62 Speech Challenge Explanation/Instructions

Download 1.12 Mb.
Size1.12 Mb.
1   ...   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16

#4 — Topicality Subsets


1. Assume that the affirmative read the plan and solvency card below.

2. Assume that the negative read the topicality argument below.

3. Assume that the 2AC responded to topicality with the frontline below.

4. Students should prepare a three-minute negative block speech that extends the topicality subsets argument.

1AC — Plan/Solvency

The Department of the Interior should substantially increase its funding for primary and secondary education to meet the requirements set by the Indian Education Act to provide educational opportunities that equal or exceed those for all other students in the United States.

The federal government has failed to deliver adequate educational opportunities to Native American children by actively neglecting its responsibilities under federal law - maintaining funding to fulfill those obligations is key.

Brown 17 (Emma, Washington Post Reporter, “U.S. government has ‘dismally failed’ to educate Native American children, lawsuit alleges”, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2017/01/12/u-s-government-has-dismally-failed-to-educate-native-american-children-lawsuit-alleges/?utm_term=.5b4217df7317)

The federal government has repeatedly acknowledged and even lamented its failure to provide adequate education for Native American children. Now, nine Native children are taking to the courts to force Washington to take action.

The children are all members of the Havasupai Nation, whose ancestral homelands are in and around the Grand Canyon. They attend an elementary school that is run by the federal Bureau of Indian Education and is, according to a lawsuit filed Thursday, hardly recognizable as a school at all.

Havasupai Elementary School does not teach any subjects other than English and math, according to the complaint; there is no instruction in science, history, social studies, foreign language, or the arts. There aren’t enough textbooks or a functioning library or any after-school sports teams or clubs, according to the complaint. There are so many and such frequent teacher vacancies that students are allegedly taught often by non-certified staff, including the janitor, or they are taught by a series of substitutes who rotate in for two-week stints. The school shuts down altogether for weeks at a time.

The school has no system for evaluating or serving children with disabilities, who comprise about half of the student body, according to the complaint. And school officials are so incapable of meeting the needs of students with special needs that they often require those children to be educated at home, attending school as little as three hours per week.

The school excludes tribal community members from decisions about their children’s education, according to the complaint, and does not address Havasupai students’ unique cultural needs, as federal law requires. And in a community wracked by the historical trauma of displacement and discrimination, and the day-to-day trauma of poverty, the school allegedly failed to provide counseling for years and does not provide the mental health supports that children desperately need.

Federal law requires that the federal government provide Native children with educational opportunities that equal or exceed those for all other students in the United States,” the complaint says, alleging violations of the Indian Education Act, the Rehabilitation Act and a host of other federal laws. “The U.S. government has dismally failed to fulfill these responsibilities.”

Lawyers for the Havasupai children said that while the conditions at Havasupai Elementary are extreme, they are not uncommon. The lawsuit could establish an important precedent that the federal government has failed to meet its legal obligations and must do better for all children enrolled in Bureau of Indian Education schools, they said.

“This is a crisis across BIE schools that the federal government has acknowledged again and again,” said Kathryn Eidmann, a lawyer at Public Counsel, which is representing the children along with the Native American Disability Law Center, a co-plaintiff, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico and two private firms.

The 95-page complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Arizona, names the Bureau of Indian Education and the U.S. Interior Department as defendants, as well as Interior Secretary Sally Jewell; Lawrence Roberts, Interior’s deputy assistant secretary for Indian affairs; BIE Director Tony Dearman; and Jeff Williamson, principal of Havasupai Elementary School.

A spokeswoman said the Interior Department does not comment on pending litigation.

The Obama administration has been candid about the federal government’s failure to meet the needs of nearly 50,000 Native young people in nearly 200 schools the Bureau of Indian Education oversees.

“Indian education is an embarrassment to you and to us,” Jewell told the Senate Indian Affairs Committee in 2013.

As a result of the federal government’s failure to provide even the most basic of educational services, Havasupai Elementary is the lowest-performing Bureau of Indian Education school in the country, according to the complaint. Its students scored in the 1st percentile in reading — the lowest possible — and in the 3rd percentile in math, according to 2012-2013 data, the most recent available.

“Many Havasupai Elementary students have never learned basic information, such as what the states are and where they are located, the difference between North America and South America, and how to spell simple words,” the complaint says.

About 70 students in grades K through 8 are currently enrolled at Havasupai Elementary. It is located in the remote village of Supai, on the Havasupai reservation at the base of Havasu Canyon, which is part of the Grand Canyon, about 100 miles northwest of Flagstaff, Ariz. Supai is a popular desert tourist destination, reachable only by taking a helicopter or walking eight miles along a dirt trail.

The United States government has confined us to this remote location. The United States government promised quality education to our people,” Don E. Watahomigie, chairman of the Havasupai tribal council, told reporters Thursday. “The United States government failed on this promise, and as a result our people suffer.”

1NC — Topicality Subsets

Next off is Topicality Subsets.

