Skip to content
July 1, 2013 / compassioninpolitics

Answering the Rosa Parks Argument in Policy Debate

You could run this argument in 3 scenarios:
1) Theory or Topicality
2) K
3) Performance Aff

It only really seems to make sense against 3. It seems that there are different interpretations of what it means to be a martyr.

Also, theoretically it goes both ways–this hedges against all the arguments the team runs in the debate.

Its one of two arguments in disguise….perhaps both:
1) “Unfairness good/Cheating good”
2) RVI

Rosa Parks versus Voting Against Theory:
Injustice versus exclusion & injustice for voting against theory (especially given the argument entails dropping the substance of theory).


The ultimate test of martyrdom in debate or in life is: Who is on the side of justice and who is on the side injustice?

If you are conceeding theory–you are conceeding you are:
1) anti-education
2) anti-fairness

You are clearly putting yourself on the side of injustice. Thats 100% opposite of what Rosa Parks stood for.

Even without conceeding those things–if you are loosing on substance….you’re loosing that argument.

Not to mention martyrdom conceived as victimhood isn’t exactly as successful as one historical example might suggestion. There have been 10,000s of movement injuries and imprisonments in semi-non-violent protests….but not a lot of those people actually cause a groundswell in public opinion–much less political action.

1) Anti-war protests to Iraq and Afghanistan
2) Anti-globalization protests
3) Protests against the parties


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: