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> > > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > eDebate mailing list
> > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> > >
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080405/6e702259/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list