Changes for page Murphy Middle Gera Neg

Last modified by Administrator on 2017/08/29 03:38

From version < 12.1 >
edited by Nevin Gera
on 2016/11/30 03:50
To version < 53.1 >
edited by Nevin Gera
on 2017/05/25 22:55
< >
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[2]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,34 +1,0 @@
1 -====First, the limits of the political sphere guarantee that the issues of the 1AC can never be solved. Graham 16,====
2 -**Graham, David A. "What Can the U.S. Do to Improve Police Accountability?" The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 8 Mar. 16ADAD, www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/police-accountability/472524/.**
3 -How much real ability do district attorneys and prosecutors have to solve the problem?
4 -AND
5 -resulted in a hung jury, and the rest are currently in limbo.
6 -
7 -
8 -====Second, Judicial review produces divide and conquer, weakening social movements and preventing meaningful change. **Becker 93====**
9 -** (Mary, Prof of Law @ University of Chicago Law School; 64 U. Colo. L. Rev. 975 ln)**
10 -Binding judicial review can impede political movements even when the Supreme Court does not actually
11 -AND
12 -Judicial review is, therefore, a "divide and conquer" strategy.
13 -
14 -
15 -====Third, State action can never be moral- the best we can do is explore answers to ethical controversies independent of state power politics. Luard 16====
16 -**Luard, Evan. "The Nature of States." Basic Texts in International Relations: The Evolution of Ideas about International Society. New York: Springer, 2016. 273-74. Print.**
17 -Another implication of most of these writings is that "morality" has little or
18 -AND
19 -on to the minds of many who exercised power in the postwar age.
20 -
21 -
22 -====Fourth, Even though nations have deliberative bodies and enact policy, they do not have intentionality, so they cannot be moral agents. Gerson 02,====
23 -Having said this, I still think that the argument that seeks to include nations within the class of moral agents on the basis of intentionality is a weak one. Here is why. There is an ambiguity in the term "intentionality" that this argument exploits. In the sense in which nations have intentionality, the attribution of moral agency does not follow. In the sense of intentionality according to which moral agency does follow, this argument does not show that nations have that. Intentionality in the first sense can characterize any goal-directed behavior and can also be applied to any behavior that is understandable in the light of that goal. For example, it is perfectly reasonable to say that a squirrel is gathering nuts for the purpose of eating throughout the winter, or that the rattle of the snake's tail shows that it intends to strike, or that the field mouse is trying to get into the house in the autumn in order to keep warm, or that the chess-playing robot is trying to pin down my knight. But the sense of intentionality that applies to such goal-directed behavior by agents obviously does not indicate moral agency. Intentionality in the second sense, the sense according to which its applicability does imply moral agency, is something else. In this sense, intentionality refers first and foremost to the self-awareness of the presence of the purpose and the self-awareness of the mental states leading to its realization. That is, of course, precisely why we refrain from claiming that someone is responsible for her ~~their~~ actions when she is ~~they are~~ unaware of what she ~~they are~~ is doing, especially when she could not have been aware. The acknowledgement of self-awareness is necessary for the attribution of moral agency. I would in fact argue that all and only nondefective human beings have this ability to be self-aware. But that is not my point here. There may be agents other than human beings that are moral agents. My present point is that a group of human beings, such as the group that comprise a nation, cannot be self-aware in this way and therefore cannot be a moral agent.
24 -
25 -
26 -====While individual members of a nation's deliberative body can possess self-awareness about their own and their group's actions, the group itself cannot. Just because all members of the group are self-aware does not mean that the group is self-aware- this means that ethics is inapplicable to the state and the only way we can engage in morality is on personal basis. Gerson 04,====
27 -Another way to look at this point is to consider that in cases of genuine self-awareness, the subject who has the intentional object, say, a purpose must be identical with the subject who is aware of having that intentional object. But when the nation has a purpose, as expressed, say, in a resolution of a governing body, it is not the nation that is self-aware but the persons who comprise it. And that self-awareness is not of each individual's own purpose, since one's own purposes may be in conflict with those of the nation. Even if they are not in conflict, that is, even if there is 100 percent support for a motion, the awareness of the nation's purpose as expressed in the motion occurs in the individual persons and not in the nation. Unless you can put purpose and self-awareness of purpose in the identical subject, you cannot have a moral agent. And in the case of group action, you can never have the identical subject that both has the purpose and is self-aware of having it. Knowing that my nation has declared war is different from the act of declaring war and occurs in a different subject. Indeed, the nation or the nonmoral agent that declares war cannot know that it declares war anymore than the chess-playing robot can know that it won (Rovane 1994; Rovane 1998).
28 -
29 -
30 -**====Thus The standard is Political Exteriority, challenging the limits of the legal and political spheres is search of alternate solutions to issues, which must be done outside the political. Newman 11** ====
31 -**(Saul, associate professor in the Department of Government in the School of Public Affairs at American University in Washington, DC, "Postanarchism: a politics of anti-politics" (October 2011), Journal of Political Ideologies, vol. 16 no. 3)**
32 -At the same time, this aporetic moment of tension central to classical anarchism generates
33 -AND
34 -ongoing elaboration of new practices of freedom within the context of power relations.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-11-30 03:50:01.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Brock Estep
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Greenhill MR
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -4
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Murphy Middle Gera Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -NOVDEC Political Exterior NC
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Hockaday
Caselist.RoundClass[2]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-11-30 03:49:59.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Brock Estep
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Greenhill MR
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -4
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Hockaday
Caselist.CitesClass[3]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,54 @@
1 +====US Hegemony high now, but not inevitable. Kagan 12,====
2 +**(Robert, 1-11-12, The New Republic, "Not Fade Away: The Myth of Decline," http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/99521/america-world-power-declinism?passthru=ZDkyNzQzZTk3YWY3YzE0OWM5MGRiZmIwNGQwNDBiZmIandutm_source=Editors+and+Bloggersandutm_campaign=cbaee91d9d-Edit_and_Blogsandutm_medium=email, accessed 7-6-12, CNM)**
3 +America included, declared that never in history had there been such a great "
4 +AND
5 +rest," and Kennedy was discoursing again upon the inevitability of American decline.
6 +
7 +
8 +====Federal court caseload is low now and declining, but could still increase if given the push. Roeder 16====
9 +**MAY 17, 2016 AT 9:00 AM "The Supreme Court's Caseload Is On Track To Be The Lightest In 70 Years" By Oliver Roeder. LHP MS**
10 +In one sense, Monday was a noisy news day at the Supreme Court.
11 +AND
12 +, on average. Thus far this term, they've granted just 12.
13 +
14 +
15 +====The Aff floods federal courts with massive amounts of constitutional rights claims, many completely invalid. Noll 08,====
16 +**Noll, David L. "Qualified Immunity in Limbo: Rights, Procedure, and the Social Costs of Damages Litigation Against Public Officials." NYUL Rev. 83 (2008)**
17 +In the context of ordinary civil litigation between two private parties, the total (
18 +AND
19 +process,54 a more significant and workaday risk is that courts will uninten
20 +
21 +
22 +====Qualified Immunity is key to prevent frivolous litigation that clogs federal courts. Taddei 12,====
23 +**John P. Taddei 12 J.D. Northwestern University School of Law, "Beyond Absolute Immunity: Alternative Protections for Prosecutors Against Ulitmate Liability for 1983 Suits," Northwestern University Law Review, Volume 106, Number 4, 2012**
24 +The Court itself has acknowledged that qualified immunity is adequate to protect an official from
25 +AND
26 +willing to take a step back from a regime of absolute prosecutorial immunity.
27 +
28 +
29 +====Federal court clog collapses the federal judiciary, destroying court legitimacy – overburdens their dockets and expansion can't keep pace. Oakley 96,====
30 +**Oakley 96- John B. Oakley, Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus US Davis School of Law, 1996 The Myth of Cost-Free Jurisdictional Reallocation~~**
31 +Personal effects: The hidden costs of greater workloads. The hallmark of federal justice
32 +AND
33 +, in the long run it will cause the present system to collapse.
34 +
35 +
36 +====Supreme Court legitimacy key to US heg. **Knowles 09** ====
37 +**(Robert Knowles, professor at New York University Public Law, American Hegemony and the Foreign Affairs Constitution, 41 Ariz. St. L.J. 87 2009)**
38 +This Article offers a new model for assessing appropriate judicial deference in foreign affairs
39 +AND
40 +and explains why it could augur increased judicial involvement in foreign affairs.
41 +
42 +
43 +====Hegemony solve great power war. **Ward 14** ====
44 +**(Alex Ward, defense policy and strategy specialist, Only US Can Prevent Great Power War, The Diplomat, August 22, 2014, http://thediplomat.com/2014/08/only-us-can-prevent-great-power-war/)**
45 +But Gilpin's preconditions shouldn't be misconstrued as predictive or fatalistic. Indeed, the United
46 +AND
47 +the chance of a great power war cannot be dismissed, however remote.
48 +
49 +
50 +====The next great power war will cause human extinction. Dyer 04,====
51 +**Gwynne Dyer December 30, 2004 Toronto Star "The End of War Our Task Over the Next Few Years is to Transform the World of Independent States into a Genuine Global Village" http://www.commondre...s04/1230-05.htm**
52 +War is deeply embedded in our history and our culture, probably since before we
53 +AND
54 +the potential certainly exists for a major die-back of human population.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-11-30 03:51:12.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Unknown
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Grapevine
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +3
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Murphy Middle Gera Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +NOVDEC Court Clog DA
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Hockaday
Caselist.CitesClass[4]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,34 @@
1 +====First, the limits of the political sphere guarantee that the issues of the 1AC can never be solved. Graham 16,====
2 +**Graham, David A. "What Can the U.S. Do to Improve Police Accountability?" The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 8 Mar. 16ADAD, www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/police-accountability/472524/.**
3 +How much real ability do district attorneys and prosecutors have to solve the problem?
4 +AND
5 +resulted in a hung jury, and the rest are currently in limbo.
