Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[4]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[5]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[4]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-10-17 15:18:38.619
	1	+2016-10-17 15:18:38.0

Caselist.CitesClass[5]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,65 @@
	1	+Part 1 is the poem
	2	+Hear the earth sing. . . .
	3	+She rises in you
	4	+as you in her
	5	+Your voice becomes her voice
	6	+Sing!
	7	+Your dance is her dance
	8	+ of the circling stars
	9	+ and the ever-renewing flame
	10	+May the voice of the earth soar through us
	11	+May we sing or stones and stars
	12	+ and dance as the flames leap and dance
	13	+We will not be walking dead
	14	+We are earth
	15	+A poem by Raven Starhawk
	16	+Part 2 is the problem
	17	+
	18	+Questions of ontology should be evaluated prior to other starting points for morality
	19	+Dillon 1999 (Dillon, Prof of Politics, University of Lancaster, Moral Spaces, p. 97-98)-mikee
	20	+Heirs to all this, we find ourselves in the turbulent and now globalized wake of its confluence. As Heidegger-himself an especially revealing figure of the deep and mutual implication of the philosophical and the political4-never tired of pointing out, the relevance of ontology to all other kinds of thinking is fundamental and inescapable. For one cannot say anything about anything that is, without always already having made assumptions about the is as such. Any mode of thought, in short, always already carries an ontology sequestered within it. What this ontological turn does to other regional modes of thought is to challenge the ontology within which they operate. The implications of that review reverberate throughout the entire mode of thought, demanding a reappraisal as fundamental as the reappraisal ontology has demanded of philosophy. With ontology at issue, the entire foundations or underpinnings of any mode of thought are rendered problematic. This applies as much to any modern discipline of thought as it does to the question of modernity as such, with the exception, it seems, of science, which, having long ago given up the ontological questioning of when it called itself natural philosophy, appears now, in its industrialized and corporatized form, to be invulnerable to ontological perturbation. With its foundations at issue, the very authority of a mode of thought and the ways in which it characterizes the critical issues of freedom and judgment (of what kind of universe human beings inhabit, how they inhabit it, and what counts as reliable knowledge for them in it) is also put in question. The very ways in which Nietzsche, Heidegger, and other continental philosophers challenged Western ontology, simultaneously, therefore reposed the fundamental and inescapable difficulty, or aporia, for human being of decision and judgment. In other words, whatever ontology you subscribe to, knowingly or unknowingly, as a human being you still have to act. Whether or not you know or acknowledge it, the ontology you subscribe to will construe the problem of action for you in one way rather than another. You may think ontology is some arcane question of philosophy, but Nietzsche and Heidegger showed that it intimately shapes not only a way of thinking, but a way of being, a form of life. Decision, a fortiori political decision, in short, is no mere technique. It is instead a way of being that bears an understanding of Being, and of the fundaments of the human way of being within it. This applies, indeed applies most, to those mock innocent political slaves who claim only to be technocrats of decision making.
	21	+
	22	+The way that our current discourse talks about energy is one that orders and objectifies nature and each other; this is a concept called enframing which hides truth through rhetoric of violence and exploitation and destroys value to life-our Dasein.
