Jump to content

chezzles.ze.great

Member
  • Content Count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Okay

About chezzles.ze.great

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 06/11/1990

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    MontyPython1974
  1. Elk Rapids made it to finals with Brother Rice...even though we lost on the split ballot, it's the farthest we've ever made it. We had a three-person team and had to pay for ourselves... It was intense. Especially since right after semi-finals, all the other up-north types came together and we threw together all our evidence and flows in an attempt to bring ourselves closer to the first-place trophy... The best part is, we didn't even plan on going. We had a four-person team, but our senior realized he couldn't go about three weeks before the tourny. So the aff half of our team trained for first negative, ignoring our aff case and all, and traded off as 1N with our resident 2N. At State we rotated for 1N and went aff together whenever we had aff rounds. Next year, with our resident 2N gone...looks like it'll be two-girl team.
  2. It seems to me that this year showed a lot of "up-north" teams breaking into quarter-finals, at least in division three.
  3. I'm always pleasantly surprised to see how many "up-north" schools get into quarter-finals, semi-finals...this was a good year in division three for that. Manton, McBain, and Elk Rapids (my home team!) all got in. Poor Manton had to hit Brother Rice right off the bat, but none of us went without a fight. In the finals, my partner and I split with Brother Rice for the win. (As in we LOST, obviously, but we split the ballot o_O) As far as garnering national attention, most people from out of state don't know much of northern Michigan, and since Traverse City didn't compete this year, their internal map of who the hell lives "up there" is totally skewed. We're basically unknowns from the Land of the Mitten before we start.
  4. I have TONS of evidence saying community service decreases recidivism. "A Civic Justice Corps" alone has about twenty articles on the subject. Then I have cards claiming National Service is Community Service from the Corporation for National and Community Service. Objectivism DAs make me laugh, as well as Spending DAs.
  5. If you get hit with Extra-T, you should prepare a brief stating why Extra-T shouldn't be used in the round, and also search for the "Weed and Seed" program running out of New York. They've been taking prisoners and integrating them into community service without needing new policies or amendments to policies. There's specific programs in Maine where they have taken prisoners and put them through AmeriCorps. The only mandate the aff needs to establish is the law saying reduced incarceration is the medium the prisoners use to get into AmeriCorps. Since AmeriCorps already uses prisoners in case-specific areas, it's clear AmeriCorps won't need any adjustment for the plan to work. Since federal parole was killed, you don't need to modify parole. Basically your plan text is all the text Congress would need to actually pass the plan. Especially if you develop strong funding. Get cards that say you'd save if you put them into AmeriCorps. Use the ratios of cost-to-benefit analyses. Good luck!
  6. About the class C and D felons... I'm not much worried about the "types of prisoners in federal prisons" thing. Mostly because I have cards saying 73.4% of people in federal lock-up are nonviolent, first-time offenders. This means mail fraud. Bouncing checks. Speeding on federal highways. Doing anything illegal on federal property. Taking illegal contraband across state lines. With certain PATRIOT Act laws, looking up components for bombs can land you in federal prison... Mainly, if you find cards and can explain to the judge federal prison is not as bad as common perception makes it, those figures help a lot. Also, petty criminals, as we have in our "reduce recidivism" advantage, all talk about how people with jobs or internships recidivate at a much smaller rate. The 40% recidivism rate for federal prison would effectively be reduced to 10% as per my cards. Also, I will immediately make a card to refute the mashed potatoes argument. Thanks for catching that hole. Anyone who wants the AmeriCorps spits out money at a 1.95 ratio per dollar, email me: chezzles.ze.great@gmail.com
  7. Funding: $25,000 dollars a year to host a federal prisoner, on average. Cost per AmeriCorps member: $12,400 (or whatever, depending on your source and date). Covers stipend and personal living expenses plus supplies. Eligibility: As per federal sentencing guidelines (violent or nonviolent). That's the only criteria my team has. That and the prisoner in question must serve half their sentence before allowed to work the program. Even if the prisoners don't pay for themselves 100%, if the neg has cards that say AmeriCorps member cost is, say, $100,000 per member, the aff team still turns tax-sucking prisoners into tax-paying citizens. That and a handful of aff cards saying AmeriCorps spits out wayyy more than you put in (if you put a dollar in the pot, you get a dollar ninety-five back).
  8. As of 2003 there were 161,673 prisoners in federal lock-up. 74% were nonviolent, first time offenders. Of course, that was 2003.
  9. Way up in the bitter north where things are a little different, my team is running an Incarceration Reduction plan through federal prisons and AmeriCorps. So far the main problem has been finding the solvency linked solidly to federal prisoners. All stats usually touch on "prisons" meaning state and federal added together or averaged. Harms are plenty as overcrowding has been a huge issue for quite some time (since the mandatory minimum sentencing laws in the '80s, as a matter of fact), and impacts are generally easy to find. Huge economic advantages can be reaped just by explaining those not in jail have become taxpayers and no longer cost the country federal tax dollars. As for K's and CP's, I am in the bitter north, so the likelihood of either is virtually nil. The only CP I've seen ran into a brick wall when the neg team tried to claim their CP (going through state gov't instead of fed gov't, using state prisoners instead of federal prisoners) had better solvency. They had no evidence, and they had run a resolution-specific DA, which meant their CP actually incurred their own DA. Anyway, it's really hard to disprove harms or impacts here, so my advice is to focus on solvency. Still, we haven't been debating in the tournament very long and I'm sure there are going to be more questions raised as time goes on. What I want is to find that missing link. When negs try to claim the aff will destroy the work-force they create by reducing recidivism, it really is a good argument, until the neg tries to insinuate some day there will be no prison work-force for AmeriCorps. Aff does not solve for crime. When the neg argues this, I almost want to claim that as a new advantage. "Thanks, Neg. Didn't see that there. We actually solve for crime. Fancy that." The case itself, with the appropriate funding, is pretty solid. Suggestions are welcome, and I hope I helped.
×
×
  • Create New...