Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
duallight

Bring Debate to the Poor AFF

Recommended Posts

I have been tossing an idea around in my head for a new aff and wanted to bounce it off of the community. I have the evidence its just not on a computer (I know right) so I will give the basic outline of the argument/plan.

 

Inh -

 

1. The poor are politically disenfranchised their voice is often silenced, and due to a crappy education and social system its not likely to change soon.

 

2. Acts of deliberation are key to increasing political participation

 

Plan - The USFG will create an fund a National Citizen Debate Organization primarily centered in areas with high rates of poverty.

 

Adv 1 - Democracy

 

1. The lower class is traditionally exiled from the political process, even those who can vote often choose not to.

 

2. There is no encouragement from the education system for people to become invested in the political process or even for people to become educated about how their government works, this erodes the very principals of democracy, and what a shock the poor are of course the victims of this cruel machine

 

a. How many senators kids are participating in the public education system?

 

3. The result of this erosion is an increase in state centricity.

 

4. impacts are violence, bio-power, oppression, tyranny

 

Adv 2 - Partisanship

 

1. Lack of political education leads to a drastic increase in partisanship

 

2. Partisanship fuels violence, and needs to be separated from political conversation.

 

 

Solvency

 

1. Debate engages individuals and is enjoyable

 

2. Debate heightens political awareness and decreases partisanship bickering.

 

3. Debate empowers the individual and also allows the individuals to explore political education at the pace and level they choose.

 

4. Debate empowers people with skills key to good citizenship - Research, argumentation, political neutrality, commradarie, self-empowerment.

 

 

(Note these aren't he tags just kind of the general concepts behind each observation/adv)

 

 

 

Anyways as far as T's go the idea would be to redefine poverty as a social condition, I mean they still have enough ground to run all their social service and spending positions, counter plans the works. The evidence I have has pretty strong rhetoric and is mostly Poly Sci professors. Anyways constructive criticism is what I am after. If you feel like its a shitawful case then just cite where and why so I can know its flaws.

 

Also I was thinking about playing "They Schools" by Dead Prez to go as a Hip-Hop aff if I was was feeling particularly non-trad going into round and then running an education advantage. The idea is that the government has pretty much failed (or maybe they didn't want to succeed) with the public education system, but debate has the unique ability to be competitively enjoyable and also extremely educational at the same time. If the government were to fully fund and support a social service like this then without the need for them to do anything but make sure that equipment for research was available and a staff of people that knew what they were doing were hired to run these institutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might think about your plan text a bit. I think the one from Georgetown day is pretty helpful:

 

Thus, Ben and I are resolved: The United States federal government should increase federal funding for urban debate programs and implement such programs in disadvantaged areas where they do not currently exist.

 

I think I would use the word "economically disadvantaged" or for "public high school students living in poverty"

 

I think given the alternative for poor neighborhoods = cycles of violence and cycles of incarceration (arguably another internal into the Foucault debate in the 2ac). I imagine you can use Katrina as a metaphor for the public's reaction to communities as a response to Ks.

 

I would be wary of the counterplan (XO, states, or private donor)

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You might think about your plan text a bit. I think the one from Georgetown day is pretty helpful:

 

 

 

I think I would use the word "economically disadvantaged" or for "public high school students living in poverty"

 

I think given the alternative for poor neighborhoods = cycles of violence and cycles of incarceration (arguably another internal into the Foucault debate in the 2ac). I imagine you can use Katrina as a metaphor for the public's reaction to communities as a response to Ks.

 

I would be wary of the counterplan (XO, states, or private donor)

 

Yeah Plan text is what I was honestly having the hardest time coming up with, so it is what I want to see change most.

 

I think counter-plans with politics net benefits are the most likely attacks other then T that the case is will see. I think as far as private donor we might be able to just get away with perming the counter-plan and reading evidence saying the institution responsible (aka usfg) should be the one shouldering the responsibility on the bill, but we will defiantly take extra funding or support =P.

