Jump to content
ScottyP431

thoughts on the new topic

Recommended Posts

That's called "substantially is without material qualifications". You can't specify (or qualify) a particular group of people that your plan effects.

no 'substantially increase' modifies services, not persons in poverty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Fuck you you goddamn pseudokritikal idiot."

-annony neg rep

 

lolllll awh I love how self-righteous you get about your right to run arguments about "spiritual poverty"

 

Well... here, I guess I'll get "pseudokritikal" on you:

 

"spiritual poverty" is an oedipal concept relying mainly on a return to nature that invests us heavily in a libidinal economy where we always lack that one piece of "spirituality" that would return us to some supposed "spiritual harmony" with the big other spirit daddy (Buddha, MC J-C, Lao Tse, who ever the fuck). You call this proposed regime of "improving" or "unimpovrishing" someone's spiritual state libratory. I call it fascist. (Watch how much your aff will sound like the rantings of an evangelical preacher when I read it in a cowboy voice).

 

What you call a spiritual plague and impovrishment I call an ironic fasting before we let it all burn: have you ever read The Invisible Man?

 

All the shitty little arguments that you are defending are what is "pseudokritikal"... you stand for the right to kritik without kritik. The "right" to make up stupid shit that doesn't exist in order to justify your own desire to impose fascism on others. You represent the kind of cacophony of stupidity that avoids being truly critical. Critical of things that actually exist. You know what concerns me? Not fucking spiritual poverty. If you look at the poverty topic and you would rather talk about fucking bhuddism than the fact that we are condoning an international genocide of the poor then you can go fuck yourself you little reactionaty prick.

 

I hope that my stance is clear. Feel free to anon neg-rep me again you little false-left fascist

Edited by Michael Leap
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eat lots of clam chowder. After all, if you must puke, it might as well be something with good projectile qualities, enabling you give the offending speaker the appropriate sanction.

 

lol good call.

 

I guess I'm just in a state of advanced spiritual impoverishment, which is why I don't like those arguments. Maybe my state of "poverty" alone will make me vomit.

 

(Doctor! Leap is getting dangerously impoverished--more bullshit: stat!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think there's a good argument to be made that the government's poverty line is a joke. In a way, I think redefining the poverty line could be an interesting case idea. After all, whether people are "in poverty" isn't really dependent on the government recognition. So if the government recognizes more people as in poverty, then there is a substantial increase in social services for those people.

 

And I think spiritual, ecological and intellectual poverty can all me valid arguments. Just not in an 8 minute 1ac, even at 300 wpm by a person who understands all the theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That would be fx at best. Your plan doesn't mandate any type of increase.

 

Actually, I think it's arguable that this is the only way to NOT be fx-t. Any plan you pass is just going to give some earmarked money to an agency or something...That means that your plan doesn't actually increase services, it just gives money to a gov't agency, and the money is supposed to be used to effect the level of services provided. On the other hand changing the law to substantially increase the number of people who are legally allowed to access those services (existing or otherwise) has an immediate impact. That's the test of FX-T: in a vacuum, does the plan fulfill the resolution? If you have to look to solvency to be able to tell, then the plan is FX-T...

 

I know I've already been knocked for this line of reasoning once before, but it's a valid thought that people should totally be ready for. Someone WILL lose a round on this argument (or some derivative of it) in the coming year...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

counter interpretation: The resolution does not specify a particular definition of poverty. Aff's approach is to grant the social services already in place to people who are in poverty but as of now receive none. This is certainly a substantial increase in social services received by those people whose poverty the government has, as yet, failed to recognize.

 

Counter standard 1: Neg interpretation overlimits. Only x% (haven't done the research yet) of people in poverty are actually recognized as below the official poverty line. Use of the neg burden disallows affirmative's ability to help those people who are not recognized but who do live in poverty - a substantial part of the poverty problem in America by any standard.

