Jump to content
AnthonyUwU

Immigration Topic KTyler(aff) vs AnthonySGHS(Neg)

Recommended Posts

Ready for CX when you are

 

Edit: I've removed my 1AC due to backlash from the community. Anthony, Judge, if y'all need a copy, I can pm it to y'all. Thanks!

 

 

Edited by Ktyler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Ktyler said:

Ready for CX when you are

 

Ktyler v AthonySGHS.docx

CX:

Is immigration the sole reason for decrease on jobs, if so why is that bad?

You say the estimate cost of the plan by 2025 is "1.34 trillion" what will it cost initially?

Can you give me the full cards please?

Why is Obama Care Flawed and why can't it just be amended?

How much money will be gained from the abolishment of Obama Care?

Who will oversee the interview process?

What are the qualification for someone to be accepted into the US?

I will have somw followup question (max like ~3)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/3/2018 at 2:43 PM, AnthonySGHS said:

CX:

Is immigration the sole reason for decrease on jobs, if so why is that bad?

You say the estimate cost of the plan by 2025 is "1.34 trillion" what will it cost initially?

Can you give me the full cards please?

Why is Obama Care Flawed and why can't it just be amended?

How much money will be gained from the abolishment of Obama Care?

Who will oversee the interview process?

What are the qualification for someone to be accepted into the US?

I will have somw followup question (max like ~3)

 

1. You're asking an odd question. The aff states that immigration is not decreasing jobs but rather decreasing job wages. They are oversaturating the job market which is causing American families to struggle. Further justification is not needed because there isn't justification in American families needing to work multiple jobs just to get by. Refer back to Card 2 in Observation 2: Status Quo.

2. You present a false statement, refer back to Plank 2: Funding. The plan does not have an estimated cost because this projection has not been made. That, however, is solved for because the origin for the funding is estimated to be around 1.34T. This means that the cost of the aff plan will be covered because there shouldn't be a reason for anything to exceed 1.34T. This negates the question so I will move on.

3. Yes, I can, they're provided below (Sorry, I'm still figuring this whole thing out. I gave you an outdated aff. I usually check this when printing but I didn't get to here. The only change is Card A in Observation 4: Solvency).

4. This is an entirely separate debate so I suggest that the opposition either runs a CP on ObamaCare or drops the funding argument here and now. Point negated, moving on.

5. This question is answered in the Plan, under Plank 2: Funding. I will ask that the opposition will please read carefully over the affirmative plan before cx.

6. The interview process is already somewhat part of the current system, we'll simply be changing this process of the interview. There might be a need to hire more individuals but there has not been a study on this so. These interviews are usually conducted by immigration officers under the USFG.

7. Vague question, I'll ask that you restate. Current system? Under the MBI system? Ideal system?

 

 

Edited by Ktyler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I guess I'm judging this round. First things first, aff could you highlight this 1AC so that we get an accurate word count? I'm sure you're good, just to be sure.

Paradigm:

TDLR; I'm honestly closest to a tab judge you're going to get. Just don't be a bigot and we'll be good. Signposting is appreciated, but I get it.

Affs; Do whatever you want, I'm good with K affs if you're good with dealing with FW. Severance can be fleshed out by the debaters, I lean severance the same way as I do with condo.

Turns; Only turns I won't buy are oppression/racism good. Oh btw, if you say you're straight turning an arg, I need to see a turn with no defense on the position.

DAs; Do whatever, just make sure you warrant your link story.

CPs; I'm inclined to think uncondo or one condo rounds produce the best debates, but if y'all can warrant why something different is better, I'm all ears.

Ks; I read a decent amount of lit, if you do anything way out there please just break it down a little for me. Other than that I won't limit you.

T/theory/FW; I believe limits and competitive equity are the most important issues in a round by default, but can be persuaded otherwise. If you're gonna go for arguments pre-fiat, please let me know and impact out why I weigh that first.

Misc; I lean tech>truth on all arguments other than oppression and eugenics. I'll vote on any other argument if you tell me why. I prefer more clash, so please be decent to each other and explain concepts if you don't think your opponent understands them (in a respectful way). I don't judge kick unless you tell me why I should, and I will never vote off of arguments I haven't heard in the round.

Let me know if you have any other questions! Enjoy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ktyler said:

1. You're asking an odd question. The aff states that immigration is not decreasing jobs but rather decreasing job wages. They are oversaturating the job market which is causing American families to struggle. Further justification is not needed because there isn't justification in American families needing to work multiple jobs just to get by. Refer back to Card 2 in Observation 2: Status Quo.

