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

From version < 23.1 >
edited by Naemah Morris
on 2016/11/19 19:49
To version < 37.1 >
edited by Naemah Morris
on 2017/02/13 19:11
< >
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[5]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +6
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -2016-11-19 19:49:15.654
1 +2016-11-19 19:49:15.0
Caselist.CitesClass[6]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,9 @@
1 +CP – Disarm the Police
2 +Counterplan text: The United States Federal Government should disarm police on patrol.
3 +Solves police shootings and improves officer safety
4 +Smithsimon 15 (Gregory, Associate Professor of Sociology @ Brooklyn College) “Disarm the Police,” Metropolitics, 09/29/2015 LADI
5 +Efforts to reform police behavior fall short by design however if they don’t fundamentally change the power dynamic between police and people who are most intensively policed. “Community policing tends to turn all neighborhood problems into police problems,” Vitale (2015) notes in an Al Jazeera open editorial. Law enforcement’s tools of arrest and physical force are limited ways to deal with community problems. Unarmed public-safety officers would be better able to do the work that most of them join the force to do in the first place, instead of being put into contentious situations with community residents that end badly and make no one safer. The British practice what researchers call “policing by consent” (Tilley 2008). Could today’s cops do their jobs like all other civil servants do, on the basis of respect for their position, not their sidearm? Most cops could do their jobs better freed from the weapon that is a barrier between themselves and the people they are to protect. Over a dozen countries have unarmed police—not just Britain, the best-known example, but Iceland (where a third of residents own guns, but the police patrol unarmed), Ireland (neighbor to a decades-long bombing campaign), and Norway, even after a terrorist attack against a summer camp. (Noack 2015) The disparities in civilian deaths are absurd: police here killed about 1,000 people 10 last year,11 while the police in Great Britain fired their guns three times all year—and killed no one.12 What’s more surprising is what we forget when people say that the police need guns because they do a dangerous job: it’s more dangerous because of their guns. Surveys of police who are unarmed find that their concerns include not only danger to civilians, but the psychological harm done to police who fire weapons, and a belief that arming police makes officers’ jobs more dangerous (Squires and Kennison 2010). Thirty police were killed in the US in 2014, while a police officer was last killed in Great Britain in 2012. Even accounting for the UK’s smaller size, a dozen cops would have died on the job in that time if they faced the rates of American police “protected” by their weapons.
6 +
7 +Disarming the police leads to a paradigm shift in how we view poor communities of color – leads to progress in civil rights, enhanced rule of law, and democracy
8 +Smithsimon 15 (Gregory, Associate Professor of Sociology @ Brooklyn College) “Disarm the Police,” Metropolitics, 09/29/2015 LADI
9 +Some opponents to disarmament argue that it works in more social-democratic countries because a strong social safety net means there is little poverty and hence less crime. Exactly: a heavily armed police force allows a society to impoverish a segment of its citizens and still keep them in place. A society without an armed police force must move towards addressing poverty, discrimination, and social inequality peacefully, not reinforce it violently. The conservative response that disarmament might work in homogeneous, social-democratic countries but that our racially divided, high-poverty state depends on armed policing unintentionally supports Michelle Alexander’s (2010) claim that armed police are the front lines of the repressive new Jim Crow, and leaves no legitimate reason for such a heavily armed force in our neighborhoods. If we don’t need guns, what are they for? On the front line of law and order’s replacement for Jim Crow, armed police patrol African-American neighborhoods as a reminder of the deadly consequences of stepping out of line. Guns are there to discipline Black men into following a racist social order. The protests on the streets of Baltimore, New York, Ferguson, Oakland, and beyond have been demands that we treat everyone as a citizen, not a suspect. Disarming the police is not only a step towards safer communities and safer environments for police, it’s an important goal for progress in civil rights, the rule of law, and the creation of a fully prosperous, truly democratic society.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-11-19 19:49:17.0
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +5
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Immaculate Heart Mizrahi Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Disarm CP
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Glenbrooks
Caselist.CitesClass[7]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,7 @@
1 +Counter plan text: AFF actors should remove any restrictions on constitutionally protected speech, and ban the usage of hate speech
2 +McConnell 12. Reed E. Mcconnell is a writer. “Why Harvard’s Hate Speech Policies Are Necessary.” The Harvard Crimson.
