[eDebate] Reparations = Bad Neg ground?
Thu Apr 17 01:44:26 CDT 2008
I will preface this by saying I am not well versed in the reparations
literature but here are a few concerns of mine in the context of
ground for the negative.
1. All the negative arguments you have brought up are either a.)
defensive in nature (yes I understand this will link into your K of
using apocalyptic imagery), b.) only critical-esque arguments
2. I can't think of many policy arguments that legitimate link-
Spending DA? The politics DA?
I think you might be correct that AFF bias is overstated but in the
world of a left leaning community, I think the aff has a pretty big
step up. Also there is little to no AFF flexibility in terms of
picking advantage areas or affirmatives- why not draft a bigger topic
that gives teams the choice to read more left affs or more right affs.
The reparations topic is fundamentally one affirmative with one
advantage. (I hope this is not offensive, I am not trying to minimize
Freedom for the AFF= good. It spurs creativity, innovation and
research. The reparations topic does not provide avenues for either of
Russia or Intell Reform.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:37 AM, Andy Ellis <andy.edebate at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> > > liberties good and national service good.... even though there is
> > > generic ground for why national service is bad, mostly you go against
> > > affirmatives like "lets help the poor" and for the civil liberties topic
> > > went against affirmatives like "we should stop torture". So is the neg
> > > ground "povery good" or "torture good"? Well for some douchebags yes,
> > > 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
> > > 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
> > > "sexism bad", etc, etc, etc. This is not unique to a reparations topic,
> > > lets not dillute this topic down to "racism bad" v. "racism good". To
> > > your argument seems very much like a cop out and a refusal to think
> > > 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
More information about the Mailman