College Policy Debate Forums
November 19, 2017, 03:24:07 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: IF YOU EXPERIENCE PROBLEMS WITH THE SITE, INCLUDING LOGGING IN, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IMMEDIATELY.  EMAIL ME DIRECTLY OR USE THE CONTACT US LINK AT THE TOP.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register CEDA caselist Debate Results Council of Tournament Directors Edebate Archive  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: 2 questions about the topics  (Read 9031 times)
hansonjb
Full Member
***
Posts: 218



« on: July 09, 2010, 11:33:13 AM »

1. what _policy_ ground is there for the negative when the aff runs an asylum case?

2. what specific offense does the aff have against amendment counterplans on res 3?

i don't see it but i'm listening.

and . . . while i think it is kind of narrow--res 2 avoids both of these issues.
Logged

jim hanson Smiley
whitman debate forensics speech rhetoric
kelly young
Full Member
***
Posts: 237



WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 09, 2010, 08:09:28 PM »

1. what _policy_ ground is there for the negative when the aff runs an asylum case?

There's very little. Politics and terrorism.  See http://cedadebate.org/forum/2010-2011-topic/immigration-wording-research-library-of-topic-committee-research/?action=dlattach;attach=210

Kelly
Logged

Director of Forensics/Associate Professor
Wayne State University
313-577-2953
kelly.young [at] wayne.edu
www.wsuforensics.org
kevin kuswa
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 345


« Reply #2 on: July 10, 2010, 07:22:22 AM »

I disagree with Kelly.  First of all, don't get bogged down in the "policy vs. non-policy" ground question.  They overlap a lot on these topics.  Second, there is more than Terrorism and Politics--great case debate with room for good topical counterplans, Agent CPs are very strong, some of the immigration snowball/trade-off or backlash positions depending on the aff, Soft Power/Heg bad (along with the human rights bad arguments), TPS CPs, other country CPs (Canada would be good for example), and tons of good Court positions.  This, of course, does not include a lot of the so called "critical" neg ground which is very extensive and helps the negative overall.  The papers and wording documents detail more of this as well.  Negs will be fine on this topic (might even learn something new) no matter what you enjoy running.  We will see...the Spiders currently favor #5.  (Oh no, can you even go neg against the gender asylum component? Smiley ).  Kevin
Logged
kelly young
Full Member
***
Posts: 237



WWW
« Reply #3 on: July 10, 2010, 08:19:42 AM »

I disagree with Kelly...there is more than Terrorism and Politics--great case debate with room for good topical counterplans, Agent CPs are very strong, some of the immigration snowball/trade-off or backlash positions depending on the aff, Soft Power/Heg bad (along with the human rights bad arguments), TPS CPs, other country CPs (Canada would be good for example), and tons of good Court positions.

Jim, I stand corrected: there appears to be a lot of agent and process cps with horrible net-benefits...

Do we really think immigration magnet/snowball is a winnable argument for the neg? What exactly is the uniqueness on softpower/heg bad arguments? At best, the heg links might be critical ground, but little else.

Given how awful the terrorism links are, sounds like agent CPs and politics are the best policy ground (yes, Kevin, I know I shouldn't get hung up on the difference between policy and critical ground, but there is a fundamental difference between the two and that was what Jim was asking).

As for gender asylum, I know you were just being snarky, but the ground is even worse in that instance in topic 5. While it is true that the neg will always have something to say, it doesn't mean that this ground is as good as the options offered in the other resolutional choices.

As it was stated better by Ermo in his paper: "Don’t submit a stand-alone asylum topic. There will be cases where the only viable ground may be critical ground. Such ground is not sufficient in all round situations, although it will be sufficient in some."
« Last Edit: July 10, 2010, 08:25:20 AM by kelly young » Logged

Director of Forensics/Associate Professor
Wayne State University
313-577-2953
kelly.young [at] wayne.edu
www.wsuforensics.org
kevin kuswa
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 345


« Reply #4 on: July 11, 2010, 07:28:25 AM »

Kelly, most of your post is just rehashed and inaccurate fears about a very exciting topic area with lots of good debates, especially on the case.  I can't resist asking you, though, what is this clear and "fundamental" difference between the two (and only two) types of ground?  If the difference is that fundamental, I imagine you could describe it with just a few sentences.  About a decade ago we moved away from that binary and third, fourth, fifth ways of debate entered the fray (not to metnion overlap).  Are you using your "fiat secret decoder ring" again?  Smiley  Kevin
Logged
kelly young
Full Member
***
Posts: 237



WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 11, 2010, 09:48:48 AM »

Kelly, most of your post is just rehashed and inaccurate fears about a very exciting topic area with lots of good debates, especially on the case.  I can't resist asking you, though, what is this clear and "fundamental" difference between the two (and only two) types of ground?  If the difference is that fundamental, I imagine you could describe it with just a few sentences.  About a decade ago we moved away from that binary and third, fourth, fifth ways of debate entered the fray (not to metnion overlap).  Are you using your "fiat secret decoder ring" again?  Smiley  Kevin

I won't bother answering the nonsense about styles of debate as that is another debate for another time. I think it's rather clear from the teams that I coach that I'm not bound to policy debate as you suggest.

