Jump to content
TempusMoriendi

Peace Corps Teacher Case?

Recommended Posts

I've heard of this, and I am wondering if anyone else has seen it. It's a case that recruits African teachers and teaches them African languages. The case spikes out of everything by:

 

1.) Not recruiting these people as American Citizens, since they Fiat not only that the plan will pass but also they change a policy within their policy. You have to be an American citizen to be a Peace Corps member. They "think" that they can spike out of soft power this way... I can see a strong argument otherwise. I find this hideously abusive. I mean, when you Fiat, you go through the status quo, and you can't change the system as you Fiat. I mean, for example, when your plan passes, you can't say, "Oh, well Bush is first going to Veto the plan and then the Congress will pass it with a 2/3 majority." The only point in that would be to spike out of Politics. Likewise, I see this only as "trying" to spike out of Soft Power, and trying to spike out of a Citizenship Kritique such as Cosmopolitanism or something of the sort. I may be incorrect, since I have only heard about this case, but I hear it truly does spike out of tons of stuff.

 

2.) Changing, or "Establishing" salaries to $1,000.00 instead of the usual $27,5000.00 for a peace corps volunteers. I suppose this is ok, since each members' salary varies, but the fact that, you have to clarify everything, such as the citizenship issue AND the salary issue during cross-x makes it a strange case. I know the Affirmative rserves the right to clarify, but this is pushing it. Soon we'll be having to clarify what day the plan passes so they can turn some religious Kritique with a Sabath advantage.

 

With one hand, they spike out of soft power by not claiming these people as citizens, and with the other, they spike out of economy disadvantages. Soft power, with a lay judge, will be easy to simplify with for the Affirmative.

 

I don't even see how teachers should be going through the peace corps, wouldn't learn and serve be better? Maybe you use the Peace Corps because it's foreign, but the Peace Corps doesn't have a job to teach languages? Maybe that just proves their inherency.

 

I may be a little off with this case, but that is wha I have heard. Anyone care to help me out and clarify?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, I've seen one. Not really the greatest case in my opinion, they'll lose magnitude and timeframe of the impacts from a da.

 

cut some cards that say there are hunderds of african languages that are all unique, then read one that says peace corp is not good at education, also you should probably make the argument that a majority of african languages you can't really teach because there isnt hardly anyone who knows both their language and english

 

EU counter-plan?

 

Economic hitmen D.A.?

 

EIDT: Also they can't really spike out of soft power because the peace corp is seen internationally as an american organization...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, soft power still kind of links, but the affirmative link turn sounds a lot better: affs will argue that this reverses the trend of soft power in africa because it restores the afrocentric learning culture--actually decreasing the power our culture has in these parts, because such a large part of our cultural imposition there centers around the fact that they house a eurocentric educational system. they'll probably win this debate.

 

there are ways to beat this case.

 

the first way is to do what my partner and i did the second time we hit this case: t-substantially with a whole lot of time suck in the block. they treated T like it was the timesuck.. bad call.

 

but seriously. tempus, pm me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've heard of this, and I am wondering if anyone else has seen it. It's a case that recruits African teachers and teaches them African languages. The case spikes out of everything by:

 

1.) Not recruiting these people as American Citizens, since they Fiat not only that the plan will pass but also they change a policy within their policy. You have to be an American citizen to be a Peace Corps member. They "think" that they can spike out of soft power this way... I can see a strong argument otherwise. I find this hideously abusive. I mean, when you Fiat, you go through the status quo, and you can't change the system as you Fiat. I mean, for example, when your plan passes, you can't say, "Oh, well Bush is first going to Veto the plan and then the Congress will pass it with a 2/3 majority." The only point in that would be to spike out of Politics. Likewise, I see this only as "trying" to spike out of Soft Power, and trying to spike out of a Citizenship Kritique such as Cosmopolitanism or something of the sort. I may be incorrect, since I have only heard about this case, but I hear it truly does spike out of tons of stuff.

 

2.) Changing, or "Establishing" salaries to $1,000.00 instead of the usual $27,5000.00 for a peace corps volunteers. I suppose this is ok, since each members' salary varies, but the fact that, you have to clarify everything, such as the citizenship issue AND the salary issue during cross-x makes it a strange case. I know the Affirmative rserves the right to clarify, but this is pushing it. Soon we'll be having to clarify what day the plan passes so they can turn some religious Kritique with a Sabath advantage.

 

With one hand, they spike out of soft power by not claiming these people as citizens, and with the other, they spike out of economy disadvantages. Soft power, with a lay judge, will be easy to simplify with for the Affirmative.

 

I don't even see how teachers should be going through the peace corps, wouldn't learn and serve be better? Maybe you use the Peace Corps because it's foreign, but the Peace Corps doesn't have a job to teach languages? Maybe that just proves their inherency.

 

I may be a little off with this case, but that is wha I have heard. Anyone care to help me out and clarify?

