Changes for page Hunter College Potischman Neg
Summary
-
Objects (1 modified, 5 added, 6 removed)
Details
- Caselist.CitesClass[41]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,31 +1,0 @@ 1 -Freedom of the will is not about the capacity for choice but about having something meaningful to choose – only through understanding and pursuing the Good can our choices become meaningful. This implies that moral development and understanding only occurs through the development and perfection of character. 2 -Murdoch 71, Iris. (Dame Jean Iris Murdoch DBE (/ˈmɜːrdɒk/; 15 July 1919 – 8 February 1999) was a British novelist and philosopher, best known for her novels about good and evil, sexual relationships, morality, and the power of the unconscious.) The Sovereignty of Good. Routledge. 1971. NP 1/31/17. 3 -Let us now 4 -AND 5 -states of illusion. 6 - 7 -Thus, the standard is consistency with the Ordo Amoris, defined as correctly orienting our love and appreciation. 8 - 9 -Exposure to speech endorsing problematic concepts prevents the correct orientations towards the world – restricting speech is necessary to ensure agents’ wills aligns with their valuational system 10 -Moles 6, Andrés. (Andres Moles read Philosophy at the National University of Mexico (UNAM) finishing in 2001, and received an MA in Philosophy and Social Theory (2003) and a PhD in Politics (2007) both at the University of Warwick.) Autonomy, Free Speech and Automatic Behaviour. Springer 2006. NP bracketed for gendered language 11 -Mental contamination is 12 -AND 13 -less socially controlled. 14 - 15 -Language informs the concepts we use to frame the world – problematic language corrupts ability to perceive the good 16 -Murdoch 71, Iris. (Dame Jean Iris Murdoch DBE (/ˈmɜːrdɒk/; 15 July 1919 – 8 February 1999) was a British novelist and philosopher, best known for her novels about good and evil, sexual relationships, morality, and the power of the unconscious.) The Sovereignty of Good. Routledge. 1971. NP 1/31/17. 17 -Let me suggest 18 -AND 19 -D but M. 20 - 21 -The appropriate response of a university to speech can not be to safeguard it unconditionally – it must be sacrificed to pursue the university’s appropriate objectives 22 -Fish 94, Stanley Eugene. There's No Such Thing As Free Speech : And It's a Good Thing, Too. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost (accessed January 16, 2017). NP 23 -Take the case 24 -AND 25 -its accidental features. 26 - 27 -Open speech in spaces where young people are educated is antithetical to those purposes. Individuals are too easily influenced by prevailing opinion precluding its acquisition of virtue. Only by restricting the speech people are exposed to when learning allows virtues to be adequately instilled. 28 -Plato basically the founder of western philosophy. The Republic: Book 6. Trans by G. M. A. Grube. Hackett Publishing Company Indianapolis. Aprox 380 BC. 29 -Now, I think 30 -AND 31 -as they are? - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-16 16:54:33.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Maddy Stevens, Jen Melin - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Ari Azbel - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -32 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Hunter College Potischman Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JAN FEB Augustine V2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harvard Round Robin
- Caselist.CitesClass[44]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,21 +1,0 @@ 1 -A. Interpretation: the affirmative must only defend the desirability of a policy that removes all speech codes on college campus that restrict constitutionally protected speech 2 -B: 3 -C: 4 -Textuality 5 -Any means any amount irrespective of specific qualities 6 -CED 14 Collins English Dictionary Complete and Unabridged, “any” 12th Edition 2014 http://www.thefreedictionary.com/any JW 7 -one, some, or 8 -AND 9 -clothes you like. 10 - 11 -Restrict means to confine within bounds. 12 -Merriam Webster “restrict https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/restrict JW 13 -Definition of restrict 14 -AND 15 -restrain 2 16 - 17 -Constitutionally protected speech is a set of rights guaranteed by the 1st amendment. 18 -US Courts “What Does Free Speech Mean?” http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does JW 19 -The First Amendment 20 -AND 21 -Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007). - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-20 13:29:45.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Dani Reyes, Becca Traber, Wesley Hu - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Evanston HS - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -37 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Triples - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Hunter College Potischman Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JAN FEB T Implementation - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harvard
- Caselist.CitesClass[48]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,5 +1,0 @@ 1 -1Ignore role of the ballots that say that we should view the debate round in terms of what makes it most useful is wrong ~-~- the move to instrumentalize our thought is epistemic arrogance. 2 -Justin W: (Justin W. “The Unpredictable Progress of Knowledge,” Dailynous. May 20, 2016//FT) 3 -The whole thing 4 -AND 5 -we really are. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-20 13:29:52.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Dani Reyes, Becca Traber, Wesley Hu - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Evanston HS - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -38 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Triples - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Hunter College Potischman Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JAN FEB K Instrumentalization - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harvard
