all right everybody uh we're going to begin now uh my name is Ray edts I debate for masterman and I'm in power debates uh head of events so we're super excited to have so many people here uh we're just going to jump right into it um we're glad so many people showed up for our very first event I'm gonna have my fellow presenters introduce themselves really quickly and then we'll talk about Empower debate uh a little bit and then we'll jump right into uh you know the topic analysis proper so um if one of my fellow uh presenters wants to jump in and quickly introduce themselves that would be great uh sure I can go first um I'm HT I debate for Milton Academy in Massachusetts I'm a rising Junior and I'm new to empowered debate and this is I'm super excited to be you know um doing this topic analysis uh I'm Luke zong I do PF at Germantown friends going to junior year um I'm a current mentee at Empower debate so I'm very excited for this hi guys I'm Kik I'm I debate for I debate P for Ravenwood um and I'm going into senior year I'm sort of a mentor for um Empower debate and looking forward to giving this topic analysis and answering any questions that you guys have amazing uh we're glad to have so many awesome people presenting uh if Stephen you could just jump to the next slide really quick uh before we jump right into it we're just going to talk quickly about Empower debate uh we're a nonprofit working to uh Take debate which can be a hard to get into activity and make it more accessible through free resources such as this presentation we also have a uh Mentor program that you can sign up for if you go uh you can sign up for our Discord check out our Instagram um which I'm sure will drop some links to in the chat uh towards the end of the presentation uh and just make sure to show us your support and you can get access to this as well as future demo debates and lessons uh so just make sure you you know follow us on Instagram follow us on Tik Tok uh we'll make sure that we provide you with all of those handles uh later in the presentation um so thank you so much for showing up let's get right into the actual presentation next slide amazing um so we're going to start with some background just because it's like a it's a pretty uh political topic a lot of people have some preconceived notions of it so we're going to get on a kind of ground level of what the resolution is what it means then we're going to go on to some AF arguments then some neg arguments uh and finally we're going to go to uh some framework and K stuff that we feel like it's important to talk about for this topic uh in all I think we're covering 17 AF arguments and 18 neg arguments plus overviews Frameworks so it's going to be super extensive and you're going to really understand the arguments that you might want to run and uh almost all of the arguments that you'll be hitting regularly whether you're debating on the local or National circuit um so yeah let's start with some background next slide yeah um so first we'll talk about what counts as surveillance infrastructure so the resolution says that we should substantially increase our surveillance infrastructure along the southern border and that's pretty vague there's no definitive definition of uh what counts as surveillance infrastructure so it could mean Towers so uh tow with cameras and Ai and data processing or people watching The Border it could have ai just generally people are saying oh we'll use AI to solve it not really telling you what that means um you know it might be body cams it might be x-ray machines to stop drugs or weapons crossing the border it can be anything that you can think of and find a card for and it's really important to uh yeah well make sure that everyone has access to the slideshow uh feel free to jump in the chat if you need to ask any questions and we'll either answer in chat or we'll answer in the presentation if it's super important um we're going to be nail uh so like if you make take the time to nail down your definition of what is and isn't surveillance as well as what the most likely implementation of the resolution will be uh it's going to help you win rounds uh so really when you begin before you start writing your AF arguments think about what you think is true because the true arguments are usually the best ones next slide um I'm going to talk a little bit about the trends and like sort of the context to this resolution because for any resolution it's important to understand like what has happened in time before leading up to like a given policy implementation right so the first thing to know is that in 2014 the southern border has been deemed as under an immigration crisis by the White House and this is because there have been massive influxes of people from Latin American countries trying to cross the border into the us through Mexico and the important thing to know is that the most likely root cause of this is because of political and economic crises that have been happening in Latin American countries like Cuba and Venezuela and the most important implication this has on the topic is that we most likely will have people trying to cross the like massive amounts of people trying to cross the southern border most like regardless of what kind of deterrence policies the US tries to implement there because the cause of migration is external to what happens on the southern border itself and it's also important to know that these economic crises particularly in countries like Venezuela and Cuba um like you can argue and there are lots of cards that say that they've been caused by us like economic intervention in those countries and this is going to have really important implications on later arguments um also this immigration crisis has in recent years created the conditions for militarized Border as well as the conditions for the rise of dangerous cartels which seek to make money off of helping people cross the border and so for that reason funding for Border Protection agencies has risen under the Biden Administration by billions of dollars per the White House and during that same period illegal Crossings have fallen to a three-year low per CBS but CBS actually attributes this falling in like attempted um illegal Crossings to new stricter Asylum rules that have been implemented under the Biden initiation leading to more deportations and creating a deterrent effect rather than the effect of Border surveillance and more effective border security itself and moreover because of the threat of a government shutdown on Capitol Hill there's currently bipartisan support to for more tough policies on the border which usually just means strict Asylum rules and stricter legal immigration quotas and there are different arguments as to what this will lead to that have implications on like the different arguments um and these policies are expected to strengthen cartels and also heighten illegal like attempted illegal Crossings because if you aren't able to cross the border legally then more people will try to do it themselves or through cartels illegally and AF could argue that this is a reason for more surveillance while n could argue that this is an indication that the entire like do uh doctrine of border security that surrounds surveillance is like a broken system and there different arguments that relate to this but yeah that's sort of a background picture of the resolution uh Stephen if we could yeah uh and so now we're going to go over some of the AF arguments on the topic and the first one is going to be Stephen and the first one is going to be actually about politics on Capitol Hill and it's it's kind of unconventional so the uniqueness here is that Republicans are using the threat of a government shutdown to force stricter immigration laws which includes measures like asking Asylum and Asylum and decreasing legal immigration quotas and so the implication of this is that more like uh the impact is well I'll talk about the impact later but the link here is essentially is that implementing the AF curbs Republican fears of an immigration crisis quelling de the demand for stricter immigration laws right most Republican fear like pushes on Capitol Hill for stricter immigration laws are like centered around this fear there's an immigration crisis that quote unquote dangerous illegal immigrants are coming into the country and that's causing bad things for whatever reasons but if you implement the A and Implement stricter surveillance that could quell this Republican fear and quell this like need on Capitol Hill for stricter immigration laws and you could argue that these stricter immigration laws are are expected to encourage illegal Crossings while deterring legal immigration which is bad for a whole host of reasons and you can impact those out but the most important thing here is to do the comparative you have to argue that more surveillance with without stricter laws is always better than more surveillance with stricter laws because you see the legal immigration and more people try to cross the border legally rather than IL legally either like alone or three cartels is better for the economy for human rights and it also doesn't Empower like dangerous cartels in Mexico uh yeah that's the yeah there we go um yeah this is the elections Arc it's kind of like it's going to be on every topic I think um if this argument is more cooked on the AF than it is on the neg I think the uniqueness and the link are like a little weaker on the AF especially because all the stuff I've looked at says like Harris is winning right now but you can definitely find like Harris losing uniqueness um just depending on the politics uniqueness you're going to cut before tournament and like you're always going to need to keep updating it which just annoying with politics arguments um but the uniqueness is that Harris is losing so um and uniquely you're going to say that she's losing because of issues like immigration which I think like is pretty decent evidence that says that immigration is a big issue in swing States um so when you pass border surveillance you make like Democrats look like they are more tough on the border and tough on immigration which is able to help them win in swing states where key issues like immigration are the deciding factor um I think this link is like fine but there's just stronger links on the ne that you can run and I think if you run on the app there's a lot of Link turns that you're like it's going to be like easy to lose to off of it um on the impact level it's it's mostly just Trump bad um there's like a whole there's like a ton of things you can run I've seen people run like Trump America First policy bad because it alienates allies which leads to like Nuke war or something there's so many impact scenarios can run off of trump um I've also seen people read impact turns on like like if you read an elections a with Trump as the impact people say Trump good because like border wall good so I think this argument is a little weird because there's so many terms that people can read off of it or read onto it that are like a little like hard to um win against so I think like the elections argument is definitely stronger on the negative topic but it really depends on the politics and the poll's uniqueness that like are obviously going to change before whatever tournament you guys are going to oh yeah the next argument is about pandemics like like the same with the elections argument this argument is going to be on basically any topic involving like controlling movements of people so the unique is simple there are plenty of cards that say that the next pandemic will probably start in Mexico and spread or I don't know if there are cards that say that the next pandemic will spread will start in Mexico but there are cards that say that there like the danger of a global pandemic that threatens Extinction is really high within the next like decade like within the next few decades or so and so the link here is that if you put more biometric surveillance it helps prevent the spread of pandemics over the border and if you control the pandemics at the roote then it doesn't spread across the world which prevents Extinction um and Extinction there's of weighing that we'll get into later the only thing about this argument is you have to find really good uniqueness and time frame evidence that Pand the next pandemic will that next existential pandemic will actually start in Mexico or it probably will start in Mexico and I haven't seen any evidence that says