Jump to content
Cryst'all

What's the best way to win against immigrant HC?

Recommended Posts

I've hit it so many times, and I'm always sure we win the round, and somehow we always just never get the win.

The ballots never gave a reason why.

(lays of course)

 

But I was wondering if anyone's put together a good strat to this?

I'm clueless on this one.

Thanks.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know of a unique way to beat this case alone but I don't see why alot of generic neg strats wouldn't work against it. One example would be States CP or Courts CP with a politics disad as a net benefit. I'm sure you'd have no problem finding/ spinning your link evidence that the case would cost capital, especially since it's such a controversial issue as immigration policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Use a good magnet DA, really solid link there since HC for immigrants would obviously attract immigrants.

 

U-Immigration low now

L-Plan increases immigration (serves as a magnet for immigrants)

I/l & Impact- I use disease (no screening of immigrants, leads to disease spread), but there's terrorism, as well as other impacts.

 

If they give to illegals as well, either cut something that says immigrants would refrain since it would look like a trap or say that it just encourages being illegal (I.E. breaking the law is good in the governments eyes...could serve better as an analytical) which also furthers your magnet DA.

 

T: Persons on immigrants if you feel like dicking around. Also, as the above poster stated, you could get some solid politics links, since immigration is very controversial. You could get some solvency off of generic health care neg if you look hard enough as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have a lot of lay judges, stick with arguments they'll find compelling. It's likely that the immigrant hc aff is simply preying on the white guilt of wealthy parents of debaters. If this is what's happening, you almost need to run a K (yes, in front of a lay judge). The K should either expose how the aff is appealing to emotion or how the aff plan is based on flawed assumptions regarding the relationship between the state and those receiving social services (Nietszche or Foucault would be my picks). In either case, you should work up a shell which uses fewer, shorter cards and includes more analysis, and utilizes real world examples to which lay judges can relate. Make the debate about how we address the problem of poverty, and not about whether we should help poor people, else the aff will dominate you in front of lay judges with this topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you have a lot of lay judges, stick with arguments they'll find compelling. It's likely that the immigrant hc aff is simply preying on the white guilt of wealthy parents of debaters. If this is what's happening, you almost need to run a K (yes, in front of a lay judge). The K should either expose how the aff is appealing to emotion or how the aff plan is based on flawed assumptions regarding the relationship between the state and those receiving social services (Nietszche or Foucault would be my picks). In either case, you should work up a shell which uses fewer, shorter cards and includes more analysis, and utilizes real world examples to which lay judges can relate. Make the debate about how we address the problem of poverty, and not about whether we should help poor people, else the aff will dominate you in front of lay judges with this topic.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

The affirmative team ALWAYS pulls the morality. (same with homeless veterans)

What I did was run topicality (can't remember which, but it was legit)

I also ran alot of on-case about how disease will kill the host before it spreads and doctors don't want it.

Possibly a spending DA and a states CP.

Problem is, I don't have much experience running a K. Is there an exact file you're thinking of, and is it on planet debate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is exactly what I'm talking about.

The affirmative team ALWAYS pulls the morality. (same with homeless veterans)

What I did was run topicality (can't remember which, but it was legit)

I also ran alot of on-case about how disease will kill the host before it spreads and doctors don't want it.

Possibly a spending DA and a states CP.

Problem is, I don't have much experience running a K. Is there an exact file you're thinking of, and is it on planet debate?

I'm sorry, but there is no file that can help you win with a K in front of a lay judge. You actually need to understand it well enough to articulate sensible responses on your own. My advice would be to find someone who does know Ks pretty well and get them to describe a few to you.

 

Between the two I mentioned, Foucault is more accessible than Nietzsche(imo) so it might be the place to start. I strongly suggest reading The History of Sexuality if you go with Foucault, and Beyond Good and Evil if you prefer the ideas of Nietzsche. Whatever K you choose, read the primary source literature, or at least the "idiot's guide to" or cliff's notes. Just picking up a file and reading it without a core understanding of the principles behind the K will not be persuasive to a lay judge. To get this kind of win, you'll need to do a few things:

  1. Clearly, and in normal language, explain the philosophy behind your K (implications)
  2. Explain how the aff fits within the frame your K criticizes (link story)
  3. Explain why that's an important reason to vote neg (alt)

These are not things a file can do for you. You need to understand the philosophy yourself, and considerably better than a bunch of two-paragraph quotes can possibly teach you. If everything you learn about your K comes from a debate file, you won't likely get a lay judge to vote for it. Once you learn the philosophy, those files will be a godsend. If you download them and run them without knowing the lit, I assure you nothing but misery (against any reasonably competent opposition).

 

Edit: also, in front of a lay judge, strategy takes a backseat to persuasion. If you run a K, run it one off to avoid confusion at time of adjudication. One consistent, persuasive story as to why you win for 26 minutes is better than two stories for 21 minutes, and one for the last five when you're dealing with someone whose flow may not even exist.

Edited by brorlob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem: I can't talk to anyone because 7/8 of my team is public forum.

But I get what you're saying.

Read the books, analyze the evidence, and run it in the round.

 

And what I meant was "Can you send me the specific link to the K, if it's out there, rather than an explanation? I see lots, and I'm confused as to which one you're talking about."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Problem: I can't talk to anyone because 7/8 of my team is public forum.

But I get what you're saying.

Read the books, analyze the evidence, and run it in the round.

 

And what I meant was "Can you send me the specific link to the K, if it's out there, rather than an explanation? I see lots, and I'm confused as to which one you're talking about."

I don't have specific links to a particular file. I strongly suggest you decide on what kind of K you want to run, then perhaps download one as a starting point, but to generate your own file. A file that's already cut will likely give you a roadmap for reading the books by showing you particular sections of a book which contain different parts of the philosophy at hand.

 

Generally, if and when I download and use a camp file as the basis for building a K, I use the WNDI files, as they seem to be assembled better than most, even if they usually have a bit less evidence than those produced by some of the bigger camps. I'm sure every camp cut Foucault, which is probably the best one to run in front of a lay judge against the aff in question. My advice is to download a file, then use the cites as a list at the library. While you read, use post its to mark passages you might want to cut. The critical pedagogy aff and neg K my kids have been using have zero cards taken from camp files; we simply discussed Pedagogy of the Oppressed until they had a functional understanding of the book as we felt it related to debate, then we cut and wrote the K ourselves. The files you cut yourself will be the ones with which you have the most confidence. And competitive debate (especially in front of lay judges) is about convincing the judge you won, something much easier to achieve if you are confident in your own understanding of the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

run a reps k with the doty card at the end... it actually works really well for a couple of reasons 1) everyone gets tired of hearing war impacts and morality impacts they just want some thing real <esp a lay judge> 2) the doty card lets you access a policymakers framework 3) if they are extremly like a mom or dad/busdriver judge you can argue it as a justification argument seeing as how that is what it is...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...