Changes for page Immaculate Heart Mizrahi Neg
Summary
-
Objects (1 modified, 17 added, 0 removed)
- Caselist.RoundClass[5]
- Caselist.CitesClass[6]
- Caselist.CitesClass[7]
- Caselist.CitesClass[8]
- Caselist.CitesClass[9]
- Caselist.CitesClass[10]
- Caselist.CitesClass[11]
- Caselist.CitesClass[14]
- Caselist.CitesClass[15]
- Caselist.RoundClass[6]
- Caselist.RoundClass[7]
- Caselist.RoundClass[8]
- Caselist.RoundClass[9]
- Caselist.RoundClass[10]
- Caselist.RoundClass[12]
- Caselist.RoundClass[13]
- Caselist.RoundClass[14]
- Caselist.RoundClass[15]
Details
- Caselist.RoundClass[5]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +6 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -2016-11-19 19:49:15. 6541 +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.CitesClass[11]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,12 @@ 1 +1NC – T - Any 2 +Interpretation: Merriam Webster defines “any” as 3 +Merriam Webster (Merriam Webster, online reference, “any,” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/any) 4 + Every —used to indicate one selected without restriction any child would know that 5 +Violation: The plan ends restrictions surrounding specific forms of speech 6 +Net Benefits— 7 + 8 +1. Limits 9 + 10 +2. Common usage 11 + 12 +3. Topical version of the aff - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-02-18 19:07:38.0 - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +harker - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +10 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +3 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Immaculate Heart Mizrahi Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB ~-~- T - Any - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Harvard Westlake
- Caselist.CitesClass[14]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,34 @@ 1 +Heg Good K 2 +1NC 3 +1NC – Heg K 4 +The 1AC is an example of intellectual arrogance. Framing our international presence as being one of destructive violent imperialism compromises the moral force of hegemony. The US has an obligation to secure less stable nations; it’s the only way to ensure global safety. 5 +Hanson 03 (Victor Davis, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Professor Emeritus at California University, Fresno, Ph.D. from Stanford, “We Could Still Lose.” National Review Online. August 11. http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3050721.html.) 6 +My point is rather that, because we are products of an affluent and leisured West, we have a special burden to remember how tenuous and fragile civilization remains outside our suburbs. Most of us don’t fear much from the fatwa of a murderous mullah, and few have had our sisters shredded before our eyes in one of Uday’s brush chippers—much less ever seen chemical warfare trucks hosing down our block, in the same way that crop dusters fogged our backyards. Instead, we have the leisure to engage in utopian musing, assured that our economy, our unseen soldiers, or our system working on autopilot will always ensure us such prerogatives. And in the la-la land of Washington and New York, it is especially easy to forget that we are not even like our own soldiers in Iraq, now sleeping outside without toilets and air conditioners, eating dehydrated food, and trying to distinguish killers from innocents. What does all this mean? Western societies from ancient Athens to imperial Rome to the French republic rarely collapsed because of a shortage of resources or because foreign enemies proved too numerous or formidable in arms—even when those enemies were grim Macedonians or Germans. Rather, in times of peace and prosperity there arose an unreal view of the world beyond their borders, one that was the product of insularity brought about by success, and an intellectual arrogance that for some can be the unfortunate by-product of an enlightened society. I think we are indulging in this unreal hypercriticism—even apart from the election season antics of our politicians—because we are not being gassed or shot or even left hot or hungry. September 11 no longer evokes an image of incinerated firefighters, innocents leaping out of skyscrapers, or the stench of flesh and melted plastic but rather squabbles over architectural designs, lawsuits, snarling over John Ashcroft’s new statutes, or concerns about being too rude to the Arab street. Such smug dispensation—as profoundly amoral as it is—provides us, on the cheap and at a safe distance, with a sense of moral worth. Or perhaps censuring from the bleachers enables us to feel superior to those less fortunate who are still captive to their primordial appetites. We prefer to cringe at the thought that others like to see proof of their killers’ deaths, prefer to shoot rather than die capturing a mass murderer, and welcome a generic profile of those who wish to kill them en masse. We should take stock of this dangerous and growing mind-set—and remember that wealthy, sophisticated societies like our own are rarely overrun. They simply implode—whining and debating to the end, even as they pass away. 7 + 8 + 9 +The 1ACs criticism of American policy contributes to isolationism and the eventual collapse of U.S. primacy 10 +Kagan 98 11 + (Robert, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and PhD in American History from American University, “The