Jump to content
Shuffy

Beat up on my aff thread.

Recommended Posts

Simply put, i would like people to take pot-shots at my case. Yes, i have already blocked alot of things out i just want to make sure i have everything.

 

My case is political national service.

Adv. neoliberalism/biopolitics

The aff claims that the Bush administration has ushered in a new era a biopolitics through the disqualification of life (katrina example), This goes uncontested within the status qou because of political apathy, and because of the movement away from a pure public sphere. The lift on the ban allows americorps memebers and anything it gives its grants too to be political (gives them the ability to criticize governement) where in the status qou that looking down on bush is seen as terroristic.

Adv. Political apathy/critical pedagogy/civic engagement

Forcing graduates who have the skills to engage in politics and the chance to re-take the public sphere. The aff forces these grad students, analogy i like is sending all the lab leaders (a majority were grad students at my camp) to go into situations to 'arm' people and encourage people that politics isnt something that has to hide from. The creation of a critical pedagogy, a critical education outside of school solves political apathy.

 

The plan is to remove the ban on political activity on americorps and learn and serve america. And to send every graduate student to serve one year in one of those two programs as a condition of graduation.

 

 

I know the analysis is rough, but there is alot of depth to this affirmative, i will try to organize them more as question come along, each question asked will allow me to be more specific and concrete with the affirmatives ideas.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Simply put, i would like people to take pot-shots at my case. Yes, i have already blocked alot of things out i just want to make sure i have everything.

 

My case is political national service.

Adv. neoliberalism/biopolitics

Adv. Political apathy/critical pedagogy/civic engagement

 

The plan is to remove the ban on political activity on americorps and learn and serve america. And to send every graduate student to serve one year in one of those two programs as a condition of graduation.

 

Authors-mianly giroux, gorham, boyte, drogosz.

 

CP: Do plan and don't send every graduate student to serve one year in one of those two programs as a condition of graduation.

 

Involuntary Service turns your Gorham/Ad 1

 

Federalism (enroach state colleges)

 

Spending (shitton of new recruits)

 

Military Tradeoff (graduate students/technicians key to military)

 

T - a = one policy

 

T - sub = w/o material quals

 

*EDIT: The thing that I think the PIC does to your case is bad because it literally isolates disadvantages to mandatory service while still sucking up solvency. Any tradeoff DA's are NB's, giving the 2NR a lot of options for CP/NB combo to go for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

derek, want me to Answer?

 

could you post the shell? that would be very helpful.

 

I dont have an eltronic copy and dont feel like typing the whole thing. Sorry, i can answer specific quetions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
derek, want me to Answer?

 

Well, teh thread is for your benefit to get answers/ideas of what others would argue. I'd imagine that me and others answering your answers will tell you the positions others would take.

 

I dobut my outline of 7 off is really going to help you frontline and stuff. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CP: Do plan and don't send every graduate student to serve one year in one of those two programs as a condition of graduation.

 

Involuntary Service turns your Gorham/Ad 1

 

Federalism (enroach state colleges)

 

Spending (shitton of new recruits)

 

Military Tradeoff (graduate students/technicians key to military)

 

T - a = one policy

 

T - sub = w/o material quals

 

*EDIT: The thing that I think the PIC does to your case is bad because it literally isolates disadvantages to mandatory service while still sucking up solvency. Any tradeoff DA's are NB's, giving the 2NR a lot of options for CP/NB combo to go for.

 

 

Can you give a brief exp of the DAs? I like an indepth exp of federalism, no really indepth but more than u-l-i.

 

How does involuntary service solve create political activity, how does lifting the ban alone equip those who are apathetic/or apolitical even outside the corps with the tools they need to political and to challenge relations of power?

 

EDIT in light of your post.

 

1. i would argue solvecny defeciet based on the fact that you do nothing to address Bush's biopolitcs (im sorry for being so rough on foucault, but its late and i dont want to do frenchie rite now). This failure to do so turns the adavantages into a DA to CP. Then impact analysis and specifc analysis as to how biopoltics subsumes your silly DA impacts.

2. FEDERALISM: n/l the service for one year is just like every other college requiment for grad students. Your impacts should have happened when (cant remember word of the long ass paper grads have to write, help?). T/ forcing allows for a critical pedagogy, these people are going to be pissed when they get to serve. thats the point, they will use that emotion to teach people how wrong disempowering youth, homeless, and the poor is bad.

