Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
NJL1994

Ban Social Services

Recommended Posts

What are some good arguments against a Ban SS cp? Our case is kritikal, so it solves some of our advantages. I'm looking for generic offense, analytics, anything you guys can come up with would be great. Thanks

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This counterplan is really a piece of shit. I've had it ran against me twice and I've beaten it on pure analytics and generic free market files.

 

Some glaring analytics are:

1) Isn't the reason why some people are in poverty is because they have troubles managing their money? I don't think theres any real good CP solvency evidence that says that throwing 10,000 dollars in cold hard cash helps facilitate responsibility

2) While I'm not sure about the specifics of the CP, what are the qualifications for getting money? Do they background check who gets the money? These are issues that would also deal with irresponbility but also there are massive spending needs for a 8 person family living in poverty or a 4 person family

3) Economic stimulus from giving cash handouts probably wouldn't be substantial and perhaps net deterimental.

4) If you said you ran a K case then the CP wouldn't be able to solve your kritical advantages

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What are some good arguments against a Ban SS cp? Our case is kritikal, so it solves some of our advantages. I'm looking for generic offense, analytics, anything you guys can come up with would be great. Thanks

Your solvency/Harms>Their solvency/NB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with you.

 

Some glaring analytics are:

1) Isn't the reason why some people are in poverty is because they have troubles managing their money? I don't think theres any real good CP solvency evidence that says that throwing 10,000 dollars in cold hard cash helps facilitate responsibility

 

1. You assume that we should actually care about "facilitating responsibility".

2. You assume that the CP bans SS and gives money to people.

3. The CP is still net beneficial. Assuming the NB is coercion, having people go out and actually make decisions with what they want to do with the money they get for free instead of having the government decide everything.

 

2) While I'm not sure about the specifics of the CP, what are the qualifications for getting money? Do they background check who gets the money? These are issues that would also deal with irresponbility but also there are massive spending needs for a 8 person family living in poverty or a 4 person family

 

1. Again, who really cares? NB outweighs wasting money, which is insanely nonunique anyway, and also links to the aff case.

2. Saying that the poor are irresponsible probably contradicts the 1AC, assuming its an unreform welfare or something similar.

 

3) Economic stimulus from giving cash handouts probably wouldn't be substantial and perhaps net deterimental.

 

1. Anyone who reads this CP against an econ advantage is stupid.

2. The original poster doesn't have an econ advantage, they are running a K aff.

 

4) If you said you ran a K case then the CP wouldn't be able to solve your kritical advantages

 

It could/might, depending on the 1AC.

 

It's hard to give advice without more detail. Original poster should give us a basic idea of his/her affirmative.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree with you.

 

 

 

1. You assume that we should actually care about "facilitating responsibility".

2. You assume that the CP bans SS and gives money to people.

3. The CP is still net beneficial. Assuming the NB is coercion, having people go out and actually make decisions with what they want to do with the money they get for free instead of having the government decide everything.

 

 

1. Why the hell wouldn't the government not want to "facilitate responsibility" amongst the poor? The idea of a social services like food stamps, medicaid, is to provide a efficient way for the poor to not abuse the system. While I recognize that some or even many of those living under the poverty line aren't "abusers" but its still more efficient than giving them cash.

2. CP Text – The United States federal government should pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting any law or program that provides benefits to some citizens and not others. All social service programs will be terminated. The funds formerly allocated to social services will be given to every adult citizen in the form of an annual $10,000 cash grant.

 

I assume? That's the plan text straight out of CNDI who cut this CP...

 

3. The CP is not net beneficial. At least in this Ban SS CP, there is no coercion net benefit read in this CP. The net benefit is some horrible card that says that giving $10,000 dollar cash grants will "solve long term peace, happiness, and hegemony".

 

1. Again, who really cares? NB outweighs wasting money, which is insanely nonunique anyway, and also links to the aff case.

2. Saying that the poor are irresponsible probably contradicts the 1AC, assuming its an unreform welfare or something similar.

 

 

1. Again, there is no coercion net benefit. The cards saying that social services waste money is super generic and doesn't even specify which ones waste money. If you can make the argument that waste will be inevitable in social services but there isn't any good CP solvency evidence that says giving straight up cash-hand outs to hobos will solve any better, then that coupled with your aff (depending on what kind of aff it is) o/w's the CP.

