Jump to content
AnthonyUwU

Immigration Topic KTyler(aff) vs AnthonySGHS(Neg)

Recommended Posts

Just now, AnthonySGHS said:

btw if those were the last CX questions imma have the NR done by tomorrow i got homework and stuff 

Same mate, I'll start my AR asap, but I won't finalize it until the NR is up

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh shit I have open house tomorrow night and imma do fundraising, is it cool if i post at 7 lol

Edited by AnthonySGHS

Share this post


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

Oh shit I have open house tomorrow night and imma do fundraising, is it cool if i post at 7 lol

Cool with me. I've got debate practice till 5 anyway, so I won't get to work till late.

(Love knowing people are thinking, "he's probably skipped all the practices based on the way he's debating.")

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

If i skipped practice my captain would ring my neck lol

😂 I'm the captain for my school's team. I basically drag my coach in every week. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2018 at 8:49 PM, 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.

Okay okay im sorry what im about to do but i have to because its getting to me, i have to resign, please hand the ballot to the aff im getting a terrible anxiety attack and this debate has cause alot of calloused reaction. Im getting physically sick and cannot continue even if it goes smooth im trembling writing my NR i cant continue im so sorry judges and im so sorry KTyler but im not well rn

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Okay okay im sorry what im about to do but i have to because its getting to me, i have to resign, please hand the ballot to the aff im getting a terrible anxiety attack and this debate has cause alot of calloused reaction. Im getting physically sick and cannot continue even if it goes smooth im trembling writing my NR i cant continue im so sorry judges and im so sorry KTyler but im not well rn

I'm so sorry, Anthony... You were doing great-- I was honestly afraid of the rebuttals. I hope you're okay 🙏

Excellent round dude

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll have it up later, I just want to give good comments. I appreciate the patience!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry that this situation has erupted like it has, and I hope everyone is okay. If y'all want to finish this round, we can move it to a private area where only the participants and judge can see the thread and post. I'll clean up the thread and get rid of the stuff unrelated to the round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, David said:

I'm sorry that this situation has erupted like it has, and I hope everyone is okay. If y'all want to finish this round, we can move it to a private area where only the participants and judge can see the thread and post. I'll clean up the thread and get rid of the stuff unrelated to the round.

No i cant go on with it no matter what im sorry, thank you so much tho. Just finishing it would just make the feeling flare up again All i need is closure and ill be cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since certain members of this community have made discussion of this debate difficult, would both debaters prefer me posting the RFD and the discussion of the round occurring over private messages?

Share this post


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

Since certain members of this community have made discussion of this debate difficult, would both debaters prefer me posting the RFD and the discussion of the round occurring over private messages?

im okay with it in private

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

maybe a three way groupchat

Honestly is Ktyler wabts it public im cool

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Honestly is Ktyler wabts it public im cool

I'm cool with the RFD being public, though, any discussions I would like to be private

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TheTrashDebater said:

Do y'all mind if I add some comments as well?

Not at all, as long as they aren't like the ones from before.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to comment here because the debate is over and I'm bored and have no incentive not too. I'll go in order of speeches. I've got a lot to say. Don't just write this off b/c you disagree with my previous statements.

The 1ac. I have a 4 main problems with the 1ac that extend beyond purely political disagreements, that I think are worth taking into account. I'm not going to get into stylistic disagreement.

1) The introduction. Whatever you're want it to say, the fact that the ev is from Prager U is not a good sign. They're anti-intellectual click-bait that condenses real (conservative) arguments into slick catchphrases and 1 liners that present opinion as fact. The National Review, the CATO institute, or the heritage foundation are somewhat respectable and I'd suggest looking there for a similar argument made with more integrity. The ev is also plainly in bad faith - Schumer's remarks are on the topic of how immigrants are treated inside the country (family separation) and any serious academic will tell you that the US on balance has one of the most conservative immigration systems on earth, outside of countries like North Korea or Saudi Arabia.

