Jump to content

jshepard

Member
  • Content Count

    558
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by jshepard


  1. you're on the wrong side of this debate. assuming the aff wins that native reservations are at least a u.s. territory, they're probably going to win T. the aff pretty much just needs to say "predictability". your interp justifies excluding random states because that might better preserve limits or ground.

     

    this is true unless you find a card that says "the 50 states, and only the 50 states are part of the usa. u.s. territories don't count as part of america". i doubt this card exists.

     

    qfa.

     

     

    I"m not worried about t anyway.


  2. I can type out a full at if you want but I have papers to grade.

     

    1 we meet, see above

    2 c/def, see above

     

    on to your standards

    off limits, we're not talking about any sort of base etc. territories are both in the us under jurisdiction and GEOGRAPHICALLY as well. yes, geographically. reservations and urban centers are located IN THE STATES.

     

    off grounds, horseshit. ther are PLENTY of da's that you could try to link. econ? pick your link. we're spending money aren't we? politics? we're using the usfg too. the list of cp's and k's you could run are fucking endless. look at your camp files. there's indians neg. stop bitching. you've got arguments you can run (ground is the stupidest shit you could say, ever)

     

    off predictability, see limits

     

    off f.i., you don't know what the framers were thinking when they created the resolution. doesn't matter anyway since we meet.

     

    potential abuse is not a voter.

    rvi for time suck, rvi for laziness.


  3. I'd argue that that definition is far too broad. That definition that it is any land under US jurisdiction allows for affs in what like 700+ bases in 140+ countries? Not to mention all the territorial possessions. The 50 states are plenty to work with, especially with a wide variety of mechanisms, etc. Also making native lands part of the US kinda turns any advantage based on independence right?

     

    Maybe I'm wrong but what I do know is that I was rather successful, multiple times, on T vs. natives last year.

     

    Indian country is in the US both by law and (obviously) geographically.

     

    Indian country is in the U.S.

    William Bradford, Chiricahua Apache. Assistant Professor of Law, Indiana University, 2002-2003, American Indian Law Review

    More than half of the U.S. land mass was purchased at an average price of pennies per acre, while another 300 million acres were taken without compensation and another 700 million acres are claimed by the United States although it has taken no action to extinguish Indian title. See Russel Lawrence Barsh, Indian Land Claims Policy in the United States, 58 N.D. L. REV. 7, 8-9 (1982). Moreover, all of "Indian Country", a legal term-of-art meaning essentially lands within the territorial limits of an Indian reservation, is now either trust land owned by the United States or non-trust land permanently Indian-occupied but subject to Congressional plenary power to restrict alienation and use. See 18 U.S.C. § 1151 (2000) (defining "Indian Country"); see also Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Gov't, 522 U.S. 234, 243-44 (1998) (noting that to qualify as "Indian Country" subject to federal jurisdiction, the trust doctrine, and limited immunity from State jurisdiction, Congress must explicitly designate lands in question, by treaty or statute, either a "reservation," "dependent Indian community," or Indian allotment). In sum, the United States owns superior title to all land within its borders, and efforts to reacquire Indian land are vigorously opposed by all levels of government. See Rebecca Tsosie, Negotiating Economic Survival: The Consent Principle and Tribal-State Compacts Under the Indian Gaming Act, 29 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 25, 80 (1997) [hereinafter Tsosie, Negotiating]. From the Indian viewpoint, non-Indians not only shamelessly "gorge themselves on the spoils of old wars" but remain unrepentant, as evinced by ongoing land seizures. Atkinson, supra note 54, at 381.

    Indian country is in the U.S.

    US Code, 7-1-2008,

    § 1151. Indian country defined

    Except as otherwise provided in sections 1154 and 1156 of this title [18 USCS §§ 1154 and 1156], the term "Indian country", as used in this chapter [18 USCS §§ 1151 et seq.], means (a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation, (B) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state, and © all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same.


  4. What's the strategic utility in reauthorizing a real (and vague) act? Why not just specify the mandates of your plan?

     

    The act empirically has helped increase Indian health and is a better frame of reference for what the plan actually does and is *far* more specific than a short list of mandates. The act isn't that vague if you actually *read it*. No more vague than any 1AC.

     

    http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/comp2/F094-437.html

     

    It seems like you're asking for random pics/ extra T violations.

     

    Far from it. Plenty of Act is key evidence and you avoid the extra t violations through the "discretionary funding" clause of the plan.

     

     

    What does "discretionary funding" mean?

     

    Specifications on where/to whom the money goes. See the above conversation about how without limitations, the plan increases services to Indians in *and* out of poverty.

     

    What does the act even do?

     

    <see link>

     

    The act funds services such as IHS with the intent of increasing the health of Indians as they have the lowest quality of health care of any group in the US.

