Jump to content
Disputant

WIC/SNAP/FMNP The aff with many names.

Recommended Posts

So the plan texts of these affs obviously aren't all the same, but its basically fund these Nutrition Programs for Organic Foods to be given to the poor. Its a solid case, most of CPS runs it. And i'm wondering if anyone can think of an Achilles heel to it?

 

Case can be found: http://debatecoaches.org/wiki/index.php?title=2009-2010_College_Prep_%28CA%29_-_Chloe_Coughlin-Schulte_%26_Justin_Mardjuki#1AC_-_Glenbrooks

 

Plan Text is: Plan: The United States Department of Agriculture should amend the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children to include a fifty percent cash value voucher system utilizing Electronic Benefits Transfer for the Farmer’s Market Nutrition Program and the Senior Farmer’s Market Nutrition Program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So the plan texts of these affs obviously aren't all the same, but its basically fund these Nutrition Programs for Organic Foods to be given to the poor. Its a solid case, most of CPS runs it. And i'm wondering if anyone can think of an Achilles heel to it?

 

Case can be found: http://debatecoaches.org/wiki/index.php?title=2009-2010_College_Prep_%28CA%29_-_Chloe_Coughlin-Schulte_%26_Justin_Mardjuki#1AC_-_Glenbrooks

 

Plan Text is: Plan: The United States Department of Agriculture should amend the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children to include a fifty percent cash value voucher system utilizing Electronic Benefits Transfer for the Farmer’s Market Nutrition Program and the Senior Farmer’s Market Nutrition Program.

 

One off T--Social Workers. Works everytime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this aff really increasing social services or just expanding where you can spend your ebt/wic money in the status quo??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I beat cps with t on that case, but the judge said we also had a good chance with cap bad if we went for it in the 2nr.

Edited by Mr. T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One off T--Social Workers. Works everytime

 

the stupid thing about that is, that snap requires them to talk to a councelor to talk about nutritio,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
as far as i know, its definitely giving out more vouchers to the poor. as well as expanding where you can turn them in.

Well - based off that plan text it just means that ebt benefits are extended to the "Farmer’s Market Nutrition Program and the Senior Farmer’s Market Nutrition Program" (which isn't currently covered under ebt benifits???)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like states solves. I honestly can't think of a fed key warrant that isn't solved by fiat.

 

There is the trouble of finding ptix links to the USDA, but I'm sure they're their. There are also other da's to fed action that probably link. You could probably pair trade off with the t arg other people are talking about to get a better link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. O-Spec

 

2. Subs. = w/o material quals

 

3. It links hardest to Cap. and Statism/Coercion, but just about any K will do.

 

4. "Persons" includes men

 

5. Spending w/hege scenarios galore (assuming you're prepared for the hege debate)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4. "Persons" includes men

 

Im sorry, not trying to be confrontational, but I cannot think of any reason that a plan is abusive because it doesn't include men. What could be possible standards/voters for that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And they dont have to affirm the whole resolution. Your deffenition justifies we give all social service

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are add ons are state budget

 

You say it like this is some sort of crazy unexpected answer to the states cp.

 

1) Specify a funding a mechanism in your counterplan text. Given that funding is the only thing standing between most affs on this res and death by the states cp, you should do this anyways.

 

2) Alt causalities to states spending -- Are they seriously going to win that giving women and children food is what's pushing state budgets over the edge. Are states really bankrupting themselves to such an extent over the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program, that this is the one vital internal to their spending. California had a garage sale not to long ago to fund their state.

 

3) have a da that accesses an econ impx.

 

4) get them to concede in cx that their plan saves money (act like you're setting up a spending da, link) it shouldn't be too difficult. At that point you just have to point out there is probably not much a brink to their states spending scenario -- yes the plan cuts down on state spending more than the cp, but the cp still does some.

 

5) impx d -- it's a 2ac add on, the block putting some solid impx d on it will probably cut down on the 1ar's ability to successfully and coherently extend it).

 

6) Impx turn the impx to states spending for a few minutes in the block (if they go with the standard econ impx, a few minutes in the block of dedev could be somewhat damning. You probably aren't going to want to do #3 if you're doing this).

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could PIC out of the USDA and run either a K of it (agriculture as mentioned above) or run a disad to it - the USDA allows for CAFOs = extinction. The college agriculture topic should give you plenty of literature.

 

 

Also, T - poverty line. This aff effects 160% of the FPL. Here's the cite:

 

Philadelphia Inquirer, 7/31

(Alfred Lubrano, staff writer, “Pa. broadens eligibility for food stamps,” http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_region/20090731_Pa__broadens_eligibility_for_food_stamps.html)

The change was...limit was $27,564

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Im sorry, not trying to be confrontational, but I cannot think of any reason that a plan is abusive because it doesn't include men. What could be possible standards/voters for that?

 

Specifying women and children denies neg links to fem or something. It's just a thought, granted, not a good one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Specifying women and children denies neg links to fem or something. It's just a thought, granted, not a good one.

oh noes! no fem link!

 

thats a voter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Plan Text is: Plan: The United States Department of Agriculture should amend the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children to include a fifty percent cash value voucher system utilizing Electronic Benefits Transfer for the Farmer’s Market Nutrition Program and the Senior Farmer’s Market Nutrition Program.

 

What exactly is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
go for nietzsche against CPS PY, they totally wont see that coming

 

for sure. 1ar will be like "n-n-n-n-n-nitsky? wtf is that?" surely an A strat

 

i hope vinay reads cross-x, or else this lame joke will go in vain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
for sure. 1ar will be like "n-n-n-n-n-nitsky? wtf is that?" surely an A strat

 

i hope vinay reads cross-x, or else this lame joke will go in vain

 

hahaha he made sure to let me know when he read this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...