Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[47]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[90]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[47]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-03-11 15:27:06.355
	1	+2017-03-11 15:27:06.0

Caselist.CitesClass[90]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,19 @@
	1	+Interp: The aff must defend the passage of a post-fiat policy action in which the right to housing is guaranteed.
	2	+1. Government-guaranteed right to housing entails implementation, including enacting laws and creating agencies to ensure the right.
	3	+Golay and Ozden 07 Christophe Golay and Melik Özden (advisor to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food; Director of the CETIM's Human Rights Programme and permanent representative of the CETIM to the United Nations). “The Right To Housing.” CETIM. 2007. http://www.cetim.ch/legacy/en/documents/bro7-log-A4-an.pdf
	4	+3. The Obligation to Protect the Right to Adequate Housing. The obligation to protect the right to adequate housing requires that governments prohibit third parties from preventing the enjoyment of the right to housing in any way. This applies to individuals, business enterprises and other entities. Governments must, for example, enact laws that protect the population from land and property speculation. They must create competent bodies to investigate violations and must assure the means of effective redress for victims, most notably through access to the courts. Governments must also intervene when powerful individuals or business enterprises evict persons from their land or their housing, by bringing to law those responsible and by guaranteeing restitution and/or compensation for the victims. The Special Rapporteur on the Right to Adequate Housing, in several of his reports, has denounced the negative effects of the privatization of public services.41 He emphasizes that the government has the duty to guarantee, for example, that privatization of water will not have negative effects on access to water and to adequate housing for the population. Such privatization has very often entailed price increases that have made water unaffordable for the poorest. In Manila, for example, the price of water quadrupled between 1997 and 2003 after the privatization carried out by Lyonnaise des Eaux.42 In all cases of privatization of public services, including water or electricity, the government must continue to guarantee the protection of the right to adequate housing, including/especially for the poorest. The government is also responsible for intervening to avoid all discrimination in access to housing. A government that does not, for example, guarantee that no person shall be refused housing because of his/her sex, nationality or origin, nor prevent other forms of discrimination, violates its duty to protect the right to housing.
	5	+Violation: You don’t defend the topic.
	6	+
	7	+Vote Neg:
	8	+1. Ground
	9	+Violations of competitive equity prevent effective dialogue and participation which turns the case.
	10	+Galloway 07 Ryan, Samford Comm prof, Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28, 2007
	11	+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).
	12	+
	13	+2. Limits
	14	+Only limited topics protect participants from research overload which materially affects our lives outside of round.
	15	+Harris 13 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
	16	+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	+
	18	+T's a voter
	19	+Competing interps

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-03-11 15:27:08.795

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Sims, Melin, Wright

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Westwood RM

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+47

Round

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

Team

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

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+1 - Framework v2

Tournament

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