Changes for page Davis Neg

Last modified by Administrator on 2017/08/29 03:34

From version < 40.1 >
edited by Janine Widman
on 2017/02/12 19:20
To version 1.1 >
edited by Janine Widman
on 2017/02/11 05:37
>
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[2]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -A. Interpretation: On the Jan/Feb 2017 topic, debaters may not specify a specific kind of free speech that they protect or a specific free speech restriction that they remove. They must defend that all constitutionally protected free speech is protected.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-02-11 23:33:22.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Peiris, Ashan
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Harvard Westlake JN
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -3
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Davis Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -T- Any
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Stanford
Caselist.CitesClass[3]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Interpretation: Freedom of speech refers specifically to literal speech and expressive action—printed, written, or otherwise published information is freedom of the press.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-02-11 23:39:30.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Peiris, Ashan
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Harvard Westlake JN
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -3
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -3
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Davis Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -T-Journalism
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Stanford
Caselist.CitesClass[5]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,30 +1,0 @@
1 -The 1AC’s narrative of expression and speech as necessary for self-hood comes from a Eurocentric starting point. The AFF overlooks Eastern cultures that view speech as an external attribute instead of an internal one.
2 -Kim and Sherman 7:
3 -Heejung S. Kim and David K. Sherman. Psychology Professors at UC Santa Barbara. ““Express Yourself”: Culture and the Effect of Self-Expression on Choice.” 2007.
4 -In cultural contexts in which internal
5 -AND
6 -in the individualistic cultural context.
7 -Cultures perceive and use speech differently. The AFF ignores these culturally significant nuances.
8 -Gudykunst and Mody 2:
9 -William B. Gudykunst and Bella Mody. Professor of human communication studies at Cal State Fullerton and Professor of mass communication and global media studies at University of Colorado, Boulder. “Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication.” 2002.
10 -Silence in the West is
11 -AND
12 -is preferred to improper words.
13 -The alt is to reject the aff’s Western framing of speech in favor of a universal metalanguage that compares cultural scripts.
14 -Wierzbicka 94:
15 -Anna Wierzbicka. Linguistics Professor at Australian National University. “"Cultural Scripts": A Semantic Approach to Cultural Analysis and Cross-Cultural Communication.” 1994.
16 -As James Down pointed out,
17 -AND
18 -sense of differential communicative behavior.
19 -Eurocentric modes of thought permeate education and make non-European American students feel inferior. The role of the judge is to embrace their role as an educator and use the ballot to reject pedagogy rooted in Eurocentricism.
20 -Thibert 14:
21 -Eric Thibert, writer for The Spectrum, a North Dakota State University think tank, 10/2/2014. http://ndsuspectrum.com/eurocentrism-in-american-public-education/ KS
22 -Elementary, middle and high schools
23 -AND
24 -our educational system is already long overdue.
25 -The Kritik outweighs and turns case—Eurocentricism is the root cause of all oppression. Their flawed epistemology stems from a Eurocentric perspective.
26 -Baker 12
27 -(Michael. Professor of Education and Human Development, University of Rochester Professor at the Warner Graduate School of Education and Human Development, October 31 - November 4, 2012, American Educational Studies Association, Annual Conference Seattle, Washington, “Decolonial Education: Meanings, Contexts, and Possibilities,” http://academia.edu/3266939/Decolonial_Education_Meanings_Contexts_and_Possiblities, Accessed: 7/7/13, LPS.)
28 -Decolonial thinking developed by this group
29 -AND
30 -a new space/time called modernity.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-02-12 19:15:51.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Ellen Ivens Duran
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Nueva JT
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -5
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Davis Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Eurocentrism K
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Stanford
Caselist.CitesClass[6]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,18 +1,0 @@
1 -Funding DA (:50)
2 -
3 -If public universities and colleges do not restrict speech, The Department of Justice will take away federal funding.
4 -Perrino 16Nico Perrino, Director of Communications at non-profit organization FIRE in 2016, non-partisan, non-profit organization that examines social issues on college and university campuses. Nico. "Department of Justice: Title IX Requires Violating First Amendment." FIRE. Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, 29 Apr. 2016. Web. 05 Jan. 2017. https://www.thefire.org/department-of-justice-title-ix-requires-violating-first-amendment/. Director of Communications at FIRE, a non-partisan, non-profit organization that examines social issues on college and university campuses.