2. You present a false statement, refer back to Plank 2: Funding. The plan does not have an estimated cost because this projection has not been made. That, however, is solved for because the origin for the funding is estimated to be around 1.34T. This means that the cost of the aff plan will be covered because there shouldn't be a reason for anything to exceed 1.34T. This negates the question so I will move on.

3. Yes, I can, they're provided below (Sorry, I'm still figuring this whole thing out. I gave you an outdated aff. I usually check this when printing but I didn't get to here. The only change is Card A in Observation 4: Solvency).

4. This is an entirely separate debate so I suggest that the opposition either runs a CP on ObamaCare or drops the funding argument here and now. Point negated, moving on.

5. This question is answered in the Plan, under Plank 2: Funding. I will ask that the opposition will please read carefully over the affirmative plan before cx.

6. The interview process is already somewhat part of the current system, we'll simply be changing this process of the interview. There might be a need to hire more individuals but there has not been a study on this so. These interviews are usually conducted by immigration officers under the USFG.

7. Vague question, I'll ask that you restate. Current system? Under the MBI system? Ideal system?

 

Ktyler v AthonySGHS Cards Full.docx

Followup to 2. Let me rephrase the question, what is an estimated cost of your plan initially?

follow up to 4. Again let me rephrase why is it that you want to abolish Obama-Care in the plan? Also what do you mean by point negated lol, you can just do that in debate where you just say Point negated your question is meaningless?

Followup to 7. What constitutes someone being accepted into the US under your plan what is required of them under the Merit Based System?

8. How much money do we stand to make by abolishing Obama Care?

Also getting the 1 NC ready should be done in an hour give or take unless I haul ass.

Edited by AnthonySGHS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also silly me I forgot to ask pronouns, Mines are Him, He, She, Her and I do not mind They, Them? May I ask the Pronouns of our judge aswell?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AnthonySGHS said:

Also silly me I forgot to ask pronouns, Mines are Him, He, She, Her and I do not mind They, Them? May I ask the Pronouns of our judge aswell?

He/Him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AnthonySGHS said:

Followup to 2. Let me rephrase the question, what is an estimated cost of your plan initially?

follow up to 4. Again let me rephrase why is it that you want to abolish Obama-Care in the plan? Also what do you mean by point negated lol, you can just do that in debate where you just say Point negated your question is meaningless?

Followup to 7. What constitutes someone being accepted into the US under your plan what is required of them under the Merit Based System?

8. How much money do we stand to make by abolishing Obama Care?

FT2: Once more, there is not an estimated cost because an estimate has not been done as far as the Aff knows. If the neg has an estimate, then please provide the source and amount. No matter, it's obvious that the plan won't cost over 1.34T, so the aff plan is funded in full. We aren't doing anything that is obviously high in cost, justifying the significantly less than 1.34T cost.

FT4: The aff wishes to abolish ObamaCare because we see that there is a potentially competitive field in the healthcare industry. With ObamaCare gone, the healthcare industry can grow, become competitive, and contribute to the economy instead of taking from it, like ObamaCare does. Once more, this is grounds for a CP. The aff says point negated because the question is either the start to a CP or it's a jab at the aff funding that cannot be completed due to being CP grounds. CP or drop argument is my point.

FT7: Acceptance to the US as a legal immigrant would be on the grounds of "do you contribute and/or benefit." If an applicant displays that they are either well educated, a good Samaritan, an aid to their society, or willing to work (having a degree, contributing to their society, serving the community, working as an intern in a field) or even offering to aid a depleted work field, such as teaching, in the United States, would increase one's odds of being accepted. The more beneficial one is seen as, the more likely they'll be accepted. This does not mean only the most beneficial will be accepted, just that your odds of being accepted are higher. 

8. The 1.34T that will be spent by ObamaCare will be saved, which means that we have the opportunity to repurpose that money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, AnthonySGHS said:

Also silly me I forgot to ask pronouns, Mines are Him, He, She, Her and I do not mind They, Them? May I ask the Pronouns of our judge aswell?

I'm traditional. My pronouns shouldn't be a concern, we're here to debate 😇

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note to both of you: if you use Verbatim, there is a function that counts the words in the doc, it only counts highlighted and tagged words in the count. Typical word limits for v-debates are 2750 for constructives, 1625 for rebuttals. Your call on whether you want to change it, but you both have a lot of room to add if you want.