6 +
7 +
8 +====Second, Judicial review produces divide and conquer, weakening social movements and preventing meaningful change. **Becker 93====**
9 +** (Mary, Prof of Law @ University of Chicago Law School; 64 U. Colo. L. Rev. 975 ln)**
10 +Binding judicial review can impede political movements even when the Supreme Court does not actually
11 +AND
12 +Judicial review is, therefore, a "divide and conquer" strategy.
13 +
14 +
15 +====Third, State action can never be moral- the best we can do is explore answers to ethical controversies independent of state power politics. Luard 16====
16 +**Luard, Evan. "The Nature of States." Basic Texts in International Relations: The Evolution of Ideas about International Society. New York: Springer, 2016. 273-74. Print.**
17 +Another implication of most of these writings is that "morality" has little or
18 +AND
19 +on to the minds of many who exercised power in the postwar age.
20 +
21 +
22 +====Fourth, Even though nations have deliberative bodies and enact policy, they do not have intentionality, so they cannot be moral agents. Gerson 02,====
23 +Having said this, I still think that the argument that seeks to include nations within the class of moral agents on the basis of intentionality is a weak one. Here is why. There is an ambiguity in the term "intentionality" that this argument exploits. In the sense in which nations have intentionality, the attribution of moral agency does not follow. In the sense of intentionality according to which moral agency does follow, this argument does not show that nations have that. Intentionality in the first sense can characterize any goal-directed behavior and can also be applied to any behavior that is understandable in the light of that goal. For example, it is perfectly reasonable to say that a squirrel is gathering nuts for the purpose of eating throughout the winter, or that the rattle of the snake's tail shows that it intends to strike, or that the field mouse is trying to get into the house in the autumn in order to keep warm, or that the chess-playing robot is trying to pin down my knight. But the sense of intentionality that applies to such goal-directed behavior by agents obviously does not indicate moral agency. Intentionality in the second sense, the sense according to which its applicability does imply moral agency, is something else. In this sense, intentionality refers first and foremost to the self-awareness of the presence of the purpose and the self-awareness of the mental states leading to its realization. That is, of course, precisely why we refrain from claiming that someone is responsible for her ~~their~~ actions when she is ~~they are~~ unaware of what she ~~they are~~ is doing, especially when she could not have been aware. The acknowledgement of self-awareness is necessary for the attribution of moral agency. I would in fact argue that all and only nondefective human beings have this ability to be self-aware. But that is not my point here. There may be agents other than human beings that are moral agents. My present point is that a group of human beings, such as the group that comprise a nation, cannot be self-aware in this way and therefore cannot be a moral agent.
24 +
25 +
26 +====While individual members of a nation's deliberative body can possess self-awareness about their own and their group's actions, the group itself cannot. Just because all members of the group are self-aware does not mean that the group is self-aware- this means that ethics is inapplicable to the state and the only way we can engage in morality is on personal basis. Gerson 04,====
27 +Another way to look at this point is to consider that in cases of genuine self-awareness, the subject who has the intentional object, say, a purpose must be identical with the subject who is aware of having that intentional object. But when the nation has a purpose, as expressed, say, in a resolution of a governing body, it is not the nation that is self-aware but the persons who comprise it. And that self-awareness is not of each individual's own purpose, since one's own purposes may be in conflict with those of the nation. Even if they are not in conflict, that is, even if there is 100 percent support for a motion, the awareness of the nation's purpose as expressed in the motion occurs in the individual persons and not in the nation. Unless you can put purpose and self-awareness of purpose in the identical subject, you cannot have a moral agent. And in the case of group action, you can never have the identical subject that both has the purpose and is self-aware of having it. Knowing that my nation has declared war is different from the act of declaring war and occurs in a different subject. Indeed, the nation or the nonmoral agent that declares war cannot know that it declares war anymore than the chess-playing robot can know that it won (Rovane 1994; Rovane 1998).
28 +
29 +
30 +**====Thus The standard is Political Exteriority, challenging the limits of the legal and political spheres is search of alternate solutions to issues, which must be done outside the political. Newman 11** ====
31 +**(Saul, associate professor in the Department of Government in the School of Public Affairs at American University in Washington, DC, "Postanarchism: a politics of anti-politics" (October 2011), Journal of Political Ideologies, vol. 16 no. 3)**
32 +At the same time, this aporetic moment of tension central to classical anarchism generates
33 +AND
34 +ongoing elaboration of new practices of freedom within the context of power relations.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-11-30 03:52:58.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Brock Estep
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Greenhill MR
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +4
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +4
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Murphy Middle Gera Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +NOVDEC Political Exterior NC
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Hockaday
Caselist.CitesClass[5]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,20 @@
1 +Law suits are extremely expensive regardless of the case- means that litigants must be able to afford the suit as a pre requisite to being effective in it. Lawyers.com:
2 +Lawyers.com: Lawyers.com. Legal Website “What are "Costs" in a Civil Lawsuit?” No date. CH
3 +No matter what kind of case you're involved in, a civil lawsuit can be very expensive. In addition to attorney's fees, you are required to pay for filing fees, copying fees, expert witness fees, court reporter fees, transcripts, and many other costs along the way to trial. When you finally win your case, you might expect to be able to recover all of these costs as part of the judgment you obtain against the opposing party. Let's look at when this is likely, and when you may be out of luck. Awardable costs could be capped under an applicable state law, and that limit may not come close to making the prevailing party whole in terms of what was expended to successfully litigate the case. In most jurisdictions, courts award "costs" to the prevailing party in a lawsuit ~-~- the side who wins, in other words. However, the "costs" that are allowable may not compensate the prevailing party for all actual out-of-pocket expenditures. Instead, awardable costs could be capped under an applicable state law, and that limit may not come close to making the prevailing party whole in terms of what was expended to successfully litigate the case. So, the prevailing party could end up covering a significant percentage of the actual costs incurred, thereby reducing the amount of its net recovery. Attorney's fees are by far the largest component of a litigant's practical expenses in pursuing a lawsuit, but these fees are usually considered separately from "costs" when it comes to what the prevailing party may recover from the other side. Often a dedicated state law allows recovery of attorney's fees to the prevailing party in certain kinds of lawsuits, or the court considers a motion where the prevailing party requests reimbursement of their attorney's fees, based on the circumstances of the instant case. Learn more about Court-Awarded Attorney's Fees. So, a litigant who prevails in court isn't automatically entitled to recoup its attorney's fees as part of that judgment. In many cases, the amount of attorney's fees incurred in bringing the case to trial constitutes a large percentage of the judgment amount; as a result, the net amount of the recovery may be quite small. As an example, a litigant may obtain a judgment of $50,000 in a breach of contract case, but they may have incurred $30,000 in attorney's fees in the process. Finally, keep in mind that even when there is a statute that entitles the prevailing party to recover its attorney's fees, it still must be shown that the fees incurred were necessary and reasonable.
4 +By making their strategy of ethical righteousness only accessible those with money, the aff entrenches the capital based system and de-legitimizes their own movement. Higdon 10,
5 +Higdon: Higdon, Woodrow L. Investigative Photo Journalist, Former Police Officer “Public Corruption Cover Up Through Civil Litigation.” GTI News, March 2010. CH
6 +The so called "Civil and Criminal Justice Systems" in the United States, are systems controlled by money, and the access that money buys. In general, the more money you have, the more "Justice" you can buy. Good attorneys cost a lot more, than bad attorneys. District Attorneys and public agencies, have unlimited public tax dollar finances, which provide unlimited legal resources, for both criminal and civil cases. In the case of District Attorneys, it also provides almost unlimited power, to manipulate and obstruct criminal and civil law, and the lives of the people involved. This is why a corrupt public agency, or District Attorney's office, like the San Diego District Attorneys office, is so dangerous to the public welfare. It is also how many law enforcement agencies cover up public corruption, by obstructing the filing and investigation of citizen criminal complaints. This is done while knowing about citizens limitations in the civil legal system. Criminal investigations are blocked and citizens are pushed to hire a civil attorney, with the knowledge that very few can afford the cost of civil litigation. The few citizens that can afford to file a civil litigation, will quickly find that public agencies, and their employees, also have extensive protections from civil litigation, built into the legal system. These public entity civil litigation immunities were originally intended to protect the public agency for the financial benefit of the citizens. However, as time passed the public entities found the immunities could be used to protect tax dollar resources for the use of the public unions. Public agencies and DA's are well aware of these financial and legal advantages when they push citizens to drop criminal complaints, go away, and hire an attorney. It is also why "Civil Litigation", is one of the most effective public corruption cover up tools available to public agencies.
7 +Structural violence is based upon exclusion, and thus precludes our cognitive processes and ability to engage in ethical discussion- realizing structural violence’s presence and working to minimize it is key. Winter and Leighton 99
8 +Winter and Leighton 99 Deborah DuNann Winter and Dana C. Leighton. Winter|Psychologist that specializes in Social Psych, Counseling Psych, Historical and Contemporary Issues, Peace Psychology. Leighton: PhD graduate student in the Psychology Department at the University of Arkansas. Knowledgable in the fields of social psychology, peace psychology, and justice and intergroup responses to transgressions of justice “Peace, conflict, and violence: Peace psychology in the 21st century.” Pg 4-5
9 +
10 +She argues that our normal perceptual cognitive processes divide people into in-groups and out-groups. Those outside our group lie outside our scope of justice. Injustice that would be instantaneously confronted if it occurred to someone we love or know is barely noticed if it occurs to strangers or those who are invisible or irrelevant. We do not seem to be able to open our minds and our hearts to everyone, so we draw conceptual lines between those who are in and out of our moral circle. Those who fall outside are morally excluded, and become either invisible, or demeaned in some way so that we do not have to acknowledge the injustice they suffer. Moral exclusion is a human failing, but Opotow argues convincingly that it is an outcome of everyday social cognition. To reduce its nefarious effects, we must be vigilant in noticing and listening to oppressed, invisible, outsiders. Inclusionary thinking can be fostered by relationships, communication, and appreciation of diversity. Like Opotow, all the authors in this section point out that structural violence is not inevitable if we become aware of its operation, and build systematic ways to mitigate its effects. Learning about structural violence may be discouraging, overwhelming, or maddening, but these papers encourage us to step beyond guilt and anger, and begin to think about how to reduce structural violence. All the authors in this section note that the same structures (such as global communication and normal social cognition) which feed structural violence, can also be used to empower citizens to reduce it.
