Jump to content
BigSkyDebate

The New Proposed Wording

Recommended Posts

so what they've done is basicly killed all orgionalaltiy in aff cases. the origonal actully had al kinds of different cases and would allow people to really think about origonal ideas, it was in no way a narrow topic. if this change goes through it will make affs the big suck next year.

 

LEARN TO SPELL. JESUS CHRIST.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dear fhqwhgads and co,

i was genuinely hoping for a response to my last post. you seem(ed) convinced on the issues, so i sort of expected one. i can only think of a few reasons as to why you wouldn't respond - either you think i'm dumb, which is dumb, or you feel that those previous posts you mentioned were an adequate response to all of the argumentation i presented. i'm hoping it's the latter, and so i'm going to go ahead and respond to those posts. while i feel i've already provided argumentation to most of the claims in those posts or otherwise felt they were unreasonable, you must not, so it's going to be a tedious and it's going to be repetitive and it might come off as rude but, so it goes. i'm not trying to pick a fight, i'm just genuinely interested in knowing why the original wording was so bad. granted, it's pointless - we have no say whatsoever. more, the new wording will probably be chosen. but, i really prefer old one. it's very, very late, so i imagine i'll do a poor job as i always do at this hour (chances are later today there'll be an edit if there's no response). but, here it goes.

 

 

Actually, option three, we were all busy debating at Emory. Regardless, I'll come back and make a post later, as I want to go get lunch, but I thought I'd leave you with this.

 

"It is important to understand that mandatory service is the obverse of - and will undermine - the genuine community that develops from true volunteerism.

 

Voluntary service arises from impulses and moral beliefs within a citizen and is exercised in the way a citizen chooses, which is especially important in a country as large and diverse as ours.

 

That community spirit has already been undermined by government social programs - though the response to the terrorist attacks shows it certainly hasn't died out - and would be further subverted by a program that forced people to do service as the state defines service.

 

Requiring people to give two years of their lives to serve the purposes of the state also amounts to involuntary servitude, no matter how high-minded or commendable the form of service might be. It not only prevents people from making their own decisions about their own lives, and about how they will choose to serve others, but it also provides by force a low-cost service force and expropriates whatever a person might be able to earn during the time of servitude.

 

Voluntary service is healthy, even essential to a free society. And it is all around us in the Pikes Peak region in the form of myriad philanthropic, charitable and other endeavors great and small in which people give daily of themselves in some way. It's about citizens pitching in their own time and resources for causes they believe in.

 

While mandatory service might be helpful to some, on balance it undermines and brings into disrepute the very values it claims to promote. True patriots will be alert to the oxymoronic siren call of "mandatory volunteerism" and resist it at every turn."

--http://peacecorpsonline.org/messages/messages/2629/7256.html

 

You really want to be aff on that topic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You really want to be aff on that topic?
Actually, yeah... ;)

 

It is the new wording, not the original, that will make for bad debates...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i'm LD, ok...

Just because you debate LD and not policy isn't a good reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will begin by asking you this question.

 

Why is the new wording bad?

 

In standard debate terms, in an offense/defense paradigm, what's your offense? As far as I understand it... your arguments are:

 

1. New topic too broad.

--Literature provides a reasonable check on this argument. Perhaps there are cards that say faking a terrorist attack on the US would increase recruitment, but nobody would run that aff because it is far from strategic. There are a number of other actions that would increase recruitment, and there is almost no other benefit of faking a terrorist attack that can't be counter-planned out of. The new topic requires you to both defend your program and your method of increasing participation.

 

2. New topic doesn't allow the fun creative aff I wanted to run.

--While literature prevents the new wording from becoming too biased for the affirmative, it still allows for a number of creative affirmatives. For example, the DADT, providing healthcare, etc.

 

3. New topic doesn't let me defend increasing civil values.

--This is false. If you so choose, you can run a mandatory aff under the new wording. The argument that you can't create a new program is irrelevant. There is almost no literature defending the creation of a program that isn't one of the six provided as an option under this topic. A preliminary google search of "mandatory national service" reveals that of the 19,000 total hits, approximately 11,000 are about the draft, and about 90% of the other options are covered under the five programs listed in the new wording, or a subset of them which would also be topical.

