Tournament: NSD | Round: 4 | Opponent: JosPla Graham Johnstone | Judge: Henry Eberhart
Our interpretation is that the resolution should determine the division of affirmative and negative ground.
Words and Phrases 64 Words and Phrases Permanent Edition. "Resolved". 1964. ED
Definition of the word "resolve," given by Webster is "to express an
AND
," which is defined by Bouvier as meaning "to establish by law".
Dictionary.com
https://www.google.com/search?q=workers+defandoq=workers+defandaqs=chrome..69i57j35i39j0i433j0l2j69i61j69i60j69i61.1848j0j7andsourceid=chromeandie=UTF-8**
a person who does a specified type of work or who works in a specified way.
Dictionary.com
the governing body of a nation, state, or community.
First is fairness—debate is fundamentally a game which requires both sides to have a relatively equal shot at winning and is necessary for any benefit to the activity. That outweighs:
Second is switch side and idea-testing —- only a limited topic that leaves a role for the negative allows contestation and second-order testing that overcomes polarization. Switching sides forces them to scrutinize their own beliefs, which is valuable for developing and defending their own convictions more robustly.
Poscher 16
Ralf Poscher, Diat the Institute for Staatswissenschaft and Philosophy of Law at the University of Freiburg "Why We Argue About the Law: An Agonistic Account of Legal Disagreement", Metaphilosophy of Law, Tomasz Gizbert-Studnicki/Adam Dyrda/Pawel Banas (eds.), Hart Publishing. 2016.
Hegel’s dialectical thinking powerfully exploits the idea of negation. It is a central feature
AND
questions, where there is not fact of the matter to be discovered?
Topical version—defend giving workers the unconditional right to strike – it’s neoliberal to say that corporations and the state should have entire control over their workers.
Winning their aff doesn’t answer T because only through the process of clash can they refine their defense of it—they need an explanation of why we switch sides and why there’s a winner and loser under their model
Reject the team—T is question of models of debate and the damage to our strategy was already done
Competing interps—they have to proactively to justify their model and reasonability links to our offense