A society is moraly obligated to redress past historical injustices..

Oh no I had the title and topic wrong..
A society is moraly obligated to redress past historical injustices..
is what it should have been... (mom )

My son is in Debate, and has to take that side. How would you argue that? I can't think of a thing! Neither can he.. Anybody???

He needs arguments for that side,,, not against.



Last edited by surreal on 07-18-2002

[vass0922]

he HAS to take that side?
Ugh poor kid lol

pick a new side

Dunno I completely disagree with it lol

[Knothead]

Sheesh...of course, debating is often the art of Semantics, so that's where I would go...How about, "There is no Statute of Limitations on the sins of the past*....as they were wrong then, they are wrong now....and a wrong unredressed is a wrong that must still shame us... "

Actually, that's not too far from a philosophical approach..."A wrong that is recognized is halfway corrected..."

Once THAT'S agreed upon, Patrick should be able to get 'em agreeing to terms of surrender. Good luck!

Edit: * Sins, as opposed to legality...because there certainly IS a S.of L. on criminality.

[TheBurningCat]

Hmmmm, Look up how our current goverment wont say sorry for the actions of previous goverments.

[Knothead]

Well, yes, that's the point of the debate. This guy has to take the side that says Gov't SHOULD say sorry, and possibly make reparations.

OOH, how about Johnny Cochran style?

"If you know it's a sin,
then we're gonna WIN!"

The whole point of debate is to make your argument more convincing that that of the opposing team. Nothing to do with agreeing with it, Vass!!

TBC's got a good idea, here. The Aust govt, in particular the Prime Minister, has refused to say "sorry" to the indigineous people (Australian Aborigines) for their harsh treatment at the hands of the first European settlers. He has incurred the wrath of many groups for this stance. A goggle search should come up with some powerful examples and opinions that young master can use in his speech.

So, the power of the web again helps!

Cheers
Mick

Also, a great debate tip is not to concentrate on the "topic" so much, but the wording of the "topic": eg what is "retribution" and how do we "pay" people. That kind of logic always goes down well with judges.

[ClubMed]

C'mon Clubmed, you can do better than that! Think not quite so emotively.

We have to help develop an argument here, not bear our souls!

Logic, boy, logic!!

So there are people your age living who have been the "victims" of injustices in the past. Their forefather's lands were stolen or whatever. They now live on the poverty line. Is that just? Should something be done for them? The question is, what?

That's the line of thought we need here.

BTW, this is not a flame - I am truly trying to get some logical discussion on this topic to help that youngster in the red desert..

Cheers
Mick

[ClubMed]

That's more like it!

Cheers
Mick