Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jairusgrove

One of the Survivor's Policy Affirmatives

Recommended Posts

Overhaul the Census: Inner cities and homeless areas and the people that live in them are unconstitutionally and reprehensibly deprived of social services as well as political representation because of the way the Census is carried out. Basically Republicans have argued that the U.S. Constitution requires a hand count (literally counting each person). The reason for this is that Census counters will not work in ‘dangerous’ neighborhoods and they only focus on addresses. This results in massive undercounting of urban areas and therefore fewer districts and votes are apportioned to those areas. That benefits Republicans who almost only ever win in rural and suburban areas. It also has the effect of making it seem as if there are half as many people in the ghetto and on the streets making it easier to cut welfare budgets and social service programs.

 

The plan would change the census process to use sampling and increase funding for social workers to count homeless and other marginalized communities.

 

This is a great policy case.

 

First, it has already been proposed by Obama so the politics link is non-unique. Also it results in crushing the Republican party. This means that every politics scenario ever that said Republicans are bad (Abortion rights, Population Control Internationally, NMD, Bombing NK, etc) are add-ons to the case.

 

Second, raising the visibility of poverty and how widespread (showing there is twice as much of it) is essential to coping with the endemic nature of poverty. Poverty destroys the sustainability of the U.S. economy not because we have to pay for it. Welfare in fact costs very little even if we actually paid it to everyone who deserved the services. The costs of poverty are in the under-education and utilization of increasing percentages of the U.S. population which destroys U.S. competitiveness.

 

Third, modeling. Brazil, India, France, and many other countries currently model the United States carceral approach rather than an assimilation approach to poverty. While this may not cause war in the United States in places like Brazil, India, and other developing nations it is creating a recipe for catastrophic civil wars as well as providing the ungovernable centers for terrorism and international crime. All of these things lead to nuclear war.

 

Fourth, Prison-Industrial-Complex: We are incarcerating more and more people every year. In addition to the profound racial biases in these sky rocketing rates that are destroying the U.S. economy and threat us with living in a police state. In part this accomplished because people in prisons are counted as part of the rural mostly white communities where the prisons are built not as residents of the neighborhoods where they are taken from. This means that small, white, and mostly well off communities get their own political districts, more representation, and more government resources while those in prisons are denied the vote and deny their home communities of a political voice and vital resources. This results in virtually no democratic control over super-max and other privatized prisons and destroys the communities trying to resist the mass incarceration of black and latino men while increasing the incentive of communities to built and house prisons for financial and political reasons.

 

http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2008/06/07/built-in-racism-persistent-urban-inequality-in-nyc/

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is this topical? How does the plan increase Social Services?

It seems to me that the plan text as described is completely non-topical. How is changing the manner in which we count or having a social worker count people for census purposes. Based on the lit that I have read you can not even consider this to be effects topical. How does the census count determine whether or not a person has access to social services? At best you are horribly effect topical because you have to win a link that more people counted in the census would allow more people access to social services, and then you are still left with the current systems solvency mechanism to address those persons poverty?

 

Jairus, can you give some more clarification as to where this case is going?

 

thanks,

CJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you derive the topicality from the social services that result from changing the census methodology... that's VERY effects topical. Your plan is only topical as a result of a chain of events; the plan itself must provide social services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the Politics/Inherency doublebind. Obama has proposed the change but there is not legislation on the agenda yet. However the proposal was high profile because it result in a Republican cabinet member (the first nominated by the administration) resigning. Therefore political fall out non-unique and inevitable, the bill being written correctly, and passed during the first administration not likely in the status quo.

 

Topicality:

The topic does not say adopt or create a social service program it instead says increase social services. Changing the census process so that impoverished people and homeless people legal exist is the only way to do this. Social Services budgets are set and apportioned to districts, counties, or cities on the basis of population. You do not give a town with 2500 people bellow the poverty line the same amount of federal aid as a town with 100,000. However in urban areas and remote rural areas such as those in Appalachia that do not get counted at all or ineffectively many people do not receive social services or they receive insufficient amounts. In order to 'substantially increase' you have to identify the vast number (maybe as many as 30 percent) of people bellow the poverty line that currently do not legal exist.

 

Therefore this is not effects topical. Counting these people increases the social services for people living in poverty.

 

Now the case maybe marginally extratopical because counting them and classifying them as people living in poverty may also improve their political representation. However I would argue that any substantial increase of social services requires determining who the people 'living in poverty' are which currently we are not doing.

 

Also using social workers to help marginalized communities fill out and complete census forms is in and of itself a social service. The same as social workers that develop workfare programs with individual or aid people in filling forms for food stamps, or providing translation services, or brail government documents for the blind are considered social services.

