Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About JesseLauze

  • Rank
  • Birthday 04/21/2000

Profile Information

  • Name
    Jesse Lauze
  • School
    Green River High School
  1. I kind of putting them in a double bind. I'm claiming advantages that are benefitted from the two child policy being repealed and also claiming discourse as a type of quasi-advantage. This is all if they accept my fiat and assume the plan passes. If they want to deny fiat and argue that China won't simply repeal the two child policy, Then I pull the idea that if we are actually roleplaying as policymakers (as we should), we have now opened up discourse within sino-american politics and now put international pressure on China to repeal it anyway. But this is only possible in the aff world.
  2. As for discourse in general its more about opening discourse within sino-american relations and the world. At that point when everyone knows more about the issue and the underlying effects, it either A) pressures china into repealing it and/or ( if the neg rejects the claim to fiat) makes more countries aware of the problem cause more "peer pressure" to abolish it. My first advantage (harm, whatever you want to call it) is violence against women ( forced sterilization, forced late term abortions, female infanticide, abandonment). The second I have planned is an elderly/job advantage. China doesn't have enough people to take care of its elderly population or fill the jobs that they are retiring from. I was thinking about another advantage, but haven't had any earthshattering idead
  3. Yes. The specific plan text is- "Thus we present the plan: Resolved: The United States Federal government should substantially increase its economic and/or diplomatic engagement with the People’s Republic of China by asking China to completely abolish their two-child policy. We claim the right to fiat and clarification" I'm literally asking china to and through the endless powers of fiat, they will. (Besides, circumvention arguments are tedious)
  4. They've made it a two-child policy now. You can have a second child as long as one of the parents is an only child. Previously you could have a second child if the first one was a female or disabled.
  5. To sum up my case really quick, It's a softer version of a K aff (to work better in traditional states/schools/ lay judges) revolving around repealing the one child policy. The plan text is literally just asking China to abolish the policy. Again, it's like half and half on traditional case and K Aff. The impacts and advantages are more K like. All I need to seal my last argument is that worldwide discourse (or just discourse itself) solves for all problems (or just that it solves generally). I've been digging through all the files my team has and I can't find anything that says it like that. I thought that maybe someone from a more progressive district could have more K type cards like that. Any help is appreciated
  • Create New...