Jump to content
AnthonyUwU

Immigration Topic KTyler(aff) vs AnthonySGHS(Neg)

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, AnthonySGHS said:

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.

I was always taught that DA's are on-case and K's are off-case. I just didn't think about linking directly, it wasn't my top concern... Glad to know though!

 

10 minutes ago, Ktyler said:

There are 3 key pieces of any DA. 1 - uniqueness, 2- link, 3 - impact.

This is proof that I'm old-school. I know the pieces as Link, Brink, Impact.

11 minutes ago, Ktyler said:

The "solvency" contention doesn't explain why it solves anything, just what points-based immigration is.

This is actually what my coach is working on with us during our next practice. I knew someone would catch it

12 minutes ago, Ktyler said:

the second doesn't explain why illegal immigration is bad (which is hardly a settled issue).

I usually say that it's a call back to my Barletta 18 card.

14 minutes ago, Ktyler said:

Oh and you don't need a roadmap in the 1nc.

I guess 'cause I'm in UIL, but that's just weird. We roadmap everything (as far as I know) except the 1AC

18 minutes ago, Ktyler said:

Obamacare is primarily mandatory spending, not discretionary. 

I think I'm going to drop my funding. I debated on it early in writing the case, but I decided to keep it just in case. The advantages is a good point though-- I'll take out the funding.

16 minutes ago, Ktyler said:

"the rehash." You don't need one.

Yeahhhh most people don't like my rehashes. It's a habit of mine to keep from being undertime. I usually freestyle it with just some bullet points to hit, but some judges liked it, others didn't...

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so I have a couple of issues with both sides of this debate-

 

1AC: You could probs deal without the opening statement, doesn’t really add anything to the 1AC

 

Not really sure how ending chain migration is topical since the res wants the US to reduce its restrictions?

 

Not really sure how illegal immigration is an impact as well?

 

Your card on terror has like 0 warrants

 

Also, this is probs me being a somewhat progressive debater but like, don’t portray immigrants as terrorists. That’s probs demoralizing, if I were you I would not use that impact or I would shift the language of the case to avoid that (the first of the two is better).

 

I also don’t know who the heck any of these authors are. Like, please put in their qualifications, the title of the article, the date you accessed it, the date it was published.

 

You could resolve a bunch of your planks with one simple phrase:

 

”I reserve the right to clarify any of the specific mandates of the plan in cross-examination”

 

1AC CX- Ktyler, I think you were being a bit rude, I understand the passive aggressive approach but like if you debate on a traditional circuit then you should know that pulling stuff like that could get you voted down very easily

 

I think that the neg’s questions could have been more offensive for example

 

”why do we care about illegal immigration?”

or

”what is the proven link between chain migration and terrorism”

 

you really should've pushed the aff on the impact level questioning

 

Also this may be me once again coming as somewhat progressive debater but Ktyler I would advise you to not say- My pronouns shouldn't be a concern, we're here to debate”

I respect all political views and your right to hold and express them but pronouns are an extremely important topic to some people, I may be misinterpreting this and I’m sorry if I am doing so but you came off as if you were trivializing the subject, so I would advise you to reword that if you say it in the future.

 

1NC- 

The DA

the DA also needs only one link, choose the one that gets you the best impact scenario

 

you don’t need to label the individual parts of a DA, it wastes time

 

Other than that it was ok

 

The K

You don’t need to explain what Set Col is in the 1NC, save that for the 2NC in the overview

 

i think you need a better alt, refusal is ok but when you go up against a good K team refusal alts are really weak.

 

The white scholarship link wasn’t necessary nor does it really link?

 

You don’t need the last bit of impact framing at the bottom, make that in the 1NR probs

 

You also don’t need to tell me how it’s mutually exclusive in the 1NC

 

What you do need is some care args

 

1NC CX- Never say “so called genocide” of indigenous people please

 

Neg, don’t use caps lol it sounds like you’re shouting 

 

Aff you were really aggressive in this, especially with this statement- 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.

