View Full Version : Elimination Round 2 -- steinguitar v shea_d
Resolution: Shake your love
Judge: syphonhail
shea, as callout you choose sides. Please do so ASAP.
Opp.
You just had to go and call me out right before the busiest work week I've had all month, yeah? :P
steinguitar
07-24-04, 04:52 PM
you got your dancing shoes on? PMC will be up soon... or shortly... or something...
steinguitar
07-24-04, 10:25 PM
Of course, thank you to everyone. To Ian Samuel for ruining the season finale of Jeopardy! for me. Nick Garcia Mason for all the cuddling. Barron Ernst for cleaning the dishes tonight. To brendo, who may be the only person who might recognize all of my allusions. And lastly to Ozma, who just announced that they are breaking up, thanks for the good times and the good tunes.
Shake your love. This is clearly a command – we are asking someone to shake “their love.” Now, as awesome as it would be to propose booty shaking, especially if it were Natalie Portman’s booty being shaken, even more so if it were Aaron Ehrlich’s, I don’t think this would make for a very good debate. Sorry, Ehrlich’s ass. Now, “shaking” involves motion and bringing attention. That is why I propose that the US ask permanent partners to come and “shake their love” for and in America. Hint: I'm proposing a plan. That means a net-benefits criterion. If plan causes planet to suck less, you vote for me.
Inherency: They’re not sha-sha-shakin, sha-shakin it (in America)
To borrow from John Edwards, let’s talk about how I’m the son of a mill worker and how there are two Americas. Well, the son-of-a-mill-worker isn’t important here, but the two Americas is. If you’re straight and your permanent partner (spouse) is in your home country, you can petition for them to come over to the states. In this America, you can shake your (and your spouses) love. In the other America, your permanent partner (of the same sex) is in your home country, you are not able to petition for them to come over. Your love is not being shookened. : (
Plan: Shake it (like a Polaroid picture!)
The Permanent Partners Immigration Act of 2003 will be enacted into law. House and Senate will pass bill as is with simple majorities, it will go from conference straight to the desk of Dubya where he will sign it. Basically, normal means, but spelling it out for the sake of future speeches.
Solvency: My MilkShake brings all the boys to the yard.
When this plan is enacted, binational, same-sex couples will have to meet the same requirements as binational, married couples so their partner can get spousal provisions in the immigration process. (ie, gettin into America is easier) They can prove their "permanent partner status" with affadavits from members of the community, proof of shared property, They are obeying the invitation we have extended to shake their love.
Impacts: Family reunification is good. Having two parents (regardless of gender) is the best way to raise a kid (unless you count assimilating them into the borg collective or leave them with a pack of wolves, those two are granted as superior options). People shouldn’t have to choose between America and their spouse. I mean, that decision’s as tough (and unconscionable) as picking between cookies and cream or mint chip. Plan is like cookies and MINT cream.
Advantages: It's a shakedown so count from one to three and shake your booty 'til the early dawn
1. Homosexual Lobby Shakes it’s Tailfeather
a. uniqueness: HRC and other groups that work for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered rights are still on the outside of a lot mainstream political discourse and are especially weak in comparison to the ultraconservative right wing conservative groups like the family research council
b. Link: HRC and company gain political capital, prestige, and money (as a result of the two aforementioned points)
c. Brink: the defeat of the Federal Marriage Amendment has given a boost in profile to the group that they will now be able to capitalize on with a real victory (FMA was an instance of "not losing," this is an unabashed, ass kicking win)
d. Impacts: Eventually gay marriage - equality is totally cool! Short term, we're talking about extending Family and Medical Leave Benefits, Domestic Partner Health Benefits Equity Act (not taxing the cost of your partners health care), and marriage equivalent benefits to partners of federal employees. People's lives are saved due to better healthcare. And did I mention EQUALITY.
2. Shake it Up! Politics, I mean
a. uniqueness: conservatives are relying on the GOP base of christian, social conservatives to get out the vote and win in 04
b. link: plan requires GOPers to vote for (in congress to get a majority) and sign (the president) and these people get branded with the "pro-gay" brush.
