Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[56]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[64]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[56]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-02-05 22:38:54.200
	1	+2017-02-05 22:38:54.0

Caselist.CitesClass[64]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,54 @@
	1	+===Interp===
	2	+
	3	+
	4	+====Interpretation - the aff must defend and can only garner offense from the desirability of the hypothetical enactment of a topical policy enacted by the resolution's actors.====
	5	+
	6	+
	7	+===='Resolved' denotes a proposal to be enacted by law. ====
	8	+Words and Phrases 64 (Permanent Edition)
	9	+Definition of the word "resolve," given by Webster is "to express an
	10	+AND
	11	+," which is defined by Bouvier as meaning "to establish by law".
	12	+
	13	+
	14	+====Violation – confirmed in cx – you don't defend a policy====
	15	+
	16	+
	17	+====Net Benefits:====
	18	+
	19	+
	20	+===Limits===
	21	+
	22	+
	23	+====They destroy limits by allowing any possible aff – the topic is the only predictable point of preparation for both sides and is a key upper limit on the number of positions they can defend – only a precise and limited res creates deliberation on a point of mutual difference and promotes effective exchange====
	24	+**Steinberg and Freeley 13:** * David, Lecturer in Communication studies and rhetoric. Advisor to Miami Urban Debate League. Director of Debate at U Miami, Former President of CEDA. And ** Austin, attorney who focuses on criminal, personal injury and civil rights law, JD, Suffolk University, Argumentation and Debate, Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making, 121-4
	25	+Debate is a means of settling differences, so there must be a controversy,
	26	+AND
	27	+particular point of difference, which will be outlined in the following discussion.
	28	+
	29	+
	30	+====Outweighs: ====
	31	+Quality of discussion – even if it's true that the scholarship they introduce is valuable, if I can't answer the aff then there's no point to reading the position. Debate's unique value is that it forces engagement and contestation of issues – but this is impossible if I don't even know what to prepare for
	32	+
	33	+
	34	+===Polarization===
	35	+
	36	+
	37	+====Defending the topic is hard because it requires you to admit you could be wrong—that generates competitive respect and dialogue. Voting aff reinforces group polarization and choir preaching====
	38	+Talisse 5 – philosophy professor at Vanderbilt (Robert, Philosophy and Social Criticism, 31.4, "Deliberativist responses to activist challenges")
	39	+Nonetheless, the deliberativist conception of reasonableness differs from the activist's in at least one
	40	+AND
	41	+of justice. Insofar as the activist denies this, he is unreasonable.
	42	+
	43	+====Limits internal link turn exclusion—empiricism is on our side—an experimental debate tournament with no topic caused students to perceive a lack of educational value—this discouraged them from participating in debate—====
	44	+
	45	+
	46	+====The vast majority of students thought it was unfair.====
	47	+**Preston 3**—Thomas Preston, Professor of communications at the University of Missouri-St. Louis ~~Summer 2003, "No-topic debating in Parliamentary Debate: Students and Critic Reactions," http://cas.bethel.edu/dept/comm/npda/journal/vol9no5.pdf~~
	48	+The study involved forty-three students and nine critics who participated in a parliamentary
	49	+AND
	50	+indicated that the no-topic debate gave an advantage to the Opposition.
	51	+
	52	+====fairness is a prerequisite to any form of discussion – turns all your K impacts. Galloway 7====
	53	+Galloway 7 (Ryan Galloway, Samford Debate Coach, Professor of Communication Studies at Samford, Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28, 2007
	54	+Debate as a dialogue sets an argumentative table, where ~~allows~~ all parties ~~to~~ receive a relatively fair opportunity to voice their position. Anything that fails to allow participants to have their position articulated denies one side of the argumentative table a fair hearing. The affirmative side is set by the topic and fairness requirements. While affirmative teams have recently resisted affirming the topic, in fact, the topic selection process is rigorous, taking the relative ground of each topic as its central point of departure. Setting the affirmative reciprocally sets the negative. The negative crafts approaches to the topic consistent with affirmative demands. The negative crafts disadvantages, counter-plans, and critical arguments premised on the arguments that the topic allows for the affirmative team. According to fairness norms, each side sits at a relatively balanced argumentative table. When one side takes more than its share, competitive equity suffers. However, it also undermines the respect due to the other involved in the dialogue. When one side excludes the other, it fundamentally denies the personhood of the other participant (Ehninger, 1970, p. 110). A pedagogy of debate as dialogue takes this respect as a fundamental component. A desire to be fair is a fundamental condition of a dialogue that takes the form of a demand for equality of voice. Far from being a banal request for links to a disadvantage, fairness is a demand for respect, a demand to be heard, a demand that a voice backed by literally months upon months of preparation, research, and critical thinking not be silenced. Affirmative cases that suspend basic fairness norms operate to exclude particular negative strategies. Unprepared, one side comes to the argumentative table unable to meaningfully participate in a dialogue. They are unable to "understand what 'went on…'" and are left to the whims of time and power (Farrell, 1985, p. 114). Hugh Duncan furthers this line of reasoning: Opponents not only tolerate but honor and respect each other because in doing so they enhance their own chances of thinking better and reaching sound decisions. Opposition is necessary because it sharpens thought in action. We assume that argument, discussion, and talk, among free an informed people who subordinate decisions of any kind, because it is only through such discussion that we ~~to~~ reach agreement which binds us to a common cause…If we are to be equal…relationships among equals must find expression in many formal and informal institutions (Duncan, 1993, p. 196-197). Debate compensates for the exigencies of the world by offering a framework that maintain~~ing~~s equality for the sake of the conversation (Farrell, 1985, p. 114). For example, an affirmative case on the 2007-2008 college topic might defend neither state nor international action in the Middle East, and yet claim to be germane to the topic in some way. The case essentially denies the arguments that state action is oppressive or that actions in the international arena are philosophically or pragmatically suspect. Instead of allowing for the dialogue to be modified by the interchange of the affirmative case and the negative response, the affirmative subverts any meaningful role to the negative team, preventing them from offering effective "counter-word" and undermining the value of a meaningful exchange of speech acts. Germaneness and other substitutes for topical action do not accrue the dialogical benefits of topical advocacy.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-02-05 22:38:55.558

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Adam Torson

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Palo Alto Colin Fee

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+56

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+6

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Brentwood Jackson Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+1 - Defend the topic or else I will be unhappy

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Golden Desert