Equalization of funding is desirable for Texas public school

oooooohhhhh. I wish i lived in the Houston area if you become a judge. You seem to really know what you are doing, and where i debate, few of my judges have. It is funny when you have to explain to the judge the entire event while you are waiting for your opponent to show, and I have done that more than once. uhg. oh, and you are not old here, we don't know unless you tell us, oh wait, you already have anyways...I still need to write my TFA case (in its entirety) for this weekend, so chow!

hey guys im kinda a newbie at this, and i went to the brownwood tourny and this round i shoulda won but lost, bc my judge was falling asleep and put the reason y i lost was b/c she argued that equalization was compensatory, which she actually argued that robin hood was compensatory and thats y it didnt work so that kinda pissed me off, but i need some aff help if anyone can plz plz help me i would greatly appreciate it

thanks

Let's go beat the crap outta your judge, ferret.

No? We can't do that?

OK; click a few pages back in this thread (or read it from the very beginning) and see if there's not some help in there somewhere. I bet there is.

back on topic......again......

should a child be punished (bad schools with little funding) because their parents were not willing to get a good education and job? and their parents parents? should not all children be given an equal opportunity to succeed? Or is money sooo important that rich people can deny other children these opportunities? Is it a communist characteristic to do so? any more questions? can ya'll answere these convincingly?

hey pdiddie LOL that would be fun. i have most of my aff case like my v and criteria i just need 2 stronger contentions and i didnt c anything that would help me anymore

What angle are you taking? how do you want to use your value and criterion?

ok i no its not very good but my value is utilitarianism and my criterion is equality im just trying to show that you have to have the good for the most amount of people and that that is the only weay to be equal

make sure you are prepared for a categorical imperative approach from the negative...they can disapprove utilitarianism if you are not prepared and careful

"ok i no its not very good but my value is utilitarianism and my criterion is equality im just trying to show that you have to have the good for the most amount of people and that that is the only weay to be equal"

I must point out the part in your quote that says "im just trying to show that you have to have the good for the MOST AMOUNT [aka majority] of people and that that is the only way to be EQUAL" This is a contradiction. Utilitarianism only provides for the so-called 'greatest good for the greatest number'. However, we must ask ourselves about the minority. What about these people? As the affirmative you must prove EQUALITY not the greatest good for certain people, you must provide for everyone. I hope I didn't put that in too harsh a manner. I apologize if I did.

I'm only trying to be helpful when I say to never use utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is basically like driving a polley pocket car into a brick wall at 90mph (if possible) around here. I really wouldn't recommend it. If you're looking for something along the lines of equal opportunity, then I would say Equal opportunity for your value, of course, and probably Egalitarianism for your criterion. I would think those two would go pretty much hand in hand if you have the right definitions.

This may sound a bit CXish but we all must realize this topic is very much on the CX line therefore we MUST look at technicalities and such. I would advise everyone to take another look at the resolution, there's a very powerful argument there that would benefit everyone.

Although I advised ferret to use the value of equal opportunity, I must say that the affirmative side does not really provide for equal education and equal opportunity has been there for each and every student from the beginning. We were all made with the same opportunity to do everything, it comes down the to fact of whether or not we TAKE that chance.

I hope I've helped.
-Drea (aka Trump)

"ok i no its not very good but my value is utilitarianism and my criterion is equality im just trying to show that you have to have the good for the most amount of people and that that is the only weay to be equal"

I must point out the part in your quote that says "im just trying to show that you have to have the good for the MOST AMOUNT [aka majority] of people and that that is the only way to be EQUAL" This is a contradiction. Utilitarianism only provides for the so-called 'greatest good for the greatest number'. However, we must ask ourselves about the minority. What about these people? As the affirmative you must prove EQUALITY not the greatest good for certain people, you must provide for everyone. I hope I didn't put that in too harsh a manner. I apologize if I did.

I'm only trying to be helpful when I say to never use utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is basically like driving a polley pocket car into a brick wall at 90mph (if possible) around here. I really wouldn't recommend it. If you're looking for something along the lines of equal opportunity, then I would say Equal opportunity for your value, of course, and probably Egalitarianism for your criterion. I would think those two would go pretty much hand in hand if you have the right definitions.

This may sound a bit CXish but we all must realize this topic is very much on the CX line therefore we MUST look at technicalities and such. I would advise everyone to take another look at the resolution, there's a very powerful argument there that would benefit everyone.