 

Jairus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you derive the topicality from the social services that result from changing the census methodology... that's VERY effects topical. Your plan is only topical as a result of a chain of events; the plan itself must provide social services.

 

I think you could spin this as increasing the scope of social services. So instead of increasing the quality of the social services for the people who already are getting them, you're increasing the number of people who are receiving them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This results in massive undercounting of urban areas and therefore fewer districts and votes are apportioned to those areas. That benefits Republicans who almost only ever win in rural and suburban areas.

The reason the inner-city poor or homeless "don't matter" politically is because they do not vote, not because the aren't part of the US census. If a low standard of living and constant threat to life aren't enough to make them turn out to vote for populist Democrats, there's little chance that having a social worker show up to ask them some questions will. The way districts are split is based on those actually who do vote, and even if you increase the number of districts, what is the point if you don't cause the poor to vote more? The crux of this aff seems to be increasing the power of populists politicians, so could you please explain how census-inclusion achieves this?

 

The topic does not say adopt or create a social service program it instead says increase social services. Changing the census process so that impoverished people and homeless people legal exist is the only way to do this. Social Services budgets are set and apportioned to districts, counties, or cities on the basis of population. You do not give a town with 2500 people bellow the poverty line the same amount of federal aid as a town with 100,000. However in urban areas and remote rural areas such as those in Appalachia that do not get counted at all or ineffectively many people do not receive social services or they receive insufficient amounts. In order to 'substantially increase' you have to identify the vast number (maybe as many as 30 percent) of people bellow the poverty line that currently do not legal exist.

CP: Increase funding for social services in all areas. solves poverty better because your plan only redistributes in "more fair proportions" (thus taking away from some places) and avoids the political backlash from having obama pass policy clearly favoring Democrats. Edited by Synergy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. As someone who registered voters and worked for the last presidential campaign in urban and isolated rural areas voting turn out is about resources. If you have a small population on the books you have fewer precincts and fewer resources to so that voting is even possible.

 

2. You are wrong the apportioning of districts are determined by the census not on the basis of who votes. You are just wrong. In fact if you want to read the census code up for debate and the districting question at issue I direct you to: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/16/us/politics/16census.html

 

3. People voted in urban areas at rates in the last election that were dramatically higher than they ever have been.

 

4. People vote more when they feel included the crux of the affirmative is no representation it is receiving social services. Everything from literacy support to fire trucks are determined by the census.

 

I take your point that the affirmative may not solve as well if people dont vote but it still stops communities invested in the Prison-industrial-complex from having a disproportionate vote as well as drastically increases the resources urban neighborhoods have at their disposal for redevelopment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CP to just increase social services is not effective for two reasons:

1. CP doesnt solve the visibility claim that people in the United States drastically underestimate the number of poor people. Changing this visibility key to political will and investment to end poverty.

 

2. CP doesnt solve politics or the economy. A. Drastically increasing welfare is overwhelming less popular than changing the census. This counterplans links a lot more to politics. B. There is not an infinite amount of money. We are broke and printing money as it is. Therefore dumping resources where they are not needed rather than targeting the areas with the most poverty (the location of which we do not know because of the faulty census) is the only way to end poverty with crushing the U.S. economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CP to just increase social services is not effective for two reasons:

1. CP doesnt solve the visibility claim that people in the United States drastically underestimate the number of poor people. Changing this visibility key to political will and investment to end poverty.

 

2. CP doesnt solve politics or the economy. A. Drastically increasing welfare is overwhelming less popular than changing the census. This counterplans links a lot more to politics. B. There is not an infinite amount of money. We are broke and printing money as it is. Therefore dumping resources where they are not needed rather than targeting the areas with the most poverty (the location of which we do not know because of the faulty census) is the only way to end poverty with crushing the U.S. economy.

1. the cp fiats political will and investment. the census-visibility solvency deficit doesn't matter because the cp solves the impact to it. plan is worse than cp – plan doesn't increase investment, it merely distributes it in different proportions. this also means the cp causes more people to vote, since a greater number would feel included and you said "People vote more when they feel included"

 

2a. that's a debate to be had, but you said yourself that the plan "results in crushing the Republican party" 2b. fiscal discipline is mind-blowingly non-unique. cp isn't "dumping resources where they are not needed" since some authors argue that social services are massively underfunded in the status quo, so more resources are needed everywhere.

