Jump to content
Calculus

natives aff

Recommended Posts

I feel strage replying again right after myself. Anyway, I was wondering if anyone could explain the solvency to me. I only heard the case from one team, and their case didn't solve.

 

a.) The only solvency that even suggested that Native Americans would respond to the extension of the PTC was a quote from someone who was talking hypothetically about how the power grid could be built up strong if the Native Americans set to it, but never did it give any assurance that the Native Americans would begin rebuilding America's infrastructure.

 

b.) How does this overcome the inherent barrier? At least from the version of the case I heard, the Native Americans are too far in poverty to be able to afford wind turbines. The PTC is not money in the pocket though. It is just a deduction from a whole myriad of taxes that have to be paid after you begin producing electricity. The Native Americans would not be getting a bajillion dollars, but rather would have to battle many more taxes just to be able to produce.

 

c.) They can't get the PTC until they are producing power, hence the "PRODUCTION tax credit". They have to overcome their inherent barrier to even approach solvency. So the solvency should have already happened.

 

d.) Also, I believe that the PTC cannot be applied residentially, only commercially. I thought that only businesses were eligible. The Native Americans would have to form their own corporations in order to even receive the tax credit.

 

If someone could explain this it would be appreciated. I can't see how this can be such an acclaimed case if there are these many holes. Either I am misinterpreting the information or the team was running a version of the case that was not complete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have always felt that Natives affs are untopical... :sob:

 

because you are a racist who thinks they aren't people?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have always felt that Natives affs are untopical... :sob:

 

Why do you think that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Additionally, I think what you are talking about would be a simple fix in the plan text to state that the increase of IHS services are to be used for those at or below the poverty line.

Hope that all makes since.

 

I'm cutting this for one of my teams. I'm thinking about using a plan text similar to that of the GDI version:

 

Plan: The United States Federal Government will reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 1976 and provide an increase in discretionary funding for the federal Indian Health Service, including funds for culturally-specific health care programs and Indian Health Service affiliated services provided through both on and off-reservation health service programs for American Indians and Alaskan Natives.

 

Thoughts?

 

Edit: Plan text might be shortened to

 

Plan: The United States Federal Government will reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 1976 and provide an increase in discretionary funding for the federal Indian Health Service. Ask us, we'll clarify.

 

Just for time's sake and because I'm cutting advantages from various affs and personal research and will be trying different advantage modules.

Edited by jshepard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We just drove by some windmills in Iowa, they look pretty dangerous to birds, if i was giong up against this case its be 6 minutes of inherency and then the bird DA with like......A DISEASE IMPACT

 

 

the aff would just crumble under that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest wutlol
I'm cutting this for one of my teams. I'm thinking about using a plan text similar to that of the GDI version:

 

 

 

Thoughts?

 

Edit: Plan text might be shortened to

 

 

 

Just for time's sake and because I'm cutting advantages from various affs and personal research and will be trying different advantage modules.

 

 

What's the strategic utility in reauthorizing a real (and vague) act? Why not just specify the mandates of your plan? It seems like you're asking for random pics/ extra T violations.

 

 

What does "discretionary funding" mean? What does the act even do? I'm pretty sure the IHS gets a lot of funding now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do you think that?

 

I could be wrong but I was under the impression that although they do answer to the US the do not belong to any of the 50 states.

Edited by Truth_Is_Treason
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I could be wrong but I was under the impression that although they do answer to the US the do not belong to any of the 50 states.

 

US = 50 + DC + all territories

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
US = 50 + DC + all territories

 

I'd argue that that definition is far too broad. That definition that it is any land under US jurisdiction allows for affs in what like 700+ bases in 140+ countries? Not to mention all the territorial possessions. The 50 states are plenty to work with, especially with a wide variety of mechanisms, etc. Also making native lands part of the US kinda turns any advantage based on independence right?

 

Maybe I'm wrong but what I do know is that I was rather successful, multiple times, on T vs. natives last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's the strategic utility in reauthorizing a real (and vague) act? Why not just specify the mandates of your plan?

 

The act empirically has helped increase Indian health and is a better frame of reference for what the plan actually does and is *far* more specific than a short list of mandates. The act isn't that vague if you actually *read it*. No more vague than any 1AC.

