Jump to content

VelCrowe66

Member
  • Content Count

    412
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by VelCrowe66


  1. File Name: Thursday File 2-14-2013

    File Submitter: VelCrowe66

    File Submitted: 14 Feb 2013

    File Category: Thursday Files

    Resolution: Transportation

     

    Thursday File - 2/14/2013

     

    This week's author proceeds go directly to the Vince Binder scholarship at the NAUDL. That's entirely what you get. Might as well purchase twice just to make sure you got it.

     

    As a bonus, here are over 400 pages of politics cards. You'll lose money if you don't buy it.

     

    This week's file zeros in directly on Cross-x.com's continuing scenario: Comprehensive Immigration Reform. State of the Union updates are included, as well as some fresh links, political capital theory and a dust-up of the internal links.

     

    This file was written by Chris Crowe, with massive contributions from Gabe Murillo, Josh Gonzalez, Bria Frame and past authors Colin Roark and Stephanie Garrett. Roughly one million years of debate experience, give or take a few. Please support their efforts and the NAUDL.

     

    Table of Contents

     

    The Thursday File – 2/14/2013................................................................................................... 1

    The Negatory....................................................................................................................... 5

    UQ: Will Pass – Economic Narrative.................................................................................... 6

    UQ: Will Pass – Generic Agenda......................................................................................... 7

    UQ: Will Pass – Generic Immigration................................................................................... 8

    UQ: Will Pass – Generic Pol Cap........................................................................................ 9

    UQ: Will Pass – House.................................................................................................... 10

    UQ: Will Pass – It’s Close............................................................................................... 12

    UQ: Will Pass – Momentum............................................................................................. 16

    UQ: Will Pass – Obama................................................................................................... 18

    UQ: Will Pass – SOTU Framing....................................................................................... 21

    UQ: Will Pass – Window of Opportunity............................................................................ 22

    UQ: AT – Budget First.................................................................................................... 23

    UQ: AT – Fragmented Bill............................................................................................... 26

    UQ: AT - GOP Opposes Citizenship................................................................................... 27

    UQ: AT – Gun Control.................................................................................................... 28

    UQ: AT – Inevitable........................................................................................................ 29

    UQ: AT – LGBTQ.......................................................................................................... 30

    UQ: AT – Snapshot Opposition......................................................................................... 31

    UQ: AT – SOTU Items.................................................................................................... 32

    Link UQ: Infrastructure..................................................................................................... 33

    Link UQ: AT – SOTU..................................................................................................... 35

    Links: Infrastructure Spending............................................................................................ 39

    Links: AT – Lobby Link Turns......................................................................................... 42

    IL: Aging Crisis.............................................................................................................. 43

    IL: Competitiveness......................................................................................................... 45

    IL: Comprehensive Reform Key.......................................................................................... 46

    IL: Cyber War................................................................................................................. 47

    IL: Deficit....................................................................................................................... 48

    IL: Economy................................................................................................................... 50

    IL: High-Skilled Workers.................................................................................................. 53

    IL: India-US Relations...................................................................................................... 54

    IL: Latin American Stability.............................................................................................. 55

    IL: Nuclear Terrorism....................................................................................................... 56

    IL: Political Capital Key................................................................................................... 58

    IL: Terrorism.................................................................................................................. 63

    IL: Visas K/T Economy.................................................................................................... 64

    Affirmation Side.................................................................................................................. 66

    Not UQ: Activists, Details................................................................................................ 67

    Not UQ: Budget Derails Immigration.................................................................................. 69

    Not UQ: Generic Agenda................................................................................................... 70

    Not UQ: Immigration Details Battle*.................................................................................. 71

    Not UQ: Keystone Derails................................................................................................. 72

    Not UQ: LGBTQ............................................................................................................ 73

    Not UQ: Minimum Wage................................................................................................. 75

    Not UQ: Pathway to Citizenship........................................................................................ 76

    Not UQ: Timeframe......................................................................................................... 77

    Not UQ: Uniqueness Overwhelms....................................................................................... 78

    Link U: Transportation Infrastructure Now............................................................................ 79

    Link Turns: Construction Lobby........................................................................................ 80

    Link Turns: Economy...................................................................................................... 81

    Link Turns: Winners Win................................................................................................. 82

    IL: Pol Cap Not Key - Immigration.................................................................................... 84

    IL: Pol Cap Not Finite..................................................................................................... 86

    IL: Pol Cap Not Real....................................................................................................... 87

    Impact Answers: Aging Crisis............................................................................................ 91

    Impact Answers: Econ Framing Bad.................................................................................... 92

    Impact Answers: Future Obama Wins.................................................................................. 93