- Caselist.CitesClass[49]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,33 +1,0 @@ 1 -A: If the affirmative debater claims in the AC that they are willing to modify their advocacy in CX, they may not claim in the 1ar that CX is ambiguous since judges don’t flow it, so you ought to err aff on questions of what was said in CX. 2 - 3 -A: debaters must disclose all broken positions (including ACs, NCs, DAs, CPs and Ks) on the NDCA LD 2016-2017 wiki under their own name, school, and correct side with cites, tags, the first three and the last three words of all cards read at least an hour before the round begins. 4 - 5 -A: If debaters read theory spikes in the AC, they must disclose them on the NDCA LD 2016-2017 wiki under their own name at least an hour before the round. To clarify, a theory spike is a theoretical argument in the aff that has an interpretation and standards, that could potentially be extended as an offensive voting issue in the 1ar depending on the negative strategy. 6 - 7 -A: If the affirmative debater believes that the negative debater failed to disclose a position on the NDCA wiki, then they must ask the affirmative debater before the round to put said position on the wiki, and only read theory if the affirmative debater refuses. 8 - 9 -A: Debaters may not read theory shells in which the violation is a screenshot of a chat with another debater. 10 - 11 -A: The affirmative debater must defend that either a single country bans the production of nuclear power, or defend the resolution as a general principle. 12 - 13 -A: If the negative debater has nothing disclosed on the negative wiki, then they may not claim that it is unfair for the affirmative debater to read 1ar theory. 14 - 15 -A: The affirmative debater must defend that either a single country bans the production of nuclear power, or defend the resolution as a general principle. 16 - 17 -A: If the affirmative debater defends that only one country prohibits the production of nuclear power, then they may not read theoretical justifications for their standard. Rather, they must only read substantive framework justifications. 18 - 19 -A: The affirmative debater may not read a science fiction story and ban the production of nuclear power in the world of their story 20 - 21 -A: If the affirmative debater defends that only one country prohibits the production of nuclear power, then they may not read theoretical justifications for their standard. Rather, they must only read substantive framework justifications. 22 - 23 -A: If the affirmative debater wants the negative debater to tell them previous 2nrs, then they must ask them before the round. 24 - 25 -A: The affirmative debater may not read a science fiction story and ban the production of nuclear power in the world of their story 26 - 27 -A: The affirmative debater must defend implementation of a policy in which colleges do not restrict constitutionally protected speech. 28 - 29 -A: All affirmative spikes must be grammatically coherent. 30 - 31 -A: The affirmative debater may not claim presumption ground, claim that you reject theory not weighed against side bias, and that aff gets rvis but neg does not get 2nr rvis 32 - 33 -A: The affirmative debater may not claim that neg may not place necessary but insufficient burdens on the aff, and that neg theory is a reason to drop the argument while aff theory is a reason to drop the debater - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-20 18:04:23.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -All - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -All - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -39 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Hunter College Potischman Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -0 - Theory Interps - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -All
- Caselist.RoundClass[32]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -41 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-16 16:54:32.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Maddy Stevens, Jen Melin - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Ari Azbel - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harvard Round Robin
- Caselist.RoundClass[39]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -49 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-20 18:04:19.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -All - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -All - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -All
- Caselist.RoundClass[40]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +50 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -2017-02-20 20:04:13. 6761 +2017-02-20 20:04:13.0
