Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[5]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[3]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[5]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-12-03 23:52:08.695
	1	+2016-12-03 23:52:08.0

Caselist.CitesClass[3]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,155 @@
	1	+1NC vs Xavier Levinas
	2	+
	3	+T – Consequentialism
	4	+
	5	+Interpretation- The affirmative must defend a consequentialist ethical theory.
	6	+
	7	+Violation: His aff says “generic util turns do not apply”
	8	+
	9	+1. Ground
	10	+
	11	+A. Turn Ground- If only intent/phil based offense links to the standard then no negative ground links to the aff because they can always say that consequences don’t matter. Abstract ideals are incontestable goods- literature reviews that implementation difficulties are the only arguments to debate about
	12	+
	13	+B. Stable Ground- the 1AR can defend material consequences or defend intentions/philosophical implications of their affs against Ks, they can also skirt out of generic turns and DAs which also inherently prove that they are bad.
	14	+
	15	+Ground key to fairness- ensures both debaters have equal access to args
	16	+
	17	+2. Topic Literature
	18	+
	19	+Qualified immunity doesn't exist independent of empirical legislative decisions and police officer conduct- empirical actual focus is key
	20	+
	21	+TLR 4 2004 Texas Law Review "NOTE: The Paradox Of Qualified Immunity: How A Mechanical Application Of The Objective Legal Reasonableness
	22	+Damage suits against from personal liability for unconstitutional conduct. 7 Rather, as its name suggests, qualified immunity was designed to protect government officials only in limited situations. 8
	23	+
	24	+Focused topic education outweighs
	25	+
	26	+A. Reading a framework and policy solves phil ground- our interpretation allows for negative frameworks to be read
	27	+
	28	+B. LD is a values debate isn’t responsive- 1. That commits the is-ought fallcy, just because it is a values debate, doesn't mean it ought to be, 2. That makes an empirical claim without an empirical warrant
	29	+
	30	+C. Timeframe- we have 2 months to discuss the topic- but we can always get phi led from other places
	31	+
	32	+D. Debate’s strategic incentives bastardize phil debate
	33	+Nebel et Al 13 Teaching Philosophy 36:3, September 2013 271 Teaching Philosophy through Lincoln-Douglas Debate JACOB NEBEL Wolfson College, Oxford University RYAN W. DAVIS Harvard University PETER VAN ELSWYK Rutgers University BEN HOLGUIN New York University
	34	+Another cause of poorly justified relativism and skepticism in LD debate comes from judge expectations
	35	+AND
	36	+inclined to accept a controversial philosophical view about morality for the wrong reasons.
	37	+
	38	+E. Phil debate creates unrealistic phil decisions
	39	+Nebel et Al 13 Teaching Philosophy 36:3, September 2013 271 Teaching Philosophy through Lincoln-Douglas Debate JACOB NEBEL Wolfson College, Oxford University RYAN W. DAVIS Harvard University PETER VAN ELSWYK Rutgers University BEN HOLGUIN New York University
	40	+The LD debate community is on the hyper-methodist end of the spectrum.
	41	+AND
	42	+Holocaust wasn’t morally wrong if the debater in question is defending moral nihilism.
	43	+
	44	+F. Comparitive ethics debates are useless- in the real world people argue how actions apply under ethics
	45	+
	46	+G. philosophy is structured in a way that it is responsive in one direction i.e. Hegel is written in response to Kant, but not vice versa, smart negs will pick responsive fw’s without ground against them, only util allows answers from both sides.
	47	+
	48	+D. Voter
	49	+
	50	+1. Fairness, debates a competitive activity, 2. Education, only portable impact. Drop the debater because A. Norms- a loss deters future abuse, B. Timeskew- drop the arg means they can kick their offense for a positive time tradeoff. C. Gateway issue- unfair args skew the rest of the round. Evaluate Competing Interps, A. reasonability is arbitrary and invites judge intervention, B. deterrence- debaters can get away with defense on theory, C. reasonability collapses into competing itnersp because we have offense defense debates about brightlines
	51	+
	52	+No RVI
	53	+
	54	+1. Denies the antecedent- just because you’re fair doesn't mean you should win- logic is a litmus test for arguments so it outweighs theoretical reasons
	55	+
	56	+2. Chilling Effect- A. Race 2 Bottom- They deter negatives from reading theory against abusive affs- good debaters will just prep out shells.
	57	+
	58	+3. Substance- Incentivizes borderline abuse to bait theory which kills substance, and if theory causes reciprocal skews to both sides we can still go back to substance but under their interp the round ends on theory
	59	+
	60	+No drop arg on T – cross-apply norms setting which outweighs since it’s a question of infinite abuse.
	61	+
	62	+Cap K
	63	+
	64	+Humans are grounded in material conditions that create all thought – trying to abstract from material reality (i.e, not defending consequentialist turns) is another link to the K.
	65	+
	66	+Eagleton 11
	67	+Eagleton, Terry (Is a prominent British literary theorist, critic and public intellectual. He is currently Distinguished Professor of English Literature at Lancaster University). Why Marx was right. Yale University Press, 2011
	68	+In this sense, Marx was more of an antiphilosopher than a philosopher. In
	69	+AND
	70	+can fall victim to the illusion that it is thought which creates reality.
	71	+
	72	+The affirmative’s legalistic approach to police violence brings us further away from recognizing the economic forces at work that makes police violence inevitable. Lane 7/21.
	73	+Alycee Lane (Alycee J. Lane is a former professor who taught African American literature and culture at UC Santa Barbara.), 7-21-16 “Violence, Death and Our Neoliberal Police,” CounterPunch, http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/21/violence-death-and-our-neoliberal-police/
	74	+If what we are witnessing in these violent encounters with police is neoliberalism in action
	75	+AND
	76	+and training of police – that we absolutely have the power to change.