5 -
6 -“The Department of Justice now interprets Title IX 9 to require colleges and universities to violate the First Amendment. In an April 22 findings letter concluding its investigation into the University of New Mexico’s policies and practices regarding sex discrimination, the Department of Justice (DOJ) found the university improperly defined sexual harassment. DOJ flatly declared that ‘unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature’—including ‘verbal conduct’—is sexual harassment ‘regardless of whether it causes a hostile environment or is quid pro quo.’ To comply with Title IX, DOJ states that a college or university ‘carries the responsibility to investigate’ all speech of a sexual nature that someone subjectively finds unwelcome, even if that speech is protected by the First Amendment or an institution’s promises of free speech. ‘The Department of Justice has put universities in an impossible position: violate the Constitution or risk losing federal funding,’ said Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) President and CEO Greg Lukianoff. ‘The federal government’s push for a national speech code is at odds with decades of legal precedent. University presidents must find the courage to stand up to this federal overreach.’ The shockingly broad conception of sexual harassment mandated by DOJ all but guarantees that colleges and universities nationwide will subject students and faculty to months-long investigations—or worse—for protected speech. In recent years, unjust ‘sexual harassment’ investigations into protected student and faculty speech have generated national headlines and widespread concern. Examples include: Northwestern University Professor Laura Kipnis was investigated for months for writing a newspaper article questioning ‘sexual paranoia’ on campus and how Title IX investigations are conducted. Syracuse University law student Len Audaer was investigated for harassment for comedic articles he posted on a satirical law school blog patterned after The Onion. A female student at the University of Oregon was investigated and charged with harassment and four other charges for jokingly yelling ‘I hit it first’ out a window at a couple. The Sun Star, a student newspaper at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, was investigated for nearly a year for an April Fools’ Day issue of the newspaper and for reporting on hateful messages posted to an anonymous ‘UAF Confessions’ Facebook page. And just two weeks ago, a police officer at the University of Delaware ordered students to censor a ‘free speech ball’—put up as part of a demonstration in favor of free speech—because it had the word ‘penis’ and an accompanying drawing on it, claiming that it could violate the university’s sexual misconduct policy. DOJ’s rationale would not just legitimize all of the above investigations—it would require campuses to either conduct such investigations routinely or face potential federal sanctions. This latest findings letter doubles down on the unconstitutional and controversial ‘blueprint’ definition of sexual harassment jointly issued by DOJ and the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights in a May 2013 findings letter to the University of Montana. FIRE and other civil liberties advocates at the time warned that the controversial language threatens the free speech and academic freedom rights of students and faculty members. ‘Requiring colleges to investigate and record ‘unwelcome’ speech about sex or gender in an effort to end sexual harassment or assault on campus is no more constitutional than would be a government effort to investigate and record all ‘unpatriotic’ speech in order to root out treason,’ said Robert Shibley, FIRE’s executive director. ‘Students, faculty, and administrators must not give in to this kind of campus totalitarianism—and FIRE is here to fight alongside them.’ In January, FIRE sponsored a lawsuit filed against Louisiana State University (LSU) that challenges the unconstitutional definition of sexual harassment being promulgated by the Departments of Education and Justice in this and in previous letters. Teresa Buchanan, a tenured associate professor of early childhood education in LSU’s acclaimed teacher certification program, was fired for ‘sexual harassment’ under an LSU policy that tracks the federal government’s broad definition. Buchanan’s lawsuit challenges the policy’s constitutionality and its application to her. FIRE is a nonpartisan, nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals from across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, freedom of expression, academic freedom, due process, and freedom of conscience at our nation’s colleges and universities. FIRE’s efforts to preserve liberty on campuses across America can be viewed at thefire.org.”
7 -
8 -When universities lose funding, tuition skyrockets, causing de-facto segregation.
9 -Mitchell et al 16 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2016 Mitchell, Michael, Michael Leachman, and Kathleen Masterson. "Funding Down, Tuition Up." Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 15 Aug. 2016. Web. 05 Jan. 2017. http://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/funding-down-tuition-up. Michael Mitchell is a Senior Policy Analyst with the Center’s State Fiscal Policy division. Michael Leachman is Director of State Fiscal Research with the State Fiscal Policy division of the Center, which analyzes state tax and budget policy decisions and promotes sustainable policies that take into account the needs of families of all income levels. Kathleen Masterson joined the Center as a Research Assistant for the State Fiscal Project in April 2015. “, tuition remains much higher than it was before the recession in most states. Since the 2007-08 school year, average annual published tuition has risen by $2,333 nationally, or 33 percent.21 (See Figures 5 and 6.) Steep tuition increases have been widespread, and average tuition at public four-year institutions, has increased by: more than 60 percent in seven states; more than 40 percent in 14 states; and more than 20 percent in 39 