Although I advised ferret to use the value of equal opportunity, I must say that the affirmative side does not really provide for equal education and equal opportunity has been there for each and every student from the beginning. We were all made with the same opportunity to do everything, it comes down the to fact of whether or not we TAKE that chance.

I hope I've helped.
-Drea (aka Trump)

Sorry about the double post. My computer froze up.

this resolution blows. honestly. it can come down to one simple word. desirable. thats what swings the debate. notice it doesnt say good, but rather desirable. something doesnt have to be good to be desirable. b/c there are flaws with equalization but i think that the desire to achieve equalization offsets neg. arguments that its unattainable. and again people desire things they cant get. i want this badass Dan Electro bass, but realistically i cant get it anytime soon, i still desire it though. To go back a second, people want things they know arent good as well. I want a hummer, i think they look cool, but i know that they kill the earth one cubic foot at a time. haha. In my aff. i argue the ways that make equalization desirable, not like the benefits of equalization. b/c those are only achieved by equalizing. something that the affirmative doesnt have to do. Arguing methods of funding is just an extra burden that will lose you the round b/c there is no way to increase funding thats realistic. I heard last night that the state legislature proposed part one of a two part plan that said they had $3million but that hardly suffices for the $30million Robin Hood/recapture plan. So you have to argue that we need Robin Hood and fall into the neg. traps that are bound to exist. Any good neg. can destroy Robin Hood for endless reasons. In my neg i just make a direct attack on the aff. by stating that the only way to equalize is by using a plan like Robin Hood and then totally obliterate the plan.
Enough of my ranting on education.

d.p. makes some terrific points.

a): You don't have to like the resolution to argue the resolution. Making the case for something you don't believe in is good intellectual exercise.

b): "equalization of funding", to me, doesn't suggest that the affirmative need present a plan for funding. But those of you who are debating the topic may have found that coaches and judges have instructed you to do so, so if that's the case, then one idea (without raising anyone's taxes) is to reallocate some of the revenues in the Permanent University Fund (Google it) to the public school system. And let's not start a tangent about how much opposition there would be from UT and A&M alumni in the Legislature who would oppose this...

...I agree with d.p.: stay away from arguing how the funding would take place if at all possible. Too much to defend.

c): It seems to me to be a great counter-argument to be able to say: "The neg has not made any mention of why equalization is undesirable. They have only stated that it is not feasible. Here again is why it's desirable..."

Hmmm... sounds like a killer.

any help?
Hey all. Im new to able2know but not to LD. This is an awesome place.
Sorry, I digress...has anyone found any really good sights for info on the Robin Hood Act? Id like to know where it was used and if there are places where it is still in use. Thanks much!

does ne1 know any contentions that go good with egalitarianism?

Does anyone have any help for paperangels and the ferret? (This is a kick back up to the top for this thread...)

uummmm...I will once I actully start writing my case...can i have a couple of days?

Newbie
Hey. I'm new to Debate this year. I've been doing CX for a while and now that district is over (finally) I'm digging into LD now. I agree, this topic is pretty... well, shitty. But I am hoping that someone can help with any tips on LD in gerneral. (MY coach is an incompetant ass... what can I say?) Thanks!

have you gone to LDdebate.com (actually, I think it might be .org) that, or google it, you will get alot of info.

Re: any help?


ok first, Robin Hood is used in Texas. there are similiar systems used in other places, but all we have to talk about is in Texas. It was used statewide, but now its be suspended so its not in use. i, personally, think its the best way to fund education. who cares if the rich have to pay for football? education is infinitly more important than athletics. i come from a distrcit that isnt affected by the plan one way or another, but still i side with the poorer districts.

secondly, pdiddie, i slightly disagree with your point B. it doesnt matter if coaches and judges tell you to think of how to fund on affirmative. you simply have to say "the affirmative has no burden to provide a plan of funding, to do that would be creating an extra burden, so i wont adress that arguement." or of course observations always solve those resolutional conflicts. i think im pushing 3 obs. in my aff and 2 in my neg.
but it is extremely important to never argue funding. novices especially. if you can go into a round and just talk about the desirablity you can acheive the burden you have. i havent seen that in any rounds yet. in quarters at summit, we only taked about funding a little bit, but we had to for reasons pertaining solely to the round. i lost, but oh well, i quarterd at the first summit tournament so oh well.