[eDebate] Reparations = Bad Neg ground?

Jonathan Karlin jonathanrkarlin
Thu Apr 17 01:28:25 CDT 2008

There is a difference between arguing national service bad and arguing
reparations bad. Same goes for defending the WOT. (There are
legitimate scholars and political theorists who defend the war on
terror, and argue torture is good)  I think there is a legitimate AFF
bias with a reparations topic, especially in light of a left leaning

On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:14 AM, nicholas brady
<nicholas.brady89 at gmail.com> wrote:
> The complaint stated before i think is the complaint that can be said of ANY
> topic. For instance in high school for the last two years we debated civil
> liberties good and national service good.... even though there is horrible
> generic ground for why national service is bad, mostly you go against
> affirmatives like "lets help the poor" and for the civil liberties topic we
> went against affirmatives like "we should stop torture". So is the neg
> ground "povery good" or "torture good"? Well for some douchebags yes, but
> for the vast amount of the community the answer is no. I am no expert on
> this topic so i will allow more qualified people like Andy and others to
> answer this question more specifically, but I think its wrong to reject this
> topic simply because the ground ur defining for the negative has to be
> "racism good". I don't know what affirmatives u listen to, but mostly
> affirmatives try to solve for some harm that is wrong... something like
> "death bad", "war bad", "nuclear war bad", "extinction bad", "racism bad",
> "sexism bad", etc, etc, etc. This is not unique to a reparations topic, so
> lets not dillute this topic down to "racism bad" v. "racism good". To me,
> your argument seems very much like a cop out and a refusal to think deeply
> about the topic.
> _______________________________________________
>  eDebate mailing list
>  eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
>  http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate

More information about the Mailman mailing list