Jump to content
AnthonyUwU

Immigration Topic KTyler(aff) vs AnthonySGHS(Neg)

Recommended Posts

FT 9: I'm not ignoring this link, I'm saying that this link makes zero sense. Please fully explain this in your 2NC and rebuttal. Preferably in your 2NC so we can ensure that everything is clear before the rebuttals.

FT 10: The best example I can give you is in the case of topicality, where there is education as a voter. It states that debate is an educational activity and that non-topical cases take away from the learning aspect of the debate. Obviously, I'm not trying to run a (T), but we can still learn from it. If you aren't attacking my case nor the resolved, then you're taking away from the educational aspect of the debate. You'll return this by saying you did attack my case with a DA, but to that, I say that it's still too far-fetched to be considered educational. You aren't debating the resolved nor my case, you're saying that an Indo-Paki war is on the horizon and we need to avoid it. Which is allowing a foreign nation to limit us on what we as a nation can or can't do, which is entirely insane and unfathomable as a justifiable argument.

FT 11: I've moved on from that crossfire. It was your duty to make it very obvious what your stance was and you didn't do that. You misspoke. Your point still stands. You can't say "oops, that's not what I meant" whenever you're caught with an argument that can be detrimental to your entire case.

FT 12: Outdated: No longer current : outmoded (cite: Merriam-Webster ). I believe that information from 2013 that is basically all statistics (which are from 2008, so it's a decade old) is not considered current. You need recent cards that take into consideration the modern relations.

FT 13: I bring up (T) because it seems like you're on edge with running one. You claim that the Natives rule and govern the land, which means that I'm not topical because I'm using the USFG. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going through some personal shit rn i should have speech done by 9 or 8 im so sorry todays been a hot mess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CX Time 😈:

1. You state that the Aff's plan will not pass. Didn't the aff state that we reserve the right to fiat power?

2. Yes or no: if the judge does vote in negation, will the K still have to gain ground among the citizens of America before the USFG can be replaced?

3. Do you realize that you are asking the judge to vote for the overthrowing of the most powerful government in the world?

4. If you realize this, then why are we not cooperating with the Native Americans in order to stop the overthrowing?

5. You worry so much about India's BD, but won't the US experience a BD if we overthrow the government and practically rebuild America?

6. If we overthrow and rebuild AND experience a BD, won't this lead to PR China becoming the world's predominant superpower and threatening the US? Y'know, the same analogy you used with the Indo-Paki war?

7. Are you or are you not about to cause the second Civil War? If not, then how?

8. Are you splitting the block? If so, please say so, and please provide RMs.

9. What stops perm do both? The K will obviously take time to actually happen, so why can't we implement the aff and start by presenting the K to the American people?

10. What makes you think that America will accept the K and decide to overthrow the USFG? Last I checked, the left can't even get the president impeached, so taking down the whole government seems like a fantasy.

11. What stops the judge from voting in affirmation? There are countless harms to voting in negation and zero for aff, besides hurting your feelings since you see the aff as white supremacists.

12. What about California's proposal for a Native Autonomous Nation? Why can't we just do that instead of literally overthrowing the government?

There most certainly will be follow-ups.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To everyone, let's please keep this thread strictly the content of the debate until the round is completed and the RFD is released. Also, let's try to be respectful please.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ktyler said:

CX Time 😈:

1. You state that the Aff's plan will not pass. Didn't the aff state that we reserve the right to fiat power?

2. Yes or no: if the judge does vote in negation, will the K still have to gain ground among the citizens of America before the USFG can be replaced?

3. Do you realize that you are asking the judge to vote for the overthrowing of the most powerful government in the world?

4. If you realize this, then why are we not cooperating with the Native Americans in order to stop the overthrowing?

5. You worry so much about India's BD, but won't the US experience a BD if we overthrow the government and practically rebuild America?

