Tournament: - | Round: 1 | Opponent: - | Judge: -
please contact me before you read disclosure theory, or if there's anything else you need:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sesh.hollendonner
Email: saeshinjoe@gmail.com
512-810-3696

Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 2 | Opponent: Newark Science GF | Judge: Neel Yerneni

1. Agency is set apart from other enterprises in that it is inescapable
   (Luca Ferrero, “Constitutivism and the Inescapability of Agency”. Oxford Studies in Metaethics, vol. IV, Jan 12, 2009.(https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/ferrero/www/pubs/ferrero-constitutivism.pdf) Professor of Philosophy, University of Wesconsin at Milwaukee.)
      The initial appeal...viability of constitutivism. 

2. Analytic
3.''
4.''
5.''
6.''
7. Traditional framing mechanisms don’t assign intrinsic value to special obligations which breaks down reasonability, when a promise is made or you owe a group something it creates a special obligation.
SEP, 2014, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, All entries and substantive updates are refereed by the members of a distinguished Editorial Board before they are made public, Special Obligations, First published Thu Oct 17, 2002; substantive revision Sun Jan 5, 2014, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/special-obligations/#
   What is special...the hour of need” (59).

8. Analytic

Special Obligations are agent relative reasons for the government to act
SEP, 2014, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, All entries and substantive updates are refereed by the members of a distinguished Editorial Board before they are made public, Special Obligations, First published Thu Oct 17, 2002; substantive revision Sun Jan 5, 2014, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/special-obligations/#
   The discussion of the..nearness and obligations.

Special obligations as a guide to good and bad creates moral danger, therefore they can’t hold moral value or else moral reasoning breaks down.
SEP, 2014, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, All entries and substantive updates are refereed by the members of a distinguished Editorial Board before they are made public, Special Obligations, First published Thu Oct 17, 2002; substantive revision Sun Jan 5, 2014, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/special-obligations/#
   Special relationships take...against one another.

Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 2 | Opponent: Newark Science GF | Judge: Neel Yerneni
The AFF causes officers to become overcompliant in the face of potential litigation.
Homer C. Hawkins (Associate Professor, School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University) and Catherine Montsinger (Assistant Professor, Criminology, Johnson C. Smith University). “Po- lice and Civil Liability: A Practical Guide to Avoiding Litigation.” Law Enforcement Executive Fo- rum • 2007 • 7(1).
   Litigaphobia, also referred...litigation may present

Decline of active and engaged policing is driving a record spike in crime, caused by police fear of backlash.
George Hofstetter (President of the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs). "Proactive policing and the violent crime rate." 2016. http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?m=1119707513166andca=4a80a442-8caf-45c4-97ca-745c0f1b6f88
This past week...seen in years.

Surrounded by gunshots, children are doomed to a cycle of poverty and violence.
Reich et al. ’02: (Kathleen Reich, M.P.P., Patti L. Culross, M.D., M.P.H., and Richard E. Behrman, M.D. “Children, Youth, and Gun Violence: Analysis and Recommendations.” The Future of Children. Children, Youth, and Gun Violence. Volume 12 – Number 2 Summer/Fall 2002FT)
Just as the economic...they were dead.

Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 7 | Opponent: North Oldham MG | Judge: Chad Infante
Plan: The United States ought to eliminate qualified immunity for police officers and institute a mandatory indemnification scheme.
Mandery ’94 (Evan J. Mandery, JD Harvard Law School AB Harvard College chairperson of the department of criminal justice and an expert on the death penalty “Qualified Immunity or Absolute Impunity? The Moral Hazards of Extending Qualified Immunity to Lower-Level Public Officials”  Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. 1994) 
Part II outlined... uncompensated is indefensible.

Analytic

Civil suits in constitutional rights violations are distinctly important in recognizing the importance of individuals who have their rights violated by government officials, even when the financial liability may be addressed by the government. Armacost 89
(Barbara E. Armacost 51 Vand. L. Rev. 583 (1998) “Qualified Immunity- Ignorance Excused” J.D. University of Virginia School of Law 1989 M.T.S. Regent College of the University of British Columbia 1984 B.S. University of Virginia 1976 )
Turning to section...clear constitutional impropriety.