that so this argument is probably not- unique because just controlling the southern border to Mexico and preventing the spread of pandemics there like probably on in the grand scheme of things doesn't do that much for like pandemics resiliency worldwide but again it links into Extinction and if you do the extinction weighing properly then this could be a good argument to run um so the next argument that we're going to talk about is Terrorism uh basically what the uniqueness evidence for this says is that right now there's an extremely high risk of lonewolf terrorists uh crossing the border uh because of stuff like uh the you know October 7th or uh tensions with Iran and that they're going to cross the southern border because either they have ties with cartels or just because our Southern border is uniquely weak and we can't stop terrorists Crossing there uh there's also unique evidence saying that they're about uh that terrorists are about to be able to get uh nuclear weapons or biot Terror weapons that can cause Extinction and the link here is that surveillance technology can detect terrorists via AI which uh stops them using the terrorist watch list or they can stop those weapons that the terrorists are going to use once they get in America uh from getting to America so uh for for example preventing the shipment of uh radioactive materials used to build uh homemade nuclear weapons uh and in either of those ways it prevents these Lone Wolf terrorists and that uh the impact is biot Terror or these like dirty nuclear bombs are going to cause Extinction uh and there's really good weighing off this because there's a super small bright line because it only takes one terrorist to cause Extinction is what the argument is saying and so if you can even stop one person you're stopping Extinction um you have to be really careful about the rhetoric you Ed on this argument because you want to make sure that you're not equating uh people crossing the border with uh terrorists or anything that like some racist cards that you find might say should just be really careful about your rhetoric but you can cut a short version of this argument that has these really clear impact scenarios uh that you can read really quickly in more technical rounds so it's a it's a pretty good strategic choice for these Tech rounds I think um yeah okay so the next argument that we're going to talk about is drug trafficking so I think this is a pretty common argument that's sort of been run with any sort of trafficking based topic and in things like section 230 for example so basically the uniqueness I think is pretty true and it's hard to contest that yes right now fatl overdoses are high right now and a lot of this is most of this is coming from the southern border so right now like the essentially like the Border surveillance at the border isn't working so if we're able to increase surveillance infrastructure and I think in especially on this topic and this specific argument sort of the definition of um surveillance really matters because you need to be able to argue what type of specific surveillance is going to be able to L to a low uh like a reduction in drug trafficking so if you're able to to point to a specific type of surveillance that is allowed to sort of stop cartels from either crossing the border or just stop um Regular People from smuggling that's a pretty good I say link and I think it'd be hard to contest and then again the impact the most conventional one is just lives um just like hundreds of thousands dying conf fentanyl overdoses every year or you if you want to go the cartel way you can also lead to State collapse um meaning Mexico's collapse which has been really commonly read on the wiki or you can say something like oh that state collaps throws the world into chaos um throws Mexico's Partners into a chaos which could lead to like an economic downt like a recession or you could also read an Extinction type impact uh the next argument is about human trafficking and actually on the top on the a especially there are tons of arguments about trafficking and organized crime in general and most of most of these have like the same links so really you could read it under the same case are like the same contention um but yeah human trafficking the uniqueness here is actually really interesting or not interesting it's really horrible which is that transnational syndicates so generally cartels traffic humans across the border and specifically they do like horrific like child trafficking um they use children to accompany adult migrants through border patrol before being smuggled back to be retracked and so this is like a horrible phenomenon that you can definitely read in Lay rounds to get like emotional a little bit of emotional appeal and the link here is going to be the same as most of the other traffic arguments which is that heightens surveillance to Terr Smugglers and allows border security to track perpetrators and also identify the syndicates that do this trafficking in the first place which a lowers human trafficking because you're able to catch people in the act and also lessens stress on border on Border Patrol um and making more effective at processing immigrants because now you have like more more if you have more eyes on the ground then there's Le or if you have more eyes um to stop human trafficking then you need less people on the ground which means that the entire like border becomes more to to like human trafficking threats and most importantly you can argue that it stops empowering organized crime so these syndicates that do human trafficking if you um have surveillance that allows you to identify them then you can also stop trafficking at the root cause and so the most important thing here is just to appeal to how horrible human trafficking is it's like the probably the most prominent form of modern slavery and is also a major source of organized crime a major source of profit for organized crime 37,000 people are trafficked every year and the cartel definitely benefits from it and so like C was talking about in the previous slide you could also link to a bunch of cartel impacts on the economy Extinction State collapse Etc uh next we're going to talk about weapons trafficking which uh is once again related to cartels and organized crime so you can usually run it as a subo or as part of a larger argument about cartels along with drug trafficking and human trafficking and basic basically what this argument says is that uh massive amounts of illegal Firearms are moving from the US to Mexico and that that's what the cartel is using to expand and to wage Warfare and to show their power to other cartels and The Mexican government uh for example there's evidence saying that 90% of cartel weapons can be traced across the border back to being bought in the US and the link evidence says that border surveillance uh will uh stop firearms from being illegally trafficked cross the border which cuts off this root cause of cartel power uh and an internal link is that illegal Firearms are what drastically Empower violence in Mexico uh and also there once again there's uniqueness evidence saying uh right now cartels are on a path to overpower The Mexican government and cause State collapse and so the impact is once again very similar to cartels you have uh specific like smaller scale death claims that cartel weapons and cartel Warfare kill so many people every year or you have these like Extinction scenarios so State collapse uh of Mexico causes the us to lose its Global standing causing some kind of uh Extinction scenario uh so forward uh and moving on to the next slide we have Wildfire trafficking uh Wildlife trafficking not Wildfire uh and basically once again another sub point of cartels sometimes but some people run it as an entirely Standalone contention um you can go either way the uniqueness says that la American animals are being trafficked to the us over the southern border and that uh of you know Global animal trafficking and Wildlife trafficking uh a disproportionate amount of the animals end up in the US uh and then the link tells you that uh surveillence can stop animals from crossing the border killing their trafficking operations so if uh animals can't make it into the US where people are buying them from then there's no profits in Wildlife trafficking or you can shut down these operations as a whole um which stops the animals from being killed in the first place and there are three possible impacts I've seen run off of this and they're all pretty good the first one is just biodiversity loss in Latin America causes food chain uh food chains to collapse like in the Amazon rainforest which can cause Extinction and you know wider spread environmental impacts then there's the cartel relation where people say cartels get a lot of their profits from Wildlife trafficking uh and so you can do these State collapse claims you can do these violence claims you can do these drug claims and finally it's that when the animals get to the Border they're in close contact with humans who are also crossing the border illegally which causes diseases that the animals have to spread over and uh has the same impact scenario as the pandemics argument so uh you know you can either run this as its own thing or you can relate it to cartels uh one thing to worry about generally for all of these cartel's arguments is that because they're so common because they're so strong often the neg has a lot of turn turns that they can read on them the neg will always be very prepared so if you're running these arguments really know them well because they're really strong but you're going to get a lot of pretty good responses too um yeah but with that we can move on the next argument is about efficiency at the border the uniqueness is that weight times at the border at an all-time high if you think about like um you know cars trying to cross the border and they're being border security checks you can imagine how that causes like pileups and congestion right but the key thing to note here is that you have to prove that these Skyhigh weight times are not the result of like structural problems to do with the doctrine of border of border security but rather inadequate funding or inadequate investment and that's actually an argument that neg will talk about which we'll talk about later in this slideshow um the L link evidence it says that surveillance infrastructure decreases weight times of the Southern border by generally streamlining things if you have more people on the ground then you can process people then you can process people trying to cross the border much faster uh there are two impacts first you can say this decreases carbon emissions from ising vehicles and improves local Health rates um so carbon emissions cause asthma cardiovascular diseases Etc and so it's important to find a card to kind of scale this impact so you can do weighing later in the round um you could also say that it improves the economy a 10-minute reduction in weight times creates 18,700 jobs and brings in hundreds of millions of dollars in extra trade per year um but again it's important to actually link this to idling cars at the border and not like General trade or general weight times arguments um and as a general note about these arguments about improving the Border or about efficiency it's strategic to try to solve problems with border surveillance because neg is going to try to bring up a bunch of evidence about how border surveillance or like the border patrol itself is structurally flawed and so it's important for the AF to say that increasing investments from the US federal government is uh like conducive to solving these issues oh so the next argument that we're going to talk about is sort of the Innovation argument so I think the uniqueness is pretty common on this topic and a lot of other topics and it's just that the US is losing the race against China in terms of technology so um I think that's a really common uniqueness to win and I think it's pretty factual so I think it's a pretty nice uniqueness and sort of the link on this argument is that right now to catch the us up to China there needs to be a boost in Innovation so specifically it needs to come through things like AI that are sort of govern governing the world more as the 21st generation sort of progresses so the only way or the best way to sort of increase this Innovation and lead to this boost in AI is through increasing surveillance technology which I think is probably going to