     

    I'm pretty sure the IHS gets a lot of funding now.

     

    The IHS only receives half the funding it needs

    AP, Mary Clare Jalonick, 6-15-2009“Little money to treat American Indians: Horror stories abound at underfunded clinics,” Austin American Statesman, http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/nation/2009/06/15/0615indianhealth.html

    On some reservations, the oft-quoted refrain is "don't get sick after June." That's when federal dollars run out each year for the Indian Health Service, which serves almost 2 million American Indians in 35 states. It's a sick joke, and a sad one because it is sometimes true. Officials say they have about half of what they need to operate, and patients know they must be dying or about to lose a limb to get serious care. The U.S. has an obligation, based on a 1787 agreement between tribes and the government, to provide American Indians with free health care on reservations. The wealthiest tribes can supplement the federal budget. But poor tribes, often those on the remotest reservations, far from city hospitals, are stuck with grossly substandard care. The agency itself acknowledges that it is a "rationed health care system." When it comes to health and disease among American Indians, the statistics are staggering. They have an infant death rate that is 40 percent higher than the rate for whites. They are twice as likely to die from diabetes, 60 percent more likely to have a stroke, 30 percent more likely to have high blood pressure and 20 percent more likely to have heart disease. Officials at the Indian Health Service say they are doing their best with the money they have — about 54 cents on the dollar of what they need. On the Standing Rock Reservation in North Dakota, residents shared stories of substandard care. A clinic failed to diagnose Victor Brave Thunder with congestive heart failure, giving him Tylenol and cough syrup. The 54-year-old died in April, awaiting a heart transplant. "You can talk to anyone on the reservation, and they all have a story," says Tracey Castaway, whose sister, Marcella Buckley, said she was $40,000 in debt because of stomach cancer treatment.


  5. Additionally, I think what you are talking about would be a simple fix in the plan text to state that the increase of IHS services are to be used for those at or below the poverty line.

    Hope that all makes since.

     

    I'm cutting this for one of my teams. I'm thinking about using a plan text similar to that of the GDI version:

     

    Plan: The United States Federal Government will reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 1976 and provide an increase in discretionary funding for the federal Indian Health Service, including funds for culturally-specific health care programs and Indian Health Service affiliated services provided through both on and off-reservation health service programs for American Indians and Alaskan Natives.

     

    Thoughts?

     

    Edit: Plan text might be shortened to

     

    Plan: The United States Federal Government will reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 1976 and provide an increase in discretionary funding for the federal Indian Health Service. Ask us, we'll clarify.

     

    Just for time's sake and because I'm cutting advantages from various affs and personal research and will be trying different advantage modules.


  6. 1) What does eligibility requirements have to do with anything?

    2) Extra-T is not a voter.

    3) The vast majority of Natives are below the poverty line (ins card), especially those living on the reservation which is the primary focus of IHS.


  7. get qualified as soon as you can then go into champs, it will be much better for you in the long run to compete against the 6a schools. By that same philosophy, don't go into novice at your first tournament. Just go straight into qualifying.

     

    You should probably talk to your brother and get a feel for the area. He will probably have some good advise as far as judging/competition in the area. You should also just talk to the kids on your squad

     

    View debate as a four year process. There's no such thing as a good novice, so your goal should be to learn as much as you can from better debaters. You may end up becoming the best novice debater, but you need to set yourself up to do damage as a SOPHOMORE and later. This is, in my opinion, paramount to your future development as a debater. Several reasons -

     

    All good advice, especially from Sharma. Just go into everything ready to learn and without trying to build conceptions of how debate goes or what debate is just from your first few rounds. And learn to work with your partner. Try not to take too much control of the round and tool him or her out and likewise don't let your partner/coach(es) make your speeches for you.

    • Upvote 2

  8. do what Iago (aka Tom Ferguson) has been doing in his Virtual Debate rounds.. put your alt as reject action of the 1ac, and embrace the status quo (basically advocating masochism).. here's a link to the debate... i asked him questions about the alt.

     

    Along with this, there's bound to be some really good cards to back that up with in the free camp files on here.

     

    Good luck.

    • Upvote 2

  9. Hemp is technically legal now, it's just strictly regulated, so legalizing it won't really solve anything. Your plan should have the DEA give permits for the production of hemp.

     

    In lieu of this, if you must change it, I'd go with

     

    Thus the plan: The United States federal government should subsidize the growth of industrial hemp for the production of alternative energy.

    Funding and enforcement is guaranteed; previous laws regarding legality of cannabis hemp shall be amended only insofar as to legalize plan action. We reserve the right to clarify.

     

    Subsidization keeps your inherency intact.

×
×
  • Create New...