Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[35]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[50]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[35]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-11-21 22:21:02.314
	1	+2016-11-21 22:21:02.0

Caselist.CitesClass[50]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,52 @@
	1	+===Interpretation and Violation===
	2	+
	3	+
	4	+====The affirmative should defend the desirability of the implementation of the United States limiting qualified immunity for police officers.====
	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.====
	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	+====Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine protecting officers from civil suits.====
	18	+**Legal Information Institute, No Date**
	19	+"Qualified immunity" Cornell University Law School
	20	+Qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when
	21	+AND
	22	+plaintiff's right if it is clear that the right was not clearly established.
	23	+
	24	+
	25	+===Vote negative===
	26	+
	27	+
	28	+====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. ====
	29	+
	30	+
	31	+====Topical version of the affirmative – they can defend that qualified immunity will be limited for police officers in specific geographic areas such as Chinatown or in instances of Asian Hate Crimes. ====
	32	+
	33	+
	34	+====Extra T – we'll isolate two violations a) they limit all immunity for police – not just qualified immunity b) their method of rage is an additional plank to the resolution. They justify an infinite number of affirmatives that combine limiting QI with a method which can be anything they want – that makes engagement impossible through prep explosion and predictability skew. They also tank negative ground – any counterplans, disadvantages, or kritiks are sidestepped by the fact that everything is limited. Extra T is an independent voting issue for fairness and engagement. ====
	35	+
	36	+
	37	+====Attitude and information are not enough—tying demands to legal goals and political actors are necessary to affect genuine change====
	38	+**Hodson 2010 **- professor of education – Ontario Institute for Studies @ University of Toronto
	39	+(Derek, "Science Education as a Call to Action," Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 10.3)
	40	+The final (fourth) level of sophistication in this issues-based approach is
	41	+AND
	42	+justice are kept in the forefront of discussion during the establishment of policy.
	43	+
	44	+
	45	+====Fairness and likewise competitive equity are voting issues that come first – 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. ====
	46	+Ryan** Galloway 7**, Samford Comm prof, Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28, 2007
	47	+Debate as a dialogue sets an argumentative table, where all parties receive a relatively
	48	+AND
	49	+substitutes for topical action do not accrue the dialogical benefits of topical advocacy.
	50	+
	51	+
	52	+====Even if we don't win our fairness first claims topicality is a form of engagement that presents an alternative model of how we should resist dominate structures of power – so it's offense under the role of the ballot.====

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-11-21 22:21:04.735

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Mitali Mathur

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Stuyvesant KL

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+35

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+6

Team

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

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2 - T - Framework - Glenbrooks Round 6

Tournament

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