be the challenge on running this argument from what I've read I haven't found anything super specific of that sort and which causes and if you if you're able to find that um that will lead to a demand of tech companies which the government would then Outsource and whenever there's more um technology companies within the United States there's also more AI technology because they're um obviously keep innovating which allows for more General soleny boost the economy and eventually catch the us up into China and the most common way to run this is usually a hedge transition and eventually that leads to nuclear war and eventually Extinction or the other way that you could run it which I've seen occasionally is more of a neocolonialism type argument and sort of running it as China sort of trying to take over specific areas like South China or some other Colonial countries and pointing out how the US is really important to intervening and then solve it uh yeah sticking with the theme of AI we're going to talk about the AI bubble argument where basically it says Uh there's evidence saying that right now the AI market so people investing in companies like open Ai and Nvidia is leading to a bubble that people are over speculating believing that this industry is going to grow more than it is and that because of that the market is really close to crashing there's really good uniqueness evidence on this where last week there was the beginning of like a stock market crash because people started to pull out of the AI Market uh and it hasn't reached like an enti a full recession yet but we're headed there's evidence saying that we're headed towards something on the level of the 2008 recession um and the link on this argument is basically that when the AF uh is implemented is going to use a lot of AI and that because it's the government investing in AI through public contracts it's going to essentially close the gap between the industry stock value and the actual value which will prevent the bubble from popping and prevent a session um and there's some I believe there's some evidence with like empirics saying that in the past bubbles have been solved through the government getting involved in that industry and doing public Contracting and the impact here is that if a recession were to happen it would be bigger than the 2008 uh housing market crash it would be bigger than the dotc com crash uh essentially plunging like millions of people into poverty or you know losing some countries their hedgemon status and uh causing like Extinction so uh I think this is a pretty good argument uh in both scenarios so uh yeah I see someone in the chat saying wouldn't stock prices go up of AI being is in the Border yeah there are claims you can make that it would just make the the bubble larger but uh the you can find evidence that says that it would you know raise values like actual value than it more than it would raise the like speculative value but uh those are all claims that can be made in round and you can argue about uh but yeah moving on uh the next argument is Court clog uh which is an argument some of you if you debated last year might be familiar with from the January topic uh but there's also a more like topical specific to immigration argument you can make off of this the uniqueness is that there are massive amounts of immigration cases pending right now so people who were abused by border patrol or people seeking Asylum uh which means that there's currently uh massive amounts of cases clogging the court uh and then the link is that uh because the app deters immigrants uh there will be less immigration cases in the long run preventing a future crisis uh in our justice system or that more technology along the southern border allows us to document immigrants quicker uh allowing the courts to uh deal with the cases they already have much faster um and the internal link of that Court clog means that immigrants can't enter the country uh which means that it turns arguments like the uh like the agricultural argument we'll talk about in the neg and the impact here is either the more uh like topical one that I mentioned that will it'll collapse the immigration system and you can make claims that the app solves the root cause of the uh current immigration crisis because more people can enter the country legally uh or you can do the more generic argument from the January topic that says that oh if the courts are clogged then they're then we can't uh have tech companies patenting their products which means that China beats Us in the tech race causing new War very similar to The Innovation argument so uh I like the topical version better because Immigration Court and patent Court are two different things they probably don't interfere with each other much but people have been running arguments like this so you can totally uh you know figure out which uh impact you want to run the next argument is about border at the corruption the uniqueness is that bureaucratic corruption is Rife at the southern border and there's plenty of evidence that say this and if you decide to run like a long version of this argument you could also go into the specifics um it's like the corruption is pretty bad and there are tons of like specific case studies that definitely would appeal to lay judges um the link is that one Federal surveillance can be used to surveil border officers checking back against corruption so here you interpret surveillance as also being used to surveil for corruption which obviously solves for corruption and two you argue that increased Federal investment means new rounds of audits and reforms that can detect corruption and solve back so anytime the US government invests in something they have to audit the institution receiving new funding which could lead to Sol like if you have new rounds of institutional level audits that could also root out corruption and also deter it in the long run so you are also so the internal link is that corruption allows cartels to thrive decrease the effectiveness of the border and ensure that surveillance methods remain outdated and there's plenty of evidence that say that currently because of the in like the corruption at the border um the border patrol itself is extremely ineffective which leads to a bunch of the structural issues that NE is going to bring up and so the impact is um really comparative you weigh this argument you argue that corruption is the root cause of ineffective SL abusive border security which is what neg is going to bring up and you solve back for corruption mean solving back for corruption meaning uh means you solve back for a lot of these NE impacts and also similar to court clock You could argue that corruption is the root cause of the present immigration crisis and so if you solve corruption you solve the immigration crisis oh yeah uh accountability is an argument that my partner and I were running uh that I think is pretty good it basically says that uh border patrol officers right now abuse people as they're crossing the border uh or people who are you know waiting like seeking Asylum and waiting uh in places along the border to get that Asylum uh and that you know uh they're just border patrol officers are causing all kinds of harm to these people as they try and cross the border um and then the link is that body cams which are a really common form of surveillance deter abuse and therefore empirics prove uh like for example if they're not being held accountable for the crimes that they commit right now but in the AF world there's really clear like objective evidence of them committing these crimes so they can be held accountable and then because they know they can be held accountable in court they're less likely to commit the crimes in the first place and there's empirics of uh of like uh you know police officers uh decre like lots of studies saying that police officers wearing uh body cams decreased uh police brutality uh in many different ways um and the impact here is there's example of sexual violence that you can talk about that link into SV uh or just generally like oh police brutality loses trust in the government which causes XYZ uh harms uh I like this argument best when to read in the second constructive when you're the a because uh structural violence framing which we'll talk about later is really common on the ne on this topic and so if uh your opponents read something that's structural balance this argument allows the AF to link into their framing so uh I I like this argument but you know it's pretty simple all right so the next argument that we're going to talk about is sort of us Mexico cooperation and this is sort of I think a little bit more of an interesting topic uh sort of argument to go for so right now I think the uniqueness is a little bit sort of harder to win if you're on the a right now because there's been a lot of talk about sort of how the water treaty negotiations are still like not the greatest right now but simultaneously there's also things like the usmca for example that have been talking about how great it has been and how great it's brought like the US Mexico um closer so I think it's definitely going to be an interesting piece of uniqueness to win but anyways the link is that right now the new Mexican president that was just elected he's Pro Border surveillance which is sort of represented a change in Mexican politics from the last few years and right now because of that um he's able to use that to sort of preempt crises and make sure that they don't happen so things like DRS for example at the Rio Grande river is something that's able to allow for a well planned negotiation between the US and Mexico and ensuring that they're able to have a better solution as a whole and then because of that um a better cooperation solves a lot of things so I talked about the usmca um so like an economy impact but you can also read something like cartel conflict environmental issues ETC or you can also read an impact about how Mexico is sort of important for us to gmany and losing Mexican relations would cause a change in the global hemony scale which would eventually lead to hedge war and then Extinction I think in my opinion the first impact is a little bit more probable I don't think there's good evidence that says that Mexico is key to us hedge and I think even if there is there's a lot of other factors that contribute meaning that I don't think it'd be the best argument to specifically go for next slide yeah so the other one is is a little bit more interesting is the wildfires argument and sort of right now is that wildfires are happening at an alltime high so I think that's pretty specific and stable evidence that you're able to be F that you're able to cut and find and right now surveillance technology isn't enough to either detect and um sort of combat them once the Wildfire has already started and by affirming you're able to ensure that more surveillance technology is able to go into place and sort of solve the initiation problem that's happening right now and sort of that allows for um decrease weight times to respond to a wildfire and also um allow for like a US model to ensure that the rest of the world is also able to follow I think the other important part about this argument is sort of the time frame way is that if you're able to find good quality evidence about hey a 10-minute waight in um fire fire like like fighting a fire L to this many deaths it's a pretty specific and a pretty Niche impact that could be easily be ran and a specif there's a lot of Niche weigh that you can do off of that as well and then I think based off that I think the most um the most straightforward one is obviously to read biodiversity loss when wildfires destroy things like trees and then eventually lead to Extinction but you could also read how it probably also destroys power grids leading to energy losses and Extinction independently oh yeah uh Maritime borders I don't like this argument very much but you're going to hear it quite a bit because people think it's like fun uh so we'll talk about it really quickly uh basically the uniqueness claim is that first uh the southern border includes Maritime borders so for example uh wherever the sea uh like the sea borders of the US uh end in the South uh and uh if you don't win that claim that it also includes Maritime borders then you can't win this argument because then it's just not true it doesn't apply to the resolution so you need to find really good evidence that says that um some of it