Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 7 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JZ | Judge: John Sims
A. Interpretation: offense to a standard may not consist of descriptive facts about the world. It can’t empirically flow one way or another.
B. Violation: They claim descriptive offense
C. Net Benefits: 

1. Reciprocity
   2. Logic

Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 7 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JZ | Judge: John Sims
A. Interpretation: all substantive argumentation must assume a comparative worlds paradigm
B. Violations: (truth testing, triggers, etc.)
C. Net Benefits: 

Resolved means a policy.
Words and Phrases ‘64 Permanent Edition. “Resolved”. 1964.
Definition of the … establish by law”. 

“Ought” implies an evaluation of end states
Stephen Finlay ‘12 and Justin Snedegar, Associate Professor of Philosophy at USC, PhD candidate in philosophy at USC “One Ought Too Many”, 2012, Blackwell Publishing, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~finlay/OOTM.pdf AG
‘Ought’ sentences seem …cannot accommodate and explain them.

2. Reciprocity
Adam F. Nelson ‘08, J.D.1. Towards a Comprehensive Theory of Lincoln-Douglas Debate. 2008.
And the truth-statement …the world we live in.¶ 

3. Decision Making—comparative worlds forces debaters to defend an advocacy and compare that advocacy against another which fosters better decision making skills that silly skep triggers that avoid clash. Key to education it’s the only portable impact and also I outweigh—uniqueness is on my side
Katherine L. Milkman et al ‘08, Harvard University, Dolly Chugh, New York University, Max H. Bazerman, Harvard University “How Can Decision Making Be Improved?” 2008, http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication20Files/08-102.pdf AG
Errors are costly: We …of decision making.
4. Resolvability
5. Clash

Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 7 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JZ | Judge: John Sims
A. Interpretation: neither debater can claim in any speech that skepticism or permissibility or presumption affirms or negates
B. Violation: they claim skep affirms
C. Net Benefits: 

1. Clash
   2. Advocacy Skills
   3. Reciprocity

Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 1 | Opponent: Akhil Jalan | Judge: Devin Race
Lawyers are uniquely vulnerable to cyber-spying now
American Bar Association ‘13 “Report to the House of Delegates.” Cybersecurity Legal Task Force, 2013. AG
II. Background A. Increasing Cyber ... intruders in 2011 alone.11
?
ACP key to defending against cyber-threats
American Bar Association ‘13 “Report to the House of Delegates.” Cybersecurity Legal Task Force, 2013. AG
Consistent with its commitment t... chilling effect on communications.

American Bar Association ‘13 “Report to the House of Delegates.” Cybersecurity Legal Task Force, 2013. AG
Confidential client information ... attorney-client privilege.37 

The brink is now—my impact is within the year
Sean Gallagher ‘13 “Security pros predict “major” cyber terror attack this year”, Jan 4 2013, 9:20am CST, ARS technia AG

A sampling of computer ...s from cyber terrorism.

Turns case—a) war means less attention to the judicial system and courts can’t operate if they’ve been blown up—defense comes first. B) Terrorist attacks empirically fuel racial hatred—9/11 proves
Sallot 01 (Jeff, The Globe and Mail, “Spectre of racist backlash worries many in Canada”, lexis) AG
A strong majority of ... week's terrorist attacks." 

War is empirically fueled by racism—undermines judicial impartiality and all the reasons truth seeking is good
Chew  05 Huibin Amee, Joint Degree in Social Studies and Women from Harvard University, She currently is a member of the Harvard Initiative for Peace and Justice and was a member of the Progressive Student Labor Movement. “Why the War is Sexist (And Why We Can’t Ignore Gender Anymore)”http:www.insurgentamerican.net/analysis/why-the-war-is-sexist/ Download Date 7-15-09
Our government’s distorted a...War on Terror.

Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 4 | Opponent: Saint Thomas Academy CP | Judge: Emily Massey
CP is give back the land, paves the way for solving oppression to natives
Ward Churchill 1996 (Professor of Ethnic Studies at University of Colorado, Boulder, BA and MA in Communications from Sangamon State, From A Native Son pgs 85-90)
But, for progressives at ...worked on attaining it?

Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 4 | Opponent: Saint Thomas Academy CP | Judge: Emily Massey
People don't know stuff about the legal system- need a lawyer to represent them
ALBERT W. ALSCHULER 1, Julius Kreeger Professor Emeritus of Law and Criminology Northwestern University Law School “The Preservation of a Client’s Confidences: One Value Among Many or a Categorical Imperative”, University of Colorado Law Review. 1982 AG
Judge Frankel seems... part of the clients themselves.

Need to ensure everyone has their interests accurately represented in court. 

ACP solves
ALBERT W. ALSCHULER 2, Julius Kreeger Professor Emeritus of Law and Criminology Northwestern University Law School “The Preservation of a Client’s Confidences: One Value Among Many or a Categorical Imperative”, University of Colorado Law Review. 1982 AG
Consider initially the "price"... governmental information-gathering agent.

Tournament: Spring Woods | Round: 2 | Opponent: Opponent | Judge: Judge
Energy independence coming now—new energy sources and technology
Nasdaq ‘12 “America's dependence on Middle East oil could disappear by 2035”, 2012 AG
Energy independence has … were both very minor.

Increased regulations on oil companies kill oil production—stops new drilling and massively expands dependence on foreign oil
Holton ‘12, “Chuck Holton, Energy Rules: Why America is Foreign Oil Dependent”, July 15, 2012 AG
Contradicting Permits¶ "When …fill the Alaska pipeline."

Oil dependence creates multiple scenarios for war – increases the incentive to go to war while short-circuiting barriers to conflict—the impact is extinction
GLASER 2011 (Professor of Political Science and International Relations Elliot School of International Affairs The George Washington University, “ Reframing Energy Security: How Oil Dependence Influences U.S. National Security,” August 2011, http://depts.washington.edu/polsadvc/Blog20Links/Glaser_-_EnergySecurity-AUGUST-2011.docx, Sawyer)
Oil dependence could … to ensure secure access.

Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 1 | Opponent: Akhil Jalan | Judge: Devin Race
Text: The U.S. criminal justice system should adopt Keith Findley’s advocacy requiring defense lawyers and prosecutors to collaborate in truth seeking while letting attorneys zealously advocate for clients and maintain ACP. 

KEITH A. FINDLEY ‘12, Clinical Professor, University of Wisconsin Law School; Co-Director, Wisconsin Innocence Project; President, Innocence Network. J.D., Yale Law School, 1985; B.A., Indiana University, 1981. “Adversarial Inquisitions: Rethinking the Search for the Truth”, NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL LAW REVIEW VOLUME 56 | 2011/12 AG

