A states counterplan replicates the substance of the social service at the state level.  The Lopez counterplan is one of the most popular states counterplans.  This counterplan is based on a 1995 Supreme Court ruling in the case of the United States v. Lopez.  The Supreme Court ruled that the federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 was unconstitutional because it exceeded the power of Congress to legislate under the Commerce Clause.  In other words, the federal government had overstepped its bounds.  Only states can regulate schools.  Affirmative cases that use the precedent set by the Lopez case argue that other authorities and jurisdictions should be devolved to the states.

This reasoning is supported by a 1995 article written by Stephen Calebrisi, Associate Professor of Law at Northwestern University.  Many negatives use Calebrisi's article to argue in favor of the state counterplan.  The article states:

The prevailing wisdom is that the Supreme Court should abstain from enforcing constitutional limits on federal power for reasons of judicial competence and because the Court should spend essentially all its political capital enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment against the states instead. This view is wrong. First, the rules of constitutional federalism should be enforced because federalism is a good thing, and it is the best and most important structural feature of the U.S. Constitution. Second, the political branches cannot be relied upon to enforce constitutional federalism, notwithstanding the contrary writings of Professor Jesse Choper. Third, the Supreme Court is institutionally competent to enforce constitutional federalism. Fourth, the Court is at least as qualified to act in this area as it is in the Fourteenth Amendment area. And, fifth, the doctrine of stare decisis does not pose a barrier to the creation of any new, prospectively applicable Commerce Clause case law.  The conventional wisdom is that Lopez is nothing more than a flash in the pan. Elite opinion holds that the future of American constitutional law will involve the continuing elaboration of the Court's national codes on matters like abortion regulation, pornography, rules on holiday displays, and rules on how the states should conduct their own criminal investigations and trials. Public choice theory suggests many reasons why it is likely that the Court will continue to pick on the states and give Congress a free ride. But, it would be a very good thing for this country if the Court decided to surprise us and continued on its way down the Lopez path. Those of us who comment on the Court's work, whether in the law reviews or in the newspapers, should encourage the Court to follow the path on which it has now embarked. The country and the world would be a better place if it did.

This is a rich area for debate because there is a developed literature on state action versus federal action.  Some scholars argue that states can most effectively innovate and implement plans specific to their locales and are, therefore, best equipped to tackle complicated policy issues.  Yet others have written that federal standards may be necessary.  Without federal standards, states may engage in a "race to the bottom" where each state passes increasingly lenient regulations aimed at attracting businesses and therefore jobs to their state.  Unfortunately, state counterplan debates often bypass these intriguing discussions because negative teams can write their plan text in a way that avoids these arguments.  Below are a few examples of how this happens.

• If the affirmative argues that a uniform federal standard is necessary so we do not end up with an uncoordinated patchwork of legislation, the negative will write their plan text so that the 50 states have uniform legislation and all enact the same plan at the same time (ignoring that this is unrealistic).

• If the affirmative argues that the negative does not solve for Washington DC, the negative will write their plan text to say "the 50 states and relevant territories will do the plan."

• If the affirmative argues that the states cannot do the plan without cutting funding for another important state program, the negative will write the plan text to say that states will eliminate all necessary budget restriction to allow deficit spending.

• If the affirmative argues that the counterplan will fail because the U.S. federal courts will reverse the plan, the negative will write the plan text to say that if the laws are challenged the court will uphold the action.

Many people believe that a well written state counterplan can always avoid any disadvantages the affirmative might discuss.

When answering counterplans we usually tell you to always make four arguments: Solvency, Theory, Offense and a Permutation (STOP).  However, it may be difficult to make good solvency and offensive arguments against this counterplan.  As stated above, the negative can avoid these arguments by writing a strategic plan text.  Of course, if they do not write their plan text to avoid all of these arguments, affirmatives can definitely make them.  However, be careful not to argue that the states would not be good at implementing the plan because affirmative plans will probably rely on state implementation too.  This means that if the counterplan cannot solve because the states would not be good at implementing I, then the plan will not solve either. 

So how can the affirmative successfully answer a states counterplan? 

Write affirmative plans strategically.  By thinking strategically, affirmative teams will anticipate the state counterplan.  They will also pre-empt common negative arguments by designing a case that requires federal action.  Does your case involve the military or require a change in federal regulation?  These elements will make your case more difficult to beat with the state counterplan. 

Always make a permutation.  In order for a counterplan to be legitimate it must be competitive with the affirmative plan.  Counterplans can be competitive by being mutually exclusive, meaning the counterplan cannot exist with the affirmative plan, or through net benefits, meaning the counterplan should not exit with the affirmative plan.  State counterplans are competitive through net benefits since it is possible for both the states and the federal government to enact a social services policy at the same time.

A permutation is a test of competition.  When you permute the plan and the counterplan you do all of the plan and all or some of the counterplan.  If the permutation achieves an advantageous combination, the counterplan is not competitive.  If the permutation fails, the counterplan is competitive.  If the permutation fails, the affirmative does not have to defend it throughout the round.  A permutation is only a test, not an advocacy.

Affirmatives permute the plan and the counterplan because the permutation may be able to shield the affirmative plan from a link to the disadvantage.  If both the states and the federal government act at the same time, it may cover up the federal government's link to the disadvantage.  Also, permutations may solve more of the affirmative case than the states counterplan can independently.  For example, if only the states acted, certain groups such as Native Americans on reservations may not be affected, but if both the states and the federal government act at the same time, Native Americans would be affected.  In this case, the permutation would be the best solution. 

Spend some time on theory arguments.  Because the state counterplan can be so lethal on the poverty topic, some people argue that theory arguments are the only way to beat it. Theory arguments are analytical arguments claiming that state counterplans are unfair or decrease the educational value of debate.

There are several theory arguments available to affirmative debaters.

1. The states counterplan is artificial and unrealistic. It is an educationally bankrupt idea because it is highly unlikely that all of the 50 states (and relevant territories) would pass an identical poverty policy at exactly the same time.

2. There is no research available for either side of the state counterplan debate. The affirmative can argue that evidence should be the bedrock of debate. Without evidence, debate becomes my assertion versus your assertion, and the educational value diminishes. The fact that there is no evidence for the state counterplan proves how arbitrary and unsupported the counterplan is.

3. Allowing the states counterplan debate destroys the ability to explore huge areas of the literature. Conceptually, increasing social services for people living in poverty is a large topic area, but because of the states counterplan many of these areas are unwinnable for the affirmative. Affirmatives often write cases on parts of the topic that require federal action like the military and ignore the center of the topic.

4. It is unfair for the negative to fiat 50 actors. Fiat is Latin for "let it be done" and is the assumption that the affirmative plan or the counterplan will be done. It lets us debate should something be done rather than would it be done. The negative avoids the argument that it is unrealistic that all of the states would enact the same plan at the same time by arguing that they can fiat that it will happen in the debate. Many people argue that there needs to be limits on what the negative can fiat. Fiat should be reciprocal between the affirmative and the negative. With the states counterplan fiat is not reciprocal; the affirmative fiats one actor while the negative gets to fiat 50 plus.

Use these arguments the next time you debate a stats counterplan!  Tell us your experiences debating the states counterplan in the forums!

Background

One of your first tasks when preparing to debate this topic will be to define "failed nations."  The term nation is synonymous with state, and the most frequent term used to describe those nations that have failed in the literature is "failed state."  I imagine that the framers of this resolution chose to use nation to prevent debaters from arguing that states like California should be classified as "failed."    

Article 1 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States gives four qualifications of a state: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with other states. If one of these qualifications is not met the entity cannot be defined or act as a state by this standard.[i]

Most states on the verge of collapse end up losing their statehood based on qualifications c and d. Robert Rotberg, Director of the Program on Intrastate Conflict and Conflict Resolution at Harvard University says, "Nation-states fail because they are convulsed by internal violence and can no longer deliver positive political goods to their inhabitants. Their governments lose legitimacy, and the very nature of the particular nation-state itself becomes illegitimate in the eyes and in the hearts of a growing plurality of its citizens." [ii]  Another helpful resource for understanding failed states is the essay "The Failed State and International Law," by Daniel Thürer, Dr. jur., LL.M.[iii]

A complete list of failed states is compiled each year by the think tank Fund for Peace, and is published by Foreign Policy Magazine. Among the failed states are Zimbabwe, Sudan, Chad, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Ethiopia, Haiti and Burma, among others. (For a full list visit: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/06/22/2009_failed_states_index_interactive_map_and_rankings)

For purposes of this analysis, "stable nations" will be defined as those that meet the four qualifications given by the Montevideo Convention.

Other than the definitions of "failed states" and "stable nations," the topic is fairly straight forward. The affirmative must advocate that failed states are a greater threat than stable nations, and negatives must find a way to argue that they are not, either by saying that stable nations are a greater threat, they are an equal threat, or that failed nations are not a threat at all. While the first argument will definitely be the most conducive to a debate round, debaters should be prepared for all three arguments.

Affirmative

First, affirmatives can argue that failed states are breeding grounds for rogue, dangerous organizations. Failed states are typically states where the government either does not exist, or has so little control that they may as well not exist. This is a perfect environment for extremist groups-think al Qaeda in Afghanistan. John Yoo, Professor of Law at the University of California Berkley says, "States that lose centralized government may become anarchic areas where terrorist groups can freely build resources, train their operatives, and use as bases from which to launch attacks.  Parts of Yemen, for example, appear to be ungovernable due to a weak central government, which has allowed operatives of the al Qaeda terrorist network to hide there." [iv]

Second, along these same lines, failed states are a breeding ground for illegal activity. Until recently (and to an extent, even now) Afghanistan was a huge exporter of opium. Cocaine farms and shipping bases plague Columbia, and Sierra Leone's black diamond market has made hundreds of violent criminals very rich. But those are only a few examples. These types of countries practice human trafficking, illegal small arms dealing, and often aid in the proliferation of mass destruction technologies.

