Jump to content
Chaos

Writing my Plan Text

Recommended Posts

Here is my plan text so far:

__________________________________________________________

 

Thus we think that the United States federal government should expand social services to topically designated persons

without homes who are otherwise eligible for social services.

 

 

I want to make it as topical as possible and I want to dodge most of the common PIC's/PIK's

 

Does anyone have ideas how I can improve it?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not very descriptive of what your plan actually does. Whats your case gonna be? Cant really tell is the case and plan text jive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Topically designated' was not cool on the Africa topic, nor is it cool on this topic. Man up and write a bomb-ass 2AC block to the poverty PIC. Why avoid a debate you can predict? MAKE people read that position so you can school them on it.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'Topically designated' was not cool on the Africa topic, nor is it cool on this topic. Man up and write a bomb-ass 2AC block to the poverty PIC. Why avoid a debate you can predict? MAKE people read that position so you can school them on it.

I agree with this idea. It's better to hit predictable arguments you can block out than whatever off-the-wall stuff you'll get for this. If you make a crazily vague aff, you'll have to defend against even crazier negs...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its not very descriptive of what your plan actually does. Whats your case gonna be? Cant really tell is the case and plan text jive.

 

give homeless social services, because they don't get them now...

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plan:

United States federal government should expand social services to persons without homes and eligible for social services.

 

Keep it simple.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plan:

United States federal government should expand social services to persons without homes and eligible for social services.

 

Keep it simple.

 

word

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest cejjr

You should write your plan text well enough that you access a good literature base/get out of PICs and some disads. Also, you should specify what social service you increase, there's really no reason not too unless your solvency cards and advantages are really vague on that question, in which case your case probably isn't good. Your text should be: The United States federal government should make persons who are homeless eligible for social services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>The United States federal government should make persons who are homeless eligible for social services.

 

This is nitpicking but doesn't imply increased social service delivery, only increased eligibility.

 

On a tangent, you still link to the poverty argument based on the reps in the affirmative. You can run a PIK on that too.

 

Also, they should be able to get functional competition (which is really the best in most cases) on your arg.

 

This gives services to the "nearly poor"--its extra-topical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can already think of one topicality you couldn't avoid. Try the subsets topicality. You provide to the homeless only. Completely unpredictable they will argue. You also don't want to put 'We think'. I think the USFG should do my plan, doesn't mean they will. Some may mistake this as not fiating your plan. But cross examination should clear that up. Just do what you want though. Just make it strategic though. That can throw alot of teams off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a tangent, you still link to the poverty argument based on the reps in the affirmative. You can run a PIK on that too.

 

Could you explain that a little more?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest cejjr
This is nitpicking but doesn't imply increased social service delivery, only increased eligibility.

It's an increase because as soon as you make them eligible, they recieve social services (hopefully there's evidence for this).

 

On a tangent, you still link to the poverty argument based on the reps in the affirmative. You can run a PIK on that too.

Ok.

 

Also, they should be able to get functional competition (which is really the best in most cases) on your arg.

How? Care to explain?

 

This gives services to the "nearly poor"--its extra-topical.

What? where is nearly poor in the plan? It's not extra T because the plan increases social services by making them eligible, at best it's FX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope I answer both of your questions. Elgibility for many programs include the nearly poor. (Both Calum and David Heidt pointed this out in their lectures) You would have to check HUD and/or the Department of Health and Human services to see what the normal means standard in the case of homeless individuals is.

 

Also, there is a sub population of homeless who are temporarily homeless (for instance those made homeless by disasters) who could be poor, nearly poor, middle class, or even rich. There might be an entire argument based out of the "temporarily poor" and those "living in poverty"

 

I think for the purposes of your aff you also might want to find out how the USFG classifies homeless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll stand by and elaborate on my initial comment. There is NO reason to avoid a debate you can predict. For all those gazillion debaters who think they're innovative, original, and otherwise hot shit for running this argument, that PIC will take up time in the 1NC that could be otherwise filled with unpredictable disads, kritiks, case hits, etc. WHY would you leave yourself open to answer arguments you can't predict when you could put together a devastating & offensive 2AC to this argument that will effectively knock out one of the neg's strategies going into the block, or perhaps give you a favorable time tradeoff with theory they have to answer.

