Jump to content
Screech

Do you like the new wording better?

Which wording do you like?  

533 members have voted

  1. 1. Which wording do you like?

    • I like the original wording
      239
    • I like the new wording
      295


Recommended Posts

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should establish a comprehensive program of mandatory national service by US citizens.

or

Resolved: 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.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we have to have one, I say the original. This topic was small enough as it was we don't need it going out and getter smaller. Small topics suck ass especially when its over an issue as controversial as this one, depending on where you are either aff gets fucked in the ass every time or the neg does just because of judge bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe if you would explain your warrants, then that might have been a meaningful post.

 

He already did make a warranted post on another thread. And I agree with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only defintion in the Oxford English Dictionary for "national service" is:

 

1. Compulsory service in the armed forces, as during wartime or for a legally required period (usually between certain ages) during peacetime.

 

If that's all Oxford has, then that's a very small topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AmeriCorps- is a network of local, state, and national service programs that connects more than 70,000 Americans each year in intensive service to meet our country’s critical needs in education, public safety, health, and the environment.

So that's out, because were dealing with the federal governmnet.

DUMBASS. The federal gov't has to increase the number of members in Americorps. It doesn't matter whether Americorps does something on the federal level.

 

CitizenCorps- they just want you do join FEMA. FEMA doesn't solve, they're always late...lol

Haha, very funny. Maybe that was just one isolated incident? I don't care for you making FEMA into a scapegoat.

Besides, their website just works in close coordination with FEMA, the ARC, and other programs. They're not just a FEMA recruiting platform.

 

SeniorCorps- http://www.seniorcorps.org/ - This link shows seniors with police badges...Who wants to rob a bank?

 

Here's the DA:

Uniquness: Senior Citizens are cool chillin in old homes

Link: Your plan will make them run around and stuff

Impact: They break their hip=global nuclear war

Way to be ageist. That's the net benefit to my SeniorCorps 1AC.

 

Damn, I'm not gonna finish the post, but you get my drift. I hate the re-do. THEIR RUINING OUR LIVES!!!

No, the old wording was going to ruin debate - no one can defend "mandatory" service. Now you have a choice, and we can get non-mandatory again. Don't vote the new wording down because the neg will actually have on-case against you. ZOMG! They'll be able to debate your case instead of just running seven dumb offcase with no links!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new resolution is better than the old one despite the fact that they both suck. This new resolution however does limit it better than the first interpretation (assuming u can win that natl service means anything aiding the US) or else it allows more if u say natl. service means military, either way the limits are fairer. Also, this allows for more policy debate ground on each branch generically for both sides. One thing that would be interesting would be a fiat debate on individuals, otherwise no solvency right? Either way, next year is going to suck!

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing that would be interesting would be a fiat debate on individuals, otherwise no solvency right?

Wrong. The new wording is about implementation methods, not "fiating individual people." Recruitment, incentives, advertising, or mandatory/conscription - any of these things would constitute policies that the USFG could establish to ensure that people join one of the organizations. Even with the conscription method you wouldn't fiat individuals, just that the lottery gets passed. There's no guarantee they wouldn't go to Canada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is just another example of the topic selection committee extending their biopower over us, we must resist

all and all though, the new one is better, it makes for a much clearer debate, but i think these debates might get a little redundant, with only a handful of solvency mechanisms to choose from

 

-janke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i think these debates might get a little redundant, with only a handful of solvency mechanisms to choose from

Debates are never redundant. Let's do the math here:

5 potential solvency mechanisms * 2^7 - 1 (number of subsets in one set = 2^n, without the empty set {}) = 5*128 = 640 total possible cases.

If there are more solvency mechanisms, there are more cases.

 

Of course, not many people will do 4 of the organizations. I imagine there's probably only going to be single-program affs and all-program affs, so maybe:

5 (give or take) * 8 = 40 likely affs.

Then there's all the possible neg positions, which are nearly infinite.

 

But even if you do see two similar rounds, you'll never see the "same" round twice. Debates never get redundant, really - the only way that would be possible would be if you hit the same team on the same side with the same neg and aff positions, with a judge with a similar paradigm. That's extremely uncommon, and just as likely this year as next year. Besides, there are always the "common" affs every year (Gitmo, ERPA, Korematsu) and the novice case areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not that i like the old one but i think think the new one overlimits the db8 and the old one dosen't mean just "draft."Typing in national service ( or looking it up whatever) will get you that result sometimes but if you look at the resolution from a grammatical standpoint, no where can you limit it to just a draft esp. with ohh god! resolutional analysis...and theory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
assuming u can win that natl service means anything aiding the US

 

I dont think this debate would be very strong for multiple reasons

 

1- PeaceCorps. Why can we help the Peace Corps if it has to aid the US? As far as I'm aware the vast majority of Peace Corps missions are overseas, if not all.

 

2- Limits. Anything aiding the US? Lets go ahead and tell people they have to pick up one piece of trash. there's your national service--now try to win many rounds against that. (you also would have the Olympic Team aff and the everyone give a penny to the military aff)

 

3- Education. Refer to my previous points. Forcing it to aid the US would hurt our education on countries where the Peace Corps are helping and the limits, or lack thereof, of your definition would destroy meaningful education because of the multiple just plain silly cases. (Olympic Team)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 (give or take) * 8 = 40 likely affs.

Then there's all the possible neg positions, which are nearly infinite.

 

There will b more than that simply b-cause the res never sais u cant decrease participation in one to increase another.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i think think the new one overlimits the db8

 

There r plenty of usable affs, and having thinner limits would drasticly decrease the research burdon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Color me odd (to say the least), but since when did the presence or absence of a dictionary definition matter all that much? On the WMD topic, for instance, the only dictionary definitions included things like "Weapons that can produce devastating results when delivered in a single strike" (New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy) and "Weapons of mass destruction are weapons capable of inflicting massive destruction to property and/or population, using chemical, biological or radioactive material" (Army Technology Glossary). Did that stop anyone from running cases on landmines, handguns, etc.? It did not...

 

If you are saying my case isn't topical because the Oxford English Dictionary doesn't include my definition, and I'm saying I am topical because the USFG (i.e., the agent of action I am required to use) has, in fact, used my definition in proposed legislation, I feel confident in saying that I'll win that particular throwdown quite easily...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shuman is completely right about the OED argument. That said, the new wording is much worse in my opinion.

 

For starters, it explodes the debate. Yes, it specifies which groups you can work with, but "establish a program substantially increasing" makes any number of actions topical. In my opinion it's worse than the potential overlimiting that came with "mandatory" and "comprehensive."

 

Additionally, this resolution justifies effects topicality in the worst of ways. As long as any offshoot effect of plan action substantially increases involvement in service, it's topical. There is no word "to" this time to limit out cases that are not at the heart of the national service literature, so anything goes as far as I can tell in that instance. Granted, that's what competing interpretations debates are for, but based on past experience the "establish a policy substantially..." debates are are much muddier and prone to topic explosion than defining national service.

 

Finally, on a more macro-level, by doing this "re-wording" bit there seems to be a concession that the topic is flawed. If I were part of the NFHS I would want to do everything possible to show the topic is solid in the face of resolution nullification, etc...not give creedance to the idea that it's faulty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If people thought this topic had flawed wording, why didn't they just vote for Africa? That would have made this whole issue moot. There's a disconnect here that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If people thought this topic had flawed wording, why didn't they just vote for Africa? That would have made this whole issue moot. There's a disconnect here that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

 

It's because debaters don't vote on the topic. Well, not in any place other than on cross-x.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish they would hurry up and just decide the resolution. I'd like to make my affirmative case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...