[eDebate] health care

M G malgorthewarrior
Tue Apr 8 21:51:01 CDT 2008

Your arguments bore me. Answered below
> gotta fight the Russia fight in the trenches--
> 1. impact magnitude matters because it gives the aff a fighting chance. 
> the health care link to elections is the business, and the impact debate 
> isn't even close. I understand that this is because we prioritize 
> improbable, high magnitude impacts and basically ignore true "alternate 
> causality" arguments, but that structure won't change in time for the 
> health care topic
The health care link COULD be the business.  You are assuming there is only one aff under the topic.  Let's assume your "devastating link", which i'm assuming is a resolution that requires the aff to go in the direction of socializing health care. That doesn't require universal health care.  That would be the only plan that would link so decisively as to prevent the aff from link turning.  Unfortunately your assumption is lame at best because in my experience debate resolutions have more than one viable affirmative.  I'm pretty sure there are plans to increase access, or government control of, health care that are not universally hated by everyone.  Don't let republican opinion skew your view of what an aff under the Health care topic could be.  It's not all or nothing.

Magnitude not even close, perhaps this is true when comparing russia topic v health care topic.  Russia would likely have more global impacts.  Fortunately for you, if the health care resolution is chosen affirmatives won't have to defend their plan against a "russia counter resolution."  They'll have to defend their aff compared to viable negative disadvantages.  The magnitude of affs under HC is certainly sufficient to do this.  Are you telling me you can't think of an impact to 60 million + americans not having health coverage in the next few decades?  Since many are not very well read in this area (I myself have a relatively limited knowledge) let's use some things we all undesrtand

a) 60 million people is a lot
b) health care is directly tied to the ability of someone to continue living
c) it's also really expensive to get medical treatment, so most that don't have HC don't get such treatment.
d) virtually everyone will need a major medical procedure or other costly HC related service.

I think that given these facts an affirmative can think of some pretty big impacts to not addressing the HC.  Crisis.  And please Seth, how many rounds have you won on the (insert terrible econ impact author) card.  I think you can hold your own.  Remember that impacts are also reciprocal.  A domestic issue also limits the amount of VIABLE link arguments the neg gets to "go global."

And don't forget about impact defense.  I know it strains us to think of new innovative ways to tackle disads but I bet I can win that if Obama gets elected he will not, in fact, get the CTBT ratified.

> 2. new president puts it too much in flux... combined with argument 1, 
> this is brutal. you have to write the topic to be more radical than the 
> democrat's plan so that we have a topic semester 2, but that guarantees 
> the elections genocide semester 1

Again, there will be more than 1 aff.  A new president, assuming he/she can ACTUALLY get a major health initiative passed (very unlikely), would eliminate a whopping 1 aff from the topic.  Ye also have little faith in the topic committee (as someone who served on said committee, this lack of faith may be warranted : ).  I am confident that we will not make a mistake by crafting the first resolution that becomes completely void.  

> 3. Russia might be the most badass shit ever -- you know it, don't lie

That's why we have a new topic every year!  Next time we're up for a foreign policy topic Russia would be an excellent consideration.  But we just had one, so why not change things up a bit.  Don't give me any of that "I wanna graduate on an awesome foreign policy topic" bullshit either.  If we allow that to determine our rez then we'd only debate foreign policy every year.  Instead of letting the Israelyn card determine your opinion of a topic, how about reading up on the health care crisis.  Then tell me you don't think it's something that warrants debate.  

> love ya,
> seth
> On 4/8/2008 10:02 PM, M G wrote:
> > Is health care still an option?  I know everyone likes foreign policy, 
> > but we keep ignoring health care despite the fact it is widely 
> > recognized as one of the most pressing concerns in domestic politics 
> > today.
> >
> > Why do we only examine debate resolutions on magnitude of the impacts 
> > and never on relevance to the world around us?  I'm not saying Russia 
> > or Latin America aren't important, but we just had a foreign policy 
> > topic.  More importantly, how many people in our community don't have 
> > health insurance?  How many of us know someone who has been personally 
> > affected by the (completely f**ked) health care system?
> >
> > Will the HC paper Heather Walters wrote be on the ballot?
> >
> > malgor
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Get in touch in an instant. Get Windows Live Messenger now. 
> > <http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_getintouch_042008> 
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > eDebate mailing list
> > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate

Going green? See the top 12 foods to eat organic.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080408/de18dedc/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list