Illegal weapons have become particularly harmful in failed countries, according to Rachel Stohl and Col. Dan Smith in their essay "Small Arms in Failed States: A deadly combination," "Small arms and light weapons have certain characteristics that make them the weapon of choice for countries and groups involved in armed conflict. Small arms are attractive because of their low cost and wide availability, lethality, simplicity and durability, portability and concealability, and military, police, and civilian uses." They note that these weapons make their way into countries during periods of civil war or general fighting, and simply stay around. Their prevalence and aptitude for destruction makes them appealing to those looking to make a quick buck.

This kind of illegal arms trade has led to increased violence in failed states, well equipped rogue forces, and the continued arming of terrorist organizations. International outreach missions to failed states have become alarmingly difficult because of these weapons, and organizations are harder to negotiate with because they are now armed and ready to fight.

Third, negotiating with failed states is virtually impossible and often requires direct intervention or war. As a rule of thumb, only "states" can participate in international relations. Article 2(1)(a) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties defines a treaty as "an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law." Since these "failed states" have no centralized government, even if they were to enter a treaty with an outside state it could not be enforced, nor could it be truly recognized by international law.

According to Yoo, "Failed states thus create a central problem for international law and politics.  As a matter of international law, the absence of a state precludes the possibility that a territory or population can make treaties or engage in international relations.  As a matter of international politics, the collapse of central government means that nations cannot engage in reciprocal and mutually beneficial relationships with that territory and population, or deter and compel action there by a government."

Because of this, in that vast majority of cases, failed states must be handled through direct military intervention. The United States can typically appeal to stable nations through threat of economic sanctions, international criticism, or through a written mutually beneficial agreement. Economic sanctions do not effect failed states, since they have virtually no economy. International criticism cannot have an effect on a nation if they have no central government and no economy, and mutually beneficial agreements cannot be enforced, and are thus useless.

Fourth, failed states are incubators for severe human rights disasters. Yoo states, "In Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, and the former Yugoslavia, failed states have produced the catastrophic human rights disasters.  Since the end of World War II, far more lives have been lost due to internal wars than international armed conflicts, and many of the former have occurred in failed states.  Military intervention in response, often led by the United States and its allies, incurs high costs in terms of money, material, and lives."

Consider the current human rights violations that are taking place. The first places that come to mind are The Congo and Sudan. These countries are classified as "failed" by the Failed State Index and cannot get a handle on the overwhelming amount of violence and internal turmoil because of the lack of governmental control. International forces have been wary to get involved because of the huge amount of resources and lives that would be spent diffusing the ticking time-bombs that are these nations.   

Stable nations generally do not produce human rights violations. At least not nearly to the extent that failed nations do. In stable nations, citizens are able to voice their opinion and remove the oppressive powers. In failed states, this cannot happen because there is no mechanism for removing the oppression.

Affirmatives can argue that the United States has a moral obligation to become involved in these events. Involvement in Bosnia, Panama, and even Iraq has been justified in moral terms. Human rights violations are accepted as bad, and citizens of the United States generally want them to stop. When the United States gets involved in these places, our risk is much higher since we are not dealing with a centralized government, but instead a large amount of independent forces.

Fifth, the human rights violations, the amount of uncertainty and fear, and the lack of resources in failed states result in a huge flow of refugees into more developed and stable nations. A simple look at the latest statistics will show you that an overwhelming majority of refugees come from failed nations. [v]  In 1993 Somalia produced huge amounts of refugees, which burdened not only bordering nations, but also the United States. Periodically, Haiti has suffered such turmoil that the United States has had to hold the door open for an overwhelming number of refugees.

Refugees are typically uneducated and may even be in poor health. Affirmatives can argue that they pose a burden to the countries that accept them because of their inability to function without a significant amount of help. With the population increase that the United States is facing without refugees, the amount of refugees from failed states that seek refuge here becomes particularly detrimental.

Negative

There are many arguments available to negatives on this topic.  First, the negative can argue that stable nations pose a greater economic threat to the United States than failed nations. Failed nations arguably have no economy, and unless something catastrophic happened to make the state "fail," they have had a poor economy for a long time. The world market has adjusted to that and there is no negative effect. Arguably, the world economy is not hugely influenced by the economies of The Congo, Sudan, or Haiti, but if Britain, Russia, or China's economy were to suddenly crash, the United States would be in for a severe economic depression.[vi]

Second, developed and stable nations can take over our role as the world hegemon.  Countries like China and India are gaining economic and military ground quickly, and within the next decade may be competing with us for international power.  Negatives can argue that the United States has a vested interest in protecting its hegemonic status because it allows us great influence over other countries.

The negative can also argue that the United States as a hegemon has its benefits to the world. The United States is well known for acting as the "police" for the entire world. Zalmay Khalilzad, current U.S. Ambassador to Iraq says, "A world in which the U.S. exercises leadership would preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the world to avoid another global cold or hot war, and all the attendant dangers, including global nuclear exchange."[vii]

Clearly, a world war would be a threat to the United States. The United States gains direct benefit by remaining in its position as a global hegemon. Not only do we prevent war, but we gain more material things by remaining in such a position. We tend to be better off in trade agreements, and we have a strong voice in the United Nations.

Third, the negative can argue that the only reason that terrorists and failed nations are a problem is because of weapons that are produced and distributed by stable nations. While it is true that many terrorists operate on Soviet-era weapons, it is just as true that they are operating with new technology that has only recently been produced out of developed and stable countries.  China openly trades arms with Sudanese fighters and militias, much to international chagrin, and Russia is rumored to have shipped weapons to Damascus that ended up in the hands of terrorists all over the area.

Regardless of the international policies that are put in place to combat the spread of weapons to failed nations, there will always be a steady flow of weapons as long as there is money to be made. Research on weapons sources in failing nations will give you a long list of more developed countries who have supplied weapons.

Fourth, many stable nations have nuclear weapons. While it is true that failed states may be a breeding ground for terrorist organizations, the negative can argue that most terrorist organizations are not organized or technologically advanced enough to have weapons of the caliber that developed nations have and can produce in mass quantities. Arguably, angering a stable nation poses a greater danger than angering a failed nation.

Looking at the latest count of nuclear weapons will show you just how many nuclear weapons developed nations possess. Even if it isn't a particularly likely situation, it is certainly a situation that is more threatening and more deadly.  (For more visit: http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/database/nukestab.html)

Fifth, the negative can argue that most failed states are not a danger to the United States. With the obvious exception of Afghanistan, the majority of failed states have never been a direct threat to the United States. The majority of the world's failed states are located in sub-Saharan Africa, and while most of them are the locations of genocides and civil rights violations, those things do not affect the United States at all except from a moral standpoint. Negatives can argue that the affirmative should not be able to win the round on an exception to the rule.

Sixth, stable nations are organized. While it might be true that it is more likely that members of a failed nation would want to do us harm, they are not organized to carry out their wishes in a succinct and effective manner. Most instances, especially since 9/11, of planned terrorist attacks have been discovered and dealt with before the incident took place. Stable nations, on the other hand, have the resources, manpower, and ability to surprise.

Stable nations typically have a military, weapons, and good government control. These three things are the perfect blueprint for swift military action. If a stable nation wanted to go to attack us, we would be left with very little notice because of their ability to move so quickly.

[i] Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, 1993 http://www.jus.uio.no/treaties/01/1-02/rights-duties-states.xml

[ii] Rotberg, Robert I. "Failed States, Collapsed States, Weak States: Causes and Indicators."http://wilsoncenter.org/topics/docs/statefailureandstateweaknessinatimeofterror.pdf

[iii] Daniel Thürer, Dr. jur., LL.M. "The ‘Failed State' and International Law." http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57JQ6U

[iv] Yoo, John. "Failed States," http://www.law.northwestern.edu/colloquium/international/Yoo.pdf

[v] "US Refugee Program: Current Fiscal Year Admission Statistics," Cultural Orientation Research Center. http://www.cal.org/co/refugee/statistics/index.html

[vi] Mazetti, Mark. "Global Economy Top Threat to U.S., Spy Chief Says," New York Times, February 12, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/washington/13intel.html

[vii] Khalilzad, Zalmay. "Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War," Washington Quarterly, Spring, 95.

Below are the plan texts.  Use this list to develop your negative strategies and make sure you are prepared to answer these types of cases at your next tournament!

Welfare (13)

The United States Supreme Court shall grant cert to Sanchez v. San Diego County and rule that barriers for cash assistance programs, specifically verification extremism, violates the 4th and 14th amendment, reaffirming its ruling in Goldberg v. Kelly.

The Supreme Court of the United States should rule that differential benefit requirements for single women under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Requisite funding and enforcement provided.

The United States Federal Judiciary should distinguish the decision in Wyman v. James to the facts by prohibiting conditions on eligibility for welfare.

The US federal government should amend the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Act to exclude work requirements.

In an appropriate test case the United States Supreme Court will rule that barriers to accessing social services for people living in poverty are presumptively invalid and must be subject to equal protection analysis, reaffirming its holding in Goldberg v. Kelly that people have a property interest in accessing services for which they qualify.

The United States federal government should provide a basic income guarantee to all persons living in poverty in the United States.

The United States federal government should remove all eligibility requirements which preclude persons without homes from accessing social services in the United States.

The United States federal government should substantially increase antipoverty block grants to state and local governments that maximize community participation in social service development.

The United States federal government should lift restrictions based on marital, sexual, or childbearing choices on social services provided through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families act.

The United States federal government should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty in the United States.

The United States federal government should establish welfare as universal entitlement for the dispossessed.