While Risinger and Risinger are on the right track, I want to find ways to harness the power of adversarial testing throughout the process to ensure that the unavoidably inquisitorial initial investigation is indeed responsive to the interests of both sides, and hence to the truth. The system I envision is one that seeks to take advantage of the strengths, while minimizing the weaknesses, of both the adversarial and inquisitorial models. Before describing my own alternative, a caveat is in order: my focus here is solely on pretrial and trial procedures; appellate and post-conviction review procedures are beyond the scope of this article. They are matters I (and others) have addressed elsewhere.97¶ A. Adversarial and Inquisitorial Strengths and Weaknesses¶ An inquisitorial system is said to be more focused on truth-finding than the adversarial system.98 Inquisition advocates often assert that “criminal procedure that relies on professional judges of fact and an impartial, state-appointed prosecutor (i.e., an inquisitorial system such as exists in the Netherlands) probably produces fewer miscarriages than a procedure built around autonomous parties, a jury, and partisan (and sometimes elected) prosecutors as in the adversarial system.”99 In part, that is because “the adversarial system places greater emphasis on the process than on simple truth-finding.”100 Marvin Zalman has thus advanced “the hypothesis that the adversary process itself is a contributor to erroneous convictions.”101¶ Much of the problem, as already noted, is that the outcome of a case is usually determined long before trial (or plea), that is, at the administrative investigation stages. If truth and reliability are the objectives, therefore, what really must be done is improve the quality of the evidence gathering and interpreting at the initial investigation stages.102 Daniel Givelber argues, however, that the American adversarial and constitutional-rights-based jurisprudence has ignored the features of a criminal justice system that best assure truth finding: But the Supreme Court has refused to concern itself with the obligations of the police or prosecutor to conduct a thorough investigation, or to maintain comprehensive records, or even to choose wisely which potential defendants to charge. These matters—the very essence of a system concerned with actual innocence—are extra-constitutional.103¶ All of this might be interpreted to suggest that an inquisitorial system, expressly focused on neutral examination of the facts to find the truth, offers a better path to accurate assessment of claims of innocence. The inquisitorial system, however, is only superior in this regard if the inquisitorial model takes hold early in the process— before the investigation seals the defendant’s fate—and only if the inquisitor truly can remain neutral and objective, and indeed, can aggressively pursue evidence supporting innocence. Thus, in an inquisitorial system, “both the legitimacy of criminal justice and the fate of the individual in terms of fair trial depend to a large extent on the integrity of state officials and their visible commitment to nonpartisan truth finding.”104 Moreover, the inquisitorial system is superior only to the extent that the prosecutor (or magistrate) has the incentives and fortitude to second-guess even her own initial suspicions and judgments and to see facts from multiple perspectives—a very tall order indeed.¶ To expect a career prosecutor—or even a judge or magistrate—drawn from our current sharply adversarial system and culture to be able to play that role is to expect too much. The adversary culture we have inherited is deep and pervasive, and “adversarialness breeds a competitive spirit among prosecutors that leads to withholding evidence . . . .”105 William Pizzi, who has criticized the American system for producing “trials without truth,” argues that a “conviction mentality” motivates prosecutors to privilege securing convictions over achieving justice or truth-seeking.106 Thus, Zalman notes that “at least one leading scholar has warned against making quick judgments about the superiority of one system over the other and of thinking that it is easy to transplant procedures from one ‘system’ into another.”107 ¶ Comparing the role of the American prosecutor to that of the prosecutor in the inquisitorial tradition highlights the magnitude of the challenge of transposing an inquisitorial approach onto the American legal culture. For example, under the German Code of Criminal Procedure (which reflects an inquisitorial system in which a neutral prosecutor is charged with searching for the truth) a German prosecutor “does not function as a party but rather as a ‘second judge,’” who functions “from a neutral, detached, and objective perspective.”108 According to one observer, German prosecutors are seen as “guardians of the law,” who “lack the thirst for winning that their American colleagues display in the courtroom.”109 Indeed, consistent with this role, German prosecutors even present evidence that favors the accused, and at the close of trial are free to recommend an acquittal.110 Consistent with this commitment to neutrality, and in stark contrast to American practice, German prosecutors do not meet with the witnesses prior to trial or try to prepare them or the case to be as convincing about the defendant’s guilt as possible.111 Hence, “perhaps the most striking difference between American and German prosecution practice is that, in contrast with American practice, the majority of German prosecutors do not regard convictions as victories and acquittals as losses.”112 The role of the prosecutor is similar to the German model in most Continental inquisitorial systems.