Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone! I have a debate meet in a few days and I do not understand the topic for policy debate at all. Please someone help me and my partner!!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

resolved: the united states federal government should substantially increase its funding and/or regulation of elementary and/or secondary education in the united states

 

overall, i would pull some openev stuff. common affs include various spinoffs of title I funding (money that gets distributed to schools for a specific purpose), STEM education, sex education, and desegregation

 

common neg positions include the states counterplan, the federalism da, the spending da, various politics das, and various court das depending on the aff. topicality is your friend when becoming new to the topic - a good interpretation is the ikonen 1999 evidence that defines education as the teaching and learning that happens within classrooms. if k debate is your thing, there is good stuff about neoliberalism, state sanctioned knowledge and more.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its funding and/or regulation of elementary and/or secondary education in the United States.

 

---Breakdown of Resolution---

The 2017-18 Policy Debate topic concerns the federal government's role in reforming K-12 schools in the United States.

 

The following is a breakdown of the text of the resolution.

 

"Resolved:" -- this appears on every resolution -- it is used to indicate that the following proposal is the subject of the debate. The Affirmative team argues in favor of federal education reform by presenting a plan. The Negative attempts to refute that plan.

 

"The United States federal government" -- this regards the central, federal government of the United States of America -- it was established in a relationship with the early American colonies, follows a Constitution written by the "Founding Fathers," and is made up of three branches:

-The Judicial Branch is comprised of the United States Supreme Court as well as other federal courts. It has the purpose of interpreting and enforcing the Constitution and ruling on relevant issues.

-The Legislative Branch is comprised of the United States Congress (the House and the Senate which include Representatives and Senators, respectively) and has the primary purpose of drafting legislation. Congress has the "power of the purse" to allocate all federal funding such as for legislation or for agency budgets. There are also legislative departments.

-The Executive Branch is comprised of the President of the United States, his cabinet/administration, and executive agencies. The President of the United States has a number of particular duties, including the authority to veto or to sign legislation into law, and to interpret and execute legislation. Agencies manage the regulation of various aspects of U.S. domestic policy such as agriculture, health, and -- importantly -- education. The Department of Education (ED, DoE, or DoEd) has the role of interpreting and implementing legislation through education regulations. The Secretary of Education in the Department of Education is Betsy DeVos.

 

"Should" -- this word indicates desirability. The Affirmative should argue that it is desirable for the federal government to reform education. This word is also the source of "fiat" for the Affirmative--they don't have to prove that the government will reform education or that they want to reform education, merely that they should. That makes the resolution "normative."

 

"Substantially" -- this means "to a considerable extent" -- while some people will interpret "substantially increase" as a particular, quantitative account, most debaters consider the word asinine and, mostly, ignore it.

 

"Increase" -- this means "to make greater" -- the main discussion regarding this word relates to whether or not an increase necessitates a pre-existing extent. Does the Affirmative have to increase a form of regulation/funding that already exists? Or may they increase overall reform by creating a new form of regulation/funding? That is up for debate.

 

"Its" -- this means "belonging to" -- the funding/regulation must belong to the United States, and not to another entity. The primary instance in which this word will come under scrutiny is in the case of private education -- the federal government currently does not fund/regulate private schools. So, is it an increase of "its" regulation/funding to reform them?

 

"Funding" -- this usually means money, but could be interpreted as other "financial resources" -- because the federal government technically does not have the Constitutional authority to directly affect education, they often offer financial incentives to schools and state and local governments in the form of grants that have education-related "strings attached."

 

"And/Or" -- most people agree that this means "one, the other, or both." Some odd interpretations say it only means "or."

This means, the Affirmative may do any of the following within the bounds of the resolution, which has been criticized for including 2 "and/or" phrases:

-fund and regulate elementary and secondary

-fund and regulate elementary

-fund and regulate secondary

-fund elementary and secondary

-fund elementary

-fund secondary

-regulate elementary and secondary

-regulate elementary

-regulate secondary

 

"Regulation" -- there are two primary definitions of regulation. One stems from "a regulation" which is a rule drafted and implemented by an executive agency. This interpretation suggests the Affirmative should "make a regulation" about K-12 education. Another stems from "the act of regulation" -- this interpretation is broader, and simply argues that the Affirmative should "increase federal control" over education.

