DDI-CJ-Legal-Services-Neg

DDI-CJ-Legal-Services-Neg - Legal Services Neg Dartmouth...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Legal Services Neg Dartmouth 2K9 1 Legal Services Neg Dartmouth 2K9 2 Stratagy Sheet: There are several options with this file. First Id recommend one of the T arguments. The strongest is probably T-for persons living in Poverty, though only if they define poverty as people without access to legal services. If not then Id switch over to the Social Service topicality. Argue that your interp is best because it limits to public goods, but the legal care of the aff isnt actually administered by a government organization. On The CP level you also have several options. First you can use the other actor (courts or congress) as the aff plan. There is also pretty good states solvency evidence that empirically states have the power to act on this issue. Finally there is the conditioned funding CP. If you can get them to commit to unconditional spending in the 1AC CX you can run this CP. The only real net benefit is the fact that it solves better (though that solvency deficit could be huge. The evidence about current program failures destroying the effectiveness of the program is pretty good). Finally you have the option of arguing that the status quo is already taking actions necessary to solve. For D/As Id run a politics scenario (CTBT and Health Care are included here, but the cap and trade link story can be given just as compellingly). Id also include the immigration scenario. The link evidence talks about how offering legal services is a huge incentive for immigrants to cross the border, leading to a laundry list of impacts. You may want to be careful running this with the Health care politics scenario though because the aff could argue that HC turns immigration by saving the economy. There is also a case specific d/a about the drug use, though the I/L and Impact are a little sketchy. It may be worth putting in the 1NC, but it is definitely weaker than the other options. Kritiks: There are specific biopower links here about how government use of law is just the government trying to exert its will and power over people. You could also run the Cap K (The aff is dependent on a private legal corporation), or coercion (the government is paying for said corporation) Legal Services Neg Dartmouth 2K9 3 Case: The case frontlines on these advantages arent that strong because they are just going to argue that class action suits solve back almost everything. Also, most of their stories arent absurd impact scenarios. This necessitates several things. First, try to use as many D/A turns case as possible. This gives you essential offense on their advantages. Next use analytics and the cards included in this neg to show why they cant solve some of the key alt causes that are the root causes of their impacts. Impact defense may also be a good idea and it will let you use your D/As to outweigh more easily. Finally and most importantly use the wide range of solvency cards to shed doubt on the cases ability to do anything. Emphasize things like the fact that we cards to shed doubt on the cases ability to do anything....
View Full Document

Page1 / 78

DDI-CJ-Legal-Services-Neg - Legal Services Neg Dartmouth...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online