Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[43]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[38]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[43]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-12-18 15:18:33.826
	1	+2016-12-18 15:18:33.0

Caselist.CitesClass[38]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,46 @@
	1	+Interpretation: The aff must defend that no constitutionally protected speech may be restricted by public colleges or universities. To clarify, they can’t defend a restriction on only a kind, setting, or timing of speech.
	2	+
	3	+Counterplans that restrict only certain forms of speech are theoretically illegitimate.
	4	+
	5	+The term “any” is the res is the weak form of “any” - “not any” statements refer to “all”. Cambridge Dictionary
	6	+Cambridge Dictionary, Any, http://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/quantifiers/any. NS
	7	+
	8	+We use any... eaten them all.
	9	+
	10	+Outweighs - it takes into account AFF definitions which assume a strong form of “any” that justifies singular cases.
	11	+
	12	+Determining semantics comes before other standards:
	13	+
	14	+A. It’s the only stasis point we know before the round so it controls the internal link to engagement, and there’s no way to use ground if debaters aren’t prepared to defend it.
	15	+
	16	+B. Grammar is the most objective since it doesn’t rely on arbitrary determinants of what constitutes the best type of debate – it’s the only impact you can evaluate.
	17	+
	18	+C. The AFF isn’t topical regardless of fairness or education since it doesn’t affirm the text - we wouldn’t debate rehab again just because it was a good topic..
	19	+
	20	+
	21	+Violation:
	22	+
	23	+Standards:
	24	+
	25	+1. Limits: They allow way too many affs, newpapers, protests, specific races, sexual orientations, and places on campuses. That explodes neg prep burden and predictability that explodes the NEG prep burden and predictability which kills fairness and engagement. Procedurally, if I can’t access their education it doesn’t matter. T version of the AFF solves their offense – they can read advantages in any topic area which ensures NEG responses.
	26	+
	27	+2. Legal precision – multiple court rulings agree with our interp. Elder 91
	28	+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)
	29	+
	30	+The Michigan Supreme... InterState Men's Accident Ass'n, supra)
	31	+
	32	+Legal precision determines topic literature and pre round prep – it’s a legal topic about first amendment jurisprudence. This is key to predictability and giving the neg a fair research burden to engage the affirmative.
	33	+
	34	+Vote on substantive engagement: otherwise we’re speaking without debating and there’s nothing to separate us from dueling oratory. It also creates the most valuable long-term skills since we need to learn how to defend our beliefs in any context, like politics.
	35	+
	36	+Drop the debater on T:
	37	+
	38	+A. Hold them accountable for their interp – a topical advocacy frames the debate - drop the arg lets them jump ship to a new layer killing NEG ground.
	39	+
	40	+B. Drop the arg on T is the same thing as drop the debater since T indicts their advocacy
	41	+
	42	+Competing interps since reasonability invites arbitrary judge intervention based on preference rather than argumentation and encourages a race to the bottom in which debaters exploit a judge’s tolerance for questionable argumentation.
	43	+
	44	+No RVIs:
	45	+
	46	+ A. They incentivize debaters to go all in in theory and bait it with abusive practices, killing substantive clash on other flows. B. They can run theory on me too if I’m unfair so 1) theory is reciprocal because we’re both able to check abuse and 2) also cures time skew because they can collapse in the 2ar to their shell.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-12-18 15:18:36.73

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Felix Tan

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Mountain View MS

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+43

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+4

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Harvard Westlake Enge Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Jan-Feb - T - Any

Tournament

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