Tournament: Damus | Round: 3 | Opponent: University HS, JC | Judge: 

1. U/q overwhelms the link. The latest and most thorough polls predict Hillary has an 87 chance of winning. Katz 11/3
   Who Will Be President?; JOSH KATZ; November 3, 2016; The Upshot; The New York Times; http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html?_r=0

Hillary Clinton has an 87 chance to win. The Upshot’s elections model suggests that Hillary Clinton is favored to win the presidency, based on the latest state and national polls. A victory by Mr. Trump remains possible: Mrs. Clinton’s chance of losing is about the same as the probability that an N.F.L. kicker misses a 36-yard field goal. Note that our model is based on polls, which take days to conduct. It won’t reflect any changes in the race until the polls do.¶ From now until Election Day, we’ll update our estimates with each new poll, as well as collect the ratings of other news organizations. You can chart different paths to victory below. Here’s how our estimates have changed over time: To forecast each party’s chance of winning the presidency, our model calculates vote estimates for each state and the District of Columbia, as well as congressional districts in Maine and Nebraska, which assign electoral votes by district.

2. Reforms like the AFF are popular and politically unifying. Mic 14
Mic 14 Mic, 12-29-2014, "New Poll Shows Surprising Consensus Among Democrats and Republicans on Police Reform," https://mic.com/articles/107336/new-poll-shows-surprising-consensus-among-democrats-and-republicans-on-police-reform#.jrgQuOV1z
Recent measurements of American public opinion have painted a picture of a nation divided over the fairness of our criminal justice system along the lines of race and political ideology. Whites trust the police more than blacks; conservatives trust the police more than liberals. But a Washington Post poll reveals a rare moment of deep consensus across the political spectrum on two measures for reforming the police.∂ The survey, which was conducted after the recent non-indictment of police officers who caused the deaths of unarmed black men Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and Eric Garner in Staten Island, New York, shows that 86 of Americans support requiring that patrol officers in their communities wear video cameras while on duty, and 87 support having independent prosecutors handle oversee cases in which police kill unarmed citizens.∂ Even among Republicans who think the grand jury was right to decline to indict the police officer whose chokehold caused Garner's death this summer, 76 percent support independent prosecutors, according to the Washington Post.∂ These instances of cross-partisan agreement are noteworthy given the stark divides between liberals and conservative and whites and blacks on virtually everything else covered by the survey. For example, 80 of white Republicans consider Brown and Garner's death to be isolated incidents, while 60 of white Democrats believe they're part of a broader pattern. Blacks are twice as likely as whites to doubt the sufficiency of police training on restraining the use of force, and even more skeptical than whites on whether police are held accountable for misconduct. ∂ All this is taking place against a backdrop in which recent police brutality incidents have corresponded with whites reporting increasing faith in the police to be color blind when it comes to protecting their local community.∂ So if the nation is so deeply at odds on the fairness of the police, then what explains the points of consensus on police reform? The answer lies in the fact that body cameras and independent prosecutors can't easily be filtered through the conventional language of political ideology. Body cameras haven't (yet) been racialized or associated with pro- or anti-authoritarian sentiment, and at face value they sound fair to respondents who have by and large never had to contemplate how to improve law enforcement practices.∂ rtment routinely used racial profiling or excessive force.

Tournament: Damus | Round: 3 | Opponent: University HS, JC | Judge:
Counterinterp: The AFF may limit qualified immunity by altering the clearly established element for 4th amendment cases if they have a qualified solvency advocate in the lit.

Standards:

1. Clash – limiting qualified immunity drastically differs based on what part of it you target – specific amendments, types of cases, clearly established or reasonableness element all alter QI in radically different ways. This means plans are necessary otherwise debates become two ships passing in the night where the AFF can delink neg arguments and neg doesn’t have to respond to the specifics of the AFF. Clash key to fairness because it’s a prerequisite to either side having offense. 

2. Ground If the aff defended whole rez then they would get screwed over by tiny pics or DA’s every round, which flips and outweighs limits A. The neg’s reactive so they can tailor their args – I’ve already read the AC when they read DAs so I can’t adapt it in the 1AR B. Neg gets generics and the NR collapse so it’s worse for the aff to have to prep every DA.  

Advocacy skills is the ultimate purpose of debate and outweighs theirs since it’s key to long-term skills and defending what we believe in – fairness of this one round is less important than the knowledge we apply outside.  
And uniqueness overwhelms the link on fairness – time skew, coach disparities, and monetary inequities means the round is never fair 

A2 Limits:

1. Qualified immunity is a super small topic – there aren’t that many possible AFF’s, do some prep. 

2. Excessive force/4th amendment solves – current protests and dialogue on CJS proves it’s a major area of scholarship on the topic. Especially true cause res is specific to police.