c. brink: they're already starting to get irritated at the GOP (not giving good speaking slots to bigots, i mean social conservatives, like Rick Santorum at the convention, not taking a stronger stance in favor of the FMA, and generally taking them for granted)
d. impact one: social conservatives forsake the GOP. Well, not entirely, but enough that it makes a difference. In states like West Virginia, Missouri, and Arkansas, you will see a notable decrease in get out the vote efforts orchestrated by religiously oriented groups AND a greater likelihood to vote for third party candidates (such as the Libertarian Party's David Badnarik (who was shown in an LA Times to be a factor in certain elections) or even bigger nutjobs like perennial Constitution Party Candidate Howard Phillips.) In a race this close, this will be enough to get Kerry elected
e: impact two: the same decline in voter mobilization tilts the senate races in North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Colorado which may be enough to throw the senate into the blue column
f: terminal impacts to getting democrats in power: restored mercury standards lead to fewer birth defects, judicial appointees that support roe v. wade which maintains a woman's right to choose which leads to fewer deaths due to backalley abortions. no wars undertaken in Iran or North Korea means we dedicate our resources to stabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan which leads to less insurgent action/death on local and international levels.
Conclusion: Vote For Pedro. By Pedro, I mean Darryl. I’m Darryl.
Shoot kids, I'm sorry for how long this took. I've been trying to solve three dozen issues at work for the past few days. We can blame me if this round doesn't get finished.
1. What exactly is a "permanent partner"? In other words, what are the requirements for an immigrant to be considered a permanent partner?
2. After losing the initial FMA vote, what did Republicans promise to continue doing? ;)
3. Will this plan alter the number of green cards given out each year? (either increase or decrease)
4. How does one offer "proof" of a relationship that meets the requirements of this bill?
5. How will this eventually lead to gay marriage rights?
6. Do you know how to break dance? Because those are the shoes I've got on right now, and I'm ready to rumble. ;)
steinguitar
07-26-04, 05:46 PM
1. What exactly is a "permanent partner"? In other words, what
are the requirements for an immigrant to be considered a permanent
partner?
for exact wording, you can check the bill text (HR 832) but here's the
highlight reel - the parties are:
- over 18 and not 1st, 2nd, or 3rd degree blood relation
- financially interdependent
- in a committed, intimate relationship with one another and they
intend a lifelong commitment (50words)
After losing the initial FMA vote, what did Republicans
promise to continue doing?
Being jerks? OH SNAP! (4words)
Will this plan alter the number of green cards given out each
year? (either increase or decrease)
In technical terms, this bill simply replaces the word "spouse" in the
pertinent sections of the immigration code with "permanent partners."
according to section 4, the bill does not alter numbers, just who is
eligible under existing limits. Simply put, no link to your xenophobe
backlash d/a. (47words)
How does one offer "proof" of a relationship that meets the
requirements of this bill?
In the status quo, in order for one to bring their spouse, they must
provide proof of their relationship. This should include shared
assets/evidence of financial interdependence and affidavits from
friends and families. With heterosexual couples from most countries,
they can also provide a marriage certificate which helps prove their
case. ostensibly permanent partners could do the same if their
country gives their union legal recognition. The INS already has the
mechanisms for vetting spouses, they now just have to vet permanent
partners as well. (85words)
How will this eventually lead to gay marriage rights?
see link story in my advantages. the lobby gains momentum and uses
this influence to work gay marriage rights. Gay marriage rights are
good. Equality is key to overcoming the marginalization and
subjugation of the queer community by the heteronormative hegemony in
American society. It is this heteronormative mindset that leads to
stripping of rights, societal exclusion, and hate crimes. By breaking
down this mindset, we begin to solve for the plight of the greater
queer community. (77words)
Do you know how to break dance? Because those are the shoes
I've got on right now, and I'm ready to rumble.
Dance, Bum rush the speaker that booms, I'm killing your brain like a
poisonous mushroom. deadly, when I play a dope melody anything less
than the best is a felony. love it or leave it, You better gain way
you better hit bull's eye, this kid don't play. if you've got a
problem, yo, i'll solve it. check out the hook while my dj revolves
it. (66words)
Total wordcount = 50 + 4 + 47 + 85 + 77 + 66 = 329 words
I’d like to start off by thanking all the cool people out there who have entertained me during my boring stay in Helena this summer. I’d also like to thank Darryl, who’s a cool kid, and who I’m sure I’ll be seeing more on the circuit this season. That said, you better hope those shoes of yours have a warranty on them because you’ll need to catch up with these circles I’m about to lay down. ;)
Anyone who has talked to me knows I hate bad T, and since the definitions and resolutional analysis are close enough, lets just get to case. To start off, I’d like to make an independent observation about the blatant flaw in the Permanent Partners Immigration Act:
Observation One: Ambiguous terminology.