3. I have spending blocked, plus i dont think thats a great debate to be had.

4. some more explanation on the military DA would be great.

5. The whole T debate would get really confusing if i tried to debate that out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is it possible to get ahold of this aff? what camp put it out .. or did you cut it yourself?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you give a brief exp of the DAs? I like an indepth exp of federalism, no really indepth but more than u-l-i.

 

How does involuntary service solve create political activity, how does lifting the ban alone equip those who are apathetic/or apolitical even outside the corps with the tools they need to political and to challenge relations of power?

 

Federalism - state colleges are a state's responsibility, and requiring those individuals in graduate schools to serve in federal programs is a direct enroachment of state's rights to education. --> slippery slope of justified breakings of federal separation of central/state governments, --> federalism impacts. Insert Calabresi here.

 

Spending - budget on the brink now. They enlist potentially millions of individuals into nat service - that overthrows the budget. Deficits bad cuz they fuck up the economy. That turns case because when the economy goes sour, the Corporation for National Service can't fund AmeriCorps anymore.

 

Personnel Tradeoff - graduates <3 military because of advancement opportunities for graduate students. Plan prevents that - impacts are heg and w/e else can be ran.

 

I claim that the involuntary servitude in the second plan-plank turns his ad one - I'd contend that involuntary service necessarily conforms individuals to state ideals - it's a coercive means of making them agree with the state, instead of a physical means. In fact, it's coercion that fuko talks about with biopower, not physical properties like state banning.

 

I'd claim the PIC still solves all of ad 1 - none of the ev there says the second plank is needed, and even if you want to argue solvency deficits, every solvency deficit argument is just another link to the involuntary servitude turns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome Aff, did you cut it yourself?

 

my only comment..is that maybe you want to only send every graduate from a public college into service...being that you can't make a private college do that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
is it possible to get ahold of this aff? what camp put it out .. or did you cut it yourself?

 

UTNIF its known as PNS or political national service.

 

Federalism - state colleges are a state's responsibility, and requiring those individuals in graduate schools to serve in federal programs is a direct enroachment of state's rights to education. --> slippery slope of justified breakings of federal separation of central/state governments, --> federalism impacts. Insert Calabresi here.

 

Spending - budget on the brink now. They enlist potentially millions of individuals into nat service - that overthrows the budget. Deficits bad cuz they fuck up the economy. That turns case because when the economy goes sour, the Corporation for National Service can't fund AmeriCorps anymore.

 

Personnel Tradeoff - graduates <3 military because of advancement opportunities for graduate students. Plan prevents that - impacts are heg and w/e else can be ran.

 

I claim that the involuntary servitude in the second plan-plank turns his ad one - I'd contend that involuntary service necessarily conforms individuals to state ideals - it's a coercive means of making them agree with the state, instead of a physical means. In fact, it's coercion that fuko talks about with biopower, not physical properties like state banning.

 

I'd claim the PIC still solves all of ad 1 - none of the ev there says the second plank is needed, and even if you want to argue solvency deficits, every solvency deficit argument is just another link to the involuntary servitude turns.

 

ok,

 

1. The negative links to their own criticism and the criticism of the type of politics bush things is tha shizz. Coercion, you can win a risk of a link that forcing people into national service might be wrong (but ill be able to no link out of the foucault debate, jsut specify what the coercion cards say). But over thank ill win a link that your DAs function as the type of coercion you talk about, coercion the judge because nuke is going to happen sign the ballot now. That whole idea of poltics is coercive.

2. Extend the biopoltics/bush adavantage, a negative ballot is only the reificaiton of the politics that i spent 8 minutes critiing in the 1nc. (reads specific turns) turns may link, but you impact is

a. sumbsumbed by the 1ac impacts

b. probably not logical(analysis)

3. Read threat con. x apply to DAs

4. If you read nuke war, Kato.

5. General idicts of normative debate, i.e. the idea that debate should be only about smahsing your opponent not about advancing practical ideas.

6. read sweet turn on spending DA, specific to AFF how a pedagogy will end up making money, or atleast paying its own bills.