6. If we overthrow and rebuild AND experience a BD, won't this lead to PR China becoming the world's predominant superpower and threatening the US? Y'know, the same analogy you used with the Indo-Paki war?

7. Are you or are you not about to cause the second Civil War? If not, then how?

8. Are you splitting the block? If so, please say so, and please provide RMs.

9. What stops perm do both? The K will obviously take time to actually happen, so why can't we implement the aff and start by presenting the K to the American people?

10. What makes you think that America will accept the K and decide to overthrow the USFG? Last I checked, the left can't even get the president impeached, so taking down the whole government seems like a fantasy.

11. What stops the judge from voting in affirmation? There are countless harms to voting in negation and zero for aff, besides hurting your feelings since you see the aff as white supremacists.

12. What about California's proposal for a Native Autonomous Nation? Why can't we just do that instead of literally overthrowing the government?

There most certainly will be follow-ups.

1) Dude, I know that you know just because any of us say we have Fiat in all reality the plan will not pass at least my K has impact because it uncovers and teaches others the harms and atrocities caused the United States.

2) Yes, and that is the point I made

3) Yes and what of it, the USSR fell and it was about the same strength as the USA

4) The K is Overthrow not "stop" overthrow

5) The US won't exist so hoe can something that doesn't exist get Brain Drained

6) Like I said the US will no longer exist and not get Brain Drained soooo that isn't an issue

7) This isn't a Civil war a Civil war is based on blood this is based on ideals.

😎 i did say im splitting the block

9) The Alt is mutually exclusive to the aff cause we overthrow the US how can the US make laws when it no longer exist, :pepothink:

10) The US doesn't have to accept it we are denying thier authority and existence that is the nature of our Alt

11) The judge wouldn't vote for a disgusting plan that perpetuates genocide of native bodies, it's thier moral obligation to vote neg.

12) Do me a big favor after this debate look up the term 4th world country, those are the poorest of the poor who die tue fastest, do you know who the hell they are... THE NATIVES BECAUSE OF SET COL THEY ARE STUCK IN POVERTY AND DYING AT THE AGE OF 45, WHY IN GOD'S NAME WOULD KEEP THAT STATUS QUO ALIVE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AnthonySGHS said:

1) Dude, I know that you know just because any of us say we have Fiat in all reality the plan will not pass at least my K has impact because it uncovers and teaches others the harms and atrocities caused the United States.

2) Yes, and that is the point I made

3) Yes and what of it, the USSR fell and it was about the same strength as the USA

4) The K is Overthrow not "stop" overthrow

5) The US won't exist so hoe can something that doesn't exist get Brain Drained

6) Like I said the US will no longer exist and not get Brain Drained soooo that isn't an issue

7) This isn't a Civil war a Civil war is based on blood this is based on ideals.

😎 i did say im splitting the block

9) The Alt is mutually exclusive to the aff cause we overthrow the US how can the US make laws when it no longer exist, :pepothink:

10) The US doesn't have to accept it we are denying thier authority and existence that is the nature of our Alt

11) The judge wouldn't vote for a disgusting plan that perpetuates genocide of native bodies, it's thier moral obligation to vote neg.

12) Do me a big favor after this debate look up the term 4th world country, those are the poorest of the poor who die tue fastest, do you know who the hell they are... THE NATIVES BECAUSE OF SET COL THEY ARE STUCK IN POVERTY AND DYING AT THE AGE OF 45, WHY IN GOD'S NAME WOULD KEEP THAT STATUS QUO ALIVE

FT 4: I understand the point of the K is to overthrow, but why do we have to go to the extreme? Why can't we work with the Natives and figure something out?

FT 5: You understand what I'm implying-- the nation that exists after the Native government would take control-- would that nation or would it not experience a BD?

FT 7: I'm saying this will serve as a catalyst to a civil war. Wouldn't it cause the second civil war?

FT 8: Alright then. Please provide RM's then. It helps the judge as well as the opposition. It's just common courtesy.

