Summary

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

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[2]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,21 +1,0 @@
1		-A) Interpretation: The aff must explicitly specify a comprehensive role of the ballot and clarify how the round will play out under that role of the ballot in the form of a delineated text in the 1AC. To clarify, the aff must:
2		-
3		-1. Clarify how offense links back to the role of the ballot, such as whether post-fiat offense or pre-fiat offense matters and which comes first.
4		-
5		-2. Clarify how to weigh and compare between competing advocacies i.e. whether the role of the ballot is solely determined by the flow or another method of engagement.
6		-
7		-Violation: Didnt, also shifty in CX
8		-
9		-Net Benefits:
10		-1. Engagement
11		-impacts
12		-a) Resolvability
13		-b) link turns rob
14		-c) fairness
15		-
16		-Fairness is a voting issue. Debate is a competitive game, and rigging that game in your favor denies respect for the participants. Galloway 7
17		-Ryan Galloway 7, Samford Comm prof, Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28, 2007
18		-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).
19		-
20		-
21		-Drop debater. CI. No RVI

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-2016-09-10 15:29:21.0

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Lyndie Ho

Opponent

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

ParentRound

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

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Strake Jesuit Chen Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Theory - ROB Spec

Tournament

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