Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[30]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[50]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[30]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-02-20 03:50:08.6
	1	+2017-02-20 03:50:08.0

Caselist.CitesClass[50]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,52 @@
	1	+The role of the ballot is to assess the desirability of a topical, post-fiat policy option about banning speech codes on college campuses
	2	+
	3	+They violate
	4	+
	5	+Vote neg—
	6	+
	7	+1. Procedural fairness—Analytic
	8	+Fairness is a voter and outweighs—when non-topical debates kill competitive equity, they undermine respect for debate participants
	9	+Galloway 7
	10	+Ryan Galloway 7, Samford Comm prof, Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28, 2007
	11	+
	12	+Debate as a dialogue sets an argumentative table, where all parties receive a relatively fair opportunity to voice their position. Anything that fails to allow participants to have their position articulated denies one side of the argumentative table a fair hearing. The affirmative side is set by the topic and fairness requirements. While affirmative teams have recently resisted affirming the topic, in fact, the topic selection process is rigorous, taking the relative ground of each topic as its central point of departure.¶ Setting the affirmative reciprocally sets the negative. The negative crafts approaches to the topic consistent with affirmative demands. The negative crafts disadvantages, counter-plans, and critical arguments premised on the arguments that the topic allows for the affirmative team. According to fairness norms, each side sits at a relatively balanced argumentative table.¶ When one side takes more than its share, competitive equity suffers. However, it also undermines the respect due to the other involved in the dialogue. When one side excludes the other, it fundamentally denies the personhood of the other participant (Ehninger, 1970, p. 110). A pedagogy of debate as dialogue takes this respect as a fundamental component. A desire to be fair is a fundamental condition of a dialogue that takes the form of a demand for equality of voice. Far from being a banal request for links to a disadvantage, fairness is a demand for respect, a demand to be heard, a demand that a voice backed by literally months upon months of preparation, research, and critical thinking not be silenced.¶ Affirmative cases that suspend basic fairness norms operate to exclude particular negative strategies. Unprepared, one side comes to the argumentative table unable to meaningfully participate in a dialogue. They are unable to “understand what ‘went on…’” and are left to the whims of time and power (Farrell, 1985, p. 114).
	13	+
	14	+Analytic
	15	+
	16	+2. jurisdiction – Analytic
	17	+
	18	+
	19	+3. Switch-side debate.
	20	+
	21	+Analytic
	22	+Switch side debate is key to an ethical society built on tolerance and pluralism
	23	+O’Donnell et al 9
	24	+Timothy O’Donnell (University of Mary Washington), Neil Butt (Wayne State University), Stefan Bauschard (Lakeland School District, New York), Joseph Bellon (Georgia State University), Warren Decker (George Mason University), John Katsulas (Boston College), William Keith (University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee), James Lyle (Clarion University), Danielle Verney O’Gorman (US Naval Academy), and Joseph Packer (University of Pittsburgh). “A Rationale for Intercollegiate Debate in the Twenty-first Century.” Navigating Opportunity: Policy Debate in the 21st Century, ed. Allan Louden. Wake Forest National Debate Conference, 2009, pg. 44. IDebate Press.
	25	+
	26	+There is a far stronger case to be made that participation in switch-side debating teachers students to form a sound ethical foundation. For example, Star Muir argues that “firm moral commitments to a value system” are “founded in reflexive assessments of multiple perspectives” (1993, 291). By forcing students to defend both sides of an argument, switch-side debating cultivates a “healthy ethic of tolerance and pluralism” and leads students to appreciate the validity of opposing belief systems, while “instilling responsible and critical skepticism toward dominant systems” (Harrigan 2008, 37). This process of debate and self-reflection over time produces a more ethical belief system because it is grounded in critical thought. Nurturing debate about alternative viewpoints and trying on others’ ideas through simulated and situational argument is the essence of a free society and the basis for an ethical society.
	27	+
	28	+Our kind of pluralism and democracy doesn’t exclude identity or alternate style – it’s style-neutral. Any other conception of argumentation crowds out the potential for mutual dialogue which reifies disableism
	29	+Amanda Anderson 6, Andrew W. Mellon Professor of Humanities and English at Brown University, Spring 2006, “Reply to My Critic(s),” Criticism, Vol. 48, No. 2, p. 281-290