Benevolent Empire,” Foreign Policy. Summer, http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=viewandid=275 AFM) 12 + 13 +Those contributing to the growing chorus of antihegemony and multipolarity may know they are playing a dangerous game, one that needs to be conducted with the utmost care, as French leaders did during the Cold War, lest the entire international system come crashing down around them. What they may not have adequately calculated, however, is the possibility that Americans will not respond as wisely as they generally did during the Cold War. Americans and their leaders should not take all this sophisticated whining about U.S. hegemony too seriously. They certainly should not take it more seriously than the whiners themselves do. But, of course, Americans are taking it seriously. In the United States these days, the lugubrious guilt trip of post-Vietnam liberalism is echoed even by conservatives, with William Buckley, Samuel Huntington, and James Schlesinger all decrying American "hubris," "arrogance," and "imperialism." Clinton administration officials, in between speeches exalting America as the "indispensable" nation, increasingly behave as if what is truly indispensable is the prior approval of China, France, and Russia for every military action. Moreover, at another level, there is a stirring of neo-isolationism in America today, a mood that nicely complements the view among many Europeans that America is meddling too much in everyone else's business and taking too little time to mind its own. The existence of the Soviet Union disciplined Americans and made them see that their enlightened self-interest lay in a relatively generous foreign policy. Today, that discipline is no longer present. ¶ In other words, foreign grumbling about American hegemony would be merely amusing, were it not for the very real possibility that too many Americans will forget — even if most of the rest of the world does not — just how important continued American dominance is to the preservation of a reasonable level of international security and prosperity. World leaders may want to keep this in mind when they pop the champagne corks in celebration of the next American humbling. 14 + 15 + 16 +The 1AC is a quintessential instance of wishful thinking. Our preoccupation with what “imperial action” connotes, distracts from America’s burden as a hegemon to prevent global instability 17 +Sowell 06 ( Thomas, senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, “Serious or Suicidal”, Jewish World Review, http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell010306.asp) 18 +It is as if we were on the Niagara River and wanted to go ashore before it was too late, but did not want to turn on the motors for fear of disturbing the neighbors with excessive noise. But at that point, the choice is between being serious or being suicidal. That is where we are internationally today. Many years ago, there was a book with the title "The Suicide of the West." It may have been ahead of its time. The squeamishness, indecision, and wishful thinking of the West are its greatest dangers because the West has the power to destroy any other danger. But it does not have the will. Partly this is because most of our Western allies have been sheltered from the brutal realities of the international jungle for more than half a century under the American nuclear umbrella. People insulated from dangers for generations can indulge themselves in the illusion that there are no dangers — as much of Western Europe has. This is part of the "world opinion" that makes us hesitant to take any decisive action to prevent a nightmare scenario of nuclear weapons in the hands of hate-filled fanatics. Do not look for Europe to support any decisive action against Iran. But look for much of their intelligentsia, and much of our own intelligentsia as well, to be alert for any opportunity to wax morally superior if we do act. They will be able to think of all sorts of nicer alternatives to taking out Iran's nuclear development sites. They will be able to come up with all sorts of abstract arguments and moral equivalence, such as: Other countries have nuclear weapons. Why not Iran? Debating abstract questions is much easier than confronting concrete and often brutal alternatives. The big question is whether we are serious or suicidal. 19 + 20 + 21 +Hegemony decline causes extinction. 22 +Brooks, Ikenberry, and Wohlforth ’13 23 +(Stephen, Associate Professor of Government at Dartmouth College, John Ikenberry is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University in the Department of Politics and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, William C. Wohlforth is the Daniel Webster Professor in the Department of Government at Dartmouth College “Don’t Come Home America: The Case Against Retrenchment,” International Security, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Winter 2012/13), pp. 7–51) 24 +A core premise of deep engagement is that it prevents the emergence of a far more dangerous global security environment. For one thing, as noted above, the United States’ overseas presence gives it the leverage to restrain partners from taking provocative action. Perhaps more important, its core alliance commitments also deter states with aspirations to regional hegemony from contemplating