Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[5]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[10]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[5]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-02-13 02:02:59.529
	1	+2017-02-13 02:02:59.0

Caselist.CitesClass[10]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,57 @@
	1	+**Interpretation: The aff may only garner offense from a topical, hypothetical policy implementation of the resolution.**
	2	+
	3	+‘Resolved’ reflects policy passage before a legislative body.
	4	+
	5	+Parcher 01
	6	+Jeff Parcher, Former Debate Coach at Georgetown University, February 2001.
	7	+(1) Pardon me if I turn to...
	8	+AND
	9	+...of course, are answers to a question.
	10	+
	11	+‘Public college’ implies state action.
	12	+
	13	+US Legal No Date
	14	+US Legal, “Public College Law and Legal Definition,” No Date.
	15	+Public college means “any institution of higher...
	16	+AND
	17	+...a governmental source.”(42 USCS § 2000c)
	18	+
	19	+**Reasons to Prefer:**
	20	+
	21	+First, engagement–there are infinite non-topical affs–a precise and predictable point of difference is key to effective dialogue.
	22	+
	23	+Steinberg and Freeley 13
	24	+David Steinberg, Lecturer in Communication Studies and Rhetoric, Advisor to Miami Urban Debate League, Director of Debate at U Miami, Former President of CEDA, and Austin Freeley, Criminal and Civil Rights Attorney JD, Suffolk University, Argumentation and Debate, “Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making,” pp. 121-124, 2013.
	25	+Debate is a means of settling differences...
	26	+AND
	27	+...is best facilitated by the guidance provided.
	28	+
	29	+Second, policy education: In-depth policy analysis allows one to understand the details of institutions and organizational decision-making—that’s a prereq to challenging oppression.
	30	+
	31	+Diem et al. 14
	32	+Sarah Diem, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, Michelle D. Young, Anjalé D. Welton, Katherine Cumings Mansfield, and Pei-Ling Lee, “The intellectual landscape of critical policy analysis,” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, Volume 27, Issue 9, August 18, 2014.
	33	+In our interviews, we asked scholars to...
	34	+AND
	35	+...something, not just necessarily write about it.
	36	+
	37	+Third, limits: Non-topical performances make the neg prep burden impossible—there are an infinite number of ways they can performatively address the topic—requiring them to defend topical action ensures a predictable lit base from which both debaters can effectively craft arguments—that’s key to clash and dialogue on every important issue—internal link turns their education and proves an independent fairness impact.
	38	+
	39	+And, fairness is a prerequisite to respect for other debaters.
	40	+
	41	+Galloway 07
	42	+Ryan Galloway, Samford University Community Professor, “Contemporary Argumentation and Debate,” The Journal of the Cross Examination Debate Association, Vol. 28, 2007.
	43	+Debate as a dialogue sets an argumentative table...
	44	+AND
	45	+...time and power (Farrell, 1985, p. 114).
	46	+
	47	+And, debaters quit the activity—if the aff is a valuable discussion at all then quitting is even worse since debate is a valuable forum.
	48	+
	49	+Speice and Lyle 03
	50	+Patrick Speice, Wake Forest University, and Jim Lyle, Debate Coach, Clarion University, “Traditional Policy Debate: Now More Than Ever,” Ocean Policy Adrift, 2003. DY
	51	+As with any game or sport, Creating...
	52	+AND
	53	+...debate fun and educational for all participants.
	54	+
	55	+Fourth, topical version of the aff is . That solves 100 of their offense, and proves we can access all of their education through a narrow discussion of the topic–they can read as a framework argument to justify a topical aff, there’s no reason voting off it is key.
	56	+
	57	+**Vote neg—this debate is a comparison of methods—use your ballot to reject the 1AC and endorse the pedagogical value of topical debates about campus speech codes—the ballot is key because the 2NR is too late for me to generate offense to a topical affirmative.**

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-02-13 02:03:01.38

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Evan ODonnell, Gabe Ren, Kevin Wei

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Stuyvesant KL

ParentRound

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

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+duPont Manual Yi Neg

Title

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

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+42nd University of Pennsylvania Tournament