Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[27]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[26]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[27]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-10-16 14:22:44.471
	1	+2016-10-16 14:22:44.0

Caselist.CitesClass[26]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,41 @@
	1	+A: West’s Encyclopedia of American Law defines nuclear power as:
	2	+"Nuclear Power." West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. 2008. The Gale Group 16 Aug. 2016 http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Nuclear+Power
	3	+A form of energy produced by an atomic reaction, capable of producing an alternative source of electrical power to that supplied by coal, gas, or oil. The dropping of the atom bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, by the United States in 1945 initiated the atomic age. Nuclear energy immediately became a military weapon of terrifying magnitude. For the physicists who worked on the atom bomb, the promise of nuclear energy was not solely military. They envisioned nuclear power as a safe, clean, cheap, and abundant source of energy that would end society's dependence on fossil fuels. At the end of World War II, leaders called for the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
	4	+
	5	+B: The define nuclear weapons – a) doesn’t defend electrical power and b) weapons aren’t used as power.
	6	+
	7	+
	8	+C. Standards
	9	+1. Legal definition: NPT, Nuclear Weapons Feezone across Africa, Japan giving up nuclear weapons all prove they are different and use different regulatory mechanisms. And our definition of power comes from an encyclopedia of American Law, which proves we have the most precise legal definition.
	10	+
	11	+Legal definition controls the i/l into critique because having debates about concepts in the way they don’t get applied makes us lazy advocates where our theories and advocacy can’t affect change in the world.
	12	+
	13	+Engagement controls the I/l to any education or advocacy skills offense - Galloway 07
	14	+
	15	+Ryan, “DINNER AND CONVERSATION AT THE ARGUMENTATIVE TABLE: RECONCEPTUALIZING DEBATE AS AN ARGUMENTATIVE DIALOGUE”, Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28 (2007)
	16	+
	17	+Debate as a dialogue sets an argumentative table, where all parties 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 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 maintains 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.
	18	+
	19	+
	20	+Also bad for procedural fairness because it makes the debate unpredictable and removes discussion from the way it’s discussed in the topic, which pidegon wholes the neg into a self-serving discussion where we only get generics.
	21	+
	22	+2. Core Controversy - Contemporary debates separate the two – the debate about nuclear power is about. Debates about nuclear power are about energy. Herbst 07
	23	+“New Debate Over Nuclear Option,” Moira Herbst, 3/26/07, Bloomberg.
	24	+In recent years, as prices for oil have surged and concerns over global warming have grown, experts around the world have debated ways to develop alternatives to traditional energy, from using corn for ethanol to harnessing wind for electricity. And governments from India to Britain to the U.S. are considering whether to make more use of a long-standing, but controversial energy source: nuclear power.¶ In the U.S., politicians as diverse as President George W. Bush and onetime rival Al Gore have expressed interest in expanding nuclear power (see BusinessWeek.com, 3/21/07, "Gore Rings a Green Alarm"). A key reason is nuclear power's reputation for being clean, because such plants typically don't generate the carbon dioxide that contributes to global warming. Just this month, Exelon (EXC) won approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a site on which they could build the first new U.S. nuclear power plant since 1979.¶ The controversy, of course, has long been over the hazards of using radioactive materials to produce energy. Twenty-eight years ago this week, on Mar. 28, 1979, an accident at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania sparked protests against nuclear plants in the U.S. The movement was solidified seven years later by the Chernobyl meltdown in the Soviet Union. Environmental groups such as the Sierra Club remain staunchly opposed to nuclear power.
	25	+
	26	+Key to engagement because the central controversy of the topic is what the most literature and pre round prep centers on, so we have better ways to engage the aff. They also skew any preround prep, which means their discussion is bad.
	27	+
	28	+3. Limits – they explode the topic by letting the aff tangentially defend anything, makes it impossible for the neg to prep.
	29	+
	30	+4. Topical version of the AFF – defend energy and say that the criticism spills over
	31	+
	32	+D. Vote on substantive engagement: otherwise we’re speaking without debating and there’s nothing to separate us from dueling oratory. It also creates the most valuable long-term skills since we need to learn how to defend our beliefs in any context, like politics.
	33	+
	34	+Drop the debater on T:
	35	+
	36	+A. Hold them accountable for their interp – a topical advocacy frames the debate - drop the arg lets them jump ship to a new layer killing NEG ground.
	37	+B. Drop the arg on T is the same thing as drop the debater since T indicts their advocacy
	38	+
	39	+Competing interps since 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.
	40	+
	41	+No RVIs - 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 14:22:46.645

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Rebecca Kuang

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Evanston HS

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+27

Round

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

Team

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

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+SEPT-OCT T-Nuclear Power

Tournament

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