 

Now, I will isolate the primary offensive justifications for the new wording. As a clarification, the argument that "only draft is topical" is not the thrust of our argumentation. In fact, as soon as anyone makes an argument about anything else, you point out that not only the draft is topical, which is a non-sequitor. Our argument was simply that even though that argument isn't true, it will win far too many debates. It simply requires the negative to win competiting interpretations and a limits debate. Certainly, most good teams will not lose to that argument, but it still creates a number of asinine T debates about "comprehensive" and "mandatory" that distract from real education. Without further ado, our "offense."

 

1. Affirmative flexibility. From my preliminary but addmitedly limited research, there seem to be about two areas of advantage ground for the affirmative under the old topic which stem from mandatory (the only ground that can be weighed against the voluntary counterplan). Civil values, and perhaps an argument I saw about crime rates. On the other hand, the negative gets fantastic politics links (there is a reason those bills that sat around in the House in the late 80s had ONLY ONE SPONSOR... in the entire house) and arguments along the lines of the card I posted above as net benefits to the voluntary counterplan. The new topic allows the affirmative to defend a number of different methods for increasing participation, instead of being forced to debate mandatory.

 

2. Relevance. Do you find it funny that the only bills talking about mandatory national service appeared about 1989? While this subject actually spurred some deal of interest in the late 80s and early 90s, the literature on the topic has declined substantially. Of the 19,000 articles on mandatory national service on google, only 869 are from 2005, and of those, 2 or 300 are about the debate topic, while about 550 are about the draft. Debate topics are interesting when they pertain to issues that are part of the current national climate, not when they are stale topics that most think tanks stopped writing articles about in 1996.

 

This point brings be to Mr. Shuman's post.

 

Okay, I've been staying out of this recently because I'm rather busy doing actual coaching stuff, but I'll give yusuf a breather here and tag in briefly...

 

On "laziness":

 

If you are searching "mandatory national service" -military and/or -draft, you are lazy. Those kinds of searches would not, for instance, turn up an article whose first sentence read "A 'mandatory national service' program would not necessarily mean 'military service' only, nor would it mean a return of the draft."

 

A google of "mandatory national service" gives 15,200 hits. Yeah, that's a big number, but the methods folks use to try to cut that number down are leading them to make some pretty dumb inferences about what the "literature base" actually is...

 

 

15,200 on Google is nothing. It doesn't come close to being a reasonable number for a topic. Comparatively...

 

"Detained without charge" - 131,000.

 

We aren't just making things up about the literature base. About 85% of it is pre-1996. 700 of the articles claim that mandatory national service is slavery. Only 450 even talk about civic participation, and of those, some 50 or so are from high school debate websites. Not only is the literature base extremely small, it is highly biased towards the negative.

 

Also, the quality of the literature is important. A substantialy number of those 15000 hits are from blogs, or websites that just quote random people without qualifications. There are a grand total of 7 law review on lexis.

 

 

On "legislative" definitions:

 

All I need is a precedent, isn't it? Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, wasn't it? Some people still think it is relevant anyway.

 

Who cares how many or how few bills there have been? The point is, actual USFG lawmakers have defined "mandatory national service" in a way that includes (or even PREFERS) non-military forms of service. That's all I need to win the contextual definitions debate. And, seriously, who in their right mind thinks "none of these bills ever passed" is any sort of an argument?

 

 

It seems like we are being portrayed as though our only argument is that "only draft T" kills the topic. False. The problem with the literature base is its size and quality, not just its extensive focus on the draft... in addition to the argument I made above.

 

The fact that these laws never passed both proves our point about absurd politics links, and the fact that is has absolutely nothing to do with the current political climate, given that there are a total of 4 bills from 89, 89, 93, and 93.

 

 

your posts came up first, so i'll start there. they begin as only general objections that have been debated to death, so i'll be brief.

. mandatory does not mean the only topical aff is draft.

. mandatory does not mean that you'll lose everyround to a kritik (see my last post in response to one of yours), unless you plan on losing every round to statism or a poor articulation of humanism bad.

. you're right - debates about the word "comprehensive" really are asinine. there is no standard as to what is and isn't comprehensive. i don't think you or anyone else will be losing debates to it as there is no debate to be had.

 

 

Your straw person argument fails to pass the laugh test. These are not our primary arguments. See above.

 

then there's another one of your posts (the maddox one) - the only objection is mandatory, so, moving on...

