***How To Section*** - Glenn Pelham Foundation | For ...



29502361073152017-2018 School Lunches Affirmative and Negative Packet-Junior Varsity Middle School-Varsity Middle School-Open High School(PAPERLESS VERSION)002017-2018 School Lunches Affirmative and Negative Packet-Junior Varsity Middle School-Varsity Middle School-Open High School(PAPERLESS VERSION)-780415-12738100057531007138670002680335-80714842017 Summer Camp Affirmative and Case negTopic – Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its funding and/or regulation of elementary and/or secondary education in the United States.002017 Summer Camp Affirmative and Case negTopic – Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its funding and/or regulation of elementary and/or secondary education in the United States. Table of ContentsTable of Contents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u ***How To Section*** PAGEREF _Toc490350871 \h 3What is Policy Debate? PAGEREF _Toc490350872 \h 3Speeches and Speech Order PAGEREF _Toc490350873 \h 4The Constructive Speeches PAGEREF _Toc490350874 \h 5The Rebuttal Speeches PAGEREF _Toc490350875 \h 7How to write a block and why? PAGEREF _Toc490350876 \h 10What are blocks? Are they really, really, really important? PAGEREF _Toc490350877 \h 10Judge Adaptation PAGEREF _Toc490350878 \h 12Cutting Cards PAGEREF _Toc490350879 \h 13Using Articles PAGEREF _Toc490350880 \h 15***School Lunches Affirmative + Case Neg*** PAGEREF _Toc490350881 \h 16Intro to the Affirmative PAGEREF _Toc490350882 \h 16Intro to the Negative PAGEREF _Toc490350883 \h 17Definitions PAGEREF _Toc490350884 \h 20AFFIRMATIVE**Affirmative–1AC** PAGEREF _Toc490350885 \h 211AC School Lunches (1/7) PAGEREF _Toc490350886 \h 211AC School Lunches (2/7) PAGEREF _Toc490350887 \h 221AC School Lunches (3/7) PAGEREF _Toc490350888 \h 231AC School Lunches (6/7) PAGEREF _Toc490350889 \h 241AC School Lunches (5/7) PAGEREF _Toc490350890 \h 251AC School Lunches (6/7) PAGEREF _Toc490350891 \h 261AC School Lunches (7/7) PAGEREF _Toc490350892 \h 27**Affirmative–Extensions** PAGEREF _Toc490350893 \h 282AC Overview/we outweigh (Mr. T) PAGEREF _Toc490350894 \h 282AC Answer to No Solvency PAGEREF _Toc490350895 \h 292AC Answer to Healthcare Costs Declining PAGEREF _Toc490350896 \h 302AC Answer to Food Justice Movements PAGEREF _Toc490350897 \h 31**Affirmative answers to Disadvantages** PAGEREF _Toc490350898 \h 322AC Answer to Spending DA PAGEREF _Toc490350899 \h 322AC Answer to Federalism DA PAGEREF _Toc490350900 \h 33NEGATIVE**Negative–Case arguments** PAGEREF _Toc490350901 \h 341NC Answer to Solvency PAGEREF _Toc490350902 \h 341NC Answer to Healthcare Cost ADV PAGEREF _Toc490350903 \h 351NC Answer to Food Injustice ADV (1/2) PAGEREF _Toc490350904 \h 361NC Answer to Food Injustice ADV (2/2) PAGEREF _Toc490350905 \h 37**Negative–Spending Disadvantage** PAGEREF _Toc490350906 \h 381NC Spending DA (1/3) PAGEREF _Toc490350907 \h 381NC Spending DA (2/3) PAGEREF _Toc490350908 \h 391NC Spending DA (3/3) PAGEREF _Toc490350909 \h 40**Negative–Spending Extensions** PAGEREF _Toc490350910 \h 412NC Spending–Overview/we outweigh (Mr. T) PAGEREF _Toc490350911 \h 412NC Spending–Answer to Non-Unique PAGEREF _Toc490350912 \h 422NC Spending–Answer to No Link PAGEREF _Toc490350913 \h 43**Negative–Federalism Disadvantage** PAGEREF _Toc490350914 \h 441NC Federalism DA (1/4) PAGEREF _Toc490350915 \h 441NC Federalism DA (2/4) PAGEREF _Toc490350916 \h 451NC Federalism DA (3/4) PAGEREF _Toc490350917 \h 461NC Federalism DA (4/4) PAGEREF _Toc490350918 \h 47**Negative–Federalism Extensions** PAGEREF _Toc490350919 \h 482NC Overview/we outweigh (Mr. T) PAGEREF _Toc490350920 \h 482NC Answer to Non-Unique PAGEREF _Toc490350921 \h 49***How To Section***What is Policy Debate?Policy debate is a type of debate competition in which teams of two advocate for and against a resolution that typically calls for policy change by the United States federal government, this format tests a student’s research, analytical, and delivery skills. It involves the proposal of a plan by the affirmative team to enact a policy, while the negative team offers reasons to reject that proposal. Throughout the debate, students have the opportunity to cross-examine one another. A judge or panel of judges determines the winner based on the arguments presented.-2730122255500Speeches and Speech OrderThere are eight total speeches in a debate round. Each debater gives two speeches: one “constructive” and one “rebuttal.” The speech order looks like this:Middle School NoviceMiddle School Junior VarsityMiddle School VarsityHigh School1AC (1st Affirmative Constructive) – Read the affirmative case and the plan4 minutes4 minutes5 minutes6 minutesCX (Cross-Examination) – 2nd Negative Speaker asks the questions2 minutes2 minutes2 minutes2 minutes1NC (1st Negative Constructive) – Makes all the major negative arguments (disadvantages, case arguments, etc.)4 minutes4 minutes5 minutes6 minutesCX – 1st Affirmative Speaker asks the questions2 minutes2 minutes2 minutes2 minutes2AC (2nd Affirmative Constructive) – Answer ALL negative arguments. Rebuild and strengthen the case. Point out arguments that the negative has not attacked.4 minutes4 minutes5 minutes6 minutesCX – 1st Negative Speaker asks the questions2 minutes2 minutes2 minutes2 minutes2NC (2nd Negative Constructive) – Present any additional case arguments not covered by the 1NC. Remember to take only part of the negative arguments—leave some for the 1NR speech. Answer affirmative arguments. Rebuild and strengthen the negative side.4 minutes4 minutes5 minutes6 minutesCX -- 2nd Affirmative Speaker asks the questions2 minutes2 minutes2 minutes2 minutes1NR (1st Negative Rebuttal) – Present all other negative arguments not covered in the 2NC. Answer affirmative arguments. Rebuild and strengthen the negative side. Do not present the same arguments as your partner.2 minutes2 minutes3 minutes4 minutes1AR (1st Affirmative Rebuttal) – Answer ALL of the negative arguments from both the 2NC & 1NR.2 minutes2 minutes3 minutes4 minutes2NR (2nd Negative Rebuttal) – Pick a few arguments that you think the negative side is winning & concentrate on those. Tell the judge exactly why to vote for you. Tell the judge why the negative arguments outweigh the aff arguments. 2 minutes2 minutes3 minutes4 minutes2AR (2nd Affirmative Rebuttal) – Respond to negative arguments. Point out any arguments that have been dropped by the neg team. Tell the judge why the affirmative wins.2 minutes2 minutes3 minutes4 minutesThe debater who gives the 1AC also gives the 1AR, and the debater who gives the 1NC gives the 1NR. So, each debater can think of themselves as the 1A (the person who gives the 1AC and 1AR), the 1N, the 2A, or the 2N, depending on their position in the debate.Because the 2nd speaker (2A or 2N) gives the last speech, they're generally considered to be the “expert” for their side. Most teams have one partner give the 2A and the other partner give the 2N, so that each debater can focus on becoming an expert on one side of the debate.For more information on speech order and responsibilities, visit The Constructive SpeechesWhy have constructives?At the end of the debate, the judge makes a decision based on which of the final speeches are more persuasive: the 2NR and the 2AR. So you might ask: if only the last two speeches matter, why have the other six? There are at least three answers to this question.First, for an argument to be made in the 2NR or 2AR, it must have been present in the previous speeches (judges will discount 2NR or 2AR arguments that are “new.”) Second, the constructives are an opportunity to read evidence that can then be referenced in later speeches. While it isn't always necessary to cite evidence, doing so can often increase the credibility of your arguments. Third, debaters can use the constructives to make a wide variety of arguments. To understand why this is valuable, consider the different approaches of two hypothetical affirmative teams: Team Minnie Mouse and Goofy.Hypothetical Scenario #1: Team Minnie Mouse, in the 2AC, makes six arguments against the disadvantage. The negative answers four of these arguments very well, but answers two of the arguments poorly. In the rebuttals, Team Minnie Mouse takes advantage of this mistake by only talking about the arguments that were answered poorly. Hypothetical Scenario #2: In the 2AC, Team Goofy makes two arguments against the disadvantage. Because the negative has less arguments to worry about, they answer both very well; since only two arguments were made in the 2AC, Team Goofy is only able to talk about these two arguments in the rebuttals.Team Minnie Mouse and Team Goofy may end up talking about the same two arguments in the 2AR, but because Team Minnie Mouse made diverse arguments in the constructives, they've put the negative in a more difficult position, and their 2AR arguments are likely to be much more persuasive to the judge.Roles of debaters during constructive speechesThe 1ACThe primary job of the 1AC is to read the entire affirmative case. That means reading the plan, harms, inherency, and solvency in your first speech. This also includes having the first speech highlighted so you know what and where to read.The 1NCRead all off-case positions and make arguments directly against the case (what the affirmative read in the 1AC). All parts of every off-case position should be read. For example, if you are reading the Appeasement DA you should read the uniqueness, link, (internal link if applicable) and impact. The 1NC should have analytical arguments (arguments without cards) for the case debate and should have highlighted all off-case positions. The 1NC sets the format for how arguments will be addressed on the case. For example, the 1NC makes an argument that says Aladdin is not the best Disney movie ever. The 2AC will reference that argument first before making their own arguments (off 1NC #1: etc., etc., etc.).The 2ACThe 2AC’s job begins before the debate. All 2AC’s should have some prepared speeches against commonly heard arguments both on case and off case. This is called a block or writing blocks (see the section “how to write a block”). The 2AC sets the structure for how arguments are for off case positions. For example, the 2NC will say, “off 2AC #1,” when responding to arguments. Offer point-by-point refutation of your opponent’s arguments (line-by-line debating).The 2NCThe 2NC extends your teams arguments made in the 1NC. You should be making 1 to 2 point answers to your opponent’s arguments they made in the 2AC. You can use the 3-point style of referencing arguments (they said, we say, why we win). For example, “off 2AC #1, they say Aladdin is the best Disney movie of all time.,“ 1st- That movie was made a long time ago and there have been many better Disney movies made since then, and 2nd- Aladdin teaches a lot of bad behavior—lying, stealing, and deception. He is no role model for young people. The 2NC should have prepared blocks to the most common types of affirmative arguments. 2NC’s should also point out any and all dropped arguments, extend those arguments, and tell the judge why this means the negative side wins this part of the debate.The Rebuttal SpeechesDebating is ClashingWhat's the difference between giving a speech and debating? Giving a speech is mostly about building a relationship between you and your audience: being likable, clear, and persuasive to the person or people to whom you're speaking. Debate is about that, too, but it also adds a third element: the other team. Good debaters engage with, or “clash,” with what the other team says. In day-to-day life “clash” is often viewed as a bad thing: directly criticizing another person’s ideas can seem rude or inconsiderate. In debate, though, where both sides usually have an okay point, clash is better viewed as a sign of respect. Clashing with another team’s argument means that you’ve listened to it, understood it, and tried to respond to it. For example, the affirmative team is running a case that Students should have more time in P.E. classes during the school day. Let’s consider two ways for a negative team to make the argument that schools should not add more time spent in P.E.:1. “If you vote for the affirmative, which advocates for more P.E. classes, then students will not have as much time in academic classes. The school day is not going to be extended, so that means that students will learn less information that will help them later on in life if they have less time taking academic courses because of P.E.”2. “The affirmative says that we need to improve the overall health of the nation and the only way to do that is by teaching people early in life how to exercise and live healthier & active lifestyles. School is not the right place for students to learn about how to live an active lifestyle—that is better taught in the home by students’ families. Schools should primarily be focused on teaching students information and skills required to build successful careers when they get older. Clash is important in every speech, but especially in the rebuttal speeches, which are primarily about extending your best arguments and comparing them to arguments the other team has made.Extending ArgumentsWhen you make a good argument early in the debate, chances are you'll want to bring it back up again later in the debate. An “extended” argument is an argument made earlier in a debate that's made again in a team's next speech. An argument can be extended from the 1AC to the 2AC, the 2AC to the 1AR, the 1AR to the 2AR, the 1NC to the 2NC/1NR, or the 2NC/1NR to the 2NR.How is extending an argument different from repeating yourself? Good extensions contain three elements: an explanation, an impact, and a rebuttal of the other team's arguments.Explanations are a summary of a previous argument you've made. The best explanations include both a claim (what is our argument?) and a warrant (how do we know that argument is true?)