 

There's a reason predictability is a standard on T debates. Predictability is the gateway to smart arguments on both sides. If you can predict it, you can research it, and you can beat it.

 

On the other hand, if the the particular program you choose is already targeted toward people under the poverty line, no need to include the word. I just think you should avoid that stupid "topically designated" crap. Also, then perhaps you can get the neg to waste time reading T -- for persons in poverty.

Edited by ninja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest cejjr
I hope I answer both of your questions. Elgibility for many programs include the nearly poor. (Both Calum and David Heidt pointed this out in their lectures) You would have to check HUD and/or the Department of Health and Human services to see what the normal means standard in the case of homeless individuals is.

Even if Eligibility for many programs include nearly poor, the plan targets people who are homeless and below the poverty line.

 

Also, there is a sub population of homeless who are temporarily homeless (for instance those made homeless by disasters) who could be poor, nearly poor, middle class, or even rich. There might be an entire argument based out of the "temporarily poor" and those "living in poverty"

The plan in a vaccum doesn't mandate who exactly receives the service so I don't think you can access your extra-T argument. Either way, there's probably evidence homeless are persons living in poverty.

 

I think for the purposes of your aff you also might want to find out how the USFG classifies homeless.

This isn't my aff so I have no incentive to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the point of writing a case is to get people to read predictable things against you so you bust out that 40 point frontline instead of your standard 10 point ones. you want to link to all generic resolution link things, because they're easy to beat. write a plan text with the intent of linking to that bullcrap, hell put it in all caps and bolded and just dare a team to run it

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a big fan of sandbagging.

Do that to three of the neg's main arguments and you create a reverse spread of the block where much of the block is spent retreating rather than advancing.

Makes life easy for the 1ar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>>Even if Eligibility for many programs include nearly poor, the plan targets people who are homeless and below the poverty line.

 

I'm not sure how the judging pool is deciding this particular issue. If I was the neg I would say...there are topical ways to write the plan--but they didn't in order to attempt to spike out of my "poverty" argument--an incredibly core topic argument.

--forcing me to read this argument to just hope to get to ground zero on this argument is unfair and unpredictable--destroying my ground.

--They choose to write it in a way that covers non-topical actors--don't hold me responsible for their nebulous intent.

--their intent is always self-serving and unpredictable--and extratopical. the resolution never mentions intent

--Also, they claim advantages off of solving-- And if we were meant to debate this--the phrase "for the poor and/or nearly poor" would be in the resolution.

 

>>>On a tangent, you still link to the poverty argument based on the reps in the affirmative.

>>You can run a PIK on that too.

 

>>>Could you explain that a little more?

 

The representations (aka reps) is just another word for the language or discourse the aff uses with relation to poverty. This is the K called "poverty" There are 3 in this list: http://gaforensics.com/evidence

 

You can uses your alternative on the K to advocate the affirmative without the representations of poverty by the aff. Essentially its like a topical counter plan. This forces the affirmative to defend its assumptions and representations.

 

Get to know this argument because I would guess it will be run in 75 to 80% of debates. At the very least over 50%.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. You should probably channel the offense to something predictable that you can beat.

 

Just because an argument is

a. linked to the topic or

b. subject to a FORTY POINT FRONTLINE (ohz noz! teh points!)

 

doesn't mean it's bad.

 

Example: Putting "sub saharan Africa" in your plan text on that topic was an objectively bad idea, because very few authors made offensive arguments in defense of the term. Writing forty sweet analytics didn't really rectify this problem.

 

You should make your decision on the inclusion of "for poors" in your plan text based on your carded, defensible offense against the PIC, not abstractions like "if you predict it, YOU WIN." No. Sometimes you know what you're going to lose on, and you still lose.