 

http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/comp2/F094-437.html

 

It seems like you're asking for random pics/ extra T violations.

 

Far from it. Plenty of Act is key evidence and you avoid the extra t violations through the "discretionary funding" clause of the plan.

 

 

What does "discretionary funding" mean?

 

Specifications on where/to whom the money goes. See the above conversation about how without limitations, the plan increases services to Indians in *and* out of poverty.

 

What does the act even do?

 

<see link>

 

The act funds services such as IHS with the intent of increasing the health of Indians as they have the lowest quality of health care of any group in the US.

 

I'm pretty sure the IHS gets a lot of funding now.

 

The IHS only receives half the funding it needs

AP, Mary Clare Jalonick, 6-15-2009“Little money to treat American Indians: Horror stories abound at underfunded clinics,” Austin American Statesman, http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/nation/2009/06/15/0615indianhealth.html

On some reservations, the oft-quoted refrain is "don't get sick after June." That's when federal dollars run out each year for the Indian Health Service, which serves almost 2 million American Indians in 35 states. It's a sick joke, and a sad one because it is sometimes true. Officials say they have about half of what they need to operate, and patients know they must be dying or about to lose a limb to get serious care. The U.S. has an obligation, based on a 1787 agreement between tribes and the government, to provide American Indians with free health care on reservations. The wealthiest tribes can supplement the federal budget. But poor tribes, often those on the remotest reservations, far from city hospitals, are stuck with grossly substandard care. The agency itself acknowledges that it is a "rationed health care system." When it comes to health and disease among American Indians, the statistics are staggering. They have an infant death rate that is 40 percent higher than the rate for whites. They are twice as likely to die from diabetes, 60 percent more likely to have a stroke, 30 percent more likely to have high blood pressure and 20 percent more likely to have heart disease. Officials at the Indian Health Service say they are doing their best with the money they have — about 54 cents on the dollar of what they need. On the Standing Rock Reservation in North Dakota, residents shared stories of substandard care. A clinic failed to diagnose Victor Brave Thunder with congestive heart failure, giving him Tylenol and cough syrup. The 54-year-old died in April, awaiting a heart transplant. "You can talk to anyone on the reservation, and they all have a story," says Tracey Castaway, whose sister, Marcella Buckley, said she was $40,000 in debt because of stomach cancer treatment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd argue that that definition is far too broad. That definition that it is any land under US jurisdiction allows for affs in what like 700+ bases in 140+ countries? Not to mention all the territorial possessions. The 50 states are plenty to work with, especially with a wide variety of mechanisms, etc. Also making native lands part of the US kinda turns any advantage based on independence right?

 

Maybe I'm wrong but what I do know is that I was rather successful, multiple times, on T vs. natives last year.

 

Indian country is in the US both by law and (obviously) geographically.

 

Indian country is in the U.S.

William Bradford, Chiricahua Apache. Assistant Professor of Law, Indiana University, 2002-2003, American Indian Law Review

More than half of the U.S. land mass was purchased at an average price of pennies per acre, while another 300 million acres were taken without compensation and another 700 million acres are claimed by the United States although it has taken no action to extinguish Indian title. See Russel Lawrence Barsh, Indian Land Claims Policy in the United States, 58 N.D. L. REV. 7, 8-9 (1982). Moreover, all of "Indian Country", a legal term-of-art meaning essentially lands within the territorial limits of an Indian reservation, is now either trust land owned by the United States or non-trust land permanently Indian-occupied but subject to Congressional plenary power to restrict alienation and use. See 18 U.S.C. § 1151 (2000) (defining "Indian Country"); see also Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Gov't, 522 U.S. 234, 243-44 (1998) (noting that to qualify as "Indian Country" subject to federal jurisdiction, the trust doctrine, and limited immunity from State jurisdiction, Congress must explicitly designate lands in question, by treaty or statute, either a "reservation," "dependent Indian community," or Indian allotment). In sum, the United States owns superior title to all land within its borders, and efforts to reacquire Indian land are vigorously opposed by all levels of government. See Rebecca Tsosie, Negotiating Economic Survival: The Consent Principle and Tribal-State Compacts Under the Indian Gaming Act, 29 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 25, 80 (1997) [hereinafter Tsosie, Negotiating]. From the Indian viewpoint, non-Indians not only shamelessly "gorge themselves on the spoils of old wars" but remain unrepentant, as evinced by ongoing land seizures. Atkinson, supra note 54, at 381.

