Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
iceicebaby

homosexual aff?

Recommended Posts

do you think there will be affs for social services for impovershed (sp) homosexuals? we all have those tons of files on gay discrimination..do you think it could be an aff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
do you think there will be affs for social services for impovershed (sp) homosexuals? we all have those tons of files on gay discrimination..do you think it could be an aff?

 

umm maybe. its seems like you would run into some trouble with t. this also seems like it could be a pretty small subset actually affected by the plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could possibly run a gay marriage aff if you could find lit on how lack of marriage benefits effects same-sex couples financially (maybe regarding insurance benefits, things like that). you'd almost certainly have to go a semi-kritikal route if you wanted to access any decent impacts (and these are probably the impacts you'd want to be running anyway).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gay youth are often kicked out and forced to be prostitutes, but it's illegal so it's dangerous and an underground industry. If it were legal, we could have STD testing for prostitutes to help boom the industry, create government run brothels, or just legalize it and find some relating social service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not see subsets as being a serious problem for any decent team...

 

I think that marriage can easily be spun as a social service, due to the financial advantages it presents those who marry. You can also find some decent fed-key warrants for this case if you legalize gay marriage. You can make it a Supreme Court case by finding a current case petitioning for the legalization of gay marriage (which can be done on any major search engine in about five minutes). The way you'd get around the State Courts counterplan is by claiming that the Supreme Court will inevitably rule gay marriage is unconstitutional due to conservatives on the court - it's literal attitudinal inherency. The only way to solve this is to fiat past this inevitable conclusion, i.e. the plan or the permutation.

 

Another strategic benefit to running a courts case is that you take out the link to both spending and politics, leaving only judicial federalism and stare decisis are the primary generic disads (both of which are pretty dumb, the former of which being solved by the perm and the latter of which not having any link to a gay marriage case due to the lack of former rulings in the Supreme Court on the issue, as well as being incredibly non-unique).

 

And, I'm sure legalizing gay marriage is about the biggest solvency mechanism for any kritikal advantage you want to garner from your DADT backfiles...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with legalizing gay marriage is that its extra-topical since, even if you win its a social service, its a social service to people not living in poverty as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Use homosexual activity as a 100% guaranteed method of preventing pregnancies, with Dan Savage as advocate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Legalize gay marriage for homosexuals living in poverty

 

Legalizing gay marriage for those who live in poverty but keeping it illegal for those who are above the poverty line would probably create some legal issues...and probably wouldn't access any of your kritikal advantages since you'd still be excluding a large number of homosexuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Legalize gay marriage for homosexuals living in poverty

 

What the above poster said, and there's no solvency advocate lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not see subsets as being a serious problem for any decent team...

 

I think that marriage can easily be spun as a social service, due to the financial advantages it presents those who marry. You can also find some decent fed-key warrants for this case if you legalize gay marriage. You can make it a Supreme Court case by finding a current case petitioning for the legalization of gay marriage (which can be done on any major search engine in about five minutes). The way you'd get around the State Courts counterplan is by claiming that the Supreme Court will inevitably rule gay marriage is unconstitutional due to conservatives on the court - it's literal attitudinal inherency. The only way to solve this is to fiat past this inevitable conclusion, i.e. the plan or the permutation.

 

Another strategic benefit to running a courts case is that you take out the link to both spending and politics, leaving only judicial federalism and stare decisis are the primary generic disads (both of which are pretty dumb, the former of which being solved by the perm and the latter of which not having any link to a gay marriage case due to the lack of former rulings in the Supreme Court on the issue, as well as being incredibly non-unique).

 

And, I'm sure legalizing gay marriage is about the biggest solvency mechanism for any kritikal advantage you want to garner from your DADT backfiles...

 

 

I'd love to see a definition of social services that you think would make MARRIAGE a social service. I mean, at best, you might tie it into legalizing gay marriages before justices of the peace, but even then, I don't think the lit is on your side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd love to see a definition of social services that you think would make MARRIAGE for people living in poverty a social service. I mean, at best, you might tie it into legalizing gay marriages before justices of the peace, but even then, I don't think the lit is on your side.

 

 

.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.