expansion and make its partners more secure, reducing their incentive to adopt solutions to their security problems that threaten others and thus stoke security dilemmas. The contention that engaged U.S. power dampens the baleful effects of anarchy is consistent with influential variants of realist theory. Indeed, arguably the scariest portrayal of the war-prone world that would emerge absent the “American Pacifier” is provided in the works of John Mearsheimer, who forecasts dangerous multipolar regions replete with security competition, arms races, nuclear proliferation and associated preventive war temptations, regional rivalries, and even runs at regional hegemony and full-scale great power war. 72 How do retrenchment advocates, the bulk of whom are realists, discount this benefit? Their arguments are complicated, but two capture most of the variation: (1) U.S. security guarantees are not necessary to prevent dangerous rivalries and conflict in Eurasia; or (2) prevention of rivalry and conflict in Eurasia is not a U.S. interest. Each response is connected to a different theory or set of theories, which makes sense given that the whole debate hinges on a complex future counterfactual (what would happen to Eurasia’s security setting if the United States truly disengaged?). Although a certain answer is impossible, each of these responses is nonetheless a weaker argument for retrenchment than advocates acknowledge. The first response flows from defensive realism as well as other international relations theories that discount the conflict-generating potential of anarchy under contemporary conditions. 73 Defensive realists maintain that the high expected costs of territorial conquest, defense dominance, and an array of policies and practices that can be used credibly to signal benign intent, mean that Eurasia’s major states could manage regional multipolarity peacefully without the American pacifier. Retrenchment would be a bet on this scholarship, particularly in regions where the kinds of stabilizers that nonrealist theories point to—such as democratic governance or dense institutional linkages—are either absent or weakly present. There are three other major bodies of scholarship, however, that might give decisionmakers pause before making this bet. First is regional expertise. Needless to say, there is no consensus on the net security effects of U.S. withdrawal. Regarding each region, there are optimists and pessimists. Few experts expect a return of intense great power competition in a post-American Europe, but many doubt European governments will pay the political costs of increased EU defense cooperation and the budgetary costs of increasing military outlays. 74 The result might be a Europe that is incapable of securing itself from various threats that could be destabilizing within the region and beyond (e.g., a regional conflict akin to the 1990s Balkan wars), lacks capacity for global security missions in which U.S. leaders might want European participation, and is vulnerable to the influence of outside rising powers. What about the other parts of Eurasia where the United States has a substantial military presence? Regarding the Middle East, the balance begins to swing toward pessimists concerned that states currently backed by Washington— notably Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia—might take actions upon U.S. retrenchment that would intensify security dilemmas. And concerning East Asia, pessimism regarding the region’s prospects without the American pacifier is pronounced. Arguably the principal concern expressed by area experts is that Japan and South Korea are likely to obtain a nuclear capacity and increase their military commitments, which could stoke a destabilizing reaction from China. It is notable that during the Cold War, both South Korea and Taiwan moved to obtain a nuclear weapons capacity and were only constrained from doing so by a still-engaged United States. 75 The second body of scholarship casting doubt on the bet on defensive realism’s sanguine portrayal is all of the research that undermines its conception of state preferences. Defensive realism’s optimism about what would happen if the United States retrenched is very much dependent on its particular—and highly restrictive—assumption about state preferences; once we relax this assumption, then much of its basis for optimism vanishes. Specifically, the prediction of post-American tranquility throughout Eurasia rests on the assumption that security is the only relevant state preference, with security defined narrowly in terms of protection from violent external attacks on the homeland. Under that assumption, the security problem is largely solved as soon as offense and defense are clearly distinguishable, and offense is extremely expensive relative to defense. Burgeoning research across the social and other sciences, however, undermines that core assumption: states have preferences not only for security but also for prestige, status, and other aims, and they engage in trade-offs among the various objectives. 