The first thing that comes to my mind is what exactly is a “permanent partner”? Darryl gives you three criteria. My main issue with this bill is it presupposes that all same-sex couples know they’re going to stay together for a lifetime. Problem. No one knows where a relationship is going regardless of the intention. Why is this an issue? Ambiguous language is any legislation is bad, but even more so here. First off, it gives Santorum and his buddies more fuel to mobilize the anti-gay squadron. Secondarily, it makes it extremely difficult to enforce this legislation. Immigration services are going to be bogged down in determining who’s a “permanent partner,” and who isn’t. Keep this in mind. If we’re trying to solve for discrimination in the US, the best place to start is with continued efforts to legalize gay marriage. If we want to solve for immigration issues, we should focus on immigration policies. Simply put, trying to incorporate the two won’t do any good.
Disadvantage One: FMA support will actually increase.
Uniqueness – There is no federal policy that protects homosexual rights. The USFG has routinely taken the “states’ rights” approach to gay unions of any kind. Plan, which is enacted on a federal level, will force individual states to recognize these unions on a federal level.
Link – The PPIA will be perceived by the “religious right” as a counter-attack on the FMA. And what will they do? As Darryl said, they will continue “being jerks”. ;) Senators who voted against the FMA because they believed it took states’ rights away won’t be happy with this legislation and will definitely be more prone to agreeing with Santorum and crew next time.
Brink – Enacting the PPIA will trigger a response from the right in the next legislative session.
Impacts – 1) The FMA is a discriminatory policy. I don’t need to explain that one. 2) States rights will actually be taken away in two ways: the FMA will take the rights of states like MA to legalize gay marriage, and the PPIA will take away states’ rights in terms of immigration. 3) PPIA will destroy all of the progress already made for gay rights, i.e. the SC striking down anti-sodomy laws, the majority who are against the FMA, and the mindset shift we’ve seen in recent years with gay marriage. Granted, I believe these rights should be granted, but the Civil Rights Movement didn’t happen in one day. Neither did the women’s suffrage movement. Progress is good. Slamming the gas pedal down on this is bad.
Solvency – Status quo solves in long-run.
1) A social movement needs time to work. It’s empirically proven, and can be seen right now with the gay rights. I hate it as much as everyone else that gays are discriminated against. However, I believe that a long-term, solid, support of gay rights is much better than a hastily enacted, short-term, solution that will be repealed later on. We can see the progress that has already occurred. We will continue to see progress. It is logical to argue that a policy like this will be enacted later on down the road when we actually see gay marriage rights. The argument here is that now is not the best time to do it, and will actually lead to the destruction of progress already made.
2) Here is my first on-case turn: the PPIA will actually make it more difficult to get into the US because of the aforementioned problems that will arise with immigration services. Look to the analysis I give you about the of work immigration offices. This will slow the process down, and make it more difficult for these people to immigrate. They’d be better off trying to get into the US through normal means.
Advantages
Adv. 1
1) Non-unique. Darryl tells you that gay rights groups are still outside the mainstream. I’d argue the opposite. The gay marriage debate has heated up, and has brought a lot of these groups into the spotlight to help rally support. Furthermore, the defeat of the FMA has actually given momentum to these groups that’s going to help them to tear into the mainstream even more.
2) There’s no link to the gay marriage impact. He gives you an “it’ll happen eventually,” but I’d argue that’s going to happen in the status quo. Furthermore, I’ve already shown you how this will hurt the prospect of gay marriage.
Adv. 2
1) TURN: Increase in voter apathy. The people Darryl highlights are the same people who will prefer not voting to voting for people who are pro-gay. Voter apathy leads to skewed election results as well as a decrease in effective democratic politics.
2) TURN: Increases politicking (yeah yeah, I know). One reason I criticized the FMA is because it was used for purely political means. That’s exactly what this advantage is doing. Impacts: it delegitimizes the very movement itself, and it makes a mockery of the importance of this issue, which can lead to a backlash from all sides.
3) No link to his terminal impacts. He assumes that all democrats are going to do those things, and he assumes there won’t be enough of a republican stronghold to prevent democrats from doing so. They do control both houses of Congress after all.
steinguitar
07-26-04, 10:48 PM
1. Considering the INS already checks out heterosexual couples for the same thing, where do you get the clog?
2. The idea behind "intent" is as simple as "do these people look like they're faking the flame for a few months to get into the US." How would this be used against them, especially if identical language is in the legal code for straight folks?
3. Doesn't my fiat stick take care of enforcement (obsv. 1)? If not, would you like to rehash the stupid theory debate or should I just hit you in the shins with it? :P
4. If the status quo is solving, why can’t Adam and Steve get married in Virginia?
5. Have you seen the musical episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer where the demon makes people dance really fast and then catch fire (s06e07 Once More With Feeling)? Are you getting a little warm under the collar there, shea? Cuz right now I'm cooler than cool. I’m ice cold.