11 +Capitalism is the worst form of structural violence, literally classifying as structural genocide- condoning its mindset makes you complicit in violent oppression. Sethness 13
12 +Sethness, Javier. "The Structural Genocide That Is Capitalism." Truthout. N.p., 16 June 2013. Web. 16 Oct. 2016. http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/16887-the-structural-genocide-that-is-capitalism.
13 +Garry Leech, an author who had previously penned a book on the FARC insurgency in Colombia (2011), has assembled a forceful denunciation of the status quo withCapitalism: A Structural Genocide. In essence, he argues cogently in this work that the devastating structural violence experienced by societies subjected to the rule of capital since its historical emergence - and that particularly felt by the world's presently impoverished social majorities - is, instead of being an aberration or distortion of market imperatives, central and inherent to the division of society along class lines and the enthronement of private property. Even a cursory examination of the depth of human suffering perpetuated historically and contemporarily by the hegemony of capital should lead disinterested observers to agree with Leech that the catastrophic scale of violence for which this system is responsible can be considered nothing less than genocidal, however shocking such a conclusion might prove to be. In this book, Leech guides his readers through theoretical examinations of the concept of genocide, showing why the term should in fact be applied to the capitalist mode of production. He then illustrates capitalism's genocidal proclivities by exploring four case studies: the ongoing legacy of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in Mexico; the relationship between trade liberalization and genetically-modified seeds on the one hand and mass-suicide on the part of Indian agriculturalists on the other; material deprivation and generalized premature death throughout much of the African continent and the global South, as results from hunger, starvation, and preventable disease; and the ever-worsening climatic and environmental crises. Leech then closes by considering the relevance of Antonio Gramsci's conceptions of cultural hegemony in attempting to explain the puzzling consent granted to this system by large swathes of the world's relatively privileged people - specifically, those residing in the imperial core of Europe and the United States - and then recommending the socialist alternative as a concrete means of abolishing genocide, while looking to the Cuban and Venezuelan regimes as imperfect, but inspirational experiments in these terms. In sum, while I take issue with some of his analysis and aspects of his conceptualization of anticapitalist alternatives, his work should certainly be well-received, read and discussed by large multitudes. Leech begins his text by referencing the original formulator of the concept of structural violence, Johan Galtung. In 1969, Galtung famously expanded prevailing notions of societal violence to include consideration of "the avoidable impairment of fundamental human needs or . . . of human life." Key to Galtung's formulation of structural violence in this sense is the gap between "the potential and the actual," or "what could have been and what is." Thus, avoidable death resulting from preventable or treatable diseases today constitutes violence, given the technological progression of modern medicine, whereas centuries ago this would not have been the case, according to Galtung. For Leech, then, capitalist society is indelibly marked by structural violence, as the vast inequalities in wealth and access to which it gives rise lead small minorities to be overwhelmingly privileged, while large groups of others are prevented from meeting their basic needs. Transitioning then to consideration of the question of whether the large number of avoidable deaths observed under conditions of capitalism should in fact be considered genocidal, Leech concedes that the UN's 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide excludes mass death resulting from one's pertaining to a given social class as constituting genocide. However, he notes that an initial draft of the Convention from 1947 did include death or injury resulting from "lack of proper housing, clothing, food, hygiene and medical care, or excessive work or physical exertion" within the definition of genocide. Hence, while such a formulation did not appear in the final version with which we are all familiar, Leech does not accept legal positivism in this case as final; in this vein, he could have done well to have also mentioned that Raphael Lemkin, inventor of the concept of genocide, himself believed the charge should include mass murder of persons following from their belonging to particular classes. Leech nonetheless does mention that the 1998 Rome Statute defines the crime of extermination in part as "the intentional infliction of . . . deprivation of access to food and medicine calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population," so in this sense has the weight of international law behind him. Leech's only remaining theoretical difficulty, then, is to argue that intentionality exists within the context of the perpetuation of capital-induced genocide: This proves an easy task, for the question of intent in judging capitalism is not one of examining the actions of particular persons or states (as in most traditional cases of the charge of genocide) but rather of judging the "logic" of the system as a whole. Hence, structural genocide - defined by Leech as "structural violence that intentionally inflicts on any group or collectivity conditions of life that bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part" - can be said to be an intentional outcome of adherence to norms which govern a social system that by nature "inevitably results in . . . death on a mass scale," as does capital. For Leech, the proffered defense of willful blindness - "such was not our intention," the system's managers might exclaim - is no defense at all. Or, in Jean-Paul Sartre's words: "The genocidal intent is implicit in the facts. It is not necessarily premeditated." Following this opening discussion of the theoretical case for considering capitalism to be genocidal, Leech takes a few particularly devastating examples from the contemporary world to illuminate his argument. In Mexico, the passing of NAFTA in 1994 has led to the dispossession of campesinos (peasants) on a grand scale, as the country's stipulated importation of heavily subsidized maize and other crops from the United States effectively led millions to abandon agriculture and migrate to Mexican and US cities in search of employment in the manufacturing sector, in accordance with neoclassical theories of "comparative advantage" - and very much mirroring the means by which capitalism emerged historically through the destruction of the commons in England. For Leech, this forcible displacement has resulted in the explosion of precarity within the informal sector of the economy in Mexico, as many ex-campesinos fail to find traditional proletarian jobs, and it has also driven the horrifying feminicides of maquiladora workers in the Mexican border regions, migration en masse to the United States (and attendant mass death in the Sonoran desert), as well as the horrid drug war launched in 2006 by then-president Felipe Calderón. Leech sees similar processes in Colombia, which hosts the second-largest number of internally displaced persons in the world (4 million), with many of these people having been removed from their lands due to military and paramilitary operations undertaken to make way for megaprojects directed by foreign corporations. Alarmingly, in India, Leech reports that more than 216,000 farmers committed suicide between 1997 and 2009, largely out of desperation over crushing debts they accumulated following the introduction of genetically-modified seed crops, as demanded by the transnational Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS, 1994) and the general shift from subsistence to export-oriented agriculture. In many cases, the genetically engineered seed varieties failed to expand yields to the levels promised by Monsanto, Cargill, and co., leading farmers then to take on further debt merely to cover the shortfalls as well as to pay for the next iteration of crops - which by conscious design were modified at the molecular level so as not to be able to reproduce naturally, thus ensuring biotech firms sustained profitability (a "captured market," as it were). That such a dynamic should end in a downward spiral of death and destruction should be unsurprising, for all its horror. Leech further illustrates his case regarding capitalism's structurally genocidal nature in a chapter examining Africa south of the Sahel. It is this world region that has been "most severely impacted" by capital's genocidal imperatives, claims Leech, and it is difficult to argue with this claim: Merely consider the millions who succumb to AIDS on the continent each year or the other millions who perish in the region annually due to lack of medical treatment for complications within pregnancy or conditions such as diarrhea and malaria, themselves catalyzed by pre-existing background malnutrition. All this deprivation is exacerbated, argues Leech, by food-aid regimes overseen by wealthier societies - which in the US case demands that food be purchased from and shipped by US companies, thus effectively removing a full half of the total resources intended for the hungry - and the infamous land-grabs being perpetrated on the continent in recent years by investors from such countries as Saudi Arabia and South Korea. Fundamentally, though, the conflict is one based on the guiding principles of capital: Because Africans in general do not possess the requisite income to "demand" food commodities within international capitalism, they themselves do not constitute a "viable market" and so are rendered invisible - nonpersons, or "unpeople." In these terms, Leech also discusses the toxic role of the capitalist pharmaceutical industry, which famously and "logically" invests an overwhelming percentage of its research and development funds in highly profitable schemes for lifestyle drugs directed at first-world consumers - at their most absurd, treatments for baldness, erectile dysfunction, and so on - instead of in essential medicines that could relieve the horrendous disease burden borne by the peoples of the global South. Leech starkly illustrates these tensions by noting that, were the eight largest US pharmaceutical companies to have gained an average profit of $6.8 billion instead of $7.7 billion in 2008, with the difference going to purchase anti-retrovirals for the 3.8 million HIV+ Africans who go without any treatment at all, a considerable percentage of the estimated 1.3 million annual deaths observed on the continent resulting from HIV/AIDS could be prevented. Leech summarizes this all rather starkly: "There is no clearer illustration of the shortcomings in trying to reform the behavior of capital than the ongoing annihilation of poor people in sub-Saharan Africa who are dying as a result of the structural violence inherent in capitalism." A similarly horrifying genocidal tendency for which capitalism is responsible is the next one briefly examined by Leech: that of the specter of catastrophic climate change. Leech claims it to be a "truly inconvenient truth" that the capitalist system itself is incapable of mitigating the total threat posed by global warming and instead precipitates this grim eventuality due to its incessant need for ceaseless expansion and profit, based principally on the indefinite exploitation of hydrocarbon resources.