76 In addition, they define security not just in terms of territorial protection but in view of many and varied milieu goals. It follows that even states that are relatively secure may nevertheless engage in highly competitive behavior. Empirical studies show that this is indeed sometimes the case. 77 In sum, a bet on a benign postretrenchment Eurasia is a bet that leaders of major countries will never allow these nonsecurity preferences to influence their strategic choices. To the degree that these bodies of scholarly knowledge have predictive leverage, U.S. retrenchment would result in a significant deterioration in the security environment in at least some of the world’s key regions. We have already mentioned the third, even more alarming body of scholarship. Offensive realism predicts that the withdrawal of the American pacifier will yield either a competitive regional multipolarity complete with associated insecurity, arms racing, crisis instability, nuclear proliferation, and the like, or bids for regional hegemony, which may be beyond the capacity of local great powers to contain (and which in any case would generate intensely competitive behavior, possibly including regional great power war). Hence it is unsurprising that retrenchment advocates are prone to focus on the second argument noted above: that avoiding wars and security dilemmas in the world’s core regions is not a U.S. national interest. Few doubt that the United States could survive the return of insecurity and conflict among Eurasian powers, but at what cost? Much of the work in this area has focused on the economic externalities of a renewed threat of insecurity and war, which we discuss below. Focusing on the pure security ramifications, there are two main reasons why decisionmakers may be rationally reluctant to run the retrenchment experiment. First, overall higher levels of conflict make the world a more dangerous place. Were Eurasia to return to higher levels of interstate military competition, one would see overall higher levels of military spending and innovation and a higher likelihood of competitive regional proxy wars and arming of client states—all of which would be concerning, in part because it would promote a faster diffusion of military power away from the United States. Greater regional insecurity could well feed proliferation cascades, as states such as Egypt, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Saudi Arabia all might choose to create nuclear forces. 78 It is unlikely that proliferation decisions by any of these actors would be the end of the game: they would likely generate pressure locally for more proliferation. Following Kenneth Waltz, many retrenchment advocates are proliferation optimists, assuming that nuclear deterrence solves the security problem. 79 Usually carried out in dyadic terms, the debate over the stability of proliferationchanges as the numbers go up. Proliferation optimism rests on assumptions of rationality and narrow security preferences. In social science, however, such assumptions are inevitably probabilistic. Optimists assume that most states are led by rational leaders, most will overcome organizational problems and resist the temptation to preempt before feared neighbors nuclearize, and most pursue only security and are risk averse. Confidence in such probabilistic assumptions declines if the world were to move from nine to twenty, thirty, or forty nuclear states. In addition, many of the other dangers noted by analysts who are concerned about the destabilizing effects of nuclear proliferation—including the risk of accidents and the prospects that some new nuclear powers will not have truly survivable forces—seem prone to go up as the number of nuclear powers grows. 80 Moreover, the risk of “unforeseen crisis dynamics” that could spin out of control is also higher as the number of nuclear powers increases. Finally, add to these concerns the enhanced danger of nuclear leakage, and a world with overall higher levels of security competition becomes yet more worrisome. The argument that maintaining Eurasian peace is not a U.S. interest faces a second problem. On widely accepted realist assumptions, acknowledging that U.S. engagement preserves peace dramatically narrows the difference between retrenchment and deep engagement. For many supporters of retrenchment, the optimal strategy for a power such as the United States, which has attained regional hegemony and is separated from other great powers by oceans, is offshore balancing: stay over the horizon and “pass the buck” to local powers to do the dangerous work of counterbalancing any local rising power. The United States should commit to onshore balancing only when local balancing is likely to fail and a great power appears to be a credible contender for regional hegemony, as in the cases of Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union in the midtwentieth century. The problem is that China’s rise puts the possibility of its attaining regional hegemony on the table, at least in the medium to long term. As Mearsheimer notes, “The United States will have to play a key role in countering China, because its Asian neighbors are not strong enough to do it by themselves.” 81 Therefore, unless China’s rise stalls, “the United States is likely to act toward China similar to the way it behaved toward the Soviet Union during the Cold War.” 82 It follows that the United States should take no action that would compromise its capacity to move to onshore balancing in the future. It will need to maintain key alliance relationships in Asia as well as the formidably expensive military capacity to intervene there. The implication is to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, reduce the presence in Europe, and pivot to Asia— just what the United States is doing. 