 

I don't even care if it's for people living in poverty. If they want to prove that marriage is a social service and only want to give impoverished homosexuals the right to marry, more power to them. That's a strategically suicidal case anyway. I'd just love to see a definition or interpretation that comes close to making marriage topical as an example of "social services."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Twist of Fate I think is correct.....that marriage as a right or priviledge....is merely a means for the provision of other services. (its FX at best)

 

Even if you get a crazy definition that allows it....you will get hosed on the limits debate.

 

Also probably Extra-t..or you don't have an author advocate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is contextual evidence that defines poverty in a more inclusive, more logical fashion than "less than this much money" that probably includes the only group left in America it is OK to hate.

 

The fact is people will deal with T issues to talk about gays because that is some crazy good K literature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is contextual evidence that defines poverty in a more inclusive, more logical fashion than "less than this much money" that probably includes the only group left in America it is OK to hate.quote]

 

 

Since when is it "OK to hate" the homosexual population?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is contextual evidence that defines poverty in a more inclusive, more logical fashion than "less than this much money" that probably includes the only group left in America it is OK to hate.quote]

 

 

Since when is it "OK to hate" the homosexual population?

 

you must not live in the south.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Social Service - Services provided by a government for its disadvantaged citizens.

 

Homosexuals=disadvantaged because they don't get same rights to marriage. And marriage would be a service given to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Social Service - Services provided by a government for its disadvantaged citizens.

 

Homosexuals=disadvantaged because they don't get same rights to marriage. And marriage would be a service given to them.

 

How is marriage a "service" from the government's side of things?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How is marriage a "service" from the government's side of things?

 

there are benefits that come with marriage (joint tax filing, etc) that help financially. i'm not sure what all they are but they are there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there are benefits that come with marriage (joint tax filing, etc) that help financially. i'm not sure what all they are but they are there.

 

I understand this, but the benefits don't necessarily make something a "service" in my mind. Er, that sounds a little unclear. The government is providing the benefits, but I don't necessarily think it's providing the service outside of maybe marriage licenses, but I wouldn't concede that marriage licenses are a social service.

 

You may be able to spin some sort of effectually topical case off of courts, though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand this, but the benefits don't necessarily make something a "service" in my mind. Er, that sounds a little unclear. The government is providing the benefits, but I don't necessarily think it's providing the service outside of maybe marriage licenses, but I wouldn't concede that marriage licenses are a social service.

 

You may be able to spin some sort of effectually topical case off of courts, though...

 

I think it's debatable, and as long as you've got some sort of claim to topicality you can win the T debate if you've got it blocked out. Plus, the k of t lit is pretty strong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it's debatable, and as long as you've got some sort of claim to topicality you can win the T debate if you've got it blocked out. Plus, the k of t lit is pretty strong.

 

I think if you're having to resort to K of T lit as a go to in a case where it's not exactly uniquely warranted, there's a bit of a problem.

 

Maybe this is just down to my personal preferences as a former debater and now judge, but the warrants of most K of T lit and the author qualifications behind them aren't necessarily uniquely better than the analysis the negative is making. In this specific case, I don't think the lit plays well together. This isn't a typical exclusion story because the negative is arguing that marriage flat out isn't a social service, not that they don't want homosexuals to have access to marriage.

 

Granted, the aff does have a fair shot at making a claim to being topical and winning the T debate on the flow, but as a judge, I'd rather it's left at that. I LOVE T debates where there is clash on the standards and the voters because I find that, more often than not and especially in my area of debate, the analysis on the T flow is just downright awful. I'm in the process of writing a topicality theory file for my former high school and a couple of other teams just because I'm tired of shitty answers to T going unchecked.

 

But, I think you'd be better off just trying to engage them on the T flow and trying to frame topicality in a different way without jumping to a K of T. Especially because not only is there solid analysis against the K of T literature, but there's also quite a bit of lit that counters what the K of T lit posits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm much more a fan of a more substantive discussion on T involving the case itself rather than a T debate over standards and voters, but that's probably just my preference as a judge. I think there are probably good arguments to be made on the K flow as far as a discussion of this being necessary. You're probably right, though, that these are mostly unwarranted when you can straight up in a T debate.

 

Here is a list of benefits granted upon marriage. Lots of these (social security, medicare, medicaid, etc) can definitely be considered social services. That seems topical to me, albeit probably effects topical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will concede that social services, such as the ones you mentioned, are involved with marriage, so yeah, FX.

 

EDIT:

 

Although I would then contend that there's a difference between increasing social services and increasing the number of people receiving them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...