states. In Arizona, the state with the greatest tuition increases since the recession hit, tuition has risen 87.8 percent, or $4,978 per student. Average tuition at a four-year Arizona public university is now $10,646 a year.22 Tuition increases, while substantial in most states, have fallen far short nationally of fully replacing the per-student support that public colleges and universities have lost due to state funding cuts. In nearly half of the states, tuition increases between 2008 and 2015 have not fully offset cuts to state higher education funding.23 Because tuition increases have not fully compensated for the loss of state funding, and because most public schools do not have significant endowments or other sources of funding, many public colleges and universities have simultaneously reduced course offerings, student services, and other campus amenities. Data on spending at public institutions of higher learning in recent years are incomplete, but considerable evidence suggests that these actions by many public colleges and universities likely reduced the quality and availability of their academic offerings. For example, since the start of the recession, colleges and university systems in some states have eliminated administrative and faculty positions (in some instances replacing them with non-tenure-track staff), cut courses or increased class sizes, and in some cases, consolidated or eliminated whole programs, departments, or schools.24 Public colleges and universities continue to make these types of cuts, even as states have begun to reinvest in higher education. For example: The University of Alaska Fairbanks eliminated six degree offerings — including engineering management, science management, and philosophy.25 The University of Arizona cut 320 positions from its budget including layoffs, firings, and resignations, and increased class sizes for core undergraduate courses.26 In addition to laying off over 200 employees the University of Akron in Ohio eliminated its school baseball team.27 Facing large state funding cuts, the University of Wisconsin-Madison laid off or reduced staff and faculty vacancies by 400 slots and held faculty salaries level.28 Nationwide, employment at public colleges and universities has grown modestly since the start of the recession, but proportionally less than the growth in the number of students. Between 2008 and 2014, the number of full-time-equivalent instructional staff at public colleges and universities grew by about 7 percent, while the number of students at these institutions grew by 8.6 percent. In other words, the number of students per faculty member rose nationwide.29 Over time, students have assumed much greater responsibility for paying for public higher education. That’s because during and immediately following recessions state and local funding for higher education has tended to fall, while tuition has tended to grow more quickly. During periods of economic growth, funding has tended to recover somewhat while tuition has stabilized at a higher level as a share of total higher educational funding.30 (See Figure 7.) In 1988, public colleges and universities received 3.2 times as much revenue from state and local governments as they did from students. They now receive about 1.2 times as much from states and localities as from students. Nearly every state has shifted costs to students over the last 25 years — with the most drastic shift occurring since the onset of the Great Recession. In 1988, average tuition amounts were larger than per-student state expenditures in only two states, New Hampshire and Vermont. By 2008, that number had grown to ten states. In 2015 (the latest year for which there is data), tuition revenue was greater than state and local government funding for higher education in 22 states, with six — Colorado, Delaware, Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Vermont — requiring students and families to shoulder higher education costs by a ratio of at least 2- to-1.31 The cost shift from states to students has happened over a period when absorbing additional expenses has been difficult for many families because their incomes have been stagnant or declining. In the 1970s and early- to mid-1980s, tuition and incomes both grew modestly faster than inflation; by the late 1980s, tuition began to rise much faster than incomes. (See Figure 8.) Since 1973, average inflation-adjusted public college tuition has increased by 274 percent while median household income has grown by only 7 percent. Over the past 40 years, the incomes of the top 1 percent of families have grown by almost 170 percent. This means that public college tuition has outpaced income growth for even the highest earners. The sharp tuition increases states have imposed since the recession have exacerbated the longer-term trend. Tuition jumped nearly 30 percent between the 2007-08 and 2014-15 school years, while real median income fell roughly 6.5 percent over the same time period. … Mitchell et al, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2016 Mitchell, Michael, Michael Leachman, and Kathleen Masterson. "Funding Down, Tuition Up." Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 15 Aug. 2016. Web. 05 Jan. 2017. http://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/funding-down-tuition-up. Michael Mitchell is a Senior Policy Analyst with the Center’s State Fiscal Policy division. Michael Leachman is Director of State Fiscal Research with the State Fiscal Policy division of the Center, which analyzes state tax and budget policy decisions and promotes sustainable policies that take into account the needs of families of all income levels. Kathleen Masterson joined the Center as a Research Assistant for the State Fiscal Project in April 2015. “Rapidly rising tuition at a time of weak or declining income growth has damaging consequences for families, students, and the national economy. Tuition costs deter some students from enrolling in college. While the recession encouraged many students to enroll in higher education, the large tuition increases of the past few years may have prevented further enrollment