	23	+Beckman 2K
	24	+Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, Humanities and Social Sciences at Harvey Mudd College
	25	+Tad Beckman, “Martin Heidegger and Environmental Ethics,” 2000,  http://www2.hmc.edu/~tbeckman/personal/Heidart.html//
	26	+Perhaps it is not difficult to understand the separate paths of the fine arts, craftsmanship, and modern technology. Each seems to have followed different human intentions and to have addressed different human skills. However, while the fine arts and craftsmanship remained relatively consistent with techne in the ancient sense, modern technology withdrew in a radically different direction. As Heidegger saw it, "the revealing that rules in modern technology is a challenging Herausfordern, which puts to nature the unreasonable demand that it supply energy that can be extracted and stored as such." {7, p. 14} Modern technology sets-upon nature and challenges-forth its energies, in contrast to techne which was always a bringing-forth in harmony with nature. The activity of modern technology lies at a different and more advanced level wherein the natural is not merely decisively re-directed; nature is actually "set-upon." The rhetoric in which the discussion is couched conveys an atmosphere of violence and exploitation. (6) To uncover the essence of modern technology is to discover why technology stands today as the danger. To accomplish this insight, we must understand why modern technology must be viewed as a "challenging-forth," what affect this has on our relationship with nature, and how this relationship affects us. Is there really a difference? Has technology really left the domain of techne in a significant way? In modern technology, has human agency withdrawn in some way beyond involvement and, instead, acquired an attitude of violence with respect to the other causal factors? Heidegger clearly saw the development of "energy resources" as symbolic of this evolutionary path; while the transformation into modern technology undoubtedly began early, the first definitive signs of its new character began with the harnessing of energy resources, as we would say. (7) As a representative of the old technology, the windmill took energy from the wind but converted it immediately into other manifestations such as the grinding of grain; the windmill did not unlock energy from the wind in order to store it for later arbitrary distribution. Modern wind-generators, on the other hand, convert the energy of wind into electrical power which can be stored in batteries or otherwise. The significance of storage is that it places the energy at our disposal; and because of this storage the powers of nature can be turned back upon itself. The storing of energy is, in this sense, the symbol of our over-coming of nature as a potent object. "...a tract of land is challenged into the putting out of coal and ore. The earth now reveals itself as a coal mining district, the soil as a mineral deposit." {7, p. 14} This and other examples that Heidegger used throughout this essay illustrate the difference between a technology that diverts the natural course cooperatively and modern technology that achieves the unnatural by force. Not only is this achieved by force but it is achieved by placing nature in our subjective context, setting aside natural processes entirely, and conceiving of all revealing as being relevant only to human subjective needs.
	27	+As our efficiency in energy production has increased, so intimacy with energy has diminished. We’ve reduced energy to the standing disposable reserve. This is the logic of nuclear destruction: without a shift in our understanding of energy, we’re doomed to lose our humanity. This thinking fuels a mindset that things are “good” unless they are “good for” something and engages in calculative thought turns nature and humanity into lifeless resources
	28	+
	29	+LaDelle McWhorter, Professor of Philosophy, Northeast Missouri State, also of the bumbles, Heidegger and the Earth, ed. McWhorter, 1992.
	30	+
	31	+The danger of a managerial approach to the world lies not, then, in what it knows - not in its penetration into the secrets of galactic emergence or nuclear fission - but in what it forgets, what it itself conceals. It forgets that any other truths are possible, and it forgets that the belonging together of revealing with concealing is forever beyond the power of human management. We can never have, or know, it all; we can never manage everything. What is now especially dangerous about this sense of our own managerial power, born of forgetfulness, is that it results in our viewing the world as mere resources to be stored or consumed. Managerial or technological thinkers, Heidegger says, view the earth, the world, all things as mere Bestand, standing-reserve. All is here simply for human use. No plant, no animal, no ecosystem has a life of its own, has any significance, apart from human desire and need. Nothing, we say, other than human beings, has any intrinsic value. All things are instruments for the working out of human will. Whether we believe that God gave Man dominion or simply that human might (sometimes called intelligence or rationality) in the face of ecological fragility makes us always right, we managerial, technological thinkers tend to believe that the earth is only a stockpile or a set of commodities to be managed, bought, and sold. The forest is timber; the river, a power source. Even people have become resources, human resources, personnel to be managed, or populations to be controlled.
	32	+
	33	+The resolution is a pedagogical starting point to examine our relationship to nature – nuclear power is the perfection of technological thought – the creation of a system in which nature is forced to give all it has so that humanity can maintain energy use. Nuclear power represents humanity’s challenge to nature. Kokobun 13:
	34	+Energies from which humankind has benefited are those given by the sun and mediated by some materials. For example, we burn wood, which has grown by virtue of the energy given by the sun. Wood therefore mediates what the sun has given. It is the same with petroleum, which is fossil fuel derived from ancient fossilised organic materials: the petroleum mediates what the sun has given. Giveness and mediation have been the two traits characterising energy use by humankind. Conversely, it is nuclear technology that aims at discarding these two conditions. As we know, this technology draws power from atomic fission, just as the sun makes its power by atomic fusion. Therefore, Nakazawa defines nuclear technology as follows: what nuclear technology tries to do is to make a sort of sun on the earth; in other words, it tries to import what happens in the domain of the sun into the domain of the living thing. What does this mean? The ecological system is dominated entirely by the phenomenon of “chemical reaction”. Something burns, something grows, a living body remains alive... All these processes are possible because of chemical reaction. And the domain of living things, dominated thus by chemical reaction, cannot continue to exist without depending on its outside; that is, the solar energy system, which is where the atomic fusion, not the chemical reaction, occurs. Here, we can draw the following conclusion: nuclear technology intends to eliminate the outside of the ecological system by taking this outside into the inside. According to Nakazawa’s formulation, nuclear technology brings into the domain of the living what cannot be there, which seems reckless. Some people keep on believing, as before, that this trial is possible. But history proved that it was not possible. Nuclear technology caused irreparable damage to the world of living things.
