Summary

• Objects (2 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[37]
  • Caselist.RoundClass[38]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[39]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[37]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-02-16 22:00:48.541
	1	+2017-02-16 22:00:48.0

Caselist.RoundClass[38]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-02-16 22:02:31.49
	1	+2017-02-16 22:02:31.0

Caselist.CitesClass[39]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,175 @@
	1	+====Part 1 is the Framework====
	2	+====The Role of the Judge is to Promote Critical Thinking, which means they must enhance our potential to expose dominant, oppressive social biases.====
	3	+
	4	+====Status quo actors use violence to smother critical thought. Fighting oppression requires judges to help make debate a place to challenge social norms.====
	5	+Giroux 1: Giroux, Henry. Waterbury Chair Professor, Pennsylvania State University "The Curse of Totalitarianism and the Challenge of Critical Pedagogy." Philosophersforchange.org, October 13, 2015. BE
	6	+
	7	+The forces of
	8	+AND
	9	+a vibrant democracy.
	10	+
	11	+
	12	+====The Role of the Ballot is to Endorse the More Productive Liberation Strategy for the Oppressed.====
	13	+
	14	+
	15	+====Prefer additionally====
	16	+
	17	+====1 Equality is necessary to answer ethical questions, since excluding some perspectives creates a flawed epistemology that makes this impossible.====
	18	+
	19	+Medina: Medina, J. (2011). Toward a Foucaultian Epistemology of Resistance: Counter-Memory, Epistemic Friction, and Guerrilla Pluralism. Foucault Studies, 1(12), 9–35. CH
	20	+
	21	+Foucault invites us
	22	+AND
	23	+open to contestation.
	24	+
	25	+====2 Debate should deal with real-world consequences; ideal theories legitimize oppression by ignoring its concrete manifestations.====
	26	+
	27	+Curry: Curry, Tommy J. Ph.D., Associate Professor of Philosophy, Texas A and M University “The Cost of a Thing: A Kingian Reformulation of a Living Wage Argument in the 21st Century.” Victory Briefs, 2014. CH
	28	+
	29	+Despite the pronouncement
	30	+AND
	31	+before abstraction occurs.5
	32	+
	33	+====3 States can’t focus on abstract, overarching theories but should do what’s right because it’s the right thing to do– political philosophy should analyze particular injustice when deciding what action to take.====
	34	+
	35	+Raz: Raz, Joseph Faculty, Columbia Law School “Multiculturalism: A Liberal Perspective.” Multiculturalism. Winter 1994. RP
	36	+
	37	+Political philosophy does
	38	+AND
	39	+heading for disaster.
	40	+
	41	+====4 Moral uncertainty means we should prefer an inclusive epistemology – that means equality.====
	42	+
	43	+
	44	+Ross: Ross, Jacob. Associate Professor, University of Southern California School of Philosophy “Rejecting Ethical Deflationism.” Ethics, 2006. CH
	45	+
	46	+In deciding whether
	47	+AND
	48	+in other domains.
	49	+
	50	+
	51	+====Part 2: Kept on the Inside====
	52	+
	53	+====CAMPUS SPEECH IS UNDER ATTACK FROM EVERY DIRECTION – demagoges use codes to STIFLE DISSENT and make students SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP. They keep students ignorant so they don’t even question these practices.====
	54	+
	55	+Friedersdorf: Friedersdorf, Conor Friedersdorf is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he focuses on politics and national affairs. He lives in Venice, California, and is the founding editor of The Best of Journalism, a newsletter devoted to exceptional nonfiction. “The Glaring Evidence That Free Speech Is Threatened on Campus .” The Atlantic. March 2016. RP
	56	+
	57	+Here’s one: Many
	58	+AND
	59	+threats to speech.
	60	+
	61	+====And hate speech is GETTING WORSE in the status quo, regardless of speech codes.====
	62	+
	63	+Long ’17: Long, Katherine. Journalist, Seattle Times “UW on Edge Over Perception of Rise in Hate Speech.” The Seattle Times, January 27, 2017. RP
	64	+
	65	+More than a
	66	+AND
	67	+and feeling futile.”
	68	+
	69	+====In fact, ANY speech restrictions have a spillover effect, silencing dissent.====
	70	+
	71	+Strossen 1: Strossen, Nadine. John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law, New York Law School “Regulating Racist Speech on Campus: A Modest Proposal?” Duke Law Journal, 484-573, 1990. BE
	72	+
	73	+The experience with
	74	+AND
	75	+and worth revering.191
	76	+
	77	+
	78	+====Worse, the speech codes door swings both ways, targeting the very people they claim to help – empirics confirm college codes are primarily enforced against minorities.====
	79	+
	80	+ACLU 1: The American Civil Liberties Union. “Hate Speech on Campus,” American Civil Liberties Union, 2016. RP
	81	+
	82	+A: Historically, defamation
	83	+AND
	84	+we'll be next."
	85	+
	86	+====And the “for me, but not for thee” approach to free speech BACKFIRES by mobilizing white nationalists – they’re rampant in the status quo. When they feel marginalized by speech codes, they radicalize instead.====
