Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[11]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[10]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[11]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-09-18 18:02:24.35
	1	+2016-09-18 18:02:24.0

Caselist.CitesClass[10]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,85 @@
	1	+=1-off=
	2	+interp: The affirmative must defend countries in general and must not defend that only a single country or some combination of countries prohibits the production of nuclear power.
	3	+C.
	4	+1. Grammar-the word "countries" in the resolution is a bare plural indicating the resolution is generic.
	5	+Debois 16, Danny, VBI Topic Analysis Sept-Oct, p.11, 2016
	6	+Importantly, "countries" in this resolution is a bare plural—i.e. there's no article or demonstrative in front of adolescents like "the" or "these" indicating which adolescents the resolution is talking about. Bare plurals indicate that the resolution is a generic statement, and consequently, in order to textually affirm, aff advocacies have to be why in general countries have to prohibit nuclear power, not why specific countries should prohibit it.
	7	+2. Framers intent- If the framers wanted to discuss (X country) they would have specified that country or would have added a qualifier to the word country. This is empirically proven by past topics that specified only the US. Framers intent is key- words are only meant to communicate the meaning that the author intends.
	8	+Grammar and framers intent are key to limits—I am more likely to prep for the true interp of how the resolution is read rather than whichever version the aff likes most. Also means the aff is not semantically in line with the way the resolution is written. And semantics outweigh pragmatic
	9	+a) Semantics is the most non-biased way to determine abuse. Framers of the rez design it to create fair and educational debates. Pragmatic benefits can't be determined as well since we are incentivized to lie about them to win the T debate.
	10	+b) Semantic justifications have logical priority. A pragmatic approach would say "I'll give you a million dollars if 2+2=5." Even though you want the money, the pragmatic approach only offers a reason to want the statement to be true, not an actual reason for it to be true.
	11	+3. Limits- At a base level your interp allows 200 possible aff with every country in the world. That number is exploded because you can defend any permutation of these countries or spec things like types of reactors, putting the number of aff's well into the thousands. Even if we are extremely generous and say your counterinterp limits the number of aff's to less than 30, any number above 10 is ridiculous because we've only had this topic for a month, there is no way I could prep that many specific case negs and also prep for other aspects of the resolution and also live a normal life.
	12	+Limits are key to fairness because they control if the negative can clash with well-prepped, quality arguments that give us both a chance at winning the round as opposed to scripted topic-independent debates. This also means limits is key to long term clash and topic education.
	13	+D. Voter:
	14	+1. Fairness is a voter since the ballot asks who the better debater is and you can't make that decision accurately if the round is unfair.
	15	+2. Fairness outweighs education
	16	+Education loss is a reversible harm - I can always read up more on topic lit later, or do rebuttal redos to increase clash and critical thinking skills. But an unfair decision is permanent.
	17	+3. Drop the debater
	18	+a) Recourse- Drop the arg always incentivizes abusive positions because worse case scenario you lose access to the arg but best case you win on an abusive arg. Drop the debater to incentives further checking of abuse and to deter your use of them.
	19	+b) Drop the arg is severance on T because it shifts their advocacy to whole res in the 1ar. This is unfair because the 1nc strategy was premised on the AC plantext. If you allow them to shift it punishes me for their abuse.
	20	+4. Competing Interps
	21	+a) Reasonability begs the question of what's reasonable, requiring arbitrary intervention for the judge to evaluate the round. Even if you set a brighltine its arbitrary, allowing you to always set a brightline that lets you get away with abuse. Your 1AC brightline proves, ARTICULATE WHY
	22	+b) Reasonability begs the question of their interp. If I win offense, they are unreasonable. So a. even under reasonability the debater with the most offense wins and b. it collapses to competing interps because the debater has to win their interp / counterinterp first.
	23	+5. No RVIs
	24	+a) RVI's prevent theory from checking abuse. I wouldn't want to initiate a theory debate against an abusive case if my opponent could win the theory debate on an RVI. This is especially bad since they knew what they were defending beforehand but I didn't ensuring a huge prep skew on theory already.
	25	+b) Reciprocity-Theory is not a nib- you can go for link turns or impact turns- you can impact turn with fairness for who or link turn with arguments for why I violate or use the voters to generate offense on a new shell. Giving you another way out creates a 2:1 skew.
	26	+
	27	+
	28	+=2-off =
	29	+
	30	+
	31	+====First is framing—====
	32	+
	33	+
	34	+====The role of the ballot is to question the border assumptions of the 1AC's scholarship prior to the consequence of the plan. Questioning the violence of borders is a forgotten discussion in that needs to be revisisted. ====