	35	+
	36	+Part 3 is the method
	37	+Nature is not yet fully enframed; Our communication is key to either dooming or saving nature try or die for the aff.
	38	+Kinsella 2007
	39	+Dr. William J. Kinsella- PhD in communication. Rhetoric and environmental communications theorist, expert on public rhetoric involving nuclear policy. “Heidegger and Being at the Hanford Reservation: Standing Reserve, Enframing, and Environmental Communication Theory” Environmental communication: A journal of nature and culture, October 16th 2007,http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4andhid=113andsid=7ee38f5d-f349-4243-82b7-d2ab8386bc6640sessionmgr104//
	40	+Nature, both non-human and human, persists in its ways of being and often resists enframing, as indicated by continuing crises of containment at Hanford. Nuclear materials continue to travel beyond their designated boundaries, carried by the animals that roam the reservation and transported by gravity through the soil, into the groundwater, and on to the Columbia River. Salmon still spawn in the river in the shadows of decommissioned reactors, albeit at risk for health effects and genetic changes, and the river flows on, to the Pacific. Threats of earthquakes and dam breaches complicate the plans for environmental clean-up and closure of the site. Scientific risk analyses are judged by critics as deficient, as nature reveals itself as too complex for control by calculation. Dissident scientists, organizational whistleblowers, and determined downwinders breach the boundaries of discursive containment, insisting that their voices be heard and their perspectives be recognized (Kinsella, 2001; Kinsella and Mullen, 2007). Although regarded by the agents of enframing as mere nuisances, these are hopeful signs. Nature, culture, and communication are not yet fully enframed, and the possibilities for the future remain open. Human communicative choices, made in conflict or collaboration with nature, will contribute to the disclosure of that future.
	41	+
	42	+If we lose our ability to communicate we lose our access to how we exist within the world; our Daesin or value to life. The technological grasp that is closing in on us is attempting to silence our ability to speak poetically.
	43	+Kinsella 2007
	44	+Dr. William J. Kinsella- PhD in communication. Rhetoric and environmental communications theorist, expert on public rhetoric involving nuclear policy. “Heidegger and Being at the Hanford Reservation: Standing Reserve, Enframing, and Environmental Communication Theory” Environmental communication: A journal of nature and culture, October 16th 2007,http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4andhid=113andsid=7ee38f5d-f349-4243-82b7-d2ab8386bc6640sessionmgr104//
	45	+Another aspect of enframing is the loss of poetry, which for Heidegger is a mode of language crucial to Dasein. In his example of the appropriation of the Rhine as a power source, he laments: In order that we may even remotely consider the monstrousness that reigns here, let us ponder for a moment the contrast that speaks out of the two titles, ‘‘The Rhine’’ as dammed up into the power works, and ‘‘The Rhine’’ as uttered out of the art work, in Ho¨lderlin’s hymn by that name. (Heidegger, 1977a, p. 16, emphasis in original) Here, technological control replaces poetic response, as ‘‘language surrenders itself to our mere willing and traffiking as an instrument of domination over things’’ (Heidegger, 1977b, p. 199). 13 When enframing fully displaces ‘‘poetic dwelling’’ as the prevailing mode of human being, human beings are threatened with a fatal blindness, as mastery of the world blocks the fullness of being in the world. Heidegger (1966) concludes that ‘‘an attack with technological means is being prepared upon the life and nature of man compared with which the explosion of the hydrogen bomb means little. For precisely if the hydrogen bombs do not explode and human life is preserved, an uncanny change in the world moves upon us’’ (p. 52, emphasis in original).
