Jump to content

Photo
- - - - -

Title I


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Sheepo

Sheepo

    Novice

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
1
Okay
  • Name:Charles Monical
  • School:maine east

Posted 13 February 2018 - 10:34 AM

New Trier has been running this ok title I Aff for a while and most of the stuff my team has loses to it. If anyone has ideas for DAs CPs or T I could run id love to hear it. I will attach their 1ac.

Attached Files


Edited by Sheepo, 13 February 2018 - 10:35 AM.

  • 1

#2 TheSnowball

TheSnowball

    Hall of Fame

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,859 posts
1,243
Excellent
  • Name:Ryan

Posted 13 February 2018 - 05:00 PM

I'd say the part about rewarding state efforts isn't funding of education. It's just bribes. Throw in "its" means belonging to. State money given to education isn't the USFG "increasing its funding" so the we-meet isn't even effects topical.

The fifty state governments and relevant territories should substantially increase their funding of elementary and secondary education in the United States including progressive funding targeted at areas of concentrated poverty.

PIC out of the rewards and fiat that the states comply without them. Fiat that the money that the Affirmative uses as a bribe should be used for welfare, healthcare, defense, whatever and read a card saying that thing is good. Perm do CP is severance. Perm do bribes and [your thing] is more expensive, no reason to prefer it over the CP. Just prepare against PICs bad, states bad, Negative fiat bad, and the like.

Generic CPs should solve. Generic DAs should link. Just answer inequality and framing if you're going for substance.

edit: on T, they'll say all education money flows through the states. You should say the difference is that the USFG is rewarding it when more of the state budget is given to education rather than providing federal grants for education.

Edited by TheSnowball, 13 February 2018 - 05:06 PM.

  • 1

Daily Evidence Card!
Exodus Files!

This cross-ex is taking too long.

Kafka 25 (Franz, Novelist, Translated by David Wyllie, "The Trial", 1925) //Snowball

K. was informed by telephone that there would be a small hearing concerning his case the following Sunday. He was made aware that these cross examinations would follow one another regularly, perhaps not every week but quite frequently. On the one hand it was in everyone’s interest to bring proceedings quickly to their conclusion, but on the other hand every aspect of the examinations had to be carried out thoroughly without lasting too long because of the associated stress. For these reasons, it had been decided to hold a series of brief examinations following on one after another. Sunday had been chosen as the day for the hearings so that K. would not be disturbed in his professional work. It was assumed that he would be in agreement with this, but if he wished for another date then, as far as possible, he would be accommodated. Cross-examinations could even be held in the night, for instance, but K. would probably not be fresh enough at that time. Anyway, as long as K. made no objection, the hearing would be left on Sundays. It was a matter of course that he would have to appear without fail, there was probably no need to point this out to him. He would be given the number of the building where he was to present himself, which was in a street in a suburb well away from the city centre which K. had never been to before.


#3 Chaos

Chaos

    Mare Incognitum

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,210 posts
2,532
Excellent

Posted 13 February 2018 - 06:42 PM

The fifty state governments and relevant territories should substantially increase their funding of elementary and secondary education in the United States including progressive funding targeted at areas of concentrated poverty.


The case does a good job arguing that interstate disparities are the main source of unequal funding, I can't even imagine the logistics of a states counterplan where the 50 state governments pay for each others' programs.

I think there are four viable negative strategies:

1. Generic - win on skill.
2. Go super deep into the econometrics debate.
3. PICs.
4. Topicality.

1 is boring.

2 would be very research intensive and is a counterintuitive position, so I'm not going to bother addressing it.

3 is pretty simple. ESSA dollars can go to a lot of different possible programs. Specify that one of them should be removed from the list of eligible programs because it's bad, and then do every other part of the plan. I found this PDF for use by Washington state high school bureaucrats, and it lists several examples of programs that could be supported. There are probably other, similar resources online too, perhaps from the USFG. If you do your research, you probably could find a past instance of some failed program that received ESSA dollars and insist that it's no longer a valid candidate.