Indian country is in the U.S.

US Code, 7-1-2008,

§ 1151. Indian country defined

Except as otherwise provided in sections 1154 and 1156 of this title [18 USCS §§ 1154 and 1156], the term "Indian country", as used in this chapter [18 USCS §§ 1151 et seq.], means (a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation, (B) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state, and © all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indian country is in the US both by law and (obviously) geographically.

 

Indian country is in the U.S.

William Bradford, Chiricahua Apache. Assistant Professor of Law, Indiana University, 2002-2003, American Indian Law Review

More than half of the U.S. land mass was purchased at an average price of pennies per acre, while another 300 million acres were taken without compensation and another 700 million acres are claimed by the United States although it has taken no action to extinguish Indian title. See Russel Lawrence Barsh, Indian Land Claims Policy in the United States, 58 N.D. L. REV. 7, 8-9 (1982). Moreover, all of "Indian Country", a legal term-of-art meaning essentially lands within the territorial limits of an Indian reservation, is now either trust land owned by the United States or non-trust land permanently Indian-occupied but subject to Congressional plenary power to restrict alienation and use. See 18 U.S.C. § 1151 (2000) (defining "Indian Country"); see also Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Gov't, 522 U.S. 234, 243-44 (1998) (noting that to qualify as "Indian Country" subject to federal jurisdiction, the trust doctrine, and limited immunity from State jurisdiction, Congress must explicitly designate lands in question, by treaty or statute, either a "reservation," "dependent Indian community," or Indian allotment). In sum, the United States owns superior title to all land within its borders, and efforts to reacquire Indian land are vigorously opposed by all levels of government. See Rebecca Tsosie, Negotiating Economic Survival: The Consent Principle and Tribal-State Compacts Under the Indian Gaming Act, 29 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 25, 80 (1997) [hereinafter Tsosie, Negotiating]. From the Indian viewpoint, non-Indians not only shamelessly "gorge themselves on the spoils of old wars" but remain unrepentant, as evinced by ongoing land seizures. Atkinson, supra note 54, at 381.

 

Indian country is in the U.S.

US Code, 7-1-2008,

§ 1151. Indian country defined

Except as otherwise provided in sections 1154 and 1156 of this title [18 USCS §§ 1154 and 1156], the term "Indian country", as used in this chapter [18 USCS §§ 1151 et seq.], means (a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation, (B) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state, and © all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same.

 

Interp: United States = the 50 states (I can look up a cite if you want)

 

Violation: Indian country is not in any of the 50 states.

 

Standards:

 

1: Limits- We allow any plan in the 50 states, but not in the scores of countries that the US has bases in (map) and its territorial possessions.

 

2: Ground- Having the plan occur within the 50 states is key to neg ground. The States CP is a vital to neg ground. Also, most DAs are focused on the 50 states. You don't see the San Vito dei Normanni Air Station (US base in Italy) DA very often, do you.

 

3: Predictability- Having the plan outside of the fifty states is totally unpredictable, we can't be expected to research all the lands under US jurisdiction. That would make us have to study all those aforementioned bases as well as Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnson Atoll, Midway Islands, Wake Island, Palmyra Atoll, Kingman Reef, Navassa Island, Serranilla Bank, and Bajo Nuevo Bank.

 

4: Framer's Intent- If the framers of the resolution had wanted to include other lands under US jurisdiction, besides the 50 states, they would have specified "and relevent territories" or something of the sort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can type out a full at if you want but I have papers to grade.

 

1 we meet, see above

2 c/def, see above

 

on to your standards

off limits, we're not talking about any sort of base etc. territories are both in the us under jurisdiction and GEOGRAPHICALLY as well. yes, geographically. reservations and urban centers are located IN THE STATES.