 

 

4. People vote more when they feel included the crux of the affirmative is no representation it is receiving social services. Everything from literacy support to fire trucks are determined by the census.

when people feel underserved by government and angry as a result, i'd think they are a) more easily mobilized to vote for change and B) vote for populist candidates. i'll grant your #3, that urban voters turned out for obama in 2008, but they did so because they lacked basic social services and he was the only candidate promising change. however, when people are content with the status quo, they are less likely to care about elections. this is just what is logically intuitive to me – but if you can find cards showing a causality between social services and increased votes for Democrats, than that's good enough for a debate. Edited by Synergy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current 'reactive' social services, assistance that maintains subsistence rather than attack root causes of poverty, will only be changed if there is a significant increase in visibility. Otherwise what you increase is more of the status quo. You cannot fiat Political Will and money because we will not what to do with it or where to give it without the plan.

 

Fiscal discipline is non-unique but we have quite literally a shortage of money and we are having trouble generating more of it via the treasury department i.e. selling debt to other countries, which means the only other means for 'making money' is printing more of it. Here is where I control the uniqueness. While investor confidence is low as a result of the amount of money printed for the bail out we have not crossed the threshold of actual rapid inflation. When that happens everything goes to hell. That has not happened yet your blanket approach results in it.

 

However you are correct what we have here is a debate. No aff is perfect but these are potentially winning arguments if debated well. Also you still havent answered the Prison-Industrial-Complex advantage. P-I-C crushes competitiveness and is Racist, and causes civil wars and terrorism in developing countries.

 

On the last point trust me on the more votes for democrats. Lots of cards. Also just demographics. Cities vote for democrats. Look at the last 4 presidential maps. All cities, all the time for democrats. Then look at the number of states in the last 4 elections (including the last one) that would have gone democratic if there was a 5 percent increase in urban population. Its ugly. This matters for congressional seats at both the state and national level.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The current 'reactive' social services, assistance that maintains subsistence rather than attack root causes of poverty, will only be changed if there is a significant increase in visibility. Otherwise what you increase is more of the status quo. You cannot fiat Political Will and money because we will not what to do with it or where to give it without the plan.

How does the plan change the nature of social services? It seems like it just distributes the same social services across regions in more fair proportions. You take money from a suburban community that doesn't need the services as much to give more funding to an urban community. The CP fiats that same amount of money be given to urban communities by increasing overall social service budgets.

 

 

 

However you are correct what we have here is a debate. No aff is perfect but these are potentially winning arguments if debated well. Also you still havent answered the Prison-Industrial-Complex advantage. P-I-C crushes competitiveness and is Racist, and causes civil wars and terrorism in developing countries.

How does the aff solve for the Prison Industrial Complex? Your only claim was that current census structure deprives urban communities (from which the criminals originate) of redevelopment resources. The CP fiats they get those resources.

 

 

 

 

On the last point trust me on the more votes for democrats. Lots of cards. Also just demographics. Cities vote for democrats. Look at the last 4 presidential maps. All cities, all the time for democrats. Then look at the number of states in the last 4 elections (including the last one) that would have gone democratic if there was a 5 percent increase in urban population. Its ugly. This matters for congressional seats at both the state and national level.
yeah, that proves my point. urban areas are voting democratic now because the status quo republicans/centrists do not give enough social services and populist democrats are able to mobilize the urban poor by promising them change. your claim was that more social services causes more democratic party votes. Edited by Synergy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Topicality:

The topic does not say adopt or create a social service program it instead says increase social services. Changing the census process so that impoverished people and homeless people legal exist is the only way to do this. Social Services budgets are set and apportioned to districts, counties, or cities on the basis of population. You do not give a town with 2500 people bellow the poverty line the same amount of federal aid as a town with 100,000. However in urban areas and remote rural areas such as those in Appalachia that do not get counted at all or ineffectively many people do not receive social services or they receive insufficient amounts. In order to 'substantially increase' you have to identify the vast number (maybe as many as 30 percent) of people bellow the poverty line that currently do not legal exist.

 

Jairus

 

This is the exact definition of Effects Topical. Instead of just increasing funding to those areas directly, you choose to take a non-topical action like changing the census count and one of the results from that action happens to be the idea behind the topic along with 90% of the case advantages which have nothing to do with the increasing of social services to these individuals, rather allowing them access to voting rights and political uprising to gain a bunch of politics advantages. You are going to have to read solvency evidence to say that the plan would result in topical action, which is exactly my point. I will not lie, that the merits of what should or should not be accepted for topical actions are most definitely up for debate, but just looking at the plan, and then looking at the rest of the case impacts, I don't see it. Not really trying to have a debate about where this goes from here man, just saying from a judging perspective I would tend to be sypathetic to abuse args here both potential and in-round.

 

Jairus, I guess I just don't understand the logic behind your response.

