In the United States, national service ought to be compulsory. September/October 2017 LD Brief

226 Pages·2017·0.98 MB·English

Resolved: In the United States, national service ought
to be compulsory.
*
September/October 2017 LD Brief
*
Published by Victory Briefs, PO Box 803338 #40503, Chicago, IL 60680-3338. Edited by Mar-
shall Thompson. Written by Marshall Thompson, Lawrence Zhou, Nina Potischman, Ben-
nett Eckert, and SunHee Simon. Evidence cut by Nina Potischman and Marshall Thompson.
For customer support, please email
Contents
1 Introduction 6
1.1 Suggestions for Using the Topic Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2 Suggestions for Using the Card Files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3 So, What Is in This Brief? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2 Topic Analysis by Bennett Eckert 11
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2 What does the topic mean? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2.1 National Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2.2 Compulsory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3 Affirmative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3.1 Civic Virtue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3.2 Civilian-Military Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.4 Negative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.4.1 Freedom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.4.2 Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3 Topic Analysis by Lawrence Zhou 20
3.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.2 Aff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.3 Neg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4 Philosophical Positions by Marshall Thompson 31
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.2 Approaching the Topic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.2.1 The Central Resolutional Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.2.2 Researching for This Topic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.3 Affirmative Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.3.1 Civic Republicanism and Why it May Affirm . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2
This product is licensed to
Contents
4.3.2 The Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.3.3 Concluding Thoughts on Affirmative Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.4 Negative Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.4.1 Limits on Citizen Obligations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.4.2 Limits on Compulsion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.6 Abbreviated Cards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5 Critical Positions by SunHee Simon 50
5.1 Aff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.1.1 Race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.1.2 Postcolonialism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5.2 Neg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.2.1 Neocolonialism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.2.2 Militarism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.2.3 Immigration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6 Theoretical and Philosophical Issues by Nina Potischman 63
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
6.2 Topicality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
6.2.1 National Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
6.2.2 In . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
6.2.3 Compulsory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
6.2.4 Extratopicality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
6.3 Core Philosophical Positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
6.3.1 Aff – Virtue Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
6.3.2 Neg - Pragmatism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
6.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
7 Definitions 73
7.0.1 National Service as Community Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
7.0.2 National Service is Understood as Universal . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
7.0.3 Military Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
3
This product is licensed to
Contents
8 Aff 78
8.1 Aff Positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
8.1.1 Plan – Model service after the Peace Corp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
8.1.2 Plan – Training + Freedom to Pick Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
8.1.3 Plan – incentives for service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
8.1.4 Civic Republicanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
8.1.5 Civilian-Military Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
8.1.6 Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
8.1.7 Communitarianism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
8.1.8 Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
8.1.9 Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
8.1.10 Econ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
8.1.11 Economic Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
8.1.12 Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
8.1.13 Immigration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
8.1.14 Individual Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
8.1.15 Inequality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
8.1.16 Militarism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
8.1.17 Military Readiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
8.1.18 National Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
8.1.19 Social Progress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
8.1.20 Unity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
8.1.21 Virtue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
8.2 Aff Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
8.2.1 A2 Liberalism NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
8.2.2 A2 Libertarianism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
8.2.3 A2 PTX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
8.2.4 A2 Turnover Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
8.2.5 A2 Unequal Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
9 Neg 158
9.1 Neg Positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
9.1.1 Ableism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
9.1.2 Biopower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
9.1.3 Civic Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
9.1.4 Complicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
4
This product is licensed to
Contents
9.1.5 Constitutionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
9.1.6 Corruption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
9.1.7 Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
9.1.8 Econ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
9.1.9 Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
9.1.10 Equality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
9.1.11 Freedom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
9.1.12 Genealogy – National Park Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
9.1.13 Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
9.1.14 IPV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
9.1.15 Messaging Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
9.1.16 Militarism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
9.1.17 Practical Difficulties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
9.1.18 Pragmatism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
9.1.19 Quality of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
9.1.20 Racism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
9.1.21 Spending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
9.1.22 Structural Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
9.1.23 Veteran QOL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
9.2 CPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
9.2.1 Democracy Advantage CP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
9.2.2 Universal Civilian National Service CP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
9.3 Neg Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
9.3.1 A2 AmeriCorp Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
9.3.2 A2 Citizenship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
9.3.3 A2 Civic Republicanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
9.3.4 A2 Communitarianism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
9.3.5 A2 Equality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
9.3.6 A2 Gratitude to Forefathers/Gobry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
9.3.7 A2 War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
9.3.8 AT Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
9.3.9 AT National Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
9.3.10 AT Unity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
9.3.11 AT Virtue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
5
This product is licensed to
1 Introduction
Hey everyone. We at Victory Briefs would like to say thank you for the trust you have
shown our team by using one of our briefs. We really care about debate and want to
do what we can to make it better and more accessible. Our briefs are one part of that
project, and we are so pleased that others find them helpful. We know how hard you
all work to improve at debate, and we want to do what we can to help make that work
as efficient and effective as possible.