	46	+Thus, I affirm the prohibition of nuclear power through ecopoetic discourse in order to reshape our relationship with energy and the environment. I will defend the resolution as a truth statement but not defend implementation of a policy. You can contest or critique our methodology or present your own methodology that solves for the impact of the 1ac. The judge filters impacts based on who best investigates our relationship with the environment.
	47	+
	48	+Ecopoetics is the fastest way to return to the state of dwelling; adapting towards our original stance with nature through poetry allows us to separate nature and culture. Ecopoetics is what truly enables us to return to the earth which is our home- it allows us to project our thoughts and feelings into a communicative space where we can imagine the world with our being. Only poetic acts is the only way to show our thoughts and feelings.
	49	+Peters 2002
	50	+ Micheal A Peters- PhD in both education and philosophy. Written over 35 books and 300 articles on philosophical and criticisms alike. “Earthsongs: Ecopoetics, Heidegger and Dwelling” THE TRUMPETER VOL 18  NO 1, 2002, http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/2183/1/peters_irwin5B15D.pdf//
	51	+Jonanthan Bate’s7 The Song of the Earth,8 as he says, is a book about, “why poetry continues to matter as we enter a new millennium that will be ruled by technology.” He elaborates further: “It is a book about modern Western man’s alienation from nature. It is about the capacity of the writer to restore us to the earth which is our home.”9 Restoring us to the earth is what good ecopoetry can do and ecopoetics (rather than ecocriticism) is not just the pastoral theme, which Bates asserts, following de Man, may be “in fact, the only poetic theme,” it is poetry itself .10 Ecopoetics is more phenomenological than political and while its force does not depend upon versification or metrical form, it constitutes the most direct return to the place of dwelling. Bate11 explains:
	52	+Ecopoetics asks in what respects a poem may be a making (Greek poiesis) of the dwelling place – the prefix eco- is derived from the Greek oikos, “the home or place of dwelling.” And as he says elsewhere:  I think of this book as an “experiment in ecopoetics”. The experiment is this: to see what happens when we regard poems as imaginary parks in which we may breathe an air that is not toxic and accommodate ourselves to a mode of dwelling that is not alienated.12 When Bate uses the concept “dwelling” he is self-consciously drawing on his earlier understanding of Wordsworth13 —for Wordsworth “remains the founding father for a thinking of poetry in relation to place, to our dwelling on the earth”14 —and running this sense of place together with the special sense that Heidegger15 gives the term in two essays based on lectures delivered in the early 1950s (“Building Dwelling Thinking,” 1950 and “…Poetically Man Dwells …,” 1951). Indeed, there is a peculiar set of relationships between place, poetry, and bioregion. At school, many New Zealand children found Wordsworth fanciful, though they were forced to read and rote memorize his poetry as part of the curriculum. They did not understand his poetry because they did not appreciate the local topography and landscape of the Lake District, which is much more manicured, man-made over many generations, and “tame” compared to the relatively wild and uninhabited New Zealand land and seascapes. Clearly, the set of relationships between place, poetry, and region generates a further set of questions about the construction of the canon and the curriculum, the role and representation of Nature in the formation of national and cultural identity—in defining a people through representing their relationship to the (home)land—and pedagogy.16 Within this set of relationships it is easy to see how a particular representation of Nature became mainstream. Romanticism depends upon the assumption in the west of the separation of nature and culture, for before it can contemplate any spiritual union or sacred reunification, separation is required. Thus, Romanticism, developed through a series of associations—intuition over rationality, feelings over beliefs, with a sense of mysticism and oneness with Nature—as though it was possible to overcome the alienation and reification that had emerged with capitalism, industrialization, and urbanization. Nature was often pictured by the Romantics as the garden, the landscape, the village, or the earth that conjured up an idealized pastoral space—a paradisical Eden—which constituted the natural habitat for the soul. In the Preface to the Lyrical Ballads, Wordsworth suggests that poetry is “spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings,”17 but also “emotion recollected in tranquillity” leading to the creation of a new emotion in the mind.18 The creative nature of poetic act is said to be the ability to be affected by “absent things as if they were present” and to express “thoughts and feelings” that arise “without immediate external excitement.”19 Yet what really distinguished Wordsworth from other poets belonging to the Romantic Movement was his “view of nature as having palpable moral significance.”20
	53	+
	54	+There is currently no eco-poetics or eco-criticism that exists in the squo- looking at our policies and evaluating how we feel about the problems in front of us is key to bring around the change of speaking for nature, not just to it. Ecopoetry is necessary to step away from the technological world view we hold and create effective polices that break out of current modes of thoughts—controls the internal link to claims of fairness within the debate round.
