Wow! I'm surprised there is so much interest in this. Thanks for the input I have gotten and will receive. First, let me explain how policy debate works specifically to clear up some misunderstanding. You have two teams: the affirmative and the negative. The affirmative presents a plan based on action the government should take (hence the name policy debate, as in government policy). The negative team tells why the plan is a bad idea or won't work. This year's topic is the government should reduce agricultural support including removing subsidies for farmers. This might sound like a weird topic but it touches on a lot of issues such as politics, racism, ethics, the economy, the environment, foreign relations, and many others. Right now my hardest part is getting that first link between ag support and autism. Pretty much anything could work. A story of an autistic farmer who didn't get government funding for example would work. Having someone who is in charge of an organization that does something harmful to autistics or has spoken out against autism and also receives government funding would work too. But I might be able to find some way to work around this.
Another importnat thing to know about policy debate is that most of the things you argue you won't necessarily agree with. A great deal of our evidence comes from people with "extreme" views. For example, a typical plan will make the case that subsidies harm the environment, harming the environment kills animals, this reduces biological diversity, loss of biodiveristy will destroy the entire environment, and then we all go extinct. Or subsidies hurt the economy, economic downturn will lead to war, war in today's world consists of many alliances and nukes, and many countries firing nukes will kill millions of people. These example are ridiculous but they are what work in policy debate.
I personally think Asperger's is more of a disability and is different than racism. However, I have found articles with views saying that classifying Asperger's as a disability leads to prenatal screening of it which causes many babies who have it to be aborted, which is basically genocide. This is the kind of stuff that goes over very well in policy debate. I have also found support that we are discriminated against as far as jobs which has been discussed in this topic. My strategy also involves reading a personal narrative which details how my life has literally almost been ruined because people took advantage of my lack of social skills. Just because you don't knowingly or directly discriminate against a group doesn't mean that you aren't. A good example of this would be the old laws requiring voters to be literate and pay a tax. Even though blacks could vote, these measures prevented them from doing so.
I hope this makes sense. I talked this over with a more experienced person on the team who runs black power arguments, and he thinks this could really work. Basically, the main point I need to make is that I have to gain awareness for my people group to help poke a hole through white supremacy and give other groups a chance because if discrimination persists then you really can't solve for the world's problems.
Again, thanks for the help I've gotten and will get and I'll gladly answer any questions you might have.
16 Feb 2009, 11:06 pm