 

Also Anthony, the FW you're reading is actually just impact framing, for everybody's clarity you can put it under the K or tag it as framing, but you don't have to read it as a separate off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jhirsch said:

Note to both of you: if you use Verbatim, there is a function that counts the words in the doc, it only counts highlighted and tagged words in the count. Typical word limits for v-debates are 2750 for constructives, 1625 for rebuttals. Your call on whether you want to change it, but you both have a lot of room to add if you want.

 

Also Anthony, the FW you're reading is actually just impact framing, for everybody's clarity you can put it under the K or tag it as framing, but you don't have to read it as a separate off.

okay got it will fix for later files :3 and i just edited my 1n to fix it

Edited by AnthonySGHS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, AnthonySGHS said:

I was spreading as fast as I could and got it to 1962 words in 7:57

1NC Ktyler vs Anthony SGHS.docx

CX: 

1. So, how exactly does the Aff Case link to BD? The link is extremely generic.

2. Assuming you do manage a link of India BD to the Aff case: if the US is the #1 choice for high skilled immigrants from PR China, RO Korea, and Vietnam, then why aren't their economies hurting? And why can't India take the same approach that other Asian countries are taking to solve any BD?

3. Why would any economic shift increase the chances of an Indo-Paki war? The two nations have been at each others' throats for decades-- what exactly is changing that involves Pakistan?

4. Wouldn't a decrease in the economy decrease the odds of an Indo-Paki war since war always has a negative impact on the economy?

5. Moving to your Set Col K; how is making sure only the most qualified immigrants immigrate to the US going to cause a replacement of the native people? 

6. Yes or no: In your Tuck Gaztambide-Fernandez 13 card, are you accusing the Aff of being racist?

7. In your Simpson 14 card, you say "refuse to recognize the authority of the USFG to enact laws." Are you stating that this is a States issue or that the USFG has no place to enact laws pertaining to immigration?

8. What group is causing genocide?

9. If the so called "genocide" has been happening since settlers have arrived in the Americas, then what is link to the aff case? 

note: I will have follow up questions

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ktyler said:

CX: 

1. So, how exactly does the Aff Case link to BD? The link is extremely generic.

2. Assuming you do manage a link of India BD to the Aff case: if the US is the #1 choice for high skilled immigrants from PR China, RO Korea, and Vietnam, then why aren't their economies hurting? And why can't India take the same approach that other Asian countries are taking to solve any BD?

3. Why would any economic shift increase the chances of an Indo-Paki war? The two nations have been at each others' throats for decades-- what exactly is changing that involves Pakistan?

4. Wouldn't a decrease in the economy decrease the odds of an Indo-Paki war since war always has a negative impact on the economy?

5. Moving to your Set Col K; how is making sure only the most qualified immigrants immigrate to the US going to cause a replacement of the native people? 

6. Yes or no: In your Tuck Gaztambide-Fernandez 13 card, are you accusing the Aff of being racist?

7. In your Simpson 14 card, you say "refuse to recognize the authority of the USFG to enact laws." Are you stating that this is a States issue or that the USFG has no place to enact laws pertaining to immigration?

8. What group is causing genocide?

9. If the so called "genocide" has been happening since settlers have arrived in the Americas, then what is link to the aff case? 

note: I will have follow up questions

 

1) The Aff links to Brain Drain because it incentives qualified immigrants to come to the USA.

2) Please rephrase the question, thank you

3) India in its current form is a foil to Pakistan and checks them, but that is because their economy is doing good so they are able to focus money to keeping them in check. Issues arise when Indian economy does poor and has to take the money they were able to spend on defense and now spend on the issue of brain drain thus giving more power to Pakistan and the threat of war skyrocketing.

4) Again, Indian economy down equals chance of Indo-Paki war up

5) Because it perpetuates the idea that the US owns this land and they can do what they see fit with it and that very ideology is what creates the genocide, thus your plan only pushes this agenda.

6) Yes, but do not try to characterize the round based on that authour's assumption

7) No, we are saying our Alternative is to refuse the power of the USFG and make it that it is no longer legitamite for that is one of the ways to create justice for the natives WE MUST TAKE THE AUTHORITY OF THIS CORRUPT GOVERNMENT AWAY.