“Impacting” an argument means explaining how that argument affects the debate as a whole. When impacting an argument, ask yourself: if we're right about this argument, how does it tie back to our central point?Rebutting the other team's arguments can take several forms, as follows: Challenging the date of the evidence (has the world changed since their evidence was produced?)Challenging qualifications of the author (is this person qualified to speak on this subject or does this piece of evidence come from a qualified source?)Challenging the warrants/reasoning made by your opponent (explain why your evidence is good and why the other team's evidence is flawed. You can also argue that the other team's argument or evidence doesn't apply to your original argument)Impact analysis“Impact analysis,” also known as “impact comparison,” is the process of comparing reasons why the plan is good with reasons why the plan is bad. For instance, the affirmative might argue that the plan is that increased P.E. is good for students and the country in the long-run. At the same time, the negative might argue that the plan would be bad for country in the long-run because students don’t learn academics and are less prepared to start a career. Which is more important: a healthy country or staying competitive in the global job market? Since whoever wins this argument will have a big advantage in the debate, impact analysis is a vital part of rebuttals.There are four general reasons why one impact might be more important than other:1. Magnitude – how big is an impact? This includes both how many people an impact affects and the way in which it affects them.2. Risk – how likely is the impact to occur? Do we know that the impact is going to happen (maybe because it's already happening), or is a hypothetical future problem?3. Timeframe – in how long will the impact occur? Impacts that happen farther into the future may be less likely to occur, since it's often more difficult to make predictions over the long term. 4. Turns the impact/solves the impact – how does your impact interact with the other team's impact? For instance: the affirmative might say: “without a healthy lifestyle, preparing for a long career is pointless since life expectancy will continue decrease.”The acronym Mr. T can help you to remember impact analysis: Magnitude, Risk, and Timeframe.Role of debaters during Rebuttal SpeechesThe 1ARThe primary jobs of the 1AR are to extend the best arguments from the 2AC and to rebut the negative's responses. As the most time pressured speech in the debate, the 1AR must quickly and efficiently make a variety of arguments.The best way to deal with time pressure in the 1AR is to narrow the debate wherever possible. On disadvantages and other off-case arguments, it isn't necessary to extend more than 1-3 2AC arguments for the 1AR. The 1AR should answer every negative argument on the advantages they plan to win, but the 1AR can choose to “kick” an advantage if they want to save time. The 2NRThe primary jobs of the 2NR are: First – “write the ballot for the judge.” Writing the ballot for the judge means explaining, in a big-picture way, why you win the debate. One way to force yourself to do this is to start every 2NR with the words “the most important thing in the debate is...” and then explain which issues the judge should look to first in deciding the debate. Impact analysis is often the best place to direct a judge's attention in the 2NR.Second- to answer the 1AR's arguments. Make sure you not only answer the 1AR arguments but also think about what arguments the 2AR could make and answer those arguments too. Below is a brief example of what a 2NR would look like using our Affirmative case that schools should have more time in P.E. classes during the school day.2NR EXAMPLE:The future careers of America’s young people is the most important thing in this debate. It outweighs the affirmative on magnitude…. if U.S. students do not have high-level skill sets to tackle the challenges we are facing in the 21st century, then the good jobs will be taken by people from other countries who are focusing more on academic classes than P.E. The affirmative claims that the biggest impact is an increase in health and lifespan. It won’t matter how healthy and strong people are in the U.S. if they are unable to get jobs. Now, the line by line debate – The 1AR says there is no link. First, extend the Roland evidence, U.S. schools are being out-ranked by other nations because of too many extra-curriculars. The affirmative, by increasing time in P.E., directly trades-off time with academics. Students will have less time learning things important to career development. The aff definitely links to the academic trade-off disadvantage.Lastly, they will say that affirming physical fitness in school matters. But, if physical fitness matters because it makes people better, what’s worse…people maybe not being as healthy but having a good job or being very physically fit but having no job and therefore no food, or house, or future? The 2ARAs in the 2NR, the 2AR should attempt to “write the ballot for the judge.” The 2AR should start by explaining the most important issues in the debate and then proceed to explaining other important arguments and answering 2NR arguments.How to write a block and why?What are blocks? Are they really, really, really important?To answer the second question: yes, blocks are really, really really, important.To answer the first question: blocks are pre-written and pre-organized responses to common arguments. Since there are only a few big arguments in the packet, you'll be debating the same arguments again and again: and since you'll be debating the same arguments again and again, it's important to think through how you'll respond to them.Good blocks include both evidence from articles and analytical arguments. For instance: a 1NC block against the increase time in P.E. affirmative might include evidence from two news articles, along with several analytical arguments that you come up with on your own. Similarly, a 2AC block against the Academic Trade-Off disadvantage might include several articles and several analytics.Once a block is written, you can use it in every debate where you face a given argument. Every time the 1NC reads an academic trade-off disadvantage, you can read your 2AC trade-off block in response. This saves preparation time in the debate, ensures that you know your arguments well, and gives you time to choose the best arguments against the disadvantage.Blocks are most important for the 1NC and 2AC, but you can make blocks for any speech other than the 1AC. For instance, there are only so many possible affirmative answers to the academic trade-off disadvantage, so it's reasonable to write out a 2NC/1NR block to each in advance to each argument.Finally, blocks can make it easy to adapt and improve your arguments based on experience and judge commentary. If a judge has a comment about a particular argument you made, it's easy to adjust that argument in the block so that it can be made more effectively in future debates.What would a block look like?Let's say the 1AC argues that schools should devote more time and resources to P.E. class, because more time in gym would improve students' health. The 1NC responds with a Math Disadvantage that says that more gym class would trade off with time in math class, decreasing how much students learn. On the next page, there's a sample 2AC block that could be used to respond to the disadvantage. Then, any time the affirmative team hears the Math Disadvantage, they can pull out their block and immediately have access to their best arguments. Later, if they think of new or better arguments, they can add them to the block in the future.Sample 2AC block — Math BlockHere let’s assume that the negative has made an argument that Math class is more important Health class. Below is a 2AC block to that argument:Sample 2AC Block1. Our advantage is more important than their disadvantage, because better health means that students live longer and better lives. 2. You have to be healthy before you can learn – more gym class means that students will do more with the limited time they have in math class. They'll have more of an opportunity to clear their minds and more energy in general.3. Quality over quantity – high-quality math instruction is far more impactful than just spending a few more minutes in class. According to Elena Silver, a senior policy analyst at Education Sector, “Research reveals a complicated relationship between time and learning and suggests that improving the quality of instructional time is at least as important as increasing the quantity of time in school.” They haven't proven that there's any relationship between spending more time in class and students performing better in math.4. Math's boring, anyway. Who uses that stuff in the real world?5. [More arguments, or evidence]6. [More arguments, or evidence]Now let’s write a 2NC block to one of the arguments.Sample 2NC blockAT: 2AC - Math is boring AT (meaning answer to): 2AC – Math is boring (so at the top of the page write this so you know what you are answering)1. Math is not boring. It is the cornerstone of our economy if we cannot do math we can never properly balance budgets and then we’d run out of money.2. Math is fun. You can play games on your laptop, computer, or phone. Trivia games on Facebook about math prove this is true.See, it’s that easy!!Judge AdaptationSome of your judges may have coached debate for many years, or debated themselves in high school or college. Other judges may be at their first-ever debate tournament. Still other judges may have been judging debates casually for several months, but never coached or participated in the activity themselves. Whatever judge you have, it's up to you to make your case in a way that's persuasive to them. Keep in mind that everyone has different ideas about what counts as a good or bad argument. As a debater, your goal isn't to make the argument that's most persuasive to you (although believing that your arguments are good ones is important). The real goal is to make the argument that's most persuasive to your audience: in this case, your judge.Here's a few ideas for adapting to your judge:1. Talk to your judge. Before the debate, it's fine to ask the judge how much experience they have with debate, and if they have any strong feelings about what you do or shouldn't or do in-round. Most judges will be happy to answer you: you're demonstrating that you respect their time, and that you want to debate in a way they'll enjoy.2. Watch your judge. Some judges will smile, frown, nod or shake their head, look bored or engaged, or give you other non-verbal signals that they like or don't like the argument you're making. If it seems like they like your argument – remember to watch the judge and have your partner watch the judge to see what they like and dislike. Focus on that argument in later speeches, and you'll have a good chance to win the debate. If it seems like they don't like your argument, it's not a big deal – now you can be pretty sure that particular argument won't win you the debate, and you can move onto another argument that might be more effective.3. Work on your argument skills and your speaking skills. All judges appreciate a good, logical argument, and all judges appreciate polished speaking skills. How much they care about each, though, might depend on their approach to the activity. The easiest solution is to get good at both: otherwise, you'll find yourself able to win debates only in front of certain kinds of judges.4. Be respectful to your opponents. Again, all judges want this, but some might care so much about it that they'll decide the debate on that alone.5. Ask how you can do better. After the debate, ask the judge what you could work on for next time. Whether you won or lost, chances are that your judge will have some ideas on how you can improve. And, if you end up debating in front of that judge again, you can keep their comments in mind to build a case that's uniquely appealing to them.Cutting CardsWhy do we care about cards?We’re not experts! When we have experts supporting our claims we look more credible. You can talk about why they are credible and why your opponent’s cards are not credible. It gives us a way to have different forms of clash and adds to the clash that already exists. So what makes a card good???3 things are needed to make a card a good card:1st – It must have good warrants. It should explain why your claims are true. It can do this either with empirical evidence (historical reasons) or logical reason (A is correct because of B, and B is correct because of C, etc., etc.). If the reason is logical then the card should go into detail about why. Often, authors use statistics to prove their point–an example of this is a scientist citing overall trends in average temperature to argue that climate change is real.2nd – The qualifications of the author must be good. If you find the greatest nuclear war impact card ever and it’s written by James Smith, 3rd grade dropout and future alien test subject, this person is probably not creditable enough to be talk about the effects of nuclear war. Make sure the person talking about the truth claims are credible. Wikipedia is NOT a credible source it may not be peer reviewed instead use it to find the work referenced on the page. 3rd – Date of publication should be taken into consideration. If your argument is time sensitive then having the most up-to-date information is very important. If you are running a DA and you are using a uniqueness card from the 90’s it may not be as good as a card from this month. So what makes a bad card????So there are a couple of things we can try to avoid1st – try to avoid cards that say “sometimes,” “occasionally,” “can,” “might,” “it is conceivable that…,” and “has the potential to…” 2nd – power tagging or over-tagging your cards. If your tag has more words than you read in the card… it is not a good card.3rd – it is out of context, meaning that’s not what the author intended to say. If you only use the part of the card that supports what you want to say but ignore where she says, “however, I disagree with the above argument,” that is taking the card out of context and it should not be done.There are 3 parts to an evidence card: The Tag/Claim – a brief statement summarizing the point of the evidence. The tag must be a complete idea (subject and verb). You write the tag after reading the evidence (see “Evidence Citations” below). The source citation (see “Tags” below) The exact passage, as copied from the article (cut and paste), and placed in a document to be copied and shared (see “Handing in Your Evidence” below). Sample CardOffshore wind is too expensive and won't work – the Netherlands have already tried the plan and failed (THIS IS THE TAG)Nelson, 11 (D. Brady Nelson, an economist, writing for The Heartland Institute, a think tank advocating for free markets. Published December 30, 2011. Available at ) (THIS IS THE CITATION)The nation known for its iconic windmills is throwing in the towel on offshore wind power, as Dutch officials have determined the Netherlands can no longer afford large-scale subsidies for expensive wind turbines that cannot produce electricity at economically competitive prices.The decision is a powerful blow against renewable power advocates who have long asserted Holland proves renewable power can be practical and economical. (THIS IS THE PASSAGE)Using ArticlesReading, understanding, and deploying the articles provided by the AUDL is probably the single most important thing you can do to win debates. The articles are drawn from many different perspectives on U.S.