prestochango wrote:hey guys im done with debate for the year so i dont mind showing what i know to you guys cause you aren't competition anymore lol. If you're going to district and dont have aset AFF case then you should give me your spot to district cause you dont deserve to go lol. If you need more NEG cases and/or ideas then maybe i can help.
omglolryt?
I'm going to rebut or something. Sorry if this is totally not what you were taking about, but there wasn't much elaboration, so I had to just go by what I think you were talking about.
Quote:my value was justice and value criterion was constiutional rights. i used the HISD and wilmur hutchins ISD in my first contention as examples of schools with money that have crappy schools (HISD) and ISD's that recieve money and spend it on crappy things (wilmur hutchins).
Um... Edgewood vs Kirby? "[Kirby] fouind that educational programs in poor districts were not only inferior to wealthy districts, many did not even meet state standards." (Deborah A. Verstegen)
We need to at least offer them equal access to funds. If the money isn't there, they don't even have the opportunity to make things better and help their students learn more and have a better oportunity. With egalitarianism, it is believed that everyone should have equal rights in society, economics, civility, etc. We have to give them the opportunity and the rights that they deserve, not simply take away the chances of the many because of the few.
Quote:Contention two has atricle 7 section 6 of state constitution and shows why robin hood doesnt work, i support them both with it's certainly not desirable to waste money on lost causes and it's not worth changing our constitution for something that doesnt work.
Who says that Robin Hood will be put back in place or something similar to Robin Hood will be placed? We're not arguing policies. We're arguing whether the funding itself is desirable.
Quote:it's not JUSTIFED hence my V.
For counter arguements if they use social or economical advancement just use meritocracy as the system for advancement not throwing money at the problem but the persons own personal ambition to succeed.
That doesn't make a lot of sense. So are you saying that only those that are "better" should get more money? Also, it's hard to have an ambition to do well if you don't have the opportunities to. How about the schools with (again) programs that either don't exist or don't meet standards? I know if I were going there, my ambitions would be limited because there wouldn't be many things I could aspire to do. People aren't very driven if they don't enjoy what they're doing or what they're doing is inadequate. How do we fix this problem? Oh, funding.
Quote:Then argue the obs of not having to provide a source of funding with if you're going to provide a advantage of more funding then you also have to include the disadvantages then they probably wont have other sources of funding and will have to concede to your sources of funding which would most likely be robin hood which contention one and two fit very well.
I had to read that three times and I barely understood what the heck you were saying. Like I said before, we're not talking about taking money away from the rich. There are more methods of equalizing funding than bringing people down. We could bring others up to the level of wealthy schools without hurting them. We're not discussing about how to do it. We're simply talking about is equalizing the funding (in any manner, which the affirmative sets out) is desirable.
Quote:This is good cause the counter arguements show equalization isn't desirable and that we should promote capatalizm through meritocracy and not throwing money at kids who's parents didnt provide it. Also the constructive (V,VC,Cont. 1 &2) provide examples of what happens when funding is equalized and that it's not desirable to want to change our contsitution for something that doesnt work.
About your value and criterion... You didn't elaborate much on them in this post, so I'll just go on the basics of what they are.
Value- Justice:
Justice: jus·tice ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jsts)
n. The quality of being just; fairness. The principle of moral rightness;
equity.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=justice
Criterion- Constitutional rights: In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Which applies to everyone) we are given a right to an education. The right exists.
Woo.
