Jump to content
nathan_debate

Free Breakfast for those under the poverty line

Recommended Posts

Its only being done in half the schools.

 

http://www.frac.org/html/federal_food_programs/programs/sbp.html

 

About 86 percent of schools that serve lunch also serve breakfast. In the 2007-08 school year, 45.9 children received free or reduced price school breakfast for every 100 who received free-or reduced price school lunch, although this ratio varied among the states from 33.4 per 100 to 62.9 per 100. Research shows that universal school breakfast programs dramatically increase student participation in school breakfast.

 

I imagine this will be an affirmative...its pretty small. It may have difficulty explaining the fed. good warrants. I think its possible to win this on theory (a per the discussion on the college listserv http://www.ndtceda.com )

 

I wonder if the Unions backlash disad (which only links a little given that no curriculum or classroom change is involved) might link more to the state/locals (aka c/p) than the national.

 

You just have to be able to impact turn politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its only being done in half the schools.

 

http://www.frac.org/html/federal_food_programs/programs/sbp.html

 

About 86 percent of schools that serve lunch also serve breakfast. In the 2007-08 school year, 45.9 children received free or reduced price school breakfast for every 100 who received free-or reduced price school lunch, although this ratio varied among the states from 33.4 per 100 to 62.9 per 100. Research shows that universal school breakfast programs dramatically increase student participation in school breakfast.

 

I imagine this will be an affirmative...its pretty small. It may have difficulty explaining the fed. good warrants. I think its possible to win this on theory (a per the discussion on the college listserv www.ndtceda.com )

 

I wonder if the Unions backlash disad (which only links a little given that no curriculum or classroom change is involved) might link more to the state/locals (aka c/p) than the national.

 

You just have to be able to impact turn politics.

 

 

 

What does it solve for...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What does it solve for...?

 

Crummies in the Tummies.

 

Also, nuclear war.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

States CP?

Good luck linking breakfasts to nuke war.

Seems sort of non-inherent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its inherent as long as its only in half the schools and there is new legislation pushing for it to be in more schools...

Edited by sportkrazy32

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would group the impacts into 6 core areas:

 

I. Health + Nutrition saves thousands of lives, saves maybe millions in $$$ later

 

II. Education = competitiveness/Economy

--Lopez

--Mead

 

III. Education = democracy.

--demo key to (on balance) best national policy.

--democracy checks nuclear war + terrorism.

 

IV. Poverty (inequality/justice)

 

V.

Moral imperative.

dehumanization/dignity

 

VI.

i imagine there are racism impacts too...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would group the impacts into 6 core areas:

 

I. Health + Nutrition saves thousands of lives, saves maybe millions in $$$ later

 

II. Education = competitiveness/Economy

--Lopez

--Mead

 

III. Education = democracy.

--demo key to (on balance) best national policy.

--democracy checks nuclear war + terrorism.

 

IV. Poverty (inequality/justice)

 

V.

Moral imperative.

dehumanization/dignity

 

VI.

i imagine there are racism impacts too...

 

 

 

dude... c'mon now, let's get real...

 

this aff doesn't solve shit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dude... c'mon now, let's get real...

 

this aff doesn't solve shit

 

What he said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What he said.

 

Tons of comparative ev. that nutrition is the #1 determinant of academic performance, and probably lit explaining why breakfast is a major component.

 

The trick to small affs like these, of course, is two fold:

 

1) No-link DA's to give their impacts low probability - often this means outweighing with an arg like "can't let children be hungry - deontological value" or an impact directly implicated by case somehow.

 

2) Neg strategies are highly predictable. Neg will say States CP's 9 times out of 10 simply because: takes out a lot of the no-link leverage on ptix and federalism, and obviously solves case. Turns to the the most common NB's of ptix and fism, on top of some DA's to the CP mean the aff can often have a lot of fun in the 2AC. This is very easy if this is the common neg strat of the aff team, because half the research is already done to make it a typical 2AC strat.

 

The drawbacks:

 

1) Impact takeouts. These arguments become less and less persuasive in a world where the aff has a unique and tricky internal link story. It's pretty persuasive to be like "Your no retal ev assumes x scenario - this is y scenario that is a bigger deal - extend a, b, c warrants." Since the aff's internal link story to these impacts is weak, an impact takeout becomes way more persuasive. The aff almost has to win that these impacts happen now to be able to explain why case is necessary to impact it at all (which is, itself, a very strategic defensive argument).

