Changes for page Lexington Roy Neg
Summary
-
Objects (2 modified, 7 added, 4 removed)
Details
- Caselist.CitesClass[0]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,17 +1,0 @@ 1 -INTERPRETATION: Debaters must specify a single country in which to ban nuclear power. 2 - 3 -VIOLATION: Case specific violation 4 - 5 -Standards 6 - 7 -Topic Literature 8 - 9 -World Nuclear Association 16 10 -World Nuclear Association, 7/16, N.P, http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/others/emerging-nuclear-energy-countries.aspx 11 -In different countries, 12 -AND 13 -are likely, including public-private partnerships. 14 - 15 -Ground 16 - 17 -VOTER: - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-10-14 18:27:21.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -0 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Lexington Roy Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -NP - Must Spec - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Byram
- Caselist.CitesClass[1]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,23 +1,0 @@ 1 -Australia empirically verifies coal tradeoff. 2 - 3 -Ben Heard 12 4 -Masters of Corporate Environmental Sustainability Management, Monash University, 2007, environmental activist, Director of ThinkClimate Consulting, “That day in December: the story of nuclear prohibition in Australia”, Decarbonise SA, 12 Sep 2012, BE 5 -Since the prohibition of nuclear power, while nuclear build has taken off around the 6 -AND 7 -greenhouse emissions from electricity production 18 higher since 1998 (Australian Greenhouse Emissions 8 - 9 -Warming causes extinction 10 - 11 -Flournoy 12 12 -Don Flournoy 12, Citing Feng Hsu, PhD NASA Scientist @ the Goddard Space Flight Center and Don is a PhD and MA from UT, former Dean of the University College @ Ohio University, former Associate Dean at SUNY and Case Institute of Technology, Former Manager for University/Industry Experiments for the NASA ACTS Satellite, currently Professor of Telecommunications @ Scripps College of Communications, Ohio University, “Solar Power Satellites,” January 2012, Springer Briefs in Space Development, p. 10-11 13 -In the Online Journal of Space Communication , Dr. Feng Hsu, a NASA 14 -AND 15 -simply too high for us to take any chances” (Hsu 2010 ). 16 - 17 -Moral uncertainty means extinction comes first 18 - 19 -Bostrom 13 20 -Nick Bostrom (Faculty of Philosophy at Oxford). “Existential Risk Prevention as Global Priority.” Global Policy, Vol. 4, Issue 1. 2013. http://www.existential-risk.org/concept.html 21 -These reflections on moral uncertainty suggest an alternative, complementary way of looking at existential 22 -AND 23 -lot of value. To do this we must prevent any existential catastrophe. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-10-14 18:33:00.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Lexington Roy Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -NP - Warming DA - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Byram
- Caselist.CitesClass[2]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,108 +1,0 @@ 1 -1NC vs Spikes K 2 - 3 -Spikes K 4 - 5 -Their obfuscation and the use of spikes is antiethical to the ethic of intellectual integrity, 6 - 7 -TORSON 13 8 -“Debate and the Virtue of Intellectual Integrity by Adam Torson” March 25th, 2013. By Victory Briefs. http://vbriefly.com/2013/03/25/20133debate-and-the-virtue-of-intellectual-integrity-by-adam-torson/NB 9 -Against Purposeful Obfuscation Too often in debate, strategy devolves into sophistry. Debaters utilize 10 -AND 11 -as a very strange outcome in any debate event worthy of the name. 12 - 13 -Intellectual integrity is the biggest impact- it’s the point of debate. 14 - 15 -TORSON 13 16 -“Debate and the Virtue of Intellectual Integrity by Adam Torson” March 25th, 2013. By Victory Briefs. http://vbriefly.com/2013/03/25/20133debate-and-the-virtue-of-intellectual-integrity-by-adam-torson/NB 17 -Intellectual integrity denotes a commitment to the honest pursuit of truth through openness to evidence 18 -AND 19 -I encourage the examination of those practices through the lens of intellectual integrity. 20 - 21 -Reject the 1AC’s use of spikes to embrace argumentative responsibility- you know what you did wrong and know you better own up to it. 22 - 23 -TORSON 13 24 -“Debate and the Virtue of Intellectual Integrity by Adam Torson” March 25th, 2013. By Victory Briefs. http://vbriefly.com/2013/03/25/20133debate-and-the-virtue-of-intellectual-integrity-by-adam-torson/NB 25 -What We Can Do About It¶ Students¶ I encourage debaters to embrace the 26 -AND 27 -occur in the first place - denying this destroys the assumptions debate operates on 28 - 29 -AC Spikes 30 - 31 -Off of some of her spikes, - Counterinterp 32 - 33 -A. INterp Debaters must not make their opponent ask in cross-ex for theory violations and deny the neg one conditional route to the ballot and claim that the theory on affirmative spikes is drop the argument and claim that aff theory is a reason to drop the debater. 