homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:29 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  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next

Which two resolution choices are you voting for?
A. The United States Federal Government should substantially reform its policies toward Mexico or one or more countries in Central America. 3%  3%  [ 2 ]
B. The United States Federal Government should substantially reform its policies toward the People’s Republic of China. 23%  23%  [ 17 ]
C. That the United States should substantially reform its foreign military presence. 24%  24%  [ 18 ]
A. In the interest of protecting human rights, governments may interfere with another nation’s sovereignty. 11%  11%  [ 8 ]
B. That interpreting the United States Constitution according to its original meaning is preferable to interpreting it as a living document. 8%  8%  [ 6 ]
C. Rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in criminal justice systems. 31%  31%  [ 23 ]
Total votes: 74
Author Message
 Post subject: 2016-2017 Resolutions
PostPosted: Wed Jun 01, 2016 10:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:13 pm
Posts: 471
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Purcellville, VA
Team Policy Choices

A. Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially reform its policies toward Mexico or one or more countries in Central America.
B. Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially reform its policies toward the People’s Republic of China.
C. Resolved: That the United States should substantially reform its foreign military presence.

Lincoln Douglas Choices

A. Resolved: In the interest of protecting human rights, governments may interfere with another nation’s sovereignty.
B. Resolved: That interpreting the United States Constitution according to its original meaning is preferable to interpreting it as a living document.
C. Resolved: Rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in criminal justice systems.

My favorites are C for both styles of debate.

_________________
RIX Alum | Patrick Henry College | Class of 2019


Last edited by marinadelayne on Wed Jun 01, 2016 11:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jun 01, 2016 10:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

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

_________________
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
   
PostPosted: Wed Jun 01, 2016 10:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:01 am
Posts: 651
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Flying a UFO to an undisclosed location ;)
Official link from the website for the overviews.

I've never been around for a specific country year (we had them with India and Russia). Did people like those? I personally enjoyed UN and Middle East resolutions with more general and far-reaching effects, so I think C could be interesting for TP. I also generally think that solvency issues could be harder because oftentimes policies with particular countries require cooperation and that's hard to prove and could make rounds unnecessarily stickier.

What exactly would be topical with A? I'm assuming it would be Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama but I think there would probably be some teams who try to fit others in there with a broader definition.

China just seems a little boring though it would be very educational.

C > A > B

LD
A sounds very interesting. I'm very heavily biased Aff on B though and I think it would be really hard in a conservative league to get a proper balance. C is not too bad.
A > C > B (even though I really like the subject matter of B)

_________________
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
   
PostPosted: Wed Jun 01, 2016 10:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 4:02 am
Posts: 158
Home Schooled: Yes
I prefer B to C for TP. "Foreign military presence" feels wayyy too broad.

LD A looks really familiar for some reason but I don't think we've ever had anything like it? Regardless, I don't like it :lol: . B is interesting but very hard to debate in a conservative league, so I agree with C as the best LD choice.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jun 01, 2016 11:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 8:19 pm
Posts: 123
Home Schooled: Yes
For TP C is easily my favorite by far. Stoa did almost exactly the sam resolution in 2012 (my novice year) and it was great. People get a full spectrum of US defense policy understanding if you want to do well. There are so many deep high level debates that can occur with a huge scope of academic literature. So many great topics in one resolution: South China sea crisis, North Korea, Iran, ISIS, Russia and Europe, US Navy presence, weapons and defense systems and technologies, and all of the other areas the US currently has a presence or that it could have more of a presence. The only concern some people might have with this is that it's too broad. But really this is a silly reason to reject a resolution. The breadth of the resolution requires debaters to have a solid understanding of how the US military works and why it works in some areas and not in others. The Breadth of the resolution is large yes, but it's ok because this is TP and research is a thing. And besides that, I think a team could realistically do all the research necessary to combat any negative case under this resolution within the first month. I will be so happy if this resolution is chosen. The other ones would probably be fine too.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jun 01, 2016 11:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 1:57 am
Posts: 124
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Check your fridge.
Finally!

I'm not a huge fan of any of the LD choices. A is too boring and repetitive, B is too biased, C is too narrow. But overall, I think C would be the best, since it explores more new territory and isn't prone to much bias in either direction.

I'm strongly considering doing TP next year, and of the three, C is by far my favorite. It would be far less boring to research, and is way more open to ideological and philosophical argumentation, which I like as an LD'er. A and B are OK, I guess, but kind of encapsulate what I don't like about TP: it's boring. No offense, China and Mexico. But if I'm going to spend a solid year researching something, I want it to be something I really care about and will be beneficial in the long-term. Of course, I'm not a TP'er, so maybe my perspective is skewed and I'm missing something. But from my perspective, C for the win.

