Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[18]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[16]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[18]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-09-16 23:21:24.827
	1	+2016-09-16 23:21:24.0

Caselist.CitesClass[16]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,17 @@
	1	+First, the plan says “Prohibit the production of floating nuclear power”, not “Prohibit the production of nuclear power from floating nuclear power plants”. Obviously there’s no such thing as nuclear power that can float, and even if there was, banning it wouldn’t solve any of the harms of the 1AC.
	2	+
	3	+Second, the plan text does not have a subject, it just says “Prohibit” which makes it an imperative sentence with the subject being “you” understood. O’Brien 09
	4	+Elizabeth O’Brien, The Imperative Sentence, Learn about it! 2009, http://www.english-grammar-revolution.com/imperative-sentence.html
	5	+Now, take a look at some imperative sentences. Pass the salt. Shut the door. Smile. What is the subject of those sentences? Hmm… that’s tricky! This may sound strange, but every single command has the same subject! Yikes! How is that even possible? Well, since commands are always speaking to someone or something (you’ve got to address them if you’re going to ask them do something), the subject is always the word you. You may have noticed that the word “you” is not even in a command. Because of this, the subject is actually called you understood, and it is written like this: (you)
	6	+
	7	+The affirmative refers to the judge as “you” in the tag of Sinnott-Armstrong in the 1AC, meaning the plan text is that the judge prohibit nuclear power. The judge clearly does not have the jurisdiction to prohibit nuclear power, but even if they did, it wouldn’t resolve any of the harms of the 1AC since they are not a country.
	8	+
	9	+Vote Negative
	10	+1. On presumption – they fiat something that doesn’t exist should be prohibited, which means that the affirmative literally does nothing and that you should negate on risk of offense.
	11	+
	12	+2. On jurisdiction – You don’t have the jurisdiction to vote on an aff that is not implementable which is a prior question since even if the aff is fair or educational, it doesn’t matter if you can’t vote on it in the first place
	13	+
	14	+3. Predictable Limits—allowing the Aff to fiat non-country actors is not topical and justifies over 100 versions of their specific AFF, exploding the Neg research burden. Independent voting issue – under limiting kills participation. Rowland 84
	15	+(Robert C., Baylor U., “Topic Selection in Debate”, American Forensics in Perspective. Ed. Parson, p. 53-4)
	16	+
	17	+The first major problem identified by the work group as relating to topic selection is the decline in participation in the National Debate Tournament (NDT) policy debate. As Boman notes: There is a growing dissatisfaction with academic debate that utilizes a policy proposition. Programs which are oriented toward debating the national policy debate proposition, so-called “NDT” programs, are diminishing both in scope and size. This decline in policy debate is tied, many in the work group believe, to excessively broad topics. The most obvious characteristic of some recent policy debate topics is extreme breadth. A resolution calling for regulation of land use literally and figuratively covers a lot of ground. National debate topics have not always been so broad. Before the late 1960s the topic often specified a particular policy change. The move from narrow to broad topics has had, according to some, the effect of limiting the number of students who participate in policy debate. First, the breadth of topics has all but destroyed novice debate. Paul Gaske argues that because the stock issues of policy debate are clearly defined, it is superior to value debate as a means of introducing students to the debate process. Despite this advantage of policy debate, Gaske believes that NDT debate is not the best vehicle for teaching beginners. The problem is that broad topics terrify novice debaters, especially those who lack high school debate experience. They are unable to cope with the breath of the topic and experience “negophobia,” the fear of debating negative. As a consequence, the educational advantages associated with teaching novice through policy debate are lost: “Yet all of these benefits fly out the window as rookies in their formative stage quickly experience humiliation at being caught without evidence or substantive awareness of the issues that confront them at a tournament.” The ultimate result is that fewer novices participate in NDT, thus lessening the educational value of the activity and limiting the number of debaters who eventually participate in more advanced divisions of policy debate. In addition to noting the effect on novices, participants argued that broad topics also discourage experienced debaters from continued participation in policy debate. Here, the claim is that it takes so much time and effort to be competitive on a broad topic that students who are concerned with doing more than just debate are forced out of the activity. Gaske notes, that “broad topics discourage participation because of insufficient time to do requisite research.” The final effect may be that entire programs wither cease functioning or shift to value debate as a way to avoid unreasonable research burdens. Boman supports this point: “It is this expanding necessity of evidence, and thereby research, which has created a competitive imbalance between institutions that participate in academic debate.” In this view, it is the competitive imbalance resulting from the use of broad topics that has led some small schools to cancel their programs.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-09-16 23:21:25.776

Judge

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

Opponent

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

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+18

Round

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

Team

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

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Plan Flaw

Tournament

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