ACDA 2015 Sept Oct Ready to Read Blocks

Sept-Oct Ready-to-ReadBlocks2015.

ACDAAMERICAN COMPETITIVE DEBATE ASSOCIATION

Copyright by American Competitive Debate Association LLC

No rights reserved. Any part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any

form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording,

or by an information storage or retrieval system, with or without the prior written

permission of the copyright owner and the publisher.

Table of Contents

Responses to Pro

A/T Improves Discourse 3

A/T Truth and Reconciliation Committees 3

A/T Pro Doesn't Need to Demonstrate Feasibility/Solvency 4

A/T Street Names 5

A/T Holidays 6

A/T Monuments 7

A/T Federal Slavery Reparations 8

Responses to Con

A/T Minority Coalitions Destroyed 9

ACDA BLOCKS September-October Topic 2015

3 September-October 2015 American Competitive Debate Association

A/T IMPROVES DISCOURSE 1. Reparation discourse will only entrench beliefs further. It won’t resolve them. Madyun of

the University of Minnesota explains that instead of engaging in real discourse, opponents

consistently come up with rationalizations and become even more entrenched in their beliefs.

2. Reparations encourage backwards-looking discourse. Yamamoto of the University of Hawaii

explains that reparations cause people to focus only on past injustices, instead of current

racism today. If we want to solve racism in the long term, we must stop fixating on the past and

look to the future.

3. Reparations will fuel hate speech. Brophy of the University of Alabama explains that most

modern americans don’t believe they should be held personally responsible for slavery. He

concludes reparations would result in a wave of resistance and anti-black backlash.

4. Look to the example of Holocaust reparations. Gabriel Schoenfield of the Hudson Institute

finds that German and Swiss reparations to Israel have unleashed “a tide of anti-Semitic hate

unseen since before World War II [...] complete with “hate mail, death threats, and physical

harassment on the streets”. The Atlantic reports anti-semitic violence in Europe has so bad,

many Jews are already fleeing Europe.

A/T TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION 1. Truth and Reconciliation means letting guilty actors off the hook. Look to south africa.

Stanley of Georgetown explains even after the commission, apartheid enforcers remained in

power untouched.

2. All words and no change. Stanley of Georgetown concludes that the TRC resulted in “no real

change in social conditions and no clear attempt to address perceptions of injustice and

exclusion”

3. Commissions absolve societal responsibility. A report from the Center for the Study of

Violence and Reconciliation explains that these Commissions fixate on specific individual

perpetrators, rather than discussing societies role in atrocity. In South Africa, 84% of ex-

apartheid supporters placed all the blame on their leaders and claimed total innocence for

themselves. A commission will prevent American society from accept responsibility for the

horror of slavery.



A/T PRO DOESN’T NEED TO SHOW

FEASIBILITY/SOLVENCY 1. The devil’s in the details. Posner of Uchicago explains that the morality reparations depends

entirely on how reparations are being paid. For example, if the PRO advocates for paying

reparations by enslaving white americans, that would obviously be immoral. We need to know

how PRO plans to pay reparations. Unless the PRO specifies what type of reparations they are

advocating for, making a moral judgement is literally impossible.

2. Reparationists have many different goals. Brophy of Alabama University explains that

proponents of reparations have many different and often contradictory goals -- from healing

historical wounds, to achieving economic equality, to dismantling white privilege. Unless pro

tells us how they’re going to try to solve the problem, it is impossible to have a meaningful

debate.

3. Look to the history of philosophy. An article from Grazyk of Minnesota state explains that

the historical philosophical consensus is that there is no moral obligation to do impossible tasks.

If Pro can’t show that reparations are feasible and would benefit blacks, there can’t be a moral

obligation to do so.

4. Think about it logically. If someone is drowning, and you don’t know how to swim, do you

have an obligation to save that person and kill yourself in the process? Of course not.



A/T STREET NAMES 1. Street names send the wrong message. James E Young of the University of Sanat Cruz

explains street names send the message that the struggle is over. He concludes that the more

monuments almost always results in less contemplation, reflection, and discussion over the

issues at stake. Street names relegate the civil rights movement to the history books, rather

than acknowledging the struggle that continue to this day.

