Changes for page Cambridge Rindge Sussman Neg
Summary
-
Objects (0 modified, 4 added, 24 removed)
- Caselist.CitesClass[90]
- Caselist.CitesClass[91]
- Caselist.CitesClass[92]
- Caselist.CitesClass[93]
- Caselist.CitesClass[94]
- Caselist.CitesClass[95]
- Caselist.CitesClass[96]
- Caselist.CitesClass[97]
- Caselist.CitesClass[98]
- Caselist.CitesClass[99]
- Caselist.CitesClass[100]
- Caselist.CitesClass[101]
- Caselist.CitesClass[102]
- Caselist.CitesClass[103]
- Caselist.CitesClass[104]
- Caselist.RoundClass[44]
- Caselist.RoundClass[45]
- Caselist.RoundClass[46]
- Caselist.RoundClass[47]
- Caselist.RoundClass[48]
- Caselist.RoundClass[49]
- Caselist.RoundClass[50]
- Caselist.RoundClass[51]
- Caselist.RoundClass[52]
- Caselist.CitesClass[87]
- Caselist.CitesClass[88]
- Caselist.CitesClass[89]
- Caselist.RoundClass[43]
Details
- Caselist.CitesClass[90]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,12 +1,0 @@ 1 -====Counterplan text: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected journalist speech, except they ought to retain restrictions on nudity.==== 2 -**Erickson 16 **"Topless photos in Montana high school newspaper violated policy" 2-2-16, http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/topless-photos-in-montana-high-school-newspaper-violated-policy/article_b3bf9e9f-c1a6-553b-a086-283e5c77c7e1.html 3 -MISSOULA — A Missoula County Public Schools district investigation has determined a recent edition of 4 -AND 5 -actions were not taken by the teacher of the course nor the principal." 6 - 7 - 8 -====Net benefit - nudity can be triggering.==== 9 -**Breezy 15 **Breezy 816, "My Trigger Is Nudity - How Will I Survive In Today's World?!" 3-30-15, https://www.myptsd.com/c/threads/my-trigger-is-nudity-how-will-i-survive-in-todays-world.52299/ 10 -I am reaching out to try and find a way to cope with my trigger 11 -AND 12 -experienced the intense flooding of emotion that is followed by anger towards him. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-25 20:48:35.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -qi, castillo - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -harvard westlake sp - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -44 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -6 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Cambridge Rindge Sussman Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -jf - cp - nudity pic - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -kandi king
- Caselist.CitesClass[91]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,31 +1,0 @@ 1 -Normalization of "speech" as a method of participation excludes the speechless population and rejects ways in which people with disabilities can communicate meaning 2 -**Simplican 09** (Stacy Simplican ~~Michigan State University~~ "Disabling Democracy: How Disability Reconfigures Deliberative Democratic Norms", APSA 2009 Toronto Meeting Paper, 2009) 3 -Deliberative democracy harbors a tension. On one hand, in order for the process and outcome to be legitimate, deliberative democrats require inclusive participation and emphasize the involvement of persons directly affected by any decisions. On the other hand, deliberative democrats also insist that all participants meet certain cognitive and dispositional requirements in order to share equally in the process of reason giving and decision making. This tension between inclusion and intelligibility ultimately excludes certain members of the population, thereby negating the possibility of full inclusion. Deliberative democrats who recognize this tension offer a twofold solution of minimization and representa tion. First, because only a minimal number of people lack communicative competence, their ab sence does not jeopardize the legitimacy of deliberation. Second, other particip ants, such as guardians or e xperts, can best represent the needs of absent speechless populations. This twof old approach is problematic. Diminishing the size and importance of speechless populations renders vulnerable groups even more invisible and marginalizes their needs. Furthe r, representational solutions neglect the ways in which nonverbal and embodied participation transmit meaning. In stead of exclusion, experiences of speechless populations reveal that atypica l patterns of speech are meani ngful to communicative outcomes and refute deliberative democratic norms requiring transparent speech, reasonableness, and communicative reciprocity. Speechless populations include people whos e communication defies reasonable and coherent standards, particularly individuals wh o are physically unable to speak verbally due to age or disability. By grounding the analysis in th e experiences of people w ith disabilities, this paper expands the notion of communicative compet ence and builds on the work of other feminist and critical scholars who have contested th e boundaries of legitimate speech (Benhabib 1992; Lang) While prior work ha s aimed to bolster the inclusivity of 2 deliberative democracy, these re-w orkings continue to conceptual ize participation as reasonable speech, thereby reproducing exclus ion and narrowly constructing the purpose of deliberative democracy. Because millions of Americans with emotional and cognitive disabilities are disenfranchised through state co nstitutional and statut ory restrictions, salvaging deliberative democracy as an enduring inclusive forum is vita l to the political par ticipation of speechless populations (Appelbaum 2000; Schriner and Ochs 2000). While deliberative democrats assume that speechless populations threaten the legiti macy of deliberative outcomes, they ignore deliberative locations that already promote the inclusion of people with significant cognitive disabilities, such as advocacy conf erences convened specifically ar ound disability rights. These deliberative settings demonstr ate the effectiveness of embodi ed participatory methods. 