[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Forward of Laura Heider's defence of CR Neg Ground
Laura Heider asked me to forward this to CEDA-L. Her subscription to
CEDA-L is proving techinaccly difficult. I think hers is a real advance
on some of the arguments made against CR. Other than Sparacino's brief
attempt yesterday, it has not been refuted by anyone on NDT-L. I myself
am taking the evening off and will return to the fray in the morning.
TEXT OF LAURA HEIDER'S MESSAGE FOLLOWS
so, i've finally joined the information age. my apologies to those who
have attempted to reach me in the past 3 months and failed. my posts
will only be coming out of utah for the next month--as some of you
already know, next year i am tranferring to cal state fullerton.
demetrius lambrinos and i have agreed to put up with each other for an
entire year under the auspices of a partnership.
not wanting to squander a post, i also want to take this
opportunity to come forward strongly on the side of the civil rights
topic for next year. regardless of the social reasons this topic is
relevant and should be debated, i believe it is the fairest topic option
in terms of ground division and negative argumentation.
a civil rights resolution that called for an increase in civil
rights through the USFG would be the most desireable in terms of
strategy, predictability and case argumentation for several reasons:
first, such a topic allows for extensive utilization of
counterplan strategies. there are very few civil rights policies done
the national level which could not be done on the state level--in fact,
most major civil rights initiatives, such as the vote for womyn,
originated as state actions. the hawaii ERA is another good example.
other agent counterplans, both within the branches of government and
those utilizing national organizations outside of government, would not
only be feasible but would have excellent solvency evidence. for those
weary of the agent debate where counterplans are concerned, alternative
solvency mechanism counterplans would enjoy renewed strength as a
negative strategy. in civil rights more than just about any other
issue, one of the primary debates is over the mechanism that should be
used to reach goals such as workplace equality. some argue for a
deregulated approach to industry--perhaps one that uses incentives, such
as the voluntary complaince counterplan that proved so effective on last
year's topic. there are a plethora of ways to reach the same advantage.
a good example of this is the ban tort liability counterplan which
northwestern, harvard and michigan adopted as their strategy against my
fetal hazards case last year. my case regulated toxins in the workplace
which were harmful to fetal development. the harm that i claimed was
that womyn were excluded from these jobs because of these toxins, which
destroyed their economic stability and thus their attempts at equality.
the above mentioned teams banned tort liability for corporations,
claiming that the only reason corporations excluded womyn from these
was a fear of liability. this was an extremely effective strategy and i
lost several rounds to it. the solvency evidence for most alternative
solvency mechanism counterplans where civil rights is concerned tends to
be remarkably good.
disad ground is also extremely fruitful. if civil rights were
increased in the workforce, economic problems (ye olde regulation links)
would likely result. right-wing backlash becomes astonishingly unique.
movements positions of all shapes and sizes would be given teeth. the
old-fashioned states/federalism concept has some terrific evidence.
nothing could be more politically volatile for democrat bill clinton and
the republican congress. an improved human rights stance might strain
relations with china. a small civil rights policy might trade off with
crucial, larger civil rights policy which would save millions of lives.
this is an initial, very piecemeal brainstorm, but it proves that
negative ground as far as disad links are concerned would not be
predictability of the affirmative would be best met by this
topic as well. the scope of the aff advantages is somewhat limited,
which would allow the negative to effectively prepare generic answers
before the first tournament to cases no-one has heard. the generic case
evidence is better on this topic than on any i have seen for a long
i believe that the solvency debate on civil rights would be
an astonishing lease on life. while impact turning a case that claims
genocide is apparently problematic for everyone out there, the solvency
turns on civil rights can take on various shapes and textures. (plus,
honest, how much do you impact turn nuclear war on other, more "policy"
topics?) the turns that jump immediately to mind are the government
action quiesces grassroots, which are key; government action spurs
corporate or militia retaliation, which kills case solvency and causes
violence; civil rights policies anger congress, who retaliates by
bills which are more restrictive of civil rights in another area;
national action on civil rights angers state governments, who pass
retaliatory legislation on the state level. (again, these are not
fully representative of what i believe is possible on this topic, these
are just inital thoughts.) finally, independent of turns, the take-outs
to solvency are profuse. i'm sure you're all familiar with the
literature that says that civil rights legislation/rulings never solve.
the possibility of this negative argumentation should also serve
to calm fears of the rhetorical advantage of the aff on such a topic.
aff is not able to effectively play the "you're racist" or "you're
sexist" game when they don't solve, when the counterplan solves just as
well, or when the disad overwhelms any hope of an advantage on case.
Not wanting to debate this topic for fear of being called racist or
sexist is akin to not wanting to argue prolif for fear the aff will
that you're in favor of nuclear war.
a final word before i close. i think that the civil rights
enables exploration of issues whish have lain always beneath the surface
of our community in very real and personal ways. Despite our claims to
progressive politics inside debate, debate remains a largely white,
male-dominated activity. this is not to say that those who are neither
white nor male have not excelled--they have--this is only to say they
grossly underrepresented. perhaps one of the reasons for this is our
relustance to discuss racism and sexism as "real" issues. it is
frustrating to debate in an atmosphere where "real" issues are the
traditional purview of white men--the military industrial complex,
foreign aid, etc., and womyn's issues and race issues are bracketed off
into a separate, inferior category dubbed "undebateable." coming from a
perspective in which these so-called "womyns' issues' have been the
primary issues that have informed my development, i am occasionally led
to wonder why i am always speaking from the margins, why others don't
these issues as central. i do not mean to infer that womyn and
are not as capable of debating issues that have traditionally controlled
by white men, nor am i arguing that anyone who opposes the civil rights
topic is a bigot. i am only saying that it is about time that we look
civil rights as an issue which is just as important as security
and environmental regulation, and is perhaps twice as relevant.
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page