[eDebate] Reparations = Bad Neg ground?

Andy Ellis andy.edebate
Thu Apr 17 01:37:26 CDT 2008

I really do think this is a bad representation of a complex debate, and
perhaps the reason elliot is right about greene.

I will answer this argument more in the paper, but the simple version is
this. Trying to solve hundreds of years of history with a single policy is
fraught with danger, there are significant intra-literature disagreements on
how to do this, and the impact to getting it wrong, probably turns the case,
and shuts down the global movement pretty effectively. While i wouldn't say
the topic actually has a negative bias, i would say the affirmative bias is
VASTLY overstated..

On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:28 AM, Jonathan Karlin <jonathanrkarlin at gmail.com>

> 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
> community.
> 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
> > 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080417/96826961/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list