 

Yes, but my objection is not limited to "mandatory means you lose to Kritiks." Its more like "mandatory means a disporportionate number of debates will come down to the voluntary counterplan." As nice of an idea civic values are, I wouldn't want to be affirmative on a topic in which every 2ar had to be "civic values outweigh politics" and trying to answer link turns like the card I posted above. It is extremely difficult garner advantage ground based on the program you are supporting, meaning that every debate comes down to mandatory. It's similar to the executive counterplan on this topic. It forces the affirmatives to have to defend the word authority. Fortunately for the aff, that includes presidential powers bad, deference, separation of powers, etc, instead of "civic values."

 

 

the second portion of his first post is sort of nutty due to the argument he was responding to. he argues that a volunteer counterplan would win a lot because of the lack of morale in a national service program that's mandatory. that's fine, i hope that debate occurs - if the affirmative can't win that plan will work than they're probably shit out of luck. also, i think the fact that you're all supporting a resolution that works to increase voluntary service speaks some about the solvency of a mandatory affirmative - you're acknowledging that, at least for these six programs, there's a lack of volunteers. doesn't that suggest that there's ground for the affirmative to defend that mandatory is better than voluntary?

 

 

The lack of volunteers now can be solved via incentives. Your argument that the affirmative would be shit out of luck is in fact... our argument. While there are some people that defend mandatory national service in terms of principle or civic values, very few defend it in terms of solvency.

 

 

and you won't have to debate the merits of case otherwise?

 

 

In the world of the new wording, the affirmative has to defend their mechanism for increasing particpation. In the world of the old wording, the affirmative has to defend mandatory as their mechanism. If the only merits of your case are mandatory good, this functionally creates 1 aff.

 

1. Most of the articles on "mandatory national service" that are aff articles don't support a specific program. The literature is all functionally the same.

2. The incentives/voluntary counterplan would arguably solve the offense based on the program itself, forcing debates to be about mandatory.

 

 

i've been over this, it's not even an argument.

 

 

Ironically, this quote isn't an argument either. On the other hand, mandatory bad is an argument--see above.

 

 

i agree, up until he claims that it evens the playing field a lot. how?

 

 

Because it is much easier to defend a mechanism of your choosing than being forced to defend mandatory. I'd much rather go for DADT good than forcing everyone to join Americorps good. Hmmm... readiness and homophobia, or civic virtues. I know what aff ground I'd take any day of the week.

 

 

there are all of these complaints about how much ground "mandatory" doesn't provide but i've yet to see one (intelligent) one as to how much ground "voluntary" does provide. all of these complaints about defense, but yet no offense outside unreasonable comparison to the old wording. anyway, here i go:

 

foucault. foucault, foucault, foucault. again, mandatory isn't a link, but volunteerism is a damned good one. no one has responded to my arguments about this yet.

 

you can not reinvigorate citizenship - outright, if you're asking for volunteers you get nothing unique. when i say reinvogorate citizenship i'm referring to the idea i presented while drunk here (i mention that i was drunk because while i'm willing to defend the idea i'm not so willing to defend how it was presented). citizenship isn't something you volunteer to do - you are either a citizen of some nation or you aren't. meaning, you're either a part of the whole 270 million some odd people or you're an illegal immigrant or you live in a different country. again, no response. just in case, kritiks of identity politics are probably not an adequate response - without an other to otherize there's no impact, that is unless you think people are going to be running "every citizen in the us should hate x" affs.

 

 

Here is a list of ground voluntary/incentives does provide.

1. DADT--net benefits of readiness and homophobia. [Could also be any other stuctural change. Change sodomy laws in the military. Create more protections for women... women in the military good. Similar arguments can be made about any of the other programs.]

2. Politics--the links to mandatory are proven by the fact that the bills supporting mandatory national service had ONE SPONSOR.

3. Volunteerism good--I posted evidence on this above, its just an example of how there is literature on this question.

 

AT: Volunteerism links to Foucault more than mandatory.

I don't know that much about Foucault, so I will leave this argument to someone else. From what I can understand about the argument you have made that you claim nobody has answered (which seems to be an unwarranted statement, perhaps I missed the post where you explained this argument) is that volunteerism is disciplinary power. This seems to not assume the incentives counterplan, and it also seems to assume people volunteering to help the state, not another organization. Similarly, I doubt (although I can't be certain) that Foucault would support mandatory national service, even if he thought that volunteerism also linked, on the basis that your net benefits of "citizenship" and having an identity tied to the state are also very substantial links to Foucault.

