Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[17]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[15]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[17]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-09-16 23:18:40.680
	1	+2016-09-16 23:18:40.0

Caselist.CitesClass[15]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,21 @@
	1	+Interpretation: The affirmative may only advocate that countries ban production of nuclear power within their own country
	2	+
	3	+Violation: They defend that countries ban production of nuclear power in the Arctic
	4	+
	5	+Net-benefits
	6	+
	7	+1) Limits - they allow for an infinite number of affs, from prohibiting US production in the South China Sea, Russian production in space, and English production in the North Sea. Limits key to substantive engagement since under limiting explodes the negative prep burden and makes it impossible to contest the 1AC with well researched objections.
	8	+
	9	+2) Ground – All of the topic lit is about countries banning production of nuclear power within the actual country, which kills quality of ground since even if there are some fringe articles about floating nuclear power, the core of the topic is about the expansion of nuclear power into different countries, not into the Arctic.
	10	+
	11	+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.
	12	+
	13	+Drop the debater on Theory:
	14	+
	15	+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.
	16	+B. The abuse already occurred and it skewed the ability to generate NC offense – dropping the arg doesn’t rectify anything since I had to overinvest in reading theory
	17	+
	18	+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.
	19	+
	20	+No RVIs:
	21	+ A. They incentivize debaters to go all in in theory and bait it with abusive practices, killing substantive clash on other flows. B. They can run theory on me too if I’m unfair so 1) theory is reciprocal because we’re both able to check abuse and 2) also cures time skew because they can collapse in the 2ar to their shell.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-09-16 23:18:41.520

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Otoghile and Powell

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Cypress Woods LC

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+17

Round

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

Team

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

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+T - Territories

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Greenhill RR