3 +It wasn’t until I read the Crimson article about the free speech wall the next day that I learned that it was supposed to serve as a statement against Harvard’s limitations on free speech, which a member of the Libertarian Forum summarized as disallowing students from saying “discriminatory things,” but which actually consist very specifically of a ban against hate speech. In fact, the College Handbook states explicitly that, “speech not specifically directed against individuals in a harassing way may be protected by traditional safeguards of free speech.” I find the Libertarian Forum’s dedication to complete freedom of speech, regardless of whether or not the speech is harassment, alarming and indicative of a larger, troubling trend in American society.¶ Our nation is obsessed with the concept of freedom. The majority of U.S. citizens seem to think of theirs as the freest of all countries, and any perceived attack on this freedom is seen as a sacrilegious desecration of the Constitution, America’s holy book. However, laws, including those in the Bill of Rights, exist for a reason—to protect citizens. The provision of freedom of speech serves, accordingly, to protect people from being punished for their ideas and beliefs. However, this freedom can backfire and end up punishing people not for their ideas but for their identities when hate speech comes into play. There must be a carefully thought-out balance between freedoms and restrictions of speech in order to create a society where citizens not only feel free to express themselves, but also are free from fear and violence.¶ The most common argument I have encountered for unrestricted free speech on college campuses is that if we prohibit people from saying certain things, they will simply never talk about them. As a result, their prejudice and oppression—the problems that we are trying to stamp out in the first place with restrictions on speech—will continue quietly, unchecked. However, the argument goes, if we allow people to express these thoughts openly, then there will be discussion about them that leads to greater understanding. This was the view expressed by the member of the Harvard Libertarian Forum quoted in the article, and one that I think is fundamentally misguided.¶ There certainly should be dialogue around issues of racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of oppression. If someone has prejudices, a good way to erase these prejudices can indeed be to engage in dialogue with that person in order to understand where their attitude is coming from and educate them about the moral and logical fallacies of their prejudice. But there is also a need to protect people from having violence perpetrated against them. When someone calls a black person the “n” word out of hatred, he or she is not expressing a new idea or outlining a valuable thought. They are committing an act of violence. Speech has great power. It can—and often does—serve as a tool to marginalize and oppress people. Laws that restrict hate speech simply seek to prevent violence against marginalized, oppressed groups in order to prevent them from becoming further marginalized and oppressed.¶ There are freedoms to do things, and there are freedoms from things. When our freedom to speak our mind impinges on someone’s freedom from fear, or on someone’s right to feel safe in their community, then that freedom should not stand unregulated in any group that wishes to create a safe and respectful society for its members. We cannot create a respectful learning environment at our university if students from marginalized groups feel that their administration condones acts of violence against them. University regulations against hate speech are entirely necessary for maintaining respect and dignity among the student body, and Harvard’s policies to this end are well thought-out and fair—and certainly not worthy of protest.
4 +
5 +Hate speech poses a direct threat to the oppressed. Banning it is necessary to promote inclusiveness.
6 +Taylor summarizes Waldron, 12, Why We Should Ban “Hate Speech”, American Renaissance, summarizing Jeremy Waldron, The Harm in Hate Speech, Harvard University Press, 2012, 292 pp., 26.95. 8/24/12, http://www.amren.com/features/2012/08/why-we-should-ban-hate-speech/ **Note – Taylor does not agree with but is summarizing Waldron’s position //LADI
7 +First, Professor Waldron declares that “we are diverse in our ethnicity, our race, our appearance, and our religions, and we are embarked on a grand experiment of living and working together despite these sorts of differences.” Western societies are determined to let in every sort of person imaginable and make them feel respected and equal in every way. “Inclusiveness” is something “that our society sponsors and that it is committed to.” Therefore, what would we make of a “hate speech” billboard that said: “Muslims and 9/11! Don’t serve them, don’t speak to them, and don’t let them in”? Or one with a picture of Muslim children that said “They are all called Osama”? Or posters that say such things as “Muslims out,” “No blacks allowed,” or “All blacks should be sent back to Africa”? Professor Waldron writes that it is all very well for law professors and white people to say that this is the price we pay for free expression, but we must imagine what it must be like for the Muslim or black who must explain these messages to his children. “Can their lives be led, can their children be brought up, can their hopes be maintained and their worst fears dispelled, in a social environment polluted by these materials?” Professor Waldron insists that a “sense of security in the space we all inhabit is a public good,” like pretty beaches or clean air, and is so precious that the law should require everyone to maintain it: Hate speech undermines this public good . . . . It does this not only by intimating discrimination and violence, but by reawakening living nightmares of what this society was like . . . . It creates something like an environmental threat to social peace, a sort of slow-acting poison, accumulating here and there, word by word, so that eventually it becomes harder and less natural for even the good-hearted members of the society to play their part in maintaining this public good. Professor Waldron tells us that the purpose of “hate speech” is to try to set up a “rival public good” in which it is considered fine to beat up and drive out minorities.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-14 21:04:41.0
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +chris wang
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +6
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Immaculate Heart Mizrahi Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +JANFEB - Hate Speech PIC
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harvard Westlake
Caselist.CitesClass[8]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,18 @@
1 +1NC – Hate Speech DA
2 +Current protections against hate speech are working – on campus harassment is decreasing nationally now.
