Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[13]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[28]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[13]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-10-14 03:38:02.624
	1	+2016-10-14 03:38:02.0

Caselist.CitesClass[28]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,25 @@
	1	+====Interpretation: the aff should ONLY defend enactment of a topical plan—that means a state policy action====
	2	+
	3	+
	4	+====Vote neg –====
	5	+
	6	+
	7	+====1. Preparation and clash—changing the topic post facto manipulates balance of prep, which structurally favors the aff because they speak last and permute alternatives—strategic fairness is key to engaging a well-prepared opponent – they monopolize strategy and subvert any meaningful neg role ====
	8	+Ryan **Galloway 7**, Samford Comm prof, Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28, 2007
	9	+Debate as a dialogue sets an argumentative table, where all parties receive a relatively
	10	+AND
	11	+substitutes for topical action do not accrue the dialogical benefits of topical advocacy.
	12	+
	13	+
	14	+====2. Only maintaining a limited topic of discussion and a clear stasis for both teams provides the necessary and requisite foundation for decision-making and advocacy skills and ensures clash within debates – even if they are contestable, that is different from being valuably debatable, which link turns education arguments====
	15	+**Steinberg and Freeley '8** *Austin J. Freeley is a Boston based attorney who focuses on criminal, personal injury and civil rights law, AND **David L. Steinberg , Lecturer of Communication Studies @ U Miami, Argumentation and Debate: Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making pp45-
	16	+Debate is a means of settling differences, so there must be a difference of
	17	+AND
	18	+particular point of difference, which will be outlined in the following discussion.
	19	+
	20	+
	21	+====Topicality is a call for engagement – contestation and deliberation allows for testing of the affs ideas which allows us to defend ourselves against the best version of your opponent which bolsters advocacy and allows us to actualize the politics of the 1AC. Having a devil's advocate is critical to avoid sliding to dogmatism and groupthink====
	22	+**Talisse, 5** Vanderbilt philosophy professor Robert, "Deliberativist responses to activist challenges", Philosophy and Social Criticism, 31.4, project muse
	23	+Nonetheless, the deliberativist conception of reasonableness differs from the activist's in at least one
	24	+AND
	25	+of justice. Insofar as the activist denies this, he is unreasonable.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-10-14 03:38:04.633

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+rosero, nebel

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+lake highland aa

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+13

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Cambridge Rindge Sussman Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+1 - framework

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+bronx rr