But to the real topic at hand, what is the ground? I don't see this as "rehashed" fears given that I watched the topic committee discussion on this area and have read the committee reports and there was little discussion of what most people would define as policy ground. What ground is there? Making the sweeping claim that I'm inaccurate without demonstrating why just doesn't cut it as proof that ground exists. At this point, it's becoming painfully clear that this is an assertion on your part.

Yes, case debate exists. That's always true. But case debate isn't always offensive or very good ground (see, Kevin, in modern debate, we quit debating in a stock issues paradigm, so beating the aff on inherency is no longer a game winner. You must be wearing your "I puffy heart stock issues" t-shirt today Wink). So, beyond case debate, agent CPs and non-unique DAs (other than politics), what ground exists here?

Logged

Director of Forensics/Associate Professor
Wayne State University
313-577-2953
kelly.young [at] wayne.edu
www.wsuforensics.org
Malgor
Full Member
***
Posts: 220


« Reply #6 on: July 11, 2010, 04:35:00 PM »

the quality of negative arguments seems to be much lower on the asylum topic.  I would like to see some evidence that can convince me there is a lot of specific negative ground.

I understand there are arguments the negative can run, but they do seem to be more reliant on process based arguments.  I'd be shocked to see a strong mid terms link against an asylums aff.  I'm sure there are some ok agenda links...maybe.

the distinction might be somewhat moot, but there is a difference between arguments about the direct material consequences of the plan (people who want to debate problem oriented theory) and arguments about the philosophical underpinnings of the plan.  These debates are distinct, have entirely different sets of assumptions, and many debaters prefer one or the other.  I don't think that alone is a reason to reject a topic, and I agree with Kevin that the best way to foster good debaters is to train them to bridge the gap between those two styles.

My main concern is quality of negative ground relative to the other resolutions is lacking in an asylums only topic.
Logged
kevin kuswa
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 345


« Reply #7 on: July 12, 2010, 08:03:42 AM »

Kelly, the "I heart inherency" shirt line was a good one...still laughing about that.  I'm not looking to drag this out and the topic comes out soon so this won't matter too much, but let me reiterate a few things:

1. The debates are deep and rich on both sides of the asylum controversy.  There may not be 11 off-case DAs with bad internal links, but there will be a handful of solid choices with specific links and multiple layers in the literature.

2. Apply your standard for "good ground" to all the topics---it's not as if the negative can roam free and run anything on the other topics.  Indeed, beyond politics and the economy, it is unclear what magical potion the negative must have to constitute a fair topic.

3. Think outside the traditional rubric of negative arguments, even if you must conceive of this as a question of "policy" ground.  Good critical ground (and I think Malgor's distinction is fair as an operational difference) = good policy ground because of the advent of the PIC with a critical net benefit and the fact that the case becomes a better debate when the aff is testing some of our expectations about fiat.

4. Depth over breadth--the soft power/US leadership questions can definitely work--and they are very deep.  They cannot be dismissed as "non-unique" (you don't think America's image can improve in the world??) and these debates would be far more topic specific and nuanced than most disadvantages we commonly debate.  If the aff solves, there will be good links--lots of them (not to mention the Agent CPs).

5. Don't judge the quality of ground so quickly even if that ground is slightly distinct from what we are used to debating.  Case/topicality/CP strategies will be abundant, and it is not accurate to dismiss all the process CP/turn arguments as generic--the immigration topic is about process and the system and asylum has an amazingly complex and sophisticated apparatus to debate.  Our learning curve would really be incredible to trace in those areas.

Finally, Malgor, thanks for the post--I do think it would help quite a bit to bridge this gap.  The politics links are better than you might think and I will collect some of the best negative cards and cites to send your way and see if they meet muster Smiley

Kevin

Logged
agswanlek
Newbie
*
Posts: 6


« Reply #8 on: July 12, 2010, 08:22:22 AM »

I mean you might call me crazy but a debate topic which forces the negative to give up the right to the status quo to be offensive seems to moot the most basic negative strategy.  In the world of asylum I don't think it's "the most logical option anymore".
Logged
kelly young
Full Member
***
Posts: 237



WWW
« Reply #9 on: July 12, 2010, 01:37:19 PM »

1. The debates are deep and rich on both sides of the asylum controversy.  There may not be 11 off-case DAs with bad internal links, but there will be a handful of solid choices with specific links and multiple layers in the literature.

From the beginning, the question has been: What are those choices? You've yet to identify them. No one asked for 11 off-case DAs with bad internal links--although your soft power argument would be a prime candidate as I am sure that a small modification to US asylum policy not key issue affecting global perceptions of the US --I think Jim was just asking for a list of a few. I'm not so sure why this is so difficult to produce if you are so assured that this ground exists.
Logged

Director of Forensics/Associate Professor
Wayne State University
313-577-2953
kelly.young [at] wayne.edu
www.wsuforensics.org
atwoodruff
Newbie
*
Posts: 6


« Reply #10 on: July 12, 2010, 03:58:44 PM »

I'd like to add another point that is potentially concerning to negatives as they prepare to debate asylum cases. It has been simply assumed on this thread, even by people seemingly opposed to asylum, that the politics links will be easy to come by and Kevin even said in his last post that they are "better than you might think."