    Impact Answers: Infrastructure K/T Economy........................................................................ 94

    Impact Answers: Magnet DA Internal Links.......................................................................... 96

    Previous File.......................................................................................................................... 97

    Friday Addendum 2/8/2013................................................................................................... 98

    Immigration – Will Pass................................................................................................... 99

    2ac nominations thumper................................................................................................. 102

    AT: Nomination Thumper............................................................................................... 103

    Immigration Reform Shell............................................................................................... 106

    Uniqueness Extensions....................................................................................................... 110

    UQ: AT: Border Security Conditions................................................................................ 131

    UQ: AT: Obama Will Delegate-Won’t Lead on Immigration Reform.................................... 132

    UQ: AT: Thumpers........................................................................................................ 133

    UQ: AT: Hagel Thumper................................................................................................ 141

    UQ: AT: Nominations Thumper....................................................................................... 143

    UQ: AT: NLRB Thumper............................................................................................... 144

    UQ: AT: High-Skilled Inevitable/Piecemeal........................................................................ 150

    Link Extensions................................................................................................................ 152

    2NC Crowd-Out Link*................................................................................................... 155

    Internal Link Extensions..................................................................................................... 159

    Internals: PC Key/A2 Obama Bad..................................................................................... 163

    Impacts............................................................................................................................ 171

    Impact Overview............................................................................................................ 172

    Impact - Ag...................................................................................................................... 173

    Agriculture Impact Module.............................................................................................. 174

    Impact – Alt Energy........................................................................................................... 177

    Alternative Energy Impacts.............................................................................................. 178

    Environment Impacts...................................................................................................... 186

    Hegemony Impact Module............................................................................................... 187

    Competitiveness Impacts................................................................................................. 188

    Immigration – AT: Impact Turns......................................................................................... 245

    AT: Brain Drain Turn..................................................................................................... 246

    AT: Overpopulation Turn................................................................................................ 248

    AT: Wages Turn........................................................................................................... 252

    Answers to: Theory Arguments........................................................................................... 254

    Debt Ceiling NEG Updates.................................................................................................. 259

    Hagel Nomination NEG Updates.......................................................................................... 270

    *****AFF Answers*****....................................................................................................... 276

    Thumpers + Goodies.......................................................................................................... 277

    2ac Economy Thumper................................................................................................... 278

    2ac gun control thumper.................................................................................................. 280

    1ar gun control thumper.................................................................................................. 281

    2ac nomination monster*................................................................................................. 282

    1ar – nominations (CFPB)............................................................................................... 283

    2ac winners win*........................................................................................................... 284

    Immigration – Aff – UQ + Link/Internals............................................................................... 286

    Immigration Reform Answers: 2ac Front-Line.................................................................... 287

    2ac: Ag worker shortage impact........................................................................................ 300

    1ar: Immigration Reform Won’t Pass................................................................................ 305

    1ar: thumpers................................................................................................................ 308

    1ar: PC Not Key............................................................................................................ 310

    Immigration – Aff – Impact Turns**..................................................................................... 317

    2ac wages turn............................................................................................................... 318

    1ar wages turn – link...................................................................................................... 321

    2ac brain drain turn......................................................................................................... 328

    1ar brain drain turn – link................................................................................................ 331

    2ac overpopulation turn................................................................................................... 335

    1ar overpopulation turn................................................................................................... 337

    1ar overpopulation turn: turns econ.................................................................................... 340

    1ar overpopulation turn: laundry list.................................................................................. 341

    1ar overpopulation turn: Framing – Try-or-Die.................................................................... 343

    1ar overpopulation turn: Link xt....................................................................................... 344

    1ar overpopulation turn: Link xt – Overshoot...................................................................... 348

    1ar overpopulation turn: A-to Demographic Transition.......................................................... 350

    1ar overpopulation turn: A-to Efficiency Solves.................................................................... 351

    1ar overpopulation turn: A-to Ethics.................................................................................. 352

    1ar overpopulation turn: A-to Other Countries..................................................................... 356

    1ar overpopulation turn: A-to Simon................................................................................. 357

    1ar overpopulation turn: A-to They Live Cleaner................................................................. 358

    1ar overpopulation turn: A-to Tech Solves.......................................................................... 359

    1ar overpopulation turn: A-to Impact Turn – Space Col........................................................ 365

    Budget/Debt – Aff.............................................................................................................. 366

    2ac.............................................................................................................................. 367

    1ar – no uq................................................................................................................... 370

    1ar – no impact.............................................................................................................. 371

    Debt Ceiling Answers..................................................................................................... 375

    Cyber-Security – Aff........................................................................................................... 379

