Cdl core Files 2015-2016 cdl core Files


AC- Critical Security- T “Federal Government”



Download 1.69 Mb.
Page37/75
Date18.10.2016
Size1.69 Mb.
#2993
1   ...   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   ...   75

2AC- Critical Security- T “Federal Government”




  1. The affirmative is a critique of topicality- extend our Weiss 2007 and Giroux 2006 evidence- by choosing to focus on the local level of politics rather than the national, debaters can stay engaged with issues that are relevant to what occurs in their communities. Our Giroux evidence states that urban debate leagues present hope for politics because it provides a forum to contest vital issues- our Weiss evidence indicates that a vital issue for urban youth is the militarization of their public school system, this discussion is more valuable than a hypothetical debate about United States federal policy

  2. Prefer our method of engagement with the resolution

  1. Education- our 1AC Devine evidence indicates that by engaging with local issues in our school system we resist the apolitical tendencies of surveillance technologies- we are no longer passive recipients of militarized activities. By questioning the conduct of politics at a local level we become critically aware of pressing issues in our communities

  2. Ground- the activity of policy debate is already skewed in favor of those programs with a lot of resources, and coaching. In order to remedy the asymmetry inherent to the activity, we must be able to read arguments that deal with personal experience and politics at a micro level. We do not have the resources to cut a hundred politics updates every week, or research the best counterplan strategy. We can however, still have educational, engaging debates, if we discuss issues that are close to home.

2AC Security Letters




  1. We meet their interpretation- the affirmative curtails the use of the security letters by the USFG

  2. Counter-interpretation- to curtail is to ban


Vocabulary.com http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/curtail

To curtail something is to slow it down, put restrictions on it, or stop it entirely. If I give up cake, I am curtailing my cake-eating.

  1. Prefer our interpretation

  1. Ground- most advantage internal links are predicated on the government stopping a surveillance action. The literature does not make the distinction between a partial reduction and an outright ban, the negative, leaves the affirmative with very little advantage ground

D. Prefer reasonability to competing interpretations- if the affirmative is predictable then we should not lose to their interpretation. Predictability is the best standard for topicality. If the negative can predict that they’d debate a drone affirmative on this topic then that leaves ample time to research case specific strategies and links



Crime Disadvantage



Crime DA 1NC



Crime DA 1NC

A. Uniqueness: Long term trends show crime rates dropping significantly


Fuchs 2015 (Erin Fuchs, 1-27-2015, "It's Incredible How Much Safer America Has Become Since The 1980s," Business Insider, http://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-crime-report-shows-america-is-still-getting-safer-2015-1) LO

Violent crime and property crime in America both decreased in the first half of 2014, the FBI said in a new preliminary report released Tuesday. The FBI's latest crime statistics reflects a long-term trend. Even though America's local police are more militarized than ever, the crime rate has been steadily falling in the past two decades. In the 1980s property crime and violence were both much more common, spurring politicians to bill themselves as "tough on crime" in order to get elected in America. (Presidential candidate Michael Dukakis famously lost against George H.W. Bush, who ran a tough-on-crime campaign.) These days that tough-on-crime rhetoric isn't as common, and there's a excellent reason why. Crime stats consistently show that the country is getting safer. In 2013, the number of murders in America dropped 4.4% to 14,196 — down signifcantly from its peak of 24,703 in 1991. The drop in homicides is even more obvious when you look at individual cities that once had bad reputations. New York recorded 2,245 homicides at its peak in 1990 but only 328 by 2014. Los Angeles had 2,589 homicides in 1992 but only 254 last year. Washington, D.C., a much smaller city, saw its murder number decline from a peak of 443 homicides in 1992 to only 105 last year. Overall, violent crimes including homicide, rape, aggravated assault, and robbery dropped 38% between 1992 and 2011. The dramatic plunge in violent crime shocked many experts, who predicted America would just get more violent. "Recent declines in rates of violent crime in the United States caught many researchers and policymakers off guard," criminology professor Gary LaFree wrote back in 1999. "These declines were perhaps more surprising in that they came on the heels of dire predictions about the rise of a generation of 'superpredators' who would soon unleash the full force of their destructive capacities on an already crime-weary nation." Crime experts have yet to come up with a unified theory for why America has gotten so much safer. However, one of the more plausible reasons for the falling violent crime rate is that many cities in America have more police per capita than they used to — and those police officers have gotten better at doing their job. An omnibus crime bill passed in 1994 provided funding for 100,000 new police officers in the US as and set aside $6.1 billion for crime prevention programs. In reality, the number of cops on the street only increased by 50,000 to 60,000 in the 1990s, but that was still a bigger increase than in previous decades, according to Levitt's analysis of FBI data. In New York City, which had a particularly sharp drop in violent crime, the police force expanded by 35% in the 1990s. The mere presence of more police officers can obviously be a big crime deterrent. During the 1990s, these police officers has also became more strategic — in part because they began to use computerized systems to track crimes and find out where they should deploy their officers. So-called "hot spot policing" is one of the most effective new strategies, political scientist James Q. Wilson has written in The Wall Street Journal. "The great majority of crimes tend to occur in the same places," Wilson writes. "Put active police resources in those areas instead of telling officers to drive around waiting for 911 calls, and you can bring down crime." One Minneapolis-based study that Wilson cited found that for every minute a police officer spent at a "hot spot" more time passed before another crime was committed in that spot after he left. There are other theories about why violent crime decreased, including that it was because America got its crack epidemic under control and because the US economy grew stronger. Steven Levitt, the economist who wrote the best-seller "Freakonomics," proposed one of the more controversial theories about the crime drop, which was that the legalization of abortion in 1973 was partly responsible. If it weren't for abortion, the theory goes, many unwanted children would have been been grown up to be criminals by the 1990s. An even more bizarre theory ties the rise of lead in the atmosphere to increases in violent crime. Lead emissions rose from the 1940s to the 1960s, while crime rose from the 1960s through the 1980s — when children exposed to lead were becoming adults. In an extensive look at the lead/violence theory, Kevin Drum of Mother Jones cited research that found "even moderately high levels of lead exposure are associated with aggressivity, impulsivity, ADHD, and lower IQ. And right there, you've practically defined the profile of a violent young offender."




Download 1.69 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   ...   75



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
Guide
Instructions
Report
Request
Review