The United States federal government should amend Title XIX of the Social Security Act to increase home and community-based attendant services.

The United States federal government should extend social services to non-citizens living in poverty in the United States.

Legal (11)

The United States Supreme Court should rule that international law mandates free legal aid to indigent asylum applicants.

The United States federal government should no longer restrict filing Class Action Lawsuits by organizations or attorneys receiving funding from the Legal Services Corporation.

The United States Supreme Court shall grant writ of certiorari to the next available test case and overturn Lassiter v. Department of Social Services on 14th Amendment due process grounds, guaranteeing a right to court-appointed counsel for topically designated persons in all civil cases involving basic human needs as per American Bar Association recommendations.

The United States federal government, via the department of justice, should appoint, train, and provide technical assistance to sufficient numbers of American Indian lawyers as assistant United States attorneys for the prosecution of non-Indian versus Indian sexual assaults in Indian country.

The United States federal government should remove the application of the LSC restrictions to state, local, private and other non-LSC funds that legal aid organizations receive, restrictions on LSC funds that interfere with the ability of legal services attorneys to protect their clients' rights, and restrictions that prohibit representation of immigrants regardless of immigration status

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York should rule for the plaintiffs in Brooklyn Legal Services Corporation B v. Legal Services Corporation* on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The United States Supreme Court should extend the Gideon v. Wainwright decision to affirm a universal right to legal counsel to persons living in the United States on the grounds that it has a lasting obligation to address de facto discrimination under the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.

The United States Supreme Court should rule that there is a right to counsel in civil cases for indigent people in the United States on the grounds that refusal to grant counsel violates treaty obligations under the International Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

The United States federal government should eliminate restrictions on the use of the Legal Service Corporation's funds for class-action lawsuits.

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency should guarantee that detainees at immigrant detention centers in the United States have full access to government provided free legal counsel.

Through the Legal Services Corporation, the United States federal government should provide legal services, including class action lawsuits and representation in the legislature, to individuals regardless of their immigration status.

Medicaid (8)

The United States federal government should determine that same-sex marriage status is not a criterion for excluding Medicaid access

The United States Congress will eliminate all immigration status restrictions on Medicaid eligibility for documented and undocumented immigrants living in the United States.

The United States federal judicial branch should rule that using immigration status as an eligibility consideration for Medicaid is unconstitutional.

The United States Supreme Court should overrule Harris v. McRae on the grounds of equal protection.

The United States federal government should approve and fund all 1115 and 1915 Medicaid waivers.

Congress should increase Medicaid coverage for eligible persons regardless of citizenship.

The United States federal government should extend eligibility for Medicaid to all otherwise qualified persons in poverty in the United States regardless of citizenship status.

The United States Federal Government should require that Medicaid cover personal attendant services, and allow those eligible to choose their providers.

Education (6)

The Department of Defense should substantially expand the pre-enlistment educational programs within the Armed Forces, GED Plus and College First, [for persons living in poverty in the United States.]

The United States congress should pass legislation that funds an expansion and improvement in Head Start programs through increased salaries and more advanced educational curriculum

The United States federal government should increase allocations to reform the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 to mandate the most objectively rigorous uniform accountability standards for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics through career and technical education programs and to recruit and maintain quality teachers for Title 1 schools in the United States.

The United States federal government should expand Head Start by modeling Head Start services after the services provided by the Abecedarian project.

The United States federal government should substantially increase need-based allocations under Title I of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 to include uniform proficiency standards for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics through career and technical education programs.

The Department of Defense should substantially expand the Army General Education Plus Enlistment Program.

Health Care (6)

The United States federal government should create a government run health insurance program targeted at people living in poverty in the United States.

The food and drug administration and the centers for disease control should implement an emergency use authorization to substantially increase h1n1 adjuvant vaccines for topicality designated individuals in the United States.

The United States federal government should create a federally run health care insurance program, targeted at persons living in poverty in the United States. Requisite funding will be provided.

The United States Federal Government should pass legislation offering a public health care option to compete with private insurers, to persons living in poverty, regardless of citizenship or immigration status.

The United States federal government should create a low-cost healthcare insurance program for persons living in poverty in the United States. 

The United States Supreme Court should rule that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcements must provide proper medical care to all detainees living in the US on the grounds that current practices are in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Homelessness/Housing(6)

The Federal Judiciary should rule that Clark v. Community for Creative Nonviolence and by effect all laws which criminalize homelessness are invalid as unconstitutionally overbroad and vague per the Feldman evidence, and that therefore all public spaces must function as space for homeless shelters.

The United States Supreme Court should rule that people without a permanent address should be provided access to no-fee post office boxes.

The United States Federal Government should increase social services for persons living in poverty in the United States by removing eligibility requirements regardless the recipient has an address.

The United States Supreme Court should rule that all persons otherwise eligible for government housing must receive those services regardless of local production or consumption of medical marijuana on the grounds that the Controlled Substance Act's prohibition on locally produced or consumed medical marijuana exceeds the scope of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause.

The United States Supreme Court should affirm a right to housing.

The United States federal government should substantially increase support for the Section 8 House Choice Voucher Program.

Abortion (4)

The United States Supreme Court should rule in a broad opinion in line with Stare Decisis that the Hyde Amendment is unconstitutional under equal protection.

The United States Supreme Court should overturn Harris v. McRae (448 U.S. 297 (1980)) by holding that restrictions on the provisions of Medicaid funding for abortion violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The United States Supreme Court Should Overrule its Decision in Harris v. McRae (448 U.S. 297 (1980)) By Holding That Restrictions on the Provision of Medicaid Funding for Abortion Violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The United States federal judiciary should rule that restrictions on Medicaid funding for abortions are unconstitutional under the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition of involuntary servitude.

Broadband Access (4)

The United States federal government should fund access to fiber optic broadband under the Universal Service Fund.

The United States federal government should include access to and provide all necessary funding for broadband in Lifeline and Linkup.

The United States Federal Communications Commission should include access to broadband in Lifeline and Linkup.

The United States Federal Government should expand Lifeline and Link-Up to include Broadband services.

Food(3)

The United States Department of Agriculture should substantially increase funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and remove the quality control system.

The Food and Nutrition Service should amend the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children to include a fifty percent cash value voucher system utilizing Electronic Benefits Transfer for the Farmer's Market Nutrition Program and the Senior Farmer's Market Nutrition Program.

The United States federal government should create additional benefits for produce through the supplemental nutritional assistance program.

Native Americans(2)

The United States federal government should substantially expand the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, including culturally appropriate foods procured from Indian producers using traditional agricultural practices.

The United States federal government should substantially increase the Food Delivery Program on Indian Reservations.

Domestic Violence(2)

The United States federal government should fully fund the Violence Against Women Act and Family Violence Prevention and Services Act programs for persons living in poverty.

The United States federal government should substantially increase social services in rural areas of the United States for treatment related to domestic abuse. Specifically the increase should include increases in funding for counseling, treating physical trauma, child care, transportation, shelters and monetary compensation for costs patients incur as a result of seeking treatment. Social services will be administered free of charge

Employment(2)

The United States federal government should guarantee employment for unemployed persons living in the United States.

The United States federal government should establish a public service employment-assured jobs program.

Refugee Policy (1)

The United States federal government should remove the cap on accepted refugees from the Republic of Iraq and provide all necessary resources to substantially increase resettlement of Iraqi refugees in the United States.

Mental Health Care(1)

The United States federal government will increase mental health care services for veterans living in poverty as necessary.

Other(3)

The United States federal government, using section 5 authority provided under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, should provide just compensation to property owners affected by the listing of the Lost River sucker, the shortnose sucker, and the Coho salmon.

The United States federal government should provide necessary funding for topical provisions of Title X of the energy independence and security act of 2007 for ex-felons.

The United States federal government should add cars to the list of eligible purchases for the Individual Development Accounts tax credit program and eliminate the vehicle asset test in federally funded, work support programs.

For more visit: http://debatecoaches.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

Background and Overview 

The United Nations has several programs aimed to combat both poverty and environmental protection. The UN’s “Millennium Project” aims to cut global poverty in half by the year 2015, and the “United Nations Environment Programme” seeks to enable nations to care for their environment. These two examples will probably be the most useful in round, since they are broad and all encompassing. Most programs aimed at reducing global poverty or protecting the environment will come through these. [1]    I

t will be useful for both sides to research ways in which the United Nations has attempted to reduce global poverty and protect the environment, as these examples will surely come up in round. While this topic does specify the United Nations and examples of United Nations projects will be used, I doubt that very many debates will focus on this actor. Rather, the debates will most likely focus on global poverty reduction versus environmental protection and why one should be valued over the other in a more general context.  

Please note that this topic specifies “when in conflict.” So it can be argued that the negative cannot say that the two do not conflict and thus both can be achieved. Negatives may choose to argue that their burden is to disprove the resolution and that they can do this by arguing that global poverty reduction and environmental protection do not conflict.  We discuss this approach below.  However, it may be best to avoid this line of argumentation altogether as affirmatives may be able to convince many judges that the wording of the resolution means that negatives must accept that there is a conflict.   Also note that the resolution specifies reducing “global” poverty. Thus, examples of the United Nations reducing poverty among a specific people or in a specific nation may not be relevant. The affirmative should focus on reducing poverty in general.  

Affirmative 

The affirmative definitely has the advantage of compassion on their side. Some debaters may argue that it is immoral to consider risking the lives of thousands to protect the environment, and the judge will be sympathetic to calls to help the poor instead of the environment because of that. The affirmative may choose to start their first speech by illustrating the horror and misery of poverty. Statistics detailing the most gruesome aspects of poverty will make it difficult for any judge to rationalize capping CO2 emissions over feeding a starving child.    

