Jump to content
Isbrar

Crazy affs for next year

Recommended Posts

Open borders is just asking for a PIC unless you're reading a K version, and maybe even then.

"First off is the Mexico PIC."

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Immigrants donate organs and are in turn given full, fast-tracked naturalization with no fees and a tax deduction. Organs are given to help the 121,000 on the organ transplant waiting list.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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

Where is the thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Immigrants donate organs and are in turn given full, fast-tracked naturalization with no fees and a tax deduction. Organs are given to help the 121,000 on the organ transplant waiting list.

Prepare to get the living shit critiqued out of you. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prepare to get the living shit critiqued out of you. 

haha I have so many A2 cards against morality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is this alternative (re: crazy) reading of the resolution?

 

Define "legal immigration" as both technically immigrating and integrating into the culture. There is literature to support the notion that in order to fully immigrate, integration must be achieved. Some philosophers must argue that the culture of a civilization is a far more important barrier to entry into that civilization than any legal document it devizes. Then, say that working towards prosperity is a cornerstone of American culture ("American Dream.") So, logically, immigrants would need to legally immigrate and then have equal footing for achieving prosperity with born-on-soil Americans in order to truly "immigrate" in any meaningful sense. This carries into the definition of "immigrate" in the resolution.

 

Also, "restriction" can mean anything keeping someone from doing something, like societal barriers are restrictions to immigrants achieving equal economic footing. 

 

So, the resolution can be interpreted as, in essence, "The USFG should reduce its support for the current societal barriers to full immigration/integration."

 

I know. Crazy. Insane. Thought up at 1:00 in the morning. But what do y'all think? Feel perfectly free to tear it apart. But it seems to me that you could just take any policy that fits into this interpretation of the resolution, and boom. Maybe you could even squeeze in some cap theory, but that might be a struggle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worth pointing out for all the aff ideas that say "allow more immigrants if they do x" isn't t. Even if you eliminate other restrictions, you're still adding new ones contrary to the direction of the topic. This dovetails with what chaos is saying about increasing immigrants not being T and what I think he was getting at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also there's a variety of different visas that can be looked into. One thing that bothers me with the wording of the rez is that processes of some specific legal immigration can't topically be modified (like low skilled worker visas which have been changed from first come first serve to a lottery under Trump) except with quotas, which doesn't really get at the heart of those discussions.

 

I also think conditions cp's would be as interesting as PICs against open borders affs (we let everyone in if they do x) which has been suggested as possible affs above. Probs work better as CPs and I think specific lit hedges back against theory concerns.

 

EDIT: Regional subsets affs will be interesting as well and could be easy to defend on T (people from x region or country). Most will look at substantially as the term to limit them out, except substantially modifies reducing restrictions (so mechanisms, not groups of people), the right term to limit them out is a "legal immigration means all immigration" interp or something to that effect.

Edited by OGRawrcat
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worth pointing out for all the aff ideas that say "allow more immigrants if they do x" isn't t. Even if you eliminate other restrictions, you're still adding new ones contrary to the direction of the topic. This dovetails with what chaos is saying about increasing immigrants not being T and what I think he was getting at.

The number of immigrants allowed is a barrier and of itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The number of immigrants allowed is a barrier and of itself.

 

Right, it would reduce the restriction of quotas and add the restriction of them having to engage in whatever activity to be admitted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regional subsets affs will be interesting as well and could be easy to defend on T (people from x region or country). Most will look at substantially as the term to limit them out, except substantially modifies reducing restrictions (so mechanisms, not groups of people), the right term to limit them out is a "legal immigration means all immigration" interp or something to that effect.

 

Wow, good observation. I kind of feel like people will just ignore this grammatical point and interpret the word substantially as referring to the number of immigrants, though. Winning that grammar matters is hard - grammar is key to the predictability of the interpretation, but having a less predictable interpretation in exchange for a better limited topic seems like a good trade. I've never come across any other convincing arguments as to why grammar matters as a standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are 100 percent right, and even if I have questions about most if those affs, (for example, "restrictions" = more than 1 restriction), I think there will def be more than 15 affs on this topic. However, the point I was trying to make is the ground isn't very similar. You proved my point, as many of the things you listed functioned very similarly if not the same as each other, and that's ok. I'm writing a k aff for this topic, anyway!

 

Cheers, and well done on your list. There's no way I could list all that in 10 minutes.

 

~OutKTheK

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...