	35	+**Van Houtum 05** ~~Henk Van Houtum, Nijmegen Centre for Border Research, Radboud University, The Netherlands, "The Geopolitics of Borders and Boundaries," 2005~~ JW
	36	+The second reason why I think it is a shame that we are not discussing
	37	+AND
	38	+making when b/ordering ourselves and others? And at what price?
	39	+
	40	+
	41	+====Next is the criticism:====
	42	+
	43	+
	44	+====The affirmative reifies the legitimacy of nation states by choosing to defend a specific country pursuing prohibition of nuclear weapons. The aff could have chose to defend the whole resolution with an implementation mechanism that included an international institution such as the UN, uniting the call for global action by all nation-states and deconstructing the unflinching prevalence of the nation state model. Instead, the affirmative chose to orient it's politics around the nation-state which inevitably reproduces violent boundaries and borders. This link is unavoidable and damning. ====
	45	+Walker 9** **~~R.B.J., Walker is a professor in the department of Political Science at the University of Victoria and is the chief editor of the Journal of International Political Sociology, "After the Globe, Before the world", pg. 77 – 80~~
	46	+The consequence, however, can also be read in relation to all those historical
	47	+AND
	48	+the limits of the modern political imagination will necessarily run into irresolvable difficulties.
	49	+
	50	+
	51	+====The affirmative cannot delink—I extended an olive branch in CX and asked if they would be willing to defend that all countries embark on the aff's project and they refused. This link is supercharged because borders are an ontological division of the inside versus the outside which fuels nationalism. ====
	52	+**Agnew 08**—Department of Geography @ UCLA (John, 2008, Ethics and Global Politics, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 175-191"Borders on the mind: re-framing border thinking," rmf)
	53	+A third connection with political identity is made by those who emphasize the idea of
	54	+AND
	55	+project that simply takes place at the border or simply between adjacent states.
	56	+
	57	+
	58	+====The affirmative fuels the creation of a mutual xenophobic otherization of those across the border- this results in cartographical violence that is justified by the perpetually fear of the other. Bornstein 2:====
	59	+**Bornstein 2**(Avram Bornstein, professor @ John Jay college anthropology PhD and masters @ Columbia, "Borders and the Utility of Violence State Effects on the 'Superexploitation' of West Bank Palestinians" vol 22, 2002)
	60	+Heyman (1998a, 1998b, 1999) has argued that militarization of the border
	61	+AND
	62	+are more complicated than surplus extraction and that those motivations can have impoverishing consequences
	63	+
	64	+
	65	+====Bornstein 2 is empirically proven by the rise of Donald Trump—he's literally built his platform around building a wall on the southern BORDER of the US and making AMERICA great again and WINNING against other countries and keeping out Muslims from the US. This nativist logic results in real violence, and is depending on something to be native about, i.e. that there is such a thing as a real America and that people who have arbitrarily been deemed Americans have a right to live freely, which also independently justified US foreign policy actions like the Iraq war. 2 implications: ====
	66	+
	67	+
	68	+====The permutation cannot solve the link without being severance, since the very plan text and advocacy of the aff is the link to the K. Even if affirming would result in some good impacts, its underlying assumptions are intellectually bankrupt. The permutation is akin to the slave master saying they are good because they donate to charity.====
	69	+
	70	+
	71	+====The alternative is to critically engage the border and re-evaluate our norms in relation to the violence they create. ====
	72	+**Grosfoguel 06** ~~Ramon Grosfoguel, Associate Professor of Ethnic Studies @ UC Berkeley, "World-Systems Analysis in the Context of Transmodernity, Border Thinking, and Global Coloniality," Review (Fernand Braudel Center), Vol. 29, No. 2, From Postcolonial Studies to Decolonial Studies: Decolonizing Postcolonial Studies, 2006~~ JW
	73	+One of many plausible solutions to the Eurocentric versus fun- damentalist dilemma is what
	74	+AND
	75	+how to transcend the impe- rial monologue established by the Eurocentered modernity.
	76	+
	77	+
	78	+=Case =
	79	+
	80	+
	81	+====Accidents are rare, nuclear power is the safest====
	82	+**Walsh 13** – Bryan, Writes for Time ("Nuclear Energy Is Largely Safe. But Can It Be Cheap?" http://science.time.com/2013/07/08/nuclear-energy-is-largely-safe-but-can-it-be-cheap/) CR
	83	+Is it safe? That's what most people — brought up on Three Mile Island
	84	+AND
	85	+and renewables, doesn't contribute to man-made climate change.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-09-18 18:02:33.336

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Agarwala, Gandra, Phillips

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Marlborough LG

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+11

Round

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

Team

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

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+SEPTOCT - Greenhill Doubles NC

Tournament

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