“United States” means all of the states

EPA 6 – EPA, US Environmental Protection Agency Terminology Reference System, 2-1-2006, http://iaspub.epa.gov/trs/trs_proc_qry.alphabet?p_term_nm=U

United States

When used in the geographic sense, means all of the States. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics : Commercial Chemical Control Rules Term Detail

“The” refers to a group as a whole

Webster’s 5 (Merriam Webster’s Online Dictionary, http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary)

4 -- used as a function word before a noun or a substantivized adjective to indicate reference to a group as a whole

“In” means “throughout”

Words and Phrases 8 (Permanent Edition, vol. 20a, p. 207)

Colo. 1887. In the Act of 1861 providing that justices of the peace shall have jurisdiction “in” their respective counties to hear and determine all complaints, the word “in” should be construed to mean “throughout” such counties. Reynolds v. Larkin, 14, p. 114, 117, 10 Colo. 126.

Native reservations don’t exist in all fifty states.

Indians.org no date — http://indians.org/articles/indian-reservations.html

There are roughly three hundred Indian Reservations in the United States. An Indian Reservation is a piece of land that has been given over to Native Americans. They do not have full power over the land, but they do have limited governmental rule. Many Indian Reservations make money through gambling casinos.

Not every state in the United States has an Indian Reservation, and not every Native American tribe has one. There are also Indian Reservations in Canada, however they are set up and run a bit differently then here in America.

Voting issue for limits and ground. Their interp devolves into single state or locality affs, multiplying the neg’s research burden and dodging core DAs to national-level change. This makes specific preparation impossible.

2AC — Topicality Subsets

1. Counter-interpretation:

“The United States” means any of the states or territories.

Army CPOL no date — The Department of the Army's Office of the Assistant G-1 for Civilian Personnel, no date (“Questionnaire for Overseas Benefits Determination,” Available Online at http://cpol.army.mil/library/employment/fareast/Overseas%20Allowances%20Questionaire.pdf, Accessed 07-11-2017)

The United States is defined as: Any of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and any U.S. territory or possession.

“In” means within, not “throughout.”

Cullen 52 – Cullen, Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 52, Commissioner, Court of Appeals of Kentucky, November 13, 1952 Riehl et al. V. Kentucky unemployment compensation commission; the judgment is affirmed. Rehearing denied; COMBS, J., and SIMS, C. J., dissenting. http://ky.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19521113_0040095.KY.htm/qx

We do not find any ambiguity in KRS 341.070(1). It is our opinion that the key word in the statute is the word 'in,' preceding the words 'each of three calendar quarters', and if the word is accorded its ordinary and common meaning, the statute does not require simultaneous employment. According to Webster's New International Dictionary, the word 'in,' used with relation to a period of time, means 'during the course of.' The same meaning, expressed in another way, would be 'within the limits or duration of.' Employing this meaning, the statute says that an employer is subject to the Act if, during the course of, or within the limits or duration of each of three calendar quarters, he had in covered employment four or more workers, to each of whom the required amount of wages was paid. This clearly means that the employment need not be simultaneous. Obviously, the word 'in' does not mean 'throughout' or 'for the entire period of,' because then there would be no point in adding the requirement of the payment of a minimum of $50 in wages. In these times, no worker employed for a full calendar quarter would be paid less than $50 in wages. The appellant seeks to read into the statute the words 'at the same time,' following the words 'had in covered employment'. There is no justification for this, unless the word 'in' means 'during any one period of time in.' We are not aware of any authority for ascribing such a meaning to the word 'in'.

2. Plain Meaning DA — policies implemented “in the United States” include policies implemented in Michigan. Deviations from plain meaning are unpredictable and elitist — outweighs “grammatical precision.”

3. Unbeatable PICs DA — requiring plans to be throughout the U.S. gives the neg PICs out of single schools or districts. The aff can’t beat these because advocates of national-level policies don’t discuss specific exceptions and even a trivial net-benefit will outweigh an unquantifiable solvency deficit. Neg has a better shot against small affs than the aff does against PICs.

4. Unbeatable States Counterplan DA — aff needs federal jurisdiction affs to beat the states counterplan. State control of education makes most national cases unstrategic — the states can mostly solve, and structural advantages ensure the neg will win some risk of a DA.

5. Infinite Regression DA — “must affect all fifty states” is arbitrary because their definition of “in the United States” is “throughout all fifty states.” They exclude core cases like Title I reform and desegregation because some schools won’t be affected by these policies.

6. We Meet — native schools could exist in all fifty states in the future. The mandate of the plan applies to the whole country. Evaluate the plan in a vacuum to prevent mixing burdens.

7. Functional Limits Protect Neg Ground — few affs can simultaneously beat the states counterplan and non-education advantage counterplans. Tilting the topic toward federal jurisdiction cases keeps it small enough for negs to thoroughly prepare.

8. Good is Good Enough — debatability outweighs precision. Requiring the aff to meet the “best” definition incentivizes negs to specialize in T at the expense of substantive policy research.

Download 1.12 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16

The database is protected by copyright ©sckool.org 2020
send message

    Main page