Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[53]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[54]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[53]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-12-16 21:08:29.159
	1	+2016-12-16 21:08:29.0

Caselist.CitesClass[54]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,54 @@
	1	+===Interpretation and Violation===
	2	+
	3	+
	4	+====The affirmative should defend the desirability of the implementation of the United States not restricting any constitutionally protected speech in public colleges and universities.====
	5	+
	6	+
	7	+====This does not require a specific form but only isolates what the content of the affirmative should contain – the affirmative must defend a policy action but can perform or present such an advocacy in any way they so desire.====
	8	+
	9	+
	10	+==== 'Resolved' denotes a proposal to be enacted by law ====
	11	+**Words and Phrases 64**
	12	+(Permanent Edition)
	13	+Definition of the word "resolve," given by Webster is "to express an
	14	+AND
	15	+," which is defined by Bouvier as meaning "to establish by law".
	16	+
	17	+
	18	+====Protected speech is a legal doctrine relating to the 1^^st^^ Amendment. ====
	19	+**The Free Legal Dictionary,** 20**16**
	20	+"Freedom of Speech", Definition.
	21	+The Framers of the Constitution guaranteed freedom of speech and expression to the citizens of
	22	+AND
	23	+. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 ~~1919~~).
	24	+
	25	+
	26	+====United States is the government located in Washington, D.C.====
	27	+**West's Legal Thesaurus/Dictionary,** 19**85**
	28	+"United States" pg 744
	29	+United States: Usually means the federal government centered in Washington, D.C.
	30	+
	31	+
	32	+===Vote Negative===
	33	+
	34	+
	35	+====Extra T – their method of is an additional plank to the resolution. They justify an infinite number of affirmatives that combine refusal to restrict speech with a method which can be anything they want – that makes engagement impossible through prep explosion and predictability skew. They also tank negative ground – any counterplans, disadvantages, or kritiks are sidestepped by the fact that can weigh their specific method. Extra T is an independent voting issue for fairness and engagement. ====
	36	+
	37	+
	38	+====Topical version of the affirmative – you can defend the limiting free speech hurts black folks ability to develop activism – BLM for example, but defend the implementation and policy of the aff. ====
	39	+
	40	+
	41	+====Limits – they explode the potential affirmatives which structurally favors the affirmative because they can prep out specific responses while permuting counterplans and alternatives – screws the neg through massive prep skews and ability to engage. ====
	42	+
	43	+
	44	+====Switch-side debate – being forced to switch sides on a topic provides a more holistic understanding, anything less causes dogmatism and a lack of ability to engage from points of difference which severs education and makes us less effective advocates. Also solves their offense - you can read your affirmative on the negative. ====
	45	+
	46	+
	47	+====Fairness and likewise competitive equity are voting issues – topical fairness requirements are key to meaningful dialogue—monopolizing strategy and prep makes the discussion one-sided and subverts any meaningful neg role which is an impact in itself. ====
	48	+Ryan** Galloway 7**, Samford Comm prof, Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28, 2007
	49	+Debate as a dialogue sets an argumentative table, where all parties receive a relatively
	50	+AND
	51	+substitutes for topical action do not accrue the dialogical benefits of topical advocacy.
	52	+
	53	+
	54	+====Evaluate the T debate under competing interpretations – it's key to generate clear models of debate and ground because otherwise the aff's interpretation can be a moving target. Reasonability is arbitrarily defined and causes a race to the bottom for the "most reasonable" position. ====

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-12-16 21:08:29.735

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Akhil Jalan

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Newark Science BA

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+38

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+3

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Millard North Brown Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+3 - T - Framework - Blake Round 3

Tournament

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