Jump to content
BigSkyDebate

The New Proposed Wording

Recommended Posts

I have no doubt that a sufficient percentage of the the policy community is addled enough that we'll wind up with the "improved" version, but just to point out a couple of obvious things:

  1. The folks who thought the "only topical Aff" on the original wording would be a military draft are either lazy or stupid. I honestly can't think of a third possibilty. In less than 10 minutes, for instance, you could come up with the full text of a bill introduced in Congress (HR 1004) that would make a fine example of contextual meaning for the phrase "mandatory national service" NOT being limited to a military draft.
  2. The belief that EVERY mandatory Aff would lose to ANY volunteer CP is, again, a sign of either laziness or stupidity. Is it really anyone's sense of how debate works that NO possible rationale for mandatory participation could be argued to be superior to volunteerism? Folks need to educate themselves on the issues a bit before falling for such sweeping pronouncements...

It's all moot, of course, since the "improved" version seems inevitable...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was almost certain that Sandy Patrick included that bill in her topic paper, so I was surprised that she seemed to go along with those asking for a change. While I don't think I have ever voted on "Framers Intent" on a T argument in a round, I will give her a LOT of deference when it comes to the topic she wrote. If she thinks it needs modification, I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is any serious question that the new language is demonstrably inferior to the original.

 

As for Sandy, I'm a fan, too, but since she was persuaded by someone to decide a change was needed, I'm convinced she could also be persuaded by a cogent argument that one was not. I'm not sure she's heard many of the latter recently (certainly not HER fault), and I know for a fact that at least ONE of the pro-change arguments being made was (and remains) provably false...

 

My fondness for Sandy aside, my real objection to all of this is that it shouldn't matter whether you or I "trust" her. We are not children, after all. We are capable of deciding for ourselves on such matters, no? And if the national service resolution prevailed in an open process, I am dumbfounded at the suggestion that ANYONE ought to be able to say, "Wait a minute! I just thought of something..." and thereby derail the whole enterprise. Frankly, if the new proposed wording had been the original, I likely would have voted for the Africa topic...

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think this new wording really changes what was the worst problem with the original one. It seems to me that either an aff uses mandatory participation or mixes burdens - for example, if an aff were to use an economic incentive to increase participation, that doesn't on-face increase participation, you'd have to look to solvency to determine that. I think having this sort of resolution that forces effects-T sucks.

 

So I guess Weil is right. Only Maddox is way overrated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The word "mandatory" was actually a feature of the original wording for some of us, believe it or not. The fact that we are being put through such contortions to avoid it should tell you a lot about the mindset of the people who fear that term. Furthermore, I'm still trying to figure out what's wrong with the word "citizens" in the original... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

me too.

 

my only problem with the new wording is limiting affirmative ground to certain organizations. if kids thought that the first one gave the negative too much kritikal ground, i don't know why they seem okay with this one...

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the new wording it seems like it would be easy to just run eight minutes of (any of those random organizations) bad. With so few mechanisms to gain your advantages the negative will have a clear advantage with (on case) debates.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no doubt that a sufficient percentage of the the policy community is addled enough that we'll wind up with the "improved" version, but just to point out a couple of obvious things:
  1. The folks who thought the "only topical Aff" on the original wording would be a military draft are either lazy or stupid. I honestly can't think of a third possibilty. In less than 10 minutes, for instance, you could come up with the full text of a bill introduced in Congress (HR 1004) that would make a fine example of contextual meaning for the phrase "mandatory national service" NOT being limited to a military draft.
  2. The belief that EVERY mandatory Aff would lose to ANY volunteer CP is, again, a sign of either laziness or stupidity. Is it really anyone's sense of how debate works that NO possible rationale for mandatory participation could be argued to be superior to volunteerism? Folks need to educate themselves on the issues a bit before falling for such sweeping pronouncements...

It's all moot, of course, since the "improved" version seems inevitable...

