Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[27]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[25]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[27]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-10-18 20:11:08.651
	1	+2016-10-18 20:11:08.0

Caselist.CitesClass[25]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,41 @@
	1	+Interpretation - The AFF may only garner offense from hypothetical enactment of the resolution
	2	+Resolved reflects policy passage before a legislative body. Parcher 01
	3	+(Jeff, Fmr. Debate Coach at Georgetown University, February, http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200102/0790.html)
	4	+
	5	+(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.
	6	+
	7	+
	8	+Violation
	9	+Standards:
	10	+
	11	+1. Engagement – there are infinite non topical AFFs - a precise and predictable point of difference is key to effective dialogue. Steinberg and Freeley 13
	12	+Steinberg and Freeley 13, * David, Lecturer in Communication studies and rhetoric. Advisor to Miami Urban Debate League. Director of Debate at U Miami, Former President of CEDA. And Austin, attorney who focuses on criminal, personal injury and civil rights law, JD, Suffolk University, Argumentation and Debate, Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making, 121-4. NS from file
	13	+
	14	+Debate is a means of settling differences, so there must be a controversy, a difference of opinion or a conflict of interest before there can be a debate. If everyone is in agreement on a feet or value or policy, there is no need or opportunity for debate; the matter can be settled by unanimous consent. Thus, for example, it would be pointless to attempt to debate "Resolved: That two plus two equals four,” because there is simply no controversy about this state¬ment. Controversy is an essential prerequisite of debate. Where there is no clash of ideas, proposals, interests, or expressed positions of issues, there is no debate. Controversy invites decisive choice between competing positions. Debate cannot produce effective decisions without clear identification of a question or questions to be answered. For example, general argument may occur about the broad topic of illegal immigration. How many illegal immigrants live in the United States? What is the impact of illegal immigration and immigrants on our economy? What is their impact on our communities? Do they commit crimes? Do they take jobs from American workers? Do they pay taxes? Do they require social services? Is it a problem that some do not speak English? Is it the responsibility of employers to discourage illegal immigration by not hiring undocumented workers? Should they have the opportunity to gain citizenship? Does illegal immigration pose a security threat to our country? Do illegal immigrants do work that American workers are unwilling to do? Are their rights as workers and as human beings at risk due to their status? Are they abused by employers, law enforcement, housing, and businesses? How are their families impacted by their status? What is the moral and philosophical obligation of a nation state to maintain its borders? Should we build a wall on the Mexican border, establish a national identification card, or enforce existing laws against employers? Should we invite immigrants to become U.S. citizens? Surely you can think of many more concerns to be addressed by a conversation about the topic area of illegal immigration. Participation in this “debate” is likely to be emotional and intense. However, it is not likely to be productive or useful without focus on a particular question and identification of a line demarcating sides in the controversy. To be discussed and resolved effectively, controversies are best understood when seated clearly such that all parties to the debate share an understanding about the objec¬tive of the debate. This enables focus on substantive and objectively identifiable issues facilitating comparison of competing argumentation leading to effective decisions. Vague understanding results in unfocused deliberation and poor deci¬sions, general feelings of tension without opportunity for resolution, frustration, and emotional distress, as evidenced by the failure of the U.S. Congress to make substantial progress on the immigration debate. Of course, arguments may be presented without disagreement. For exam¬ple, claims are presented and supported within speeches, editorials, and advertise¬ments even without opposing or refutational response. Argumentation occurs in a range of settings from informal to formal, and may not call upon an audi¬ence or judge to make a forced choice among competing claims. Informal dis¬course occurs as conversation or panel discussion without demanding a decision about a dichotomous or yes/no question. However, by definition, debate requires "reasoned judgment on a proposition. The proposition is a statement about which competing advocates will offer alternative (pro or con) argumenta¬tion calling upon their audience or adjudicator to decide. The proposition pro¬vides focus for the discourse and guides the decision process. Even when a decision will be made through a process of compromise, it is important to iden¬tify the beginning positions of competing advocates to begin negotiation and movement toward a center, or consensus position. It is frustrating and usually unproductive to attempt to make a decision when deciders are unclear as to what the decision is about. The proposition may be implicit in some applied debates (“Vote for me!”); however, when a vote or consequential decision is called for (as in the courtroom or in applied parliamentary debate) it is essential that the proposition be explicitly expressed (“the defendant is guilty!”). In aca¬demic debate, the proposition provides essential guidance for the preparation of the debaters prior to the debate, the case building and discourse presented during the debate, and the decision to be made by the debate judge after the debate. Someone