Jump to content
wayfreshnclean

Successful Affs

Recommended Posts

That would be my guess. thats all you have to run to win. you can run a fed DA and states CP with it but always go for T in the end.

He was being sarcastic.

Edited by HighlandParkChap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I knowe states don't solve. but all you have to get up and say is they are not topical and you win. T- remove a barrior. NEG wins.

 

yeah... no.

 

That would be my guess. thats all you have to run to win. you can run a fed DA and states CP with it but always go for T in the end.

 

he was kidding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait, when did natives stop being "persons?"

 

It's in my post--legal definition of persons as per Supreme Court decision.

 

QFA

Thanks.

 

1. You dont have to know for sure how many illegals are in the US for this case to be effective

Um... yes you do? You have to know how much money you're shelling out for this medicaid, not knowing #s eats your logistics, thus kills Solv.

2. Persons T links to the racism advantage plus you lose no ground and its not unpredictable

It's a legal definition. We do lose ground, in that we deal with whole new groups. Technically, by these defs, tourists apply.

3. Persons T is Bs and easily beat (Person = Human) if your going to run this T the better way to go is to say that SS are for Citizens

I was just saying what I won on. SS is predictable, everyone will have legal defs for it. I had the only Court def for "Persons" in the round.

4. Most immigration DA impacts are easily solved by case

Terrorism? Crappy impact, yeah, but it worked for this round.

5. Alot of the other immigration impacts are bull

Kthxwhatever, I don't run eight impacts/round.

6. The uniqueness and link are BS

Um... Really? They basically had the links in their friggin 1AC, and couldn't honestly say they wouldn't attract more illegals.

7. Aff outweighs ninety percent of everything

By what? Slightly increasing medical assistance to people who aren't allowed to be here anyway? The impacts of their case made DA impacts seem perfectly logical.

 

Please look up "QFA" before further use, for your own sake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I ran against the Medicaid for illegals aff. It was utterly terrible. Solvency fell apart in the first cross-x when they didn't know how many illegals lived in the United States, we busted Topicality on "Person" (Supreme Court judgement) and, among other things, dropped a beautifully linked Immigration disad on them.

 

and then Hempkid and I get to bust your ass on T w/ on racism + citizenship and space (also works well w/ ptx).

 

and lol, he messaged me on facebook asking what QFA ment

Edited by highlandmike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Every court case has a logical link to politics based on congress, the supreme court overruling a case RIGHT AFTER Obama made a new appointment, people will start pointing fingers, something a lot of the shielding evidence doesn't take into account.

 

yeah i'd like to see this card or coherent story that a supreme court decision on [x] issue would hurt obama's ability to pass heatlh care or [insert x] bill.

congratulations on making one of the most convoluted disads even more contrived.

its not a question of shielding but more perception and the tenuous internal link story.

 

on top of that -- there are ev that obama would distance from court, normal means = sotomayor not support controversial decision first term, normal means = decision not announced until june, and overall bad ev that supreme court decisions get...somehow discussed on the docket?

 

Also, every plan needs funding or policy shift on the congressional level, giving you a link.

you are wrong. entitlement program = dont need congress.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yeah i'd like to see this card or coherent story that a supreme court decision on [x] issue would hurt obama's ability to pass heatlh care or [insert x] bill.

congratulations on making one of the most convoluted disads even more contrived.

its not a question of shielding but more perception and the tenuous internal link story.

 

on top of that -- there are ev that obama would distance from court, normal means = sotomayor not support controversial decision first term, normal means = decision not announced until june, and overall bad ev that supreme court decisions get...somehow discussed on the docket?

 

That all assumes plan isn't a mega divisive issue that the majority of court affs this year are. Finding one piece of evidence for your link + internal link(s) on politics never happen, but a logical story is still there.

