Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jairusgrove

One of the Survivor's Policy Affirmatives

Recommended Posts

I'm still not sure how increasing the number of persons living in poverty is the same as increasing social services. You just add more people to eligibility of the existing services. But that's fine, we clearly can disagree here and probably disagree about the role of topicality since you are focused on having literature to support cases.

 

I will take exception to two things in your post however. First, I think you are misinterpreting the topic paper. Yes, it quotes a source that mentions (parenthetically) that the measurement for poverty is flawed. But the topic paper is talking about how there are a lot of people in poverty, and the number should be even higher, and thus it is a significant problem to address for a year in debate. At no point in the paper does it suggest that adjusting the definition of poverty is what is intended to be debated.

 

Second, you say expanding eligibility for food stamps to 150% of the FPL would be a major action. I really don't think so, this just extends a status quo program...it is probably big enough to be "substantial" but I don't think neg gets a lot of ground, because any problems with the program already exist. Maybe I picked a bad example, but aff just has to find a program that works and expand eligibility and they are good to go? Seems too easy for aff to win. Well, maybe I'm just old fashioned because I'd also run minor repair against that case and think I should win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm still not sure how increasing the number of persons living in poverty is the same as increasing social services. You just add more people to eligibility of the existing services. But that's fine, we clearly can disagree here and probably disagree about the role of topicality since you are focused on having literature to support cases.

 

I will take exception to two things in your post however. First, I think you are misinterpreting the topic paper. Yes, it quotes a source that mentions (parenthetically) that the measurement for poverty is flawed. But the topic paper is talking about how there are a lot of people in poverty, and the number should be even higher, and thus it is a significant problem to address for a year in debate. At no point in the paper does it suggest that adjusting the definition of poverty is what is intended to be debated.

 

Second, you say expanding eligibility for food stamps to 150% of the FPL would be a major action. I really don't think so, this just extends a status quo program...it is probably big enough to be "substantial" but I don't think neg gets a lot of ground, because any problems with the program already exist. Maybe I picked a bad example, but aff just has to find a program that works and expand eligibility and they are good to go? Seems too easy for aff to win. Well, maybe I'm just old fashioned because I'd also run minor repair against that case and think I should win.

 

It seems like the interp this aff provides gives the neg a ton of pic ground. You can pic out of specific parts of the program or whatever.

 

Plus, you still fail to understand the word "increase". Increase can be in quality (ie improve programs) or quantity (ie give more ppl services or give more services to the same people).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that the arguement revolves around increasing the number of people living in poverty. If you look at common definitions of poverty, they talk about people not being able to support themselves. (and I will attempt to address this issue in a purely theoretical way, ie, plan in a vacume) The AFFs arg would look something like: "according to the def. of poverty, more people are living in poverty than can have access to social services. This is because the current way in which we define poverty uses and inadequate standard for the poverty line. We change that so that people that are living in poverty can now have access to social services." I think that (and here I don't presupose to know what you think rather how I have interpreted your post) your view is that poverty is a dollar ammount, and the AFFs arg to that would be that poverty is not a dollar ammount rather the dollar amount determines who should have access to social services. The aff. would also be arguing that they do not increase the number of poeple in "poverty" but rather are allowing people who are in poverty which currently don't have access to the current system because of the regulatory guidelines to have that access.

 

As far as the topic paper is concerned. I would never in a million years come to think that the topic paper is the end all be all for what is supposed to be discussed in debate. Rather I think that the topic paper's goal is to show that this is an area as you said: "the topic paper is talking about how there are a lot of people in poverty, and the number should be even higher, and thus it is a significant problem to address for a year in debate". And that paper uses a liturature base to show that it can support a years worth of debate. The topic paper itself has multiple resolutions that one paper supported, and with the wording of those resolutions went in different directions.

 

Expanding programs and everything else: Yes, problems with the programs exist in the SQ. And there are alot of good arguements that the poverty system that we use in the SQ (ie the enforcement and solvency mechanisms) are not just broke and don't work but are actually harmful and make the problem worse. Which means that as the NEG, you are winning a bunch of case turns against the aff. and that while the sq may not be perfect allowing more people to become worse off, you vote neg for the lesser of the two evils, which is often times what impact analysis comes down to.

 

Issues of what ground the negative gets are not great, and the only reason that I say that, is because the ultimate goal of any AFF or NEG strategy is to be on the most supported side of the literture and as a result usually the best side of the debate to start with(think best starting hand). There will be cases on this topic that are 100% no question topical in your mind and many others, that there will be little to no liturature refuting the legitimacy of those cases. Just because of that then do we say you can't run that case because I don't like the ground that I get? I think that you would agree the answer is no. And often times if comes down to finding new strategies to these cases. I am a big fan of case debates and case specific DAs(which I differentiate between case specific DAs and Case specific links). Based off of what I have read, I like the ground that a debater would get against teams that have to defend the solvency mech that the SQ uses. I would encourage my teams to go negative in these debates, simply because in these instances we would have the best starting hand. Everything else is based in execution of a strategy.

I must also commend you on an excellent discussion, as I wish that these were the types of discussions that occured on here more frequently from what I have seen. I hope that these are the types of discussions that debaters are reading because regardless of which side of this discourse you lie on, there is only good educational benefits to understanding both sides of the arguements. So in that regard, I thank you Jeff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is everyone counted in the sample under the poverty line, or just minorities? You could potentially win the case is extra-topical because it counts people above the poverty line, and you gain advantages off of that b/c they are voting democrat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is everyone counted in the sample under the poverty line, or just minorities? You could potentially win the case is extra-topical because it counts people above the poverty line, and you gain advantages off of that b/c they are voting democrat.

 

Anyone care to explain what the hell this means?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone care to explain what the hell this means?

 

He is talking about the census count, which if he had read the whole thread he would have realized, we have covered the extra topical portion of this discussion... But maybe he jumped the gun, which happens from time to time. He is saying that they will count other people than just "poor" people and that is what they are going to get advantages from for the politics debate.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...