Summary

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

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[1]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-10-29 08:00:35.796
	1	+2016-10-29 08:00:35.0

Caselist.CitesClass[2]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,235 @@
	1	+=Colonialism AC=
	2	+
	3	+
	4	+====From the Australian Outback to the western United States, colonialism is still alive and well – manifesting itself in the form of nuclear power and its production. Indigenous peoples in America and across the world are bearing the brunt of a nuclearist conquest.====
	5	+**Endres 1** (Danielle Endres The Rhetoric of Nuclear Colonialism: Rhetorical Exclusion of American Indian Arguments in the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Siting Decision, Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies. Routledge. LEFC February 17, 2009.)
	6	+Before attending to the rhetorical nature of nuclear colonialism, it is important to emphasize
	7	+AND
	8	+part of a persistent pattern of resistance to military occupation and nuclear activity.
	9	+
	10	+
	11	+====It's not just nuclear waste or labor conditions – nuclear power is a problem of colonialism/coloniality itself. The colonized become deviant others who experience a non-stop confrontation with death.====
	12	+**Maldonado-Torres 2007** ~~Nelson, Professor of Comparative Literature at Rutgers, PhD in Religious Studies "ON THE COLONIALITY OF BEING Contributions to the development of a Concept" 2007 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09502380601162548~~
	13	+Ideas of war, conquest, and genocide here bring up another fundamental aspect of
	14	+AND
	15	+with the use of natural science to validate racism in the nineteenth century.
	16	+
	17	+
	18	+====Tagline 1: Corporations employ strategic silencing and other tactics to make sure Indigenous Peoples are left out of the negotiations. Tagline 2: Indigenous law and sovereignty are fictatious creations gifted by the colonizer to bind natives to them forever. the soveighnty the nc provides is thus fake soveighnty and turns the case.====
	19	+**Endres 2** (Danielle Endres The Rhetoric of Nuclear Colonialism: Rhetorical Exclusion of American Indian Arguments in the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Siting Decision, Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies. Routledge. LEFC February 17, 2009.)
	20	+Although the material implications of nuclear colonialism are undeniable, it is important to turn
	21	+AND
	22	+for the benefit of the colonizer at the expense of their colonial targets.
	23	+
	24	+
	25	+==Advocacy==
	26	+
	27	+
	28	+====Thus, I demand: countries ought to ban the production of nuclear power. The Indigenous World Uranium Summit argues:====
	29	+Indigenous World Uranium Summit 6. "Declaration of the Indigenous World Uranium Summit." Window Rock, Navajo Nation, USA LEFC December 2, 2006.
	30	+We, the Peoples gathered at the Indigenous World Uranium Summit, at this critical
	31	+AND
	32	+future impacts of the nuclear fuel chain on Indigenous Peoples and their resources.
	33	+
	34	+
	35	+====Non-European theory is silenced in academic spaces. This epistemic racism/colonialism precludes the ability for inclusive educative debates – try or die for the aff.====
	36	+**Suarez-Krabbe 12** (Julia Suárez-Krabbe. Assistant professor at Roskilde University, The Department of Culture and Identity Interkulturelle studier Universitetsvej 1, 3.1.5 DK-4000, Roskilde Denmark "‘Epistemic Coyotismo’ and Transnational Collaboration: Decolonizing the Danish University" Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self- Knowledge Volume 10 Issue 1 Decolonizing the University: Practicing Pluriversity 1-1-2012 Article 5) *brackets for grammar*
	37	+Although the mechanisms of natural- ization of the Eurocentric perspective have been amply described
	38	+AND
	39	+of global apartheid and of the need for working towards decoloniza- tion.
	40	+
	41	+
	42	+==Framing==
	43	+
	44	+
	45	+===The role of the ballot is to discursively and methodologically deconstruct colonialism===
	46	+
	47	+
	48	+====It’s a question of epistemology – Western epistemology is what makes the physical and discursive exclusion possible – the aff is key to imagine alternatives.====
	49	+**Mignolo 5**, William H. Wannamaker Professor of Literature at Duke University, 2005 (Walter, The Idea of Latin America, page 117)
	50	+Waman Puma inaugurated a practice of "double critique" – of simultaneous critical theory
