Jump to content

Headstart REform Strat...

Recommended Posts

Ok, so i have ran into a couple problems with this case. I usually end up losing debates on the thing that says we have a different reform rather than what your cards talk about? What are some good solvency cards for headstart? (sense i live in KAnsas i see lay judges most of the time and they always vote on solvency) Does anyone have some pretty good reform sucks '09 cards, because he 10 i cut they always don't apply to case? or do you have any links for the cards you cut? If not do you have any suggestions on what i could do?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to speak for other people on the forums....but my guess is that you may be getting losing because:

1) your evidence is just defensive not offensive (ie the aff has a compelling try or die scenario)

--one way to solve this is by creating 2 card mini-disads on the case and reading more case turns in addition to case take outs.

2) their evidence makes a distinction between the head start programs that are being done now and the type of head start program they are.


Strategic Outlook Against this Affirmative:


If their plan text says "reform head start" thats not a mandated quantitative increase (just a qualitative change). (ie if I said I wanted to reform our Iraq war policy...that wouldn't mean I was increasing military spending). There are pretty good reasons why this is a non-topical affirmative. (the unique abuse is the fact that they link out of your "head start bad" with we change/get rid of head start. Thats blood on the flow)


You might think about running a counter plan:

1) overturn no child left behind

2) ban schools

3) states counter plan

4) charter schools funding

5) vouchers

6) some other counter plan to solve poverty or education (after school programs or nutrition programs--I don't know what the net benefit would be besides head start bad)

7) ban social services to the poor (wouldn't ban education). You can claim coersion, movements, and dependency as net benefits. You just have to win that outweighs their security/hegemony/economy justifications for the affirmative.


Or impact turn, impact turn, impact turn. Econ bad. Hege bad. Turns and takesouts for the rest. Probably a theory argument or topicality argument.


I mention on another thread some of your other options against education affirmatives.


Finally, check out these outlines via a Google Advanced search of the NDCA Caselist Wiki for "head start"

May help you with your strategy or explaining to others how the case is run. (ie its similar to this one)


For Success In the Future:

Next time you have this problem...its wise to get cites from the other team, so that people in the forums can respond--or ask if the case is on the caselist wiki to save time.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Create New...