 

Also dont say anything is a pointless arg plez that’s disrespectful

 

Don’t ask them if they’re gonna be running a CP in the 2NC, that just wastes time

 

2AC- On the K

I think that the 2AC really undercovers the K, it doesn’t so much as question that the material action of the aff itself is colonialist, but so much as the ideological underpinnings of the aff perpetuate settler colonialism

 

which you have to engage in the link level debate, discuss the warrants of the link and extrapolate reasons why that isn’t the aff, you start this but you don’t give warranted reason why the aff doesn’t link

 

That means the K doesn’t have to be a unique description of the status quo

 

You also concede the framing question, the impact debate, as well as the alternative

 

MAKE A PERM PLEASE, sorry just like that’s one of the most important parts of an any advocacy versus advocacy debate

 

Brain drain-

i mean it was ok coverage, you should’ve pushed more on the link level debate and it would have been better because it’s risk of a link at this point

 

case was ok

 

rehash was unnecessary and that time could’ve been used for you to make more offensive arguments

 

2AC CX- 

questions were meh, make them more offensive

 

Some of the answers came off as rude and could have been worded better (I.e. “I will abuse that point until I win)

 

Also the cards thing was actually realllllly unnecessary

 

And then one final thing about the CX of the 2AC was this answer that the aff gave, that was unnecessary, i don’t care if you think the negs links are bad, that’s for the judge to decide and vote on

 

2NC- K

 

i mean, nothing really pops out on it, you probably could have extrapolated more impact explanation and you should probably have an overview of the K, you should have more analysis on the link level debate, try to formulate analytical links

 

Give me more analysis on the question of framing because you barely covered it in the 2NC

 

2NC CX-

Make more questions on the actual thesis of the argument and not just clarifying factors that aren’t that important to the content of the K

 

Both sides flared up and were rude here, I get that debate can be frustrating but taking it out on your opponents has no excuses

 

Also no cursing lol, debates a competitive forum

 

Also to the aff, don’t try to make an arg in CX (questikn 12)

 

Tbh I would’ve voted neg, not because of the way the round went down but because the aff really mishandled the K in the 2AC and I don’t think that with the job the 2NC did on it that the aff could have won

 

but to both debaters, just keep level headed in debate please in the future.

Share this post


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

but to both debaters, just keep level headed in debate please in the future.

Yeah, sorry i did come off as rude, i was kinda taught that was how to cx im really am sorry. Me and Kasen were talking for a while before tye debate so we separated both the debate and our personal interactions i swear none of us went or tried to go personal

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheTrashDebater said:

Not really sure how ending chain migration is topical since the res wants the US to reduce its restrictions?

This is super hard to type out and way easier to say, but basically I'm going for that about 2/3rds of visas/green cards are given to family-sponsored immigrants (ie chain migrants) which limits the amount of non-family-sponsored immigrants that can come here. The MBI system would then be justified through the harms of leaving the current system and (if mentioned) the harms of increasing the number of visa/green cards given out.

2 hours ago, TheTrashDebater said:

You could probs deal without the opening statement, doesn’t really add anything to the 1AC

That's a tradition at my school... It's kind of a time waster to make the neg lose that minute or so. I've had some judges like it, saying it eases them into understanding the case, but I have mixed feelings on it. It's just there for the time being. I may take it out by State.