comes from Biden's executive order so maybe look at that uh but that's the main thing you need is just to be ready to win that that's true uh and then you also need to win that uh because the US's Maritime borders are weak we're on a path towards war in the South China Sea because if we don't First Strike China they can like come into our Waters and take over our shipping lanes um which is something that they've been doing so because the US feels that it's weak we haven't showed up our borders we're going to uh First Strike China and then uh the link says that the AF is uh going to improve our Maritime borders making risk uh anal analysts feel more secure in US power and preventing us from entering conflict with China and the impact is war with China in the South China Sea causes a nuclear war with China which causes Extinction um yeah I think this is the last argument we're going over on the appside this is more of an overview you're going to want to run on neg arguments like funneling which I think we'll get to later but this is just a argument that um a lot of neg teams will make the argument that surveillance can't like cover everyone there's still going to be like uh like like cracks that uh that people that are trying to cross the border can slip through so you can say like oh um surveillance means we're going to invest in Satellite Tech which means we're able to surveil everyone that's trying to cross the border because satellites are like very high up in the air and they can see everything um I think this argument has a couple issues like there's going to be a lot of uh topicality claims that teams can make they can say like um the resolution says on the border and satellites are not like physically on the border so it's not topical um they can also say like I know people read like tunnels arguments where cartels go under like literally go underground and use tunnels to um like smuggle people to smuggle drugs whatever um which also is able to circumvent the satellites overview but I think overall this argument is a pretty smart one to make especially in rebuttal especially it can take like maybe like 20 seconds if you're strategic about it it's just at the top of rebuttal um and it's able to uh cover a lot of the neg um arguments like smuggling which are going to be a very big like argument on the neck um oh yeah we're going to talk a little bit about the nag arguments now and the first one is um it going to be more of an overview it's not an it's not an offensive argument in of itself um but it's about the effectiveness of like surveillance as a border security Doctrine and so you are first first it's important to know that investment in surveillance has been going up at the border has been going up for years and it's especially gone up under the recent like Trump and Biden administrations but there's also plenty of evidence says that that says that it's not been effective and you could argue that this is for structural reasons unrelated to Federal investment um there's tons of evidence that says that the risk assessment Strategies employed at the border are just completely ineffective and outdated like the way that they assess individual migrants trying to cross the border that's like human traffickers and threats go through while like turning back legal migrants and forcing them to try to cross the border illegally uh there 's also a lack of federal oversight or there's well AF can say that they sell for this but uh you also say that there's a lack of oversight which leads to accountability issues there's also multiple federal agencies handling the same problem and very little coordination between them which means that the Border itself is extremely not adaptive you can finally this is probably the most important one you argue that surveillance Doctrine in of itself is ineffective because it doesn't address the root cause of illegal migration which is which means that migrants show up at the border anyway and the quotequote like immigration crisis continues and the root cause being that there are often us fueled economic and political crises going on in a lot of Latin American countries which are forcing people out and coming to the US to seek Asylum um and also also another really important thing is that private sector Outsourcing leads to useless spending corruption and adverse incentives like the border security is outsourced to a bunch of different private contractors who you can argue don't have proper incentives to employ effective strategies to secure the Border then we have this border industrial complex overview uh kind of a play on the military industrial complex uh that's very that's pretty similar to the efficiency overview but it has maybe some offense implications and like a extra warranting and so basically what it says is that when the government invests in the Border it's going to use private contractors so uh military companies like um like locki Martin Ron those kinds of things uh and that's going to cause problems with how the app solves or it's going to superch supercharge neg links about ethics so it has some pretty similar claims to Effectiveness overview that there are these empirical examples that Biden's Towers haven't worked the previous measures we've taken haven't worked uh and then it gives this warrant that the reason for that is because these companies are for-profit companies and so they have an incentive to keep the Border crisis going so if uh they were to solve the Border crisis completely they wouldn't get any more contracts meaning they'd lose moneyy in the long term uh so it's better for them to partially solve it little by little but keep it around uh overall meaning that they have an incentive to make bad Tech um and then also here's where the offensive implications can come in the idea that private companies have less oversight than government agencies and therefore they can be more racist they can be more abusive and that there's just going to be Mass amounts of issues so if you say oh border patrol officers are are racist they're corrupt uh the AF is only going to make this worse because these companies have no oversight um next is this is these this and the next slide are about maybe the most common uh surveillance creep arguments are the most common neg arguments I think um and they both make claims about authoritarianism and privacy but in very different ways so I'm going to talk about them both uh separately this one says that the US border is a legal gray area making it a testing ground for surveillance Tech so because it's not clear whose jurisdiction it's other it's not really spelled out exactly what rights people have along the border um and there there are all these claims you can make oh we're just doing something to protect National Security you can kind of violate people's rights uh in a more safe way the government can do that and so it's become a testing ground for surveillance Tech that uh and then the link is that Technologies get pioneered on the border and they spill over to the rest of the country there are empirics about Trump used uh Tech that was bought for the border patrol uh to quell black lives matter riots in other cities in America so they empirics of that happening and then in the long term it spills over internationally so there's examples of tech that America built in uh Arizona along the southern border was eventually used by Israel and the claim is that this uh is going to empower authoritarians across the world uh because they're going to have all of these new us-built tech that they can just buy from these private companies to really reinforce wor their claims uh and the impacts are first of all just these arguments that authoritarianism and impact filter it makes everything worse it makes uh it makes terrorism worse it makes the risk of nuclear war go up it makes famine worse and they're bad for the economy or you can make it uh a separate claim that just authoritarianism is going to cause nuclear war when the US lashes the US lashes out in XYZ ways and that'll cause Extinction uh and then the next slide uh covers a pretty similar argument but with more of a perceptual link um and the uniqueness here I didn't think it was that important at first but later in uh in some rounds I realized how it was important uh basically the uniqueness is that right now global democracy is rebounding from a long period of spreading authoritarianism uh and you can see this in a bunch of far-right authoritarian leaders were recently defeated in like European elections or in other countries and uh for example Mexico had a kind of democratically backsliding leader but he uh but he was replaced by someone who's a little bit more invested in uh in Freedom um and in America Biden is promoting us privacy law to kind of promote that happening but the link is that other country's model us privacy and democracy and they see the AF as uh the US reversing the current Trend and it causes a bunch of other countries to begin to backslide uh even if they're not buying US tech so people kind of run the slide and this slide as one kind of collective argument um or they run them separately where they they can either say oh it doesn't matter if they get the new tech they can they're just going to model after the US and become more authoritarian and the impacts are the same so you can say it's an impact filter you can say it cause nuclear war and Extinction um and I think these are good arguments to run because they're kind of Shifty in the back half if you run both of these links and don't say that they're two different links you can make claims that oh yes they're just going to develop new tech or it doesn't matter if they velop new tech or not they're they're just going to model us so I think that they have such big impacts and it's probably the best NE argument in my opinion uh the next argument is about private companies and this is actually really similar to the surveillance creep argument that Ry was talking about the uniqueness is that border security is handled by tons of private contractors like unisus and lock Martin uh and giving Federal funding to the Border gives these companies an excuse and also the capacity to develop like technologies that are super invasive and designed to monitor presumed criminals and control flows of people which are like R said like the tactics of an authoritarian State um the internal link is that these companies are also often military and civil security contractors and so Tech developed at the border could eventually make its way like abroad to commit human rights violations so other states authoritarian States could buy from these companies because they're private contractors and also the US military contracts with these companies and so the US military can use this Tech um Outsource it and so this is actually really similar to the previous two arguments um the impact is lives and human rights and I would say find some specific impact uh impact scenarios like find specific conflicts or contexts where this like surveillance creep would happen and where people would actually like be hurt right it has to be specific it you can't just say that like oh Tech goes abroad which is bad oh my this slide is also me um the next argument is about cartels the uniqueness is that economic collapse in countries like Cuba and Venezuela have increased migration flows and at the same time cartels are capable are more capable than ever because of the internet at advertising illegal Overland Journeys to migrants which means that migrants are more likely to go to cartels for help or to cross the border and also there is current bipartisan support for stricter Asylum policy which means that migrants will be deterred from legal methods right because they face a threat of being supported when they come into the us as legal migrants and also they face a threat of being turned back and having invasive like invasive surveillance measures imposed on them when they come to the border and the link here is that increasing surveillance infrastructure only furthers this effect which means that migrants are less likely to attempt the B crossing the border themselves turning to cartels instead and like the calculation is is simple because there's bipartisan support for more for stricter immigration laws methods of legal immigration become less effective which means that migrants are coming to the Border because of internal econom crisis in their countries have to try to cross the border illegally or through like you know