34 - 35 -B. VIOLATION: all these spikes are in the 1AC 36 - 37 -C. STANDARDS: 38 -a. Advocacy shift—CX checks allows the aff an opportunity to change its vision of a fair debate after the reading of the 1AC. Letting the 1AC flip-flop out of its original positions is unfair because it inevitably leads to the aff cherry picking which theory interps it will concede and not concede depending on who they are debating. Infinite prep solves for mutually exclusive interps – you can pick and frontline the ones you defend. 39 -Also links to strat skew because aff representing the AC differently based on who’s neg 40 -AND 41 -aff to waste negative CX time and keeps the neg from gaining concessions. 42 - 43 -d. norms setting 44 - 45 -CX checks prevents norms setting because the aff is never prevented form reading abusive things – either its dropped or they just get it removed in CX. 46 - 47 -Her aff spike that says neg theory on aff spike should be drop the arg is uniquely bad because then the neg can never check aff abuse since there is no deterrence effect. 48 - 49 -Norms setting outweighs on fairness since it ensures infinite better practices in the future. 50 - 51 -e. reciprocity 52 - 53 -saying aff theory is a reason to drop the debater but neg theory is a reason to drop the argument is a form of structural abuse because she gets extra routes to the ballot. Reciprocity key to fairness since I can’t win if I don’t have equal access to argumentation. 54 - 55 -D. VOTERS: 56 -Concede fairness is a voter from AC, but also because debate is a competitive activity so requires equitable access to the ballot 57 -Drop the debater on theory because a) fairness is a gateway issue, unfair 58 -AND 59 -to implement it, there is no way I can win the round. 60 - 61 -Off of UV affirming Harder 62 -Negating is harder 63 - 64 -1. Aff gets last word- strategic 2AR can collapse to the most important arg and can weigh whereas the 2NR has to multipoint every arg. I can't contest weighing beacuse there's no 3NR. 65 - 66 -2. Judge Psychology 67 - 68 -A. Judges remembers the last speech more clearly and is more likely to vote off initial aff offense 69 - 70 -B. Most people think affirming is harder- so there is an implicit bias in the mindset of the judge which makes affirming harder- outweighs cuz the neg can't overcome it 71 - 72 -3. Infinite prep time to find the perfect strat and frontline, whereas we have to either prep for all possible affa nd adapt to the aff strat. They can also write all their blocks with perfect efficiency which solves time skew 73 - 74 -4. Presuming aff lets them win on defense- which heavily skews the round in their favor because they have to win half the arguments 75 - 76 -5. 1AR and 2AR has 7 mins to uplayer against potential 1NC offense whereas we only have 6 mins in the 2NR, makes collapses especially effective 77 -This points have implicit clash with her affirming harder points – don’t let her say I conceded them because I did’t literally say “off of the b.) point 78 - 79 - (read if time) Presume Neg 80 - 81 -1. Prefer substantive reasons to presume over theoretical ones- if i win we ought to see the res as false then there's a risk of offense and i did the better debating to not need to go to the theory layer 82 - 83 -2. All propositions require positive justification before being accepted, otherwise one would be forced to accept the validity of logically contradictory propositions regarding subjects one knows nothing about i.e. if one knew nothing about P one would have to presume that both P and -P are true 84 - 85 -3. Key to check tricky affs- otherwise they can extend blippy spikes and take out swaths of 1NC speech time with a presumption trigger 86 - 87 -4. To negate is defined as "to deny the truth of", negating requires no positive justification, so we always presume neg 88 - 89 -5. Resolved means firmly determined to do something, we would not affirm unless there is a pro-active motivation to take an action 90 - 91 -6. Assuming statements true w/o positive justification is uneducational since real life exposes ones to situations where we blindly follow authority figures which allows them to oppress us 92 -7. Statements are more likely false because there are an infinite amount of ways to contest them, 93 - 94 -Off of One Uncondo route UV arg 95 - 96 -Off strat skew 97 -1. Their interp causes a double bind- I can only read one offensive theory shell, which means there's never any substantive education or engagement of the aff, I'm forced to read theory, at which point they can win on rvi or substance, and sub edu key in LD 98 -2. I can't read counterinterps to aff theory- each of those are uncondo 99 -AND 100 -either on the same layer or several turns explains why its better for you 101 - 102 - Off of theory on ac spikes are drop debater UV arg 103 -1. She