 

CJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is the exact definition of Effects Topical. Instead of just increasing funding to those areas directly, you choose to take a non-topical action like changing the census count and one of the results from that action happens to be the idea behind the topic along with 90% of the case advantages which have nothing to do with the increasing of social services to these individuals, rather allowing them access to voting rights and political uprising to gain a bunch of politics advantages. You are going to have to read solvency evidence to say that the plan would result in topical action, which is exactly my point.

True.

 

Also, there is an important distinction on this topic: is a case that makes more people eligble for social services "increasing" the social services? I would argue no, this is a bad standard for debate. If the aff is topical just by adding people to poverty rolls, there isn't going to be a lot of neg ground or any check on the number of possible affs. Affs will have to increase the value or existing services or add new services, rather than just increase eligibility for existing services.

 

This case isn't topical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True.

 

Also, there is an important distinction on this topic: is a case that makes more people eligble for social services "increasing" the social services? I would argue no, this is a bad standard for debate. If the aff is topical just by adding people to poverty rolls, there isn't going to be a lot of neg ground or any check on the number of possible affs. Affs will have to increase the value or existing services or add new services, rather than just increase eligibility for existing services.

 

This case isn't topical.

Increasing the size of the service is one of the biggest mechanisms in the literature for increasing social services. To exclude it would be ridiculous.

 

To make this aff T, you could argue that census polling is itself a social service. the plan would increase census polling services. that is a service only the fed can provide.

 

Here's a card saying it's directly tied:

 

http://www.southerncoalition.org/census

 

WHY DOES THE CENSUS MATTER?

 

Census counts are directly tied to the federal dollars communities receive for important services, such as education funding, affordable housing support, job training, social services, roads, bridges, and other community development opportunities.

 

Census counts also directly impact a community’s political voice because the numbers inform voting districts and determine how communities are represented. That’s why it is important to make sure that everyone is counted!

 

History has taught us that many communities are undercounted, or are at higher risk of not being counted at all.

 

These communities include:

 

People and families that live in rental property

Transient communities, such as the homeless and migrant workers

Native Americans and poor, rural communities

Immigrants (census counts are for everyone, regardless of citizenship status)

The elderly and people who live in group housing

We are contacting organizations in Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and Louisiana that are a trusted voice in their communities. In the 2000 census, these states had the highest rate of undercount in the South. We are hoping that you will work with us to help ensure that EVERYONE is counted in the 2010 census.

Edited by Synergy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True.

 

Also, there is an important distinction on this topic: is a case that makes more people eligble for social services "increasing" the social services? I would argue no, this is a bad standard for debate. If the aff is topical just by adding people to poverty rolls, there isn't going to be a lot of neg ground or any check on the number of possible affs. Affs will have to increase the value or existing services or add new services, rather than just increase eligibility for existing services.

 

This case isn't topical.

 

At the risk of highjacking this thread, which is not my goal. I have to disagree with you about increasing social services just by making more people eligible. The lit is very good and specific to the way in which we measure poverty needs to be addressed, because it fundamentally alters the way in which we provide services. This is an aspect that the topic committee intended to cover in its discussion if you have read the topic paper. The resolution was written in such a manner as to specifically allow debate on this area.

 

What I don't understand is why is this a bad standard for debate. It is predictable, because it is in the base of the lit, the neg still has plenty of ground, the aff. still has to defend a solvency mechanism of the current system. The thought that this somehow expands the topic past a point of reason, is just flat out wrong. I will say that I think there are good args to be had against these cases but that is a different discussion for a different time. All I am asking for is an explanation as to why this is a "bad standard" because from the basis of your post there is no reasoning behind the thought written out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is the exact definition of Effects Topical. Instead of just increasing funding to those areas directly, you choose to take a non-topical action like changing the census count and one of the results from that action happens to be the idea behind the topic along with 90% of the case advantages which have nothing to do with the increasing of social services to these individuals, rather allowing them access to voting rights and political uprising to gain a bunch of politics advantages. You are going to have to read solvency evidence to say that the plan would result in topical action, which is exactly my point. I will not lie, that the merits of what should or should not be accepted for topical actions are most definitely up for debate, but just looking at the plan, and then looking at the rest of the case impacts, I don't see it. Not really trying to have a debate about where this goes from here man, just saying from a judging perspective I would tend to be sypathetic to abuse args here both potential and in-round.

 

Jairus, I guess I just don't understand the logic behind your response.

 

CJ

 

Jarius's argument is you assume that increasing social services means one has to add money to existing programs/create new programs. This aff says we're going to redo the census which determines the poverty statistics used in assigning resources. Therefore, by redoing the census program, more people will receive the social services currently available.

 

There's also the visability argument which says recognition that these people are in poverty is in fact a social service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Effects is an abuse argument because it is a. unpredictable b. destroys limits.