83 In sum, the argument that U.S. security commitments are unnecessary for peace is countered by a lot of scholarship, including highly influential realist scholarship. In addition, the argument that Eurasian peace is unnecessary for U.S. security is weakened by the potential for a large number of nasty security consequences as well as the need to retain a latent onshore balancing capacity that dramatically reduces the savings retrenchment might bring. Moreover, switching between offshore and onshore balancing could well be difªcult. Bringing together the thrust of many of the arguments discussed so far underlines the degree to which the case for retrenchment misses the underlying logic of the deep engagement strategy. By supplying reassurance, deterrence, and active management, the United States lowers security competition in the world’s key regions, thereby preventing the emergence of a hothouse atmosphere for growing new military capabilities. Alliance ties dissuade partners from ramping up and also provide leverage to prevent military transfers to potential rivals. On top of all this, the United States’ formidable military machine may deter entry by potential rivals. Current great power military expenditures as a percentage of GDP are at historical lows, and thus far other major powers have shied away from seeking to match top-end U.S. military capabilities. In addition, they have so far been careful to avoid attracting the “focused enmity” of the United States. 84 All of the world’s most modern militaries are U.S. allies (America’s alliance system of more than sixty countries now accounts for some 80 percent of global military spending), and the gap between the U.S. military capability and that of potential rivals is by many measures growing rather than shrinking. 85 25 + 26 +The result of our inaction leads to global wars and an escalation of conflict in the Middle East – That turns case 27 +Rosen 03 (Stephen Peter Rosen, Beton Michael Kaneb Professor of National Security and Military Affairs at Harvard University, The National Interest. “An Empire, if You Can Keep It.” March 22. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-99377575.html) 28 +Rather than wrestle with such difficult and unpleasant problems, the United States could give up the imperial mission, or pretensions to it, now. This would essentially mean the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from the Middle East, Europe and mainland Asia. It may be that all other peoples, without significant exception, will then turn to their own affairs and leave the United States alone. But those who are hostile to us might remain hostile, and be much less afraid of the United States after such a withdrawal. Current friends would feel less secure and, in the most probable post-imperial world, would revert to the logic of self-help in which all states do what they must to protect themselves. This would imply the relatively rapid acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Iran, Iraq and perhaps Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Indonesia and others. Constraints on the acquisition of biological weapons would be even weaker than they are today. Major regional arms races would also be very likely throughout Asia and the Middle East. This would not be a pleasant world for Americans, or anyone else. It is difficult to guess what the costs of such a world would be to the United States. They would probably not put the end of the United States in prospect, but they would not be small. If the logic of American empire is unappealing, it is not at all clear that the alternatives are that much more attractive. 29 + 30 + 31 +It is a question of how we orient ourselves toward the international arena - The alternative is to embrace an affirmation of American hegemony in order to preserve international stability. 32 +Kagan 96 33 +(William Kristol – visiting professor in government at Harvard University and Robert Kagan – senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and PhD in American History, “Toward a Neo-Reganite Foreign Policy,” Foreign Affairs. July/August, http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=viewandid=276) 34 +TWENTY YEARS later, it is time once again to challenge an indifferent America and a confused American conservatism. Today's lukewarm consensus about America's reduced role in a post-Cold War world is wrong. Conservatives should not accede to it; it is bad for the country and, incidentally, bad for conservatism. Conservatives will not be able to govern America over the long term if they fail to offer a more elevated vision of America's international role. What should that role be? Benevolent global hegemony. Having defeated the "evil empire," the United States enjoys strategic and ideological predominance. The first objective of U.S. foreign policy should be to preserve and enhance that predominance by strengthening America's security, supporting its friends, advancing its interests, and standing up for its principles around the world. The aspiration to benevolent hegemony might strike some as either hubristic or morally suspect. But a hegemon is nothing