Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[3]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[3]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[3]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-09-10 18:59:39.920
	1	+2016-09-10 18:59:39.0

Caselist.CitesClass[3]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,37 @@
	1	+A. Interp – The affirmative must defend the hypothetical implementation the 1AC as a policy option.
	2	+“Resolved” in front of the resolution mandates a policy action. Parcher
	3	+(Jeff, Fmr. Debate Coach at Georgetown University, February, http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200102/0790.html)
	4	+(1) Pardon me if I turn to a source besides Bill. American Heritage Dictionary: Resolve: 1. To make a firm decision about. 2. To decide or express by formal vote. 3. To separate something into constituent parts See Syns at *analyze* (emphasis in orginal) 4. Find a solution to. See Syns at *Solve* (emphasis in original) 5. To dispel: resolve a doubt. - n 1. Frimness of purpose; resolution. 2. A determination or decision. (2) The very nature of the word "resolution" makes it a question. American Heritage: A course of action determined or decided on. A formal statemnt of a deciion, as by a legislature. (3) The resolution is obviously a question. Any other conclusion is utterly inconcievable. Why? Context. The debate community empowers a topic committee to write a topic for ALTERNATE side debating. The committee is not a random group of people coming together to "reserve" themselves about some issue. There is context - they are empowered by a community to do something. In their deliberations, the topic community attempts to craft a resolution which can be ANSWERED in either direction. They focus on issues like ground and fairness because they know the resolution will serve as the basis for debate which will be resolved by determining the policy desireablility of that resolution. That's not only what they do, but it's what we REQUIRE them to do. We don't just send the topic committee somewhere to adopt their own group resolution. It's not the end point of a resolution adopted by a body - it's the prelimanary wording of a resolution sent to others to be answered or decided upon. (4) Further context: the word resolved is used to emphasis the fact that it's policy debate. Resolved comes from the adoption of resolutions by legislative bodies. A resolution is either adopted or it is not. It's a question before a legislative body. Should this statement be adopted or not. (5) The very terms 'affirmative' and 'negative' support my view. One affirms a resolution. Affirmative and negative are the equivalents of 'yes' or 'no' - which, of course, are answers to a question.
	5	+
	6	+And OED defines ought as “Used to indicate a desirable or expected state”
	7	+OED (Oxford Dictionary, Online Dictionary, "Ought”, No date.
	8	+
	9	+B. Violation – The affirmative defends ______________.
	10	+
	11	+C. Standards –
	12	+
	13	+1. Core Controversy –
	14	+
	15	+2. Advocacy skills – we don’t become equipped to talk about nuclear power in the way experts who discuss nuclear power actually talk about it. This means we are both unprepared to engage with the literature on the topic but also become bad advocates for energy policy. Independent voter – they make debate impossible and exclusionary. Steve 07
	16	+(Anonymous member of Black Block and Active Transformation who lives in East Lansing, MI, Date Last Mod. Feb 8, 2007 http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/global/a16dcdiscussion.htm)
	17	+The root of the lack of strategy problem is a general problem within the North American anarchist movement. We get caught up in tactical thinking without establishing clear goals. We need to elaborate how our actions today fit into a plan that leads to the destruction of the state and capitalism, white supremacy and patriarchy. Moving away from strictly tactical thinking toward political goals and long term strategy needs to be a priority for the anarchist movement. No longer can we justify a moralistic approach to the latest outrage - running around like chickens with their heads cut off. We need to prioritize developing the political unity of our affinity groups and collectives, as well as developing regional federations and starting the process of developing the political principles that they will be based around (which will be easier if we have made some headway in our local groups). The NorthEastern Federation of Anarchist Communists (NEFAC) is a good example of doing this. They have prioritized developing the political principles they are federated around. The strategies that we develop in our collectives and networks will never be blueprints set in stone. They will be documents in motion, constantly being challenged and adapted. But without a specific elaboration of what we are working toward and how we plan to get there, we will always end up making bad decisions. If we just assume everyone is on the same page, we will find out otherwise really quick when shit gets critical. Developing regional anarchist federations and networks is a great step for our movement. We should start getting these things going all over the continent. We should also prioritize developing these across national borders, which NEFAC has also done with northeastern Canada. Some of the errors of Love and Rage were that it tried to cover too much space too soon, and that it was based too much on individual membership, instead of collective membership. We need to keep these in mind as we start to develop these projects. One of the benefits of Love and Rage was that it provided a forum among a lot of people to have a lot of political discussion and try to develop strategy in a collective way. This, along with mutual aid and security, could be the priorities of the regional anarchist federations. These regional federations could also form the basis for tactical leadership at demonstrations. Let me first give one example why we need tactical teams at large demos. In DC the Black Block amorphously made the decision to try to drive a dumpster through one of the police lines. The people in front with the dumpster ended up getting abandoned by the other half of the Black Block who were persuaded by the voice of the moment to move elsewhere. The people up front were in a critical confrontation with police when they were abandoned. This could be avoided if the Black Block had a decision making system that slowed down decision making long enough for the block to stay together. With this in mind we must remember that the chaotic, decentralized nature of our organization is what makes us hard to police. We must maximize the benefits of decentralized leadership, without establishing permanent leaders and targets. Here is a proposal to consider for developing tactical teams for demos. Delegates from each collective in the regional federation where the action