- Caselist.CitesClass[50]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,37 @@ 1 +A: If the affirmative debater claims in the AC that they are willing to modify their advocacy in CX, they may not claim in the 1ar that CX is ambiguous since judges don’t flow it, so you ought to err aff on questions of what was said in CX. 2 + 3 +A: debaters must disclose all broken positions (including ACs, NCs, DAs, CPs and Ks) on the NDCA LD 2016-2017 wiki under their own name, school, and correct side with cites, tags, the first three and the last three words of all cards read at least an hour before the round begins. 4 + 5 +A: If debaters read theory spikes in the AC, they must disclose them on the NDCA LD 2016-2017 wiki under their own name at least an hour before the round. To clarify, a theory spike is a theoretical argument in the aff that has an interpretation and standards, that could potentially be extended as an offensive voting issue in the 1ar depending on the negative strategy. 6 + 7 +A: If the affirmative debater believes that the negative debater failed to disclose a position on the NDCA wiki, then they must ask the affirmative debater before the round to put said position on the wiki, and only read theory if the affirmative debater refuses. 8 + 9 +A: Debaters may not read theory shells in which the violation is a screenshot of a chat with another debater. 10 + 11 +A: The affirmative debater must defend that either a single country bans the production of nuclear power, or defend the resolution as a general principle. 12 + 13 +A: If the negative debater has nothing disclosed on the negative wiki, then they may not claim that it is unfair for the affirmative debater to read 1ar theory. 14 + 15 +A: Debaters must specify an agent in the form of a text in the AC who takes the aff action. 16 + 17 +A: if the affirmative debater reads an a priori in the aff, they may not put it in a spike about moral uncertainty. Rather, they must put it in a separate section explicitly labeled – independent reasons to vote aff. 18 + 19 +A: The affirmative debater may not claim presumption, claim that neg theory must be weighed against side bias, and claim that aff theory outweighs neg theory 20 + 21 +A: The affirmative debater may not claim that aff abuse outweighs neg abuse, neg may only read turns to the aff if they read theory, and that aff gets RVIs on theory. 22 + 23 +A: If the affirmative debater claims that the negative debater must accept the aff choice of paradigm as contextualized in the ac, including the role of the ballot, then they must read a consequentialist standard. 24 + 25 +A: if the negative debater shows the affirmative their speech doc, and tells them the NC strategy, then the affirmative debater must tell the negative debater if there are interpretations they would like the negative to meet. 26 + 27 +A: The affirmative debater must defend that either a single country bans the production of nuclear power, or defend the resolution as a general principle. 28 + 29 +A: If the affirmative debater defends that only one country prohibits the production of nuclear power, then they may not read theoretical justifications for their standard. Rather, they must only read substantive framework justifications. 30 + 31 +A: The affirmative debater may not read a science fiction story and ban the production of nuclear power in the world of their story 32 + 33 +A: The affirmative debater may not include in their advocacy text that they affirm the resolution as an act against colonialism. To clarify, your advocacy can’t be: “Private colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech as an act against colonialism.” 34 + 35 +A: The affirmative debater may not read theoretical justifications for their standard and claim that theoretical justifications for standards come first 36 + 37 +A: If the affirmative debater claims that they get 1ar theory, then they may not claim that the neg must gain offense from at most one unconditional route to the ballot. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-02-20 20:04:15.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +All - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +All - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +40 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Hunter College Potischman Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +0 - Theory Interps - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +All
- Caselist.CitesClass[51]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,31 @@ 1 +Freedom of the will is not about the capacity for choice but about having something meaningful to choose – only through understanding and pursuing the Good can our choices become meaningful. This implies that moral development and understanding only occurs through the development and perfection of character. 2 +Murdoch 71, Iris. (Dame Jean Iris Murdoch DBE (/ˈmɜːrdɒk/; 15 July 1919 – 8 February 1999) was a British novelist and philosopher, best known for her novels about good and evil, sexual relationships, morality, and the power of the unconscious.) The Sovereignty of Good. Routledge. 1971. NP 1/31/17. 3 +Let us now 4 +AND 5 +states of illusion. 6 + 7 +Thus, the standard is consistency with the Ordo Amoris, defined as correctly orienting our love and appreciation. 8 + 9 +Exposure to speech endorsing problematic concepts prevents the correct orientations towards the world – restricting speech is necessary to ensure agents’ wills aligns with their valuational system 10 +Moles 6, Andrés. (Andres Moles read Philosophy at the National University of Mexico (UNAM) finishing in 2001, and received an MA in Philosophy and Social Theory (2003) and a PhD in Politics (2007) both at the University of Warwick.) Autonomy, Free Speech and Automatic Behaviour. Springer 2006. NP bracketed for gendered language 11 +Mental contamination is 12 +AND 13 +less socially controlled. 14 + 15 +Language informs the concepts we use to frame the world – problematic language corrupts ability to perceive the good 16 +Murdoch 71, Iris. (Dame Jean Iris Murdoch DBE (/ˈmɜːrdɒk/; 15 July 1919 – 8 February 1999) was a British novelist and philosopher, best known for her novels about good and evil, sexual relationships, morality, and the power of the unconscious.) The Sovereignty of Good. Routledge. 