 

"Of" -- this word means "related to" -- the funding/regulation should be "of" education. It's more of an auxiliary word.

 

"Elementary/Secondary" -- most agree that these, together, comprise K-12. There is some debate over what years are covered in each. Some interpretations exclude middle school from "elementary and secondary." Debates may also occur over whether kindergarten or pre-school is included in addition to debates over career training and teacher training as a form of education.

 

"Education" -- the primary discussion occurs over whether education is formal instruction in a school, or merely things that are learned by people. The former is more limited and specific. The latter is more broad.

 

"In" -- the primary discussion occurs over whether this means "within" or "throughout" -- should the plan occur "somewhere within" the United States? Or must it occur "throughout" the United States?

 

"The United States" -- most agree this means the territory of the United States. Debates may occur over whether "the United States" includes: military bases, Native American reservations, non-continental territories/possessions of the United States, etc.

 

The text of the resolution is examined when the "topicality" of the Affirmative plan is called into question. For more in-depth interpretations and definitions, see topicality files posted on Open Evidence.

 

---Specific Arguments---

 

This guide, provided by Millennial Speech and Debate free online, provides a detailed description of the arguments that were produced at debate camps over the summer for the education topic.

 

Below, I will cover some of the most important arguments and concepts to understand for your first tournament. This list is extremely non-comprehensive. It's just--from the top of my head--some of the biggest arguments on the topic as of yet.

 

-Affirmatives--Funding -- many Affirmatives will offer a significant increase in the funding of education. Funding may occur in areas such as STEM, Native American schools, a particular type of curriculum, equalizing funding between "rich" and "poor" schools, and other forms of increased revenue for education.

 

-Affirmatives--Regulation -- many Affirmatives will attempt to regulate and control schools, such as by eliminating the presence of military recruiters, banning the use of standardized testing or "zero-tolerance policies," or perhaps by attempting to force schools to accept federal testing, curriculum, or equality standards.

 

-Disadvantages--Federalism DA -- as I mentioned before, the Constitution doesn't actually provide for a federal role in education. According to the 10th Amendment, any areas not delegated to the federal government remain with "the people" (lower levels of government like the states). Many fear that the federal government is ill-equipped to deal with the diverse educational circumstances across America. They also fear that invading on states' rights in education could set a precedent that erodes the relationship of power called "federalism" that ensures a limited federal role in politics. This will be discussed further on the "states CP."

 

-Disadvantages--Spending DA--Deficit -- this more general spending DA argues that excessive federal spending would crash the economy, and that the federal government can't afford to substantially increase its funding of education.

 

-Disadvantages--Spending DA--Trade-Off -- this argues that funding for education trades-off with other funding -- such as for the military or for other agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services. The impacts to those disadvantages depends on what is being traded off with.

 

-Disadvantages--Politics DA--Base -- this argues that Trump must "hold onto" his base in order to retain rational leadership -- if the government passed an unpopular education reform, the public hated it, and Trump's base abandoned him, he might try to make a diversion by acting irrationally and attacking another country to regain popularity (North Korea, yo).

 

-Disadvantages--Politics DA--Agenda -- this argues that the government either will currently pass an important piece of legislation that the Affirmative distracts from and keeps from passing or that the popularity of the plan will empower the government to pass an unfavorable piece of legislation. The "scenarios" for the politics DA change frequently and include such topics as tax reform, healthcare, and the debt ceiling.

 

-Disadvantages--Politics DA--Midterms -- this argues that the popularity or unpopularity of the plan would have a significant effect on the results of the mid-term congressional elections. The impacts depend on which party "controls" the House and the Senate.

 

-Counterplans--States CP -- simply, this argues that instead of federal implementation of the plan, the state governments should implement the plan. A particular form of it -- disciplined devolution -- still has the federal government as an actor, but gives states the authority to develop strategies for doing the Affirmative.

 

-Counterplans--Privatization CP -- this counterplan shifts from a public to a private model of education, arguing that it would be more effective in implementing the topic area of the Affirmative.