The affirmative can also argue that the effects of environmental degradation are not as immediate or as urgent as poverty related issues. We have plenty of time to deal with the environment, but not very much time at all to deal with people who are already dying of starvation and thirst. Large amounts of people are not going to be incredibly affected if we allow cars to run at a poor emissions quality for another two weeks, but thousands of people will die in two weeks if they are not fed. So, affirmatives can argue that if they come in conflict we should deal with the problem that is more urgent and life threatening. 

Affirmatives can also argue that reducing poverty will lessen the strain on the environment in the long term. This argument is based on the Kuznets Curve. When nations begin to develop, little concern is given to the environment.  Impoverished nations tend to have heavy deforestation, pollution from factories because of old technology, and overuse their natural resources. People in poverty also tend to have more children, exacerbating these problems.  Once nations attain a certain level of wealth they start looking beyond mere survival and place a greater weight on a clean environment.  At this point they become concerned with clean water, decreasing deforestation, and decreasing carbon dioxide emissions. What this means is that when nations are first developing there is a conflict between poverty reduction and environmental protection, but over the long term there is no conflict.  Because of this affirmatives can argue that poverty reduction will likely lead to increased environmental protection.  You can find empirical examples of this by searing for “environmental Kuznets Curve” on Google.  This document may be a good place to start: www.owlnet.rice.edu/~econ480/notes/20.doc   

Affirmatives can also argue that poverty is much easier to combat than environmental problems. Rarely does reducing global poverty cause very much political turmoil. Countries all over the world have realized and accepted the need to reduce poverty, and will support efforts to do so. Protecting the environment, on the other hand, is an issue that creates loud and angry political debates. Many countries do not or cannot meet the standards for environmental protection set up by the United Nations or by international agreements, and some simply ignore them. The affirmative can look to examples such as the G8 summit[2] that took place this past July, or the Kyoto Protocol[3] for examples of ineffective international agreements. An argument such as this would be easy to make, since it values supporting something that will, in all likelihood, create international harmony rather than international chaos.  

Next, affirmatives can argue that environmental protection policies enacted by the United Nations will represent eco-imperialism.  Eco-imperialism is a phrased coined by Paul Driessen, currently a senior policy advisor at the Congress for Racial Equality.  He argues that environmental policies often represent a forceful imposition of Western environmental views on developing countries that will serve to keep them in poverty.  For more on this view read his book Eco-Imperialism: Green Power and Black Death.   

Finally, affirmatives can argue that the resolution is true because of the United Nation’s mission.  The United Nations was founded in 1945 after WWII with the goal of stopping war between countries.  Affirmatives can argue that poverty and conflict are inextricably linked and that policies to tackle poverty in countries that are prone to conflict are essential to reduce the likelihood of war in developing countries.  

Negative 

Negatives definitely have the shorter end of the compassion stick. Affirmatives will make you out to be immoral and out of touch with the real effects of poverty and the people in it.  In order to combat this, you may choose to make it very clear from the beginning of the debate that you are not against all measures to reduce global poverty. You can actually say that you are a big fan of poverty reduction, and agree with the fact that poverty is a horrible thing. You can say that you are only against measures that conflict with protecting the environment. In any case, the other team should not be able to convince the judge that you are against helping those in poverty.  

Negative’s can also argue that the United Nations is likely to give foreign aid to combat poverty and then argue that this is ineffective and can even exacerbate the problem.  Aid to developing countries is often subject to corruption by recipients.  Aid is ineffective because of the appalling way in which many developing countries are governed.  When countries lack the transparency and accountability necessary to ensure that donations are used to help citizens, foreign aid often fails to reach its intended recipients.  Some political scientists have even found that aid leads to less transparency.  Knack and Brautigam, political scientists, measured the quality of governance in countries that are dependent on foreign aid and found “there is a robust statistical relationship between high aid levels in Africa and deteriorations in governance.”[4]  There is a rich literature on the failure of foreign aid that may be useful to you on the negative side if you win that the UN would prioritize global poverty reduction by giving development aid. 

In addition, just like the affirmative will be painting a picture of how horrible poverty is, negatives will need to use statistics and examples to illustrate the current state of the environment. Before you convince the judge to vote negative, you will need to convince him or her that the environment deserves concern.  One of the most effective arguments that the negative can make is that while a reduction in poverty would help those in poverty, protecting the environment helps the globe. The destruction of the environment means the end to all of us, rich or poor. The negative needs to make the case that, even though it seems immoral to sacrifice the well being of the poor for the environment, the environment sustains all of human life.  

The argument also needs to be made that the poor benefit from the improvement of the environment. Often, the poor in developing nations are the most effected by the worsening environment. You can argue that global warming has produced monsoon like rain in parts of Africa, while causing severe droughts in others. Both severely affect the ability to farm, and are ruining fertile farmland in the most impoverished of areas. The higher temperatures also favor the breeding of mosquitoes which carry dozens of diseases that, if contracted, are deadly in areas of high poverty that commonly have little to no access to medical treatment.  

You could also argue that harming the environment has larger international impacts than poverty. If one country is harming the environment, then it negatively affects the countries around them. Poverty within a country does not necessarily do that. Arguably, the fact that Ethiopia has a high level of poverty does not affect its bordering countries. But, if Ethiopian factories were giving off high levels of smog, that would effect the neighboring countries. Negatives can argue that because of its global reach the United Nations is in a unique position to address this problem. 

RESOLVED: Standards of professional behavior ought to be valued above freedom of expression on social networking websites.

Introduction

This topic is not the best in recent memory. However, there is still an opportunity to learn and grow as a debater. In fact, awful topics often present even more opportunities to improve as a debater because they necessitate creativity. So don't be discouraged.

In a world where you can link your profile to hundreds of other profiles, join networks and groups that promote common interests, users of social networking sites are able to share increasingly more information about their lives, interests and beliefs.  Often it is impossible to prevent this information from stopping with only its intended recipients. 

The internet does not belong to anyone, and claims of internet privacy are often disregarded because of sheer impossibility. Sites like 123people, Rapleaf, and Upscoop make finding someone's personal information even easier. All you need to do is type their name or email address into a search bar, and you instantly have a compiled set of pictures, personal information, and even contact information. What you put on the internet is out there for everyone to see, regardless of whether or not you set your account to "private."

Moreover, social networking websites like Facebook, Myspace and Twitter are generally not well protected. Given time and desire to cause damage, hackers can gain access to someone else's account and obtain personal information. Slightly more knowledgeable hackers have been known to shut down sites and spread viruses.  Often the only way to prevent certain people from getting certain information is to limit what you put on the internet.  

Information posted on Facebook has even been used in court cases.  In early 2009 a Vancouver defendant in a personal injury case produced photos from a plaintiff's Facebook showing that even post-accident the defendant was able to kayak, bike and hike. 

The resolution discusses social networking sites in light of standards of professional behavior.  In terms of your professional life, why should what you put on the internet have any effect on how you do your job, or what kind of job you can get? Arguably, job interviews now involve much more than a resume. They now include anything and everything your employer can find via Google search. Should your boss be able to fire you based on what information you put on your Facebook? Should you be denied a job because of a picture that a co-worker found on your Myspace? These are just some of the questions you will have to answer while debating this topic.

Social networking websites have recently made headlines.  Earlier this month the Marines banned social networking sites for security reasons.  In a document released about the decision the Marines stated that these sites are high risk due to information exposure and are an easy conduit for information leakage.  Also earlier this month, a drill team member at Burleson High School in Burleson, Texas was suspended from performing at her school's first football game because of content posted to her Myspace page that school officials deemed inappropriate.   

In addition, there are many companies that require people to sign contracts stating that they will not release certain information on their social profiles, and a few companies even ban their employees from having such accounts at all.  But why is that the case?

Legitimate concerns regarding company security and the appropriateness to which their employees conduct themselves outside of the office are becoming larger because of the lightning fast ability to access almost a complete account of someone's personal life by looking them up on Facebook.  This debate will come down to whether or not how you conduct your personal life on the internet has an impact on your professional life, and if it does, whether or not the ability to express yourself on the internet is more important than that impact.

A Discussion of the Resolution

This resolution is extremely vague and leaves much room for interpretation. What are "standards of professional behavior"? Is "freedom of expression" synonymous with free speech? To what "social networking websites" is the resolution referring? Most of these questions will have to be answered in-round.

"Standards of professional behavior" is a tricky term. It is incredibly difficult to define since standards of professional behavior vary across professions. Physicians, journalists, mechanics, Marines, professors and gymnasts all have very different jobs and therefore very different professional standards.  Because these standards vary so much, affirmatives may choose to narrow the scope of the debate down to a single profession or at least area of professions. The medical profession, the teaching profession, and the law profession are good examples since all three have national organizations that publish general codes of professional behavior. Another strategy is to define standards of professional behavior in a more general way that means social norms of civility or something similar.  The benefit of this definition is that it will apply to all people regardless of their employment.    

One important word to note in the resolution is "ought." This word usually implies a moral obligation to do something. So, debaters can frame the debate in terms of morality.  This can include many things such as justice, social welfare or common good.   Remember that you must explain why your definition of ought is preferable and why the definition implies a particular value premise.

Because ought frames the debate in terms of ethical desirability, rather than practical desirability, debaters can argue that the feasibility of affirming or negating is irrelevant.  All that matters is whether an affirmative world or a negative world would be more ethically desirable, regardless of whether or not one of these worlds would be difficult to achieve.  For instance, someone might argue that I ought to by a new Prius instead of a 1984 Ford Pinto because it is better for the environment. It does not matter if I am a poor college student who only has $1,000 to spend on a car and the Prius exceeds that budget by twenty five times. I still ought to buy the Prius.

So, in terms of this debate, you can dismiss arguments about whether it is possible to monitor a person's online professionalism.  Debaters can argue that the feasibility of enforcement is not pertinent to a moral argument and should be avoided.