1971. NP 1/31/17. 17 +Let me suggest 18 +AND 19 +D but M. 20 + 21 +The appropriate response of a university to speech can not be to safeguard it unconditionally – it must be sacrificed to pursue the university’s appropriate objectives 22 +Fish 94, Stanley Eugene. There's No Such Thing As Free Speech : And It's a Good Thing, Too. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost (accessed January 16, 2017). NP 23 +Take the case 24 +AND 25 +its accidental features. 26 + 27 +Open speech in spaces where young people are educated is antithetical to those purposes. Individuals are too easily influenced by prevailing opinion precluding its acquisition of virtue. Only by restricting the speech people are exposed to when learning allows virtues to be adequately instilled. 28 +Plato basically the founder of western philosophy. The Republic: Book 6. Trans by G. M. A. Grube. Hackett Publishing Company Indianapolis. Aprox 380 BC. 29 +Now, I think 30 +AND 31 +as they are? - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-02-22 17:10:33.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Maddy Stevens, Jen Melin - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Ari Azbel - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +41 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Hunter College Potischman Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JAN FEB NC Augustine V2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Harvard Round Robin
- Caselist.CitesClass[52]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,35 @@ 1 +Counterplan: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict constitutionally protected speech, except for prohibiting the tobacco industry from sponsoring social events held by any organization that receives university funding. 2 +Rigotti et al 05 Nancy A. Rigotti, MD, Susan E. Moran, MD, MSCE, and Henry Wechsler, PhD “US College Students’ Exposure to Tobacco Promotions: Prevalence and Association With Tobacco Use” American Journal of Public Health 2005 January; 95(1): 138–144 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449866/ 3 +Our findings have 4 +AND 5 +industry’s marketing strategies. 6 + 7 +It competes—advertisement of commercial products is protected by the constitution. 8 +US Courts “What Does Free Speech Mean?” http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does JW 9 +The First Amendment states, 10 +AND 11 +U.S. 310 (1990). 12 + 13 +Tobacco companies use social events at universities to promote smoking—causes more regular tobacco use. 14 +Rigotti et al 05 Nancy A. Rigotti, MD, Susan E. Moran, MD, MSCE, and Henry Wechsler, PhD “US College Students’ Exposure to Tobacco Promotions: Prevalence and Association With Tobacco Use” American Journal of Public Health 2005 January; 95(1): 138–144 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449866/ 15 +Tobacco use among 16 +AND 17 +as regular smokers. 18 + 19 +Empirics prove—college tobacco marketing increases the chance of tobacco use. 20 +Rigotti et al 05 Nancy A. Rigotti, MD, Susan E. Moran, MD, MSCE, and Henry Wechsler, PhD “US College Students’ Exposure to Tobacco Promotions: Prevalence and Association With Tobacco Use” American Journal of Public Health 2005 January; 95(1): 138–144 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449866/ 21 +To our knowledge, 22 +AND 23 +acute myeloid leukemia. 24 + 25 +Tobacco Advertising exploits LGBTQ youth. Kulke 15, 26 +Catherine Kulke. "'Freedom' and 'Choice': How Cigarette Companies Target the LGBTQ Community." Slate. July 16, 2015. www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/07/16/gays_and_smoking_how_tobacco_companies_target_queers.html 27 +Now that no-smoking 28 +AND 29 +via LGBT Tobacco. 30 + 31 +The tobacco industry targets poor minority communities by coopting civil rights rhetoric. Tuckson 88, 32 +Reed V. Tuckson, MD. Commissioner of Public Health, District of Columbia. "Race, Sex, Economics, and Tobacco Advertising." Journal of the National Medical Association, Vol. 81, No. 11. June 17, 1988. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2626111/pdf/jnma00905-0013.pdf 33 +Where do the 34 +AND 35 +political campaign financing. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-01 23:23:11.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Pranav Reddy, Chetan Hertzig - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Walt Whitman XR - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +42 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +4 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Hunter College Potischman Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JAN FEB CP Tobacco - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Penn Round Robin
- Caselist.RoundClass[41]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +51 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-02-22 17:10:32.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Maddy Stevens, Jen Melin - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Ari Azbel - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Harvard Round Robin
- Caselist.RoundClass[42]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +52 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-01 23:23:09.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Pranav Reddy, Chetan Hertzig - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Walt Whitman XR - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +4 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Penn Round Robin