	51	+AND
	52	+also means knowing that thinking otherwise is not only possible but very necessary.
	53	+
	54	+
	55	+====Colonialism upholds difference through the idealization of the Man – the rest are deviants.====
	56	+**Wynter 3** (Sylvia Wynter, "Unsettling the Coloniality of Being/Power/Truth/Freedom: Towards the Human, After Man, Its Overrepresentation—An Argument," CR: The New Centennial Review, Volume 3, Number 3,257-337)
	57	+The argument proposes that the struggle of our new millennium will be one between the
	58	+AND
	59	+and implemented by its celibate clergy (See Le Goff guide-quote).
	60	+
	61	+
	62	+====Discourse is key to deconstruct Western modernity.====
	63	+**Kanth 5** (Rajani Kannepalli, Against Eurocentrism: A Transcendent Critique of Modernist Science, Society, and Morals)
	64	+The deconstructionists, for all their avant garde posturing and often vacuous rhetoric, are
	65	+AND
	66	+The modernist center will not, can not, hold. 137
	67	+
	68	+
	69	+==U/V==
	70	+
	71	+
	72	+====1. The production of nuclear power is defined as the process in which uranium is mined, enriched, and converted to nuclear power (ENEC 2011). Thus the banning of such mining and enrichment is equivalent with the thesis of the aff.====
	73	+
	74	+
	75	+====2. Aff gets RVIs====
	76	+A) 2AR skew – the 2AR doesn’t have enough time to cover both theory and substance since the 2NR is twice as long so I have half the offense at the end of the debate – I should be able to collapse to the highest layer
	77	+B) 1AR skew —The 1AR is too short to read theory especially if I have to cover his shell – I need an RVI for theory to be reciprocal, which is key to equal access to the ballot
	78	+C) Checking — The aff is always open to theory since I have to take a stance on some interpretational issues – RVIs are key to check frivolous theory – key to a discussion of the topic which is key to education, and ensures the aff gets access to the 1AC
	79	+D) Reciprocity – Theory is a no-risk issue for them – RVIs make the issue turnable so both sides can get offense.
	80	+
	81	+
	82	+====3. K aff over theory/topicality.====
	83	+A) The role of the ballot precedes the shell – theory attempts to set abstract norms that don’t impact us immediately, while the ballot actually functions as a material change.
	84	+B) Institutional oppression that affects all of our lives outweighs the norms set for
	85	+AND
	86	+– its portable to the immediate world versus theory being limited to debate.
	87	+
	88	+
	89	+====4. CX Checks – otherwise the neg can just read interps I didn’t know I violated. Drop the argument because its reciprocal.====
	90	+
	91	+
	92	+====5. Prefer reasonable aff interps and drop the argument on T. The judge should use reasonability with a bright line of the presence of link and impact turn ground for the negative. Since they has equal access to offense, there’s no abuse because structural access to the ballot is the same. ====
	93	+
	94	+
	95	+====A. The aff defends the whole res, it doesn’t get more predictable than this.====
	96	+
	97	+
	98	+====B. There are multiple legitimate interpretations of the topic and the aff goes into the round with no knowledge of 1NC strategy. I had to choose between mutually exclusive interps and the neg can always read T so don’t punish me for having to set grounds.====
	99	+
	100	+
	101	+=Extensions=
	102	+
	103	+
	104	+==Overview of the Round==
	105	+
	106	+
	107	+=Frontlines=
	108	+
	109	+
	110	+==Borders K==
	111	+
	112	+
	113	+==Speaking for Others==
	114	+
	115	+
	116	+==T O/V==
	117	+
	118	+
	119	+==T Proper==
	120	+
	121	+
	122	+==Policymaking Good/CROB==
	123	+
	124	+
	125	+==Policymaking Interp==
	126	+
	127	+
	128	+====A. Counter-Interpretation: Debaters reading a K aff may affirm the entire resolution and not defend a policy.====
	129	+
	130	+
	131	+====B. I meet.====
	132	+
	133	+
	134	+====C.====
	135	+
	136	+
	137	+====1. Portability – K lit teaches us about the world and is super portable to immediately inside and outside this round – good for education and fighting for structural fairness.====
	138	+
	139	+
	140	+====2. Critical Education – it’s key to us being ethical people in society and learning about injustice to actually motivate real world change – key to education and fighting for social justice.====
	141	+
	142	+
	143	+===AT Fiat Abuse===
	144	+
	145	+
	146	+====Welcome to LD – where we can both discuss moral desirability and policy implementation – but they====