4 is also pretty simple. There are a variety of generic T arguments you could make, but here's a more specific one: their plan only gives money conditionally, this probably violates some definition somehow. First, we know the plan is a conditional increase because ESSA dollars are themselves granted conditionally, as specified in section O of the linked PDF. Second, we know this because their case specifies that money should be awarded according to a new formula. Third, we know this because the text of the case is littered with phrases like 
 

The ESSA relaxes both the maintenance of effort standard and the prohibition on supplanting local funds.269 Weakening these standards makes it easier for districts to mask their unequal funding practices. With fewer limits on how federal dollars are spent, districts can use federal dollars to fill the local funding deficits that districts create through their own fiscal policies.270 Districts might even expand funding inequalities and deficits in local expenditures because they have more flexibility with federal funds.

 

An increase in federal investment is also necessary if states are to accept the second step: strict prohibitions on states’ unequal distribution of educational resources.

 

Funding is the major determinant of adequate outcomes—criticism don’t account for plans targeting

 

helping low-capacity states necessarily requires federal assistance and motivating high-capacity states necessarily requires federal leverage. The federal government cannot get either for nothing. Both involve substantial additional money— enough to make the deal enticing for states. While Congress plausibly could demand more equity and adequacy from states pursuant to its congressional powers under the Fourteenth Amendment, 342 such authority has not been substantiated by courts or even remotely recognized by politicians. This leaves Congress’s power under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. As spending legislation, Congress can only secure states’ consent to conditions in exchange for money. 343 Congress and President Bush clearly understood this relationship in passing the NCLB, as the NCLB drastically expanded the federal role in education but only in exchange for a major increase in federal funding.344 If Congress is to further equity and adequacy through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in the future, it must do the same again.


Altogether, I think you can make a decent case that the affirmative plan amounts to giving money to programs on the condition that those states jump through certain hoops, which opens the floodgates to any sort of quid pro quo agreement.

Edit: formatting, grammar.


Edited by Chaos, 13 February 2018 - 06:57 PM.

  • 1

There are no differences but differences of degree between different degrees of difference and no difference.


#4 TheSnowball

TheSnowball

    Hall of Fame

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,859 posts
1,243
Excellent
  • Name:Ryan

Posted 13 February 2018 - 07:20 PM

@Chaos what would be the case for conditional funding being non-topical? I was trying to find a definition that supports that. The only thing I can think of would be like, "resolved/should mean definitive, but states can refuse the plan."

 

This is one thing I found, although, it seems to support the Affirmative in this instance.

 

By the 1960s, the tradition of state dominance in education started to erode. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 196596 (ESEA) represents the beginning of increased federal involvement in education. The original ESEA doubled the amount of federal aid to education and steadily increased the proportion of total education spending supplied by the federal government.97 The law aimed to supplement state efforts to educate economically disadvantaged students.98 To this end, under the original ESEA, extended federal funds to school districts servicing high proportions of children from low-income families.99

ESEA established relatively modest conditions for receipt of federal funding. Schools receiving funding were obligated to use the money to extend remedial reading and math instruction services.100 States retained the option to decline federal funds for specific programs as opposed to risking all federal education funding for a refusal to participate in a single program.101


  • 0

Daily Evidence Card!
Exodus Files!

This cross-ex is taking too long.

Kafka 25 (Franz, Novelist, Translated by David Wyllie, "The Trial", 1925) //Snowball

K. was informed by telephone that there would be a small hearing concerning his case the following Sunday. He was made aware that these cross examinations would follow one another regularly, perhaps not every week but quite frequently. On the one hand it was in everyone’s interest to bring proceedings quickly to their conclusion, but on the other hand every aspect of the examinations had to be carried out thoroughly without lasting too long because of the associated stress. For these reasons, it had been decided to hold a series of brief examinations following on one after another. Sunday had been chosen as the day for the hearings so that K. would not be disturbed in his professional work. It was assumed that he would be in agreement with this, but if he wished for another date then, as far as possible, he would be accommodated. Cross-examinations could even be held in the night, for instance, but K. would probably not be fresh enough at that time. Anyway, as long as K. made no objection, the hearing would be left on Sundays. It was a matter of course that he would have to appear without fail, there was probably no need to point this out to him. He would be given the number of the building where he was to present himself, which was in a street in a suburb well away from the city centre which K. had never been to before.