is happening would form the tactical team. Delegates from other regional federations could also be a part of the tactical team. Communications between the tactical team and collectives, affinity groups, runners, etc. could be established via radio. The delegates would be recallable by their collectives if problems arose, and as long as clear goals are elaborated ahead of time with broader participation, the tactical team should be able to make informed decisions. An effort should be made to rotate delegates so that everyone develops the ability. People with less experience should be given the chance to represent their collectives in less critical situations, where they can become more comfortable with it. The reality is that liberal politics will not lead to an end to economic exploitation, racism, and sexism. Anarchism offers a truly radical alternative. Only a radical critique that links the oppressive nature of global capitalism to the police state at home has a chance of diversifying the movement against global capitalism. In order for the most oppressed people here to get involved the movement must offer the possibility of changing their lives for the better. A vision of what "winning" would look like must be elaborated if people are going to take the risk with tremendous social upheaval, which is what we are calling for. We cannot afford to give the old anarchist excuse that "the people will decide after the revolution" how this or that will work. We must have plans and ideas for things as diverse as transportation, schooling, crime prevention, and criminal justice. People don't want to hear simple solutions to complex questions, that only enforces people's opinions of us as naive. We need practical examples of what we are fighting for. People can respond to examples better than unusual theory. While we understand that we will not determine the shape of things to come, when the system critically fails someone needs to be there with anti-authoritarian suggestions for how to run all sorts of things. If we are not prepared for that we can assume others will be prepared to build up the state or a new state.
	18	+
	19	+
	20	+3. Ground – policy and philosophical analysis both require analysis of how values manifest themselves in contemporary society. Taebi 11
	21	+
	22	+Taebi, Behnam. "Ethics of Nuclear Power: How to Understand Sustainability in the Nuclear Debate." NUCLEAR POWER–DEPLOYMENT, OPERATION AND SUSTAINABILITY (2011): 129.TF
	23	+
	24	+I presented the notion of sustainable development as a moral value and elaborated on its¶ relationship with intergenerational justice. Following Barry, I argued that we should sustain¶ future generation’s opportunity for well-being insofar as that can be accomplished with the¶ available energy resources and their vital interests. I then introduced a set of moral values¶ which, in combination with each other, comprise the overarching value of sustainability.¶ The values ‘environmental friendliness’, ‘public health and safety’ and ‘security’ together¶ safeguard the vital interests of future generation; the values ‘resource durability’ and¶ ‘economic viability’ help to sustain future well-being.¶ The impacts of different nuclear fuel cycles were then assessed according to how they affect¶ the values presented. In this operationalization process, we took into consideration the fact¶ that the values could relate to the interests of different groups of people belonging to different¶ generations. The two existing fuel cycles were then compared according to their values; the¶ open fuel cycle could best be associated with short-term benefits and the closed fuel cycle with¶ long-term benefits and the accompanying short-term costs. All of this gives rise to an¶ intergenerational conflict of interests between those alive today and future generations.¶ The ranking of these values with regard to their moral relevance requires thorough public¶ and political discourse. This is particularly relevant when assessing the desirability of new¶ technology. Even though technology has no inherent moral relevance, it does help improve¶ other values. In a moral discussion on what we ought to do for future generations, it is¶ important to first be aware of what we can do, technologically speaking. This is the added¶ value of this type of applied ethics in which solutions can be proposed within the realm of¶ technological realities and in the light of technological progress. Indeed, the impacts of these¶ new technologies should then be assessed in the ethical field of tension of sustainability, as¶ has been proposed here. It is then worthwhile considering how other values will be affected¶ by the introduction of this technology?¶ When it comes to policy-making for nuclear power deployment, we need to address several¶ ethical issues regarding our relationship with posterity and the intergenerational distribution¶ of benefits and burdens. Therefore, policies on nuclear power should be accompanied by¶ thorough moral analysis. One possible conclusion arising from such analysis could be that we,¶ the present generations who are enjoying the lion’s share of the benefits of nuclear power,¶ should remain responsible for dealing with its waste. This supports the application of PandT¶ that reduces the waste lifetime and therefore also the potential future burdens. Before PandT can¶ be introduced, decades of research and development still need to take place. Several¶ technological challenges, both in the development of reprocessing technologies and in the¶ development of fast reactors still have to be surmounted and the development and ultimate¶ deployment of PandT will create considerable burdens (including certain economic burdens) for¶ contemporaries. So, if the result of the moral discussion is that we want to be able to apply¶ PandT, then this technology should be high on the research agenda so that it can become a¶ serious alternative in the near future; one that is both technically feasible and economically¶ affordable. The decision-maker should be aware of the technological state-of-the-art and of the¶ cost that the development of a certain technology, desirable or not, creates for the present¶ generation. This paper aims to contribute to that awareness.
	25	+
	26	+
	27	+B. Turn Ground
	28	+
	29	+D. Vote on substantive engagement:
	30	+
	31	+Drop the debater on T:
	32	+
	33	+
	34	+
	35	+Competing interps
	36	+
	37	+No RVIs:

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-09-10 18:59:41.832

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Felix Tan

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Mountain View DZ

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+3

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2

Team

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

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+SEPT-OCT - T - Resolved

Tournament

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