2. Don’t let them advocate for only renaming streets and nothing else. Mia Swart of the

University of Johannesburg explains that “Street naming in itself can not achieve rehabilitation”.

The Pro team must advocate other types of reparations if they want street names to mean

anything whatsoever.

3. Repainting a sign and changing some street maps doesn’t make it a reparation. Westley of

Tulane University provides two criteria for determining what is a reparations to african

americans. First, Westley explains reparations must have a significant monetary cost in order to

show that the United States “truly wishes to make blacks whole for the losses they have

endured.” Second, Westley says reparations must provide real benefit to the black economic

situation, they can not merely be symbolic. Changing the n ames of street signs fails both these

criteria — it costs us nothing and it’s purely symbolic. It’s not a reparation.

4. Resist meaningless symbolism. Savali of the Root argues that symbolic gestures by the

federal government conceal the fact that there is no real change, there is no action being taken.

As Savali concludes, symbolism “isn’t progress, it’s hush money”.

5. Street names are not topical — not reparations to african americans. They serve the whole

community not just a single race. Alderman of the University of Tennessee explains that street

names serve as public memorials for the entire local community to reflect and develop a local

historical consciousness.

6. The Federal Government doesn’t name streets — cities do. Court cases Hagerty v. Chicago,

Bacon v. Miller, and Brown V. Topeka all clearly establish that city governments are responsible

for naming streets, not the federal government.

7. Cities are the best actor — not the federal government. Catherine Nicholas of the CADO

Real Estate Group explains that changing a street name is a logistical nightmare and requires

advocates to reconcile the city-level interests of residents, officials, and the police and fire

departments. The federal government doesn’t have the time to dabble in local politics in every

city across the United States.

8. A federal policy to change street names doesn’t make sense. Street names are meant to

memorialize local history. But according to the World Atlas, 14 US states didn’t even enter the

union until after slavery had been abolished. These states have no local slavery history. Street

naming should be on a city by city basis, not a federal mandate.

9. Empirically, a local approach to changing street names is what works. A 2013 Article from

the NY Times explains that in Germany, activists have succeeded in increasing the number of

streets named after women. The article explains these activists concentrated on local city

authorities, not national authorities.



A/T HOLIDAYS

1. Renaming a day on a calendar doesn’t make it a reparation. Westley of Tulane University

provides two criteria for determining what is a reparations to african americans. First, Westley

explains reparations must have a significant monetary cost in order to show that the United

States “truly wishes to make blacks whole for the losses they have endured. Second, Westley

says reparations must provide real benefit to the black economic situation, they can not merely

be symbolic. Federal holidays fail both criteria. They have minimal monetary cost and are purely

symbolic. They are not reparations.

2. Holidays whitewash the legacy of black leaders. Look to the example of Martin Luther King

day. Cornell West of Princeton University reminds us that the FBI once called MLK the “most

dangerous man in America”. He was a radical leader, a militant activist who was arrested 30

times, who believed in nonviolence but was no pacifist. But this image has been totally

whitewashed by MLK Day. Bianco of Hunter college explains MLK “has been converted into a

kind of white "dream" of nonviolence that makes white people comfortable.” Don’t insult the

legacy of black americans by creating whitewashed federal holidays in their name.

3. Federal holidays are hush money. Savali of the Root argues that symbolic gestures by the

federal government only serve to conceal the fact that there is no real change, there is no real

action being taken. As Savali concludes, more symbolism “isn’t progress, it’s hush money”.

4. Federal holidays send the wrong message. James E Young of the University of Sanat Cruz

explains Monuments send the message that the struggle is over. He concludes that the more


issues at stake. Federal holidays relegate the civil rights movement to the history books, rather

than acknowledging the struggle that continue to this day.



A/T MONUMENTS 1. Spending a couple million on a pretty statue doesn’t make it a reparation. Westley of

Tulane University provides two criteria for determining what is a reparations to african

americans. First, Westley explains reparations must have a significant monetary cost in order to

show that the United States “truly wishes to make blacks whole for the losses they have

endured”. Second, Westley says reparations must provide real benefit to the black economic

situation, they can not merely be symbolic. Building a monument fails both these criteria. CNN

explains the MLK monument cost 120 million, or .0003% of the federal budget. It cost nothing

and is purely symbolic. It’s not a reparation.

