Crazy affs for next year

[Isbrar 2]

Do you guys have any ideas for crazy policy aff cases for next years topic of immigration. They have to be legit enough to find evidence, but other than that, the skies the limit.

[OutKTheK 60]

NSDA: Soooo, how can we kill k debate and kill all aff ground for policy debate? Perfect! Immigration!

[TheSnowball 1433]

I think there's an interesting possible case about letting in people displaced by climate change. It's not really "crazy," but there's a clear ethical advantage and some possible ways to avoid the common Negative ground.

[OutKTheK 60]

Yeah so after learning a bit more about the topic, I have better opinions. I still think the aff ground is quite small, but I think there could be some cool affs about possibly letting in more nuclear experts could be interesting - solves those t h i c c nuclear war impacts. Letting in refugees could be cool, too. The terror DA on this aff is going to make me want to literally die, but that's ok. 

 

The United States Federal Government should substantially reduce its restrictions on legal immigration to the United States by mandating that students accepted to higher education facilities in the US are granted green cards.

 

A1: Innovation - immigrants key to new perspectives, key to innovation

     S1: k2 Climate Change

     S2: k2 Cyber

     S3: k2 Aerospace

     S4: k2 Hege

     S5: k2 Econ

Edited March 7, 2018 by OutKTheK

[Debate2000 60]

@OutKtheK What are you talking about that the aff ground is “small?” This is the largest topic since surveillance and probably even larger than that. In short, you’re just dumb if you don’t think there’s much aff ground. Do a few searches bud, you’d be surprised.

***we do not endorse the problematic language in this evidence

[OutKTheK 60]

@OutKtheK What are you talking about that the aff ground is “small?” This is the largest topic since surveillance and probably even larger than that. In short, you’re just dumb if you don’t think there’s much aff ground. Do a few searches bud, you’d be surprised.

***we do not endorse the problematic language in this evidence

1. Chill man, this is a forum for debaters. There's really no reason to use ableist language and insult me. 

 

2. The topic ground on aff isn't as much as you think. While there are a lot of possible affs, they are all the same generic type (aka removing a couple restrictions on immigration). In education, you could do loads of different things. You could even say "fuck it" and destroy the education system. My point is the lit base for immigration isn't going to be as diverse, even if it is numerous, as education, China, and surveillance, as well as Oceans and many of our previous topics.

 

3. If you want to talk about there's a massive amount of ground, prove it. List 15 distinctly different possible affs with feasible big stick impacts for this year. I bet you will quit after 10.

 

4. As a hypothetical question, what's the point of easing restrictions/creating more rules about legal immigration if they are just going to be ignored anyway. You know and I know the government's gonna accept everyone they want, and decline everybody they don't want, and people will still be illegally immigrating en masse.

 

This post is more about a rant about this topic than a response to your post, sorry, but I hope I've eased some of your curiosities about why I personally dislike this topic and think aff ground isn't very good.

[TheSnowball 1433]

There's a difference between functional limits and aggregate limits. These aren't technical terms ("functional limit" might be) but just how I think about the scope of the topic. Functional limits are about the categories of Affirmative and the way the topic is shaped by Negative generics. Aggregate limits are concerned with the number of possible Affirmative cases. I think that in both the education topic and the immigration topic, there are very few aggregate limits. In education, you could reform curriculum over art or the environment or math or physics or AP Chemistry (don't take that class, you'll regret it) or whatever else you feel like. On immigration, I'm sure there's a ton of tiny rules you could scrap. Yet both have very strict functional limits. On education, the states CP and the federalism DA keep the Affirmative from delving into most curricular Affirmatives because they need to find a case with a "federal key" warrant. On immigration, the same process CPs and disadvantages are going to access most of the Affirmatives regardless of what minute administrative change they make. While it seems like a race to the unpredictable, I think that process of having to creatively justify the resolution can lead to some really interesting and nuanced debates. On immigration, the trick will be to find something that's both relevant to the topic and avoids the major Negative arguments. So the immigration topic is probably going to start out pretty small, and then branch off based on the Affirmative cases that camps put out as it did with education.

[InterrogatinReality 1]

did not mean to upvote debate 2000

[wackydebaterfromtulsa 3]

did not mean to upvote debate 2000

me neither

[Arrow1124 4]

Would be possible to run an aff that says that we should open the borders and that the large number of immigrants entering would crash the economy in turn cause capitalism to die.

[TheTrashDebater 168]

Would be possible to run an aff that says that we should open the borders and that the large number of immigrants entering would crash the economy in turn cause capitalism to die.

A dedev aff, I’ve seen it done before but it’ll be hard to convince a judge with it

[Masterdebater3000 10]

Would be possible to run an aff that says that we should open the borders and that the large number of immigrants entering would crash the economy in turn cause capitalism to die.

It's possible but impact turning cap is too easy so it's a bit risky

[Sheepo 5]

2017-Lets have a resolution with 0 neg ground

2018-Lets have a resolution with 0 aff ground

2019- Resolved the USFG should increase its regulation of car mechanics. 0 aff or neg ground

 

Fun affs for next year---

1---Remove the citizenship test

-----Advantage: Solves for svio by not forcing a narrative of the dominant culture.

 

2---Annex Cuba more of a break aff. Any case answers would turn the shit out of this.

-----Advantage: Hedge econ Something generic

 

3---Remove restrictions on immigration for foreign translators helping the military

-----Key to readiness and you might be able to find key to middle east not nuking people

 

4---Open borders with Canada and or Mexico

-----Key to relations, economic growth. Key to stopping Canada China partnership.