 

For the purposes of this post, I will set aside how offended I am by the ad homs in this one - to claim that all the people arguing against you are both "lazy and stupid," is absolutely ridiculous, especially considering the fact that the people you are referring to (Stephen. Josh, Jonathan. Zach) are some of my closest friends in the debate community, along with the smartest and hardest working (I think it is not a cooincidence that among this group is approximately 20 TOC bids this year and last year's TOC champion). However, I will still attempt to answer your cavalier argumentation -

 

No one ever said that there wasn't a single source that used the phrase "mandatory national service" in terms of community service type things. Rather, the argument all along was that there was no DICTIONARY definition, or something of the equivalent, to support this claim. Your claim that anyone could find this HR you refer to within 10 minutes is assinine - approximately 6 results come up on google when you search for "mandatory national service" and "HR (whatever it is"). The point is, there is contextual evidence for ANYTHING, which is just another reason why such an interpretation of "mandatory national service" unlimits the topic, which was the argument all along, that interpreting it as the draft is the only limiting function of the topic, especially as this interpretation is supported by EVERY source I have seen with the intent to define (hell, everything with an intent to define defines "national service," not just "mandatory NS," as military conscription).

 

You are correct, there are a few sources that say "mandatory national service," including the 15 year-old, unpassed House resolution you speak of. My point is that these things cannot define a topic. What's more is that I am unable to find any significant body of literature that DEFENDS "mandatory national service" in this context. Nearly all google results critique the notion. In addition, the topic paper does the same thing - for some reason, it seems to assume that the benefits of the resolution are obvious, and in literally almost every one of its quotes or argument proposals, gives an idea of why national service is bad. In fact, when I just read through the paper again, it appears as if the only positive reference to national service that is evidenced is a nod to McCain's notion that it would drive some universal sense of civic participation in US citizens. Boy oh boy, isn't that some fantastic advantage ground. Even in the section on aff/neg balance, it seems to be trying to explain, yet more, how the negative can win. Problem is, it explains this throughout the entire paper, and I am pressed to find a CARDED warrant throughout it as to why the affirmative could win, as each claim is responded to in the paper with a multitude of much more logical, much more prevalent argumentation. As for your claim that somehow the author shouldn't have "backed down," the new resolution is molded on one of her suggestions, and since she has stated herself in this thread that she "merely wrote the topic paper," I don't know where you are going with this one.

 

Finally, if you are so obsessed with wanting to defend mandatory participation, go ahead and do it. This resolution hardly precludes it. You will just lose pretty much every round, because not only do you have zero link offense or even defense to kritiks, but you should have fun answering unidirectional politics links and coercion K's that are all net benefits to a voluntary counterplan, which could provide incentives or something, to solve your aff just as well. The new resolution allows for that kind of thing to be affirmative ground, and thus gives the aff a hope of winning. The old resolution provided no such hope.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is any serious question that the new language is demonstrably inferior to the original.

 

Yes, there is. Did you miss the 70 some posts before yours?

 

Demonstrably inferior? How? I have yet to see anyone make a coherent argument against the new wording, except maybe an unwarranted whine about how "these six programs suck" (as if there are a BUNCH of other programs that there is literature about for the other topic...) or "aff creativity."

 

Meanwhile, Zach, Josh, Myself, Berk, etc have made long, detailed arguments that both disprove your arguments and prove ours. In fact, I've given up writing those posts and resorted to cartoons, because obviously none of you read ZBaum's post, or you would have realized you were wrong.

 

Seriously, your best response is "there are more affs that draft." This is what we call "defense." This isn't a reason the new wording is bad, because there is also more than the draft in that topic. Whereas, there is almost nothing defending mandatory national service outside of the draft, and hell, almost nobody, even the heg good authors, defends that even.

 

If you don't want to debate on the most negatively biased topic in the history of high school debate, please vote for the new wording. Really, it doesnt hurt the aff at all (gives you the same stuff, but gives you incentives as aff ground) while balancing out the neg ground.