Originally posted by steinguitar
1. Considering the INS already checks out heterosexual couples for the same thing, where do you get the clog?
In two places. The first is simply the increase in the number of people requesting this service. The second is the difference in circumstances. It's really easy to tell whether or not a heterosexual couple is married. Trying to determine "permanent partner" status is a different ball game.
2. The idea behind "intent" is as simple as "do these people look like they're faking the flame for a few months to get into the US." How would this be used against them, especially if identical language is in the legal code for straight folks?
Again, a marriage is a legal contract. Permanent partner "status" isn't. Unless we're talking civil unions or marriages (which aren't requirements for this PIAA), then we face an abiguity with the language.
3. Doesn't my fiat stick take care of enforcement (obsv. 1)? If not, would you like to rehash the stupid theory debate or should I just hit you in the shins with it? :P
As long as I don't challenge it...which I am. When I'm talking enforcement, I'm really talking the post-fiat implications. In other words, determining who is a permanent partner and who isn't after we've passed the PIAA.
Bring that kick on. I played soccer all four years of high school. :P
4. If the status quo is solving, why can’t Adam and Steve get married in Virginia?
Read it again. I'm arguing status quo will solve in the long term. :P
5. Have you seen the musical episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer where the demon makes people dance really fast and then catch fire (s06e07 Once More With Feeling)? Are you getting a little warm under the collar there, shea? Cuz right now I'm cooler than cool. I’m ice cold.
a) I don't watch enough tv, so no.
b) I'm wearing a t-shirt that doesn't have a collar on it (ironically the NPDA one).
c) I just felt like putting a "c" down. ;)
steinguitar
07-27-04, 12:27 PM
I’m going straight down case (not sure if that’s shea’s order or not)
Solvency:
On the turn that this will “fuel the anti-gay agenda:” she gives no warrant for why they would use this, explanation of how it would be used, or an impact to the scenario so you’re not looking there. Also turn: demonizing a reunified family escaping oppression would rally the good guys and society too, if anything.
Enforcement: Simply, piece of paper isn’t enough to prove a spousal relationship for the INS – they background heterosexuals as well. Also, if INS background checks meant to figure out whether someone is a violent threat to the US can’t figure out that they have a permanent partner at the same time, we have bigger problems with immigration policy.
Next, she says this isn’t the place to start, but I say it is. And I have more jokes, so I win. Also, I explain how plan builds the momentum and coffers of the movement for the big fight. This means better long term chance of gay marriage.
She later argues that the SQ will solve, but with no warrant: The current political situation is stagnant and it will stay that way until the movement has a real victory (as opposed to a non-loss like FMA) - which plan provides.
Her next claim is that plan will slow immigration, but how: the INS is already equipped to handle the demands (see “enforcement”) and you would see the same number of immigrants (possibly more if countries currently coming in under quota use this provision) (psst, that was a turn)
Extend my dropped family unification impact: you bring families back together which is immeasurably beneficial to all involved. It’s uncontested.
Adv 1:
Extend the link, brink, and health care impacts. If I can establish even some uniqueness (and if I don’t, heck, I’ll call it linear), I win that HRC will be more likely to pass these bills which save lives and help families. Moreover, they move the queer community toward equality in America which is key to stopping the oppression in the status quo. (crossapply CX analysis)
On uniqueness, Shea says they’re already going mainstream, but she never answers my analysis that HRC didn’t win the FMA debate, they just didn’t lose this one time – they need a real, solid legislative victory to push them over the edge, this goes unanswered. Also, the HRC still doesn’t have the influence of the family research council = uniqueness.
I don’t need to win the gay marriage impact to win this position or round, but at the very least I’ve answered her turns elsewhere on the flow (you crossaply, I’ll crossapply). Also, my winner’s win scenario would carry through all the way to gay marriage.
Adv 2:
Shea argues “turn: this causes voter apathy which hurts democracy.” Sorry, but why are the votes of bigots important? I’ll say “turn her turn” so you know exactly what I’m doing when I say “who cares if they don’t vote” I’ll take a “skewed election” (by voluntary apathy) over gays in gulags any day.) Also, her here reasoning grants (and supercharges) my link.