¶ Even in other systems that are ostensibly adversarial, the prosecution culture is less partisan and adversarial than in the United States. In Japan, for example, prosecutorial culture is much different than in America. The Japanese system places tremendous responsibility on and confidence in prosecutors to achieve justice, as they are viewed as authorities in the criminal justice system. Defendants have a right to adversarial testing of the evidence, and even a right to remain silent, but defense counsel are typically far more passive than their American counterparts, and defendants are expected to confess (indeed, the conviction rate in Japan is 99.8, in large part because most defendants confess).113 Japanese legal scholar David Johnson explains how Japanese prosecutors function in a culture and pursuant to norms that are vastly different than those in America:¶ If justice means taking into account the needs and circumstances of individual suspects, then prosecutors in Japan must receive higher marks than their American counterparts. If justice implies treating like cases alike, then the capacity of Japan’s procuracy to do so is impressive indeed. If justice should promote healing, not just punishment, then Japanese prosecutors must be ¶ reckoned more restorative than prosecutors in the United States. And if justice depends on uncovering and clarifying the truth, then readers will see how fundamental this maxim is deemed to be in Japan. In these ways and more, the Japanese way of justice is uncommonly just. 114¶ Yet even in such a culture, the pressures to convict can be overwhelming. Johnson observes that his account of Japanese prosecutors “uncovers serious defects as well . . . . In their zeal to obtain the truth through confessions, some prosecutors plea-bargain, doctor dossiers, and conduct brutal interrogations, all actions that are illegal in Japan.”115¶ Even within the inquisitorial tradition, steeped in its commitment to neutrality and objectivity, it is often too much to expect police and prosecutors to remain truly impartial in every case. Increasingly, inquisitorial systems have witnessed breakdowns when prosecutors succumb to law-and-order pressures and fail to adhere to norms of neutrality. One observer of the Dutch inquisitorial system, for example, has noted that in recent years there have been¶ significant changes in the way that prosecutors see themselves. Traditionally, the magisterial, nonpartisan prosecutor, able and willing to make ‘judicial’ decisions in the name of the common good, was the predominant role model . . . . Gradually this has been replaced among a substantial number of prosecutors by the model of the crime fighter.116¶ Especially in complex and highly publicized cases, both police and prosecutors are “subject to considerable pressure from the media to deliver the goods (i.e., a conviction).”117 David Johnson has also noted these breakdowns of neutrality in the Dutch inquisitorial system:¶ While acknowledging that prosecutors try to be “scrupulously fair” and that “their sense of duty to uphold the dignity of their office is beyond doubt,” Dutch journalist Karel Van Wolferen claims prosecutors do “not accept being shown in the wrong.” They are, he agrees with Chalmers Johnson, obstinate, stubborn, and intransigent. Furthermore, prosecutors “want to be God” and are “quite ready to tip the scales of justice out of social considerations.”118¶ If prosecutors in systems with a rich inquisitorial tradition of prosecutorial neutrality are susceptible to such pressures, it is wholly unrealistic to think that prosecutors drawn from America’s polarized adversarial system can play the role of neutral inquisitor.¶ All of this raises serious questions about the workability of Bakken and Steel’s “neutral” prosecutor as inquisitor in America. But the problem with an inquisitorial system is deeper than even suggested by the prevailing culture and pressures toward adversarialness in America. The problem also affects the ability of Risinger and Risinger’s investigating magistrate to perform the role they assign to her.¶ Simply assigning investigative responsibility to a neutral magistrate does not ensure a vigorous and unbiased search for the truth. Problems can arise not just when individual prosecutors (or magistrates) succumb to adversarial law-and-order pressures, or fail to adhere to the norms of neutrality. Recent applications of social science research on cognitive processes reveal that even the most well-meaning actors, who are sincerely trying to be objective, are frequently subject to cognitive distortions that make true impartially difficult if not impossible.119 Indeed, even in Continental systems with rich inquisitorial traditions, it has been argued that magistrates tend to adopt the attitudes of police and prosecutors.120¶ The strength of the adversary process is that it creates adversarial role players who actively challenge the State’s evidence and the State’s theory of guilt. In inquisitorial systems, defense counsel play a much weaker role—they lack “the defense rights or adversarial means and skills” and do not conduct their own pretrial investigations.121 And neutral judges or magistrates do not fill that role adequately. Instead of adversarial testing of the evidence, the judge essentially serves to review the prosecution’s case. In the context that is perhaps best known for its adherence to rigorous truth-seeking processes—scientific inquiry—it is never enough to merely review evidence; in science, investigators actively test theories and attempt to find evidence to disprove them. The inquisition’s review process thus conflicts with the way we search for truth in a scientific context. As Chrisje