#5 Sheepo

Sheepo

    Novice

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
1
Okay
  • Name:Charles Monical
  • School:maine east

Posted 14 February 2018 - 12:34 AM

I will try to put together something for T-Resolved or T-increase. I think the argument is neg looses ground because they can conditionally defend against links and perm out of all competing worlds (probably gonna need to work on this). I will try to use a few other things recommended, thanks for the ideas!


  • 0

#6 TheSnowball

TheSnowball

    Hall of Fame

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,859 posts
1,243
Excellent
  • Name:Ryan

Posted 14 February 2018 - 08:17 AM

I think excluding conditional funding is pretty over-limiting. The only topical funding Affirmatives would be "take money and give it to schools."
  • 0

Daily Evidence Card!
Exodus Files!

This cross-ex is taking too long.

Kafka 25 (Franz, Novelist, Translated by David Wyllie, "The Trial", 1925) //Snowball

K. was informed by telephone that there would be a small hearing concerning his case the following Sunday. He was made aware that these cross examinations would follow one another regularly, perhaps not every week but quite frequently. On the one hand it was in everyone’s interest to bring proceedings quickly to their conclusion, but on the other hand every aspect of the examinations had to be carried out thoroughly without lasting too long because of the associated stress. For these reasons, it had been decided to hold a series of brief examinations following on one after another. Sunday had been chosen as the day for the hearings so that K. would not be disturbed in his professional work. It was assumed that he would be in agreement with this, but if he wished for another date then, as far as possible, he would be accommodated. Cross-examinations could even be held in the night, for instance, but K. would probably not be fresh enough at that time. Anyway, as long as K. made no objection, the hearing would be left on Sundays. It was a matter of course that he would have to appear without fail, there was probably no need to point this out to him. He would be given the number of the building where he was to present himself, which was in a street in a suburb well away from the city centre which K. had never been to before.


#7 DavidGriffith

DavidGriffith

    Junior-Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
7
Okay
  • Name:David Griffith
  • School:Oak Park River Forest

Posted 14 February 2018 - 08:29 AM

My novices had limited success going for the States CP against this aff at ETHS. If you can win a lot of funding planks, it should be able to overcome a lot of the solvency deficits they will read in the 2AC.

Also, ask your varsity because I know for a fact they have good stuff to say against this aff.
  • 0

#8 Chaos

Chaos

    Mare Incognitum

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,210 posts
2,532
Excellent

Posted 14 February 2018 - 01:51 PM

There's a bit of obfuscation going on in the three reasons I gave that the plan is conditional. Giving money on the condition that it be spent on a particular thing is not the same as giving money on the condition that states do random miscellaneous things, and those violations sort of don't bother making that distinction. However, I do think that the affirmative case arguably exploits its conditionality.

First, because ESSA dollars are only granted to programs conditional on those programs meeting certain effectiveness benchmarks, there's an argument that the affirmative effectively fiats solvency. They go so far as to claim that the plan's "targeting" answers back any criticisms of spending money on education ineffectively. That means they're not engaging with any of the literature about which specific interventions or regulations are beneficial. No matter how many times the negative proves that spending money on teacher compensation, or class size, or fancy laptops, etc. doesn't work, they'll have to answer infinitely more potential interventions. There's an implicit gish-gallop to this. This argument is admittedly kind of a stretch, but I think it's viable.

