Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[1]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[3]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[1]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-10-15 16:00:23.811
	1	+2016-10-15 16:00:23.0

Caselist.CitesClass[3]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,121 @@
	1	+=T – Extratopical=
	2	+
	3	+
	4	+====A is the Interpretation: The affirmative must defend countries prohibit the production of only nuclear power.====
	5	+
	6	+
	7	+====‘Resolved’ means a proposal to be enacted by law ====
	8	+Words and Phrases 64 Permanent Edition
	9	+Definition of the word "resolve," given by Webster is "to express an
	10	+...
	11	+," which is defined by Bouvier as meaning "to establish by law".
	12	+
	13	+
	14	+==== "Prohibit" means legal enforcement====
	15	+Dictionary.com http://www.dictionary.com/browse/prohibit
	16	+to forbid (an action, activity, etc.) by authority or law:
	17	+
	18	+
	19	+====Nuclear power is a form of energy production regulated by governments through laws====
	20	+**West's Encyclopedia of American Law**, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Nuclear+Power
	21	+A form of energy produced by an atomic reaction, capable of producing an alternative
	22	+...
	23	+waste and may define state tort liability for injuries suffered at nuclear facilities.
	24	+
	25	+
	26	+====B is the Violation: they don’t defend a legal action and CX proves—if you prove the topic is bad that still doesn’t disprove her advocacy.====
	27	+
	28	+
	29	+====Standards:====
	30	+
	31	+
	32	+====1~~ Limits – They explode the amount of affs people can read, you can literally talk about anything. Makes predicting your aff impossible and research and clash unlikely. Limits are a voter. If everyone could read extratopical affs, they would read the same affs and same negs. There would be no education because you would miss out on an entire half of the topic. Our interpretation solves limits because we give the basic requirement of meeting the resolution. ====
	33	+
	34	+
	35	+====2~~ Clash - Debate requires a specific point of difference in order to promote effective exchange—stasis in the topic is key to engagement. You disincentivize research because you can win without debating the topic.====
	36	+**Steinberg and Freeley 13**, * David, Lecturer in Communicatio22n studies and rhetoric. Advisor to Miami Urban Debate League. Director of Debate at U Miami, Former President of CEDA. And ** Austin, attorney who focuses on criminal, personal injury and civil rights law, JD, Suffolk University, Argumentation and Debate, Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making, 121-4
	37	+Debate is a means of settling differences, so there must be a controversy,
	38	+...
	39	+particular point of difference, which will be outlined in the following discussion.
	40	+
	41	+
	42	+====Outweighs: ====
	43	+
	44	+
	45	+====A. Even if their method is good, it isn’t valuable if it’s not procedurally debatable – they don’t get access to any of their offense====
	46	+
	47	+
	48	+====B. The best solutions are formed with critical contestation from multiple sides – it’s more likely we make a good liberation strategy if both debaters can engage and test it====
	49	+
	50	+
	51	+====C. Debate is about process not content – we inevitably switch sides, even if it’s arguing against one method with another. The individual ideas we learn, like '', aren’t as valuable as learning how to effectively apply those ideas outside of round by engaging in precise discussions instead of just asserting opinions.====
	52	+
	53	+
	54	+====D. They force the NEG to extremist generics – this is why cap and anthro are such common responses to their position - which causes more evasion than if we had a substantive debate about '' in the topic.====
	55	+
	56	+
	57	+====E. It’s key to long term activism which turns case and outweighs because of existential threats. ====
	58	+Christian O. Lundberg 10 Professor of Communications @ University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, "Tradition of Debate in North Carolina" in Navigating Opportunity: Policy Debate in the 21st Century By Allan D. Louden, p. 311
	59	+The second major problem with the critique that identifies a naivety in articulating debate and
	60	+...
	61	+with the existential challenges to democracy ~~in an~~ increasingly complex world.
	62	+
	63	+
	64	+====If you can’t defend your advocacy in the real world, there will be no impact to the AFF. By defending a policy option in which I can debate, we are able to learn more about the problem.====
	65	+
	66	+
	67	+====T version of the aff – ====
	68	+
	69	+
	70	+====2. Procedural Fairness - Non topical advocacies mean they can defend anything outside the resolution which is unpredictable, and also defend uncontestable offense like '''. This kills NEG ground and thus equal access to the ballot.====
	71	+
	72	+
	73	+====This is an independent voting issue which outweighs:====
	74	+
	75	+
	76	+====A. Evaluation – even if their arguments seem true, that’s only because they already had an advantage – fairness is a meta constraint on your ability to determine who best meets their ROB.====
	77	+B. Fairness is key to effective dialogue. **Galloway 07**
	78	+Ryan, "DINNER AND CONVERSATION AT THE ARGUMENTATIVE TABLE: RECONCEPTUALIZING DEBATE AS AN ARGUMENTATIVE DIALOGUE", Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28 (2007)
	79	+Debate as a dialogue sets an argumentative table, where all parties receive a relatively
	80	+...
	81	+substitutes for topical action do not accrue the dialogical benefits of topical advocacy.
	82	+
	83	+
	84	+====C. Links best to the role of the judge to determine the winner as per the ballot – that’s impossible if the round’s unfair. Even if their method is good for education there’s no reason you vote on it, just as even if exercise is good for soccer playerss you don’t vote for the team that ran most.====
	85	+
	86	+
	87	+====3~~ We solve all their offense - arguments don’t injure people, but policies do—voting aff on this is censorship because it says we can’t even introduce ideas without harming them. Anderson 06====
	88	+Amanda Anderson 6, Andrew W. Mellon Professor of Humanities and English at Brown University, Spring 2006, "Reply to My Critic(s)," Criticism, Vol. 48, No. 2, p. 281-290
	89	+Probyns piece is a mixture of affective fallacy, argument by authority, and bald
	90	+...
	91	+and public debate has a vital role to play in such a task.
	92	+
	93	+
	94	+====Competing interps====
	95	+
	96	+
	97	+====1. Reasonability causes a race to the bottom because debaters keep being barely reasonable====
	98	+
	99	+
	100	+====2. No briteline to reasonability====
	101	+
	102	+
	103	+====Drop the debater: ====
	104	+
	105	+
	106	+====1. Sets a precedent that debaters can’t run unfair arguments,====
	107	+
	108	+
	109	+====2. Dropping them and their advocacy are functionally the same. ====
	110	+
	111	+
	112	+====RVIs bad ====
	113	+
	114	+
	115	+====1. RVIs discourage checking abuse because debaters will be afraid to lose on theory====
	116	+
	117	+
	118	+====2. RVIs center the debate on theory instead of substance because it’s the only place the round can be decided. substance clash is important—it’s the only education unique to debate and outweighs on time frame; we only get 3 weeks to talk about the topic.====
	119	+
	120	+
	121	+====3. Debaters running abusive positions will always be prepared for theory because they know what’s coming. ====

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-10-15 16:00:30.216

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Martin, Calen

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Plano Senior ES

ParentRound

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

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Westwood Mambapoor Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+T - Generic Extratopical

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+St Marks