2) The planks/plan. I'm not sure if this is meant to be aggressively in-your-face to anyone who considers themselves left of center, but it comes off this way. (ICE, Obamacare, and immigration.) I have no idea how common that is in UIL but it immediately puts a bad taste in my mouth. It also is untopical and incoherent at a mechanical level.

a) ICE can not be the actor of the plan. It's a law enforcement agency, that enforces existing immigration laws through arrests, detention, etc. It can't pass the plan, which is traditionally what the agent is assumed to do. Congress is the appropriate actor. This is also hugely inconsiderate irl to anyone who is an illegal immigrant, knows any illegal immigrants, or is related to any, especially if they've been targeted by ICE in recent months.

b) Obamacare is primarily mandatory spending, not discretionary. The budget can't be shifted in that way. It also is an extra-topical plank, because you could very plausibly claim advantages based purely on the elimination of Obamacare, not the plan. Also, you just open yourself up to Obamacare good disads. I'm not even sure the plan requires funding - unless I'm missing something, there's nothing in the plan that would cost money to implement beyond maybe printing the new regulations and VISAs. It's also somewhat more complicated than just a $1 trillion+ price tag (which is semi-correct) - it also knocks billions off the debt and vastly reduces annual personal expenditure on healthcare.

c) It's objectively not topical. This is the big one. You haven't proven that chain immigration is a restriction on immigration, just a standard. I looked through several topicality files, and could find no definition that supported this claim. Regardless of whether eliminating chain immigration is reducing a restriction (which it also logically seems not to be, since by your own definition it allows more immigrants in), merit-based immigration system is a restriction by almost any definition (limitation, qualification, etc.). It also is plainly extra-topical and opposite the direction of the topic (i.e. highly unpredictable) to go beyond reducing restrictions to implement a new regulation, even if it is non-restrictive. The resolution says "reduce its restrictions" not "reduce its restrictions and create new regulations in their place." Because anything can fill this blank, there's no way to predict it.

3) Harms. Maybe this is taken for granted in UIL, but your harms cards aren't harms anywhere else. The first of these is descriptive (terror did occur) not predictive, and the second doesn't explain why illegal immigration is bad (which is hardly a settled issue).

4) Globally, your cards have no warrants. The "solvency" contention doesn't explain why it solves anything, just what points-based immigration is. The "O Canada" card doesn't give any explanation of why anything it says is true - it just presents the claims with no evidence or arguments to back them up. Food for thought.

The 1nc. I would highly suggest reading case evidence. That said, if you don't have any this demonstrates my point about topicality - you couldn't have expected to research an anti-topical plan. Because of all this, I'd also suggest reading topicality. If I was judging this round and had anything close to a competent defense of T, I can't imagine not voting neg. Oh and you don't need a roadmap in the 1nc. Other stuff:

1) The DA. There's no uniqueness evidence. There are 3 key pieces of any DA. 1 - uniqueness, 2- link, 3 - impact. There may be internal links, but those 4 basic things need to exist. You've got 2 and 3, in a slightly odd order, but not 1. You need to explain why the DA is not happening now - i.e. why it is a unique disadvantage to the affirmative plan and not just a feature of the status quo. If anything your first piece of ev is a non-uniqueness card - it says brain-drain is already happening.

2) The K. The 2nd Tuck and Gaztambide-Fernandez card is not needed - it's talking about white people who talk about natives but also replace them in academic settings - that's not the aff. I would suggest keeping the framing stuff embedded in the tags of the K proper, or holding it until the block. I'd also be cautious about making claims to solvency when reading a K - making arguments about problematizing or denormalizing is far more strategic, given that it's almost certain a debate round won't overturn all of settler colonialism. The rest seems fine.

Starting in the 1nc cx, there are also some rhetorical issues. I'd caution against phrases like "so-called genocide." It's probably fine to question the material impact of academic practices, but the phrasing makes it sound as though you don't think natives experienced genocide at the hands of European settlers - *spoiler* they definitely did.

The 2ac. I should clarify a few things: "the aff," "the case," and "on-case" all refer to the same thing - the text of the 1ac and direct refutations to it made by the 1nc, as well as the extended argumentation made about this later in the debate. The brain-drain disadvantage and the settlerism kritik are both off-case positions because they do not refute the case directly - they present external/separate disadvantages to something about the aff. There was no on-case argument in the 1nc - I'd suggest just restating what the harms are, why they are bad, and why they are more important than the neg's positions.