-China relations, and make a variety of arguments on both sides. If you ever think to yourself, “how do I answer this argument?” There's a pretty good chance you'll be able to find the answer in one of the affirmative or negative articles. The articles also allow you to use evidence to support your claims, which, when used effectively, can make your arguments much more credible than the other team's arguments. Visit for articles related to this topic that can be used in debate rounds.***School Lunches Affirmative + Case Neg***Intro to the AffirmativeThis affirmative presents a policy proposal from the Union of Concerned Scientists (p. 20) as a solution to current problems with school lunches. They put forth several means to better the program, including an expansion of Farm-to-School programs, new grants for school kitchen upgrades, and new nutrition education programs. These are especially important in light of President Trump’s proposed rollbacks to the National School Lunch Program.There are two advantages to this policy action:The first is a reduction in healthcare costs, as healthier school lunches should reduce rates of childhood obesity. Obesity is already a large healthcare expense for the United States, and rates of childhood obesity are only set to increase it further. Should these rates not be reined in, the government will have to divert funding from other departments to pay for healthcare, according to Professor Ryan Williams (p. 21). Because of this he also claims that those cuts will most likely have be from the military, which then puts America at risk. He makes this claim for three reasons: first, with less money the military couldn’t sufficiently answer future threats; second, that such inability may embolden America’s enemies; and third, that the military will have fewer healthy citizens to recruit from. Dr. Varisco (p. 22) claims that a world with a substantially weaker America is multipolar (see definitions), something that risks regional conflicts (because America won’t be there to prevent them) that eventually can go nuclear and cause extinction.The second is an increased access to healthy food for low-income and minority children. The Union of Concerned Scientists (p. 23-24) frame this as a justice issue, as access to food in America is currently unequal. The plan corrects for this by making the school cafeteria a place where everyone can have healthy food. Without it, Adam Marcus (p. 25) argues that poor and minority children could be further locked into the cycle of poverty, as eating unhealthily could cause future health problems that they must pay for themselves.The negative can answer the affirmative with multiple arguments, including:That children will waste healthier food, instead of eating it, causing the plan to fail–an argument supported and contested by competing scholars (Welch, p.34; RWJF, p. 27).That military budget cuts have, through recent history, not led to conflicts (Fettweis, p. 35).That recent movements fighting for Food Justice have led to significant gains, making the situation the plan claims to resolve much less severe (Smith, p. 36).Intro to the Negative–SpendingIn the first negative constructive (1NC), the negative could read the Spending disadvantage, the Federalism disadvantage, or both. Much like how the affirmative advantages are reasons to do the plan, the disadvantage is a reason not to do the plan, and spending breaks down like this:Uniqueness – Funding for special education is currently safe. This means that in the current budget, special education will receive roughly the same amount of money as it did before. Christina Samuels (p. 38), discussing Trump’s current budget and those of previous administrations, argues that although no cuts are occurring right now, they’re a distinct possibility with how the Trump administration has already moved money around in the education department for its education-related goals.Link – the plan forces budget trade-offs within the Department of Education. Ben Miller (p. 39), an education policy analyst, makes the point that current Congressional rules force the budget for the Education department to be “zero-sum,” which means that no new money can come in to fund programs–forcing pre-existing programs to be cut in favor of new ones. Given the shaky ground special education is already on, the negative would argue that the money to pay for the plan would likely come from these special education programs.Impact – special education cuts are harmful for disabled students. The ASEC, or the Area Special Education Cooperative (p. 40) published a description of how special education has recently improved. In contrast to previously dehumanizing conditions, students with disabilities are now gaining social acceptance from their peers and can receive assistance from paraprofessionals in schools. The negative would argue that these recent changes will be rolled-back if the plan were to pass, as funding cuts for special education would directly affect them.In short, the plan’s impact on the budget directly harms students in special needs programs.The affirmative can respond to this disadvantage in a few ways, including:that special education funding is unsafe, because the current Secretary of Education, Betsy Devos, is already planning to defund many special education programs (Nickell, p. 32).that the federal budget isn’t zero-sum, meaning that money doesn’t necessarily have to come from within departments to fund new programs, and political pressures mean that some well-perceived programs cannot be cut (Adams, p. 32).Intro to the Negative–FederalismIn the first negative constructive (1NC), the negative could read the Spending disadvantage, the Federalism disadvantage, or both. Much like how the affirmative advantages are reasons to do the plan, the disadvantage is a reason not to do the plan, and federalism breaks down like this:Uniqueness – U.S. Federalism is currently strong. This means that other countries see our government as following the limits (between the central and state governments) set out in the Constitution. Dr. Somin (p. 44) argues that recent actions by President Trump (specifically, his immigration, law enforcement and education policies) and Democrats are evidence of this.Link – the plan weakens U.S. federalism. Dr. Pease (p. 45) argues that this federalism’s current strength would be easily lost if President Trump expanded federal/central government power, which the plan’s education-related regulations and spending are.Internal link – U.S. federalism is modelled globally. If link author Dr. Pease is correct about the plan collapsing federalism, then the internal link and impact describe what happens next. Internal link author Dr. Calabresi (p. 46) says that the U.S.’s model of federalism helps other countries, and so it follows that such help cannot occur if the plan collapses federalism. What happens without that help is better explained by the impact:Impact – globally modelled U.S. federalism solves conflict. Dr. Lawoti (p. 47) argues that federalism provides a means for other countries to resolve internal disputes, as federalism’s division of power between a central authority and smaller, local ones is enough to discourage violent acts by ethnic minorities because their political needs can be met. For example, China currently uses a unitary system, or a centralized government that gives little-to-no power to local authorities. This has caused disputes, as places like Hong Kong, Tibet, Xinjiang, and Taiwan have sought more political influence. If China had a federal system, or a centralized government that shared powers with local authorities, then those regions would be less likely to stage a rebellion or fight for their independence.In short, the plan’s weakening of U.S. federalism prevents it from being modelled globally, risking conflict in places that could not model any longer.The affirmative can respond to this disadvantage in a few ways, including:that President Trump’s political actions regarding sanctuary cities proves that federalism is currently weak (Will, p. 33)that federalism hasn’t led to conflict prevention in countries that have modelled the U.S. (Calabresi, p. 33), evidenced by separatist movements in Canada (see Quebec), the United Kingdom (see Scotland, Northern Ireland), and Spain (see Catalonia, Basque Country). DefinitionsDebate WordsImpact–the result of that fact being changed.Inherency–a fact that proves the affirmative plan is not happening already.Link–how the plan changes that fact. Additional links, called internal links, connect that change to the impact.Plan–the policy proposed by the affirmative team in the 1AC.Solvency–how the plan resolves the 1AC’s harms.Uniqueness–a positive or negative fact about the world. In a good disadvantage, that fact is currently true, but its future is ic-Specific AcronymsHHFKA–Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act (of 2010), Obama-era policy that increased federal standards for school lunches.NSLP–National School Lunch Program, the federal program that helps schools supply lunches to their low-income students.USDA–U.S. Department of Agriculture Words in the PacketAbleist–discrimination and social prejudice against people with disabilities.Allocation–distribution or division of something amongst a group.Appropriation–in terms of the federal budget, how much money is set aside for a given program or department.Armageddon–like apocalypse, or the end of the world. Arms race–an unstable situation in which one state acquires weapons that lead another state to do the same, which often escalates as each state seeks an advantage through new weaponsConfederacy–a state with a weak central government and powerful local governments. Deficit–the difference between what’s being spent and what’s being earned, often by the government. Federal–a state with a central government that shares power with local governments. Inequity–a lack of fairness or justice; discrimination.Iterable–repeatable. Multipolarity–a world with more than one great (or influential) power. Some, like Dr. Varisco, argue that such a world is more likely to feature conflict between countries.Unipolarity–a world with one great power that influences every other country. Some would argue this is the world today, and the United States has that power.Unitary–a state with a strong central government and weak local governments.Zero-Sum–in which whatever gained by one side is lost by another.Example: cutting a cake is zero-sum because the amount of cake you cut for yourself is cake lost for everyone else.**Affirmative–1AC**1AC School Lunches (1/7)(Note to debaters: You must read a plan during the 1AC—it’s the most important thing the affirmative reads! Don’t skip it!)PLAN – The United States federal government should:Increase the federal meal reimbursement rate, Fund nutrition education programs,Fund upgrades to school kitchens,Incentivize schools to serve more fruits and vegetables, andIncrease funding for the Farm to School grant program.Contention 1 is Inherency -School lunch programs are being rolled back nowThe Hill 4 – 28 – 17 [USDA to ease school meal standards, ]Newly minted Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue is expected to unveil a new rule Monday aimed at giving schools more flexibility in meeting federal nutrition standards for school lunches. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced Friday that Perdue and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) will make the announcement at the Catoctin Elementary School in Leesburg, Va., where they are expected to eat lunch with the students. Republicans have long been trying to dial back the standards that became a pillar of former first lady Michelle Obama’s initiative to curb childhood obesity in the U.S. Roberts introduced legislation with Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) last year to give schools two more years to meet new reductions on sodium, but the bill never passed. Renewed efforts to ease the federal standards came as disappointing news to some advocates. The American Heart Association was quick to push back. In a statement, the group’s CEO, Nancy Brown, said the current standards are already working and that 99 percent of schools are in compliance. “Improving children’s health should be a top priority for the USDA, and serving more nutritious foods in schools is a clear-cut way to accomplish this goal,” she said. “Rather than altering the current path forward, we hope the agency focuses more on providing technical assistance that can help schools get across the finish line, if they haven’t done so already.”1AC School Lunches (2/7)Contention 2 is Solvency – Better school lunch policy boosts students’ health and lowers healthcare costs–our plan is uniquely keyUnion of Concerned Scientists 15 [School Lunch and Beyond: Better Food Policy for Healthier Kids, February 2015, ]Since the HHFKA’s passage in 2010, some of the law’s biggest supporters—notably the School Nutrition Association (SNA)—have radically changed their position and now oppose many of the law’s key provisions. Their criticisms primarily focus on the challenges some schools have encountered in implementing the new provisions, with some reporting higher meal costs, lost revenue, increased waste, and dissatisfaction with the taste of healthier meals (SNA 2014). Independent analysis has disputed some of these claims (Cohen et al. 2014) and has found that students’ consumption of fruits and vegetables increased since the law took effect. The vast majority of schools have successfully met implementation targets (GAO 2014). Struggling schools have been offered a variety of resources, including a USDA established task force that provides technical support and partnerships with independent groups to improve the taste, presentation, and other aspects of school meals. UCS and other proponents of the law have asserted the need to confront and resolve implementation challenges without materially weakening or abandoning the nutrition standards. We disagree with the SNA’s proposal to change the law to allow schools broad latitude to opt out of the new requirements. The childhood obesity crisis, with its implications for children’s future health and wellness, demands that we defend—and look for opportunities to expand on—recent victories. Immediate action is needed to improve children’s diets, avert long-term health consequences, and save billions of taxpayer dollars on preventable diet-related chronic diseases (O’Hara 2013). While significant improvements to the nutrition standards of school meals were made in 2010, we urge Congress to build on these gains when it renews the HHFKA. Specifically, we recommend that Congress: ? Protect gains made in 2010. The vast majority of schools are in compliance with the new law, and support is available for those who are struggling. Retreating from our commitment to healthier school meals is not an option in the face of the childhood obesity crisis. ? Increase federal meal reimbursement