Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/21/18 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    If I'm looking at the right files, the naturalization CP is about shielding undocumented immigrants in the U.S. now from deportation and the visas one is about allowing states to determine their own level of immigration. I don't know what the combined CP solves that the visas CP doesn't given visas allows immigrants to apply for LPR. People will say combining CPs bad because no card assumes the CPs together, it's unpredictable, tries to spike out of reasonable solvency deficits. Also, people will ask if conditionality means you can kick one plank and go for the other. Say "no" or be prepared to defend you can do that.
  2. 1 point
  3. 1 point
  4. 1 point
    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.
  5. 1 point
    You are so full of yourself. Call out culture is toxic hot garbage that accomplishes nothing but personal good feelings and alienation of the person/people called out, which fosters increasingly isolated feelings and entrenched beliefs, which makes it worse. There are productive ways of engaging with people whose beliefs you see as wrong, which involves meaningful dialogue. The underlying purpose of learning argumentation and rhetoric in debate is learning how to persuade. IRL convos outside of debate rounds involve persuading the other person, not an audience. You're just playing to an audience and presenting yourself as morally superior. This is both the lowest tier of slacktivism and emblematic of having learned nothing meaningful from debate and how to translate it into real personal interactions. Try acknowledging different beliefs OR just that someone does hail from a different circuit that necessitates playing to a different audience and moving from there to explain why you think theres something wrong with it. Saying 90% of the debate community would be turned off by his aff is woefully ignorant of the heterogeneity of high school debate circuits; maybe he doesn't believe these things and has this case written for the conservative parents that judge texas uil tournaments. Maybe the research burden on current events and their implications is different. This thread should be locked and holed or just deleted.
  6. 1 point
    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.
  7. 1 point
  8. -1 points
    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.
This leaderboard is set to Chicago/GMT-05:00
  • Create New...