_________________
Benjamin Vincent, RII Alum
Biola University '21
www.lifeinthesunrise.com

"Everything in this world is either a potato... or not a potato."


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 02, 2016 12:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 2441
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Omaha, NE
China! The only possible choice is China. I've been doing this activity in some form or another for 8 years across 4 or 5 leagues and the best res I've ever seen is change policy toward China. There is an incredible amount of literature for any number of cases, the lit is really well balanced, and there are (mostly) clear lines of topicality.

Looking at the polling, "military presense" resolutions aren't very good in my experience, because then you have to debate the difference between "presence," "support," and "sales." Outside of obvious cases like Okinawa, the list of affs is surprisingly small.

Also, I have like 8 pages of cards saying that Taiwan is topical under that wording, which is clearly trying to exclude Taiwan. My aff to sell more weapons to Taiwan had like a 90% win rate.

_________________
-Bryan
Co-Founder of Olympus Forensics

Google it, we're the second link that pops up. We're pretty proud of that.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 02, 2016 12:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1393
Home Schooled: Yes
I'm pretty sure Taiwan is technically part of the Republic of China, not the People's Republic. It has the Constitution of the original Republic.

_________________
Check out my new website!

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 02, 2016 12:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 11:12 pm
Posts: 74
Home Schooled: Yes
Where TP is concerned my vote EASILY goes to China! Here's why: A) We would be able to debate a variety of different types of foreign policy while all the other resolutions are one topic focused... boring (immigration and military presence). Debating China opens the door to a variety of foreign policy, making it the most interesting and educational resolution this year. We could address military presence, cyber security, trade, intellectual property protection, climate change, and much more. B) We have never debated this before while we have previously addressed both of the other resolutions in some form (multiple times)! China is actually new and interesting. C) It is current. This is in the news and is of major importance today! D) The only "CON" the NCFCA can list about this resolution has already been dealt with. The con was that of a clear definition of China. But (as they stated) defining the topic area as the "People's Republic of China" completely clears things up! It means ONLY THE GOVERNMENT OF CHINA (trust me).

_________________
Lincoln Douglas 2012-2013
Anastasi/Clarahan 2013-2014
Anastasi/Anastasi 2014-2015
Anastasi/Anastasi 2015-2016
Anastasi/Anastasi 2016-2017
~~~
Arete TP Club :becool:


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 02, 2016 12:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 8:59 pm
Posts: 4
Home Schooled: Yes
Whether or not Taiwan (aka the Republic of China) is part of the People's Republic of China is definitely part of our policies toward the People's Republic of China, so they're in either way. Topicality would seem to only be endangered by a plan that dealt exclusively with Taiwan to the exclusion of the PRC (hard to think of one).


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 02, 2016 2:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:03 pm
Posts: 10
Home Schooled: Yes
I believe by far that for TP B is definitely the best resolution. :) There are some major problems with the other resolutions though, mainly with C. One of the biggest problems with C is that it is overly broad. There are no limitation to what country the resolution relates too. As I result any team could run a case on any of the 196 countries in the entire world. It's WAY to broad. Also C has already been previously debated somewhat through multiple resolutions in the past. Just generally I would much rather debate B then the other two resolutions.

Note: I am definitely not ignoring the problems with resolution A. Resolution C's problems though really stood out to me the most.

_________________
Benjamin Anastasi, Region X
"It is our choices that show who we truly are, far more then our abilities," - Albus Dumbledore

Anastasi/Anastasi 2014-2015 - WPACO

Anastasi/Anastasi 2015-2016 - Cosmos Debate Club
Anastasi/Anastasi 2016-2017 - Arete


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 02, 2016 2:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 2441
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Omaha, NE
RegIXLDer wrote:
Whether or not Taiwan (aka the Republic of China) is part of the People's Republic of China is definitely part of our policies toward the People's Republic of China, so they're in either way. Topicality would seem to only be endangered by a plan that dealt exclusively with Taiwan to the exclusion of the PRC (hard to think of one).

I ran sell 66 F-16 C/Ds to Taiwan under the Taiwan Relations Act to heg against the mainland (we never referred to Taiwan as anything but a rogue province for obvious reasons) and did an insane amount of research on this topic. You can also run a lot of economic plans, since we have separate economic policies between China and Taiwan. You would actually be harder pressed to find a policy with both Taiwan and China without also effecting everyone else in the region. Never lost on T except for when the judge just said "I don't believe you. I don't care if you won the flow." That particular plan text is a bit dated now, but the US Naval War College comes out with an article every year basically saying we need to sell more weapons to Taiwan or China will invade (or, in order to be more topical, it's not an invasion, it's a civil war).

Taiwan is unofficially the Republic of China and a separate country. Under US, UN, Taiwanese, and Chinese policy, Taiwan is a province in the PRC. The official language from the State Dept is "The United States acknowledges the PRC's claim that there is one China, the PRC is the sole government of China, and Taiwan is part of China." The US does not recognize an independent Taiwan. If this becomes the res, I can definitely help anyone with both the aff and neg T shells.

_________________
-Bryan
Co-Founder of Olympus Forensics

Google it, we're the second link that pops up. We're pretty proud of that.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 02, 2016 2:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 11:12 pm
Posts: 74
Home Schooled: Yes
B is better whether or not Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China. If anything if Taiwan were part of China it would just give us more interesting topic area to cover, meanwhile the other resolutions are very one note (immigration and drugs with A, military intervention [for or against] with C). If I am going to be researching something for a whole year I would rather it be on something with some diversity and educational value. Just my opinion.

_________________
Lincoln Douglas 2012-2013
Anastasi/Clarahan 2013-2014
Anastasi/Anastasi 2014-2015
Anastasi/Anastasi 2015-2016
Anastasi/Anastasi 2016-2017
~~~
Arete TP Club :becool:


