Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[3]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[2]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[3]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-09-23 15:39:27.869
	1	+2016-09-23 15:39:27.0

Caselist.CitesClass[2]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,76 @@
	1	+==Interpretation and Violation==
	2	+
	3	+
	4	+====The affirmative should defend the desirability of countries prohibiting the production of nuclear power. ====
	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	+==== '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	+===Limits===
	30	+
	31	+
	32	+====Limits – they explode the potential affirmatives which 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. ====
	33	+
	34	+
	35	+===Agonistic Constraints===
	36	+
	37	+
	38	+====Substantive constraints on the debate are key to actualize effective pluralism and agonistic democracy====
	39	+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
	40	+A more radical contemporary pluralism is suspicious of liberal and communitarian devices for reconciling difference
	41	+AND
	42	+need principles to regulate the substance of what rightfully belongs in democratic debate.
	43	+
	44	+
	45	+====Debate inevitably involves exclusions—making sure that those exclusions occur along reciprocal lines is necessary to foster democratic habits. This process outweighs the content of the aff====
	46	+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~~
	47	+Whether such a procedural approach actually helps to yield any substantive normative guidance is an
	48	+AND
	49	+by the principles of recognition and respect that underpin democratic institutions and practices.
	50	+
	51	+
	52	+===Competitive Equity/Fairness===
	53	+
	54	+
	55	+====The role of the ballot is to vote for who provides the best methodology for upholding competitive equity. ====
	56	+
	57	+
	58	+====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====
	59	+Ryan** Galloway 7**, Samford Comm prof, Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28, 2007
	60	+Debate as a dialogue sets an argumentative table, where all parties receive a relatively
	61	+AND
	62	+substitutes for topical action do not accrue the dialogical benefits of topical advocacy.
	63	+
	64	+
	65	+====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. ====
	66	+
	67	+
	68	+===Starting Points Good – Viscosity ===
	69	+
	70	+
	71	+====Minoritarian thought requires protocols of experimentation – a particular style and starting point for which to begin becoming.====
	72	+Ronald **Bogue,** 20**11**
	73	+Bogue is a Professor Emeritus at Franklin College, University of Georgia. "Deleuze and Guattari and the Future of Politics: Science Fiction, Protocols and the People to Come" Deleuze Studies, Volume 5, Issue Supplement, Edinburgh University Press, pg 77-97
	74	+Fabulation does not presume an ideal, nor does it have an external goal as
	75	+AND
	76	+as revolutionary action and passion' (Deleuze and Guattari 1983: 63).3

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-09-23 15:39:29.671

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Pilcher, Smith

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Lake Highland AA

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+3

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2

Team

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

Title

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

Tournament

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