NCFL LD topic 2010

No problem RaeTulo. Though yours was way more in depth. I was in a hurry last round. I'll make this one extra good, to cover my slack. ;) Value and Criterion debate: My opponent says her value MUST stand for two reasons. 1) Its inherent in the resolution. I'm guessing she means because of the wording "moral obligation". 2) Morality is the core principle in all the documents and agreements we as a nation abide by. Well to start off, I know there's not a big emphasis on evidence in this debate, which is fine by me, but since my opponent is Affirmative she has the burden of proof. I don't remember seeing the core principle of morality in each one. Also even though the resolution uses the word "moral" in it, the fact remains that the United States government has no moral agency, seeing as it's not human, thus not being rational. On top of that this argument goes unrefuted, so extend and kick morality out of the round. Ive delinked morality, so throw out minimization of dehumanization with it, seeing how that doesn't tie to the only value left in the round, mine. Also, she goes on to state we must remain faithful to our founding doctrines and principles, but this would be taking on an objective viewpoint. I made a block against objectivism in my last round, which also went unrefuted, so in this debate it stands that objectivism is bad, which makes her criterion bad. (I know in LD that it's a rule that once an attack or argument is dropped, not brought up in every round, then you cannot bring it up again, but seeing as this is an educational round helping me prepare for CatNats, I don't think that rule should penalize in this round). Also she talks about dehumanization being bad, since group A is favored more than group B, but what if group B is bad, or not worthy of humanization. Now to the social contract...=)....I'm very happy you brought this up. If you look up social contract (http://en.wikipedia.org...), its also an agreement between nation and citizen. If the person becomes a citizen, they agree to give up certain rights such as privacy, for times when the right of general public protection comes into danger. So if these illegal immigrants came here but are not citizens, then they have not agreed to the social contract, so we have no moral obligation to provide them the full extent of constitutional rights. About the felons, that is fine with me to include them, I just thought it would be abusive to the Affirmative. Just to point out, my opponent says she is technically advocating the resolution as long as the rights were given at one point. Even though this is a huge circle argument, (like saying by negating we affirm), very unspirit of the resolution like, and the word is "afford" not "afforded", I actually find it a clever idea. =). Props to RaeTulo. But sadly, the illegal immigrants have not agreed to the social contract, thus never had the rights. Also, when equal under the constitution, every one has the rights to arms. So in the Affirmative world, you better lock our doors and grab your crucafix cause there will be a lot of ex-felons running around with guns. 1. My opponent sticks to the "as long as it was afforded" argument, but since the resolution says all people afforded to, and illegal's were never given them (see social contract block), then shes not meeting her burden placed on her by the resolution. She now has two options. Continue to advocate her current position, making her untopical, or to switch to attack my arguments. But seeing how she agrees that illegal's are breaking our laws, then I don't see that being very successful. 2. All I'm getting is you agree that its bad to have a border-less America. So you agree my impact has weight in this round. But you try to delink me from the resolution by saying that it's now and present situation. But to clarfy on my part, I'm saying in the Aff world it's a borderless America. Seeing how the Aff world is current right now, then it's not present times. So i have link, impact, and only weight in round. That itself should buy me the round. Her Case. 1. She says the people under our jurisdiction MUST have constitutional rights provided to them. So means she just switched advocacies, so she now only cares about US citizens, not "all people on American soil". So, I'll save voters for last round, but as it stands now I have the only weight/impact inthe round, and only value to link into. Along with only criterion to measure/achieve value with. Vote Negative please