Freedom of expression is also very broad. Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo once defined freedom of expression as "the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom." It basically allows you to express your beliefs, ideas, thoughts, and feelings without fear of persecution. Because it is so broad you certainly shouldn't limit your definition of freedom of expression to a single right like "the freedom of speech." You'll have to find the definition that works best for your case. Remember, though, that Lincoln Douglas is typically a debate of generalities. Country specific definitions, like quoting the U.S. Constitution to define freedom of expression, are usually less applicable.

What social networking websites entail can also be tricky. First, remember that all current social networking sites are privately owned, and thus freedom of expression is limited by the owners. No one has complete rights to freedom of expression on social networking websites, so neither the affirmative nor the negative should debate under the guise that they do. Facebook, Myspace, and Twitter all have guidelines that ban lewd images, hate speech, and profanity.

In their alert to teachers about social networking websites, Phi Delta Kappa (an international association of professional educators) defined social networking sites as, "interactive websites designed to build online communities for individuals who have something in common - an interest in a hobby, a topic, or an organization - and a simple desire to communicate across physical boundaries with other interested people. These sites are not unlike the old-fashioned ‘party line' telephones, but they leave a more permanent record of the conversations. Most social networking sites include the ability to conduct live chats, send e-mails, upload videos, maintain a blog or discussion group, and share files. Users can also post links to pictures, music, and video, all of which have the potential to create a virtual identity." While long, this can be a very useful definition to have in a debate round.

Because such tools for expression have only come about in recent years, the academic research on this issue is extremely limited. Your best bet for finding information is probably going to be through a search engine that compiles many different academic journals. My advice is to use something like EBSCO or Gale from your school computer. If your school does not have these resources, local universities and community colleges will. I do not recommend Google Scholar, since the articles are typically outdated; recent academic publications are generally not free.  However, never underestimate the power of a Google search. 

But even with these mega search engines, it will still be difficult to find completely topical information. You will most likely have to resort to using articles about the need to maintain professionalism on the internet in general rather than just on social networking websites. The internet has been a part of professional life for more than a decade, while social networking sites are a recent phenomenon, so there will be much more information available if you broaden your search slightly beyond the scope of the topic.  Also, the array of academic literature on Web 2.0 (social networking sites, as well as user-generated content sites like Google and YouTube) has dramatically expanded in the past two years.  Since 2007, many law reviews have been published on the topic.

Affirmative

This resolution is difficult for the affirmative. "Standards of professional behavior" is a very vague term, and a good chunk of your round will probably be dedicated to defining what exactly that means. The best way to shorten the length of that inevitable debate is to narrow the scope of the debate to a single profession. My best advice is to narrow it down to a profession that has a defined standard for professional behavior. Professions that have national organizations or labor unions typically have such a standard and it is usually readily available on their website.

Especially with these types of organizations, freedom of expression is limited to begin with. Doctors do not have complete freedom of speech because they all have to uphold standards of patient confidentiality. Professionalism would dictate that it is not ethical to post a Facebook status that could potentially breech that confidentiality, or post pictures of patients undergoing treatment on the internet without their consent.

Likewise, lawyers, psychologists, and members of the clergy also have burdens of confidentiality. It would be entirely unprofessional for them to post information on their social networking sites just because they wanted to express themselves. In this instance, standards of professionalism clearly outweigh the freedom of self expression.

Members of the government and the military are also held to standards of confidentiality. On the occasion that a member of the government or military were to divulge information on a social networking website, it would qualify as a serious breech of security. If someone in the military were to divulge troop locations, plans for attack, or release information about POW locations, they could seriously endanger the lives of thousands. The need to be professional in these instances clearly outweighs a soldier's right to freely express him or herself.

The affirmative can argue that when someone accepts a certain job they consent to abide by the company's rules of professionalism. This line of logic could apply to many different careers. You have taken a job, and you have agreed to do what is best for the company. Clearly posting classified or otherwise harmful information online would not fall into that category.

Work life and personal life are becoming more closely related every day. More companies are embracing the idea of allowing people to work from home or from an office in another state because the internet is a useful tool for doing business. Since business is becoming more and more internet centered, typing in the "National Center for Policy Analysis" into a search bar will not only pull up their website, but may actually pull up Facebook profiles of people who have listed the NCPA as their employer. Your business and your personal life are only separated by a few clicks on the internet.

Next, affirmatives can make arguments about the limits of rights.  Freedom of expression always exists in the context of competing values. Your right to freedom of expression only exists so long as you do not violate someone else's rights. As Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "The right to swing my fist ends at the point of another person's nose." Arguably, social networking websites are the perfect place to violate someone else's rights. Without much effort, you can post slanderous messages about a person, and then top it off with a picture of them that they did not give you permission to post. 

Instances like the one I just described happen easily within professional environments. A disgruntled employee may post on Facebook that the CEO of their company is embezzling funds or practicing insider trading. Such rumors may spread before anyone has a chance to figure out whether or not they are factual. 

Next, the affirmative will have to consider social networking sites in terms of political discourse; the argument that people are able to use such sites as an effective tool for speaking out against harsh regimes will be a popular one. Affirmatives can argue that political discourse can still be done professionally, and that there is no inherent conflict between the need to voice your political concern and the need to be professional. If your job is not political then standards of professionalism should only dictate how you say things and not what you say. After all, people stage protests in the physical world all the time without them getting out of hand.

Continuing with this logic, affirmatives can argue that you should be professional in all areas of your life. When you are driving, and someone cuts you off, you honk. You do not ram into the back of them to show them who is boss, even though you might want to. A certain measure of professionalism is needed in all aspects of life to make living in a society possible and worthwhile. Arguably, the internet is simply an extension of our society. We interact with friends, we buy and sell things, and we meet people. It is a virtual world that is completely accessible from your computer. Standards of professionalism don't go away because we are not confronting people face to face. In the physical world, no one has complete and uninhibited freedom of expression. If certain standards of professionalism take precedence over freedom of expression on a regular basis in the real world, why does the same not apply on the internet? This is certainly a question that you will have to make the negative answer.

Also, the affirmative can argue that remaining professional on your social networking site is a greater personal benefit than completely expressing oneself. Applying for jobs has gone beyond an application and a resume. Hiring managers often Google search your name and look you up on Facebook to find out more about you. The internet is a real time display of how you conduct your life. Because anyone can see the information you post online, making sure the content is professional improves the chances you will be hired and keep your job. Affirmatives can argue that being an active member of society and being able to feed yourself probably outweigh the benefits of being able to freely express yourself via Facebook.

While this resolution is definitely not ideal for the affirmative it is by no means an unwinnable debate. You simply have to draw out the logic of the negative and show the judge that complete freedom of expression is not available in any other aspect of life and that the internet has become a major aspect of our daily lives. As the affirmative, you are in a good position to show the benefits of the internet and at the same time show how we can remain just as professional online as we can on the streets without becoming a completely fascist society that dictates what we say and how we say it.

Judges will appreciate the straightforward approach of the affirmative. Older judges will specifically appreciate the call for professionalism, and you will often win them over. You may have a more difficult time with younger, college age judges because they have grown up with the internet and do not see it as a portal of professionalism. But that does not mean that they cannot be won over by thoughtful and logical argumentation.

Negative

This resolution makes life quite easy for the negative. You get to defend freedom of expression, which has had centuries to evolve in laws and court decisions, whereas standards of professional behavior are less refined and specific. Also, professionalism evokes images of working and conforming, whereas freedom of expression suggests political contestation and open-endedness. These factors, combined with the negative time advantage, mean that you absolutely must write thoughtful and strategic negative cases. This is because you will have a harder time winning your affirmative rounds and will depend more on winning your negative rounds in order to advance to elims. Here are a few negative arguments to consider when deciding what negative case you will use.

First, you can claim that "standards of professionalism" are too diverse to make a value judgment. What counts as professional behavior for a garbage handler is different from that of a doctor.  If you are a waiter, and you apply a lawyer's standards of professionalism, you might be acting unprofessionally by being overly-formal. Standards of professionalism differ by field, but they also differ from firm-to-firm and employee-to-employee. Southwest Airlines instructs their employees to be friendly and personable, which includes light-hearted comments and jokes, whereas China Eastern Airlines encourages employees to behave more formally. Interns have different professional standards than CEOs.  Thus, important differences in standards of professionalism across industries, firms, and employee positions mean that you can't lump them all together and say they are more important than freedom of expression. You can also apply this argument to say that professionalism functionally has no meaning, since "standards of professional behavior" has no substantive content.    

Second, even if we could nail down which profession and firm we're discussing, standards of professional behavior are very subjective. Seemingly simple tenets such as "Do not share details about the company's operations on social networks" or "Do not display any sexually explicit material on your Facebook profile" turn out to be quite subjective. What counts as a compromising detail about the company? How suggestive or racy does an image have to be before we call it "sexually explicit"? What counts as pornography, and what counts as artistic expression? The answers to these questions are nearly impossible to answer in objective terms (hence, we have seen very subjective tests for inappropriateness such as "I know it when I see it"). It might be the case that freedom of expression also invokes subjective concepts, but imposing subjective standards of professionalism seems more dangerous because it allows employers to arbitrarily and maliciously interfere with a worker's personal life. Subjective standards of behavior are often abused for a particular political or personal end (for example, Sudan's law against "inappropriate clothing" has been used against feminist organizations). The advocacy would claim that valuing standards of professionalism over freedom of expression is bad because it allows employers to take advantage of the vagueness of professional standards and arbitrarily interfere with freedom of expression or personal lives of employees. I expect that this argument will be quite popular.