Second, more reasonably, because the affirmative grants ESSA dollars on the condition that states restructure their funding, they are able to get much stronger solvency arguments. Like you said before, it seems unfair to let the affirmative effectively give out bribes in order to induce states to make arbitrary changes in their policymaking. The affirmative gets avoid the trouble of having to prove that states will not just accept the educational dollars and offset them by moving other parts of the budget around. If you look at the PDF I linked, you'll see that states are required to adhere to all sorts of conditions not just on how they spend their money, but how they structure their school in general, in order to qualify for ESSA dollars. They're required to appoint a foster care liason, to provide equivalent services to migrant children, to teach to certain standardized tests, and a bunch of other things. Those requirements are benign, of course, but the general principle they allow seems massively delimiting. "Give schools money if they do X, Y, and Z" is too broad an interpretation of the resolution, even if "give schools money" is too narrow. There are all kinds of X, Ys, and Zs we could imagine teams successfully defending. After-school programs, charity services, community outreach, whatever.

The point of reading T is not so much that the T argument is unbeatable as that it moves the debate away from this prepared case that does a good job of anticipating the most common arguments at a novice/JV level.


Edited by Chaos, 14 February 2018 - 02:06 PM.

  • 0

There are no differences but differences of degree between different degrees of difference and no difference.


#9 Chaos

Chaos

    Mare Incognitum

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,210 posts
2,532
Excellent

Posted 14 February 2018 - 01:52 PM

T - Resolved could work. T - increase with an FX topicality bad argument was more along the lines of what I was thinking, but either way.


Edited by Chaos, 14 February 2018 - 01:53 PM.

  • 0

There are no differences but differences of degree between different degrees of difference and no difference.


#10 Sheepo

Sheepo

    Novice

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
1
Okay
  • Name:Charles Monical
  • School:maine east

Posted 15 February 2018 - 07:43 PM

My novices had limited success going for the States CP against this aff at ETHS. If you can win a lot of funding planks, it should be able to overcome a lot of the solvency deficits they will read in the 2AC.

Also, ask your varsity because I know for a fact they have good stuff to say against this aff.

States is ok but im guessing they will have answers to solvency and by iLStates answers to most funding planks

Also, Parth IS our varsity.

 

There's an implicit gish-gallop to this. This argument is admittedly kind of a stretch, but I think it's viable.

At the novice level Im almost positive you can get away with reading anything as long as its not racist or a good aff.


Edited by Sheepo, 15 February 2018 - 07:44 PM.

  • 0

#11 Isbrar

Isbrar

    Novice

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
1
Okay
  • Name:Ishaan
  • School:Stockdale

Posted 16 February 2018 - 08:20 AM

Cant they just cross supply their black 17 card and say states fail. I feel that it could work


  • 0

#12 DavidGriffith

DavidGriffith

    Junior-Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
7
Okay
  • Name:David Griffith
  • School:Oak Park River Forest

Posted 16 February 2018 - 05:41 PM

States is ok but im guessing they will have answers to solvency and by iLStates answers to most funding planks

Also, Parth IS our varsity.

 

At the novice level Im almost positive you can get away with reading anything as long as its not racist or a good aff.

The Robinson cards that they'll read 90% of the time don't apply to the CP since they're in the context of NCLB failing. I think most neg answers also outweigh the aff answers to funding planks, I know there is substantial evidence saying that things like weed and taxation solve. 

 

As much he hates it, I'm sure Parth can help you with the States CP.


  • 0

#13 ZidaoWang

ZidaoWang

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 53 posts
27
Good
  • Name:Zidao Wang
  • School:Homestead High School

Posted 16 February 2018 - 06:49 PM

States CP, easy dub. These miniscule sovlency deficits won't stand up against a good net benefit. 


  • 0

#14 vmanAA738

vmanAA738

    Top Speaker

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 607 posts
339
Excellent
  • Name:Vinay

Posted 16 February 2018 - 11:42 PM

Why not an advantage counterplan to solve income/wealth inequality? That's literally their only piece of offense and there are a lot of actions you can fiat to reduce income/wealth inequality like raise taxes on the rich and businesses, pay a basic income to poor people, implement a negative income tax, raise the federal estate tax, nationalize industries in the country, prohibit businesses from paying their highest paid employee more than twice what their lowest paid employee makes, etc.


  • 0

virilio's acceleration hypothesis is real in college/today's world






Similar Topics Collapse

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users