    2ac cyber-security........................................................................................................... 380

    1ar – XO solves............................................................................................................. 382

    Gun Control – Aff.............................................................................................................. 383

    2ac gun control.............................................................................................................. 384

    AT: Carlsen Ev............................................................................................................. 389

    Gun Control Scenario AFF Answers.................................................................................. 391

    Hagel - Aff........................................................................................................................ 393

    Hagel Nomination 2ac Answers........................................................................................ 394

    Warming/Climate – Aff....................................................................................................... 400

    Warming Scenario AFF Answers...................................................................................... 401

    AFF Link Answers............................................................................................................ 402

     

    Click here to download this file


  2. This is very, very frustrating.

     

    I think the rule prohibiting other competitors from flowing elimination debates should be struck from the CHSAA rules. It appears as though the only way to do so would be to submit an amendment at their Legislative Council meeting in April. I would be interested in helping someone draft an amendment to such an end if they could attend the meeting and submit it.

     

    I believe the rule is antithetical to parts of the CHSAA philosophy, specifically that "CHSAA seeks to provide a positive competitive speech experience for Colorado high school students by... Supporting a state-wide competitive speech program to provide students with the opportunity to

    develop and to perfect communication skills" and also that they will fulfill that commitment by "Providing information and resources designed to make speech programs more effective."

     

    There are many other rules that I would consider submitting amendments to, but I don't currently believe any of them are as destructive to the learning environment as the note-taking prohibition. Rebuttal times should be the same as the rest of the country, as an example, and perhaps the mandated paradigm and prohibition against oral critiques should also be reconsidered.

     

    One particular rule strikes me as unconstitutional, and that is the rule about the presence of a laptop establishing consent for tournament officials to search a student's files. This rule reads: "By choosing to use laptop computers in the round, debaters are consenting to give tournament officials the right to search their files. Debaters who do not wish to consent should not use computers in the round." I am no constitutional or legal scholar, so I'd be interested what others think.

     

    Many of the rules and regulations regarding the certification procedures for coaches and judges, while not on-face objectionable, seem to create a chilling effect on attracting coaches, judges and competitors to some of the activities. I have not been involved in Colorado policy debate in any meaningful capacity for many years, but it sure seems as though numbers are reaching frighteningly low levels.

     

    I encourage those of you in coaching or tournament administration capacities to consider a few remedies that seem to be within your control. One is "running" for positions as district representatives and/or Legislative Council members. I do not know the process, but many of the rules seem to be protected by an insular community of coaches that have been in charge for a long, long time. Second is to not run your tournament according to CHSAA rules. They appear to only have the authority to impose the rules on regional qualifying tournaments and the State Tournament. Many tournaments use the rules either because their directors agree with them (not likely to change, I suppose) or as a convenience. How many tournaments do not use CHSAA rules these days? When I debated and coached, I believe it was only the Denver East/Creek Meet at the beginning of the season and maybe one other.

     

    Greg - I would be interesting in hearing some more specifics about this situation or your more detailed opinions on some of the above. Feel free to Private Message me if you're not comfortable posting here.


  3. Buy early and often. Author proceeds will go directly to the National Association of Urban Debate Leagues' Vincent J. Binder Urban Debate Scholars Award. Your small contribution will help send debaters to camp this summer.

     

    http://www.cross-x.com/files/file/10979-thursday-file-available-2-16-12/

     

    It's a rough week for the politics disadvantage. Updates include the payroll tax cut, mortgage bill, line-item veto and a start for an elections disadvantage.

     

    The parameters of a payroll tax cut extension have been agreed upon, but if they don't manage to pass it tomorrow, you might still have a disadvantage on your hands if you can win a strong link. Some folks still seem worried it could be derailed at the last minute.

     

    Continuing series include small updates to the mortgage bill, which is a tough battle but contains a good debate about its relationship to the economy.

     

    As the election nears, agenda disadvantages will be difficult to win and you'll see many teams fall back on the elections disadvantage. I've included a "Romney Bad" scenario that relies on him merely attempting to overturn Obamacare.

     

    Chris Crowe is a debate coach for the University of Texas at San Antonio and Westwood High School. He has qualified multiple high school teams to the Tournament of Champions and top 20 finishes at NFL Nationals. His college debaters have cleared at every major national tournament, including CEDA Nationals and the NDT. Chris is a highly preferred critic, judging the final round of CEDA and the NDT the past two years. Chris was the 2006 CEDA Debater of the Year.

