Jump to content
Speedy Gonzales

conditional services / college tuition for military aff

Recommended Posts

is conditional social services (ie. offering social sevices on the condition that they do something cool, like join an army to attack sudan) legit?

 

prolly not, but it doesnt say in the rez, so theotically topical............

 

lordy, the aff ground on this topic is tooooooooooo large

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't really a condition issue so much as an extra-topicality issue. The fact that it 'doesn't say it in the resolution' is exactly the problem.

 

Also, what? Attack Sudan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no, not a conditional aff.

 

offering a social service with the premise that the people who are particpating in said social sevice do something else (like join the amy)

We understand, yes. It still makes you extra topical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry, didnt see your post before i replied.

 

yea, i guess. but if you claimed that, say, offering free college to people joining the army increases land troops, key to heg???????? thats not stictly exta- t persay, becuase im claiming the adv. off of the social service im offering?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yea, i figuired. thanks for the help tho eveyone, ill figuire out a different aff. right after i finish studying for finals. is it sad that im putting off school work and thinking about doing debate work that wont be necessary for a few months?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a huge trend in the thinking about poverty-reduction strategies right now. What proponents advocate is monetarily incentivizing small things (for example, school attendance or good grades) in the hopes that such incentives will be sufficient to change the behavior of poor folks. I won't go into why it's condescending and ultimately misses the mark, but there is a bevy of literature on this idea and it's been tried with mixed success in places like Mexico City. Once people get beyond weird ideas like attacking Sudan, the idea is fundamental to this resolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
is conditional social services (ie. offering social sevices on the condition that they do something cool, like join an army to attack sudan) legit?

 

prolly not, but it doesnt say in the rez, so theotically topical............

 

lordy, the aff ground on this topic is tooooooooooo large

 

lordy, extra topical plans are tooooooooooooooooo large

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We understand, yes. It still makes you extra topical.

 

 

uh... No.

 

Welfare is a social service -- http://www.hg.org/socserv.html

 

Here is a solvency advocate for conditional welfare

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,22005644-7583,00.html

 

A topical aff could increase welfare opportunities under a set condition, i.e. we'll give you more money if you get a job.

 

 

alternate ideas, education services for joining the military, healthcare to work in a certain industry, etc etc.

 

The real question is the USFG key warrant.

 

That being said, I think T-QPQ will be pretty big next year.

 

I mean condition cp's not conditional cp's.

 

they're bad for debate.

 

This is pretty dumb Tommy. There are two main reasons conditioning CP's are bad, neither of which apply to these affs

 

a) the condition isn't, though not always, tied to the affirmative. The type of CP that uses some external condition (i.e. condition african aid on iran prolif) I agree are abusive, but this is not the case. A more analogous example for these affs would be the CP's read at the TOC last year that involved internal conditions, like Africa submit the "African Peer Review Mechanism;" these CP's are reflected in topic literature, and there are explicit solvency advocates that check the inifnite regression. Similarly, as pointed out above, solvency advocates exist for these types of conditions.

 

B) result in the entire aff. This isn't much of a problem in a world of an aff running it. If the negative wins people will be lazy enough to not accept the condition, a politics/funding tradeoff DA based off creating the new program would likely outweigh a non-existent advantage.

 

Or, the neg could CP to do it unconditionally. For example, say the aff were to give healthcare to people who joined the military, and had two advantages: healthcare industry good, hegemony. The neg could logically CP to give healthcare to people and read DA's to the miltary, or say that this condition is too harsh, people wouldn't join, and the PIC solves health care better. Any perm the aff would require the condition of military time, making it severance/not solve the DA.

Edited by mmcpjh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It definitely isn't XT because it doesn't go beyond the scope of the resolution. If the condition is met then the resolution is affirmed since social services are increased. The effect of the condition is an effect of the plan, or an advantage.