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 02, 2016 3:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 2:46 am
Posts: 55
Home Schooled: Yes
My initial thoughts for TP are that B would be safe and interesting, C would be fascinating, but potentially messy from a topicality standpoint, and A would have far too great a proportion of cases on immigration and narcotics (which I don't want to debate all year long). So B>C>>A.

A. Central America and Mexico is interesting and current. The problem, in my mind, is that cases will tend to focus on immigration, narcotics policy, and (to a lesser extent) free trade. Topicality seems to be quite clear cut, though (the only difference I have seen is that some Central American definitions include Mexico and some don't, but that doesn't matter since the resolution includes Mexico anyway), and there are several countries in the resolution, which allows for a broad range of affirmatives. It wouldn't be an awful resolution, but it is my least favorite of the three.

B. Right now, this is my favorite choice. The topicality debate will occur, but in my opinion, having some topicality debating is good for the quality of debate. Besides, the lines of argumentation for topicality should be fairly clear, revolving mainly around Taiwan and Hong Kong. While it is limited to one country, the variety of topics that can be covered is huge (cybersecurity, trade, South China Sea, human rights abuses, to name a few). There will also be an interesting dynamic at play - China is both a needed partner, as well as a powerful competitor, and U.S. policy must reflect that reality. The literature seems to be deep, so I think the quality of research would be good. I don't really see any major downsides; B seems to be safe choice that would lead to high-quality debating. It doesn't make any difference (that I can see), but it is interesting to note that the NSDA will be debating a similar (but more narrow) resolution for the 2016-2017 season: "Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic and/or diplomatic engagement with the People’s Republic of China."

C. I love the idea, but am concerned about the implementation. It would be broad, for one, and have a high number of cases reused from Middle East year, for another. I am also wondering how "reform foreign military presence" is defined - for example, would a case to increase the size of the U.S. Navy (or replace ship classes, etc.) count as "foreign presence" since the Navy does operate abroad (as the overview suggests)? Or would it be limited to cases that change specific foreign commitments? What about cases to reform, not the amount or location of U.S. military presence, but to reform how the U.S. military is used in those areas (changing mission goals, degree of cooperation with allies, etc.)? I am still considering this as an option, but it seems it could get somewhat messy.

As for LD, I think C>A>B, but I really don't know enough about LD to say. B would have way too much judge bias (the option from last year, "judicial activism v. judicial restraint", would have been better), and I know that C is actually a very interesting topic for discussion (C.S. Lewis's essay "The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment" would be worth consulting for NEG).

