Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I got a 1NC K shell based off of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and discusses how diplomatic endeavors shouldn't be prioritized but rather we can't reach that stage without solving for poverty. Needs extension. Willing to trade for anything to do w/ china.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got a 1NC K shell based off of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and discusses how diplomatic endeavors shouldn't be prioritized but rather we can't reach that stage without solving for poverty. Needs extension. Willing to trade for anything to do w/ china.

I think the concept is cool, but I think Maslow's hierarchy is meant to be applied on an individual, rather than a universal, basis.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Post there's some key stuff as to how the duty of the government is to help its people, and how republican elitism prevents poverty minded physiological prioritization.

How do you quantify poverty though? It's at least a little subjective. And to win, you have to have an alt that solves for all poverty and basic needs ever. The link is essentially one of omission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you quantify poverty though? 

That's not the problem with that argument, the government explicitly defines poverty. The issue is more in that the government can't choose to *only* focus on poverty to the exclusion of all else until poverty is "solved," which is the only way this K could generate a link to an aff (or else it could be solved by the permutation). 

This argument is asinine because you can't just take a diplomat and point them at a poor person and expect magic to happen. For a functioning government in such a big country as the US, you need multiple branches working independently, so it makes no sense to criticize the State Department for not solving "poverty."

 

I agree with the rest of your post though. 

 

Also, presuming the government can even "solve" poverty at all is flat out ridiculous. The world tried to do this before, it was called Communism, and it didn't work. How exactly is the government supposed to solve poverty? More monetary policy? You can't target poor people with that, it only works on the country as a whole. More fiscal policy? The government literally subsidize all the poor in the country (not to say things like food stamps can't be useful, but that what the alt would call for is ridiculous). 

 

Aaaaaaaaaalso...poverty isn't even on Maslow's hierarchy (at least directly). Because it only exists on the chart as an (inferred) subset, saying the government can't have other things they want to do is an incorrect interpretation of the concept. 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/MaslowsHierarchyOfNeeds.svg/2000px-MaslowsHierarchyOfNeeds.svg.png

 

Now, you can group the above and say that I'm being awfully reductionist/essentialist in my interpretation of the argument. This is true, but that's the only interpretation that doesn't lose in 3 seconds to a permutation. The link in the OP is literally a link of omission. 

Edited by SnarkosaurusRex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not the problem with that argument, the government explicitly defines poverty. The issue is more in that the government can't choose to *only* focus on poverty to the exclusion of all else until poverty is "solved," which is the only way this K could generate a link to an aff (or else it could be solved by the permutation). 

This argument is asinine because you can't just take a diplomat and point them at a poor person and expect magic to happen. For a functioning government in such a big country as the US, you need multiple branches working independently, so it makes no sense to criticize the State Department for not solving "poverty."

 

I agree with the rest of your post though. 

 

Also, presuming the government can even "solve" poverty at all is flat out ridiculous. The world tried to do this before, it was called Communism, and it didn't work. How exactly is the government supposed to solve poverty? More monetary policy? You can't target poor people with that, it only works on the country as a whole. More fiscal policy? The government literally subsidize all the poor in the country (not to say things like food stamps can't be useful, but that what the alt would call for is ridiculous). 

 

Aaaaaaaaaalso...poverty isn't even on Maslow's hierarchy (at least directly). Because it only exists on the chart as an (inferred) subset, saying the government can't have other things they want to do is an incorrect interpretation of the concept. 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/MaslowsHierarchyOfNeeds.svg/2000px-MaslowsHierarchyOfNeeds.svg.png

 

Now, you can group the above and say that I'm being awfully reductionist/essentialist in my interpretation of the argument. This is true, but that's the only interpretation that doesn't lose in 3 seconds to a permutation. The link in the OP is literally a link of omission.

 

I agree with you on most points. What I meant by quantifying poverty is that there's probably always a little bit more of poverty you could get rid of before it's "solved."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you on most points. What I meant by quantifying poverty is that there's probably always a little bit more of poverty you could get rid of before it's "solved."

Ah, fair enough. Yeah, relative poverty and all. 

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...