Jump to content
Darkness

Sudan Not A Genocide

Recommended Posts

How would you answer to this if you were running Sudan? The Neg uses evidence stating how the UN has declared it not a genocide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Where do you compete?

 

2) Say the U.S. definition is better (I believe Bush did declare it a Genocide) because the U.N. failed to responed properly for Rwanda and it resulted in massive genocide.

 

3) Even the risk of genocide is enough to intervene. (Insert MO)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cross-apply K impact.?

 

not to mention you justify the continued murder of millions simply because it isn't a "genocide" - that's the entire point of the K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

any judge in the right mind will buy that k. it's 100% empirically proven by rwanda-look what happened. we refused to cross the line of actually calling it a genocide, and 800,000 people died because of it. it would be a hard argument to beat. this argument would be especially potent with a lay judge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But you are still conceding the negative argument. Unless the judge byes your K argument you will for sure lose

uh, there's no competitiveness in the argument. what you still conceed is a bunch of people dying, just that it's not a genocide - unless you have a DA or a K on hand talking about how case labeling it as genocide is bad, the aff. is still comparatively advantageous, thus, on any paradigm, you're screwed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused. All i know is that Aff should definately WIN the argument. But you should definately not drop the neg argument that genocide isnt happening in Sudan. You cant just run the K and completely DROP that argument, you have to at least answer it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm confused. All i know is that Aff should definately WIN the argument. But you should definately not drop the neg argument that genocide isnt happening in Sudan. You cant just run the K and completely DROP that argument, you have to at least answer it.

the argument wouldn't necessarily be dropped - the only thing that I'm contending is that so what if the neg. proves Sudan doesn't equal genocide? people are still dying and there's still potential for more murder - even if it isn't genocide, it's still a problem in the status quo that meets the definitional standards of the USFG. Also, why reject plan because the USFG definition labels it genocide? There's absolutely no reason to reject plan at that point.

 

The K brought up by Mark only exemplifies this. It simply says that whether or not its genocide, it's the attempt to delay action simply because of a lack of genocide that leads to thousands/millions of more murders.

 

At any rate, even if the neg. wins that Sudan doesn't equal genocide, why reject plan because of it? They can't deny deaths, and they can't deny the domestic destabilization of it... even if they hack out your MI on genocide, you still have plenty of consequential impacts that you can run on. In short, the argument gives no reason to reject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mean to repeat this if somebody else said it, but i didn't see this when I scrolled thru.

 

I think that this just bolsters your inherency. Argue that the UN has a fucked up definition of genocide which prevents people from actually acting on the genocide that is going on. Then you can possibly claim some offense by claiming that it will get the UN to start acting on genocide instead of allowing more rwandas.

 

just a couple thoughts,

spurlock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you're critiquing what is or is not genocide, then why do you still call on people to act on that "genocide" - it doesn't seem to get you anywhere unless you impact it with something like crisis politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but it still seems like you're criticizing what is or is not genocide, although they hesitate, you still want to draw some kind of a brightline on what is or is not genocide. i mean, where would you start drawing this brightline? it seems like genocide can be trivialized this way which seems even more problematic. i agree that making these distinctions are wrong, but it doesn't seem like you want to approach it the right way....

 

spurlock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How would you answer to this if you were running Sudan? The Neg uses evidence stating how the UN has declared it not a genocide.

Concede it. It's irrelevant. The neg wasted their time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Concede it. It's irrelevant. The neg wasted their time.
Concede, hell. TURN that baby! UN's dithering over semantics is what justifies U.S. action...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or just have an update on your case saying it is...

 

the un is crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So? Plan's still a good idea.

 

As for the Rwanda thing, the US didn't take action either, so you can't claim that as a reason why US > UN.

 

I also 100% agree with Armageddon that kritiking that mindset is a great idea. Not sure I'd go 8 minutes of it, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

first of all its easily to defend that it is geno. just get some nice reeve cards he does an entire anlysis on the un report, that says that it isn't geno. He shows how they failed to go to certian sites of mass executions and addresses political bias. second its not 75,000 deaths its little bit below 500,00 your way off there dont know where you got the number. put the it is geno cards in your 1ac c/a them in the 2ac xt your impx and your cool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you wouldn't really have to prove that it's genocide. you would only have to prove its significant. that should be rather easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the biggest point that the original poster may have been going for is that if (this is totally arguable, I have cards on both sides) Sudan isn't a genocide, we should still act, but we shouldn't be using genocide, because it serves as a buzz word enough as it is, let alone when something is or isn't an actual genocide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

genocide or not, a great deal of people still died... turn that ev and claim it as a harms feed, for the above stated reasons... US hesitates to act when it's not a "genocide," thus, if people are getting killed, it doesn't matter what race they are, they're still getting killed, and just because we can't put a label on what "type" of killing it is, doesn't mean we should hesitate to act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not entirely sure how one would turn this into a position, but the January/February issue of Foreign Affairs has an interesting article about the use of the genocide term in Sudan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...