Jump to content

Capulet

Member
  • Content Count

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Okay

About Capulet

  • Rank
    Novice

Profile Information

  • Name
    Capulet
  • School
    Verona

Recent Profile Visitors

468 profile views
  1. How is this alternative (re: crazy) reading of the resolution? Define "legal immigration" as both technically immigrating and integrating into the culture. There is literature to support the notion that in order to fully immigrate, integration must be achieved. Some philosophers must argue that the culture of a civilization is a far more important barrier to entry into that civilization than any legal document it devizes. Then, say that working towards prosperity is a cornerstone of American culture ("American Dream.") So, logically, immigrants would need to legally immigrate and then have equal footing for achieving prosperity with born-on-soil Americans in order to truly "immigrate" in any meaningful sense. This carries into the definition of "immigrate" in the resolution. Also, "restriction" can mean anything keeping someone from doing something, like societal barriers are restrictions to immigrants achieving equal economic footing. So, the resolution can be interpreted as, in essence, "The USFG should reduce its support for the current societal barriers to full immigration/integration." I know. Crazy. Insane. Thought up at 1:00 in the morning. But what do y'all think? Feel perfectly free to tear it apart. But it seems to me that you could just take any policy that fits into this interpretation of the resolution, and boom. Maybe you could even squeeze in some cap theory, but that might be a struggle.
  2. But there's definitely a T argument to be made there. I'd expect plans like that to be stock T'd a lot.
  3. Thank you! This will really help, I should be able to link this to several different arguments!
  4. We have something like that. I'd just like something unrelated that can hold strong in the face of our SCOTUS-bad argument falling flat. You never know with some judges....
  5. Cosmopolitan K's will be everywhere. A lot of fun-but-stupid ideas in my head about allowing unlimited immigration from a certain group because of "x" factor (some more serious stuff like professorial knowledge, and some less serious stuff like accents.)
  6. Okay. So here in my state, there's a team with a nigh-impenetrable AFF through normal means. It's a very solid, very specific case. But it reverses a SCOTUS ruling to achieve its goal: banning corporal punishment in schools. So, my partner and I have compiled the bones of a NEG to attack that, specifically their actor. All we need is something... spicy. A K or something to add on to it. We don't know what, though, and could use some help. Something to do with corporal punishment AFFs maybe, instead of something to do with the SCOTUS, but keeping in mind that we are also banning corporal punishment in schools, just using a different actor? They don't have a very solid definition of "corporal punishment" though, so maybe a card to help with definitional debate? Say it has to focus on race/gender or something? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks for reading!
  7. State K's will be big, I think. As in, pro-anarchism/anarchism is what REALLY exists to begin with, with no borders. Don't know what it would be called/is called, though.
×
×
  • Create New...