Third, you can claim that limiting freedom of expression on any internet medium should be regarded with suspicion because the internet facilitates criticism and dissent against the government. Restricting freedom of expression would limit the efficacy of this critical discourse. The reason the internet is such a powerful source of counter-hegemonic discourse is that a particular government cannot meaningfully regulate the internet. The internet is not "based" in a particular country, and clever users enjoy near complete anonymity, complicating efforts to police the internet. Also, users are always one step ahead of censors. China's army of censors that scour the net for inflammatory or politically sensitive material usually cannot keep up with the volume of content from or changing tactics of activists. The political impact of Web 2.0 is not to be neglected. This year, Twitter was a key organizational tool of the Iranian protesters who spoke out against the likely election fraud of the Ahmadinejad regime. It's not just that Kanye and Chuck Grassley use Twitter, or that it's just the new, hipper version of AIM. Twitter, Facebook, Wikipedia, YouTube, and the blogosphere represent fundamentally different kind of internet, because the content is user-generated. As opposed to Web 1.0, where particular authors and webmasters maintain a website and provide content, Web 2.0 is decentralized and resists direct regulation. China's Public Security Bureau cannot arrest Mark Zuckerberg because someone posted a Facebook note about Tibet. Facebook's user-generated decentralizes the operation of the website. At this point, you simply need to prove that standards of professional behavior are prone to manipulation (the vagueness arguments above might help), or that people will use social networking sites less in an affirmative world. For more about how the internet might create new avenues for political dissent, look for Barney Warf and John Grimes' work. Also James Boyle, Tal Zarsky, and Greg Lastowka are useful authors. Boyle's article "Foucault in Cyberspace: Surveillance, Sovereignty, and Hardwired Censors" is particularly good. Also, the Boston Bar Journal published a brief discussion of the legal dimensions of Web 2.0 in January of 2009. For a discussion of the sociological implications of Web 2.0, try Guy Pessach's "[Networked] Memory Institutions: Social Remembering, Privatization and Its Discontents."

There are a variety of reasons why the affirmative might discourage the use of social networks and other Web2.0 media. In some fields, having a Facebook profile at all might violate some tenet of professionalism. The Marines are not allowed to access Facebook while on duty because of the security risk. Many school districts forbid their teachers from having Facebook profiles, since they might allow students to find personal or inappropriate information about their instructors. Also, some people might abandon Web 2.0 social networking because they might become frustrated with their company meddling in their personal affairs and constantly monitoring their online lives. This can create a particularly vicious double-bind wherein an employee is seen as disloyal to the company if they do not register under the company's Facebook network. However, when they join the network, other members of the network can see their profile and pictures. Thus, some might abandon social networking websites because they face a catch 22: be seen as disloyal by not joining the company network, or have their private profile with unprofessional material exposed to co-workers and employers.  Third, people may abandon social networks in the affirmative world because they fear having other people write or say something inappropriate about them on the network. You cannot delete someone else's comment unless it's on your profile page, and you can't force people to take down inappropriate pictures of you unless it's illegal. This means that, even if you're comfortable with editing your profile information to look more professional, you still might be at risk because someone else might post compromising photos or messages about you. Given that this risk could result in getting fired or missing a promotion, many will back away from social networking sites. There are a few conclusions you can draw. Social networking sites allow for more political participation and are very useful for social activists. They also give us another chance to think about who exactly we are (when's the last time you listed your favorite books?), and how we would want our pseudo-public identity to look like. In addition, social networks have spurred innovation and better market competition because they connect experts and creative entrepreneurs.

Fifth, social networks are used to undermine government injustices, but also have the potential to undermine abuses by corporations. It's pretty clearly "unprofessional" to write on your Facebook wall about why your company is evil, or a specific level on which they're committing a crime. However, it might be more ethically desirable to expose corporate wrongdoing by posting that information, and Web 2.0 allows this information to spread very quickly. This is not some kind of far-fetched scenario, since some corporations have been accused of bribery, labor abuses, and excessive pollution. Arguably, there needs to be more checks on bad corporate behavior. After all, there is no International Corporate Criminal Court, and there are many problems with jurisdiction and inconsistent statutes that allow corporate misbehavior to go unpunished.  The argument would claim that freedom of expression on Web 2.0 platforms is a vital check against corporate abuses, and that professionalism standards would detract from social networks' potential to check against corporate wrongdoing.

On a more basic level, you can argue that privacy protections should include social networks pages. There is a basic level of individuality that people deserve as a result of their human worth, and this level of individuality requires a private space to allow for self-cultivation and personal development. There is a huge variety of reasons why privacy matters, but your main concern should be to explain why someone's social network profile should count as something in their private, personal life. Many affirmative debaters will dismiss this argument by claiming that social network pages are not covered under privacy protections because they're inherently public, since other people can view them. You can answer this objection by claiming either that some people choose to keep their profile strictly available to approved parties, or by claiming that Facebook, Myspace, YouTube, Wikis, Blogs, and Twitter have allowed us to create a digital self that's entitled to privacy. The "digital self" approach to the privacy argument is more interesting than the conventional privacy argument, and it might have some validity. Facebook and Myspace are the inner shell of your digital self. Your music or other creative projects can be displayed on YouTube. Twitter is the equivalent of your digital self getting cafeteria lunch with some friends. These functions are fundamentally different than in real life, and the social interactions that your digital self experiences are often impossible in the physical world. Consider running this argument only after doing extensive reading into the interaction of technology and human identity or the nature of the human subject/self.

Seventh, many affirmatives will discuss the harms of a lack of professionalism online, and might bring attention to companies that might face security risks or rely on a positive public image. You can say that many of these problems do not result from a fundamental conflict between free expression and professionalism; they instead result from an under-developed legal framework for approaching the content of social network sites. Why can't school districts simply insert a clause into their teachers' contracts that they may not have Facebook profiles or friend students? Why can't the company say in the contract that they reserve the right to tell you to take something down? It seems like a developed system of contract law dealing with employees' online behavior would solve many of the problems resulting from a lack of professionalism, but would avoid making a sweeping generalization about free expression.

Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

Background and Framework

Compulsory immunization has been hotly debated since 1806 - the year a regulation mandating the smallpox vaccination was passed. Since then, most developed countries have required immunization of preventable diseases to some degree. Today, for example, most countries require some degree of polio, small pox and measles vaccination.[i]

Compulsory immunization has proven to be an effective method of disease prevention, so negatives should not argue that vaccines are ineffective. This is why states and countries continue to require immunizations. Alternatively, negatives can argue that such requirements shrink the autonomy of the individual. 

This particular topic contains a few ambiguities that need to be addressed. First, consider the difference between the terms "justified" and "just." When an action is justified, there is reasonable ground for doing it. For instance, it is justified that someone be excused of a crime due to mental insanity. However, this justified act may not be viewed as just by all parties involved. Just is rooted in principles of justice. In other words, to be just, something must be fair or equitable. And while the "reasonable ground" for doing something might fall under those categories, it doesn't always have to.

Second, "public health concerns" is a nebulous phrase. What qualifies as a "public health concern?" Is it an emergency situation, or just a general worry? Arguably, the state should be worried about our health at all times. So, does this mean that the resolution argues that compulsory vaccinations are always justified? Or should the definition of "public health concerns" be narrowed? That is up for you to decide in your debate round. However, it might be advantageous to narrow the debate to a more specific definition of "public health concern," like the threat of a pandemic. Clearly, "public health concern" was thrown into the resolution for a reason, so it should change something about the way that you debate. If you choose to say that the government is always concerned, arguably you are debating the status quo. All words in a resolution matter and it is up to you to figure out how.         

Affirmative

First, the affirmative can argue that compulsory immunization is a necessary precaution that should be taken to stem the devastation a biological weapons attack might cause. In the early 2000s, the Anthrax scare was at its peak. There was talk of compulsory immunization against Anthrax that eventually died away, but consider what would have happened if Anthrax had been more than a contained problem. Many more would have been harmed or killed, and compulsory immunization potentially would have saved thousands of lives.

Affirmatives can argue that governments should be prepared to respond to effectively to a biological weapons attack. Governments have previously justified extensive searches, the tapping of telephone wires, and warrantless arrests in the name of national security, so why not compulsory immunizations? Compulsory immunization is arguably less invasive than the aforementioned items, and is historically effective. The affirmative can argue that because one of the government's duties is to keep its citizens safe, compulsory immunization would empower the government to meet that responsibility. 

To make this argument persuasive, affirmative debaters must establish that biological weapons are a viable threat. And according to David W. Siegrist, Research Fellow at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, they are. He says, "Among weapons of mass destruction, biological weapons are more destructive than chemical weapons, including nerve gas. In certain circumstances, biological weapons can be as devastating as nuclear ones-a few kilograms of anthrax can kill as many people as a Hiroshima-size nuclear weapon." [ii]

Second, affirmatives can argue that pandemics often strike without warning; and lack of warning translates into a shortage of vaccination supplies. Vaccines are not typically stocked at pandemic levels. Accordingly, the limited vaccines would be rationed and some citizens will be barred from receiving them. The affirmative can argue that compulsory immunizations can preempt the shortage.

A flu outbreak is a perfect example.  According to Medical News Today, "A new predictive model shows that vaccinating infants with 7 valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV7) - the current recommendation - not only saves lives and money during a normal flu season by preventing related bacterial infections; it also would prevent more than 357,000 deaths during an influenza pandemic, while saving $7 billion in costs." The affirmative can argue that if flu vaccination was mandatory an outbreak would be less severe. [iii]

Third, people who refuse vaccines for religious, moral, or philosophical reasons are likely to associate with each other. This cluster of vulnerable people creates a huge health concern because it allows illness to spread quickly. Thus, imposing mandatory vaccination would eliminate this problem, reducing the risk to the general population.