Analytic

First, Requiring police to come to court checks back rights abuses.
Mathern ‘12  (Andrew Mathern. “Federal Civil Rights Lawsuits and Civil Gideon: A Solution to Disproportionate Police Force?” The Journal of Gender, Race and Justice. 2012 — KW, JT)
Any effective approach...of police departments.

Second, qualified immunity undermines critical reflection over and improved development of civil rights law.
Hassle ’99 (Diana Hassel “Living a Lie: The Cost of Qualified Immunity” Missouri Law Review. Vot. 64 Winter 1999. http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol64/iss1/9
 — KW)
The problem with...encouraging fundamental change.”

Tournament: St Marks | Round: 5 | Opponent: Lynbrook YZ | Judge: Chris Castillo
Part 1 - Resolutional burdens

There is a difference in prohibition and regulation - a prohibition is to forbid an action or activity by authority or law. In contrast, a regulation is an official rule or law that says how something should be done. The difference in regards to nuclear power is about whether the law will permit any form of nuclear power whatsoever.
The aff only justifies the need for prohibition if they can prove that the harms in their case are inseparable from the production of nuclear power. Otherwise, those harms could be solved through regulations without prohibition. The aff only has ground to win on an advocacy that is a prohibition of nuclear power while the neg has ground to win on regulation. This is because regulations still allow the existence and production of nuclear power that include revisions and innovation whereas prohibition means halting the production immediately halting all potential progress. If the aff only regulates and does not prohibit, they are not meeting the resolution.
To prove that there ought to be no nuclear power whatsoever requires an issue to be presented that is inherent to nuclear power. Otherwise, the need to solve that harm would only justify a regulation because the problem could one day be separated from the production of nuclear power, thus solving the AFF harms. Therefore, the Affirmative burden is to prove that the harms identified in the AFF are necessarily inseparable from nuclear power. The failure to meet that burden means that the aff harms justify a solution that takes the form of a regulation. This is sufficient to negate. If I show they are theoretically separable from the production of nuclear power, then that justifies a regulation, and therefore you negate.

Part 2 - Offense
I advocate that instead of prohibiting the production of nuclear power, countries ought to enact regulations that only permits the production of nuclear power that doesn’t require mining
Two reasons to negate under the burden structure:
First, as I will demonstrate later in the line-by-line, the AC actually justifies the need to regulate not prohibit because the offense in the AFF comes from solving harms that are not conceptually necessary in producing nuclear power. This straight turns the AFF. 

Second, the affirmative may claim that a prohibition might be overkill but it still solves the problem. However, there are unique harms to using a prohibition to solve problems that could be resolved with well-crafted regulations.
Subpoint A) Prohibition kills research and development
No one would want to develop, or invest in the development of nuclear technologies that are both illegal and impossible to profit from. They would be incentivized not to do so because 1) the technology has already been deemed unacceptable, 2) they would not get their investment back, and 3) it would not be worth running the risk of violating the law and being shut down and losing their ability to research anything. Research and development would violate the terms of the prohibition because prototypes need to be tested at some point in development, and the prohibition would outlaw this practice. Without testing, there is no way to determine whether or not the prototypes work and how to fix the problems in the event that they are unsuccessful. Even if the aff allows modeling the only thing that could exist would be entirely computer based development which is not a viable strategy.
Subpoint B) It is theoretically possible to develop nuclear power that is good under the AFF standard, which is a unique disadvantage to the AFF.
Their own standard proves there is a negative cost to trying to solve these problems by prohibitions when the harms actually justify regulations.
The question is ‘could you imagine a nuclear power technology that doesn't involve doing the aff impacts’- not ‘could you imagine a world without the aff impacts’. Regulations have the ability to resolve the harms of the aff while still maintaining nuclear power as well as research and development. We are not bound to the methods of producing nuclear power that they’re criticizing.