Because this is our first brief of the year, we just wanted to give a couple of suggestions
for how you can get the most out of this document.
1.1 Suggestions for Using the Topic Analyses
A lot of debaters are not sure at what stage of topic research they should be reading
through topic analyses. Hopefully these tips will help you use the TAs more effectively.
First, nothing in our topic analysis should be taken as the final word on either the topic
or debate strategy. Each of the five TAs in this brief approach the topic in different, and
even incompatible, ways. SunHee’s vision of a strategic affirmative looks extremely
different from Nina’s vision of a strategic affirmative. And neither of those vision will
perfectly match onto what will work best for you. Thus, you should treat the TAs as a
dialogue partner, as another perspective on the topic which you can use to refine and
challenge the way you happened to have approached it.
However, to be able to use the TAs as a dialogue partner, it is important that you already
have formed some opinions on what this topic is all about, and how best to approach it.
Thus, rather than starting your thinking about the topic by reading the TAs, you should
instead spend some time researching and thinking about the topic on your own. That
way, you will have your own opinions and can use those opinions to more effectively
engage and dialogue with the TAs as you read them.
6
This product is licensed to
1 Introduction
Second, just as you should not begin your engagement with the topic by reading these
TAs, so too you should not end your research with these topic analyses. If you get
inspired by one of the case ideas in one of the TAs, don’t just read the articles that we
cited, go see what else in the area you can find. You should do everything you can to
make debate your own activity, and a great way to develop that ownership of debate is
to make sure your research goes beyond what we can direct you to in several thousand
words.
Third, use this topic analysis to expand, rather than reinforce your own assumptions
about debate. If you always read very philosophy heavy cases, then make sure you
don’t just read Marshall’s philosophy focused topic analysis. Instead, check out Sun-
Hee’s analysis about critical dimensions on this topic. The awesome thing about these
TAs is that you get a lot of different perspectives all at once. In this brief, you have two
national champions (Lawrence Zhou and Bennett Eckert) each of whom approached
NSDA nationals very differently, you have one of the best critical debaters of all time
(SunHee Simon), one of the best theory debaters of all time (Nina Potischman) andone of
the most successful framework-focused coaches in debate today (Marshall Thompson)
each writing a separate topic analysis. While each of us are very different as debaters
and coaches there is one thing we do agree on. That is that engaging with people who
think about debate differently is one of the best ways to get better at debate, however
you happen to approach it. You should use these briefs to expose yourself to new ways
of thinking about both the topic and debate.
1.2 Suggestions for Using the Card Files
While the TAs can be hard to use well, we think that it is the card files that are most
likely to be used poorly. So, we wanted to mention a few tips for how to get the most
out of these cards.
First, the most valuable way to use these card files is to get a sense of which sorts of
arguments, on both the affirmative and negative, you find most compelling and defen-
sible. By looking at the arguments in the literature for why compulsory national service
will promote democratic citizenry, you can get a better sense of how valuable it would
be to really invest time researching that issue. Thus, we really recommend using briefs
as a calibration tool to help you figure out which arguments in the literature you find
most interesting and compelling.
7
This product is licensed to
1 Introduction
The biggest mistake you can make is finding a card you like and then just taking and
lining down the card. Instead, you should go find the original article and read it as
well. While we have some excellent cards that you could certainly use in that fashion
to win rounds, we have seen a lot of rounds where debaters lose because they did not
understand the full context and force of one of their cards. There is a good reason that
academics write articles and not paragraphs. That is because an article is the length
needed to really flesh out and fully explain an idea. So, if there is an argument you find
particularly helpful, we highly recommend going back and reading the original article
so that you have a better sense of that argument’s context.