4 - 5 - 6 -====The affirmative's idealization of language as the main method of communication denies inclusion to those who are perceived to be "communicatively incompetent"==== 7 -**Simplican 09** (Stacy Simplican ~~Michigan State University~~ "Disabling Democracy: How Disability Reconfigures Deliberative Democratic Norms", APSA 2009 Toronto Meeting Paper, 2009) 8 -According to Habermas's communicative theory of deliberative democracy, all persons who are affected by 9 -AND 10 -these circumstances, citizens can be denied inclusion due to presumed communicative incompetence. 11 - 12 - 13 -====This faith in language and the exclusion of disability leads to societal disembodiment and closes avenues for reflexive dialogue—turns case.==== 14 -**Simplican 09** (Stacy Simplican ~~Michigan State University~~ "Disabling Democracy: How Disability Reconfigures Deliberative Democratic Norms", APSA 2009 Toronto Meeting Paper, 2009) 15 -Deliberative democrats have privileged the va lue of publicity in rega rds to reason giving 16 -AND 17 -of listening, embodied speech can alternatively pr omote increased attentiveness and humility. 18 - 19 - 20 -====The alternative is the social model—adopt the perspective of those with disabilities and reject ableist notions of deliberative communication.==== 21 -**Preston 14** (Erin, Educational Developer at the University of Guelph – summarizing verbal presentation by Jeffrey Preston – Cripping the Classroom: Education in a Post-AODA World, May 27, 2014 http://erinlearning.wordpress.com/2014/05/27/cripping-the-classroom-education-in-a-post-aoda-world/) 22 -How do we teach people about disability? We can do better. Think about 23 -AND 24 -who admit their vulnerability and dependency). Rethinking and admitting our own dependencies. 25 - 26 - 27 -====The role of the ballot is to combat ableism—educational spaces are key.==== 28 -Anastasia **Liasidou** ("Inclusive education and critical pedagogy at the intersections of disability, race, gender and class") 29 -The following sections use insights from critical pedagogy and critical disability studies to problematise and 30 -AND 31 -to "create spaces for new knowledge and forms of action to emerge. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-25 21:14:31.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -sims, hunt - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -dulles aw - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -45 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -7 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Cambridge Rindge Sussman Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -jf - k - ableism - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -kandi king
- Caselist.CitesClass[92]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,3 +1,0 @@ 1 -I add round reports for rounds against people who don't disclose ~-~- check them. 2 - 3 -Email: ollieqs@gmail.com - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-25 21:15:35.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -all - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -all - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -46 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Cambridge Rindge Sussman Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -0 - email and round reports note - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -all
- Caselist.CitesClass[93]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,7 +1,0 @@ 1 -Interpretation: Debaters may only read positions that are disclosed before the debate on their NDCA wiki page under their own name with full citations, tags, and first three/last three words. 2 - 3 -Interpretation: Debaters must disclose previously run constructive positions – all cases, off cases and theory arguments – at least 30 minutes before the round on the NDCA wiki or when asked. This means providing proper citations for all evidence including first three and last three words and tags as well as advocacy, standard, and interpretation texts. 4 - 5 -Interpretation: Affirmatives may only read cases that have been disclosed at least 15 minutes before the round as the case that they will read. 6 - 7 -Interpretation - Debaters must disclose tags, cites, and first three/last three words for all evidence for affirmative cases where the criterion requires a descriptive debate over legal precedent or standards, with theoretical warrants, AND where there is a role of the ballot of to vote for the debater who best justifies their advocacy through contextualizing legal norms. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-25 21:15:36.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -all - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -all - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -46 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Cambridge Rindge Sussman Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -0 - disclosure theory - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -all
- Caselist.CitesClass[94]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,3 +1,0 @@ 1 -I add round reports for rounds against people who don't disclose ~-~- check them. 2 - 3 -Email: ollieqs@gmail.com - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-25 21:15:42.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -all - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -all - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -47 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Cambridge Rindge Sussman Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -0 - email and round reports note - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -all