 

Your last line doesn't make any sense. There is always an other to otherize. Inspiring the civic spirit and loyalty to the US as a citizen creates the very dichotomy that allows us to hate people like illegal immigrants because they aren't part of that same civic spirit. Likewise, there is a good deal of evidence (Dean 01) that says this is the logic that allows for imperial interventions into places like Iraq to normalize them with our values of citizenship.

 

Whatever, biopower is good anyways.

 

if "comprehensive" is a reason that mandatory is bad, isn't "substantially" a reason why the new wording is bad? especially when, as far as i've noticed, debate's standard for substantially is 70%? i don't have numbers for current volunteers, but that's one hell of an increase. even 20% is expecting a lot. what author will qualify that sort of solvency?

 

Substantially has never really been a problem. Last year we ran an aff that sent three peacekeepers to UNOMIG and never lost a debate to T-substantial. Numerical standards for substantially have never passed the laugh test. Comphrensive on the other hand is defined as "including all or everything." Maybe this won't turn out to be a big problem, but it seems to be harder to include all or everything than it does to be "to a great extent or degree."

 

Regardless, this argument is mostly irrelevant. It is not the thrust of our offense against the old wording.

 

it was mentioned that some policies could be removed to increase volunteers. what (other) policies are those?

 

Well, for the military. DADT, sodomy laws, etc.

 

Which brings me to...

 

i might be wrong in the following (i hope so, at least), but how this is done is beyond me. you have to keep something in mind here - the resolution says "the usfg should establish a policy," NOT "one of these six organizations should establish a policy." i'm not a fan of xtra t, either, but i'll probably happily drop affirmatives that mandate that one of these organizations do something. the wording limits you to cases that mandate that the government does something indepently of these organizations/corporations (asides from the bitch of a theory debate you'd get into if you claimed fiat over one of these organizations). off of the top of my head all you've got are incentives affs (give them money, offer government employment benefits though i'm not sure about the logistics, etc) and propogation affs (government funded advertising, that sort of thing). asides from being a boring debate, it's a shallow debate, and a skewed one. more, i'm not sure any advocate exists.

 

You can fiat some organizations.

 

"The Peace Corps is an independent U.S. federal agency"

"Americorps: A program established through the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993"

 

I dont think you can fiat Senior Corps or Learn and Servce America.

 

Regardless, that still does allow incentives or propogation affs for these two programs. You could also make either of these two affs mandatory. This still allows good affirmative ground in terms of changing policies within the Army, Peace Corps, or Americorps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

strategy is something that really ought to be considered when criticizing the orignial wording. would those arbitrary topicality arguments be strategic? would those squirrley affirmatives be strategic?

another thing that ought to be considered is that all of our arguments are going to be, for the most part, defensive. it is damn near impossible to isolate offense when criticizing a resolution in it's entirety, especially when none of us are familiar with the literature respective to each.

 

1. New topic too broad.

--Literature provides a reasonable check on this argument. Perhaps there are cards that say faking a terrorist attack on the US would increase recruitment, but nobody would run that aff because it is far from strategic. There are a number of other actions that would increase recruitment, and there is almost no other benefit of faking a terrorist attack that can't be counter-planned out of. The new topic requires you to both defend your program and your method of increasing participation.

you're right - most people wouldn't run that aff because it's far from strategic (asides from being untopical).

this argument is primarily defensive. yeah, affirmatives would have to defend both the program and the method of increasing participation with the new wording - but wouldn't they have to do the same thing with the original (defend why it's a service and why that service ought to be rendered?). if they're not running the draft affirmative they have to establish a brand new program - they would have to justify why this program is a national service and why it ought to be mandatory. this standard even applies to "existing" forms of national service - hell, it applies to every affirmative on every topic. why should we do plan and what (resolutional) benefit is there to plan? edit: apparently this is clarified below, and there's a response down there.

2. New topic doesn't allow the fun creative aff I wanted to run.

--While literature prevents the new wording from becoming too biased for the affirmative, it still allows for a number of creative affirmatives. For example, the DADT, providing healthcare, etc.

this argument is also defensive.

when you say that the new wording isn't too biased for the affirmative are you arguing that the old one was? how?

and, in any case, i can't run my fun creative affirmative. no matter how you cut it, i can not establish a new program for national service, especially of the "invogorating citizenship" variety. i can not establish a new form of national service (absent the "establish a national service program to increase volunteers in (a) other programs" aff).

