Jump to content
darthbananasnpajamas

These affs all suck

Recommended Posts

this seems a misconception on every topic

 

fed has exclusive jurisdiction over issues dealing with indian LAND, not people. indian people currently receive numerous social services from respective states.

 

Most social services dealing with Native Americans is dealt with via the bia which is arguably good or bad. States fucking blow in respect to services offered to natives. In fact - because states say they will do something but don't a lot of res's want the states to but out to increase cooperation between the states and the feds (specifically the bia). Since most res's want health care reform that issue will likely be taken up with the feds since they are the ones that provide most of that service now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it's a little asinine to tell someone to not run any argument on the basis that someone in college ran this at one point and that there will be backfiles on it. By this logic, I'm pretty sure you're relegating the number of positions high schoolers can run to nearly zero, which is probably bad for things like education and mental stability. Plus, I'm sure a decent team who has done work/etc. on courts is going to laugh when a team tries to run some 10 year old Emory hollow hope file their coach flashed them 15 minutes before the round.

 

Wasn't saying not to run the argument, I just said beware the numerous arguments that might be hard to predict because they won't stem from camp files etc. but rather the college courts topic (and being a high schooler, it is harder to know all of those arguments). I am not saying these arguments are instant wins for the negative, but you are going to need blocks to them because you are opening yourself up to a wider range of positions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Granted, I haven't done research to see if this is feasible, but I found something that may be able to take out part of your strat.

 

Have the USFG increase a very specific social service in a single state. To block the 50 states CP, just find a unique social service and talk about why it's unique to that state and couldn't be implemented elsewhere. I'm sure if you can find a federally based social service, this takes out the states being able to do it or at least gives the Aff better solvency.

 

Write a state specific politics disadvantage to block a CP that has the state's government do the plan.

 

This doesn't explicitly take out politics, but it makes it a bit easier to argue against.

 

You'd still link to capitalism, though.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Granted, I haven't done research to see if this is feasible, but I found something that may be able to take out part of your strat.

 

Have the USFG increase a very specific social service in a single state. To block the 50 states CP, just find a unique social service and talk about why it's unique to that state and couldn't be implemented elsewhere. I'm sure if you can find a federally based social service, this takes out the states being able to do it or at least gives the Aff better solvency.

 

Write a state specific politics disadvantage to block a CP that has the state's government do the plan.

 

This doesn't explicitly take out politics, but it makes it a bit easier to argue against.

 

You'd still link to capitalism, though.

and t w.o material quals or subs = throughout finally has a legitimate abuse story..

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now, to use the CP text someone else provided, by overturning Lopez, you're saying that the USfg does not have the jurisdiction to make decisions regarding issues internal to one state, ie school districts (hell this is actually kinda relevant to the lopez decision).

 

What on earth are you talking about?? The CP text proposed by pinky doesn't say anything about overturning lopez. You should really just give up on this bc it's apparent you don't know what you're describing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@ ground: you need to prove the grounds for o/t a case. Failure to do that will open you open to a shit-ton of theory and solvency arguments.

 

what exactly do you mean when you say "you need to prove the grounds"? and what theory args do you open yourself up to by not "proving the grounds" (whatever that means)?

 

@ test case: you need one. Look at every single policy aff on the wiki. THey all say 'at the next available test case' OR they specify one (miliken did this a few times as well as epq). You know why? Because withouth a test case the supreme court can't LISTEN to it! I debated the college courts topic. I know what i'm talking about. kthnx.

 

1) lots of affs roll without test cases.

 

2) scotus can listen to just about whatever it want, the rules of access and procedure can be bent or adjusted by the court as it pleases. roe v wade is a good example of this.

 

3) morrison dealt with a piece of invalidated federal legislation, so there would be no possibility for a test case to arrive before scotus which would allow them to reverse morrison's judgment, meaning your "trust me, you GOTTA have a test case" assertions are pretty silly and bunk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What on earth are you talking about?? The CP text proposed by pinky doesn't say anything about overturning lopez. You should really just give up on this bc it's apparent you don't know what you're describing.

 

K well you obviously don't know how to read. Lopez would be the case overruled by this decision (lopez says fed has power, CP says new case says states have power).

 

2) scotus can listen to just about whatever it want, the rules of access and procedure can be bent or adjusted by the court as it pleases. roe v wade is a good example of this.

 

3) morrison dealt with a piece of invalidated federal legislation, so there would be no possibility for a test case to arrive before scotus which would allow them to reverse morrison's judgment, meaning your "trust me, you GOTTA have a test case" assertions are pretty silly and bunk.