Brants has put it:¶ From a scientific point of view, the presentation of two versions of events and the attempted falsification of the prosecution case that is characteristic of the adversarial system is surely a better way of arriving at the truth than the verification of the prosecutor’s version by the judge—however many (limited) opportunities the defense may have had to influence the dossier pretrial and however nonpartisan the investigation. An inherent risk in procedures that rely on verification is not only that the police may be inclined to focus too much on one suspect once an apparently reasonable case can be made out against him or her—that is no different, perhaps even more likely in party- driven procedures—but that this will also lead to the police not looking for possible exculpatory facts, or, should they find such facts, attaching too little weight to them. This “mistake,” or rather confirmation bias, will then be passed on to the other participants in the investigation: the prosecutor and, in the final event, the judge.122¶ Thus, even with the most objective and fair-minded inquisitor—including the most honorable magistrate leading the investigation envisioned by Risinger and Risinger—that inquisitor will unavoidably be constrained by cognitive biases, public safety pressures, and a limited capacity to see the facts from the perspective of the (innocent) defendant.123 Only an advocate charged with responsibility for zealously pursuing the defendant’s perspective, and only the defendant’s perspective, can overcome those limitations and push for alternative understandings of the facts that might reveal the truth. Gerald Walpin has captured this distinction well:¶ The reality is that, whether that task of searching for and presenting facts is delegated to an inquisitorial judge or adversarial lawyers, the facts made available for consideration will depend on the ability, initiative, bias, determination, thoroughness, energy, aggressiveness, interest, knowledge, and motivation of the specific human being acting as inquisitorial judge or as the adversarial lawyer in that specific case.¶ ... .¶ . . . In the adversarial system, the lawyer for a party has the duty to act zealously and faithfully for his client. Zealous, faithful advocacy means the obligation to search out all favorable evidence, to seek, neutralize or destroy all unfavorable evidence, and to press the most favorable interpretation of the law for his client. That is simply not the obligation of an inquisitorial judge.124¶ The importance of that role, and the inability of judges to perform that role, is perhaps best reflected by the record of supposedly neutral and objective courts in evaluating convictions that DNA testing subsequently proved to be false. Brandon Garrett’s analysis of the first 200 DNA exonerations found that reviewing courts, when affirming these wrongful convictions, frequently referenced their (incorrect) perceptions of the defendant’s guilt. Addressing the evidence against these actually innocent appellants, fully half of the courts referred to the likely guilt of the defendant.125 Moreover, ten percent of the courts in such cases described the evidence of guilt against the actually innocent defendant as “overwhelming.”126 And in nearly ¶ a third of the cases (thirty-two percent), courts found error but affirmed nonetheless because the error was deemed “harmless,” a judgment that typically involves an assessment of likely guilt.127 Judges simply cannot be expected to recognize or zealously pursue facts supporting claims of innocence when they objectively view the likelihood of innocence to be so remote; only zealous advocates can be expected to push for such evidence and such a perspective.¶ B. Shared Inquisitions¶ Thus, the best procedure is one that attempts to harness the best aspects of both procedures, while minimizing the weaknesses of each. In a sense, this proposal is consistent with current trends toward blending the best features of the world’s major criminal justice systems. Comparative scholars have observed that the world’s major legal systems are in their broad features becoming less distinctive.128 My proposal might be seen as a part of that development. I envision a system in which the adversaries share in shaping and directing the inquisitorial process.¶ The system I envision is one in which an accused person, whether claiming innocence or not, can choose whether to be prosecuted under either in the traditional adversarial system or under a system in which adversaries share in the inquisitorial search for the truth. The latter would be effectuated by assigning the case to a new truth-seeking agency, something that might be called an Office of Public Advocacy and that would house both prosecutors and defense attorneys who rotate between those roles and thereby become committed to the search for the truth with insights from both perspectives. The defense lawyer—who would remain adversarial and duty-bound to zealously advocate for her client when assigned to that role—would join with the prosecutor (also in an adversarial role) in jointly supervising the continuing investigation by police. This structure would be designed to create a culture that mutes the polarizing forces of career adversaries. Lawyers in this new Office of Public Advocacy would understand that the principle of law, or the forensic evidence they use in one case to obtain a conviction, might be the rule or evidence that will help convict their possibly innocent client in the next. It would ensure that these advocates see the human face of both the victim and the accused, and thereby help them appreciate the human toll taken by whatever they do, on either side of a case.

Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 7 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JZ | Judge: John Sims
The country’s fiscal position is improving because of tax revenue

Kyodo News International ‘13 “U.S. FY 2013 deficit down 37.5 on tax revenue rise, outlay cut”, October 30, 2013 20:46 AG
The country’s fiscal position ... over the next 10 years.

The effectiveness of the U.S. tax system depends upon maintaining ACP protections. ACP is uniquely necessary in the context of Tax Law
William H. Volz ‘09 Professor of Business Law and Ethics, Wayne State University and Theresa Ellis Associate Attorney, Garrison LawHouse. An Attorney-Client Privilege For Embattled Tax Practitioners: A Legislative Response To Uncertain Legal Counsel Hofstra Law Review, Vol. 38:213, 2009.
The powerful argument behind attorney-client privilege... on voluntary compliance.

Sustained budget deficits will cause economic collapse
Altman et al ’12 “Reforming Our Tax System, Reducing Our Deficit.” Roger Altman, William Daley, John Podesta, Robert Rubin, Leslie Samuels, Lawrence Summers, Neera Tanden, Antonio Weiss, with Michael Ettlinger, Seth Hanlon, and Michael Linden. December 4, 2012.
There are very few things... in the debt-to-GDP ratio.

Economic crisis causes war –statistics support transition wars, miscalc, resource conflicts, internal conflict, and terrorism – other authors don’t base their analysis on global studies
Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, 2010, “Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises,” Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and... ancillary to those views

Tournament: Greenhill Round Robin | Round: 5 | Opponent: Pranav Reddy | Judge: Robbie Dillard, Chad Henson
The aff must defend compulsory voting as mandated decision between two or more political candidates. They don’t get to defend a “blank ballots” option
Vijay Krishna and John Morgan ‘12, Department of Economics, Penn State University, Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley “Voluntary Voting: Costs and Benefits”, May 21, 2012 AG

We begin by examining … in the literature.

They conflate Compulsory voting and compulsory balloting
JOSHUA TUCKER ‘11 “More on Mandatory Voting, Which Does *Not* Necessarily Make Electorate Less Informed”, NOVEMBER 28, 2011 AG

The names “mandatory voting” …abstain without penalty.

