[eDebate] reparartions ans stone

Andy Ellis andy.edebate
Sun Apr 20 21:59:05 CDT 2008


two points here...1) the mechanism question is crucial to building
politcal possibility for progress...making race a harm (optional) at
that forces less of a community engagemet with the question of how to
create racia justice using the mechanism of law and policy...you are
right that you get to some of the same advantage areas  but that is
much more becase the reparartions topic is an effort a) at compromise
and b) an attempt to answer the question "what next".

2) several people have backchanelled me to express concern about the
dig at ku in my last post.let me explain. i think chris stone nate
johnson and the whole ku team are great (policy) debaters. however the
strategic choices both ku teams made at ceda illustrated the blind
spots even great debaters have to questions debated in a lot of race
literature. had the community debated a race topic and speat its
collective intellectual power answering questins like the ones cl
posed at ceda i think it unlikely that they would have choosen a
functionaly color blind approqch. this is not to say i in any way
doubt cls debate ability but to say more that real debates with some
of the nations best student thinkers are truncated when those students
dont feel a need to get deeply immersed in race thinking....this is
not just about debate but spaks also to the world beyond debate...we
have the opportunity to spend a whole season strategical immersed in a
hugely important vei n of thought that will make us all more prepared
when we teach debate, make policy or whatever we choose to do when we
leave..the reference to the ceda final round is not mean spirited
gloating but more an example of the kind of strategic mistakes that
even the best policy makers can make when race is an optional part of
the curriculum and educatin process

On 4/20/08, Chris Stone <cstone387 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> >
>



More information about the Mailman mailing list