ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Tue Nov 20, 2018 6:27 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 10, 2002 2:29 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 448
Location: Yet another city of degenerate fools
Yeah, so I'm on a debate team too, and the topic for our league is:
Resolved, that the US federal government should substantially increase public health services for mental illness in the US.
In the actual league, we have to have evidence, which makes sense to a certain degree, but not the evidence for the sake of evidence degree at which it is now. We also have to be able to defend both sides. I'm just interested in what you guys think of unbound by rules.
Our team is running a parity platform, which essentially says, "Mental health care sucks because people aren't getting effective treatment. This is caused by insufficient insurance (mental health insurance is, on average, 40% lower than that of somatic health insurance). The Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 gave some, but not complete, parity, so we need another, more complete bill. It will only cause a raise in insurance premiums of 1%, afterward resulting in a drop in premiums of 33% because people will get treated and need less care. Therefore, we resolve to pass legislation forcing insurance companies to give equal benefits to those with mental health illnesses. The problem with all this is that there's already a bill going through the Senate on this topic, which sorta kills it right there (plans must be original, obviously), but we didn't get it from there! Honest! We thought of it ourselves!
So anyway. Anyone have any opinions?

_________________
"I have asked God for only one thing in my life
and that is that he should make people laugh at my enemies.
"And he did."
-Voltaire


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 10, 2002 11:03 pm 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 128
Location: Evanston, IL (USA)
I like how you typed everything all together...sorta gives the feeling of listening to a policy speech. So, I'll give it a shot in the good old policy way:

[parody]
1. "In" the US means throughout it, so if you don't provide increased mental health care for every single citizen your case is untopical. This is abuse, since we obviously can't prepare for such a radical position, and you should lose because of this.

2. Raddi Kal of the "Written to Be Used in Debate Tournaments Times" says "increasing mental health care leads to a fear of mental instability. Fear causes war, and in our modern world wars will be nuclear." Nuclear war destroys the planet, so the aff. can't claim any advantage that outweighs.
[/parody]

Sound familiar?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:47 am 
Offline
Native

Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 903
Quote:
On 2002-12-10 01:29, Mystical, Magical Low Quality Buckler wrote:
Yeah, so I'm on a debate team too, and the topic for our league is:
Resolved, that the US federal government should substantially increase public health services for mental illness in the US.


Sorry, can't help you, since I disagree with your chosen debating subject.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:15 am 
Offline
Tourist

Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 71
Location: Elemental plane of naughty touching
The nuclear war disad. Time tested, probably the most popular blanket disad. I lost against that once, on a technicality, because I didn't address it until my second affirmative rebuttal, even though the judge said that my first affirmative rebuttal should have had more time alotted.

He didn't even have a link. *sniff*

I don't know if I can offer any advice... just be careful if your debate occurs the day after Congress passes that bill, if it does pass. It would certainly suck if it coincided with enough of your plan and the neg argues that there is no Harm.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: UncleFilthy on 2003-01-01 00:31 ]</font>


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 4 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group