College Policy Debate Forums
November 22, 2017, 07:40:51 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: IF YOU EXPERIENCE PROBLEMS WITH THE SITE, INCLUDING LOGGING IN, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IMMEDIATELY.  EMAIL ME DIRECTLY OR USE THE CONTACT US LINK AT THE TOP.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register CEDA caselist Debate Results Council of Tournament Directors Edebate Archive  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Poverty Controversy Paper  (Read 5200 times)
kevin kuswa
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 345


« on: April 21, 2013, 11:28:28 PM »

see attachment

* War_on_Poverty_CONTRO-PAPER_2013.pdf (501.69 KB - downloaded 2326 times.)
Logged
Ofir Stolarski
Newbie
*
Posts: 1


« Reply #1 on: April 22, 2013, 03:06:32 AM »

YESSSS!

You tell them Kuswa.... Tongue
« Last Edit: April 22, 2013, 03:08:04 AM by Ofir Stolarski » Logged
Malgor
Full Member
***
Posts: 220


« Reply #2 on: April 22, 2013, 03:41:33 PM »

this is a great candidate for a floor/ceiling rez.

Resolved:  the united states federal government should establish an economic policy to substantially reduce poverty in the united states, including a substantial increase in (social transfers/social services/economic redistribution)
Logged
Trond Jacobsen
Newbie
*
Posts: 15


« Reply #3 on: April 23, 2013, 12:25:19 PM »

A big thanks to Kuswa for attempting to keep this topic front and center. I heartily support making this the focus of the year. I am only part of the way through the paper and need to more closely examine proposed resolutional wordings.

I wanted to express my opinion about one thing, however, and that is that the resolution should be worded as calling for new federal policy. Making social movements or some other actor the resolutional actor is a terrible idea on this topic. TERRIBLE. I say this not as one who thinks non-USFG actors are necessarily bad. Not at all, though I do think some I have heard bag on the very idea of federal action go too far (says the anarchist).

The reason I say the aff should be USFG is that in this area - poverty alleviation - non-USFG ground should be neg ground, whether other actors or DAs to federal action. That is a natural division of ground that is, on this topic, rooted in the history of the issue and the vast literature base.

Anyone who feels they cannot defend some conceivable federal action to alleviate poverty is simply not trying hard enough. You can go small you can go large in terms of scope of action and scale of impact but in the literature to be tied to federal action is to get the largest and most likely successful actor but also one providing the most fair opportunities for neg ground by either turning left or right.

My initial thoughts on this topic, which dwarfs all others in both importance and interest factors.
Logged
izak
Newbie
*
Posts: 32



WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 23, 2013, 12:40:52 PM »

I think one thing that can really recommend this paper is that, with the right wording, it can really be the opposite of the status quo.  Certainly, there are moves in the status quo to alleviate and fight poverty, but most of these efforts recommend market-based approaches--everyone everywhere wants to privatize this or privatize that, and even the supposedly labor-friendly leftist Democrat party has ceded to this game.  In other words, most of the policies trying to solve poverty in the status quo are neoliberal.  The policies which are supposedly less so--like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--achieve their seeming leftism through regressive taxes on the poor and people whom the services are supposed to help.  Thus, any topic that moves in the broad direction of a more "socialist" version of government probably provides excellent uniqueness for the neg while allowing the aff access to genuinely big, controversial ideas.
Logged
kevin kuswa
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 345


« Reply #5 on: April 23, 2013, 12:43:30 PM »

Trond,

I appreciate the post.  In terms of the agent question, it would be consistent with the paper to contemplate non-USFG agents and decide, as you have, that the USFG is the best way to go and other agents would not be as useful for this topic.

As a result, we could vote for this controversy and,  based on wording paper work, have a slate of resolutions that are all USFG agents.  That would not be my preference, but it would certainly be a possibility.

I agree with you that it should be relatively easy to find a way to use the USFG to combat poverty, but there are other avenues to pursue as well that would create some new and effective research and means of advocacy.

Kevin

Logged
Trond Jacobsen
Newbie
*
Posts: 15


« Reply #6 on: April 23, 2013, 12:57:05 PM »

Of course I agree we could and should endorse the controversy and later decide on topic wordings. I would eagerly anticipate if coaching that all those new and exciting research areas and approaches will make coaching the negatives very exciting. As I say I am not sold on 'always USFG' but I do feel, having not seen the evolution of debate in recent years but being very familiar with the poverty literature, that on that topic, making USFG the initial focus is both fair and exciting and worthwhile and that all the advantages of considering other actors remain for exploration and research the other half of the time we are on the negative.

Against my general tendencies I think there is value in forcing - yes forcing - everyone to contemplate appropriate federal action to address poverty at least half the time, supremely confident that unlike many USFG topics, on your topic, that would not prove unduly limiting on affirmatives.
Logged
kevin kuswa
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 345


« Reply #7 on: April 24, 2013, 01:11:37 PM »

New Pew Research Report out yesterday.  Recovery?

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/04/23/a-rise-in-wealth-for-the-wealthydeclines-for-the-lower-93/

From the report:

Because of these differences, wealth inequality increased during the first two years of the recovery. The upper 7% of households saw their aggregate share of the nationís overall household wealth pie rise to 63% in 2011, up from 56% in 2009. On an individual household basis, the mean wealth of households in this more affluent group was almost 24 times that of those in the less affluent group in 2011. At the start of the recovery in 2009, that ratio had been less than 18-to-1.

It is time.
Logged
kevin kuswa
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 345


« Reply #8 on: May 11, 2013, 10:01:03 AM »

only two days to vote on a controversy.  make sure all your friends and colleagues are voting as well...we usually have low turn-out on this question and that should change.
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMF customization services by 2by2host.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!