 

off grounds, horseshit. ther are PLENTY of da's that you could try to link. econ? pick your link. we're spending money aren't we? politics? we're using the usfg too. the list of cp's and k's you could run are fucking endless. look at your camp files. there's indians neg. stop bitching. you've got arguments you can run (ground is the stupidest shit you could say, ever)

 

off predictability, see limits

 

off f.i., you don't know what the framers were thinking when they created the resolution. doesn't matter anyway since we meet.

 

potential abuse is not a voter.

rvi for time suck, rvi for laziness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest wutlol
The act empirically has helped increase Indian health and is a better frame of reference for what the plan actually does

 

not responsive... (you can still just list the mandates)

 

 

 

and is *far* more specific than a short list of mandates.

 

 

hmmm.... If this is true, you have other (more important) things to worry about.

 

 

The act isn't that vague if you actually *read it*. No more vague than any 1AC.

 

joke?

 

 

 

 

Far from it. Plenty of Act is key evidence

 

"Act key" isn't very responsive when the cp text is "do the plan except don't fuck with tobacco smoking" + 7 minutes of case turns ("tobacoo is key to Native culture" and "smoking good". Every round we hit you we'll have a different pic. You're now reduced to winning textual competition good. This is a bad place to be in starting with the 2AC.

 

 

 

and you avoid the extra t violations through the "discretionary funding" clause of the plan.

 

Specifications on where/to whom the money goes. See the above conversation about how without limitations, the plan increases services to Indians in *and* out of poverty.

 

uh, I'm confused. So "discretionary funding" is your 2AC trick to spike out of extra T violations and disad links? You write the entire Act in your plan text, but you won't even defend it all? And you won't tell us until the 2AC??? This is sounding abusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can type out a full at if you want but I have papers to grade.

 

1 we meet, see above

2 c/def, see above

 

on to your standards

off limits, we're not talking about any sort of base etc. territories are both in the us under jurisdiction and GEOGRAPHICALLY as well. yes, geographically. reservations and urban centers are located IN THE STATES.

 

off grounds, horseshit. ther are PLENTY of da's that you could try to link. econ? pick your link. we're spending money aren't we? politics? we're using the usfg too. the list of cp's and k's you could run are fucking endless. look at your camp files. there's indians neg. stop bitching. you've got arguments you can run (ground is the stupidest shit you could say, ever)

 

off predictability, see limits

 

off f.i., you don't know what the framers were thinking when they created the resolution. doesn't matter anyway since we meet.

 

potential abuse is not a voter.

rvi for time suck, rvi for laziness.

 

c/a voter for laziness. Neg admitted to not typing out full AT.

^ JK,

I don't think we really need to cover voters on this thread, we're really just discussing whether natives affs are topical.

 

On the W/M:

This makes no sense, both your definitions just talk about being under the jurisdiction of the US and not in any of the 50 states.

 

On limits:

Maybe you aren't on a base but that is just part of the vast expanse of aff ground that you open up by allowing any land under US jurisdiction. We provide clear and fair limits.

 

On the geographical sub-point:

Just because these lands are surrounded by the states, they aren't part of the states. This is really an irrelevant point because although political borders are often drawn geographically, geography doesn't necessarily determine political borders. What you are arguing would be like saying that San Marino is part of Italy, surrounded and therefore a part. THE DONUT HOLE IS NOT MOAR OF THE SAME DONUT!!!

 

On grounds:

Spending DA's are weak and non-unique, ptix disads are illegit (see ankur's thread), you avoid countless DAs involving action in the states, not to mention the states cp, especially key to neg ground on this topic. The fact is that Natives affs skip out of a TON of neg ground that is crucial for a good debate.

 

On predictability:

The only argument you make here is that you are predictable because you are geographically engulfed by the US. Your interp still justifies all those other locations that we would have to research; they all have poor people or (if we're debating in the context of 08-09) potential for implementation of alternative energy incentives. Basically, no location is more predictable than the rest and your interp creates way to great a research burden.

 

 

On framers' intent:

It can certainly not unreasonable to think that if they intended for your interpretation, they would have specified so, seeing as when one thinks of the "United States" they generally do not include Navassa Island in their mental picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest wutlol
c/a voter for laziness. Neg admitted to not typing out full AT.

^ JK,

I don't think we really need to cover voters on this thread, we're really just discussing whether natives affs are topical.

 

On the W/M:

This makes no sense, both your definitions just talk about being under the jurisdiction of the US and not in any of the 50 states.