gains. Rapidly rising tuition makes it less likely that students will attend college. Research has consistently found that College price increases result in declining enrollment.32 While many universities and the federal government provide financial aid to help students bear the price, research suggests that a high sticker price can dissuade students from enrolling even if the net price, including aid, doesn’t rise. Rising tuition may be harming students of color and reducing campus diversity. New research finds that Rising tuition and fees jeopardizes campus diversity at public four-year colleges as students of color are less likely to enroll as the cost of tuition goes up. ‘All else equal, a $1,000 tuition increase for full-time undergraduate students is associated with a drop in campus diversity of almost 6 percent,’ New York University researchers found in a 2015 study.33 Another study, which examined tuition policy changes in Texas in the early 2000s, concluded that rising tuition rates limited enrollment gains for Hispanic students in the state.34 The share of students coming from communities of color at public two- and four-year colleges had risen significantly in the years leading up to these tuition increases.35 State cuts to higher education, made up for with higher tuition rates, jeopardize this trend. Tuition increases likely deter low-income students, in particular, from enrolling. College cost increases have the biggest impact on students from low-income families research further shows. For example, a 1995 study by Harvard University researcher Thomas Kane concluded that states with the largest tuition increases during the 1980s and early 1990s ‘saw the greatest widening of the gaps in enrollment between high- and low-income youth.’36 The relative lack of knowledge among low-income families about the admissions and financial aid process may exacerbate these damaging effects. Students from families that struggle to get by — including those who live in communities with lower shares of college-educated adults and attend high schools that have higher student-to-counselor ratios — tend to overestimate the true cost of higher education more than students from wealthier households in part because they are less aware of the financial aid for which they are eligible.37 These effects are particularly concerning because gaps in college enrollment between higher- and lowerincome youth are already pronounced. In 2012, just over half of recent high school graduates from families with income in the lowest 20 percent enrolled in some form of postsecondary education, as opposed to 82 percent of students from the top 20 percent.38 Significant enrollment gaps based on income exist even among prospective students with similar academic records and test scores.39 Rapidly rising costs at public colleges and universities may widen these gaps further. Tuition increases may be pushing them lower-income students toward less-selective public institutions, reducing their future earnings. Perhaps just as important as a student’s decision to enroll in higher education is the choice of which college to attend. A large share of high-achieving students from struggling families fail to apply to any selective colleges or universities, a 2013 Brookings Institution study found.40 Even here, research indicates that financial constraints and concerns about cost push lower-income students to narrow their list of potential schools and ultimately enroll in less-selective institutions.41 Another 2013 study found evidence that some high-achieving, low-income students are more likely to ‘undermatch’ in their college choice in part due to financial constraints.42 Where a student decides to go to college has broad economic implications, especially for economically disadvantaged students and students of color. Students who had parents with less education, as well as African American and Latino students, experienced higher postgraduate earnings by attending more elite colleges relative to similar students who attended less-selective universities, a 2011 study by Stanford University and Mathematica Policy Research found.43”
10 -
11 -
12 -Affirming equates to universities losing $76 billion in funding
13 -Woodhouse 15 Kelly. "Study: U.S. Higher Education Receives More from Federal than State Governments." Study: U.S. Higher Education Receives More from Federal than State Governments. Inside Higher ED, 12 June 2015. Web. 07 Jan. 2017. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/06/12/study-us-higher-education-receives-more-federal-state-governments.Federal spending has surpassed state spending as the main source of public funding in higher education, and the primary reason is a surge in Pell Grants in the last decade. Federal and state funds have different missions. The majority of state funding is used to fund specific public institutions, whereas federal funding is generally awarded through student aid and research grants. State funding goes primarily to public institutions, while federal funding goes to students at public, private and for-profit colleges, and to researchers at public and private universities. Historically, state funding has been heftier than federal funding. In the 25 years leading up to 2012, states spent 65 percent more on higher education than the federal government. Yet that trend has rapidly changed in the past decade. In 2010 federal funding overtook state funding as the main source of public support for universities and colleges throughout the country, according to a report released Thursday by the Pew Charitable Trusts. That same year funding for Pell Grants ~-~- grants awarded to college students from low-income families ~-~- hit an all time high of about $36 billion. In fact, during the five-year period leading up to 2013, Pell funding increased by 72 percent, and funding of college benefits for veterans tripled. In 2013 the federal government spent nearly $76 billion on higher education, while states spent about $3 billion less, according to the "Federal and State Funding of Higher Education" study.
14 -
15 -
16 -Funding cuts kill educational quality.