2. Yeah, an outline of the original poster's aff would be helpful. I knew the issue of "calling" the poor irresponsible would link into coercion type arguments, but I think it make sense to make this argument especially if the CP doesn't even have a coercion net benefit in the first place. The purpose of social services are to help people get back on their feet and sustain basic needs so that they can get jobs and some job training social services allow the poor to sustain more permanent jobs. The cash will eventually run out.

 

1. Anyone who reads this CP against an econ advantage is stupid.

2. The original poster doesn't have an econ advantage, they are running a K aff.

 

1. I guess the two people I hit in this CP were pretty stupid and had to be since they ran it. The CP does claim to be more efficient economically than social services.

2. Again, it would be helpful if we knew what the aff is. Without a coercion net benefit the counterplan doesn't solve shit on K affs.

Edited by wayfreshnclean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When answering this counterplan I found most judges gave alot of leeway to the intrinsic as hell perm do the plan and reject all other instances.

 

They won't be able to garner offense on why the plan is bad because most of their evidence is super generic. Considering the only offense will be on the theory flow you can win offensive reasons why the plan is a good idea and win the CP easy.

 

Or don't perm it and just turn the shit out of the CP since most 1AC are all offense to it.

 

I also don't think this CP is a good idea against K affs. It seems like the most common K affs have been centered around Cap Bad that gives them even more impact turns to the CP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When answering this counterplan I found most judges gave alot of leeway to the intrinsic as hell perm do the plan and reject all other instances.

Why would that be intrinsic? It includes all of the plan and part of the CP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would that be intrinsic? It includes all of the plan and part of the CP.

You're adding the reject other instances part

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the CP is rejecting all instances and perm is all instances minus 1 (the plan) it's not intrinsic.

It's technically intrinsic since you are adding in "reject this instance" which was in neither the plan nor CP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's technically intrinsic since you are adding in "reject this instance" which was in neither the plan nor CP.

sure textually the words don't exist in the plan or the CP but functionally the perm is completely legit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's technically intrinsic since you are adding in "reject this instance" which was in neither the plan nor CP.

 

this assumes textual and not functional competition. it is not at all hard to win that, at least, a CP has to be both, which would make the perm legitimate.

 

the bottom line is, people make this perm every round against pretty much anything they can, and the neg beats it on "intrinsicness bad" like .1% of the time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When answering this counterplan I found most judges gave alot of leeway to the intrinsic as hell perm do the plan and reject all other instances.

 

They won't be able to garner offense on why the plan is bad because most of their evidence is super generic. Considering the only offense will be on the theory flow you can win offensive reasons why the plan is a good idea and win the CP easy.

 

Or don't perm it and just turn the shit out of the CP since most 1AC are all offense to it.

I also don't think this CP is a good idea against K affs. It seems like the most common K affs have been centered around Cap Bad that gives them even more impact turns to the CP.

Sounds better than having to waste time on perm theory

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds better than having to waste time on perm theory

It isn't a theory debate. No one would buy that competition argument, Kevin Liao.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It isn't a theory debate. No one would buy that competition argument, Kevin Liao.

 

It's been established that mvg is hadoken (me). A 4 yr old could tell by reading the profile info

I also forgot I was posting on that account

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This counterplan really isn't good.

A debate with this counterplan plays out one of two ways:

 

1.) The Negative is good with the counterplan and the Aff massively overlooks all it's flaws and gets their ass kicked.

2.) The Negative is bad with the counterplan and a decent team kicks their ass hard with simple answers.

 

I've never lost against this counterplan, and I've always won with it.

The best answer I've heard is "Perm: do the plan and ban all other social services" That's it though. Take some time to think up simple real world answers and you'll be good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do a google search of Charles Murray In our Hands, there are hundreds of people who he pissed off that wrote scathing reveiws and criticisms of the plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmm this is all very interesting and i realize your talking about a bann ss cp that a camp put out... however i have won often by running this as bann all social services and devote all resources currently going to ss to help solve the economy. it has a nb of ss=dependency for people in poverty. this i think is legit cause

 

1) we give billions [like 800 billion i think] to ss now. this would all go to helping the economy, which would prolly be enough.

2) ss cause dependency on people in poverty, catching them in a continuos cycles and then impact it out to dehum, which outweighs all. only cp can solve.

3) hard to perm because welfare is pretty interconnected. 1 plan needs many other plans behind the wheel to ensure solvency. [for instance, if you want to hand out food stamps, postal service would help deliver it and a mass transportation would get the people in poverty to the store] furthermore, any permutation would make it massively untopical and still ensure the impact of dehum via dependence.

 

so...

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...