7. Solvency defeciet. Gorham, who actaully advocates the text of plan specifically the forcing grads to join national service programs and how that can change politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Federalism is empirically denied - No Child Left Behind.

 

Arguments I would make:

 

1. Solvency - students just wouldn't go to grad school.

 

2. Harms are inevitable - it doesn't matter whether you try to "take back" the public sphere, if the system itself doesn't change you won't get anywhere.

 

3. Constitutionality - federal government can't constitutionally mandate that graduate students at private universities do this. I'd read theory and some democracy or separation of powers turn.

 

4. CP out of private universities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Extratopicality. The advantage stems from lifting the ban on certain types of activity, which does nothing to increase participants.

 

2. Coercion bad.

 

3. Political apathy good. Allows governance by elites. More voters equals more Democrats, perhaps, which is bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Federalism is empirically denied - No Child Left Behind.

 

Arguments I would make:

 

1. Solvency - students just wouldn't go to grad school.

 

2. Harms are inevitable - it doesn't matter whether you try to "take back" the public sphere, if the system itself doesn't change you won't get anywhere.

 

3. Constitutionality - federal government can't constitutionally mandate that graduate students at private universities do this. I'd read theory and some democracy or separation of powers turn.

 

4. CP out of private universities.

 

AT 4. cp NB?

 

AT 1. any evidence stating this, kinda of a far reaching claim.

 

AT 2. they are inevitable in the world of the status qou, and yes the system might not ever change. It might always be around, but like biopoltics i would argue that the affiramtive is an affirmation of a new poltics of resistance within every power realtion and in this case the regulation of the public sphere.

 

 

1. Extratopicality. The advantage stems from lifting the ban on certain types of activity, which does nothing to increase participants.

 

 

 

2. Coercion bad.

 

 

 

3. Political apathy good. Allows governance by elites. More voters equals more Democrats, perhaps, which is bad.

 

AT Coercion. Eh, so what. if you win that we are coercive we will win that the reuslt of creating a critical pedagogy which will be enabled to even critique the formation of policies(aff) that allowed a criticism in the first place. And, the fact that thise coercive practice will solve your impacts anyway. extend te biopoltics adv. form 1ac.

 

AT Political Apathy: Its a link to your coersion arguements, xtend 1ac ev. which outlines how the poltics of the status qou are a result of a coercion by Bush under the rhtoretic of with us against us. Its not good, look at yourself your saying poltical apathy good in a forum for debate perf con??

This arguement is a new link to our criticism in the 1AC, by endorsing this apathy, you dont care about the disposability of populations. impact the arguments above and watch the block, flip out and either go insane....or non-responsive.

 

 

Goodnite, i will resume answers tomm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The net benefit is not being unconstitutional. I'll stress that constitutionality is a really important thing - both on the theory level by saying that constitutional plans are illegitimate and on the straight-up level by saying that in real life, an act of this nature would be a gigantic power grab by Congress, and would destroy separation of powers or just read reasons why unconstitutional laws destroy democracy - there's no shortage of examples for that.

 

The counterplan solves all that.

 

Also, I was sort of kidding on the solvency argument, although I'm sure someone writes that.

 

Just because you're like a critique doesn't mean you should be voted for, in terms of harms being inevitable. If you acknowledge that you'll never be able to change the system, why vote for the affirmative?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

your advantages are extra-topical like whoa. pretty much nothing you get out of this plan has shit to do with the increase of persons. and there is no guarantee of solvency. Just because they are allowed to act politically with their grant money doesn't mean you get rid of any biopolitical operations of the bush administration towards those that reside in an ambiguous position in terms of the whole with the government or you're anti american dichotomy (which i'm assuming is the site of repression of political activism according to your ev if not clarify) because they could always decide to be real americans and support the bush admin. and furthermore you do nothing about the cash money situation or where these individuals are deployed for crisis situations. in this case any sort of "biopolitics" stuff you'd want to claim doesn't have anything to do with Americorps more alot to do with the government proper. and you're inherency ev waaaay overloads solvency. short of staging a coups (in which case you'd have to prove the new gov would be better) you have no control over the mindset of those in power. oh and if you want to claim you do mindset fiat is illegit is something i'd talk about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter if advantages are extra-topical; he claims no advantages off of extra-topical plan planks. At worst, he's effectually topical, just like some versions of DADT are, but you don't have to be an amazing topicality debater to defend effects topicality like this. At least, if I were him, I would make the argument that the removing of the ban on political activity is necessary to increase the number of people in these programs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the advantages do stem from an extra topical plan plank. Plan mandates that every graduate student serve. Removal of the ban can thus have no effect on the number of participants: they have to serve anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He can read some evidence that removing the ban would get other people, aside from graduate students, to serve.

