Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[26]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[23]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[26]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-10-16 14:18:48.159
	1	+2016-10-16 14:18:48.0

Caselist.CitesClass[23]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,28 @@
	1	+A. Interp: The aff must defend that two or more countries prohibit the production of nuclear power. “Countries” in the resolution is a plural noun which implicates more than one country. Scocco 07
	2	+Daniel Scocco, 2007 (English Grammar 101: Plural Form of Nouns. Online. Internet. Accessed May 13, 2014 at http://www.dailywritingtips.com/english-grammar-101-plural-form-of-nouns/)
	3	+The English language has both regular and irregular plural forms of nouns. The most common case is when you need to add -s to the noun. For example one car and two cars.
	4	+
	5	+Countries is definitely plural. Meriam-Webster
	6	+“Country”, Meriam-Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/countries
	7	+country plural countries 1 : an indefinite usually extended expanse of land
	8	+
	9	+B. Violation: The plan only prohibits nuclear power in one country
	10	+
	11	+C) The standard is jurisdiction: the resolution they agreed to debate pluralizes countries for a reason. Outweighs all pragmatic standards:
	12	+
	13	+1) Topicality is a constitutive rule of the activity, they agreed to debate the topic when they came to the tournament, and they should be held to that agreement. Tournament invitation says we are debating September/October – not a different topic.
	14	+
	15	+2) You only have jurisdiction to vote on topical advocacies, you can’t vote affirmative if they haven’t affirmed.
	16	+
	17	+3) Grammar is the most objective since it doesn’t rely on arbitrary determinants of what constitutes the best type of debate – it’s the only impact you can evaluate. This also means ground and education arguments beg the question of what type of ground they are entitled to in the first place. T
	18	+
	19	+4) It’s the only stasis point we know before the round so it controls the internal link to engagement, and there’s no way to use ground if debaters aren’t prepared to defend it.
	20	+
	21	+
	22	+D) Voting issue: you can’t vote for the aff regardless of fairness or education if they don’t meet the resolutional burden. Hold them accountable for their interp – topical advocacy frames the debate.
	23	+
	24	+Competing interps since A) reasonability invites arbitrary judge intervention based on preference rather than argumentation and encourages a race to the bottom in which debaters exploit a judge’s tolerance for questionable argumentation. B) they cant be reasonably topical
	25	+
	26	+No RVIs:
	27	+A) Topicality is an aff burden, you don’t win just because you meet that burden, just like you wouldn’t win for meeting the burden of having inherency
	28	+B) They incentivize debaters to go all in in theory and bait it with abusive practices, killing substantive clash on other flows

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-10-16 14:18:51.396

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+David Dosch

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Lynbrook NS

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+26

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Harvard Westlake Chaudhary Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+SEPT-OCT T-Plural v2

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+St Marks