Tournament: Greenhill Round Robin | Round: 5 | Opponent: Pranav Reddy | Judge: Robbie Dillard, Chad Henson
Interpretation: At the Greenhill Fall Classic tournament and round robin, debaters must have full citations of positions they read on the NDCA wiki.
Violation:
Standards: Debaters have to disclose—it’s a tournament rule and I provide a laundry list of other reasons
Joy of T ‘13ournaments: Greenhill Fall Classic http://www.joyoftournaments.com/tx/greenhill/info.asp?p=6 (Case List) AG
Case List (Applicable to both Policy Debate and Lincoln Douglas Debate)¶ As mentioned in the opening letter, those attending the Greenhill Fall Classic are guests of Greenhill School and its coaching staff. While we value different pedagogical perspectives, at this event, we are unwavering in our perspective on the value of openness. Openness promotes comprehension and preparation, which are critical components for effective clash and better debates. As the host of an early season tournament, we feel particularly compelled to promote an environment that facilitates better debates for the students involved. As competitors for the rest of the season, we appreciate that competitive drives can run into conflict with openness. Finding the appropriate balance between the learning environment and the competitive environment deserves continued consideration. We have decided that a willingness to take part in a collective case list – in both spirit and in practice – is an essential characteristic to accepting the invitation to our event. Case lists enhance the pedagogical and competitive goals of openness by allowing students to better understanding their opponents’ arguments which is an essential component to quality clash and better debates.¶ ¶ *If you cannot agree with the stipulation below, we respectfully ask that you explore other competitive opportunities on this weekend. Those that DO attend, yet attempt to evade/ignore our requests, will be asked to leave. Participation in the Greenhill Fall Classic, and its benefits like mutual preference judging, is a privilege, not a right.*¶ ¶ It is also our belief that teams/debaters have an affirmative obligation to update the wiki as new arguments are run throughout the tournament. To clarify, this is a requirement/expectation to compete.¶ ¶ For the last few years we experimented with a case list in Lincoln Douglas debate and after much reflection and improvement on the implementation of the details of submission, we will once again require all competitors to submit information to a case list available to all coaches and students in both policy and Lincoln Douglas Debate.¶ ¶ It is the duty of coaches to inform students of the expectation of disclosure/the case list.¶ Links to a Drop box are not acceptable. All information must be placed directly into the wiki.¶ ¶ You may ask – “Why are you doing this”?¶ ¶ 1. We are of the belief that a culture of openness in the sharing of academic information and believe that a case list is one vehicle to maximize that objective.¶ 2. A case list that is required of all participants helps to “democratize” the collection of information for all schools in attendance. Without an official case list, schools with plenty of resources, coaches etc and are in the “inner circle” acquire a disproportionate amount of information relative to others.¶ 3. A case list that is required of all participants, and clarifies the expectations for submission, helps to avoid “freeloading” by those that access the information, yet don’t contribute the same level (or any amount) of information.¶ ¶ You may ask – “What are you requiring us to do”?¶ ¶ 1. The community norm that has developed (and seems to be working) in policy debate is that no one should have to disclose a position that they haven’t run yet. We feel this norm is applicable to Lincoln-Douglas as well. We are not asking you to disclose information BEFORE you run it. Specifically, if this is your first event of the year you do not have to disclose your positions until you run them. For example, if you run a case round one, only then does it become public information.¶ 2. The expectation is that all debaters are required to disclose positions (affirmative and negative) and full citations (including page numbers of the evidence), and a few words from the beginning and end of the card, that are read in any debate on the National Debate Coaches Association wiki. The URL for the case list is ¶ http://wiki.debatecoaches.org/

Checks Evidence Ethics 

Everyone has stuff on the wiki except for Harker, puts them at a structural advantage

Voter: Education, Tournament Rules

Tournament: Greenhill Round Robin | Round: 5 | Opponent: Pranav Reddy | Judge: Robbie Dillard, Chad Henson
V: Just Democracy
Preserving political agency is a necessary condition for democracy.
Tomas Christiano “Democracy”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/democracy/ AG
Epistemologically, democracy is thought … and unreflective subjects.

Value criterion is preserving political agency.
Respecting political agency implies having the right to abstain
Annabelle Lever “”Is Compulsory Voting Justified?” ,  Submitted to Public Reason Sept. 2008 AG
Despite the claims of … vote ¶ in some elections.

Tournament: Hendrickson | Round: Semis | Opponent: Drew Burd | Judge: Annie Zhu, Jared Woods, Shirley Zhang
“Ought to be” entails an ideal.
Richard Robinson ‘71,“Ought and Ought Not,”, July, 1971
Many ought-sentences …are expressing an ideal.

I value justice. The standard is rule-consequentialism.
A Normative Uncertainty—in case of normative uncertainty we should maximize expected value
Sepielli, Andrew Asst. Prof. of Phil., U. of Toronto. “What to do when you don’t know what to do.” Oxford Studies in
You and I are … strategy was insensitive.

This means rule util
Rawls, John You’re joking if you want quals. “Two Concepts of Rules.” Philosophical Review 64.1 (1955): 3–32. JSTOR.
The other conception of … the utilitarian principle. 

B Any system of normativity has to cohere with our convictions
Hooker, Brad Prof. of Phil., U. of Reading. Ideal Code, Real World: A Rule-Consequentialist Theory of Morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. PDF.
We should evaluate … could support them or what they entail.

