Notes on the 1AC

Download 1,39 Mb.
Date conversion26.03.2017
Size1,39 Mb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   59

Notes on the 1AC

Image- I think 100% we need to /should read a terror impact in the 1AC for the image case if you all are worried about rando image CP- the reason is that if we put it in the 1AC we can read the 1-2mn of terror impact stuff we need to set up the trade off add on. So your strategy vs this CP becomes more diverse
1AC- SP solves terrorism

1NC- CP to solve SP

2AC- extends terrorism, drops bomb of t/off add on (2 cards)

Block- goes as normal

1AR- if we are losing CP solvency debate kicks image advantage and blows up the t/off add on huge for 2 mns or so
I think our travel ban key args are pretty good but its good to have options

1AC K- Peters- this should be in every 1Ac regardless of advantages- in addition to being good it sets up the Terror add on
In general I wouldn't skimp on solvency

Strategy Notes

If you debate a CP that requires you to go for an Add On (or if you want to go for an add on vs the sq) there are blocksin here that require you to read a lot of evidence. THIS IS ESSENTIAL- the reason people don't win on add ons is because they don't get developed enough/judges decide they don't outweigh politics. Here is a map of how a debate would look if you chose to employ the add on strategy
1AC reads terrorism

1NC reads "lift a different sanction" CP

2AC extends terrorism, reads 2 cards on trade/off internal link, answers imapct defense
This is pretty standard. In the 1AR however you will want to kick parts of the case the CP arguably solves for and focus on terrorism- reading a minimum of 5-10 extension cards- you have to have a card on every neg argument- some of them you will already have from 1AC/2AC- but on key internal links like the magnitude of the tradeoff, the importance of breaking up financial flows etc- you absolutely haveto make sure you have all the key cards you need. This will require 1-2 minutes of 1AR time.
So if the neg block is like

CP, Politics, case defense- like most of westminsters blocks are- you in the 1AR are kicking all non terror portions of the case - this frees up a lot of time as you don't have to deal with case defense OR debate the CP solvency args (becuase there is no way the CP solves your t/off internal link). So the 1AR would be like
-2mns on terror add on

-3 mns on politics
With that 3mn on politics I would spend 2 mn extending U/link turns and then either 1mn on defensive args (like thumpers) so that you have a 2AR that is add on/defense or a 2AR that kicks terror add on and just goes for politics link turns- or i would use that 1 mn to extend theory
The idea here is that you have multiple strategies in the debate- that makes it hard for the 2NR to allocate time and allows you to take advantage of their weaknesses.
2AC Add on Tips
Vs any CP that doesn't lift the ban

-terror blow up (add on if you read image)

-Science diplomacy add on (disease add on optional)

-on politics focus on TB specific link turns - dont read as much cuba link defense because the CP should theoretically link to this and they need specific links
VS Agent CP

-exec power add on (this will need to be blown up in the 1AR hugely)

-way more time on link/impact turns to any politics net benefit

-theory/perm in 1AR FOR SURE
VS Cuba condition

-OAS add on

-I think the prez power add on applies here as well since the CP isn't unilateral action

-Tons of no leverage/conditions fail cards

-theory/perm also an option
VS Process (study group etc)

-absolutely need to go for theory or impact turns to the net benefit- most of the time these strategies will claim to "solve" link turns to politics because they result in the plan

-Prez power add on is possible - will need good "CP doesn't solve" explanation 


Plan Options

Option 1- this makes perming just about any CP easier becuase it is so vague/stupid- so if you are worried about some sort of process arg I would read this one

The executive branch should substantially reduce travel restrictions to Cuba
I don't really know if you would want to read this- probably just stick to the above unless you have a persnickety judge who votes on things like aspec/vagueness. The benefits to the below plan are all things that help vs teams that defend the SQ and I assume no one will
The president should change all specific categories into general license categories with regards to travel to Cuba


Travel ban violates constitutional right to travel

CDA 9 — Center for Democracy in the Americas—an independent, non-profit organization focused on reforming U.S. policy toward Latin America, 2009 (“Center for Democracy in the Americas Statement on Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act,” March 31st, Available Online at, Accessed 01-29-2014)