Fourth, many people are cheap and won't get immunized even if they can afford it. This sounds like a silly argument, but it is the same reason that the state of Texas mandates that all drivers have car insurance. People want to avoid costs so they simply go without, regardless of the risk. But, in the case of immunizations (and driving without insurance), you put not only yourself at risk, but everyone else as well.

Fifth, many people are afraid of immunizing themselves and their children because of myths and exaggerations that they hear about the dangers of vaccines. As the affirmative you should be prepared to defend the safety of vaccines and argue that these myths are unfounded and have not been substantiated.

Negative

First, negatives can argue that compulsory immunization alters the availability of vaccines. If immunization is compulsory, the government would have to kick in free or heavily discounted vaccines for those that cannot afford them. Since the government would be buying vaccines on a massive scale, the entire vaccination market would become distorted.

Matt Baumann notes in "What's Behind the Vaccine Shortages" that government buying of vaccines "gives the federal government tremendous leverage, or market power, allowing it to demand and receive below-market prices from manufacturers.  The federal government can often negotiate a discount of 25 percent to 65 percent off the average wholesale price of a vaccine." He goes on to note:

"Manufacturers are going to direct capital to those products whose markets provide the most stability and highest profit margins.  Vaccines account for only 2 percent of pharmaceutical revenues. Thus, if profit margins continue to decline, it is highly likely that pharmaceutical manufacturers will continue to replace vaccine production with more profitable drug production." [iv]

On a more philosophical level, the negative can argue that compulsory immunization increases biopower and the ability for the government to manipulate the population. French philosopher Michel Foucault coined the term "biopower" to refer to a government's regulation of its people through "an explosion of numerous and diverse techniques for achieving the subjugations of bodies and the control of populations." Biopower is literally the control of an entire population through the manipulation of their bodies; clearly vaccines would fall into this category.[v]

While Foucault does not discuss whether or not biopower is inherently good or bad, many scholars suggest the latter. The majority argue that the manipulation of citizens through their bodies is a slippery slope that will justify more horrendous things down the road. Anne Stoler, Professor of Anthropology at the New School states that, "It is as managers of life that so many regimes have been able to wage so many wars, causing so many to be killed, at stake is the biological existence of a population."[vi]

The negative can also argue that immunizations pose health risks, and should therefore not be compulsory. Andrew Wakefield's report first suggested a link between the Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism in 1998.  As a result, many parents decided not to vaccinate their children. The United States federal government started the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in 1998 to track negative responses to vaccines, and thousands of negative reactions are reported each year. In 2008 alone, there were 30,009. [vii]

Negatives can also argue that parents should be able to choose what happens to their children.  Making vaccines mandatory takes this choice away from parents. Since vaccinations do incur some risk, regardless of how small, parents ought to be able to make the decision whether or not to expose their children to that risk. Parental consent is required in essentially every medical situation for children under the age of 18 and negatives can argue that it should be required for vaccinations too.

The negative can also make the argument that requiring vaccinations crushes religious and cultural dissent. Some more conservative sects of Christianity believe that since vaccines are created with harsh chemicals, it would be defiling to your body to put them into your bloodstream. They believe that this is in direct opposition to God's will that we keep our bodies free of impurities. There is also a passage in the Bible that warns against mixing the blood of humans with the blood of animals, and since many vaccines are gestated in animals, this seems to contradict that particular teaching.

More specific objections to vaccines include those vaccines which are intended to prevent against diseases that are typically spread through sexual contact. The HPV vaccine is intended to prevent cervical cancer resulting from the sexually transmitted "human papillomavirus." In 2007, Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, attempted to add the HPV vaccine to the list of required vaccines for school children. He received a harsh backlash from the religious community, which eventually won the fight. [viii]

The negative could also offer a counterplan. The negative can easily argue that the government would not be justified in blanket mandating immunizations, and that more private organizations should instead require immunization for participation. This would provide the same benefits as the affirmative (albeit on a slightly smaller scale), while still respecting the right of private citizens to decline becoming immunized.

Universities, workplaces, private schools, and insurance providers could easily require proof of immunization before allowing people to participate. This would provide a safety net for their members, while also increasing the number of people that are vaccinated in the general public.

Arguments up to this point have focused on the harm of vaccines, but the negative could just as easily say that government involvement with vaccinations is bad because it would result in the overregulation of vaccines, which would lead to less effective vaccinations. Baumann states "In 1999, the FDA mandated the removal of thimerosal, a potentially toxic, mercury-based preservative used in vaccines. Despite warnings by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the U.S. Public Health Service that the danger posed by thimerosal was vastly outweighed by the danger of not vaccinating, the FDA proceeded to implement the requirement anyway.  This action resulted in a 25 percent reduction in the already fragile supply of some childhood vaccinations like DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis)." This unnecessary overregulation could become commonplace if the United States made immunization compulsory.

[i] Salmon et al. "Compulsory vaccination and conscientious or philosophical exemptions: past, present, and future," The Lancet, Vol 367. February 2006. 

[ii] Siegrist, David W. "The Threat of Biological Attack: Why Concern Now?" Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol5no4/siegrist.htm

[iii] "Numerous Deaths Could Be Prevented And Costs Reduced By Pneumococcal Vaccine During Flu Pandemic." Medical News Today, October 2008. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/127329.php

[iv] Baumann, Matt. "What's Behind Vaccine Shortages?" National Center for Policy Analysis, April 2009. http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba655

[v] Foucault, M.  "History of Sexuality vol. 1: An Introduction."  trans. R. Hurley. 1978.

[vi] Anne Stohler, Professor of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Race and the education of desire : Foucault's History of sexuality and the colonial order of things, 1995, p. 81-82

[vii] "Yearly Summary of the VAERS Database." National Vaccine Information Center. http://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/stats.html

[viii] Elliot, Janet. "Reluctant governor yields on HPV shots," Houston Chronicle. May 9, 2007. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/4787541.html

Resolved: Governments have an obligation to pursue and disclose the truth regarding suspected crimes by previous administrations.

Resolved: Public health concerns warrant government violation of pharmaceutical patents.

Resolved: In the United States, the principle of jury nullification is a just check on government.

Resolved: It is just for highly indebted poor countries to repudiate their debt.

Resolved: Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives.

Resolved: A just government ought to guarantee adequate housing for all of its citizens.

Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

Resolved: Records of an individual's home Internet use ought to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure by the government.

Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons.

Resolved: Compulsory inclusion of non-felons' DNA in any government database is unjust.

Health Care Bill Would Expand Medicaid Eligibility (Kaiser Health News, October 6, 2009): Both the House and the Senate proposals, as they now are drafted, would expand Medicaid eligibility to about 133 percent of the federal poverty level.

Immunize the Productive First, Not the Homeless (Baltimore Sun, October 6, 2009): Baltimore County announced Monday that H1N1 (swine) flu vaccinations would be delivered on a priority basis first to heath care workers and next to the homeless.

Record Teem Unemployment: Only WSJ Looks at Minimum Wage Hikes as Cause (Newsbusters, October 5, 2009): Earlier this year, economist David Neumark of the University of California, Irvine, wrote on these pages that the 70-cent-an-hour increase in the minimum wage would cost some 300,000 jobs. Sure enough, the mandated increase to $7.25 took effect in July, and right on cue the August and September jobless numbers confirm the rapid disappearance of jobs for teenagers.

States Resist Medicaid Growth (Washignton Post, October 5, 2009): The nation's governors are emerging as a formidable lobbying force as health-care reform moves through Congress and states overburdened by the recession brace for the daunting prospect of providing coverage to millions of low-income residents.

High Poverty for Souther Rural Kids (New York Times, October 2, 2009): A child living on a remote Southern farm may be at a higher risk of poverty than counterparts in the city, as schools struggle to develop new opportunities and factories shut down what few jobs are available, according to a new report.

Legal Aid Safety Net Stretched Thin (Progress Illinois, October 1, 2009): Yesterday, the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) -- a publicly-funded entity that supports more than 900 legal aid offices across the country -- released a new report on what they call the American "justice gap."

U.S. Income Gap Rises As Poor Take Hit in Recession (Associated Press, September 30, 2009): The recession has hit middle-income and poor families hardest, widening the economic gap between the richest and poorest Americans as rippling job layoffs ravaged household budgets.

Cash Squeeze Said to Deny Legal Aid to the Poor (New York Times, September 29, 2009): Nearly a million poor people continue to be denied representation in the nation’s courts because legal aid clinics lack sufficient financing, a federally supported legal agency reported Tuesday.

Recession's Toll: Food Stamp Lines Grow Longer (Houston Chronicle, September 29, 2009): Just a few minutes in this line would probably be enough to convince state leaders of the level of crisis facing an understaffed agency, plagued by mounting processing backlogs and high error rates that have ensnared tens of thousands of Texans during one of the worst recessions in the nation's history.

U.S. Can Afford to House Homeless Kids (Times Union, September 28, 2009): One million schoolchildren are homeless in America.

Immigrants Moving Briskly to Better U.S. Lives (Dallas Morning News, September 27, 2009): Contrary to the impression that Hispanics remain poor no matter how long they've lived in the U.S., upward mobility is still the rule, not the exception.

Floating out of Poverty on a Deep River of Words (Christian Science Monitor, September 27, 2009): One of the biggest differences between poor families in America and their middle- and upper-class counterparts, research has shown, is the dearth of language in the former and the abundance of it in the latter. Specifically, a study done in Kansas City in the 1980s found that a middle-class child is likely to have heard, by age 3, 20 million more words than a poor child.

U.S. Seeing More Female Homeless Veterans (CNN, September 25, 2009): The rate of female homeless vets is increasing in the United States, according to the federal government and groups that advocate for homeless people.

Last Year Poverty Rate was Highest in 12 Years (New York Times, September 10, 2009): In the recession, the nation’s poverty rate climbed to 13.2 percent last year, up from 12.5 percent in 2007, according to an annual report released Thursday by the Census Bureau.