1) the kritik. The K doesn't accuse the aff of genocide per say - it says the plan and the rhetoric surrounding it cover up a history of genocide, and that this erasure is what allows the continued marginalization of native people. I'd also suggest making a lot more arguments here - the main arguments in the 1nc and their warrants are mostly unaswered other than to say that the kritik doesn't link and that it is not unique to the aff. 

2) the BD DA. Mostly I think this flow is fine. But it really doesn't matter if it's "not the US's fault" if we can apparently predict the outcome - the disadvantage is not concerned with making the US feel guilty, it's making a causal claim that a certain set of actions will result in nuclear war. This is fine if you answer the rest of the DA, which you do, but it's a bit of a useless point.

3) "the rehash." You don't need one. Most judges I've met have said that if you don't have anything new to say, it's best to just end the speech early, so that the flows don't get messy. If it's already been said, it doesn't need to be (re)said again, and if new arguments are made there's no reason they shouldn't have already been made. Individual points here:

a) The K does not say natives do control america. It says that they should and that the US should not. It's negating the resolution, that's the job of the negative.

b) Explain why it is important to focus on the effects of the plan - the kritik makes explicit claims to the importance of academic thought, so why should the judge value policy analysis? Give a reason.

c) By and large, the reasons to vote aff you list are either, redundant, irrelevant, or non sequiturs.

- why should only US-related issues matter? Nuclear war seems important anywhere, even if it is unlikely.

- what "educational purpose" matters? Colonialism seems educational and important, given that their cards are literally about education.

- they have negated the resolved - they've said the usfg should not conrtol immigration, the resolved/affirmative says it should - I have no idea how this is not negation.

- why does it matter if they read the states CP? There are other actors than the states and fed - like native tribes, for instance. 

The 2nc. It's actually not bad, I just wish you would connect the plan's Trump-connection to settler colonialism. I don't think you need to define the state, and you reread 2nd the Tuck and Gaztambide-Fernandez card from the 1nc. Also, restate the K framing, don't just say "extend it." Do the work.

I've already mentioned this to KTyler's displeasure, but white supremacy is far more than hurt feelings, as the kritik should have made abundantly clear. The rhetoric implies that it's just an issue of natives being overly emotional, and not that they are actually being slaughtered, neglected, or otherwise marginalized by various forces in service of white supremacy. 

As a kind of global note on the negative's cx answers - I think your tone, as I perceive it, is way off. The constant/random use of capitalization is kind of grating, and if it's meant to convey emotion or shouting it seems kind of hollow next to the dismissal of things I said in the commentary thread - do you genuinely care about these issues? Do you think the rhetoric surrounding the affirmative is mired in settler colonialism? If these things are true, and if it is true that settler colonialism is a genocidal system that infiltrates academia, it seems strange and contradictory to want to maintain the civil discourse or integrity of the debate when it is faced with genuine outside criticism. There's been a lot written about this over the years, in particular by Bill Shanahan and Shanara Reid-Brinkley, but confining radicalism to pure argumentation is hardly radical. That's all I have to say that I haven't already said.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

I'm going to comment here because the debate is over and I'm bored and have no incentive not too. I'll go in order of speeches. I've got a lot to say. Don't just write this off b/c you disagree with my previous statements.

The 1ac. I have a 4 main problems with the 1ac that extend beyond purely political disagreements, that I think are worth taking into account. I'm not going to get into stylistic disagreement.

1) The introduction. Whatever you're want it to say, the fact that the ev is from Prager U is not a good sign. They're anti-intellectual click-bait that condenses real (conservative) arguments into slick catchphrases and 1 liners that present opinion as fact. The National Review, the CATO institute, or the heritage foundation are somewhat respectable and I'd suggest looking there for a similar argument made with more integrity. The ev is also plainly in bad faith - Schumer's remarks are on the topic of how immigrants are treated inside the country (family separation) and any serious academic will tell you that the US on balance has one of the most conservative immigration systems on earth, outside of countries like North Korea or Saudi Arabia.