Shea next argues that this delegitimizes the movement. Firstly, I don’t see how you reach the impact or the tag – we’re just passing a bill. Next, it’s no political tool – it’s a means to unify families. Also, how does letting a person’s partner into America lead to backlash? Demonization could only help the movement (see my 2 under Solvency)
Also, note that these “turns” don’t disprove that republicans will stop voting, it just argues that (a) them not voting is bad (which grants the link) and (b) political tools are bad. The only argumentation on the position itself is that I assume too much regarding internal links. You’re right, I do assume, but with warrants – extend the d, e, and f subpoints that show why we reach the terminal impacts as well as the dropped a,b, and c and you have a full advantage.
Therefore: in the status quo Bush will be reelected along with the senators and impacts. Passing plan, however, and the GOP loses its base and the election. War, famine, and death are averted. Go team.
D/A 1:
Uniqueness: she says “it forces states to recognize them,” but it has no effect on how the states treat these people, only on how they’re able to get into the country. States don’t have power over immigration anyways, so they don’t have a reason to get upset. (her uniqueness is half link story, so those right there are two no links) States aren’t recognizing the unions, though I suppose they’ll be forced to recognize that gay folks are walking around, but that’s nonunique until Santorum perfects his Gay-Be-Gone Goggles.
Link: she says that the pro-states rights senators will now try to take away more states rights. Huh? If they really are pro states rights, they’re not voting FMA. If they’re pro-gay marriage (ie“states rights” Dems) they’re not voting FMA either. Look Ma(llen), no links!*
She says this will trigger a vote in the next session, but when? There’s four weeks left after the August recess booked with appropriations bills. And after Nov. 2, the democrats will be in power (see adv 2 :P )
Impacts: FMA still won’t have the votes (see above). Next, the states rights impacts rely on (a) the FMA (dealt with last sentence) and (b) that states will be sad to lose regulation of immigration. Well, they don’t have it now. Says so in the constitution or the bill of rights or the bible or Horton hears a hoo or something. The last impact is that the gay rights movement is destroyed, but we never hear how: why would the USSC reverse a ruling they just made? They wouldn’t. She never explains how this changes mass opinion, just asserts.
*“Look Ma(llen), no links!” should be read as “Look Ma! No Hands!” like a small child would say while riding a bicycle.
steinguitar
07-27-04, 12:29 PM
That post was 1002 words. If you point of order, I will remove the last two words (a bicycle) but then one would not know what I was intendening to say and could be perplexed by the joke. Also, considering it is an explanation of how I'm saying something I don't think it should be counted in my argument words (ie, it would take the same amount of time in an ordinary round)
also, i think it's funny.
I’m going straight for the issue I spent a lot of time on, which was forgotten. So, ON TOP:
Extend my first observation at the top of the LOC. Darryl does nothing to argue against the fact that the term “permanent partner” is too ambiguous. My contention is that this bill, in itself, is flawed. Extend my “ambiguous language in legislation = bad” arguments I’ve already made. I’m not arguing that people are going to simply abuse this legislation (even though I could). The other impacts I’ve already stated are much bigger than that. First off, extend my number one impact where I tell you this gives homophobic legislators more fuel for their gay-bashing fire. If there’s a perceived “loophole” in this legislation (which is there due to the ambiguity), then Santorum and Crew will find it and exploit it. This impact alone is huge because any backlash that occurs could sway moderates away from the progress already made with gay rights. Also, extend the second impact where I tell you this will slow down the immigration process. My argument is that on top of every other requirement immigration services have to make sure are met, they also have to decide if someone meets the “permanent partner” status. This links me to the on-case turn I talk about in my solvency 2.
Solvency:
My warrant for the “fueling anti-gay agenda” is all over the place. Republicans just lost the FMA battle. They’re looking for a way to get back into this fight. The PPIA would be a federal policy, and as I’ve said before, there is no federal policy that recognizes gay unions of any kind. The PPIA is, and that’s the brink to this argument.
As to the turn, I’ll turn it and argue that it will fuel the “protect the children” BS that we’ve all seen on gay marriage. Seeing this will mobilize the religious right who will re-ignite this type of propaganda. Secondarily, I’d argue that Republican spinsters are a bit smarter than this. They won’t be focusing their attacks on the “family” perception.
I argue this isn’t the time for this kind of sweeping legislation. He says it is, but gives no analysis as to why. I give you arguments telling you that progress is being made right now, that momentum is behind gay rights’ groups, and that a sweeping federal policy like this will only destroy this progress. He says plan builds momentum: I argue that the momentum is already there, and plan destroys it.
