TO BREATHE FREE

Eastern Evidence Argument Handbook, 1994-95, Volume XXI, University of Vermont

Editor and Publisher:
Alfred C. Snider

Assistant Editors:
Sallie Chafer
Josue Hernandez
Paul Kerr
Andrea Looby
John Gordon Miller
Iknaton Rhajik Nzaddi
Maxwell Schnurer
Paula Skowron
Cheryl Wilson
Steve Woods

Lawrence Debate Union
University of Vermont

DEBATE PUBLICATIONS
475 Main St., UVM
Burlington, VT 05405

802-656-0097 voice
802-656-4275 fax

TO BREATHE FREE

Table of Contents:

One: Topicality [T]
Definitions and interpretations of the key words in the resolution.

Two: General Negative [N]
Arguments against the harms of immigration and major approaches to reforming immigration policy.

Three: Disadvantages [D]
Complete disadvantages to use against affirmatives who either increase or decrease immigration.

Four: Counterplans [C]
Alternatives to immigration reform proposed by the negative.

Five: Affirmative Inherency [AI]
Extent of immigration, state of current regulations, and barriers to reform found in the status quo.

Six: Affirmative Significance [AS]
Harms of increased immigration and the system which regulates it.

Seven: Affirmative Proposals [AP]
Workability of various approaches to immigration reform, both general and specific.

TO BREATHE FREE

Table of Contents:

One: Topicality [T] Definitions and interpretations of the key words in the resolution.

Two: General Negative [N] Arguments against the harms of immigration and major approaches to reforming immigration policy.

Three: Disadvantages [D] Complete disadvantages to use against affirmatives who either increase or decrease immigration.

Four: Counterplans [C] Alternatives to immigration reform proposed by the negative.

Five: Affirmative Inherency [AI] Extent of immigration, state of current regulations, and barriers to reform found in the status quo.

Six: Affirmative Significance [AS] Harms of increased immigration and the system which regulates it.

Seven: Affirmative Proposals [AP] Workability of various approaches to immigration reform, both general and specific.

One: Topicality [T]
Definitions and interpretations of the key words in the resolution.

Two: General Negative [N]
Arguments against the harms of immigration and major approaches to reforming immigration policy.

Three: Disadvantages [D]
Complete disadvantages to use against affirmatives who either increase or decrease immigration.

Four: Counterplans [C]
Alternatives to immigration reform proposed by the negative.

Five: Affirmative Inherency [AI]
Extent of immigration, state of current regulations, and barriers to reform found in the status quo.

Six: Affirmative Significance [AS]
Harms of increased immigration and the system which regulates it.

Seven: Affirmative Proposals [AP]
Workability of various approaches to immigration reform, both general and specific.