17 -Mitchel et al 2 Mitchell, Michael, Michael Leachman, and Kathleen Masterson. "Funding Down, Tuition Up." Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 15 Aug. 2016. Web. 05 Jan. 2017. http://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/funding-down-tuition-up. Michael Mitchell is a Senior Policy Analyst with the Center’s State Fiscal Policy division. Michael Leachman is Director of State Fiscal Research with the State Fiscal Policy division of the Center, which analyzes state tax and budget policy decisions and promotes sustainable policies that take into account the needs of families of all income levels. Kathleen Masterson joined the Center as a Research Assistant for the State Fiscal Project in April 2015. “of cuts in state funding for public colleges and universities have driven up tuition and harmed students’ educational experiences by forcing faculty reductions, fewer course offerings, and campus closings. These choices have made college less affordable and less accessible for students who need degrees to succeed in today’s economy. Though some states have begun to restore some of the deep cuts in financial support for public two- and four-year colleges since the recession hit, their support remains far below previous levels. In total, after adjusting for inflation, funding for public two- and four-year colleges is nearly $10 billion below what it was just prior to the recession. As states have slashed higher education funding, the price of attending public colleges has risen significantly faster than the growth in median income. For the average student, increases in federal student aid and the availability of tax credits have not kept up, jeopardizing the ability of many to afford the college education that is key to their long-term financial success. States that renew their commitment to a high-quality, affordable system of public higher education by increasing the revenue these schools receive will help build a stronger middle class and develop the entrepreneurs and skilled workers that are needed in the new century. Of the states that have finalized their higher education budgets for the current school year, after adjusting for inflation:2 Forty-six states — all except Montana, North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming — are spending less per student in the 2015-16 school year than they did before the recession.3 States cut funding deeply after the recession hit. The average state is spending $1,598, or 18 percent, less per student than before the recession. Per-student funding in nine states — Alabama, Arizona, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina — is down by more than 30 percent since the start of the recession. In 12 states, per-student funding fell over the last year. Of these, four states — Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, and Vermont — have cut per-student higher education funding for the last two consecutive years. In the last year, 38 states increased funding per student. Per-student funding rose $199, or 2.8 percent, nationally. Deep state funding cuts have had major consequences. for public colleges and universities. States (and to a lesser extent localities) provide roughly 54 percent of the costs of teaching and instruction at these schools.4 Schools have made up the difference with tuition increases, cuts to educational or other services, or both. Since the recession took hold, higher education institutions have: Increased tuition. Public colleges and universities across the country have increased tuition to compensate for declining state funding and rising costs. Annual published tuition at four-year public colleges has risen by $2,333, or 33 percent, since the 2007-08 school year.5 In Arizona, published tuition at four-year schools is up nearly 90 percent, while in six other states — Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, and Louisiana — published tuition is up more than 60 percent. These sharp tuition increases have accelerated longer-term trends of college becoming less affordable and costs shifting from states to students. Over the last 20 years, the price of attending a four-year public college or university has grown significantly faster than the median income.6 Although federal student aid and tax credits have risen, on average they have fallen short of covering the tuition increases. Diminisheding academic opportunities and student services. Tuition increases have compensated for only part of the revenue loss resulting from state funding cuts. Over the past several years, public colleges and universities have cut faculty positions, eliminated courses offerings, closed campuses, and reduced student services, among other cuts. A large and growing share of future jobs will require college-educated workers.7 Sufficient public investment in higher education to keep quality high and tuition affordable, and to provide financial aid to students who need it most, would help states develop the skilled and diverse workforce they will need to compete for these jobs. Sufficient public investment can only occur, however, if policymakers make sound tax and budget decisions. State revenues have improved significantly since the depths of the recession but are still only modestly above pre-recession levels.8 To make college more affordable and increase access to higher education, many states need to supplement that revenue growth with new revenue to fully make up for years of severe cuts. But just as the opportunity to invest is emerging, lawmakers in a number of states are jeopardizing it by entertaining tax cuts that in many cases would give the biggest breaks to the wealthiest taxpayers. In recent years, states such as Wisconsin, Louisiana, and Arizona have enacted large-scale tax cuts that limit resources available for higher education. And in Illinois and Pennsylvania ongoing attempts to find necessary resources after large tax cuts threaten current and future higher education funding.”
18 -At the very least, it’s better to have a flawed university than none at all.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-02-12 19:19:31.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Ellen Iven Duran
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Nueva JT
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -6
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Davis Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -JF Funding Da
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Stanford
Caselist.CitesClass[7]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,22 +1,0 @@
1 -=GMO DA (1:45)=
2 -
3 -Young people overwhelmingly oppose GMOs, this opposition is misled and lacks scientific basis
4 -Singal 16 (Jesse, Senior editor for New York Magazine) "Millennials Have Bad Views on GMOs," New York Magazine, 12/08/16 DD
5 -As the numbers
6 -AND
7 -shun GMOs, though.
8 -Opposition to GMs by American college students slows the development of GM technology for developing nations
9 -Kelly 16 (Julie, a food writer in Orland Park, Ill), "Anti-GMO Students Bruise a Superbanana," The Wall Street Journal, 3/14/16 DRD
10 -Student activists
11 -AND
12 -is, well, bananas.
13 -The adoption of GMs in developing nations is crucial to increasing the productivity of farming and farmer incomes around the world.
14 -Giddings et al 16 (L. Val, a senior fellow at ITIF with three decades of experience in science and regulatory policy relating to biotechnology innovations in agriculture and biomedicine. He is also president and CEO of PrometheusAB, Inc., providing consulting services on biotechnology issues to governments, multilateral organizations, and industry clients. Before founding PrometheusAB, he served eight years as vice president for food and agriculture of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO)
15 -Campaigns against genetically
16 -AND
17 -and rural incomes.2
18 -GM crops are necessary to prevent extinction – those who are low income will die first as food prices rise
19 -McKie 11 (Robin, science and technology editor for the Observer), (Beddington, Sir John UK's chief scientist, Senior Adviser at the Oxford Martin School, and was previously Professor of Applied Population Biology at Imperial College London, and the UK Government Chief Scientific Adviser from 2008 until 2013) "Genetically modified crops are the key to human survival, says UK's chief scientist," The Guardian, 1/22/11 DRD.
20 -Genetically modified
21 -AND
22 -possible range of solutions.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-02-12 19:20:00.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Atallah, Alex
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Harvard Westlake JI
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -7
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -5
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Davis Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -JF GMO DA
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Stanford
Caselist.CitesClass[8]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,22 +1,0 @@
1 -=GMO DA (1:45)=
2 -
3 -Young people overwhelmingly oppose GMOs, this opposition is misled and lacks scientific basis
4 -Singal 16 (Jesse, Senior editor for New York Magazine) "Millennials Have Bad Views on GMOs," New York Magazine, 12/08/16 DD
5 -As the numbers
6 -AND
7 -shun GMOs, though.
8 -Opposition to GMs by American college students slows the development of GM technology for developing nations
9 -Kelly 16 (Julie, a food writer in Orland Park, Ill), "Anti-GMO Students Bruise a Superbanana," The Wall Street Journal, 3/14/16 DRD
10 -Student activists
11 -AND
12 -is, well, bananas.
13 -The adoption of GMs in developing nations is crucial to increasing the productivity of farming and farmer incomes around the world.
14 -Giddings et al 16 (L. Val, a senior fellow at ITIF with three decades of experience in science and regulatory policy relating to biotechnology innovations in agriculture and biomedicine. He is also president and CEO of PrometheusAB, Inc., providing consulting services on biotechnology issues to governments, multilateral organizations, and industry clients. Before founding PrometheusAB, he served eight years as vice president for food and agriculture of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO)
15 -Campaigns against genetically
16 -AND
17 -and rural incomes.2
18 -GM crops are necessary to prevent extinction – those who are low income will die first as food prices rise
19 -McKie 11 (Robin, science and technology editor for the Observer), (Beddington, Sir John UK's chief scientist, Senior Adviser at the Oxford Martin School, and was previously Professor of Applied Population Biology at Imperial College London, and the UK Government Chief Scientific Adviser from 2008 until 2013) "Genetically modified crops are the key to human survival, says UK's chief scientist," The Guardian, 1/22/11 DRD.
20 -Genetically modified
21 -AND
22 -possible range of solutions.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-02-12 19:20:03.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Atallah, Alex
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Harvard Westlake JI
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -8
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -5
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Davis Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -JF GMO DA
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Stanford
Caselist.RoundClass[2]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-02-11 23:33:20.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Peiris, Ashan
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Harvard Westlake JN
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -3
RoundReport
... ... @@ -1,7 +1,0 @@
1 -AffOught not restrict journalism
2 -
3 -Neg T - Any
4 -
5 -T- Journalism
6 -
7 -funding da
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Stanford
Caselist.RoundClass[3]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -3
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-02-11 23:39:28.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Peiris, Ashan
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Harvard Westlake JN
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -3
RoundReport
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -See T-any
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Stanford
Caselist.RoundClass[5]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -5
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-02-12 19:15:49.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Ellen Ivens Duran
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Nueva JT
