[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Re: I support Civil Rights

On Sun, 4 May 1997, lucius K wrote:

 
 -------------------------------------------------------------
 On Sun, 4 May 1997, Ryan Sparacino <r-sparacino@NWU.EDU>
 wrote...
 
 here are some questions i would like to see answered by my critics:
 
  
 (1) how will a civil rts topic increase minority involvement in debate???
 i have several objections to the claim that it is a panacea for all of the
 racial problems that currently plague the activity.  first, debaters have
 already made up their minds about civil rts -- see my previous post about
 a hypothetical referendum on bowers.  second, the topic issue is not the
 reason minorty involvement is low.  its ludicrous to think that minorities
 will flock to debate because of a topic that concerns civil rts.  the way
 to make the debate community more representative of America is through
 programs like Emory's.
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
	I agree. I don't really see a civil rights topic increasing
 minority involvement. Actually, I'm afraid that such a topic in debate's
 competitive atmosphere may retard minority involvment. I forsee 2 general
 situations in rounds. One where the topic becomes so trivilized by agent
 specificity and theory gobaldee-gook agruments that people new to debate
 will be mildly insulted. Or two, where debators are so personally involved
 in the topic that emotions run high, debators and judges become
 insulted, and people will become disanchanted. Should we potentially
 have to go through cathartic (if you consider debate an art) experiences
 every debate round? I think though perhaps a harm, the benefits of this
 topic will outweigh. (As I outline in the end)
 
 A combination of the two perhaps is the most likely result. But what ever
 the result, I think speed will do significant harm. While people visualize
 the emotive and persuasive speaches of Martin Luther King on the topic of
 civil rights, we know that debate will atrouciously (sp) turn it into
 speeches where words are the bullets of machine guns. (However this is a
 non-unique disad since speed is already aplied to all kinds of emotional
 subject, i.e. EJ)
 
 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Ryan Sparacino continues...
 
 (2) why can't debaters JUST DO IT??? if you want to change the world, you
 don't need some holy mandate from above to do it -- act up, protest pepsi
 sales in burma, yell at jesse helms (or do that because its fun), or join
 the ACLU.  for example, Marcie Norton, who debated for Greenhill in high
 school, but doesn't debate in college, founded an ACLU chapter at NU.  she
 didn't need a debate topic to prompt her into action --she wanted to change
 the world and she JUST DID IT.  In a sense, i'm offering a counterplan --
 don't have the civil rts topic, but debaters should do more to promote
 civil rts.
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 	I agree that we should "JUST DO IT". But I believe we need this 
 topic to help push us to just do it. You wouldn't protest Pepsi if you
 didn't know that they are operating in Burma. (Aung Song Su Ki would be
 pleased to see anti-Burma protests) You can't yell at Helms if... wait,
 what has he done to be grouped with the likes of Burma?
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
 Ryan Sparacino continues...
 
 (3) how will the actual debates change minds???  the civil rts hacks are
 being too unrealistic about the nature of the debates that will occur on 
 the topic--college debate isn't like that lame movie, "Listen To Me". a 
 civil rts topic won't resolve the questions of bigotry that tear our 
 society apart. its not like the final round of the ndt on the civil rts 
 topic will be about whether homosexuality is immoral -- it will be about
 which agent should act, or on what grounds the court should rule...
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 	I agree and disagree. The example of a homesexuality debate in NDT
 finals probly would render the subject trivial. While civil rights, won't
 "resolve the question of bigotry", it can inform. I believe the civil
 rights topic can create enough inertia to make debators research and fully
 understand the topic. While researching the topic with the purpose of
 winning rounds isn't the best way to educate, it will in the end inform.
 And it is that information that will be carried through each debator's
 life. So the test is, do we want to be more informed about this topic and
 carry the knowledge for the rest of our lives? The answer is a resounding 
 YES. 
 
 	All the topics (xcept maybe space) pass this test. So the
 next question should be, "which topic will have the greatest real world
 impact?" Civil rights wins hands down. We deal with civil rights everyday,
 from our relationships with others to our actions as citizens in this
 society. (Do we use language opresively like "HE") This is why I, and I
 believe others, should support the civil rights topic. 
 
 The topic has the potential to catalysis interest and create advocates.
 But most importantly, the topic will broaden our scope and understanding 
 of an important issue that we deal with on a daily basis. In the end we
 will be informed debators. Debate perhaps can't force us to be better
 people, but with the knowledge gained from the CR topic it can give
 us the tools to be better citizens.
 
 
 
 						Lucius "K" Kahng
 					    George Mason University
 						lkahng@gmu.edu
 
 P.S. Vote for the Civil Rights topic!
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page