disturbed by the problem of a growing underclass of poorly educated, socially disenfranchised youths might observe, “Public schools are doing a terri¬ble job! They' are overcrowded, and many teachers are poorly qualified in their subject areas. Even the best teachers can do little more than struggle to maintain order in their classrooms." That same concerned citizen, facing a complex range of issues, might arrive at an unhelpful decision, such as "We ought to do some¬thing about this” or, worse, “It’s too complicated a problem to deal with." Groups of concerned citizens worried about the state of public education could join together to express their frustrations, anger, disillusionment, and emotions regarding the schools, but without a focus for their discussions, they could easily agree about the sorry state of education without finding points of clarity or potential solutions. A gripe session would follow. But if a precise question is posed—such as “What can be done to improve public education?”—then a more profitable area of discussion is opened up simply by placing a focus on the search for a concrete solution step. One or more judgments can be phrased in the form of debate propositions, motions for parliamentary debate, or bills for legislative assemblies, The statements "Resolved: That the federal government should implement a program of charter schools in at-risk communities” and “Resolved; That the state of Florida should adopt a school voucher program" more clearly identify specific ways of dealing with educational problems in a manageable form, suitable for debate. They provide specific policies to be investigated and aid discussants in identifying points of difference. This focus contributes to better and more informed decision making with the potential for better results. In aca¬demic debate, it provides better depth of argumentation and enhanced opportu¬nity for reaping the educational benefits of participation. In the next section, we will consider the challenge of framing the proposition for debate, and its role in the debate. To have a productive debate, which facilitates effective decision making by directing and placing limits on the decision to be made, the basis for argument should be clearly defined. If we merely talk about a topic, such as ‘"homeless¬ness,” or “abortion,” Or “crime,” or “global warming,” we are likely to have an interesting discussion but not to establish a profitable basis for argument. For example, the statement “Resolved: That the pen is mightier than the sword” is debatable, yet by itself fails to provide much basis for dear argumen¬tation. If we take this statement to mean Iliad the written word is more effec¬tive than physical force for some purposes, we can identify a problem area: the comparative effectiveness of writing or physical force for a specific purpose, perhaps promoting positive social change. (Note that “loose” propositions, such as the example above, may be defined by their advocates in such a way as to facilitate a clear contrast of competing sides; through definitions and debate they “become” clearly understood statements even though they may not begin as such. There are formats for debate that often begin with this sort of proposition. However, in any debate, at some point, effective and meaningful discussion relies on identification of a clearly stated or understood proposition.) Back to the example of the written word versus physical force. Although we now have a general subject, we have not yet stated a problem. It is still too broad, too loosely worded to promote well-organized argument. What sort of writing are we concerned with—poems, novels, government documents, web¬site development, advertising, cyber-warfare, disinformation, or what? What does it mean to be “mightier" in this context? What kind of physical force is being compared—fists, dueling swords, bazookas, nuclear weapons, or what? A more specific question might be, “Would a mutual defense treaty or a visit by our fleet be more effective in assuring Laurania of our support in a certain crisis?” The basis for argument could be phrased in a debate proposition such as “Resolved: That the United States should enter into a mutual defense treaty with Laurania.” Negative advocates might oppose this proposition by arguing that fleet maneuvers would be a better solution. This is not to say that debates should completely avoid creative interpretation of the controversy by advo¬cates, or that good debates cannot occur over competing interpretations of the controversy; in fact, these sorts of debates may be very engaging. The point is that debate is best facilitated by the guidance provided
	15	+. It’s key to long term activism which turns case and outweighs because of existential threats. Lundberg 10
	16	+
	17	+Christian O. Lundberg 10 Professor of Communications @ University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, “Tradition of Debate in North Carolina” in Navigating Opportunity: Policy Debate in the 21st Century By Allan D. Louden, p. 311
	18	+
	19	+The second major problem with the critique that identifies a naivety in articulating debate and democracy is that it presumes that the primary pedagogical outcome of debate is speech capacities. But the democratic capacities built by debate are not limited to speech—as indicated earlier, debate builds capacity for critical thinking, analysis of public claims, informed decision making, and better public judgment. If the picture of modem political life that underwrites this critique of debate is a pessimistic view of increasingly labyrinthine and bureaucratic administrative politics, rapid scientific and technological change outpacing the capacities of the citizenry to comprehend them, and ever-expanding insular special-interest- and money-driven politics, it is a puzzling solution, at best, to argue that these conditions warrant giving up on debate. If democracy is open to rearticulation, it is open to rearticulation precisely because as the