Jump to content
rrg

AFFs for Next Year

Recommended Posts

X-tra Topical. That's what.

 

Rags2Rags: I was thinking about that--X-tra (particularly with that "either/or" clause) and possibly FX... I think that a stronger scenario is going to be overturn random law X or have the Supreme Court take away the rights of the USFG to search on Native American lands without tribal court approval...something that would be on face topical--and then use a sovereignty advantage to argue that concessions on legal jurisdiciton lead to sovereignty.

 

However, it's easier to win the T debate than the i/l debate on those two...so I'm still up in the air.

 

Kernalreefer: I agree the plan is more Xtra than FX...although I'm sure some team would try to spin an Fx story.

 

Again, how'd you win any kind of substantive impact, seems kind of weak that one act by one opressive organization would miraculously save the indians and then save all indigenous groups and then, etc.

 

Would be pretty easy to O/W with politics or some such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And since these decisions were recent, and currently the Supreme court/USFG is in a mindset of passing these kind of decisions, wouldn't case just get overturned? Obviously you can guarentee that your decisions gets sustained through durable fiat, but does that necessarily stop the overall trend? Since you're only mandating a specific law passage/ruling overturned couldn't future decisions on simmilar but slightly different topics decrease the sovreignty of indian's? In this vein, wouldn't your very inherency make your impacts terminally non-unique?

 

Also, even if the tribe had the right to say no to these searches, couldn't the USFG still coerce the tribe to give into searches they (the tribe) didn't want?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How would decreasing US authority over the reservations solve for the inability of trible justices systems to try people?. Seems kind of FX to me, after all, that would require "increasing" the authority of the tribe, not the other way around, and only by increasing tribal authority would you decrease USFG authority. Even if you decreased US authority (and hence were topical) how would you solve for the inability of indian courts to try people?

 

Because it's the only roadblock. As such, it's a zero sum game. Once I decrease the power of the US to do it, I increase the authority of the tribal courts. The power has existed in the past, and in fact was only taken away by Supreme Court decisions. Overturning the decision automatically cedes the authority back to the tribal courts.

 

Moreover, how would you get the link's to self determination impacts? I mean I understand how theoretically removing all USFG authority could increase self-determination, but given the limits of the topic how can you claim any substantive impact? Wouldn't you have to increase the authority of the Indian's directly, which would clearly be FX/XTRA/NOT topical?

 

I concede off the top that I'd be Xtra (given the plan text you're assuming, however if I just overturned a case that merely dealt with search/detention and was deemed critical to sovereignty in the lit and I don't believe I am) I don't believe it's Fx. It happens instanteously, given the zero sum analysis above.

 

Oh, and you said "state officers" have authority. Wouldn't decreasing the authority of states to go into Indian terriroty be Xtra/FX as well? I mean the resolution does have "its" I believe. The State government is seperated from the Federal government, and even if you win that the USFG has authority over states to control them (believe there's a clause of the constitution that says federal laws supercede state laws) you would still be FX xtra topical (that is you decrease the USFG's authority, but you also go beyond that and decrease state authority, which would at best decrease USFG authority FXually, meaning you have FX plan planks).

 

You're completely accurate here...except for the vast amounts of literature that indicate that the Feds have always taken the lead on policies concerning Native Americans and as such would trump the state utterly on this one. (Additionally, that's an independent reason that I don't link to Federalism, this has always been a default to the Feds issue, despite periods where the states have been given more authority)

 

 

Finally, if you don't decrease the authority of state actors how'd you solve? I mean if the USFG lays off why wouldn't states just lay it on harder for "their own security"?" Seems like this would act as a solvency mitigator and turn.

 

See above. ;)

 

ETA: As for your last two posts You're right, it's a weak link, but when the impact is the ONLY potential way to save all of humanity and not be immoral on a pre-fiat level, I think I get a bit of a comparative advantage at least.

 

Additionally, no one would run a "overturn decision X" case that didn't have evidence that it would lead to a paradigm shift unless they wanted to lose.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow i just got this vivid picture in my head of elliot laughing like that. dang. oh, kind of off topic, but did you cut your own securitization file, elliot? if not, where is it from? (i'm not prepping or anything-just wondering where you got it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pre-Fiat AND moral obligation?

 

*pulls out T-frontline's and morality kritiks.

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

*pulls out counter kritik of T, threat con and prophecy, the infalliable trio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, did I *cut it myself*? I was in the lab at Stanford that cut the file but I didn't do all the cutting myself. Most of the 1NC shell came from Stanford. The Kapeller framework cards I did cut myself. (though I got the cites from someone else.) Then the permutation answers came from some other file (the theory I wrote myself, the Martin card came from god knows where).

Be warned, that Stanford file is 99% horrible, and 1% good (there's a few good shell cards, other than that it=lame.)

 

You're the kid from Viewmont I beat on Severance, right?

 

And don't worry about prepping, I have better kritiks in the pipeline then that, :-P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're completely accurate here...except for the vast amounts of literature that indicate that the Feds have always taken the lead on policies concerning Native Americans and as such would trump the state utterly on this one. (Additionally, that's an independent reason that I don't link to Federalism, this has always been a default to the Feds issue, despite periods where the states have been given more authority)

 

True dat, I ran Natives on the Mental Health Topic and the literature on State action in the realm of Native American affairs is THE biggest uphill battle for negatives. One could nearly argue the 1AC would be a straight turn to CP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Repeal H.R. 666. It gives the cops the right to search someone's house without a search warrant, based on the cop's "good faith."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whole Rez, not sure exactly how I'd work it, but, it would be interesting.

 

I agree Elliot, no where in the rez does it say make a policy therefore why not. I think whole rez or hypotest is the way to go for next year... anyone have ideas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think whole rez would be an uphill battle, but if you could win it, it would be shweet. you would have to be very comfortable because most debates, i would guess, would turn into muddled theory debates (like most theory debates turn into).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont get why they keep having to put the word substantially in these resolutions. I think that t's on substantially are just about the worst there is besides being on words like the, a, and, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Repeal H.R. 666. It gives the cops the right to search someone's house without a search warrant, based on the cop's "good faith."

H.R. 666 of 1995(always include year or congress number, many H.R. 666)

I am almost positive this didnt pass the senate. But, if it did you could always have a saton advantage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

without substantially you get stuff like (this year's topic as an example) "send extra shoe laces to one u.n. peacekeeper." it's the only way to attempt to create a brightline between sending trivial and considerable support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I know that its important to differentiate between things like that, but I just hate T debates over that word, it feels like such a waste of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
without substantially you get stuff like (this year's topic as an example) "send extra shoe laces to one u.n. peacekeeper." it's the only way to attempt to create a brightline between sending trivial and considerable support.

The primary definition of substantially in Webster's (the one I carry into rounds) says that substantial means "real." That plan you just stated would technically be substantial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but it implies it.

 

cough crap cough. you cant say that the resolution implies something. think about what kind of monster that could unleash, i'm sorry you are wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The primary definition of substantially in Webster's (the one I carry into rounds) says that substantial means "real." That plan you just stated would technically be substantial.

substantial=considerable. huge counterstandard of context

 

and no, i don't think it would be that hard to win that the resolution implies things. besides hypotesting and whole rez, how else would you decrease civ lib? by NOT doing a policy you support the status quo. that makes mandates a negative ballot. and not having "policy" in the rez is not that new of a concept. three of the resolutions in the last six years have no had policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can substantial mean real? Wow...can you just imagine the possible squirrely and monstrously un-topical cases that would bring about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...