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

the new wording is better because the original had literally one case, draft

 

why do people say that? does it say in the rez "The usfg should reinstate the draft?" NO! just because one dictionary says national service = military serivce doesnt mean thats all there is

 

But the origional wording was better i think, because that way we would have had some cool affs, but not anymore. Im not a big fan of the national service topic anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People say that the only literature with the words "national service" in it was about the draft. Those same people also say that the literature almost always criticized the draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People say that the only literature with the words "national service" in it was about the draft. Those same people also say that the literature almost always criticized the draft.
With regard to the first claim, "those people" are simply mistaken...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

 

Well, then again, a voluntary plan text means absolutely no solvency. We don't even know if plan would increase persons, because all of those programs have voluntary registrations in the status quo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i keep hearing people make that solvency argument as a big flaw in the resolution not being mandatory (that non mandatory aff's means no solvency for the aff because you can't gaurantee an increase in persons). but frankly i don't see that as being a very solid argument. certainly there's solvency evidence out there that would cite a percentage increase in participation post certain efforts to increase (like, ones that affs would chose as their plan action). it's not as though voluntary affs would just ask people to sign up, there would obviously be some marketing or incentive program that the aff would likely defend will succeed in garnering more persons into the program. if all you've got is "there's no gaurantee" i think you'll just end up losing a lot of solvency debates to at least quasi-specific evidence the aff has researched for their plan text. is it really so outlandish that affirmatives do solvency research for their plan texts? yes those programs are all voluntary in the SQ, which is why the aff would do something different than the SQ means of gathering volunteers. (inherency, gasp). aff's could even use successful tactis of other volunteer organizations on orgs that aren't using them yet, citing the former's success as sovlency to defeat your argument. at very least, it doesn't mean "absolutely no solvency" it means there may be a case debate that is had in a great deal of rounds on this issue. is that really a bad thing? i just don't believe for one minute that the debate in question, the effectiveness of various campaigns on increasing volutneer #s, is so one sided. (keep in mind this whole debate assumes that an increase in the number of persons serving is integral to the advantages the aff claims, which is a pretty big assumption)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the new wording is better because the original had literally one case, draft

 

Are you kidding me? From the word citizen alone you could extrapolate like 10 - 20 different interpretations (probably more, but that is all I can think of off the top of my head). I agree some of you are focusing on the national service phrase way to much. All you need to do is to point out the England thing and you will laugh the other team out of the room.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How the Navy recruits:

 

L. T. Smash: It's a three-pronged attack. Sub-liminal, liminal and super-liminal.

Lisa: Superliminal?

L. T. Smash: I'll show you. (Leans out of window) Hey, you! Join the Navy!

Carl: Uh, yeah, alright.

Lenny: I'm in.

L.T. Smash: Now that you know, Lisa, I'm afraid I can't let you leave. (sees Lisa outside, walking away) Nuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actully this one offers more ground if you think about it. The first resolution was vauge and only had the word service in there leaving it open for interpretation. However if you do some research most the the defintion of service is that it is military. I think resoultion gives more clear ground the aff is pretty much gaurnteed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah sure the new topic probably is overlimiting but that is not going to stop people to find new affs and make up ones that are unorthadox and out there...ppl won't stop be debaters, so the aff isn't garunteed except in the lower levels where there is little originality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah sure the new topic probably is overlimiting but that is not going to stop people to find new affs and make up ones that are unorthadox and out there...ppl won't stop be debaters, so the aff isn't garunteed except in the lower levels where there is little originality

 

Where on earth are people getting the idea that the new topic is overlimiting? If anything it's underlimiting, you can do litterally anything mechanism wise as long as somewhere down the road it increases volunteers in one of those groups (ie, withdraw from Iraq is topical).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its not going to matter which wording they end up using.

its going to be a neg year for sure.

the whole "smaller burden of research" works both ways...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
at least you're not alone on this.

 

Thanx. Almost everyone else I have talked to likes it. Topicality is going to be almost non-existant. Being NEG is going to suck. Really bad. At least there will be 4,372,681 different cases to choose from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

talk a bout a crappy topic, international topics are so much better than domestic ones bc they offer more interesting area of discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
talk a bout a crappy topic, international topics are so much better than domestic ones bc they offer more interesting area of discussion.

 

Tell me about it. At least we aren't doing ocean education. Although I wasn't debating at the time that was the topic, I have been told by a lot of people that that topic was the worst one ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tell me about it. At least we aren't doing ocean education. Although I wasn't debating at the time that was the topic, I have been told by a lot of people that that topic was the worst one ever.

I actually liked ocean policy, but I hear mental health got to be somewhat of a bor eafter a while.

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...