 

To start with here is my intep. To be a topical case you have to effect the apportionment i.e. increase all social services for persons living in poverty. Even more limiting you must increase all social services for all persons living in poverty.

 

First in term predictability: the affirmative is not unpredictable because it is the core of the literature regarding the shortcoming of social services.

 

Second Predictability

A. Grammar: Think of it this way, if it is true that many people 'living in poverty' as defined by the federal income guidelines are not receiving services not because the amount of services available or because they do not qualify for aid but because they do not receive the aid than increasing the amount to already identified is not substantial (not more than 50 percent) unless you pass a ridiculous threshold in terms of the numerical increase. Thus increasing the number of people 'living in poverty' to receive social services is the direct effect of the plan it just achieves this by increasing the number of people in poverty receiving social services rather than increasing the amount of social service being given. The resolution, grammatically says "increase social services for persons living in poverty" "Social services" is a mass noun and increase has not qualifier that makes the resolution, grammatically speaking, does not take a position on whether what is required is expanding the number of people "living in poverty" that receive existing social services or whether you have to increase the amount of social services available i.e. the standard quantitative definition.

 

I agree with you that the initial common sense would be the latter. You initial reaction seems right at the onset. However your interp. of the topic presupposes that all 'people living in poverty' are already receiving social services. However many, a 'substantial amount' I would say, are not receiving social services or are not even receiving the amount legally guaranteed as a result of not being counted or in some case not even existing i.e. people that are homeless or off the map. So if there is a subset of 'persons living in poverty' that are receiving substantially less or no social services already being offered than my interpretation is grammatically predictable because it substantially increases social services for persons living in poverty. It is also the case that because welfare and other services are not first come first serve but have to be provided equally when someone new is added to the roster states and the federal government are legal required to provide them with assistance which does increase 1. the number of person living in poverty receiving social services and 2. Increases the total amount of social services being given.

 

The proof of this interpretation is a recent Maryland Supreme Court case. Two years ago the Maryland legislature excluded impoverished immigrant children from the state child health insurance program that guaranteed health insurance for all children that could not afford it. The Maryland supreme court said that violate the Equal protection clause and that once offered it (insurance for children living poverty) had to be provided for all impoverished children. This meant that the state legislature had to increase the amount of funding for the program to cover an additional 1 million kids. This is a topical affirmative because it substantially increased the amount of social services provided (financially there was a budget increase) and 2nd it increased the number of persons living in poverty that received social services.

 

Your position would under the interpretation given that this case is not topical because it also improved the strength of the equal protection clause creating x-topical advantages. But like the census which is the means (the only means by the way) for apportioning social services the direct effect of this case was to make a determination on the question of 'increasing social services for persons living in poverty'.

 

Now limits. There are only two cases that meet this interpretation that you must both increase the numerical amount of social services offered and increase the number of person living in poverty that receive it. The census case and a case that changes the income equation for the federal poverty guidelines. That is a pretty limiting interpretation and most importantly it prevents subsets affirmatives which do explodes the topic like cases that pick one particular social service such as grief counseling or literacy and increase the budget enough to be a substantial increase for the total amount of social services. There are thousands of social services you can do that with which is must less limit and much less predictable than cases that change the process for the whole mass noun (the collectivity) of "social services for persons living in poverty.

 

Now the deal breaker. Ground. Ground is the most important standard because it determines the actual neg toolkit that is available against the aff. Obviously predictability conditions or is an important issue for ground but I think I am winning the predictability debate. So lets talk about ground assuming people after this is written at camp and discussed on Cross-x.com can adequately predict this case.

 

The census case and change the federal guidelines case as well as a few other systemic overhaul cases are great for ground. 1. They link to strong generics because they both increase the number of people receiving aid and increase the total bill the government has to pay. This is best for politics links, economy and budget trade off arguments. 2. It limits out bad agent counterplan debates such as states as a pic i.e. do the plan through the states but does not eliminate state cp's that devolve the authority to the states and have a robust solvency debate about who is better at social services federal programs or 50 individually tailored but different state programs. There is lots of solvency debate about this and is great ground.

3. The ground is more consistent because while individual social service programs change all of the time and often without congressional action thus destroying uniqueness ground and specific link ground systemic changes in the apportionment of social services do not happen often and require predictable actors such as the court or congress. Thereby preserving uniqueness ground and making link research realistic but preventing crappy executive rule making counterplans or obscure agency counterplans.

 

This also unlike your interpretation limits out obscure agencies and executive rule making as acceptable affirmative agents. As the negative I would much rather live without these counterplans than have a topic where I have to write neg arguments and case hits against ever agency that can change a social service.

 

Kritik ground is better too. Including more and new people links much more to kritiks that small changes to a particular social service that already exists.

