Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[76]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[77]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[76]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-02-19 05:46:48.348
	1	+2017-02-19 05:46:48.0

Caselist.CitesClass[77]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,17 @@
	1	+====Framework interpretation: The aff should win only by proving the desirability of their post-fiat advocacy, or the truth of the resolution; the ballot should not endorse a debater's pre-fiat speech act.====
	2	+
	3	+
	4	+====Violation:====
	5	+
	6	+
	7	+====Prefer:====
	8	+
	9	+
	10	+====1. Constructive engagement ====
	11	+
	12	+
	13	+====2. Policy debates over racial issues are productive and important. Meaningful dialogue about what actions the government should take overcomes the conversational impasse and paves the way for material change. Disavowing the policy consequences of one's ideological positions makes things worse, not better. ====
	14	+**Bracey 6** — Christopher A. Bracey, Associate Professor of Law and Associate Professor of African and African American Studies at Washington University in St. Louis, holds a B.S. from the University of North Carolina and a J.D. from Harvard Law School, 2006 ("The Cul De Sac of Race Preference Discourse," Southern California Law Review (79 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1231), September, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Lexis-Nexis)
	15	+Robust dialogue on public policy matters also promotes the individual growth of the dialogue participants
	16	+AND
	17	+morally just to the extent that it retains fidelity to the moral imperative.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-02-19 05:46:49.142

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+jeremy dang

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+lex vv

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+38

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+4

Team

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

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+1 - framework v3

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+harvard