	30	+MY RECENT BOOK, The Way We Argue Now, has in a sense two theses. In the first place, the book makes the case for the importance of debate and argument to any vital democratic or pluralistic intellectual culture. This is in many ways an unexceptional position, but the premise of the book is that the claims of reasoned argument are often trumped, within the current intellectual terrain, by appeals to cultural identity and what I gather more broadly under the rubric of ethos, which includes cultural identity but also forms of ethical piety and charismatic authority. In promoting argument as a universal practice keyed to a human capacity for communicative reason, my book is a critique of relativism and identity politics, or the notion that forms of cultural authenticity or group identity have a certain unquestioned legitimacy, one that cannot or should not be subjected to the challenges of reason or principle, precisely because reason and what is often called "false universalism" are, according to this pattern of thinking, always involved in forms of exclusion, power, or domination. My book insists, by contrast, that argument is a form of respect, that the ideals of democracy, whether conceived from a nationalist or an internationalist perspective, rely fundamentally upon procedures of argumentation and debate in order to legitimate themselves and to keep their central institutions vital. And the idea that one should be protected from debate, that argument is somehow injurious to persons if it does not honor their desire to have their basic beliefs and claims and solidarities accepted without challenge, is strenuously opposed. As is the notion that any attempt to ask people to agree upon processes of reason-giving argument is somehow necessarily to impose a coercive norm, one that will discourage the free expression and performance of identities, feelings, or solidarities. Disagreement is, by the terms of my book, a form of respect, not a form of disrespect. And by disagreement, I don't mean simply to say that we should expect disagreement rather than agreement, which is a frequently voiced-if misconceived-criticism of Habermas. Of course we should expect disagreement. My point is that we should focus on the moment of dissatisfaction in the face of disagreement-the internal dynamic in argument that imagines argument might be the beginning of a process of persuasion and exchange that could end in agreement (or partial agreement). For those who advocate reconciling ourselves to disagreements rather than arguing them out, by contrast, there is a complacent-and in some versions, even celebratory-attitude toward fixed disagreement. Refusing these options, I make the case for dissatisfied disagreement in the final chapter of the book and argue that people should be willing to justify their positions in dialogue with one another, especially if they hope to live together in a post-traditional pluralist society.
	31	+
	32	+
	33	+4. Limits—specific topics are key to reasonable expectations for 1ncs. Open subjects create incentives for avoidance and monopolization of moral high ground—that denies a role for the neg and turns accessibility.
	34	+Abandoning topical debate creates an impossible prep burden that materially affects our lives outside of round
	35	+Harris 13
	36	+Scott Harris (Director of Debate at U Kansas, 2006 National Debate Coach of the Year, Vice President of the American Forensic Association, 2nd speaker at the NDT in 1981). “This ballot.” 5 April 2013. CEDA Forums. http://www.cedadebate.org/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4762.0;attach=1655
	37	+
	38	+I understand that there has been some criticism of Northwestern’s strategy in this debate round. This criticism is premised on the idea that they ran framework instead of engaging Emporia’s argument about home and the Wiz. I think this criticism is unfair. Northwestern’s framework argument did engage Emporia’s argument. Emporia said that you should vote for the team that performatively and methodologically made debate a home. Northwestern’s argument directly clashed with that contention. My problem in this debate was with aspects of the execution of the argument rather than with the strategy itself. It has always made me angry in debates when people have treated topicality as if it were a less important argument than other arguments in debate. Topicality is a real argument. It is a researched strategy. It is an argument that challenges many affirmatives. The fact that other arguments could be run in a debate or are run in a debate does not make topicality somehow a less important argument. In reality, for many of you that go on to law school you will spend much of your life running topicality arguments because you will find that words in the law matter. The rest of us will experience the ways that word choices matter in contracts, in leases, in writing laws and in many aspects of our lives. Kansas ran an affirmative a few years ago about how the location of a comma in a law led a couple of districts to misinterpret the law into allowing individuals to be incarcerated in jail for two days without having any formal charges filed against them. For those individuals the location of the comma in the law had major consequences. Debates about words are not insignificant. Debates about what kinds of arguments we should or should not be making in debates are not insignificant either. The limits