Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[6]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[5]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[6]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-09-12 15:16:34.1
	1	+2016-09-12 15:16:34.0

Caselist.CitesClass[5]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,59 @@
	1	+=1-off =
	2	+A. Interpretation: The affirmative must defend countries in general and must not defend that only a single country or combination of any countries prohibits production of nuclear power.
	3	+B. Violation: They defend only Belgium. Confirmed in CX.
	4	+C. Standards
	5	+1. Textuality- this aff is definitely not textual. The new norm in LD where everyone acts like 1 man policy debaters makes no sense since LD resolutions aren't written with plan focus in mind. 3 independent warrants, I can extend any of these in the 2NR to access this standard:
	6	+A. Bare plurals-The word "countries" in the resolution are a generic bare plural. This evidence is about government's but the same logic applies to countries:
	7	+Nebel 14, Jake, AB in philosophy at Princeton and the BPhil at Oxford, NYU,20 14, http://vbriefly.com/2014/12/19/jake-nebel-on-specifying-just-governments/
	8	+I believe that debaters shouldn't specify a government on the living wage topic. The standard argument for this is simple: "just governments" is a plural noun phrase, so it refers to more than one just government. Most debaters will stop there. But there is much more to say. (Some seem not to care about the plural construction. I plan to address this view in a later article about the parametric conception of topicality.) Some noun phrases include articles like "the," demonstratives like "these," possessives like "my," or quantifiers like "some" or "all." These words are called determiners. Bare plurals, including "just governments," lack determiners. There's no article, demonstrative, possessive, or quantifier in front of the noun to tell you how many or which governments are being discussed. We use bare plurals for two main purposes. Consider some examples: Debaters are here. Debaters are smart. In (1), "debaters" seems equivalent to "some debaters." It is true just in case there is more than one debater around. If I enter a restaurant and utter (1), I speak truly if there are a couple of debaters at a table. This is an existential use of the bare plural, because it just says that there exist things of the relevant class (debaters) that meet the relevant description (being here). In (2), though, "debaters" seems to refer to debaters in general. This use of the bare plural is generic. Some say that generics refer to kinds of things, rather than particular members of their kinds, or that they refer to typical cases. There is a large literature on understanding generics. Here my aim is not to figure out the truth conditions for the generic reading of the resolution; I shall simply work with our pre-theoretical grip on the contrast between sentences like (1) and (2). This distinction bears importantly on the resolution. If "just governments" is a generic bare plural, then the debate is about whether just governments in general ought to require that employers pay a living wage. If it is an existential bare plural, then the debate is about whether some just governments—i.e., more than one—ought to require that employers pay a living wage. Only the second interpretation allows one to affirm by specifying a few governments.
	9	+**B. Google defines "countries" as the plural version of country **
	10	+plural noun: countries
	11	+
	12	+
	13	+====This means for the aff to be topical, even if countries don't refer to a bare plural, the aff has to defend 2 countries banning nuclear power. ====
	14	+C. Framers intent- If the framers wanted to discuss Belgium they would have specified that country or would have added a qualifier to the word country. Framers intent is key- words are only meant to communicate the meaning that the author intends.
	15	+There are 4 impacts to textuality:
	16	+Little a is predictability- I am
	17	+AND
	18	+you can talk about that in-dpeth education for the entire round.
	19	+
	20	+
	21	+=2-off =
	22	+
	23	+
	24	+====The terrorist discourse creates binary identities of "us" vs. "the other".====
	25	+**Talbot 08** (Steven, Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Sociological Research Online 13(1)17 'Us' and 'Them': Terrorism, Conflict and (O)ther Discursive Formations, http://www.socresonline.org.uk/13/1/17.html)
	26	+Sociology of the enemy examines the social process of constructing enemies, and within the
	27	+AND
	28	+'Rest' has the effect of silencing dissenting voices residing within both camps.
	29	+
	30	+
	31	+====Terrorist rhetoric generates more violence and creates a self-fulfilling prophecy – 4 warrants, turns case. ====
	32	+**Kapitan and Schulte 2** (Tomis and Erich, Thomas – Prof of Philosophy @ N Illinois U, and Erich – , Journal of Political and Military Sociology Vol. 30 Issue 1, 2002, pp. 172+, Questia) JPG
	33	+The 'terrorist' rhetoric typified in Netanyahu's book actually increases terrorism in four distinct ways.
	34	+AND
	35	+violence against civilians.19 Let us now examine evidence for these points.
	36	+
	37	+
	38	+====The alternative is to reject the discourse and not construct them as the "OTHER." Break down the binaries and reject the urgent call to action.====
	39	+**Enns 04** (Diane, Philosophy Department at the University of Toronto, John Hopkins University Press, Bare Life and the Occupied Body http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/theory_and_event/v007/7.3enns.html)
	40	+Foucault persists in being optimistic. The claim that "at the very heart of
	41	+AND
	42	+unnecessary, it is worse to say that it is the only option.
	43	+
	44	+
	45	+====Role of the judge key—must examine the discourse of the 1AC====
	46	+**Edwards 10** (Brian, American Literary History, http://alh.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/22/2/360, date accessed: 7/7/2010) AJK
	47	+In addressing the popular fascination with Private Jessica Lynch, taken captive by Iraqi forces
	48	+AND
	49	+handing of the crisis in New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina).
	50	+
	51	+
	52	+====And discourse is particularly relevant to deconstructing power relations. Bleiker writes====
	53	+ Discourse and Human Agency Roland Bleiker1 School of Political Science, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QID 4072, Australia. E-mail: bleiker@mailbox.ug.edu.an Contemporary Political Theory, 2003, 2, (25–47) r 2003 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd 1470-8914/03 $15.00
	54	+ 'It is within discourse,' one of Foucault's much rehearsed passages (
	55	+AND
	56	+saturated with reason that their emergence out of unreason thereby becomes improbable.'
	57	+
	58	+
	59	+=Case=

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-09-12 15:16:35.399

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Phillips, Tambe, Lallas

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Lynbrook CW

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+6

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+West Ranch Won Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+SEPTOCT - Loyola Octas NC

Tournament

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