Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[1]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[7]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[1]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-10-21 03:06:11.693
	1	+2016-10-21 03:06:11.0

Caselist.CitesClass[7]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,38 @@
	1	+Interpretation-Countries is a generic bare plural noun phrase that refers to countries in general. To clarify, the aff may not defend banning production of nuclear power in some, one, or a few countries but must ban production of nuclear power in all countries as a whole general principle
	2	+Nebel 14 Jake Nebel. graduate student in the Philosophy Department at New York University. BPhil in Philosophy (distinction), University of Oxford. “Jake Nebel on Specifying “Just Governments.” Vbriefly.com. Dec 19th 2014.
	3	+I believe that debaters shouldn’t specify a government on the living wage topic. The
	4	+AND
	5	+grip on the contrast between sentences like (1) and (2).
	6	+
	7	+Violation- (TYPE VIOLATION)
	8	+
	9	+Standards:
	10	+1) Common usage and grammar
	11	+Nebel 14 Jake Nebel. graduate student in the Philosophy Department at New York University. BPhil in Philosophy (distinction), University of Oxford. “Jake Nebel on Specifying “Just Governments.” Vbriefly.com. Dec 19th 2014.
	12	+To my ear, the generic reading is correct. I think the best evidence
	13	+AND
	14	+. I would instead either deny the resolution or suspend judgment about it.
	15	+
	16	+Common usage is the most predictable determinant of the topic and predictability forms the basis of mutual pre-round prep. This controls the internal link to education because that comes from our ability to clash and engage over different advocacies. This outweighs your arguments about parametrics good as my interp is a question of whether the aff is topical or not—if plans aren’t topical then they can’t argue that it’s more since topicality is the inherent aff burden. Even if you have any reasons that your interp is good, it doesn’t matter if the case isn’t topical.
	17	+Nebel 15 Jake Nebel graduate student in the Philosophy Department at New York University. BPhil in Philosophy (distinction), University of Oxford “The Priority of Resolutional Semantics” VBriefly 2015
	18	+By contrast, the topicality rule—i.e., that the affirmative must
	19	+AND
	20	+the first premise, not the second premise, in the argument above.
	21	+
	22	+Semantics outweighs their offense since the topicality rule justifies focusing on semantics – we prep for the topic directly
	23	+
	24	+2) Limits—you overlimit the resolution by focusing on a specific country, which constrains breath of in round discussions. Breath of discussion is good because it means we can have a wider understanding of the topic. I don’t sacrifice depth because you can still run plans and discuss specific countries as empirical examples. Also you explode the topic- they allow a ridiculous number of affs. They can defend japan, US, iran, Pakistan, Romania, or any permutation like Iran and Pakistan, or the US and Pacific islands – that’s thousands of Affs. Nearly 50 countries have nuclear reactors
	25	+
	26	+3) Predictability- there are 196 countries and permutations from which they could specify, creating an impossible research burden on the negative, whereas the affirmative knows exactly what to research- this is an independent voter because I can’t debate against position if I can’t predict it in the first place
	27	+
	28	+4) Ground—general DA’s don’t apply because they assume banning nuclear power happens everywhere. Also topic literature always flows aff because the aff can specify to certain countries that may desperately need to ban nuclear power. This means I don’t have access to a wide body of offense, which puts them at a structural advantage. Reciprocity is key to fairness for equal access to the ballot.
	29	+
	30	+5) Topical Version of the aff solves all of their offense- they can read a general principle aff and read specific countries as advantages- means they can’t justify parametrics.
	31	+
	32	+Voter: Education is a voter because it’s the only portable skill that we take from the debate activity. Fairness is a voter: your ballot asks who did the better debating which you can’t evaluate if one debate has a structural advantage
	33	+
	34	+Drop the debater a) to deter abuse in the future since wins and losses determine the activity’s direction, and b) their abuse has irreparably skewed your evaluation of substance, so drop the debater to compensate for my time lost. Drop the argument means they don’t get a topical advocacy, so don’t let them get comparative offense on substance.
	35	+
	36	+Topicality is competing interps since a) reasonability is 100 arbitrary with definitions that carry subjective interpretations, which forces intervention, b) T is about the correct interpretation of the topic so out-of-round impacts matter, and c) you can’t be reasonably topical since T functions so that either the aff is topical or isn’t.
	37	+
	38	+No RVI since a) the aff has the burden of being topical so a counter-interp only proves that they’ve met their burden and b) commits the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent, since just because you prove that you’re being fair doesn’t mean that you win. c) Causes chilling effect on legitimate abuse checking D) Disincentives substance debate since it encourages the aff to go all in on theory instead of extend substance in the 1AR. E) Bad T should be easy to beat—good responses check the time tradeoff. F) RVI’s just add another layer to the debate the aff has to win. They need to win offense to T and an RVI making it harder to affirm.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-10-21 03:06:13.842

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+everybody

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+all

ParentRound

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

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Quads

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Garland PHAM Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Sep-Oct Nebel T

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Sep-Oct broken