2 hours ago, TheTrashDebater said:

Also, this is probs me being a somewhat progressive debater but like, don’t portray immigrants as terrorists. That’s probs demoralizing

I think it's being a progressive debater. I like the fear factors

 

2 hours ago, TheTrashDebater said:

1AC CX- Ktyler, I think you were being a bit rude, I understand the passive aggressive approach but like if you debate on a traditional circuit then you should know that pulling stuff like that could get you voted down very easily

 

I don't see an issue with passive aggressiveness... I've never been voted down for that

2 hours ago, TheTrashDebater said:

Also this may be me once again coming as somewhat progressive debater but Ktyler I would advise you to not say- My pronouns shouldn't be a concern, we're here to debate”

I'm a bit tired of seeing this... Anthony and I already discussed that. It's because you're progressive, I'm sorry. The easiest way to avoid it is to do what I do-- only use "judge," "opposition," "aff team," and "neg team." And if you gotta be specific, just say 1A, 2A, 1N, 2N. Sorry if this was upsetting anyone, I just didn't see the need to ask or know.... Sorry 😶

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like this debate has demonstrated a lot of the toxicity within the debate community coming from a variety of different perspectives. Things like hostility or rudeness have been especially prevalent in this debate and in the broader community, and they are often just plain harmful and traumatic to people in the community. If you're good at debate, you shouldn't need to be rude to your opponents or try to use intimidation tactics to overwhelm them. The debate space may be better and more open than it was 20 years ago, but there are still deep problems within debate that virtually every debater I know has seen or experienced, from debaters jokingly using the f-slur when discussing a different debater to debaters knowingly using the wrong pronouns to describe others to judges straight up down voting female debaters for not wearing heels. I'm very disappointed in this debate and the community as a whole. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, XrossEcramination said:

hostility or rudeness have been especially prevalent in this debate and in the broader community

I'm not particularly sure what you're talking about without specification, since many different people with different positions have been called hostile or rude in the commentary on this round. As a comment on tactics in general, as much as civil discourse is a nice thing in concept, I'm not totally sold on its objective value in cases involving potential racism, cisnormativity, xenophobia, etc. All of the things you listed don't seem particularly civil, but this is partly because they deny civil treatment to marginalized groups in debate, which suggests to me that civility in response may not always be the best answer for the defense of marginalized groups. Again, it's difficult to tell if I'm replying directly to your statement without knowing who you're referring to as uncivil.

All of this said, and as much as I agree that those things you listed do occur in the debate community, I'm not totally sure of their relevance to this debate, and as far as I'm aware none of those particular things occurred. I think some things said in this debate are reflections of debate practices in somewhat regressive circuits, but I'm not sold on the idea that anything said here is a reflection on the whole debate community.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I feel like this debate has demonstrated a lot of the toxicity within the debate community coming from a variety of different perspectives. Things like hostility or rudeness have been especially prevalent in this debate and in the broader community, and they are often just plain harmful and traumatic to people in the community. If you're good at debate, you shouldn't need to be rude to your opponents or try to use intimidation tactics to overwhelm them. The debate space may be better and more open than it was 20 years ago, but there are still deep problems within debate that virtually every debater I know has seen or experienced, from debaters jokingly using the f-slur when discussing a different debater to debaters knowingly using the wrong pronouns to describe others to judges straight up down voting female debaters for not wearing heels. I'm very disappointed in this debate and the community as a whole. 

 

The entire community has become this hostile, aggravated, constantly P.O.-ed dumpster fire. While the blame is mainly with the debaters (being, again, hostile, aggravated, and constantly P.O.-ed) the blame is at fault too with judges. I've been told I'm not allowed to have an opinion because of my skin color. I've been told that, because I'm autistic, I should be taken out of debate and placed in special ed. 

This debate did not go as smoothly as it could have, but fault also lies with those who chose to interject and poison...

Edited by Ktyler
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


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

I've been told I'm not allowed to have an opinion because of my skin color. I've been told that, because I'm autistic, I should be taken out of debate and placed in special ed. 

The second one of these sucks. The first one of these is a case of bad K debaters not understanding the actual sociology of race, or maybe you've misinterpreted them, I can't say b/c I wasn't there. I'm curious, are the same people saying both of these things? Because at an ideological level they're more or less contradictory positions when you cut through the misinterpretation.

