Menu
Cart
March-April 2017 NSDA Lincoln-Douglas: Right to Housing

March-April 2017 NSDA Lincoln-Douglas: Right to Housing

  • $ 25.00


PURCHASE AND DOWNLOAD RIGHT NOW!!

Big Sky Debate is pleased to release its March-April 2017 NSDA Lincoln- Douglas resources on right to housing!

The resolution, released by the National Speech and Debate Association on February 1, 2017, is:

Resolved: The United States ought to guarantee the right to housing.

A list of briefs for this book appears below.

Continued this season: Get both the PDF and Word versions of the book. Copy and paste Big Sky Debate’s excellent research into your own briefs, or, print out the PDF and file the old-fashioned way!

As in the past, you can expect our evidence to be timely and to the core of the topic. Compare similar services without Big Sky Debate’s seasoned research staff at three to five times the cost!  Why pay more?

Have a GREAT topic!!! Our NSDA LD resources are an unbeatable $25.00.

OR, click here to start a season-long subscription, or here to look at one of Big Sky Debate’s value priced packages!

META

  • HOUSING AS RIGHT DEFINED
  • RIGHTS DEFINED
  • HOUSING AS A RIGHT CAN COVER A WIDE RANGE
  • “HOUSE” OR “HOME” ARE SUBJECTIVE

AFFIRMATIVE

  • HOUSING RIGHTS GOOD: PROVIDES MANY ADVANTAGES
  • HOUSING RIGHTS GOOD: SUPPORTED BY THE UDHR
  • HOUSING RIGHTS GOOD: SUPPORTED BY OTHER INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS
  • HOUSING RIGHTS GOOD: SUPPORTED BY INTERNATIONAL LAW
  • HOUSING RIGHTS GOOD: SUPPORTED BY FDR, YO!
  • HOUSING RIGHTS GOOD: SUPPORTED BY RELIGIOUS AND PROFESSIONAL GROUPS
  • HOUSING RIGHTS GOOD: EMERGENCY HOUSING REPONSES EVOKES HOUSING AS A RIGHT
  • HOUSING RIGHTS GOOD: OTHER COUNTRIES SUCCESSFULLY PROVIDE A RIGHT TO HOUSING
  • HOUSING RIGHTS GOOD: RIGHT TO HOUSING PROTECTS PEOPLE FROM EVICTION AND DISPLACEMENT
  • HOUSING RIGHTS GOOD: PROTECTS PEOPLE FROM DISCRIMINATION
  • HOUSING RIGHTS GOOD: COMBATS HOMELESSNESS
  • HOUSING RIGHTS GOOD: COMPELS ACTION AND PROVIDES FOCUS
  • HOUSING RIGHTS GOOD: COMBATS SOCIAL ILLS
  • HOUSING RIGHTS GOOD: RIGHT TO HOUSING FORCES GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE A VARIETY OF STRATEGIES
  • HOUSING RIGHTS GOOD: HUMAN RIGHTS COME FROM THE NOTION THAT ETHICAL SOCIETY PUTS VALUES IN POLICY
  • HOUSING RIGHTS JUSTIFIED: AFFORDABLE HOUSING
  • HOUSING CRITICAL: FUNDAMENTAL TO HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
  • HOUSING CRITICAL: FUNDAMENTAL TO HUMAN DIGNITY
  • HOUSING CRITICAL: IMPORTANT FOR PUBLIC HEALTH
  • HOUSING CRITICAL: “HOME” IS AN IMPORTANT CONSTRUCT IN AMERICAN CULTURE
  • A/T: RIGHT TO HOUSING COSTS TOO MUCH
  • A/T: MARKETS SHOULD CONTROL HOUSING IN THE UNITED STATES
  • A/T: COURTS REJECT HOUSING RIGHTS
  • A/T: INTERNATIONAL RIGHT IS ENOUGH
  • A/T: EXISTING EFFORTS ARE ENOUGH
  • A/T: RIGHT MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY POLICY AND ACTION