rate. Our commitment to healthier meals should be backed up with additional funding. Schools have encountered the same reality already known to most Americans—lesshealthy processed foods are often cheaper than whole food ingredients like fresh fruits and vegetables and unprocessed meats. We recommend raising the reimbursement rate for meals in compliance with nutrition standards to allow schools more flexibility to buy the healthiest foods possible ? Improve nutrition education. We urge Congress to fund nutrition education programs that engage all school staff—from cafeteria workers to teachers— to help children understand the basics of food, nutrition, cooking, and healthful choices. Such efforts can improve children’s understanding and acceptance of healthier meals at school and elsewhere. ? Finance school cafeteria kitchen equipment. Some of the difficulties encountered in implementing new standards are due to a lack of appropriate kitchen equipment. Decades of underinvestment in school kitchens have left many schools with little capacity beyond heating and serving prepared, processed meals. Cooking with whole foods requires food workers to have suitable kitchen equipment like refrigeration and large-scale slicers to prepare meals from fresh ingredients (PCT and RWJF 2013). Congress should expand the availability of grants and loans to help schools outfit and update their kitchens. ? Prioritize fruits and vegetables. Fruits and vegetables are critically under-consumed by children. More can and should be done to reverse this trend. – Congress can further encourage fruit and vegetable consumption at schools by offering funding and other incentives for schools to go beyond the minimum servings of fruits and vegetables required by HHFKA, and to offer these healthy foods as snacks between meals. – Research initiatives can measure changes in fruit and vegetable consumption and track related health outcomes from the programs described above, to assess their efficacy ? Increase funding for the Farm to School grant program. This program supports educational initiatives related to food production and nutrition. Examples include establishing school gardens that allow students to obtain firsthand experience with growing food and providing support so schools can source meal ingredients from local farms. Such initiatives have been shown to increase fruit and vegetable consumption (Bontrager Yoder et al. 2014). Due to the Farm to School grant program’s overwhelming popularity and demonstrated success, we recommend increasing its funding. 1AC School Lunches (3/7)Contention 3 is the Healthcare Costs Advantage –1. Without the plan, healthcare costs are set to skyrocketWilliams 16 – Professor of Law, Western State College of Law [Ryan T. Williams, “Size Really Does Matter: How Obesity is Undermining America’s National Security,” The University of Toledo Law Review, Fall, 2016, 48 U. Tol. L. Rev. 21]Lack of eligible troops is not the only way obesity can be portrayed as a national security issue. Having nearly 70% of Americans overweight or obese places an enormous financial drain on America as well. Worse still, if unchecked, the burden will likely worsen over time. As explained below, the financial burden created by the obesity crisis strongly indicates that America may not be able to adequately defend itself in the future, because so much money will be going towards health care costs related to diseases associated with obesity. It is well documented that the share of United States gross domestic product (GDP) devoted to health care is rising. In 2000, 13% of America's GDP was spent on health care. By 2015, that number climbed to 18%. Most nations spend less than 9% of their GDP on health care, many doing so with successful programs. More specifically, in 2014 the Commonwealth Fund did a survey of 11 similarly situated industrialized nations, including most European countries, the United States and Australia. The United States had the most expensive and worst performing health care system of any nation surveyed. Thus, most nations spend nowhere near what America spends on health care. Having health care costs account for 18% of GDP is an alarmingly high and unsustainable percentage, one that places America at a strategic geopolitical disadvantage. By spending so much to care for the diseases that come with being overweight and obese, America has less to spend on national security. Too often people are consumed in debating what type of health care system America should employ rather than examining the sheer cost of taking care of its sick, regardless of the plan. In other words, because Americans are so overweight, the delivery of the health care plan is far less important to keeping health care costs down. This makes intuitive sense as well. If people are sick and need care, that care costs money. The less sick people a country has, the less money is spent on health care. There are undoubtedly a number of reasons for such high costs, but the obesity epidemic is by far the greatest reason for rising health care costs. In fact, obesity has surpassed smoking as the number one contributor to high health care costs. As a result, the Pentagon has declared the obesity epidemic as a serious national security issue. The following two projections help explain the rise in health care costs. First, if Americans continue to gain weight at their current pace, by 2075 America is projected to spend nearly 40% of its GDP on health care costs. Eighteen percent is already more than double every major developed nation, many of which have arguably better health care as well. Forty percent is simply untenable. Second, an article published in the U.S. National Library of Medicine by the National Institutes of Health projects that 100% of Americans will be overweight or obese by 2048. That is not a typo. Sometimes statistics are misleading and fail to tell the whole story. Unfortunately, there is nothing too confusing or misleading about an entire nation comprised of overweight or obese citizens. America simply cannot afford the high health care costs associated with a population that is or is nearly 100% overweight or obese. One does not need an advanced economics degree to understand that increased in health care spending is problematic. In sum, if everyone in America is overweight or obese, we will exceed 18% GDP spent on health care, and there will be little money for anything else. No nation as large and powerful as the United States can effectively defend itself when everyone is overweight or obese and unsustainable portions of the GDP are devoted to health care expenditures. GDP is not the only troubling computation regarding the cost of the obesity crisis. The annual federal budget similarly highlights the financial difficulties of caring for the growing nation. The chart below illustrates the second major point of this Article, that obesity threatens national security because the cost to care for America's overweight and obese population will become so great, the government will have to cut other expenditures to pay for them, which may very well include the military. Even a cursory review of America's annual expenditures reveals that the most obvious choice to fund the appropriate health care needed to deal with the rise in obesity related diseases and ailments is to drastically reduce military spending. Doing so could leave America increasingly more vulnerable, potentially rendering the country unable to effectively defend itself against enemies in the future.1AC School Lunches (6/7)2. Rising healthcare costs force a trade-off with the militaryWilliams 16 – Professor of Law, Western State College of Law [Ryan T. Williams, “Size Really Does Matter: How Obesity is Undermining America’s National Security,” The University of Toledo Law Review, Fall, 2016, 48 U. Tol. L. Rev. 21]D) Problems With Cutting The Military’s Budget To Pay For America’s Obesity Crisis In order to cover the increase in health care costs, a significant reduction in military spending would likely be necessary. Significantly reducing the military’s budget may not inherently be a negative outcome, though. Many people (including the author of this Article) feel the current military is probably too bloated and could benefit from less money and wiser allocation of resources. However, such a focus misplaced. The point is not to debate whether or not military spending should be reduced, but rather the dangerous consequences if it has to be reduced. There is a difference between the federal government deciding, based on the current international and political landscape, that military spending can safely be reduced, versus forcibly shrinking the military because too many Americans are overweight or obese forcing unsustainably high health care costs. Even the most ardent anti-military advocates and political theorists would have to admit that a forced, substantial reduction in military spending, amidst an already growing troop shortage problem, would likely weaken America for several reasons. First and most basically, America would have fewer troops available to defend itself from future attacks. The necessity of a healthy military, ready to deploy at any time in defense of the nation should not be underestimated. September 11, 2001 showed that people do not fear attacking mainland U.S. Reducing the military to the point where we would not be able to defend the nation could have the domino effect of emboldening America’s enemies, making them more likely to strike while America’s defense are depleted.3. Sudden loss of American military power risks nuclear warVarisco 13 [Andrea E. Varisco 13, Ph.D. candidate at the Post-War Reconstruction and Development Unit of the University of York, holds a Master in International Affairs, Peace and Conflict Studies specialisation from the Australian National University and the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo and a Master in Politics and Comparative Institutions from the University of Milano, 6/3/13, “Towards a Multi-Polar International System: Which Prospects for Global Peace?,” ]A return to multi-polarity will therefore imply more instability among great powers. But great power rivalry will not be the only source of possible instability for the future multi-polar world. The current distribution of power allows not only great powers but also middle, small powers and non-state actors to have military capabilities that could threaten the global security. In particular, the presence of nuclear weapons constitutes a further reason of concern and implies that the future world could carry not only the potential instability of multi-polarity and great powers rivalry, but also the dangers entailed in nuclear proliferation. The future multi-polar world will thus be potentially more unstable than all the other multi-polar periods history has experienced until nowadays: for the first time in history, the world could become both multi-polar and nuclear. While some scholars argue that nuclear deterrence “could reduce the war-proneness of the coming multi-polar system” (Layne, 44-45), the majority of them consider the presence of nuclear weapons as a source of instability (McNamara; Rosen; Allison). In particular, regional powers and states that are not great powers armed with nuclear capabilities could represent a cause of concern for global security. A nuclear Iran could for example attack – or be attacked – by Israel and easily involve in this war the rest of the world (Sultan; Huntley). A war between Pakistan and India, both nuclear states, could result in an Armageddon for the whole Asia. An attack from the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea (DPRK) on Japan or South Korea will trigger an immediate reaction from the US and “a nuclear proliferation ‘domino effect’ in East Asia” (Huntley, 725). Terrorists armed with nuclear weapons could wreak havoc and target the heart of the most powerful countries of the world (Bunn and Wier). Iran, Pakistan, DPRK, terrorist groups will rarely be great powers or poles in a future multi-polar world. Nevertheless, the effects of their actions could easily reverberate all over the globe and represent another cause of potential instability. For the first time in history, the stability of the future world will therefore depend not only on the unpredictable effects of the rivalry among great powers, but also on the dangerous potential of middle and small powers and non-state actors armed with nuclear weapons1AC School Lunches (5/7)Contention 4 is the Food Injustice Advantage – 1. Children in poor and minority communities are disproportionately unhealthy, but better school lunches can solve this. Union of Concerned Scientists 15[Lessons from the Lunchroom: Childhood Obesity, School Lunch, and the Way to a Healthier Future (2015), ]Children need healthy food. This should go without saying, but the current U.S. food system makes it hard to ensure that kids get the kinds of foods they need to grow into healthy adults. The average U.S. child eats only one-third of the fruits and vegetables recommended by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. This problem is especially acute for children from lower-income and racial and ethnic minority families. These children often lack adequate access to fresh, healthy food, while unhealthy processed foods—made artificially cheap in part by federal subsidies—are readily available. Coupled with environmental factors, this leads to a predictable result: high obesity rates. The costs of childhood obesity Obesity rates among children nearly tripled between 1970 and 2000; today approximately 16% of American’s youth are classified as obese. Obesity has disproportionately affected minority children, especially in recent years: since 2000, the rise in obesity rates has leveled off for white children, but it continues to climb for African-American and Hispanic children. Obese children are 10 times more likely than their peers to become obese adults—and adult obesity has serious health consequences, including increased risk of type II diabetes, hypertension, and other chronic diseases. These impacts not only mean shorter and less fulfilling lives for millions of Americans; they also carry a heavy price tag in health care costs. Childhood obesity also plays a key role in a cycle that can trap low-income children: poor health and missed school days result in lower academic achievement, which leads to lower-paying jobs—and low incomes make it harder to maintain healthy lifestyles. Healthy school lunches can be a key factor in breaking this cycle by improving kids’ diets. Children consume about half of their daily calories at school; for low-income children, school lunch may be their only real meal of the day. And the foods kids eat at school influence their lifelong eating habits. For decades, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has administered