Counter standard 2: Literature checks potential abuse. If the negative has actually researched poverty in the USA, they will have plenty of evidence on whether our case is desirable. The aff case is strictly about poverty in the US and how social services are allocated to such people. There is certainly ample kritikal and policy ground, even if the disadvantage link ground is difficult to come by.

Counter standard 3: Our case is not effects topical. We take a direct policy action. The first result of that action is the eligibility of millions of Americans, now living in poverty, gaining access to social services. For those millions, this is a substantial increase. We are directly topical.

Counter standard 4: Every case is effects topical this year, and even if you think ours is, consider: ours less effects t than most. Plans that develop new social services must mandate the creation of an agency for distribution of services. We don't take this step. the only step we take prior to services being rendered is a change in the govt's definition of poverty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

poverty is gonna be much worse then substantial because while substantial can be anything sometimes you cant really pull offence from the t shell unless they cold drop it or somthing but with poverty you can run t shells and quote some econimists like Jeffery D. Sachs in his book the end of poverty he references extreme poverty as 1$ or less per day and moderate poverty as 2$ or less per day I think theres gonna be t shells all over poverty labeling it some absurd amount of money like this, also poverty is gonna get some serious CP's on it saying alt of extreme poverty in res solves genocide, class system, etc... but yeah substantially isnt gonna be as bad as poverty will be

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

brorlob's idea for an aff does sound good. I might actually write that.

 

In response to fx it's the services that have to be increased, not benefits of those services. The inherently infrastructural basis of services indicates that at the exact moment where more people are made eligible for those services then they have been expanded. Whether expanded and increased are synonimous is open to debate but I don't think that such a rigerous standard for Fx T should be upheld, especially given the other option on the topic: providing more stuff. If the stuff has to be actually given (increased) rather than the amount eligible to be given (expanded) then that would look to solvency to determine topicallity. All of this suggests that perhaps shift-cases are the least Fx T on the topic (a throw-back to the wording of the national service topic).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really into debating the whole round in this thread, I'm just saying that it's worth thinking outside the box. If you can't see my point of view, that's just fine...It won't be the first or last time...

 

That said, I did wanna point something out in response to this:

 

What if my plan was to steal all the money from every single person living above the poverty line. 100% of the population is "poor", and by your standards "eligible" for social services. You got a neg file?

 

I absolutely think that someone will run a communism or socialism case, at least as a critical case and possibly straight-up policy. I think it's pretty straightforward how the government taking care of all of the needs of everyone living in poverty (and everyone else) is an increase in social services... And yes, I think my teams do have files that say things like "cap'ism good" or "competition key to heg." which would be a decent place to start a neg strat against socialism.

 

Anyway, I'm not actually advocating any of these positions, I'm just looking to test the logical (or quasi-logical) limits of the resolution to see what it might be contorted to include. It's early yet, but it's good to think about what could be out there, and I'm not real concerned about the core of the resolution. There will be several totally decent, respectable cases that are at the very heart of the resolution and there'll be plenty of generic, stock DA's which link to everything under the sun, but what worries me are the squirrels...

 

Edited to add: Taking a break for dinner in the middle of writing a post is a sure-fire way to make my post not fit the flow of the thread...

Edited by Teddy Ruxpin
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jared, you're missing it. Whether the government calls someone poor or not is not what makes the person poor. It is a state of being whereby the means of survival are in constant threat. Most Americans are far closer to that definition than we like to admit. We are reliant on income from jobs so specialized they aren't directly related to feeding, clothing or housing anyone. If those paychecks stop, how long is it until you're family is at the food bank? A month? Maybe three at the outside for the average family. How long until you have no home?

 

We don't think of ourselves as poor because of the neat stuff we have. But when the shit comes down, you can't plow a field with a 60" plasma TV. If the economy really tanks, and it's on life support now, you'll be shocked at how fast a huge percentage of Americans become dependent on state assistance. If you don't believe me, go to a nursing home and talk to survivors of the Depression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plan text: The USFG will change the definition of what constitutes poverty by adjusting the poverty line substantially upwards to $24,000 per person in a household, making all people below such a line eligible for social services within the status quo.

