Summary

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

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[0]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-09-17 17:15:17.895
	1	+2016-09-17 17:15:17.0

Caselist.CitesClass[1]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,41 @@
	1	+Interpretation: The word resolved implies a policy.
	2	+Louisiana House 3-8-2005, http://house.louisiana.gov/house-glossary.htm
	3	+Resolution A legislative ….n nor to governor's veto. ( Const. Art. III, §17(B) and House Rules 8.11 , 13.1 , 6.8 , and 7.4)
	4	+
	5	+
	6	+Violation—very clear in CX that the aff won’t defend passing a prohibition
	7	+
	8	+C. Standards –
	9	+1. Limits— 3 impacts:
	10	+
	11	+A. Analytic
	12	+B. Education—under limited debates make debate impossible for people who have actual lives outside of this activity. Harris 13—
	13	+
	14	+Scott Harris (Director of Debate at U Kansas, 2006 National Debate Coach of the Year, Vice President of the American Forensic Association, 2nd speaker at the NDT in 1981). “This ballot.” 5 April 2013. CEDA Forums. http://www.cedadebate.org/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4762.0;attach=1655
	15	+
	16	+I understand that there has been some criticism of Northwestern’s strategy in this debate round. This criticism is premised on the idea that they ran framework instead of engaging Emporia’s argument about home and the Wiz. I think this criticism is unfair. Northwestern’s framework argument did engage Emporia’s argument. Emporia said that you should vote for the team that performatively and methodologically made debate a home. Northwestern’s argument directly clashed with that contention. My problem in this debate was with aspects of the execution of the argument rather than with the strategy itself. It has always made me angry in debates when people have treated topicality as if it were a less important argument than other arguments in debate. Topicality is a real argument. It is a researched strategy. It is an argument that challenges many affirmatives. The fact that other arguments could be run in a debate or are run in a debate does not make topicality somehow a less important argument. In reality, for many of you that go on to law school you will spend much of your life running topicality arguments because you will find that words in the law matter. The rest of us will experience the ways that word choices matter in contracts, in leases, in writing laws and in many aspects of our lives. Kansas ran an affirmative a few years ago about how the location of a comma in a law led a couple of districts to misinterpret the law into allowing individuals to be incarcerated in jail for two days without having any formal charges filed against them. For those individuals the location of the comma in the law had major consequences. Debates about words are not insignificant. Debates about what kinds of arguments we should or should not be making in debates are not insignificant either. The limits debate is an argument that has real pragmatic consequences. I found myself earlier this year judging Harvard’s eco-pedagogy aff and thought to myself—I could stay up tonight and put a strategy together on eco-pedagogy, but then I thought to myself—why should I have to? Yes, I could put together a strategy against any random argument somebody makes employing an energy metaphor but the reality is there are only so many nights to stay up all night researching. I would like to actually spend time playing catch with my children occasionally or maybe even read a book or go to a movie or spend some time with my wife. A world where there are an infinite number of affirmatives is a world where the demand to have a specific strategy and not run framework is a world that says this community doesn’t care whether its participants have a life or do well in school or spend time with their families. I know there is a new call abounding for interpreting this NDT as a mandate for broader more diverse topics. The reality is that will create more work to prepare for the teams that choose to debate the topic but will have little to no effect on the teams that refuse to debate the topic. Broader topics that do not require positive government action or are bidirectional will not make teams that won’t debate the topic choose to debate the topic. I think that is a con job. I am not opposed to broader topics necessarily. I tend to like the way high school topics are written more than the way college topics are written. I just think people who take the meaning of the outcome of this NDT as proof that we need to make it so people get to talk about anything they want to talk about without having to debate against Topicality or framework arguments are interested in constructing a world that might make debate an unending nightmare and not a very good home in which to live. Limits, to me, are a real impact because I feel their impact in my everyday existence.
	17	+Harris turns the terminal impacts of the aff since ARTICULATE HOW IT INTERACTS WITH AFF (one example is: you can’t start movements in a world where people don’t want to participate in the activity)
	18	+
	19	+2. Critical thinking: topical switch side debate breaks down ideology and teaches deeper decision making skills.
	20	+Dame 13, John and Jeffrey Gedmin, Three Tips For Overcoming Your Blind Spots, Harvard Buisness Review, http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/10/three-tips-for-overcoming-your-blind-spots
