Jump to content
LPCade

Africa Aff

Recommended Posts

I think this resolution gives you some leeway with "in the US", you could pull off an aff for increasing a social service that exists for people in africa or another area. All you would have to win to be topical is that "in the US" applies to the social services not the impoverished people. As long as you had a really good T block you could get a LOT of ground with that aff, you could garner some advantages like empathy or ethics, or break out any of your africa backfiles. Plus a lot of people seem to be bent on running Malthus and this would be your besst link. I think an aff like that would just supercharge most of your link stories and still help you kick out of a lot of disads and cp's, what do you think?

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the resolution states:

 

"Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty in the United States."

 

For the Neg to win, all they have to do is create an interpretation, which I believe (though I'm not a grammar nut) is the correct one, that "in the United States" is a prepositional phrase modifying "persons living in poverty", and that that sets better limits, which is not a hard debate to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, the resolution states:

 

"Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty in the United States."

 

For the Neg to win, all they have to do is create an interpretation, which I believe (though I'm not a grammar nut) is the correct one, that "in the United States" is a prepositional phrase modifying "persons living in poverty", and that that sets better limits, which is not a hard debate to win.

 

 

Well bassically the Global Cowboy is right, LPCade. THe only way for you to really beat this t interp is if you run this aff in a Neo-liberal type fashion, as in most poor people in the U.S. are poor and living here b/c of Neoliberalism. The best way to put it is you should bassically listen to "Poverty of Philosiphy" by Immortal Technique and youll get what Im saying.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wow^

not sure if you were addressing me, so i'll clarify

What social service given by and in the U.S. is based and distriputed completly in the US, but only recieved by African people?

And neo liberalism might be an option, but its VERY CPable if you really just wanna focus mainly on poverty or Africa

 

still seems a little shacky

 

EDIT:

April 19th, 2009 10:05 PMno. just...no. this is dumb from the first part to the last. of course he wasn't adressing you. you said wow. so the fuck what?

somebody needs to take a nap

Edited by mattythekid
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
not sure if you were addressing me, so i'll clarify

What social service given by and in the U.S. is based and distriputed completly in the US, but onlyrecieved by African people?

And neo liberalism might be an option, but its VERY CPable if you really just wanna focus mainly on poverty or Africa

 

still seems a little shacky

Still not topical. No matter what, you'll lose every time to a decent T team. If the rez was "social services in the US for persons living in poverty," then you would have some ground, but since it's for "persons living in poverty in the US," you'll lose every time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or, you could increase social services everywhere and kritik borders, or IR discourse, or national identity.

 

OR

 

you could use a different country with "the United States" in it's name. Resolution never specifies "of America", although the neg will have predictability, limits, and brightline on their side of the standards debate, there's always the K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How/What would be/is a Social Service for African People but in the U.S.?

 

There's a lot of room in the social services debate, it would be easy to find a program based in the US that focuses on giving care to impoverished africans, that way the social service itself is in the US, the care just isn't.

 

I agree that at very best to is barely topical but its an interesting idea, you probably couldn't get away with it in decent rounds but then again damien gets away with blatantly untopical affs all the time just because they have killer blocks.

 

And as far as the actual T debate, if you got into competing interps you might be better off, I think you could win better ground for both aff & neg, and maybe education depending on how you twisted it but you'd lose predictability and limits every time. But as long as you base the voters and standards in education and ground you might be able to pull it off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you'll lose T sending aid to africa as a policy case. the phrase "in the United States" modifies the phrase "persons living in poverty"

 

If the people receiving the social services are living in "the United States", you're not topical. Which is why it could be best to choose another country with "the United States" in the name

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you could use a different country with "the United States" in it's name. Resolution never specifies "of America", although the neg will have predictability, limits, and brightline on their side of the standards debate, there's always the K.

Please don't do this. This would be a horribly painful round to judge. For the sake of everyone trying to expand participation in Policy Debate and faces the "policy debaters do things that don't make any sense" resistance, please don't do this.

 

Besides, a quick scan of this UN Members List will show you that there is only one country in the world with "United States" in it's name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if you could critique the neg. interp here with borders (ie inside/outside) even though in the US is part of the res.

 

at the very least the neg. interp is a little bit racist and ethnocentric...potentially (intentionally or not intentionally)

 

grammer sux. its a disad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just wont work, you're not running that Cade. you would maybe pick up 1/5 aff rounds with that. Not a good case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder if you could critique the neg. interp here with borders (ie inside/outside) even though in the US is part of the res.

 

at the very least the neg. interp is a little bit racist and ethnocentric...potentially (intentionally or not intentionally)

 

grammer sux. its a disad.

 

 

FUCK IT, JUST RUN NORM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are so many people only coming up with terrible aff ideas and to do previous topics like alternative energy, enlist poor in the national service, and africa. I mean seriously, come on, is there anything original or any other good aff ideas in this forum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was a pretty bad idea....but if you are in a region where non-topical critical affirmatives work....more power to ya.

 

On the flip side...if 40% to 50% of your judging pool = conservative. Well...have fun with L's.

 

If its something you believe in...cool...it might just work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, the resolution states:

 

"Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty in the United States."

 

For the Neg to win, all they have to do is create an interpretation, which I believe (though I'm not a grammar nut) is the correct one, that "in the United States" is a prepositional phrase modifying "persons living in poverty", and that that sets better limits, which is not a hard debate to win.

 

agreed

plus why try for an untopical aff?

i love T. i'm similar to raj in that respect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did T like this last year with Iran strikes. However, it was pretty easy to lose T even if I won the argument, especially with less experienced judges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool idea- i think it would be sweet if you could pull it off. But its going to be really hard to get around what the resolution says....It's pretty non topical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Africa topic, several teams ran a Deleuze and Guattari aff that went along the lines of "give public health assistance to everyone in this room", claiming that the room transcended borders and became sub-Saharan Africa. The 1ac was a criticism of linear though patterns that created these arbitrary borders, and the subsequent reterritorialization was able to allow for rhizomatic thought patterns.

 

 

Other than that, I am not really sure how you can spin this aff in a way that won't lose to topicality. When you kritik topicality, you should generally be criticizing the reason you're excluded from the topic, as per this affirmative. I actually thought, before entering this topic, that you would be talking about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are ways to do something like this. For example, targeting impoverished immigrants. I think a grammatical interpretation of the resolution pretty handily shuts out this case, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...