	55	+Peters 2002
	56	+ Micheal A Peters- PhD in both education and philosophy. Written over 35 books and 300 articles on philosophical and criticisms alike. “Earthsongs: Ecopoetics, Heidegger and Dwelling” THE TRUMPETER VOL 18  NO 1, 2002, http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/2183/1/peters_irwin5B15D.pdf//
	57	+ While we have feminist history, philosophy, and literary theory, there is no equivalence promoting environmentalism, no ecocriticism or ecopoetics. In the 1970s and 1980s there was no text of ecological literary criticism and certainly nothing resembling a tradition. And he argues the case for theory (against activism alone) by suggesting that, “Before you can change policies, you must changes attitudes.”25 He writes: “a green reading of history—and literary history and philosophy and every other humanistic field—is a necessary precondition for a deeper understanding of our environmental crisis.”26 Green cultural studies were slow to develop because “environmentalism does not conform to the model of “identity politics.” In other words, “The ecocritical project always involves speaking for its subject rather than speaking as its subject: a critic may speak as a woman or as a person of colour, but cannot speak as a tree.”27 Environmentalists must speak on behalf of the non-human Other, of which we are part. While Bate28 criticises the “postmodern self-indulgence of the Parisian gurus” against the grounded work of Raymond Williams and others, nevertheless, he turns to Heidegger (we might say, one of the forefathers of poststructuralism) to explicate the claim that “Poetry is the song of the earth.”29 In this regard he traces the interconnections between three questions that occupied Heidegger in his later years: What are poets for? What does it mean to dwell upon the earth? and, What is the essence of technology? Bate proceeds to give an account, somewhat truncated but largely accurate, of Heidegger’s view of technology as a mode of revealing and the distinctive form it takes in the modern era, where “enframing” conceals the truth of things. Referring to Heidegger’s discussion of original Greek sense of techne, and poiesis as a bringing-forth of the true into the beautiful, Bate arrives at the proposition that “poetry is our way of stepping outside the frame of the technological, of reawakening the momentary wonder of unconcealment.”30 Poetry, when we allow it to act on us, can “conjure up conditions such as dwelling and alienation in their very essence, not just in their linguistic particulars.”31 Thus, “Poetry is the original admission of dwelling”32 and dwelling is an authentic form of being, which avoids Cartesian dualism and subjective idealism. These are the conceptual connections that Bate makes in order to arrive at his conception of ecopoetics.
	58	+Dwelling on our relationship with the environment is necessary to move away from current politics- as long as we keep our current structure we will always lose to technology. Poetry is the way that we save earth.