more or less than a leader with preponderant influence and authority over all others in its domain. That is America's position in the world today. The leaders of Russia and China understand this. At their April summit meeting, Boris Yeltsin and Jiang Zemin joined in denouncing "hegemonism" in the post-Cold War world. They meant this as a complaint about the United States. It should be taken as a compliment and a guide to action. Consider the events of just the past six months, a period that few observers would consider remarkable for its drama on the world stage. In East Asia, the carrier task forces of the U.S. Seventh Fleet helped deter Chinese aggression against democratic Taiwan, and the 35,000 American troops stationed in South Korea helped deter a possible invasion by the rulers in Pyongyang. In Europe, the United States sent 20,000 ground troops to implement a peace agreement in the former Yugoslavia, maintained 100,000 in Western Europe as a symbolic commitment to European stability and security, and intervened diplomatically to prevent the escalation of a conflict between Greece and Turkey. In the Middle East, the United States maintained the deployment of thousands of soldiers and a strong naval presence in the Persian Gulf region to deter possible aggression by Saddam Hussein's Iraq or the Islamic fundamentalist regime in Iran, and it mediated in the conflict between Israel and Syria in Lebanon. In the Western Hemisphere, the United States completed the withdrawal of 15,000 soldiers after restoring a semblance of democratic government in Haiti and, almost without public notice, prevented a military coup in Paraguay. In Africa, a U.S. expeditionary force rescued Americans and others trapped in the Liberian civil conflict. These were just the most visible American actions of the past six months, and just those of a military or diplomatic nature. During the same period, the United States made a thousand decisions in international economic forums, both as a government and as an amalgam of large corporations and individual entrepreneurs, that shaped the lives and fortunes of billions around the globe. America influenced both the external and internal behavior of other countries through the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Through the United Nations, it maintained sanctions on rogue states such as Libya, Iran, and Iraq. Through aid programs, the United States tried to shore up friendly democratic regimes in developing nations. The enormous web of the global economic system, with the United States at the center, combined with the pervasive influence of American ideas and culture, allowed Americans to wield influence in many other ways of which they were entirely unconscious. The simple truth of this era was stated last year by a Serb leader trying to explain Slobodan Milosevic's decision to finally seek rapprochement with Washington. "As a pragmatist," the Serbian politician said, "Milosevic knows that all satellites of the United States are in a better position than those that are not satellites." And America's allies are in a better position than those who are not its allies. Most of the world's major powers welcome U.S. global involvement and prefer America's benevolent hegemony to the alternatives. Instead of having to compete for dominant global influence with many other powers, therefore, the United States finds both the Europeans and the Japanese ~-~- after the United States, the two most powerful forces in the world ~-~- supportive of its world leadership role. Those who anticipated the dissolution of these alliances once the common threat of the Soviet Union disappeared have been proved wrong. The principal concern of America's allies these days is not that it will be too dominant but that it will withdraw. Somehow most Americans have failed to notice that they have never had it so good. They have never lived in a world more conducive to their fundamental interests in a liberal international order, the spread of freedom and democratic governance, an international economic system of free-market capitalism and free trade, and the security of Americans not only to live within their own borders but to travel and do business safely and without encumbrance almost anywhere in the world. Americans have taken these remarkable benefits of the post-Cold War era for granted, partly because it has all seemed so easy. Despite misguided warnings of imperial overstretch, the United States has so far exercised its hegemony without any noticeable strain, and it has done so despite the fact that Americans appear to be in a more insular mood than at any time since before the Second World War. The events of the last six months have excited no particular interest among Americans and, indeed, seem to have been regarded with the same routine indifference as breathing and eating. And that is the problem. The most difficult thing to preserve is that which does not appear to need preserving. The dominant strategic and ideological position the United States now enjoys is the product of foreign policies and defense strategies that are no longer being pursued. Americans have come to take the fruits of their hegemonic power for granted. During the Cold War, the strategies of deterrence and containment worked so well in checking the ambitions of America's adversaries that