I love that in the boat experiment, you gave us a fill in the blank boat... Challenge accepted!! 😁 -- fills Mexican border boat up with South America's best under 25 male soccer talent, sends it to America -- ⚽⛵ 👮CBP: Hey!! You guy's can't be here!! Go back!! 🚨 🏅USMNT (Men's National Team): Whoa whoa whoa... hold on just a second there... you boys in the boat!! How many goals did each of ya'll score last season!? ¿Cuantos goles? ⚽🥇🥈🥉🤩 That is the only scenario I see ANY boat getting through ANYWHERE... And it has to be MALES-- USWMNT doesn't need help like our boys do, our women's team kicks butt already.🥇⚽ Also, that outcome worked out a lot better than any China scenario I ran through my head... ⛵Boat Crew: ¡Hola! ¿Cómo estás? 😀 🐲People's Republic of China: 🪖👮🚀🎆
😅😅 I love how you ran with that. Yes, there's certainly some exceptions.... A few places are probably more humanitarian than the States, and others just don't have the infrastructure to patrol all their borders so they'd probably be easy enough to sneak into...
Mecian Government interdiction... wasn't that temporary and for political reasons? Could we argue that the Biden-Harris Administration success at the border is from outside forces and not due to their actions? I would like to use this line of argumentation to mitigate the CON's inherency/solvency press(es). Remember: For many it starts as a press and becomes referred to as "turns" in subsequent speeches. ;)
I haven't seen any indication it's temporary, but the increase seems to have been triggered at the Biden admin's request. And yes, it seems almost certain that the Mexican government's actions have made an enormous dent in the issue, maybe more-so than the Asylum limits (although it's tough to parse those out)-- but I don't think the reason that immigrant numbers have dropped matters in the status quo (unless it was directly related to surveillance tech, or as you say, the cause is known to be temporary)-- the fact is, they're way down so we don't need more infrastructure.
Thanks for the video, like always! I have a question though, at 55:47 you make the argument that the status quo is good right now which implies that the tech is working and doing its job, but then you make the arguments about tech failure and all of the reasons why the tech is ineffective, bad for privacy, etc. If neg read these two arguments together, wouldn't that be contradictory?
Honestly these lectures are just a bunch of arguments organized as best I can, so there's probably more than one contradiction if you ran that 20-minute screed as a case...you'd have to choose for sure, 1. SQ Good because of tech OR 2. tech ineffective. HOWEVER, putting on my Neg hat, I'd say SQ Good because of recent policies, 1. Mexican interdiction and 2. Asylum caps, and adding more surveillance tech won't do anything to change those numbers one way or the other, it'd just introduce a bunch of DAs.
Hey Joel, thanks very much, I really appreciate the lectures, quick question. About the Kwan 21' card, how necessarily could that be used to attack someone if they say "illegal immigrant"?
That's probably above my paygrade, but I'd look up the Language K / Rhetoric K, generally you say the judge should vote against the person because their language (misgendering or saying '3rd world countries' or something) is harmful. It's kinda in-the-weeds for PF, I wouldn't run these unless Ks are somewhat common in your circuit.
A whole lecture: in short, argue that borders themselves are bad, therefore any extra surveillance is also bad, so we shouldn't do it. Throw this into ChatGPT for a bit more: "I have a PF debate topic about increasing surveillance infrastructure along the US' southern border (Aff), IN BRIEF, how would I run a Borders Kritik on this, arguing that borders themselves are problematic / divisive / anti-poor / racist. What would be the high-level key points, and how can I argue that these impacts should make me win the debate round?
"Ace Ventura" AFF Case... Contention 1: Deploy the Dolphins!!🐬 ... Contention 2: More Doggies!!🐕 ... "Come to me jungle friends!!" My opponent argues that I'm racist against migrants... well, my opponent seems to be pretty darn racist against giving out government jobs with great benefits to hard working members of the animal kingdom!😋
![[Panel Discussion] Secondary Sanctions and the international legal order](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SLDd0MBTlPE/mqdefault.jpg)
thank you so muchhhh! the goat fr
I love that in the boat experiment, you gave us a fill in the blank boat... Challenge accepted!! 😁
-- fills Mexican border boat up with South America's best under 25 male soccer talent, sends it to America -- ⚽⛵
👮CBP: Hey!! You guy's can't be here!! Go back!! 🚨
🏅USMNT (Men's National Team): Whoa whoa whoa... hold on just a second there... you boys in the boat!! How many goals did each of ya'll score last season!? ¿Cuantos goles? ⚽🥇🥈🥉🤩
That is the only scenario I see ANY boat getting through ANYWHERE... And it has to be MALES-- USWMNT doesn't need help like our boys do, our women's team kicks butt already.🥇⚽ Also, that outcome worked out a lot better than any China scenario I ran through my head...