2. Monuments send the wrong message. James E Young of the University of Sanat Cruz

explains Monuments send the message that the struggle is over. He concludes that the more


issues at stake. Monuments relegate the civil rights movement to the history books, rather than

acknowledging the struggle that continue to this day.

3. Monuments whitewash black legacies. Look to the example of the Martin Luther King

statue. Cornell West of Princeton University reminds us that the FBI once called MLK the “most

dangerous man in America”. He was a radical leader, a militant activist who was arrested 30

times, who believed in nonviolence but was no pacifist. But this image has been totally

whitewashed. Bianco of Hunter college explains the monument converts MLK” into a kind of

white "dream" of nonviolence that makes white people comfortable.” Don’t insult the legacy

of black leaders by creating whitewashed statues in their name.

4. Monuments are hush money. Savali of the Root argues that symbolic gestures by the

federal government only serve to conceal the fact that there is no real change, there is no real

action being taken. As Savali concludes, more symbolism “isn’t progress, it’s hush money”.

5. Monuments perpetuate the problem they try to solve. Mia Swart of the University of

Johannasburg explains that the idea of historical monuments is purely a Western tradition.

There is no history of monument building in african cultures. Forcing african american to

remember their leaders through monuments only serves to reinforce the cultural and

ideological oppression that defined slavery and Jim Crow.



A/T FEDERAL SLAVERY REPARATIONS (obviously there are

other more stock responses. But you already have all of

those. Here are three that use an implicit “punish the

states” counterplan)

1. Focus on the real culprits. Oakes of Princeton explains that the real culprits were the

southern state governments that refused to abolish slavery even as the federal government put

pressure on them to do so. That’s why Smithsonian Magazine finds slavery was heavily

concentrated in states like Virginia, South carolina, and Georgia. Punish these guilty southern

state governments, but not the innocent ones.

2. No guilt by association. Punishing innocent states makes no sense. The Constitutional Rights

Foundation explains that when the constitution was signed, ten states had already outlawed

the slave trade. World Atlas says that 14 US states didn’t even enter the union until after

slavery had been abolished. Why should we punish native Hawaiians for the crimes of 19th

century white southerners?

3. Don’t punish a good deed. Oakes of Princeton explains that the federal government made

huge sacrifices to force southern states to abolish slavery and was the number one cause of

emancipation. Oakes explains the Federal government initiated a civil war and gave millions of

american lives — all to force states to abolish slavery. Don’t punish the Federal Government for

doing the right thing.



A/T Minority Coalitions Destroyed

1. Reparations strengthen minority coalitions. Look to Japanese internment reparations as an

example. Yamamoto of the University of Hawaii explains that the reparations process

developed political and legal networks in the Japanese community that were later used in four

different ways. First to assist Vietnamese American leaders in discrimination lawsuits. Second,

to assist African American leaders in pushing for Civil Rights legislation. Third, to assist Chinese

American leaders in pursuing justice for a murdered Vincent Chin. And fourth to assist Hawaiian

american leaders in pursuing reparations. Reparations strengthen minority

coalitions.Empirically, reparations strengthen coalitions.

2. Reparations strengthen international coalitions. Biondi of Northwestern University explains

the reparations push in the UN has fostered ties between African, Asian, Latin American, and

Caribbean activist groups. Biondi explains international coalitions are the key to putting

pressure on western nations and ending racial inequality.

3. There's nothing to lose. Coalitions between minority groups are rarely effective. Yamamoto

of the University of Hawaii explains that in the past, minority coalitions have consistently

collapsed due to unresolved historical grievances between minority groups and leadership

struggles between different groups. He concludes these coalitions are unlikely to create any

change whatsoever.

4. Instead of coalitions between minority groups, focus on coalitions within minority groups.

Yamamoto furthers, the most effective political force is not coalitions between minorities, but

coalitions within a minority that have a unified voice and can create real political change.

5. Reparations empirically strengthens coalitions within minority groups. Biondi further

explains the reparations process has connected political groups from all across the black activist

diaspora, unifying the black political coalition behind a single cause.

Documents

ACDA 2015 Sept Oct Ready to Read Blocks