Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[60]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[61]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[60]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-12-19 01:58:16.877
	1	+2016-12-19 01:58:16.0

Caselist.CitesClass[61]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,16 @@
	1	+Interpretation – The Cambridge Dictionary defines any:
	2	+http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/quantifiers/any
	3	+We use any … in the dishwasher. (+ plural noun)
	4	+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.
	5	+Violation – you spec
	6	+Standards
	7	+1. Field Context:
	8	+Any is unambiguously all-inclusive – that’s circuit court precedent.
	9	+Fourth Circuit Judge Francis Dominic 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
	10	+Thus, considering the … should be affirmed.
	11	+And analysis of congress’ intent and purpose when drafting laws including the word “any” confirms the interpretation is most applicable to governmental action
	12	+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
	13	+Analysis of the … not just some.
	14	+2. Ground – any other interpretation gives the aff functionally infinite ground.
	15	+Eckert 16: Bennett Eckert “Topic Analysis by Bennett Eckert.” Champion Briefs: Jan/Feb 2017. 2016.
	16	+This is potentially the most frustrating word in the topic. Merriam-Webster’s first definition of it is: 1: one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind: a: one or another taken at random ask any man you meet b: every —used to indicate one selected without restriction any child would know that8 It seems, then, that this “any” does mean something like “every” in this instance. However, that would not mean that the resolution is saying that colleges could restrict some, but not every instance of free speech. Rather, the topic intuitively seems to be saying that colleges cannot restrict any free speech; there should be no restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. The implication of this is obvious: plans are not topical. There also seems to be an obvious argument for plans not being allowed on this topic regardless of whether the word “any” was in the topic. If the affirmative were allowed to say “colleges should not restrict some specific instance of constitutionally protected speech”, then they would pick absurd, unbeatable affs. For example, people would read plans like “Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict students’ right to write papers on Kant.” Or “Colleges shouldn’t restrict students’ right to say racism is bad.” All of these would, if the aff could specify one sort of speech, be theoretically defensible plans. However, they are clearly terrible for debate: they would force the negative into an awful position and give them no educational ground to debate about. For this reason, I will focus my discussion in the next two sections on affirmatives that defend the whole resolution.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-12-19 01:58:18.73

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Taha Ziaee, Shivane Sabharwal, Karen Qi

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Harvard Westlake CE

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+28

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Quarters

Team

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

Title

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

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+CPS