TRCs? Explanation please

I have heard people talk about the TRC argument. I read a couple website online, but I don't really get how this competes with "Join the ICC". Could someone explain how this argument is used?

I have heard people talk about the TRC argument. I read a couple website online, but I don't really get how this competes with "Join the ICC". Could someone explain how this argument is used?

First, read Between Vengeance and Forgiveness: Facing History after Genocide and Mass Violence by Martha Minow. It's pretty baller at explaining/defending TRCs.

The competition args go as follows:

1. mutual exclusivity - Aff says we should punish, Neg says we should grant amnesty to the ppl the Aff wants to convict in exchange for their testimony.

2. artificial competition - if TRCs alone is better than the Aff + TRCs, the neg is still better.

The trick to pwning this argument is as follows:

1. none of the authors support the CP - the CP would say we should never convict ppl after these atrocities. The closest thing to that you'll hear any authors suggest is that in situations where the public demand for justice is high and the old military still has a lot of influence that TRCs should be used. even minow suggests that there is a time and a place for TRCs but there are situations where it can actually be harmful.

2. Make solvency deficit arguments - lots of them. If you write a good aff that is specific enough to your advocacy, the neg will have a lot of work to do to show that the CP is net beneficial to the aff. Also, most of the ev ppl are reading on this topic for TRCs is atrocious. Make fun of them in c-x over this.

3. They're not at all realistic - Think of TRCs as plea bargaining after atrocities. TRCs have NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER been used to excuse the people that the ICC would even consider prosecuting.

poneill wrote:

I have heard people talk about the TRC argument. I read a couple website online, but I don't really get how this competes with "Join the ICC". Could someone explain how this argument is used?

First, read Between Vengeance and Forgiveness: Facing History after Genocide and Mass Violence by Martha Minow. It's pretty baller at explaining/defending TRCs.

The competition args go as follows:

1. mutual exclusivity - Aff says we should punish, Neg says we should grant amnesty to the ppl the Aff wants to convict in exchange for their testimony.

2. artificial competition - if TRCs alone is better than the Aff + TRCs, the neg is still better.

The trick to pwning this argument is as follows:

1. none of the authors support the CP - the CP would say we should never convict ppl after these atrocities. The closest thing to that you'll hear any authors suggest is that in situations where the public demand for justice is high and the old military still has a lot of influence that TRCs should be used. even minow suggests that there is a time and a place for TRCs but there are situations where it can actually be harmful.

2. Make solvency deficit arguments - lots of them. If you write a good aff that is specific enough to your advocacy, the neg will have a lot of work to do to show that the CP is net beneficial to the aff. Also, most of the ev ppl are reading on this topic for TRCs is atrocious. Make fun of them in c-x over this.

3. They're not at all realistic - Think of TRCs as plea bargaining after atrocities. TRCs have NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER been used to excuse the people that the ICC would even consider prosecuting.

I ran a TRC PIC for most of the topic and here was the strat I found most useful for running it:

Set up a critical discourse framework. The implications are: Truth is impossible to ascertain, but what we can know is that we should be in a constant state of radical subjectivity, as that would be the only way to ever ascertain Truth (Few warrants for this where: A.) Constant revaluation improves ethical theories B.) Ideas lose meaning w/out constant discussion, morality becomes meaningless (Some Mill card), and C.) We should always seek Truth since its net beneficial)

2 Violations by the ICC

1.) ICC utilizes adversarial justice. Adversarial justice limits discourse, not concerned with the standards of evaluation, only concern whether the accused is guilty or not (And the magnitude of their punishment)

2.) Human rights bad. Two reasons 1.) Creates stereotypes that lead to generalized discourse. 2.) Labeling someone as a human rights offender orients them away from the discussion of moral truth.

Alt is TRC. Rather than use pragmatic descriptions of the TRC (As TRCs have failed so badly), just use the theory behind it. TRCs still come to normative decisions (thats fine with crit discourse) but only do so with more input. It still solves everything the ICC does or comes to better conclusions about what to do (ICC decisions made with regard to those enforcing laws, TRC made with both the enforcers, the accused, and the victims)

But in all actuality TRCs are terrible piles of poo-poo that are no better than the ICC (Which is still pretty bad)