many American liberals denied that our adversaries had ambitions or even, for that matter, that America had adversaries. Today the lack of a visible threat to U.S. vital interests or to world peace has tempted Americans to absentmindedly dismantle the material and spiritual foundations on which their national well-being has been based. They do not notice that potential challengers are deterred before even contemplating confrontation by their overwhelming power and influence. The ubiquitous post-Cold War question ~-~- where is the threat? ~-~- is thus misconceived. In a world in which peace and American security depend on American power and the will to use it, the main threat the United States faces now and in the future is its own weakness. American hegemony is the only reliable defense against a breakdown of peace and international order. The appropriate goal of American foreign policy, therefore, is to preserve that hegemony as far into the future as possible. To achieve this goal, the United States needs a neo-Reaganite foreign policy of military supremacy and moral confidence. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-03-04 15:55:52.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +na - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +na - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +13 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +6 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Immaculate Heart Mizrahi Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Heg Good K - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Damus
- Caselist.CitesClass[15]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,15 @@ 1 +1NC – Fake News CP 2 +Counter plan text: Public colleges and universities should prohibit the distribution and production of fake news. 3 + 4 +Fake news stories are rapidly increasing, legitimate news sources are adopting these stories 5 +Uberti 16 (David, a CJR staff writer and senior Delacorte fellow), “The real history of fake news,” Columbia Journalism Review, 12/15/16 DRD. 6 +In an 1807 letter to John Norvell, a young go-getter who had asked how to best run a newspaper, Thomas Jefferson penned what today would make for a fiery Medium post condemning fake news.¶ “It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more compleatly sic deprive the nation of its benefits, than is done by its abandoned prostitution to falsehood,” the sitting president wrote. “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.”¶ That vehicle grew into a commercial powerhouse in the 19th century and a self-reverential political institution, “the media,” by the mid-20th. But the pollution has been described in increasingly dire terms in recent months. PolitiFact named fake news its 2016 “Lie of the Year,” while chagrined Democrats have warned about its threat to an honest public debate. The pope compared consumption of fake news to eating feces. And many of the wise men and women of journalism have chimed in almost uniformly: Come to us for the real stuff.¶ “Whatever its other cultural and social merits, our digital ecosystem seems to have evolved into a near-perfect environment for fake news to thrive,” New York Times CEO Mark Thompson said in a speech to the Detroit Economic Club on Monday. The broader issue driving the paranoia is the tardy realization among mainstream media that they no longer hold the sole power to shape and drive the news agenda.¶ ¶ A little bit of brake-tapping may be in order: It’s worth remembering, in the middle of the great fake news panic of 2016, America’s very long tradition of news-related hoaxes. A thumbnail history shows marked similarities to today’s fakery in editorial motive or public gullibility, not to mention the blurred lines between deliberate and accidental flimflam. It also suggests that the recent fixation on fake news has more to do with macro-level trends than any new brand of faux content.¶ Macedonian teenagers who earn extra scratch by concocting conspiracies are indeed new entrants to the American information diet. Social networks allow smut to hurtle through the public imagination—and into pizza parlors—at breakneck speed. People at or near the top of the incoming administration have shared fake news casually. And it’s appearing in news organizations’ own programmatic ads 7 + 8 +Fake news is constitutionally protected 9 +Oyez no date Oyez, (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law), “New York Times Company v. Sullivan,” last accessed 2/7/17. 10 +Did Alabama's libel law, by not requiring Sullivan to prove that an advertisement personally harmed him and dismissing the same as untruthful due to factual errors, unconstitutionally infringe on the First Amendment's freedom of speech and freedom of press protections? The Court held that the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice (with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity). Under this new standard, Sullivan's case collapsed. 