14 +The alternative is refusal to obey the system- this requires you to reject the affirmatives perpetuation of capitalism in favor of the negative’s rebellion. Holloway 05’
15 +Holloway, 05 (John, Ph.D in Political Science from the University of Edinburgh, “Can we change the World without taking power”, A debate between Holloway and Alex Callinicos, August 16th, http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/5616)
16 +I don't know the answer. Perhaps we can change the world without taking power. Perhaps we cannot. The starting point: for all of us, I think: is uncertainty, not knowing, a common search for a way forward. Because it becomes more and more clear that capitalism is a catastrophe for humanity. A radical change in the organisation of society, that is, revolution, is more urgent than ever. And this revolution can only be world revolution if it is to be effective. But it is unlikely that world revolution can be achieved in one single blow. This means that the only way in which we can conceive of revolution is as interstitial revolution, as a revolution that takes place in the interstices of capitalism, a revolution that occupies spaces in the world while capitalism still exists. The question is how we conceive of these interstices, whether we think of them as states or in other ways. In thinking about this, we have to start from where we are, from the many rebellions and insubordinations that have brought us to Porto Alegre. The world is full of such rebellions, of people saying NO to capitalism: NO, we shall not live our lives according to the dictates of capitalism, we shall do what we consider necessary or desirable and not what capital tells us to do. Sometimes we just see capitalism as an all-encompassing system of domination and forget that such rebellions exist everywhere. At times they are so small that even those involved do not perceive them as refusals, but often they are collective projects searching for an alternative way forward and sometimes they are as big as the Lacandon Jungle or the Argentinazo of three years ago or the revolt in Bolivia just over a year ago. All of these insubordinations are characterised by a drive towards self-determination, an impulse that says, 'No, you will not tell us what to do, we shall decide for ourselves what we must do.' These refusals can be seen as fissures, as cracks in the system of capitalist domination. Capitalism is not (in the first place) an economic system, but a system of command. Capitalists, through money, command us, telling us what to do. To refuse to obey is to break the command of capital.
17 +
18 +Capitalism makes police misconduct and brutality inevitable- K turns case. The alt is the only hope of solving. Internationalist 15,
19 +The Internationalist, Summer 2015, Killer Cops, White Supremacists: Racist Terror Talks Strike Black America, http://www.internationalist.org/killercopswstalkblackamerica1507.html DOA: 10-2-16
20 +No amount of protest will convince the ruling class to muzzle their uniformed guard dogs, whom it requires to keep the poor and working people down. What’s needed is militant class struggle on a revolutionary program. The Internationalist Group has called for an end to all drug laws. We call for labor/black/immigrant mobilization against police terror. We have acted to carry this out, with the unprecedented port shutdown to “Stop Police Terror” by Local 10 of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union in Oakland this past May Day, and the “Labor Against Police Murder” contingent the same day, organized by Class Struggle Workers – Portland. Bringing to bear workers’ power to stop the wheels of commerce could stay the rulers’ hand for a time. At the height of struggle one can also mobilize to get the police and military occupation forces out, as the IG called for in Ferguson last August and again in Baltimore this spring.”10 But such actions can only have a temporary effect. Ultimately, there is no solution to racist police brutality under capitalist rule: it is inherent in the system. Racist vigilantes, from George Zimmerman to Dylann Roof, act as auxiliaries. Whether in the form of slave catchers, KKK nightriders and racist sheriffs under Jim Crow, or mass incarceration combined with paramilitary police forces today, supplemented by massacres, American capitalism has always devised a way to keep its black, Latino and now increasingly immigrant wage slaves in thrall. The killer cops aren’t running amok, in contradiction to their assigned task, they’re doing their job to enforce racist “law and order” which is essential to American capitalism and has been ever since African slaves were brought here in chains. The fact that year after year, from one end of the country to the other, virtually no police are indicted – much less convicted – for killing over 1,000 civilians a year is no accident. As we wrote in The Internationalist No. 1(January-February 1997): “Trigger-happy cops with Glocks pop anyone they consider ‘suspects’ or ‘perps,’ not to mention bystanders, subway riders, drivers who are parking, drivers who are stopped at stop lights, passengers in cars, pedestrians on the street, patrons in restaurants, young men playing football, young men outside bars, young men inside bars – particularly if the victims are black, Hispanic or Asian – as well as roaming around housing projects in off-duty vigilante squads, and not infrequently bumping off their own wives and girlfriends. They think they can get away with murder, and history – recent and past – shows they are right. Why? Because they are the enforcers of the monopoly of violence in the hands of the capitalist state, the apparatus set up to guarantee the profits and the rule of the bourgeoisie…. “To get rid of racist cop terror, you have to sweep away the system that spawns it. That system is capitalism, and what’s needed is a socialist revolution to make the working class and its allies the rulers of society.” While various pseudo-socialists are always seeking to build a new “movement,” adapting their politics to whatever is the flavor of the day, such amorphous “coalitions” always end up reducing their program to the lowest common denominator. This may at times bring many people into the street, but it cannot point the way forward to actually win. The struggle for socialist revolution requires a leadership, a multi-racial workers party with a clear revolutionary program, a party that champions the cause of all the oppressed and can overcome the rulers’ attempts to set one ethnic group against another, employed workers against the unemployed, etc. In short, we need, as we wrote in 1997, to “forge a revolutionary leadership, with a core of cadre tested in the class struggle, like the Bolshevik Party of Lenin and Trotsky which led the October 1917 Russian Revolution. ■
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-11-30 03:52:58.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Brock Estep
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Greenhill MR
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +4
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +4
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Murphy Middle Gera Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +NOVDEC Cap K
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Hockaday
Caselist.CitesClass[6]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,20 @@
1 +A. Interpretation: The affirmative may not specify a type of rights violation claim currently subject to qualified immunity that ought be less, or not at all, applicable to the doctrine.
2 +B. Violation: In the 1AC they specify a type of rights claim protected by qualified immunity that they say should be limited or abolished as a method of limiting qualified immunity.
3 +C. Standards:
4 +1. Limits: there are tons of rights and liberties in the US, from religious freedom to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment- they all require separate prep on the neg because the benefits of and problems with immunity to different rights claims are determined by the actual claim. Means that the neg can never adequately prep in comparison to the aff because the aff knows their ac but the neg doesn’t necessarily.
5 +2. Topicality:
6 +A. Bare Plurals: The resolution uses the term qualified immunity, which is a bare plural because there is no clause to hint a specific crime- you cannot affirm a non-existent part of the resolution.
7 +Jake Nebel. "Jake Nebel on Specifying “Just Governments”."Http://vbriefly.com/2014/12/19/jake-nebel-on-specifying-just-governments/. N.p., 19 Dec. 2014. Web. 15 Oct. 2016. http://vbriefly.com/2014/12/19/jake-nebel-on-specifying-just-governments/.
8 +Bare plurals, including “just governments,” lack determiners. There’s no article, demonstrative, possessive, or quantifier in front of the noun to tell you how many or which governments are being discussed. We use bare plurals for two main purposes. Consider some examples: Debaters are here. Debaters are smart. In (1), “debaters” seems equivalent to “some debaters.” It is true just in case there is more than one debater around. If I enter a restaurant and utter (1), I speak truly if there are a couple of debaters at a table. This is an existential use of the bare plural, because it just says that there exist things of the relevant class (debaters) that meet the relevant description (being here). In (2), though, “debaters” seems to refer to debaters in general. This use of the bare plural is generic. Some say that generics refer to kinds of things, rather than particular members of their kinds, or that they refer to typical cases. There is a large literature on understanding generics. Here my aim is not to figure out the truth conditions for the generic reading of the resolution; I shall simply work with our pre-theoretical grip on the contrast between sentences like (1) and (2). This distinction bears importantly on the resolution. If “just governments” is a generic bare plural, then the debate is about whether just governments in general ought to require that employers pay a living wage. If it is an existential bare plural, then the debate is about whether some just governments—i.e., more than one—ought to require that employers pay a living wage. Only the second interpretation allows one to affirm by specifying a few governments. To my ear, the generic reading is correct. I think the best evidence for this is simply the undistorted judgments of ordinary speakers. No competent speaker of English would, without distorting influence or additional evidence of generalizability, endorse an inference from a plan involving two just governments to the resolution. Suppose Sally, an American citizen, believes that the U.S. and Canada should require employers to pay a living wage, but that no other government (just or unjust, actual or possible) should. She would not represent her view by asserting, “Just governments ought to require that employers pay a living wage.” She would deny this claim and hold that the U.S. and Canada are exceptions. One might object that Sally would endorse this assertion if she believed that the U.S. and Canada are the only just governments. Maybe she would, but that is explained by the generic reading, because she would then be making a generalization about (what she believes to be) just governments. And the onus would be on the affirmative, when specifying particular governments, to add such a premise. Moreover, many linguists would add that Sally could not regard it is as mere accident that these governments are just and that they ought to require employers to pay a living wage: the resolution requires there to be some explanatory connection between the justness of governments and the living wage requirement (see Carlson 2005). This is good evidence because ordinary speakers have an implicit (but not infallible) mastery over the language in which the resolution is stated. The resolution is stated in English, not in some special debate-specific dialect of English. Facts of usage constrain interpretation. The existential interpretation is not even, as I see it, eligible. So its pragmatic benefits are irrelevant. Compare: I think it would be better if the resolution were, “It is not the case that just governments ought to …” But that’s not the resolution, so it’s not even an eligible interpretation in a T debate. (Here I assume a controversial view about whether pragmatic benefits can justify a semantically inadequate interpretation of the resolution. I cannot defend this view here, but I welcome questions and objections in the comments to be addressed in a later article.) Some speakers might balk at the generic reading of the resolution. How, they might think, could anyone assent to such a sweeping claim about what just governments ought to do? It seems to depend heavily on the details of each country. I can easily get into this frame of mind. But, equipped with this frame of mind, it’s not as if I would assent to, “Just governments ought to require that employers pay a living wage,” and expect my audience to pick up on the existential reading. I would instead either deny the resolution or suspend judgment about it. This means that the anti-generalization view is not evidence of an eligible existential interpretation; rather, it’s a reason not to affirm the resolution. One more argument for affirmatives to answer! Consider an analogy. Suppose I say, “Dogs are ugly.” You might think it’s silly to say of dogs in general that they are ugly: how could one support such a generalization about the aesthetics of dogs? So you’ll reject my statement. You won’t reinterpret it to mean that some dogs are ugly and agree with it.
9 +B. Linguistic Contextualization: Defending the resolution generally is the only way to defend the resolution, as we do not deem a statement true simply because its applicable in one scenario. Nebel 14
10 +Jake Nebel. "Jake Nebel on Specifying “Just Governments”."Http://vbriefly.com/2014/12/19/jake-nebel-on-specifying-just-governments/. N.p., 19 Dec. 2014. Web. 15 Oct. 2016. http://vbriefly.com/2014/12/19/jake-nebel-on-specifying-just-governments/.
