Last modified by Administrator on 2017/08/29 03:36

From version < 251.1 >
edited by Noel Selegzi
on 2017/05/01 17:32
To version < 210.1 >
edited by Noel Selegzi
on 2017/02/20 20:04
< >
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[51]
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 -2017-02-22 17:10:33.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Maddy Stevens, Jen Melin
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Ari Azbel
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -41
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 NC Augustine V2
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Harvard Round Robin
Caselist.CitesClass[52]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,35 +1,0 @@
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
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-04-01 23:23:11.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Pranav Reddy, Chetan Hertzig
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Walt Whitman XR
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -42
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -4
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Hunter College Potischman Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -JAN FEB CP Tobacco
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Penn Round Robin
Caselist.CitesClass[53]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,37 +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
34 -
35 -A. Interpretation: the aff must defend the implementation of a policy on college campuses that removes restrictions on constitutionally protected speech
36 -
37 -A. The affirmative debater must only defend removing restrictions of constitutionally protected speech.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-04-29 13:14:15.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -All
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -All
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -43
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.CitesClass[54]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,19 +1,0 @@
1 -Prior to assessing the benefits of free speech we must determine how to make that assessment. Determining how to reach knowledge is a prior question.
2 -Woods, Jay and Roberts, Bob 10. Intellectual Virtues: An Essay in Regulative Epistemology (Advances in Cognitive Models and Arch). January 4, 2010. January 4, 2010. 1
3 -The triviality of
4 -AND
5 -accepted for themselves.
6 -
7 -The standard is consistency with virtuous decision making.
8 -
9 -The affirmative endorses one action for all public colleges and universities. This destroys space for experimentation and assumes we are epistemically situated to make a judgement about every school. Negating is thus a recognition of our own epistemic humility.
10 -Posner 16. Eric Posner, 1-8-2016, "Campus Free Speech Problems Are Less Than Meets the Eye," Cato Unbound, https://www.cato-unbound.org/2016/01/08/eric-posner/campus-free-speech-problems-are-less-meets-eye, accessed 3-8-2017. NP
11 -The intellectual basis
12 -AND
13 -of the question.
14 -
15 -Further, this links directly to the standard because acting in accordance with epistemic humility is a primary epistemic virtue.
16 -Woods, Jay and Roberts, Bob 10 2. Intellectual Virtues: An Essay in Regulative Epistemology (Advances in Cognitive Models and Arch). January 4, 2010. January 4, 2010. 1
17 -Our thesis is
18 -AND
19 -his own views’’.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-04-30 02:25:45.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Chris Castillo
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Ishan Bhatt
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -44
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -4
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Hunter College Potischman Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -JAN FEB NC Virtue
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -TOC
Caselist.CitesClass[55]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,5 +1,0 @@
1 -A: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought to restrict speech that advocates for the rights of factory farmers to abuse animals in factory farming
2 -
3 -Speech codes change social norms and solve for problematic mindsets
4 -Gould 5, J. B. (2005). Speak No Evil : The Triumph of Hate Speech Regulation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. P 175-177.
