Author Topic: Poverty 3-D Controversy Paper  (Read 7986 times)

kevin kuswa

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 348
Poverty 3-D Controversy Paper
« on: April 25, 2014, 12:03:16 PM »
Attached.  Let's do this.

Trond Jacobsen

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: Poverty 3-D Controversy Paper
« Reply #1 on: April 26, 2014, 10:42:03 AM »
It is time.

Poverty and inequality are issues so complex in their causes and open to such a broad range of potential remedies - all flawed - that there is space for all debaters, ideologies, styles, and argument preferences to engage in productive encounters. It is also a cluster of issues that cannot and should not be ignored.

If we want a prescriptive resolution, I think the actor should be the USFG and explicitly either congressional action or executive action but not courts. Affirmatives should be required to advocate adoption of a policy to [large in scope term] reduce wealth inequality and/or poverty in the United States.

I also have some love for the passive voice proposal in order to give affirmatives leeway as to mechanisms and means.

Consider the other fine potential resolutions and consider how each problem area can be traced to disparities in economic power. Supplementing the existing deep and incredibly diverse literature on inequality and poverty there is also the added benefit of salience with recent high-profile statements from President Obama, Pope Francis, and the new Piketty scholarship.

Let's do this.