Civics 101 -

 

In the USfg, there are three branches of government - the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial. The Legislative (aka Congress) LEGISLATES new laws. This means someone decides "we want x to become illegal" or whatever. If it gets passed, it goes to the Executive Branch (aka the President) who can either sign the bill, or veto it. If it's vetoed, it goes back to Congress who needs a 2/3s majority to override said veto. Now, the Judicial branch (aka Scotus) is a COURT that determines the constitutionality of laws. What this means is if they rule on a particular case that law x is unconstutional, it is therefore nullfied. Without a constitutional amendment, you (theoretically) can't pass laws in violation of the constitution. Now, in order for it do make a decision, someone has to be affected by said law, decide they think it's unconstutional for xyz reasons, and file a complaint in the lowest level court that has jurisdiction over this particular law (in this case, because it's Federal Law, it would be Scotus). The court, assuming it determines to hear said case, will make a ruling. If they find that the claim is valid, they rule in favor of the petitioner, thus nullifying whatever previous laws and/or court rulings that act contrary to said decision. SCOTUS DOES NOT HAVE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO MAKE A LEGAL DECISION OUTSIDE OF THE PARTICULAR CASE THEY ARE DEALING WITH. Think of this like a jurisdiction claim. The judges can only A) make decisions that matter in a particular decision (just like a debate judge can only vote for a particular debater/team during a round they judge them) and B) only make a decision based on the subject matter of said case (ie judges can't decide the winner of rounds they aren't judging). Roe v Wade was an actual SCOTUS case (duh).

 

A "test case" is when someone files a case to see if SCOTUS will accept a particular reasoning on an issue (ie fed powers bad). If the test case is successful, a series of cases generally follow on the same subject that are filed by others.

 

EDIT:

 

First, while the court can "bend" principles, these rules are steadfast and not questionable. Like srsly. If you can find me a legal scholar who argues otherwise, please tell me because i'd love to hear their reasoning.

 

Second, in order for US v Morrison to be overturned, one would need (as is the case in any scotus issue) a local or federal law that runs contrary to the decisison and then have someone file a suit over it.

Edited by Poneill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am sure you will have thought of this, but be weary of all the possible things people could say against you from regurgitating arguments from the college Courts topic that happened two seasons ago. Court stripping DA plus constitutional convention CP anyone? Congress CP plus courts politics DA?

 

Constitutional Convention is more court confusion than anything, since the ammendment needed is already found, just needs to be executed.

 

And yes, giving poor people rights is extremely unpopular. which is probably how the link is going to roll.

 

Besides, the 14th Amendment has the order implied of Court first, then Congress. I am sure there are adequate (can't spell tonight) cards on the subject.

 

And what exactly is the story for court stripping?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If your aff is Miliken v. Bradley, which is certainly pertinent to the 14th amendment, I wouldn't hold my breath on other people not knowing about this. It was a case on the courts topic a few years back, and planet debate has already put out a neg file.

 

And it is no way related to Miliken v. Bradley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ya, I don't think it makes much sense to devolve authority over equal protection to the states using Lopez as grounds. I guess you could still read a CP along those lines, but calling it "Lopez" or using the Lopez/10A/commerce clause justification is probably the wrong way to go about it.

hey jason – nice tie

 

http://www.lakelandschools.org/district.cfm?subpage=16473

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K well you obviously don't know how to read. Lopez would be the case overruled by this decision (lopez says fed has power, CP says new case says states have power).

 

actually it seems pretty clear from your reply that you're the one that doesn't read too well.

 

1) no one here (minus you) has suggested that the CP would overrule lopez which is an entirely idiotic idea that only you seem to think has merit as a CP.

 

2) lopez delineates limits to congress's commerce clause authority to legislate, it does not say (as you put it) "fed has power."

 

Civics 101 -

 

Let's see how far into your little 'civ 101' lecture you can get before you state a falsehood, I'm guessing you won't even make it through the first paragraph:

 

In the USfg, there are three branches of government - the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial. The Legislative (aka Congress) LEGISLATES new laws. This means someone decides "we want x to become illegal" or whatever. If it gets passed, it goes to the Executive Branch (aka the President) who can either sign the bill, or veto it. If it's vetoed, it goes back to Congress who needs a 2/3s majority to override said veto. Now, the Judicial branch (aka Scotus) is a COURT that determines the constitutionality of laws. What this means is if they rule on a particular case that law x is unconstutional, it is therefore nullfied. Without a constitutional amendment, you (theoretically) can't pass laws in violation of the constitution. Now, in order for it do make a decision, someone has to be affected by said law, decide they think it's unconstutional for xyz reasons, and file a complaint in the lowest level court that has jurisdiction over this particular law (in this case, because it's Federal Law, it would be Scotus).