 

extra t, and a T saying national means "pertaining to a country", since peace corp is under the u.s., the people serving must be of the nation, ie us citizens, not african citizens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've heard of this, and I am wondering if anyone else has seen it. It's a case that recruits African teachers and teaches them African languages. The case spikes out of everything by:

 

1.) Not recruiting these people as American Citizens, since they Fiat not only that the plan will pass but also they change a policy within their policy. You have to be an American citizen to be a Peace Corps member. They "think" that they can spike out of soft power this way... I can see a strong argument otherwise. I find this hideously abusive. I mean, when you Fiat, you go through the status quo, and you can't change the system as you Fiat. I mean, for example, when your plan passes, you can't say, "Oh, well Bush is first going to Veto the plan and then the Congress will pass it with a 2/3 majority." The only point in that would be to spike out of Politics. Likewise, I see this only as "trying" to spike out of Soft Power, and trying to spike out of a Citizenship Kritique such as Cosmopolitanism or something of the sort. I may be incorrect, since I have only heard about this case, but I hear it truly does spike out of tons of stuff.

 

2.) Changing, or "Establishing" salaries to $1,000.00 instead of the usual $27,5000.00 for a peace corps volunteers. I suppose this is ok, since each members' salary varies, but the fact that, you have to clarify everything, such as the citizenship issue AND the salary issue during cross-x makes it a strange case. I know the Affirmative rserves the right to clarify, but this is pushing it. Soon we'll be having to clarify what day the plan passes so they can turn some religious Kritique with a Sabath advantage.

 

With one hand, they spike out of soft power by not claiming these people as citizens, and with the other, they spike out of economy disadvantages. Soft power, with a lay judge, will be easy to simplify with for the Affirmative.

 

I don't even see how teachers should be going through the peace corps, wouldn't learn and serve be better? Maybe you use the Peace Corps because it's foreign, but the Peace Corps doesn't have a job to teach languages? Maybe that just proves their inherency.

 

I may be a little off with this case, but that is wha I have heard. Anyone care to help me out and clarify?

 

do they actually have evidence saying the teachers would join?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you SHOULD run a T on national. Why? Because national service programs is a term of art phrase in the resolution. It's not supposed to be broken up. Furthermore, the resolution ITSELF defines what the acceptable national service programs are (the 6 it names).

 

The plan text is rather shady at best. I'd like to see some sort of evidence. I mean, the Aff can fiat the United States trying to recruit these African teachers, but they CANNOT under any means fiat that anyone will show up. So, unless there is something more, like incentives or some sort of really kickass solvency card talking about how African teachers are excluded now, then the case is terribly FX T and the Aff's use of fiat is abusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think you SHOULD run a T on national. Why? Because national service programs is a term of art phrase in the resolution. It's not supposed to be broken up. Furthermore, the resolution ITSELF defines what the acceptable national service programs are (the 6 it names).

 

the only definition you ll find for national service as a whole would be

"military service", to get the best definition from the two words, you would have to break them up

 

 

national- of or relating to or belonging to a nation or country

service -work done by one person or group that benefits another

national service - service in the military during peacetime

 

also why would it matter if the resolution goes on to say the 'acceptable programs', the t is focusing on the people joining the program, otherwise why would the word national even be in the resolution, it could have worked just as fine without national

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the only definition you ll find for national service as a whole would be

"military service", to get the best definition from the two words, you would have to break them up

 

 

national- of or relating to or belonging to a nation or country

service -work done by one person or group that benefits another

national service - service in the military during peacetime

 

also why would it matter if the resolution goes on to say the 'acceptable programs', the t is focusing on the people joining the program, otherwise why would the word national even be in the resolution, it could have worked just as fine without national

 

smart ass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there salaries for peace corps volunteers? I have been running this case for a couple months, and the only salary that I have found was a 6000$ stipend, which is the same for all members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the only definition you ll find for national service as a whole would be

"military service", to get the best definition from the two words, you would have to break them up

 

 

national- of or relating to or belonging to a nation or country

service -work done by one person or group that benefits another

national service - service in the military during peacetime

 

also why would it matter if the resolution goes on to say the 'acceptable programs', the t is focusing on the people joining the program, otherwise why would the word national even be in the resolution, it could have worked just as fine without national

 

I didn't say to look for national service as a term of art because I'm well aware of what that turns up. National Service Program is the complete term of art. You won't find a dictionary definition for it, but it's stipulated by the resolution and there's a hell of a lot of contextual definitions to be had from it. Just type it into google and look at what it turns up.

 

Furthermore, even if I conceded your definition of national, that is part of the adjective national service which modifies program. So, if the work done by one person or group that benefits another belonging to a country (the US), there is an easy we meet. National, at no actual point in the resolution, serves to modify the PEOPLE doing the serving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that there is a way to run T here. It is related to the "national" T brought up by VLORD. If you look at the requirements for becoming a US PC member, there is one that you have to be a US citizen. African people teaching African languages to other African people doesn't involve US citizens participating in the PC. If the framers wanted us to debate whether or not others besides US citizens should teach African languages then they would have not included "United States" and "national service" in the same resolution, or programs that only US citizens can be a part of.