 

-Counterplans--Process CP -- process CPs include various alternative mechanisms for funding/regulating education such as researching about how the plan would work, consulting with teachers or teachers unions, or opening a process of "negotiated rule-making."

 

-Counterplans--Actor CP -- this counterplan might have the Affirmative be done by a different actor, such as by the Supreme Court if you use the executive, or vis versa, or any other "changing around" of who does the plan and why that might be a better way to do it.

 

-Kritik--Capitalism K -- you guessed it -- education is capitalist, and that's pretty bad. We should probably revert to Communism, or maybe just some critical pedagogy that enables us to resist capitalism.

 

-Kritik--Miscellaneous -- I don't really have the time to discuss every objection there is to the status quo education system -- let's just say, there's a lot. Expect to debate criticisms related to how the education system is: over-productive, racist, sexist, ableist, LGBTQ exclusive, and many other types of "bad." Some say that compulsory education shouldn't exist in the first place.

 

Books have been written about debate, and I could never cover as many things as I would have liked to, but hopefully this is a useful introduction. Please, please, please reply here or PM me with any more specific questions you have and let me know if there's anything I can do to help you prepare for your tournament.

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its funding and/or regulation of elementary and/or secondary education in the United States.

 

---Breakdown of Resolution---

The 2017-18 Policy Debate topic concerns the federal government's role in reforming K-12 schools in the United States.

 

The following is a breakdown of the text of the resolution.

 

"Resolved:" -- this appears on every resolution -- it is used to indicate that the following proposal is the subject of the debate. The Affirmative team argues in favor of federal education reform by presenting a plan. The Negative attempts to refute that plan.

 

"The United States federal government" -- this regards the central, federal government of the United States of America -- it was established in a relationship with the early American colonies, follows a Constitution written by the "Founding Fathers," and is made up of three branches:

-The Judicial Branch is comprised of the United States Supreme Court as well as other federal courts. It has the purpose of interpreting and enforcing the Constitution and ruling on relevant issues.

-The Legislative Branch is comprised of the United States Congress (the House and the Senate which include Representatives and Senators, respectively) and has the primary purpose of drafting legislation. Congress has the "power of the purse" to allocate all federal funding such as for legislation or for agency budgets. There are also legislative departments.

-The Executive Branch is comprised of the President of the United States, his cabinet/administration, and executive agencies. The President of the United States has a number of particular duties, including the authority to veto or to sign legislation into law, and to interpret and execute legislation. Agencies manage the regulation of various aspects of U.S. domestic policy such as agriculture, health, and -- importantly -- education. The Department of Education (ED, DoE, or DoEd) has the role of interpreting and implementing legislation through education regulations. The Secretary of Education in the Department of Education is Betsy DeVos.

 

"Should" -- this word indicates desirability. The Affirmative should argue that it is desirable for the federal government to reform education. This word is also the source of "fiat" for the Affirmative--they don't have to prove that the government will reform education or that they want to reform education, merely that they should. That makes the resolution "normative."

 

"Substantially" -- this means "to a considerable extent" -- while some people will interpret "substantially increase" as a particular, quantitative account, most debaters consider the word asinine and, mostly, ignore it.

 

"Increase" -- this means "to make greater" -- the main discussion regarding this word relates to whether or not an increase necessitates a pre-existing extent. Does the Affirmative have to increase a form of regulation/funding that already exists? Or may they increase overall reform by creating a new form of regulation/funding? That is up for debate.

 

"Its" -- this means "belonging to" -- the funding/regulation must belong to the United States, and not to another entity. The primary instance in which this word will come under scrutiny is in the case of private education -- the federal government currently does not fund/regulate private schools. So, is it an increase of "its" regulation/funding to reform them?

 

"Funding" -- this usually means money, but could be interpreted as other "financial resources" -- because the federal government technically does not have the Constitutional authority to directly affect education, they often offer financial incentives to schools and state and local governments in the form of grants that have education-related "strings attached."

 

"And/Or" -- most people agree that this means "one, the other, or both." Some odd interpretations say it only means "or."