3 +Sutton 16 Halley Sutton, Report shows crime on campus down across the country, Campus Security Report 13.4 (2016), 9/9/16,http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/casr.30185/full //LADI
4 +A recent report released by the National Center for Education Statistics found an overall decrease in crimes at educational institutions across the country since 2001. The overall number of crimes reported by postsecondary institutions has dropped by 34 percent, from 41,600 per year in 2001 to 27,600 per year in 2013. The report, titled Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2015, covers higher education campuses as well as K–12 schools and includes such topics as victimization, teacher injury, bullying and cyberbullying, use of drugs and alcohol, and criminal incidents at postsecondary institutions. The report found significant decreases in instances of bullying, harassment due to sexual orientation, and violent crime at all levels of education. The number of on-campus crimes reported at postsecondary institutions in 2013 was lower than in 2001 for every category except forcible sex offenses and murder.
5 +
6 +Unrestricted free speech perpetuates hate speech and invites violence.
7 +Arthur 12. Joyce. Founder of FIRST, Activist, Author, Journalist. “Should Hate Speech be a Crime?” New Internationalist Magazine.
8 +Hate speech is a public expression of discrimination against a vulnerable group (based on race, gender, sexual orientation, disability etc) and it is counter-productive not to criminalize it. A society that allows hate speech to go unpunished is one that tolerates discrimination and invites violence. Decades of hateful anti-abortion rhetoric in the US led to assassinations of providers, because hate speech is a precursor to violence.¶ Hate speech has no redeeming value, so we should never pretend it occupies a rightful spot in the marketplace of ideas, or has anything to do with ‘rational debate’. Challenging hate speech through education and debate is not enough. Governments have a duty to protect citizens and reduce discrimination and violence by criminalizing hate speech.
9 +
10 +Removing restrictions on free speech allows hate speech – hate speech IS free speech
11 +Volokh 15 Eugene Volokh,No, There’s No “hate Speech” Exception to the First Amendment, The Washington Post, 5/7/15, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/?utm_term=.05cfdd01dea4 //LADI
12 +I keep hearing about a supposed “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment, or statements such as, “This isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech,” or “When does free speech stop and hate speech begin?” But there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. Hateful ideas (whatever exactly that might mean) are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas. One is as free to condemn Islam — or Muslims, or Jews, or blacks, or whites, or illegal aliens, or native-born citizens — as one is to condemn capitalism or Socialism or Democrats or Republicans. To be sure, there are some kinds of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment. But those narrow exceptions have nothing to do with “hate speech” in any conventionally used sense of the term. For instance, there is an exception for “fighting words” — face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific person, of the sort that are likely to start an immediate fight. But this exception isn’t limited to racial or religious insults, nor does it cover all racially or religiously offensive statements. Indeed, when the City of St. Paul tried to specifically punish bigoted fighting words, the Supreme Court held that this selective prohibition was unconstitutional (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)), even though a broad ban on all fighting words would indeed be permissible. (And, notwithstanding CNN anchor Chris Cuomo’s Tweet that “hate speech is excluded from protection,” and his later claims that by “hate speech” he means “fighting words,” the fighting words exception is not generally labeled a “hate speech” exception, and isn’t coextensive with any established definition of “hate speech” that I know of.)
13 +Hate speech leads to a genocidal increase in crimes against marginalized groups.
14 +Greenblatt 15 Jonathan Greenblatt, When Hateful Speech Leads to Hate Crimes: Taking Bigotry Out of the Immigration Debate, Huffington Post, 8/21/15, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-greenblatt/when-hateful-speech-leads_b_8022966.html //LADI
15 +The words used on the campaign trail, on the floors of Congress, in the news, and in all our living rooms have consequences. They directly impact our ability to sustain a society that ensures dignity and equality for all. Bigoted rhetoric and words laced with prejudice are building blocks for the pyramid of hate. Biased behaviors build on one another, becoming ever more threatening and dangerous towards the top. At the base is bias, which includes stereotyping and insensitive remarks. It sets the foundation for a second, more complex and more damaging layer: individual acts of prejudice, including bullying, slurs and dehumanization. Next is discrimination, which in turn supports bias-motivated violence, including apparent hate crimes like the tragic one in Boston. And in the most extreme cases if left unchecked, the top of the pyramid of hate is genocide. Just like a pyramid, the lower levels support the upper levels. Bias, prejudice and discrimination — particularly touted by those with a loud megaphone and cheering crowd — all contribute to an atmosphere that enables hate crimes and other hate-fueled violence. The most recent hate crime in Boston is just one of too many. In fact, there is a hate crime roughly every 90 minutes in the United States today. That is why last week ADL announced a new initiative, #50StatesAgainstHate, to strengthen hate crimes laws around the country and safeguard communities vulnerable to hate-fueled attacks. We are working with a broad coalition of partners to get the ball rolling.
16 +Hate speech causes minority students to drop out, which means the only narrative within colleges will be that of the white male – that turns case.
17 +A.D.L. 13. Anti-Defamation League. “Responding to Bigotry and Intergroup Strife on Campus: Guide for College and University Administrators.” Defamation League. MCM.