Washington, DC – With Senators Dorgan and Enzi unveiling their Freedom to Travel to Cuba legislation (S.428) and its list of 20 cosponsors today, Sarah Stephens, executive director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas, released the following statement: “This legislation attacks a core contradiction of US-Cuba policy: namely, that the right way to express our views on political freedom to Cubans is by stopping Americans from traveling to their island. “President Obama is on the right track by restoring the rights of Cuban-Americans to visit and support their families, but we need to make clear that the constitutional right to travel belongs to all Americans no matter what their ethnic background or national origin might be. “Under George Bush, we had ‘travel for nearly none’; under Barack Obama, we have progressed to ‘travel for some’; and under this legislation we can realize the goal of ‘travel for all’. “All of our goals – for U.S.-Cuba policy, for regional diplomacy, for boosting the U.S. economy, and for advancing our values and remaking our nation’s image–are best served by replacing our policy of isolation with engagement starting with ‘travel for all’. We thank Senator Dorgan and his colleagues for introducing this legislation.” The Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act - Prohibits the President from regulating or prohibiting travel to or from Cuba by U.S. citizens or legal residents or any of the transactions ordinarily incident to such travel, except in time of war or armed hostilities between the United States and Cuba, or of imminent danger to the public health or the physical safety of U.S. travelers. A companion measure (H.R. 874) has been introduced by Representatives Delahunt and Flake with 121 cosponsors. Their press conference – with members of the Cuba Working Group and Cuban American leaders – takes place April 2.

Disparate travel policy enforcement violates equal protection clause

Valdés 9 — Nelson P. Valdés, Emeritus Professor of Sociology at the University of New Mexico, Director of the Cuba-L Project, 2009 (“Why Obama’s New Cuba Rules Violate the Constitution,” CounterPunch, March 18th, Available Online at, Accessed 01-28-2014)

Section 621 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 authorizes Cuban ancestry persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to travel to Cuba to visit close relatives for an unlimited period of time once every 12 months and to engage in travel-related transactions at the "maximum per diem rate" in effect at the time of travel. The Cuban Americans will be permitted, as well, to send money to their relatives. This "initiative" has been described as a change in policy toward Cuba. The guidelines to be implemented by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the US Treasury Department do not allow non-Cuban ancestry Americans to travel to the island, something that was permissible before June 6, 2004. The new ruling has serious and profound legal consequences. The new rules violate the equal protection under the law that is supposedly secured for all Americans. In other words, advantageous and preferential treatment is provided to a set of people of a particular national origin [Cubans]. This unusual type of discriminatory advantage [my terminology] based solely on national origin and national ancestry is one in which the majority of the American population is discriminated while a minority is benefited. In other words, a different standard on the right to travel to Cuba is used for Cuban ancestry persons and the rest of the population. One enjoys the right to travel; the majority is denied the same right. Usually, discrimination refers to a situation in which a particular minority group of people is denied rights. In that sense discrimination is negative. Yet, in this particular case, discrimination grants people rights that others are not permitted to enjoy. Hence, affirmative discrimination should not be confused with affirmative action – a policy by which a minority is given the resources to enjoy the same rights as the majority of the population. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of national origin. The ethnic traits of Cubans give them a comparative advantage that is not accorded to ANY other ethnic group in the United States. Such a comparative advantage, of course, implies a negation of equal protection. It should be noted that if a US citizens marries a Cuban, then he/she can travel to the island as well. Thus, the concept of national origin does not refer to merely coming from Cuba. And American could obtain the right to travel, but only through marriage to a person of Cuban ancestry. Hence, the right of an American to travel is enhanced when that person marries a person who can claim to be from Cuba, or to have an ancestor who was Cuban. Thus, the US Congress in making an exception of the Cubans’ right to travel have violated the Equal Rights Act as well as the Constitutional right to travel that applies to all US citizens. Although I am a Cuban American and benefit from the new rules, I think it is an outrage that such a right is denied to people who do not have a familial connection with Cuba. Why such a differential policy that limits the right to travel of so many American citizens? How can any one sustain a foreign policy rooted in a two-tier classification of the people of the United States? Under the new rules, permanent resident aliens from a Cuban ancestry in the US will enjoy a right of travel that non Cuban ancestry US citizens do not have. Hence, we are confronted with a clear and obvious violation of the 14th Amendment since non-Cuban ancestry citizens of the United States are considered members of an inferior or dependent nationality and a non participant in the enjoyment of a right granted to others. Such inequality treats the broad majority of American citizens who are not of Cuban ancestry as second class citizens when it comes to the right to travel. The Supreme Court’s equal protection jurisprudence has established that all legislation identifying national origin for differential treatment should be considered "suspect" and subject to strict scrutiny. [1] Moreover, the right to unconstrained travel is founded on principles of non-discrimination and equal citizenship. That is why, the present policy on travel to Cuba and its unequal application should be rejected. Every US citizen and resident alien should have the right and freedom to travel to Cuba, if they wish to do so.
Judge can't vote to violate the constitution

