Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[2]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[2]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[2]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-12-03 00:40:41.220
	1	+2016-12-03 00:40:41.0

Caselist.CitesClass[2]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,108 @@
	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

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-12-03 00:40:42.543

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Varun Bhave

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Scarsdale NI

ParentRound

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

Round

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

Team

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

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+1NC

Tournament

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