school meal programs that provide funding to support free and reduced-price (FRP) meals for students who meet income eligibility criteria. Meals offered under the program must meet nutritional standards. In recent decades, subsidized school meals had tilted toward processed foods high in fat, sugar, and sodium. In response to these trends, Congress passed the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act (HHFKA) of 2010, which required the USDA to update its standards for school meals to align with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Schools began implementing these new standards in 2012. The report shows that school lunch programs have a positive impact on the eating habits of students. Fifth grade FRP meal participants ate fruits and vegetables 22.2 times per week on average, versus 18.9 times for non-FRP participants. While both groups ate fewer fruits and vegetables in eighth grade, FRP meal participants continued to eat them more often than their non-FRP peers (19.2 vs. 17.6 times per week). Unfortunately, the positive impact of school food programs is not strong enough to overcome other unhealthy influences on children’s diet. Our analysis found that FRP meal participants drank more sugary beverages and ate more fast food than their peers, and they were more likely to be obese—gaps that widened between 5th and 8th grade. Stronger standards make a difference Starting in 2012, schools began to implement the stronger nutrition standards mandated by HFFKA. While researchers are still in the early stages of evaluating the effectiveness of the updated standards, the evidence so far is promising. For example, a 2014 Harvard School of Health study found that vegetable consumption increased by 16.2 percent in the first year of implementation at four low-income schools. Other studies have shown that changes to the way healthy foods are presented and marketed in the cafeteria can have significant benefits.1AC School Lunches (6/7)2. Fixing school lunches key to combat food injustice–the plan makes food more accessible to poor and minority studentsUnion of Concerned Scientists 16[Working Toward a More Equitable Food System, February 23, 2016, ]Policies to promote healthier food and farms must address the needs of marginalized communities The broken U.S. food system is a problem for all Americans. But like many of our national problems, it hits communities of color and low-income communities hardest of all. African-Americans, Latinos, and low-income Americans disproportionately lack access to healthy food—and as a result, they are more likely to suffer from diet-related chronic diseases like diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease than the average American. They are also more likely to work at food system jobs that feature some of the lowest wages in our economy as well as unsafe and unhealthy working conditions. These inequities are propped up by agricultural policies that promote the production and distribution of unhealthy processed foods while putting obstacles in the way of making healthy food more available and affordable for everyone. So fixing our food system is not only a matter of health and sustainability—it’s also a matter of justice.Overcoming barriers to healthy food accessRecent research has confirmed what food activists and journalists have been saying for years: all Americans do not enjoy equal access to healthy food. Inequities in food availability and affordability operate along both racial and income lines, with low-income communities of color facing a double disadvantage. The solution is not as simple as “more supermarkets.” Transportation, affordability, and other food access barriers need to be overcome as well. Communities across America are coming up with innovative ways to meet these challenges locally, as profiled in our 2016 report Fixing Food: Fresh Solutions from Five U.S. Cities. But local governments and community groups shouldn’t have to work so hard to overcome obstacles put in place by the current system and the federal policies that drive it. , , aimed at promoting healthy food, economic opportunity, and environmental sustainability. As part of this effort, we need to ensure that the most reliable food source for many American children—the school cafeteria—can be counted on to serve healthy food to nourish growing bodies and minds. Childhood obesity, a problem with serious, lifelong potential health consequences, continues to grow at a faster pace for African American and Latino children than for the population as a whole. So maintaining high standards for healthy school food is also a matter of food justice.1AC School Lunches (7/7)3. Food insecurity locks people into a cycle of poverty – conclusive studies that school food access can solveMarcus 10 Reuters Health Reporter [Adam Marcus, School lunch programs might break poverty cycle, Nov 23, 2010, [Teens who live in households where food is scarce suffer academically, but a new study has found that government programs to provide meals in schools can reverse this effect. According to the researchers, the findings suggest that school programs aimed at reducing so-called food insecurity can break an insidious cycle of poverty: poor children go hungry, get bad grades, don't go on to college and fail to rise out of their socioeconomic status -- raising children whose lives follow the same unfortunate narrative. "Food insecurity is more problematic in the long term if it occurs prior to adolescence, but it doesn't mean that adolescents are more resilient than younger children," said study leader Christelle Roustit, of the Research Group on the Social Determinants of Health and Healthcare, in Paris, France. The researchers reported their findings in the medical journal Pediatrics. The severe recession has taken a toll on food security. In the United States, a recent report by the Department of Agriculture found that nearly 15% of American households faced food insecurity at some point in 2009, the highest level since officials began tracking the measure in 1995. Food insecurity in childhood is thought to undercut scholastic achievement in at least two ways. It deprives the body of nutrients necessary for proper mental and physical development, and it creates an atmosphere of stress and uncertainty that saps a kid's desire to attend school and to perform well. In the new study, Roustit and her colleagues analyzed questionnaires given to 2,346 public high school students in Quebec, Canada, along with nearly 2,000 of their parents. The surveys asked about issues of school performance and socioeconomic status and included several questions addressing food security at home. These included whether a lack of money prevented the family from eating enough, or from buying a sufficient variety of foods. Just over 11 percent of teens in the study experienced food insecurity at home, according to the researchers. Of those, two-thirds attended schools that offered free or low-cost breakfast, lunch or snacks, allowing the researchers to look for an effect of the meals program on academic performance. The study revealed that food insecurity was strongly associated with problems in school. However, children with food insecurity at home performed significantly better academically if their school offered meal assistance. They were much less likely to be held back a year, to score badly in language testing or to rate their overall academic performance as poor. Although the data come from the 1990s, Roustit said a new survey of Quebec adolescents is now in progress. "We would be able to compare the results of 1999 to 2009 in few years," she said. Nicola Edwards, a dietician and food policy expert at California Food Policy Advocates, an Oakland-based nonprofit, said the results of the study are unsurprising. If children are hungry they cannot learn, Edwards said. "There is a direct correlation between food insecurity and academic performance," she said. In the United States, teachers and school administrators report that children who take advantage of food assistance programs in schools have improved behavior, fewer absences and better test scores, Edwards added. Under the federal Child Nutrition Act, more than 31 million American school children receive free or inexpensive lunches through the National School Lunch Program. Children from families with incomes at or below 130 percent of the poverty level ($28,665 for a family of four) are eligible for free meals. Those with incomes between 130 percent and 185 percent of the poverty level ($40,793 for a family of four) are eligible to receive lunch for a cost of no more than 40 cents. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the National School Lunch Program cost $9.8 billion in 2009. A study of this program that was published earlier this year supports the Canadian findings. Dr. Peter Hinrichs at Georgetown University in Washington DC reported in the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management that for children who participate in the National School Lunch Program, "the effects on educational attainment are sizable."**Affirmative–Extensions**2AC Overview/we outweigh (Mr. T)Below, you should write an overview where you explain why the affirmative’s impacts outweigh those of the disadvantage–(remember, you should use Mr. T (explain why the impacts of the affirmative either outweigh (magnitude), happen faster (timeframe), or are more likely to occur (risk)), and you can also explain why the affirmative SOLVES the impacts to the disadvantage”)You don’t have to read everything you put in the blanks (especially if you don’t have time to read every word!) but you should think of arguments based in your evidence and that sound good. Vote affirmative because the case outweighs the disadvantage:First, ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Second, ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Third, ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________2AC Answer to No SolvencyThe plan solves–students will eat healthier food Robert Wood Johnson Foundation 15 [Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, “Students Eat More Fruit and Throw Away Less Food With New Healthier School Lunches,” March 4 2015, ]Hartford, Conn.—After the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s healthier school meal standards went into effect, students ate more fruit and threw away less of their entrees and vegetables than before the changes, according to a study published today in Childhood Obesity. The study was led by the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity at the University of Connecticut and funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. It is among the first studies to reliably measure student consumption of entrees, fruits, vegetables and milk during lunch, before and after the healthier standards took effect. Contrary to concerns about increased food waste following the initial implementation of the updated standards, this study shows that students are throwing away less food now than they were before the standards were in place. “This research adds to evidence that the updated nutrition standards for the National School Lunch Program can succeed in helping students eat healthier,” said Marlene Schwartz, PhD, the study’s lead author and director of the Rudd Center. Researchers analyzed students’ food selection, consumption, and waste before and after the updated standards were in place by photographing and weighing individual items on lunch trays. Specifically, researchers tracked students from 12 middle schools in an urban school district for three years—from the spring of 2012 through the spring of 2014—before the standards changed and two years after. More than 70 percent of the students in the district qualify for free or reduced-price meals. Nearly half of the students (47%) are African-American, 38 percent are Hispanic and 15 percent are white. In addition to finding that more students chose fruit after the updated standards went into effect, 66 percent up from 54 percent, the study found: The amount of fruit students consumed did not change significantly over the three-year period. In 2014, students ate 74 percent of the fruit they selected for lunch. Students were more likely to take fruit if a greater variety of fruit was offered. For every additional type of fruit offered, there was a significant increase (of 9%) in students who took fruit as part of their lunch. Fewer students chose a vegetable (68% in 2012 compared with 52% in 2014). However, the percentage of vegetables they consumed increased by nearly 20 percent, from 46 percent to 64 percent, which effectively decreased the amount of vegetables thrown away. Students consumed more of their lunch entrees (up from 71% of their entrée in the spring of 2012 to 84% in 2014), thus also decreasing food waste. “Some have expressed concern about the requirement that students take a fruit or vegetable,” Schwartz said. “We’re seeing a very positive response from students.”2AC Answer to Healthcare Costs DecliningHealthcare spending is skyrocketing–2015 budget report proves Leonard 16 [Kimberly Leonard, US. News Health Reporter, For the First Time, Health Care Spending Higher than Social Security, Jan. 25, 2016, ]The federal government spent more on health care in 2015 than on Social Security for the first time ever. So finds the Congressional Budget Office, the government’s nonpartisan scorekeeping agency, in a 200-page report it released about fiscal 2015, which ended Sept. 30. The federal government spent $882 billion on Social Security, compared with $936 billion in spending on health care programs, including Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program and tax subsidies that help people pay for private health plans under Obamacare. The total represents a 13 percent jump in health care spending from fiscal 2014, according to the report. Medicaid spending accounted for the largest increase in growth, at 16 percent or by $48 billion, because of the 30 states and District of Columbia that expanded the program to 9.6 million more enrollees under Obamacare. Authors of the report warn that the federal budget deficit will increase in relation to the size of the economy for the first time since effects of the Great Recession began in 2009, projecting that the 2016 budget deficit will reach $544 billion, or $105 billion more than the previous year. The projected deficit would increase debt held by the public to 76 percent of gross domestic product by the end of 2016. If laws around federal programs remain unchanged, authors of the report write, the deficit will continue to grow over the next 10 years, becoming even larger than its average during the past 50 years. Health care programs are projected to total 5.5 percent of GDP in 2016 and to grow quickly in subsequent years, reaching 6.6 percent of GDP in 2026. Medicare is projected to account for about three-quarters of that growth as the baby boomer population continues to age into the program.2AC Answer to Food Justice MovementsFood justice movements will be undermined under Trump–the plan is key to preserve any recent successes. Cohen, Freudenberg, and Poppendieck 16 – Professors at the C.U.N.Y.