8 ) Settlers and the governments they instituted, but in this case the USFG.

9) The link is that your plan pushes Settler Colonial ideals in every aspect of American life this is most apparent in the phrase "The American Dream", a dream for AMERICANS BUT WHAT SET. COL. SAYS IS THAT THE SETTLERS CAME IN TO BECOME THE NEW NATIVES SO THIS AMERICAN DREAM IN ALL REALITY IS THE SETTLER DREAM THAT WAS ROBBED FROM THE REAL NATIVES. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AnthonySGHS said:

1) The Aff links to Brain Drain because it incentives qualified immigrants to come to the USA.

2) Please rephrase the question, thank you

3) India in its current form is a foil to Pakistan and checks them, but that is because their economy is doing good so they are able to focus money to keeping them in check. Issues arise when Indian economy does poor and has to take the money they were able to spend on defense and now spend on the issue of brain drain thus giving more power to Pakistan and the threat of war skyrocketing.

4) Again, Indian economy down equals chance of Indo-Paki war up

5) Because it perpetuates the idea that the US owns this land and they can do what they see fit with it and that very ideology is what creates the genocide, thus your plan only pushes this agenda.

6) Yes, but do not try to characterize the round based on that authour's assumption

7) No, we are saying our Alternative is to refuse the power of the USFG and make it that it is no longer legitamite for that is one of the ways to create justice for the natives WE MUST TAKE THE AUTHORITY OF THIS CORRUPT GOVERNMENT AWAY.

8 ) Settlers and the governments they instituted, but in this case the USFG.

9) The link is that your plan pushes Settler Colonial ideals in every aspect of American life this is most apparent in the phrase "The American Dream", a dream for AMERICANS BUT WHAT SET. COL. SAYS IS THAT THE SETTLERS CAME IN TO BECOME THE NEW NATIVES SO THIS AMERICAN DREAM IN ALL REALITY IS THE SETTLER DREAM THAT WAS ROBBED FROM THE REAL NATIVES. 

RPH to 2: You stated that the US is the #1 choice for High Skilled immigrants from nations such as PR China, SOKO, and Vietnam. If India is experiencing a brain drain because of the US immigration policies, then why aren't other Asian nations?

FT 5: So if the US doesn't own the land and cannot govern it accordingly, then who owns and governs the land?

FT 6: I can characterize the round however I see fit based on what you say. I only need confirmation on your claims to a racist aff case and team.

FT 7: So you're planning on running a states CP in the 2NC? Otherwise, this is a pointless argument. I'll ask that you please clarify this in your 2NC.

FT 8: So, the affirmative is not responsible for the Set Col K's impacts?

FT 9: I'm sorry, can you please explain where The American Dream came into play and how the aff is pushing for Set. Col. ideas? 

Final question: Will you be running a CP in which we return the land to the native people? I don't see the grounds for this K in relation to the aff case.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ktyler said:

RPH to 2: You stated that the US is the #1 choice for High Skilled immigrants from nations such as PR China, SOKO, and Vietnam. If India is experiencing a brain drain because of the US immigration policies, then why aren't other Asian nations?

FT 5: So if the US doesn't own the land and cannot govern it accordingly, then who owns and governs the land?

FT 6: I can characterize the round however I see fit based on what you say. I only need confirmation on your claims to a racist aff case and team.

FT 7: So you're planning on running a states CP in the 2NC? Otherwise, this is a pointless argument. I'll ask that you please clarify this in your 2NC.

FT 8: So, the affirmative is not responsible for the Set Col K's impacts?

FT 9: I'm sorry, can you please explain where The American Dream came into play and how the aff is pushing for Set. Col. ideas? 

Final question: Will you be running a CP in which we return the land to the native people? I don't see the grounds for this K in relation to the aff case.

2) Ahh okay i get it now, I use India as a good example because each of the countries listed are ALSO experiencing BD

5) The Natives

6) do not claim We made those assumptions that the author's claims that so judge MUST keep that in mind. But to clarify I say EVERY SECOND THE USA EXIST IS EVERY SECOND NATIVE BODIES ARE BEING EXPLOITED AND MURDERED IF NOT PHYSICALLY THAN CULTURALLY. Prove to me that the US is not killing the Native bodies Physically and Culturally.