 

Your literally only other response is that the aff could beat the voluntary counterplan. Ok, imagine this debate.

 

Aff: Draft.

Neg: CP: Ban DADT--increases participation in army, good for heg. Draft bad.

 

Those incentives based counterplans will jack the aff in almost every circumstance, given that the literature about why required labor makes people work less etc is one-sided and true.

 

Think people. Please think.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With the new wording it seems like it would be easy to just run eight minutes of (any of those random organizations) bad. With so few mechanisms to gain your advantages the negative will have a clear advantage with (on case) debates.

 

wow, did you mean to say "the [affirmative] will have a clear advantage with (on case) debates"? Just like on the UN peacekeeping topic a team could read 8 minutes of UN bad, or on this topic a team can read 8 minutes of rights bad; these argumetns always exist, but they're never strategic. The aff almost always controls uniqueness in this type of debate, because these organizations will continue to exist in the status quo; a smart affirmative will pick an organization which they can defend, and one in which increased participation will make that organization more effective.

edit: the other option is to just debate it; theres alot of literature in support of these organizations

 

And clearly you haven't read the rest of this thread; the reason this wording is so sweet is that there are a massive amount of ways to incerase participation in these organizations while maintaining negative ground; the negative will be able to predict the 6 main types of affirmatives and generate good strategies and affirmatives can use any incentives to get people to participate in these organizations, creating a balance of predictability and aff flexibity which ensures good case debate, without tipping it too far to the negative.

 

and if you really need examples

 

mechanisms:

ban DADT

give money

scholarships

tax breaks

draft

better health benefits

give them white castle cheeseburgers

the list just keeps going

 

and, if that's not enough, the affirmative can always be selective about who participates; they can hire translators, nuclear scientists, doctors, hell, they could even hire jamie to sing for them, im sure that would do wonders for morale.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for mentioning HR 1004, which does give some good contextual definitions of what mandatory national service is. The second topic would allow us to debate the merits of each one of the potential types of national serivce programs HR 1004 would require. It specifically lists the Peace Corps [which is in the new rez], Urban Elementary School Literacy Corps [New Rez: Learn and Serve America], National Health Service Corps [New Rez: Americorps], American Conservation and Youth Corps [New Rez: Americorps], National Volunteer Antipoverty Program [New Rez: Americorps], Armed Services [in the new rez], and the Job Corps [not in the new rez, but it probably falls under the purview of something that Americorps does].

 

I think using this bill as a starting point for discussion about the topic is not a very good idea. The bill only had 4 sponsors out of potentially 435 in the House, and became so bogged down in committee that it never even got to the floor for a vote. If only 4 representatives were willing to officially back it, how many would back a potential aff on this year's topic? Yeah, Americans are feeling more pride in their country, but is that nationalism enough to persuade 250 reps to change their votes? Probably not.

 

Regarding the voluntary v. mandatory issue, a stated purpose of HR 1004 in Section 4(3) is "to provide meaningful volunteer assistance to organizations seeking to accomplish objectives beneficial to individuals, communities, States, and the United States." It seems to conclude that while mandatory serivce would achieve the objectives HR 1004 sets out, a volunteer force would probably achieve them just the same.

 

Those objectives officially include [section 4]:

(1) to instill in American youth a spirit of service and commitment to country and foster a sense of responsibility toward the betterment of the United States through service to oneself and to others;

 

(2) to provide an experience which affords American youth not only the values and rewards concomitant with serving others but also the opportunity to acquire leadership and organizational and other practical skills beneficial to success in future endeavors;

 

I'll bet that a voluntary CP with a net benefit would outweigh the "lost experience which affords American youth values and rewards" and "instilling a sense of commitment to country." Voluntary CPs would allow those who choose to instill a sense of commitment in themselves - the official goal of HR 1004 doesn't delineate between achieving this via mandatory or via voluntary measures.