 

but that isn't what his plan text says-it makes it mandatory. this is how the increase is obtained. read and fx and xtra, use the w/m to fx to prove the violation on extra. throw down at least 3 minutes on this alone.

 

another problem is that i think you'll hit a k debater who'll realize that he/she can just read a shit ton of biopower links to your aff and out-left you on the alt. then all he/she has to do is beat you on either framework or alt solvency, which, in my opinion as a biopower debater, wouldn't be very hard. the idea of forcing people into national service and making that organization specifically designed to be political seems to make for a pretty damn convincing link story to the panopticon. maybe you have some flaming hot ev on solvency, i don't know, but i think you would be behind on this question.

 

regardless, i don't think this aff is very strategic. i, too, would run ziegler's cp and some nb, along with biopower and topicality. i think any of those is very threatening to this aff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Il answer the latest one first.

 

He can read some evidence that removing the ban would get other people, aside from graduate students, to serve.

 

There is ev on how lifting the ban itself increases people

 

I think the advantages do stem from an extra topical plan plank. Plan mandates that every graduate student serve. Removal of the ban can thus have no effect on the number of participants: they have to serve anyway.

 

1. X apply above

2. The two "planks" support each other in increasing the amount of people, and solving the advantages. DEFENSE: Id argue the shit out of the standards, voters on xtra T. Because in this instance its better for the Aff. It gives them a sweet PIC (see above) and tons of links esp. kritik links (I can think of one good foucault one, and that usually means there are atleast a couple other solid ones).

 

It doesn't matter if advantages are extra-topical; he claims no advantages off of extra-topical plan planks. At worst, he's effectually topical, just like some versions of DADT are, but you don't have to be an amazing topicality debater to defend effects topicality like this. At least, if I were him, I would make the argument that the removing of the ban on political activity is necessary to increase the number of people in these programs.

 

i agree, and therefore have a sweet fx T block.

 

your advantages are extra-topical like whoa. pretty much nothing you get out of this plan has shit to do with the increase of persons. and there is no guarantee of solvency.

 

1. 1. X apply both above,

2. There is a garuntee of solvecny, there is ev that supports the entirety of the plan text, XT/FX or not. (T debators help me out, im sure theres a defensive arguement to be made that since there is a solvecny advocate for the whole plan text)

 

 

Just because they are allowed to act politically with their grant money doesn't mean you get rid of any biopolitical operations of the bush administration towards those that reside in an ambiguous position in terms of the whole with the government or you're anti american dichotomy (which i'm assuming is the site of repression of political activism according to your ev if not clarify).

 

1. Ill feed you xrta t arguement like u want me too, yes the ban itself only allows poeple the choice to act. But how would this translate into critical equiped political agents. Thats where the critical pedagogy comes in, the graduate students as our ev states will be afble to equip those who are apathetic or apolitical and support them in such a way as to re-invigorate politicas specifically the public sphere.

2. This retaking of the public sphere, like debate, allows people to challenge the relations of power that neo-liberalism uses to subjugate the masses into populations of disposability (poor, homeless, etc.).

3. We arent forcing people to fight Bush, we are enabling the possibilty to critique him and even to critique our criticism. This is agonism, a form of constant criticism, a pluraism(sp.), a constant critique maybe. This allows for not only the contestation of the Bush administration which will end in a few years, but to challenge any and all relations of power that subjugate and discipline

 

 

 

because they could always decide to be real americans and support the bush admin..

 

1. We arent saying conservatism is bad, or that the opposite opinion is bad. Well argue thats its good to have political clash. Our arguement is that right now politics is one-sided, the true left either hiding in the academy, or apolitical. The public sphere, where conflict once took place has been privitized. Its not about who makes better arguements now its who's campaign budget is bigger.

2. Theres no reason this will have a large impact unless, everyone is a conservative. Look at Bush's polls, there will be plenty of people to come out and attack him given the tools

 

and furthermore you do nothing about the cash money situation or where these individuals are deployed for crisis situations..