5 -Yet the very adoption of hate speech policies has influenced behavior on several campuses. This point was repeated to me by many administrators at the schools I visited, who reported the rise of a “culture of civility” that eschews, if not informally sanctions, hateful speech. “Don’t mistake symbolism for impotence,” they regularly reminded me. Symbols shape and reflect social meaning, providing cues to the community about the range of acceptable behavior. Adopting a hate speech policy, then, could have persuasive power even if it were rarely enforced. Consider the dean of students at a northeastern liberal arts college, who spoke proudly of her school’s hate speech policy. Had the policy been formally invoked, I asked. “Rarely,” she told me, but the measure “sets a standard on campus. It gives us something we can point our finger to in the catalog to remind students of the expectations and rights we all have in the community.” This sentiment was repeated by the president of a well-known institution, who claimed that “we didn’t set out to enforce the policy punitively but to use it as the basis for our educational efforts at respecting individuality.” Still another administrator admitted that, “while we’ve rarely used the policy formally, it does give support to students who believe their rights have been violated. They’ll come in for informal mediation and point to the policy as the reason for why the other person must stop harassing them.” Sociologists would call this process norm production—that symbolic measures can condition and order behavior without the actual implementation of punitive mechanisms.8 Hate speech policies set an expected standard of behavior on campus; college officials employ orientation sessions, extracurricular programs, and campus dialogue to inculcate and spread the message; and over time an expectation begins to take root that hate speech is unacceptable and should be prohibited. Of course, this mechanism makes regulation a self-policing exercise—colleges need not take formal or punitive action—but the effect is to perpetuate a collective norm that sees hate speech as undesirable and worthy of prohibition. Moreover, considering the iso-morphic tendencies of college administrators, the creation of speech poli-cies—or speech norms—at respected and prestigious institutions has a“trickle down” effect throughout academe. Again, sociologists would callthis process normative isomorphism, but most people know the phenome-non as “keeping up with the Joneses.”9If Harvard, Berkeley, or Brown pas-ses measures against hate speech, then institutions lower in the academicfood chain are likely to take note and follow suit. If prestigious institutionsadvance campus norms that eschew hate speech, then both peer and“wannabe” institutions are likely to consider and replicate such informalrules. Indeed, this is the very fear of FIRE and its compatriots—that if PCpolicies are not checked now, their message will spread throughout academeinfecting other campuses. What FIRE fails to say, but undoubtedly must bethinking, is that informal law and mass constitutionalism are at stake if the spread of speech regulation is not curbed. FIRE can hang its hat on R.A.V.,Doe, UWM Post, and the other court cases in which judges have overturned college hate speech policies, but as hate speech regulation continues to flour-ish on college campuses, informal speech norms are at stake throughout the larger bounds of civil society. APA (American Psychological Assoc.) Gould, J. B. (2005). Whatever one thinks of FIRE and its agenda, its supporters are like the old-fashioned fire brigade that excitedly shows up at a burning building only to toss paltry pails of water on the inferno. Hate speech regulation has already crossed the firebreak between academe and the rest of civil society and is well on its way toward acceptance in other influential institutions. The initial signs are found in surveys of incoming college freshmen. Shortly after R.A.V., researchers began asking new freshmen whether they believe that “colleges should prohibit racist/sexist speech on campus.”10In a 1993 survey, 58 per-cent of first-year students supported hate speech regulation, a number that has stayed steady and even grown a bit in the years following. By 1994, two-thirds of incoming freshmen approved of hate speech prohibitions, with more recent results leveling off around 60 percent.11Unfortunately, there are not similar surveys before 1993 to compare these results against, but it is a safe bet that support would have been minimal through the mid-1980s when the issue had not yet achieved salience. More to the point, the surveys show that support for speech regulation is achieved before students ever set foot on cam-pus. If, as the codes’ opponents claim, colleges are indoctrinating students in favor of speech regulation, the influence has reached beyond campus borders. New students are being socialized to this norm in society even before they at-tend college. So too, surveys of the general population show an increasing queasiness with hate speech and a greater willingness to regulate such expression pri-vately, especially when communicated over the Internet. In 1991, at the height of the speech code controversy, the CBS News/New York Times Poll asked the following question of American adults: Some universities have adopted codes of conduct under which students may be expelled for using derogatory language with respect to blacks, Jews, women, homosexuals and other groups of students. Which of the following comes closest to your view about this? A. Students who insult other students in this fashion should be subject to pun-ishment; or B. The Bill of Rights protects free speech for these students, and they should not be subject to punishment. Among respondents, 60 percent agreed that hate speech deserved punishment; only 32 percent believed that the Bill of Rights should protect such expression, with 8 percent undecided.1
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-04-30 15:39:34.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Rahul Gosain
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Jong Hak Won
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -45
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -5
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Hunter College Potischman Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -JAN FEB CP Animals
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -TOC
Caselist.CitesClass[56]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,25 +1,0 @@
1 -A: The phrase ‘constitutionally protected speech’ is intensional – appealing to the sense of resolution, not extensional appealing to reference of the resolution.
2 -Goldsworthy 09 explains, Jeffrey. “Constitutional Interpretation: Originalism.” Philosophy Compass 4/4 (2009): 682–702.
