Jump to content
BigSkyDebate

The New Proposed Wording

Recommended Posts

Ok, this whole "extra/effects T" thing is silly. The resolution mandates effects/extra T (whatever you want to call it) - nothing "directly" increases participation other than literally shifting people from one part of the government into the Peace Corps. Paying money is no different than "compelling" people to join an NGO - just as funding may be ineffective, people may dodge the service draft. The resolution simply states that the USFG should pass a policy that increases participation in one of those things - giving incentives is clearly resolutional, and I also think giving money to improve one of those organizations is, among other things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I wasn't so sure about the entire meaning of the resolution but I tried my best (not really). Even if the extra-t is silly/stupid whatever, I would rather go with the original resolution. If that doesn't happen, life goes on and so does debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Word.

 

Yes this is a post.

 

Cross apply my three reasons from the OSPEC and ASPEC thread.

so tell me, is this the same as the word "werd" or are they different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

funny, to everyone whining about aff flexibility/more limits, the old resolution was the draft aff, meaning it's a SUBSETof this resolution. wow, talk about aff flexibility. and people will argue that this isn't true, but Jamie already explained how if the topic wasn't limited to the draft, the neg would be screwed.

 

this new wording allows a huge amount of predictable flexibility; you can hire specialists into certain national service programs and claim a slew of advantages off that, provide different methods to increase participation, etc.

 

oh and "aff flexibility" is somewhat useless when the word "mandatory" guarantees the neg a hard core link to politics, heg, some nasty Ks, and the voluntary counterplan. unless you want to impact turn politics scenarios you've never heard of, impact turn heg, and impact turn the K without being able to argue heg good, the aff is screwed.

 

everyone always complains about the topics they can't have; this year it was Latin America, then Africa, now the old wording. Last year it was elections and space. the year before it was israel. the wording committee consistently chooses topics which at first are complained about extensively, but always end up being loved by the majority of the debate community. lets trust them on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hold up everyone.

 

Before you jump on the "this sucks" bandwagon and make a 4 word long post that says nothing... think.

 

You're telling me you WANTED to have to make your aff mandatory? (The only topical aff is draft/you always lose to kritiks?)

 

You're telling me you WANTED to have to debate about the word comprehensive? (Every debate would be asinine)

 

You can have creative affs on this topic. Jamie has made a point that none of you seem to realize. THIS TOPIC MANDATES EFFECTS AND EXTRA TOPICALITY

 

Think about the wording for a second. You have to establish a policy that increases the number of people in one of those programs.

 

Get rid of DADT... that probably increases the number of GLBTs who would join the military.

 

People keep whining that you can only change the numbers...

1. no.

2. the last resolution sucked equally.

 

Think for a second before you condemn this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to agree with Stephen and Jamie's sentiments concerning the new wording of the resolution. While this does eliminate much of the heart of the topic that the country voted for - ultimately, the previous topic would have been virtually unwinnable for the aff.

 

1. The word comprehensive in the resolution is perhaps one of the worst words ever to appear in a resolution that wouldve created for uneducational, pointless topicality debates

 

2. the mandatory nature of the old resolution gave the negative sick K links and made the draft aff the only "good" topic. Politics links off of the mandatory nature of the topic would probably have been virtually unidirectional as well.

 

also, as jamie has pointed out, this topic ensures the aff has a far greater degree of flexibility by not having to force a mandatory participation in any one of the programs.

 

So, for everyone who is whining about this new topic - come up with a good argument as to why this new topic is worse than the old one instead of just saying its bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the reason why this one is being condemned is because it is ligitimately worse than the original topic.

 

At least the original topic (in its fantastic craptasticness) would allow to alter or create new programs - instead, this new resolution calls for increasing #'s serving instead of any of the previous.

 

AND what is more ironic is that the entire quagmire of arguments against the previous resolution is that it killed aff ground. . . so what does this topic do??? It limits aff ground to 6 cases. Honestly speaking, my entire line of affirmatives that I was going to will be null if this new resolution passes - although I doubt it will, simply because I think the level of intelligence upon the discussion of this topic, even in the areas where they're deciding it, it about the equivilant of this website. I can't imagine any human being turning national service into a debateable topic.

 

Also, in response to earlier posters, the draft wasn't the only aff, and people that say this are just ignorant. Seriously - warrant your statement with more than that random definition that was floating around. Before you attack people for posting "4 word" this sucks-bandwagons, perhaps you should practice what you preach.

 

Also, comprehensive wasn't a huge issue - it just limited affs from saying things like "We're going to draft the top 5 richest people and put them on Celebrity Survivor".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, comprehensive wasn't a huge issue - it just limited affs from saying things like "We're going to draft the top 5 richest people and put them on Celebrity Survivor".

 

Sounds topical to me. Your post however, is one of the few things that I would probably classify as definitely NOT comprehensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, this new topic would really is good for negs: case specific disadvantages, you can pretty much have case specific everything...

