Going Postal, By Carleton Debate

So global warming, loss of carbon sinks, evaporation of the Ganges River, lack of innercity education, the death of democracy are all caused by the United States Post Office.  But if Cal wants to send his grandparents a baseball bat, email just doesn’t cut it.  So there are pros and cons.

Round 4: THBT the United States postal service is an important public good.

For those of you who care, probably mostly me and Justin, this statement is objectively false.  Postal services are obviously excludable.  But at least it wasn’t a metaphor.

Chris/Miles (gov): The post office provides a free flow of information, law and order, and service to people living in Podunk towns in the middle of no where.  The law and order point was that only the postal service investigates mail fraud.  Their opponents claimed Fedex and UPS have financial incentives to stop mail fraud, to which Chris replied, “Well I don’t think they intend to commit fraud…”  And the judge laughed, so he decided to not complete the argument.

Cal/Graham (gov): The MG was essentially Sass Fest 2013 according to Cal.  We said the post office democratizes communication, the opp said poor people can just go to a library and email their job applications to McDonalds.  We aslo said the resolution was a values case, but didn’t read a value.  They (truthfully) said we didn’t have a value, to which we said, “Your jargon terms are exclusionary and bad for debate.”  Cal also was sad he forgot to mention that absentee voting can only be done through mail, which would be expensive if private services were the only option.  Fortunately, in the PMR “new arguments are not allowed, but new examples are encouraged.”  Cal, feeling guilty about breaking the rules of parli debate in round 2 by forgetting to perm the counterplan in the PMC, rectified this imbalance by going HAM for the new examples.

Ben/Ryan (opp): You may have noticed that, while the pros of the postal service has been discussed, the three con’s I mentioned have not.  This was not an oversight.  Each impact was claimed in this round.

Scenario 1: The postal service makes most of its money provide cheap delivery of junk mail.  This kills carbon sinks in forests, raising global temperatures, melting glaciers that feed the Ganges River which will dry up from too much melting ice.  Ganges river stability is key to 60% of the world’s food supply.  The WORLD.  Its try or die.

Scenario 2: The post office wastes federal government money.  The government is in a budget crisis.  The first programs to go are social programs.  That means, inner city schools are cut to keep those fat-cat mailmen in business.

Scenario 3: The post office is American’s first thought of an inefficient government program.  Any politician who supports it, would be ignored by everyone because they support such a dumb child starving, world burning organization.  This kills debate and therefore all of American democracy would collapse.  We would be one step away from boxes.  One step.

The gov’s response: Fedex throws packages over fences and the post office is hella cheap.  To which Ben responded, “Why don’t you go tell that to the starving children in the Ganges River basin?  Or the inner-city children whose schools you killed?  They’ll have plenty of time to talk since they don’t have a school anymore.”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s