3 -The fourth way
4 -AND
5 -having been altered.
6 -
7 -B:
8 -
9 -C:
10 -1. Common Usage and interpretive clarity. Coherent discussions of the value of constitutional provisions for the sake of clarity must appeal back to a grounding in the ‘sense’ of constitutional protection.
11 -Green 05, Christopher. “Originalism and the Sense-Reference Distinction” Saint Louis University Law Journal. 555-627.
12 -I cannot here
13 -AND
14 -accomplish this task.36
15 -
16 -2. Legal Precision. The intensional reading of constitutional protection best accounts for the legal consensus on constitutional terminology.
17 -Green 05, Christopher. “Originalism and the Sense-Reference Distinction” Saint Louis University Law Journal. 555-627.
18 -The Theory of
19 -AND
20 -of South Carolina.
21 -
22 -Precision is a gateway to assessing what forms of predictability are admissible.
23 -Jake Nebel Rhodes scholar and TOC semi-finalist – currently at Oxford and graduated from Princeton “Jake Nebel on Specifying Just Governments.” http://vbriefly.com/2014/12/19/jake-nebel-on-specifying-just-governments/ This is good
24 -AND
25 -a later article.)
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-04-30 15:39:34.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Rahul Gosain
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Jong Hak Won
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -45
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -5
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Hunter College Potischman Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -JAN FEB T Intensional
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -TOC
Caselist.CitesClass[57]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,39 +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: 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: If the affirmative debater claims that 1ar theory is drop the debater and that they get RVIs on neg theory, then they must grant neg RVIs on aff theory.
36 -
37 -A: The affirmative debater may not read theoretical justifications for their standard and claim that theoretical justifications for standards come first
38 -
39 -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
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-04-30 15:44:37.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -All
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -All
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -46
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.CitesClass[58]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,24 +1,0 @@
1 -A. CP: Public Colleges and Universities in the United States ought to eliminate any athlete specific speech policies.
2 -
3 -The aff creates a “free speech exception” for college athletes where they can say what they want while everyone else follows rules, entrenching the mindset that everyone’s rules don’t apply to star athletes. This preferential normalizes violence and harms athletes.
4 -GSD 15 The Foundation for Global Sports Development “THE CULTURE OF PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT AMONG ATHLETES” March 3 2015 http://globalsportsdevelopment.org/culture-preferential-treatment-among-athletes/ JW
5 -We see the
6 -AND
7 -necessarily illegal activities.
8 -
9 -Preferential treatment ruins athlete’s lives and prevents valuable relationships. The aff ignores long term consequences.
10 -GSD 15 The Foundation for Global Sports Development “THE CULTURE OF PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT AMONG ATHLETES” March 3 2015 http://globalsportsdevelopment.org/culture-preferential-treatment-among-athletes/ JW
11 -“In terms of
12 -AND
13 -develop as people.
14 -
15 -This links directly to the concrete forms of exploitation outlined in the Van Rheenen evidence. Your evidence is specific, as long as there are double standards the problem perpetuates. Van Rheenen (your cite):
16 -These racial hierarchies
17 -AND
18 -and intellectual weakness.
19 -
20 -This double standard where athletes are denied the status of students creates s unique colonial exploitation and institutional corruption.
21 -New 17. Jake New. "The 'Black Hole' of College Sports." February 9, 2017. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/02/09/baylor-not-alone-shielding-athletes-accused-misconduct-punishment
22 -In May, Baylor’s
23 -AND
24 -a top priority.”
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-05-01 17:32:04.726
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Devane Murphy, Erik Legried, Jacob Nails
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Evan Engel
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -47
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Octas
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Hunter College Potischman Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -JAN FEB CP Student Athletes
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -TOC
Caselist.RoundClass[41]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -51
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-02-22 17:10:32.0
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[42]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -52
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-04-01 23:23:09.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Pranav Reddy, Chetan Hertzig
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Walt Whitman XR
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -4
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Penn Round Robin
Caselist.RoundClass[43]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -53
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-04-29 13:14:14.0
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[44]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -54
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-04-30 02:25:43.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Chris Castillo
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Ishan Bhatt
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -4
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -TOC
Caselist.RoundClass[45]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -55,56
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-04-30 15:39:29.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Rahul Gosain
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Jong Hak Won
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -5
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -TOC
Caselist.RoundClass[46]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -57
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-04-30 15:44:35.0
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[47]
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-05-01 17:32:03.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Devane Murphy, Erik Legried, Jacob Nails
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Evan Engel
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Octas
RoundReport
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -college athletes aff
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -TOC
Caselist.CitesClass[41]
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 +2017-02-16 16:54:33.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Maddy Stevens, Jen Melin
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Ari Azbel
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +32
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 Augustine V2
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harvard Round Robin
Caselist.CitesClass[44]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,21 @@
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
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-02-20 13:29:45.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Dani Reyes, Becca Traber, Wesley Hu
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Evanston HS
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +37
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Triples
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Hunter College Potischman Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +JAN FEB T Implementation
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harvard
Caselist.CitesClass[48]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,5 @@
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
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-02-20 13:29:52.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Dani Reyes, Becca Traber, Wesley Hu
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Evanston HS
