Jump to content
BigSkyDebate

The New Proposed Wording

Recommended Posts

The new, proposed wording (to be first voted on by members of the Topic Meeting) and then sent out (I assume) to the states again is:

 

The United States federal government should establish a policy substantially increasing the number of persons serving in one or more of the following national service programs: AmeriCorps, Citizen Corps, Senior Corps, Peace Corps, Learn and Serve America, Armed Forces.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though I can't necessarily say that I love that resolution, I think the debate community could actually come to like it, sort of like it has with UN Peacekeeping and Oceans, though I still am concerned with the amount of timely literature, as well as specific solvency advocates. But at least there are some areas for aff innovation, and that's definitely good. Does anyone know when the respective votes on the wording are going to be held?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the only question left is will this be passed or not there is a chance we could debate the orginal topic wording. We will just have to wait to see how things pan out. I honstely dont care which one wins it is a lose-lose situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hell, this should be interesting, I'm wondering how many different branches there are in each of those programs, which is to say, could we increase participation in a single part of Americorp. That would provide a good deal of affirmative ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those of you who think the topic got worse, why? I think this actually makes things sort of interesting...

 

why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is actually some decent aff ground. Mandatory debates will still exist, because it's one of the only solvency mechanisms - neg gets voluntary CP, aff gets "that program good." Almost anything else that doesn't implement a mandatory program would probably link fairly hard to the Budget DA, and to politics as well. But in that world, the aff could potentially be on the offensive against kritiks with "service good" as opposed to being literally forced to impact turn Foucault. Also, this new wording opens up the door for some serious aff creativity, since you pretty much just have to prove that your plan increases participation. Those affs will emerge, and as they will, I think more specific debates can occur (ie if a current policy is blocking participation, and the aff removes it, there is 1. a potential for an interesting aff and 2. built in neg literature about how that policy is good).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Jamie 100%... this is a much more debatable resolution than the original wording. Without having read much about any of the specified programs, this seems like a much better compromise between predictable negative ground and aff flexibility.

 

I'm not a big fan of the national service area, either, but this seems like a fair and debatable resolution.

 

~Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this new resolution is too limiting. I mean, there is no possible room for shall we say, creative, affs. It would be extra topical to give any of these organizations a new function Unless of course this is the resolution that would apply to the novices only. That would be alright. I have doubts on the authenticity of this resolution, though, since there is a gramatical error in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is actually some decent aff ground. Mandatory debates will still exist, because it's one of the only solvency mechanisms - neg gets voluntary CP, aff gets "that program good." Almost anything else that doesn't implement a mandatory program would probably link fairly hard to the Budget DA, and to politics as well. But in that world, the aff could potentially be on the offensive against kritiks with "service good" as opposed to being literally forced to impact turn Foucault. Also, this new wording opens up the door for some serious aff creativity, since you pretty much just have to prove that your plan increases participation. Those affs will emerge, and as they will, I think more specific debates can occur (ie if a current policy is blocking participation, and the aff removes it, there is 1. a potential for an interesting aff and 2. built in neg literature about how that policy is good).

I disagree. I think that if the aff were allowed to come up with their own proogram, it would be much better. As for the part on removing current policies, there will be many shady links on that because many of these organizations are not percieved very much at all. I can not think of anything that the "Senior Corps" has done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason why I hate this re-wording is because it takes out what I felt was a crucial ground giver in the last one, and that was the use of the word "establish" with already preexisting mandatory national service programs.

 

With this wording, you can't amend/solve problems - you just gotta increase the numbers.

 

This resolution re-wording is the equivilant of fixing a broken gun by replacing it with a rubber chain.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how to do that quote thing without taking like 50 minutes to do it for more than one post, so I'll just respond to arguments.

 

AT Aff creativity:

Now that's silly - in the old wording, the draft was literally the only topical case. The only definitions that exist for "mandatory national service," which can easily be construed as a term of art, have to do with the military, even if there are a couple definitions of "national service" that are otherwise. The draft aff would, obviously, suck - must impact turn kritiks, incredibly susceptible to PICs, on the wrong side of a one-sided hege debate (which also makes the impact turns on K's harder), almost no solvency advocate, etc. Even if somehow that violation was avoided, defining "national service" as military is the only limiting factor on the topic - otherwise, the aff could literally do pretty much anything, effecting anyone (ie convicted felons born on July 27 1967 must clean up graffiti). Then it would likely come down to a comprehensive debate, which is entirely subjective and simply uneducational. On the other hand, the new resolution offers quite a bit of aff creativity - it virtually mandates effects topicality, which in this instance I think is a good thing. There are not a million things an aff could do, but there are a certain amount of things that hinder participation in the status quo, whether it be exclusionary policies in the military, specific missions that turn people away from the Peace Corps (ie threat of danger), underfunded educational assistance programs, etc. Any one of these policies that turns people away could be repealed, and money or some other form of assistance could be contributed to some programs to ensure their effectiveness.

