1) Topicality: Aff has to abolish the old immigration courts in order for their plan to do anything. That's extratopical, because the old immigration courts are part of the executive branch, not the court system (yes, you actually can win with this argument XD).
2) Contradictions: Aff advocates claim that it will speed things up...but they also claim that it will give judges more time to work out cases, implying that the current courts are too fast. Aff can't really claim that they make things faster if they simultaneously give judges more time to work on each case.
3) Solvency: Aff will usually try to increase judge positions. Problem is, we're already hiring new judges as fast as we can. Adding more judge positions will do nothing but create more vacancies.
4) Disadvantages: This will cost a ton of money and do nothing but slow down the system. The current courts are really fast, but Aff is slowing them down by giving judges more leeway (they usually even admit this). They'll try to claim that they make up for it by allowing for more cases to be heard at once, but they don't, because they don't solve the fundamental problem of not enough judges. So they create more backlog at a greater cost.
Topicality is a legitimate argument (as someone who ran this case). I think it's arguably topical, but the key word here is arguably
. If you can back the Aff into a corner of saying "we are making it topical" early in CX, then you can take it out with Gabe's argument.
@Contradictions. I'm not sure how much these are actually contradictions. Aff. doesn't (or SHOULDN'T) make the claim that they are speeding up anything, they will say that they are eliminating backlog by hearing more cases (which does ultimately mean that immigrants who are waiting on hearings will wait maybe 6 months vs. 2 years). In some instances judges will spend more time on cases. In some instances judges will cut down on the backlog. This is a perfectly legitimate Affirmative argument because there is no reasonable way to expect Aff to know how much of which will happen. Also, if you make this argument, it sounds really weak and will be taken apart by a good Aff. Also, if you make that argument, you are implicitly agreeing with Aff that they solve for one of the harms. Ultimately, the best that this argument is is a mitigation of Aff, not by any means a take-out argument.
@Solvency. That depends on how this positions are filled. One of the reasons why there is such trouble filling them up right now is because the immigration system hasn't demonstrated a true commitment to the judicial program and thus isn't funding them, giving them enough clerks, or giving them the authority that they need (the job was considered more stressful than prison guard workers or EMS doctors). When you fix those problems through increased funding and decreased workload (eliminating arbitrary caseloads) then you can have interested candidates filling the positions. Also, depending on the Aff team, they might allow an appellate panel of judges to actually pick the trial-level judges like the bankruptcy court (I think it was bankruptcy, I honestly forgot
@Disadvantages. Oh, hmpf. If you are saying exclusively a case that only creates independence, then yes, you are correct. But the only Aff cases that I have seen this year have also increased immigration judges. Even were Aff to only do this, you'd still have to make the point that the courts SHOULD'T be independent based on principle.