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +38
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Triples
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Hunter College Potischman Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +JAN FEB K Instrumentalization
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harvard
Caselist.CitesClass[49]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,33 @@
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
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-02-20 18:04:23.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +All
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +All
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +39
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[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.RoundClass[32]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +41
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-02-16 16:54:32.0
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[39]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +49
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-02-20 18:04:19.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +All
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +All
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +All
Caselist.RoundClass[40]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +50
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-02-20 20:04:13.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +All
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +All
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +All

Schools

Aberdeen Central (SD)
Acton-Boxborough (MA)
Albany (CA)
Albuquerque Academy (NM)
Alief Taylor (TX)
American Heritage Boca Delray (FL)
American Heritage Plantation (FL)
Anderson (TX)
Annie Wright (WA)
Apple Valley (MN)
Appleton East (WI)
Arbor View (NV)
Arcadia (CA)
Archbishop Mitty (CA)
Ardrey Kell (NC)
Ashland (OR)
Athens (TX)
Bainbridge (WA)
Bakersfield (CA)
Barbers Hill (TX)
Barrington (IL)
BASIS Mesa (AZ)
BASIS Scottsdale (AZ)
BASIS Silicon (CA)
Beckman (CA)
Bellarmine (CA)
Benjamin Franklin (LA)
Benjamin N Cardozo (NY)
Bentonville (AR)
Bergen County (NJ)
Bettendorf (IA)
Bingham (UT)
Blue Valley Southwest (KS)
Brentwood (CA)
Brentwood Middle (CA)
Bridgewater-Raritan (NJ)
Bronx Science (NY)
Brophy College Prep (AZ)
Brown (KY)
Byram Hills (NY)
Byron Nelson (TX)
Cabot (AR)
Calhoun Homeschool (TX)
Cambridge Rindge (MA)
Canyon Crest (CA)
Canyon Springs (NV)
Cape Fear Academy (NC)
Carmel Valley Independent (CA)
Carpe Diem (NJ)
Cedar Park (TX)
Cedar Ridge (TX)
Centennial (ID)
Centennial (TX)
Center For Talented Youth (MD)
Cerritos (CA)
Chaminade (CA)
Chandler (AZ)
Chandler Prep (AZ)
Chaparral (AZ)
Charles E Smith (MD)
Cherokee (OK)
Christ Episcopal (LA)
Christopher Columbus (FL)
Cinco Ranch (TX)
Citrus Valley (CA)
Claremont (CA)
Clark (NV)
Clark (TX)
Clear Brook (TX)
Clements (TX)
Clovis North (CA)
College Prep (CA)
Collegiate (NY)
Colleyville Heritage (TX)
Concord Carlisle (MA)
Concordia Lutheran (TX)
Connally (TX)
Coral Glades (FL)
Coral Science (NV)
Coral Springs (FL)
Coppell (TX)
Copper Hills (UT)
Corona Del Sol (AZ)
Crandall (TX)
Crossroads (CA)
Cupertino (CA)
Cy-Fair (TX)
Cypress Bay (FL)
Cypress Falls (TX)
Cypress Lakes (TX)
Cypress Ridge (TX)
Cypress Springs (TX)
Cypress Woods (TX)
Dallastown (PA)
Davis (CA)
Delbarton (NJ)
Derby (KS)
Des Moines Roosevelt (IA)
Desert Vista (AZ)
Diamond Bar (CA)
Dobson (AZ)
Dougherty Valley (CA)
Dowling Catholic (IA)
Dripping Springs (TX)
Dulles (TX)
duPont Manual (KY)
Dwyer (FL)
Eagle (ID)
Eastside Catholic (WA)
Edgemont (NY)
Edina (MN)
Edmond North (OK)
Edmond Santa Fe (OK)
El Cerrito (CA)
Elkins (TX)
Enloe (NC)
Episcopal (TX)
Evanston (IL)
Evergreen Valley (CA)
Ferris (TX)
Flintridge Sacred Heart (CA)
Flower Mound (TX)
Fordham Prep (NY)
Fort Lauderdale (FL)
Fort Walton Beach (FL)
Freehold Township (NJ)
Fremont (NE)
Frontier (MO)
Gabrielino (CA)
Garland (TX)
George Ranch (TX)
Georgetown Day (DC)
Gig Harbor (WA)
Gilmour (OH)
Glenbrook South (IL)
Gonzaga Prep (WA)
Grand Junction (CO)
Grapevine (TX)
Green Valley (NV)
Greenhill (TX)
Guyer (TX)
Hamilton (AZ)
Hamilton (MT)
Harker (CA)
Harmony (TX)
Harrison (NY)
Harvard Westlake (CA)
Hawken (OH)
Head Royce (CA)
Hebron (TX)
Heights (MD)
Hendrick Hudson (NY)
Henry Grady (GA)
Highland (UT)
Highland (ID)
Hockaday (TX)
Holy Cross (LA)
Homewood Flossmoor (IL)
Hopkins (MN)
Houston Homeschool (TX)
Hunter College (NY)
Hutchinson (KS)
Immaculate Heart (CA)
Independent (All)
Interlake (WA)
Isidore Newman (LA)
Jack C Hays (TX)
James Bowie (TX)
Jefferson City (MO)
Jersey Village (TX)
John Marshall (CA)
Juan Diego (UT)
Jupiter (FL)
Kapaun Mount Carmel (KS)
Kamiak (WA)
Katy Taylor (TX)
Keller (TX)
Kempner (TX)
Kent Denver (CO)
King (FL)
Kingwood (TX)
Kinkaid (TX)
Klein (TX)
Klein Oak (TX)
Kudos College (CA)
La Canada (CA)
La Costa Canyon (CA)
La Jolla (CA)
La Reina (CA)
Lafayette (MO)
Lake Highland (FL)
Lake Travis (TX)
Lakeville North (MN)
Lakeville South (MN)
Lamar (TX)
LAMP (AL)
Law Magnet (TX)
Langham Creek (TX)
Lansing (KS)
LaSalle College (PA)
Lawrence Free State (KS)
Layton (UT)
Leland (CA)
Leucadia Independent (CA)
Lexington (MA)
Liberty Christian (TX)
Lincoln (OR)
Lincoln (NE)
Lincoln East (NE)
Lindale (TX)
Livingston (NJ)
Logan (UT)
Lone Peak (UT)
Los Altos (CA)
Los Osos (CA)
Lovejoy (TX)
Loyola (CA)
Loyola Blakefield (MA)
Lynbrook (CA)
Maeser Prep (UT)
Mannford (OK)
Marcus (TX)
Marlborough (CA)
McClintock (AZ)
McDowell (PA)
McNeil (TX)
Meadows (NV)
Memorial (TX)
Millard North (NE)
Millard South (NE)
Millard West (NE)
Millburn (NJ)
Milpitas (CA)
Miramonte (CA)
Mission San Jose (CA)
Monsignor Kelly (TX)
Monta Vista (CA)
Montclair Kimberley (NJ)
Montgomery (TX)
Monticello (NY)
Montville Township (NJ)
Morris Hills (NJ)
Mountain Brook (AL)
Mountain Pointe (AZ)
Mountain View (CA)
Mountain View (AZ)
Murphy Middle (TX)
NCSSM (NC)
New Orleans Jesuit (LA)
New Trier (IL)
Newark Science (NJ)
Newburgh Free Academy (NY)
Newport (WA)
North Allegheny (PA)
North Crowley (TX)
North Hollywood (CA)
Northland Christian (TX)
Northwood (CA)
Notre Dame (CA)
Nueva (CA)
Oak Hall (FL)
Oakwood (CA)
Okoboji (IA)
Oxbridge (FL)
Oxford (CA)
Pacific Ridge (CA)
Palm Beach Gardens (FL)
Palo Alto Independent (CA)
Palos Verdes Peninsula (CA)
Park Crossing (AL)
Peak to Peak (CO)
Pembroke Pines (FL)
Pennsbury (PA)
Phillips Academy Andover (MA)
Phoenix Country Day (AZ)
Pine Crest (FL)
Pingry (NJ)
Pittsburgh Central Catholic (PA)
Plano East (TX)
Polytechnic (CA)
Presentation (CA)
Princeton (NJ)
Prosper (TX)
Quarry Lane (CA)
Raisbeck-Aviation (WA)
Rancho Bernardo (CA)
Randolph (NJ)
Reagan (TX)
Richardson (TX)
Ridge (NJ)
Ridge Point (TX)
Riverside (SC)
Robert Vela (TX)
Rosemount (MN)
Roseville (MN)
Round Rock (TX)
Rowland Hall (UT)
Royse City (TX)
Ruston (LA)
Sacred Heart (MA)
Sacred Heart (MS)
Sage Hill (CA)
Sage Ridge (NV)
Salado (TX)
Salpointe Catholic (AZ)
Sammamish (WA)
San Dieguito (CA)
San Marino (CA)
SandHoke (NC)
Santa Monica (CA)
Sarasota (FL)
Saratoga (CA)
Scarsdale (NY)
Servite (CA)
Seven Lakes (TX)
Shawnee Mission East (KS)
Shawnee Mission Northwest (KS)
Shawnee Mission South (KS)
Shawnee Mission West (KS)
Sky View (UT)
Skyline (UT)
Smithson Valley (TX)
Southlake Carroll (TX)
Sprague (OR)
St Agnes (TX)
St Andrews (MS)
St Francis (CA)
St James (AL)
St Johns (TX)
St Louis Park (MN)
St Margarets (CA)
St Marys Hall (TX)
St Thomas (MN)
St Thomas (TX)
Stephen F Austin (TX)
Stoneman Douglas (FL)
Stony Point (TX)
Strake Jesuit (TX)
Stratford (TX)
Stratford Independent (CA)
Stuyvesant (NY)
Success Academy (NY)
Sunnyslope (AZ)
Sunset (OR)
Syosset (NY)
Tahoma (WA)
Talley (AZ)
Texas Academy of Math and Science (TX)
Thomas Jefferson (VA)
Thompkins (TX)
Timber Creek (FL)
Timothy Christian (NJ)
Tom C Clark (TX)
Tompkins (TX)
Torrey Pines (CA)
Travis (TX)
Trinity (KY)
Trinity Prep (FL)
Trinity Valley (TX)
Truman (PA)
Turlock (CA)
Union (OK)
Unionville (PA)
University High (CA)
University School (OH)
University (FL)
Upper Arlington (OH)
Upper Dublin (PA)
Valley (IA)
Valor Christian (CO)
Vashon (WA)
Ventura (CA)
Veritas Prep (AZ)
Vestavia Hills (AL)
Vincentian (PA)
Walla Walla (WA)
Walt Whitman (MD)
Warren (TX)
Wenatchee (WA)
West (UT)
West Ranch (CA)
Westford (MA)
Westlake (TX)
Westview (OR)
Westwood (TX)
Whitefish Bay (WI)
Whitney (CA)
Wilson (DC)
Winston Churchill (TX)
Winter Springs (FL)
Woodlands (TX)
Woodlands College Park (TX)
Wren (SC)
Yucca Valley (CA)