 

The structure of the sentence (the resolution) is odd, but the recipient of the action by the subject (USFG) is not the social services but the people in poverty. I think the resolution is questionably worded, perhaps just to make topicality debates more interesting. Hiding the object in a preposition was unnecessary and will allow people to make the argument you are making on grammatical grounds - that services are the real object. Topicality of the kind you discuss, which will place the services above the people they are helping, will be ripe ground for kritiks of topicality.

 

*edit - It just occured to me that if the framers had wanted to use the current poverty line, the resolution would have been no more complex for doing so. "Persons living in poverty" could just as easily be "persons below the poverty line." The fact they chose the former over the latter gives a good reason to prefer my interpretation. Not that you hear "framers' intent" arguments much anymore.

Edited by brorlob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Merkin

brett, are you just being this silly on purpose because you actually belive that these types of affs are GOOD or to pull an ankur and 'expand our mind'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"To be poor in the United States, however, one does not need to be at or below the poverty threshold. With the cost of food and housing, many individuals, even those who earn an income above the poverty threshold, are struggling to make ends meet.

 

While there are programs for those who are "poor", as classified by the U.S. government, there are many individuals and families, who make slightly more than the poverty level, not eligible for such programs. Programs like the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Grants and even Head Start educational programs are not available to those families who are "poor", making an income over the poverty level.

 

So, what is the issue? The poverty levels in the United States are considered, by many, to be too low. To change these poverty levels, however, the U.S. Bureau of Census must change the threshold and then influence change in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. If these changes occur, there will be an increase in the number of Americans accessing public welfare programs, ultimately placing a greater strain upon the welfare system."

 

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/365407/being_poor_in_the_united_states_the.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
brett, are you just being this silly on purpose because you actually belive that these types of affs are GOOD or to pull an ankur and 'expand our mind'?

 

I'm definitely in it for the permutation: I want people to expand their minds (or at least, let me "think out loud" so I can attempt to expand mine!) AND I also think it's ludicrous to (a) make a plan to do something really nice for people and then tell some people "no, you can't have any because you make $5 too much!" or (B) let our people suffer like no other "civilized" or "first world" country on earth.

 

On some level, I think idiotic resolutions like this one lend credibility to the args coming from the project teams about how debate is ridiculous because there are some things which are not worth arguing because they're so true or not worth arguing because they're so ridiculous. Honestly, who really thinks (aside from Dr. Malthus) that we should just let the poor suffer and die? The question should be "what's the best way to help?" not "should we even bother to help?" The problem is, this resolution *cannot* lead to the "discovery" or popularization of any "best ideas" because this type of resolution wording inherently overlimits (depending on how good your opponents are at extra-T) while the best real-world solutions will be more inclusive and must entail helping people who, at least in the SQ, aren't coverd by the Res. Additionally, engagement of the various other classes and the market is probably key to making a real solution stick. Very few people will admit to liking programs which prop up lay-abouts and "wellfare queens" and those things are exactly what most people think of when they think about "social services for the poor." On the other hand, there are ideas out there (what Eddie Izzard calls "world ideas") which help everyone who partakes, but mostly the lower classes. Look at the idea of socializing health care: it helps everybody because it'll ultimately cause the Gub'ment to start watching out for everyone's health when setting policy ("aw, hell, we don't want to poison everyone if we're going to have to pay to fix them all!") but it helps those who didn't have health care yesterday even more!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
brett, are you just being this silly on purpose because you actually belive that these types of affs are GOOD or to pull an ankur and 'expand our mind'?

I don't think I've said anything silly in this thread. I do think the idea of "expanding your mind" is a goal worth achieving, so long as all I do is get you to ask the right questions. I think an aff of adjusting the poverty line is a very solid approach for next year, one that can please judges who like policies and kritikal approaches alike.