Second, you should use the evidence in this brief to help get a sense of what sort of
arguments you are likely going to be debating against. If you were to go through this
file and determine how you would answer every single one of the, over 100, cards in
this brief then there will be very few arguments that you will hit at tournaments that
you will be unsure how to respond to.
Third, you should use these cards to get a better sense of what to look for when you
are doing research. Some of our most successful debaters and coaches produced this
evidence, and so this will help you get an idea of what genuinely good evidence looks
like.
1.3 So, What Is in This Brief?
The first two Topic Analysis in this brief provide a more general overview to the topic,
and are written by two recent NSDA National Champions (Bennett and Lawrence).
Both topic analyses spend some time discussing questions of how we should interpret
the resolution (in particular, breaking down the debates about what is included under
the heading of ‘national service’). Then, both TAs transition into a discussion of core
affirmative and negative arguments on the topic. Bennett’s focuses on two primary
affirmative cases, one that talks about the way that national service might improve cit-
izen involvement in the nation and community and the other talks about how citizens
should be more closely connected with military activity. Lawrence’s TA talks about a
number of similar themes (for example, both TAs mention the political philosophy of
Civic Republicanism, thoughnot in verymuchdepth), however, Lawrence also includes
a longer discussion on the way that a draft would either help or hurt our military and
in turnmake wars more or less likely. Both TAs then talk about a similar set of core neg-
ative arguments, though with different ways to frame them. Both breakdown negative
8
This product is licensed to
1 Introduction
arguments into more principled concerns about freedom and more pragmatic concerns
about economic cost. We suggest reading through both, because they will show you
different ways you can go about framing both principled and pragmatic negative argu-
ments.
The next brief is written by Marshall Thompson and focuses almost exclusively on the
philosophical issues raised by the resolution. Marshall starts by discussing ways to ap-
proach the topic, and breaks down the central ethical questions that seem to be at stake.
Then he describes, at length, how you would construct a philosophical affirmative fo-
cused on the philosophy of civic republicanism (as well as providing a rather detailed
explanation of what civic republicanism is all about). For negative arguments, Marshall
breaks them down differently than Bennett and Lawrence. Rather than dividing them
between principled and practical concerns, Marshall breaks down negative arguments
into those that show that citizens do not have an obligation to engage in national ser-
vice, and those that show that even if they are so obligated, the state cannot rightly
coerce them into fulfilling those obligations. One other thing you might find helpful in
Marshall’s TA is the discussion on how effectively research this topic and which search
terms to use.
The fourth brief is written by SunHee Simon and focuses almost exclusively on the crit-
ical issues raised by the resolution. SunHee provides an excellent discussion of what
general strategies will be important when affirming or negating (such as the importance
of critical affirmatives focusing onmateriality, and the need for the negative to find very
specific links to conscription) as well as an in-depth look at some of themost compelling
areas of critical literature which bear on this resolution (such as the literature on neo-
and post-colonialism as well as issues of whiteness, militarism and the exploitation of
immigrants). SunHee, like Marshall, avoids any extended discussion on how to inter-
pret the resolution, and provides some useful research techniques, throughout the TA,
about how to do research for critical arguments.
The final brief is written by Nina Potischman. Nina looks at interpretational questions
on this resolution inmore depth than any of the previous TAs did. Nina not only breaks
down some of the ignored words in the resolution, like ‘in’, but she also discusses some
of the trickier interpretational questions, like how much lateral should the affirmative
get in reconstructing our system of national service. Nina then concludes her topic anal-
ysis by discussing, at length, one affirmative and one negative that none of the other TAs
had talked about. The affirmative deals with virtue ethics and the negative deals with
the pragmatist philosophical tradition.
9
This product is licensed to
1 Introduction
Hopefully you will find some new ideas and usefulness suggestions in all that follows.
Thanks again for your support, and have a great start to the year!
Yours,
The Staff at Victory Briefs
10
This product is licensed to