Devolve P. ACT. to the states

[Lynn C. Thompson 1904]

I just recently hit this case. I didnt quite understand it in round, but now I get it. The case basically gave the search w/out P.Cause sections of the P.ACT. to the states. And they ended up spiking out of every position we ran. The advantages were Federalism, and some others.

How would you answer this?

[Jimmy_Page 878]

Read patriot act bad.

 

Just get a copy of their 1AC.

 

Probably find a way to run T on federal.

 

And on decrease, as they don't really decrease authority.

 

Then probably an abuse argument.

[WoSpet 83]

They decrease its (USFG) authority, not authority in general.

[fireproof41602 26]

I just recently hit this case. I didnt quite understand it in round, but now I get it. The case basically gave the search w/out P.Cause sections of the P.ACT. to the states. And they ended up spiking out of every position we ran. The advantages were Federalism, and some others.

How would you answer this?

 

who did you hit?

[Jimmy_Page 878]

True.

 

It is actually topical, but if you run it well enough you may get a judge to vote on T.

 

There are probably some good arguments out there about how the war on terror would fail without strong central control.

[Bueller 18]

Don't the states already have that authority through the Patriot Act?

[JimmyEatWorld711 10]

Sounds like there may be a decent link to a terrorism DA. Since when are the states good at cooperating with each other and coordinating intel on terrorists, which is the purpose of the patriot act anyways?

[Lynn C. Thompson 1904]

who did you hit?

some Homewood-Flossmoor team.

[2leftsocks 10]

is there any possible cp against this case

[dziegler 1548]

The case is non-T.

 

Post-plan, the USFG can still detain/w/o charge/search, just not in state jails or with state resources.

 

If you win that authority refers to detainment, and not the area of detainment, i.e. the same reason why rendition isn't topical, then you win that the Federalism aff. = non-T

[JimmyEatWorld711 10]

is there any possible cp against this case

CP: repeal the Patriot Act?

 

NBs = all of the advantages you could claim in a normal repeal patriot act 1AC. any additional patriot act bad stuff.

[Lynn C. Thompson 1904]

The case is non-T.

 

Post-plan, the USFG can still detain/w/o charge/search, just not in state jails or with state resources.

 

If you win that authority refers to detainment, and not the area of detainment, i.e. the same reason why rendition isn't topical, then you win that the Federalism aff. = non-T

Yea, that is the arg. we made but they just said that the USFG no longer can search w/p.cause because they dont have the authority to, the states do.

[Jimmy_Page 878]

What are the harms for this case, anyway?

[MSUBound2006 49970]

you will lose the WOT debate, with hella tight link turns. The tism ev for this aff is amazing!!!

 

 

love

jamie

nhs 2006

[Banana Phone 18]

Umm, Federalism bad?

[parrotz 47]

CP: repeal the Patriot Act?

 

NBs = all of the advantages you could claim in a normal repeal patriot act 1AC. any additional patriot act bad stuff.

 

definitely the best idea. run it in conjunction with extra-topicality, so if they try to garner offense by saying "its better to give power to the states", then you can smack them with an abuse story.

[The End 44]

Does the aff use any Lopez ev? Just curious.

I am thinking about writing this aff. If anyone has it, PM me.

[2leftsocks 10]

yeah i would also like a copy of this case any camps have a good one.

[notyourlovertonight 10]

A Recent ( As in Yesterday, Central timezone) Newspost creates a great inherency arguement one can run against it. It shouldnt be hard to pick out it out.