He then argues that SQ is stagnant. I certainly don’t think so. The “big win” that he presses for can be seen with the SC case striking down anti-sodomy laws. Five years ago, the prospect of gay marriage wasn’t an issue. The fact that there is discourse on this social issue is a sign of progress. SQ will solve in the long-term. Just look to the empirical examples I’ve given you, and if that’s not good enough, just look at the current situation. We have made progress, and will continue to do so as long as we don’t mash the gas pedal down.
Adv. 1
First off, if he wanted to establish uniqueness as linear, he should’ve done so in the beginning. Coming back after I attack uniqueness saying “oh by the way, it’s linear” is abusive to me. Secondarily, he doesn’t actually address the attacks I give on uniqueness, so you can extend them. HRC groups are in the mainstream. There’s no reason to give him this advantage if it’s already happening.
He argues that HRC groups need a solid legislative victory. First off, I believe defeat of the FMA (actually, the ass-kicking of the FMA) was a big victory. Secondarily, the victory in the SC was a big step forward for gay rights groups.
Impacts: Um, he says he doesn’t need to prove the gay marriage impact…yet it’s the only one here. That’s fine. I’ll take it. He doesn’t get the gay marriage impact, therefore, there’s no impact on this advantage. Extend the attacks on this impact from my first speech.
Adv. 2
Darryl says “who cares about voter apathy?” Well, I may be a traditionalist in this sense, but every voice needs to be heard no matter how much we disagree with it. That’s the nature of democracy. However, the more important issue here is advocating the silencing of voices. Who are we to argue that some peoples’ opinions shouldn’t count? That’s a pretty repugnant claim. To get philosophical for a second, looking to Mill’s Marketplace of Ideas here; I would argue that all voices need to be heard to determine who’s correct. It’s hard to defend a bigot’s or racist’s right to be heard, but it’s still there. Furthermore, I’d argue that only participation in the system would help these people progress beyond their discriminatory beliefs. Shunning them won’t solve for this. Also, extend the skewed election impact. He grants it.
The politics turn: I tell you that use of important social issues for political gain delegitimizes the movement itself. He says he doesn’t see the connection. Look to where I tell you that it creates a mockery of the issue itself. Rather than focus on the issue’s importance, politicians use it simply for political gain. This ADV is using gay rights as a means to a political end, i.e. getting more Democrats into office. He says this is no political tool, but look to his own analysis in the PMC. Looks pretty political to me.
Extend the arguments of why he can’t guarantee his terminal impacts. There are too many assumptions here to give him these impacts.
DA
First off, Darryl doesn’t even address the uniqueness story I gave you…namely there is no federal policy that recognizes gay unions of any kind. The PPIA would force them to do that. Couples will be recognized as “permanent partners” (because that’s how they got here), which is unprecedented. He tells you states have no power over immigration, but that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about the principle of it, i.e. a gay union. States will have to face the fact that immigrants are in their state because of a gay union recognized by the USFG.
On the link, if states’ rights senators believe the federal government is taking away their rights here, the best possible way they could counter it is to pass legislation that could possibly reverse the impacts of the PPIA. The best candidate for that is the FMA. Secondarily, some of the states’ rights senators were against gay marriage, but believed the USFG was taking too large of steps. This could push them over to the Santorum camp because they’ll see the USFG as a threat.
The Republicans have already promised to continue “being jerks”. :P There’s no question that another vote will come.
Impacts: With more support, future FMA’s will be stronger. Problem is, if we sit tight and allow the movement to progress naturally, we won’t even risk this possibility. Secondarily, extend my third impact. Here I give a lot of explanation as to the nature of a social movement, which isn’t really addressed.
Voters:
1) I have no idea what a “permanent partner” is. Chances are, you don’t either because it’s never adequately explained. My ambiguity argument isn’t addressed. The PPIA legislation is fundamentally flawed. Specifically, look to the “loophole” impact I give you. It will be exploited by the far right. At that point, damage will be inflicted upon a movement that is already progressing on its own. Why take that risk? Darryl has a good idea. He wants equality for gays. Cool. Me too. But Darryl wants to risk damage to the movement that can be avoided. I give you an alternative that avoids these risks…the SQ. Also remember that this will actually slow down the immigration process.
2) Remember my arguments on the nature of social movements. My main contentions this entire round is that progress is being made at a rapid pace, and it’s empirically proven that slow and solid movements are much better in the long run. As Treebeard from Lord of the Rings states: “don’t be hasty.” ;) Don’t buy Darryl’s “SQ = stagnant” argument because any look into a newspaper will tell you different.