[Nevin Cohen, Nicholas Freudenberg, and Janet Poppendieck, CUNY Professors and Members of the CUNY Urban Food Policy Institute, “Food Justice in the Trump Age: Priorities for NYC Advocates,” December 10, 2016, ]Trump’s inauguration, coupled with Republican Congressional control, requires every constituency to analyze the threats to the gains of the last eight years. This is particularly urgent for New Yorkers involved in eliminating food insecurity and hunger, fighting malnutrition and health inequality, and ensuring a sustainable food system with good jobs. Anticipating efforts to undermine food justice enables advocates, researchers, and policy makers to choose priorities in our work and forge strategic partnerships. The following brief identifies three broad areas requiring attention. Federal food assistance programs are a crucial lifeline for New Yorkers and add roughly $20 billion to the NYC economy. Approximately 1.7 million receive SNAP; 1.1 million children consume 650,000 federally subsidized school lunches and 200,000 breakfasts daily; senior centers serve 7.5 million meals; and 4.5 million meals are delivered to homebound seniors and people with disabilities. Statewide more than half a million people participate in WIC, which provides nutritious foods for pregnant and lactating women, infants, and children. These are all at risk through the following mechanisms. Block granting, in which states receive fixed allocations of federal funds and wide latitude to spend them, would end the entitlement status of SNAP and school meals. Both are currently funded so that all who qualify can participate with no waiting lists or caps; they expand along with needs, a policy that Republicans have tried to reverse since the Reagan administration. Block grants would allow states to restrict eligibility and require Congress to approve funding levels, putting the programs in the cost-cutting crosshairs. House Speaker Paul Ryan has already called for cutting SNAP by $23 billion. As a companion article illustrates, block granting welfare in the 1990s led to cutbacks, and SNAP and school food would likely suffer a similar fate. Countering these efforts must be a priority. A second threat is the Republican Party’s desire to separate SNAP from the Farm Bill. Since the 1960s, food assistance was included in the farm bill to ensure rural support in exchange for urban lawmakers’ support for farmers, an alliance benefitting both constituencies. Separating SNAP and breaking the rural-urban link reduces political support and makes it an easier fiscal target, and should be opposed by food advocates.**Affirmative answers to Disadvantages**2AC Answer to Spending DA1. The disadvantage is non-unique–DeVos is already destroying federal support for special education funding.Nickell 4 – 10 – 17(Lauren, educator and socialist activist based in Boston, MA, "Fighting for Special Education," )The confirmation of Donald Trump’s pick for Secretary of Education raises questions among faculty at schools across the nation about how to organize to protect public education. For many special education teachers in particular, the threat of widespread cuts to public schools is particularly urgent. Betsy DeVos is a champion of school privatization and advocate of dismantling public education, and she confidently and aggressively plans to pursue these goals. US special education departments have long suffered from ableist policy and funding practices, which are part and parcel of the neoliberal assault on public schools — in which students with disabilities are always the ones thrown under the bus. DeVos, who openly opposes a federal guarantee of free and appropriate education to students with disabilities, appears poised to further ravage these services.2. No link–the federal budget doesn’t require trade-offs.Adams 17 (Kimberly, Political Reporter @ Marketplace, "Trump is about to run into the budget reality," 2/28, )President Donald Trump has his big speech tonight, and one of the issues he’s expected to talk about is the budget. On the campaign trail and in speeches, Trump has made budgeting sound easy: You cut here, add there and you’re done, sort of the way businesses run their processes. But the federal budget is not a zero-sum game — there are political pressures and many items that simply can’t be cut. Trump would like to run the government like a business, but when it comes to the budget, there are some key differences. For one, members of Congress, who have to pass the budget, are not Trump’s employees. "In a business, he can say, 'You're fired' to people who don't cooperate," said Joe White of Case Western Reserve University, who has been studying the budget process for decades. "Whereas he can't fire Paul Ryan and he can't fire any senators." Another difference: Cutting spending from one area doesn’t necessarily free up money for something else, because of politics.3. Below write an argument on your own responding to the disadvantage.2AC Answer to Federalism DA1. The disadvantage is non-unique–Trump’s sanctuary cities executive order provesWill 5 – 10 – 17[George F. Will, “Trump’s violations of federalism would make Obama jealous,” May 10 2017,]Last Sunday, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed legislation setting criminal and civil penalties for state and local officials who refuse to comply with federal immigration laws and detention requests. As policy, this may or may not be wise; as an exercise of the state’s police power, it is not constitutionally problematic. But regarding the federal executive order, professor Ilya Somin of George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School says: “Trump’s order is exactly the kind of high-handed federal coercion of states and undermining of separation of powers that outraged conservatives under [President Barack] Obama. In fact, Obama did not go as far as Trump seems to do here. Obama never claimed sweeping authority to impose new conditions on federal grants beyond those specifically imposed by Congress.” Neither the Trump administration’s semi-demi-ukase against sanctuary cities, nor the judge’s ruling against it, has significant discernible consequences. The executive order illustrates the descent of American governance into theatricality. 2. No impact–modeled federalism is empirically ineffective.Calabresi 15 – Professor of Law, Northwestern UniversitySteven Calabresi, “Does Institutional Design Make a Difference?”, Clayton J. and Henry R. Barber Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law; Visiting Professor of Political Science, Brown University 2010–2018, Vol. 109, No. 3 Symposium, ]Two distinctive features of American constitutionalism that have been much copied abroad are the U.S. systems of federalism and presidential separation of powers. The results have not been very encouraging. In otherwise stable western constitutional democracies such as Canada, the United Kingdom, and Spain, federalism has led to powerful separatist movements, and, as a result, the specter of secession hangs over those countries. The experience abroad with exports of U.S.-style presidential separation of powers has been, if anything, even worse. Many presidential separation of powers democracies in Latin America have at one time or another degenerated into an authoritarian system of one-man presidential rule, and the same thing has also happened in Russia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and South Korea. As a result, political scientists, advisers, and constitution writers today often weigh in against federal or separation of powers systems and in favor of unitary, parliamentary structures. Those unitary parliamentary structures, however, have also degenerated into authoritarian rule as in Japan and Italy prior to World War II. 3. Below write an argument on your own that responds to the disadvantage.**Negative–Case arguments**1NC Answer to Solvency1. No solvency–kids will just throw out healthier food Welch 15[Ashley Welch, “School Lunch Fruits and Veggies Often Tossed in Trash, Study Finds,” August 25, 2015, ]New federal guidelines requiring healthier school lunches have made headlines in recent years, but that doesn't mean kids are eating them up. In fact, a study conducted soon after the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act went into effect found what many parents suspected: a lot of school children were taking the required fruits and vegetables and throwing them directly into the trash. The small study, published online Tuesday in Public Health Reports, comes about a month before Congress is scheduled to vote on whether to reauthorize the program. Researchers from the University of Vermont used digital photography to capture images of students' lunch trays after they selected their food, as they were leaving the lunch line, and again at the end of their lunch as they passed the food disposal area. They found that while children placed more fruits and vegetables on their trays - as required by the USDA mandates put in place in 2012 - they consumed fewer of them. The amount of food wasted increased by 56 percent, the researchers found.2. Below write an argument on your own that explains why the plan can’t solve.1NC Answer to Healthcare Cost ADV1. Healthcare costs are declining now–deficit proves Grunwald 14 – Senior national correspondent at Time magazine [Michael Grunwald, Lower Health Care Costs Brighten America's Debt Outlook, Jul 16, 2014, ]But our health care cost inflation is no longer unsustainable. That’s huge news, because it means our long-term deficits should be manageable, too. Louise Sheiner and Brendan Mochoruck of the Brookings Institution compared the Congressional Budget Office’s latest fiscal outlook with its projections from five years ago, and the shift is striking. In 2009, the CBO expected Medicare spending to skyrocket from 3% to 6% of GDP by 2030; it now expects much more modest growth to less than 4% of GDP. Overall, former CBO director Peter Orszag, President Obama’s first budget director, calculated the projected savings in federal health spending since the 2009 report at $7.9 trillion. Those numbers, like all long-term budget estimates, could change radically. And while Obamacare’s cost controls contributed to the cost slowdown, it’s not clear how much they contributed. Policy wonks and political hacks will have plenty of time to argue about why the cost curve is bending. But the trend itself, as Orszag argues, is the most important trend in fiscal policy in decades. It’s the difference between a deficit crisis and a phantom deficit crisis. In 2009, graphs of projected federal health spending looked like ski slopes; graphs of all other spending looked like sidewalks. The long-term deficit problem was basically a medical problem. Now it’s not such a problem. The question is whether Washington will notice. 2. Military spending cuts don’t risk warFettweis 11 [Christopher Fettweis, Department of Political Science, Tulane University, 9/26/11, Free Riding or Restraint? Examining European Grand Strategy, Comparative Strategy, 30:316–332, EBSCO]It is perhaps worth noting that there is no evidence to support a direct relationship between the relative level of U.S. activism and international stability. In fact, the limited data we do have suggest the opposite may be true. During the 1990s, the United States cut back on its defense spending fairly substantially. By 1998, the United States was spending $100 billion less on defense in real terms than it had in 1990.51 To internationalists, defense hawks and believers in hegemonic stability, this irresponsible “peace dividend” endangered both national and global security. “No serious analyst of American military capabilities,” argued Kristol and Kagan, “doubts that the defense budget has been cut much too far to meet America’s responsibilities to itself and to world peace.”52 On the other hand, if the pacific trends were not based upon U.S. hegemony but a strengthening norm against interstate war, one would not have expected an increase in global instability and violence. The verdict from the past two decades is fairly plain: The world grew more peaceful while the United States cut its forces. No state seemed to believe that its security was endangered by a less-capable United States military, or at least none took any action that would suggest such a belief. No militaries were enhanced to address power vacuums, no security dilemmas drove insecurity or arms races, and no regional balancing occurred once the stabilizing presence of the U.S. military was diminished.3. Below write an argument on your own responding to the advantage.1NC Answer to Food Injustice ADV (1/2)1. Food justice movements are strong and solving now – they are combatting racial and injustices in food distributionSmith 16 Truthout News Analyst [Rory Smith, The Future of the Food Justice Movement, May 07, 2016, ]The food justice movement -- a loose but expansive conglomeration of organizations working to create a more just food system in the United States -- has accomplished a great deal over the last 30 years. But can it manage to converge in its diversity and create a countermovement potent enough to transform the current food regime? Or is it too shallow and too spread, destined to disappear in its disjointedness. Things may seem a little out of sorts when one in six Americans -- residents of the most affluent country on the planet -- don't have enough to eat, and when the percentage of hungry people in the United States has gone up 57 percent since the late 1990s. Sprinkle in that little detail about how Black and Latino neighborhoods are often left practically devoid of fresh produce but flooded with fast food restaurants (something that contributes to high rates of obesity, diabetes and thyroid disease), and you might start to question one or two things. Toss in the fact that many of the 2 million farm laborers who produce US consumers' fruits and vegetables are not only subjected to brutal labor conditions but also can't afford to consume the very same food they pick, and you might really start to wonder. And when you top off this gallimaufry with one more slight detail -- that there are 1 billion people around the world suffering from malnourishment, a number that hasn't changed significantly since the 1970s -- the inequity of the current food regime becomes pretty clear. It was the food justice movement that first recognized this reality, and it has spent the last 30 years challenging and redressing these inequalities. The Black Panthers' Free Breakfast for School