Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[29]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[44]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[29]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-11-20 00:13:16.918
	1	+2016-11-20 00:13:16.0

Caselist.CitesClass[44]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,111 @@
	1	+===Interpretation===
	2	+
	3	+
	4	+====The affirmative should defend the desirability of countries prohibiting the production of nuclear power through a policy implementable advocacy.====
	5	+
	6	+
	7	+====This does not require a specific form but only isolates what the content of the affirmative should contain – the affirmative must defend a policy action but can perform or present such an advocacy in any way they so desire – she can have activism, but it has to be through a methodology of roleplaying as a policy-maker.====
	8	+
	9	+
	10	+==== 'Resolved' denotes a proposal to be enacted by law ====
	11	+**Words and Phrases 64** (Permanent Edition)
	12	+Definition of the word "resolve," given by Webster is "to express an
	13	+AND
	14	+," which is defined by Bouvier as meaning "to establish by law".
	15	+
	16	+
	17	+==== 'Prohibit' is a verb meaning to formally forbid by law====
	18	+**Google Dictionary,** 20**16**
	19	+"Prohibit"
	20	+pro·hib·it
	21	+prəˈhibit,prōˈhibit/Submit
	22	+verb
	23	+verb
	24	+AND
	25	+a cash shortage prohibited the visit"
	26	+antonyms: facilitate, allow
	27	+
	28	+
	29	+====They violate – they defend a rhetorical mechanism to enact solvency – not a fiated implementation. ====
	30	+
	31	+
	32	+====Vote negative====
	33	+
	34	+
	35	+===Extra Topicality===
	36	+
	37	+
	38	+====Extra-topicality is an independent voting issue – they don't just ban nuclear energy, they also instill activism through their performance. This explodes the potential limits in the debate – it justifies affirmatives that ban nuclear energy and have another plank. Which makes any advocacy topical as long as they attach a discussion of nuclear power. ====
	39	+
	40	+
	41	+====Examples:====
	42	+
	43	+
	44	+====Ban nuclear power + give back land====
	45	+
	46	+
	47	+====Ban nuclear power + ban nuclear weapons====
	48	+
	49	+
	50	+===Ground and Strategy===
	51	+
	52	+
	53	+====They destroy our ground and strategy – and disadvantages, kritiks, counterplans, or NCs we will read will always be no-linked or permuted because they can just say activism solves it in the future, or we're not specific enough to rhetorical strategies. This makes all of our arguments fall flat and gives the 1AR a leg up. Ground and strategy are key to fairness because it controls the internal link to our ability to contest the affirmative. ====
	54	+
	55	+
	56	+===Agonistic Constraints===
	57	+
	58	+
	59	+====Dogmatic assertions of identity such as activism destroy the possibility of agonistic democracy – constraints and procedural guidelines are necessary.====
	60	+John** Dryzek 6**, Professor of Social and Political Theory, The Australian National University, Reconciling Pluralism and Consensus as Political Ideals, American Journal of Political Science,Vol. 50, No. 3, July 2006, Pp. 634–649
	61	+A more radical contemporary pluralism is suspicious of liberal and communitarian devices for reconciling difference
	62	+AND
	63	+need principles to regulate the substance of what rightfully belongs in democratic debate.
	64	+
	65	+
	66	+====Debate inevitably involves exclusions—making sure that those exclusions occur along reciprocal lines is necessary to foster democratic habits. The process of policy-based debating outweighs their activism. ====
	67	+Amanda **ANDERSON '6**, Andrew W. Mellon Professor for the Humanities at Brown University, 6 ~~The Way We Argue Now, Princeton University Press, p. 25-28~~
	68	+Whether such a procedural approach actually helps to yield any substantive normative guidance is an
	69	+AND
	70	+by the principles of recognition and respect that underpin democratic institutions and practices.
	71	+
	72	+
	73	+===Policy-Making===
	74	+
	75	+
	76	+====Attitude and information are not enough—tying demands to legal goals and political actors are necessary to affect genuine change====
	77	+**Hodson 2010 **- professor of education – Ontario Institute for Studies @ University of Toronto
	78	+(Derek, "Science Education as a Call to Action," Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 10.3)
	79	+The final (fourth) level of sophistication in this issues-based approach is
	80	+AND
	81	+justice are kept in the forefront of discussion during the establishment of policy.
	82	+
	83	+
	84	+====Debating the process of implementation is necessary to make us organizationally relevant—this is the key internal link to effective change====
	85	+**Algoso 2011** – writes on international development, aid, politics, management, complexity
	86	+(May 31, Dave, "Why I got an MPA: Because organizations matter" http://findwhatworks.wordpress.com/2011/05/31/why-i-got-an-mpa-because-organizations-matter/)
	87	+ Because organizations matter. Forget the stories of heroic individuals written in your middle
	88	+AND
	89	+right program for you and use your time well, can do both.
	90	+
	91	+
	92	+===TVA===
	93	+
	94	+
	95	+====There's a topical version of the affirmative – you can defend that banning nuclear power has a result of activism increasing. It solves all of your offense.====
	96	+
	97	+
	98	+===Competitive Equity===
	99	+
	100	+
	101	+====The role of the ballot is to vote for who provides the best methodology for upholding competitive equity. ====
	102	+
	103	+
	104	+====Fairness and likewise competitive equity are voting issues – topical fairness requirements are key to meaningful dialogue—monopolizing strategy and prep makes the discussion one-sided and subverts any meaningful neg role====
	105	+Ryan** Galloway 7**, Samford Comm prof, Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28, 2007
	106	+Debate as a dialogue sets an argumentative table, where all parties receive a relatively
	107	+AND
	108	+substitutes for topical action do not accrue the dialogical benefits of topical advocacy.
	109	+
	110	+
	111	+====Evaluate the T debate under competing interpretations – it's key to generate clear models of debate and ground because otherwise the aff's interpretation can be a moving target. Reasonability is arbitrarily defined and causes a race to the bottom for the "most reasonable" position. ====

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-11-20 00:13:18.437

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Taylor, White, Cunningham

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Lake Highland Prep JW

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+29

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Millard North Brown Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+1 - T - Framework - Valley Doubles

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Mid America Cup