FT 9: Okay, so why can't we do the Aff case now and the K later? The K has to gain ground with the people, the Aff doesn't because the aff has the right to fiat.

FT 10: By America, I'm meaning the People, not the USFG. If I meant USFG, I would say USFG, not America.

FT 11: You say it's a disgusting plan but you said that everything done by the USFG perpetuates genocide of native bodies. Why isn't the judge's moral obligation to vote aff and stop American families from struggling to just get by?

FT 12: Do me a favor and answer my question. Stop furthering your K and do not ask me questions during my crossfire. I will ask the questions, you are to respond and respond only. Why can't we implement California's Native Autonomous Nation proposal and stop trying to literally change the country and it's foundation?

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I'll be resigning from this debate. I found this (see attachment). The judge liked a comment insulting my case and my debate style. I believe that the judge has already made their decision so I no longer see a point in continuing this debate. 

I am not resigning because I feel that I will lose. I don't feel that I will. I'm resigning because I won't waste my time debating when the judge makes it very obvious who the ballot is going for. 

Sorry, Anthony. You're a great debater and put up a heck of a fight. Congrats683486863_ScreenShot2018-09-05at17_26_47.thumb.png.732a7b8844157fb096d3cc6baff5683c.png

  • Sad 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


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

I'm not judging this round lol

Reread the post. The judge liked your comment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah you right. Though given that the judge quarantined the comments it's not a forgone conclusion.

Also it's not an insult just don't describe anti-racism as hurt feelings.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Ah you right. Though given that the judge quarantined the comments it's not a forgone conclusion.

Also it's not an insult just don't describe anti-racism as hurt feelings.

My conclusion is though. I resign from the debate due to obvious actions committed by the judge, and therefore will no longer debate the topic. I will also be removing my affirmative case from this debate.

Please stop down-voting everything I post.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


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

Please stop down-voting everything I post

I'll down vote posts I think deserve it. Note that I haven't down voted anything in this thread except your cx, for reasons I've already described. Pro-Trump posts are similarly bad.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

I'll down vote posts I think deserve it. Note that I haven't down voted anything in this thread except your cx, for reasons I've already described. Pro-Trump posts are similarly bad.

The debate's over, so will you please stop? We all understand that you dislike Trump. You aren't impressing anyone or changing my mind. I want to go about my day, so please drop this. I resigned. It's over.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


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

Sorry, but I'll be resigning from this debate. I found this (see attachment). The judge liked a comment insulting my case and my debate style. I believe that the judge has already made their decision so I no longer see a point in continuing this debate. 

I am not resigning because I feel that I will lose. I don't feel that I will. I'm resigning because I won't waste my time debating when the judge makes it very obvious who the ballot is going for. 

Sorry, Anthony. You're a great debater and put up a heck of a fight. Congrats683486863_ScreenShot2018-09-05at17_26_47.thumb.png.732a7b8844157fb096d3cc6baff5683c.png

Hey, sorry if this was offensive in any way, but just so you know, in the same way as I identified in my paradigm, I do not let my personal feelings affect my judging philosophy, and I never vote on arguments not made in the debate. Since the negative team hasn't explicitly made an argument that the aff is racist on face, it'll still come down to the arguments made in the round, regardless of my opinions on the aff. Believe me, I will give every speech a run down outside of the RFD if you wish, because I do have opinions about the aff and the 1NC strat, but that doesn't change how the debate is viewed. Please don't take it as otherwise, know that I can and will be objective if you would like to continue. Your call

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've removed my reactions to the posts in question if that makes you feel more comfortable. I have a huge respect for a wide range of views as long as the actualization of your politics isn't based in bigotry. I apologize for reacting in such a way, but please know that as I said what happens inside of the debate is closed off from all outside opinion. Only the flow matters, with very limited exceptions

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't initially going to post something here but I think that this is particularly relevant in the context of the discussion that has happened.