challenges of modern political life proliferate, the citizenry's capacities can change, which is one of the primary reasons that theorists of democracy such as Ocwey in The Public awl Its Problems place such a high premium on education (Dewey 1988,63, 154). Debate provides an indispensible form of education in the modem articulation of democracy because it builds precisely the skills that allow the citizenry to research and be informed about policy decisions that impact them, to sort through and evaluate the evidence for and relative merits of arguments for and against a policy in an increasingly information-rich environment, and to prioritize their time and political energies toward policies that matter the most to them. The merits of debate as a tool for building democratic capacity-building take on a special significance in the context of information literacy. John Larkin (2005, HO) argues that one of the primary failings of modern colleges and universities is that they have not changed curriculum to match with the challenges of a new information environment. This is a problem for the course of academic study in our current context, but perhaps more important, argues Larkin, for the future of a citizenry that will need to make evaluative choices against an increasingly complex and multimediated information environment (ibid-). Larkin's study tested the benefits of debate participation on information-literacy skills and concluded that in-class debate participants reported significantly higher self-efficacy ratings of their ability to navigate academic search databases and to effectively search and use other Web resources: To analyze the self-report ratings of the instructional and control group students, we first conducted a multivariate analysis of variance on all of the ratings, looking jointly at the effect of instmction/no instruction and debate topic . . . that it did not matter which topic students had been assigned . . . students in the Instnictional debate) group were significantly more confident in their ability to access information and less likely to feel that they needed help to do so~-~-~-~-These findings clearly indicate greater self-efficacy for online searching among students who participated in (debate).... These results constitute strong support for the effectiveness of the project on students' self-efficacy for online searching in the academic databases. There was an unintended effect, however: After doing ... the project, instructional group students also felt more confident than the other students in their ability to get good information from Yahoo and Google. It may be that the library research experience increased self-efficacy for any searching, not just in academic databases. (Larkin 2005, 144) Larkin's study substantiates Thomas Worthcn and Gaylcn Pack's (1992, 3) claim that debate in the college classroom plays a critical role in fostering the kind of problem-solving skills demanded by the increasingly rich media and information environment of modernity. Though their essay was written in 1992 on the cusp of the eventual explosion of the Internet as a medium, Worthcn and Pack's framing of the issue was prescient: the primary question facing today's student has changed from how to best research a topic to the crucial question of learning how to best evaluate which arguments to cite and rely upon from an easily accessible and veritable cornucopia of materials. There are, without a doubt, a number of important criticisms of employing debate as a model for democratic deliberation. But cumulatively, the evidence presented here warrants strong support for expanding debate practice in the classroom as a technology for enhancing democratic deliberative capacities. The unique combination of critical thinking skills, research and information processing skills, oral communication skills, and capacities for listening and thoughtful, open engagement with hotly contested issues argues for debate as a crucial component of a rich and vital democratic life. In-class debate practice both aids students in achieving the best goals of college and university education, and serves as an unmatched practice for creating thoughtful, engaged, open-minded and self-critical students who are open to the possibilities of meaningful political engagement and new articulations of democratic life. Expanding this practice is crucial, if only because the more we produce citizens that can actively and effectively engage the political process, the more likely we are to produce revisions of democratic life that are necessary if democracy is not only to survive, but to thrive. Democracy faces a myriad of challenges, including: domestic and international issues of class, gender, and racial justice; wholesale environmental destruction and the potential for rapid climate change; emerging threats to international stability in the form of terrorism, intervention and new possibilities for great power conflict; and increasing challenges of rapid globalization including an increasingly volatile global economic structure. More than any specific policy or proposal, an informed and active citizenry that deliberates with greater skill and sensitivity provides one of the best hopes for responsive and effective democratic governance, and by extension, one of the last best hopes for dealing with the existential challenges to democracy in an increasingly complex world.
	20	+
	21	+2. Critical Activism
	22	+
	23	+The 1AC is an activist message that lacks a coherent politics and instead showcases non-strategic, non-instrumental protest. Chandler 10
	24	+David Chandler is Professor of International Relations at the Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Westminster – This card internally quotes Jodi Dean, Professor of Political Science at Hobart and William Smith Colleges, 'No Communicating Left' (review article), Radical Philosophy, No. 160 (March/April 2010), pp.53-55. ISSN 0300 211X
	25	+