Rule util solves
Hooker, Brad Prof. of Phil., U. of Reading. Ideal Code, Real World: A Rule-Consequentialist Theory of Morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. PDF.
Does rule-consequentialism accord with … prohibitions and special duties are plausible.)

My thesis and sole contention is that voting should be regarded a right rather than a duty. Responsible voters should vote and irresponsible voters should abstain.
Jason Brennan 1, Philosophy, Brown University “POLLUTING THE POLLS:WHEN CITIZENS SHOULD NOT VOTE”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87/2 (June 2009), available online at: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/. AG
Irresponsible individual voters … we ought ¶ not vote.

Good voting is essential to promoting the common good
Jason Brennan 2, Assistant Professor of Strategy, Economics, Ethics, and Public Policy at Georgetown University, where he teaches courses in ethics, economics, entrepreneurship, and public policy. He was formerly Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Research, at Brown University. “The Ethics of Voting”, 2011, Princeton University Press. ISBN: 9780691144818 AG
WHEN WE VOTE, we can make …obligations concerning how they vote.

I don’t disenfranchise anyone—my argument is that everyone should exercise their right to vote in a way that promotes the common good
Jason Brennan 3 Assistant Professor of Strategy, Economics, Ethics, and Public Policy at Georgetown University, where he teaches courses in ethics, economics, entrepreneurship, and public policy. He was formerly Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Research, at Brown University. “The Ethics of Voting”, 2011, Princeton University Press. ISBN: 9780691144818 AG
Estlund says to the potential … force them not to vote badly.

Read a SLIGHTLY different version of this position with the standard of "respecting" public goods. The only difference being that the other NC didn't have the rule util cards and instead had a Brennan card. The position was actually terrible but if you want the cites, hmu

Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 3 | Opponent: Northland Christian DL | Judge: Rodrigo Paramo
Interpretation: The affirmative must specify the implementation of a specific system of compulsory voting in a specific democratic state 

Net Benefits: 

Strat Skew 

Real World Decision Making 

Turn Ground

Voter: fairness, education

Tournament: Greenhil | Round: 1 | Opponent: Greenhill BE | Judge: John Scoggin
TEXT: The USFG should allow same day registration, make it easy for voters to change parties, hire better poll workers and establish more polling sites, make early voting accessible in all states and allow mail in votes.
The CP increases access to polls 

Jerry H. Goldfeder ‘13, practices election and campaign finance law at Stroock and Stroock and Lavan LLP. He teaches Election Law at Fordham Law School and the University of Pennsylvania Law School, and is the author of Goldfeder’s Modern Election Law, now in its Third Edition. “Jerry Goldfeder: Improve Voter Turnout By Modernizing New York’s Election Law, 04/09/2013 AG
New York State’s voter … shouldn’t the voters decide?

Tournament: Tournament of Chumps | Round: Quads | Opponent: RG | Judge: RG
Interp: on the 2014 Jan/Feb topic, debaters have to have all T and theory interps disclosed on the NDCA wiki before read 

Interp: On the NFL 2014 Jan/Feb LD topic, affirmatives may only run plans that prove that on balance, environmental protection should be prioritized over resource extraction. They can’t affirm by defending isolated examples or policies of the resolution being implemented. 

Interp: Resource extraction is limited to non-renewable resources.
Pataki and Sagi 13 write
Most production factors are consumed during the use or by the effect of moral usage. Factors can be regenerated by adding investments, and thus they can be increased. The previous statements relate, before all, to the funds of capital goods, machines, plants, equipments, building objects, and so on. The land that has become cultivable soil by investments can also demand investments in order to regenerate or improve it. As for labor as a production factor, investments in its education can be also considered investments in education of the young generation, and net investments in education can be considered investments in the so-called human capital. Production factors that can be renewed and increased should differentiate from factors or resources that are exhaustible. This includes natural resources that are not the result of previous production and their supplies are limited. Among these natural resources, exhaustible energy resources have great importance, firstly fossil energy. The exploitation of these resources decreases these supplies and there is a possibility of exhausting these sources. It is called resource extraction. 

Interp: counter-plan's have to be unconditional