um yeah like illegal means and they either try to do it themselves or they turn to cartels if there's more surveillance and if there's more invasive measures at the border then they're less likely to do it themselves and they turn to cartels instead the internal link is that cartels because of this turn profit and they also strengthen their control over the border and stronger cartels link into virtually every a impact and also State collapse deaths Etc okay so the next argument is basically funneling I think this is a really really stock argument that that'll be run on the topic and it's basically that right now when surveillance goes up it's obviously going to become harder to cross the border and to sort of prevent that and to sort of go around that um people are going to sort of try and go sort of more dangerous ways and when they do that it opens them up instead of going over like legal geographical borders it opens them up to challenges Maybe by traveling by sea or traveling by harder routes which puts them at risk for dying of um dying without food dying without thirst or also increases the probability that they land in like a trafficker Haven which would lead to a decrease in sort of migrants and also um in general just like human rights and Debs um the next argument is about remittances uh there's actually a really good piece of evidence I forgot uh where it was that says that remittances from migrants who come to the US make up 20 to 30% of the gdps of some Latin American economies and also that this REM that these remittances are growing and they could create like the next like Tech boom I think in Venezuela that could potentially solve the economic crisis the link is that there's is twofold first you argue that surveillance stops undocumented immigrants who make up a huge portion of remittance senders um and it's important to like frame like to avoid this argument becoming problematic it's important to frame undocumented immigrants as products of economic crisis in their own countries who come to the US because they have no other choice um and B also invasive surveillance targets all migrants not just ille not just ones who try to cross the border illegally um which deters legal migration and so this creates a chilling effect on people trying to come to the US and send money back home you argue that remittances are key to Latin American economies and also growing remittances are remittances are empowering stability the impact is that cutting remittances crashes economies like Guatemala and Honduras who are like dependent on them and which leads to more economic instability which actually leads to more migration flows which worsens the Border crisis so I'm pretty sure this is my slide and so this argument human rights I think this sort of talks about what I was going on about before about sort of more dangerous rout routes and instead of sort of pushing them to more dangerous routes this argument is more specific about um sort of family separation and instead of sort of talking about dangerous routs it's more about like invasive surveillance which causes them to be separated and when that happens it's going to lead to a long less of a democratic nature at the border more authoritarian more strict and it probably leads to a decrease in human rights because they're being surveilled a lot more severely and because of that more human rights are being violated and basically it goes into a lot of the fundamental rights that a lot of people consider is important to having as a human so things like um family having a family um being lawfully detained rather than unlawfully death things like that are pretty common so I think this is a little bit more of a strategic argument to run on the leg compar comparatively to the tech just because um just because I think a lot of lers just believe that this is true and it's been proven really historically time and time again and I think this will really go along with the framing that I think we'll explain later in the slideshow uh the next argument is about natural ization the uniqueness is that naturalized migrants are key to plugging holes in the US Workforce so you there's plenty of uniqueness evidence that I don't know if it's uh like I think it is recent um that says that the US is facing a labor shortage right now and so you argue that migrants are a key part of the US Workforce and also that like people who come into the US can plug holes in the US Workforce uh surveillance chills legal immigration and cuts the flow of undocumented migrants who eventually naturalize who become part of the workforce um which means that the labor shortage gets worse which leads to a recession also lowers the US's long-term resiliency to these recessions the thing to note about this argument is that while it's like strategic to run as like an economy argument that could appeal to you know conservative judges it is kind of problematic if you frame migrants like as their only purpose of being in the US is to plug holes in the US Workforce and like work jobs that like white people don't want to work and so I would say the important thing is to run it together with other arguments where if your case strategy is to say say that having a chilling effect on migration in general is a bad thing so for example with arguments about remittances about Asylum Seekers if you run them together then it becomes like I think okay okay so I think this sort of gets into a chain of arguments that will go into about trade-offs so this is a really common argument that's run on sort of nearly every topic in debate and it's basically that the general idea is that X resolution is too expensive which causes the us to stop spending in other areas so in this case it's the DHS um so um because of an increase of surveillance technology I think the uniqueness evidence is probably the biggest challenge here is that I haven't read anything that says that because of an increase in Border infrastructure it leads to a diversion of money from the Coast Guard or some other federal agencies that's so important so I think finding that evidence is going to be the hardest and then once doing that I think the link and impact are a little bit more sort of easier to find just because it's more of a true argument so sort of because of sort of opening themselves up to this new infrastructure more Cyber attack so obviously reading uniqueness and time frame we that um the amount of cyber attacks is going up and it's are happening more frequently is really important and then reading a maritime trade argument I think is the best way to go here because essentially the majority of the show the ships in that region are really facilitating trade so things like the usmca for example so 30 million jobs $5.4 trillion in economic activity would be disrupted causing millions of people being pushed into poverty is sort of the most strategic way to move I think this does definitely open your way into a lot of like a turns so I think it's definitely important to be um aware of that but so I'd write out a couple of sort of pre pre-written FR front lines if possible um this is the Ukraine trade-off argument it's run like again it's like run on like every single topic I think the uniqueness is pretty cooked on this argument um it's just that Ukraine is receiving money right now but the Nuance that a lot of uh AF teams will read when responding to this is that like Ukraine Aid is still like even though Ukraine is still receiving aid the amount of Aid is still like going down a pretty steady rate so a is like already pretty cooked um but I think the link evidence on this is pretty good um a lot of people will say like the Lee evidence which says that Republicans will H will force us to make a choice between either more border security or funding Ukraine but you can't have both and people will say this causes like um people implicate it as like a perceptual argument like as soon as Republicans perceive that we're prioritizing more border security then they will like cut funing to Ukraine that's the implication that I've seen in all my rounds um obviously this is like a little abusive so um you can definitely call them out on it it's definitely not perceptual because Bills take a lot of time to pass so you can call them out on the time frame as well um I think honestly like Ukraine trade-off arguments are always cooked because I feel like the uniqueness is always really bad and the internal link is always like the internal link that people like to run on this is the typical like um Russia will demand surrender from like Georgia mova the baltics um but I think like there's always ways to respond to it like you can cut new um uniqueness about how Ukraine is going right now but it's like a n War scenario and it's a pretty like it's a pretty short contention too so it's always like sort of strategic just just to read it um yeah I think like I don't I wouldn't really recommend reading this argument I can hop in here um okay so the next argument is about um inden um sort of like native people and sort of the uniqueness here is that there's a lot of tribes in Mexico and Border surveillance and they're really really close to the border and so the Border surveillance will specifically Target these people and I think that's I guess a fair argument to make but I don't really recommend reading this argument just because the majority of harm that's being done because of surveillance isn't to these native people but it's more about the actual citizens and sort of residents of Mexico that are trying to sort of cross the border and because of that um if that if based on the uniqueness border surveillance causes an um increase of targeting of these people which causes colonialism and sort of ruins like religious um sort of ruins their land and that is there's a lot of sort of impacts that you can read here and I think the best one to read if you choose to run this argument is colonialism and sort of talking about how the US has historically gone into these different countries and have historically sort of stomped on these people's lands so I think it's really important to read that type of Framing and talk about how human rights and other types of um sort of just s just other sort of type of impacts are at play and can be harmed and sort of like um negatively impacting the US stage as a whole oh uh so here we have a biodiversity argument on the neg and basically what it says is that the physical creation of the border wall is going to hurt the biodiversity in that region uh and un says the border is a really biodiverse region it's important for Animals migrating between America and Mexico uh and that there are lots of animals just like living on the Border uh and the link is that when you construct a border wall uh or other kinds of Border infrastructure the actual construction is going to kill specific species by disrupting the migration patterns or maybe just like destroying their habitat outright uh I there's a really awesome version of this argument that says that has arguments about bees specifically that I like a lot um so if you can find that somewhere you should totally run it um and uh the impact is that uh when you lose biodiversity there are tons of environmental harms maybe on people living in the region or ex uh or like oh it collapses food chains causing Extinction if you want to get all like blippy about it um but I think this argument is pretty neat um although the problem with it is a lot of the link evidence is about Trump's border wall like physically building a massive wall across the border and not about small Towers but you can still miscut the evidence if you want to be sketchy or find other evidence um because this argument is pretty cool I think yeah this argument is really common but there's there's a couple of big issues with it that we'll get to um but uh what it says is that unauthorized migrants are really uh vital to uh the agriculture industry and then we need a constant influx of people uh to work uh these fields so there's claims that 80% of uh agricultural workers uh come across the southern border ille uh illegally maybe and that we need more workers every year five million of them and then the link says that the AF deters people from from doing illegal immigration which causes an agricultural collapse and then the impact is that food shortages kill people or the US can no longer export its food which causes us to lose our hegemony and then China surpasses us and we nuke China and then there's Extinction