Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[32]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[36]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[32]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-12-02 00:08:32.911
	1	+2016-12-02 00:08:32.0

Caselist.CitesClass[36]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,56 @@
	1	+===1NC===
	2	+
	3	+
	4	+====Interpretation: The aff may only defend the limiting of qualified immunity for police officers. ====
	5	+
	6	+
	7	+====A police officer is a sworn member of a local police department who performs police duties. SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT 05====
	8	+(EDWARD GENESKY v. TOWN OF EAST LYME (SC 17152) SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT 275 Conn. 246; 881 A.2d 114; 2005 Conn. LEXIS 331 October 18, 2004, Argued August 30, 2005, Officially Released)
	9	+Local law enforcement arrangements can take many forms and a police department is not a
	10	+AND
	11	+19 or any member of a law enforcement unit who performs police duties.
	12	+
	13	+
	14	+====Violation: ====
	15	+
	16	+
	17	+====A) They enforce different laws and have different responsibilities. My Pursuit====
	18	+**http://www.mypursuit.com/article-250/The_Differences_Between_a_Border_Patrol_and_a_Police_Officer_Career.html**
	19	+Border Patrol is responsible for the safety of the borders, but within borders,
	20	+AND
	21	+public calls for service. They keep a documented record of their activities.
	22	+
	23	+
	24	+====B) Extra T - The Hernandez v Mesa decision they overturn is more than just qualified immunity. We will isolate 2 extra topical planks of the plan. Scotusblog ====
	25	+**http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/hernandez-v-mesa/**
	26	+Issues: (1) Whether a formalist or functionalist analysis governs the extraterritorial application
	27	+AND
	28	+this case may be asserted under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents
	29	+
	30	+
	31	+====Extra T is a voting issue – they get to pick a plank that coopts the best neg offense. That kills engagement because the best neg arguments get fiated away by the extra plank. Also makes it impossible to negate because they pigeon hole us into the worst args against their aff.====
	32	+
	33	+
	34	+====Standards====
	35	+
	36	+
	37	+====1. Limits: Their interp allows any governmental body which justifies firefighters or the secret service aff. That explodes neg prep burden and kills predictability, which controls the internal link to advocacy skills because they never have to defend their aff against well researched objections. Your education isn't valuable if it isn't accessible which means T outweighs K offense. Generics don't solve because you're functionally debating a different topic, and even if there is ground against your specific aff, your interp justifies unanswerable affs so it's still net worse. ====
	38	+And, under our itnerp the neg can't read PICS of border control because those aren't competitive under our interp.
	39	+
	40	+
	41	+====2. Precision – our interp isolates crucial distinctions between different types of enforcement agencies with different responsibilities. The attorney general is different from local police, border patrol is different from Sandy Utah City Police, and prison guards aren't the same as FBI agents. They all have different responsibilities, which means their interp is lazy and can't account for crucial differences within the topic lit. Kills engagement because they divorce the topic from the precise definition within topic literature. Our definition comes from a court case, which frames what ground the aff is entitled to. So our interp is key to a clear and predictable stasis point to clash on. ====
	42	+
	43	+
	44	+====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.====
	45	+
	46	+
	47	+====Drop the debater on T:====
	48	+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.
	49	+B. Drop the arg on T is the same thing as drop the debater
	50	+AND
	51	+to the bottom in which debaters exploit a judge's tolerance for questionable argumentation.
	52	+
	53	+
	54	+====No RVIs====
	55	+A. Topicality is a prima facie burden for the AFF. You wouldn't vote for them just because they didn't speak over their time limits and you shouldn't vote for them for following the most basic rule of debate.
	56	+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	+2016-12-02 00:08:35.374

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Tim Alderete

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Loyola HF

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+32

Round

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

Team

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

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+NOV-DEC T-Police Officers Border Patrol

Tournament

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