	77	+
	78	+Civil suits put an asking price on people’s suffering.
	79	+
	80	+Abel 81
	81	+Richard L. Abel, Prof of Law @ UCLA, ’81 (British Journal of Law and Society 8:1, “A Critique of American Tort Law,” jstor)
	82	+Finally, tort law responds to intangible injury by extending that fundamental concept of capitalism
	83	+AND
	84	+the compensation system is working well if anything, too well. 116
	85	+
	86	+Tort law commodifies suffering as loss of earning power – kills value to life.
	87	+
	88	+ Abel 81
	89	+Richard L. Abel, Prof of Law @ UCLA, ’81 (British Journal of Law and Society 8:1, “A Critique of American Tort Law,” jstor)
	90	+Capitalism also shapes the experience of injury. First (and this enumeration is not
	91	+AND
	92	+, care, emotional and physical integrity, and ultimately love with money.
	93	+
	94	+Commodification is the worst impact under Levinas – we treat the other as equivilant to currency, which denies its value and opens it to infinite violence.
	95	+
	96	+This turns the aff – police violence is a direct result of neoliberalism. A failure to recognize that makes violence inevitable.
	97	+
	98	+Lane 7/21
	99	+Alycee Lane (Alycee J. Lane is a former professor who taught African American literature and culture at UC Santa Barbara.), 7-21-16 “Violence, Death and Our Neoliberal Police,” CounterPunch, http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/21/violence-death-and-our-neoliberal-police/
	100	+If we examine through the prism of neoliberalism the killing of Philando Castile – that
	101	+AND
	102	+this was true as well for Officer Darren Wilson of Ferguson, Missouri.
	103	+
	104	+The alternative is an embrace of class-consciousness as a method of critiquing neoliberalism’s grip on policing.
	105	+
	106	+LaVenia 15
	107	+Peter A. LaVenia PhD in Political Science from the University at Albany, SUNY. He is the Secretary of the NY State Green Party and manages Matt Funiciello’s campaign for Congress. JANUARY 16, 2015 “Police Behavior and Neoliberalism” http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/16/police-behavior-and-neoliberalism/
	108	+The cause of impotence on the part of elected officials even in the face of
	109	+AND
	110	+likely to see nothing but equivocation by local officials and big city mayors.
	111	+
	112	+The role of the judge is to be a critical analyst testing whether the underlying assumptions of the AFF are valid. This is a question of the whether the AFF scholarship is good – not the passage of the plan.
	113	+
	114	+Neoliberalism sustains itself by operating by propagating a narrow lens of what it means to be ‘political.’ We situate the judge as a critical educator who steps back to evaluate the frames through which we view policy first. Reps prior.
	115	+
	116	+Blalock, 2015
	117	+(Corinne (Graduate Student. Studies Critical Theory, Legal Theory, and Law, has a JD), “NEOLIBERALISM AND THE CRISIS OF LEGAL THEORY”, Duke University, LAW AND CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS Vol. 77:71)
	118	+RECOVERING LEGAL THEORY’S RELEVANCE? The lens of neoliberalism not only allows one to see
	119	+AND
	120	+they are in a world that constantly insists that there is no alternative.
	121	+
	122	+On Case
	123	+
	124	+Kantian state of reciprocal constraint doesn’t exist in the US – all USFG action is unilateral coercion and must be rejected – the alternative is to reject the aff’s view of the USFG as an ethical mandate to reclaim black social agency and value black existence
	125	+Mills 15
	126	+Charles Mills (the John Evans Professor of Moral and Intellectual Philosophy at Northwestern University). “Black Radical Liberalism (by Charles Mills).” PEA Soup, philosophy blog run by professors David Sobel and David Shoemaker. 23 February 2015. http://peasoup.typepad.com/peasoup/2015/02/black-radical-liberalism-and-why-it-isnt-an-oxymoron.html
	127	+“Black radical liberalism” is my attempt to reconstruct from different and usually counterposed
	128	+AND
	129	+The concerns motivating a black radical liberalism would be addressed rather than evaded.
	130	+
	131	+Kant Case Turns
	132	+
	133	+But even if a priori Kantianism comes first, I win anyway-
	134	+
	135	+Negate:
	136	+
	137	+A. Universalizing a restriction on police efficacy is self defeating because it extends and restricts state power which precludes the omnilateral will
	138	+
	139	+B. Making officers responsible for foreseen consequences violates their conditions of agency since we only identify with what we intend
	140	+
	141	+A desire to ignore the consequences of their advocacy causes failure ~-~-- you must evaluate consequences of their proposal
	142	+
	143	+Bracey 6
	144	+Christopher A. Bracey 6, Associate Professor of Law, Associate Professor of African and African American Studies, Washington University in St. Louis, September, Southern California Law Review, 79 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1231, p. 1318
	145	+Second, reducing conversation on race matters to an ideological contest allows opponents to elide
	146	+AND
	147	+ideological exchange, which further exacerbates hostilities and deepens the cycle of resentment.
	148	+
	149	+Moral tunnel vision is complicit with evil.
	150	+
	151	+ Issac 2
	152	+—Professor of Political Science at Indiana-Bloomington, Director of the Center for the Study of Democracy and Public Life, PhD from Yale (Jeffery C., Dissent Magazine, Vol. 49, Iss. 2, “Ends, Means, and Politics,” p. Proquest)
	153	+As a result, the most important political questions are simply not asked. It
	154	+AND
	155	+not true believers. It promotes arrogance. And it undermines political effectiveness.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-12-03 23:52:10.103

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Ben Ulene

Opponent

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

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+5

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+4

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Lexington Roy Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+1NC vs Xavier Roberts-Gall

Tournament

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