Changes for page Harrison Piliero Aff
Summary
-
Objects (0 modified, 6 added, 2 removed)
Details
- Caselist.CitesClass[24]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,19 +1,0 @@ 1 -A. Interpretation: The neg may not read arguments that lead the judge to auto negate ~-~- to clarify, they can't make the presumption trigger on the framework or the auto negate argument on the plan text 2 - 3 -A. Interpretation: If the neg reads theory on a link of omission (i.e., something I did not specify) they must clarify in CX 4 - 5 -A. Interpretation: The neg may not read more than 5 NIBs and a counter burden and a counter role of the ballot 6 - 7 -A. Interpretation: The neg may not read an advocacy that defends banning nuclear power in all countries but one. To clarify, they can read PICs, but not this specific one. 8 - 9 -A. Interpretation: The neg may not theoretically justify util, say extinction precludes under all theories, and justify epistemic modesty. 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 -A. Interpretation: The negative may not read a burden that they concede is not sufficient, and also read theory that denies the Aff the RVI 14 - 15 -A. Interpretation: The negative may not read an advocacy of consulting indigenous people if its conditional, and they fiat that states don't intervene in consultation. 16 - 17 -A. Interpretation: All advocacies must be unconditional 18 - 19 -A. Interpretation: All reps arguments must be unconditional - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-10-19 14:24:52.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -- - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -- - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -22 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harrison Piliero Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -0 - Broken Interps - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Sept-Oct
- Caselist.RoundClass[22]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -24 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-10-19 14:24:51.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -- - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -- - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Sept-Oct
- Caselist.CitesClass[42]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,134 @@ 1 +====I value State Legitimacy.==== 2 +====Legitimacy requires both the right agent and the right action. Even a “good” action isn’t legitimate if the wrong agent takes it: a criminal may be guilty, but I can’t imprison them, since I lack the authority to do so.==== 3 + 4 +Simmons: Simmons, A. John. Commonwealth Professor of Philosophy and Professor of Law, UVA. “Justification and Legitimacy.” Ethics, Vol. 109, No. 4. July 1999. MZ 5 + 6 +In opposition to 7 +AND 8 + duties on you. 9 + 10 +====Legitimate states gain authority from the people, and thus have no external right of control over them.==== 11 + 12 +Rousseau 1: Rousseau, Jean Jacques. The Social Contract or Principles of Political Right. Translated by G.D.H Cole, Constitution Project, 1762. CH 13 + 14 +I SUPPOSE men 15 +AND 16 +most frightful abuse. 17 + 18 +====Next, through acts like legislation or taxation, states inevitably use people as a means. Thus, the people must be the basis of legislative sovereignty to ensure that they’re part of the ends for which they’re being used.==== 19 + 20 +Rousseau 2: Rousseau, Jean Jacques. The Social Contract or Principles of Political Right. Translated by G.D.H Cole, Constitution Project, 1762. CH 21 + 22 + 23 +The general will 24 +AND 25 + would be dissolved. 26 + 27 +====Thus, the standard is Upholding Democratic Checks on State Power. Upholding Democratic Checks on State Power means respecting citizens’ procedural limits on decision-making.==== 28 + 29 +====Prefer this standard:==== 30 + 31 +====Discussion of the First Amendment mandates a non-consequentialist lens.==== 32 + 33 +Goldberg: Goldberg, Erica. Assistant Professor, Ohio Northern Law School “Free Speech Consequentialism.” Columbia Law Review, Volume 116, 2016. RP 34 + 35 +1. The First Amendment 36 +AND 37 +what is unreasonable. 38 + 39 +====Legitimacy controls the link to consequentialism, increasing net happiness and providing a concrete way to check the state.==== 40 + 41 +Gilley: Gilley, B. “The Consequences of Legitimacy.” September 2008. RP 42 + 43 +Legitimacy is a 44 +AND 45 + claim their obedience. 46 + 47 + 48 +====Epistemology – inclusion of multiple perspectives through democratic procedures justify states authority and produces better decisions==== 49 + 50 +Estlund: Estlund, David M. Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009. MT 51 + 52 + 53 +On this account, 54 +AND 55 + be generally acceptable. 56 + 57 +====Advocacy: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech.==== 58 + 59 + 60 +====First, Speech codes arbitrarily deny Constitutional rights based on physical location, creating unchecked and illegitimate action.==== 61 + 62 +====CPS is the most basic check on the state, letting people object to policies without fear of punishment. Yet college speech codes artificially distinguish between students and other citizens.==== 63 + 64 +Berns: Berns, Walter. Professor Emeritus, Georgetown University “Freedom of the Press on the College Campus.” New England Law Review, Vol. 9: 153, 1973. EL 65 + 66 +It has never 67 +AND 68 + the schoolhouse gate.” 69 + 70 +====And the First Amendment isn’t context-dependent; it protects people regardless of where they speak.==== 71 + 72 +Haynes: Haynes, Charles C. Director of the Religious Freedom Education Project at the Newseum, Senior Scholar at the First Amendment Center “First Amendment Rights Don't Stop at School Door.” The Daily Progress, 2010. EL 73 + 74 +In both incidents, 75 + AND 76 +what you teach. 77 + 78 +====Indeed, academic spaces are the most important place to secure constitutionally protected speech, since those are at risk when administrators control them. Speech codes have no brightline: any standard for offensiveness is infinitely expandable==== 79 + 80 +Majeed: Majeed, Azhar. Robert H. Jackson Legal Fellow, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education “Defying the Constitution: The Rise, Persistence, and Prevalence of Campus Speech Codes.” The Journal of Law and Public Policy, Volume 7, 2009. MZ 81 + 82 +Second, speech codes 83 +AND 84 + by “intellectual stagnation.”147 85 + 86 + 87 + 88 +====Second, regardless of the action’s benefits, public schools are the wrong actors to limit CPS.==== 89 + 90 +====Public schools, as state actors, are bound to state laws, even if private schools aren’t.==== 91 + 92 +FIRE 1: FIRE. Foundation for Individual Rights in Education “Private Universities.” FIRE, 2016. BS 93 + 94 +When discussing free 95 +AND 96 +choosing to attend. 97 + 98 + 99 +====And the Supreme Court, the only actor with authority to strike down laws, has repeatedly declared public college speech codes unconstitutional.==== 100 + 101 +Welch: Welch, Benjamin M. University of Nebraska-Lincoln “An Examination of University Speech Codes’ Constitutionality and Their Impact on High-Level Discourse.” Graduate College at the University of Nebraska, August 2014. MZ 102 + 103 + 104 +Court cases influencing 105 +AND 106 + or high schools.”101 107 + 108 +====Further, the Constitution ALREADY accounts for specific speech restrictions. The issue isn’t whether all speech is good, but whether schools have authority to restrict it beyond what the Constitution does.==== 109 + 110 +FIRE 2: FIRE. Foundation for Individual Rights in Education “FIRE’s Guide to Free Speech on Campus — Full Text.” Guides, 2017. EL 111 + 112 + 113 +The bottom line 114 +AND 115 + than is necessary. 116 + 117 + 118 +====Indeed, speech codes are far too ambiguous to administer consistently, giving administrators unchecked authority.==== 119 + 120 +Tidmarsh: Tidmarsh, Kevin. Senior Reporter at The Student Life “Pitzer Students Address Free Speech on Campus.” The Student Report, March 8, 2013. MZ 121 + 122 + 123 +Free speech policies 124 +AND 125 + offensive” Rice said. 126 + 127 + 128 +====And the IMPACTS OF THE SPEECH DON’T MATTER. Regardless of how bad speech might be, ONLY the courts have the authority to limit it.==== 129 + 130 +Mott: Mott, Jonathan. Ph.D.; Chief Learning Officer, Learning Objects “First Amendment: Speech.” ThisNation.com, no date. CH 131 + 132 +While the First 133 +AND 134 + Free Exercise cases.) - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-03-26 18:30:12.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Chris Castillo, John Sims, Arun Sharma - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Cambridge OS - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +40 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Quarters - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Harrison Piliero Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - Democratic Legitimacy AC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +King Round Robin