um yeah so this argument is really common but there's some issues with the rhetoric that we'll talk about later can be pretty problematic uh we'll go back for a second there's also one issue with it is that it sometimes concedes the a solvency where it says yes in fact the app does work it does prevent the things that the app says it will prevent and it does cause issues uh for people crossing the border uh so it may you know concede some of their solvency so you have to be careful about that but we can move on um the next argument is that Asylum Seekers the uni is that tens of thousands of Asylum Seekers try to cross the border every year because they're trying to escape political repression in their own States and something to note here is that actually the US's border Asylum courts are really terrible because their difficulties in defining like what's a valid reason to come and like seek Asylum like the official US definition of an as of a valid Asylum Seeker is uh someone who's escaping prosecution because of their identity in their home country which isn't the case for a lot of these migrants they're merely escaping economic crises and general political repression that doesn't necessarily have to do with their identities but regardless the US accepts tons of Asylum Seekers every year through the southern border the link is that surveillance Technologies like ankle monitors Target Asylum seeking families which violates their right of privacy and heightens the risk of family separation like if some people within the family get accepted as Asylum Seekers across the border and others don't that risks family separation which is terrible and also um people coming to seek Asylum at the border are targeted by really invasive measures um that you can that like only become worse and more invasive if you put more Federal investment into the border right um and the internal link is that that deters Asylum Seekers from attempting to come to the US in the first place and it also is just bad for Asylum Seekers try who do try to cross the border in general um deterring Asylum seeking and legal migration hurts the US economy and also traps these people in politically repressive states where their lives and rights are at danger um and also talk about like rights right like Asylum seeking is a fundamental human right that every government should recognize and so you argue that like we should be entitled to a government that respects those rights yeah that's the Asylum Seeker argument oh is this one me yeah it is me um so this one this argument says that uh it can be run as an overview that essentially kills all of the a solvency and says oh yes we make you make every issue worse um the it says that the Border Patrol's digital infrastructure so how much staff they have how much time they have uh how many computers and like uh sto like computer storage they have is only designed to handle a very small amount of data at a time uh and therefore even if you expand surveillance infrastructure if you don't first expand the capacity to handle that data it's going to cause data overload which means uh you know all of a sudden you're they're inundated with massive amounts of data that they didn't have before which means that they can't focus on actually solving the issues um and then the internal link is that data overloads also risk like cyber security um and so we could get cyber attacks from you know Russia uh and it also makes the system less effective at handling threats which leads to either threats getting through or generally more restrictive me uh measures that make it harder on regular immigrants um and so the impact here this has some pretty big offensive implications as well as defensive so I'll start with defensive it just basically says all of your arguments aren't true and the AF just doesn't work at all in fact it makes everything worse and there's the offensive implication it says actually uh even if we had any capabilities of stopping terrorists right now stopping cartels right now post a they're just they have no clue what to do because they have so much data and so it makes everything worse and that can be read in constructive or rebuttal oh okay like I can take this slide um this argument is about racism so you argue that the border patrol is structurally and is also historically racist there's evidence says that it was found that it was founded in like the 1890s during the era of the Chinese Exclusion Act and like really high like really horrific xenophobia in the US and it's sort of like rooted in that culture and that logic of racism um and also like they they still currently recruit violent white supremacists and also back in the day they recruited former KKK members which means that within the border patrol there's a culture of like a racist Brotherhood that leads to a lot of violence the link is that expanding border surveillance without reforming border security itself will only enable more racist violence and so imp amplifying racial violence uh is like horrific in of itself there's plenty of empirics that says that that would like um not necessarily will happen post a but that the border patrol uses all of its funding in like problematic ways um and the most important thing here is probably to link into some type of framing probably structural violence framing that makes like racism the core issue of the round yeah here we're gonna get into two other uh pretty good SV arguments or like like pretty clear links into SV the first one is abortion riters and what it tells you is that Republicans currently control the house which means that whenever there's large spending bills the Democrats want to pass for example like the app uh they're going to attach these smaller unrelated laws called riters um and this is another argument that you see on pretty much every topic um that has to do with the US federal government and then the link is that the AF is a large spending bill so Republicans would attach a National Abortion ban or some other thing that uh maybe not a ban but saying the federal government can't uh pass Federal Protection for abortion rights uh Etc and the impact is human Reproductive Rights uh structural VI violence impacts uh mass incarceration poverty um all of those uh you know pretty clear SV claims um someone in the comments in the chat ask how you would respond to a writer AR um essentially say that like it it kind of against the spirit of the debate round I feel like like it's kind of saying oh the the Republicans would delay the passing of the bill to add writers to it also you just say it's a reason why we would never pass any more spending bills ever which I think is just kind of silly like you know the government has to spend a little I don't know uh there there are tons of pretty good responses to it and moving on to a more topical abortion argument uh that my partner never running that I think is pretty good that says Texas abortion banss uh are happening in the status quo uh that stop people from uh Crossing from leaving the state to get an abortion uh and it means that women uh or people who need to cross the border for uh an abortion into Mexico right now they can do it because they don't get caught however ever the link is that after the a is implemented surveillance gets repurposed by anti-abortion litigants and they can prosecute these women who are currently crossing the border for abortions and the impact is it prevents them from having their Reproductive Rights it causes uh all these massive structural violence impacts so uh this argument once again links into all the same things that writers does maybe on a smaller scale though because it's just about people living along the border oh yeah this one's this one's also me uh this argument is basically saying that companies are currently move like America is currently moving our supply Chains From China so that we're no longer relying on China for trade to Latin America to Mexico and that there's massive amounts of what's called nearshoring now uh and then the link is that uh surveillance is going to harm trade through substantial delays uh or investors will be scared that there's going to be delays in their trade which will jeopardize them and therefore they're going to pull out preventing the near Shing from happening and the internal link is that the us is going to lose the trade war against China if we can't Nearshore which is going to have a large impact on the global balance of power causing China to become the new Global hedgemon and then the US will nuke China and there'll be Extinction um as as so many arguments cause Extinction um this is just the neg version of the a elections argument just like the internal link and the impact are the exact same but it's just the uniqueness and the link are kind of the exact opposite I think it's way stronger than the neg um first because the like the Comm the comma uniqueness is way stronger for her winning instead I think she's winning um in a couple polls and she's winning in a lot of like non-pole indicators which you can use to break the clash in a lot of like if someone reads like an AFF elections argument as a turn um but I think this argument is way stronger the uniqueness is probably a little better but I think where it's way stronger is definitely the link um it just like I the linkage does that tougher immigration policies or border security policies alienates latinx voters um and Harris as a result will lose in a lot of Swing States because those voters are a key demographic um I think the link is like pretty intuitive I can't like uh I've read this argument as it turns to a elections arguments and it's not really handled well each time I think the link is like definitely more true than the a link um and I think like maybe you could read um like a trump impact on like climate Eon whatever um yeah but I think there's you can still read people can still read like Trump impact turns so that's just one thing you have to watch out for in a lot of these elections arguments especially but the elections argument is definitely stronger than egg oh here if you feel feel free to screenshot this this is just something about who are making the slideshow uh added some recommended readings so just longer form topic literature that you might want to read so stuff about borders and immigration and how they work or the history of the border so feel free to screenshot this if you want to you know sit down and read maybe a longer article that gives some pretty broad topic analysis that'll put you over the edge in a lot of lay and Tech grounds so uh but now that we're done with the uh you know more stock stuff uh we're we're going to move on to Frameworks and KS um yeah yeah um I think so the two main framing that like is always run in pf is SV and Extinction and I think in this case SV is definitely extremely strategic especially in the neg in this topic um SV broadly is just that structural violence that is violence committed by structures um an example of that is racism right which is pervasive within like every single structure every single system every single institution and it can uh and a warrant for why you prefer structural violence over any other argument is because it is able to amplify all other forms of violence um oh is able to amplify all other forms of violence the senses card does um a decent like a decent job explaining it and it's the warrant that most people read on it um so structural violence broadly is just a reason to prefer like uh arguments that affect marginalized groups first and you're just saying that you can't evaluate other forms of violence or um uh arguments that don't impact to marginalized people without first solving structural violence for a couple reasons these definitely vary between rounds some people say that um marginalized people are deprioritized in traditional policym for example policy makers probably care a lot about like solving trade relations but they probably don't care a lot about helping like um undocumented workers like get visas or get stable jobs or helping the whole immigration process right they probably don't care too much about that and care a lot about traditional policy calculus um that is just so those are just like the stock reasons why people read structural violence but people can also read things like a priority which is you saying like you as a judge have um a prior reason regardless of all of like the post Fiat like like arguments that are read in the round you as a judge have a have a reason to