3. New topic doesn't let me defend increasing civil values.

--This is false. If you so choose, you can run a mandatory aff under the new wording. The argument that you can't create a new program is irrelevant. There is almost no literature defending the creation of a program that isn't one of the six provided as an option under this topic. A preliminary google search of "mandatory national service" reveals that of the 19,000 total hits, approximately 11,000 are about the draft, and about 90% of the other options are covered under the five programs listed in the new wording, or a subset of them which would also be topical.

i'm not sure you caught my drift - the problem i have with the new wording is that the affirmative is limited to one of six pre-existing organizations (asides from not being mandatory, but that's comparitively a minor issue for me). this means that they have to pursue whatever those organizations choose to pursue. we have very different ideas as to what "civic values" are - i'm not willing to defend any of these organizations. they aren't all bad, but they don't allow me to invogorate democracy, they just allow me to moralize.

 

you forget some of my other arguments, which i'll probably go further in depth on later, so i'll just outline now (i rambled about them in my last post, #126, anyway).

 

kritik bias - especially foucault.

 

the lack of cases that'd actually increase volunteers.

 

the lack of government policies that could be removed to increase volunteers - you have the dadt and, as far as i can tell, that's that. a lot of the best affirmatives on most topics come from removing some ridiculous standard - i don't think there are any others. which leads me to the other end...

 

the lack of policies the goverment can implement to increase volunteers - all i can think of are incentives affs and propogation affs.

 

i'm not into the whole counterplan spectrum, it bores the shit out of me, so i don't really have anything to say. perhaps someone else will pop in? off the top of my head i imagine that states will be a popular one as nearly every state has a program who's goal it is to increase volunteers in volunteer organizations that extends beyond the six listed.

 

As a clarification, the argument that "only draft is topical" is not the thrust of our argumentation. In fact, as soon as anyone makes an argument about anything else, you point out that not only the draft is topical, which is a non-sequitor. Our argument was simply that even though that argument isn't true, it will win far too many debates. It simply requires the negative to win competiting interpretations and a limits debate. Certainly, most good teams will not lose to that argument, but it still creates a number of asinine T debates about "comprehensive" and "mandatory" that distract from real education. Without further ado, our "offense."
here's the thing - asinine t debates are inevitable. in fact, i'm willing to argue that 90% of the t debates that occur in high school debate are asinine and are easy wins for the affirmative. i don't vote on rvis, either, but if someone runs "t- national service means the draft" i'd be willing to buy the argument. you say they just have to win a limits debate - you make it sound like it's an easy thing to win a limits debate who's standard limits the resolution to one case - i don't see how this is possible unless the affirmative is stupid.

regardless - these ("national service," "comprehensive," "mandatory?") t debates suck. if the affirmative doesn't win them it's either because they're stupid or they really aren't topical. either way, i'm fine with them losing them.

more, the same argument applies to the new proposed wording - "increase," "substantially," "volunteers," "one," etc. this isn't a good argument, and that's my point - bad t debates don't win rounds. so why complain about them? it just means, as an intelligent debater, of those six positions that the negative ran you don't even have to worry about one of them.

1. Affirmative flexibility. From my preliminary but addmitedly limited research, there seem to be about two areas of advantage ground for the affirmative under the old topic which stem from mandatory (the only ground that can be weighed against the voluntary counterplan). Civil values, and perhaps an argument I saw about crime rates. On the other hand, the negative gets fantastic politics links (there is a reason those bills that sat around in the House in the late 80s had ONLY ONE SPONSOR... in the entire house) and arguments along the lines of the card I posted above as net benefits to the voluntary counterplan. The new topic allows the affirmative to defend a number of different methods for increasing participation, instead of being forced to debate mandatory.
this "offensive" argument is defensive. you indict the old wording and then just give a vague reason why the new wording is good.

if not "civic values" then what's a debate about "national service" supposed to be about?

fantastic politics links? how many of those house representatives are still around?

like i said before, the voluntary counterplan debate is a good one. it should be had. if affirmatives lose every round to it it's because their form of national service isn't really a service for the nation (a service for everyone in the nation - nevermind the mandatory part, that's what a national service is).

what are these methods of participation? as i've said, i can think of getting rid of the dadt, offering incentives to those who participate, and producing advertisements for organizations (and i guess you can tack on giving x service money for increasing volunteers).

why is the mandatory debate so bad? why are debates about one of three or four ways of getting people to do things good?

