| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,18 @@ |
|
1 |
+====A Interpretation: The aff must defend that all constitutionally protected speech is unrestricted by public colleges or universities in the United States. To clarify, they can’t defend a unrestricting only a specific type of speech. |
|
2 |
+ |
|
3 |
+The term “any” in the res is the weak form of “any” ~-~- “not any” statements refer to “all” – this takes into account AFF definitions which assume a strong form of “any” that justifies singular cases==== |
|
4 |
+Cambridge Dictionary, Cambridge Dictionary, Any, http://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/quantifiers/any., ghs//BZ |
|
5 |
+We use any before nouns to refer to indefinite or unknown quantities or an unlimited |
|
6 |
+AND |
|
7 |
+. No: There are no biscuits left. They’ve eaten them all. |
|
8 |
+====B Violation: |
|
9 |
+C Standards: |
|
10 |
+ |
|
11 |
+1 Limits voter for advocacy skills==== |
|
12 |
+====2 Field context – in legal context, multiple court rulings agree “any” means “all”==== |
|
13 |
+Elder 91, David S. Elder, October 1991, "Any and All": To Use Or Not To Use?” "Plain Language' is a regular feature of the Michigan Bar Journal, edited by Joseph Kimble for the State Bar Plain English Committee. Assistant editor is George H. Hathaway. Through this column the Committee hopes to promote the use of plain English in the law. Want to contribute a plain English article? Contact Prof. Kimble at Thomas Cooley Law School, P.O. Box 13038, Lansing, MI 48901, http://www.michbar.org/file/generalinfo/plainenglish/pdfs/91_oct.pdf, ghs//BZ |
|
14 |
+The Michigan Supreme Court seemed to approve our dictionary definitions of "any" in |
|
15 |
+AND |
|
16 |
+(1991) (quoting Harrington v InterState Men's Accident Ass'n, supra) |
|
17 |
+====voter for real world education==== |
|
18 |
+====D T is a voting issue==== |