Ways to resolve the topic

[Screech 195]

No one wants to run mandatory service. Face it, it's impossible in every sense of the word: Crushed by any of a number of kritikal arguments, impossible according to the Constitution (except for the draft, which bites the K even harder), and unreasonable to defend in front of lay judges and real judges alike.

 

A solution: get your peace corps/environmental activism/etc aff ready to go, but non-mandatory. Contact all the local teams and convince them not to run T mandatory, in exchange for disclosing your aff, advantages, and cites. Alternatively, run a wierd def of service (like healthcare or phone service) but disclose the aff to all the teams in your area for not running T on service (although "mandatory," "USFG," or other Ts might be OK). Then just ignore T, and when the judges bitch about topicality, tell them to vote for a better topic.

[Steven 14]

Let's face it, judges didn't vote for the topic. Why punish them?

[Screech 195]

My point is that you could have an ad-hoc topic that people actually will vote for, that is, non-mandatory service. It will be basically a decision by everyone that the mandatory part of the rez makes it impossible for the aff to win. Or that mandatory is OK, but only with a wierd definition of service (like the USFG must provide all US citizens with healthcare).

[Debatefreakbvn 11]

Sorry, but not only does this hardly make sense, it's just a bad idea. That'd make this HUGE topic twice as big b/c you can make a case mandatory or non mandatory. But moreover, non mandatory service could never guarantee any solvency, and if it could, it'd only be through intrensic ways. What'd be the point? I make a sweet plan but say no one will actually do it, then just say that we SHOULD do it, even if it'd be pointless?

[Banana 291]

scary

[Screech 195]

Sorry, but not only does this hardly make sense, it's just a bad idea. That'd make this HUGE topic twice as big b/c you can make a case mandatory or non mandatory. But moreover, non mandatory service could never guarantee any solvency, and if it could, it'd only be through intrensic ways. What'd be the point? I make a sweet plan but say no one will actually do it, then just say that we SHOULD do it, even if it'd be pointless?

 

Look, that's just not my point. We can pretty much run whatever we want, just as long as we contact the debaters in our area. Like, if we convince all the other local schools not to run T: service on our Health Care aff, and we reciprocate the favor on the negative, all in exchange for disclosing the aff before the tournament, we can functionally take out the purpose of T. Aff presumption exists, anyway.

[that wheeler dude 3]

OR, you could just negate the resolution on the neg. You know, like you are supposed to do..

[chrishom 10]

The time for National Service has arrived. At no point in our history as a country has this argument been more necessary. We have become a nation that has become mired in mediocrity, with justice for few. With a required National Service for all over 18 years old, or those who do not complete high school, we could put young people to work on every sort of public need, be it help to the elderly, to public safety to parks and recreation, and of course to the military. We need to have a shared responsibility for being a citizen. The up side to this is great in that we could resolve the need for community action with a limitless supply of young people. They would learn new skills, share community responsibility, and leave with a new found sense of citizenship.

[chrishom 10]

Draft, not a bad idea. We need to get every class, color, involved with moving this country forward. At no time has this been more important.

[Mezriss 478]

Is it just me or are there a lot of new, highly conservative trolls running around?

[scottj 82]

Is it just me or are there a lot of new, highly conservative trolls running around?

 

qfa