18 +University and college officials need to demonstrate to all how the institution's interests are at stake when minority students fear assault or insult, leading to demoralization and high dropout rates. Even though many existing speech codes have failed in court, campus administrators should not be prevented or inhibited to act and speak out against racist, sexist, homophobic or anti-Semitic expression. Campus administrators should not tolerate or accept abusive discourse without a vigorous response. Those who misuse their freedom of expression to offend, demean or insult members of the academic community need to comprehend that their words are unacceptable in a civilized atmosphere, whether or not they are protected by the First Amendment. While administrators at private institutions have more freedom of action to regulate behavior than do their counterparts at public institutions, both can and should provide firm and unambiguous leadership in this area.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-14 21:05:48.0
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +chris wang
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +7
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Immaculate Heart Mizrahi Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +JANFEB - Hate Speech DA
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harvard Westlake
Caselist.CitesClass[9]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,8 @@
1 +The ACs faith in deliberation is a view mired in white privilege. Racism isn’t grounded in naiveté, but a deliberate act designed to reinforce social hierarchies. Efforts at convincing the racist they’re wrong ignore social realities and result in violence against minorities.
2 +Delgado and Yun 94 (Richard, teaches civil rights and critical race theory at University of Alabama School of Law) “Pressure Valves and Bloodied Chickens: An Analysis of Paternalistic Objections to Hate Speech Regulation,” California Law Review, 7/94. DRD
3 +Regulation, 82 Cal. L. Rev. 871 (1994) D. "More Speech"-Talking Back to the Aggressor as a Preferable Solution to the Problem of Hate Speech Defenders of the First Amendment sometimes argue that minorities should talk back to the aggressor.85 Nat Hentoff, for example, writes that antiracism rules teach black people to depend on whites for protection, while talking back clears the air, emphasizes self-reliance, and strengthens one's self-image as an active agent in charge of one's own destiny.8 6 The "talking back" solution to campus racism draws force from the First Amendment principle of "more speech," according to which additional dialogue is always a preferred response to speech that some find troubling.87 Proponents of this approach oppose hate speech rules, then, not so much because they limit speech, but because they believe that it is good for minorities to learn to speak out. A few go on to offer another reason: that a minority who speaks out will be able to educate the speaker who has uttered a racially hurtful remark."8 Racism, they hold, is the product of ignorance and fear. If a victim of racist hate speech takes the time to explain matters, he or she may succeed in altering the speaker's perception so that the speaker will no longer utter racist remarks.8 9 How valid is this argument? Like many paternalistic arguments, it is offered blandly, virtually as an article of faith. In the nature of paternalism, those who make the argument are in a position of power, and therefore believe themselves able to make things so merely by asserting them as true.90 They rarely offer empirical proof of their claims, because none is needed. The social world is as they say because it is their world: they created it that way.91 In reality, those who hurl racial epithets do so because they feel empowered to do so. 92 Indeed, their principal objective is to reassert and reinscribe that power. One who talks back is perceived as issuing a direct challenge to that power. The action is seen as outrageous, as calling for a forceful response. Often racist remarks are delivered in several-on-one situations, in which responding in kind is foolhardy. 93 Many highly publicized cases of racial homicide began in just this fashion. A group began badgering a black person. The black person talked back, and paid with his life.94 Other racist remarks are delivered in a cowardly fashion, by means of graffiti scrawled on a campus wall late at night or on a poster placed outside of a black student's dormitory door.95 In these situations, more speech is, of course, impossible. Racist speech is rarely a mistake, rarely something that could be corrected or countered by discussion. What would be the answer to "Nigger, go back to Africa. You don't belong at the University"? "Sir, you misconceive the situation. Prevailing ethics and constitutional interpretation hold that I, an African American, am an individual of equal dignity and entitled to attend this university in the same manner as others. Now that I have informed you of this, I am sure you will modify your remarks in the future"? 96 The idea that talking back is safe for the victim or potentially educative for the racist simply does not correspond with reality. It ignores the power dimension to racist remarks, forces minorities to run very real risks, and treats a hateful attempt to force the victim outside the human community as an invitation for discussion. Even when successful, talking back is a burden. Why should minority undergraduates, already charged with their own education, be responsible constantly for educating others?
4 +
5 +
6 +The alternative is to reinterpret the first amendment as a right concerned with protecting the material ability of minorities to participate in deliberation, as opposed to an abstract negative right that gives racists the ability to dehumanize and threaten minorities
7 +Matsuda 93 (Mari, Law Professor at the William S. Richardson School of Law at the University of Hawaii), “Words that Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment,” Westview Press, 1993. DRD.