 

The reason why this voluntary v. mandatory issue is so big is that it significantly skews the topic in favor of the negative. It's different than saying "on the UN peacekeeping topic, affs were required to defend the UN, and the UN obviously sucked." First, many affs reformed the UN, so they avoided a lot of the best literature that criticized the status quo UN. Second, one could easily cut a huge file about why the UN is sweet. There's no such ground for a defense mandatory national service; it's not a broad enough topic and people don't waste their time writing that sort of stuff. Jamie's right; the new topic is better because it gives you a choice. If you think mandatory service is sweet, then run a mandatory aff - just don't force everyone else to do so.

 

TShuman, you're correct that it's dumb to think that the ONLY topical aff would be the draft, but when you have to hunt through google to find other examples that use the term "mandatory national service," I think it's safe to say that there is a problem with the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Furthermore, I'm still trying to figure out what's wrong with the word "citizens" in the original... ;)

Maybe it is like the time this guy said "we're not giving rights to people, we're giving rights to immigrants" (he meant citizens, not people) Somehow maybe it is some sort of 'citizens aren't humans' kind of a deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we can all agree on two things. First, the old topic sucked for the aff. The words "citizen," "mandatory" and "comprehensive" were almost impossible to defend or meet. Defining National Service is also problematic.

 

Second, the proposed solution sucks. Two big points stand out here. First, the resolution mandates effects topicality. There is no way to fiat an increased participation in the services. Therefore, the aff can get away with anything. DADT, the draft, paying ppl in the military more, new medical policies for enlisted people or a policy that would crash the economy because went the economy goes down, people enlist are all topical.

 

Second, the resolution mandates one of 6 advantages. This means that huge schools with tons of researchers will have more evidence on my advantages than I will. To some extent, this is always true, but this topic is insane.

 

The solution isn't to choose one resolution or the other, it's to write a new one. I propose the USFG expanding or supporting one of the programs.

 

Original:

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.

 

Support:

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

 

Expand:

The United States federal government should substantially expand one of the following national service programs: AmeriCorps, Citizen Corps, Senior Corps, Peace Corps, Learn and Serve America, Armed Forces.

 

 

Change:

The United States federal government should substantially change one 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
Screw it yall, the more I read, the more I want THIS topic. Anyone against should just realize the increase in affirmative ground. Besides, I'm not so sure if this is even a "redo". When was the last time they EVER changed the national topic, after it's already been decided. Thanks for getting my hopes up. Largest rumor thread ever...

 

Um...it's not a "rumor"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Screw it yall, the more I read, the more I want THIS topic. Anyone against should just realize the increase in affirmative ground. Besides, I'm not so sure if this is even a "redo". When was the last time they EVER changed the national topic, after it's already been decided. Thanks for getting my hopes up. Largest rumor thread ever...

 

I'm pretty sure the first time this year's topic was voted on, it was something like Resolved: The USFG should substantially decrease its authority over civil liberties. They're redone them before to balance out ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Original:

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.

 

Support:

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

 

Expand:

The United States federal government should substantially expand one of the following national service programs: AmeriCorps, Citizen Corps, Senior Corps, Peace Corps, Learn and Serve America, Armed Forces.

What the hell is wrong with you? Haven't you learned anything from historical examples (ie the China topic)? Resolutions with "lots of aff ground" are not good resolutions, they are overly broad and impossible to debate. Just because *gasp* other schools will have evidence on your aff doesn't mean you should reject the topic. In fact, it means you should EMBRACE the topic. Finally we'll get some good on-case debate.

 

Oh, and "substantially change" could mean anything from "indenture all US citizens to the Peace Corps and send the all to Africa" to "blow up the headquarters of Senior Corps." There is no predictable advocacy in any of the resolutions you've provided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think we can all agree on two things. First, the old topic sucked for the aff. The words "citizen," "mandatory" and "comprehensive" were almost impossible to defend or meet. Defining National Service is also problematic.

