Re: statism and civil rights

["Jason L. Jarvis" <jarvijl5@wfu.edu>]

> 
> Jason specifically mentions a topic wording focused on Affirmative Action.
> I still foresee most Affs having racism as one of the, if not THE, advantage
> to case.  Even though an AA topic would undoubtedly open up more Neg avenues
> than a generic civil rights topic, I could still not impact turn case.  This
> one particular ground issue may seem minor to some, but I still think it is
> important.  MANY debates were won this year on pollution good.  I will grant
> that all of the Negative arguments listed by proponents of this topic are
> viable, but those types of arguments (statism kritiks, actor counterplans,
> political disads) are viable under any topic.    A civil rights topic still

I don't really remember too many debates in which it was argued that 
pollution was a good thing....perhaps I just missed them. At the least 
this seems to be a pretty weak argument. Above all else the fact that you 
would not want to argue racism good does not seem to be a reason to 
reject the topic. Perhaps a focus on AA would allow you to impact turn 
the case as there is tons o lit suggesting it isnt a good idea.

.02

Jason Jarvis
Wake Forest

---

References:

• Re: statism and civil rights
• From: tara tate <TATETARA@ESUVM.EMPORIA.EDU>

---

• Prev by Date: word to slusher
• Next by Date: Re: subscribe
• Prev by thread: Re: statism and civil rights
• Next by thread: Treaties question
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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