debate is an argument that has real pragmatic consequences. I found myself earlier this year judging Harvard’s eco-pedagogy aff and thought to myself—I could stay up tonight and put a strategy together on eco-pedagogy, but then I thought to myself—why should I have to? Yes, I could put together a strategy against any random argument somebody makes employing an energy metaphor but the reality is there are only so many nights to stay up all night researching. I would like to actually spend time playing catch with my children occasionally or maybe even read a book or go to a movie or spend some time with my wife. A world where there are an infinite number of affirmatives is a world where the demand to have a specific strategy and not run framework is a world that says this community doesn’t care whether its participants have a life or do well in school or spend time with their families. I know there is a new call abounding for interpreting this NDT as a mandate for broader more diverse topics. The reality is that will create more work to prepare for the teams that choose to debate the topic but will have little to no effect on the teams that refuse to debate the topic. Broader topics that do not require positive government action or are bidirectional will not make teams that won’t debate the topic choose to debate the topic. I think that is a con job. I am not opposed to broader topics necessarily. I tend to like the way high school topics are written more than the way college topics are written. I just think people who take the meaning of the outcome of this NDT as proof that we need to make it so people get to talk about anything they want to talk about without having to debate against Topicality or framework arguments are interested in constructing a world that might make debate an unending nightmare and not a very good home in which to live. Limits, to me, are a real impact because I feel their impact in my everyday existence.
	39	+Limits turn solvency. Research shows that research overload leads to superficial education, meaning we won’t learn about the aff or anything else.
	40	+Chokshi 10
	41	+Niraj Chokshi is a former staff editor at TheAtlantic.com, where he wrote about technology. He is currently freelancing How Do We Stop the Internet From Making Us Stupid? JUN 8 2010 http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/06/how-do-we-stop-the-internet-from-making-us-stupid/57796/ BK
	42	+When it comes to focus, turning on the spotlight may not matter as much as our ability to dim the ambient light. Nicholas Carr argued on Saturday in The Wall Street Journal that the Internet is making us dumber and on Monday The New York Times had a front-page feature on the mental price we pay for our multi-tasked lifestyles. If we are indeed losing our ability to think deeply, the key to fighting back may lie in a subtlety: focus may be more about our ability to filter out distractions than our ability to home in on the issue at hand. Carr posed his idea that technology is making us stupid in a 2008 Atlantic cover story and his forthcoming book "The Shallows" is a longer rumination on the theory. According to professors and research cited in The Times piece "the idea that information overload causes distraction was supported by more and more research." And those distractions, according to research Carr cites, are forcing us to change the way we think. Deep thought is losing ground to superficiality. So, if our multitasking lifestyle causes distraction, and distraction leads to superficial thinking, how do we fight back? Carr offers some advice:
	43	+
	44	+Topical version—Analytic
	45	+As long as ableism is separated from public policy analysis, there’s no chance of solvency
	46	+Watson 93: Watson, The Pew State Policy Initiatives Senior Officer, 93
	47	+(Sara D., Winter 1993, Policy Studies Journal, “Introduction: Disability Policy as an Emerging Field of Mainstream Public Policy Research and Pedagogy,” vol. 21(4), Chadwyk Periodicals Archive Online, p. 722, bs)
	48	+Because of this separation between people knowledgeable about disability issues and those knowledgeable about public policy theory, the field of public policy has missed the incredibly rich and varied lessons that decisions in disability policy can teach. And the field of disability policy has missed the benefit of experiences learned in other programs. The quandaries faced by people designing disability programs or mobilizing the disability constituency are not unique. For example, the voucher concept so controversial in education is also being considered for the publicly-funded rehabilitation system. While the underlying rationale is the same—the public system does not meet everyone's needs and there is curiosity about whether a private, market-driven system would produce better results—other circumstances put a different slant on the debate. As another example, the debate over whether immigrant children should be taught only in English is in some ways similar to the debate over whether deaf children should be taught sign language, oral speech, or some combination of the two. In both situations, a key question is whether the minority population should be forced to learn the language of