2) The planks/plan. I'm not sure if this is meant to be aggressively in-your-face to anyone who considers themselves left of center, but it comes off this way. (ICE, Obamacare, and immigration.) I have no idea how common that is in UIL but it immediately puts a bad taste in my mouth. It also is untopical and incoherent at a mechanical level.

a) ICE can not be the actor of the plan. It's a law enforcement agency, that enforces existing immigration laws through arrests, detention, etc. It can't pass the plan, which is traditionally what the agent is assumed to do. Congress is the appropriate actor. This is also hugely inconsiderate irl to anyone who is an illegal immigrant, knows any illegal immigrants, or is related to any, especially if they've been targeted by ICE in recent months.

b) Obamacare is primarily mandatory spending, not discretionary. The budget can't be shifted in that way. It also is an extra-topical plank, because you could very plausibly claim advantages based purely on the elimination of Obamacare, not the plan. Also, you just open yourself up to Obamacare good disads. I'm not even sure the plan requires funding - unless I'm missing something, there's nothing in the plan that would cost money to implement beyond maybe printing the new regulations and VISAs. It's also somewhat more complicated than just a $1 trillion+ price tag (which is semi-correct) - it also knocks billions off the debt and vastly reduces annual personal expenditure on healthcare.

c) It's objectively not topical. This is the big one. You haven't proven that chain immigration is a restriction on immigration, just a standard. I looked through several topicality files, and could find no definition that supported this claim. Regardless of whether eliminating chain immigration is reducing a restriction (which it also logically seems not to be, since by your own definition it allows more immigrants in), merit-based immigration system is a restriction by almost any definition (limitation, qualification, etc.). It also is plainly extra-topical and opposite the direction of the topic (i.e. highly unpredictable) to go beyond reducing restrictions to implement a new regulation, even if it is non-restrictive. The resolution says "reduce its restrictions" not "reduce its restrictions and create new regulations in their place." Because anything can fill this blank, there's no way to predict it.

3) Harms. Maybe this is taken for granted in UIL, but your harms cards aren't harms anywhere else. The first of these is descriptive (terror did occur) not predictive, and the second doesn't explain why illegal immigration is bad (which is hardly a settled issue).

4) Globally, your cards have no warrants. The "solvency" contention doesn't explain why it solves anything, just what points-based immigration is. The "O Canada" card doesn't give any explanation of why anything it says is true - it just presents the claims with no evidence or arguments to back them up. Food for thought.

The 1nc. I would highly suggest reading case evidence. That said, if you don't have any this demonstrates my point about topicality - you couldn't have expected to research an anti-topical plan. Because of all this, I'd also suggest reading topicality. If I was judging this round and had anything close to a competent defense of T, I can't imagine not voting neg. Oh and you don't need a roadmap in the 1nc. Other stuff:

1) The DA. There's no uniqueness evidence. There are 3 key pieces of any DA. 1 - uniqueness, 2- link, 3 - impact. There may be internal links, but those 4 basic things need to exist. You've got 2 and 3, in a slightly odd order, but not 1. You need to explain why the DA is not happening now - i.e. why it is a unique disadvantage to the affirmative plan and not just a feature of the status quo. If anything your first piece of ev is a non-uniqueness card - it says brain-drain is already happening.

2) The K. The 2nd Tuck and Gaztambide-Fernandez card is not needed - it's talking about white people who talk about natives but also replace them in academic settings - that's not the aff. I would suggest keeping the framing stuff embedded in the tags of the K proper, or holding it until the block. I'd also be cautious about making claims to solvency when reading a K - making arguments about problematizing or denormalizing is far more strategic, given that it's almost certain a debate round won't overturn all of settler colonialism. The rest seems fine.

Starting in the 1nc cx, there are also some rhetorical issues. I'd caution against phrases like "so-called genocide." It's probably fine to question the material impact of academic practices, but the phrasing makes it sound as though you don't think natives experienced genocide at the hands of European settlers - *spoiler* they definitely did.

The 2ac. I should clarify a few things: "the aff," "the case," and "on-case" all refer to the same thing - the text of the 1ac and direct refutations to it made by the 1nc, as well as the extended argumentation made about this later in the debate. The brain-drain disadvantage and the settlerism kritik are both off-case positions because they do not refute the case directly - they present external/separate disadvantages to something about the aff. There was no on-case argument in the 1nc - I'd suggest just restating what the harms are, why they are bad, and why they are more important than the neg's positions.