Share this post


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

The second one of these sucks. The first one of these is a case of bad K debaters not understanding the actual sociology of race, or maybe you've misinterpreted them, I can't say b/c I wasn't there. I'm curious, are the same people saying both of these things? Because at an ideological level they're more or less contradictory positions when you cut through the misinterpretation.

No, it was two totally separate debates against two different teams at two different tourneys

I don't think it was being bad K debaters. They were aff and I think were just trying to get a dig in. They were the same race as the judge and the judge already didn't like my partner and I because our coach had to interject and ask her if she would continue flowing (cause for some reason she just stopped in the middle of the 2AC. Like, didn't even try).

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

maybe you've misinterpreted them

don't take this the wrong way but I highlyyyyyy doubt it. she stood up and started her rebuttal with "Judge, the negative team consists of white Americans, so they aren't allowed to negate multiculturalism." 

My only response was, "I immigrated from Sweden and speak Swedish from home... I have just as much of a right to negate multiculturalism as you do to affirm it... where does race come into this?" 

I'm pretty sure that's what cost me the round butttt I still advanced into out rounds so, I guess it didn't really matter. I'm pretty sure they saved it for rebuttals so I couldn't ask in crossfire, but 🤷‍♂️

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, XrossEcramination said:

I feel like this debate has demonstrated a lot of the toxicity within the debate community coming from a variety of different perspectives. Things like hostility or rudeness have been especially prevalent in this debate and in the broader community, and they are often just plain harmful and traumatic to people in the community. If you're good at debate, you shouldn't need to be rude to your opponents or try to use intimidation tactics to overwhelm them. The debate space may be better and more open than it was 20 years ago, but there are still deep problems within debate that virtually every debater I know has seen or experienced, from debaters jokingly using the f-slur when discussing a different debater to debaters knowingly using the wrong pronouns to describe others to judges straight up down voting female debaters for not wearing heels. I'm very disappointed in this debate and the community as a whole. 

Hey stop trying to equate my communities Major issues to someone not asking pronouns and its understood if someone says they don't want to give thiers out you use gender neutral pronouns. Conflating the f word to a debater not needed to disclose probouns is soo inflammatory that you contribute to the toxicity. Do not and I am going to ask you this again Do Not charaterize KTyler as a Homophobe cayse you are dead wrong 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


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

I feel like this debate has demonstrated a lot of the toxicity within the debate community coming from a variety of different perspectives. Things like hostility or rudeness have been especially prevalent in this debate and in the broader community, and they are often just plain harmful and traumatic to people in the community. If you're good at debate, you shouldn't need to be rude to your opponents or try to use intimidation tactics to overwhelm them. The debate space may be better and more open than it was 20 years ago, but there are still deep problems within debate that virtually every debater I know has seen or experienced, from debaters jokingly using the f-slur when discussing a different debater to debaters knowingly using the wrong pronouns to describe others to judges straight up down voting female debaters for not wearing heels. I'm very disappointed in this debate and the community as a whole. 

We deligitimize the use of the word homophobe when you do stuff like this and it hurts my heart. You cannot cast the first stone by assuming he is homophobic if you don't even know if he is part of the community so i must respectfully ask you to delete your post.

9yrQJP8-1.png

delet.jpg

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


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

We deligitimize the use of the word homophobe when you do stuff like this and it hurts my heart. You cannot cast the first stone by assuming he is homophobic if you don't even know if he is part of the community so i must respectfully ask you to delete your post.