the majority, or whether the majority should be expected to accommodate the needs of the minority. Other examples explored in this two-part symposium include the following: Jean Campbell (in the second part) explores the unintended consequences of public policy. In this case, her subject is people with mental illnesses under the ADA, but the lessons could apply to a variety of situations. Jean Flatley McGuire (in the second pan) explores an issue familiar to many involved in social movement politics: holding together a diverse coalition in order to pass controversial legislation. In an article that challenges conventional wisdom on media and public policy, Joseph Shapiro (in the second part) talks about the disability movement's disdain for media coverage as a tool for achieving their goals. Interestingly, this strategy bears some similarity to the new media strategy demonstrated in the 1992 presidential election. Issues of resource allocation and consumer control all have permeated past programs, particularly in the welfare system. Margaret Nosek and Carol How land's paper in this part illustrates this question for the personal assistance services program. All the issues relevant to other minority populations in the United States are relevant for people with disabilities; for example, the rise and progress of the civil rights movement. Recognizing the problems faced by older civil rights movements and applicable public programs can help the disability movement avoid them. My paper in this pan explores the similarities between the women's movement and the disability movement and examines how they illustrate the new policymaking philosophy of the Clinton administration. As Frank Bowe points out in this pan, telecommunications policy for people with disabilities illustrates the constant question in public policy of user fees—should a party using a service bear the extra cost, or should it be distributed among a larger group? The next step in the evolution of disability policy must be a conscious cross-fertilization among disability scholars and public policy experts; to that end, we include wonderfully specific papers by Gerben DeJong and Daniel M Fox (both in the second part) on building this capacity. This cursory description illustrates the vast potential of this field to inform other public policy debates, and vice-versa. It is our hope that the papers in this symposium will be used not only in research and curriculum on disability policy, but also in research and pedagogy that explore the larger issues in the public policy discipline.
	49	+
	50	+Focus on institutional change is empirically successful for persons with disabilities
	51	+DSQ 3 writes
	52	+The history of the efforts of the disability rights movement on behalf of legislation which would facilitate the attainment of its twin goals of the inclusion and empowerment of persons with disabilities can be said to begin in the 1950s. Specifically, it can be traced (Varela 1983: 35) to the "paralyzed veterans . . . fighting for more parking spaces, and for more accessible commodes . . ." and to the fight by people with disabilities "for local and state accessibility laws throughout the 1950s." The first significant federal legislation advancing the goals of the movement came in 1965 with the creation of the National Commission on Architectural Barriers to the Rehabilitation of the Handicapped. The Commission was to "study the problems involved in making all federal buildings accessible to disabled citizens" (Varela 1983: 36). However, the import of the work of the Commission on such problems is not limited to problems of access. As Varela (1983: 36) observes, "the work of the Commission, and, more importantly, of disabled activists . . . changed attitudes toward disability . . . ." The change was from "an emphasis on services (that is, on doing something about 'those people')" to "an emphasis on civil rights (that is, the notion that once certain obstacles were removed, disabled people would be able to do a lot more for themselves than society had imagined)" (Varela 1983: 36). In short, efforts to include those with disabilities became efforts to empower them as well. Moreover, the notion that environmental obstacles and not just the impairment of individuals were worthy of attention rendered it plausible to seek the enactment of laws and regulations that would do so. In other words, "environmental variables, unlike individual characteristics can be rectified through legislative and administrative action" (DeJong 1983: 25). In 1968, the Architectural Barriers Act was passed. It stipulated that any facility built with or merely receiving federal funds had to be accessible to all. However, enforcement was minimal (Varela 1983: 36). Fortunately, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, in a provision welcomed by the disability right movement, established the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (AandTBCB) to investigate and enforce compliance with established standards. Unfortunately, it "never received the funding it needed to enforce the law or even to investigate all . . . violations . . . reported by disabled consumers" (Varela 1983: 37). Nevertheless, the fight