Jump to content
ZakAli

Need help with answers to this aff

Recommended Posts

hey everyone,

know any topicality violations i could run against this aff.Ive ran into this and there isnt really any files for answers on this besides the neg packet for this but the neg evidence is pretty old`

heres the 1ac

 

plantext is below

 

 

In order to solve the economic harms of unfairly deporting undocumented immigrants my partner and I present the following plan:

 

The United States federal government should substantially curtail its domestic surveillance by ending its surveillance of undocumented immigrants intended for deportation. 

 

 

also any suggestions you can give for some on case arguments 

 

 

Thank you in advance

Immigration Surveillance 1ac.doc

ImmigrationSurveillance_AFF_2015CoreFile.docx

Edited by ZakAli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T - Domestic Surveillance is surveillance of US Persons. Also,  the advantages come from stopping deportation, not surveillance, very extra T.

Cap K

Edited by DebateMaster123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T - domestic surveillance.  (Illegal immigrants are not "US Persons", which includes only citizens and lawful alien residents.  Plenty of decent evidence for this on open ev).

 

DA - Identity Theft.  (Illegal immigrants cannot pay taxes or get a job without stealing someone else's SSN, or purchasing a stolen SSN.  This coopts their I/L to the econ advantage.  Identity theft destroys peoples lives - the IRS goes after them for tax evasion, their credit rating drops through the floor, and thus they get locked out of buying a home, car, or other expensive items like appliances, and it can even impact their employment prospects.  Nor does the government believe you when your identity has been stolen, and in fact the IRS doesn't inform citizens whose identity it *knows* has been stolen - but will still go after those same citizens for tax evasion.  Sorting out identity theft cases can take years and thousands of dollars in lawyer fees.)

 

CP - legalize all immigrants.  (Solves the DA and all case harms, since it necessarily ends the surveillance they're curtailing, and it ends the deportations, and it results in everyone having an SSN and thus able to pay taxes in their own name)

 

There's various Borders Ks out there too which would probably work well with this strategy and function as NB to the CP.

 

On case:

The economics cards are actually very bad in a number of ways, its just not strategic to go after them here.  You could easily turn the stuff about housing -> wealth accumulation.  For example, the zoning laws which keep property prices unreasonably high are actually a primary cause of continuing poverty.  As far as employment goes - illegal immigrants depress wages for that work, which discourages citizens from seeking those jobs.  (No, their card doesn't actually answer that - it dodges the issue.  Yes, work getting done stimulates more economic growth no matter who's doing it - their paper says nothing about the comparison to the world where the jobs went to native workers at higher wages because wages weren't depressed from illegal immigrants.  And considering we're at unprecedented low labor participation right now, you really can't say the current situation is low unemployment.  Increased minimum wage laws exacerbate this effect, because illegal immigrants can work for less, and so drive wages below what can legally be paid to legal workers.)  But since the CP solves their harms anyway, there's no point in making these case attacks since they'd apply just as much to the CP.

 

Actually, you can go after them on the minimum wage issue, because the CP solves and the aff doesn't.  So that turn would be a NB for the CP, and it turns their unemployment I/L.

 

Solvency is where you'll want to go after them though.

 

Re: Debate Master's ideas

Cap K is actually a terrible strategy.  Borders don't depend on capitalism - as anyone who looks at 20th century chinese or soviet history should find obvious.  Indeed, historical attempts to reject capitalism have generally created stricter border controls.  (Most obviously: the Iron Curtain).

 

xT doesn't actually apply.  They don't mandate an end to deportation, so plan isn't xT.  What it does mean is they can't solve, because they don't actually stop deportations and their evidence demands they do to solve.

Edited by Squirrelloid
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T - domestic surveillance.  (Illegal immigrants are not "US Persons", which includes only citizens and lawful alien residents.  Plenty of decent evidence for this on open ev).

 

DA - Identity Theft.  (Illegal immigrants cannot pay taxes or get a job without stealing someone else's SSN, or purchasing a stolen SSN.  This coopts their I/L to the econ advantage.  Identity theft destroys peoples lives - the IRS goes after them for tax evasion, their credit rating drops through the floor, and thus they get locked out of buying a home, car, or other expensive items like appliances, and it can even impact their employment prospects.  Nor does the government believe you when your identity has been stolen, and in fact the IRS doesn't inform citizens whose identity it *knows* has been stolen - but will still go after those same citizens for tax evasion.  Sorting out identity theft cases can take years and thousands of dollars in lawyer fees.)

 

CP - legalize all immigrants.  (Solves the DA and all case harms, since it necessarily ends the surveillance they're curtailing, and it ends the deportations, and it results in everyone having an SSN and thus able to pay taxes in their own name)

 

There's various Borders Ks out there too which would probably work well with this strategy and function as NB to the CP.