 

2) Process/Agent CP's. Solve case and can often make the debate a question of something entirely irrelevant to the aff impacts. Very strategic if the aff does a lot of wanky "starvation is happening - moral implication" args.

 

 

 

 

Affs like these become strategic when your 1AC is full of a variety of impact args, forcing the 1NC to invest time in taking out case before moving to DA's. Of course, case is never the strat - you want the 1NC to have little time developing a very diverse strat so that the 2AC can concede D on case, and almost have their flow after that with 7:30 left read: CP (perm, theory), NB's.

 

2AC tricks within that trick:

 

1 - What if you have an impact scenario in the 1AC that is the DA impact? They read a takeout, concede it. They don't read an impact takeout, you probably have a conceded advantage since the trick to these small affs to minimize the ability of the neg to IL turn your shit. If they link turn and impact takeout, you also take out a lot of the 1NC.

 

2 - What if the neg ignores case and reads something like: T, CP that solves all of case, NB's, and a K? The answer: same strat as above, but instead, you put a lot of pressure on the CP in terms of DA's, more theory, etc. Solvency deficits are effective if they don't mitigate case, you've probably developed the story first and more before they get to it in the block. Also, answering dumb mitigation args on case with new case debate is bad when the 1AR is strat is probably to go for the turns on the DA's anyhow.

 

The reason this is effective is because 2NR's are very hard to give if you have a CP with a perm, theory, DA, and deficit args, and have to go for a DA with it that has been turned to high heaven. It's almost easier for the neg to go for squo and DA, which takes a lot of time to cover case that you can kick out of in the 2AR (also - your "no link to the DA" args are a lot more persuasive). Also, the smart 2AR almost always gets out of the CP debate since case isn't the focus and just goes for the turns on ptix anyhow - in theory, every second the 2NR spends on the CP debate is a second they are wasting. You literally force the neg to either spread itself so thin they don't answer straight-turns on their NB, OR you force them to abandon the CP which sucks when your 1AC is built to make case coverage difficult.

 

EDIT: What if they go for the K? 1 - Conceded turns on ptix are probably DA's to the alt. 2 - Their mocking of your internal links probably backfire as a reason they don't have much of a link. Link turns and framework prioritization arguments are the smart goods in this debate. Also - I can't for the life of me think of a point where most of the alts ran in debate would say "we shouldn't give breakfast to kids." A lot of judges also have leeway on the 1AR if the K becomes a big deal in the block and the 2AC was spread thin. Might as well take adv of that aff side bias.

 

 

It really depends on the style of debater your 2A is. If you're quick and have the goods on ptix, dare the neg to run their generic strat against this aff. If you're more of a "I have a true story and am gonna outweigh everything with it" 2A, this aff makes little sense.

 

But never doubt the strategic utility of any style of aff. They all serve their purposes. As a 2A with this aff, I'm elated with the neg making smart "you don't solve anything" args - if you're reading turns, you're wasting your breathe. If you're not reading turns, you've probably conceded the validity of an impact that I'm going to read a link to on your DA.

Edited by dziegler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude: I got a link to some pretty decent specific impacts and scenarios...the question is do you have a link to a disad (especially if I critique that disad)

 

1) It does seem that the locals failure to actually spend federal dollars is the main barrier to these programs solving--which is kind of a problem.

 

2) Here is the list of legislation which might provide more specific policy analysis:

http://capwiz.com/asfsa/issues/

 

3) Just the tip of the iceberg in terms of impacts/harms/solvency....

http://www.sodexofoundation.org/hunger_us/Images/Impact%20of%20School%20Breakfast%20Study_tcm150-212606.pdf

 

The body of evidence, drawn from more than 100 published research articles, provides the scientific basis for concluding that the federal School Breakfast Program is highly effective in terms of providing children with a stronger basis to learn in school, eat more nutritious diets, and lead more healthy lives both emotionally and physically.