 

AT Aff doesn’t get to create new functions/own program better:

Boo hoo - those "new functions" would either A. Be new manifestations of status quo programs that are simply ineffective (as all the literature centers around this) or B. Be so squirelly as to provide no negative chance at response (refer to prisoner graffiti paint-out example above). There is no unique advantage ground that you are losing by not being able to create some new national service program - the reason there are 6 (I think) included in the resolution is so you have a vast array of options and specific programs you could choose to help. Plus, I will reiterate that this argument is largely applicable to both resolutions, as in the first debaters will almost certainly be constrained to military cases (see above).

 

AT Grammatical error:

I'm fairly certain that there isn't a grammatical error. What do you think it is

 

AT Shady links because no perception to current policies:

This is largely contradictory with your previous points - if the topic is bad because there is no perception off of "small" current policies, the topic would be TERRIBLE if the aff could just create an entirely new one (since there would be ZERO literature about perception). Not to mention that this assertion is just patently false - I can envision a bunch of potentially controversial areas that affs can tackle. Politics links would likely come off heavy spending of money, shifting of focus, flip flops, etc. The budget disad will also be big, and does not require current perception of the policy. The neg will get along just fine - there hasn't been an aff bias topic in years.

 

AT Senior corps stupid:

That's why there are five other topic areas. Not to mention, I actually think this will be one of the tougher areas for negatives to tackle. I'm not really sure what is "bad," per se, about bringing more senior citizens into contact with kids that they could help mentor. Who cares if it's a small impact - sounds like a pretty good idea to me; no reason it's worse than the status quo.

 

AT Can just increase numbers, not amend problems:

As explained above, there are numerous ways in which numbers can be increased. Compulsory service, incentives, removing poor policies, etc. All of these things are inextricably linked, anyway, to solving problems -the literature base certainly has that participation is a pretty key factor (I'm not sure what else would be). And as far as neg ground goes, it seems like pretty basic that the neg should get to defend that a particular organization is ineffective, not be forced to somehow respond to a virtually flawless, fiatted-through new program. And again, your argument is not unique to the new resolution (for the reasons explained above, as well as the fact that it would be non-topical under the old resolution to change any NGO's problems, so I'm not quite sure where you're going with that one.

 

That's all for now.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha, that's insane: You have to increase the amount of people, but you can't increase the amount of money you put into the program because that's extra-T. I'm running overstretch every round as neg(and prolly getting screwed as aff).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I'll also add that under the old resolution, the affirmative had literally no answer to a Voluntary CP (make NGO's better). Probably solves a big link to politics based on mandatory service (don't know how much anyone would like that), not to mention the biggest coercion/objectivism link ever. So, even if some aff manages a way to have a non-draft aff, they would still likely lose (if not just on a kritik).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Haha, that's insane: You have to increase the amount of people, but you can't increase the amount of money you put into the program because that's extra-T. I'm running overstretch every round as neg(and prolly getting screwed as aff).

 

Dude, that's like one of those block arguments you hear when you're the 1A, and you think about writing it down and answering it, but then you realize that nothing bad could come of dropping it, because not only has it been answered elsewhere, but it makes literally zero logical sense, and answering it would just waste your time. Overstretch......what???

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The change in wording definitely makes it a much better rez to debate. Why is everyone so concerned about "aff flexibility"? This will be all about implementation methods - incentives vs mandatory vs funding increase vs anything else. I want to do incentives - maybe a scholarship program for the Peace Corps. The rez allows pretty much anything that would boost participation in the programs specified in the resolution.

 

I still hate the topic, but the wording will vastly improve the quality of debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Thinktank: Rez only says persons serving, so wouldn't it be extra-t to expand the scholarship program?

 

@mbareddog: It's x-t to increase funding - the resolution only calls for an increase in the numbers of people who work there. One could easily run a DA that says the organization is trying to hire too many people with too little money. This causes the organization to not be able to allow each person to properly do his/her job, which decreases the good that the organization can do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like the new proposed wording of the National Service resolution. It limits the aff to only those specific corps and it's going to be extra-topical if they increase anything else besides the number of people joining those corps. The original was better by far. I don't know, it may be better or it may be a lot worse. I really don't care. As long as Debate doesn't change dramatically, then I'll be fine with whatever resolution they choose. Let's just debate!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...