 

On case:

The economics cards are actually very bad in a number of ways, its just not strategic to go after them here.  You could easily turn the stuff about housing -> wealth accumulation.  For example, the zoning laws which keep property prices unreasonably high are actually a primary cause of continuing poverty.  As far as employment goes - illegal immigrants depress wages for that work, which discourages citizens from seeking those jobs.  (No, their card doesn't actually answer that - it dodges the issue.  Yes, work getting done stimulates more economic growth no matter who's doing it - their paper says nothing about the comparison to the world where the jobs went to native workers at higher wages because wages weren't depressed from illegal immigrants.  And considering we're at unprecedented low labor participation right now, you really can't say the current situation is low unemployment.  Increased minimum wage laws exacerbate this effect, because illegal immigrants can work for less, and so drive wages below what can legally be paid to legal workers.)  But since the CP solves their harms anyway, there's no point in making these case attacks since they'd apply just as much to the CP.

 

Actually, you can go after them on the minimum wage issue, because the CP solves and the aff doesn't.  So that turn would be a NB for the CP, and it turns their unemployment I/L.

 

Solvency is where you'll want to go after them though.

 

Re: Debate Master's ideas

Cap K is actually a terrible strategy.  Borders don't depend on capitalism - as anyone who looks at 20th century chinese or soviet history should find obvious.  Indeed, historical attempts to reject capitalism have generally created stricter border controls.  (Most obviously: the Iron Curtain).

 

xT doesn't actually apply.  They don't mandate an end to deportation, so plan isn't xT.  What it does mean is they can't solve, because they don't actually stop deportations and their evidence demands they do to solve.

Couldnt they perm do both the counterplan  

 

The disad is great though i like it thanks an

d i think a they might have answers to those on case ill post the full file rn

 

 but thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldnt they perm do both the counterplan  

 

The disad is great though i like it thanks an

d i think a they might have answers to those on case ill post the full file rn

 

 but thank you!

 

Some things which kill the perm:

 

Perm is the CP.  No reason to do plan if you're already doing the CP.  (That's also effectively severing plan representations).

 

Perm is probably severance, but you'll have to get them to explain what exactly they're curtailing for surveillance.  Is requiring a SSN for employment 'illegal immigrant surveillance'?  Because then the perm severs curtailing that, or makes the perm still link to the identity theft DA.  (Might want to spend 1st cx figuring out exactly what surveillance they're talking about).  

 

You might also get a terrorism link or crime link out of making them specify, if they're curtailing surveillance at the borders.  And the CP still allows border surveillance to happen.  Actually, you might argue it regardless and make them defend it because their plan text is so vague.

 

Something else to look at: who does the plan?  Is it a presidential directive that tells agencies to stop the surveillance?  There's a potential DA here on presidential power abuse and not enforcing the laws rather than changing them.  The perm wouldn't absolve them of that.

Edited by Squirrelloid
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey everyone,

know any topicality violations i could run against this aff.Ive ran into this and there isnt really any files for answers on this besides the neg packet for this but the neg evidence is pretty old`

heres the 1ac

 

plantext is below

 

 

In order to solve the economic harms of unfairly deporting undocumented immigrants my partner and I present the following plan:

 

The United States federal government should substantially curtail its domestic surveillance by ending its surveillance of undocumented immigrants intended for deportation. 

 

 

also any suggestions you can give for some on case arguments 

 

 

Thank you in advance

T Sadness

Interpretation: Affirmatives must be joyous Violation: They aren’t Sadness is a voting issue

Deleuze and Parnet ‘87 famous philosopher, Professor of Philosophy at the Sorbonne, Dialogues II, European Perspectives, with Claire Parnet, freelance journalist, translated by Hugh Tomlinson and Barbara Habberjam, 2002 pgs.61-62

When Spinoza says 'The surprising thing is the body ... we do not yet know what a body is capable of ... ', he does not want to make the body a model, and the soul simply de­pendent on the body. He has a subtler task. He wants to demolish the pseudo-superiority of the soul over the body. There is the soul and the body and both express one and the same thing: an attribute of the body is also an expressed of the soul (for example, speed). Just as you do not know what a body is capable of, just as there are many things in the body that you do not know, so there are in the soul many things which go beyond your consciousness. This is the question: what is a body capable of? what affects are you capable of? Experiment, but you need a lot of prudence to experiment. We live in a world which is generally disagreeable, where not only people but the established powers have a stake in transmitting sad affects to us. Sadness, sad affects, are all those which reduce our power to act. The established powers need our sadness to make us slaves. The tyrant, the priest, the captors of souls need to persuade us that life is hard and a burden. The powers that be need to repress us no less than to make us anxious or, as Virilio says, to administer and organize our intimate little fears. The long, universal moan about life: the lack-to-be which is life ... In vain someone says, 'Let's dance'; we are not really very happy. In vain someone says, ‘What misfortune death is'; for one would need to have lived to have something to lose. Those who are sick, in soul as in body, will not let go of us, the vampires, until they have transmitted to us their neurosis and their anxiety, their beloved castration, the resentment against life, filthy contagion. It is all a matter of blood. It is not easy to be a free man, to flee the plague, organize encounters, increase the power to act, to be moved by joy, to multiply the affects which express or encompass a maximum of affirmation. To make the body a power which is not reducible to the organism, to make thought a power which is not reducible to consciousness. Spinoza’s famous first principle (a single substance for all attributes) depends on this assemblage and not vice versa. There is a Spinoza-assemblage: soul and body, relationships and encounters, power to be affected, affects which realize this power, sadness and joy which qualify these affects. Here philosophy becomes the art of a functioning, of an assemblage. Spinoza, the man of encounters and becoming, the philosopher with the tick, Spinoza the imperceptible, always in the middle, always in flight although he does not shift much, a flight from the Jewish community, a flight from Powers, a flight from the sick and the malignant. He may be ill, he may himself die; he knows that death is neither the goal nor the end, but that, on the contrary, it is a case of passing his life to someone else. What Lawrence says about Whitman’s continuous life is well suited to Spinoza: the Soul and the Body, the soul is neither above nor inside, it is ‘with’, it is on the road, exposed to all contacts, encounters, in the company of those who follow the same way, ‘feel with them, seize the vibration of their soul and their body as they pass’, the opposite of a morality of salvation, teaching to soul its life, not to save it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T - domestic surveillance.  (Illegal immigrants are not "US Persons", which includes only citizens and lawful alien residents.  Plenty of decent evidence for this on open ev).