for accessibility did advance the cause of the disability rights movement. It helped make it clear that barriers included "social, political and intellectual obstacles, as well as physical ones" (Varela 1983: 37). Moreover, the 1973 Rehabilitation Act contained provisions in addition to the establishment of the AandTBCB which were important to the movement (Varela 1983: 40-41). It required the establishment, by state rehabilitation agencies, of selection methods that would ensure that people with severe impairments were not excluded from the agency's programs. In effect, then, the Act made it clear that no impairment, no matter how severe, was to be allowed as a consequences of a state agency's denial of services to become a disability. In addition, the 1973 act included provisions for client rights and for civil rights. Specifically, Section 504 prohibited discrimination against persons with so-called disabilities by any federally supported program. Thus, Section 504 was important to persons with so- called disabilities "who were looking for jobs . . . who wanted to use the same clinic as everyone else, who wanted the same choice of apartments, and who wanted to get into the polling places on election day" (Varela 1983: 42), who wanted simply to be an autonomous, contributing member of society. The next step in the history of legislation to empower and include people with impairments was the passage of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, originally called the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, P. L. 94-142). IDEA set "forth a comprehensive scheme" to ensure "two basic substantive rights of eligible children with disabilities . . . ." These were: "(1) the right to a free appropriate public education, and (2) the right to that education in the least restrictive environment" (National Council on Disability 2000: 28). The law applied in every state that receives federal funds under IDEA and to all public agencies authorized to provide special education and related services in a state that receives such funds. The Act was amended and reauthorized in 1997 (NCD 2000 30-31). In 1978, the Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Services and Developmental Disabilities Amendments (P. L. 95-602) of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act were passed. The amendments evinced Congress' endorsement of the autonomy premise of the social model described above. That is, the Amendments acknowledged that persons with disabilities should be involved in forming the policies and practices which affect their lives. Specifically, it mandated that a grant for an independent living center "provide assurances that handicapped individuals be substantially involved in the policy direction and management of such center, and will be employed by such center" (P. L.. 95-602 as quoted by Varela 1983: 46). Many, if not most, however, view the enactment of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) in 1990 as the crowning achievement of the disability rights movement. That act (P. L. 101-336) extended provisions of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the 1978 amendments well beyond the earlier application to federally supported programs and the state rehabilitation agencies and of the IDEA to special education. Indeed, it "codified into law important principles that would henceforth govern the relationship between American society and its citizens with disabilities . . . and altered public discourse about disability and about the role of people with disabilities in American society" (National Council on Disability 1997b: 4-5). It did so, first, by, in effect, making the marginalization, the exclusion of people with impairments from the mainstream of society in the United States, illegitimate. Specifically, it declared that "people with disabilities are an integral part of society and, as such, should not be segregated, isolated, or subjected to the effects of discrimination" (National Council on Disability 1997b: 4). Furthermore, it sought to enable "people with disabilities to take charge of their lives . . . by fostering employment opportunities, facilitating access to public transportation and public accommodation, and ensuring the use of our nation's communication system" (National Council on Disability 1997b: 4). Moreover, the principles of the ADA can serve as a basis to test and challenge public policies and practices not consistent with those principles and even to demand they be changed. The ADA, then, "upholds the principle that each individual has the potential, and deserves, the right to participate in, and contribute to, society" (National Council on Disability 1997b: 5).

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-02-20 03:50:17.655

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Heaven Montague

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Bronx JJ

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+30

Round

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

Team

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

Title

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

Tournament

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