[eDebate] Reparations-reply to Stannard

Ede Warner ewarner
Thu Apr 17 10:39:39 CDT 2008


Good point Duane.  I also think that Scott's last post answers these
concerns.  We crossed streams.  In fact, I tried to delete that post
altogether but I wasn't  fast enough.

>>> 
From: Duane Hyland <privethedge at yahoo.com>
To:<scottelliott at grandecom.net>, <edebate at ndtceda.com>, Ede Warner
<e0warn01 at gwise.louisville.edu>
Date: 4/17/2008 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: [eDebate] Reparations-reply to Stannard

Hi, If you want to explore Reparations through other means, you have an
education paper forthcoming. I can't think of a better way, and a more
balanced way, than to discuss using admission, funding, etc for higher
education, specifically, as a way to debate reparations in way that is
balanced in the literature. Duane


"You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson"
"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were
of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing
that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind?
If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of
exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great
a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth,
produced by  its collision with error." John S. Mill
 Who said Dr. Who isn't Funny: "Rose: You Didn't Have to Kill him!
Dalek: "Neither did we need him to live."
Dalek to Cyberman: :"You are Superior to us in one respect." Cyberman:
"What is that?" Dalek: "Dying!"


--- On Thu, 4/17/08, Ede Warner <ewarner at louisville.edu> wrote:


From: Ede Warner <ewarner at louisville.edu>
Subject: Re: [eDebate] Reparations-reply to Stannard
To: scottelliott at grandecom.net, edebate at ndtceda.com 
Date: Thursday, April 17, 2008, 10:38 AM

In the spirit of the last four week of healthy discussion, does your
position below mean we never debate minority public policy controversies
Scott since they are all "one-sided", or are you just saying that they
have we have to find different ways to word such topics?  (Like Urban
Policy as a means of getting at reparations?) Or are you saying that we
need to consider changing what defines the aff and neg ground to ensure
better switch side debate?  Looking for the big picture implications of
your position?  It's not clear.
 
The balanced literature you call for is in many ways speculative right?
 Risk of action?  Why does that ensure better debate as opposed to a
concrete existing harm where there a wide potential of solvency areas?
 
The dichotomy being created is speculative "core policy" impacts
discussed from both sides versus existing harms versus "core policy"
disagreement on solvency.  It seems we have preferred the former to the
latter without necessarily producing superior debates.  But I'm
interested to hear how you see this Scott?

>>> 

From: <scottelliott at grandecom.net>
To:<edebate at ndtceda.com>
Date: 4/17/2008 09:20 AM
Subject: [eDebate] Reparations-reply to Stannard

Matt says: "The idea that a problem area with a strong normative
direction is
bad for negative ground is a fallacy I've heard from time to time for
at least
twelve years. Ultimately it's a reductio ad adbsurdum that makes all
powerful
impacts "unfair" because apparently the only consistent and fair ground
for
Scott and others is impact turns. The objection is selectively applied
in the
case of "emotionally compelling" impacts (perhaps the real, unstated
objection
is that a disproportionate number of judges will vote for the first
team in
each debate to talk about racism) but could really apply to anything.
This
fallacy is the first cousin to another fallacy, the assumption that if
stuff is
really important and timely, we shouldn't debate about it."

I disagree. A topic should have a balance of policy literature on the
core
affirmative question. Let me give you an example from this past topic.
The side
balance on the Iran debate was good. The negative had plenty of
evidence out
there that engaging Iran, on face, was bad.
 A striaght up debate on
whether we
should  engage ewas possible. Afghanistan, however, was a horrible
addition to
the topic that I had pointed out a year in advance--namely, we are
already
engaged--the only question is how much more or how do we engage them.
Negative
ground consisted of counter-plans, PICs, and Empire K's most of the
time.

For reparations, the key issue--should we give reparations?--the
literature is
overwhelmingly afirmative. The major distinctions are whether we give
all the
land back, or just give some of the land back to Native Americans. For
slavery,
the distinctions are whether we give every African-American a phat
check, or do
we spend more money on intercity schools. The core issue has been
pretty much
determined in the literature. So, yeah, there will always be debates.
But I
don't think they are good debates. There is a difference berween having
Justice
form cases as an affirmative choice and having Justice form cases every
single
round. I guess there are some affirmatives who will choose a
utilitarian
calculus for debates, but I think most will not. This means, in my
opinion,
that we have a huge percentage of debates devolve into framework
discussion.
Now I know many outthere love those debates. It really is a matter of
taste. I
do not prefer it though.

You charecterization of "if it is timely and important, we can't debate
it"
mischarecterizes the arguments I am making is directly refuted by the
fact I
wrote a topic paper on genetics that is very timely and important, but
there is
balance in the literature.

Scott

_______________________________________________
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 

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try
it now. (
http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
 ) 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080417/4d9c5c7d/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list