- Caselist.CitesClass[43]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,21 @@ 1 +A. Interpretation: The neg may not read two standard texts if one of them is about why the status quo is always justified and the neg defends the status quo 2 + 3 +A. Interpretation: The neg may not read arguments that lead the judge to auto negate ~-~- to clarify, they can't make the presumption trigger on the framework or the auto negate argument on the plan text 4 + 5 +A. Interpretation: If the neg reads theory on a link of omission (i.e., something I did not specify) they must clarify in CX 6 + 7 +A. Interpretation: The neg may not read more than 5 NIBs and a counter burden and a counter role of the ballot 8 + 9 +A. Interpretation: The neg may not read an advocacy that defends banning nuclear power in all countries but one. To clarify, they can read PICs, but not this specific one. 10 + 11 +A. Interpretation: The neg may not theoretically justify util, say extinction precludes under all theories, and justify epistemic modesty. 12 + 13 + 14 + 15 +A. Interpretation: The negative may not read a burden that they concede is not sufficient, and also read theory that denies the Aff the RVI 16 + 17 +A. Interpretation: The negative may not read an advocacy of consulting indigenous people if its conditional, and they fiat that states don't intervene in consultation. 18 + 19 +A. Interpretation: All advocacies must be unconditional 20 + 21 +A. Interpretation: All reps arguments must be unconditional - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-03-27 21:12:39.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +- - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +- - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +41 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Harrison Piliero Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +0 - Broken Interps - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Sept-Oct
- Caselist.CitesClass[44]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,100 @@ 1 +====Part 1: Framework==== 2 + 3 +====IT’S ALL ABOUT CASH – Trumpian politics celebrate making money off of oppression, and wage war on higher education to lock in capitalism. Since doing nothing is doing something, the Role of the Judge is to Promote Critical Education, which means they must enhance our potential to fight dominant, oppressive social biases.==== 4 + 5 +Giroux: Giroux, Henry A. Waterbury Chair Professor, Pennsylvania State University “Why Teachers Matter in Dark Times” Truthout, May 2016. RP 6 + 7 +Americans live in 8 +AND 9 +States is failing. 10 + 11 +====The Role of the Ballot is to Endorse the Debater Who Better Reclaims the Academy. Reclaiming the academy means empowering its members – not just administrators – to produce new forms of knowledge and question status quo policies.==== 12 + 13 +====Debate should deal with real-world consequences; ideal theories legitimize oppression by ignoring its concrete manifestations.==== 14 + 15 +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 16 + 17 +Despite the pronouncement 18 +AND 19 + before abstraction occurs.5 20 + 21 +====Part 2: It’s the Institution==== 22 + 23 +====Private corporations are taking over public colleges in the status quo.==== 24 + 25 +Applegate: Applegate, Jamie Journalist; B.A., U.C. Berkeley “Survey Shows Increased Reliance on Private Donations to Fund Public Universities.” The Daily Californian, 2012. CS 26 + 27 + 28 +A survey released 29 +AND 30 +from the state.” 31 + 32 + 33 +====And this ENTRENCHES neoliberalism, shutting out those who don’t meet corporate needs.==== 34 +Chatterjee et al: Chatterjee, Piya Dorothy Cruickshank Backstrand Chair of Gender and Women’s Studies Chair of the Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Department, Scripps College and Sunaina Maira Professor of Asian American Studies, UC Davis. The Imperial University: Academic Repression and Scholarly Dissent. University of Minnesota Press, 2014. CH 35 + 36 +The precarious positions 37 +AND 38 + and covert ways. 39 + 40 +====Indeed, campus speech restrictions use the language of “public safety” or “protecting students” to justify entrenching domination over students.==== 41 +Workers’ Liberty: Workers’ Liberty. “Universities, Capitalism, and Free Speech.” Workers’ Liberty, March 2015. RP 42 + 43 +For centuries, university 44 +AND 45 +and attempted elsewhere. 46 + 47 +====Worse, this squashes dissent: when people speak up, schools fight back, making change impossible.==== 48 + 49 +Godrej 1: Godrej, Farah. Professor of Political Science, UC Riverdale “Neoliberalism, Militarization, and the Price of Dissent.” Published in Piya Chatterjee and Sunaina Maira (eds.), The Imperial University: Academic Repression and Scholarly Dissent. University of Minnesota Press, 2014. RP 50 + 51 +In this chapter, 52 +AND 53 + prosecution against dissenters. 