 

Lastly effects is inevitable because no case can on its face increase social services for persons living in poverty under your interpretation because you cannot force people to accept social services the only thing you can do is make more social service available either by increasing the raw amount social services or increasing the number of people who can receive them or increasing the number of people who take advantage of them (this would be the most effectual). The census case meets the first two but not the last one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest plzz

I dont understand why this being proposed in the past "non-uniques" the link to ptix, all the negative has to do is find evidence political capital now is key to x that post dates that previous action, and argue obviously obamas capital for x is key now and the plan would drain it. Also, if this proposal didnt pass in the past, then that only proves its probably unpopular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not a politics slayer. However, the debate is already occurring in congress (both houses), and Obama has already come out in support of it. The reason it has not passed yet is because there is no wording written yet not because the bill is buried in committee. This means two things first Obama has already taken the blame and republicans are already pissed about it. This means that while you might have very good political capital uniqueness for your impact scenario you do not have internal link evidence or link evidence to the plan. If you do than it only provides a better internal link to winners win. An argument that is particularly true of this president. 1. Because unlike many Presidents he is more popular with the people than with either party in congress. This means that his power is quite literally based on his victories, ability to get what he wants not on what congress (either Republican or Democrats think of him) 2. Because he is popular with the people (both Republicans and Democratic voters) your disad is going to stink before until after the 2010 mid-term elections. People campaigning for re-election after their party was gutted as a result of Presidential coattails do not want to look petty and vindictive against a winner. You can already see this happening with the Sotomayor nomination. The critics are almost entirely new young meaningless republicans or people that are not in congress like Rush etc. Why is this? Because as former Reagan communication director David Gergen said in his editorial a week ago Republican's want to win another election and they cant do that fighting Obama on fights they cant win. Every win Obama gets makes narrows the Republicans perception that can win, making them less likely to try and lose because of the long term political cost to their re-election.

 

So your ptix capital link better be on fire, assume Republicans that are not up for reelection, and assumes that they are Republicans that oppose the census change (not all Republicans do). In addition you better have great cards that explains that political capital comes from somewhere besides victories because the plan is a big victory for Obama and makes him look like he controls the game unlike the few issues Republicans will fight about like the budget and health care. Why because these are fights that are winnable with the public and with some democratic defectors and thus potential political victories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jairus,

I retract my previous statements. You are right, in that the census is key to determining poverty allocations. That was really my biggest concern.

 

Now I will make some new statements. Extra Topical or Plan Plus? Do you think that you have to win that the sole purpose of the census is to deal with poverty, and if someone makes the argument that the census' real purpose is to determine voting district where do you think that leaves you. My knee jerk reaction, is behind the power curve on an extra topicality or plan-plus debate. As proven by the abuse of the 1AC advantages about voting rights and prison systems. I would propose that the easy solution to this problem is the creation of a new group to count and oversee the allocation of resources to those in poverty. The lit is there and actually pretty good, (feel free to back channel me). Know I know that you end up losing all of the voting right ADV, but you avoid a potential reputation of being un-topical making people far more likely to pull the trigger on it. I also think that the lit about a new organization gets you more towards the critical side of the debate (which if I recall, is where you liked to be).

 

Just some food for thought.

CJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At the risk of highjacking this thread, which is not my goal. I have to disagree with you about increasing social services just by making more people eligible. The lit is very good and specific to the way in which we measure poverty needs to be addressed, because it fundamentally alters the way in which we provide services. This is an aspect that the topic committee intended to cover in its discussion if you have read the topic paper. The resolution was written in such a manner as to specifically allow debate on this area.

 

What I don't understand is why is this a bad standard for debate. It is predictable, because it is in the base of the lit, the neg still has plenty of ground, the aff. still has to defend a solvency mechanism of the current system. The thought that this somehow expands the topic past a point of reason, is just flat out wrong. I will say that I think there are good args to be had against these cases but that is a different discussion for a different time. All I am asking for is an explanation as to why this is a "bad standard" because from the basis of your post there is no reasoning behind the thought written out.

I agree that there is a significant amount written about the inadequacy of current definitions of poverty. Just because there is literature on something doesn't make it topical, and certainly doesn't make it directly topical. We can't just "will" things to be topical because they would be interesting to talk about.

 

I don't think "increasing social services" means expanding eligibility for those services. That doesn't make the services greater, it makes there be more people receiving the services. Reading the topic so that these are the same explodes the topic - now every case that adds people to poverty rolls is topical because you would have more people receiving social services.

 

This is the same logic as saying that anything that causes an increase in alternative energy is an alternative energy incentive. By that standard, bombing Iran, which would cause gas prices to rise and therefore more AE demand would be an incentive.