 

1. X-apply my 'equip people' analysis from above, how we equip people with the skills and the intellectual background knowledge to challenge neo-liberalism

2. By re-taking the public sphere it becomes de-privitized solving back your 'cash' arguement.

3. Our arguement is not that when these people are deployed they use their new critical skills. K, If they do get deployed to area where that is useful then it will be used. But furthermore, the new things they will learn will be transported outside of the corps into these poeples daily lives (sweet ev for that)

4. Plan allows for teaching of these skills outside of the corps memebers. the ban prevents grants going to groups that support advocacy groups. The lift on the ban allows for advocacy groups that are beaten out soley because of money to get grants from americorps and learn and serve. So its not just the memebers themselves who garner the benefits its every group that gets grants.

 

in this case any sort of "biopolitics" stuff you'd want to claim doesn't have anything to do with Americorps more alot to do with the government proper..

 

1. x apply analysis above.

2. The equiping of these people americorps or not allows the challenging of power relations on a local level. Trying to only contest them on a national level is only a link to foucault, and cedes too much power to the state that it actually doesnt have.

 

 

and you're inherency ev waaaay overloads solvency. short of staging a coups (in which case you'd have to prove the new gov would be better) you have no control over the mindset of those in power. oh and if you want to claim you do mindset fiat is illegit is something i'd talk about.

 

1. Inherency goes like: the ban prevents politics and denigrates politics. Prvents people from joining, (technically any group person who gets a grant is a memeber) so lifting the ban allows for the 13,000 sum-odd groups to get grants again. X apply to T...lol

2. We just have to re-create a democracy again, u know the one built off of debate and conflict of interests. X apply my analysis on the politics of the status qou. Its not a new goverment, its a return to the one that worked and had public influence in politics both-ways.

 

The net benefit is not being unconstitutional. I'll stress that constitutionality is a really important thing - both on the theory level by saying that constitutional plans are illegitimate

 

1. Ill K the theory, if the ultimate impact is education. Ill impact turn that w/ ev. and analysis as to why the theory arguement is only a way out of actually discussing these measures. And that this type of debate, the basic ignoring the decay of politics is a new link to our 1ac critcism. So we weigh the impacts of the case against theory...:eek:

2. Constitutionality is an ancient arguement that has no relevence to this debate, their are federally mandated things for private colleges. The plan will only be an addition to that. Senior thesis...most colleges private or not, its a requirement. So, whats the difference.

3. No impact to constitutionality, or emp denied. Guantamano Bay, Black Sites, the list goes on.

4. X apply arguments from the theory flow, its non-responsive to the 1AC criticism. uve already conceded that the politics of the status qou are dead and that the 1AC impacts are inevitable absent the plan. So these arguementes function as a reason to reject the plan because the politics of the status qou work. ITS A NEW LINK TO the 1AC K.

5. impact analysis biopoltics subsumes you silly impacts, o/w, then turns it with number 4.

 

and on the straight-up level by saying that in real life, an act of this nature would be a gigantic power grab by Congress, and would destroy separation of powers or just read reasons why unconstitutional laws destroy democracy - there's no shortage of examples for that.

 

1. That arguement doesnt even matter, (insert role of ballot analysis here, choose your flavor) Plans a good idea proves that it should be passed outside that the affirmative doent have to prove that an affirmative ballot=passage beacuse fiat is ilusory.

2. N/U democracy, the public sphere, and politics are dead in the status qou, plan is a no lose situation

 

The counterplan solves all that.

 

HOW?

 

 

Just because you're like a critique doesn't mean you should be voted for, in terms of harms being inevitable. If you acknowledge that you'll never be able to change the system, why vote for the affirmative?

 

1. cross apply ballot analysis.

2. Ur right, solving for the advantages proves we should be voted up. The advantages you conceded. (Card by card etensions, impacted and shown how it interacts with my arguements by supporting or turns ur args.)

3. Power relations are inevitable it doesnt mean that we cant do something to form a resistance within the power relations that is absent the status qou.

4. The system is faulty now, cross apply my analysis on one-sided politics. we help it back to where we and our authors believe it should be....

 

 

Whew!!