 

simply wrong. scotus has original jurisdiction over a very narrow selection of cases. the lowest courts with jurisdiction over federal legislation are the district courts, followed by the appeals courts. scotus is the very last appellate court for anything outside of its original jurisdiction.

 

amazing that someone with such a pompous attitude such as yourself is unable to understand even the most simple aspects of our judicial system.

 

SCOTUS DOES NOT HAVE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO MAKE A LEGAL DECISION OUTSIDE OF THE PARTICULAR CASE THEY ARE DEALING WITH.

 

please cite whatever law makes this assertion of yours true.

 

Roe v Wade was an actual SCOTUS case (duh).

 

roe was moot because of an obvious lack of standing, yet scotus took the case and decided it. something you claim is outside of the "legal authority" of the supreme court to do. please reconcile the fact that roe was moot with the other bullshit you're spewing.

 

First, while the court can "bend" principles, these rules are steadfast and not questionable. Like srsly. If you can find me a legal scholar who argues otherwise, please tell me because i'd love to hear their reasoning.

 

1) if these rules are so steadfast and not questionable, then please cite a location where they are properly codified as law.

 

2) you say "find me a legal scholar," - this literally took 25 seconds on books.google.

 

both from Pacelle, 2002, The Role of the Supreme Court in American Politics: The Least Dangerous Branch?

 

p. 88:

 

The strict enforcement of the rules of access is an act of judicial self-restraint. By refusing to accept a case because of the rules of access, the justices do not deal with the issue at hand and adopt a passive role. Because the Court is the arbiter of its own rules, however, it can enforce or ignore the rules (O'Brien 2000, 172). To ignore the rules means that the Court will take cases despite their defects. This would be an example of judicial activism that allows the justices to address a case that might not be appropriately before the Court.

 

p. 122:

 

The passivity of the Supreme Court is an overrated limitation. Thousands of cases are on the annual docket, and virtually every issue the justices might want to consider is available. The justices have the ability to signal litigants to bring certain types of cases. There are a number of so-called repeat players, long-term actors in the judicial process, who bring cases, respond to the directives and cues in the Court's decisions, and bring the next round of litigation (Galanter 1974). In addition, justices have been known to manipulate the issues in a case to make them more amenable to the type of issues they seek to address. Justices can "add" issues to a case or change the ones that are brought to them (Pacelle 1991, 32-33)

 

Second, in order for US v Morrison to be overturned, one would need (as is the case in any scotus issue) a local or federal law that runs contrary to the decisison and then have someone file a suit over it.

 

1) overrule = "reverse judgment" was a popular t violation on the courts topic which is mutually exclusive with having a test case for at least morrison, and probably for the other three listed cases as well.

 

2) morrison nullified a piece of federal legislation, so I'll ask again: assuming the rules of access are followed 100 percent, what possible scenario is there for a test case challenging the grounds of morrison to advance to the supreme court?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll give you a full response in the morning, but pacelle concludes my two fundamental rules:

 

1. that they have to actually have a case to make decisions on

 

2. their decision has to be relevant to said case (granted, they can, have, and will abuse the fuck out of this rule, but it's still a basic rule. There has to exist some link between their decision and the case).

 

3. My explanation of lopez was obviously a simplified version. No shit a supreme court decision is more complex than a couple of words.

 

4. Tommy did, in fact, suggest Lopez as a CP for this.

 

5. K, sorry that i made a mistake that in the grand scheme of this discussion means jack shit. You still have to prove that scotus can legislate in the sense that they can create actual laws absent a case where they can make their decision on that issue.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and t w.o material quals or subs = throughout finally has a legitimate abuse story..

 

Abuse because you lose politics because our case probably isn't big enough to screw with whatever your politics scenario is/abuse because our case is constructed in a way/with evidence where you can't run a CP that everyone is saying can be run on everything?

 

That's a pretty shoddy abuse story, Tommy. I think an abuse story with a different violation may work better, though.

 

I mean, the entire thing is a pipe dream because I think finding the literature to support running the case in this way is going to be impossible.

 

But I don't think it's particularly abusive to write your way out of a generic argument, especially because the case isn't set up to entirely exclude the 50 states CP or state as actor CP, but the Aff would at this point be on the winning side of the solvency debate.

 

I suppose another way this could be handled is to find a social service that a state or small group of states DOESN'T have and implementing it in those states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll give you a full response in the morning, but pacelle concludes my two fundamental rules:

 

1. that they have to actually have a case to make decisions on

 

2. their decision has to be relevant to said case (granted, they can, have, and will abuse the fuck out of this rule, but it's still a basic rule. There has to exist some link between their decision and the case).