	59	+Peters 2002
	60	+ Micheal A Peters- PhD in both education and philosophy. Written over 35 books and 300 articles on philosophical and criticisms alike. “Earthsongs: Ecopoetics, Heidegger and Dwelling” THE TRUMPETER VOL 18  NO 1, 2002, http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/2183/1/peters_irwin5B15D.pdf//
	61	+In Bate’s terms, ecopoetics is experiential rather than descriptive, based as it is on the poet’s articulation of the relations between the environment and humankind. A green poem is a revelation of dwelling rather than a narrative of dwelling; it is “phenomenological before it is political.”33 Ecopoetics is pre-political in the sense that it is “a Rousseauesque story about imagining a state of nature prior to the fall into property, into inequality and into the city.”34 For this reason, “ecopoetics must concern itself with consciousness,” and when it comes to politics or practice we have to speak in other discourses.35 Bate argues, “The dilemma of Green reading is that it must, yet it cannot, separate ecopoetics from ecopolitics”—the very problem that besets Martin Heidegger himself, and typifies the connections between deep ecology and fascism. One cannot consistently derive a Green politics from ecopoetics, just as one cannot derive a Green politics from scientific ecology. Bate consolidates this position by arguing: “Green has no place in the traditional political spectrum …”36 and, “Nature is so various that no consistent political principles can be derived from it.”37 Thus, for Bate: “the very conception of a ‘politics of nature’ is self-contradictory: politics is what you get when you fall from nature. That is the point of Rousseau’s second Discourse.”38 He allegedly avoids “Heidegger’s dilemma” (if we can use this shorthand to stand for the problem of whether Heidegger’s Nazism arises out of his philosophy) by insisting on the radical separation of discourses—theoretical/practical, poetic/political—and by suggesting that while “histories, theories, political systems are all enframings,”39 “ecopoetics renounces the mastery of enframing knowledge and listens instead to the voice of art.”40 As he suggests: “To read ecopoetically is … to find ‘clearings’ or ‘unconcealments.’”41 This enables him the Heideggerian parting conclusion: If mortals dwell in that they save the earth and if poetry is the original admission of dwelling, then poetry is the place where we save the earth.42
	62	+
	63	+The role of the ballot is to vote for the debater who best engages in a critical pedagogy that resists enframing and investigates our relationship towards the environment. A critical pedagogy surrounding the environment is critical – it is in educational spaces that our attitudes toward nature are formed.
	64	+Luke 01 (Timothy, University Distinguished Professor of Political Science in the College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences as well as Program Chair of the Government and International Affairs Program, School of Public and International Affairs at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, “Education, Environment and Sustainability: what are the issues, where to intervene, what must be done?”, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 33:2, 2001)
	65	+This paper contests the conventional understandings of `nature’ and `society’ in today’ s debates about the environment and sustainability. Typically, environmentalists take their stand `at the end of the pipe’ when and where horrendous ecological destruction, pollution or toxic events occur in `nature’ . Yet, they rarely go back up those pipes into the realm of `society’ during those times when there are no obvious environmental disasters. This reactive approach to environmental destruction has, in effect, created a conceptual zoning code that keeps most environmentalists from investigating how society is organised, how industrial metabolisms are fabricated and where ecological efficiencies might be realised before end of the pipe disasters occur. This paper argues in favour of new types of environmental education that would begin their struggle for a better environment in society’ s factories, economies and technologies. For better or worse, we now mostly live in a processed world. Even wilderness is a place left wild by larger forces in the processed world letting it be. While the quest to stop ecological destruction through direct action out in the wild should not cease, other battles along another front must question how housing is built to reduce timbering, how food is grown to reduce agrochemical use, how labour is performed to lower pollution, and how ownership is defined to increase collective responsibility. These interventions in social and economic processes would have a goal of changing work and social relations, and they offer another approach to the environmental crisis that needs to be popularised at all levels of education. Environmental education is vitally important. This is true, because, in and of itself, nature is essentially meaningless until particular human beings find significance in it by interpreting its ambivalent signs as meaningful to them. Once this activity begins in the sciences, humanities and social sciences, however, environmental educators play a critical role inasmuch as they often are the authorities that help to decode which signs are read, when they are scanned and how they are interpreted. Because various human beings will observe natural patterns differently, choose to accentuate some, while deciding to ignore others, nature’ s meanings always will be multiple and unfixed.1 Even before scientific disciplines or industrial technologies turn its matter and energy into products, nature already is beingtransformed by discursive interpretation into many different types of `natural resources’ and once nature’ s environmental properties are rendered intelligible through these discursive processes, they are used to legitimise a variety of ethical, political, and social projects. One vital site for generating, accumulating and then circulating such discursive knowledge about nature is the educational system of schools, colleges and universities. As the primary institutions for credentialing individual learners and legitimating collective teachings, schools and universities do much to construct our understanding of the natural world.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-10-17 15:18:40.288

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Paramo,Bietz,Zhou

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Strake RC

ParentRound

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

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Lynbrook Venkatesh Aff

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+SEPTOCT - Ecopoetics 1AC

Tournament

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