[eDebate] Reparations = Bad Neg ground?

scottelliott at grandecom.net scottelliott
Thu Apr 17 07:59:56 CDT 2008

To answer the question, Yes, the ground is bad. WHy do I know this? Because I
have judged these debates already. (And yes, I think that Russia and Latin
America suck too, but that is a different discusssion). I will still read
Andy's paper though.

Look folks, this is how 90% of these rounds are going to play out:

(a) Affirmative runs Justice Impacts to case. Unless they are idiots, they will
almost always claim a deonolotgy impact. Why? Because that is the literature
base and it makes for an easy, very easy 2AC strategy against any disads.
Negative runs thier disads. Now we get into a utilitarianism versus deontology
debate. Most judges I have seen on circuit end up voting for the pathos of the
aff. claims and the Justice D-Rules.  It is even difficult now to get judges to
vote on topicality because teams have the deontology debate down pat.

(b) Affirmative runs their case, negative runs a counter-plan. Now we have a big
perm debate, PICS bad and topical counter-plans are bad. Worse, we have
Plan-Plan debates. The first example would be: Aff. team runs reparations for
slavery. Negative runs First Americans First. Now we get into to, what one team
calls the "oppressions Olympics." My tribe comes first in the reparations list

Why do I know this? First, I have judged these debates. Second, Because I have
personally went out and cut hits against reparations cases already. I have had
to do it for Native Americans "give back the land," Slavery, and Japanese
Internment (which, by the way, not-uniques a huge amount of disads because we
already did reparations and it is the model for slave reparations). That are
reparations we have given in a few other cases will certainly cut against
negative ground.

I disagree with your collective arguments that "every case claims X impact, your
criticism is not unique." You are wrong because you do not understand the nature
of resolutions. There has to be a balance of ground on the key policy questions.
On the reparations debate, the core affirmative claims of injustice are
virtually inarguable. At least with global warming, there are some people who
arguing that it is a scam. But other than Dr. David Duke, there are few out
there denying the intial case harms. And, there are few out there writing that
Justice should not be served.

It is real simple people--if the negative ground is so sweet, do a little
research against the two example cases and determine for yourself what your
ground is going to be to argue. Sure, we will always have some negative
strategy against a case (I have strats cut against two of the topic area main
cases already). However, both strategies are, in my mind, morally repugnant.
If you want to debate and judge hundreds  of round on framework-Justice versus
disad impacts, then I'd say the reparations topic is right up your alley.


More information about the Mailman mailing list