- Caselist.CitesClass[95]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,7 +1,0 @@ 1 -Interpretation: Debaters may only read positions that are disclosed before the debate on their NDCA wiki page under their own name with full citations, tags, and first three/last three words. 2 - 3 -Interpretation: Debaters must disclose previously run constructive positions – all cases, off cases and theory arguments – at least 30 minutes before the round on the NDCA wiki or when asked. This means providing proper citations for all evidence including first three and last three words and tags as well as advocacy, standard, and interpretation texts. 4 - 5 -Interpretation: Affirmatives may only read cases that have been disclosed at least 15 minutes before the round as the case that they will read. 6 - 7 -Interpretation - Debaters must disclose tags, cites, and first three/last three words for all evidence for affirmative cases where the criterion requires a descriptive debate over legal precedent or standards, with theoretical warrants, AND where there is a role of the ballot of to vote for the debater who best justifies their advocacy through contextualizing legal norms. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-25 21:15:43.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -all - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -all - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -47 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Cambridge Rindge Sussman Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -0 - disclosure theory - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -all
- Caselist.CitesClass[96]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,15 +1,0 @@ 1 -====The modal ontological argument—the GCB's existence in a possible world implies necessary existence in our world.==== 2 -**Himma **(Kenneth Einar Himma, Seattle Pacific University, "Anselm: Ontological Argument for God's Existence," IEP, http://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/~~#H4) OS 3 -Perhaps the most influential of contemporary modal arguments is Plantinga's version. Plantinga begins by 4 -AND 5 -in every possible world. Here is a schematic representation of the argument: 6 - 7 - 8 -====Thus, the standard is consistency with the GCB's will. The GCB's will must be the source of the good since their will is by definition infinitely good.==== 9 - 10 - 11 -====Negating is the squo—colleges have unconstitutional speech codes.==== 12 -**FIRE '17 **~~Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. "State of the Law: Speech Codes." 2017. Web. https://www.thefire.org/in-court/state-of-the-law-speech-codes/~~ 13 -FIRE defines a speech code as any campus regulation that punishes, forbids, heavily 14 -AND 15 -it cannot be reconciled with the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-25 22:08:22.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -sharma, sims, castillo - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -harrison rp - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -48 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Quarters - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Cambridge Rindge Sussman Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -jf - nc - god - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -kandi king
- Caselist.CitesClass[97]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,38 +1,0 @@ 1 -====Interpretation—the aff should defend the implementation of a topical advocacy.==== 2 -**Dictionary.com** (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/college) 3 -college ~~kol-ij~~ noun 1. an institution of higher learning, 4 -AND 5 -and graduate degrees.Continental European universities usually have only graduate orprofessional schools. 6 - 7 - 8 -====Violation—they advocate "the methodology of the feminist killjoy – refusing to be happy or complicit within systems of oppression." Err neg—there is not a single word about the topic in the aff.==== 9 - 10 - 11 -====1 Monologue DA==== 12 - 13 - 14 -====2 Prep skew==== 15 - 16 - 17 -====3 Institutional knowledge – refusal to tie their ethical stance to any political process atomizes protest and collapses into self-satisfied, ineffective symbolism—turns self-love arguments==== 18 -David **Chandler 7**, Professor of History, The possibilities of post-territorial political community, Area, Volume 39, Issue 1, pages 116–119 19 -This paper argues that the lack of purchase of traditional territorial constructions of political community 20 -AND 21 -of community and the organic ties of the traditional social/political sphere. 22 - 23 - 24 -====4 Democratic Deliberation—tailoring identity claims to common topics for deliberation is possible and desirable—arguments like topicality don't injure people, but policies do—avoiding democratic engagement means the aff can never actually transform the institutions that produce exclusion in the first place==== 25 -Amanda **Anderson 6**, Andrew W. Mellon Professor of Humanities and English at Brown University, Spring 2006, "Reply to My Critic(s)," Criticism, Vol. 48, No. 2, p. 281-290 26 -Probyns piece is a mixture of affective fallacy, argument by authority, and bald 27 -AND 28 -and public debate has a vital role to play in such a task. 29 - 30 - 31 -====The shell outweighs the aff and means they can't cross apply cards—==== 32 - 33 - 34 -====Prior question—theoretical arguments question the ability to run the argument in the first place.