Re: Race debates

[RACE --- <race@midusa.net>]

Doyle Srader wrote:
> 
> I have to do this quick, so Rhaesa get a "nolo contendere" on the
> previous discussion, and I have one more comment to make:
> 
> The concern: Skewed ground.

delay counterplan until bill n. gets back from the library
> 
> The strawfigures:
> 
> 2AC: "My God, he had the temerity to answer our case! It's David Duke in
>       a rubber suit!"
> 
> OR
> 
> 1NC: "Contention two, at the top. First, racism is good, I'm white and I
>       laugh all the way to the bank. Second, they're different, we all
>       know they're different, and power comes out of the barrel of a gun."
> 
> The more likely problem:
> 
> 2AR: *HALF* <1A: "The case! The case!"> "The case, group it. None of the
>      takeouts are absolute and none of the turns are unique. They can't
>      deny that the status quo is racist and their turns aren't turns,
>      because the gap is spiralling out of control. The plan is at least
>      an acknowledgment and a repudiation of racism. If you vote for the
>      disads, you're voting that it's OK to tolerate racism to avoid
>      an attenuated risk of big consequences, which is repugnant."
>      *BEEP* *BEEP* *BEEP*
> if the turns on the case are linear than the 2AR is just out of it.  it 
would be a quick negative decision.  don't assume that judges are 
idiots. :)

> And we think the affirmative win skew is big NOW. >>shudder<<

obviously there is an entire sub-thread on this and the inversion 
question.  once again delay counterplan until bill n. gets back from the 
library...
> 
> A proposed solution: Invert the topic, make the affirmative defend
> rollbacks of civil rights protection. A couple of worried comments.

mancuso suggested this ... many including myself seemed to concur at 
least to some degree.
> 
> How, exactly do we ensure this? Professor Southworth <I think, or maybe
> it was Paul> had an excellent point: we originally intended the privacy
> topic to be just such a rollback topic. We ended up with such highly
> debatable cases as Overrule Bowers.

we should keep that type of thing in mind in determining the predicate. 
 and judges should have the guts to vote on topicality in the early 
season when community norms of legitimate ground are being decided.  on 
privacy the error was the term "recognizing" if it had been affirming or 
somesuch that case would never have made the playground.
> 
> Moreover, it 

i'm not clear what IT is here

either <a> amounts to the same thing or <b> wouldn't promote
> the dialogue we seek.
> 
> a. It amounts to the same thing. Affirmatives would argue that government
> action stifles self-help, perpetuates a cycle of dependency, etc. etc.
> and thus would access the same rebuttal claims: it's bad now, the plan
> discards a prop of the racist superstructure, the takeouts ain't absolute,
> the turns ain't turns, and the disads are abominations.

which i've answered up above
> 
> b. It wouldn't promote the dialogue we seek. Maybe hypothetically we
> could write a hybrid value/policy topic of some sort that would really
> force affirmatives to claim that more effort aimed at equalizing the
> situation/opportunities of minorities/women/et al. was unwarranted.
> Then negatives would *actually* get the ground that racism still exists,
> is bad, needs to be solved, etc. Of course, we would all spend half the
> time frantically trying to prove, with impassioned 2ARs, that it doesn't
> exist. And a huge portion of the debate world, having been brought up
> on the notion that you get big negative wins by coopting their case
> harm and turning the solvency, might be tempted to join in that chorus
> and advocate a better way to solve. The 2AR is still the 2AR, after all.
> doubtful scenario 

> PREEMPT, or, "Yes, I read you -- did you read me?" 

several times i read you and then gave up and grouped.

I know that negatives
> will have available all sorts of counterplans, big structural solvency
> arguments, etc. to try to coopt the case harm. My two problem with this
> are <1> issue homogenization -- see earlier post; I worry that almost
> all debates will follow one of a few tracks, and I think that's troubling

i think that there are many many areas where these types of arguments 
will come into play.  i don't believe it will be the same song same 
verse in every debate.  (although clinton/bipart seems to be that 
already :))  think about it.  Political analysis crosses disciplines 
inherently and the question of civil rights does so to the Nth degreee. 
 questions from political psychology and sociology, from the sciences, i 
mean every area of the contemporary university will have information 
which fits into the current dialogue.  NOW, if we simply read the same 
turns every round it will become somewhat repetitive just as when we 
read the same political disads the same every round.  and you granted 
earlier that internal link solvency turns debates were incredibly 
educationally. :)

> <2> the plan "is a step in the right direction" <above> which is why
> the solvency turns alone will be an uphill fight, and if all affirmatives
> have to do is figure out which counterplans apply to the case and then
> pile on the efforts to find disads, solvency arguments against the
> counterplans, etc., then the work they have to put in to keep their
> affirmative viable actually goes down -- more pro-affirmative skew.

most of the solvency turn literature will more than demonstrate the plan 
is not a step in the right direction.  or that a fake step is a bad 
step. etc. etc. etc.  I really think that if affirmatives attempt to win 
the debates on such analysis it would be one of the highest negative 
winning percentages across the board in recorded history.  Empirically, 
such attempts got NO-WHERE as in didn't get anywhere on the first 
amendment topic.
> 
> I'm still not saying a civil rights topic is a bad idea. What is a bad
> idea is to overlook some of the very real concerns surrounding it.

i agree.

> If it's crafted carefully, it can do a world of good. If not, it can do
> a world of hurt.

then when bill n. gets back from the library pitch in during your 
dissertation breaks.

and smile, smile, smile.

david rhaesa
> 
> Doyle Srader
> University of Georgia
> <706> 548-9938

---

• Prev by Date: Re: Homosexuality Discussion
• Next by Date: Re: Homosexuality Discussion
• Prev by thread: Race debates
• Next by thread: Language, labels and names in ABC controversy
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page