1) the kritik. The K doesn't accuse the aff of genocide per say - it says the plan and the rhetoric surrounding it cover up a history of genocide, and that this erasure is what allows the continued marginalization of native people. I'd also suggest making a lot more arguments here - the main arguments in the 1nc and their warrants are mostly unaswered other than to say that the kritik doesn't link and that it is not unique to the aff. 

2) the BD DA. Mostly I think this flow is fine. But it really doesn't matter if it's "not the US's fault" if we can apparently predict the outcome - the disadvantage is not concerned with making the US feel guilty, it's making a causal claim that a certain set of actions will result in nuclear war. This is fine if you answer the rest of the DA, which you do, but it's a bit of a useless point.

3) "the rehash." You don't need one. Most judges I've met have said that if you don't have anything new to say, it's best to just end the speech early, so that the flows don't get messy. If it's already been said, it doesn't need to be (re)said again, and if new arguments are made there's no reason they shouldn't have already been made. Individual points here:

a) The K does not say natives do control america. It says that they should and that the US should not. It's negating the resolution, that's the job of the negative.

b) Explain why it is important to focus on the effects of the plan - the kritik makes explicit claims to the importance of academic thought, so why should the judge value policy analysis? Give a reason.

c) By and large, the reasons to vote aff you list are either, redundant, irrelevant, or non sequiturs.

- why should only US-related issues matter? Nuclear war seems important anywhere, even if it is unlikely.

- what "educational purpose" matters? Colonialism seems educational and important, given that their cards are literally about education.

- they have negated the resolved - they've said the usfg should not conrtol immigration, the resolved/affirmative says it should - I have no idea how this is not negation.

- why does it matter if they read the states CP? There are other actors than the states and fed - like native tribes, for instance. 

The 2nc. It's actually not bad, I just wish you would connect the plan's Trump-connection to settler colonialism. I don't think you need to define the state, and you reread 2nd the Tuck and Gaztambide-Fernandez card from the 1nc. Also, restate the K framing, don't just say "extend it." Do the work.

I've already mentioned this to KTyler's displeasure, but white supremacy is far more than hurt feelings, as the kritik should have made abundantly clear. The rhetoric implies that it's just an issue of natives being overly emotional, and not that they are actually being slaughtered, neglected, or otherwise marginalized by various forces in service of white supremacy. 

As a kind of global note on the negative's cx answers - I think your tone, as I perceive it, is way off. The constant/random use of capitalization is kind of grating, and if it's meant to convey emotion or shouting it seems kind of hollow next to the dismissal of things I said in the commentary thread - do you genuinely care about these issues? Do you think the rhetoric surrounding the affirmative is mired in settler colonialism? If these things are true, and if it is true that settler colonialism is a genocidal system that infiltrates academia, it seems strange and contradictory to want to maintain the civil discourse or integrity of the debate when it is faced with genuine outside criticism. There's been a lot written about this over the years, in particular by Bill Shanahan and Shanara Reid-Brinkley, but confining radicalism to pure argumentation is hardly radical. That's all I have to say that I haven't already said.

Thank you for your feedback even if it does feel a little politically tinged it still has a plethora of Gems in criticism and I can take a boat ton of info for other rounds from it c:. Also the CX when I used caps is how I flow cross ex i make the Caps important points and yeah this K hits pretty close to home with me. Also thx for the Card suggestion :3

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

i make the Caps important points

just an fyi but you can also use italics, bold, and underlined text on this website, as well as change the size.

Share this post


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

just an fyi but you can also use italics, bold, and underlined text on this website, as well as change the size.

 

.......... I just noticed 😫😫😫😫

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, seanarchy said:

I'm going to comment here because the debate is over and I'm bored and have no incentive not too. I'll go in order of speeches. I've got a lot to say. Don't just write this off b/c you disagree with my previous statements.

The 1ac. I have a 4 main problems with the 1ac that extend beyond purely political disagreements, that I think are worth taking into account. I'm not going to get into stylistic disagreement.

