| ... |
... |
@@ -1,45
+1,0 @@ |
| 1 |
|
-==T – "Any" (3:30)== |
| 2 |
|
- |
| 3 |
|
-====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.==== |
| 4 |
|
- |
| 5 |
|
-====Counterplans by the negative that PIC out of specific kinds of constitutionally protected speech are illegitimate.==== |
| 6 |
|
- |
| 7 |
|
-====Violation:==== |
| 8 |
|
- |
| 9 |
|
-====Vote Neg==== |
| 10 |
|
- |
| 11 |
|
-====Textuality – repeated court rulings define "any" as "all" and explicitly rejected using "any" to refer to "some".==== |
| 12 |
|
-**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)** |
| 13 |
|
-The Michigan Supreme Court seemed to approve our dictionary definitions of "any" in |
| 14 |
|
-AND |
| 15 |
|
-(1991) (quoting Harrington v InterState Men's Accident Ass'n, supra) |
| 16 |
|
- |
| 17 |
|
-====Outweighs:==== |
| 18 |
|
- |
| 19 |
|
-====Semantic Context |
| 20 |
|
- |
| 21 |
|
-====Legal Context.==== |
| 22 |
|
- |
| 23 |
|
-====Semantics come prior to pragmatic considerations:==== |
| 24 |
|
- |
| 25 |
|
-====Decision Rule – The topicality rule is superior and non uniques your offense.==== |
| 26 |
|
-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 20^^th^^ 2015 http://vbriefly.com/2015/02/20/the-priority-of-resolutional-semantics-by-jake-nebel/ JW 2/20/15 |
| 27 |
|
-One reason why LDers may be suspicious of my view is because they see topicality |
| 28 |
|
-AND |
| 29 |
|
-the first premise, not the second premise, in the argument above. |
| 30 |
|
- |
| 31 |
|
-====Jurisdiction.==== |
| 32 |
|
- |
| 33 |
|
-====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.==== |
| 34 |
|
-**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)** |
| 35 |
|
-The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make "no law…abridging the freedom |
| 36 |
|
-AND |
| 37 |
|
-will briefly describe the limited categories of so-called "unprotected speech." |
| 38 |
|
- |
| 39 |
|
-====Outweighs:==== |
| 40 |
|
- |
| 41 |
|
-====Fairness==== |
| 42 |
|
- |
| 43 |
|
-====Clash.==== |
| 44 |
|
- |
| 45 |
|
-====Voters==== |