 

2. Just because a program includes non-poor people doesn't necessarily means it's extra-topical. This depends on the standard used to evaluate "for persons in poverty" which is pretty controversial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

clearly my previous post [like approximately one hundred and seventy percent of my other ones] contains some hyperbole which i expect people to separate from the message. are generic arguments intrinsically bad? no, but they're intrinsically PREDICTABLE, meaning the affirmative should be ready to beat the piss out of them. infinite aff prep and all that jazz. i'm of the opinion that you can beat anything if it's predictable and you're the affirmative. perhaps we differ in that respect, which is fine, whatever. but guiding the negative towards a debate which you're ready to debate is always in the affirmative's best interests. i stand by my statement, 22 point font that part of your plan text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize for my unfamiliarity with the SEVVDOG corpus.

 

It is better to predict offense. That is not a foolproof solution, however. For example, if you put a racial epithet in your plan text, you would probably lose on that a good percentage of the time. It would be a bad idea.

 

Putting SSA in plan text was tactically dumb. Putting poverty in your plan text might also be dumb. It might not be. It depends on how good your carded defense of a particular term or delineations is. Evaluate these debates on details, not broad, abstract dictums from Internet folk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael,

I dont think Sevvs disagrees.

I think you are both missing each other by miles. Sevvs is only suggesting that you link to generic argument because you can prepare for them. Quite obviously, nothing Sevvs says suggests that one should link to an argument which you cannot beat. Only that general strategic wisdom suggest that if you can prepare for something, you can beat it, and if you can beat it, then why not link to it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest cejjr
I'm not sure how the judging pool is deciding this particular issue. If I was the neg I would say...there are topical ways to write the plan--but they didn't in order to attempt to spike out of my "poverty" argument--an incredibly core topic argument.

The aff can't "spike" out of your "poverty" arguments because...well...the plan gives social services to people in poverty. I honestly have no clue what you're trying to argue here. Aff's don't have to include every word in the resolution, you have no reason why they should, and the plan should be the focus of the debate.

 

--forcing me to read this argument to just hope to get to ground zero on this argument is unfair and unpredictable--destroying my ground.

--They choose to write it in a way that covers non-topical actors--don't hold me responsible for their nebulous intent.

--their intent is always self-serving and unpredictable--and extratopical. the resolution never mentions intent

--Also, they claim advantages off of solving-- And if we were meant to debate this--the phrase "for the poor and/or nearly poor" would be in the resolution.

I don't think there's a link to any of these arguments, so they don't really merit a response at the impact level. You still get predictable links and counterplans based off the increase in social services to people who are homeless.

1. What argument?

2. How do we cover non-topical actors? This discussion isn't going to go anywhere if you don't explain what your argument is.

3. Where not extra-T, we give SS to people in poverty i.e. the homeless. The plan text is written in language of literature, so if in that literature base it includes evidence that the plan spills over, we should be able to claim advantages off it, and that's not unpredictable to you because there's contrary views in that literature base.

4. T should be evaluated through the plan text, no where in it do we mandate giving it to people above the poverty line, so we're not extra-T. By the way, aff's can only claim advantages if they solve those advantages, so that explanation doesn't make much sense.

Edited by cejjr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed with Nooch above (i hope thats an appropriate spelling)

 

Although I'm not sure the parallel to the SSA topic is 100% correct--as long as you specify a country in the case of SSA.

 

I know its not an interesting debate--but homeless can include millionaires.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111091624

 

I guess its all about which argument you feel most comfortable with defending poverty vs. extra topicality.

 

The problem is for every aff you think are parallels of your affirmative that should be topical (ie neg excludes these affs...) there are topical versions of those affirmatives. (albeit without a solvency advocate--which is perhaps a defense of your interp). I think immediately about head start and community health centers. (i'm sure there are 75%).

 

I just don't think you can link out of the poverty position by not mentioning it in the plan text. Any semi-competent cross ex should be able to get you to mention it cross ex. And if cross-ex isn't binding its meaningless--which is a terrible interpretation for education.

Also, its like not saying hegemony in a defense of the military. Even though you don't explicitly say it--you're still talking about the same concepts and principles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...