Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[13]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[12]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[13]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-10-08 18:14:39.522
	1	+2016-10-08 18:14:39.0

Caselist.CitesClass[12]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,88 @@
	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	+====CP Text: All relevant aff actors will adopt the American model for nuclear power plant security. Solves terror attacks ====
	32	+**MacFarlane 4/14** ~~Allison MacFarlane, "How to protect nuclear plants from terrorists," phys.org, April 14, 2016, http://phys.org/news/2016-04-nuclear-fromterrorists.html
	33	+U.S. nuclear power plants now are some of the most well-
	34	+AND
	35	+caused machines to malfunction, showed how vulnerable unprotected computer networks can be.
	36	+
	37	+
	38	+====Mutually exclusive with the aff because they shut down nuclear reactors while the CP keeps them open ====
	39	+
	40	+
	41	+====Net beneficial with the DA's ====
	42	+
	43	+
	44	+=3-off f=
	45	+
	46	+
	47	+==Paris DA==
	48	+
	49	+
	50	+===Links===
	51	+**Belgium and the entire EU signed the Paris Agreement into force. Chee 16:**
	52	+Chee, Foo Yun (Reuters Reporter) "EU ratifies Paris agreement on climate change" The Globe and Mail. 4 Oct 2016. Web. 4 Oct 2016. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/eu-ratifies-paris-agreement-on-climate-change/article32228330/
	53	+The European Parliament backed the Paris accord to fight climate change on Tuesday, the EU executive said, tipping it over the threshold needed for the global deal to enter into force. The Paris Agreement, backed by nearly 200 nations nearly one year ago, will help guide a radical shift of the world economy away from fossil fuels in an effort to limit heat waves, floods, droughts and rising sea levels.
	54	+
	55	+
	56	+====Nuclear energy is a key part of the Paris Climate agreement's carbon reduction goals ====
	57	+**NEI 15** ~~Nuclear Energy Institute, "French Lessons: What the Paris Climate Agreement Means for Nuclear," December 17, 2015, http://www.nei.org/News-Media/News/News-Archives/French-Lessons-What-the-Paris-Climate-Agreement-Me~~ JW
	58	+Capping the U.N. climate conference in Paris (COP21), 195 countries
	59	+AND
	60	+treaty for it to enter into force by Jan. 1, 2020.
	61	+
	62	+
	63	+====Belgium needs nuclear reactors to meet carbon reduction targets ====
	64	+**WNA 16** ~~World Nuclear Association, "Nuclear Power in Belgium," March 2016, http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/belgium.aspx~~ JW
	65	+In 2007, the Commission on Energy 2030d energy policy study set up by the
	66	+AND
	67	+Instead, the operating lives of the seven nuclear units should be extended.
	68	+
	69	+
	70	+===IMPX===
	71	+
	72	+
	73	+====The power behind the Paris Agreement comes from its global support. Meyer 15====
	74	+Meyer, Robinson. (an associate editor at The Atlantic, where he covers technology) "A Reader's Guide to the Paris Agreement." The Atlantic. 15 Dec 2015. Web. 1 Oct 2016. http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/12/a-readers-guide-to-the-paris-agreement/420345/
	75	+This global solidarity gives the Paris agreement its power. As I wrote over the
	76	+AND
	77	+**the driving force in a shift away from fossil fuels. Lewis 16:**
	78	+
	79	+
	80	+====Lewis, Simon L. 2016. "The Paris Agreement Has Solved A Troubling Problem". Nature 532 (7599): 283-283. Nature Publishing Group. doi:10.1038/532283a.====
	81	+Is this the beginning of the end of the fossil-fuel age, as some suggest? It could be — its influence is certainly being felt. Peabody Energy, the largest private coal company, lost 12.6 of its value the day after the Paris deal was agreed. It filed for bankruptcy last week. But even before countries queue up to sign, the Paris Agreement could already have solved one of the most troublesome problems in the climate arena, one that has plagued scientists and policymakers for almost a quarter of a century. And yet almost nobody — scientists included — seems to have noticed.
	82	+The Paris Agreement has finally defined the threshold for 'dangerous' climate change. It
	83	+AND
	84	+**with the goals in the Paris agreement leads to extinction. Cockburn 16:**
	85	+
	86	+
	87	+====Cockburn, Harry. 2016. "What Burning All Remaining Fossil Fuels Would Do To The Planet". The Independent. Accessed October 4 2016. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-burning-all-fossil-fuels-could-cause-global-mass-extinction-a7047761.html.====
	88	+Last year's Paris climate change agreement set a goal of keeping global warming below 2C. The new research is a stark warning of what could happen if efforts are not made to keep within agreed carbon emissions limits. The temperature rises would have a rapid impact on polar and tropical rainforest ecosystems, according to Professor Camille Parmesan, an expert in marine life at Plymouth University. Speaking to CarbonBrief.org she said: "The temperature and precipitation changes ~~the report~~ project… are way out of bounds for several ecosystems. This is no big surprise, since even what is viewed as 'moderate' warming will cause loss of Arctic sea ice, and hence the entire ecosystem adapted to sea ice." An 8C-10C rise in temperatures could even wipe out some of the planet's most common ecosystems she explained. "Grasses didn't evolve until CO2 was low enough that grasses could out-compete trees. At least one research group has predicted loss of grasslands at very high CO2… ~~It is~~ likely these types of extreme climate changes would lead to a 6th mass extinction event," she said.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-10-08 18:14:40.968

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Scott Wheeller, Anna-Marie Hwang

Opponent

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

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+13

Round

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

Team

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

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+SEPTOCT - Voices RR R3 NC

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Voices RR