Jump to content
Gregorian Consulate

Strats Against Public Housing Sweeps

Recommended Posts

What does everyone feel the best arguments against ending public housing sweeps are, both off and on case? It is a fairly popular case and any discussion of it would benefit both those who are running it, as well as hitting it. So please begin discussion and widespread global brainstorming now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terrorism DA is big. The government is not just going to search some Joe blow's house. lThey are going to have some kind of reason. The government uses this on suspected terrorists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Terrorism DA is big. The government is not just going to search some Joe blow's house. lThey are going to have some kind of reason. The government uses this on suspected terrorists.

 

this actually isn't true

 

the government sweep searches public housing projects to find drugs and guns. terrorists do not generally live in public housing projects, the potential to get randomly searched being one reason.

 

the terrorism link is sketchy at best

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What does everyone feel the best arguments against ending public housing sweeps are, both off and on case? It is a fairly popular case and any discussion of it would benefit both those who are running it, as well as hitting it. So please begin discussion and widespread global brainstorming now.

 

I have some ideas, but first: what advantages does this case usually claim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think poor people should have privacy in a government funded-house. The government is just looking at their own shit...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The three primary advantages that I have seen based off of this case are,

 

1. War on the Poor/Rhetoric of Poverty - Passing plan breaks down the established view that the poor are deviant and morally inferior, ultimately changing society in such a way that poverty is effectively combatted, and value is restored to the lives of those living in poverty around the world.

 

2. Militarization - Housing sweeps are a militarization of peoples in a zone of protection and militarily policed sections of living, mirroring areas such as Vietnam and the West bank in which collective punishment is all to common. Further, this militarization translates into foreign wars of aggression and creates violent, global extermination.

 

3. Racism - Housing Sweeps target minorities. That is racist. Ending housing sweeps is mandatory before racism can effectively be combatted.

 

I hope this helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay.

 

Feminist Kritik of Privacy.

 

thats definitely an applicable position, but what would be the definitive link to ending housing sweeps? while, it is easy to understand that privacy may ultimately prop up male domination and hurt women; however, after passage of plan, how is this particular increase in privacy damaging to women? The searches are essentially raids used to find weapons and drugs, and have nothing to do with stopping male abuse, ect. Wouldn't it be quite difficult to prove the link, especially if there isn't a privacy adv. I'm not overly familiar with the feminist k of privacy, so what do you feel are the strongest links? - whether they be specific or generic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also agree with the whole idea that the Terrorism Disad is a bad idea. After all, the story is that these sweeps are ONLY happening in public housing and that they can't happen in regular housing areas without probable cause for each individual house search, so I would love to see specific evidence that terrorists are living in public housing and that PHS are crucial to security from terrorism.

 

I'd also like to toss Classism in as an advantage that has been used against public housing.

 

It really depends on what exactly the plan text does as for the strategy. The only two housing cases I have seen are the two that Cameron put out, one we used to run, and the other was put out in second week with a deontology/modified Kantian ethics framework.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It really depends on what exactly the plan text does as for the strategy.

 

I suppose we can assume a plan text as follows as a generic representation of housing sweeps.

 

"The United States Supreme Court will rule in the next available test case that public housing searches based on anything less that probable cause will be ruled unconstitutional, and the decision will be upheld by the USFG as a whole."

 

Of course, there are an infinite number of details that each team can change regarding the plan, and the above is just a basic idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to state the blantenly obvious, but what about a crime DA? These sweeps are at least somewhat effective and there has to be evidense that says that they find drugs and weapons. Once you start winning the argument that says they are effective then you have to win the one that says that security is more important than their individual rights. . . which everyone has done.

 

It obviously links better than the terrorism DA and you can spin off arguments from it.

 

I haven't heard this case but I like it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can think of a couple now:

 

Crime Disad, Drug War Disad, Police Backlash Disad, Hollow Hope or another Courts disad (if they do use the courts), and/or any agent disad for that matter. However, if the aff does claim any sort of classism/poverty type advantage, I'd be weary of running something like the crime or drug war disad because the aff is probably going to have good answers along the lines that it isn't the actual Public Housing Units themselves that are producing all this crime/drugs/violence, etc., but rather the areas around them and that automatically laying blame on the poor is bad (here they would probably cross-apply their impacts of their harms or advantage).

 

In terms of T, I feel that this case is pretty good, but you can probably catch them on "USFG" for needing to use all three branches, "its" because most public housing sweeps aren't federal authority and are either done by local police or even sometimes private security guards), and then of course, a T as bad/good/generic as substantially=w/o material qualifications.

 

To give another example of a plan text, the one we used to run took away two specific security options, dealing with consent and exigency, of the Clinton Policy that allowed for public housing sweeps without probable cause. We naturally had Congress do this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In terms of T ... "its" because most public housing sweeps aren't federal authority and are either done by local police or even sometimes private security guards).

 

QFA.

