Jump to content
Lamp

NSEERS

Recommended Posts

JDI and SDI put this case out. What does everyone think of it? My partner wants to run it and I am fairly skeptical.... Has anyone debated with it and what were some args that you lost or won on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JDI and SDI put this case out. What does everyone think of it? My partner wants to run it and I am fairly skeptical.... Has anyone debated with it and what were some args that you lost or won on?

 

for the most part its a decent case...i mean its in essence racial profiling so you can use all of the racial profiling bad evidence along with the impacts they provide...90% of the time the arguement that will be ran against you is solvency because teams will argue that racism is a mind set...its easy to counter that when you say that you are solving for racial profiling and not racism. if they fail to argue racism in the 1nc use racism as an add on adv in the 2ac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i runnned it at JEDI and had some + from the indo pak rreellaattiionsss ADVANTANANE.

 

 

how did it help you? because my partner and i were thinking taking that out because of its length. how did the brazil relations work for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i was in the lab that wrote it for SDI and it has some solvency holes...like specificly the solvency never says that repelling the act will stop racial profiling or the fact its all from amnistay international.... but other then that its a good case, you just need to find the solvency cards they are out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

me and my partner ran it at JDI and didnt lose with it.

 

The solvency hole thing is stupid, repealing NSEERS does stop racial profiling of arabs at least to an extent, even if you dont all of ur relations advatages are based on PERCEPTION, its a symbolic thing and also it give u a lot of 2ac flexibility to go policy with lots on big mpx or critical with racism and stuff.

 

the fun thing was when they run cp's with politix advs, they say CP not percieved then their F'd in the A cause the link back to all relations advs.

 

i personally like the aff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
me and my partner ran it at JDI and didnt lose with it.

 

The solvency hole thing is stupid, repealing NSEERS does stop racial profiling of arabs at least to an extent, even if you dont all of ur relations advatages are based on PERCEPTION, its a symbolic thing and also it give u a lot of 2ac flexibility to go policy with lots on big mpx or critical with racism and stuff.

 

the fun thing was when they run cp's with politix advs, they say CP not percieved then their F'd in the A cause the link back to all relations advs.

 

i personally like the aff.

 

the world should be less unintellent.

NOTE: i dont really know how in anyway this was responsive, but im Logan Motherfucking Parke

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My lab wrote this aff at JEDI while I was busy sleeping and playing ping pong.

 

The general plan text is that it repeals NSEERS, a federal program that racially profiles Muslim men entering the United States. The policy advantages stem from the fact that most countries whose citizens get racially profiled get pissed at the United States, thus repealing NSEERS would improve relations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[a] you are asking about a simple Zizek card. you really aren't in any posistion to be saying what an aff should be ran like.

 

The internal links for how the case SOLVES biopower are friggen horrible, little less how NSEERS is a form of biopolitical control.

 

[c] If at all possible, try to devolp the advantages. They are a good starting point but need to be worked on. This could end up being the indo-pak case of this year, but again..it couldn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the version SDI made, is very horrible.. no offence. i thought some of the cards can be better. for ex. reject racism barndt card was a very horrible card.

 

however, the idea of it is good...just the cards, suck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the version SDI made, is very horrible.. no offence. i thought some of the cards can be better. for ex. reject racism barndt card was a very horrible card.

 

however, the idea of it is good...just the cards, suck.

yea SDI's version sucks hardcore, my partner and i steam rolled it in the 2 week tournament. Considering all the other cases out there that are better i would not run this case, unless you made it yourself and somehow made it amazing (thats doubtful though). This case is average at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just go with a "driving while black" aff, it is solid and racism is a kritik ov everything.

 

And it's non-topical because it doesn't involve federal officials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yea SDI's version sucks hardcore, my partner and i steam rolled it in the 2 week tournament. Considering all the other cases out there that are better i would not run this case, unless you made it yourself and somehow made it amazing (thats doubtful though). This case is average at best.

 

in my opinion, that aff was more of a foreign policy aff then a domestic aff, dont u think? i mean, come on- u have an indonesa -us and a pakistan-us scenario... lol, the pakistan one was like last yrs, "India-Pakistan" Aff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nah. it would be a federal policy, but it's a federal policy that reduces the states' enforcement authorities. who cares what kind of policy it is, it has to reduce the fg's authority, which does not extend to black people driving cars. i'd love to be on the neg side of that T debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the T violation is on "its", not "USFG"

 

what are you talking about? you can run so many T's on it, such as "USFG" has to be the courts, not congress.

 

look at the SDI T file.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i was referring to the T violation in question (police officers are not part of the federal branch), not T violations in general that can be run on this case. of course there are many potential T args that you can run every round.

 

in this specific case, a plan dealing with police officers who racially profile is untopical (or at best extra tropical if its only part of the plan) because "its" in the rez refers back to USFG, meaning you must decrease the USFG's authority to search/detain. thats what i was getting at.

 

at any rate, that discussion is irrelevant to the topic, as NSEERS involves federal immigration laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...