ngaging in radical petagogi is the only way to combat structural oppression and combat meta ethics . Negating Both of these things lead to becoming the body without organs which is our societies a priority.
Resolved: The United States ought to guarantee the right to housing.
First is definitions
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/united_states
A country occupying most of the southern half of North America and including also Alaska and the Hawaiian Islands; population 321,800,000 (estimated 2015); capital, Washington, DC. Full name United States of America.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ought
Ought
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/guarantee
Guarantee is also the state of being certain of a particular result: this doesn't mean we have to give them homes these people can be certain that they have access to a house.
https://www.nesri.org/programs/what-is-the-human-right-to-housing
Everyone has a fundamental human right to housing, which ensures access to a safe, secure, habitable, and affordable home with freedom from forced eviction. / this says ensures access therefore you don't actually need to provide houses to affirm for this resolution
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FS21_rev_1_Housing_en.pdf
According to papers by the UN
• The right to adequate housing contains freedoms. These freedoms include:
Protection against forced evictions and the arbitrary destruction and demolition of one’s home;
The right to be free from arbitrary interference with one’s home, privacy and family; and
The right to choose one’s residence, to determine where to live and to freedom of movement.
• The right to adequate housing contains entitlements. These entitlements include:
Security of tenure;
Housing, land and property restitution;
Equal and non-discriminatory access to adequate housing;
Participation in housing-related decision-making at the national and community levels.
And Accessibility: housing is not adequate if the speci c needs of disadvantaged and marginalized groups are not taken into account.
Location: housing is not adequate if it is cut off from employment opportunities, health-care services, schools, childcare centres and other social facilities, or if located in polluted or dangerous areas.
http://nhi.org/online/issues/148/righttohousing.html
Federal, state and local laws bar discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, disability and other personal characteristics, as well as source of income. But again, enforcement is far less than ideal, and more subtle forms of residential discrimination are hard to detect and prove.
https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/FHLaws/yourrights
According to HUD
The Fair Housing Act protects people from discrimination when they are renting, buying, or securing financing for any housing. The prohibitions specifically cover discrimination because of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability and the presence of children. Learn more this means that people can't be discriminated against when buying a house.
Framework
• V: societal welfare Oxford The well-being of a community or society, especially with regard to health and economic matters.
Vc: cost benefit analysis business dictionary Process of quantifying costs and benefits of a decision, program, or project (over a certain period), and those of its alternatives (within the same period), in order to have a single scale of comparison for unbiased evaluation
Observation 1 since the right to housing is defined as a human right, any need to not guarantee the right to housing to anyone is neg ground. Simplified if I can prove that anyone shouldn't have the right to housing the I win.
Contention one illegal immigrants who have committed felonies and felons can be dangerous to those around them. Some rights are already taken from felons like the right to vote. In Richardson v. Ramirez the Supreme Court ruled that felons can be barred from voting. And in Luis v United States the Supreme Court decided that felons can be barred from having fire arms. United States v. Verdugo-UrquidezNdecided that illegal immigrants arnt entitled to all of our constitutional rights. All of these prove that not giving felons and illegal immigrant felons these rights is constitutional. According to http://geekpolitics.com/one-reason-so-many-felons-are-repeat-offenders-and-how-to-fix-it/
56% of violent felons are repeat offenders and 61% of all felons are repeat offenders, why then should we force people who are selling homes to let felons buy the house. Especially forcing a landowner to let someone with a 56 percent chance of committing a violent felony again. This is unfair to force anyone into this.
Sub point one: sex offenders
Thousands of convicted sex offenders are reporting to police that they are homeless
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-11-18-homeless-offenders_N.htm
It is competely immoral and unfair that some parents with young children have to live next to sex offenders. http://www.xojane.com/it-happened-to-me/registered-sex-offender-in-the-neighborhood this is a story of a woman who had young children who had to live next to a sex offender. According to the Wall Street journal sex offenders. will immediately commit this crime again at least 90 percent of the time. People should be allowed to discriminate against selling to these people because if you don't then people will be forced to live next to these people. This alone is enough to negate alone.
Contention two terrorist don't deserve the right to adequate housing wherever they want.
It is obvious that known terrorist wanting to live wherever they want shouldn't be allowed. But since it is considered a human right that means it applies to everyone, There is no way to prove that terrorist should get to live wherever they want. Allowing terrorist to live in communities and villages wherever they want is an awful idea. To prove that we can do this according to Yoo is a professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley and an American Enterprise Institute scholar. He previously served as deputy assistant U.S. Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel in the George W. Bush administration.
we should limit some rights of terrorist.But this contention alone is enough to vote neg.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/terrorists-ahmad-rahami-don-deserve-miranda-rights-article-1.2800027
Contention three it is the owners right to turn down felons and terrorist to live on their land. Landowners ought to be able to turn down felons and terrorists from living on their land. Forcing these landowners to not discriminate against these people is awful and that's what the affirmative promoted. For all of these reasons I urge an negative ballot.
https://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/blogs/are-prison-release-practices-creating-homelessness
In 2010 alone, California's prison system released more than 125,000 former prisoners into our neighborhoods. Prisoners close to that number are released each and every year. How many local housing programs would it take to offset this annual tidal wave? Not surprisingly, the California Legislative Analyst's Office estimated in 1999 that 30 to 50 percent of parolees in San Francisco and Los Angeles were homeless
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_(policy_debate)
In policy debate, a case, sometimes known as plan, is a textual advocacy presented by the affirmative team as a normative or "should" statement, generally in the 1AC. A case will often include either the resolution or a rephrasing of it.
Prager, John R. "Introduction to Policy Debate: Chapter 3" 2002. Accessed February 26, 2008