 

Ex: Abortion - Remember when abortion funding was called into question on the old version of the healthcare and people started flipping out. Well an aff runs abortion by having the Supreme Court rule that Medicare funding can be used fund abortions for persons living in poverty. Do you really think a shit storm wouldn't happen if an amendment that has been in affect for over 30 years was suddenly over turned after a publicly deemed "liberal" president just got into office? Answer: It would be the shit storm to end all shit storms. Media talking heads would move to shift Obama into the bullseye, social conservatives would challenge the notion in congress, and the recently dead issue of federal funding programs would be brought back to life, pitting left against right on an issue that is...oh, i don't know...related directly to healthcare. The reaction from the far right would be immediate, causing a more uniform and effective backlash from the moderates and republicans, killing pol cap (Since Obama would have to cover his ass merely removing himself from the situation, and "distancing him from the court", and have to deal with the problems inherent with being a democrat when being involved in abortion)

All these will defiantly be seen immediately.

 

The other problems with internal links and stories are just inherent in politics das themselves as a whole entity.

you are wrong. entitlement program = dont need congress.

And congress doesn't debate the budget and what these entitlements do? I think they do. You're probably right on the whole funding thing, but that doesn't change what i said above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yeah i'd like to see this card or coherent story that a supreme court decision on [x] issue would hurt obama's ability to pass heatlh care or [insert x] bill.

congratulations on making one of the most convoluted disads even more contrived.

its not a question of shielding but more perception and the tenuous internal link story.

 

Wait, you really think that the courts shield? Who the fuck do you think enacts the results of the court decision? I'll give you a hint, it's either legislative (congress) or an administrative agency (Presidential).

 

on top of that -- there are ev that obama would distance from court, normal means = sotomayor not support controversial decision first term, normal means = decision not announced until june, and overall bad ev that supreme court decisions get...somehow discussed on the docket?

Not announced til June? Sounds like a solvency deficit to me, and one helluva a theory debate. You just tried to go for the "normal means = delay, plus a different actor" CP/

 

you are wrong. entitlement program = dont need congress.

Someone has to do it, and it sure as hell isn't going to be 9 judges in suits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's in my post--legal definition of persons as per Supreme Court decision.

So because the Supreme Court is racist, we all should be too?

Edited by Checkmate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm? Are you somehow implying that the only possible illegal immigrants are mexican? This plan has NOTHING to do with legal immigrants, it's about ILLEGAL immigrants. How is excluding criminals racist?

 

But none of this matters. Fiat doesn't apply to the Supreme Court, and what the Supreme Court says is, legally, interpretation of the Constitution. Supreme Court overrules congress, plan can't solve topically. Racism has nothing to do with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That all assumes plan isn't a mega divisive issue that the majority of court affs this year are. Finding one piece of evidence for your link + internal link(s) on politics never happen, but a logical story is still there.

 

Ex: Abortion - Remember when abortion funding was called into question on the old version of the healthcare and people started flipping out. Well an aff runs abortion by having the Supreme Court rule that Medicare funding can be used fund abortions for persons living in poverty. Do you really think a shit storm wouldn't happen if an amendment that has been in affect for over 30 years was suddenly over turned after a publicly deemed "liberal" president just got into office? Answer: It would be the shit storm to end all shit storms. Media talking heads would move to shift Obama into the bullseye, social conservatives would challenge the notion in congress, and the recently dead issue of federal funding programs would be brought back to life, pitting left against right on an issue that is...oh, i don't know...related directly to healthcare. The reaction from the far right would be immediate, causing a more uniform and effective backlash from the moderates and republicans, killing pol cap (Since Obama would have to cover his ass merely removing himself from the situation, and "distancing him from the court", and have to deal with the problems inherent with being a democrat when being involved in abortion)

All these will defiantly be seen immediately.

 

The other problems with internal links and stories are just inherent in politics das themselves as a whole entity.

 

And congress doesn't debate the budget and what these entitlements do? I think they do. You're probably right on the whole funding thing, but that doesn't change what i said above.

 

first, yeah i am right about the whole funding thing.

 

second, yeah, there would be backlash -- directed at the courts, not the president. second, your argument is illogical, abortion debates have already occurred, and been compromised over for health care. the plan would be fueling a controversial fight -- since its already done with. why would democrats fight again? that makes no sense. they wouldn't. they would not try to get in a huge debate...when they are trying to pass health care? also, i hope you know congress does follow a schedule. congressman dont just get on the fucking podium and rant about how bad supreme court decisions are.

