Summary

• Objects (0 modified, 0 added, 1 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[40]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[40]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,48 +1,0 @@
1		-==1==
2		-
3		-===Interpretation and Violation===
4		-
5		-
6		-====The affirmative should defend the desirability of the implementation of the United States limiting qualified immunity for police officers.====
7		-
8		-
9		-====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.====
10		-
11		-
12		-==== 'Resolved' denotes a proposal to be enacted by law ====
13		-**Words and Phrases 64** (Permanent Edition)
14		-Definition of the word "resolve," given by Webster is "to express an
15		-AND
16		-," which is defined by Bouvier as meaning "to establish by law".
17		-
18		-
19		-====Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine protecting officers from civil suits.====
20		-**Legal Information Institute, No Date**
21		-"Qualified immunity" Cornell University Law School
22		-Qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when
23		-AND
24		-plaintiff's right if it is clear that the right was not clearly established.
25		-
26		-
27		-===Vote negative===
28		-
29		-
30		-====Limits – they explode the potential affirmatives – there are 350 million people each with individual policing relationships that are topical. That structurally favors the affirmative because they can prep out specific responses while permuting counterplans and alternatives – screws the neg through massive prep skews and ability to engage. ====
31		-
32		-
33		-====Topical version of the affirmative – they can read an affirmative that limits qualified immunity for police officers in instances of disability hate crimes – Bettendorf RN's aff proves. ====
34		-
35		-
36		-====Attitude and information are not enough—tying demands to legal goals and political actors are necessary to affect genuine change====
37		-**Hodson 2010 **- professor of education – Ontario Institute for Studies @ University of Toronto
38		-(Derek, "Science Education as a Call to Action," Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 10.3)
39		-The final (fourth) level of sophistication in this issues-based approach is
40		-AND
41		-justice are kept in the forefront of discussion during the establishment of policy.
42		-
43		-
44		-====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 which is an impact in itself. ====
45		-Ryan** Galloway 7**, Samford Comm prof, Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28, 2007
46		-Debate as a dialogue sets an argumentative table, where all parties receive a relatively
47		-AND
48		-substitutes for topical action do not accrue the dialogical benefits of topical advocacy.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-2016-11-20 00:12:00.0

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Terrence Lonam

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Valley KK

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-27

Round

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

Team

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

Title

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-2 - T - Framework - Glenbrooks Round 4

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-The Glenbrooks