 

I also think that insomuch as the government is considered legitimate, such a plan is a primary, progressive step that must be taken to account for poverty and is far more important than health care reforms (for the poor only), food programs, housing, job training or most other poverty issues. The only issue I'd put higher is education. And the only reason I'd put education as a higher priority is that people are so influenced by the normative nature of modern ed that they make arguments like you're making here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Merkin

Plan text: The USFG will change the definition of what constitutes poverty by adjusting the poverty line substantially upwards to $24,000 per person in a household, making all people below such a line eligible for social services within the status quo.

 

I think this plan text is bad. A few arguments—

(a) Predictable interpretations: expanding what poverty is isn’t an actual increase in social service programs for those who are in poverty – the same amounts of programs exist, just more people are using them. The resolution isn’t asking for us to increase the number of people getting services, but to increase the number of services for people. Context checks your arguments back as well. The resolution says: Resolved: The USfg should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty in the United States. Social Services is the object of the resolution, not the number of persons living in poverty. In fact, the number of persons living in poverty modifies which types of social service programs should be increased which assume the status quo interpretation of what poverty means. Allowing this interpretation of the resolution would kill any form of stable, predictable ground on BOTH sides of the resolution. For the negative they not only have to research contextual lit on how we change the definition of poverty (18k, 20k, 24k, 28k, 36k, etc.), which social programs can be increased inside each of those income brackets BUT ALSO which social services are only available inside each bracket that’s excluded to different brackets (for example, there are health care plans that effect only people in the 25-35k bracket but not anyone below that or above that). For the affirmative they would have to nearly triple their research in terms of condition cp’s and different solvency mechanisms for why their mechanism is good AND why other mechanisms are comparatively worse.

(B) It’s effectually topical at best – as stated above, the object of the resolution is services, not the number of people. Yes, effects topicality is inevitable in the form of funding but this is one of the steps that we as a community can eliminate as non-germane to the resolution.

© its anti-resolution – social service programs are aimed at doing one thing – getting people out of poverty. YOU put more people INTO poverty by defining them as such. Silly rabbit.

The structure of the sentence (the resolution) is odd, but the recipient of the action by the subject (USFG) is not the social services but the people in poverty. I think the resolution is questionably worded, perhaps just to make topicality debates more interesting. Hiding the object in a preposition was unnecessary and will allow people to make the argument you are making on grammatical grounds - that services are the real object. Topicality of the kind you discuss, which will place the services above the people they are helping, will be ripe ground for kritiks of topicality.

This thought isn’t very coherent so sorry if I don’t understand you. Anyway,

It’s only odd because you make it odd. You think it’s questionably worded because you want to find a way to justify fucking with debate rather than just let a good resolution be set.

The resolution seems sensible to me: we are to increase the number of services for people who live in poverty. Not increase the number of people who live in poverty or whatever crazy idea you have.

At: K’s of T –

(a) switch-side debate solves this without a doubt and,

(B) the ground really isn’t that great- most of the lit base assumes that we white-washing what it means to be in poverty by using programs to define people out of the social services in the first place. Guess what your plan does?

*edit - It just occured to me that if the framers had wanted to use the current poverty line, the resolution would have been no more complex for doing so. "Persons living in poverty" could just as easily be "persons below the poverty line." The fact they chose the former over the latter gives a good reason to prefer my interpretation. Not that you hear "framers' intent" arguments much anymore.

You’re right – the framers totally meant to increase the number of people in poverty which is why they included the phrase “for people who could potentially live in poverty”….Oh, wait.

Your interpretation is a cool thought experiment at best but has no application inside of debate.

"To be poor in the United States, however, one does not need to be at or below the poverty threshold. With the cost of food and housing, many individuals, even those who earn an income above the poverty threshold, are struggling to make ends meet.

 

While there are programs for those who are "poor", as classified by the U.S. government, there are many individuals and families, who make slightly more than the poverty level, not eligible for such programs. Programs like the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Grants and even Head Start educational programs are not available to those families who are "poor", making an income over the poverty level.