says they are incitement of bad debate norms but we prove they are actually good 104 -2. She says she shouldn’t be dropped because they aren’t her advocacy, 1.) non unique – people get dropped by things that aren’t in their adovacy all the time i.e. meta theory 2.) cross apply the RVI reasons above. If you don’t drop her she will keep reading this false interp, it’s a no risk issue if its drop the arg. Dropping debater creates change – bracket theory proves 105 - 106 -Off of aff theory is drop debater UV arg 107 -1.) You say 4 min 1ar isn’t enough to win substance and theory – get faster, do strategy skills, don’t punish me for ur lack of drilling 108 -2.) We will concede this is you concede neg gets RVIs, reciprocity which is key to fairness. If you don’t concede that’s not reciprocal because your theoretical arguments are drop the debater but mine arn.t - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-03 04:30:39.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Varun Bhave - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Scarsdale NI - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Lexington Roy Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -QI - 1NC vs Scarsdale NI - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Princeton
- Caselist.CitesClass[3]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,155 +1,0 @@ 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
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-03 23:52:10.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Ben Ulene - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Xavier - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Lexington Roy Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1NC vs Xavier Roberts-Gall - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Princeton
- Caselist.CitesClass[4]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -2017-02-17 23:50:00. 7471 +2017-02-17 23:50:00.0
- Caselist.RoundClass[6]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +4
- Caselist.CitesClass[5]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,44 @@ 1 +T – Consequentialism 2 + 3 +Interpretation- The affirmative must defend act or rule util. 4 + 5 +Violation: His aff says “generic util turns do not apply” 6 + 7 +1. Ground 8 + 9 +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 10 + 11 +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. 12 + 13 +Ground key to fairness- ensures both debaters have equal access to args 14 + 15 +2. Topic Literature 16 + 17 +Qualified immunity doesn't exist independent of empirical legislative decisions and police officer conduct- empirical actual focus is key 18 + 19 +TLR 4 2004 Texas Law Review "NOTE: The Paradox Of Qualified Immunity: How A Mechanical Application Of The Objective Legal Reasonableness 20 +Damage suits against government officials raise a number of competing interests. On the one hand, these suits deter unlawful conduct and offer the only realistic avenue for vindication of constitutional guarantees. 1 On the other hand, frivolous claims against government officials result in costs both to the defendants themselves and to society as a whole, including the expenses of litigation, the diversion of energy from pressing public matters, and the danger that fear of suit will dampen the ardor with which officials discharge their duties. 2 Qualified immunity is a judicially created doctrine designed to balance these competing interests. The primary purpose of qualified immunity is to shield government officials from "undue interference with their duties and from potentially disabling threats of liability." 3 A federal official may raise the affirmative defense of qualified immunity in response to a civil rights suit brought directly under the Constitution. 4 Likewise, a state or local official may interpose the defense when faced with a 1983 action. 5 Since qualified immunity constitutes an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability, it protects government officials not only from the ordeal of protracted litigation, but also from the burdens of pretrial concerns. 6 Unlike absolute immunity, however, in theory qualified immunity does not provide officials absolute exemption 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 21 + 22 +Focused topic education outweighs 23 + 24 +A. Reading a framework and policy solves phil ground- our interpretation allows for negative frameworks to be read 25 + 26 +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 27 + 28 +C. Timeframe- we have 2 months to discuss the topic- but we can always get phi led from other places 29 + 30 +D. Debate’s strategic incentives bastardize phil debate 31 +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 32 +Another cause of poorly justified relativism and skepticism in LD debate comes from judge expectations 33 +AND 34 +inclined to accept a controversial philosophical view about morality for the wrong reasons. 