3) There aren’t enough impacts on the advantages to justify voting for him on a net-benefits criterion. If Darryl can prove to you that his world is better, then he wins. But he hasn’t done that. He gives you a possibility of solvency, but with a lot of risks and no additional advantages. I give you a world through the SQ where we will see the beneficial impacts, but without the risks he wants to take. When considering the future of many homosexuals in the US and abroad, I think it’s best that we take the most responsible road possible. In this case, it’s the SQ.
Thank you and good night. Thanks Darryl. This was a lot of fun. :)
steinguitar
07-27-04, 05:30 PM
I'll get my PMR up soon, I've just got to pick which drops to go for... I mean, there are so many. OH SNAP!
I'm kidding, I'm kidding. I <3 you, shea.
I second the fun-ness.
steinguitar
07-27-04, 08:22 PM
First: Healthcare and family unification. The gay marriage debate amounts to a 65-35 debate (Shea says gay marriage will be 65% likely without plan and 35% with, I say it’s the opposite) but these impacts come sooner, have an equally significant impact, and go uncontested.
Solvency turns mucky, but family unification is dropped by Shea. The thousands of children and families whose lives would be bettered by unification are the first voting issue.
Next, extend my healthcare analysis on ADV1. If HRC gets more power, they can win these important battles for family medical leave and spousal-equivalent healthcare. With 43 million uninsured in America today, every person we help lead a healthier life is a voting issue.
Housekeeping:
ADV1
Shea says HRC is mainstream post- Lawrence and FMA vote, but I tell you that FMA wasn’t a victory – just a procedural vote they didn’t lose (and sodomy laws were courts, so HRC can’t claim that victory). Also, she drops my analysis that FRC’s dominance compared to HRC’s proves uniqueness. On “linear,” I’m just saying these things will pass more likely after plan; “unique” is just a buzzword anyways. Extend the link analysis that HRC gains power/money and these programs are passed. These are smaller battles that can happen soon, possibly even in the next four weeks during the appropriations process.
ADV2
Democracy: They’re being lazy, not disenfranchised so it isn’t “repugnant.” Regardless, there’s no terminal impact to “repugnant,” democracy or skewing– though they could lead to Gay Gulags – now that’s repugnant. Hyperbole? Maybe. But terminal (and dropped.) Also, turn grants link.
delegitimization what is the impact to “delegitimized movement.” Also, why does claiming a benefit make a mockery of unifying families. Again, extend my no impact.
MY DROPPED LINK, BRINK, and IMPACTS Turn grants link, brink is dropped, and I give explanations and examples of states where this will turn the tide. There is no analysis to disprove this. Democrats win White House and Senate, which prevents wars, environmental devastation, and even an FMA vote. Remember crossapplication to the D/A?
D/A
No FMA vote because there’s no time in the 108th (“only four weeks with approps debate left” arg is dropped) and the Dems control the 109th. (remember the crossapp?) Moreover, she hasn’t shown why “states righters” will turn big government – such philosophical leanings don’t just disappear. State governments won’t recognize unions anyways, they only need acknowledge gay people exist. (nonunique: remember the Gay-Be-Gone Goggles) Lastly, no impact to mindset shift.
Top of case: I didn’t drop her backlash position, it’s answered on solvency. The far right can’t yell “save the children” because prominent, loved homosexuals (rosie o’donnel) have families. Also, attacking families humanizes and builds sympathy. Last, no loophole is articulated, just speculated.
Next, plan isn’t vague: the “partner” criteria is specified in PMC. heterosexual couple’s need proof too. Also, extend “INS already checks,” meaning no resource drain. Last, extend “immigration opportunities” turn.
So…
Opp’s only impact is FMA but:
1) HRC gets money to fight (Adv1)
2) can’t do in the 108th
3) Dems control (109th)
4) States rights sentiment and democrats are still around so failure is still assured.
SQ won’t solve: the movement needs to capitalize on the non-loss of the FMA to move forward. SQ also won’t reunify families, provide healthcare, or increase immigration.
Plan does (they go dropped) as well as averting war and environmental destruction. Government increases equality which ends the otherization of the queer community long term. This goes beyond legislation to bringing about real social change. Her only tangential response is “backlash,” but the equality revolution will triumph even over legislation.
steinguitar
07-27-04, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by shea_d
Screw you. :P
Aww, Shea, thanks, but you've got to buy me dinner first
Thanks, it was fun.
Round complete and ready for judging. syphonhail, please send your ballot to me ASAP.
Rebeccah Sharp
07-28-04, 06:47 AM
Syphonhail's a moderator and therefore can post his ballot when it's ready, in case Catbert is not available.