up structural violence or to down argu down framing like util because um there's arguments that like util is racist because it's able to justify things like atrocities and people were able to use util to justify like racist things like slavery so there's Arguments for a priority I think it's pretty strategic to read it it's not like too long and um like I cam tournament like I thought it was pretty good I was able to win a couple rounds off like a decent amount of rounds off of it so a priori um is definitely something you should read with it I think it's very strategic especially in the neg on this topic like uh I think the strategy is you read like a ton of framing a ton of no Lincoln stuff and then like a true neg argument like I think funneling is like a true neg argument um and I think like oh yeah also um on a priority do not read Mei because apparently there's a lot of inds that are floating around on um you can read things like Vincent which are I don't think there's an IND on it yet but there's a lot of um ways to run SV there's a lot of warrants you can read but overall SV is a very very good strategy on this topic we can go to Extinction now yeah um Extinction I think Extinction is really like only should be read as like a preempt to SV or as a respon to SV like if you want to read like if you're reading Extinction impacts then you should just read like scope meta or scope or just like scope out ways um but uh the extinction warrants that you should read to respond to SV are that mainly that future Generations are the most marginalized group um because they aren't in like included in policym because obviously no one that has been born is like in Congress right now or is representing our issues um so you can say that these are the most marginalized groups so you have to prioritize them and it also like links into the SV argument you can also say like um uh like even if the probability is really really small like 1% of Extinction is still Extinction so you should still vote for it um all of these are pretty common Extinction warrants but a lot of these debates in septober I think will boil down to framing debates both both sides might win a little bit of offense but just depends on who's winning the framing so a good like something good to do to prepare for this topic is just to drill through a lot of Extinction versus SV debates and try to win it on either side if you want to run on either side um but broadly like when you're run Extinction your internal link needs to be fine um like I think if it's an SV versus Extinction debate then um you don't really need to win Extinction even if it's under Extinction framing because it's just like a reason why scope out ways um but you're all like obviously you need to win a decent amount of your internal link don't read like bad Extinction scenarios I think pandemics is a bad Extinction scenario because um like how do they spread to remote Islands but um one last thing is just to not read Bostrom because there's a lot of ivis on this topic there's always been ivis on Bostrom um because like a lot of his emails got leaked um I think Extinction is really strategic on this topic you should read it to preempt a lot of SV stuff you can also read preat Extinction warrants um to preempt it as well so I think like if you're first constructive well if you're yeah I think the the flip for this topic would be like at first so if you're at first you read Extinction read like a couple ex read Extinction scenarios and then read like a preat Extinction thing with it I think that's really strategic for this topic all right so human rights it's essentially it's pretty common I think it's really common to structural violence and it's basically saying that um everyone deserves the same rights so compared to like um Mexicans who aren't able to access the same things that are offered in the US comparatively to just Mexico and sort of the fact that like you can't talk about violence and impacts until everyone has the right to be equally considered so the act that it's a functionally a prerequisite before any type of Extinction or structural violence or anything like that so I think this is a lot more strategic to run on the lay than the tech just because I think there's definitely warrants to why Extinction outweighs and probably includes them so I think blay judges are specifically more inclined towards human rights specifically and I think that we're entitled to a government that respects human rights and achieving all of its policy goals simultaneously is sort of the best way to go and I think there's a lot of impacts that you can go with this so I think the common ones are probably Asylum Fair trial and privacy but I think it really really depends on the link level Wing here and sort of um sort of pre-written I guess comparative between this and human extinction because I think that's the other U most competitive framework if you read this because I think this definitely links into a structural violence framing uh next we're going to talk about some uh critiques uh and the first one is about security ization and just as a trigger warning I am going to be talking about genocide on this slide so if that's okay with everybody if it's not please type in the chat and we can skip this slide okay we should be good um in that case securitization essentially is the process of exaggerating and is that someone in the chat or no never mind um and transforming regular political issues into matters of National Security and so you frame these issues as existential threats that require drastic measures in the name of security and so on this topic it would apply to the immigration crisis so if AF tries to frame the immigration crisis as this whole like national security issue and so therefore like increasing surveillance is a matter of National Security You could argue that they're either overblowing the threat or um inappropriately turning into it into a matter of National Security as opposed to like uh human rights or like whatever other issue you think is the most important you can say that that's securitization you argue that securitization is the fundamental logic used to justify things like militarization authoritarianism genocide and all kinds of oppressive hierarchies and there are tons of historical precedent for this the two that comes to mind is uh first how in the 30s in the 1930s Hitler painted Jewish people as a national security threat ear to justify Mass atrocities against them and during the Vietnam war the US publicly painted the Vietnamese people as a public security threat so not just the Vietnam like the Viet Kong but also like Vietnamese civilians on the ground were painted as a matter of National Security which Justified massive militarization and also Mass atrocities um and the weighing here is is is is actually really strategic right one you say that the security of one group so people in the US um taking precedent over the security of another so people trying to cross the border and Escape internal political crises in their countries is the basis of structural violence and so you argue that the logic of the AFF ative gives you access to all the weighing that we were talking about about structural weighing about structural violence and B you say that legitimizing violence in the name of security leads to infinitely more violence right so it's really an argument about the logic of the affirmative itself rather than any post Fiat like impacts say that the AF painting the immigration crisis as a national security threat justifies violence which like more and more violence and so it kind of becomes a slippery slope which leads to infinitely more violence and militarization in the future which you could say has like a huge scope impact as well um and so that's another form of weighing um but the key here is that you need to prove and and so it's remember this is a k this is not an argument about like post Fiat impacts you're saying that the as rhetoric or the as framing or even like the resolution itself um is problematic but the key here is to prove that the ass rhetoric of National Security actually overblows a threat like you can't win this K if they prove that there is a legitimate national security threat you have to prove the the exaggeration that the a engages in um and the logic that comes with it is the basis of your offense and your voting issue uh and the next argument oh shoot sorry we didn't flip the slide but that's okay um yeah and the next argument or the next K I guess is about borders um and so there's plenty of really really interesting insightful and like good evidence that says that borders legitimize the modern nation state which are themselves products and tools of neocolonial violence and so there are tons of way ways this this is true like epistemologically and also in reality right like borders are generally really militarized zones in lots of parts of the world and like the line on the map um itself is a product of a like neocolonial sort of logic that um justifies a militarized nation state and um there's plenty of really smart people to talk about that you um you should definitely read into it if you or like research it if you run this argument um and the other key thing to not is that the us through political interference in Latin American countries created the conditions for the present migrant crisis and so that kind of feeds into the neocolonial like framing um and then you argue that the idea of a border serves to trap these non-white folk in their own Nations which legitimizes the US's Colonial violence right if you argue that the US's economic interference in these countries which leads to the conditions for the immigration crisis is a form of neocolonial violence and the Border itself a traps these people in those repressive conditions and B logically serves to justify the US not taking responsibility for NE Colonial logic um and so you argue that the a legitimizes the border so the alternative is that rejecting treating you have to reject treating these migrants as anything but the product of violent epistemological and also like real like physical borders um and so you say that the AF who wants so the AF the resolution itself legitimizes the border and also the af's rhetoric seeks to strengthen the border and worsen all these forms of violence um which is rooted in a neocolonial logic um and the weighing there's tons of ways to do it but the most simple way would probably just to say that like the neoc colonial system is the worst form and perpetrator of structural violence which then gets you all that structural violence weighing and also another really interesting way to do it would beology which is the idea that you in in policy and in philosophy you evaluate things as they as as the purpose that they are created for right so you say that and there's tons of warranting for this you say that you can't evaluate anything without looking first at the purpose so you can't talk about the Border without first looking at the violence that justified and necessitated it um which comes a priority to all to a priority to all other forms of discourse this is just more miscellaneous stuff that all of us noticed while debating this topic um you can go to the next slide um the first is like agriculture ivi I think this is probably like extremely extremely true um like just a quick refresher the agriculture argument on the neg is just that um undocumented workers are good for us agriculture because they comprise like a lot of the industry and um they're able to they like hold up the industry um that's like pretty problematic because um how like the reason why they're actually good for agriculture is because they're being being exploited and being paid exorbitantly low wages um for like their job which just for their like basically jobs and the reason why they're being exploited is because they um come here like without documents and unauthorized and what the neg is saying is like that's a good thing we should keep exploiting them to hold up the agriculture industry um so you can make like the drop the debator claims are pretty easy like the ballot controls racist rhetoric so you should drop them um to disc encourage them for running in the future like wins and losses control you know whatever um I think the weighing is really good um accessibility probably outweighs education and fairness um because like obviously no one like if everyone is racist in the debate space then no one really wants to be in it so you can't even