Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[48]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[49]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[48]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-12-03 23:00:01.757
	1	+2016-12-03 23:00:01.0

Caselist.CitesClass[49]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,32 @@
	1	+A Interpretation: The affirmative must defend that the Supreme Court of the United States will limit qualified immunity. To clarify, they must fiat that the SCOTUS will rule a certain way on a court case – they may not defend AFF advocacy.
	2	+
	3	+B They defend AFF, which doesn’t go through the Supreme Court
	4	+
	5	+C Net Benefits
	6	+Topic lit - The Supreme Court is reviewing and presiding over QI cases, means it’s the largest part of the topic lit.
	7	+Kinports 16. Kinports, Kit, The Supreme Court's Quiet Expansion of Qualified Immunity (February 22, 2016). Minnesota Law Review Headnotes, Vol. 100, No. 62, 2016; Penn State Law Research Paper No. 6-2016. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2736575
	8	+1) how the Court characterizes the standard governing the qualified immunity defense; (2) whether lower court opinions can create clearly established law; and (3) how qualified immunity compares to Fourth Amendment principles. As detailed below, in each of these areas the Court haswithout offering any explanation, and without even acknowledging it is doing sobroadened the protection qualified immunity offers government officials in § 1983 litigation
	9	+This topic is already extremely limited – their AFF further limits our NEG prep and skews 1NC strategy, kills clash. Ours limit debates to the center of qualified immunity disputes within the topic lit, key to in-depth and clash-heavy debates
	10	+
	11	+Limits – defending random actors like a certain court or Congress underlimits the number of topical AFF’s, allowing for infinite possible 1AC’s. That explodes 1NC prep skew and destroys any predictability, killing my ability to clash with the AFF. My inability to engage with the AFF means you don’t look to their claims.
	12	+The ability to specify actors outside the topic lit means we have to find DAs to limiting qualified immunity for EVERY single possible actor. No topic lit is specific to why qualified immunity should not be prohibited in the context of one of the infinite actors; our interp has higher quality debates, 1NC’s in their world will just hope their generics link
	13	+None of our case offense or brink DA’s link if you can defend random, arbitrary actors limiting QI – our links are predicated on the 1AC limiting qualified immunity substnatially, means we have no ability to engage with and debate the AFF.
	14	+
	15	+TVA – just fiat that the SCOTUS will pass the 1AC – solves all their offense, you can talk about the 1AC topically.
	16	+
	17	+Substantive engagement
	18	+Only reason we debate is for argument interaction, thus comes first.
	19	+You can get education from school
	20	+If debate were about being fair, we’d just flip a coin because that’d be the fairest scenario, but no one does that means fairness isn’t a voter.
	21	+Prefer competing interpretations:
	22	+Reasonability causes a race to the bottom because debaters keep being barely reasonable
	23	+No briteline to reasonability
	24	+Drop the debater:
	25	+time skew puts me at a disadvantage on substance
	26	+Sets a precedent that debaters can’t run unfair arguments,
	27	+Dropping them and their advocacy are functionally the same.
	28	+RVI:
	29	+Real world applicability- Winning defense on T just means that they are being fair, that’s not a reason to vote them up- In the real world proving you are meeting a necessary rule will not give you reward.
	30	+RVIs discourage checking abuse because debaters will be afraid to lose on T
	31	+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 two months to talk about the topic.
	32	+Debaters running abusive positions will always be prepared for T because they know what’s coming. Their opponents, however, must divide their pre-round prep between many possible shells.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-12-03 23:00:02.428

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Chris Castillo

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+McNeil PV

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+45

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+5

Team

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

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+ND - Theory - Cant spec Supreme Court

Tournament

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