New Hampshire Has Success in Work Rate (Associated Press, September 5, 2009): New Hampshire's Department of Health and Human Services says it has outperformed other Northeast states in engaging families on assistance in work activities.

Cuts to Welfare-to-Work Programs Raise Concern (Daily Californian, August 26, 2009): In aiming to close California's $26 billion budget shortfall, state lawmakers slashed millions in funding for a welfare-to-work program, a move that is drawing criticism.

New Child Welfare Law Allows Ex-Foster Youths to Return to System (Chicago Tribune, August 26, 2009): Teenagers who leave the Illinois child-welfare system will be able to return for support until they turn 21, while at-risk parents will be able to seek help without being investigated, under new laws signed Tuesday.

Growing Poverty and Despair in America (The People's Voice, August 26, 2009): Perhaps more than anything, increasing homelessness and hunger highlight the growing problem as, in the face of deteriorating economic conditions and growing human needs, administration policies are indifferent, counterproductive, uncaring and hostile.

New Faces of Homelessnews in DC (Seattle Times, August 23, 2009): The nation's capital has one of the worst homelessness problems in the U.S. and almost triple the number of homeless per 10,000 people as the national average, according to 2007 statistics from the National Alliance to End Homelessness.

Education Is Key to Erasing Poverty (Deseret News, August 23, 2009): As a matter of public policy, this is a no-brainer: Education is a significant factor in the development of children, communities and countries.

With Donations and Grants Down, Social Service Agencies Feel the Pinch (New York Times, August 21, 2009): According to a survey conducted by Baruch College and the Human Services Council, which represents some 750 nonprofit social service providers, more than half saw some reduction in government financing in the last fiscal year, with more than a quarter losing an entire contract.

Obama Fulfilling Commitment to Rural America (Huffington Post, August 21, 2009): Fundamental to revitalizing rural America is breaking the cycle of poverty, which has gripped places like Appalachia, the deep south and California's central valley for generations.

Utah Poverty Report Points at Middle Class Decline (Salt Lake Tribune, August 19, 2009): A new poverty report released Wednesday sheds light on how many Utahns were already struggling before the recent economic downturn.

More Americans Are Poor and Uninsured (Associated Press, August 19, 2009): The numbers of poor and uninsured Americans are up, with next month's release of 2008 Census data likely to show more than 38.8 million in poverty.

Dodd Introduces Bill to Modernize Poverty Measure (Connecticut Plus, August 10, 2009): Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) reintroduced legislation that would create a new modern poverty measure based on current costs of an American family's basic necessities.

Gulf Coast Poverty Coverage Down (Advocate Capitol News Bureau, August 11, 2009): The study points to a drop in the number of stories after hurricanes Katrina and Rita that relate to the struggles of residents living in poverty in the area.

Anti-Poverty Group Targets Job Loss, Homelessness (Associated Press, August 10, 2009): As unemployment and poverty rates rise, health care becomes less accessible and more Americans become homeless and hungry, Hough, Larin, Koubiadis and about 150 others from across the globe are in West Virginia this week to discuss ways to re-ignite the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s war on poverty.

Is It Now a Crime to Be Poor? (New York Times, August 9, 2009): It's too bad so many people are falling into poverty at a time when it's almost illegal to be poor.

Safe at Home (New York Times, August 3, 2000): This "blame the victim" mentality is hardly new. It goes back to the 1960s, when the anthropologist Oscar Lewis wrote an article whose title took root in the American public consciousness: "The Culture of Poverty."

Tipped Workers Left out as Minimum Wage Rises (New York Times, July 23, 2009): On Friday, the federal minimum wage will rise to $7.25 per hour. But as a new report from the National Employment Law Project points out, the increase will not apply to tipped employees, like bartenders and waitresses.

Social Services on the Chopping Block (Naperville Sun, June 2, 2009): Area social service agencies are apprehensive about their futures, as state legislative leaders try to avoid drastic cuts that could affect services ranging from elderly care to rental assistance to suicide prevention.

Local Group Using Stimulus Money to Fight Poverty (The Observer, June 2, 2009): Two area agencies are dealing with increasing poverty in the region - and will use federal stimulus package money to help poorer area residents.

Economic Downturn Increases Memphis Area Poverty (Memphis Commercial Appeal, June 2, 2009): the economic downturn has magnified the pain, pushing thousands more in the county into deprivation.

Supervisors Must Make Tough Decisions on Budget (San Francisco Chronicle, June 1, 2009): The District 11 supervisor offered a few specific suggestions, including moving money from fire and police budgets to violence-prevention services and curbing any programs that have been expanded in recent years.

Slumping Economy Tests Aid System Tied to Jobs (New York Times, May 31, 2009): For nearly two decades, Americans have built a safety net that is tough on those who fail to work and rewards those who do.

Lottery May Be Used to Cut 36,000 from State Health Plan (Seattle Times, May 31, 2009): Because of the state budget crisis, the Legislature has cut the program's two-year funding nearly in half.

211 Social Services Hotline in Jeopardy (Ventura County Star, May 31, 2009): the future of 211 is dependent on a communitywide call to action in support of 211

Hundreds Walk in Oakland to End Poverty (Oakland Tribune, May 31, 2009): Organizers said their overall goal was to increase access to social services for people entering the system for the first time and to those who may feel too ashamed to ask for help.

Kansas Official Outlines $44 million in Social Service Cuts (Kansas City Star, May 29, 2009): The state's top social services official has outlined $44 million in budget reductions and says he expects the cuts to get deeper.

Poverty Hits African Americans Hard (BBC News, April 23, 2009): BBC correspondent Matthew Price continues his journey across America, and reports from Chicago, Barack Obama's home town, where African American community leaders fear the recession is dragging down their communities more than most.

Annual Survery Shows Dallas County Homeless Population Down 3 Percent But Number of Children Without Homes Is Rising (Dallas Morning News, April 22, 2009): A total of 5,675 people - including 1,319 children - were homeless on the annual one-night count by the city and the Metro Dallas Homeless Alliance. The total number of homeless people decreased 3 percent, from 5,869, in 2008.

Health, Education Cited As Poverty Breaker (Associated Press, April 21, 2009): Investing up front in early education programs and health care for children would save hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in the long run and help break the poverty cycle affecting millions of kids, a leading child advocate said Tuesday.

Accountability in Schools (New York Times, April 21, 2009): The education portion of the federal stimulus package gives a $13 billion boost to Title I, the federal program that is meant to provide extra help to disadvantaged schoolchildren.

Children in Peril (New York Times, April 20, 2009): Official statistics are not yet readily available, but there is little doubt that poverty and family homelessness are rising, that the quality of public education in many communities is deteriorating and that legions of children are losing access to health care as their parents join the vastly expanding ranks of the unemployed.

Can Banks End Poverty? (Huffington Post, April 20, 2009): Banks don't lend money to people who don't have credit and collateral. Yunus founded a bank that does.

Social Service Programs Struggling (Lillie News, April 16, 2009): With the economic recession has come an increased demand for social services, but the demand has risen so drastically in recent years that organizations providing the services are having a tough time keeping up.

Poverty More Likely for Kids of Illegal Immigrants (Chicago Tribune, April 15, 2009): Growing numbers of children of illegal immigrants are being born in this country, and they are nearly twice as likely to live in poverty as the children of American-born parents, says a report released Tuesday by the Pew Hispanic Center.

36 Hours of Poverty (The Battallion, April 15, 2009): The past two years, W has put on poverty demonstrations in Rudder Plaza by living there for three days, only eating food given to them and not changing clothes or showering.

Food Stamp Delays Put New System on Hold (Associated Press, April 9, 2009): Rising demand for food stamps has convinced the state to stop expansion of a new social services computer system blamed for a backlog in applications.

Amid Recession Is San Francisco Loosing Its Heart? (Christian Science Monitor, April 9, 2009): Famously liberal in its politics and its spending, San Francisco is steering a new spendthrift path amid the federal Keynesian revival - cutting antipoverty and social-service programs that helped build the city's reputation as a haven for the poor.

Suburban Poverty Served Chicago Style (Miller-McCune, April 9, 2009): Perhaps the main reason to care about providing social services in the 'burbs is presented quite starkly in our piece and the Chicago report: The poverty level in the suburbs is climbing even as it drops in many cities.

Rising Poverty Tests Welfare Supports (Forbes, April 9, 2009):Poverty rates across all groups are set to rise in Europe and the United States as the effects of the global fiscal crisis entrench and disseminate across these economies.

Research Links Poor Kids' Stress, Brain Impairment (Washington Post, April 5, 2009): Chronic stress from growing up poor appears to have a direct impact on the brain, leaving children with impairment in at least one key area -- working memory.

Poverty Stresses Kids Brains (The Daily Score, March 31, 2009): Long-term study finds lasting effects from child poverty.

House Passes Expansion of Programs for Service (New York Times, March 18, 2009): The House voted Wednesday to approve the largest expansion of government-sponsored service programs since President John F. Kennedy first called for the creation of a national community service corps in 1963.

Cultural Peacemaker (Washington Post, March 5, 2009): Since assuming the presidency, he has pressed this effort through persistent calls to personal and family responsibility, a pledge to continue social service partnerships between government and faith-based groups, and a promise to pursue policies to reduce the number of abortions.

Before Unraveling Welfare Reform, Appreciate Why It Worked (Daily News, February 25, 2009): Our economic tsunami could drown the historic reforms made in welfare over the past 13 years.

Poverty Is Poison (New York Times, February 18, 2009): "Poverty in early childhood poisons the brain." That was the opening of an article in Saturday's Financial Times, summarizing research presented last week at the American Association for the Advancement of Science.