Carter 87Steven Carter, Professor of Law at Yale University, 1987 (“From Sick Chicken to Synar: The Evolution and Subsequent De-Evolution of the Separation of Powers,” Brigham Young University Law Review, Issue 3, Available Online at, Accessed 01-29-2014, p. 751-752)

The problem with this use of our burgeoning public policy science, an inevitable one in an area of theory driven by instrumental rationality, is that the law itself is stripped of the aura of uniqueness which is assigned to it in liberal theory. The law becomes all too mutable, and is left as no more than one of the means that must be tested against its efficacy in achieving the desired end. The Constitution, which is after all a species of law, is thus quite naturally viewed as a potential impediment to policy, a barrier that must be adjusted, through interpretation or amendment, more often than preservation of government under that constitution is viewed as a desirable policy in itself. In this the modern student of policy is like the modem moral philosopher - and like a good number of constitutional theorists as well - in denigrating the value of preserving any particular process and exalting the desirable result. But constitutionalism assigns enormous importance to process, and consequently assigns costs, albeit perhaps intangible ones. to violating the constitutional process. For the constitutionalist, as for classical liberal democratic theory, the autonomy of the people themselves, not the achievement of some well-intentioned government policy is the ultimate end of which the government exists. As a consequence, no violation of the means the people have approved for pursuit of policy - here, the means embodied in the structural provisions of the Constitution - can be justified through reference to the policy itself as the end. 
Freedom of movement is a form of protected speech- travel ban amounts to censorship

Woods 96 — Jeanne M. Woods, Associate Professor at Loyola University School of Law, holds an LLB from Temple University School of Law, 1996 (“Travel That Talks: Toward First Amendment Protection for Freedom of Movement,” The George Washington Law Review (65 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 106), November, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Lexis-Nexis)

The establishment of a right of free expression ... constrains the decision-making process in the direction of free expression. n12 The political philosophy of democratic constitutionalism presupposes the belief that the individual possesses certain inherent, inviolable rights against which the state may not transgress. n13 Under the social contract theory of the state, the preservation of rights essential to individual autonomy is a precondition to the surrender of sovereignty to the political majority. n14 These individual "moral rights" were brought into U.S. law through the adoption of a written Constitution, specifically in the Bill of Rights and the Reconstruction amendments. n15 Freedom of movement is one such moral right, a value deeply ingrained in Anglo-American history. n16 This right finds its constitutional source in the normative values of freedom of speech and conscience embodied in the First Amendment. n17 Freedom of movement, like freedom of speech, promotes the values of individual self-realization and self-determination. n18 The right to freedom of expression also has been grounded in the normative principle of self-government. n19 John Stuart Mill, a firm advocate of the argument from individual autonomy, viewed free speech as essential to the quest for "truth" in public affairs. n20 Alexander Meiklejohn's theory of free speech emphasizes the place of the individual within the collective self-governing body, noting that "the welfare of the community requires that those who decide issues shall understand them." n21 The dialogical theory of rights enlarges the self-government hypothesis, similarly stressing the role of individual speech and inquiry in the collective decisionmaking process. n22 This approach builds on an underlying premise of the First Amendment: that expression has special value in the context of dialogue. n23 The theory emphasizes the concept of free speech as enabling ra- [*109] tional decisionmaking, n24 and advances the principle of open discussion as key to the "ability to entertain alternatives, to take a fresh point of view." n25 Paul Chevigny demonstrates that dialogue is a philosophical and psychological human need, n26 the absence of which renders it impossible for the individual and society to "understand meanings and solve problems." n27 The right to freedom of association is also inherent in the theory of dialogue rights. n28 Through this freedom, expression and inquiry are often realized or manifested, and dialogue is facilitated and enhanced. Finally, freedom of speech is a prerequisite to social and political change. Advocacy - for change or for the status quo - is one of the most important functions of free speech in our society. n29 The historical context in which the expressive rights were championed and achieved - the struggle against the feudal monarchy - fully supports the protected position of the right to advocacy. n30 It is the premise of this Essay that freedom of movement, as an aspect of freedom of expression, association, and inquiry, n31 promotes the normative values of constitutional democracy: individual autonomy and self-determination, self-realization, truth-seeking, understanding, problem-solving, self-government, and social change. This Essay also posits that the scientific and technological advances that have transformed modern society have altered fundamentally the social and cultural context in which speech is understood and defined. Today, "any adequate conception of freedom of speech must ... draw upon several strands of theory in order to protect a rich variety of expressional modes." n32 Concurring in Aptheker v. Secretary of State, n33 a Cold War era right to travel case, Justice Douglas emphasized: Freedom of movement is the very essence of our free society, setting us apart. Like the right of assembly and the right of association, it often makes all other rights meaningful - knowing, studying, arguing, exploring, conversing, observing and even thinking. Once the right to travel is curtailed, all other rights suffer ... n34 [*110] Thus, freedom of movement, specifically in the context of international travel, n35 should be protected fully under the First Amendment. This Essay will address primarily the restrictions on this right imposed by United States economic embargo laws. n36
Psychic pain resulting from limits on expression outweigh death