8 +The struggle against institutional, structural, and culturally ingrained unconscious racism and the movement toward a fully multicultural, postcolonial uni- versity is central to the work of the liberationist teacher. This is at bottom a fight to gain equal access to the power of the intelligentsia to construct knowledge, social meaning, ideology, and definitions of who “we” are. Now the defenders of the status quo have discovered, in the first amendment, a new weapon. The debate about affirmative action and the inclusion of historically excluded groups is being recast as a debate about free speech. We have begun to hear a rhetoric from those of our colleagues who are most fearful of change that sounds much like what we hear from first amendment fundamentalists: Arguments for absolutist protection of speech made without reference to historical context or uneven power relations. Academic freedom and intellectual pursuit are alleged to be threatened by “leftist speech police.” People of color, women, gays, and lesbians who insist on the inclusion of their voices in academic discourse and who speak out against persons and practices that continue to injure and demean them are said to impose a “new orthodoxy” upon the academy. Tenured professors say that they are afraid to raise controversial issues, use humor in their classes, or express friendli- ness toward their students for fear of being called a racist, a sexist, or a homophobe by “oversensitive” students. Stripped of its context this is a seductive argument. The privilege and power of white male elites is wrapped in the rhetoric of politically unpopular speech. Those with the power to exclude new voices from the official canon become an oppressed minority. Academic freedom to express one’s beliefs is decontextualized from the speaker’s power to impose those beliefs on others. The isolated Black, Brown, or Asian faculty member, the small group of students who risk future careers in raising their voices against racism, are cast as powerful censors. The first amendment arms conscious and unconscious racists—Nazis and liberals alike—with a constitutional right to be racist. Racism is just another idea deserving of constitutional protection like all ideas. The first amendment is employed to trump or nullify the only substantive meaning of the equal protection clause, that the Constitution mandates the disestablish-ment of the ideology of racism. What is ultimately at stake in this debate is our vision for this so- ciety. We are in this fight about the first amendment because it is more than a fight about how to balance one individual’s freedom of speech against another individual’s freedom from injury. This is a fight about the substantive content that we will give to the ideals of freedom and equality—how we will construct “freedom,” as a constitutional premise and a defining principle of democracy. This is the same fight that is the subject of all of our work. It is a fight for a vision of society where the substance of freedom is freedom from degradation, humiliation, battering, starvation, homelessness, hopelessness, and other forms of violence to the person that deny one’s full humanity. It is a fight for a constitutional community where “freedom” does not implicate a right to degrade and humiliate another human being any more than it implicates a right to do physical violence to another or a right to enslave another or a right to economically exploit another in a sweatshop, in a coal mine, or in the fields.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-14 21:08:47.0
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +chris wang
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +8
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Immaculate Heart Mizrahi Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +JANFEB - Counter Speech K
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harvard Westlake
Caselist.CitesClass[10]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,46 @@
1 +1NC – FW
2 +Interpretation:
3 +“Resolved” implies a policy or legislative decision
4 +Parcher Jeff. Former debate coach at Georgetown, Feb, http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200102/0790.html
5 +Pardon me if I turn to a source besides Bill. American Heritage Dictionary: Resolve: 1. To make a firm decision about. 2. To decide or express by formal vote. 3. To separate something into constiutent parts See Syns at *analyze* (emphasis in orginal) 4. Find a solution to. See Syns at *Solve* (emphasis in original) 5. To dispel: resolve a doubt. - n 1. Firmness of purpose; resolution. 2. A determination or decision. (2) The very nature of the word "resolution" makes it a question. American Heritage: A course of action determined or decided on. A formal statement of a decision, as by a legislature. (3) The resolution is obviously a question. Any other conclusion is utterly inconceivable. Why? Context. The debate community empowers a topic committee to write a topic for ALTERNATE side debating. The committee is not a random group of people coming together to "reserve" themselves about some issue. There is context - they are empowered by a community to do something. In their deliberations, the topic community attempts to craft a resolution which can be ANSWERED in either direction. They focus on issues like ground and fairness because they know the resolution will serve as the basis for debate which will be resolved by determining the policy desirablility of that resolution. That's not only what they do, but it's what we REQUIRE them to do. We don't just send the topic committee somewhere to adopt their own group resolution. It's not the end point of a resolution adopted by a body - it's the preliminary wording of a resolution sent to others to be answered or decided upon. (4) Further context: the word resolved is used to emphasize the fact that it's policy debate. Resolved comes from the adoption of resolutions by legislative bodies. A resolution is either adopted or it is not. It's a question before a legislative body. Should this statement be adopted or not. (5) The very terms 'affirmative' and 'negative' support my view. One affirms a resolution. Affirmative and negative are the equivalents of 'yes' or 'no' - which, of course, are answers to a question.
6 +
7 +A limitation is the cancelation of a program, not curtailment
8 +San Fellipo, 92 (John, “OREGON'S TELEPHONE INFORMATION DELIVERY SERVICE LAW: A CONSUMER PROTECTION STEP TOO FAR” 28 Willamette L. Rev. 455 1991-1992, Hein Online)
9 +
10 +131. The author understands "limit" as used in OR. ADMIN. R. 860-21-505(8) (1991) to mean cancel, as opposed to the word "curtail" used in section (7), meaning only a partial restriction.