11 +I think the best evidence for this is simply the undistorted judgments of ordinary speakers. No competent speaker of English would, without distorting influence or additional evidence of generalizability, endorse an inference from a plan involving two just governments to the resolution. Suppose Sally, an American citizen, believes that the U.S. and Canada should require employers to pay a living wage, but that no other government (just or unjust, actual or possible) should. She would not represent her view by asserting, “Just governments ought to require that employers pay a living wage.” She would deny this claim and hold that the U.S. and Canada are exceptions. One might object that Sally would endorse this assertion if she believed that the U.S. and Canada are the only just governments. Maybe she would, but that is explained by the generic reading, because she would then be making a generalization about (what she believes to be) just governments. And the onus would be on the affirmative, when specifying particular governments, to add such a premise. Moreover, many linguists would add that Sally could not regard it is as mere accident that these governments are just and that they ought to require employers to pay a living wage: the resolution requires there to be some explanatory connection between the justness of governments and the living wage requirement (see Carlson 2005). This is good evidence because ordinary speakers have an implicit (but not infallible) mastery over the language in which the resolution is stated. The resolution is stated in English, not in some special debate-specific dialect of English. Facts of usage constrain interpretation.
12 +2 implications:
13 +1) Defending the whole resolution is key to advocacy skills because future advocacy will not be in a debate interpretation, it will match the perceptions of regular people, who don’t run plans.
14 +2) Because you would not perceive a statement as true simply because its true in one scenario, and rather that it is wrong in all scenarios but one case is an exception, you have to vote neg because the statement of the resolution is false, and if their specific implementation of it is true, that is a mere exception.
15 +D. Voter:
16 +Resolutional Semantics, inferring topicality, is a voting issue. Nebel 14
17 +Jake Nebel. "Jake Nebel on Specifying “Just Governments”."Http://vbriefly.com/2014/12/19/jake-nebel-on-specifying-just-governments/. N.p., 19 Dec. 2014. Web. 15 Oct. 2016. http://vbriefly.com/2014/12/19/jake-nebel-on-specifying-just-governments/.
18 +Facts of usage ... a later article.)
19 +Fairness is a voter, Advocacy Skills is a voter
20 +NO Rvis, PREFER Competing Interps, Drop the DEBATER
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-11-30 14:42:54.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +GanG
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Grapevine
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +5
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +5
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Murphy Middle Gera Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +NOVDEC Nebel T
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Hockaday
Caselist.CitesClass[7]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,65 @@
1 +====Your evaluation of ethics must start off with a pessimistic view on human kind- the sole intent of our race is to preserve selfish interests. Such a realization must be the basis for which we conclude that natural rights of individuals must be sacrificed to civil society for the purpose of ending a violent state of nature. Sparknotes 05====
2 +SparkNotes Editors. "SparkNote on Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679)." SparkNotes.com. SparkNotes LLC. 2005. Web. 2 Nov. 2016.
3 +Power, defined as "a man's . . . present means, to obtain
4 +AND
5 +contract and is the basis for all social organization and collective moral order.
6 +
7 +
8 +====Next, Human affairs require a central power structure in power relations to mitigate the state of nature- this means that you favor community based frameworks to individualistic ones. Sparknotes 05,====
9 +SparkNotes Editors. "SparkNote on Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679)." SparkNotes.com. SparkNotes LLC. 2005. Web. 2 Nov. 2016.
10 +The contract required by the most fundamental law of nature is forged and entered into
11 +AND
12 +foundation for the forging of the contract that will create a civil society.
13 +
14 +
15 +====Also, Societal ties are a necessary requisite for individual beneficence. Bell 16,====
16 +(Bell, Daniel, "Communitarianism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2016/entries/communitarianism/.)
17 +Communitarian thinkers in the 1980s such as Michael Sandel and Charles Taylor argued that Rawlsian
18 +AND
19 +the course of our upbringing, rational choice having played no role whatsoever.
20 +
21 +
22 +====3 Implications:====
23 +
24 +
25 +====Libertarian claims which do not maintain effective societal ties fail- perpetuation of the community is necessary.====
26 +
27 +
28 +====Communitarian focus comes first- if people need communal ties as a basis for flourishing, assuring that those communities are sufficient comes before specific attempts to aid liberty.====
29 +
30 +
31 +====While attempts to aid citizens on the individual may fail, maintaining communities will never fail to help people.====
32 +
33 +
34 +====Thus the standard is maximizing communal welfare.====
35 +
36 +
37 +====Contention:====
38 +
39 +
40 +====Crime within the United states is at historic lows, but could still increase. Neuhauser 16,====
41 +Neuhauser, Alan. "U.S. Crime Rate Rises Slightly, Remains Near 20-Year Low." US News. U.S.News and World Report, 26 Sept. 2016. Web. 06 Nov. 2016. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-26/us-crime-rate-rises-slightly-remains-near-20-year-low.
42 +The nation's crime rate ticked up slightly in 2015 compared to the year before,
43 +AND
44 +(27.3 percent) and rape (7.5 percent).
45 +
46 +
47 +====Qualified immunity is essential to assure strong policing, as the removal of it would prevent officers from doing their job. Chen 94'====
48 +Chen, '94- Alan K. Assistant Professor, University of Denver College of Law. B.A., 1982, Case Western Reserve University, J.D., 1985, Stanford Law School "THE BURDENS OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY: SUMMARYJUDGMENT AND THE ROLE OF FACTS IN CONSTITUTIONAL TORT LAW" American University Law Review. http://www.americanuniversitylawreview.org/pdfs/47/47-1/chen.pdf)
49 +Both Congress and the Supreme Court have recognized that the enforcement of constitutional norms through
50 +AND
51 +in recognizing qualified immunity for other types of public officials as well. 78
52 +
53 +
54 +====The Police's willingness to police is key to deter crime. NIJ 16'====
55 +National Insitute of Justice. "Five Things About Deterrence." National Institute of Justice. N.p., 6 June 2016. Web. 05 Nov. 2016. http://nij.gov/five-things/pages/deterrence.aspx.
56 +Certainty has a greater impact on deterrence than severity of punishment. Severity refers to
57 +AND
58 +no evidence that the deterrent effect increases when the likelihood of conviction increases.
59 +
60 +
61 +====Crime severely damages communites. Taylor 16,====
62 +2016, Professor in the Criminal Justice department at Temple University, Philadelphia, PA
63 +CT: Current wisdom suggests that high or increasing crime levels make communities decline.
64 +AND
65 +may be contingent on personal, historical, and locale-specific factors.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-11-30 22:37:28.0
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Unbroken
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +6
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Murphy Middle Gera Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +NOVDEC Communitarianism NC
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +None
Caselist.CitesClass[8]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,19 @@
1 +Reducing suicide requires creating safe spaces for students to gain support. Univerisites UK ‘02
2 +University and college counselling services play a key role in the management of students at risk; many examples of current practice referred to in this document relate to activities initiated by, or involving counselling services. With an increasingly diverse student body, counselling and other student services need to ensure that their provision is sensitive to ethnicity, gender, age, religious belief and sexual orientation. Concerns about sexual identity, particularly among young men, have been shown to be associated with suicidal behaviours in studies in the USA (Remafedi et al. 1998). Regular review and evaluation of support services, and of students’ help-seeking behaviour through, for example, surveys of graduating cohorts, can help to ensure that institutional provision remains relevant to the changing needs and concerns of a diverse student body.
3 +Removing restrictions on free speech allows bullying through hate speech – hate speech IS free speech. Volokh ‘15
4 +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 /
5 +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.)
6 +Its constitutionally protected. No Bullying Writes,
7 +https://nobullying.com/school-bullying-and-free-speech/
8 +Federal anti-bullying laws do not exist in the United States, but when the behaviour becomes of sexual or racial in nature, the federal government considers it harassment. Schools must report instances of harassment to authorities. New anti-bullying legislation in Canada gives more severe penalties to those found bullying – incarceration being a potential option. Again, the charges will be called harassment. The new law’s language and wording can be seen to conflict with the boundaries of free speech, and Canadian citizens have called for clarifications on this. Can citizens go to prison for expressing an idea that another wrongfully interprets as a personal attack? Zero-tolerance policies exist in many schools, but laws referring to bullies rarely appear in state ordinances. Harassment, discrimination and violations of civil rights exist to stop the intimidating acts in workplaces and public places. Put concisely, a student’s freedom of speech ends when the invasion of another student’s right to an education without interference begins.
9 +The first amendment allows for bullying on all scales. Hayward ‘(1)
10 +Hayward, John O. "Anti-Cyberbullying Laws Are a Threat to Free Speech." Netiquette and Online Ethics, edited by Noah Berlatsky, Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010868216/OVIC?u=nysl_we_bcsdandxid=34680cbd. Accessed 14 Dec. 2016. Originally published as "Anti-Cyber Bullying Statutes Threat to Student Free Speech," Selected Works of John O. Hayward, Sept. 2010.
11 +
12 +While many applaud anti-cyber bullying legislation, some are concerned that it gives school officials unbridled authority that will be used to burnish their image, not protect bullying victims, or that it threatens student free speech. Furthermore, if their authority is unleashed beyond the school yard, it is essentially limitless. Thus no student, even in the privacy of their home, can write about controversial topics of concern to them without worrying that it may be "disruptive" or cause a "hostile environment" at school. In effect, students will be punished for off-campus speech based on the way people react to it at school. Many of the terms are so vague that they offer no guidance to distinguish permissible from impermissible speech. In this sense, they are akin to campus speech codes that courts invalidated in the 1990s for vagueness and overbreadth. Consequently, these laws don't simply "chill" student free speech, they plunge it into deep freeze. This viewpoint argues that for these reasons, some anti-cyber bullying laws violate the First Amendment and should be struck down as unconstitutional.