 

DA - Identity Theft.  (Illegal immigrants cannot pay taxes or get a job without stealing someone else's SSN, or purchasing a stolen SSN.  This coopts their I/L to the econ advantage.  Identity theft destroys peoples lives - the IRS goes after them for tax evasion, their credit rating drops through the floor, and thus they get locked out of buying a home, car, or other expensive items like appliances, and it can even impact their employment prospects.  Nor does the government believe you when your identity has been stolen, and in fact the IRS doesn't inform citizens whose identity it *knows* has been stolen - but will still go after those same citizens for tax evasion.  Sorting out identity theft cases can take years and thousands of dollars in lawyer fees.)

 

CP - legalize all immigrants.  (Solves the DA and all case harms, since it necessarily ends the surveillance they're curtailing, and it ends the deportations, and it results in everyone having an SSN and thus able to pay taxes in their own name)

 

There's various Borders Ks out there too which would probably work well with this strategy and function as NB to the CP.

 

On case:

The economics cards are actually very bad in a number of ways, its just not strategic to go after them here.  You could easily turn the stuff about housing -> wealth accumulation.  For example, the zoning laws which keep property prices unreasonably high are actually a primary cause of continuing poverty.  As far as employment goes - illegal immigrants depress wages for that work, which discourages citizens from seeking those jobs.  (No, their card doesn't actually answer that - it dodges the issue.  Yes, work getting done stimulates more economic growth no matter who's doing it - their paper says nothing about the comparison to the world where the jobs went to native workers at higher wages because wages weren't depressed from illegal immigrants.  And considering we're at unprecedented low labor participation right now, you really can't say the current situation is low unemployment.  Increased minimum wage laws exacerbate this effect, because illegal immigrants can work for less, and so drive wages below what can legally be paid to legal workers.)  But since the CP solves their harms anyway, there's no point in making these case attacks since they'd apply just as much to the CP.

 

Actually, you can go after them on the minimum wage issue, because the CP solves and the aff doesn't.  So that turn would be a NB for the CP, and it turns their unemployment I/L.

 

Solvency is where you'll want to go after them though.

 

Re: Debate Master's ideas

Cap K is actually a terrible strategy.  Borders don't depend on capitalism - as anyone who looks at 20th century chinese or soviet history should find obvious.  Indeed, historical attempts to reject capitalism have generally created stricter border controls.  (Most obviously: the Iron Curtain).

 

xT doesn't actually apply.  They don't mandate an end to deportation, so plan isn't xT.  What it does mean is they can't solve, because they don't actually stop deportations and their evidence demands they do to solve.

maybe not but that econ advantage does

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i've went against this aff around three times and i've won every round. i ran the guest worker da and the security k against it each time, as well as completely killing their case in cross-ex. for the sec K, i use surv, tech and econ links against it, but honestly i dont really go for those links too much. i attack their case by saying that their plan is just a band-aid solution and that they're trying to reform a system rooted in more complicated ideologies than they'd like to admit. then i say that the reason deportation is happening today is because of security, and unless we choose to focus on security and solve for that first, deportation will never be solved, thus their advantages will never happen. i always say that i access their impacts (because their impacts are impacts of deportation, and not of surveillance, and the K supposedly solves for deportation by solving for security), as well as emphasize on the other impacts of the sec K (dehumanization, perpetual war, etc) and make a big deal about how that always outweighs (bc better living standards cant really defeat the lives lost in war nor the loss of value to life bc of dehumanization). the only challenge really is explaining how security is bad, and explaining how the K is the root cause. i don't really go for the da at all, and just keep it as a timeskew but you can study it and go for it if you'd like. good luck!! :) (message me or post on the thread if you have more questions, cause i explained it pretty bad hahaha)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T on its because immigration is handled at the state level

Domestic T

Disease DA

Border Security DA

Takeouts on econ adv.

Plan can't solve bad for politics

 
(Very late into the season sorry)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...