 

While no single study necessarily provides a uniquely definitive assessment of the program’s benefits, and while some studies occasionally reach differing conclusions, the combined and quite consistent message of this body of research is that serving children breakfast at school significantly improves their cognitive or mental abilities, enabling them to be more alert, pay better attention, and to do better in terms of reading, math and other standardized test scores. Children getting breakfast at school also are sick less often, have fewer problems associated with hunger, such as dizziness, lethargy, stomachaches and ear aches, and do significantly better than their peers who do not get a school breakfast in terms of cooperation, discipline and inter-personal behaviors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your internal to econ/competitiveness/hege/democracy

 

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2009/01/04/on_the_table/?page=2

 

"Nutrition hasn't historically been seen as a major school responsibility, like teaching math," says Ellen Parker, executive director of Project Bread, a group best known for its annual Walk for Hunger but that has been working for years to expand the reach of school-nutrition services.

 

Yet the pedagogical price of ignoring early-morning hunger pangs is enormous, the Harvard researchers say.

"In terms of producing good outcomes for kids, it's hard to find a better investment than the school breakfast program," says J. Larry Brown, visiting scholar at the Harvard School of Public Health and senior author of the November report, "Impact of School Breakfast on Children's Health and Learning."

 

The study cites the far-ranging benefits of having students show up for classes with their bellies full: increased attendance, standardized test scores, and grades; decreased classroom disruptions and trips to the school nurse.

 

"It's as close to a magic bullet as you'll see for educational preparedness," Brown says of the school breakfast program.

 

Failure to enact = $90 billion hidden tax on taxpayers and economy.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2009/01/04/on_the_table/?page=3

 

To further erase chasms between haves and have-nots, many schools with a majority of less-well-off kids - such as the Higginson - have adopted a policy of furnishing a free breakfast to every student, regardless of home income. For some, there is state funding available to cover costs not met by standard federal reimbursements.

 

Those who ignore the benefits of school breakfasts - designed to meet federal nutrition standards and help guard against obesity and diabetes - are incurring a heavy hidden tax, the Harvard researchers warn. They say America's annual bill for things like illness and lost productivity due to hunger is $90 billion. Of that, nearly $10 billion is related to educational troubles, according to the study. It was commissioned by the Sodexo Foundation, the charitable arm of Sodexo Inc., which provides food and facilities management to customers ranging from corporations to retirement centers to schools, including the University of Massachusetts at Boston.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have to see tags, but that last card seems to be lacking in warrants of any kind. I'd go after that study they cite. I think a potential problem is who plan targets. The link to the first card you posted talks about the breakfast program applying to low income families. I don't necessarily think low-income families=persons living in poverty.

 

On top of that, what's your strategy on a CP that extends the breakfast program to more children than you do, assuming there is a NB in the form of a DA or K to be had that makes a perm unlikely?

 

On top of that, I think some of your internals are pretty shaky. First off, you have to leap the hurdle of breakfast=education. At first, this doesn't look too hard, but if you're focusing on people living in poverty, I'm sure the literatue base talking about the number of these kids that stay in school and continue onto high school and college are probably pretty low, and I really, REALLY doubt offering breakfast overcomes that. At that point, you lose your internals to your education advantages of democracy and competitiveness. On top of that, I think education=democracy evidence could be pretty poorly warranted, but I'd have to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maslow's heirarchy of needs says that basic needs must be met before higher needs (self-actualization, of which education is a part of) can ever possibly be attained. There are students who don't eat from Friday afternoon to Monday afternoon. As a teacher we definitely encourage breakfast, especailly around test time. I don't think that there is much of a solvency issue here, because the literature would agree with the plan.

 

I haven't researched myself, but Twist_of_Fate is right in that you would need to be careful about the possible difference between "low-income familes" and "poverty"... although it might be a way to discursively break down the term "poverty"...

 

Twist_of_Fate also makes the point of answering the plan + c/p. I do think it's a bit of a stretch in that I can imagine few, if any, d/a or k's that would not link to the c/p as bad (or worse) than then the aff does. The only thing I could think of some kritik on the discourse of poverty, which is why I pointed out the delineation between low-income familes and poverty in the first place. Having had little time to research/discuss the discursive implications of poverty (I coach a team of novices in a policy-poor area), this might be an avenue of research in which the way you frame the 1AC might discursively break down our assumptions on "poverty", which would be difficult for the c/p to capture.

 

I have no idea how possible this is, but it's a thought.

 

If the local gov't is the one screwing up, then that props up fed. key warrants. Make the plan have some federal action that forces states/localities to implement the program propertly. That would answer the states c/p.