 

I don't see how the resolution is written to include debates about who is included in "poverty" other than as a T debate. In fact, here is the topic original paper: http://www.nfhs.org/core/contentmanager/uploads/PDFs/SDTA/poverty08.pdf. It does not talk about expanding the scope of poverty, but about various solutions to poverty or programs that would help people living in poverty.

 

Why it is bad for debate: the topic is large enough if you just think of all the ways in which you could add new social services or increase the value of existing social services, things which are inarguably topical. To then predict all the ways we could reclassify poverty or increase eligibility for individual programs would be a huge burden on the neg. And what is the neg ground in that debate? Let's say my case expands the food stamp program from (I'm making up the ranges here) people under the federal poverty line to people at 150% of the FPL. Neg can argue...spending? T substantially? The aff doesn't take any major action or create a new program, and I'm left to argue against the fact that the poverty line is set at a ridiculous level. That's not good ground for the neg.

 

Sure, a major change like this case has more neg ground (in addition to extra-Topical aff ground). But if adjusting the census is topical, is providing citizenship for illegal immigrants? How about raising taxes on low incomes, or raising regressive taxes? Or saying we are all in moral poverty? Or raising small business taxes, causing greater unemployment and therefore poverty? All of those things would cause more people to be in poverty, and therefore be eligible for social services. And by the way, in all these debates you a) look to solvency to determine topicality, and B) could run these affs and never actually talk about social services.

 

Maybe you are right and extra-T is the better debate here, but I still think it is f/x topical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that there is a significant amount written about the inadequacy of current definitions of poverty. Just because there is literature on something doesn't make it topical, and certainly doesn't make it directly topical. We can't just "will" things to be topical because they would be interesting to talk about.

 

I don't think "increasing social services" means expanding eligibility for those services. That doesn't make the services greater, it makes there be more people receiving the services. Reading the topic so that these are the same explodes the topic - now every case that adds people to poverty rolls is topical because you would have more people receiving social services.

 

This is the same logic as saying that anything that causes an increase in alternative energy is an alternative energy incentive. By that standard, bombing Iran, which would cause gas prices to rise and therefore more AE demand would be an incentive.

 

I don't see how the resolution is written to include debates about who is included in "poverty" other than as a T debate. In fact, here is the topic original paper: http://www.nfhs.org/core/contentmanager/uploads/PDFs/SDTA/poverty08.pdf. It does not talk about expanding the scope of poverty, but about various solutions to poverty or programs that would help people living in poverty.

 

Why it is bad for debate: the topic is large enough if you just think of all the ways in which you could add new social services or increase the value of existing social services, things which are inarguably topical. To then predict all the ways we could reclassify poverty or increase eligibility for individual programs would be a huge burden on the neg. And what is the neg ground in that debate? Let's say my case expands the food stamp program from (I'm making up the ranges here) people under the federal poverty line to people at 150% of the FPL. Neg can argue...spending? T substantially? The aff doesn't take any major action or create a new program, and I'm left to argue against the fact that the poverty line is set at a ridiculous level. That's not good ground for the neg.

 

Sure, a major change like this case has more neg ground (in addition to extra-Topical aff ground). But if adjusting the census is topical, is providing citizenship for illegal immigrants? How about raising taxes on low incomes, or raising regressive taxes? Or saying we are all in moral poverty? Or raising small business taxes, causing greater unemployment and therefore poverty? All of those things would cause more people to be in poverty, and therefore be eligible for social services. And by the way, in all these debates you a) look to solvency to determine topicality, and B) could run these affs and never actually talk about social services.

 

Maybe you are right and extra-T is the better debate here, but I still think it is f/x topical.

 

What you're misunderstanding is that you assume that we're redefining the poverty line via the change in the census. All this aff does is make sure people who are actual in poverty are recognized as such. Remember, the argument is that this is THE ONLY WAY to make sure these people are given social services. Extra-T is a maybe, but not F/x T.

 

Also, what's wrong with the advantages? They seem pretty germane to the topic (Modeling in this case is specific to addressing poverty, and there is no doubt that crime and poverty are linked). Plus, this logic means that affs that don't claim advantages inherent to the topic are abusive (ie Heg on Alt Energy). That seems pretty silly to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think "increasing social services" means expanding eligibility for those services. That doesn't make the services greater, it makes there be more people receiving the services. Reading the topic so that these are the same explodes the topic - now every case that adds people to poverty rolls is topical because you would have more people receiving social services.

 

I would be willing to defend an arguement and that because there is a current flaw in the system, people who should have access to social services do not receive them now, and we fix that flaw and give them access, I would contend that is topical The resolution does not call for a "reform" or for the AFF to "create". It just says that they have to increase social services and that can be done a number of ways. The topic wording allows for it to work both ways, you just have to prove substantially. This is the same in almost every topic and is generally accepted. Remember that "substantially" is the limiter to check abuse on this.