_________________
Connor T. Daniels | Hillsdale College '21
NCFCA Region VIII, UADC
2014-2015|Cash/Daniels
2015-2016|Cash/Daniels
2016-2017|Daniels/Green
COG Author

"Yea, I am free, strong in the strength of truth." ~ Teiresias (in Oedipus Rex)


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 02, 2016 5:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 3:31 am
Posts: 10
Home Schooled: Yes
For LD-
Worst: Resolved: In the interest of protecting human rights, governments may interfere with another nation’s sovereignty.
I would describe this resolution as being best for people who would look forward to spending another year discussing Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, and Japanese internment camps. Admit it, at least once or twice during this debate season you used a cliched Hitler example, because you weren't clever enough to think of some other original historical examples on the spot. You probably hated yourself after that... And than you did it again. Ok maybe that's not you, but unless you started to grow fond of the cliches, the extreme comparisons, and the quibbling on how to define and measure human rights last year, this resolution's isn't for you.

Better: That interpreting the United States Constitution according to its original meaning is
preferable to interpreting it as a living document.
This one may have unprecedented judge bias towards the Aff, but I guess that could be a mixed bag....? My main concern with this resolution is that LD is going to feel very TPish. LDers are going to have to scour the constitution for any grammatical faults or ambiguities, which at least for me sounds quite exhausting. If we adopted this resolution I would predict that many LDers (myself included) would by the end of the year be so sickened by the constant debating of constitutional semantics that they would abandon their political ideology and turn in their U.S citizenship in order to more fully devote themselves to their new hobby of burning flags with their fellow Marxist comrades.

The Best: Resolved: Rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in criminal justice systems.
Before I begin I must confess to having a slight bias towards this resolution due it being an only slightly modified version of the resolution I submitted... But nevertheless we have a winner here folks. Can anyone honestly see themselves ever getting bored of going to debate tournaments where you alternate between debating like your Atticus Finch and the Punisher? That's what I thought. Every debate round will be like a real court minus the tiresome arguments over the minutia of actual law. This is an LD resolution in it's purest form. Every debater from the peace loving hippie to to the gun toting authoritarian and everyone in between are bound to feel strongly one way or the other, and will in turn create a much more passionate and entertaining debate environment.


Last edited by jmwalms on Thu Jun 02, 2016 9:53 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 02, 2016 4:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 11:12 pm
Posts: 74
Home Schooled: Yes
I'm going to throw a few more things out there to consider with regards to the Team Policy resolutions (in favor of B). 1) Someone made the good point that resolution C may involve to much classified information (this resulting in classified intel DAs being run every round). This isn't a problem with the vast majority of resolution B cases. 2) I would also add that you could probably debate C with just a handful of well-written generic briefs. All the resolution C debates will either be technical OR just debates over intervention or isolation, diplomacy or force. This is just boring in my opinion (especially where research is concerned). Resolution B doesn't have that problem because it spans allot of different foreign policy discussions (many mentioned already).