11 +
12 +Violation: u aff embodies rage as an act of feminist killjoy
13 +
14 +Standards
15 +
16 +1. Switch side debate
17 +
18 +Substantive constraints on the debate are key to actualize effective pluralism and agonistic democracy
19 +John Dryzek 6, Professor of Social and Political Theory, The Australian National University, Reconciling Pluralism and Consensus as Political Ideals, American Journal of Political Science,Vol. 50, No. 3, July 2006, Pp. 634–649
20 +A more radical contemporary pluralism is suspicious of liberal and communitarian devices for reconciling difference. Such a critical pluralism is associated with agonists such as Connolly (1991), Honig (1993), and Mouffe (2000), and difference democrats such as Young (2000). As Honig puts it, “Difference is just another word for what used to be called pluralism” (1996, 60). Critical pluralists resemble liberals in that they begin from the variety of ways it is possible to experience the world, but stress that the experiences and perspectives of marginalized and oppressed groups are likely to be very different from dominant groups. They also have a strong suspicion ofliberal theory that looks neutral but in practice supports and serves the powerful. Difference democrats are hostile to consensus, partly because consensus decisionmaking (of the sort popular in 1970s radical groups) conceals informal oppression under the guise of concern for all by disallowing dissent (Zablocki 1980). But the real target is political theory that deploys consensus, especially deliberative and liberal theory. Young (1996, 125–26) argues that the appeals to unity and the common good that deliberative theorists under sway of the consensus ideal stress as the proper forms of political communication can often be oppressive. For deliberation so oriented all too easily equates the common good with the interests of the more powerful, thus sidelining legitimate concerns of the marginalized. Asking the underprivileged to set aside their particularistic concerns also means marginalizing their favored forms of expression, especially the telling of personal stories (Young 1996, 126).3 Speaking for an agonistic conception of democracy (to which Young also subscribes; 2000, 49–51), Mouffe states: To negate the ineradicable character of antagonism and aim at a universal rational consensus— that is the real threat to democracy. Indeed, this can lead to violence being unrecognized and hidden behind appeals to “rationality,” as is often the case in liberal thinking. (1996, 248) Mouffe is a radical pluralist: “By pluralism I mean the end of a substantive idea of the good life” (1996, 246). But neither Mouffe nor Young want to abolish communication in the name of pluralism and difference; much of their work advocates sustained attention to communication. Mouffe also cautions against uncritical celebration of difference, for some differences imply “subordination and should therefore be challenged by a radical democratic politics” (1996, 247). Mouffe raises the question of the terms in which engagement across difference might proceed. Participants should ideally accept that the positions of others are legitimate, though not as a result of being persuaded in argument. Instead, it is a matter of being open to conversion due to adoption of a particular kind of democratic attitude that converts antagonism into agonism, fighting into critical engagement, enemies into adversaries who are treated with respect. Respect here is not just (liberal) toleration, but positive validation of the position of others. For Young, a communicative democracy would be composed of people showing “equal respect,” under “procedural rules of fair discussion and decisionmaking” (1996, 126). Schlosberg speaks of “agonistic respect” as “a critical pluralist ethos” (1999, 70). Mouffe and Young both want pluralism to be regulated by a particular kind of attitude, be it respectful, agonistic, or even in Young’s (2000, 16–51) case reasonable.Thus neither proposes unregulated pluralism as an alternative to (deliberative) consensus. This regulation cannot be just procedural, for that would imply “anything goes” in terms of the substance of positions. Recall thatMouffe rejects differences that imply subordination. Agonistic ideals demand judgments about what is worthy of respect and what is not. Connolly (1991, 211) worriesabout dogmatic assertions and denials of identity that fuel existential resentments that would have to be changed to make agonism possible. Young seeks “transformation of private, self-regarding desires into public appeals to justice” (2000, 51). Thus for Mouffe, Connolly, and Young alike, regulative principles for democratic communication are not just attitudinal or procedural; they also refer to the substance of the kinds of claims that are worthy of respect. These authors would not want to legislate substance and are suspicious of the content of any alleged consensus. But in retreating from “anything goes” relativism, they need principles to regulate the substance of what rightfully belongs in democratic debate.
21 +
22 +2. Debatability - A framework that maintains equitable dialogism is key to social inclusion
23 +Bebbington 7 (Jan, Professor of Accounting and Sustainable Development; Judy Brown, Professor, Plant Sciences. PhD, Plant Pathology; Bob Frame, researcher at Landcare Research , Science Team Governance and Policy) “Theorizing engagement: the potential of a critical dialogic approach” Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 20 Iss: 3, pp.356 – 381
24 +This paper has sought to ground the discussion of engagement in SEA research in dialogic philosophy and theory. We have sought to synthesize a large volume of literature with the aim of bringing the principles of dialogics to a (potentially) new audience. The reason for focusing on dialogics rested on the power of that approach when considering how societal change happens and how interventions can facilitate such changes. Indeed, to work dialogically, engagement is necessary. In this respect, our aim is cognate with the aims of the special issue to elucidate possible theoretical frames that could be used to better understand engagement in the context of SEA research. Dialogic theorizing, however, does not provide a neat set of guidelines for how to engage change3. Rather, the area is (we hope) coherently messy. There is likely to be many levers or starting points for dialogic engagements, any or some of which may be effective in a particular situation. Likewise, engagements can take place at all sorts of levels and locations within society, any of which affect webs of accountability relationships that individuals and organizations operate within. For example, in addressing typical questions raised by our approach we would suggest the following, dialogically informed, answers. What conditions foster successful dialogue? – open processes where communities of interest are involved, where each individual is able to speak and be heard and where individuals can exercise agency. This requires institutional frameworks that enable the dialogue to take place as well as agreement from participants not to abuse their powers to achieve predetermined outcomes. How do you encourage transitions from monologic to dialogic states? – monological states do not (ultimately) serve society well; they lead to outcomes that are thought to be “bad. even by those in power. For example, a loss of trust in organizations, governments and leaders is an outcome of past monologic approaches. One stage in moving to a dialogic state is recognition of the need to do so by those who currently hold power. Another stage of such a move is predicated on working alongside those who seek to create more dialogic engagements and using the principles of iteration and reiteration to get a sense of whether or not dialogue is “genuine. that no one is being coerced, that the powerful accept that meaning making should be shared, and to surface underlying assumptions held by all parties (including yourself as a researcher). Indeed, dialogics requires that its practitioners also embrace the contestability of any situation and asks that compassion, love and humility be considered an essential part of the toolkit (which could be gathered together under a notion of integrity). This is not to say that anything goes. Rather, following an approach in sympathy with dialogic theory, philosophy and practice may (over a relatively extended timescale) start the process of change that SEA seeks. While understanding the impatience which besets SEA research, engagement (especially longitudinal) for the stepwise change that SEA practitioners seek is likely to be a many-decade task rather than a six-week case study with an organization. The contribution we have sought to make in this paper is to suggest that concerns about the effectiveness of engagement processes in relation to corporate accountability, corporate governance and corporate social responsibility can be understood and addressed via a dialogic engagement. We argue that engagements within SEA research can only be understood if they consider a number of interrelated contextual factors (institutional frameworks, epistemology, human agency, role of experts, language and discourse heterogeneity, community and identity, material context and power dynamics). Fundamental to this process is Freire's notion of conscientization, which requires exposing and reflecting on “invisible” or “silenced” factors that oppress specific groups, re-examining situations in light of new understandings, problematizing existing situations, re-presenting and re-narrating existing situations, allowing for “perception of perceptions” and identifying solutions to transcend existing situations of oppression, harm or unacceptable social and environmental outcomes. We suggest that unless SEA practice is sensitive to these issues it will be unable to bring about the necessary social transformation to reduce these impacts and change the reality of social groups and our natural ecology.
25 +
26 +3. Civic Engagement - identifying a limited point of discussion is key to decision-making and advocacy skills~-~--this still provides room for flexibility and innovation, but targets the discussion
27 +Steinberg and Freeley 8 *Austin J. Freeley is a Boston based attorney who focuses on criminal, personal injury and civil rights law, AND **David L. Steinberg , Lecturer of Communication Studies @ U Miami, Argumentation and Debate: Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making pp45-
28 +Debate is a means of settling differences, so there must be a difference of opinion or a conflict of interest before there can be a debate. If everyone is in agreement on a tact or value or policy, there is no need for debate: the matter can be settled by unanimous consent. Thus, for example, it would be pointless to attempt to debate "Resolved: That two plus two equals four," because there is simply no controversy about this statement. (Controversy is an essential prerequisite of debate. Where there is no clash of ideas, proposals, interests, or expressed positions on issues, there is no debate. In addition, debate cannot produce effective decisions without clear identification of a question or questions to be answered. For example, general argument may occur about the broad topic of illegal immigration. How many illegal immigrants are in the United States? What is the impact of illegal immigration and immigrants on our economy? What is their impact on our communities? Do they commit crimes? Do they take jobs from American workers? Do they pay taxes? Do they require social services? Is it a problem that some do not speak English? Is it the responsibility of employers to discourage illegal immigration by not hiring undocumented workers? Should they have the opportunity- to gain citizenship? Docs illegal immigration pose a security threat to our country? Do illegal immigrants do work that American workers are unwilling to do? Are their rights as workers and as human beings at risk due to their status? Are they abused by employers, law enforcement, housing, and businesses? I low are their families impacted by their status? What is the moral and philosophical obligation of a nation state to maintain its borders? Should we build a wall on the Mexican border, establish a national identification can!, or enforce existing laws against employers? Should we invite immigrants to become U.S. citizens? Surely you can think of many more concerns to be addressed by a conversation about the topic area of illegal immigration. Participation in this "debate" is likely to be emotional and intense. However, it is not likely to be productive or useful without focus on a particular question and identification of a line demarcating sides in the controversy. To be discussed and resolved effectively, controversies must be stated clearly. Vague understanding results in unfocused deliberation and poor decisions, frustration, and emotional distress, as evidenced by the failure of the United States Congress to make progress on the immigration debate during the summer of 2007. Someone disturbed by the problem of the growing underclass of poorly educated, socially disenfranchised youths might observe, "Public schools are doing a terrible job! They are overcrowded, and many teachers are poorly qualified in their subject areas. Even the best teachers can do little more than struggle to maintain order in their classrooms." That same concerned citizen, facing a complex range of issues, might arrive at an unhelpful decision, such as "We ought to do something about this" or. worse. "It's too complicated a problem to deal with." Groups of concerned citizens worried about the state of public education could join together to express their frustrations, anger, disillusionment, and emotions regarding the schools, but without a focus for their discussions, they could easily agree about the sorry state of education without finding points of clarity or potential solutions. A gripe session would follow. But if a precise question is posed—such as "What can be done to improve public education?"—then a more profitable area of discussion is opened up simply by placing a focus on the search for a concrete solution step. One or more judgments can be phrased in the form of debate propositions, motions for parliamentary debate, or bills for legislative assemblies. The statements "Resolved: That the federal government should implement a program of charter schools in at-risk communities" and "Resolved: That the state of Florida should adopt a school voucher program" more clearly identify specific ways of dealing with educational problems in a manageable form, suitable for debate. They provide specific policies to be investigated and aid discussants in identifying points of difference. To have a productive debate, which facilitates effective decision making by directing and placing limits on the decision to be made, the basis for argument should be clearly defined. If we merely talk about "homelessness" or "abortion" or "crime'* or "global warming" we are likely to have an interesting discussion but not to establish profitable basis for argument. For example, the statement "Resolved: That the pen is mightier than the sword" is debatable, yet fails to provide much basis for clear argumentation. If we take this statement to mean that the written word is more effective than physical force for some purposes, we can identify a problem area: the comparative effectiveness of writing or physical force for a specific purpose. Although we now have a general subject, we have not yet stated a problem. It is still too broad, too loosely worded to promote well-organized argument. What sort of writing are we concerned with—poems, novels, government documents, website development, advertising, or what? What does "effectiveness" mean in this context? What kind of physical force is being compared—fists, dueling swords, bazookas, nuclear weapons, or what? A more specific question might be. "Would a mutual defense treaty or a visit by our fleet be more effective in assuring Liurania of our support in a certain crisis?" The basis for argument could be phrased in a debate proposition such as "Resolved: That the United States should enter into a mutual defense treatv with Laurania." Negative advocates might oppose this proposition by arguing that fleet maneuvers would be a better solution. This is not to say that debates should completely avoid creative interpretation of the controversy by advocates, or that good debates cannot occur over competing interpretations of the controversy; in fact, these sorts of debates may be very engaging. The point is that debate is best facilitated by the guidance provided by focus on a particular point of difference, which will be outlined in the following discussion.
29 +
30 +4. A topical version of your aff exists- You could have read an aff about how free speech allows for harms against women. This is the best of both worlds; it solves for my standards and it still allows you to engage in the discussion you wanted to have.
31 +
32 +Voter:
33 +Fairness is a voter – its key to identifying the better debater over the better cheater.
34 +Education is a voter – it’s a constitutive aspect of the activity. If debate wasn’t educational schools would stop funding it.
35 +
36 +Competing Interps Good
37 +1. Reasonability is arbitrary which invites judge intervention or random unjustified thresholds.
38 +2. Competing interpretations deters future abuse by creating consistent norms that debaters can be held to in the future.
39 +3. Reasonability causes a race to the bottom where debaters try to be as abusive as possible while still remaining reasonable, which increases abuse.
40 +4. Reasonability collapses into competing interpretations because you still need to read a counter-interp to prove that you are being reasonable.
41 +
42 +DTD Good
43 +1. Dropping the arg is the equivalent of severance because it allows them to shift to a different position in the 1ar which moots 7 minutes of 1nc offense.
44 +2. Drop the arg collapses to drop the debater on T because if they have no advocacy there is nothing to vote for.
45 +3. Deters future abuse the greatest incentive in debate is competitive success so debaters won’t read positions if they can’t win on them.
46 +4. Theoretical critique is insufficient—our discussion should be based around finding policies, changes in the empirical world, that can both reorient our values and change tangible conditions of oppression
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-02-13 19:11:40.0
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +presentation as
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +9
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Triples
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Immaculate Heart Mizrahi Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +T - Framework
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Stanford
Caselist.RoundClass[6]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +7
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-14 21:04:39.0
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +chris wang
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harvard Westlake
Caselist.RoundClass[7]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +8
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-14 21:05:46.0
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +chris wang
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harvard Westlake
Caselist.RoundClass[8]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +9
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-14 21:08:45.0
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +chris wang
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harvard Westlake
Caselist.RoundClass[9]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +10
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-02-13 19:11:37.0
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +presentation as
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Triples
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Stanford

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)