13 +
14 +Vagueness of anti-bullying statutes assure that the established doctrine of free speech override these protections. Hayward ‘(2)
15 +Hayward, John O. "Anti-Cyberbullying Laws Are a Threat to Free Speech." Netiquette and Online Ethics, edited by Noah Berlatsky, Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010868216/OVIC?u=nysl_we_bcsdandxid=34680cbd. Accessed 14 Dec. 2016. Originally published as "Anti-Cyber Bullying Statutes Threat to Student Free Speech," Selected Works of John O. Hayward, Sept. 2010.
16 +
17 +Because of their vagueness and overbreadth, it is likely that many anti-cyber bullying statutes will suffer the same fate as campus speech codes and some anti-harassment policies. They share many of their characteristics in seeking to prohibit "hostile environments" and end "intimidating" school speech. They usually contain these phrases along with prohibitions against "interfering with a student's educational performance and benefits" or strictures against comments that are "motivated by actual or perceived characteristics or traits of a student." Whether these expressions encompass simple acts of teasing or name-calling among schoolchildren the courts will have to decide, but the Supreme Court has said they cannot be a basis for damages under federal anti-discrimination law and so it is doubtful they can withstand a First Amendment challenge. New Hampshire's revised bullying law is a good example of just how far anti-bullying hysteria can go in silencing student free speech. One section reads "Bullying" shall include actions motivated by an imbalance of power based on a pupil's actual or perceived personal characteristics, behaviors, or beliefs, or motivated by the pupil's association with another person and based on the other person's characteristics, behaviors, or beliefs. This certainly takes in a large area of speech that could include teasing someone because they are obese, skinny, tall, short, wear eyeglasses, have long, short or no hair, or speak with a high- or low-pitched voice. One court characterized attempts to prohibit such speech in the context of an anti-harassment policy as "brave, futile, or merely silly." However, the court had harsher words for attempts to censor speech dealing with "beliefs" or "values." To quote: But attempting to proscribe negative comments about "values," as that term is commonly used today, is something else altogether. By prohibiting disparaging speech directed at a person's "values," the anti-harassment policy strikes at the heart of moral and political discourse—the lifeblood of constitutional self-government (and democratic education) and the core concern of the First Amendment. That speech about "values" may offend is not cause for its prohibition, but rather the reason for its protection: "a principal 'function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.'" No court or legislature has ever suggested that unwelcome speech directed at another's "values" may be prohibited under the rubric of anti-discrimination. Undoubtedly suppressing student speech under the guise of preventing "cyber bullying" is no more permissible than attempting to stifle it under the rubric of "anti-harassment." Both run afoul of the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. Anti-cyber bullying statutes often include the phrase "hostile environment," words often found in anti-harassment and anti-discrimination codes. The Massachusetts statute defines the phrase as a "situation in which bullying causes the school environment to be permeated with intimidation, ridicule or insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the student's education." The law does not define "intimidation, ridicule or insult" so students speak to each other at their own peril hoping others won't be "intimidated, ridiculed or insulted" by what they say. This is the essence of what First Amendment jurisprudence terms a "chilling effect" on free speech. It "chills" speech, or makes it less likely that citizens will exercise their rights to free speech because of the fear of criminal punishment. Generally, a statute is unconstitutionally vague if persons "of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application." Therefore the law has always required "a precise statute 'evincing a legislative judgment that certain specific conduct be ... proscribed.'" Anti-cyber bullying statutes are replete with terms such as "effect of substantially interfering with a student's education" or "causes emotional distress to a pupil" a low grade also can cause "emotional distress". Anti-cyber bullying laws are more perfidious than speech codes because the latter operate only on school premises whereas many anti-cyber bullying laws seek to regulate student speech off campus.
18 +The impact is student suicide. BULLYING STATISTICS ORGANIZATION:
19 +Suicide is the third leading cause of death among young people, resulting in about 4,400 deaths per year, according to the CDC. For every suicide among young people, there are at least 100 suicide attempts. Over 14 percent of high school students have considered suicide, and almost 7 percent have attempted it. Bully victims are between 2 to 9 times more likely to consider suicide than non-victims, according to studies by Yale University. A study in Britain found that at least half of suicides among young people are related to bullying. 10 to 14 year old girls may be at even higher risk for suicide, according to the study above. According to statistics reported by ABC News, nearly 30 percent of students are either bullies or victims of bullying, and 160,000 kids stay home from school every day because of fear of bullying
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-12-16 22:51:11.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Arun Sharma
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Westlake DM
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +7
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Murphy Middle Gera Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +JANFEB Cyberbullying DA
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Strake Jesuit
Caselist.CitesClass[9]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,20 @@
1 +The ideal of free speech fails to account for the reality of its implementation, which is one of inequality and exclusion of those not at the top. Goodrum ‘15
2 +Goodrum, Ian. "Goodrum: Unequal Application of 'free Speech'" Iowa City Press-Citizen. N.p., 17 Nov. 2015. Web. 04 Dec. 2016.
3 +We hear the invocation of the First Amendment constantly, as if in some heady past life of the country there was a time when all speech was permitted and no one was censored. We hear it when white supremacists march through town, demanding they be given the same rights as everyone else. We hear it when protesters are beaten and attacked for exercising their right to assembly. We also hear it at family gatherings, when someone's uncle decides to go off on what he deems a "politically correct" culture gone mad. As Thanksgiving approaches, get ready to hear that one a lot. But the truth is, freedom of speech, like most other rights held dear in the United States, is heavily regulated and controlled. If this doesn't sound fair to you, let's ask the labor movement, civil rights marchers, anti-Vietnam protesters, the anti-WTO demonstrators in Seattle and Iraq War opponents, Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, or any vaguely organized left movement of the last century and a half how free their speech has been. They might have trouble answering with bloodied mouths. In reality, the "freest" speech has always been given to those in power. The widest platform available in the 21st century — the mass media — has become the purview of the megarich. Recall coverage of any of the aforementioned movements and see the dismissal, the mockery, the indifference given to large groups of marginalized people asking for a more just society. Sympathy is given to police sooner than protesters, to beleaguered heads of government sooner than the activist slain or injured in the street. We're living under a system whose law enforcement officers protect a Ku Klux Klan rally in Atlanta but launch tear gas into black crowds in Ferguson. With this treatment in mind, it's hard not to think of the events in Missouri, and college campuses nationwide, as yet another clash between the imagined ideal of freedom of speech and the unequal application of the ideal in practice. Media figures were incensed when a photographer was not allowed in a "safe space" constructed by anti-racist activists in the wake of the university president's resignation in Missouri. Certainly, those in the media demonstrated their skin is as thin as anyone else's when the mere notion was brought up there might be a place they should not go. This was a brief, unusual turnaround of the established rule of privileged speech. What better excuse to turn against the protesters? It's not as though the concerned students were being taken seriously before. So these gestures toward the perfect "free speech" are disingenuous, at best. Because governments, economic systems and their discontents determine what speech is truly free, the more authentic choice would be to determine which speech we as a society would prefer. At the moment, the prevailing consensus would have it that calls for equality are too far-reaching, that these and other protesters represent a vocal minority which deserves no reply but silence. This, to me, is an immoral option, one put upon us by people who would maintain the status quo, one which has given the people stagnancy and privation and those at the helm unimaginable comfort. The alternative, then, is to embrace the messy, challenging process of positive change in pursuit of a better world. If people are put off by the tactics or actions necessary to that pursuit, they were fair-weather friends in the first place..
4 +Free speech aids white America in its neglecting and perpetuation of racist oppression. Huber ’16
5 +Fear the Future part 2: critical race theory and free speech limits based on feelings; DAVE HUBER - ASSISTANT EDITOR; FEBRUARY 13, 2016
6 +Here Hussung is taking a cue straight out of the critical race theory (CRT) playbook — actually questioning the use of rationality in dissecting issues in part because it is “traditionally Western”: Too often, we are guided by our attachments to certain ideas such as like “free speech” to the extent of seriously neglecting the experiences of the oppressed. Focusing on rationality, debate and traditional Western concepts like free speech can tie us to established ideologies and numb us to the pain of those around us. It can easily be a way, consciously or subconsciously, of imposing the will of the powerful upon the oppressed. The fight against anti-Black sentiments must begin with, and remain centered on Black people and their experiences, desires and political vision. An attempt by white people to ignore the work and will of Black people and set the terms for the fight against racism is still an attempt to keep structural power in white hands. Essentially, it is just a rebranding of racism. The previous point about quelling speech is made perfectly here: You’re a “rebranded” racist if you ignore groups like Black Lives Matter and/or attempt to debate “terms” with them. RELATED: Fear the Future: College students’ views on free speech are … rather worrisome Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (who would be a racist using Hussung’s terms) from 1997 appears directly to address the student columnist’s point: What is most arresting about critical race theory is that…it turns its back on the Western tradition of rational inquiry, forswearing analysis for narrative. Rather than marshal logical arguments and empirical data, critical race theorists tell stories — fictional, science-fictional, quasi-fictional, autobiographical, anecdotal—designed to expose the pervasive and debilitating racism of America today. By repudiating reasoned argumentation, the storytellers reinforce stereotypes about the intellectual capacities of nonwhites. Is it any wonder why he called adherents to CRT “the lunatic core of radical legal egalitarianism”? Hussung concludes his article: Instead of beginning our conversations with ideological allegiances to concepts like free speech, and employing those concepts to defend the status quo, we must start centering and caring about the people who are suffering most. We must respect their decisions them and let our ideologies grow from there. If we define free speech in a way that would defend Yik Yak, in spite of the immense harm it has caused Black students, then I’m not interested in free speech. Ideological allegiances to free speech. If we define free speech in a way … that causes harm.
7 +Free speech is characterized by white fragility- the suppression of deflection of black progress. Restricting racist speech is key to empower the oppressed and deconstruct white supremacy. Carpenter et al 16
8 +Carpenter, Bennett. "Free Speech, Black Lives and White Fragility." The Chronicle. N.p., 19 Jan. et al 2016. Web. 13 Dec. 2016.