 

To qoute xacalite

"but that isn't what his plan text says-it makes it mandatory. this is how the increase is obtained. read and fx and xtra, use the w/m to fx to prove the violation on extra. throw down at least 3 minutes on this alone."

 

All truth we wont make a w/m we will probably just K the T.

 

"another problem is that i think you'll hit a k debater who'll realize that he/she can just read a shit ton of biopower links to your aff and out-left you on the alt. then all he/she has to do is beat you on either framework or alt solvency, which, in my opinion as a biopower debater, wouldn't be very hard. the idea of forcing people into national service and making that organization specifically designed to be political seems to make for a pretty damn convincing link story to the panopticon. maybe you have some flaming hot ev on solvency, i don't know, but i think you would be behind on this question."

 

I am a foucualt debater, and actually the reason i love this aff is because it answers his arguements really well. There is alot of really good evidence turning all but one or two link stories that are easy to beat, ouweigh, or subsume. And, sure you can try to out left the aff. But its set up to actually support all those common anti-alt arguements with great specific evidence.

Through down some link stories, impacts and an alt. i promise you the aff is trickeir than it looks. It was built to answer Ks.

 

regardless, i don't think this aff is very strategic. i, too, would run ziegler's cp and some nb, along with biopower and topicality. i think any of those is very threatening to this aff."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Il answer the latest one first.

 

1. 1. X apply both above,

2. There is a garuntee of solvecny, there is ev that supports the entirety of the plan text, XT/FX or not. (T debators help me out, im sure theres a defensive arguement to be made that since there is a solvecny advocate for the whole plan text)

No, not a good one. having a solvency advocate in no way justifies any sort of extra-topicality. it allows the aff to gain huge advantages off of things that have nothing to do with the res. and, in this case, it does. the only reason that you have the requirement to serve is to be topical, all adv stem off the fact that you politicize service orgs. t debates aren't won on lit checks. it would be easy for a competent t neg to win that it fucks over their g/p. the only way you could beat this t arg is kritiking it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, not a good one. having a solvency advocate in no way justifies any sort of extra-topicality. it allows the aff to gain huge advantages off of things that have nothing to do with the res. and, in this case, it does. the only reason that you have the requirement to serve is to be topical, all adv stem off the fact that you politicize service orgs. t debates aren't won on lit checks. it would be easy for a competent t neg to win that it fucks over their g/p. the only way you could beat this t arg is kritiking it.

 

 

I agree, and i plan on K'in it. However, how would it not increase ground especailly Kritik ground.

 

I think i interpreted g/p right, if not correct me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, if you're claiming that your critical discourse is important, there are reasons why that are bad. Mainly, though, your critique in the round does nothing to prevent what's happening. If anything, I would turn that argument, saying you're just masking the problem by claiming that talking about it in a debate round will solve it, while you know your plan will never happen.

 

Second, critiquing theory will get you nowhere. What does it matter if the impact is education? It's not "education" in the sense of what your 1AC talks about - it's just education in terms of being able to actually learn something useful from the round. If you're going to critique education from the round, you just need to critique debate because the goal is to teach critical thinking skills and help students learn.

 

Third, you said you would say that the theory is just a way out of discussing this. First - how can you prove that is true? Second - that doesn't change whether your plan is good for debate or not. If you were to read a plan to give money to Africa and then read a narrative of a starving child, should we ignore topicality just because it's a way out of discussing it?

 

Also, your argument that the federal government has controls over private schools is simply incorrect. The federal government can set just about zero mandates on independent schools. Of course, if the federal government finances it, they have leverage, but if not, they've got no say. A mandate for a senior thesis in college is just something that most colleges have as a policy, not something regulated by the state.

 

And yes, biopolitics would outweigh unconstitutionality if I didn't have the counterplan. The counterplan solves your plan and solves unconstitutionality by being... constitutional. What could you possibly say against that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, and i plan on K'in it. However, how would it not increase ground especailly Kritik ground.

 

I think i interpreted g/p right, if not correct me

 

the fact that you pointed out that it links to some stuff means jack shit. it's easy to win that your aff is totally unpredictable in that it changes the way the national service organizations function. this means you jack negative ground for attacking these organizations. this abuse occurs in strat skew, unpredictable adv. the fact that there is ground against it doesn't mean it's predictable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...