     

    Table Of Contents

     

    General................................................................................................................................. 3

    Link Uniqueness................................................................................................................ 4

    Link Uniqueness................................................................................................................ 5

    Aff: General Non-Uniques.................................................................................................. 6

    Line-Item Veto...................................................................................................................... 7

    Line-Item 1NC.................................................................................................................... 8

    Will Pass – Push............................................................................................................... 12

    Won’t Pass – No Agenda.................................................................................................. 13

    AT: Supreme Court Overturn............................................................................................ 14

    Mortgage Bill....................................................................................................................... 15

    Mortgage Bill 1NC............................................................................................................ 16

    Will Pass – Pol Cap........................................................................................................... 19

    Will Pass – Top Priority.................................................................................................... 20

    AT: Bank Fee Derails........................................................................................................ 21

    Won’t Pass – Bank Tax..................................................................................................... 22

    Won’t Pass – Multiwarrant.............................................................................................. 23

    Won’t Pass – Unpopular.................................................................................................. 24

    Mortgage Bill Solves – Housing Crisis............................................................................... 27

    Mortgage Bill Solves – Voluntary Measures Fail............................................................... 28

    Mortgage Bill Fails – FHA.................................................................................................. 30

    Mortgage Bill Fails – Backfire/Tradeoff............................................................................. 32

    Mortgage Bill Fails – Underwater Loans........................................................................... 33

    Aff: No Mortgage Crisis..................................................................................................... 34

    PTC...................................................................................................................................... 35

    Will Pass – Tentative....................................................................................................... 36

    Will Pass – Pol Cap Key.................................................................................................... 39

    AT: U overwhelms Link..................................................................................................... 41

    Aff – Votes Ideological...................................................................................................... 42

    Budget................................................................................................................................ 43

    Won’t Pass – Too Early..................................................................................................... 44

    Elections............................................................................................................................. 45

    Elections 1NC – Romney Bad (Health Care)....................................................................... 46

    U: Obama Wins – Economy............................................................................................... 53

    U: Obama Wins – Economy & Independents..................................................................... 54

    U: Obama Wins – FY13 Budget.......................................................................................... 55

    U: Obama Wins – Public Support...................................................................................... 57

    U: Obama Wins – PTC....................................................................................................... 58

    U: Romney Wins – Nomination......................................................................................... 60

    U: Romney Wins – Super PACs.......................................................................................... 61

    Econ Message K/T Election............................................................................................... 62

    AT: Public Popularity Link Turns....................................................................................... 66

    Romney Win Repeals Health Care................................................................................... 67

    GOP Win = Iran Strikes..................................................................................................... 70


  4.  

    Basically, you can't demand proof of citizenship based just on color, and literally ANY form of government-issued ID counts as proof of citizenship. Asking for proof because he's Mexican? Not OK. requiring proof because he only speaks Spanish and has no ID? OK. How many legal immigrants won't have anything that would qualify as proof of citizenship under those requirements in their wallet? Seems to me that we aren't going to be demanding any birth certificates any time soon, and that most of the opposition to the bill is (at least somewhat) rebutted in the paragraphs directly after the one SPAWNING the controversy. (Unfortunately, I'm sure there are some of you who will still insist on flinging around words like Nazi, but what can ya do?)

     

     

    How does one reasonably determine that another might be in Arizona illegally?

     

    You've defended basically two ways: 1) They speak Spanish (ethnocentric) and 2) if they don't have ID (question-begging, because why are you suspicious they don't have ID).

     

    I REQUIRE PROOF OF YOUR ID BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO ID!


  5. Saw it tonight and really liked it. I thought Cage was definitely fine in it.

     

    I like the double-meaning (probably on read into by me) of Cage playing this part after he went broke in real life, considering he made a bunch of money for a Superman movie that was never made. Let's be happy he never played Superman and ended up in this movie. Probably best for both...


  6. Another link back to the mountain region: Eric Forslund coaches Greenhill - he was a graduate assistant for the University of Wyoming and taught at WFI a number of times not very long ago.

     

    Forslund also debated at Kelly Walsh High School in Casper, Wyoming.


  7. Insofar as this:

     

    I agree that its not fair to punish them the same way.

     

    ...and this:

     

    ...debaters should still be held responsible for their work. It shouldnt matter whether its intentional or not.

     

    are true, then I'm not sure what our disagreement is, other than the fact that you, more than insinuating, labelled students that accidentally put down the wrong citation as "unethical."


  8. I'm not sorry at all that the teacher holds that rubric. I learned a painful lesson. Getting a B on the quarter or even a C wouldnt have mattered. Because my ultimate grade would have still been an A. Only by failing me did my overall grade drop to a B and you know what, THAT had an impact on me. The same way that tanking speaks will do for debaters. Lessons which dont hurt arent often lessons at all. I cant tell you the number of times I had told one team in my district to slow down during short blippy theory debates (i.e. topicality) and they never did. Why? Because my post-round comments didnt hurt their ability to win the round. I betcha if I tanked their speaks they would have wisened up quickly.

