Jump to content
yeahitsme

AmeriCorps?

Recommended Posts

I would say even if the number itself is not substantial, we should judge the substantiality of the affirmative by judging off of the good/bad that those.

 

Plus, if there are about 1,100 people in americorps and you add 500 or whatever (you probably would not add this many anyway), thats about a 50% increase in numbers which is surely substantial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the eventual shutdown of the NCCC will only lose the jobs of 81 people...81 is in no way significant...there are strong t's against such a small number

 

secondly aff doesnt increase anything it just stops those 81 persons from losing their jobs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
secondly aff doesnt increase anything it just stops those 81 persons from losing their jobs

 

this is what i would see as the appropriate answer

you would have to increase the number of people that the NCCC takes, or something like that

 

 

and lots of things link to spending

answer: dedev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am working on cutting answers to this affirmative

Can anyone tell me any advantage ideas they have had?

 

So far I have some disad links, a counterplan, and answers to

Inherency

Solvency

Service Advantage

Terror Advantage

National Disasters Advantage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
After doing a Google search for "Americorps" and "non-violence," I quickly and easily found the following :

 

DETROIT -- The Michigan Institute for Nonviolence Education (MINE) and its AmeriCorps Nonviolence KOPS (Kids, Organizations, Parents and Schools) Program champion the cause of nonviolence through education, training, research, advocacy and program design and implementation.

 

from http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-1902179/Today-the-Message-of-Peace.html

 

Tammie Peters

Golden H. S., Colorado

I already looked at this program, and it doesn't work because KOPS is only in the school systems of Detroit, and is talking about nonviolent conflict resolution mainly among classmates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For this case to have any inherency, you have to prove one of two things:

 

1) AmeriCorps is violent now - #'s key to nonviolence (won't find this), or

2) Increase in AmeriCorps #'s decreases use of violent measures.

 

If you go with the latter, you're functionally xtra-topical where all your advantages will ultimately stem from ending action from a violent program first. Also, where you can't prove that AmeriCorps #'s are uniquely key to non-violence, there's really no impact there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the inherency arguement

 

It Was Clintonian -- Now It's Meat for Bush's Grinder

 

 

Christopher Lee, Wednesday, April 19, 2006; Page A15 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/18/AR2006041801421.html, from the washington post

 

Supporters of an AmeriCorps program are not giving in to budget cutters without a fight.

Advocates and former participants have begun rallying opposition on Capitol Hill to President Bush's proposal to slash the National Civilian Community Corps' budget by $22 million and phase it out in a year.

The corps is part of a network of three service programs created by President Bill Clinton in 1993. It brings together more than 1,100 18-to-24-year-olds on five residential campuses each year to spend 10 months working on service projects, mainly homeland security and disaster relief.

An Office of Management and Budget review found the cost of $27,859 per participant to be "extremely expensive" and deemed the program "ineffective." The administration would spend $5 million to close it next year, although two other AmeriCorps programs would survive.

 

 

 

Now i believe that the fx t arguements have been debated to there fullest so i'm not even going to list off a bunch of points on that. But yea losing 1,100 jobs this year is substantial just for the t arguement considering it is the whole branch of americorps losing jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Christopher Lee, Wednesday, April 19, 2006; Page A15 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/18/AR2006041801421.html, from the washington post

 

An Office of Management and Budget review found the cost of $27,859 per participant to be "extremely expensive" and deemed the program "ineffective." The administration would spend $5 million to close it next year, although two other AmeriCorps programs would survive.

 

Something interesting to check out for positions like the affirmative proposed at the beginning of this thread is where the hell this kind of money goes. I was recruited into the AmeriCorps earlier this year, and I will start serving in July. I did some calculations of my own, and the amount I receive in living stipends and benefits does not come close to $27,859. I receive $800 a month (before taxes) for 12 months, which is $9600. I get another $550 relocation stipend, so we're at $10,150. Add in the $4800 education grant (to pay off loans and whatnot), and we're looking at a grand total of $14,950. That's a little under $13,000 that the OMB claims it pays out to each volunteer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats an interesting way to look at it i hadn't thought about looking to where the money goes or the calculations on how much they actually make compared to the statistics that are given.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about plan: raise taxes. This is only 1 more step because there is ev that raising taxes will increase funding towards AmeriCorps, which then leads to increased participation. Hell, I could go anywhere with this: a free trade package stimulates the economy, which raises tax revenue, etc... If we can ignore 1 FX violation, why not take it a few more steps?

 

Who cares if plans are fx next year. Ok they increase funding... what ground do you lose? if anything it increases ground, for example, you get the increase in employment links and the spending disad.

