Tournament: Harvard Westlake | Round: 6 | Opponent: Dougherty Valley PC | Judge: Bob Overing

T

A~ Interpretation: The aff must defend that public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech.

There's a difference:

Clay Calvert 16 ~Profesor at the University of Florida, Brechner Eminent Scholar in Mass Communication and Director of the Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project; He has authored or co-authored more than 130 law journal articles on topics related to freedom of expression~, "Professor Clay Calvert: January/February LD Topic Analysis," Open Access Debate, 12-12-2016, https://openaccessdebate.org/2016/12/12/professor-clay-calvert-januaryfebruary-ld-topic-analysis/, ghsBZ
The definition of "public university" varies between states, since both public and
AND
the meetings (Bylaws of the University of Southern California Sec. 3).

Violation: They don't defend implementation of the plan as a reason to vote affirmative. They leverage advantages based off of the endorsement of the discourse or theoretical content of the 1AC, not the plan.

Framework is a voting issue for fairness and education. Drop the debater.

Prefer our interpretation:

Limits

Their aff explodes limits because they aren't limited by the topic.

Predictable Limits are key—it's a prerequisite to being able to have a productive discussion because having evidence is necessary for engagement—any other alternative severs debate's connection to the real world and devolves debate into talking past each other without informed discussion. Failure to focus debate on the question of federal action nullifies the stasis point of the resolution – that's an impact filter for the debate. Lack of topic-specific arguments devolves debate into ultragenerics and polemics like Wilderson or orthodox Marxism which creates facile tests of the aff's epistemology. Moreover, changing the topic post facto manipulates balance of prep, which structurally favors the aff because they speak last and permute alternatives—limits are key to engaging a well-prepared opponent. That's a reason to vote negative on presumption—the 1AC's offense should be presumed suspect because we could not rigorously test it predictable ground for debate is a precondition for actual debate and clash

Those debates are good for education, engagement, and empathy—only clear rules, a stable topic, and simulation can solve

Lantis 2008
(Jeffrey S. Lantis is Professor in the Department of Political Science and Chair of the International Relations Program at The College of Wooster, "The State of the Active Teaching and Learning Literature", http://www.isacompss.com/info/samples/thestateoftheactiveteachingandlearningliterature_sample.pdf)
Simulations, games, and role-play represent a third important set of active
AND
topic, the development of empathy, and acquisition and retention of  knowledge.

Clash is key to productivity—their method is not conducive to change

Steinberg and Freeley 2008
~Austin L., John Caroll University, and David L., University of Miami, 2/13/2008, "Argumentation and Debate: Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making", 12th edition, http://teddykw2.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/argumentation-and-debate.pdf, p. 43-44, accessed 7/4/13, ALT~
Debate is a means of settling differences, so there must be a difference of
AND
specific policies to be investigated and aid discussants in identifying points of difference.

Dialogue about social issues and policy is key to checking dogmatism—solves critical thinking and turns their impacts

Keller, University of Chicago School of Social Service Administration Professor, et. al, 2001 – ~Asst. professor School of Social Service Administration U. of Chicago (Thomas E., James K., and Tracly K., Asst. professor School of Social Service Administration U. of Chicago, professor of Social Work, and doctoral student School of Social Work, 2001 ("Student debates in policy courses: promoting policy practice skills and knowledge through active learning," Journal of Social Work Education, Spr/Summer 2001, EBSCOhost, Accessed on July 5, 2013)~~SP~
SOCIAL WORKERS HAVE a professional responsibility to shape social policy and legislation (National Association
AND
yield a reevaluation and reconstruction of knowledge and beliefs pertaining to the issue. 

====Philosophical questioning does nothing to solve real world issues – the impact is mass atrocities====
Jarvis 2k (Darryl, Senior Lecturer in International Relations at the University of Sydney, International Relations and the Challenge of Postmodernism)
More is the pity that such irrational and obviously abstruse debate should so occupy us
AND
than those foolish enough to be scholastically excited by abstract and recondite debate.

Negative ground – forcing the aff into topical advocacy ensures contestability because the topic is inherently controversial – otherwise, the aff can simply take the moral high ground by claiming truisms like "the Chinese treatment of the Uyghurs is bad, vote aff" which nullifies the role of the negative.

Impact

The impact is procedural fairness—their interpretation of debate unbalances the game. This is a procedural reason to reject the team—fairness should be held a priori to their impact turns because debate is a game, not an intrinsically political space. Even if the state is bad, our framework is agnostic about the benefits of government policy—our argument is just that the rules of the game are necessary and good. Prefer this model:

Competition—debate not only requires the negation of the aff, but it requires competitive options against the aff—that's bad for political movements because we can never agree or come to consensus, which is an intrinsic part of actual coalition building—debate makes it structurally impossible for us to agree with them, even if we think their advocacy is important

Time constraints—real political movements need to be carefully planned and thoroughly vetted—a 6 minute 1AC is not sufficient to do that and means they don't access a real world possibility

====Side bias – Not defending the clear actor and mechanism makes deploying other strategies against them inordinately Aff tilted. They have the ability to radically recontextualize link arguments, empathize different proscriptive claims of the 1AC while using traditional competition standards like perms to make being neg impossible. Massive aff bias is reason enough to vote for us, because debate is a competitive game that's meaningless without substantive engagement. ====

====Limits – Stable resolution shapes links to disadvantages, counter-advocacies and ANY answer to the affirmative. Trashes clash, which is central to advocacy and education – also incentivizes debates about truisms affs on top of the negotiated topic which explodes limits and leads to worse debates- ====
If we prove that debate is a game, then its rules can't be directly impact-turned absent a competing interpretation for those rules and their 1AC offense is irrelevant. Procedural fairness is necessary to balance out against a lack of structural fairness outside of the debate round—creating an equal ability to access the ballot in specific rounds is still good even if there are outside factors.