 

why would obama get tied up in this? hes not a dumbass. 1 appointment does not = plan. more judges had to vote... obama would distance.

 

 

Wait, you really think that the courts shield? Who the fuck do you think enacts the results of the court decision? I'll give you a hint, it's either legislative (congress) or an administrative agency (Presidential).

 

 

Not announced til June? Sounds like a solvency deficit to me, and one helluva a theory debate. You just tried to go for the "normal means = delay, plus a different actor" CP/

 

 

Someone has to do it, and it sure as hell isn't going to be 9 judges in suits.

normal means = delay, plus diff actor is a bad analogy for courts aff. delay is bad because severs out of timeframe for aff which kills aff ground. that doesnt occur for a courts aff. its not a diff actor, resolution says usfg? this seems pretty legitimate, get your head of the gutter, just because most people reads congress doesn't make alt actors "OMG ILLEGIT" or other normal means situations "OMG ILLEGIT". and yeah, entitlement programs means the legislative and executive branches dont have to lift a finger. maybe read something about the poverty topic before posting in the poverty forum.

 

and if you read my actual post, i said its not a question of shielding. supreme court is entirely different body. i just feel like im repeating myself.supreme court doesn't get percieved by the public nor media, no one knows what the fuck they do, nor percieve that actions as subjective. fights have occured like... 4 times in the past how many decades over a controversial issue?

 

courts affs like abortion wont have solvency deficit issues, most are based on k advantages, not nuke war/terrorism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then Hempkid and I get to bust your ass on T w/ on racism + citizenship and space (also works well w/ ptx).

 

and lol, he messaged me on facebook asking what QFA ment

 

Sorry i am not a troll and dont spend all my time on forums. My bad mike.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm? Are you somehow implying that the only possible illegal immigrants are mexican? This plan has NOTHING to do with legal immigrants, it's about ILLEGAL immigrants. How is excluding criminals racist?

 

But none of this matters. Fiat doesn't apply to the Supreme Court, and what the Supreme Court says is, legally, interpretation of the Constitution. Supreme Court overrules congress, plan can't solve topically. Racism has nothing to do with it.

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant to come off in a funny/sarcastic/switch side debate kind of way. I don't actually think you are racist.

 

Also I was talking about the natives comment, I didn't see where you talked about illegal immigrants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. You dont have to know for sure how many illegals are in the US for this case to be effective

Um... yes you do? You have to know how much money you're shelling out for this medicaid, not knowing #s eats your logistics, thus kills Solv.

1. They already get emergency care- extensions wouldnt be a strain on a system that is already providing emergency care

2.Their is 9 million illegal immigrants

 

 

2. Persons T links to the racism advantage plus you lose no ground and its not unpredictable

It's a legal definition. We do lose ground, in that we deal with whole new groups. Technically, by these defs, tourists apply.

1. CD: Persons living in poverty means to reside here in the US, no tourists, if anything you get more ground

2. Still links to racism, at the point that you concede its a federal def it only reinforces our link story

 

3. Persons T is Bs and easily beat (Person = Human) if your going to run this T the better way to go is to say that SS are for Citizens

I was just saying what I won on. SS is predictable, everyone will have legal defs for it. I had the only Court def for "Persons" in the round.

-

 

4. Most immigration DA impacts are easily solved by case

Terrorism? Crappy impact, yeah, but it worked for this round.

1. All the terrorism scenarios are taken way out of context and you dont get the final impact

2. Any good immigrants debater will destroy the DA

 

5. Alot of the other immigration impacts are bull

Kthxwhatever, I don't run eight impacts/round.

1. Because none of them are good....

 

6. The uniqueness and link are BS

Um... Really? They basically had the links in their friggin 1AC, and couldn't honestly say they wouldn't attract more illegals.

1. Which is where the Alt cause args, and especially the impact turns come in

 

7. Aff outweighs ninety percent of everything

By what? Slightly increasing medical assistance to people who aren't allowed to be here anyway? The impacts of their case made DA impacts seem perfectly logical.