==== 35 -**Galloway 7**—Samford Comm prof (Ryan, Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28, 2007) 36 -Debate as a dialogue sets an argumentative table, where all parties receive a relatively 37 -AND 38 -substitutes for topical action do not accrue the dialogical benefits of topical advocacy. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-04-02 20:41:40.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -reddy, korn - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -stuyvesant kf - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -49 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -6 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Cambridge Rindge Sussman Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - framework v4 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -penn rr
- Caselist.CitesClass[98]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,4 +1,0 @@ 1 -====Counterplan text: we should refuse to be happy or complicit within systems of oppression, except we should be happy when challenging oppression.==== 2 - 3 - 4 -====It's competitive—"Within" is defined as "inside (something)" by Google Dictionary (https://www.google.com/search?q=within+definitionandoq=within+definitionandaqs=chrome.0.0l6.1967j0j1andsourceid=chromeandie=UTF-8) so the aff defends we shouldn't even be happy when fighting oppression since we're still within oppressive systems.==== - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-04-02 20:41:41.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -reddy, korn - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -stuyvesant kf - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -49 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -6 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Cambridge Rindge Sussman Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - happiness pic - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -penn rr
- Caselist.CitesClass[99]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,15 +1,0 @@ 1 -====CP: I advocate a methodology of the womxnist killjoy.==== 2 - 3 - 4 -====We should be womxnist, not feminist killjoys. Feminism excludes women of color and prioritizes the needs of white women. ==== 5 -Fatema **Hayat 14**. What is a Womanist?. https://progressivepupil.wordpress.com/2014/03/04/what-is-a-womanist/ 6 -Alice Walker, a poet and activist, who is mostly known for her award 7 -AND 8 -feminist movement yet marginalized and rendered invisible in historical texts and the media". 9 - 10 - 11 -====Feminism can't be made inclusive – even still, WOC's narratives are excluded within feminist spaces – only womxnism enables all individuals to be included==== 12 -Renee **Martin 10**, 4-1-2010, "I'm not a feminist (and there is no but)," Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/apr/10/white-feminism-black-x-womanism, accessed 4-1-2017 13 -Chloe Angyal is correct when she asserts that most young American women believe in equal 14 -AND 15 -some women, it represents truly loving oneself in the face of bigotry. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-04-02 20:41:43.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -reddy, korn - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -stuyvesant kf - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -49 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -6 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Cambridge Rindge Sussman Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - womxnism pic - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -penn rr
- Caselist.CitesClass[100]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,11 +1,0 @@ 1 -====The standard is consistency with qualified moral testimony.==== 2 - 3 - 4 -====Counterplan text: Public colleges and universities ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech if and only if moral philosophers within their philosophy departments say so.==== 5 - 6 - 7 -====Philosophers are better at answering normative questions—just as those who study medicine are most trusted as doctors, those who study philosophy should be most trusted on moral issues.==== 8 -**Habermas 03** ~~Habermas, Jurgen, "Truth and Justification", translated by Barbara Fultner, 2003 Massachusetts Institute of Technology.~~ 9 -The functional systems of modern societies depend on specialized knowledge, which they source from 10 -AND 11 -with an unmasterable past (trial and punishment vs. forgiving and forgetting). - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-04-29 23:35:09.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -jacob nails - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -lexington nb - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -50 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Cambridge Rindge Sussman Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -jf - cp - consult philosophers - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -toc
- Caselist.CitesClass[101]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,34 +1,0 @@ 1 -====Interpretation: The aff may not defend that public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict a particular type or types of constitutionally protected speech.==== 2 - 3 - 4 -====The resolution passes the "almost test," so "any" is generic.==== 5 -**Lallas 2/9** ~~Jackson Lallas, 2-9-2017, "A Defense of T-Any," Los Angeles Debate Intensive, http://www.theladi.org/blog/2017/2/9/a-defense-of-t-any~~ AG 6 -A good rule of thumb for telling the difference between a universal and existential any 7 -AND 8 -favor~~s~~ a generic reading, as we would intuitively expect. 9 - 10 - 11 -====Violation:==== 12 - 13 - 14 -====Standards:==== 15 - 16 - 17 -====~~1~~ Precision ==== 18 - 19 - 20 -====Topicality rule—precision independently outweighs.==== 21 -**Nebel '15 **(Jake, "The Priority of Resolutional Semantics," 2/20/15, http://vbriefly.com/2015/02/20/the-priority-of-resolutional-semantics-by-jake-nebel/) 22 -One reason why LDers may be suspicious of my view is because they see topicality 23 -AND 24 -the first premise, not the second premise, in the argument above. 25 - 26 - 27 -====~~2~~ Limits==== 28 - 29 - 30 -====~~3~~ Ground— specific affs disproportionately kill neg ground.==== 31 -**Lallas 2/9** ~~Jackson Lallas, 2-9-2017, "A Defense of T-Any," Los Angeles Debate Intensive, http://www.theladi.org/blog/2017/2/9/a-defense-of-t-any~~ AG 32 -Almost every neg position comes from one of three topic areas: hate / offensive 33 -AND 34 -hate speech style arguments about offensive publications and potentially a small link to kritiks - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-04-29 23:35:10.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -jacob nails - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -lexington nb - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -50 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Cambridge Rindge Sussman Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -jf - t - any v2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -toc
- Caselist.CitesClass[102]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,26 +1,0 @@ 1 -====Consequentialism is incompatible with everyday values – if you love your friends and family because it happens to maximize utils, you're not really loving them at all. Proper moral respect requires treating people in ways they would recognize as justifiable.==== 2 -**Scanlon 98**: Scanlon, Thomas Michael. ~~Alford Professor of Natural Religion, Moral Philosophy, and Civil Polity, Harvard University~~. What We Owe to Each Other. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998. 3 -Still, someone might agree that what happens to these people matters morally, yet 4 -AND 5 -formulating this objection, to speak of "respecting their valid moral claims." 6 - 7 - 8 -====And, this meta-framing entails side constraints since you can justifiably choose to accept an avoidable burden but you can't justifiably impose one on someone else.==== 9 -Darwall 97 quoting Scanlon: Darwall, Stephen. ~~Professor of Philosophy, Yale University~~ "Moral Discourse and Practice: Some Philosophical Approaches." New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. EE 10 -The contractualist account of moral wrongness refers to principles 'which no one could reasonably 11 -AND 12 -will have more to say about grounds for rejection later in the paper. 13 - 14 - 15 -====Thus, the standard is abiding by principles that could not be reasonably rejected. ==== 16 - 17 - 18 -====Contention:==== 19 - 20 - 21 -====The principle of unrestricted constitutionally protected speech can be reasonably rejected by racial minorities==== 22 -**Williams 05** 23 -Gwyneth Williams, prof of poli sci, "Hate speech codes on college campuses." St Louis Journalism Review. ~~Premier~~ 24 -Supporters of hate speech policies, however, argue that the traditional defense of free 25 -AND 26 -minorities this equal chance to learn, say the supporters of restrictive codes. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-04-30 15:30:30.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -eliza haas - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -brentwood jy - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -51 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Cambridge Rindge Sussman Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -jf - nc - contractualism - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -toc
- Caselist.CitesClass[103]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,20 +1,0 @@ 1 -====Counterplan Text: Public colleges and universities ought not restrict constitutionally protected speech except nonviolent heckling==== 2 -**ISD 16 explains Forest's plan** Editorial: College campuses have right to free speech, Iowa State Daily, April 7, 2016, http://www.iowastatedaily.com/opinion/article_e6be04c6-fc2e-11e5-8e68-bb4aab2d2576.html 3 -Students attending the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill may soon be penalized if 4 -AND 5 -a visiting speaker, and no more obstruction of legitimate meetings and events." 6 - 7 - 8 -====Mutually exclusive because it's CPS, passes the Brandenburg test==== 9 -**Volokh 15** Eugene Volokh, law prof at UCLA, publishes the 'Volokh Conspiracy' blog for the Washington Post. "Sixth Circuit rejects 'heckler's veto' as to anti-Islam speech by 'Bible Believers'" The Wahington Post, 28 October 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/28/sixth-circuit-rejects-hecklers-veto-as-to-anti-islam-speech-by-bible-believers/ //WWDH 10 -Context of this card is HECKLING, that's the Bible Believers example 11 -The Brandenburg 12 -AND 13 -The hostile reaction of a crowd does not transform protected speech into incitement. 14 - 15 - 16 -====Heckling is racist and shuts down minority speakers.==== 17 -Heath 16 Heath, Katelyn, Are college campuses restricting free speech, May 23, 2016, Campbell Law Observer (CLO), Ethics Editor in Legislative and Policy, Public Interest Law, http://campbelllawobserver.com/are-college-campuses-restricting-free-speech/ 18 -Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest has introduced a ~~the~~ proposal that would require the 19 -AND 20 -both Condoleezza Rice and former Attorney General Eric Holder from giving commencement speeches. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-04-30 15:30:31.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -eliza haas - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -brentwood jy - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -51 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Cambridge Rindge Sussman Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -jf - cp - heckling pic - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -toc
- Caselist.CitesClass[104]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,21 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any burden structure must require both debaters to defend just the truth or falsity of the resolution. To clarify, they can’t read a burden of: the aff burden is to prove that we an obligation to future generations, while the neg burden is to prove that we have an obligation not to be concerned with future generations. In addition, neither debater may read necessary but insufficient burdens. 2 - 3 -If the aff says “No link to implementation args cause I’ll defend those – they aren’t relevant to affirming/negating the burden” in the 1AC, they can’t tell me during my prep that they won’t grant me links to disads. 4 - 5 -Debaters may not represent two different passages from a scholarly source as one continuous card. 6 - 7 -The aff must read a solvency advocate that explicitly advocates all planks of the plan. 8 - 9 -The aff must read a solvency advocate, i.e. a piece of evidence from the topic literature, that advocates—and only advocates—for every plank of a topical plan. 10 - 11 -If the aff reads a standard of “upholding the procedures of justice,” they must define what procedures of justice are. 12 - 13 -Aff may not say "The role of the judge and ballot is to vote for the debater who best stops alienation." 14 - 15 -If the aff reads a normatively justified framework, they cannot read reasons why philosophical education is bad in the 1AR. 16 - 17 -The aff may not read a determinism trigger. To clarify, they may not argue that “If individuals did not have the ability to will ends, then determinism is true,” which would mean “We can’t make moral claims about the resolution and there are no obligations to restrict, in which case you affirm on face.” 18 - 19 -The aff needs a standard, value criterion, or role of the ballot text. 20 - 21 -Aff may not read a standard of consistency with indexed moral truths, read a definition of “affirm” that provides a justification for the standard, and justify why the judge should presume aff. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-04-30 15:40:37.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -x - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -x - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -52 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Cambridge Rindge Sussman Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - broken interps - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -x
- Caselist.RoundClass[44]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -90 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-25 20:48:32.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -qi, castillo - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -harvard westlake sp - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -6 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -kandi king
- Caselist.RoundClass[45]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -91 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-25 21:14:29.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -sims, hunt - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -dulles aw - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -7 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -kandi king
- Caselist.RoundClass[46]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -92,93 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-25 21:15:33.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -all - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -all - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -all
- Caselist.RoundClass[47]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -94,95 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-25 21:15:39.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -all - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -all - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -all
- Caselist.RoundClass[48]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -96 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-25 22:08:20.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -sharma, sims, castillo - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -harrison rp - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Quarters - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -kandi king
- Caselist.RoundClass[49]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -97,98,99 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-04-02 20:41:35.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -reddy, korn - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -stuyvesant kf - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -6 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -penn rr
- Caselist.RoundClass[50]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -100,101 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-04-29 23:35:06.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -jacob nails - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -lexington nb - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -toc
- Caselist.RoundClass[51]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -102,103 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-04-30 15:30:28.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -eliza haas - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -brentwood jy - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -toc
- Caselist.RoundClass[52]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -104 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-04-30 15:40:35.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -x - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -x - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -x
- Caselist.CitesClass[87]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,3 @@ 1 +I add round reports for rounds against people who don't disclose ~-~- check them. 2 + 3 +Email: ollieqs@gmail.com - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-03-25 20:46:29.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +all - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +all - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +43 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Cambridge Rindge Sussman Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +0 - email and round reports note - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +all
- Caselist.CitesClass[88]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,7 @@ 1 +Interpretation: Debaters may only read positions that are disclosed before the debate on their NDCA wiki page under their own name with full citations, tags, and first three/last three words. 2 + 3 +Interpretation: Debaters must disclose previously run constructive positions – all cases, off cases and theory arguments – at least 30 minutes before the round on the NDCA wiki or when asked. This means providing proper citations for all evidence including first three and last three words and tags as well as advocacy, standard, and interpretation texts. 4 + 5 +Interpretation: Affirmatives may only read cases that have been disclosed at least 15 minutes before the round as the case that they will read. 6 + 7 +Interpretation - Debaters must disclose tags, cites, and first three/last three words for all evidence for affirmative cases where the criterion requires a descriptive debate over legal precedent or standards, with theoretical warrants, AND where there is a role of the ballot of to vote for the debater who best justifies their advocacy through contextualizing legal norms. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-03-25 20:46:30.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +all - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +all - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +43 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Cambridge Rindge Sussman Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +0 - disclosure theory - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +all
- Caselist.CitesClass[89]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,23 @@ 1 +Any burden structure must require both debaters to defend just the truth or falsity of the resolution. To clarify, they can’t read a burden of: the aff burden is to prove that we an obligation to future generations, while the neg burden is to prove that we have an obligation not to be concerned with future generations. In addition, neither debater may read necessary but insufficient burdens. 2 + 3 +If the aff says “No link to implementation args cause I’ll defend those – they aren’t relevant to affirming/negating the burden” in the 1AC, they can’t tell me during my prep that they won’t grant me links to disads. 4 + 5 +Debaters may not represent two different passages from a scholarly source as one continuous card. 6 + 7 +The aff must read a solvency advocate that explicitly advocates all planks of the plan. 8 + 9 +The aff must read a solvency advocate, i.e. a piece of evidence from the topic literature, that advocates—and only advocates—for every plank of a topical plan. 10 + 11 +If the aff reads a standard of “upholding the procedures of justice,” they must define what procedures of justice are. 12 + 13 +Aff may not say "The role of the judge and ballot is to vote for the debater who best stops alienation." 14 + 15 +If the aff reads a normatively justified framework, they cannot read reasons why philosophical education is bad in the 1AR. 16 + 17 +The aff may not read a determinism trigger. To clarify, they may not argue that “If individuals did not have the ability to will ends, then determinism is true,” which would mean “We can’t make moral claims about the resolution and there are no obligations to restrict, in which case you affirm on face.” 18 + 19 +The aff needs a standard, value criterion, or role of the ballot text. 20 + 21 +Frameworks must have explicit value criterion texts or a concrete explanation of weighing underneath the framework. 22 + 23 +Frameworks must establish sufficient burdens for both debaters via equal turn ground. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-03-25 20:46:31.450 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +all - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +all - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +43 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Cambridge Rindge Sussman Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - broken interps - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +all
- Caselist.RoundClass[43]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-03-25 20:46:27.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +all - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +all - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +all