Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'translators'.
Found 1 result
I'm somewhat new to Debate (Novice going Open). I ran into a SIV Visa case that I have no idea how to debate against. I can't find a way to really argue against the US Moral Obligation. The SIV Aff I went against only had 1 Advantage: US Obligation argues that US has yet to fulfill their end of the bargain for Iraqi & Afghanistan Translators under threat of Taliban Terrorism. 50,000 of them are backlogged & desperately need to come to the US (1 killed every 36 hrs) <-- 2015 card ! is a structural Violence (Ppl dying is bad Plan was vague Eliminates the Cap for SIV Translators One line of text that says would reduce applicant requirements Their solvency card also said that if the cap were be lowered than the Department of State would expedite visa processing. Framing Basically ignore any Large Impacts due to lower probability -i.e People dying now so, don't listen to Trump's Base US has a obligation to uphold their side With the Advantage only being about fulfilling obligations. I have little idea on how to convince a lay judge not to vote for this plan. In terms on Neg On-Case: I could only find arguments that there were process delays which was negated by their solvency I couldn't see a way to win an argument that when the translators went to the US they had borderline poverty because the Aff simply said working a low wage job is better than being dead Also the card that claims a language barrier in the process of applying for visa doesn't convince me since they are bilingual in English which would mean they probably could comprehend the application. So any of you give me ideas on what to run? If the aff is an entire moral obligation/structural Violence Impact. How can I garner offence against the case? Foreign Cps don't seem to work because the Aff has a clear US obligation DAs don't seemed to be very effective as people's lies at stake outweigh any potential large scale impact in most lay judges minds. (I also live in a quite conservative state that hardcore supports the military & its supporters). Can you even argue T? (I can see T-reduce doesn't mean eliminate but i've yet to see a judge vote T on nit picky differences) What On-Case could even work? Articles seem only to emphasize that we should do the plan and don't really list any cons except that the US processing is very slow (again solvency apparently ans. this + plan text). Thanks in advance!