2. Relevance. Do you find it funny that the only bills talking about mandatory national service appeared about 1989? While this subject actually spurred some deal of interest in the late 80s and early 90s, the literature on the topic has declined substantially. Of the 19,000 articles on mandatory national service on google, only 869 are from 2005, and of those, 2 or 300 are about the debate topic, while about 550 are about the draft. Debate topics are interesting when they pertain to issues that are part of the current national climate, not when they are stale topics that most think tanks stopped writing articles about in 1996.

like all of those articles about those six organizations that don't come from those six organizations? my google search to this extent produces a crap ton of liberals of talking about how bad these organizations are and a handful of conservatives and the organizations themselves talking about how great they are, none of them (again, given the limited research i've done) responding to the claims made otherwise.

15,200 on Google is nothing. It doesn't come close to being a reasonable number for a topic. Comparatively...

 

"Detained without charge" - 131,000.

 

We aren't just making things up about the literature base. About 85% of it is pre-1996. 700 of the articles claim that mandatory national service is slavery. Only 450 even talk about civic participation, and of those, some 50 or so are from high school debate websites. Not only is the literature base extremely small, it is highly biased towards the negative.

 

Also, the quality of the literature is important. A substantialy number of those 15000 hits are from blogs, or websites that just quote random people without qualifications. There are a grand total of 7 law review on lexis.

first, you ignore shuman's argument - he's not talking about the number of hits, he's talking about the way those hits are produced.
Those kinds of searches would not, for instance, turn up an article whose first sentence read "A 'mandatory national service' program would not necessarily mean 'military service' only, nor would it mean a return of the draft."
let's just assume your way of determining topic depth is correct - i think it's about time someone tried this approach to determine the depth of the topic with the new wording. granted, such an approach to research is very difficult given the way the new wording is written, but i think we can agree that "increase volunteers" is a good starting point, aye?

 

google says:

"'increase volunteers' americorps" = 27 hits

"'increase volunteers' 'citizen corps'" = 6 hits

"'increase volunteers' 'senior corps'" = 3 hits, 2 omitted

"'increase volunteers' 'peace corps'" = 228

"'increase volunteers' 'learn and serve america'" = 1 result

"'increase volunteers' 'armed forces'" = 32 results

 

often times within the first few results an article about how "so and so's (usually a president) intitiative to increase volunteers failed."

 

now i'll try "increase participation." i didn't initally because i thought it wouldn't yield too many results and because it's vague - that most of these results would be from the organization or one of it's branches (a "review of what we did this year" or "it is our goal to do this" or "we had an increase in x demographic this year" or "we need to increase participation in this particular service we offer" from newsletters and that sort of thing), or from blogs/personal pages, or from other organizations who's job it is to increase volunteers. i searched for the terms "increase participation" and "x organization" so i don't have to write it out again.

 

armed forces = 16,300 (score)

learn and serve america = 175 results

peace corps = 595

senior corps = 191

citizen corps = 139

americorps = 512

 

these numbers are much better, but it turned out i was right about it being vague. the best result i could find (upon skimming the google results - again, not intensive) is that almost all of these organizations had some page updated in the last week about how "program managers can take the following steps to increase participation." i checked out on the last one (americorps) - it was about how you no longer recieve government benefits if you join. that sucks. i guess you now have one more topical case. but that's what all of the results about what "steps program mangers can take" brought up. most of them were from other organizations who's goal it is to increase volunteer efforts in these organizations (about half), most of them governmental (some more ground). most of the others were pretty useless (blogs, periodic reports, etc).

 

this is going to sound as silly as doodleysquat, but here's the thing about the original wording - while you need to defend the solvency mechanism (mandating citizens to do x), you don't really need to produce evidence saying that mandating them to do so solves, just that it is a national service. why? because not only is it pretty obvious that a third of a billion people doing something will probably result in them doing something (kind of like stop lights and laws prohibiting people from killing people), but you'll have a hard time producing evidence saying they don't. it's a lot like fiating a government organization to do something - you don't need to produce evidence that the cia is good at surveillance, just that they can. debating case wouldn't be about whether or not case works, but whether or not case actually provides a national service and whether or not this service is good/needed.

i really don't see why any other debate about national service is educational. a debate about mechanisms to get people to do things just deters from questioning the service they render. it's no longer a question of whether or not the service is good, just whether or not the way you're going to get them to do it works.