To start, none of what I'm saying here supports or justifies any of Trump's racist, sexist, homophobic, and other views/policies oppressive to minorities.

Debate has always been a hyper-liberal community whether teams are K or not. And many in debate pride ourselves on making debate as open ideologically as possible. In many cases, that means opening ourselves to things that tend to be more liberal like asking for gender pronouns, providing trigger warning, among others. But we need to recognize that opening ourselves needs to happen to those that aren't necessary as left leaning as we are. Trump is a very good example of this. 99% of things Trump does are bad and I will not contest this, but the fact that we'll go as far as to say that Trump can never do anything that is ideologically aligned to solve oppression is just as bad as those in debate on the right that say that liberal policies can never be good. Many of the arguments after the election that we've made on framework is about Group Polarization. But aren't we similarly polarized when some in the community say that any policies supported by Trump cannot possibly be good in any world ever? Many of Trump's policies/actions are definitely racist but we ignore that African American unemployment rate has fallen by a full percentage point as well as black wages since the election. We also ignore that 30,000 new black jobs are created each month and job growth among blacks is 40% higher than under Obama. (Source - http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-race-trump-economy-progress-0822-story.html and I do not condone the entirety of this article, just citing statistics). Trump's actions towards womyn and minorities are despicable but this entire criticism of Kasen is that his plan is simply supported by Trump, not just that they defends Trump's rhetoric (which they might've but that's not condoned or criticized by me). Those of you who attacked Kasen as a person have taken a debate argument and a plan and attacked their personal beliefs which is exactly what those on the left criticize. A comment Sean made on another thread about this issue particularly affected me where he says that Trump's policies on Immigration are universally regarded as racist and thus we shouldn't every consider talking about them. While this is definitely true in some sense, the group most likely to benefit from Immigration restrictions are Black men who are ignored by current employers, not just White people, plus 85% of African Americans support reducing Immigration caps (Source - http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-seminara-trump-immigration-reform-african-americans-20180316-story.html#).

All I'm saying is that when we shut down discussion simply because a policy lies on the right or because somebody debates differently than us, then we become just as bad as those on the right that shut down discussions of racial minority, LGBT, womyn rights and much much more. Those who argue that Securitizing is good, Hegemony is good (in a way), the War on Terror is good, etc. are similarly aligned to some of Trump's beliefs and I personally believe that they deserve to have legitimate discussions in debate.

Please do not construe my post as a support or a form of apologism of the Alt Right or Trump, because it's not. My statistics about black economic growth similarly aren't saying Trump loves black people or that Black people are having a great time and aren't suffering ontologically or materially and there's a legitimate argument that those trends are happening despite Trump instead of because of him , but just that there's discussions to be had that some of Trump's policies can help minorities. I simply think that debate's that aren't Racism Good, Genocide Good, deserve discussions about plan's and ideologies that fall further right that we expect. If we kick them out completely and attack personal beliefs, not only does it push those people who are centrist-right's further away from compromise, but we polarize ourselves in a way that eliminates alternate discussions that those of us in debate should pride ourselves on. 

 

Edited by elmeryang00
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, elmeryang00 said:

I wasn't initially going to post something here but I think that this is particularly relevant in the context of the discussion that has happened.

To start, none of what I'm saying here supports or justifies any of Trump's racist, sexist, homophobic, and other views/policies oppressive to minorities.