 

I would agree that in the case of the taxes aff, it would be hard to get good, predictable links off of the extra ground. But hey, why not just run extra with your FX violations, get the judge to ignore the extra stuff and win the round in the area you are more prepped for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who cares if plans are fx next year.

This is the kind of rhetoric that encourages sloppy debates. If people start ignoring procedurals then they might as well start ignoring other areas of debate. On this same note, i'll concede that its going to be hard to create completley non f-x cases next year but to make it blatantly f-x is just ignorant and irresponsible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Something interesting to check out for positions like the affirmative proposed at the beginning of this thread is where the hell this kind of money goes. I was recruited into the AmeriCorps earlier this year, and I will start serving in July. I did some calculations of my own, and the amount I receive in living stipends and benefits does not come close to $27,859. I receive $800 a month (before taxes) for 12 months, which is $9600. I get another $550 relocation stipend, so we're at $10,150. Add in the $4800 education grant (to pay off loans and whatnot), and we're looking at a grand total of $14,950. That's a little under $13,000 that the OMB claims it pays out to each volunteer.

 

I don't think that the OMB says that AmeriCorps pays out $28,000 TO each volunteer; I think their budget & numbers mean that they are paying about $28,000 FOR each volunteer...meaning the total budget divided by the number of volunteers is $28K. The salaries/stipends to the volunteers is certainly a part of that expense. But that does not allow anything for administration & overhead (facilities, transportation, supplies, etc.), which are always a large part of the cost of ANY government program (or any non-government program, for that matter). Certainly there is an issue of whether or not the work being done is worth $28,000 per volunteer, but its not like your entra $13K is lying under a mattress somewhere.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is the kind of rhetoric that encourages sloppy debates. If people start ignoring procedurals then they might as well start ignoring other areas of debate. On this same note, i'll concede that its going to be hard to create completley non f-x cases next year but to make it blatantly f-x is just ignorant and irresponsible.

 

No, i dont think that, in the case of this years topic my rhetoric encourages sloppy debates, hell, i'd rather have a resolution that allows for more cases that aren't "blantantly," as you describe, effectually topical. As you may note, if the neg, as i discussed above, saw that they did not have a good link to the effectually attained ground, then the neg. should run an FX violation with an extra standard attached and say, "look, we try to be as prepped as possible and we have lots of links, but damn!"

 

Also, i dont think effects will ever justify decreasing the person in a service, thats just ridiculous. Also i think if you were to, say ignore the timer, you may have it or a pen thrown at you. But hey, if you want to make that argument i'm ok with it; it will be funny to your opponents and laughter is always good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is the kind of rhetoric that encourages sloppy debates. If people start ignoring procedurals then they might as well start ignoring other areas of debate. On this same note, i'll concede that its going to be hard to create completley non f-x cases next year but to make it blatantly f-x is just ignorant and irresponsible.

 

A good debater would be able to keep this kind of sloppy debate in check with a good theory argument.

 

:schuss:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, i dont think that, in the case of this years topic my rhetoric encourages sloppy debates, hell, i'd rather have a resolution that allows for more cases that aren't "blantantly," as you describe, effectually topical. As you may note, if the neg, as i discussed above, saw that they did not have a good link to the effectually attained ground, then the neg. should run an FX violation with an extra standard attached and say, "look, we try to be as prepped as possible and we have lots of links, but damn!".

maybe i'm a little woozy from loss of blood (i'm not being sarcastic) but i have no idea what you're saying, its incoherent at best, can you clear it up a bit please

 

Also, i dont think effects will ever justify decreasing the person in a service, thats just ridiculous. Also i think if you were to, say ignore the timer, you may have it or a pen thrown at you. But hey, if you want to make that argument i'm ok with it; it will be funny to your opponents and laughter is always good.

This isn't waht i meant at all, i was refering to other arguments within debate that already don't get a lot of intention, such as inherency. I'll try to elaborate on this when i'm feeling more coherent, which hasn't been often as of late

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A good debater would be able to keep this kind of sloppy debate in check with a good theory debate.

 

:schuss:

there is no such thing as a good theory debate, while i'll admit that they can be quintesential to the decision in a round, often times they detract from the actual clash going on in a debate. I realize that you can have clash in theory debates its just that i would rather see clash over the pros and cons of pasing plan rather than clash of the best standard to evaluate topicality.

 

Good debaters are guilty of being sucked into these sloppy deabtes as well, it happens all the time and i think they detract from, agian, actual in round clash. cross apply my theory clash argument, i thik it applies here as well.

 

agian sorry for the inchorentness, massive blood loss will do that to ya.

 

edit: all of this is based on what i've been able to conlcude from the 80+ rounds i've debated in over the past 4 years and could vary with region/debate style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...