Jon Kay, was “awarded a first class degree by the university of Greenwich, and according to his website he ‘”can juggle three balls, BUT not four”…. And 6-16-04'S%20FIRST%20AMENDMENT.HTML

George Orwell’s 1984 is many things. It is an indictment of totalitarianism. It is a dystopic science fiction fantasy. It is political satire. Perhaps more than anything, however, it is a book about the psychic pain of censorship. In Orwell’s nightmare world, the surface of the globe is divided into three warring states, each a totalitarian dictatorship far more repressive than any the real world has yet known:   By comparison with that existing to-day, all the tyrannies of the past were half-hearted and inefficient….Part of the reason for this was that in the past no government had the power to keep its citizens under constant surveillance. The invention of print, however, made it easier to manipulate public opinion, and the film and the radio carried the process further. With the development of television, and the technical advance which made it possible to receive and transmit simultaneously on the same instrument, private life came to an end. Every citizen, or at least every citizen important enough to be worth watching, could be kept for twenty-four hours a day under the eyes of the police, and in the sound of official propaganda, with all other channels of communication closed. The possibility of enforcing not only complete obedience to the will of the State, but complete uniformity of opinion on all subjects, now existed.   Under Orwell’s conception of the totalitarian state, war, repression, torture, and propaganda are all merely the outward instruments which assist the state to lay siege to the human mind. Absolute power can only exist indefinitely if wielded by infallible and omnipotent leaders. But, since no human is infallible or omnipotent - even in a totalitarian regime - the very fabric of truth must be mangled in order to provide the illusion of infallibility and omnipotence. To perform the task of obliterating objective truth, the past must be continually rewritten and human memories must be wrenched into conformity. One of the central themes of 1984 is the fundamental incompatibility between totalitarian political rule and independent thought. In this sense, 1984 reflects Orwell’s belief that the destruction of objective truth is a more dangerous consequence of totalitarianism than gulags and truncheons. Orwell despised all brands of nationalistic dogma - but he had a special contempt and distrust for Stalinist Communism and Nazism because he saw that propaganda in the service of a fuehrer-centered power clique threatened the idea of objective truth in a special way. Orwell grasped before anyone else that Stalin and Hitler challenged the mental independence of their subjects in a way that capitalist, religious and feudal despots of the past had not. Since total outward conformity is necessary for survival in Orwell’s nightmare world, the human concept of self collapses to an abstraction - but that does not mean that it disappears altogether. Because he at least has dominion over his own mind, the heretic Winston Smith, 1984’s protagonist, is very much a real human who commands the readers’ total empathy. The fact that he lives in a world without physical freedom and dignity is irrelevant. He is human because he has the power to remember past events and to love others and to control his own thoughts. The recanted Winston Smith of 1984’s final pages, however, is not nearly a true human being - though he actually enjoys more physical freedom and more dignity than his human precursor. His humanity has been ripped out in the Ministry of Love. The physical death which awaits him is an afterthought to the annihilation he has already suffered. Human life loses a good deal of its value when the physical self is not free. The lesson of 1984 is that this loss pales compared to the nullification of the human spirit which results when a human loses control of his own thinking processes. The most important political struggle is that which takes place between individuals and society for control of the inner mind. Under the Orwellian rubric, the bounds of freedom of speech must be defined in the shadow of this struggle.

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   59

The database is protected by copyright © 2016
send message

    Main page