homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Sat Sep 23, 2017 10:25 am
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2016 10:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 8:37 pm
Posts: 59
Home Schooled: Yes
Thoughts? This case seems really interesting and I like the arguments I've seen for NEG, but I would love to hear others.

_________________
Hannah David (R5)
2010-2011 | LD (Q'd to Nats)
2011-2012 | LD (Q'd to Nats)
2012-2013 | LD (Q'd to Nats)
2013-2014 | David/Zitter (Q'd to Nats)
2014-2015 | David/Zitter (6th at Nats)

2015-2016 | David/David


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2016 4:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1393
Home Schooled: Yes
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. :P

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.

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:01 am
Posts: 651
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Flying a UFO to an undisclosed location ;)
Cyberknight wrote:
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. :P

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.

_________________
John Mark Porter, Alumni
Arx Axiom/Carpe Dictum/Verdict/UADC/HSDC/HSDRC

2011-12 l Porter/Thomason, Light/Porter
2012-13 l Bailey/Porter
2013-14 l Bailey/Porter
2014-15 l Folkert/Porter

2015-16 I Childs/Porter


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited