Summary

• Objects (0 modified, 0 added, 1 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[22]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[22]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,29 +1,0 @@
1		-====A~~ Interpretation: The aff must defend that no constitutionally protected speech may be restricted by public colleges or universities. To clarify, they can’t defend a restriction on only a specific type, setting, or timing of speech.====
2		-
3		-
4		-====The term "any" in the res is the weak form of "any" — "not any" statements refer to "all" ====
5		-Cambridge Dictionary, Cambridge Dictionary, Any, http://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/quantifiers/any., ghs//BZ
6		-We use any before nouns to refer to indefinite or unknown quantities or an unlimited
7		-AND
8		-. No: There are no biscuits left. They’ve eaten them all.
9		-
10		-
11		-====B~~ Violation: Free speech zones necessarily entail time, place, and manner specifications – geography that certain areas are no longer restricted rather than the whole of a university space====
12		-FIRE No Date, "Free Speech Zones On Campus," No Date, FIRE ~~Foundation for Individual Rights in Education~~, https://www.thefire.org/pdfs/5bed6be4733c1eb18e3adec122073a22.pdf, ghs//BZ
13		-On far too many campuses nationwide, universities unreasonably restrict students’ expressive activities to limited
14		-AND
15		-The University of Southern Mississippi will provide a speaker’s corner on Weathersby Lawn."
16		-
17		-
18		-====C~~ Standard:====
19		-**Limits – **they allow way too many affs: time, types of protests, tiny groups of people, manner of speech, the list goes on and on – our limits are more reasonable since you get affs with different enforcement mechanisms like expanding speech zones to entire campuses or abolishing speech codes, but you don’t get to hyper-specify to take out all our offense – they never have to defend their position against well-researched objections since we can’t predict and prep for all of them ahead of time—vote on advocacy skills—tons of screwed up things in the world we can’t fix without advocating solutions – T version of the AFF solves offense – read advantages to any free speech area which ensures NEG responses
20		-
21		-
22		-====D~~ Drop the debater because their argument is the entire 1AC====
23		-
24		-
25		-====Competing interps since reasonability invites arbitrary judge intervention and random brightlines aff always meets to avoid optimal practices – also encourages a race to the bottom in which debaters exploit a judge’s tolerance for questionable argumentation ====
26		-ANSWER
27		-
28		-
29		-====No RVI’s on topicality – you don’t get to win by being topical and meeting your pre-round burden –also RVIs deter debaters from running topicality and check abuse because debaters will get good at winning RVI debates with abusive cases. ====

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-2017-01-29 20:17:53.0

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Scott Phillips, Katie Cole, Eric Marcus

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Peninsula JL

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-20

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Greenhill J Zhou Neg

Title

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

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Emory