Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

Could someone help me with some analytic arguments against the Fed DA? Also what the best way to answer it.

Against oceans? First, what's your Aff? The biggest and most obvious argument against Fed DAs this year is no link; ocean policy, especially in international waters, is properly a federal government duty. The second biggest is non-uniqueness; any Aff this year is a far less significant violation of federalism than Obamacare was, and that was upheld by the Roberts Court.

 

Federalism DAs should lose pretty much every round this year.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Against oceans? First, what's your Aff? The biggest and most obvious argument against Fed DAs this year is no link; ocean policy, especially in international waters, is properly a federal government duty. The second biggest is non-uniqueness; any Aff this year is a far less significant violation of federalism than Obamacare was, and that was upheld by the Roberts Court.

 

Federalism DAs should lose pretty much every round this year.

 

And even if you can't win the whole "no impact" from the non-uq claim, you can win a "no impact" claim even if the somehow uq. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-Obama threatening to XO immigration reform into law

-Dream act

-Affordable Healthcare Act(Obamacare)

-Marijuana illegality despite state protests

-EPA regulations

-Literally anything major the government has done in the past 2 decades

 

 

All work as perfect, unanswerable, non-uniques. 

 

-International waters being a federal issue because of Treaty of the Sea (Also a non-u if you want to word it like that)

-State resources < Government resources

-U.S policy regarding foreign waters/international waters

 

All perfectly legitimate No-links

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-Obama threatening to XO immigration reform into law

-Dream act

-Affordable Healthcare Act(Obamacare)

-Marijuana illegality despite state protests

-EPA regulations

-Literally anything major the government has done in the past 2 decades

 

 

All work as perfect, unanswerable, non-uniques. 

 

-International waters being a federal issue because of Treaty of the Sea (Also a non-u if you want to word it like that)

-State resources < Government resources

-U.S policy regarding foreign waters/international waters

 

All perfectly legitimate No-links

Sorry to bump this after such a long while but...

 

How are the aforementioned going to no link the argument? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the link in the fed DA...

 

Also do u need to read cards to contest this or just lbl type stuff on the uq and link?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to bump this after such a long while but...

 

How are the aforementioned going to no link the argument? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the link in the fed DA...

 

Also do u need to read cards to contest this or just lbl type stuff on the uq and link?

The link is that the plan upsets the balance between the states and the federal government, but if ocean exploration/development is in the federal government's jurisdiction then they are not overstepping their bounds.  Or, for the resources argument, if the states don't have the ability to do stuff like the plan then once again the federal government is doing its necessary job, not overstepping.

Edited by MartyP

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...