⛵Boat Crew: ¡Hola! ¿Cómo estás? 😀
🐲People's Republic of China: 🪖👮🚀🎆
😅😅
I love how you ran with that.
Yes, there's certainly some exceptions....
A few places are probably more humanitarian than the States, and others just don't have the infrastructure to patrol all their borders so they'd probably be easy enough to sneak into...
Thank you Jessie Chen. 💛💙💛💙
Good luck everyone!
*I meant thank you my glorious king 👑
incredibly welcome, happy it helps!
------Timestamps-----
2:18 - Resolution
8:05 - Background
33:10 - Affirmative
52:56 - Negative
For aff is it better to make the contentions about how unsecured the border is or is it better to show how effective surveillance is?
Do both, show there's a problem (insecure border and negative effects from that) then present a solution (surveillance infrastructure)
Mecian Government interdiction... wasn't that temporary and for political reasons? Could we argue that the Biden-Harris Administration success at the border is from outside forces and not due to their actions? I would like to use this line of argumentation to mitigate the CON's inherency/solvency press(es). Remember: For many it starts as a press and becomes referred to as "turns" in subsequent speeches. ;)
I haven't seen any indication it's temporary, but the increase seems to have been triggered at the Biden admin's request.
And yes, it seems almost certain that the Mexican government's actions have made an enormous dent in the issue, maybe more-so than the Asylum limits (although it's tough to parse those out)-- but I don't think the reason that immigrant numbers have dropped matters in the status quo (unless it was directly related to surveillance tech, or as you say, the cause is known to be temporary)-- the fact is, they're way down so we don't need more infrastructure.
Thanks for the video, like always! I have a question though, at 55:47 you make the argument that the status quo is good right now which implies that the tech is working and doing its job, but then you make the arguments about tech failure and all of the reasons why the tech is ineffective, bad for privacy, etc. If neg read these two arguments together, wouldn't that be contradictory?
Honestly these lectures are just a bunch of arguments organized as best I can, so there's probably more than one contradiction if you ran that 20-minute screed as a case...you'd have to choose for sure, 1. SQ Good because of tech OR 2. tech ineffective.
HOWEVER, putting on my Neg hat, I'd say SQ Good because of recent policies, 1. Mexican interdiction and 2. Asylum caps, and adding more surveillance tech won't do anything to change those numbers one way or the other, it'd just introduce a bunch of DAs.
@@DebateTrackSorry, I read this earlier and completely forgot to respond 😭 But thanks for the feedback!
Hey Joel, thanks very much, I really appreciate the lectures, quick question. About the Kwan 21' card, how necessarily could that be used to attack someone if they say "illegal immigrant"?
That's probably above my paygrade, but I'd look up the Language K / Rhetoric K, generally you say the judge should vote against the person because their language (misgendering or saying '3rd world countries' or something) is harmful. It's kinda in-the-weeds for PF, I wouldn't run these unless Ks are somewhat common in your circuit.
What does SORAD stand for?
The Southern version of NORAD, which doesn't exist...
1:01:25 what did you say? “No difference between surveillance tech and [?]”
ahh, 'no direct connection between surveillance tech and arrests'
1:05:58. What is the Border K? 🧐
A whole lecture: in short, argue that borders themselves are bad, therefore any extra surveillance is also bad, so we shouldn't do it.
Throw this into ChatGPT for a bit more:
"I have a PF debate topic about increasing surveillance infrastructure along the US' southern border (Aff), IN BRIEF, how would I run a Borders Kritik on this, arguing that borders themselves are problematic / divisive / anti-poor / racist. What would be the high-level key points, and how can I argue that these impacts should make me win the debate round?
I love you
love you too!
"Ace Ventura" AFF Case... Contention 1: Deploy the Dolphins!!🐬 ... Contention 2: More Doggies!!🐕 ... "Come to me jungle friends!!" My opponent argues that I'm racist against migrants... well, my opponent seems to be pretty darn racist against giving out government jobs with great benefits to hard working members of the animal kingdom!😋