 

On limits:

Maybe you aren't on a base but that is just part of the vast expanse of aff ground that you open up by allowing any land under US jurisdiction. We provide clear and fair limits.

 

On the geographical sub-point:

Just because these lands are surrounded by the states, they aren't part of the states. This is really an irrelevant point because although political borders are often drawn geographically, geography doesn't necessarily determine political borders. What you are arguing would be like saying that San Marino is part of Italy, surrounded and therefore a part. THE DONUT HOLE IS NOT MOAR OF THE SAME DONUT!!!

 

On grounds:

Spending DA's are weak and non-unique, ptix disads are illegit (see ankur's thread), you avoid countless DAs involving action in the states, not to mention the states cp, especially key to neg ground on this topic. The fact is that Natives affs skip out of a TON of neg ground that is crucial for a good debate.

 

On predictability:

The only argument you make here is that you are predictable because you are geographically engulfed by the US. Your interp still justifies all those other locations that we would have to research; they all have poor people or (if we're debating in the context of 08-09) potential for implementation of alternative energy incentives. Basically, no location is more predictable than the rest and your interp creates way to great a research burden.

 

 

On framers' intent:

It can certainly not unreasonable to think that if they intended for your interpretation, they would have specified so, seeing as when one thinks of the "United States" they generally do not include Navassa Island in their mental picture.

 

 

you're on the wrong side of this debate. assuming the aff wins that native reservations are at least a u.s. territory, they're probably going to win T. the aff pretty much just needs to say "predictability". your interp justifies excluding random states because that might better preserve limits or ground.

 

this is true unless you find a card that says "the 50 states, and only the 50 states are part of the usa. u.s. territories don't count as part of america". i doubt this card exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you're on the wrong side of this debate. assuming the aff wins that native reservations are at least a u.s. territory, they're probably going to win T. the aff pretty much just needs to say "predictability". your interp justifies excluding random states because that might better preserve limits or ground.

 

this is true unless you find a card that says "the 50 states, and only the 50 states are part of the usa. u.s. territories don't count as part of america". i doubt this card exists.

 

qfa.

 

 

I"m not worried about t anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you're on the wrong side of this debate. assuming the aff wins that native reservations are at least a u.s. territory, they're probably going to win T. the aff pretty much just needs to say "predictability". your interp justifies excluding random states because that might better preserve limits or ground.

 

this is true unless you find a card that says "the 50 states, and only the 50 states are part of the usa. u.s. territories don't count as part of america". i doubt this card exists.

 

I was reading such a card last year. When I get back to school I'll see if i can find it in my tub and post it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was reading such a card last year. When I get back to school I'll see if i can find it in my tub and post it.

 

Just a side note, question to the whole t argument. If it is true that Native "reservations" are not part of the US then why is it that Natives can vote?

Additionally, just because a state has no control over the specific reservation does not really exclude reservations from being part of the US.

1) States do not have control over military bases on US lands (I am not talking about those on forgein soil).

2) Also, States do not have control over Federal Parks, once again part of the US.

3) In the Supreme Court Case Georgia vs. Cherokee (could be wrong about the exact court case), the ruling states that only the Federal Government can have power over the "Indians," and state laws do not apply, not that reservations are not part of US. All federal laws and the Constitution still apply to the Natives.

This specific ruling is why Natives can have casinos (not part of the decision).

4) Just because it is something that the States don't have control over doesn't mean that it isn't part of the US, see previous Federal Park and Military bases arguments but additionally Federal agencies, the state has no control over.

5) If you are going to make this argument then you are also going to have to make some sort of argument that the US government includes the 50 states. Really, this whole push on T is just a complaint that you can't run a States CP.

6) Would you run T on a military case similar to this one if it was run in front of you because all the arguments that you made should apply.

As an additional T argument, if someone is running Indian Health Services, then it is a we meet, because IHS does operate outside of "reservations," and is thus part of the states as you stated. IHS has services in Phoenix and other larger cities and the last time I checked Phoenix is part of US, at least for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest wutlol
I was reading such a card last year. When I get back to school I'll see if i can find it in my tub and post it.

 

 

yeah right. trust me, no such card exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...