[eDebate] health care

Seth Gannon gannse5
Tue Apr 8 22:46:15 CDT 2008


so much for not getting in over my head on edebate... well, one post 
won't hurt anyone, and it's more interesting than an english paper.

back to the 2ac numbers --

1. Kindly forgoing future generations as a concern, the neg's elections 
DA claims the plan kills 6 billion people. 60 million neatly divides 
into that at 1/100. So were we to take your (b), (c), and (d) subpoints 
in their entirety (which is to say, all 60 million people require and 
are denied life-saving medical treatment in the near term), we still 
find that a 1% risk of the disad equals the full weight of the health 
care advantage; neg wins on presumption even after Seth 
characteristically drops the case in the 2nr. Win more than 1% of the 
disad, and the decision takes half as long.

You say the aff could link turn. At this point, that's their only 
chance, their only ticket into the theater of inconceivably large 
impacts. The 1AC has been rendered impotent, and it didn't take a 
floating PIC to do it. It would be, as I hear them say, a "rigged game." 
Even assuming the uniqueness is about 50-50, the neg chooses the link 
direction for their disad; the neg has the aptly-named neg block; and 
the neg needs little time to rebut your "60 million advantage," giving 
them time to extend T, another DA for you to link turn, and that 
floating PIC they just said they didn't need. Nasty.

The neg knows the debate is about the link turn. They won't lose it. The 
aff has too few options without the weight of the case.

And, are we seriously looking to make things tougher for the aff? Yikes.



2. My concern is less that a new policy will render the affs on the 
topic non-inherent and more that some fairly dramatic policy change on 
the issue will throw the status quo into flux, especially on perceptual 
issues. The topic will have some consistent direction, even as it 
contains multiple affs.

Perhaps this is not a realistic concern, but I think it's a tremendous 
feature of a Russia topic that Russia is in need of discussion THAT IT 
IS NOT RECEIVING from presidential candidates or the USFG relative to 
health care. Calum more eloquently defended the timeliness of Russia 
than I could; I draw the conclusion that it is as timely as health care 
but also a stable controversy for debate and relatively underdiscussed.



3. We just had a domestic topic. It feels like yesterday. I learned a 
lot about originalism and other actual legal concerns while being 
outweighed by contrived extinction impacts. I didn't know rotation was a 
consensus, let alone so much of one as to demand a 1:1 ratio.

Dividing things so neatly between domestic and foreign policy also 
strikes me as silly. We debated the Middle East this year -- any 
discussion of Russia was tremendously tangential and under-developed. 
"Foreign policy" is not one discussion. Even recognizing both that our 
domestic concerns are more proximate to us and that they are the 
concerns of the world's largest nation, there are still more 
controversies in the ENTIRE WORLD AT LARGE. We should schedule our 
discussions with that realistic ratio in mind.

Wanting to graduate on an awesome topic might be my motive, but it's not 
my argument. Having an awesome topic next year for everyone debating is 
an argument-- and one that leads me to Russia.


Russia 08-09; James Joyce now,

seth



On 4/8/2008 10:51 PM, M G wrote:
>
> 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 YOU TOO, CHAMPION!! CONGRATS AGAIN!
>  
> > 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. 
> <http://green.msn.com/galleries/photos/photos.aspx?gid=164&ocid=T003MSN51N1653A>




More information about the Mailman mailing list