 

5---Make Puerto Rico a state

-----Some svio impact Idk, Econ maby

 

6---Give legal citizenship to Citizens of American Samoa

-----Their current status is racist

[Cakeisawesome12345 28]

The United States federal government should stop all deportations, and provide plane tickets for deported individuals along with housing and food to come back to the United States

 

Trump would obviously hate the plan, and the GOP will hate it too but if you make it critical, then that doesn't matter

 

I don't think this would be topical either, because of the word legal immigration

 

How about this: The United States federal government should lift all immigration restrictions and allow everybody in the world to come into the United States

Edited March 21, 2018 by Cakeisawesome12345

[Capulet 6]

Cosmopolitan K's will be everywhere. A lot of fun-but-stupid ideas in my head about allowing unlimited immigration from a certain group because of "x" factor (some more serious stuff like professorial knowledge, and some less serious stuff like accents.)

[Lukrau 20]

The United States federal government should eliminate the naturalization fee.

 

I did some basic research for this, it’s a huge barrier to citizenship and naturalization is hugely good for our economy and for immigrant rights.

Edited April 23, 2018 by Lukrau

[Chaos 2587]

The United States federal government should substantially reduce its restrictions on legal immigration to the United States.

 

I don't know if this has been observed yet on this site, but increasing the number of legal immigrants is arguably not topical, just for everyone's notice. The resolution talks about reducing the restrictions on legal immigration, not changing the amount of legal immigration. The distinction is subtle and hard to articulate. Having low amounts of legal immigration is not a "restriction" on legal immigration if "restriction" refers to rules of conduct or admission rather than to any kind of numerical limitation. If I specify a group of people, legal immigrants, and say we should change how that group of people are regulated, that is different than saying we should expand the boundaries of that group to encompass people who aren't currently inside it. Analogy: this is the same as the difference between saying someone should loosen up their tastes and try new foods and saying that they should eat more. Grammatically, I think this interpretation is the more correct one, but proving that would be hard.

 

This is not directly relevant to this thread, necessarily, but thinking about the topic in different terms changes the places we can look for craziness. For example, maybe we should let children immigrate and become legal citizens, even if they live in ordinary circumstances. Maybe we should let animals do the same. Less crazily, maybe we should change the rules regulating dual citizenship to make them more permissive. Technically, the US allows for dual citizenship. And yet, we also require immigrants to take a loyalty oath of exclusivity. Getting rid of that condition on immigration seems like a solid squirrel case that's readable in front of judges of all types, to me. For offense, look to criticisms of the notion of "dual loyalty", which is a phrase often used by the xenophobic, and claim the loyalty oath perpetuates such notions. If you want to get even more specific, you could remove a specific sentence from the loyalty oath and leave the rest of it.

Edited April 23, 2018 by Chaos

[TheSnowball 1433]

I don't know if this has been observed yet on this site, but increasing the number of legal immigrants is arguably not topical

I think people will say a quota is a restriction.

[Capulet 6]

I think people will say a quota is a restriction.

But there's definitely a T argument to be made there. I'd expect plans like that to be stock T'd a lot.

[OutKTheK 60]

Increasing the number of illegal immigrants is definitely untopical, but even if it wasn't, even our lord and savior, fiat jesus can't automatically magic a whole bunch of people in the US. However, if you do something to a immigration policy that encourages immigration, then the natural result is that immigration will increase.

[Chaos 2587]

I think people will say a quota is a restriction.

 

Which is an interesting question in itself, because that depends on the baseline of comparison. A quota is hardly a restriction if it leads to more of something than there would have been in its absence. We could say that the baseline is, or should be, open borders, in which case a quota decreases the number of immigrants, but we could also say that the baseline is, or should be, completely closed borders, in which case a quota is already increasing the number of immigrants. It depends on which is seen as the more "natural" state of affairs, and I can think of arguments for both.

[TheSnowball 1433]

Which is an interesting question in itself, because that depends on the baseline of comparison. A quota is hardly a restriction if it leads to more of something than there would have been in its absence. We could say that the baseline is, or should be, open borders, in which case a quota decreases the number of immigrants, but we could also say that the baseline is, or should be, completely closed borders, in which case a quota is already increasing the number of immigrants. It depends on which is seen as the more "natural" state of affairs, and I can think of arguments for both.

That's only if you interpret restrictions as reductions and not just as parameters. Maybe fiddling with the numbers within a quota isn't topical, but eliminating quotas is?

[Chaos 2587]

I might have lost my train of thought, but I think the answer to that is all restrictions are reductions, but not all reductions are restrictions. So proving that a quota is not a reduction would suffice to prove that it's not a restriction, but would not commit the negative team to a definition of restriction that is about numbers rather than conditions on admission.

[OutKTheK 60]

Which is an interesting question in itself, because that depends on the baseline of comparison. A quota is hardly a restriction if it leads to more of something than there would have been in its absence. We could say that the baseline is, or should be, open borders, in which case a quota decreases the number of immigrants, but we could also say that the baseline is, or should be, completely closed borders, in which case a quota is already increasing the number of immigrants. It depends on which is seen as the more "natural" state of affairs, and I can think of arguments for both.

 

That's only if you interpret restrictions as reductions and not just as parameters. Maybe fiddling with the numbers within a quota isn't topical, but eliminating quotas is?

 

This will honestly be really cool T. I'm kinda hyped for this same debate to happen in round, for one because I like T debates, and also because this is probably a true etymological argument to have. I think the default is gonna be a restriction is a binding limit, while quota is a flexible limit, honestly. Still, though, this'll make for cool debates. Thanks for raising this up.

 

EDIT: This inspired me to find a couple of T definitions for the newest topic. Check the thread out!

Edited April 30, 2018 by OutKTheK

[lfpnub 6]

Would be possible to run an aff that says that we should open the borders and that the large number of immigrants entering would crash the economy in turn cause capitalism to die.

Lots of lit says open borders would be really good for the economy.