9yrQJP8-1.png

delet.jpg

It’s not deligitimizing the meaning when KTyler openly said that pronouns shouldn’t matter.  That’s hella transphobic and deligitimizing to people who receive significant dysphoria from pronouns.  Furthermore, immigrant fear factor rhetoric shouldn’t be liked.  Being afraid of immigrants, as KTyler articulated was the point, is the definition of a phobia.  This debate was something else.  Also, side note KTyler, if your Aff is supposed to be beneficial to immigrants fear factor rhetoric changes what the point is seen as to others which can undermine your possibly legitimate point.  I don’t reject the Aff on face but some of the rhetoric was rather offensive in this round.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Lukrau said:

It’s not deligitimizing the meaning when KTyler openly said that pronouns shouldn’t matter.  That’s hella transphobic and deligitimizing to people who receive significant dysphoria from pronouns.  Furthermore, immigrant fear factor rhetoric shouldn’t be liked.  Being afraid of immigrants, as KTyler articulated was the point, is the definition of a phobia.  This debate was something else.  Also, side note KTyler, if your Aff is supposed to be beneficial to immigrants fear factor rhetoric changes what the point is seen as to others which can undermine your possibly legitimate point.  I don’t reject the Aff on face but some of the rhetoric was rather offensive in this round.

He meant HIS pronouns shouldn't matter, Jesus don't try so hard to skew someone's words. And where he is from Anti- Immigrant rhetoric might be what wins rounds and he dead ass said his coach was who made the aff soooo. LAMDL gave us a Refugees Aff and Neg one of our cards is "Send them back" sooooooo what you see as Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric others might not see as such. You might hate what im about to say but idc, plz get off your soapbox and stop virture signaling and do not try acting like you know whatreal Anti Immigrant Rhetoric is until you have experienced and felt it cause i bet my bottom dollar you haven't. Downvote me I do not care, it just proves my damn point.

1 - Visas and Refugees Negative.docx

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um just clarifying couple of things I said-

 

1. You don’t have to ask pronouns but you should definitely check the way you phrased your response to the question because it sounds like you didn’t care about them whatsoever

 

2. Don’t make immigrants portrayed as terrorist, it’s not good and is 1. Exclusionary to those groups and 2. Probably racist 

Edited by TheTrashDebater
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a wee bit late to the party, but I want to say that the debate community should be more accommodating to people with different beliefs. I'm not saying that we should defend racism, xenophobic language, etc, not at all, but that we should take the time to actually talk to them about what they said/what they meant to say. Down repping someone because they don't understand something, especially when said person has said they have autism, is just about the worst thing to do in that situation. I'm not saying that you should defend what he says, agree with him, whatever, but it is called down repping FOR A REASON. It is not the "I don't agree button", it's the down rep button. It should be used when someone says something factually inaccurate, NOT to silence and discredit what someone with different political beliefs said. That is NOT debate. I have been heavily on the left side of the spectrum my entire life, but that does not mean I should go around forcing my opinions on others by down repping them. If you disagree with someone, you should TALK to them. Make an attempt to understand why they think some way. I already know I am gonna get down-repped, but I really don't care. This has to be said. Elmer is completely right, but even if the opposite was true, if the Trump administration is the worst thing to ever happen to America and black unemployment rates rose by 20 percent, it is STILL far better and more educational to talk about it than down rep it. Thank you.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, OutKTheK said:

I'm a wee bit late to the party, but I want to say that the debate community should be more accommodating to people with different beliefs. I'm not saying that we should defend racism, xenophobic language, etc, not at all, but that we should take the time to actually talk to them about what they said/what they meant to say. Down repping someone because they don't understand something, especially when said person has said they have autism, is just about the worst thing to do in that situation. I'm not saying that you should defend what he says, agree with him, whatever, but it is called down repping FOR A REASON. It is not the "I don't agree button", it's the down rep button. It should be used when someone says something factually inaccurate, NOT to silence and discredit what someone with different political beliefs said. That is NOT debate. I have been heavily on the left side of the spectrum my entire life, but that does not mean I should go around forcing my opinions on others by down repping them. If you disagree with someone, you should TALK to them. Make an attempt to understand why they think some way. I already know I am gonna get down-repped, but I really don't care. This has to be said. Elmer is completely right, but even if the opposite was true, if the Trump administration is the worst thing to ever happen to America and black unemployment rates rose by 20 percent, it is STILL far better and more educational to talk about it than down rep it. Thank you.

thanks love well said

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

×