 

Again, assuming these rules are followed exactly, in what instance could morrison ever be overruled? This should be a pretty simple question for such an esteemed constitutional law debater such as yourself.

 

3. My explanation of lopez was obviously a WRONGversion. No shit a supreme court decision is more complex than a couple of words.

 

fixed.

 

4. Tommy did, in fact, suggest Lopez as a CP for this.

 

Not sure the importance of this.

 

5. K, sorry that i made a mistake that in the grand scheme of this discussion means jack shit. You still have to prove that scotus can legislate in the sense that they can create actual laws absent a case where they can make their decision on that issue.

 

If you've already made one simple mistake in the grand scheme of the discussion, then how is one to know that everything else you assert (without any evidence to support it) isn't also mistaken???

 

I've never claimed that scotus can legislate in whatever way they want, so I don't see why I need to prove that. Rather, I pointed out that your test case argument is silly and wasn't a very effective part of the neg arsenal on courts topic because it would effectively moot at least one fourth of the topic area. Yes, in real life scotus rules on a relevant case or controversy, however in debate the merits of burdening supreme court plans with test cases are sparse. I think lack of a test case is best thought of as just another inherent barrier to the plan that we should imagine our way past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

States, Politics, Capitalism K

 

There are some aff's (raise poverty line, etc.) that only the federal government can do. Politics always has answers to it (IMO, alot of times, this argument is pretty weak). Tons of states are facing budget deficits right, so 2AC specific state DA + perm probably owns this. And I have tons of stuff answering the cap K, so i'd just debate that.

 

There's always gonna be generics to any resolution. (although space>poverty)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest chuck97
And I have tons of stuff answering the cap K

 

 

dude, i run cap k and my file is over 800 pages. i highly doubt you have enough cards to beat me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest chuck97
Size doesn't matter, it's the skill with which you use it.

 

 

 

THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
before the combination of impotent rage and spoiled hot pockets simmering in your gut compels you to neg rep me, consider your aff and the 1NC of

 

States, Politics, Capitalism K

 

Really think about it.

 

No, lack of federal funding doesn't work. States have money.

 

No, social services=communist doesn't work. Zizek writes books.

 

I have not seen a single affirmative, kritikal or not, that has an effective or even unique response to this simple strategy, and if you are researching an affirmative that dies to any of these arguments, you are wasting your time.

I won't give it away, but we have a very solid strategy against attacks of this kind prepared, and it will work for almost any case, kritikal or not. The States/DA(I don't like tix as most run it) idea is solid for next year, and should be a common strategy among successful teams. The Cap K on top of that gives way too much offensive potential to clever affs. By running the CP without the K, you can unconditionally advocate the CP, killing all aff theoretical ground. I would actually encourage adding a solvency press (or inherency if appropriate for the case & judge). This way you have a very consistent negative advocacy which attacks the aff on three very different levels and which results in a neg win if you can simply outdebate your opponent soundly on any one and hold your own on the other two.

 

I simply don't see what anyone thinks they are gaining (in the eyes of an independent, educated, thinking judge) by running a kritik that is utter nonsense (as it is run in hs rounds)*. But please, use that strat if you face a WSHS team...I beg you.

 

*that I have seen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But please, use that strat if you face a WSHS team...I beg you.

 

 

Are you 50 cent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest chuck97

brorlob's A- strat against the K

 

Kritiks must be understandable and specific to the arguments in the round.

Bennett, 1996 (William, Chairperson of the CDE National Debate Institute, from the Rostrum, April 1996, taken from:
)

 

A good kritik must be (1) well presented, and (2) must serve a useful function in the debate. What is required in order to present a kritik well? First it should be presented as early as possible in the debate. This gives every participant the maximum chance to explore it, analyze it, and extend clash pertinent to the issue. Secondly, it must have demonstrated relevance to the
specific
debate. And, finally, it must be understandable. In competition understandability has been a problem, partially because of the new and therefore variable structure of the issue, and because some users regrettably seek to mask the issue or sacrifice clarity for a different goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
apparently, that's all you need to win.

 

http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1691673#post1691673

I never said such a thing. Though it is a compelling argument in front of any judge who hasn't drunk the kool-aid.

 

I'll tell you the basic idea: running a kritik (any kritik) alongside policy arguments is a capitalist practice. I have very specific evidence from tenured professors of economics to prove it. So running cap with policy arguments is like starting the countdown on a suitcase bomb then handcuffing it to your own wrist, then handing the keys to your opponent. Your only hope is that they not know what you handed them.

Edited by brorlob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...