7. Native Americans:
Starting Resolution: Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially decrease its powers within Indian Country.
-discussion of authority, power, legal authority, plenary power
-Intervene?
-Plenary power may be too scary and rule out votes
-Tim: Authority may be a term that morphs (Jurisdiction to act vs Credibility of Action)
-Duane: is the most comfortable with Authority it encompasses all of the original items from the paper, does not like regulatory authority because it might be all environmental
-Ruth finds a laundry list for regulatory authority
-Racy suggests: "regulations and/or authority" it allows you to look both at existing laws and the ability to have the power.
Greg: thinks decrease its regulations of…….solves the authority problem
I suggest Jurisdiction: a question of removing jurisdiction might run into some issues with state issues, Cort thinks it might limit out some affirmative ground…
-If we use jurisdiction within? The committee prefers authority
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially decrease its authority within Indian Country.
8. Secondary Education
Starting Wording: Resolved: The United States federal government should establish a policy substantially improving the college and career readiness of secondary students in the United States.
Tim: Still does not like "establish a policy" (see two earlier discussions in Land pollution and Income Inequality), does not know how to write this without "establish a policy.
-establish an education policy….to keep the direction of the resolution
-should this be about accountability? privatization/charter schools vs. union and public ed
-Tim's favorite idea, but not sure this is what the author may envision this debate….
Luke: wants outcome based resolutions…..full involved debates for novices before you get into strategic debates, but it also allows high level clash.
Racy: this should be a topic that kids can have instant ownership in and it is applicable throughout their lives
-Her suggestion: USFG should reform its education policy to improve the college and career readiness of secondary students in the United States.
Tim: This kind of resolution might not reform federal policies vs state policies…..does the federal government have to be the actor?
-Rich: this steals all neg ground and makes aff ground unweildy
Tim's suggestion: The United States federal government should increase incentives for states to (college and career readiness).
-Luke and tim think there are resolutional UQ issues for this and the proposed language….
Rich: USFG should reform education policy.
-Answers "isn’t this what we do now"
-You could nationalize education
-Tim: The federal government can do this…..
Me: Should we use luke's passive voice resolution
-#5 from the paper….argument is that it is a good resolution, but there may be an auto-loss because people don't want it, or people may not be used to it.
-Rich: question of whether or not we should use a plan text
Back to Establish a Policy
-Matt: we used this phrase in 1999-2000
-Tim: we ran from issues at the core of the topic…….
-Now a fan of Racy's proposed changes
The United States federal government should reform education policy to substantially improve college and career readiness of secondary students in the United States.
-Rich: They cannot literally fiat this….they cannot force the hands of the states….
-I think including incentives solves this
-Luke: this topic makes it more about how the federal government can influence the states
Greg: can we eliminate college and career readiness?
-Rich: this is more perceptual, it keeps the hot terms in……
Final wording:
The United States federal government should reform education policy to substantially improve college and career readiness of secondary students in the United States.
Starting Resolution: Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially decrease its powers within Indian Country.
-discussion of authority, power, legal authority, plenary power
-Intervene?
-Plenary power may be too scary and rule out votes
-Tim: Authority may be a term that morphs (Jurisdiction to act vs Credibility of Action)
-Duane: is the most comfortable with Authority it encompasses all of the original items from the paper, does not like regulatory authority because it might be all environmental
-Ruth finds a laundry list for regulatory authority
-Racy suggests: "regulations and/or authority" it allows you to look both at existing laws and the ability to have the power.
Greg: thinks decrease its regulations of…….solves the authority problem
I suggest Jurisdiction: a question of removing jurisdiction might run into some issues with state issues, Cort thinks it might limit out some affirmative ground…
-If we use jurisdiction within? The committee prefers authority
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially decrease its authority within Indian Country.
8. Secondary Education
Starting Wording: Resolved: The United States federal government should establish a policy substantially improving the college and career readiness of secondary students in the United States.
Tim: Still does not like "establish a policy" (see two earlier discussions in Land pollution and Income Inequality), does not know how to write this without "establish a policy.
-establish an education policy….to keep the direction of the resolution
-should this be about accountability? privatization/charter schools vs. union and public ed
-Tim's favorite idea, but not sure this is what the author may envision this debate….
Luke: wants outcome based resolutions…..full involved debates for novices before you get into strategic debates, but it also allows high level clash.
Racy: this should be a topic that kids can have instant ownership in and it is applicable throughout their lives
-Her suggestion: USFG should reform its education policy to improve the college and career readiness of secondary students in the United States.
Tim: This kind of resolution might not reform federal policies vs state policies…..does the federal government have to be the actor?
-Rich: this steals all neg ground and makes aff ground unweildy
Tim's suggestion: The United States federal government should increase incentives for states to (college and career readiness).
-Luke and tim think there are resolutional UQ issues for this and the proposed language….
Rich: USFG should reform education policy.
-Answers "isn’t this what we do now"
-You could nationalize education
-Tim: The federal government can do this…..
Me: Should we use luke's passive voice resolution
-#5 from the paper….argument is that it is a good resolution, but there may be an auto-loss because people don't want it, or people may not be used to it.
-Rich: question of whether or not we should use a plan text
Back to Establish a Policy
-Matt: we used this phrase in 1999-2000
-Tim: we ran from issues at the core of the topic…….
-Now a fan of Racy's proposed changes
The United States federal government should reform education policy to substantially improve college and career readiness of secondary students in the United States.
-Rich: They cannot literally fiat this….they cannot force the hands of the states….
-I think including incentives solves this
-Luke: this topic makes it more about how the federal government can influence the states
Greg: can we eliminate college and career readiness?
-Rich: this is more perceptual, it keeps the hot terms in……
Final wording:
The United States federal government should reform education policy to substantially improve college and career readiness of secondary students in the United States.