 

Well the nice thing is that the case is supposed to act on the policy and pre-policy level. We make the argument that the fact that we can bring this case/conversation, or any for that matter, to a debate and engage in academic conversation separate or mostly separate from partisan control; means that we see our solvency in action acting itself empiraclly through our in round discourse. All that is left for the judge to sign the ballot and allow funding for a program that would bring these same academic activities for little to no cost to the public in "economically disadvantaged" areas. This means we capture the foucaultian framework and at the same time offer a realistic policy alternative that attempts to solve back some of the damage that former institutions of control have created. The first inharency in the case has a pretty good warrant for foucault that we can cite in the 2ac either as an answer to the K or to blow up a bio-power impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hit a UDL aff yesterday that was pretty sweet, and it had a racism advantage in addition to the democratic participation stuff you seem to be going for. If you're not targeting specifically urban areas the racism stuff might not be as good of a fit, but it is a relatively true and good argument.

 

Also, a team in my area read an aff at the beginning of the year that established rural debate leagues. They don't read it anymore, so I don't know how successful it was, but here's the full text of it in case you'd like to grab cites: http://swmohighschoolcaselist.wikispaces.com/MHS+RDLs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think counter-plans with politics net benefits are the most likely attacks other then T that the case is will see.

 

They could also use privates counter plan with libertarian style net benefits or any disad net benefits because they aren't using the government.

 

I would have really good reasons why this is key for federal government action vs. the alternatives.

 

Also, I liked the plan text from the rural affirmative--of the 3 or so options outlined...it might have the easiest transition to being topical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They could also use privates counter plan with libertarian style net benefits or any disad net benefits because they aren't using the government.

 

I would have really good reasons why this is key for federal government action vs. the alternatives.

 

Also, I liked the plan text from the rural affirmative--of the 3 or so options outlined...it might have the easiest transition to being topical.

 

I like the rural plan text as well, except the warrants on the arbenz and beltran evidence says that access is limited "especially in urban areas"

 

...Debate is available as an extra curricular activity in many high schools across America. Unfortunately, many resource-challenged schools, especially those in urban areas and the inner city, do not offer high school debate as option students may participate in...

 

However I would actually like a plan structured to provide debate outside of the "academic" community. The plan would allow for debate leagues/centers to be created where anyone interested could come learn debate and participate. I'd even contend limiting it to high schools just limits the effects of solvency, not to mention its not like after high school/college (if you go to debate at that level) that your ideas or the need for debate is eliminated. I would contend it is at the these pre-political, post-educational institution levels is where we need debate the most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah Plan text is what I was honestly having the hardest time coming up with, so it is what I want to see change most.

 

Obviously a huge Topicality problem, just off the Top of the bat: Guidelines, Pre-Existing, ***Extra-T***, and kinda-sorta Effects-T.

 

I star Extra because the way plan text is worded it's pretty obvious. you say create AND fund - multiple plan planks. It's an easy story - i'd expect it nested on the Pre-Existing T flows.

 

However, I like the Idea of case - I hit one at UGA this weekend that was similar. It was mostly Giroux. If I was to write you're plan text it would go something like this, "Resolved; my partner and I urge the USFG to establish a National Citizen Debate Organization centered in areas with low percentages of political participation. We reserve the right to clarify"

 

Sure it doesn't say 'POVERTY', but in your old plan text it was an afterthought anyways. Regardless, I think there is one surefire way to get some traction against Topicality: 1AC Framework.

 

I think counter-plans with politics net benefits are the most likely attacks other then T that the case is will see. I think as far as private donor we might be able to just get away with perming the counter-plan and reading evidence saying the institution responsible (aka usfg) should be the one shouldering the responsibility on the bill, but we will defiantly take extra funding or support =P.

 

Perhaps, but I'd also expect a lot of case presses against biopower (it's enevitable etc. etc.), policy-making frameworks, and K's like Lacan (HUGE link), Biopower K's, Speaking for Others, Democracy K's, and obviously things like poverty rhetoric and cap... but I'm not much of a CP/DA sorta guy anyways...