1) The introduction. Whatever you're want it to say, the fact that the ev is from Prager U is not a good sign. They're anti-intellectual click-bait that condenses real (conservative) arguments into slick catchphrases and 1 liners that present opinion as fact. The National Review, the CATO institute, or the heritage foundation are somewhat respectable and I'd suggest looking there for a similar argument made with more integrity. The ev is also plainly in bad faith - Schumer's remarks are on the topic of how immigrants are treated inside the country (family separation) and any serious academic will tell you that the US on balance has one of the most conservative immigration systems on earth, outside of countries like North Korea or Saudi Arabia.

2) The planks/plan. I'm not sure if this is meant to be aggressively in-your-face to anyone who considers themselves left of center, but it comes off this way. (ICE, Obamacare, and immigration.) I have no idea how common that is in UIL but it immediately puts a bad taste in my mouth. It also is untopical and incoherent at a mechanical level.

a) ICE can not be the actor of the plan. It's a law enforcement agency, that enforces existing immigration laws through arrests, detention, etc. It can't pass the plan, which is traditionally what the agent is assumed to do. Congress is the appropriate actor. This is also hugely inconsiderate irl to anyone who is an illegal immigrant, knows any illegal immigrants, or is related to any, especially if they've been targeted by ICE in recent months.

b) Obamacare is primarily mandatory spending, not discretionary. The budget can't be shifted in that way. It also is an extra-topical plank, because you could very plausibly claim advantages based purely on the elimination of Obamacare, not the plan. Also, you just open yourself up to Obamacare good disads. I'm not even sure the plan requires funding - unless I'm missing something, there's nothing in the plan that would cost money to implement beyond maybe printing the new regulations and VISAs. It's also somewhat more complicated than just a $1 trillion+ price tag (which is semi-correct) - it also knocks billions off the debt and vastly reduces annual personal expenditure on healthcare.

c) It's objectively not topical. This is the big one. You haven't proven that chain immigration is a restriction on immigration, just a standard. I looked through several topicality files, and could find no definition that supported this claim. Regardless of whether eliminating chain immigration is reducing a restriction (which it also logically seems not to be, since by your own definition it allows more immigrants in), merit-based immigration system is a restriction by almost any definition (limitation, qualification, etc.). It also is plainly extra-topical and opposite the direction of the topic (i.e. highly unpredictable) to go beyond reducing restrictions to implement a new regulation, even if it is non-restrictive. The resolution says "reduce its restrictions" not "reduce its restrictions and create new regulations in their place." Because anything can fill this blank, there's no way to predict it.

3) Harms. Maybe this is taken for granted in UIL, but your harms cards aren't harms anywhere else. The first of these is descriptive (terror did occur) not predictive, and the second doesn't explain why illegal immigration is bad (which is hardly a settled issue).

4) Globally, your cards have no warrants. The "solvency" contention doesn't explain why it solves anything, just what points-based immigration is. The "O Canada" card doesn't give any explanation of why anything it says is true - it just presents the claims with no evidence or arguments to back them up. Food for thought.

The 1nc. I would highly suggest reading case evidence. That said, if you don't have any this demonstrates my point about topicality - you couldn't have expected to research an anti-topical plan. Because of all this, I'd also suggest reading topicality. If I was judging this round and had anything close to a competent defense of T, I can't imagine not voting neg. Oh and you don't need a roadmap in the 1nc. Other stuff:

1) The DA. There's no uniqueness evidence. There are 3 key pieces of any DA. 1 - uniqueness, 2- link, 3 - impact. There may be internal links, but those 4 basic things need to exist. You've got 2 and 3, in a slightly odd order, but not 1. You need to explain why the DA is not happening now - i.e. why it is a unique disadvantage to the affirmative plan and not just a feature of the status quo. If anything your first piece of ev is a non-uniqueness card - it says brain-drain is already happening.

2) The K. The 2nd Tuck and Gaztambide-Fernandez card is not needed - it's talking about white people who talk about natives but also replace them in academic settings - that's not the aff. I would suggest keeping the framing stuff embedded in the tags of the K proper, or holding it until the block. I'd also be cautious about making claims to solvency when reading a K - making arguments about problematizing or denormalizing is far more strategic, given that it's almost certain a debate round won't overturn all of settler colonialism. The rest seems fine.

