| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,20 @@ |
|
1 |
+====A Interpretation: On the January Febrary 2017 topic, the Aff may specify one of the following, but not both==== |
|
2 |
+-A subset of Constitutionally protected speech |
|
3 |
+-A subset of colleges |
|
4 |
+ |
|
5 |
+====B Violation==== |
|
6 |
+ |
|
7 |
+====C Net Benefits==== |
|
8 |
+ |
|
9 |
+====1 Limits – they allow quite literally millions of Affs – they can specify any type of speech and school==== |
|
10 |
+====There are thousands of speech codes they could choose to overturn and thousands of types of schools.==== |
|
11 |
+ |
|
12 |
+Lallas: Lallas, Jackson Debated for Brentwood, liked theory a lot “A DEFENSE OF T-ANY.” LADI. February 2017. RP |
|
13 |
+ |
|
14 |
+LD has had |
|
15 |
+AND |
|
16 |
+topicality debates, etc. |
|
17 |
+ |
|
18 |
+====2 Ground – they incentivize UNBEATABLE Affs – their interp allows the position “don’t restrict the right to say racism bad for students at historically black colleges” and more==== |
|
19 |
+ |
|
20 |
+====D Voting issue==== |