 

The better argument is T Increase. There is not a guaranteed increase if you look to the plan text in a vacuum. You have to look to whether substantial number of people agree to the condition to see whether the usfg would actually have to do the social service program. It's both a FX and Aff Conditionality argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference in this case, though, is that the advantages are derived from the non-resolutional part of plan action (in this case, attacking the Sudan). Welfare certainly seems to makes sense, and military involvement might even be on inside of the T bubble, but doing specific things with the military are probably beyond the scope of the topic.

 

On this question, though, what are the limits of quid pro quo social services? Do you need a solvency advocate to prove that you're topical? What can you demand in exchange without going beyond the resolution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is it possible on aff?? this is gonna be the first topic in a couple years without intuitive hege ground on aff

 

also, random stupid idea: would drafting all poor people qualify as increasing social service? they get food clothing etc while deployed. granted this might be FX as hella and generally ridic, but just a thought...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Poor Schools threaten Global Primacy"

 

http://www.oxan.com/display.aspx?StoryDate=20080422&ProductCode=OADB&StoryType=DB&StoryNumber=1

 

 

other random hege stuff. expansion of domestic tech could somehow be converted into social service...iuno lol

 

http://www.cfr.org/project/402/roundtable_on_technology_innovation_and_american_primacy.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most Heg links on this topic will be based mostly on the economy, but i doubt there is going to be a big heg/military aff like other years (like SPS this year or something)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most Heg links on this topic will be based mostly on the economy, but i doubt there is going to be a big heg/military aff like other years (like SPS this year or something)

wrong. soft power key to hege. our great new domestic policies increase perception, in turn increasing sopo or even if you wanted to get down to smart power...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember hearing people talking about poor veterans services earlier, that providing more services would increase army recruitment. I don't know if this is true or a good idea, I just remember people talking about it on this board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

those are all terrible heg internals.

not only is it asinine to believe a. other countries as a whole would shift the direction of their foreign policy based on whether the us is nice to it's poor or b. the poor are a drag on the economy in such a way that it hurts power projection, but every aspect of the internal link is not unique, and empirically denied.

leave heg out of affs next year. please.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, Ferguson is most definitely a heavy supporter of unilateralism. I think he feels it's the reigning superpower's duty to 'liberate' the dark parts of the globe, a 21st century "white man's burden." If other countries will help the U.S., fine, but if they don't, go right along and do it anyway. Also, to say that Ferguson in 4 is unwarranted is definitely not true. His argument is based upon historical events (the Dark Ages) and then updated for a modern timeline and current trends. Is his approach flawed? Probably. Personally, I don't think he accounts for the role that Russia, China, Europe, or others would likely play in a world with an isolationist America. While those nations might not be able to become a full-fledged hegemon, they would certainly be able to establish regional leadership. And a conflict between them would be incredibly unlikely due to MAD.

 

To Destroyer: I agree with you that such a small change in U.S. domestic policy if it was enacted in reality would have little effect on U.S. leadership and international standing. However, we have to remember that policy debate has become an activity where such small changes are magnified into having earth-shattering repercussions (hence each round's multiple scenarios for nuclear war).

 

As for internal links, I think it's extremely valid to have an economy internal link, and through that a competitiveness internal as well. For proof, see the 1980s Soviet Union. Its economy was tanking, and it could no longer afford the programs it needed to maintain superpower status. Thus it collapsed and the U.S. filled the power void.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
those are all terrible heg internals.

not only is it asinine to believe a. other countries as a whole would shift the direction of their foreign policy based on whether the us is nice to it's poor or b. the poor are a drag on the economy in such a way that it hurts power projection, but every aspect of the internal link is not unique, and empirically denied.

leave heg out of affs next year. please.

 

lmao, spoken like a true hard-power heg debater. the internal links for the "soft power" approach, in terms of domestic policy spillover are... well ridiculous. there's some sort of ground for the econ argument its just not so apparent as it was back in the winter a.k.a. when gbs broke the auto-industry aff (with style) at michigan.

 

Its a shame we can't get the same debates about foreign policy (Africa) or military sustainability (energy), but thats not a bad thing. In the end its a personal choice, but heg affs for the poverty topic is something i dont really agree with

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...