 

You could also use this as a solvency argument. If PC members have to be US citizens and the affs don't specify in the plan text that they will have these members sign contracts to be a part of the PC, or how they will do this despite the PC requirements, you have to assume that they will not change the requirements. How will they do it then? Normal means? Which are? This is not typically normal means. Just some thoughts. Please comment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Run the same T you would run on the immigration aff, or any other aff that attempts to change a policy. Argue teh rez means that the aff should pick a program, somehow get more people in, and then defend that increase...The entire purpose of the resolution listing 6 branches is destroyed if the aff is allowed to change "the rules" of each area. That justifies "Space Corps" (under Armed Forces) or affs that turn all national service into "military service".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that there is a way to run T here. It is related to the "national" T brought up by VLORD. If you look at the requirements for becoming a US PC member, there is one that you have to be a US citizen. African people teaching African languages to other African people doesn't involve US citizens participating in the PC. If the framers wanted us to debate whether or not others besides US citizens should teach African languages then they would have not included "United States" and "national service" in the same resolution, or programs that only US citizens can be a part of.

 

You could also use this as a solvency argument. If PC members have to be US citizens and the affs don't specify in the plan text that they will have these members sign contracts to be a part of the PC, or how they will do this despite the PC requirements, you have to assume that they will not change the requirements. How will they do it then? Normal means? Which are? This is not typically normal means. Just some thoughts. Please comment

 

That goes along with my topicality - serving argument. If only US citizens can serve in the Peace Corps, it proves that these Africans are ipso facto not serving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

substantially T is a true argument here. this increase isn't substantial under any reasonable interpretation, and the national violation is weak.

 

plus, pepsi's violation is obviously flawed because space corps is, like, soo topical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
substantially T is a true argument here. this increase isn't substantial under any reasonable interpretation, and the national violation is weak.

 

plus, pepsi's violation is obviously flawed because space corps is, like, soo topical.

 

the teeny bopper corps is topical too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
substantially T is a true argument here. this increase isn't substantial under any reasonable interpretation, and the national violation is weak.

 

Why is the national violation weak?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is the national violation weak?

I guess it is because the aff will argue that you have to take the entire phrase "national service" into context and since the res gives us six of them if the case works under any of those six then it should be topical under T-national service. That is why I think it is pretty weak.

 

Hope this kind of helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because there is no justification in the resolution for an interpretation indicating that the people serving have to be american. period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
because there is no justification in the resolution for an interpretation indicating that the people serving have to be american. period.

 

What about the fact that the one of the requirements for all of the organizations in the rez (I believe) that you have to be a US citizen. I this is for certain with PC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've heard of this, and I am wondering if anyone else has seen it. It's a case that recruits African teachers and teaches them African languages. The case spikes out of everything by:

 

1.) Not recruiting these people as American Citizens, since they Fiat not only that the plan will pass but also they change a policy within their policy. You have to be an American citizen to be a Peace Corps member. They "think" that they can spike out of soft power this way... I can see a strong argument otherwise. I find this hideously abusive. I mean, when you Fiat, you go through the status quo, and you can't change the system as you Fiat. I mean, for example, when your plan passes, you can't say, "Oh, well Bush is first going to Veto the plan and then the Congress will pass it with a 2/3 majority." The only point in that would be to spike out of Politics. Likewise, I see this only as "trying" to spike out of Soft Power, and trying to spike out of a Citizenship Kritique such as Cosmopolitanism or something of the sort. I may be incorrect, since I have only heard about this case, but I hear it truly does spike out of tons of stuff.

 

2.) Changing, or "Establishing" salaries to $1,000.00 instead of the usual $27,5000.00 for a peace corps volunteers. I suppose this is ok, since each members' salary varies, but the fact that, you have to clarify everything, such as the citizenship issue AND the salary issue during cross-x makes it a strange case. I know the Affirmative rserves the right to clarify, but this is pushing it. Soon we'll be having to clarify what day the plan passes so they can turn some religious Kritique with a Sabath advantage.

 

With one hand, they spike out of soft power by not claiming these people as citizens, and with the other, they spike out of economy disadvantages. Soft power, with a lay judge, will be easy to simplify with for the Affirmative.

 

I don't even see how teachers should be going through the peace corps, wouldn't learn and serve be better? Maybe you use the Peace Corps because it's foreign, but the Peace Corps doesn't have a job to teach languages? Maybe that just proves their inherency.

 

I may be a little off with this case, but that is wha I have heard. Anyone care to help me out and clarify?

My team has discussed this case and there is one glaring error if it is being run at the JV or Varsity levels: IT'S BLATENTLY RACIST

 

It may seem strange, but how is paying black african teachers $1,000 and paying predominately white Peace Corps volunteers 20 some thousand dollars not racist? Run racism K on this case.

 

Besides, the Peace Corps does not have the ability to recruit foreign nationals. This plan has no enforcement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My team has discussed this case and there is one glaring error if it is being run at the JV or Varsity levels: IT'S BLATENTLY RACIST

 

It may seem strange, but how is paying black african teachers $1,000 and paying predominately white Peace Corps volunteers 20 some thousand dollars not racist? Run racism K on this case.

 

Besides, the Peace Corps does not have the ability to recruit foreign nationals. This plan has no enforcement.

i thought the exact same stratagy the first time i heard this case. and I agree on the points that they still do link to soft power arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...