[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Statism and Civil Rights
Josh Martin wrote that when he was affirmative he did not wish to defend
the state or it's shitty institutions.
Funny last time I checked every possible topic area has the federal
government act. The concern illustrated here is innevitable and honestly
if you conceded there shitty then run an affirmative that fixes something
about the state. Jason Jarvis is right given careful wording the topic
can fairly divide ground.
Furthermore, I posted two days ago about how the negative does not have to
defend that something isn't racist. The only difference in this topic are
and the others is this one puts the focus on the case as opposed to
Clinton. Why are we afraid to go beyond our generic offcase. Before
lambasting me remember what I wrote in my other post, the literature is
fairly divided it just requires us to debate the mechanism. Racism is an
issue that needs to be solved that is most likely why the focus in the
debates will be solvency. The authors in the literature have gotten
passed denying it and gotten onto figuring out how to solve it. How many
people really have read a (just one) book on a perspective of eradicating
racism? I hadn't until this passed debate topic and after reading it I am
convinced we must discuss it. Once again the topic may not be the way to
go but we must address these critical issues.
I still haven't heard anyone address my concerns about the CEDA Race forum
and how this topic area might be necessary to get us to discuss the
problem, instead of just claim sympathy. How many people who attended
Ceda Nationals actually attend the forum?
The thread about getting flamed isn't unique to this topic. There isn't
any reason that the other topic area's won't result in the same bickering.
The problem with rudeness is about the person not the topic.
Cody
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page