Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[27]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[25]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[27]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-12-16 20:31:32.63
	1	+2016-12-16 20:31:32.0

Caselist.CitesClass[25]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,15 @@
	1	+**(Disclosed the Eckert evidence full text since it is from a brief)**
	2	+
	3	+**A Interpretation: The aff must not defend public colleges and universities ought not restrict specific types of free speech. WEBSTER defines any:**
	4	+Merriam Webster. “Any.” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/any. LHP MK
	5	+1: one or some...would know that
	6	+
	7	+**B Violation: They say only protests**
	8	+
	9	+**C Vote neg:**
	10	+
	11	+**1 Limits and topical switch side debate. ECKERT ’16:**
	12	+Eckert, Bennett. “Topic Analysis by Bennett Eckert.” Champion Briefs: Jan/Feb 2017. 2016. No Date. LHP MK
	13	+This is potentially the most frustrating word in the topic. Merriam-Webster’s first definition of it is: 1: one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind:
	14	+a: one or another taken at random ask any man you meet
	15	+b: every —used to indicate one selected without restriction any child would know that8 It seems, then, that this “any” does mean something like “every” in this instance. However, that would not mean that the resolution is saying that colleges could restrict some, but not every instance of free speech. Rather, the topic intuitively seems to be saying that colleges cannot restrict any free speech; there should be no restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. The implication of this is obvious: plans are not topical. There also seems to be an obvious argument for plans not being allowed on this topic regardless of whether the word “any” was in the topic. If the affirmative were allowed to say “colleges should not restrict some specific instance of constitutionally protected speech”, then they would pick absurd, unbeatable affs. For example, people would read plans like “Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict students’ right to write papers on Kant.” Or “Colleges shouldn’t restrict students’ right to say racism is bad.” All of these would, if the aff could specify one sort of speech, be theoretically defensible plans. However, they are clearly terrible for debate: they would force the negative into an awful position and give them no educational ground to debate about. For this reason, I will focus my discussion in the next two sections on affirmatives that defend the whole resolution.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-12-16 20:31:34.53

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+John Sasso

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Klein Oak AG

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+27

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Lake Highland Khattak Neg

Title

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

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Strake Jesuit