[eDebate] reparartions ans stone

Chris Stone cstone387
Sun Apr 20 21:33:25 CDT 2008

I'm going to respond to this because I think you got a few of of my claims
wrong. In regards to the policy ground argument it's really just that they
access the same advantage areas, though you're right the internal links are
different. My argument was also not a footnoting of racial justice. It was
merely a way to access literature about racism in relation to how America's
nuclear arsenal impacts the globe and even those at home (think controlling
fissile materials and/or nuclear testing).

On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Andy Ellis <andy.edebate at gmail.com> wrote:

> chris stone says something to the nature of...either there is no
> ground or people will counterplan out and no one will talk about
> race...hmmm well it seems llike at worst all topical affs will be
> about race, and then the counterplans will be about how best to talk
> about it...even if its not all of the debate it is a starting point, a
> race concious approach, and seven out of eleven judges seem to think
> thats needed (you can check this out by going to google video and
> typing in ceda nationals 2008)...then stone says an arms control topic
> can capture all the policy ground of a reparations topic? huh...how
> exactly is that the case? because people can talk about it if they
> want? it being a broad discussion of race, not a targeted remedy, but
> even accepting that (minor) difference we always have topics where
> people can talk about race if they want, but we never have one where
> the topic drives the lit base there...there is unique educatonal
> benefit to that, footnoting the subject of racial justoce to those who
> would like to talk about it leaves it all but unencountered in the
> vast majority of debates, while we discuss for the millionth time the
> ins and outs of arms control or american foreign policy....presumption
> for once should be with a forced confrontation withthe underlying
> structures that have forged the amrrica that interacts with russia and
> nuclear weapons...and look at it this way, if you really think its
> less important to talk about than russia or nuclear weapons then you
> can run an aff whch says you wont talk about race till american forign
> policy with russia vis a vis nukes is fixed...this at least might make
> others think twice about avoding topics you think are important when
> they realize therir fw args are being used to invert epistemic
> liberation...
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080420/2565b5a1/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list