Starting in the 1nc cx, there are also some rhetorical issues. I'd caution against phrases like "so-called genocide." It's probably fine to question the material impact of academic practices, but the phrasing makes it sound as though you don't think natives experienced genocide at the hands of European settlers - *spoiler* they definitely did.

The 2ac. I should clarify a few things: "the aff," "the case," and "on-case" all refer to the same thing - the text of the 1ac and direct refutations to it made by the 1nc, as well as the extended argumentation made about this later in the debate. The brain-drain disadvantage and the settlerism kritik are both off-case positions because they do not refute the case directly - they present external/separate disadvantages to something about the aff. There was no on-case argument in the 1nc - I'd suggest just restating what the harms are, why they are bad, and why they are more important than the neg's positions.

1) the kritik. The K doesn't accuse the aff of genocide per say - it says the plan and the rhetoric surrounding it cover up a history of genocide, and that this erasure is what allows the continued marginalization of native people. I'd also suggest making a lot more arguments here - the main arguments in the 1nc and their warrants are mostly unaswered other than to say that the kritik doesn't link and that it is not unique to the aff. 

2) the BD DA. Mostly I think this flow is fine. But it really doesn't matter if it's "not the US's fault" if we can apparently predict the outcome - the disadvantage is not concerned with making the US feel guilty, it's making a causal claim that a certain set of actions will result in nuclear war. This is fine if you answer the rest of the DA, which you do, but it's a bit of a useless point.

3) "the rehash." You don't need one. Most judges I've met have said that if you don't have anything new to say, it's best to just end the speech early, so that the flows don't get messy. If it's already been said, it doesn't need to be (re)said again, and if new arguments are made there's no reason they shouldn't have already been made. Individual points here:

a) The K does not say natives do control america. It says that they should and that the US should not. It's negating the resolution, that's the job of the negative.

b) Explain why it is important to focus on the effects of the plan - the kritik makes explicit claims to the importance of academic thought, so why should the judge value policy analysis? Give a reason.

c) By and large, the reasons to vote aff you list are either, redundant, irrelevant, or non sequiturs.

- why should only US-related issues matter? Nuclear war seems important anywhere, even if it is unlikely.

- what "educational purpose" matters? Colonialism seems educational and important, given that their cards are literally about education.

- they have negated the resolved - they've said the usfg should not conrtol immigration, the resolved/affirmative says it should - I have no idea how this is not negation.

- why does it matter if they read the states CP? There are other actors than the states and fed - like native tribes, for instance. 

The 2nc. It's actually not bad, I just wish you would connect the plan's Trump-connection to settler colonialism. I don't think you need to define the state, and you reread 2nd the Tuck and Gaztambide-Fernandez card from the 1nc. Also, restate the K framing, don't just say "extend it." Do the work.

I've already mentioned this to KTyler's displeasure, but white supremacy is far more than hurt feelings, as the kritik should have made abundantly clear. The rhetoric implies that it's just an issue of natives being overly emotional, and not that they are actually being slaughtered, neglected, or otherwise marginalized by various forces in service of white supremacy. 

As a kind of global note on the negative's cx answers - I think your tone, as I perceive it, is way off. The constant/random use of capitalization is kind of grating, and if it's meant to convey emotion or shouting it seems kind of hollow next to the dismissal of things I said in the commentary thread - do you genuinely care about these issues? Do you think the rhetoric surrounding the affirmative is mired in settler colonialism? If these things are true, and if it is true that settler colonialism is a genocidal system that infiltrates academia, it seems strange and contradictory to want to maintain the civil discourse or integrity of the debate when it is faced with genuine outside criticism. There's been a lot written about this over the years, in particular by Bill Shanahan and Shanara Reid-Brinkley, but confining radicalism to pure argumentation is hardly radical. That's all I have to say that I haven't already said.

Thanks for the feedback. 90% of what you mentioned I've already thought of and took care of when writing the case. Some of your points though are just from not understanding my point (probably because this is digital and I can't actually convey everything I'm thinking). 

  • Upvote 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

×