	26	+Dean pulls few punches in her devastating critique of the American left for its complacency, its limited capacity, and even its lack of awareness of the need to offer a stand of political resistance to power. This is how she concludes her book: The eight years of the Bush administration were a diversion. Intoxicated with a sense of purpose, we could oppose war, torture, indefinite detention, warrant less wiretapping, a seemingly endless series of real crimes… such opposition keeps us feeling like we matter… We have an ethical sense. But we lack a coherent politics. (p.175) Dean highlights clearly the disintegration of the collective left and its simulacra in the individuated life-style politics of today’s depoliticized radicalism, where it appears that particular individual demands and identities are to be respected but there is no possibility of universalising them into a collective challenge to the system: no possibility of a left which stands for something beyond itself. She argues that, rather than confront this problem, the left take refuge in the fantasy that technology will overcome their inability to engage and that the circulation of ideas and information on the internet will construct the collectivities and communities of interest, which are lacking in reality. For Dean, this ‘technology fetishism’ marks the left’s failure: its ‘abandonment of workers and the poor; its retreat from the state and repudiation of collective action; and its acceptance of the neoliberal economy as the “only game in town”’ (p.33). In fact, she uncovers the gaping hole at the heart of the left, highlighting that radicalism appears to be based less on changing the world than on the articulation of an alternative oppositionalist identity: a non-strategic, non-instrumental, articulation of a protest against power. In a nutshell, the left are too busy providing alternative voices, spaces and forums to think about engaging with mass society in an organised, collective, attempt to achieve societal transformation. For Dean, this is fake or hollow political activity, pursued more for its own sake than for future political ends. This is a politics of ethical distancing, of self flattery and narcissism, which excuses or even celebrates the self-marginalization of the left: as either the result of the overwhelming capacity of neoliberal power to act, to control, and to regulate; or as the result of the apathy, stupidity, or laziness of the masses - or the ‘sheeple’ (p.171) - for their failure to join the radical cause. Dean suggests that the left needs to rethink its values and approaches and her book is intended to be a wake-up call to abandon narcissistic complacency. In doing this, she highlights a range of problems connected around the thematic of the left’s defence of democracy in an age of communicative capitalism. She argues that the left’s focus on extending or defending democracy by asserting their role in giving voice and creating spaces merely reproduces the domination of communicative capitalism, where there is no shared space of debate and disagreement but the proliferation of mediums and messages without the responsibility to develop and defend positions or to engage and no external measure of accountability. Communicative capitalism is held to thrive on this fragmented, atomizing, and individuated, framework of communication, which gives the impression of a shared discourse, community, or movement but leaves reality just as it is, with neoliberal frameworks of domination, inequality, and destruction continuing unopposed (pp.162-75).
	27	+
	28	+Debate about specific policy scenarios is key to both self determination in relation to broader society, but also refining reformist or revolutionary projects – our interp controls the internal link to your solvency. Youniss et al. 97
	29	+James Youniss, Jeffrey A. McLellan, and Miranda Yates, What We Know About Engendering Civic Identity, The American Behavioral Scientist March/April 1997
	30	+
	31	+The top-down analysis of civil society moving from a macrosocial structure down to civic behaviors leaves us with the sense that great social forces have altered the course of America’s civil orientation. The search for causes puts us in a state of rumination and brooding. If macroforces have led us to become a nation of individualism or materialists (Bellah. Madsen. Sullivan. Swidler. and ‘Iipton, I985; Btzioni. 1995). what options are we left with to confront this unsatisfactory situation? Even if the causes could be identi fied. we would know little about the processes by which civil society is formed and could be reconstituted. We propose that a developmental analysis is more useful. We have cited studies that show how individuals acquire practices that are constitutive of civic identities. Participation in organizations and movements provides experience with normative civic practices and ideologies. and shapes youth’s emerging identities in a long-lasting form. Participating in high school government and partaking in social-political reform share in starting youth on a developmental path toward constructive citizenship. These findings allow us to set aside the rhetorical question of how civil society disappeared for the more generative inquiry of how we can enhance youth’s opportunities for active participation in the reform and renewal of contemporary society. Numerous models are available. including mandatory military service. as in Israel or My. and voluntary service directed to com- munity problems. By offering youth meaningful participatory experiences. we allow them to discover their potency. assess their responsibility. acquire a sense of political processes. and commit to a moral-ethical ideology. Toren (1993) argues that it is each generation's task to make sense of the conditions in which they find society. This is true for youth and for adults. Each generation must take up the burden of renewing society and making history. Flack: (I988) has bemoaned the fact that contemporary youth seem to have shirked their generational obligation. Rather than work at making history. This generation eems coth to take the rewards that prior generations have earned. leaving the future in the hands of the few leaders. Clearly. there is a tendency to blame contemporary youth. even to demonize them (Ghoua. 