	21	+To fight confirmation bias, have a devil’s advocate. Confirmation bias refers to our tendency, when receiving new information, to process it in a way that it fits our pre-existing narrative about a situation or problem. Simply put, if you’re already inclined to believe that the French are rude, you will find the examples on your trip to Paris to validate your thesis. Disconfirming evidence – the friendly waiter, the helpful bellman – gets pushed aside. They’re just “the exception.” Warren Buffett says, “What the human being is best at doing, is interpreting all new information so that their prior conclusions remain intact.” He knows he is prone to it himself. Attorneys, debaters, and politicians engage in a kind of confirmation bias when, in order to make a case, they select certain data while deliberately neglecting or deemphasizing other data. But confirmation bias can cause disaster in business and policy when it leads a decision-maker to jump to conclusions, fall prey to misguided analogies, or simply exclude information that inconveniently disturbs a desired plan of action. What to do? The only remedy is to make sure you have a full and accurate picture available when making important decisions. When you have a theory about someone or something, test it. When you smell a contradiction – a thorny issue, an inconsistency or problem – go after it. Like the orchestral conductor, isolate it, drill deeper. When someone says – or you yourself intuit – “that’s just an exception,” be sure it’s just that. Thoroughly examine the claim. Dealing with confirmation bias is about reining in your impulses and challenging your own assumptions. It’s difficult to stick to it day in and out. That’s why it’s important to have in your circle of advisers a brainy, tough-as-nails devil’s advocate who – perhaps annoyingly, but valuably – checks you constantly.
	22	+
	23	+Analytic.
	24	+
	25	+
	26	+D. Fairness
	27	+
	28	+
	29	+
	30	+Fairness first
	31	+
	32	+1. Unfair activities literally lead to people quitting debate, if the aff is valuable discussion at all it would want to be heard by the most people.
	33	+Speice, Patrick and Jim Lyle, 2003, “Traditional Policy Debate: Now More Than Ever”, Debaters Research Guide, http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/SpeiceLyle2003htm.htm)
	34	+As with any game or sport, creating a level playing field that affords each competitor a fair chance of victory is integral to the continued existence of debate as an activity. If the game is slanted toward one particular competitor, the other participants are likely to pack up their tubs and go home, as they don’t have a realistic shot of winning such a “rigged game.” Debate simply wouldn’t be fun if the outcome was pre-determined and certain teams knew that they would always win or lose. The incentive to work hard to develop new and innovative arguments would be non-existent because wins and losses would not relate to how much research a particular team did. TPD, as defined above, offers the best hope for a level playing field that makes the game of debate fun and educational for all participants.
	35	+
	36	+2. Analytic
	37	+
	38	+3. Debate is a competitive game, and rigging that game in your favor denies respect for the participants and prevents meaningful discussion of the aff.
	39	+Galloway 7
	40	+Ryan Galloway 7, Samford Comm prof, Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28, 2007
	41	+Debate as a dialogue sets an argumentative table, where all parties receive a relatively fair opportunity to voice their position. Anything that fails to allow participants to have their position articulated denies one side of the argumentative table a fair hearing. The affirmative side is set by the topic and fairness requirements. While affirmative teams have recently resisted affirming the topic, in fact, the topic selection process is rigorous, taking the relative ground of each topic as its central point of departure.¶ Setting the affirmative reciprocally sets the negative. The negative crafts approaches to the topic consistent with affirmative demands. The negative crafts disadvantages, counter-plans, and critical arguments premised on the arguments that the topic allows for the affirmative team. According to fairness norms, each side sits at a relatively balanced argumentative table.¶ When one side takes more than its share, competitive equity suffers. However, it also undermines the respect due to the other involved in the dialogue. When one side excludes the other, it fundamentally denies the personhood of the other participant (Ehninger, 1970, p. 110). A pedagogy of debate as dialogue takes this respect as a fundamental component. A desire to be fair is a fundamental condition of a dialogue that takes the form of a demand for equality of voice. Far from being a banal request for links to a disadvantage, fairness is a demand for respect, a demand to be heard, a demand that a voice backed by literally months upon months of preparation, research, and critical thinking not be silenced.¶ Affirmative cases that suspend basic fairness norms operate to exclude particular negative strategies. Unprepared, one side comes to the argumentative table unable to meaningfully participate in a dialogue. They are unable to “understand what ‘went on…’” and are left to the whims of time and power (Farrell, 1985, p. 114).

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-09-17 17:15:18.65

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Drew Marshall

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Prosper ZE

ParentRound

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

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Phoenix Country Day Whitfil Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Defend the topic T

Tournament

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