     

    I dont think asking students to cite properly is an unrealistic or invaluable request of them.

     

    And leave my father out of it unless you want me to bring your mom into it.

     

    Dude. Making kids learn lessons = good sometimes. Punishing the exact same way for an incorrect citation and intentionally fabricating evidence is plain silly.

     

    And I'll go ahead and see what my mom thinks about it all. I bet she'll be on my side because, well, she's a rational being.


  9. You equated an accidental mis-citation with being unethical. My response was not "loaded" in this context.

     

    I'm sorry you failed that quarter. Either you didn't do well in the rest of the quarter or your teacher employs a terrible rubric. Both of these things could be fixed but you're not a bad human for it, no matter what your father says.


  10. I want to make something else clear, right-quick.

     

    I'm not saying mistakes about citations should not be punished or remedied. Maybe even zero speaker points and a loss could even be appropriate, but it certainly shouldn't be the same as completely fabricating evidence.

     

    I think the attitude of casting students away from the activity for this mistake is inappropriate.

     

     

    Again, it seems like the difference between a pair of freshmen at their first tournament ever doing something dishonest because they're trying to be shady like their older teams and a team that clearly knows better should be pretty obvious. Plus, worst case scenario (I guess), a team that actually fell closer to the "inexperienced" side than the "dishonest" side gets a loss and zero speaks...big deal? It won't feel good at the time, but losing a debate round isn't the worst thing that can happen to someone. It's not like there will be any lasting consequences beyond that specific tournament, and they learn that there are serious consequences for dishonesty and won't do it again (probably, unless they're actually striving for dishonesty in which case they probably deserve it).

     

    You can tell if they are trying to be shady. Sometimes novices don't KNOW if they advanced an argument in a certain debate-lingo way.

     

    It's not JUST a debate for certain people. If the attitude prevails that a novice with a typographical error is bad ethically and isn't important to the community, then people quit. I know I would have if I was accused of behaving unethically when there's clearly a difference.

     

    It might seem like just one, insignificant debate, but for me, it meant the difference between a college education and a life of manual labor.

    • Upvote 1

  11. See previous. Even if by accident, the debater will learn very quickly that ethical behavior is the only path towards success in the activity. And if the coaches understand this, then the inexperienced team will know before walking into the round the position on honesty. And if the activity loses a few debaters because they are overly distraught over their zero point loss after having the rationale explained to them, then I am pretty sure the activity is better off for losing students who are okay with cheating.

     

    I guess we just differ some on how to approach varying degrees of "cheating."

     

    Someone citing something incorrectly, but not on purpose, is not bad ethical behavior. It shouldn't slide and they obviously shouldn't be rewarded for it, but they aren't bad people because of it.

     

    You being ok with losing a few students who are "okay with cheating" is misplaced blame, in my opinion. If someone cited something improperly (typographical error, didn't fix the cite from a camp block, etc.) and you berate them, give them the loss (even if deserved) and then ZERO speaker points and they are discouraged (being a 15 year-old trying to come into their own academically and politically) and decide to quit, it's not because they dislike an activity that doesn't allow cheating.

     

    That's an asinine, offensive way to deal with mistakes, and is particularly troubling in a time when numbers are falling.

     

    You think someone mis-typing a citation and someone completely fabricating an entire article deserve the same punishment? That's just silly.


  12. Dishonesty has 0 place in this activity - a lesson that is painful to learn, but good to learn - if a team fabricates evidence, or lies about things in round - they should lose with 0 points.

     

    One of my favorite stories about this was back in the late 80's my college coach was judging a round, where a team was relying on a "card" from a particular recent issue of Foreign Policy - they "won" the round - after the round, my coach - who happened to have that issue of the magazine in his briefcase - flipped it out on the table and asked them to find the card - as he had read that issue a few times and "missed" the article...The looks on their faces, per my coach, was priceless.

     

    Needless to say they were given a loss, and 0 pts.

     

    H.

     

    Not saying this team was NOT fabricating evidence, but folks need to be careful that it wasn't just accidentally cited incorrectly. There is a very big difference, ethically.

     

    This is also a reason Ankur's dogmatic division isn't entirely appropriate. Is it, most of the time, easy to determine their intent? Yes. But what about an inexperienced team that lied, but didn't know it was a lie? That's certainly not the same as intentional misleading, or even cheating.

×
×
  • Create New...