Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[58]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[66]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[58]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-02-06 00:55:52.321
	1	+2017-02-06 00:55:52.0

Caselist.CitesClass[66]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,57 @@
	1	+==Interp and violation==
	2	+
	3	+
	4	+====Interpretation – The Cambridge Dictionary defines any:====
	5	+http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/quantifiers/any
	6	+We use any before nouns to refer to indefinite or unknown quantities or an unlimited
	7	+AND
	8	+any clean knives. They're all in the dishwasher. (+ plural noun)
	9	+
	10	+
	11	+====Any is a determiner in the context of the resolution – it specifies the scope of constitutionally protected speech we shouldn't prohibit. Thus the aff is required to defend that all constitutionally protected speech must be allowed on college campus – and cannot specify to any finite quality / specific speech restriction to overturn.====
	12	+
	13	+
	14	+====Violation – ====
	15	+
	16	+
	17	+====C. Standards====
	18	+
	19	+
	20	+====a. Field Context:====
	21	+
	22	+
	23	+====Any is unambiguously all-inclusive – that's circuit court precedent.====
	24	+**Murnaghan in US v Atkins** ~~United States v. Atkins, 872 F.2d 94, 96 (4th Cir.1989), "OPINION: ~~*95~~ Murnaghan", Circuit Judge, http://mtweb.mtsu.edu/cewillis/Hermeneutics/US20v20Atkins.pdf //BWSWJ~~
	25	+Thus, considering the plain meaning of the subject language, Atkins' conviction appears to
	26	+AND
	27	+consequently, conclude that the judgment of the district court should be affirmed.
	28	+
	29	+
	30	+====And analysis of congress' intent and purpose when drafting laws including the word "any" confirms the interpretation is most applicable to governmental action====
	31	+**Basler 2** ~~Tracey A. Basler, 2002, NEW ENGLAND LAW REVIEW: Vol. 37:1, p 147-182, "Does "Any" Mean "All" or Does "Any" Mean "Some"? An Analysis of the "Any Court" Ambiguity of the Armed Career Criminal Act and Whether Foreign Convictions Count as Predicate Convictions" //BWSWJ~~
	32	+Analysis of the plain language of the ACCA, and the referenced felony possession statute
	33	+AND
	34	+can be kept out of all dangerous criminals' hands, not just some.
	35	+
	36	+
	37	+====Field context is key to any voter –topic lit is constructed based on shared assumptions in the field. Debate is simulated policymaking; correct interpretation of the legal system is constitutive of the activity.====
	38	+
	39	+
	40	+====Semantic justifications outweigh pragmatic ones – you proving another interpretation is more educational or fair is a reason only justifies that it would be more beneficial to debate another topic, not a reason we should use that definition while debating the actual one. And debating according to semantics is most pragmatic, there are an infinite number of changes to the resolution that might be more educational or fair to debate, but I can never know or prep for all of them. That's incredibly unfair and uneducational because you will always have an advantage to your specific interpretation. Also means it's not in the judges jurisdiction to vote for you if you're not semantically topical.====
	41	+
	42	+
	43	+====b. Limits====
	44	+
	45	+
	46	+====There are thousands of speech codes and policies that the aff can choose to overturn – destroying my ability to engage the aff. Lukianoff (Greg Lukianoff, "Campus Speech Codes: Absurd, Tenacious, and Everywhere", May 23, 2008 , https://www.nas.org/articles/Campus_Speech_Codes_Absurd_Tenacious_and_Everywhere)====
	47	+For our 2007 report, FIRE surveyed publicly available policies at the 100 "Best National Universities" and at the 50 "Best Liberal Arts Colleges," as rated in the August 28, 2006 "America's Best Colleges" issue of U.S. News and World Report. FIRE surveyed an additional 196 major public universities. (because public universities are legally bound by the First Amendment, FIRE is continually adding data on public universities to our database, at a rate consistent with our available resources). Several FIRE staff members spent a substantial portion of their year researching literally thousands of policies and rules in student handbooks, other official campus materials, and on schools' websites. The policies were then evaluated by FIRE's specialized lawyers and assigned a red (worst), yellow or green light (best) rating to the university based on the extent to which their written policies restricted constitutionally protected speech. We publicly post all of the relevant materials, our ratings, and excerpts containing the language most dangerous to basic liberties on our Spotlight website (www.thefire.org/spotlight). It is, to our knowledge, the most extensive evaluation of campus codes ever attempted. A school is given a "red light" if it has at least one policy that both clearly and substantially restricts freedom of speech. A "clear" restriction involves a threat to free speech which is obvious on the face of the policy, whereas a "substantial" restriction is one that is broadly applicable to important categories of campus expression. A "yellow light" institution is one that has policies which could be interpreted to suppress protected speech, or policies that, while restrictive of freedom of speech, restrict only narrow categories of speech. For example, a policy banning "verbal abuse" would have broad applicability and would pose a substantial threat to free speech, but it would not be a clear violation because "abuse" might refer to unprotected speech, such as threats of violence or genuine harassment. "Yellow light" policies may still be unconstitutional,28 but they do not clearly and substantially restrict speech in the same manner as "red light" policies. If FIRE finds no policies that seriously imperil protected speech, a college or university receives a "green light." This does not necessarily mean that a school actively supports free expression. It simply means that the school does not have any publicly available written policies which violate students' free speech rights. Of the 346 schools reviewed by FIRE, 259 received a red-light rating (75), 73 received a yellow-light rating (21), and only 8 received a green-light rating (2). Six schools did not receive any rating from FIRE. Surprisingly, public schools, which are unambiguously legally bound by the First Amendment, actually had a somewhat higher percentage of "red light" ratings; a full 79 of public schools were "red light," 19 "yellow light", and 2 green.
	48	+
	49	+
	50	+====Even if the aff is predictable, limits prevents me from adequately engaging. Limits are key to fairness because they protect the negative's ability to engage the aff and ensure the neg can form a coherent strategy.====
	51	+
	52	+
	53	+====3. Ground – any other interpretation gives the aff functionally infinite ground.====
	54	+**Eckert 16:** Bennett Eckert "Topic Analysis by Bennett Eckert." Champion Briefs: Jan/Feb 2017. 2016.
	55	+This is potentially the most frustrating word in the topic. Merriam-Webster's first
	56	+AND
	57	+discussion in the next two sections on affirmatives that defend the whole resolution.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-02-06 00:55:53.970

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Panel

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Will Berlin

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+58

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Doubles

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Brentwood Jackson Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+JANFEB ANY T

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Golden Desert