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2
RoundReport
... ... @@ -1,3 +1,0 @@
1 -Aff truth testing will to power
2 -
3 -Neg Eurocentrism K funding da
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Stanford
Caselist.RoundClass[6]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -6
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-02-12 19:19:29.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Ellen Iven Duran
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Nueva JT
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2
RoundReport
... ... @@ -1,3 +1,0 @@
1 -Aff truth testing will to power
2 -
3 -neg eurocentrism and funding da
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Stanford
Caselist.RoundClass[7]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -7
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-02-12 19:19:58.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Atallah, Alex
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Harvard Westlake JI
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -5
RoundReport
... ... @@ -1,3 +1,0 @@
1 -Aff- Whole res freedom of speech engagement and expression
2 -
3 -Neg Funding da gmo da euro k
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Stanford
Caselist.RoundClass[8]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -8
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-02-12 19:20:01.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Atallah, Alex
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Harvard Westlake JI
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -5
RoundReport
... ... @@ -1,3 +1,0 @@
1 -Aff- Whole res freedom of speech engagement and expression
2 -
3 -Neg Funding da gmo da euro k
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Stanford

Schools

Aberdeen Central (SD)
Acton-Boxborough (MA)
Albany (CA)
Albuquerque Academy (NM)
Alief Taylor (TX)
American Heritage Boca Delray (FL)
American Heritage Plantation (FL)
Anderson (TX)
Annie Wright (WA)
Apple Valley (MN)
Appleton East (WI)
Arbor View (NV)
Arcadia (CA)
Archbishop Mitty (CA)
Ardrey Kell (NC)
Ashland (OR)
Athens (TX)
Bainbridge (WA)
Bakersfield (CA)
Barbers Hill (TX)
Barrington (IL)
BASIS Mesa (AZ)
BASIS Scottsdale (AZ)
BASIS Silicon (CA)
Beckman (CA)
Bellarmine (CA)
Benjamin Franklin (LA)
Benjamin N Cardozo (NY)
Bentonville (AR)
Bergen County (NJ)
Bettendorf (IA)
Bingham (UT)
Blue Valley Southwest (KS)
Brentwood (CA)
Brentwood Middle (CA)
Bridgewater-Raritan (NJ)
Bronx Science (NY)
Brophy College Prep (AZ)
Brown (KY)
Byram Hills (NY)
Byron Nelson (TX)
Cabot (AR)
Calhoun Homeschool (TX)
Cambridge Rindge (MA)
Canyon Crest (CA)
Canyon Springs (NV)
Cape Fear Academy (NC)
Carmel Valley Independent (CA)
Carpe Diem (NJ)
Cedar Park (TX)
Cedar Ridge (TX)
Centennial (ID)
Centennial (TX)
Center For Talented Youth (MD)
Cerritos (CA)
Chaminade (CA)
Chandler (AZ)
Chandler Prep (AZ)
Chaparral (AZ)
Charles E Smith (MD)
Cherokee (OK)
Christ Episcopal (LA)
Christopher Columbus (FL)
Cinco Ranch (TX)
Citrus Valley (CA)
Claremont (CA)
Clark (NV)
Clark (TX)
Clear Brook (TX)
Clements (TX)
Clovis North (CA)
College Prep (CA)
Collegiate (NY)
Colleyville Heritage (TX)
Concord Carlisle (MA)
Concordia Lutheran (TX)
Connally (TX)
Coral Glades (FL)
Coral Science (NV)
Coral Springs (FL)
Coppell (TX)
Copper Hills (UT)
Corona Del Sol (AZ)
Crandall (TX)
Crossroads (CA)
Cupertino (CA)
Cy-Fair (TX)
Cypress Bay (FL)
Cypress Falls (TX)
Cypress Lakes (TX)
Cypress Ridge (TX)
Cypress Springs (TX)
Cypress Woods (TX)
Dallastown (PA)
Davis (CA)
Delbarton (NJ)
Derby (KS)
Des Moines Roosevelt (IA)
Desert Vista (AZ)
Diamond Bar (CA)
Dobson (AZ)
Dougherty Valley (CA)
Dowling Catholic (IA)
Dripping Springs (TX)
Dulles (TX)
duPont Manual (KY)
Dwyer (FL)
Eagle (ID)
Eastside Catholic (WA)
Edgemont (NY)
Edina (MN)
Edmond North (OK)
Edmond Santa Fe (OK)
El Cerrito (CA)
Elkins (TX)
Enloe (NC)
Episcopal (TX)
Evanston (IL)
Evergreen Valley (CA)
Ferris (TX)
Flintridge Sacred Heart (CA)
Flower Mound (TX)
Fordham Prep (NY)
Fort Lauderdale (FL)
Fort Walton Beach (FL)
Freehold Township (NJ)
Fremont (NE)
Frontier (MO)
Gabrielino (CA)
Garland (TX)
George Ranch (TX)
Georgetown Day (DC)
Gig Harbor (WA)
Gilmour (OH)
Glenbrook South (IL)
Gonzaga Prep (WA)
Grand Junction (CO)
Grapevine (TX)
Green Valley (NV)