11 + 12 + 13 +College students are disproportionately at risk for believing illegitimate news stories 14 +Borchers 16 (Callum, Reporter — Washington, D.C.) “A harsh truth about fake news: Some people are super gullible,” The Washington Post, 12/5/16 DRD. 15 +A Stanford University study published Tuesday concluded that many students, from middle school through college, struggle to discern what is legitimate reporting and what is not. The Wall Street Journal summarized some of the most alarming findings:¶ Some 82 percent of middle-schoolers couldn’t distinguish between an ad labeled “sponsored content” and a real news story on a website. . . . More than two out of three middle-schoolers couldn’t see any valid reason to mistrust a post written by a bank executive arguing that young adults need more financial-planning help.¶ And nearly four in 10 high-school students believed, based on the headline, that a photo of deformed daisies on a photo-sharing site provided strong evidence of toxic conditions near the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan, even though no source or location was given for the photo.¶ Lest you think this kind of naiveté is unique to millennials, consider some of the fake news stories that have caught on in the general population recently. In October, a Twitter joke about an Ohio postal worker who was supposedly tearing up pro-Trump absentee ballots fooled Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge and Jim Hoft. A week before the election, Sean Hannity got taken in by a made-up report that President Obama, Michelle Obama and Elizabeth Warren had unfollowed Hillary Clinton on Twitter. Some fabricated stories have been truly bizarre and wildly far-fetched yet have still duped people who read them — or at least, been embraced and used by some readers. On Tuesday, the New York Times unspooled the way “dozens of made-up articles about Mrs. Clinton kidnapping, molesting and trafficking children” in the back rooms of a D.C. pizzeria called Comet Ping Pong gained traction.¶ The misinformation campaign began when John Podesta’s email account was hacked and his emails were published by WikiLeaks during the presidential campaign. Days before the election, users on the online message board 4Chan noticed that one of Mr. Podesta’s leaked emails contained communications with Comet Ping Pong owner James Alefantis discussing a fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton.¶ The 4Chan users immediately speculated about the links between Comet Ping Pong and the Democratic Party. Some posited the restaurant was part of a larger Democratic child trafficking ring, which was a theory long held by some conservative blogs. That idea jumped to other social media services such as Twitter and Reddit, where it gained momentum on the page “The_Donald.” A new Reddit discussion thread called “Pizzagate” quickly attracted 20,000 subscribers. . . .¶ Soon, dozens of fake news articles on sites such as Facebook, Planet Free Will and Living Resistance emerged. Readers shared the stories in Saudi Arabia and on Turkish and other foreign language sites.¶ Some of the people who share fake news stories on social media surely know they are spreading fiction. They just like to imagine a world that conforms to their views. Or something.¶ Others are genuinely conned, either because they don't know how to tell the difference between real and fake news or because they don't care to try. Deception may drive the creation of fake news; gullibility helps create a market for it. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-03-04 15:58:43.268 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +na - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +na - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +15 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Immaculate Heart Mizrahi Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - Fake News CP - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +USC
- 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
- Caselist.RoundClass[10]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +11 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-02-18 19:07:36.0 - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +harker - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +3 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Harvard Westlake
- Caselist.RoundClass[12]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +13 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-02-18 19:10:44.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +na - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +na - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +6 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Damus
- Caselist.RoundClass[13]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +14 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-03-04 15:55:50.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +na - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +na - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +6 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Damus
- Caselist.RoundClass[14]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +15 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-03-04 15:57:22.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +na - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +na - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +USC
- Caselist.RoundClass[15]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-03-04 15:58:40.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +na - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +na - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +USC