_________________
Lincoln Douglas 2012-2013
Anastasi/Clarahan 2013-2014
Anastasi/Anastasi 2014-2015
Anastasi/Anastasi 2015-2016
Anastasi/Anastasi 2016-2017
~~~
Arete TP Club :becool:


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 02, 2016 5:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:03 pm
Posts: 10
Home Schooled: Yes
I have heard a few people say that resolution B would be boring. On the other hand I believe that both A and C would be boring, and that B is not boring. The reason A would be boring is because we would be debating immigration and drugs all over again. Some of you may be thinking, How do you really know if you'll debate immigration and drugs? The reason why I can predict that those will be the major issues that will be debated, is because those are some of the biggest problems with Mexico and Central America. The reason why C would be boring is because we have debated foreign military presence already in multiple resolutions. In fact, someone could probably pull out their case from a few years back (that might have dealt with military presence), and just run that again. The reason why B would not be boring is because it is something new that we have never debated before, which opens a lot more new avenues for cases. I think in the end A and C, to me, seem like repeats of the past years, while B really looks at something new we have never debated before.

_________________
Benjamin Anastasi, Region X
"It is our choices that show who we truly are, far more then our abilities," - Albus Dumbledore

Anastasi/Anastasi 2014-2015 - WPACO

Anastasi/Anastasi 2015-2016 - Cosmos Debate Club
Anastasi/Anastasi 2016-2017 - Arete


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 02, 2016 9:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 8:19 pm
Posts: 123
Home Schooled: Yes
Nemo wrote:
I have heard a few people say that resolution B would be boring. On the other hand I believe that both A and C would be boring, and that B is not boring. The reason A would be boring is because we would be debating immigration and drugs all over again. Some of you may be thinking, How do you really know if you'll debate immigration and drugs? The reason why I can predict that those will be the major issues that will be debated, is because those are some of the biggest problems with Mexico and Central America. The reason why C would be boring is because we have debated foreign military presence already in multiple resolutions. In fact, someone could probably pull out their case from a few years back (that might have dealt with military presence), and just run that again. The reason why B would not be boring is because it is something new that we have never debated before, which opens a lot more new avenues for cases. I think in the end A and C, to me, seem like repeats of the past years, while B really looks at something new we have never debated before.


First of all, even though I'm not in favor of the first resolution it seems a little narrow to say that it would only be about drugs and immigration just because that's all you personally think about when you hear the resolution. Second of all most people in NCFCA who are competing in TP now didn't debate in immigration year so it doesn't really matter since that is still an important issue to know about. And to say that C is boring just because we've talked about military stuff during the middle east and UN resolutions also doesn't make sense. If you have debated every single issue I listed in my early post under then maybe you can say it would be boring. Somehow I doubt that's the case though. Also, the logic that because I've debated this before it's boring doesn't make sense. Take Syria for example, yes, it would be debated again under C. But that doesn't make it boring. It's one of the fastest changing, most interesting, and most important situations in modern history. Debating it repeatedly doesn't make it boring and the topic is much broader so most cases wouldn't be about it. B would be ok but it's not as good as C. And to all the people saying "C is bad because it's too broad" why? First, why is a broad resolution inherently bad all of a sudden? Nearly everyone I talked to liked the Middle East resolution despite it's broadness. And this resolution is about equal in broadness to that one if not less broad. That resolution was narrowed onto one large geographical area but any policy issues. This resolution is narrowed onto one large policy area but any geographical location. Seems about the same to me. In Middle East year you could get by with research and understanding of the countries in the Middle East. In military year you can get by with research and understanding on the US military. Now of course if you want to do really well and be really prepared you will have to go deep and broad but that's the ultimate point of TP. A good committed TPer under C would understand the China Taiwan conflict and military atmosphere better, the North Korea issue better, Iran issue better, Syria issue better, and a good amount of other countries and conflicted situations. Understanding the US's military strategy and reasoning around the world is not that difficult and time consuming but it is extremely interesting and useful information and discussion. As to the classified information complaint, this is not at all unique to the military resolution. It could happen just as much if not more with China. Also, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. In fact, it promotes a real world understanding that recognizes we don't know everything but can still make conclusions and decisions. In addition, this was used in Middle East year (I knew of at least one team that had a classified info generic) and it didn't really have an impact on debate quality as a whole.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jun 03, 2016 1:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 11:12 pm
Posts: 74
Home Schooled: Yes
atshelton wrote:
First of all, even though I'm not in favor of the first resolution it seems a little narrow to say that it would only be about drugs and immigration

We don't have very many other prominent policies with Mexico or Central America besides immigration and drugs, so either those cases will be the focus or the proposals will be insignificant.
atshelton wrote:
Second of all most people in NCFCA who are competing in TP now didn't debate in immigration year so it doesn't really matter since that is still an important issue to know about

But it is an issue that most people are familiar with, so debating that resolution would have less educational value than either B or C, where we don't know as much about the issues and the resolutions covers more policy topics. Comparatively A is worse.
atshelton wrote:
And to say that C is boring just because we've talked about military stuff during the middle east and UN resolutions also doesn't make sense.

The point isn't solely that we have already debated it as much as it is that the resolution is focused around one type of policy that will largely be debated for or against the same way the whole year long (isolation vs intervention, diplomacy vs force). This makes researching and debating A far less interesting when compared to debating B which spans more types of policy, making research and debate more interesting. I would - however - say that it is probably more fair to phrase it "B is more interesting than C" not necessarily "C is boring."

_________________
Lincoln Douglas 2012-2013
Anastasi/Clarahan 2013-2014
Anastasi/Anastasi 2014-2015
Anastasi/Anastasi 2015-2016
Anastasi/Anastasi 2016-2017
~~~
Arete TP Club :becool:


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jun 03, 2016 2:35 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 ;)
I think people are over-emphasizing the effect that Resolution A would have on immigration and drug cases. You can't implement any blanket policies with those policies because the resolution doesn't allow it. So for instance, my "create Independent Immigration Courts" case from earlier this year would not be at all topical because it would be a policy towards ALL immigrants. In the same way, drug trafficking reforms probably aren't usually couched in terms of solely Mexico-US relationship (though probably moreso than any other nation).
Therefore, since any immigration case would be limited in scope, Neg should be relatively easy because any immigration case would either be A) Untopical, or B) Exclusive to Mexico et. al. and therefore demonstrating an inconsistent and improper singling out of certain countries for "persecution."

Simply put, Mexico et. al =/= Immigration 2.0

_________________
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  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next

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