NEGATIVE

  • RIGHTS FRAMEWORK BAD: WRONG APPROACH TO HOUSING ILLS
  • RIGHTS FRAMEWORK BAD: TAKE AWAY FROM HUMAN COMPASSION
  • RIGHTS FRAMEWORK BAD: FRAMERS DIDN’T INTEND RIGHTS THAT OBLIGATION OTHERS
  • RIGHTS FRAMEWORK BAD: HOUSING RIGHT OBLIGATES OTHERS TO PROVIDE
  • RIGHTS FRAMEWORK BAD: HOUSING RIGHTS COULD VIOLATE OTHER’S RIGHTS, LIKE PRIVATE PROPERTY
  • RIGHTS FRAMEWORK BAD: NO RIGHT TO HOUSING SINCE IT TAKES RESOURCES TO EXERCISE THE RIGHT
  • RIGHTS FRAMEWORK BAD: HOUSING “RIGHTS” ARE DIFFERENT THAN FREE SPEECH RIGHTS
  • RIGHTS FRAMEWORK BAD: NATURAL RIGHTS HAVE NO ROOM IN HOUSING RIGHT DEBATES
  • RIGHTS FRAMEWORK BAD: HURTS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MARKETS
  • RIGHTS FRAMEWORK BAD: HURTS RECIPIENTS OF HOUSING SERVICES
  • RIGHTS FRAMEWORK BAD: POLICY GOALS SHOULD NOT BE TRANSLATED INTO RIGHTS
  • RIGHTS FRAMEWORK BAD: ASSERTING NEW RIGHTS WON’T BRING JUSTICE
  • RIGHTS FRAMEWORK BAD: OBLIGATES THE US TO HOUSE THE WORLD, NOT JUST OUR COUNTRY
  • RIGHTS FRAMEWORK BAD: MUST DEFINE THE LINE WHERE HOUSING MEETS THE RIGHT
  • RIGHTS FRAMEWORK BAD: US CONSTITUTION ISN’T BUILT AROUND SOCIAL RIGHTS
  • RIGHTS FRAMEWORK BAD: US SUPREME COURT HAS DENIED A RIGHT TO HOUSING
  • RIGHTS FRAMEWORK BAD: LEGISLATURES HAVE REJECTED A RIGHT TO HOUSING
  • RIGHTS FRAMEWORK BAD: WOULD CREATE MASSIVE EXPENSE
  • RIGHTS FRAMEWORK BAD: DISTRACTS FROM THE REAL PROBLEM, POVERTY
  • EMOTIONAL FRAMEWORKS BAD: MUST START WITH PRACTICAL
  • RIGHTS FRAMEWORK INEFFECTIVE: DOESN’T SOLVE HOMELESSNESS
  • RIGHTS FRAMEWORK INEFFECTIVE: DOESN’T PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
  • RIGHTS FRAMEWORK INEFFECTIVE: AGREEMENT ON RIGHTS DOESN’T MEAN IT IS THE BEST APPROACH
  • RIGHTS FRAMEWORK INEFFECTIVE: REMEDY MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE RIGHT
  • RIGHTS FRAMEWORK INEFFECTIVE: NO IMPROVEMENT TO THOSE THAT NEED IT
  • ECONOMIC CONSTRUCT BETTER: MUST VIEW HOUSING THROUGH ECONOMIC LENSES
  • ECONOMIC CONSTRUCT BETTER: PRIVATE MARKET DOMINATES US HOUSING SYSTEM, INTRODUCING OTHERS FACTORS INTO THE DEBATE
  • ECONOMIC CONSTRUCT BETTER: HOUSING BEST CONTROLLED BY MARKETS
  • ECONOMIC CONSTRUCT BETTER: US MEETS RIGHT TO HOUSING NOW WITH MARKETS

          We Also Recommend