35 + 36 +E. Phil debate creates unrealistic phil decisions 37 +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 38 +The LD debate community is on the hyper-methodist end of the spectrum. 39 +AND 40 +Holocaust wasn’t morally wrong if the debater in question is defending moral nihilism. 41 + 42 +F. Comparitive ethics debates are useless- in the real world people argue how actions apply under ethics 43 + 44 +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. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-02-17 23:52:06.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +7 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Lexington Roy Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +ND - T Consequentialism - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any
- Caselist.CitesClass[7]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,35 @@ 1 +Warming DA 2 + 3 +Uniqueness 4 +Nuclear power is combating warming – a prohibition is catastrophic 5 +Harvey 12 6 +Fiona Harvey - award-winning environment journalist for the Guardian, used to work for financial times. “Nuclear power is only solution to climate change, says Jeffrey Sachs.” The Guardian. May 3, 2012. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/03/nuclear-power-solution-climate-chang 7 +Combating climate change 8 +AND 9 +scientists," he said. 10 + 11 +Link 12 +A prohibition causes a shift to fossil fuels – Japan proves 13 +Chameides 12 14 + Chameides, Bill (Dean of Nicholas School of the Environment 2007-2014, Professor Emeritus at Duke University). "The Nuclear Power Conundrum." Nicholas School of the Environment. Duke University, 5 July 2012. Web. http3A2F2Fblogs.nicholas.duke.edu2Fthegreengrok2Fnuke-conundrum2F 15 + 16 +What to do when 17 +AND 18 +or the other.” 19 + 20 +Internal Link 21 +Fossil fuels increase CO2 emissions - strongest link to warming 22 +NWF 15 23 +National Wildlife Federation, 2015. “Global Warming is human caused”. National Wildlife Federation. https://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Threats-to-Wildlife/Global-Warming/Global-Warming-is-Human-Caused.aspx. 24 +Scientists have concluded 25 +AND 26 +recent warming trends. 27 + 28 +Impact 29 + 30 +Warming causes extinction 31 +Flournoy 12 32 +Don Flournoy 12, Citing Feng Hsu, PhD NASA Scientist @ the Goddard Space Flight Center and Don is a PhD and MA from UT, former Dean of the University College @ Ohio University, former Associate Dean at SUNY and Case Institute of Technology, Former Manager for University/Industry Experiments for the NASA ACTS Satellite, currently Professor of Telecommunications @ Scripps College of Communications, Ohio University, “Solar Power Satellites,” January 2012, Springer Briefs in Space Development, p. 10-11 33 +In the Online Journal of Space Communication , Dr. Feng Hsu, a NASA 34 +AND 35 +is simply too high for us to take any chances” (Hsu 2010 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-02-17 23:56:53.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +9 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Lexington Roy Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +SO - Warming DA - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any
- Caselist.CitesClass[8]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,17 @@ 1 +INTERPRETATION: Debaters must specify a single country in which to ban nuclear power. 2 + 3 +VIOLATION: Case specific violation 4 + 5 +Standards 6 + 7 +Topic Literature 8 + 9 +World Nuclear Association 16 10 +World Nuclear Association, 7/16, N.P, http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/others/emerging-nuclear-energy-countries.aspx 11 +In different countries, 12 +AND 13 +are likely, including public-private partnerships. 14 + 15 +Ground 16 + 17 +VOTER: - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-02-17 23:59:12.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +10 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Lexington Roy Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +SO - Must Spec Single Country - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any
- Caselist.RoundClass[7]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +5 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-02-17 23:52:04.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any
- Caselist.RoundClass[8]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +6 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-02-17 23:54:05.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any
- Caselist.RoundClass[9]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +7 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-02-17 23:56:52.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any
- Caselist.RoundClass[10]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +8 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-02-17 23:59:11.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any