Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hey oh!

I was wondering if someone could assist me in finding a card.  I'm framing an argument that talks about the destructive nature of partisanship and was wondering if anyone had any sources or cards that can discuss the impact of American partisanship.

 

Please and Thank You!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's this disad that says the plan leads to partisanship which is bad. It comes with very specific links and has lots of cool impacts. Maybe that can help?

Edited by ARGogate
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's this disad that says the plan leads to partisanship which is bad. It comes with very specific links and has lots of cool impacts. Maybe that can help?

Yeah it would!  Do you want to trade or something of that nature?  Thanks so much!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah it would!  Do you want to trade or something of that nature?  Thanks so much!

Another one bites the dust

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahaha this thread is great.

 

Edit: Yo! Not cool down voting my posts in a ton of other recent threads!

Edited by Miro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just going to assume  ya'll are messing with me.

 

I was just looking for some help. :(

 

ARGogate was saying that the politics disad is basically a partisanship bad argument. Plan causes partisanship, that stops X bill from passing, X bill is good. 

 

If you can elaborate a little more, I think it'd be easier to help. Is "destructive nature of partisanship" referring to American politics in general, or is it specific to partisanship in Congress? More context of the overarching argument you want to develop would help us understand exactly what position you're trying to take

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ARGogate was saying that the politics disad is basically a partisanship bad argument. Plan causes partisanship, that stops X bill from passing, X bill is good. 

 

If you can elaborate a little more, I think it'd be easier to help. Is "destructive nature of partisanship" referring to American politics in general, or is it specific to partisanship in Congress? More context of the overarching argument you want to develop would help us understand exactly what position you're trying to take

I get that.  I cut a card talking about how specific ocean policies cause partisanship.  Now I was lookiing for something along the lines of parisanship destroys congress legitimacy, or american politics in general.  I'm looking to make an easy lay politics DA because I'm from Bakersfield where the people are completely asinine and idiotic and barely know anything about politics except for republicans vs. democrats B.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think politics disads although simple in appearance against a good team can be a challenge to argue. But once you learn the gist of politics you should be able to run all the scenarios. But since you are from a lay district... I would honestly just wait for camps to release files. They usually have a bunch of internals.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't remember the specifics of the article (so it might not function as an impact), but this article by Zakaria ( http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/63394/fareed-zakaria/the-future-of-american-power?nocache=1 ) seems to impact partisanship in heg. Then again, this is probably extremely non-unique, especially because Zakaria is making a predictive claim about status quo partisanship's effect on American grand strategy. Still, if you're able to find warrants for a sufficient internal link threshold that ocean policy triggers, heg seems like a legitimate impact.

 

If you're able to generate that degree of internal link uniqueness for a partisanship disad, that's probably better than a politics disad, tbh (way more intrinsic to the plan, so averts annoying theory debate altogether).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Partisanship in amerika literally destroys the ability to think.

Healy 10 [Gene Healy, 2010. Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute. His research interests include executive power and the role of the presidency, as well as federalism and overcriminalization. Mindless Partisanship Gets in the Way of Fighting Big Government. http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/mindless-partisanship-gets-way-fighting-big-government AL]

Should we worry about big government? For far too many Americans, the answer is “not when my team’s in charge!†Since 2003, Gallup has periodically asked Americans whether the federal government “poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens.†The latest results are in, and in just four years Republicans’ and Democrats’ answers “have shifted dramatically.†In September 2006, 57 percent of Democrats said yes, while only 21 percent of Republicans agreed. Since then, Congress and the White House have gone from red to blue, and the two camps have switched places. “What, me worry?†say all but 21 percent of the Ds today, while 66 percent of the Rs are ready to start provisioning their concrete bunkers. For those of us who genuinely believe in limited government, Gallup’s results are depressing, if not surprising. Mindless partisanship remains a major obstacle to restoring constitutional limits on federal power. Gallup tries to downplay political tribalism as an explanation for the results. After all, they write, Republicans worry more about “government involvement in health care,†while Democrats worry more about “wars or anti-terrorism activities.†If voters’ threat perceptions are based “not on how much [government] is doing but rather on what it is doing,†then maybe both Rs and Ds had good reason to change their answers. Nice try, but during the relevant period government was doing all of the above. In 2003, President George W. Bush pushed through a massive expansion of socialized medicine with Medicare Part D, whose price tag — $1.1 trillion over the next decade — dwarfs most estimates of Obamacare’s projected costs. For his part, Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama nearly tripled deployments to Afghanistan, and he’s lately claimed the power to kill American citizens with drone strikes. Both presidents relentlessly expanded federal power at home and abroad. Alas, political tribalism warps people’s perceptions of basic reality, convincing partisans they’re entitled to their own facts. That’s nothing new. In a 1988 survey, over half of self-identified “strong Democrats†believed inflation had increased under President Reagan, when it had actually come down nearly 10 points. Half of the Republicans in a 1996 poll believed Bill Clinton had increased the deficit, though it dropped steadily during his tenure. Political scientist Adam J. Berinsky puts it starkly: “In the battle between facts and partisanship, partisanship always wins.†In 2004, psychologist Drew Westen took a look at the partisan mind through an MRI scanner. He presented 15 “strong Democrats†and 15 “strong Republicans†with negative statements about their favored candidates and watched which parts of their brains lit up. “None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged,†Dr. Westen reported — it appeared “as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want.â€

 

This card that i just cut would be awesome in your DA. It talks about how partisanship stops people from recognizing truth, reason, and logic.

Edited by pigasus
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impacts shouldn't be that hard to find...but uniqueness and brink will. "Judge, I know Obamacare, Bergdahl, the IRS scandal, immigration reform, climate change legislation, filibusters, etc. haven't caused the impact yet, but trust me, the Aff's aquaculture regulations will spark the next civil war!"

Edited by Edgehopper
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impacts shouldn't be that hard to find...but uniqueness and brink will. "Judge, I know Obamacare, Bergdahl, the IRS scandal, immigration reform, climate change legislation, filibusters, etc. haven't caused the impact yet, but trust me, the Aff's aquaculture regulations will spark the next civil war!"

No I totally get that.  I'm not arguing any sort of brink.  I guess its more of a shunning DA.  The logic behind it isn't too sound, but i just made it so lay judges can understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This card that i just cut would be awesome in your DA. It talks about how partisanship stops people from recognizing truth, reason, and logic.

Exactly what I was looking for!  Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm here to help *swishes cape* *flies into the air over the city* *fights crime* *cuts more cards*

 

I'm kinda a K hack, but I definitely wouldn't tackle this idea through the DA route. I would write some kind of K that talks about the mindset of partisanship being the problem. Kritiks let you fudge on the brink debate.

 

Now that I think about it, this could be a great answer to politics. I like this.

Edited by pigasus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...