54 + 55 + 56 +====Advocacy: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech. This makes them agents of inaction – they aren’t allowed to restrict speech.==== 57 + 58 +====Part 3: Free Your Mind Instead==== 59 + 60 +====Free speech exposes invisible power abuses and checks back oppressors. It’s time to act; engagement is key to avoid complicity with injustice.==== 61 + 62 +Oparah 1: Oparah, Julia C. Professor, Mills College “Challenging Complicity.” Published in Piya Chatterjee and Sunaina Maira (eds.), The Imperial University: Academic Repression and Scholarly Dissent. University of Minnesota Press, 2014. RP 63 + 64 +If anti-imperialist 65 +AND 66 + the “criminal class.” 67 + 68 +====Critique from within the academy draws attention to neoliberal injustice – empirics prove.==== 69 + 70 +Delgado and Ross: Delgado, Sandra Doctoral Student in Curriculum Studies, University of British Columbia, and E. Wayne Ross Professor in the Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia “Students in Revolt: The Pedagogical Potential of Student Collective Action in the Age of the Corporate University.” 2016. RP 71 + 72 + 73 +As students’ collective 74 +AND 75 + programs or pleas. 76 + 77 +====And student speech empirically works to resist cap.==== 78 + 79 +Oparah 2: Oparah, Julia C. Professor, Mills College “Challenging Complicity.” Published in Piya Chatterjee and Sunaina Maira (eds.), The Imperial University: Academic Repression and Scholarly Dissent. University of Minnesota Press, 2014. RP 80 + 81 +What Henry Giroux 82 +AND 83 +military-prison- industrial complex. 84 + 85 +====Further, freedom to speak out is the first step towards resisting neoliberal domination.==== 86 +Farber: Farber, Samuel. Professor Emeritus of Political Science, Brooklyn College of the City University of New York The Politics of Che Guevara: Theory and Practice. “A Socialist Approach to Free Speech.” Jacobin Magazine, February 2017. RP 87 + 88 +For some left 89 +AND 90 + for their emancipation. 91 + 92 + 93 +====Let’s not take the bait: “speech codes” and other school-based policies use neoliberal logic to lull people into complacency and silence. That won’t work – we need unfettered dissent to rupture hegemonic forces.==== 94 + 95 +Godrej 2: Godrej, Farah. Professor of Political Science, UC Riverdale “Neoliberalism, Militarization, and the Price of Dissent.” Published in Piya Chatterjee and Sunaina Maira (eds.), The Imperial University: Academic Repression and Scholarly Dissent. University of Minnesota Press, 2014. RP 96 + 97 + 98 +The language of 99 +AND 100 + its high “price.” - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-03-30 11:35:52.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +John Sims, Shania Hunt - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Newark BA - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +42 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +6 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Harrison Piliero Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - Imperial University AC v2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +King Round Robin
- Caselist.RoundClass[40]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +42 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-03-26 18:30:10.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Chris Castillo, John Sims, Arun Sharma - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Cambridge OS - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Quarters - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,12 @@ 1 +AC 2 +-Democratic Legitimacy 3 +NC 4 +-GCB NC 5 +-Hobbes NC 6 +-Fairness not a voter 7 +1AR 8 +-Multiple NCs Bad 9 +NR 10 +-GCB 11 +2AR 12 +-Theory - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +King Round Robin
- Caselist.RoundClass[41]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +43 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-03-27 21:12:37.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +- - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +- - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Sept-Oct
- Caselist.RoundClass[42]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +44 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-03-30 11:35:43.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +John Sims, Shania Hunt - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Newark BA - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +6 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,7 @@ 1 +AC 2 +-Imperial University 3 +NC 4 +-Frats PIC 5 +-Race DA 6 +NR 7 +-Both - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +King Round Robin