Debate has always been a hyper-liberal community whether teams are K or not. And many in debate pride ourselves on making debate as open ideologically as possible. In many cases, that means opening ourselves to things that tend to be more liberal like asking for gender pronouns, providing trigger warning, among others. But we need to recognize that opening ourselves needs to happen to those that aren't necessary as left leaning as we are. Trump is a very good example of this. 99% of things Trump does are bad and I will not contest this, but the fact that we'll go as far as to say that Trump can never do anything that is ideologically aligned to solve oppression is just as bad as those in debate on the right that say that liberal policies can never be good. Many of the arguments after the election that we've made on framework is about Group Polarization. But aren't we similarly polarized when some in the community say that any policies supported by Trump cannot possibly be good in any world ever? Many of Trump's policies/actions are definitely racist but we ignore that African American unemployment rate has fallen by a full percentage point as well as black wages since the election. We also ignore that 30,000 new black jobs are created each month and job growth among blacks is 40% higher than under Obama. (Source - http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-race-trump-economy-progress-0822-story.html and I do not condone the entirety of this article, just citing statistics). Trump's actions towards womyn and minorities are despicable but this entire criticism of Kasen is that his plan is simply supported by Trump, not just that they defends Trump's rhetoric (which they might've but that's not condoned or criticized by me). Those of you who attacked Kasen as a person have taken a debate argument and a plan and attacked their personal beliefs which is exactly what those on the left criticize. A comment Sean made on another thread about this issue particularly affected me where he says that Trump's policies on Immigration are universally regarded as racist and thus we shouldn't every consider talking about them. While this is definitely true in some sense, the group most likely to benefit from Immigration restrictions are Black men who are ignored by current employers, not just White people, plus 85% of African Americans support reducing Immigration caps (Source - http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-seminara-trump-immigration-reform-african-americans-20180316-story.html#).

All I'm saying is that when we shut down discussion simply because a policy lies on the right or because somebody debates differently than us, then we become just as bad as those on the right that shut down discussions of racial minority, LGBT, womyn rights and much much more. Those who argue that Securitizing is good, Hegemony is good (in a way), the War on Terror is good, etc. are similarly aligned to some of Trump's beliefs and I personally believe that they deserve to have legitimate discussions in debate.

Please do not construe my post as a support or a form of apologism of the Alt Right or Trump, because it's not. My statistics about black economic growth similarly aren't saying Trump loves black people or that Black people are having a great time and aren't suffering ontologically or materially and there's a legitimate argument that those trends are happening despite Trump instead of because of him , but just that there's discussions to be had that some of Trump's policies can help minorities. I simply think that debate's that aren't Racism Good, Genocide Good, deserve discussions about plan's and ideologies that fall further right that we expect. If we kick them out completely and attack personal beliefs, not only does it push those people who are centrist-right's further away from compromise, but we polarize ourselves in a way that eliminates alternate discussions that those of us in debate should pride ourselves on. 

 

Thank you so much! That's extremely mature of you and I appreciate it so much! This is, perhaps, the only statement that needs to be taken seriously here. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I've removed my reactions to the posts in question if that makes you feel more comfortable. I have a huge respect for a wide range of views as long as the actualization of your politics isn't based in bigotry. I apologize for reacting in such a way, but please know that as I said what happens inside of the debate is closed off from all outside opinion. Only the flow matters, with very limited exceptions

I'll continue the debate with the conditions that seananarchy and Lukrau are not permitted to comment or upvote/downvote anything. They're downvoting practically everything I'm saying and lowering my total reputation. 

I'll say here, though, that this will be my first and last vDebate. I don't allow people to sit in on my rounds for this exact reason and I made the exception here and deeply regret it.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a plan. I apologize, I should have set the expectation of civility and neutrality on the thread until the end of the round at the beginning of the debate. I thought that we as a community were a little better than this, but it looks like we still have work to do.

 

That being said, let CX of the 2NC continue!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ktyler said:

FT 4: I understand the point of the K is to overthrow, but why do we have to go to the extreme? Why can't we work with the Natives and figure something out?

FT 5: You understand what I'm implying-- the nation that exists after the Native government would take control-- would that nation or would it not experience a BD?

FT 7: I'm saying this will serve as a catalyst to a civil war. Wouldn't it cause the second civil war?

FT 8: Alright then. Please provide RM's then. It helps the judge as well as the opposition. It's just common courtesy.

