Refugees Negative.docx - *Refugees Negative Notes This case...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 44 pages.

**Refugees Negative**
Notes This case negative responds to the Refugees Affirmative. The negative argues, in essence, that the plan is a massive, unprecedented increase in refugee admissions, which is (a) not morally required, (b) won’t fix the U.S.’s image on the world stage, (c) will risk making the U.S. less safe, and (d) won’t work anyway due to various issues with the U.S. refugee admissions program. As the negative, you can pick which of these arguments to focus on and the responses you make will depend on the arguments the affirmative chooses for their case. Remember that ideally, you should also combine the arguments in this case negative with an offcase disadvantage or two. Topicality is also a recommended strategy against this case. Below is a brief summary of the arguments found in this file. The negative doesn’t have any specific responses to Inherency in this file, since Inherency is very clear for this case (the current administration would be extremely opposed to the Affirmative Case and has implemented the opposite policy) so it isn’t worth it for the negative to make arguments there. In response to the Refugee Leadership Advantage, the negative first argues that U.S. refugee leadership will fail no matter what, especially under President Trump, since we are refusing to engage in important international dialogue on the subject. Even if we change our own policies, we won’t be a true leader because we won’t put in the work to get other countries to follow our lead. Second, the negative argues that the judge should default to a utilitarian, consequentialist framework (greatest good for the greatest number, including the consequences of our actions) instead of adopting a rules-based moral framework, because rules-based morality ignores consequences which can actually make a seemly moral action have terrible results that end up making the world worse off than before (this moral framework sets you up well for your disadvantages and case turns). Third, the negative argues that the United States does not have a moral requirement to massively increase the number of refugees accepted because wealthy nations much closer to Syria have accepted virtually zero refugees, so the obligation should fall to them first. Fourth, that the plan is too little, too late, and that the United States has squandered whatever soft power it had on the world stage from numerous misguided policies such as withdrawing from the Iran Deal. Fifth, cuts to the personnel and budgets in the State Department will also undermine soft power because we have less qualified people to handle diplomacy. Finally, the negative argues that soft power inherently fails anyway; any influence we have from soft power is unquantifiable and many other countries resent the West, so whatever effort we do make won’t have much of an effect.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture