Summary

• Objects (0 modified, 0 added, 1 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[20]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[20]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,17 +1,0 @@
1		-Interpretation: Any is defined as every
2		-Merriam Webster (Merriam Webster, online reference, “any,” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/any)
3		- Every —used to indicate one selected without restriction any child would know that
4		-Violation: The plan ends restrictions surrounding specific forms of speech
5		-Net Benefits—
6		-
7		-1. Limits – allowing plan affs around specified kinds of speech justifies a limitless number of affs that ban types of speech i.e. hate speech, specific words, and speech in specified time and places, the list goes on and on. Three impacts—
8		-A. Fairness—means that the neg has a limitless number of affs to prepare case negs to which results in shallow engagement and the same generics you’ve heard every day like the politics DA and a process CP
9		-B. Education—shallow engagement means we never actually learn about the aff topic lit in depth—it results in most debates being about T or a generic K, not about the aff which destroys education.
10		-C. Limits are an independent voter – key to actually living good lives and developing legal skills.
11		-Harris 13 Scott Harris (College policy debate coach). “This ballot.” 2013
12		-I understand that there has been some criticism of Northwestern’s strategy in this debate round. This criticism is premised on the idea that they ran framework instead of engaging Emporia’s argument about home and the Wiz. I think this criticism is unfair. Northwestern’s framework argument did engage Emporia’s argument. Emporia said that you should vote for the team that performatively and methodologically made debate a home. Northwestern’s argument directly clashed with that contention. My problem in this debate was with aspects of the execution of the argument rather than with the strategy itself. It has always made me angry in debates when people have treated topicality as if it were a less important argument than other arguments in debate. Topicality is a real argument. It is a researched strategy. It is an argument that challenges many affirmatives. The fact that other arguments could be run in a debate or are run in a debate does not make topicality somehow a less important argument. In reality, for many of you that go on to law school you will spend much of your life running topicality arguments because you will find that words in the law matter. The rest of us will experience the ways that word choices matter in contracts, in leases, in writing laws and in many aspects of our lives. Kansas ran an affirmative a few years ago about how the location of a comma in a law led a couple of districts to misinterpret the law into allowing individuals to be incarcerated in jail for two days without having any formal charges filed against them. For those individuals the location of the comma in the law had major consequences. Debates about words are not insignificant. Debates about what kinds of arguments we should or should not be making in debates are not insignificant either. The limits debate is an argument that has real pragmatic consequences. I found myself earlier this year judging Harvard’s eco-pedagogy aff and thought to myself—I could stay up tonight and put a strategy together on eco-pedagogy, but then I thought to myself—why should I have to? Yes, I could put together a strategy against any random argument somebody makes employing an energy metaphor but the reality is there are only so many nights to stay up all night researching. I would like to actually spend time playing catch with my children occasionally or maybe even read a book or go to a movie or spend some time with my wife. A world where there are an infinite number of affirmatives is a world where the demand to have a specific strategy and not run framework is a world that says this community doesn’t care whether its participants have a life or do well in school or spend time with their families. I know there is a new call abounding for interpreting this NDT as a mandate for broader more diverse topics . The reality is that will create more work to prepare for the teams that choose to debate the topic but will have little to no effect on the teams that refuse to debate the topic. Broader topics that do not require positive government action or are bidirectional will not make teams that won’t debate the topic choose to debate the topic. I think that is a con job. I am not opposed to broader topics necessarily. I tend to like the way high school topics are written more than the way college topics are written. I just think people who take the meaning of the outcome of this NDT as proof that we need to make it so people get to talk about anything they want to talk about without having to debate against topicality or framework arguments are interested in constructing a world that might make debate an unending nightmare and not a very good home in which to live. Limits, to me, are a real impact because I feel their impact in my everyday existence.
13		-
14		-
15		-2. Ground – Their interpretation would allow the aff to speck individual words to be permitted protected by restriction. That kills negative ground because it means I completely lose access to the hate speech, safe space, and trigger warnings disad. The only possible negative arguments are either fascism good or Kritiks that barely link. Err neg on questions of ground because the aff has infinite prep time to frontline the 1AC to every plausible negative argument, but the neg has to formulate their 1NC in round with only 4 minutes.
16		-
17		-3. Topical version of the aff – remove restrictions surrounding all forms of constitutionally protected speech – solves 100 of your offense because it ensures we can still discuss the aff but allows for the neg to access links to our generics.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-2017-01-12 19:11:42.0

Judge

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

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-West Ranch JW

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-14

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Immaculate Heart Dosch Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-JANFEB - T - Any

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Harvard Westlake Round Robin