The fact that these laws never passed both proves our point about absurd politics links, and the fact that is has absolutely nothing to do with the current political climate, given that there are a total of 4 bills from 89, 89, 93, and 93.

i thought you said the politics links were really good for the negative?

sure, those bills are old and didn't go anywhere. so has every government initiative or promise to increase volunteers in any of these organizations.

i think that, maybe, this is part of the reason they chose the topic - to encourage debaters to be creative, to develop new ways to increase national service.

Your straw person argument fails to pass the laugh test. These are not our primary arguments. See above.
haha, lol, etc. i don't see a need to laugh at them when you conceed that i'm right and when half of those posts "i didn't read/understand" were about them.
Yes, but my objection is not limited to "mandatory means you lose to Kritiks." Its more like "mandatory means a disporportionate number of debates will come down to the voluntary counterplan." As nice of an idea civic values are, I wouldn't want to be affirmative on a topic in which every 2ar had to be "civic values outweigh politics" and trying to answer link turns like the card I posted above. It is extremely difficult garner advantage ground based on the program you are supporting, meaning that every debate comes down to mandatory. It's similar to the executive counterplan on this topic. It forces the affirmatives to have to defend the word authority. Fortunately for the aff, that includes presidential powers bad, deference, separation of powers, etc, instead of "civic values."
again, the world of counterplans is something i'm infamiliar with, but i'll give it my best shot by diverting attention elsewhere.

first, i think the voluntary vs. mandatory debate kicks ass and is the final test as to whether or not a national service really is a good service for the nation.

second, i don't think this evidence about how people will volunteer to do things (especially participate in programs that don't currently exist) exists. i checked those google results i posted above, and they were disheartening. not only were they bad results, but they were about those six organizations - not one of a million other ones that don't exist/aren't mentioned in the new wording's list.

what sort of solvency mechanism would the voluntary counterplan have?

most of these organizations have very few volunteers as is - how are they going to compete with the benefits of case if there's no guarantee of solvency?

as far as i can tell (given my preliminary research) your argument revolves around their being a net benefit to the counterplan - i can't really debate this as i have no idea what kind of benefits the counterplan would have (beyond politics), but i imagine affirmatives would be pretty competitive with advantages like hegemony (any military aff), the economy (any affirmative that pursues the economy), space (perhaps america thinks it's in american's interest to get off the rock) and so on. the advantages for "mandatory" affirmatives are gigantic.

The lack of volunteers now can be solved via incentives.
i don't know of any evidence to this effect beyond getting rid of the dadt policy and offering government benefits, both of which don't articulate the size of increase, and i don't see how any of these incentives would encourage as many volunteers as it'd take to be as effective as a third of a billion.Your argument that the affirmative would be shit out of luck is in fact... our argument. While there are some people that defend mandatory national service in terms of principle or civic values, very few defend it in terms of solvency.i responded to this above. on your end of the debate, as far as i can tell, no one defends solvency either way.
In the world of the new wording, the affirmative has to defend their mechanism for increasing particpation. In the world of the old wording, the affirmative has to defend mandatory as their mechanism. If the only merits of your case are mandatory good, this functionally creates 1 aff.
i don't see why this is a bad thing. heaven forbid debates don't focus on advantages and mechanisms rather than, i don't know, the actual politics of the one ac - things like the resolution and case harms. i don't know what has encouraged the trend away from case debates and towards external debates (towards advantages), but i don't like it one bit. don't get me wrong - debates about advantages are good things. but perhaps debate would be more educational if when constructing affirmatives debaters focused more on the merits of case then how they can engineer case to access the heaviest impact scenarios. more, if people accessed advantages through whatever it is they're defending rather than their solvency mechanism.
1. Most of the articles on "mandatory national service" that are aff articles don't support a specific program. The literature is all functionally the same.
you're probably right, but i'm arguing that this has benefits in the case of mandatory and that the criticism applies to both resolutions. then, i haven't done much research into the topic, and people like shuman and sany patrick seem to think that the literature for mandatory service is really good. i hope one of them chimes in (hint, hint).
2. The incentives/voluntary counterplan would arguably solve the offense based on the program itself, forcing debates to be about mandatory.
very arguably. keep in mind that the evidence for voluntary programs is a lot like the evidence for mandatory programs - they don't support a specific program.
Ironically, this quote isn't an argument either. On the other hand, mandatory bad is an argument--see above.
i really hate it when people call things ironic that aren't ironic. did this sentence have outcomes that weren't desired by myself? well, i guess it's ironic now. sorry for speaking conversationally.