 

Second, the proposed solution sucks. Two big points stand out here. First, the resolution mandates effects topicality. There is no way to fiat an increased participation in the services. Therefore, the aff can get away with anything. DADT, the draft, paying ppl in the military more, new medical policies for enlisted people or a policy that would crash the economy because went the economy goes down, people enlist are all topical.

 

Second, the resolution mandates one of 6 advantages. This means that huge schools with tons of researchers will have more evidence on my advantages than I will. To some extent, this is always true, but this topic is insane.

 

The solution isn't to choose one resolution or the other, it's to write a new one. I propose the USFG expanding or supporting one of the programs.

 

Original:

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.

 

Support:

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

 

Expand:

The United States federal government should substantially expand one of the following national service programs: AmeriCorps, Citizen Corps, Senior Corps, Peace Corps, Learn and Serve America, Armed Forces.

 

 

Change:

The United States federal government should substantially change one of the following national service programs: AmeriCorps, Citizen Corps, Senior Corps, Peace Corps, Learn and Serve America, Armed Forces.

 

You hit exactly what I was trying to say dead-on. Sadly, I don't think the ideas you've proposed really make the situation much better. I think "change" is just a terrible term to include in a resolution and combined with the six different topic areas, I think the other two give too much unpredictable aff ground.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think we can all agree on two things. First, the old topic sucked for the aff. The words "citizen," "mandatory" and "comprehensive" were almost impossible to defend or meet. Defining National Service is also problematic.

 

Second, the proposed solution sucks. Two big points stand out here. First, the resolution mandates effects topicality. There is no way to fiat an increased participation in the services. Therefore, the aff can get away with anything. DADT, the draft, paying ppl in the military more, new medical policies for enlisted people or a policy that would crash the economy because went the economy goes down, people enlist are all topical.

 

Second, the resolution mandates one of 6 advantages. This means that huge schools with tons of researchers will have more evidence on my advantages than I will. To some extent, this is always true, but this topic is insane.

 

The solution isn't to choose one resolution or the other, it's to write a new one. I propose the USFG expanding or supporting one of the programs.

 

Original:

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.

 

Support:

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

 

Expand:

The United States federal government should substantially expand one of the following national service programs: AmeriCorps, Citizen Corps, Senior Corps, Peace Corps, Learn and Serve America, Armed Forces.

 

 

Change:

The United States federal government should substantially change one of the following national service programs: AmeriCorps, Citizen Corps, Senior Corps, Peace Corps, Learn and Serve America, Armed Forces.

 

 

alright, i do to some extent agree with you on some of the issues--such as the topic first voted for, was very limiting to the draft into the military or americorps, peace corps, and i think one other

 

i agree wit your first idea of this topic being huge from the aff, essentially topics went from all neg ground to just about aff ground--but i disagree the aff get's away with anything. I mean, this idea has seriously been aroudn on every topic--such as this year, we think the aff can do anything as long as they decrease "detainment without charge" or "Search without probable cause" i think you have beaten enough teams on "T-subets" or "T subs w/o mat qual" to know aff's can be "checked" also, solvency advocates won't be great enough to say "the USfg should increase funding for the peace corps" and then say "more funding leads to missions to africa which solves hunger" and hunger bad--and then, on top of all of that, argue "x branch is key to the plan" i think most aff's can be beat by a good counterplan debater. Those teams that say "usfg" will either concede a branch in cx or prove abuse on ASPEC(it's key to my ground).

 

Next, the advantage issue. Although most advantages will be researched by "big schools" its not like it hasn't been before. you can't possibly think "red spread" is a "secret adv" or "nuclear deterrance" is something "no one has researched"(though you have a good idea to think it, stupid churchill) anyways, that whole "big school having mroe evd on my adv than me" thing is true, and its inevitable--of course if you spend 3 hours a day cutting cards on your two advs, and "they" spend 3 hours a day cutting cards on all advs i give you slight advantage, also you should prolly know your case better than "they" do. of course, they whole 6 adv thing is just not true--i just isolated an example where hunger can be claimed. aff adv's will be huge, and will be somewhat random--if im neg two rounds, and have to go from debating a "learn and serve america" aff with education advs to a "Senior Corps" aff with ageism bad stuff, i have to be ready for all of that, plus if you read the cites of the programs, you'll see plenty of adv ground to be claimed, esp with xtra-T mandated by the rez, advs will be diverse and hard to prep all of them, most of them yes, but prolly not all of them, and def not enough so you can out tech the neg on your own case. saying there are only 6 advs seems kinda far-fetched