This means, the Affirmative may do any of the following within the bounds of the resolution, which has been criticized for including 2 "and/or" phrases:

-fund and regulate elementary and secondary

-fund and regulate elementary

-fund and regulate secondary

-fund elementary and secondary

-fund elementary

-fund secondary

-regulate elementary and secondary

-regulate elementary

-regulate secondary

 

"Regulation" -- there are two primary definitions of regulation. One stems from "a regulation" which is a rule drafted and implemented by an executive agency. This interpretation suggests the Affirmative should "make a regulation" about K-12 education. Another stems from "the act of regulation" -- this interpretation is broader, and simply argues that the Affirmative should "increase federal control" over education.

 

"Of" -- this word means "related to" -- the funding/regulation should be "of" education. It's more of an auxiliary word.

 

"Elementary/Secondary" -- most agree that these, together, comprise K-12. There is some debate over what years are covered in each. Some interpretations exclude middle school from "elementary and secondary." Debates may also occur over whether kindergarten or pre-school is included in addition to debates over career training and teacher training as a form of education.

 

"Education" -- the primary discussion occurs over whether education is formal instruction in a school, or merely things that are learned by people. The former is more limited and specific. The latter is more broad.

 

"In" -- the primary discussion occurs over whether this means "within" or "throughout" -- should the plan occur "somewhere within" the United States? Or must it occur "throughout" the United States?

 

"The United States" -- most agree this means the territory of the United States. Debates may occur over whether "the United States" includes: military bases, Native American reservations, non-continental territories/possessions of the United States, etc.

 

The text of the resolution is examined when the "topicality" of the Affirmative plan is called into question. For more in-depth interpretations and definitions, see topicality files posted on Open Evidence.

 

---Specific Arguments---

 

This guide, provided by Millennial Speech and Debate free online, provides a detailed description of the arguments that were produced at debate camps over the summer for the education topic.

 

Below, I will cover some of the most important arguments and concepts to understand for your first tournament. This list is extremely non-comprehensive. It's just--from the top of my head--some of the biggest arguments on the topic as of yet.

 

-Affirmatives--Funding -- many Affirmatives will offer a significant increase in the funding of education. Funding may occur in areas such as STEM, Native American schools, a particular type of curriculum, equalizing funding between "rich" and "poor" schools, and other forms of increased revenue for education.

 

-Affirmatives--Regulation -- many Affirmatives will attempt to regulate and control schools, such as by eliminating the presence of military recruiters, banning the use of standardized testing or "zero-tolerance policies," or perhaps by attempting to force schools to accept federal testing, curriculum, or equality standards.

 

-Disadvantages--Federalism DA -- as I mentioned before, the Constitution doesn't actually provide for a federal role in education. According to the 10th Amendment, any areas not delegated to the federal government remain with "the people" (lower levels of government like the states). Many fear that the federal government is ill-equipped to deal with the diverse educational circumstances across America. They also fear that invading on states' rights in education could set a precedent that erodes the relationship of power called "federalism" that ensures a limited federal role in politics. This will be discussed further on the "states CP."

 

-Disadvantages--Spending DA--Deficit -- this more general spending DA argues that excessive federal spending would crash the economy, and that the federal government can't afford to substantially increase its funding of education.

 

-Disadvantages--Spending DA--Trade-Off -- this argues that funding for education trades-off with other funding -- such as for the military or for other agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services. The impacts to those disadvantages depends on what is being traded off with.

 

-Disadvantages--Politics DA--Base -- this argues that Trump must "hold onto" his base in order to retain rational leadership -- if the government passed an unpopular education reform, the public hated it, and Trump's base abandoned him, he might try to make a diversion by acting irrationally and attacking another country to regain popularity (North Korea, yo).

 

-Disadvantages--Politics DA--Agenda -- this argues that the government either will currently pass an important piece of legislation that the Affirmative distracts from and keeps from passing or that the popularity of the plan will empower the government to pass an unfavorable piece of legislation. The "scenarios" for the politics DA change frequently and include such topics as tax reform, healthcare, and the debt ceiling.