Children Program, Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers, and the family farming caucuses that swept the United States during the 1980s were early proponents of food justice. And while these original players have been all but subsumed by the passage of time, they have been replaced by hundreds of thousands of farmworkers, urban and rural farmers, activists, consumers and academics who are all working to institute a fairer and more just food system. This effort is what Eric Holt-Giménez, the executive director of Food First, calls "converging in our diversity," and it is the linchpin of creating a just food system: a system that stresses the right of communities everywhere to produce, distribute and have equal access to healthy food, irrespective of class, gender or ethnicity. Just when that Rust Cohle-like pessimism seems to have obtruded on our collective consciousness -- foregrounded by our failure to engineer any overhaul of the US financial system and scientists' incredulous predictions on global warming -- the food justice movement could be that slow-cooked countermovement that we have all been waiting for. Everyone has some kind of a relationship with food. It is the cornerstone of culture and life, as well as of the capitalist system. If any revolution is going to be successful, this seems like a good place for it to start.2. Below write an argument on your own responding to the advantage.1NC Answer to Food Injustice ADV (2/2)3. School lunches alone can’t solve all causes of the cycle of poverty–accessible preschool, new equipment, and extra-curricular programs are needed. Layton 15 [Lyndsey Layton, Covers national education for the Washington Post, Majority of U.S. public school students are in poverty, January 16, 2015, ]The data show poor students spread across the country, but the highest rates are concentrated in Southern and Western states. In 21 states, at least half the public school children were eligible for free and reduced-price lunches — ranging from Mississippi, where more than 70 percent of students were from low-income families, to Illinois, where one of every two students was low-income. Carey Wright, Mississippi’s state superintendent of education, said quality preschool is the key to helping poor children. “That’s huge,” she said. “These children can learn at the highest levels, but you have to provide for them. You can’t assume they have books at home, or they visit the library or go on vacations. You have to think about what you’re doing across the state and ensuring they’re getting what other children get.” Darren Walker, president of the Ford Foundation, was born in a charity hospital in 1959 to a single mother. Federal programs helped shrink the obstacles he faced, first by providing him with Head Start, the early-childhood education program, and later, Pell grants to help pay tuition at the University of Texas, he said. The country needs to make that same commitment today to help poor children, he said. “Even at 8 or 9 years old, I knew that America wanted me to succeed,” he said. “What we know is that the mobility escalator has simply stopped for some Americans. I was able to ride that mobility escalator in part because there were so many people, and parts of our society, cheering me on.” “We need to fix the escalator,” he said. “We fix it by recommitting ourselves to the idea of public education. We have the capacity. The question is, do we have the will?” The new report raises questions among educators and officials about whether states and the federal government are devoting enough money — and using it effectively — to meet the complex needs of poor children. The Obama administration wants Congress to add $1 billion to the $14.4 billion it spends annually to help states educate poor children. It also wants Congress to fund preschool for those from low-income families. Collectively, the states and the federal government spend about $500 billion annually on primary and secondary schools, about $79 billion of it from Washington. The amount spent on each student can vary wildly from state to state. States with high student-poverty rates tend to spend less per student: Of the 27 states with the highest percentages of student poverty, all but five spent less than the national average of $10,938 per student. Republicans in Congress have been wary of new spending programs, arguing that more money is not necessarily the answer and that federal dollars could be more effective if redundant programs were streamlined and more power was given to states. Many Republicans also think that the government ought to give tax dollars to low-income families to use as vouchers for private-school tuition, believing that is a better alternative to public schools. GOP leaders in Congress have rebuffed President Obama’s calls to fund preschool for low-income families, although a number of Republican and Democratic governors have initiated state programs in the past several years. The report comes as Congress begins debate about rewriting the country’s main federal education law, first passed as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “War on Poverty” and designed to help states educate poor children. The most recent version of the law, known as No Child Left Behind, has emphasized accountability and outcomes, measuring whether schools met benchmarks and sanctioning them when they fell short. That federal focus on results, as opposed to need, is wrong?headed, Rebell said. “We have to think about how to give these kids a meaningful education,” he said. “We have to give them quality teachers, small class sizes, up-to-date equipment. But in addition, if we’re serious, we have to do things that overcome the damages? of poverty. We have to meet their health needs, their mental health needs, after-school programs, summer programs, parent engagement, early-childhood services. These are the so-called wraparound services. Some people think of them as add-ons. They’re not. They’re imperative.”**Negative–Spending Disadvantage**1NC Spending DA (1/3)Uniqueness—Special education funding is safe now, but it's low enough for new spending to pose a severe risk. Samuels 3 – 16 – 17[Christina, Staff @ Ed Week, "Special Education Funding Maintained in Trump Administration Budget Blueprint," ]The "skinny" budget blueprint released by the Trump administration Thursday would maintain current spending levels for special education—about $13 billion, most of which is money sent directly to states. The budget blueprint is just the beginning of a long process. While this document shows the administration's priorities, it is Congress that ultimately passes spending legislation. And lawmakers have their own ideas about what programs should be cut, and which should be kept. But, if these funding amounts were to stay in place, the federal contribution for special education and related services would be about 16 percent of the excess costs of educating a student with a disability, compared to a general education student. In 1975, when the federal government passed the law that was to become the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Congress authorized paying states up to 40 percent of the excess costs of educating a student with disabilities, based on national per-pupil expenditures. But in the 40-plus years of the law's existence, the federal government has never gotten close to meeting that goal. The Trump administration is not different from other administrations in that regard. The budget blueprint shows that the Education Department, at least right now, is not planning to cut special education in order to fund its other goals, which include a $1.4 billion increase in school choice, which would include $250 million for a new private school choice program, and $168 million increase for a program aimed at supporting charter school expansion.1NC Spending DA (2/3)Link—The dollar amount for education funding is already set, and money must be moved around for the plan, causing trade-offs with other programs.Miller 15[Ben, Education Policy Analyst @ Center for American Progress, "Capped Out," 9/22, ]When it comes time to produce appropriations bills, congressional committee members must figure out how to divide up their overall allocation among their 12 subcommittees. The dollar amount they pick for each subcommittee, which is known more formally as a 302(b) allocation, dictates the maximum amount of money that group can spend for the next fiscal year. Due to the small number of subcommittees, each of these 302(b) allocations sets the maximum spending amount for several federal agencies. For example, the U.S. Department of Education shares the same 302(b) allocation with the U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, along with some other smaller agencies. The federal budget process thus creates a series of cascading zero-sum games once the overall spending level is set. Different 302(b) allocations compete amongst each other for money; within the same spending cap, multiple agencies have to fight with each other for funding. This competition is further exacerbated because Congress tends to treat all discretionary spending as either defense or nondefense related. This automatically pits every nondefense program against the others for funds from the same pot.1NC Spending DA (3/3)Impact—Special education cuts risk the acceptance of disabled students and support resources. ASEC 3 [Area Special Education Cooperative, "Special Education Paraprofessional Handbook," August, ]Historically individuals with disabilities were not valued members of the community. Sometimes, special asylums were built for people who were disabled. Often conditions in these institutions were dehumanizing, filthy and crowded. There is little evidence that people in these institutions were given skills or education that would enable them to cope with the world and become members of the greater community. Much of the lack of education occurred because it was believed that these individuals were not able to learn like other people and that it would be a waste of time and money to help them learn. In recent times as early as the 1970's, prior to Public Law 94-142 (Education of All Handicapped Children Act), children with special needs often continued to be excluded from the public education system or if included, they were often segregated from their peers in separate classrooms or schools. This practice is no longer acceptable. Today, with the reauthorization of P.L. 94-142, now called IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), students with disabilities are now an integral part of the regular school environment. This legislation emphasized the inclusion of children with disabilities into the regular classroom and community environments, and increased the need for and use of paraprofessionals. When that is not possible, children are to be educated in the "least restrictive environment" appropriate for the child. Federal law, as well as State mandated practices, have established procedures to assure that to the maximum extent appropriate, students with disabilities are educated with non-disabled students. Special classes, separate schools, or other removal of students with disabilities from the regular educational environment occur only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes, with the use of supplementary aids and services, cannot be achieved satisfactorily. Research supports that children with disabilities benefit from inclusive instruction within the regular classroom environment. For children with moderate to severe handicaps, inclusion can increase social interaction between disabled and non-disabled children. Inclusion can increase social acceptance by peers and provide disabled students with appropriate behavior models.**Negative–Spending Extensions**2NC Spending–Overview/we outweigh (Mr. T)Below, you should write an overview where you explain why the disadvantage’s impacts outweigh those of the affirmative–(remember, you should use Mr. T (explain why the impacts of the disadvantage either outweigh (magnitude), happen faster (timeframe), or are more likely to occur (risk)), and you can also explain why the disadvantage SOLVES the impacts to the aff)You don’t have to read everything you put in the blanks (especially if you don’t have time to read every word!) but you should think of arguments based in your evidence and that sound good. Vote negative because the disadvantage outweighs the affirmative:First, ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Second, ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Third, ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________2NC Spending–Answer to Non-UniqueSpecial education programs are currently secure under Secretary DeVos, but there is still cause for concern.Strauss, 7 – 18 – 17[Valerie Strauss, Reporter @ The Washington Post, “The deep irony in Betsy DeVos’s first speech on special education,” ]U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos just gave her first major speech about special education — and it raised new questions about her understanding of the issues that students with disabilities face. Again, exactly six months after the first ones. DeVos, a Michigan billionaire who has called traditional public schools a “dead end,” has had something of a troubled past in talking about this issue. At her confirmation hearing on Jan. 17, before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, she answered a question about the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), indicating that she didn’t know it was a federal law that all states had to enforce. IDEA requires public schools to provide a free and appropriate education to all students with disabilities, and in her response, she said that she thought it was up to the states to decide on IDEA enforcement. She was later asked if she was unaware that IDEA was a federal law, and she conceded, “I may have confused it.” Then in a letter to supposedly clarify her perplexing comment at that hearing, she said she knows IDEA is a federal law and said she wants to provide students with disabilities more educational opportunities, which is in line with her antiabortion agenda. But in that letter, rather than talk about how traditional public school districts can improve their offerings for these children, she praised a voucher program in Ohio that allows eligible families of special needs students to use public funds to attend a private school. What she didn’t mention, however, was that the program — as well as most other voucher programs — requires participating families to agree to give up special education due-process rights they are given under IDEA. At that time, Denise Marshall, executive director of the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA) issued a statement that said in part: It’s clear that Betsy DeVos is not, nor has ever been an advocate for children with disabilities. The fact that she didn’t understand the basics about education concepts or the three essential federal education laws is embarrassing and her lack of knowledge on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is appalling. We are alarmingly concerned. Furthermore, she advocates for vouchers writ large — as if they can solve every family’s dilemma.2NC Spending–Answer to No LinkThe plan links to the disadvantage–the education budget is zero-sumMcCann 14 (Clare, senior policy analyst with New America's Education Policy program, "‘Unaccompanied Children’ Crisis Has Implications for Education Budget," 7/22, )That’s where the trouble starts for education spending. In 2011, Congress passed the Budget Control Act (BCA), implementing a series of spending caps to limit federal appropriations funding over the next decade. Under the BCA regime, funding is zero-sum, because absent congressional action (like lifting or removing the caps), the limits hold for all appropriations. So once the HHS funding for unaccompanied children is wrapped into the regular appropriations--rather than counted as emergency funding, which isn’t subject to the spending caps--every dollar directed to that cause will be counted against the overall appropriations limit. And since the Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education are all funded in one package by Congress, the trade-offs in funding will likely come from within those agencies. If the problem continues to grow, funding for the immigration crisis could eat into the federal budget for education programs.