[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: isaac & advoacy
On Sun, 4 May 1997, Susan J Stanfield wrote:
> Matt-The difference in my
> mind is that most affirmatives will argue in an absolute fashion that
> racism is bad--there are no other ways of looking at/evaluating the
> issue, however with a leadership position there are multiple reasons why
> it may or may not be good and the existence of US leadership doesn't
> necessarily mean that someone will be oppressed because of it (although
> that certainly may be ground for someone answering the position) I'm not
> saying that the only ground for negatives with a civil rights topic will
> be racism good, but I do believe that good affirmative teams will do
> everything in their power to make that the negative ground.
sue, point well taken. the intent of my original post was mainly that
our arguements are not reflections of our advocacy, not that k-state
would be arguing for imposition of rights abuse. rather, it is possible,
as you have agreed, to view a leadership good debate as the advocacy of
cultural imperialism. my arguement is that you don't necessarily escape
the realm of "morals" or kritiks because you're not debating civil rights.
for example, on the CR topic you don't have to advocate a racism good
position, why not lots of case turns? there is extensive literature
regarding gov't solutions to racism and why that only makes it worse.
the neg can advocate the same idea as the aff but claim aff solutions
will never achieve X... there are many ways around "bad advocacy" on the
CR topic...
> Sue (who is viewing the world through geopolitical tinted glasses)
barreto
enmu
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page