 

your idea to make a new rez is a good idea, but somehow all the ones you wrote seem to have the same problem:

 

at the point where you can only increase support, or expand, or change naitional service programs, you limit aff advs to the point where your scenario about being out carded becomes true. Also,every new rez limits the aff to ONLY one of the programs, which takes out any sort of "rrf" type of aff applicable to this years topic(some aff that affects all, or some, or 2) point being, more solvency advocates could exist for expanding two of the programs, and your resolutions make them not T. kinda sucks for the AFF. Furthermore, your resolutions of "expand" and "change" are still tricky since expand and changed can not really be defined any different than it is now--meaning the first part of the "new" resolution would essentially be the same(except under change, you can decrease national service programs), the support rez. brings back memories of the UN topic with Support = money, or whatever, so its a good way to check new aff's--however i still think they can always be solved by other actor counteprlans anyways. I think the new resolution is big for the aff, but it still to some degree divides ground pretty squarely, your resolutions limit the aff quite a bunch. i think the original is better than all the new ones you wrote, mainly cause then the aff can have alittle more room for affs, for example, the same company runs Americorps, Senior Corps, and Learn and Serve America, there could be some solvency advocate all for having congress pass legislation increase funding for that overall group--however it wouldn't work under your resolutions

 

just a thought.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
me too.

 

my only problem with the new wording is limiting affirmative ground to certain organizations. if kids thought that the first one gave the negative too much kritikal ground, i don't know why they seem okay with this one...

to which someone replied:
The New Proposed Wording January 23rd, 2006 05:33 PM dickhead
?

 

edit: i'm enjoying the "gosh you guys are just making ad homs" followed by "check out this list of authorities on debate" and then positing that one isn't lazy by their ability to use google.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What the hell is wrong with you? Haven't you learned anything from historical examples (ie the China topic)? Resolutions with "lots of aff ground" are not good resolutions, they are overly broad and impossible to debate. Just because *gasp* other schools will have evidence on your aff doesn't mean you should reject the topic. In fact, it means you should EMBRACE the topic. Finally we'll get some good on-case debate.

 

Oh, and "substantially change" could mean anything from "indenture all US citizens to the Peace Corps and send the all to Africa" to "blow up the headquarters of Senior Corps." There is no predictable advocacy in any of the resolutions you've provided.

 

Damn, calm down. I'm just throwing out ideas that would remove the problems people seem to have with this resolution. I think we can agree that this is the right direction for the discussion to move in - there is no credible defense of the original topic or this one.

 

Frankly, I think any of my resolutions, even the change one, provides less aff ground than the new resolution. The new resolution obviously mandates FX because you can't fiat increased participation in any of those programs. As far as T goes, you can't prove the aff isn't topical if they read an increased participation advantage. A de-dev aff could argue that economic decline empirically leads to increased enlistment.

 

Second, I don't think I did a very good job explaining my argument about the case debate. I'm not a big fan of random squirrely cases. Equally, I hate the idea of disads that you have to link to to be topical. The resolution states that you must increase participation in one of those six organizations. I see huge schools ignoring the 1ac and spewing 12 two to three card generic disads that you have to concede the link to in order to be topical.

 

I also agree that the change resolution is hopelessly vague. The support or expand resolutions arguably allow for new programs in those 6 case areas, which seems to be something people wanted, while stopping the FX stuff. I think a resolution should be set up to support a decent T debate - support might allow new programs, but it might just mean propping up existing programs.