Greenhill (TX)
Guyer (TX)
Hamilton (AZ)
Hamilton (MT)
Harker (CA)
Harmony (TX)
Harrison (NY)
Harvard Westlake (CA)
Hawken (OH)
Head Royce (CA)
Hebron (TX)
Heights (MD)
Hendrick Hudson (NY)
Henry Grady (GA)
Highland (UT)
Highland (ID)
Hockaday (TX)
Holy Cross (LA)
Homewood Flossmoor (IL)
Hopkins (MN)
Houston Homeschool (TX)
Hunter College (NY)
Hutchinson (KS)
Immaculate Heart (CA)
Independent (All)
Interlake (WA)
Isidore Newman (LA)
Jack C Hays (TX)
James Bowie (TX)
Jefferson City (MO)
Jersey Village (TX)
John Marshall (CA)
Juan Diego (UT)
Jupiter (FL)
Kapaun Mount Carmel (KS)
Kamiak (WA)
Katy Taylor (TX)
Keller (TX)
Kempner (TX)
Kent Denver (CO)
King (FL)
Kingwood (TX)
Kinkaid (TX)
Klein (TX)
Klein Oak (TX)
Kudos College (CA)
La Canada (CA)
La Costa Canyon (CA)
La Jolla (CA)
La Reina (CA)
Lafayette (MO)
Lake Highland (FL)
Lake Travis (TX)
Lakeville North (MN)
Lakeville South (MN)
Lamar (TX)
LAMP (AL)
Law Magnet (TX)
Langham Creek (TX)
Lansing (KS)
LaSalle College (PA)
Lawrence Free State (KS)
Layton (UT)
Leland (CA)
Leucadia Independent (CA)
Lexington (MA)
Liberty Christian (TX)
Lincoln (OR)
Lincoln (NE)
Lincoln East (NE)
Lindale (TX)
Livingston (NJ)
Logan (UT)
Lone Peak (UT)
Los Altos (CA)
Los Osos (CA)
Lovejoy (TX)
Loyola (CA)
Loyola Blakefield (MA)
Lynbrook (CA)
Maeser Prep (UT)
Mannford (OK)
Marcus (TX)
Marlborough (CA)
McClintock (AZ)
McDowell (PA)
McNeil (TX)
Meadows (NV)
Memorial (TX)
Millard North (NE)
Millard South (NE)
Millard West (NE)
Millburn (NJ)
Milpitas (CA)
Miramonte (CA)
Mission San Jose (CA)
Monsignor Kelly (TX)
Monta Vista (CA)
Montclair Kimberley (NJ)
Montgomery (TX)
Monticello (NY)
Montville Township (NJ)
Morris Hills (NJ)
Mountain Brook (AL)
Mountain Pointe (AZ)
Mountain View (CA)
Mountain View (AZ)
Murphy Middle (TX)
NCSSM (NC)
New Orleans Jesuit (LA)
New Trier (IL)
Newark Science (NJ)
Newburgh Free Academy (NY)
Newport (WA)
North Allegheny (PA)
North Crowley (TX)
North Hollywood (CA)
Northland Christian (TX)
Northwood (CA)
Notre Dame (CA)
Nueva (CA)
Oak Hall (FL)
Oakwood (CA)
Okoboji (IA)
Oxbridge (FL)
Oxford (CA)
Pacific Ridge (CA)
Palm Beach Gardens (FL)
Palo Alto Independent (CA)
Palos Verdes Peninsula (CA)
Park Crossing (AL)
Peak to Peak (CO)
Pembroke Pines (FL)
Pennsbury (PA)
Phillips Academy Andover (MA)
Phoenix Country Day (AZ)
Pine Crest (FL)
Pingry (NJ)
Pittsburgh Central Catholic (PA)
Plano East (TX)
Polytechnic (CA)
Presentation (CA)
Princeton (NJ)
Prosper (TX)
Quarry Lane (CA)
Raisbeck-Aviation (WA)
Rancho Bernardo (CA)
Randolph (NJ)
Reagan (TX)
Richardson (TX)
Ridge (NJ)
Ridge Point (TX)
Riverside (SC)
Robert Vela (TX)
Rosemount (MN)
Roseville (MN)
Round Rock (TX)
Rowland Hall (UT)
Royse City (TX)
Ruston (LA)
Sacred Heart (MA)
Sacred Heart (MS)
Sage Hill (CA)
Sage Ridge (NV)
Salado (TX)
Salpointe Catholic (AZ)
Sammamish (WA)
San Dieguito (CA)
San Marino (CA)
SandHoke (NC)
Santa Monica (CA)
Sarasota (FL)
Saratoga (CA)
Scarsdale (NY)
Servite (CA)
Seven Lakes (TX)
Shawnee Mission East (KS)
Shawnee Mission Northwest (KS)
Shawnee Mission South (KS)
Shawnee Mission West (KS)
Sky View (UT)
Skyline (UT)
Smithson Valley (TX)
Southlake Carroll (TX)
Sprague (OR)
St Agnes (TX)
St Andrews (MS)
St Francis (CA)
St James (AL)
St Johns (TX)
St Louis Park (MN)
St Margarets (CA)
St Marys Hall (TX)
St Thomas (MN)
St Thomas (TX)
Stephen F Austin (TX)
Stoneman Douglas (FL)
Stony Point (TX)
Strake Jesuit (TX)
Stratford (TX)
Stratford Independent (CA)
Stuyvesant (NY)
Success Academy (NY)
Sunnyslope (AZ)
Sunset (OR)
Syosset (NY)
Tahoma (WA)
Talley (AZ)
Texas Academy of Math and Science (TX)
Thomas Jefferson (VA)
Thompkins (TX)
Timber Creek (FL)
Timothy Christian (NJ)
Tom C Clark (TX)
Tompkins (TX)
Torrey Pines (CA)
Travis (TX)
Trinity (KY)
Trinity Prep (FL)
Trinity Valley (TX)
Truman (PA)
Turlock (CA)
Union (OK)
Unionville (PA)
University High (CA)
University School (OH)
University (FL)
Upper Arlington (OH)
Upper Dublin (PA)
Valley (IA)
Valor Christian (CO)
Vashon (WA)
Ventura (CA)
Veritas Prep (AZ)
Vestavia Hills (AL)
Vincentian (PA)
Walla Walla (WA)
Walt Whitman (MD)
Warren (TX)
Wenatchee (WA)
West (UT)
West Ranch (CA)
Westford (MA)
Westlake (TX)
Westview (OR)
Westwood (TX)
Whitefish Bay (WI)
Whitney (CA)
Wilson (DC)
Winston Churchill (TX)
Winter Springs (FL)
Woodlands (TX)
Woodlands College Park (TX)
Wren (SC)
Yucca Valley (CA)