9 +White fragility refers to a range of defensive behaviors through which white people (or more accurately, people who believe they are white) deflect conversations about race and racism in order to protect themselves from race-based stress. Because white people tend to live in environments where whiteness is both dominant and invisible, they grow accustomed to racial comfort, as a result of which even a small amount of racial stress becomes intolerable. This helps explain why talking about white supremacy can feel more painful to white people than white supremacy itself, why the ostensible "stifling" of debate can feel more pressing than the literal strangulation of Eric Garner and how "free speech" seems more important than Black lives. Needless to say, it requires an astounding degree of narcissism, ignorance and— yes—fragility to scan headlines detailing the daily, state-sanctioned slaughter of people of color and somehow conclude that speech is the real problem. White fragility weighs the minimal discomfort of being confronted with painful realities about race and racism against the literal death of Black and brown bodies and decides that the latter matter less than white discomfort. Which is how we end up here, talking about speech on campus and reading a dozen iterations of the same editorial in which students describe—with utterly unintentional irony—how being called out by anti-racist activists makes them feel upset and hurts their feelings. This leaves those of us committed to abolishing white supremacy in a double bind. To engage with this debate is to fall for a diversionary tactic in which we again center the conversation on white feelings. To refuse to engage grants the latter a monopoly on the airways, drowning out more vital issues in an ocean of white noise. Still, in the interests of the open, honest debate the free speechers ostensibly advocate, let me try to address the constitutional and philosophical principles at play here. The first point to make is that, despite the hand-wringing, I have yet to see a single example of student activists violating the First Amendment. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how they could do so, given that the latter proscribes government abridgment of speech while student activists are private citizens. Many seem to confuse "free speech" with some banal notion of civility, forgetting that the very freedoms they invoke to defend racist drivel permit anti-racists to respond—whether by calling someone out or calling for their resignation. This would seem to set up a nice equivalence between racists and anti-racists—both exercising free-speech freedoms, which must be equally and indiscriminately defended. What this ignores, however, is the centuries-long history of racialized oppression to which hate speech contributes. Hate speech is thus both violent and an incitement to further violence. The courts already prohibit walking into a crowded theater and shouting "fire." How is this any different from walking into a white supremacist society and shouting racial slurs? It has become almost a truism that there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. Historically speaking, this is inaccurate. As M. Alison Kibler details in her "Censoring Racial Ridicule," the U.S. has a long history of regulating forms of speech that expose racialized groups to "contempt, derision or obloquy." Indeed, as recently as 1952, the Supreme Court upheld an Illinois law applying the standards of libel (another free-speech exception) to hate speech. It is only in recent years that the courts have, as the National Center for Human Rights Education puts it, "privileged white racists to express themselves at the expense of the safety of African-Americans and other people of color." Key to this new interpretation is a firm separation between speech and action, a legal variant on the old childhood adage: "sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will never hurt you." The problem—as anyone who has been the victim of hate speech can tell you—is that this simply isn't true. Words hurt as much as actions; indeed, words are actions. Within the context of white supremacy, any distinction between a defaced poster, a racist pamphlet and legal or extralegal murder can be only of degree. At the same time—and here I'll throw a bone to the civil libertarians—I'm unconvinced that hate speech legislation can resolve this. Not because hate speech isn't violent, but because the state is. As others have noted, we often view the state like some strange sort of Jekyll and Hyde—as if the very government quite literally built on white supremacy could somehow save us from its effects. I've sometimes noticed the same double vision among campus activists, who both call out Duke (quite rightly) for institutional racism yet also call on the administration to fix it. So where does that leave us? With the painful yet empowering realization that no one will save us but ourselves. Rather than relying on the state to censure hate speech, anti-racists can assume that task—calling out and shouting down every expression of white supremacy as we work to build a genuinely free society. In the meantime, we can construct safe spaces for ourselves where hatred is barred at the door. In other words, the exact work that campus activists are already doing. Cowardly racists and homophobes who deface posters or vandalize dormitories are not heroic defenders of free speech. The true heroes are those who have spoken out against injustice, time and again, in the face of both material and psychological retaliation. Everything else is just white noise.
10 +
11 +Vote negative to reject the racist grounding of the affirmative advocacy.
12 +Equal inclusion is a prerequisite to answering ethical questions- exclusion allows for the arbitrary imposition of viewpoints that precludes access to normative truths. Medina 11
13 +Medina, J. (2011). Toward a Foucaultian Epistemology of Resistance: Counter-Memory, Epistemic Friction, and Guerrilla Pluralism. Foucault Studies, 1(12), 9–35.
14 +The central goal of this paper is to show the emancipatory potential of the epistemological framework underlying Foucault’s work. More specifically, I will try to show that the Foucaultian approach places practices of remembering and forgetting in the context of power relations in such a way that possibilities of resistance and subversion are brought to the fore. When our cultural practices of remembering and forgetting are interrogated as loci where multiple power relations and power struggles converge, the first thing to notice is the heterogeneity of differently situated perspectives and the multiplicity of trajectories that converge in the epistemic negotiations in which memories are formed or de-formed, maintained alive or killed. The discursive practices in which memory and oblivion are manufactured are not uniform and harmonious, but heterogeneous and full of conflicts and tensions. Foucault invites us to pay attention to the past and ongoing epistemic battles among competing power/knowledge frameworks that try to control a given field. Different fields—or domains of discursive interaction—contain particular discursive regimes with their particular ways of producing knowledge. In the battle among power/ knowledge frameworks, some come on top and become dominant while others are displaced and become subjugated. Foucault’s methodology offers a way of exploiting that vibrant plurality of epistemic perspectives which always contains some bodies of experiences and memories that are erased or hidden in the mainstream frameworks that become hegemonic after prevailing in sustained epistemic battles. What Foucault calls subjugated knowledges3 are forms of experiencing and remembering that are pushed to the margins and rendered unqualified and unworthy of epistemic respect by prevailing and hegemonic discourses. Subjugated knowledges remain invisible to mainstream perspectives; they have a precarious subterranean existence that renders them unnoticed by most people and impossible to detect by those whose perspective has already internalized certain epistemic exclusions. And with the invisibility of subjugated knowledges, certain possibilities for resistance and subversion go unnoticed. The critical and emancipatory potential of Foucaultian genealogy resides in challenging established practices of remembering and forgetting by excavating subjugated bodies of experiences and memories, bringing to the fore the perspectives that culturally hegemonic practices have foreclosed. The critical task of the scholar and the activist is to resurrect subjugated knowledges—that is, to revive hidden or forgotten bodies of experiences and memories—and to help produce insurrections of subjugated knowledges. 4 In order to be critical and to have transformative effects, genealogical investigations should aim at these insurrections, which are critical interventions that disrupt and interrogate epistemic hegemonies and mainstream perspectives (e.g. official histories, standard interpretations, ossified exclusionary meanings, etc). Such insurrections involve the difficult labor of mobilizing scattered, marginalized publics and of tapping into the critical potential of their dejected experiences and memories. An epistemic insurrection requires a collaborative relation between genealogical scholars/activists and the subjects whose experiences and memories have been subjugated: those subjects by themselves may not be able to destabilize the epistemic status quo until they are given a voice at the epistemic table (i.e. in the production of knowledge), that is, until room is made for their marginalized perspective to exert resistance, until past epistemic battles are reopened and established frameworks become open to contestation. On the other hand, the scholars and activists aiming to produce insurrectionary interventions could not get their critical activity off the ground if they did not draw on past and ongoing contestations, and the lived experiences and memo- ries of those whose marginalized lives have become the silent scars of forgotten struggles.
15 +You cannot detach theory from its history- ethics must be informed by the injustice of empirical institutions, because the assumptions behind abstraction defy reality and serve to legitimize oppression. Curry 13
16 +Dr. Tommy J. Curry 13, Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, Texas AandM, "In the Fiat of Dreams: The Delusional Allure of Hope, the Reality of Anti-Black Violence and the Demands of the Anti-Ethical", 2013.