I think the particular wording of topics 4 and 5 on the issue of asylum might complicate the quality of these link arguments. Both resolutions only allow the aff to remove statutory restrictions on asylum cases. I think politics links for asylum will be difficult for a few reasons. First, generics don't apply. None of the evidence referring to "immigration reform" in the status quo assume asylum, whereas guest worker programs and permanent legal status are timely issues that these cards are referring to. Second, cards about asylum (while already quite difficult to come by) only have the potential to apply. It seems that politics links for asylum will assume an increase in asylum cases granted. I believe that it is possible for an aff to remove a certain statutory restriction and then argue that their aff won't increase the actual number of asylum cases granted (because other restrictions still make it too difficult to be accepted) which is what the negs links assume (this could be strategic if the aff had a good reason why a certain restriction was bad, for instance maybe it was racist, and they could construct an advantage based only off the removal of the restriction). Now, I don't know if that's actually possible but it seems to me that it could be done. Third, asylum isn't near as timely as the other immigration issues. A simple lexis search will reveal that the most controversial thing related to asylum in the news is that Obama's aunt's asylum claim was recently accepted after having been rejected every time she applied prior to his presidency. Finally, and this clearly only applies to resolution 5, finding links about gender-based asylum claims will make it even more difficult to find good, specific links to asylum affs on topic 5.

Maybe I'm missing something and the politics links are sweet but I haven't seen evidence of that yet. Asylum was actually one of the topic areas I was originally most excited about but after the specific wordings came out and I did some preliminary research for negative positions, I had a change of heart. Kevin, maybe if you could send me a link or two to the good links that you are referring to it would help but for now I remain skeptical.
Logged
kevin kuswa
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 345


« Reply #11 on: July 13, 2010, 07:39:46 AM »

There are descriptions and lists of negative arguments in the topic papers and wording papers as well as in a number of posts here over the past few weeks.  Lots of good choices have been spelled out.  A massive statutory change in favor of greater human rights for a particular group of people is not hard to debate against, no matter what arguments you prefer.  You can always use topicality to leverage ground for counterplans and links.  The aff that does not actually remove restrictions will have lots of trouble answering hypocrisy/US exceptionalism and all the masking arguments that define the status quo (not to mention being turned by any experience-based paradigm or narrative).  The cards about how asylum policy makes a big difference to certain politicians depending on the constituency, combined with the cards about "small shifts" in Obama's new attempt to pass comprehensive immigration reform (a DA right there) derailing the initiative, combined with the usual evidence about liberal human rights policies not to mention the perception arguments about asylum and homeland security, on top of cards about the tilt of the Court given the new appointments, AND then add the evidence about asylum and special visas (persecution as a crime means there is a good deal of overlap with T and U Visas--even in the Arizona debates) to get a number of the visas links, research some cards about a few high profile examples (see recent Guatemala, Haiti and Iraq asylum debates for example) and the effects they have, put those together with the cards about asylum seekers in the context of states passing ID laws (people who are here without paperwork and could face additional detention), show how the legal battle with the states will use asylum as a case study for the precedent (they often do), broaden the searches to include law reviews and then dig up cards about midterm elections coming down to various policy stances on immigration, and you will have a good platform for politics, the process CPS, the "other country" CPs like Canada and Australia, the Europe CP, and perhaps some internal US policy counterplans.  Add to that the human rights debates, the foreign policy signal debates, the perception arguments about refugee resettlement, trade-offs with border enforcement in terms of "prosecution first, empathy later" doctrine, International Law debates, borders, all the US influence/human rights credibility/soft power issues and you have some choices.  I also think Temporary Protected Status is a great intrinsic counterplan (rare for the negative) that would lead us more toward the topic and less toward the generics that people seem wanting to hold on to forever.  The asylum topic is deep, even when limited to the gender claims--and that's where a lot of the debate is taking place--the meaning of persecution, identity categories, state soveriegnty as the means of determining victim-status, what is necessary and expected to determine not only persecution, but the need for any form of refuge--oppression on what grounds?  We could limit this to asylum for Iraqis or child soldiers or religion and still have a full and evolving debate all year.  I will try to carve out another list of three word negative arguments if that's necessary and go through the previous dismissed arguments like terrorism and soft power again and defend them (you actually can put together some reasonable terrorism and security-based arguments), but it seems as though most people have made up their minds one way or the other already.  If you haven't made up your mind and were at one point excited about asylum, talk to some lawyers you know who debated and ask them about the complexity of asylum policy and whether it could sustain a good season of debates including policy-type ground.   Kevin
« Last Edit: July 14, 2010, 12:34:16 PM by kevin kuswa » Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMF customization services by 2by2host.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!