Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[30]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[41]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[30]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-01-13 18:11:49.957
	1	+2017-01-13 18:11:49.0

Caselist.CitesClass[41]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,47 @@
	1	+T – “Any” (3:30)
	2	+Interpretation: The affirmative must defend that public colleges and universities in the Unites States ought to restrict NO constitutionally protected speech. To clarify they may not specify any one type of constitutionally protected speech that ought not be restricted.
	3	+Counterplans by the negative that PIC out of specific kinds of constitutionally protected speech are illegitimate.
	4	+Violation:
	5	+Vote Neg
	6	+1. Textuality – repeated court rulings define “any” as “all” and explicitly rejected using “any” to refer to “some”.
	7	+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 | SP)
	8	+The Michigan Supreme Court seemed to approve our dictionary definitions of "any" in
	9	+AND
	10	+sensible connotation of the word any' implies 'all' and not 'some,' t
	11	+
	12	+he legal conclusion follows that the defendant is entitled to retain the earned renewal commissions
	13	+AND
	14	+(1991) (quoting Harrington v InterState Men's Accident Ass'n, supra)
	15	+Outweighs:
	16	+a) Semantic Context – yes, any may have a bunch of different, more inclusive definitions, but only ours takes into consideration groups of words together. “security for any claim due or to become due to” is the passage analyzed in Gibson v Agricultural Life, which mirrors the structure of the words in the res, with “any” followed by a singular object (ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech).
	17	+b) Legal Context – Courts are the definitive interpreters of what a law and its words mean. Defer to courts over the slew of dictionary definition coming in the 1ar, they lack the context necessary to evaluate semantics in a legal setting. By defending a subsection of constitutional rights, they have literally inserted their own words into the resolution, which have fundamentally changed the policy they defend.
	18	+Semantics come prior to pragmatic considerations:
	19	+a) Decision Rule – The topicality rule is superior and non uniques your offense.
	20	+Nebel 15 Jake Nebel (debate coach his students have won the TOC, NDCA, Glenbrooks, Bronx, Emory, TFA State, and the Harvard Round Robin. As a debater, he won six octos-bid championships and was top speaker at the TOC and ten other major tournaments) “The Priority of Resolutional Semantics by Jake Nebel” VBriefly February 20th 2015 http://vbriefly.com/2015/02/20/the-priority-of-resolutional-semantics-by-jake-nebel/ JW 2/20/15
	21	+One reason why LDers may be suspicious of my view is because they see topicality
	22	+AND
	23	+the first premise, not the second premise, in the argument above.
	24	+b) Jurisdiction – the ballot asks you to endorse the better debater in the context of the resolution issued by the tournament rules-if you don’t defend the topic then it’s impossible to vote for you, that’s the most important voter.
	25	+
	26	+2. Limits – Free Speech is incredibly broad. Star this card, it literally says the only coherent way to conceive of the free speech debate is to consider its few exceptions, which is a comparison of the whole res with its converse.
	27	+Silvergate ’05 (Harvey A. Silvergate, attorney in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He is the co-founder, with Alan Charles Kors, of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, for which he also serves as the current Chairman of the Board of Directors. January 2005, “FIRE’s Guide to Free Speech on Campus,” https://www.thefire.org/pdfs/free-speech-2.pdf | SP)
	28	+The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make “no law…abridging the freedom
	29	+AND
	30	+will briefly describe the limited categories of so-called “unprotected speech.”
	31	+Especially bad in the context of this AFF – “criticize the militaries policies” is incredibly vague. Is a gay rights movement a criticism of the military because of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell? Do you allow student protest? Burning draft cards? This makes it impossible for me to establish links – even if I had prepped specific DAs against militarism.
	32	+Outweighs:
	33	+a) Fairness – There’s just too many affs for the negative to reasonably prep out. You can specify other things like subsets of public universities, or question the scope of constitutionally protected in the 1AC, which grants you a reasonably large case list without the explosion outlined in the Silvergate evidence. This means the affirmative always has a significant advantage because they only have to prepare and frontline one position. Disclosure and solvency advocates don’t solve, even if we could perfectly predict every aff, there’s just too many for the neg to reasonably prepare for in the world of their interpretation.
	34	+b) Clash – Theirs is a model of debate that reduces each debate to the negative trying to apply generics to cases where they probably don’t usually apply. Ours is one where we engage in the actual debate that’s taking place in the literature. It’s the most important form of education because its most real world and is also key to opinion formation because detailed disagreement is better than vacuous monologues. The level of depth their interpretation seeks to reach in each policy can only ever be reached by one side, which makes the discussion useless.
	35	+
	36	+Voters (Long):
	37	+1. Fairness is a voter, debate’s a competitive activity with wins and losses-if the round is skewed towards once debater you can longer test debate skill. Education’s a voter since it’s the end goal of debate and provides portable skills.
	38	+2. Drop the debater on T:
	39	+a. Severance – Drop the arg is severance from the AC- you can read new args in the 1AR and connect the plan to whole res which is like restarting in the 1AR.
	40	+b. Recourse – Drop the arg discourages me from reading T to check back abuse since I lose speech time, making non-topical affs strategic.
	41	+c. Time Skew – I had to spend time reading T to check back abuse- dropping the arg moots a portion of the 1NC.
	42	+3. Competing interps:
	43	+a. Race to the Bottom: reasonability encourages increasingly unfair practices that minimally fit the brightline. Competing interps maximizes fairness and education by fostering good norms for the activity.
	44	+b. Judge intervention: Each debater and the judge will have differing interpretations of reasonableness, which ultimately makes the decision arbitrary, which will always be unfair to one debater.
	45	+4. No RVIs:
	46	+a. Topical clash – once theory is initiated we never go back to substance because its unnecessary so no one engages in the topic.
	47	+b. Chilling effect – debaters will be scared to read theory for fear of losing to a prepped out counter interp, proliferating abuse.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-01-13 18:11:52.144

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Rodrigo Paramo, Aaron Timmons

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+West Ranch JW

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+30

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+5

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Harker Malyugina Neg

Title

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

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Harvard Westlake RR