	87	+
	88	+Carle: Carle, Robert. Professor of Theology, the King’s College, New York “How the American Academy Helped Create the Alt-Right.” The Federalist, December 2016. RP
	89	+***Bracketed for offensiveness
	90	+
	91	+American academics are
	92	+AND
	93	+of ideological conformity.”
	94	+
	95	+====This dooms any alternatives to the status quo to failure – speech codes guarantee militarized crackdown against all who dissent.====
	96	+
	97	+Godrej: Godrej, Farah. Professor of Political Science, UC Riverdale “Neoliberalism, Militarization, and the Price of Dissent.” The Imperial University: Academic Repression and Scholarly Dissent. University of Minnesota Press, 2014. RP
	98	+
	99	+In this chapter,
	100	+AND
	101	+be in question.
	102	+
	103	+
	104	+
	105	+
	106	+Advocacy: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech.
	107	+Kurtz: Kurtz, Stanley. Contributor, National Review “A Plan to Restore Free Speech on Campus.” The Corner, December 2015. RP
	108	+
	109	+First: Colleges and
	110	+AND
	111	+pre-existing speech codes.
	112	+
	113	+
	114	+====Part 3: Let the Words Fall Out====
	115	+
	116	+====Deregulating campus speech sets legal precedents that enable movements and protests, even if it protects bigots – Civil Rights prove.====
	117	+
	118	+ACLU 2: The American Civil Liberties Union. “Hate Speech on Campus,” American Civil Liberties Union, 2016. BE
	119	+
	120	+A: Free speech
	121	+AND
	122	+of the peace."
	123	+
	124	+====Community solutions are key to fix community problems. The question isn’t whether hate speech is good, but WHO should regulate it: administrators or students themselves. Non-legal remedies like shunning work better.====
	125	+
	126	+Etzioni: Etzioni, Amitai. Director of the Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies, George Washington University The Spirit of Community: Rights, Responsibilities, and the Communitarian Agenda. New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1993. CH
	127	+
	128	+Thus it might
	129	+AND
	130	+offended by them.
	131	+
	132	+====Change must occur bottom up ~-~- counterspeech from targets and allies is key to grassroots movements and strategies====
	133	+
	134	+Majeed: Majeed, Azhar. J.D., University of Michigan “Defying the Constitution: The Rise, Persistence, and Prevalence Of Campus Speech Codes.” Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy, 7 Geo. J.L. and Pub. Pol’y 481, 2009. CH
	135	+
	136	+Moreover, the counterspeech
	137	+AND
	138	+to hateful messages.
	139	+
	140	+====Free speech helps students KNOW THEIR ENEMY –speech codes just drive oppression underground. Students can’t mobilize against campus racism if they never see it.====
	141	+
	142	+Calleros: Calleros, Charles R. Professor of Law, Arizona State University “Paternalism, Counterspeech, and Campus Hate-Speech Codes.” Arizona State Law Journal, Winter 1995. RP
	143	+
	144	+
	145	+One cannot eliminate
	146	+AND
	147	+at every turn.
	148	+
	149	+====And only open dialogue gets students to demand liberation THEMSELVES, creating a radical democracy in colleges.====
	150	+
	151	+DeBrabander: DeBrabander, Firmin. Associate Professor of Philosophy, Maryland Institute College of Art “Do Guns Make Us Free?: Democracy and the Armed Society.” Yale University Press, May 19, 2015. BE
	152	+
	153	+
	154	+The famed education
	155	+AND
	156	+be lectured to.
	157	+
	158	+====Speech codes are ineffective at solving hate speech====
	159	+
	160	+====1 Psychological evidence and Britain proves regulations are empirically ineffective and cause backlash.====
	161	+
	162	+Strossen: Strossen, Nadine. John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law, New York Law School “Regulating Racist Speech on Campus: A Modest Proposal?” Duke Law Journal, 484-573, 1990. BE
	163	+
	164	+First, there is
	165	+AND
	166	+the United States.364
	167	+
	168	+====2 Silenced speakers appear as heroes when pitted against the government, becoming martyrs – David Duke proves.====
	169	+
	170	+
	171	+Leonard: Leonard, James Director of Law Library and Professor of Law, Ohio Northern University “Killing with Kindness: Speech Codes in the American University.” Ohio Northern University Law Review. Volume 19. 1993. RP
	172	+
	173	+As well as
	174	+AND
	175	+ the censorship continues.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-02-16 22:02:32.802

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Jenn Melin, Paul Zhou

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+American Heritage DM

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+38

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Harrison Piliero Aff

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+JANFEB - Radical Democracy AC v5

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Harvard Round Robin