 

The issue I see goes back to the original post...

 

About 86 percent of schools that serve lunch also serve breakfast. In the 2007-08 school year, 45.9 children received free or reduced price school breakfast for every 100 who received free-or reduced price school lunch, although this ratio varied among the states from 33.4 per 100 to 62.9 per 100. Research shows that universal school breakfast programs dramatically increase student participation in school breakfast.

 

Looking at the website, I cannot tell for sure if that means that 45.9 breakfast/100 lunch is the ratio of students who qualify or students who take advantage of those services. You really need to have a better, more explicit card in the 1AC to clear up that confusion. (A universal school breakfast isn't topical--- it's a program that lets all students eat free, not just low-income.)

 

<edit> from that same site:

 

To receive free breakfast, household income must be at or below 130 percent of the federal poverty level; for reduced price breakfast, income must be at or below 185 percent. Children from households with income above 185 percent of the federal poverty level pay most of the price for breakfast, although their meals are still partially subsidized.

 

and also on the site, with the address http://www.frac.org/html/federal_food_programs/programs/nslp.html:

 

For children at participating schools there are two ways to qualify for free or reduced price meals in the NSLP.

 

  1. Direct Certification/ Categorical Eligibility
    If a household currently receives Food Stamps, TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), or participates in the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) the children in that household are eligible for free school meals. This is called categorical eligibility. Homeless, runaway and migrant children are also automatically eligible for free school meals. Children that are categorically eligible do not need to complete paper applications.

  2. Income-based Eligibility
    If a household's total income is below a certain amount, the children in that household can eat free or at a very reduced price. To receive free meals, household income must fall below 130 percent of poverty. For reduced-price meals, household income must be between 130 and 185 percent of the federal poverty level. This is called income-based eligibility.

 

It seems as though the fed. lunch and breakfast guidelines are the same. the 45.9 breakfast/100 lunch ratio is really just those using the service, not those with access to it. If you want to continue, you now run the risk of coercion (forcing low-income students to eat breakfast).

 

I really love the idea, but I don't see how you can make a plan that's topical and inherent, though I'd love to see you try.

Edited by MrWilsonCad
researched some

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ms. Wilson provides pretty good reasons not to do the aff:

 

1) (although) the lack of access I cited above and pointed to is due to state/local level decision making (not kids...from what I can tell).

This is likely at TKO to running this affirmative.

 

2) Although, there are kids who opt out (ie arrive late or just don't want to use the program). But thats not an offensive reason to reject--especially in light of empirical success models in states which leverage the funding

3) I know some of the literature refers to the Maryland program of breakfast...there are several models of breakfast programs.

 

 

>>>On top of that, what's your strategy on a CP that extends the breakfast program to more children than you do, assuming there is a NB in the form of a DA or K to be had that makes a perm unlikely?

 

Ms. Wilson answers this above.

 

>>>On top of that, I think some of your internals are pretty shaky. First off, you have to leap the hurdle of breakfast=education. At first, this doesn't look too hard, but if you're focusing on people living in poverty, I'm sure the literatue base talking about the number of these kids that stay in school and continue onto high school and college are probably pretty low, and I really, REALLY doubt offering breakfast overcomes that.

 

More healthy people help the economy period. Not all lucrative jobs are occupied by college graduates.

 

Honestly, the better argument to be had here is timeframe to impacts. McDonalds and the Gap running better due to johnny's 20 hours being like 20.5 isn't exactly going to make a big difference in competitiveness (or the perception there of internationally).

 

Even given these gaps--there isn't a compelling disad outside of:

1) politics

2) federalism

3) net widening/social control

and 4) funding trade off which has a viable link.

 

>>At that point, you lose your internals to your education advantages of democracy and competitiveness. On top of that, I think education=democracy evidence could be pretty poorly warranted, but I'd have to see it.

 

The difference between an effective and ineffective democracy is poor people actually understanding how democracy works and how to problem solve. Both of those are solved by more HS education for millions of Americas. I don't have any cards on hand, but these cards are quite amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>.>

 

why not a free meals for everyone breakfast, lunch, and dinner. make it contingent that it is only fast foods that are given.

 

then run a fat kids aff. saying that decreased standards in military ranks allows fat kids to come in. fat kids lose war, heg bad >.>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...