College Policy Debate Forums
March 21, 2018, 11:42:34 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
   Home   Help Search Login Register CEDA caselist Debate Results Council of Tournament Directors Edebate Archive  
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Working Resolutions  (Read 12056 times)
Full Member
Posts: 243

« Reply #15 on: June 11, 2010, 10:52:07 AM »

Hester is completely correct - the resolution treats statutory restrictions as the object, not the agency of change, precisely for the purpose of not limiting the affirmative to Congressional agents.

Whether a purely executive action can also be topical is a question for definitions. The inclusion of statutory should make it difficult for affirmatives to fiat only a change in outcome (or 'thinking' in individual cases) without a corresponding change in substance at the statutory level. There are solvency advocates for merely having individual asylum decisions "consider" a particular factor (without changing anything more broadly), and those cases created unusual challenges for negative ground in an area where there are some concerns about core negative ground already. Single country advantages are still possible, but perhaps a bit more vulnerable to the non-statutory "waiver" counterplan. It can't be foreclosed that affirmatives will still be able to defend single country/individual plans as topical, but there is a realistic topicality check on going small and it may be more effective than "substantially".

The inclusion of the word statutory should be understood as a middle ground position between the position of an unfettered asylum topic (including helping out specific individuals or groups of individuals on a case by case basis) and excluding a stand-alone asylum topic entirely. Whether to have a stand alone topic is one of the few issues that came to a vote at the meeting; most issues were resolved through discussion leading to consensus.
Full Member
Posts: 138

« Reply #16 on: June 12, 2010, 02:13:08 PM »

@Kevin: I think the terms of the debate are set - having rehearsed the constructives, it's probably not that interesting for people to watch us rebuttalize.  The voters will do their own rebuttals in their heads.

To be clear, though, there would be interesting debates under topic 4.  I'm not going to do the standard wailing where a poster says a given topic would destroy debate or somehow skew aff/neg win/loss ratio. The best teams will still win, and we'll collectively find at least some stuff to talk about.  

I don't think the topic would update very much or access the most timely debates on immigration policy, and I think the constraints built in went too far, functionally destroying a lot of the most timely and varied debates as collateral damage.  You may disagree with my statement that this would be a process topic, not an immigration topic, but I think my warrants are at least understandable.  You can decide personally if they are compelling.

Ed Lee's post is above in the thread, under edlee3.


I agree.  The topic doesn't lock in an agent.  The topic does lock in an action.  

"Don't reduce restrictions - reinterpret!" is actually a better counterplan against Courts affs, though; as the plan difference shrinks, aff offense also diminishes.  

I'm less convinced that "reinterpret" reduces the restriction.  In the case of the gender aff, judges do grant asylum on gender grounds now - they're just inconsistent and confused.  A Court ruling on this issue really seems like a clarification of a statute instead of a change in a statutory restriction to me, unless it invalidates some component of the nexus test. 

This counterplan seems very similar to the "distinguish" counterplan.  I did not coach that topic, but I'm told it exerted a very definite gravity that most found problematic.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2010, 04:57:12 PM by antonucci23 » Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMF customization services by
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!