FT 9: Okay, so why can't we do the Aff case now and the K later? The K has to gain ground with the people, the Aff doesn't because the aff has the right to fiat.

FT 10: By America, I'm meaning the People, not the USFG. If I meant USFG, I would say USFG, not America.

FT 11: You say it's a disgusting plan but you said that everything done by the USFG perpetuates genocide of native bodies. Why isn't the judge's moral obligation to vote aff and stop American families from struggling to just get by?

FT 12: Do me a favor and answer my question. Stop furthering your K and do not ask me questions during my crossfire. I will ask the questions, you are to respond and respond only. Why can't we implement California's Native Autonomous Nation proposal and stop trying to literally change the country and it's foundation?

 

4) No the United States Government be nowhere near the alt THEY ARE THE AGGRESSORS WE SHAN'T STAND THAT THEY HAVE THEIR GRIMMEY HANDS ON IT. THEY ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE SPILT THE BLOOD OF SO MANY NATIVE THIS IS WHERE WE TAKE OUR STAND.

5) There isnt lit on that so i cannot answer that question, unless you have lit on that then by all means go ahead and type it as an analytical and I will not call it out cause I am genuinely curious.

7) No it wouldn't 

😎 I did tho ;-; okay ill say it again. 2NC was K, Framing, 1NR was DA, Line by line, Impact Calc under K

9) No, ANY FURTHERING OF SET COL IDEOLOGY SHALL NOT BE TOLERATED ANY LONGER. ALSO FIAT IS A MECHANISM THAT SETS THE IDEA THAT THE USFG ARE THE ONES WHO PASS THE PLAN AND IN MY SPEECHES I HAVE ELABORATED WHY THAT IS BAD ANYTHING USFG IS INVOLVED WITH IN THIS STOLEN LAND IS BAD

10) The Alt works to have widespread refusal of the authority that the USFG have given themselves so we can delegitimize them

11) TO STOP THE GOD DAMN GENOCIDE ITS PRETTY OBVIOUS AND THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE THE SUFFERING OF NATIVE BODIES IN MIND

12) I really do not know what the hell that is, but if the USFG or the State made it then it furters the impacts of my K

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

4) No the United States Government be nowhere near the alt THEY ARE THE AGGRESSORS WE SHAN'T STAND THAT THEY HAVE THEIR GRIMMEY HANDS ON IT. THEY ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE SPILT THE BLOOD OF SO MANY NATIVE THIS IS WHERE WE TAKE OUR STAND.

5) There isnt lit on that so i cannot answer that question, unless you have lit on that then by all means go ahead and type it as an analytical and I will not call it out cause I am genuinely curious.

7) No it wouldn't 

😎 I did tho ;-; okay ill say it again. 2NC was K, Framing, 1NR was DA, Line by line, Impact Calc under K

9) No, ANY FURTHERING OF SET COL IDEOLOGY SHALL NOT BE TOLERATED ANY LONGER. ALSO FIAT IS A MECHANISM THAT SETS THE IDEA THAT THE USFG ARE THE ONES WHO PASS THE PLAN AND IN MY SPEECHES I HAVE ELABORATED WHY THAT IS BAD ANYTHING USFG IS INVOLVED WITH IN THIS STOLEN LAND IS BAD

10) The Alt works to have widespread refusal of the authority that the USFG have given themselves so we can delegitimize them

11) TO STOP THE GOD DAMN GENOCIDE ITS PRETTY OBVIOUS AND THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE THE SUFFERING OF NATIVE BODIES IN MIND

12) I really do not know what the hell that is, but if the USFG or the State made it then it furters the impacts of my K

FT 8: Okay 😂 I overlooked that somewhere somehow. 

FT 12: Let it be known to the judge that the neg doesn't know of a plan that involves Natives and his own state. 

No further questions

Ready for 1NR when you are

  • Downvote 1

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

×