 

that being said I don't think you're really going to see that scenario as much - the link to politics is shady. There's not any reason to assume Republicans or Democrats are against debate or citizen debate - and there's especially no reason to assume backlash. Also, The spending trade-off is a horrible story and I wouldn't expect case specific disads because well... your case is a bit unpredictable and I can't think of many...

 

Well the nice thing is that the case is supposed to act on the policy and pre-policy level. We make the argument that the fact that we can bring this case/conversation, or any for that matter, to a debate and engage in academic conversation separate or mostly separate from partisan control; means that we see our solvency in action acting itself empiraclly through our in round discourse. All that is left for the judge to sign the ballot and allow funding for a program that would bring these same academic activities for little to no cost to the public in "economically disadvantaged" areas. This means we capture the foucaultian framework and at the same time offer a realistic policy alternative that attempts to solve back some of the damage that former institutions of control have created. The first inharency in the case has a pretty good warrant for foucault that we can cite in the 2ac either as an answer to the K or to blow up a bio-power impact.

 

This needs to be articulated to the Judge in the 1AC, maybe it is - but there's a greater story of abuse for the NEGs if they run arguments and don't know all this until the block...

 

Also, be careful about how you word what you're willing to defend. It's a personal opinion of mine that it's best to have a some-what overlimiting framework in the 1AC and make strategic concessions to get the 'best of both worlds' argument so that the NEG never ends up winning you can't get you're biopower impacts at all... but again, that's just me. Also, if it goes conceded then you have the ability to leverage it against any of those pesky CP's and DA's.

 

When I say overlimiting, I don't mean explicitly, but saying 'all that matters is discourse' is a strong position which can develop more into what you're describing.

 

Authors for such a framework that work BEAUTIFULLY with your case: Butler, Giroux, Dillion, Kulynich, Blieker, Dauber, etc.

 

Even if you don't go for the type of discourse framework I've mention, I still think you need to give context to your argument with framework.

 

I also don't think your partisanship advantage is as strategic as you'd like it to be. I can only assume it's being set up to be one big kritik of politics disads, but I think that work is best set up on the framework flow. Not to mention I think there's a pretty big burden of proof that partisanship would be solved by DEBATE - an activity that purposefully pits two sides against each other. Also, I can think of several kritiks specific to how if it leads to everyone agreeing it's bad (especially for democracy).

 

I think it would be more strategic to make an advantage entirely about Political Nihilism - debate incorporates individuals into politics, not being involved in politics/political apathy empirically leads to war/genocide, its essential for value to life, boom... then you can use that on all their flows as well as LEVERAGE on the framework debate.

 

I'd also change your democracy advantage to straight biopower w/ democracy as the internal link. The story wouldn't be incorporating voices so much as it would be 'democracy solves state violence' or something to that effect. This gives a larger distinction between the two and gives you something to go for if they turn one of the advantages. It also can give you reasons why state politics are bad for offense on framework and against Cap/Statism K's.

 

I'd also make sure that you find some evidence that talks about how debate is essential for post-highschool students on all these fronts. And while I'm thinking about it, it might be better to have plan establish a citizens debate organization for ALL citizens or atleast not limit anyone out (this may be untopical, but it's very easily kritik'd).

 

Just some thoughts - maybe not the most organized, maybe not what your looking for. I still think its a good idea for a case. If you want/need any cards/help, just PM me - I'd like to see it.

Edited by bigsham411
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or you could cut a UDL's aff...

 

I cut an aff like this with Democracy and Racism, I lack an electronic copy but have the cites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the aff. is critical I don't understand what:

 

1) the timeframe considerations because its HS (or the)

2) we don't get enough solvency from just HS.

 

Although, i guess it **might** sound a more grass-roots-esque.

 

Be ready to answer the neg argument "You don't have an author advocate"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The author advocate is actually an author by the name of Adolf G Gunderson. He was an associate professor of poly sci at Texas A&M. His argument is that deliberation needs to take hold amongst the places least likely for people to look (a.k.a. the general population). The way he frames his argument it is easy for us to claim that our plan solves the deliberation impacts because debate is just a structured form of deliberation. Then some additional cards talking about how debate is engaging, and helps produce adequate citizens.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...