 

but it limits aff ground, i had a lot of creative new programs that i wanted to make and i think it took away all of the educational benefits of this topic. Upon reading the topic paper, it would seem that the educational qualities that were originally talked about when voting for this resolution was increasing the advocacy thoughts of the debaters in a more domestic arena, while they picked groups from each applicable area, it takes away from true advocacy thought because we are no longer thinking about what we think is bad and what problems need to be solved, we are just thinking about which of these programs will have the best advantages and what number is substantial enough but won't link to disadvantages. There is no educational value to this new resolution, i know about these programs, i won't really be learning anything uniquely new this year. In short, this topic sucks...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What the hell is a GLBT? Is that related to the BLT sandwhich group, or the Dub-M-D (WMD) weapons group? I think it's Gay Lesbian Bacon Tomato or the Gay Lesbian Biological Terror. Can you clarify?

 

Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transexual. Ignorance is bliss.

 

At least the original topic (in its fantastic craptasticness) would allow to alter or create new programs - instead, this new resolution calls for increasing #'s serving instead of any of the previous.

 

AND what is more ironic is that the entire quagmire of arguments against the previous resolution is that it killed aff ground. . . so what does this topic do??? It limits aff ground to 6 cases. Honestly speaking, my entire line of affirmatives that I was going to will be null if this new resolution passes - although I doubt it will, simply because I think the level of intelligence upon the discussion of this topic, even in the areas where they're deciding it, it about the equivilant of this website. I can't imagine any human being turning national service into a debateable topic.

cluetrain1.GIF

cluetrain4.gif

Woooo Wooo here comes the clue train. Last stop is you.

There ARE NOT 6 AFFS.

 

The resolution mandates effects and extra topicality because there is MORE THAN ONE WAY TO INCREASE PARTICIPATION.

 

You could pay them money, ban the DADT, give them free healthcare, or hire them dancing midgets on tricycles. Talk about aff creativity with a predictable mechanism, because the negative can counterplan with a different mechanism, and they still get generic offense against the program itself. Damn. How could that possibly be worse than a topic with "mandatory" and "comprehensive" in it? Adurrrrrrrrrrrr.

 

Also, in response to earlier posters, the draft wasn't the only aff, and people that say this are just ignorant. Seriously - warrant your statement with more than that random definition that was floating around. Before you attack people for posting "4 word" this sucks-bandwagons, perhaps you should practice what you preach.

 

Also, comprehensive wasn't a huge issue - it just limited affs from saying things like "We're going to draft the top 5 richest people and put them on Celebrity Survivor".

 

The reason the old resolution sucks was mandatory. Even if it wasn't just the draft, the aff would lose to the voluntary counterplan every debate. Maybe they'd win like 1 or 2, but it would suck. No seriously. Oh by the way, I counted this post. It wasn't four words.

 

EDIT: I'm totally drafting 3 military observers to go to Sukhumi. Hot.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, just a side note, if you define national service and mandatory as seperate and make a sweeping interpretation than you will win the topicality debate. You won't win limits, but u will predictability (duh, this interpretation came from the topic paper, if you couldn't predict a definition from the topic paper than you are an idiot) and you can win over-limiting the topic, ie only one case is topical, is bad for debate, and you will win topicality. That's pretty easy... So the last topic was a lot better than this one.

 

Also, voluntary service counterplan sucks, than you can tlak about the HUGE solvency deficit, ie empirical exaples of the status quo. Voluntary service at most gets 500, 000 people to a million, at most, if there is no depression happening, so you can't really solve the plan if it derives off of a lot of support, and i know i will only use plans that use a lot of people for that reason.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, just a side note, if you define national service and mandatory as seperate and make a sweeping interpretation than you will win the topicality debate. You won't win limits, but u will predictability (duh, this interpretation came from the topic paper, if you couldn't predict a definition from the topic paper than you are an idiot) and you can win over-limiting the topic, ie only one case is topical, is bad for debate, and you will win topicality. That's pretty easy... So the last topic was a lot better than this one.

 

You won't win your interpretation is predictable - the interpretations from the topic paper assumed different proposed resolutions which didn't necessarily include the word "mandatory", and a definition of "mandatory national service" is much more predictable since it's a term of art in the literature, it's more grammatical and has better intent to define. Winning the definitional basis for your interpretation is predictable is a pre-requisite to winning the cases under your interpretation are predictable, that's the reason counter-interpretation "only our case" doesn't win every aff round. Imagine if people defined "charge" on this topic as "to make a rush at or sudden attack upon, as in battle" or "demand payment" and detention as "a punishment in which a student must stay at school after others have gone home" or "Managing stormwater runoff by temporary holding and controlled release." Good luck with that.

 

Also, voluntary service counterplan sucks, than you can tlak about the HUGE solvency deficit, ie empirical exaples of the status quo. Voluntary service at most gets 500, 000 people to a million, at most, if there is no depression happening, so you can't really solve the plan if it derives off of a lot of support, and i know i will only use plans that use a lot of people for that reason.

The status quo doesn't assume all sorts of incentives the government could give to join a national service, such as scholarships, paying them $$$, tax breaks, etc. You also assume that more people = more effectiveness. Chances are that the loss of morale resulting from mandating national service would hamper the effectiveness of the service, rather than aid it, meaning your so called solvency deficit is actually a net benefit to the counterplan. And, net benefits of say, hegemony or politics or [insert random K here] would probably outweigh a risk of a solvency deficit, since even if the topic wasn't limited to the draft, there wouldn't be a whole lot of accessible advantage ground.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

e new wording is a hundred times better than the original one. A few reasons.