1996) for the state of civil society. We believe that a more productive approach recognizes the older generation's duty to attend to youth's quest for identity. Youth seek transcendent meaning. which entails locating themselves in history by adopting ideological traditions that older generations have sustained and still merit respect. Contrary to popular psychology’s image of identity as a private existential struggle. youth make identities byjoining with others in respectable muses. Adults' duty in this process is to offer participatory experiences so that youth can join them in re- newing civil society. Identity is not given but must be constructed. in our pluralistic society. this entails making sense of contradictory options and resolving difficult tensions (Calhoun. 994). We recognize that a civic identity may orient individuals toward sustaining society as it is, or it may encourage challenges to the status quo in the spirit of reform (Foley and Edwards. 1996). Our goal was not to assess which kinds of experiences lead to which of these outcomes. Rather. it was to outline a developmental process in which the construction of individuality and society are complementary so that citizenship is built into the self 's very definition.
	32	+
	33	+3. T Version of the Aff
	34	+
	35	+Climate Chaos solves their offense. Warming specific queer discourse is key to address queer futurism. Hall 14.
	36	+Kim Hall, No Failure: Climate Change, Radical Hope, and Queer Crip Feminist Eco-Futures, 2014 VC
	37	+Poor people are the most harmed by anthropogenic climate change and the least responsible for greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gases are produced by consumption of fossil fuels, which is an indicator of affluence. The United States is the largest per capita consumer of fossil fuels, and thus it produces the largest per capita emission of greenhouse gases. Given the unpredictable but severe and long-term consequences of anthropogenic climate change, some believe the term “climate chaos” is a more apt characterization of the problem.69 Climate chaos has developed in a context of global inequality, and it exacerbates inequality. Climate chaos raises many questions about global injustice, questions with which any radical queer crip feminist critique must be concerned. And despite my appreciation for much of the queer battle cry of “No future,” one concern I think we cannot overlook, in the context of climate chaos and global injustice, is the question of what it means, as we ponder the relationship between queerness and the future, to be responsive to the futures that present action and inaction bring into existence. Of course, the harms of climate chaos are already disproportionately experienced by women, people of color, and disabled and poor people. According to a World Health Organization estimate in 2005, climate change-related events contribute to 150,000 human deaths each year.70 In addition, given that some greenhouse gases can remain in the atmosphere for between thirty and one thousand years, it is clear that climate change related harms experienced in the present are the result of past emissions.71 Furthermore, given the ever-increasing consumption of fossil fuels, the harmful effects of the greater amount of greenhouse gas emissions at present will be experienced by human and nonhuman beings in the future. Thus, while present generations may not be directly harmed by current greenhouse gas emissions,72 future generations will be. More sobering still, even if all wealthy nations ceased fossil fuel consumption today, we would still be committed to a certain amount of climate change in the future as a result of greenhouse gas emissions already present in the Earth’s atmosphere. As a result, most policy discussions are about whether to adopt a strategy of mitigation, adaptation, or some combination; prevention is no longer a viable strategy.73 Sadly, we are past the time for climate change prevention because climate change is already here, as evidenced by disappearing glaciers, and we’re committed to more in the future. There is, however, still a window for influencing how much more climate change the future will see, an issue that involves commitments to living and thinking otherwise.74 In my view, queer theories have much to offer the search for alternative ways of living and different values in the context of climate change. However, to do so, queer critique must be oriented toward, not away from or against, the future. And that future need not be inescapably heteronormative, ablebodied, rehabilitative, or reproductive. In working toward what McRuer describes as the “necessarily disabled” and, thus, “sustainable” world,76 queer theorists must adopt political commitments in the present that are oriented toward the future, an orientation that includes critical attunement toward nonhuman worlds and planetary systems. In fact, sustainability is a concept that implies an orientation to the future.77 But it need not—and indeed should not—be a concept tethered to the future of the Child.
	38	+
	39	+Voter: Drop the debater on T
	40	+
	41	+Theory is an issue of competing interpretations

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-10-18 20:11:10.634

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Lawrence Zhao

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+West Des Moines Valley SC

ParentRound

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

Round

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

Team

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

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+1 - Framework - Must Defend the Topic V2

Tournament

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