7)  That is our Alternative my Simpson 14 Card

8 ) Does the aff use the USFG in any way; yes it does, so it does link, unless you say that your actors are NOT withing the UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

9) It is an example of a piece od settler ideology

10) No, that is our Alternative

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cross Ex :)

I went to the source of your "The Economist" Card and it states "They may have a higher unemployment rate than native-born workers", isn't Canada what you are using as a base for your plan?

If I can link immigration policy to the K then you are saying that the neg deserves to win?

Are you saying that we are not having an educational; debate because we aren't fitting in the norms of what you see as educational?

Where did I say something that even tells you that the USFG was not in charge; i want you to COPY AND PASTE WHEN I SAID THAT BECAUSE IF I PROVE YOU WRONG ON THIS IT SHOULD DECIMATE YOUR CREDIBILITY IN THIS ROUND.

Why do you choose to ignore my characterization of my claims? You state "FAILURE TO BACK SUPPORT OF CLAIMS OF A RACIST AFF".

I want you to go into all of my DA cards and list their years because you state "OUTDATED DA CARDS (ALL BUT ONE ARE 2013 OR OLDER),". Judge if they find anything younger than that 2013 card that too should be the nail in the head of their credibility and any analytical claims they make should be disregarded.

If we can prove the US by their immigration policy changes leads to increased INDO-PAKI Conflict will you attempt to attack the claim instead of saying Canada looks more preferable?

Would you like us to give a definition of USFG?

 

 

 

i will have more follow ups 

Edited by AnthonySGHS
sorry wrong number on yr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AnthonySGHS said:

Cross Ex :)

I went to the source of your "The Economist" Card and it states "They may have a higher unemployment rate than native-born workers", isn't Canada what you are using as a base for your plan?

If I can link immigration policy to the K then you are saying that the neg deserves to win?

Are you saying that we are not having an educational; debate because we aren't fitting in the norms of what you see as educational?

Where did I say something that even tells you that the USFG was not in charge; i want you to COPY AND PASTE WHEN I SAID THAT BECAUSE IF I PROVE YOU WRONG ON THIS IT SHOULD DECIMATE YOUR CREDIBILITY IN THIS ROUND.

Why do you choose to ignore my characterization of my claims? You state "FAILURE TO BACK SUPPORT OF CLAIMS OF A RACIST AFF".

I want you to go into all of my DA cards and list their years because you state "OUTDATED DA CARDS (ALL BUT ONE ARE 2013 OR OLDER),". Judge if they find anything younger than that 2018 card that too should be the nail in the head of their credibility and any analytical claims they make should be disregarded.

If we can prove the US by their immigration policy changes leads to increased INDO-PAKI Conflict will you attempt to attack the claim instead of saying Canada looks more preferable?

Would you like us to give a definition of USFG?

 

 

 

i will have more follow ups 

1: No, not necessarily. I've stated that multiple countries use MBI systems, but we're going to require more from immigrants to ensure that the unemployment rate will be as low as possible. We aren't using any country as a base, just using them as examples of how MBI systems work.

2: Absolutely not, I'm saying that you've lost the point and should drop it because you literally said that set. col. has been present since colonial times. The aff isn't furthering this by altering the immigration system.

3: I don't believe you understand the whole "educational debate" thing. I'm saying that you aren't debating the resolved, you're debating the foundation and actions of colonial America. That is what I'm considering as not contributional to educational debate.

4: From CX of the 1NC by the 1A: "Moving to your Set Col K; how is making sure only the most qualified immigrants immigrate to the US going to cause a replacement of the native people?" Response from 1N "Because it perpetuates the idea that the US owns this land and they can do what they see fit with it and that very ideology is what creates the genocide, thus your plan only pushes this agenda." Response from 1A "So if the US doesn't own the land and cannot govern it accordingly, then who owns and governs the land?" Response from 1N "The Natives" 

5: I choose to ignore your "characterization of your claims" because you did not have to include that card, so that means you wished to make that point, therefore I will abuse that point until I win it.

6: I read over your DA cards just to make sure we're looking at the same thing. Your cards are as follows: Munkunthan & Nagaraj '17; Regets '01; Raveesh '13; Mamoon & Murshed '10; Bourton '10. Like I said, all of these are 13 and older with the exception of the Munkunthan & Nagaraj card. I don't see why my claims should be dismissed just because you can't refer back to your own cards correctly. I

7: I don't need you to prove that it will lead to an increase of an Indo-Paki conflict because you'll probably give me an 8-year-old card that doesn't directly relate to my case. Again, this is just an old debate fall back that the neg uses when they have nothing else to attack. 