 

-Disadvantages--Politics DA--Midterms -- this argues that the popularity or unpopularity of the plan would have a significant effect on the results of the mid-term congressional elections. The impacts depend on which party "controls" the House and the Senate.

 

-Counterplans--States CP -- simply, this argues that instead of federal implementation of the plan, the state governments should implement the plan. A particular form of it -- disciplined devolution -- still has the federal government as an actor, but gives states the authority to develop strategies for doing the Affirmative.

 

-Counterplans--Privatization CP -- this counterplan shifts from a public to a private model of education, arguing that it would be more effective in implementing the topic area of the Affirmative.

 

-Counterplans--Process CP -- process CPs include various alternative mechanisms for funding/regulating education such as researching about how the plan would work, consulting with teachers or teachers unions, or opening a process of "negotiated rule-making."

 

-Counterplans--Actor CP -- this counterplan might have the Affirmative be done by a different actor, such as by the Supreme Court if you use the executive, or vis versa, or any other "changing around" of who does the plan and why that might be a better way to do it.

 

-Kritik--Capitalism K -- you guessed it -- education is capitalist, and that's pretty bad. We should probably revert to Communism, or maybe just some critical pedagogy that enables us to resist capitalism.

 

-Kritik--Miscellaneous -- I don't really have the time to discuss every objection there is to the status quo education system -- let's just say, there's a lot. Expect to debate criticisms related to how the education system is: over-productive, racist, sexist, ableist, LGBTQ exclusive, and many other types of "bad." Some say that compulsory education shouldn't exist in the first place.

 

Books have been written about debate, and I could never cover as many things as I would have liked to, but hopefully this is a useful introduction. Please, please, please reply here or PM me with any more specific questions you have and let me know if there's anything I can do to help you prepare for your tournament.

When the Founder of the Daily Card knows his stuff... go SnowBall!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the Founder of the Daily Card knows his stuff... go SnowBall!!!

I consider myself a co-founder. And lately, it's been the "whenever Snowball feels like it" card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are pressed for time the only neg generics that you really need are 1 T interp, states CP, politics, and neolib/cap K; everything else is superfluous and not all that great on this topic 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are pressed for time the only neg generics that you really need are 1 TOPICALITY SUBSTANTIALLY and the SPENDING DA because they HAVE TO LINK TO ONE.

 

Yeah this.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are pressed for time the only neg generics that you really need are 1 T interp, states CP, politics, and neolib/cap K; everything else is superfluous and not all that great on this topic 

I don't really understand this....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are pressed for time the only neg generics that you really need are 1 T interp, states CP, politics, and neolib/cap K; everything else is superfluous and not all that great on this topic 

I don't really understand this....

 

 

Alright so this is what the negative arguements are in the 1NC. For most affirmatives the arguements that Vman says to run is:

 

1. A T-Interp, like T-Education saying that there plan isn't increasing education.

 

2. States CP, which is saying that the 50 states and relevant territories should do plan instead of the federal government.

 

3. Politics DA, which says that plan takes PC/ is unpopular and will therefore prevent something (another bill or plan) from happening which leads to bad impacts.

 

4. Cap K/Neolib K, says that the plan leads to the capitalit system/reentrenches the capitalist system which leads to ecological destruction, death, lack of value of life. K's are more confusing then anything else here but most definitely ask your coach if none of these positions make sense to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, so vman is saying that those four positions apply to pretty much every affirmative out there

 

Probably the best T interp is T-Curriculum - arguing that they're not actually modifying the curriculum taught 

In terms of politics, probably the best scenario is the base DA - it argues that plan is unpopular with Trump's base, and if he loses his support then he gets mad and starts a war. Pretty legit

You want to run states/politics together - the net benefit to doing the plan through the states rather than through the national government is that it avoids your politics disadvantage, so if you win any risk of the disad, you'd prefer doing the plan through the states to avoid it

 

And kritiks are basically counterplans with a built in net benefit, that criticizes an underlying assumption of the affirmative - in the case of pretty much every affirmative, they're using the capitalist system that is education, and capitalism is bad - but there's a shiny alternative, and there are different alternatives - probably the best on the education topic is critical pedagogy

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...