 

crime disad/overcriminalization turns whatever deontological advantages they claim from the case

 

run xo w/ prez powers -- if they shift out of the prez powers disad, proves abuse on T

 

and o' course, util framework

 

the fact that most of the people in these housing complexes WANT these searches to be done isn't a bad analytic to take out a classism advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was in the group that put the aff out @ Cameron in second week and it is an okay case, usaully i keep the cases I get from Cameron with a few modifactions but this year i decided the case really isnt that strong. First of all you could hit them with the fact that these people want the searches, they believe the searches keep them safe and reduce crime rate in them. Second of all, when people move into these homes, they sign a waiver stating that they will allow police to search their homes. If the affirmative claims that the tennants are not allowed to take up residence in these homes if they do not sign these waivers (in other words they claim they were forced to) say that they were not forced to put could find another home to live in. T on its is another good argument you could run. Those that do the searches are Police officers not the federal government, although there is a card out there that says these are off-duty police officers employed by HUD and financed with federal funds. As for their deontology framework, if they answer any of your arguments without you giving another deontological framwork or any other kind of framework, nail them on it. One of the reasons why my partner and i decided not to run this case was because while we were still @ Cameron, @ one of the practice rounds later in the week, we were told by the judge, a philosophy major that we must first defend our framework and not worry about the arguments being presented. Im not totally sure about the framework but you may want to do some research on it to nail them really hard. A DA that works really, as said before, is the crime/drug da. It links pretty well, especially if you have evidence which says that since the sweeps were put in place, crime and drug problems have gone down. Im not sure if this really helped but i hope so. Good Luck!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
usaully i keep the cases I get from Cameron with a few modifactions

Lol you mean half the time right? As in the kept their case one time and didn't keep it one time. :-D

 

As for their deontology framework, if they answer any of your arguments without you giving another deontological framwork or any other kind of framework, nail them on it....we were told by the judge, a philosophy major that we must first defend our framework and not worry about the arguments being presented.

I have no idea why housing sweeps would be more proned to a deontology framework than any other civil liberties case, but I don't really understand why they can't answer your arguments. Their framework just means the judge cannot evaluate DA impacts against the moral justification of the aff, it doesn't mean the aff can't argue the DAs to prove the aff is even better of an idea (win deont and util frameworks simultaneously). Really, I think it'd be nuts not to argue back any offensive arguments unless you're 100% sure you're going to win your framework, because if you don't then you lose, whereas if you put some answers on the arguments then you can still lose the framework, be evaluated on a util framework, and still win. I mean I agree that you should argue back the framework, but I don't think you want to risk a judge not buying the framework and losing. Even if it means you can't spend 8 minutes defending your framework...do you really need to?

 

 

In addition I'd suggest Ban Public Housing CP that Michigan 7 Week put out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea why housing sweeps would be more proned to a deontology framework than any other civil liberties case, but I don't really understand why they can't answer your arguments. Their framework just means the judge cannot evaluate DA impacts against the moral justification of the aff, it doesn't mean the aff can't argue the DAs to prove the aff is even better of an idea (win deont and util frameworks simultaneously). Really, I think it'd be nuts not to argue back any offensive arguments unless you're 100% sure you're going to win your framework, because if you don't then you lose, whereas if you put some answers on the arguments then you can still lose the framework, be evaluated on a util framework, and still win. I mean I agree that you should argue back the framework, but I don't think you want to risk a judge not buying the framework and losing. Even if it means you can't spend 8 minutes defending your framework...do you really need to?

 

 

In addition I'd suggest Ban Public Housing CP that Michigan 7 Week put out.

 

 

 

Maybe i should be more clear, if you have a judge that is really big on philosophy then you really should go for this argument because we really got in trouble for not running the framework right @ camp and that was how it was explained to me both @ camp and by our coach, which i believe you were there for that speech, werent you ryan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of the entire conversation regarding a deontoligical framework, it's definitely a good idea as the aff to present the case in such a way that the systemic harms solved by the case will always outweigh whatever improbable politics scenario's or what have you, that can be thrown at it. But, its not necessary to win a deontoligical framework, as you can still compete strongly under consequentialist/utilitarianist, i don't see why it would be a problem. Another big question to consider is how kritikally this can be run. It's definitely a case that can easily operate on either a policy or pre-fiat level, and thats much to its advantage, but when run strait up policy, the advantages might grow somewhat weaker, if the neg capitilizes on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol I know a lot more about CX than our coach and most of your judges won't be interventionalist philosophy students. Then again I think he was probably just interventionalist because it was camp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

question - does anyone have sources indicating that these housing sweeps are occuring now. Most writings on this issue are back from the mid-90's and I'm just curious how widespread these searches are, and how often they actually occur. Just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no idea why housing sweeps would be more proned to a deontology framework than any other civil liberties case

 

Because this case can't get big impacts, it has to be a deont/K affirmative. Think about it: housing sweeps can't access big stick war or extinction impacts, so it has to use deont.

 

Body cavity searches is another such case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i've been looking over the aff that utnif put out and it seems to me that this case is most susceptible to t-its. despite the decent cards that say that public housing is under jurisdiction of the usfg, i haven't seen any literature saying that the searches themselves are exercises of federal authority. the federal government is not really searching without probable cause, despite the fact that it does endorse the searches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...