 

You hit exactly what I was trying to say dead-on. Sadly, I don't think the ideas you've proposed really make the situation much better. I think "change" is just a terrible term to include in a resolution and combined with the six different topic areas, I think the other two give too much unpredictable aff ground.

 

Thanks for the response. This is the debate we should be having - lets come up with an alternative to the resolution. Propose such an alternative.

 

I disagree that support or expand are too vague. Support is probably my favorite term and it was in the PKO topic. That topic, arguably, had 16 ish case areas.

 

I also agree that the 6 case areas are kinda extreme. Maybe we could go with the armed forces, peace corp and one other?

 

Sohin -

 

The topics as written are extremely vague and border on meaningless. I don't think any good T violation exists on the new resolution to check stupid affs and the success of T subs this year makes me frightened of the word "comprehensive".

 

My ground argument is explained better above. Its not that the same advantages will be run every round, its that you have to link to generic disads to be T.

 

I don't think the expand or support resolutions are vulnerable to the ground argument explained above. There are nuanced ways of supporting that doesn't link to a "you add X ppl to the org" disads.

 

Also, i don't think there are any solvency advocates for programs that affect, for example, both the Senior corps and the army. If there are, the topic probably needs the extra limiting.

 

You also bring up an interesting point - maybe we could just vet the original resolution? Remove the word "comprehensive" and such?

 

I'm not trying to literally write a new resolution, I'm no framer. I want to kick around ideas about rewording the topic instead of declaring both versions unworkable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think the proposed new topic allows the expansion of the mission of the listed agencies? Could you, for example, increase the number of participants in the Peace Corps by creating a spacefarers division?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but the counterplan to do a new standalone spacefaring mission could always focus the debate back on the merits of the Peace Corps.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Damn, calm down. I'm just throwing out ideas that would remove the problems people seem to have with this resolution. I think we can agree that this is the right direction for the discussion to move in - there is no credible defense of the original topic or this one.

 

what do you call the long detailed posts zbaum, stephen, jamie, warsh, and I have all made in defense of this new wording? obviously we can't "all agree", and its actually somewhat insulting that a person who goes for substantially is without material qualifications every negative round is attacking the credibility of our arguments.

 

 

Frankly, I think any of my resolutions, even the change one, provides less aff ground than the new resolution. The new resolution obviously mandates FX because you can't fiat increased participation in any of those programs. As far as T goes, you can't prove the aff isn't topical if they read an increased participation advantage. A de-dev aff could argue that economic decline empirically leads to increased enlistment.

 

obviously there's a limit to how many steps an affirmative can take; the topic only mandates a step between the policy and the increased participation, and that step has to be direct. The distinction is that the policy established has to increase participation, rather than a consequence of the policy established increasing participation. Offering incentives for enlistment would be topical, but striking Iran, which would cause the government to offer more incentives for enlistment, would not.

 

and jamie and stephen already went over how this is critical to affirmative flexibility, while still providing ample ground for the negative because the end result is an increase in participation and the advantages are similar

 

 

Second, I don't think I did a very good job explaining my argument about the case debate. I'm not a big fan of random squirrely cases. Equally, I hate the idea of disads that you have to link to to be topical. The resolution states that you must increase participation in one of those six organizations. I see huge schools ignoring the 1ac and spewing 12 two to three card generic disads that you have to concede the link to in order to be topical.

you need to read zach's post, 1 page back, his limits arguments are phenomenal. and, the scenario you present would be great, because the affirmative has the specificity of their case on their side; i love when people read a bunch of generic disads because they're shittily constructed throwaway arguments and they'll have no answers to specific link turns, and if you straight turn 12 disads the neg is screwed. also, this argument isn't unique to this topic, because people can read generic rights disads on this topic, or generic UN disads last year, or they can just read these generic disads under your proposed wording. the more likely scenario is that big schools will have carefully constructed pics and case specific disads and we'll have good debate rounds.

 

 

the rest of your arguments are a waste of time, they aren't going to come up with another wording.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...