	147	+
	148	+
	149	+====Do no weighing on why policy implementation debates are better than moral desirability debates and====
	150	+
	151	+
	152	+====Never make the internal link between policy implementation and real world education. Delink them. I have 2 arguments:====
	153	+
	154	+
	155	+====Subpoint 1 – the Aff is real world – it teaches us about the underlying workings of securitization and militarism====
	156	+
	157	+
	158	+==== Subpoint 2 – We’re not all going to become policy makers – no internal link.====
	159	+
	160	+
	161	+====You can turn the aff – read a book, and maybe you’ll see the problems. Militarism good, etc.====
	162	+
	163	+
	164	+====The Aff advocates for real change and its empirically proven – movements like Occupy Wallstreet have understood the flow of power.====
	165	+
	166	+
	167	+===AT Ground===
	168	+
	169	+
	170	+====1. You’re too vague on what ground you’re losing====
	171	+
	172	+
	173	+====2. DAs, Ks, and CPs still link – be smarter about what you’re reading.====
	174	+
	175	+
	176	+====3. TURN – spec explodes neg ground. The neg gets tiny process counterplans and hyper-specific DAs. ====
	177	+
	178	+
	179	+====4. Side bias impact turns this. The neg wins too much now, so any ground skew moves us closer to equity.====
	180	+
	181	+
	182	+===AT Real World Education===
	183	+
	184	+
	185	+====1. The K is real world – it teaches us about the underlying workings of capitalism/securitization, and imperialism.====
	186	+
	187	+
	188	+====2. They don’t establish a reason on why policymaking is an the only way to access real world education.====
	189	+
	190	+
	191	+====3. We’re not all going to become policymakers – they don’t establish the link to why debaters become them.====
	192	+
	193	+
	194	+====4. The aff is real world. All my core evidence is topic lit.====
	195	+
	196	+
	197	+====5. Policy spec doesn’t solve. People read shady plans at the margins of the topic lit all the time.====
	198	+
	199	+
	200	+====6. TURN – Spec allows stale generic process counterplans like the States CP. ====
	201	+
	202	+
	203	+===AT Depth of Discussion===
	204	+
	205	+
	206	+====1. Breadth outweighs depth since it introduces to lots of different topics that we can substantively engage in out of round where most of our learning is done, so introducing new diverse arguments into round.====
	207	+
	208	+
	209	+===AT: Shifting===
	210	+
	211	+
	212	+====1. No link. I’m not shifty.====
	213	+
	214	+
	215	+====2. Ex post facto theory solves. If I shifted I’d lose to severance bad in the NR.====
	216	+
	217	+
	218	+====3. TURN – the resolution itself is the single most stable plan because it’s the only one that’s universally accepted as topical.====
	219	+
	220	+
	221	+====4. Spec doesn’t solve. I could be shifty about the function of a plan, too.====
	222	+
	223	+
	224	+====5. Definitions check. You could define words in the rez to hold me to one interp.====
	225	+
	226	+
	227	+===AT: Resolved = Policy===
	228	+
	229	+
	230	+====TURN – "Resolved" implies a general principle – it’s debate-specific and consensus of lit====
	231	+**Coburn-Palo and Luong 96**
	232	+Nicholas Coburn-Palo (Assistant Debate Coach and Instructor in the Department of Communication at Weber State University, formerly a fulltime speech instructor and Director of Debate at The Pinewood College Preparatory School, and formerly an active member of the National Tournament of Champions Advisory Committee) and Minh Luong (Assistant Professor in the Ethics, Politics, and Economics Program at Yale University and International Affairs Fellow at the Yale Center for International and Area Studies), "Resolutional focus in policy argumentation: theory and application." NFL Rostrum, January, 1996. JDN. https://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/cxluong0196.pdf
	233	+Another reason why it would be logically correct to consider the resolution as the focus
	234	+AND
	235	+which would substantially change its foreign policy toward the People's Republic of China.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-10-29 08:00:36.153

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Paroma

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+IDK

ParentRound

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

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Palo Alto Aff

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Sept Oct colonialism

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+GreenHIll