1. Im pretty sure two extinction scenarios, one nuclear war, one soft power solves everything, and a racism plus citizenship and space outweigh any impacts that the disad hsa

 

 

Main Point: Run well all of these arguments wont work against an immigrants aff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm? Are you somehow implying that the only possible illegal immigrants are mexican? This plan has NOTHING to do with legal immigrants, it's about ILLEGAL immigrants. How is excluding criminals racist?

 

But none of this matters. Fiat doesn't apply to the Supreme Court, and what the Supreme Court says is, legally, interpretation of the Constitution. Supreme Court overrules congress, plan can't solve topically. Racism has nothing to do with it.

 

actually, run correctly you should be solving for illegal immigrants and the legal variety (who have to wait 5 years until they qualify for medicaid)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. You dont have to know for sure how many illegals are in the US for this case to be effective

Um... yes you do? You have to know how much money you're shelling out for this medicaid, not knowing #s eats your logistics, thus kills Solv.

1. They already get emergency care- extensions wouldnt be a strain on a system that is already providing emergency care

2.Their is 9 million illegal immigrants

 

 

2. Persons T links to the racism advantage plus you lose no ground and its not unpredictable

It's a legal definition. We do lose ground, in that we deal with whole new groups. Technically, by these defs, tourists apply.

1. CD: Persons living in poverty means to reside here in the US, no tourists, if anything you get more ground

2. Still links to racism, at the point that you concede its a federal def it only reinforces our link story

 

3. Persons T is Bs and easily beat (Person = Human) if your going to run this T the better way to go is to say that SS are for Citizens

I was just saying what I won on. SS is predictable, everyone will have legal defs for it. I had the only Court def for "Persons" in the round.

-

 

4. Most immigration DA impacts are easily solved by case

Terrorism? Crappy impact, yeah, but it worked for this round.

1. All the terrorism scenarios are taken way out of context and you dont get the final impact

2. Any good immigrants debater will destroy the DA

 

5. Alot of the other immigration impacts are bull

Kthxwhatever, I don't run eight impacts/round.

1. Because none of them are good....

 

6. The uniqueness and link are BS

Um... Really? They basically had the links in their friggin 1AC, and couldn't honestly say they wouldn't attract more illegals.

1. Which is where the Alt cause args, and especially the impact turns come in

 

7. Aff outweighs ninety percent of everything

By what? Slightly increasing medical assistance to people who aren't allowed to be here anyway? The impacts of their case made DA impacts seem perfectly logical.

1. Im pretty sure two extinction scenarios, one nuclear war, one soft power solves everything, and a racism plus citizenship and space outweigh any impacts that the disad hsa

 

 

Main Point: Run well all of these arguments wont work against an immigrants aff

 

Except I did win, so obviously all of these args will work against some immigrants affs. :P

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So as the first month of debate passes, what are some good Aff cases that you all have seen? Winning Aff cases in particular? And what are some unsuccessful or stupid Affs that you guys have heard of?

 

My favorites: Broadband, SNAPs, TANF, Abortion

 

This made me lul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Algae and TheHempKid should team up and win the TOC.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Evak again.

 

Which is odd, because I don't remember repping you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Except I did win, so obviously all of these args will work against some immigrants affs. :P

 

Cept you didnt....

Silence is consent....

Means you vote aff cause they dont respond in the 2 NR...

Go Jesus!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Evak again.

 

Which is odd, because I don't remember repping you.

 

I'd cover you, but I think it would constitute betrayal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
have you debated the topic? abortion is one of the most topical affs other than head start and foodstamps.

 

increase funding for abortion services which are currently denied by medicaid. the fem literature is damn good.

 

successful affs?

any feminism or abortion aff through the courts have been extremely successful.

actually, courts affs in general have been uber succesful.

 

http://toc.bluetubd.com/rankings/

five (i think) out of the top 10 teams read courts affs. i'm not sure why the rest of the debate community doesnt.

 

I assumed abortion outside of Medicaid. There are a lot of plan texts that say just to make abortion legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I assumed abortion outside of Medicaid. There are a lot of plan texts that say just to make abortion legal.

 

 

abortion has been legal since 1973

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...