**Negative–Federalism Disadvantage**1NC Federalism DA (1/4)Uniqueness—Federalism is strong now, and current federal education policy is key to it.Somin 5 – 22 – 17Ilya Somin is Professor of Law at George Mason University. His research focuses on constitutional law, property law, and popular political participation., “Jeffrey Rosen on “federalism for the left and the right”, of the issues that recent presidents have tried to decide at the national level through executive orders are best resolved at the state or local levels instead. In an era of fierce partisan divisions, all sides are beginning to see the virtues of our federal system in accommodating differences—and encouraging experimentation—on issues such as immigration, law enforcement and education. Federalism has long been a cause on the right, but now it’s just as likely to be a rallying cry on the left. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary’s immigration and border-security subcommittee, recently said: “The Constitution, specifically the Tenth Amendment, protects states’ rights, and it prohibits federal actions that commandeer state and local officials. When it comes to immigration, these principles seem to be overlooked” The framers of the Constitution would be pleased with this emerging consensus. By creating a national government with limited powers, they intended to allow the states and local governments to pursue a range of different policies on matters within what used to be called their “police powers”—that is, their authority to regulate behavior, maintain order and promote the public good within their own territory. The founders considered this arrangement the best way to protect liberty and diversity of opinion, as well as to defend political minorities from nationalist tyranny and concentrated power…. A respect for federalism and state autonomy is perhaps the only way that all sides can peacefully coexist in today’s political environment. With dysfunction now reigning on Capitol Hill and federal courts increasingly ready to strike down the unilateral action of presidents, Americans will at least be able to take some comfort in local autonomy and control. In these polarized times, citizens who strongly disagree with each other may be able to unite around the goal of making federal power less intrusive and national politics less of a contest where the winner takes all.1NC Federalism DA (2/4)Link—Trump must be consistent on preserving Federal/State balance, otherwise federalism may collapse.Pease 5 – 16 – 17“GETTING BACK TO THE CONSTITUTION IN EDUCATION”. Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. an executive order is not enough and can be rescinded by the next president, as Trump is doing to his predecessor. The EO restricts itself to “under the law” and Congress (both parties) clearly passed these major education laws identified in the order. Trump must more fully hinge his argument on the Constitution and on the doctrine of federalism, which preceded the Constitution as a carry-over from the Articles of Confederation, our first national constitution. He should do so by arguing that he has no authority to enforce law that violates the separation of powers as created by the Constitution, which he has sworn to uphold. He must also encourage Congress to rescind those laws or, through the states, create a new amendment to the Constitution using Article 5 of the Constitution. Otherwise, this immediate victory, his EO, will be short lived. One of the first questions I ask students in an into to government class, since every textbook has a chapter on federalism is, “Who cares most whether Johnny can read, his mother or federal bureaucrats located hundreds often thousands of miles away.” It is generally agreed his mother does and is in a position to do most to remedy the problem by direct access to his teacher and school and can run for the school board if not satisfied. A second question, “Who suffers most if the school fails Johnny?” Again, his mother as responsible bureaucrats have moved on and she is left long term with the consequences of their failure with Johnny. As a life-long student or instructor, I have never seen evidence that the federal government can administrate the needs of Johnny better than most parents. My best and most caring teacher did her “magic” in a remote country school of two rooms; one a library the other a classroom. She taught all grades 1-8 at once with two or more students from each grade. No electronic aid or devices—only a chalkboard and books. Government policies and money raining down from afar generally discourage individuality in teaching and creativity. Instead they often spawn collective thought, (the enemy of real education), by their distribution of money favoring some ideas and groups. Federalism and the wisdom of the Founding Fathers to retain it and to specifically list the powers of the federal government in Article I Section 8 leaving all other powers, in this case education, at state and local levels, was brilliant. Hopefully, the Trump EO will strike a new public debate eventually removing all federal influence and funding in education. Trump is not yet a constitutionalist, but this move alone shows him closer than the vast majority of presidents in my lifetime.1NC Federalism DA (3/4)Internal link—U.S. Federalism is modeled globallyCalabresi 95 Associate Professor at Northwestern University School of Law- (Steven, "Symposium: Reflections On United States V. Lopez: "A Government Of Limited And Enumerated Powers": In Defense Of United States V. Lopez," Michigan Law Review, December 1995, Lexis)At the same time, U.S.-style constitutional federalism has become the order of the day in an extraordinarily large number of very important countries, some of which once might have been thought of as pure nation-states. Thus, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Austria, the Russian Federation, Spain, India, and Nigeria all have decentralized power by adopting constitutions that are significantly more federalist than the ones they replaced. Many other nations that had been influenced long ago by American federalism have chosen to retain and formalize their federal structures. Thus, the federalist constitutions of Australia, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico, for example, all are basically alive and well today. As one surveys the world in 1995, American-style federalism of some kind or another is everywhere triumphant, while the forces of nationalism, although still dangerous, seem to be contained or in retreat. The few remaining highly centralized democratic nation-states like Great Britain, France, and Italy all face serious secessionist or devolutionary crises. Other highly centralized nation-states, like China, also seem ripe for a federalist, as well as a democratic, change. Even many existing federal and confederal entities seem to face serious pressure to devolve power further than they have done so far: thus, Russia, Spain, Canada, and Belgium all have very serious devolutionary or secessionist movements of some kind. Indeed, secessionist pressure has been so great that some federal structures recently have collapsed under its weight, as has happened in Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and the former Soviet Union.1NC Federalism DA (4/4)Impact—Federalism prevents violence, secessions, and rebellions—prefer empiricsLawoti 9“Federalism for Nepal”, Mahendra Lawoti is professor at the department of political science at Western Michigan University, writer of several books and Ph.D. from the University of Pittsburgh with dissertation of Exclusionary Democratization: Multicultural Society and Political Institutions in Nepa., March 18 2009, studies covering over 100 countries have shown that federalism minimizes violent conflicts whereas unitary structures are more apt to exacerbate ethnic conflicts. Frank S. Cohen (1997) analyzed ethnic conflicts and inter-governmental organizations over nine 5-year –periods (1945-1948 and 1985-1989) among 223 ethnic groups in 100 countries. He found that federalism generates increases in the incidence of protests (low-level ethnic conflicts) but stifles the development of rebellions (high-level conflicts). Increased access to institutional power provided by federalism leads to more low-level conflicts because local groups mobilize at the regional level to make demands on the regional governments. The perceptions that conflicts occur in federal structure is not entirely incorrect. But the conflicts are low-level and manageable ones. Often, these are desirable conflicts because they are expressions of disadvantaged groups and people for equality and justice, and part of a process that consolidates democracy. In addition, they also let off steam so that the protests do not turn into rebellions. As the demands at the regional levels are addressed, frustrations do not build up. It checks abrupt and severe outburst. That is why high levels of conflicts are found less in federal countries. On the other hand, Cohen found high levels of conflicts in unitary structures and centralized politics. According to Cohen (1997:624): Federalism moderates politics by expanding the opportunity for victory. The increase in opportunities for political gain comes from the fragmentation/dispersion of policy-making power… the compartmentalizing character of federalism also assures cultural distinctiveness by offering dissatisfied ethnic minorities proximity to public affairs. Such close contact provides a feeling of both control and security that an ethnic group gains regarding its own affairs. In general, such institutional proximity expands the opportunities for political participation, socialization, and consequently, democratic consolidation. Saidmeman, Lanoue, Campenini, and Stanton’s (2002: 118) findings also support Cohen’s analysis that federalism influences peace and violent dissent differently. They used Minority at Risk Phase III dataset and investigated 1264 ethnic groups. According to Saideman et al. (2002:118-120): Federalism reduces the level of ethnic violence. In a federal structure, groups at the local level can influence many of the issues that matter dearly to them- education, law enforcement, and the like. Moreover, federal arrangements reduce the chances that any group will realize its greatest nightmare: having its culture, political and educational institutions destroyed by a hostile national majority. These broad empirical studies support the earlier claims of Lijphart, Gurr, and Horowitz that power sharing and autonomy granting institutions can foster peaceful accommodation and prevent violent conflicts among different groups in culturally plural societies. Lijphart (1977:88), in his award winning book Democracy in Plural Societies, argues that "Clear boundaries between the segments of a plural society have the advantage of limiting mutual contacts and consequently of limiting the chances of ever-present potential antagonisms to erupt into actual hostility". This is not to argue for isolated or closed polities, which is almost impossible in a progressively globalizing world. The case is that when quite distinct and self-differentiating cultures come into contact, antagonism between them may increase. Compared to federal structure, unitary structure may bring distinct cultural groups into intense contact more rapidly because more group members may stay within their regions of traditional settlements under federal arrangements whereas unitary structure may foster population movement.**Negative–Federalism Extensions**2NC Overview/we outweigh (Mr. T)Below, you should write an overview where you explain why the disadvantage’s impacts outweigh those of the affirmative–(remember, you should use Mr. T (explain why the impacts of the disadvantage either outweigh (magnitude), happen faster (timeframe), or are more likely to occur (risk)), and you can also explain why the disadvantage SOLVES the impacts to the aff)You don’t have to read everything you put in the blanks (especially if you don’t have time to read every word!) but you should think of arguments based in your evidence and that sound good. Vote negative because the disadvantage outweighs the affirmative:First, ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Second, ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Third, ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________2NC Answer to Non-UniqueTrump is restoring federalism–his budget proposal proves itRobb 3 – 31 – 17[Robert Robb, “Robb: President Trump's budget is a breath of federalism fresh air,” March 31 2017, ]Trump’s blueprint is the boldest attempt to revitalize true federalism, where the federal government limits itself to things that are of national scope and import, since Ronald Reagan. A good example is transportation. The federal highway system connects states. It has national scope. But public transit is only for getting around a particular community. The blueprint would turn off the federal funding spigot for new local transit capital projects. Overall, it is a bracing document. Some kind of sorting out of responsibilities such as this will be necessary if the federal government’s finances are ever to be put in order. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download