General Comments:
Explain your acronyms. I do not know what the HRC is – my guess would either be the Homecoming Reunion Committee or the Happy Republican Council. For some reason I do not want either of those groups gaining power. Wait…unless it is the Human Rights Commission…(looks it up)…see, I am an International Relations major…the Human Rights Commission trumps the Human Rights Committee in world affairs.
I'm wearing a t-shirt that doesn't have a collar on it (ironically the NPDA one). That is not irony; it is a coincidence. This angers me.
Linear uniqueness shift is abusive Nope. You can easily persuade someone that “even if they are gaining momentum now, more momentum is good for the movement” without it being a fundamental shift of advocacy. It is a way of saying “look, I can grant your argument, but it does not matter – silly rabbit.” Also, just saying something is abusive is not an argument, it is a complaint. A complaint such as this does not help you in the round.
Gay marriage is the only impact and he grants it . It’s not the only impact and he does not grant it – he pulls across a winners-win argument for the social movements.
Silencing people is repugnant. He does not silence them, he advocates that they should voluntarily withdraw themselves from the market place. Also, fuck ‘em.
Look at a newspaper and the movement is growing This was silly. I wanted to humor you so I went to the NYTs and typed in “gay” into their search bar for the past 30 days. The first few articles that came up (this was last night) was North Dakota bringing a vote to ban Gay marriage, the FBI ending benefits for gay partners, and France annulling its first ever gay marriage. That does not seem too fortunate for your argument when you point me to an outside source and you are on the wrong side of the debate.
Some Reasons that Rock my Decision (SRRD)
Vagueness of permanent partners
When I first read this position, my immediate response was “bullshit.” Consequently, I went back up and read the clarification that Darryl gives you, it states that the individuals must intend to stay together not know that they will for a life time. This would be interventionist of me, but I am okay doing that when your claim isn’t based on truth (as you said it was your one major objection that you are basing the whole position on). Darryl does answer this with a cross-x question (and since this is parliamentary based debate, questions are treated as part of the speech) so I think that is enough to answer it back.
Even if I give you the impacts (legislators get more fuel, slow down immigration), this is answered back on case. Legislators will not get a chance as the Dems win in 2k4 and immigration already has the tools. Also, this is a potential turn with some mitigation, full weight does not win you the round against the advantages.
Status quo I think that there might be some work towards progress, but not on the level that solves case. Also, even if this was all going to be solved within the next 5 years, the short term, immediate impacts are worth passing plan.
Darryl wins short term impacts (with long term benefits) hands down:
Family Unification (you do not need a movement to feel the love…well, sometimes it might feel like the earth is moving, or your bowels, or a part of a symphony, and that is a kind of love – but not the kind of movement I am referring to).
HRC gains power The political capital and winners win analysis for the Homecoming Reunion Committee is dropped and that gives me health care. I am one of the 70 million Americans without healthcare, so you can say that “Mike is gay for healthcare.”
Advantage 1: Darryl asserts from the beginning that the FMA denial was a “not a loss…but not a win” for the HRC, and that they need a legislative victory. Shea says “well FMA and SC,” but never really refutes the analysis until the MOC/LOR where she says FMA is a leg victory but fails to refute Darryl’s stunningly poor analysis. Still his Cali-dope trumps your Montana grass and he gets me a lil’ bit higher. HRC stills gets political capitals, some funds to slush, and some future potential victories. Especially now that they have yet to trump the FRC’s ability to promote their agenda (granted uniqueness). Darryl gets some sweetness off of advantage one and it is just the right amount that I like in my tea.
Advantage 2: The “you are oppressing the bigot” analysis is fantastically craptacular. I put my thoughts about it above. I think you might win some additional links to plan kills movements with your delegitimization but I cannot make that cross-application for you. Additionally, Darryl answers above that the focus of plan (i.e. solvency and first benefit) is family unification and immigration. I do not see how one accesses the impact of your turn, really.
This advantage is about as bad as Darryl is emo (which, on a scale from one to ten, is emotastic). However, everything but the impacts is dropped. So the dems control the white house and congress, which answers back your “republicans will check argument.” It doesn’t answer back the “you just assume the democrats will do this.” Which is almost an argument, but more of an observation. If I grant the full weight of your observation, it still answers the entirety of your DA. I also think the Democrats would (I will pick one at random) place better mercury standards.
The majority of the offense is trying to turn the GLBT rights advantage, but does not do much work for any of the immediate advantages or political claims. I think the round is pretty clearly in Steinguitar’s favor.
vBulletin® v3.6.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.