 

This is the same logic as saying that anything that causes an increase in alternative energy is an alternative energy incentive. By that standard, bombing Iran, which would cause gas prices to rise and therefore more AE demand would be an incentive.

See Above

 

I don't see how the resolution is written to include debates about who is included in "poverty" other than as a T debate. In fact, here is the topic original paper: http://www.nfhs.org/core/contentmanager/uploads/PDFs/SDTA/poverty08.pdf. It does not talk about expanding the scope of poverty, but about various solutions to poverty or programs that would help people living in poverty.

 

Funny, because it is one of the first things that the topic paper talks about and actually takes the time to highlight the part of the ev. that says that the way we determine who is in poverty needs to change. The lit also meets your standards, because the aff, can also say we are not only changing who gets it, but also the standard that it supports, thus giving more quality to it.

 

Here is the ev. from one of the first sections of the topic paper, in the origional paper, the part talking about a bad standard was underlined, I re-underlined it here as well.

The Problem

While the incidence of poverty has fallen since the 1960’s, the sheer number of people living

at or near the poverty line is staggering, as journalist Katrina vanden Heuvel indicated in March

2008:

“One in eight Americans -- approximately 37 million people -- now live below

the federal poverty line of $19,971 for a family of four. (A woefully inadequate

measure that is 42 years old and fails to account for basic necessities.) That's 4.9

million more people than in 2000 and the poverty rate for children is the highest

of all age groups. Nearly 60 million people live just above the poverty line. Using

the British standard of measurement, approximately 30 percent

 

Why it is bad for debate: the topic is large enough if you just think of all the ways in which you could add new social services or increase the value of existing social services, things which are inarguably topical. To then predict all the ways we could reclassify poverty or increase eligibility for individual programs would be a huge burden on the neg.

How? The AFF still has to prove that they are topical. Check number one. The AFF still has a burden of proof, check number two. Of the lit that I have read I can not name a total of 15 cases on the topic right now, and by that I mean supported in lit. What is the number? Where do we draw the line is there an arbitrary number?

 

And what is the neg ground in that debate? Let's say my case expands the food stamp program from (I'm making up the ranges here) people under the federal poverty line to people at 150% of the FPL. Neg can argue...spending? T substantially? The aff doesn't take any major action or create a new program, and I'm left to argue against the fact that the poverty line is set at a ridiculous level. That's not good ground for the neg.

How is the plan you just described not a MAJOR action? The AFF also has to defend the solvency mech of the status quo, which is major ground. And the liturature dictates that the current system has all sorts of flaws that the aff has to deal with. I would rather be on the neg side of this debate than the aff. Yes, I would choose to go negative off the flip with this debate. That is based off of the lit that the current system's approach to poverty is jacked. That is good ground. You can still debate all sorts of things. Forgive me for not having a list for you, which I will gladly provide, yet the work I have done to date is not organized.

 

Sure, a major change like this case has more neg ground (in addition to extra-Topical aff ground). But if adjusting the census is topical, is providing citizenship for illegal immigrants? How about raising taxes on low incomes, or raising regressive taxes? Or saying we are all in moral poverty? Or raising small business taxes, causing greater unemployment and therefore poverty? All of those things would cause more people to be in poverty, and therefore be eligible for social services. And by the way, in all these debates you a) look to solvency to determine topicality, and B) could run these affs and never actually talk about social services.

I would say yes, citizenship for Illegal imigrants is topical. The tax issue is questionable as now you have to prove that tax policy is a social service. The rest of what you said is ludicrius. Not even supported by the standard that I propose. You have to take a topical action directly dealing with social services. The reason that I backed off of the census case being effects topical is because I did some quick reseach and determined that it directly determined poverty policy. The plan in a vacume in that regard is topical, now extra topical is another story.

 

Here is a list of what I immediately thought of and have found lit to support as cases to date at this point:(note I will defend that they can be topical cases under the resolution, based on these ideas is where I began to determine the directionality of the resolution:

Community Economic Development Plans

Individual Development Accounts

Child Welfare Rights

Structural/Legislative Reform

Medcaid

Housing/Homelessness

Immigration and Immigration Healthcare

Healthcare

Native Americans

Medical Legal Partnerships

Redefine Poverty (as long as it results in more people receiving social services)

 

This is the list that I can think of off the top of my head. I have more written somewhere. Keep in mind that of these I have seen solvency ev. specific with plan ideas that are 100% topical within the lit.

That is why I view the topic in the directional manner that I do.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...