8: I would absolutely love a definition from you. It's extremely late for you to even try to hit me with a (T) on USFG, but go ahead. It might be beneficial for you since your K and DA are literally holding on by a thread thinner than your links to my case.

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I don't see "The Economist" in my 1AC. If you're referring back to my original card, I apologized. I've never V Debated so I accidentally submitted an outdated affirmative. The only cards used in my 1AC are from Prager U '18; Numbers USA '18; Barletta Press & Journal '18; Singman Fox News '17; Numbers USA '18; Investment Watch Blog '17; FAIR USA '18; Lvin Policy Interns '14.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ktyler said:

1: No, not necessarily. I've stated that multiple countries use MBI systems, but we're going to require more from immigrants to ensure that the unemployment rate will be as low as possible. We aren't using any country as a base, just using them as examples of how MBI systems work.

2: Absolutely not, I'm saying that you've lost the point and should drop it because you literally said that set. col. has been present since colonial times. The aff isn't furthering this by altering the immigration system.

3: I don't believe you understand the whole "educational debate" thing. I'm saying that you aren't debating the resolved, you're debating the foundation and actions of colonial America. That is what I'm considering as not contributional to educational debate.

4: From CX of the 1NC by the 1A: "Moving to your Set Col K; how is making sure only the most qualified immigrants immigrate to the US going to cause a replacement of the native people?" Response from 1N "Because it perpetuates the idea that the US owns this land and they can do what they see fit with it and that very ideology is what creates the genocide, thus your plan only pushes this agenda." Response from 1A "So if the US doesn't own the land and cannot govern it accordingly, then who owns and governs the land?" Response from 1N "The Natives" 

5: I choose to ignore your "characterization of your claims" because you did not have to include that card, so that means you wished to make that point, therefore I will abuse that point until I win it.

6: I read over your DA cards just to make sure we're looking at the same thing. Your cards are as follows: Munkunthan & Nagaraj '17; Regets '01; Raveesh '13; Mamoon & Murshed '10; Bourton '10. Like I said, all of these are 13 and older with the exception of the Munkunthan & Nagaraj card. I don't see why my claims should be dismissed just because you can't refer back to your own cards correctly. I

7: I don't need you to prove that it will lead to an increase of an Indo-Paki conflict because you'll probably give me an 8-year-old card that doesn't directly relate to my case. Again, this is just an old debate fall back that the neg uses when they have nothing else to attack. 

8: I would absolutely love a definition from you. It's extremely late for you to even try to hit me with a (T) on USFG, but go ahead. It might be beneficial for you since your K and DA are literally holding on by a thread thinner than your links to my case.

 

9) My response for 2 is my Fur 14 card is my link to your aff to the K, why do you keep choosing to ignore this link?

10) If I do not understand what an education debate is i want you to explain it to me and the judge and be as descriptive as possible as to make it clear.

11) I thought you were asking under the Alternative who would be in charge of the United States,  can you please clarify that question and that was question 5 in our second cross ex

12) What makes evidence "OUTDATED", give me your interpretation of "OUTDATED" evidence.

13) Why do you bring up T i haven't once questioned if your plan fell in the resolution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ktyler said:

Also, I don't see "The Economist" in my 1AC. If you're referring back to my original card, I apologized. I've never V Debated so I accidentally submitted an outdated affirmative. The only cards used in my 1AC are from Prager U '18; Numbers USA '18; Barletta Press & Journal '18; Singman Fox News '17; Numbers USA '18; Investment Watch Blog '17; FAIR USA '18; Lvin Policy Interns '14.

this one:

Immigrants prefer Canada over the United States- the plan can’t overcome these reasons
The Economist 11 (“Immigration: The United States v. Canada”). https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/05/immigration. LDonn

Canadians are convinced of the positive economic benefits of immigration. Even unemployed Canadians will stoutly insist that immigrants do not take work away from the native born. This makes sense, as most immigrants to Canada are authorised under a "points" system tied to their credentials and employment potential. Canadians see multiculturalism as an important component of national identity. …multiculturalism was deemed less important than national health care but more important than the flag, the Mounties, and hockey. The necessity of bilingualism contributed to a broader public commitment to multiculturalism, which persists today. Other factors allow Canada to be more inviting. The country has little reason to worry about illegal immigration. CTCT
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×