 

So, what is the issue? The poverty levels in the United States are considered, by many, to be too low. To change these poverty levels, however, the U.S. Bureau of Census must change the threshold and then influence change in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. If these changes occur, there will be an increase in the number of Americans accessing public welfare programs, ultimately placing a greater strain upon the welfare system."

 

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...tates_the.html

(a) this card has no intrinsic value – the point of the resolution isn’t to define who or what constitutes as poor but to create better social service programs for the already set guideline for poverty. This piece of evidence would allow affirmatives to say “poor means not happy”, “emotionally poor”, “physically (shape wise) poor”, “mentally poor”, or “spiritually poor”. We are not here to decide who or what poor means.

(B) Bad precedent—people are poor because of the cost of living, it justifies affirmatives to just say ‘the us will cap food prices to what they were in the 60’s”* as a social service program. Also, increasing the number of poverty who are poor won’ti increase the number of social services nor decrease the cost of living. All the feds will do is raise taxes and hold more money back to account for the number of people who know (who souldn’t be) are on welfare.

*actually – a topical affirmative under your evidence would suggest that the USfg forces families to spend 1/3rd of their income on food. I’d be interested to see a number on how much a family really spends on unnecessary foods (Eating out). I probably spend 60-80 dollars a week on food and that includes a cup of coffee every morning at the coffee shop.

Also, that article seems to suggest that energy prices are the cause for why families are poor. Why not cap those off as an aff?

I'm definitely in it for the permutation: I want people to expand their minds (or at least, let me "think out loud" so I can attempt to expand mine!) AND I also think it's ludicrous to (a) make a plan to do something really nice for people and then tell some people "no, you can't have any because you make $5 too much!" or (B) let our people suffer like no other "civilized" or "first world" country on earth.

 

A few faults –

(a) not a single person apply for social services would be denied if they made 500-2500 more than the threshold set up by the program. There are built in exceptions to nearly all social service programs to take into account these situations.

(B) social service programs are pretty flexible in terms of “suffering”. The single mom of 4 who works 2 jobs at 90 hours a week and makes only 25k gets a lot more assistance from the government than I do as a single adult living on my own making less than 25k a year. I am only eligible for food stamps for 3 months every 22 months while she is eligible for all 22 months, her Women, Infants and Children (WIC) payment AND her GHR plus whatever bill assistance she’s on. Now – with all that said, there’s a difference between “suffering” and “living”. People who live in poverty shouldn’t spend key income/help on eating out or massively expensive technology. They don’t have the means nor the income to support that habit and the government shouldn’t be paying for that. But Tom – these people don’t live like that. Lol! False. Anytime cash assistance is given to a family there’s no way to enforce that the money is being spent on what the assistance was far (this is basic cash assistance like 207 and whatnot). However, when it’s given in specific areas (ebt/food stamps) then the government can make sure that said ebt is being used only on food and not, lets say, eating out at McDonalds every night.

On some level, I think idiotic resolutions like this one

I forget the warrant for why this is an idiotic resolution – are you really saying that we shouldn’t give assistance to those in poverty?

[resolutions Like this] lend credibility to the args coming from the project teams about how debate is ridiculous because there are some things which are not worth arguing because they're so true or not worth arguing because they're so ridiculous. Honestly, who really thinks (aside from Dr. Malthus) that we should just let the poor suffer and die? The question should be "what's the best way to help?" not "should we even bother to help?"

Wat? This resolution at no point says we should elt the poor suffer and die.

(a) cp’s and k’s solve back this “whats the best way, not should we bother” argument you’re making. These are inherent questions in the CP/K debate in the first place. Neg teams just wont get up and say we should let the poor suffer and die (well, most won’t).

(B) this is just a vacuous claim with zero warrant –

1. It assumes project teams are legitimate arguments in the first place

2. It assumes that debate is a unmoreally, unethical activity.

3. It assumes that only project teams are the “ones that get it”.

The problem is, this resolution *cannot* lead to the "discovery" or popularization of any "best ideas" because this type of resolution wording inherently overlimits (depending on how good your opponents are at extra-T) while the best real-world solutions will be more inclusive and must entail helping people who, at least in the SQ, aren't coverd by the Res.