Because it is much easier to defend a mechanism of your choosing than being forced to defend mandatory. I'd much rather go for DADT good than forcing everyone to join Americorps good. Hmmm... readiness and homophobia, or civic virtues. I know what aff ground I'd take any day of the week.

lacking an argument. claiming civic virtues is the only advanatge is a result of one of to things - either you think the only way to access advantages it through varying solvency mechanisms or you aren't creative.
Here is a list of ground voluntary/incentives does provide.

1. DADT--net benefits of readiness and homophobia. [Could also be any other stuctural change. Change sodomy laws in the military. Create more protections for women... women in the military good. Similar arguments can be made about any of the other programs.]

2. Politics--the links to mandatory are proven by the fact that the bills supporting mandatory national service had ONE SPONSOR.

3. Volunteerism good--I posted evidence on this above, its just an example of how there is literature on this question.

thanks. this was all done above. i'm glad there are more ideas as to what structural changes could be made, though.
AT: Volunteerism links to Foucault more than mandatory.

I don't know that much about Foucault, so I will leave this argument to someone else. From what I can understand about the argument you have made that you claim nobody has answered (which seems to be an unwarranted statement, perhaps I missed the post where you explained this argument) is that volunteerism is disciplinary power. This seems to not assume the incentives counterplan, and it also seems to assume people volunteering to help the state, not another organization. Similarly, I doubt (although I can't be certain) that Foucault would support mandatory national service, even if he thought that volunteerism also linked, on the basis that your net benefits of "citizenship" and having an identity tied to the state are also very substantial links to Foucault.

there was another post before the one you responded to. the lack of response to that one was the reason i wrote up the last one. foucault as critique isn't really about the state specifically, it's about every person, organization, or idea. yusuf said:
clearly hasn't read foucault (or bothered to follow the link i posted - there's another explanation as to why "mandatory" isn't a link asides from the previous one in the misspelled foucault thread in this forum for those interested). foucault doesn't talk about forcing people to do things (period). mandatory is not a link to foucault - to statism, sure, to a general kritik of humanism, sure, but not to a critique that questions the power behind certain discourses and *argues that power works from the bottom up, not the top down.* kind of like those of organizations *attempting* (NOT mandating) to increase participation in the name of some cause so as to convince people to do so. he doesn't talk about forced situations that the government puts people in but choices that individuals make. it's not "the state is bad because it disciplines their subjects" but "sometimes exertions of power are bad because people don't question why they do things." if you perform a mandatory national service knowing that if you don't you'll probably end up in jail, foucault doesn't have any real objection to it (he probably doesn't agree, but the negative is going to be a couple of internal links away from any impact). if you ask people to join a volunteer organization and *assume that they will* then you have a nice link to disciplinary power which helps the negative on their walk to claim that it's biopolitical power, and given the way that these organizations talk about the services they provide it's a pretty easy one.
stop signs, man, stop signs (this might not be the best analogy, but it's almost six am so i've convinced myself). they might be mandatory, and they might but be telling you what to do, but they aren't an exertion of power over life.

another thing that i failed to mention is that your limited to one of six organizations - these are organizations with specific agendas that determine (would) determine what a national service is and (in training, specifically) tell you why it's done.

again, to be certain, foucault does not talk about the power the state exerts over us, he talks about the questions we don't ask when making decisions.

Your last line doesn't make any sense. There is always an other to otherize. Inspiring the civic spirit and loyalty to the US as a citizen creates the very dichotomy that allows us to hate people like illegal immigrants because they aren't part of that same civic spirit. Likewise, there is a good deal of evidence (Dean 01) that says this is the logic that allows for imperial interventions into places like Iraq to normalize them with our values of citizenship.
of course there's always an other to otherize, but you're going to have one hell of a time articulating how we get from excluding illiegal immigrants from performing services to eliminating them all. even if you do get an impact, can you say "non-unique?" it's not like we let these people vote or go to school or one of a billion other things already.

dean 01? what?

You can fiat some organizations.

 

"The Peace Corps is an independent U.S. federal agency"

"Americorps: A program established through the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993"

 

I dont think you can fiat Senior Corps or Learn and Servce America.

 

Regardless, that still does allow incentives or propogation affs for these two programs. You could also make either of these two affs mandatory. This still allows good affirmative ground in terms of changing policies within the Army, Peace Corps, or Americorps.

thanks for clarifying - i was a little confused by the topic committees choice given that thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...