 

1. Clearer Limits - Specifying the national service programs was a brilliant move. A clearly defined list topics will eliminate many of the smaller, weirder affs that people were worried about, such as requiring people to work for any obscure government agency. I'm a fan of list topics; I think a clearly defined set of affirmatives increases the quality of debates. It gives the negative great core ground - as the negative, you have six very specific areas you have to research and cut case negs, strategies, and links to. More predictable affs increase education because of this very issue. I think with the list topic we'll see much less generic positions, and people will engage the case much more because they'll be able to generically attack the specific service program the aff supports.

 

2. Broader Limits - I think that the new wording expands the possible number of affs, but in a predictable way. By specifying the national service programs, the resolution makes obsolete the T argument that you have to be "only military," which i think could easily win a lot of rounds that it shouldn't if the original wording becomes the resolution. This new topic allows affs to more easily access cases that deal with military, humanitarian, health, and education-related fields. Under the new wording, negatives will have to debate these cases on their merits, and we won't have to waste time in rounds for affs to justify that these programs are, in fact, 'comprehensive programs of mandatory national service' to meet some dumb, contrived, and arbitrarily limiting T argument.

 

3. Removal of "Mandatory" - this is perhaps the best change. A few initial google searches showed very few GOOD defenses of mandatory service. It seems like the voluntary CP with a host of net benefits (politics, and certain K's come to mind) could easily solve the case. While I still don't think merely increasing the OPPORTUNITY for people to become involved in these programs is topical, I think that the aff is given much more leeway to require subsets of the population or to create a voluntary program, which I think evens the playing field A LOT.

 

4. Removal of "Citizens" - I think having citizen in the resolution is probably a bad idea because there are so many great critiques of the concept of citizenry that all affs would be REQUIRED to defend. These K's are different than just K's of government action in general because the literature base for the aff is much smaller and pretty much sucks. There are a lot of immigrants who are NOT citizens in the US and including them in the topic will allow affs to access advantages better.

 

Bottom line - new topic is better, clearly defines what "mandatory national service" is, and is MUCH less vague.

One other thing, Africa WILL NOT WIN. Stop whining. You will not debate Africa next year. Get over it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the new wording would allow cases with solvency advocates, which I like. For example, I think you could run peace corps volunteers to help with AIDS or malaria or tuberculosis in Africa. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/05/10/needed_a_medical_peace_corps/

or, maybe

 

http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0704-rhett_butler.html

 

Or you could run a case where "national servers could also help police our borders, guard nuclear power plants, water supplies and other key facilities, inoculate people against anthrax or related threats, and generally beef up our public health services." http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:q1rQoQ7ZGV0J:www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm%3FknlgAreaID%3D115%26subsecID%3D145%26contentID%3D250092+expand+Americorps+nuclear+plants&hl=en

 

Or, non-violence education,

 

http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/042602/042602r.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think the new wording is probably better if you want actual debates- from a critical standpoint i thought the old rez made it impossible to answer any foucauldian criticisms- now there is some aff leverage against the K

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.

You sound like a t block.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A voluntary CP doesn't even have to have a solvency deficit of less people. Under the old topic, a topical aff would be mandatory service, the neg counterplan could increase the pay/other incentives (IE topical aff action under the new wording), solve case and avoid large impact netbenefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i doubt an aff is going to run a mandatory service aff anymore; they will just alter a monetary/physical/mental/etc barrier to entry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

things like that happen in the status quo, hundreds of scholarship require voluntary service into a program, many of the programs listed have scholarship oppurtunities, doesn't stop people from not joing. No matter what the benefits all i have to prove is that no one wants to work in that program, which would be relatively simple because most people do not want to work with those programs now with their incentives. The incentives necessary to gain access to the solvency of the affirmative plan would have to be huge, trust me, a lot more than it would cost to require the people to work there thus the DA against that cp would be a trade off disadvantage which u would ultra-super-douper-hyper link to. Think of a 1000 dollar scholarship times 300 million people, yeah, that's a hell of a lot of money and it has to come from somewhere...

 

On the T debate, how is an interp from the topic paper not predictable? also, numerous amounts of authors, the topic paper sited more than twenty, define mandatory national service as other public service, so that would be easy. So i would nullify the predictability standard and thus take out the predictable ground arguments that couple a limits argument and act as answers to the ground standard. On the limits debate, having on topical case over limits the topic, hugely bad Topicality would not be an automatic victory for the neg...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the issue of numbers= solvency. Yeah there is literature on how people will grudgingly do their job and won't do it to maximum ability, what u do is u can do very simplistic things that won't take effort. I thought of three affs and there are hundreds of which u could give them easy jobs that are not very consuming, and that is not to think of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's probably somewhere in this thread, but when do we get the new wording. are we waiting for a vote?

 

peace,

andrew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it's probably somewhere in this thread, but when do we get the new wording.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...