Why can this resolution NOT lead to the discovery of “good ideas” again? You say: it overlimits (Which makes ZERO sense. I published a case list in the “Social Service” thread with about 15 different, legitimate affirmatives) and that it excludes real-world solutions who aren’t covered by the resolution (Which sounds like a framers intent issue which Brett says is evidently good. Which you say is bad which I say is good because brett said iwas bad and now I’m just confused!!!).

I don’t find “increasing the number of people who are poor” as any more ‘real-world’ as ‘lets nuke the poor’.

To be honest – there’s not a single reason why you can’t argue to increase some social service and then argue that increase leads to a spill over effect to help people outside of the poverty line. Solves your argument and is topical.

Additionally, engagement of the various other classes and the market is probably key to making a real solution stick. Very few people will admit to liking programs which prop up lay-abouts and "wellfare queens" and those things are exactly what most people think of when they think about "social services for the poor." On the other hand, there are ideas out there (what Eddie Izzard calls "world ideas") which help everyone who partakes, but mostly the lower classes. Look at the idea of socializing health care: it helps everybody because it'll ultimately cause the Gub'ment to start watching out for everyone's health when setting policy ("aw, hell, we don't want to poison everyone if we're going to have to pay to fix them all!") but it helps those who didn't have health care yesterday even more!

That’s great – why is arguing those specific inclusions on the affirmative key though? Sounds like damning good negative argumentation though.

Why not pass a universal health care for those who live in poverty and claim that uhc for the poor => uhc for everyone?

I think an aff of adjusting the poverty line is a very solid approach for next year, one that can please judges who like policies and kritikal approaches alike.

 

I assume those are the same judges who think that Foucault and agamben are the bffs. This aff isn’t topical – end of story. It’s a good negative argument and could be a damning adv. Cp but it’s not a good, topical aff.

I also think that insomuch as the government is considered legitimate, such a plan is a primary, progressive step that must be taken to account for poverty and is far more important than health care reforms (for the poor only), food programs, housing, job training or most other poverty issues. The only issue I'd put higher is education. And the only reason I'd put education as a higher priority is that people are so influenced by the normative nature of modern ed that they make arguments like you're making here.

Lol. OHEZ NOEZ! A NORMATIVO!!!!!!

Brett, this is silly….again. “As long as the government is considered legitimate”. I don’t even need to respond to this. Anyone with half a mind that’s not a zombie king to the liberal left knows what that’s not germane to this resolution (And I think I misspelled germane twice (now three times), if I did sorry and let me know).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick spinoff of something that came to my mind at school today, even I won't be debating this resolution next year.

 

What would be the merits of critiquing the definition of American financial poverty by putting it in the context of global poverty? The average income of any given person in the world is about $7,000 a year, and that's including rich western countries. There's many countries where an enormous segment of the population lives on less than a dollar a day. I bet there's a whole library full a literature on why viewing "poverty" through the American lenses of poverty desensitizes us to the absolute squalor that exists worldwide.

 

Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ethically impacted and for the sake of sheer argument yes, in the context of ground impacts etc. questionable, simply because the res is clear enough about FEDERAL social services for ppl in the US, and thus a 'globalized' (?) definition would jack predictability and germanity to the topic.

 

that doesn't mean I wouldn't say that, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, you guys are right. Increasing the social services that already exist in the status quo, to those people already living in poverty in the US who receive none, is clearly not topical, and impossible to research. [/sarcasm]

 

Any plan that creates a new social service is extra T, btw. Why not debate the topic, guys? I know you'd all rather talk about how a continuing ed aff will result in global extinction, and perhaps the explosion of the Earth, but I think a real world argument might be novel at this point.

Edited by brorlob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Merkin

It'd be nice if the plan text you proposed above actually did that, but it doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...