access education and accessibility is like basically the terminal impact of fairness um so you're like you're still like linking into both um and I also think you could just say like someone is racist in round then you should just drop them anyways and it doesn't really matter um like about education or fairness I think I've won like I think I won every almost every round I ran this in it's a very true ivi I think like not running that agriculture argument on the neg is definitely like I think the reason why I don't run the agriculture argument is because of this ivi um we can go to the next slide um here's here like in here's like a a word pick right uh just so you know a word pick is basically just critiquing the a word or phrase that your opponents use in their case for example there's word picks on people saying the words like um if someone says the word like in there like Doc uh you can you can like read a word pick on that it's just critiquing the um rhetoric that your opponent uses um the link is just like they illegal immigrants which dehumanizes migrants the Nuance here is that saying things like illegal immigration is fine because you're not describing individual people you're not calling individual people legal but if you call a migrant like illegal or if you call a person illegal that's pretty bad because like I think it's pretty dehumanizing to call them that um dehumanization is bad because it's able to justify things like atrocities for example um people were able to justify genocide by saying they people were less than human or people were dehumanized so it didn't really matter if they died or not that is like the internal link into atrocities um the alt is to use words like there's a couple of different alts that people read people could say you use words like undocumented migrants unauthorized migrants um I don't even know like Asylum Seekers a lot of people use different words for them um so you should just like try to try to find a card at all it's pretty easy to find stuff like that um and you can just say it's better because it's more accurate like undocumented is probably more accurate and it's definitely not dehumanizing um or like as dehumanizing um you should also make sure to black out problematic words like that like illegal immigrant in free cards even if you don't read it um that's what people do with a lot of things a lot of words to avoid word picks like this um personally I would just like I'm not sure how prevalent this is going to be I think it's going to be like people are definitely going to be running it um but I would just like black out or or bracket out that word like or that phrase as many times as you can in your arguments just so you don't like run the risk of doing it or run the risk of hitting it um I think that should be the last slide but there's other word picks that people run for example like I was cutting a cartel's word pick um like at Camp uh I think like at some point word picks start to get like I think they're they're very low risk to run like it's kind of hard to turn word pick um like you can just say like insert word so you don't link into your own word pick um but there's so many different word picks that people can run there's a cartel's word pick there's like um some people like some people even read one on like undocumented right there's so many word picks that people can run I think it be very very prevalent on this topic especially because it's very easy to be like accidentally racist and then just lose the round off of that so one thing they should take away from these two arguments is that you should be very care care f with how you construct your cases and the rhetoric you use in case because that is definitely going to make you lose a couple rounds if you are not careful awesome um so that's the end of our the main part of the presentation uh we're going to do a quick Q&A but first our social media team was wondering if if you're all comfortable we want a picture for our um our Instagram story so if you're comfortable turn on your camera if if you can can on the zoom and give us a thumbs up so that we can show how many awesome empowered debate people we have uh learning new skills and about the topic awesome I think I got it uh let me just check yeah all right thanks so much guys all right uh we're gonna do a quick Q&A so if you if you if you need to leave obviously you can at any time uh if you have any questions feel free to drop in the chat or maybe raise your hand on the zoom call uh something like that and we'll do our best to answer what questions you have in the next let's say we'll end at 950 let's give let's give it like a like a 10- minute thing uh yes someone asked me if there will be a recording release later yes there will be a recording we'll release the slides on our Discord it'll be on our uh YouTube channel which just Empower debate if you look it up thoughts on using visual aids and PF debate um I don't really have experience for it if it if it fits the round totally I think using visual aids is very useful in Lay rounds um like okay like visual aids like I don't know what extent you're talking about like printing out your case is like probably like strategic in Lay rounds but like if you bring in like a whiteboard or something I feel like that's pretty cooked so like I think I'd draw the line at like printing out case maybe someone said where would be a good place to start researching um anyone wants that or I can answer that I guess I think a good place to start researching would just be to like make a list of like arguments and general strategic directions you kind of want to go down um and then like I guess talk to people go to like topic analyses and see what other people think of these arguments and then try to decide like what you want to run or like what general direction you want your research to go in and then like write your cases um yeah and then do like make block files to everything else um will an increase in surveillance affect legal ports of Entry I was cutting stuff on this like yesterday um I think there's evidence that says that surveillance wants to look at places where people are crossing illegally and it probably won't be in like legal ports of Entry that being said there's like a lot of topicality claims that people can make I'd say it's most likely topical like even like things like x-rays are like definitely um surveillance and they can they are mostly implemented at legal ports of Entry so that's still definitely an argument you can make um someone said which arguments are the best for Lay rounds I think on the neg the best argument is the Privacy argument people I think like uh I'm not sure what ciry are on but I think a lot of people generally just hate being like watched by the government um no matter like what side of the political aisle so I think that's pretty strategic on the neg on the AF um I'd say maybe like drug trafficking gun trafficking I think a lot of people perceive the Border as like a very dangerous place so um but you don't want to be like I think cartels is maybe less strategic especially with impact scenarios but I think things like broadly drug trafficking are are pretty good um someone can you respond to ivi like Theory um you don't really read a counter inter but you just read like reasons why the ivi doesn't make sense you can be turns on the ivi like I can say that spreading discourse about um like migrant workers is good in response to the agriculture IPI probably not the best response but you can like you respond to ivi is mostly the same as regular arguments except on the drop the debator claims you definitely need to make claims as to like if you're reading turns you definitely need to make claims as to like why education outweighs or why fairness outweighs or accessibility outweighs um so like it's sort of similar but you also need to make responses on the impact level just like in regular responses um also I think it kind of slept on way to respond to like taks and ivis is that usually people don't read like no rvis warrants so you can quickly get out a yes rvis warrant talking about like time skew in the round like risk of offense and then you can just respond like line by line the ivi and if you win it that way you could maybe win the round off that but that's that's a little bit riskier um some ask when to how when to run word picks in case do you read it like a reputation um you read word picks in response to something that they have said so it is definitely reputation you can read it like second constructive if you want but I don't think that's like too smart um when to read K's most people read K's in constructive it's a very it's like kind of like a case argument um and they take up a lot of time because a lot of the K literature is very like long and like hard to understand um on teror how does app front line response that one terorist enough trigger that impact nearly impossible to have solv see um you could argue you can make a perception claim like the perception of like oh they have these big radiological x-ray machine things at the border I definitely can't smuggle in this massive nuke you can make a perception argument um I think it's probably like you can probably make a response that like one terrorist is enough but generally like you need to read a warrant as to why as or as to how the terrorists get in in order for that to be even like evaluated as response because it's intervention to assume that they can magically like sneak through um how do you respond to the word pick um you could say like a the word isn't problematic um B you could also say like their alt is also links into the k um you could also just like command F or doc to see if they read it like I feel like a lot of teams like make that mistake like see people read like I remember at Emory people on like the West Asia topic someone read like a Middle East wor Middle East word pick and they said the word Middle East like every other sentence so um I think like there's people just don't read word picks very well so that's just one way to respond someone mentioned Academy it looks like people are responding um looks like that's all the questions I'm just going to go back through but it looks like yeah I think you got most them um but if people have further questions or broader questions about debate uh of course you can get oneon-one help through signing up for Empower debates free mentorship program which we're going to send the link to our link tree once again in like one second um which uh you can sign up for that that uh mentorship um and uh you can join our Discord and you can continue to ask questions if you think of them later about the topic or if you think of an argument and you want to see if it's any good feel free to send it to our case helpline which uh is going to be up soon and mentorship is active in the next week um follow our social medias so Instagram we're in power debate Tik Tok we're in power debate YouTube we're in power debate um so just make sure you're following and power debate everywhere thank you so much for joining I think we're going to call it there unless anyone else has anything else they want to say um I than there's like one more question um someone asked could explain what rvis were um rvis are just a claim that like if someone reads a theory or like maybe an ivi argument on you um you can say that me responding to this argument should like and winning those responses should be or like me winning like a turn maybe should be a reason that I win the round because like there's like Warren like oh um them reading on me skewed me out of the round so I should if I win like a turn on it then I should win the round um there's other arguments that are like um low key I I forget but there's a lot of like no rvis warrants too that like oh you shouldn't win if you prove you're Fair um there's like a baiting argument like if rvis were true then people would bait would like be do bad practices in round to bait out Theory and then win the rvis off of it but an rvi is just like the acronym is like a reverse voting issue and just saying that if you win um if you win like a if you win a responses to a theory argument then you should win the round or win on the theory flow at least awesome and with that I think we're going to call it thanks so much for coming thank you to my fellow presenters um I hope you all feel like you are ready to debate the topic comes October and uh once again you know follow Empower debate everywhere thank you bye