Changes for page Memorial Qin Neg
Last modified by Administrator on 2017/08/29 03:38
Change comment:
There is no comment for this version
Summary
-
Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
Details
- Caselist.RoundClass[2]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -2017-02-09 02:08:24. 9421 +2017-02-09 02:08:24.0
- Caselist.CitesClass[1]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,92 @@ 1 +My value is morality which tells us what is right and wrong to do. Morality is the ultimate motivation for any action. 2 + 3 +The standard of this round will be utilitarianism which states that the greatest good for the greatest amount of people is the best way to achieve morality. Utilitarianism prioritizes the pleasure of as many people as possible. I will provide 2 justifications: 4 + 5 +Justification 1: Util protects life first which is a prerequisite to any other value or standard. 6 +Rasmussen 81: 7 +Douglas Den Uyl and Douglas Rasmussen, Professors of Philosophy, Bellarmine College and St. John's University, READING NOZICK, Jeffrey Paul, ed., 1981, p245. (PDNSS1794) 8 +In so far as one chooses, regardless of the choice, one must choose (value) man's person’s 9 +AND 10 +value something without also (implicitly at least) valuing that which makes valuation possible. 11 +Justification 2: Util is the standard used in real world policymaking. 12 +Goodin 90: 13 + 14 +The Utilitarian Response. pg. 141-2. Robert Goodin is a fellow in philosophy at the Australian National Defense University. 15 +My larger argument turns on the proposition that there is something special about the situation 16 +AND 17 +they want to use it at all – to choose general rules or conduct. 18 + 19 +Now, I will present my counter plan. 20 + 21 +Part 1 is the Text: 22 +Public colleges and universities in the United States of America ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech except for hate speech. 23 + 24 +Part 2 is the competition: 25 +This CP is mutually exclusive because it is both textually and functionally competitive. While the Aff is protecting all speech, and hate speech is constitutional, the Neg is banning hate speech which the Aff cannot do. Also, this obviously has a different wording from the Aff, so it is textually competitive as well. 26 + 27 +Part 3 is Net Benefits: 28 + 29 +C1: Hate speech causes hate crime. 30 +Singh 12: 31 +The Rise of Hate Crimes Can Be Tied Directly to Hateful Speech. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/06/the-rise-of-hate-crimes-can-be-tied-directly-to-hateful-speech.html Hansdeep Singh is the Co-Founder and Director of Legal Programs for the International Center for Advocates Against Discrimination (ICAAD). His experiences at Human Rights Watch and the Criminal Tribunals of Rwanda and Yugoslavia have made him a forceful advocate in identifying and addressing structural discrimination globally as a means of preventing violence against minority or vulnerable communities. He holds a L.L.M. in International Law and Justice from Fordham University School of Law and a Juris Doctor from California Western School of Law. 32 +We are deluding ourselves if we do not see the parallel between intolerant or hateful 33 +AND 34 +illness plaguing this great nation—the discrimination and “othering” of minority communities. 35 + 36 +C2: Hate speech causes minorities to commit suicide. 37 +News Medical 4: 38 +Correlation between hate speech and suicide rates remains constant. http://www.news-medical.net/news/2004/08/13/4050.aspx 39 + 40 +The more negative a nickname or slur used to refer to an immigrant group, the 41 +AND 42 +operates as a stressor and can have a variety of deleterious consequences.” 43 + 44 +C3: Hate speech is a precursor to genocide. 45 +World Policy Institute 10: 46 +Hate Speech Leads to Genocide. http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2010/11/11/hate-speech-leads-genocide 47 + 48 +While hate speech can often be dismissed as bigoted ranting or merely painful words, it 49 +AND 50 +radio host for broadcasts preceding the post-election violence of 2007-2008 in Kenya. 51 + 52 +A hate speech ban is key to deter perpetrators of hatred from giving hate speech, thus avoiding all these impacts mentioned above. A hate speech ban would show bigots that their views are unwelcome. 53 + 54 +Jensen 93. Ejner J. Jensen, Senate Assembly Chair, 2-8-1993, "The pros and cons of a policy covering hate speech," The University Record, http:ur.umich.edu/9293/Feb08'93/8.htm AD 55 + 56 +Universities have a right and duty to provide an educational environment, a climate of civility 57 +AND 58 +dealing with reported incidents and resolving misunderstandings that may be interpreted as harassment. 59 + 60 +I-Law DA: 61 + 62 +Link: ILaw banned hate speech. 63 +Matsuda 89 64 +Mari J. Matsuda (Associate Professor of Law, University of Hawaii, the William S. Richardson School of Law), "Public Response to Racist Speech: Considering the Victim's Story," Michigan Law Review, 1989. 65 + 66 +The international community has chosen to outlaw racist hate propaganda. Article 4 of the International Convention 67 +AND 68 +Universal Declaration gained momentum as member states sought effective means of eliminating discrimination. 69 + 70 +US adherence to international law concerning hate speech is key to credibility in international human rights. 71 +Cohen 15 72 +Tanya Cohen, "It’s Time To Bring The Hammer Down On Hate Speech In The U.S." Thought Catalog, 5/1/2015 73 + 74 +Recent scandals involving right-wing hatemongers like Phil Robertson, Donald Sterling, Bill Maher, and the Sigma 75 +AND 76 +to follow international human rights law as the rest of the world is. 77 + 78 +Impact: ILaw solves multiple scenarios for extinction—US compliance with ILaw shapes global ILaw compliance 79 +IEER 2 80 +Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy. Rule of Power or Rule of Law? An Assessment of U.S. Policies and Actions Regarding Security-Related Treaties. May 2002. http://www.ieer.org/reports/treaties/execsumm.pdf 81 +The evolution of international law since World War II is largely a response to the 82 +AND 83 +that the state has followed the U.S. example and opted out of compliance. 84 + 85 +Turns case—the Constitution says we have to follow ILaw 86 +Roberts 7 87 +The American Value of Fear and the Indefinite Detention of Terrorist Suspects Author(s): Rodney C. Roberts Reviewed work(s): Source: Public Affairs Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 4 (Oct., 2007), pp. 405-419 Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of North American Philosophical Publications Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40441497 88 +This being the case, the U.S. has a clear legal obligation as well. Article VI 89 +AND 90 +own conduct, at least if we have raised those expectations knowingly and voluntarily. 91 + 92 +Please vote Neg. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-02-09 02:08:26.524 - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Memorial Qin Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB-CP-Terrible Hate Speech CP - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +UH