17 +Despite the rhetorical strategies adopted by both Black and white political theorists which urge Blacks and whites alike to demand Americans to continue their allegiance to the foundational de-racialized ethos of the post-Civil Rights era, the reality of the American racism—its sheer recurring violence against Black people—demands more than symbolic rhetorical allusion. To seriously grasp the reality of racist oppression and the sempiternal machinations of anti-Blackness throughout American society be it in its institutions like the prison industrial complex, its policies like Affirmative action, or its manipulation of Black social degradation and economic disadvantage to support pathological theses about disasters like Katrina or cultural deviance as in the death of Trayvon Martin, Darius Simmons, or Jordan Davis, the study of the matter itself—racism—must be a study of a conceptual disengagement with the myth of racial equality and the “automatic progressivism” of the American liberal project. This disengagement is not simply the refusal to accept the idealism of civil rights myth held beyond the realm of fact, but the disengagement with the illusions of democracy and equality that continue to ignore the role that violence has played and continues to play in the subjugation, incarceration, and vilification of Black life. As Dr. A.J. William Myers reveals in his work groundbreaking work entitled Destructive Impulses, Until at such time white America (and Black America) is openly willing to confront a historical legacy of its own violence (perpetrated against an American people of color), any venture into and/ or expository on race relations becomes an exercise in futility…As a result, therefore, white violence, confined to the subliminal recesses of the American psyche, continues to prevent the transition necessary for the country to move beyond the idea of race. In America, Blackness and the racism that continues to condemn those historical racialized peoples is violence—it is the forceful and coercion enclosing of human beings to an inferior social, political, and economic status of which their own humanity exceeds. This dehumanizing relegation of the raced citizen is not a gradual or incremental debasement, but rather the historically immediate condition of inferiority that presents progress to be attainable by the cyclical degrees of physical violence against the racialized population. For these racially oppressed peoples, violence is the permanent fixture of existence in America, since it is the vitiation of their humanity that rationalizes the varying techniques of their cultural erasure, birthing the emergent symbolic associations of degradation that replace their invisibility, and empowering the intentional enforcements of their societal exclusions. In fact, it is precisely this triumvirate that gauges what we take to be the negation of the necessity of revolutionary change~-~-since the raced is taken to be present, as a result of a critical redefining of humanity, integrated into society. The potentiality of whiteness—the proleptic call of white anti-racist consciousness— is nothing more than the fiat of an ahistorical dream. A command ushered before thought engages racism, before awareness of the world becomes aware of what is actual. This is forced upon accounts of racism where whiteness is morally obscured from being seen as is. whiteness as is partly determined by what could be, since what is was a past potentiality—a could be. The appeal to the sentimentality, morality, the moral abstraction/distraction of equality—both as a political command and its anthropological requisite—complicate the most obvious consequence of anti-Black racism, namely violence. This moral apriorism urges the Black thinker to conceptualize racism as an activist project rooted in the potential of a world filled with non-racists, a world where the white racist is transformed by Black activity into the white anti-racist. But this project supposes an erroneous view of the white racist which occludes the reality of white supremacy and anti-Black racism. As Robert F. Williams argues in Negroes with Guns, “the racist is a man crazed by hysteria at the idea of coming into equal contact with Negroes. And this mass mental illness called racism is very much a part of the ‘American way of Life.’” The white racist is not seen as the delusional individual ostracized from society as a result of their abhorrent social pathologies of racist hate. Rather the white racist is normal—the extended family, the spouse, the sibling, the friend of the white individual—the very same entities upon which the inter/intrasubjectivity nexus of the white self is founded. The white he experiences no punishment for his longing for Black servitude and his need to exploit and divest the Black worker here and then of his wealth. The white she has no uneasiness about her raping of—the destruction of generations of Black selves—mothers, children, and men—and today usurps the historical imagery of “the nigger,” to politically vacate Blackness and demonize niggers as beyond political consideration. She rewrites history, pens morality, and embodies the post-racial civil rights subject. As such, racism, the milieu of the white racist is not the exposed pathological existence of the white race, but rather valorized in white individuality, the individuality that conceptualizes their racism as a normative aspiration of what the world should look like, and even more damning, an aspiration that can be supported and propagated in the world. The white racist recognizes the deliberateness of the structures, relations, and systems in a white supremacist society and seeks like their colonial foreparents to claim them as their own. Traditionally we have taken ethics to be, as Henry Sidgwick’s claims, "any rational procedure by which we determine what individual human beings 'ought'—or what is right for them—or to seek to realize by voluntary action.” This rational procedure is however at odds with the empirical reality the ethical deliberation must concern itself with. To argue, as is often done, that the government, its citizens, or white people should act justly, assumes that the possibility of how they could act defines their moral disposition. If a white person could possibly not be racist, it does not mean that the possibility of not being racist, can be taken to mean that they are not racist. In ethical deliberations dealing with the problem of racism, it is common practice to attribute to historically racist institutions, and individuals universal moral qualities that have yet to be demonstrated. This abstraction from reality is what frames our ethical norms and allows us to maintain, despite history or evidence, that racist entities will act justly given the choice. Under such complexities, the only ethical deliberation concerning racism must be anti-ethical, or a judgment refusing to write morality onto immoral entities.
18 +And, The role of the ballot and judge as an educator is to reject arguments based on asymmetrical power relations—because pedagogical contexts are inherently political, we have a unique opportunity to promote real change. Trifonas 03,
19 +PETER PERICLES TRIFONAS. PEDAGOGIES OF DIFFERENCE: RETHINKING EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL CHANGE/ RoutledgeFalmer. New York, London. 2003. Questia.
20 +Just as objective social reality exists not by chance, but as the product of action, so it is not transformed by chance. If men/women produce social reality (which in the “inversion of praxis” turns back upon them and conditions them), then transforming that reality is an historical task, a task for men/women. Reality which becomes oppressive results in the contradistinction of men/women as oppressors and oppressed. The latter, whose task it is to struggle for their liberation together with those who show true solidarity, must acquire a critical awareness of oppression through the praxis of this struggle. One of the gravest obstacles to the achievement of liberation is that oppressive reality absorbs those within it and thereby acts to submerge men's/women's consciousness. Functionally oppression is domesticating. To no longer be prey to its force one must emerge from it and turn upon it. This can be done only by means of the praxis: reflection and action upon the world in order to transform it. (36)In this passage we see the fundamental importance that Freire places on the development of a critical consciousness of social existence. An end to oppression, which is the fundamental objective of Freire's call for a socially transformative praxis, requires that men and women have the ability to perceive their existence in the world. He argues that their action in the world is largely determined by the way they see themselves within it, and that a correct perception necessitates of an ongoing reflection on their world. For Freire it is neither the mere action nor the mere reflection and critical consciousness of men and women that will transform the world and end oppression. This can only be achieved through “praxis: the action and reflection of men in the world in order to transform it” (66). The ability to perceive correctly and arrive at a critical consciousness of the world, however, does not come automatically; it is itself the product of praxis. From this position Freire argues for an educational practice (a pedagogical praxis) that engages with the oppressed in reflection that leads to action on their concrete reality. He calls for a pedagogy that makes oppression and its causes objects of a reflection that will allow the oppressed to develop a consciousness of “their necessary engagement in the struggle for their liberation” (33). Freire clearly articulates the essential importance of critical consciousness to transformative action that is liberating: In order for the oppressed to be able to wage the struggle for their liberation, they must perceive the reality of oppression not a closed world from which there is no exit, but as a limiting situation which they can transform. This perception is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for liberation; it must become the motivating force for liberating action. (34) He attributes to education an essential role in the development of developing critical consciousness that Freire ascribes to education: In problem posing education, men and women develop their power to perceive critically the way they exist in the world with which and in which they find themselves. They come to see the world not as static reality, but as reality in process, in transformation. Although the dialectical relations of men with the world exist independently of how these relations are perceived (or whether or not they are perceived at all) it is also true that the form of action men adopt is to a large extent a function of how they perceived themselves in the world. Hence the teacher-student and the students-teachers reflect multaneously on themselves and the world without dichotomizing this reflection from action, and thus establish an authentic form of thought and action. (71) From Freire we understand that a social transformation that works in the interests of working-class indigenous and nonwhite peoples necessitates a critical consciousness of social existence and the possibility of its transformation. We argue that a critical decolonizing consciousness is fundamental to the transformation of the internal neocolonial condition of social existence in the contemporary United States. One need only consider the level of post-September 11 patriotism and expressed belief in official rhetoric (about America's moral righteousness and freedom loving and defending tradition) among working-class indigenous and nonwhite people to see the degree to which our internal neocolonial condition has “submerged” the consciousness of men and women who live and experience the effects of that condition on a daily basis. The vast majority of working-class indigenous and nonwhite people in the contemporary United States cannot see the extent to which the essence of the colonialism that made them English-speaking, Christian individuals continues to define their social existence. We agree with Freire that how men and women act in the world is largely related to how they perceive themselves in the world, and thus we understand that the existent potential to transform our internal neocolonial condition will remain unrealized if we fail to appropriately perceive and develop a critical consciousness of this condition and its possible undoing. A social transformation that ends our neocolonial oppression and exploitation in American society will require a cycle of emancipatory thought, action, and reflection-in other words, a praxiological cycle. We build on Freire and contend that critical consciousness is developed through the struggle against internal neocolonialism both in the classroom and the larger social context. Critical pedagogy has put forth the notion that classroom practice integrates particular curriculum content and design, instructional strategies and techniques, and forms of evaluation. It argues that these specify a particular version about what knowledge is of most worth, what it means to know something, and how we might construct a representation of our world and our place within it (McLaren 1998). From this perspective, the pedagogical is inherently political. For us a decolonizing pedagogy encompasses both an anticolonial and decolonizing notion of pedagogy and an anticolonial and decolonizing pedagogical praxis. It is an anticolonial and decolonizing theory and praxis that insists that colonial domination and its ideological frameworks operate and are reproduced in and through the curricular content and design, the instructional practices, the social organization of learning, and the forms of evaluation that inexorably sort and label students into enduring categories of success and failure of schooling. Thus, an anticolonial and decolonizing pedagogical praxis explicitly works to transform these dimensions of schooling so that schools become sites for the development of a critical decolonizing consciousness and activity that work to ameliorate and ultimately end the mutually constitutive forms of violence that characterize our internal neocolonial condition. For us, a decolonizing pedagogy addresses both the means and the ends of schooling.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-12-16 22:51:11.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Arun Sharma
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Westlake DM
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +7
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Murphy Middle Gera Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +JANFEB Race K
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Strake Jesuit
Caselist.CitesClass[10]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,47 @@
1 +Part 1 is Framework
2 +Student education is uniquely crucial to successfully overthrow capitalism.
3 +Marcuse ‘72
4 +Herbert Marcuse, German philosopher and sociologist, 1972 Herbert, Counterrevolution and Revolt, P. 54-56
5 +The dominion of...
6 +a financial end.
7 +Morgareidge ‘98
8 +Clayton Morgareidge, “Why Capitalism is Evil”, Radio Active Philosophy, Lewis and Clark Educational Papers.
9 +
10 +Well, what is...
11 +at the table.
12 +Part 2 is Links
13 +Free speech is tainted by the capitalist elite- breaking away is key. International Communist Current:
14 +Charlie Hebdo and "Freedom of Speech" in Capitalism; International Communist Current
15 +There's a lot...
16 +repressive to others.
17 +THIS EVIDENCE IS FANTASTIC-
18 +a) It proves that Free speech is shaped by the capitalist elite- even if it could hold moral value, its skewed and functions as a cap link.
19 +b) It demonstrates how free speech is regulated and controlled by cap- if the elite like a certain form of speech, they are ok with it being free, but if it goes against their interest they deem in unacceptable, flawed, and worthless.
20 +c) Empirically Flows Neg- communism and socialism are looked at as radical idiocy in the united states outside of LD and policy. Even if we have the free speech to express socialist ideas, that free speech is regulated by cap, as one who verbally supports cap is ignored- their speech becomes unlawfully regulated through social means.
21 +
22 +Second, Public colleges and universities are institutions of capitalism and exploitation. Smith ‘15
23 +http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/06/college-is-wildly-exploitative-why-arent-students-raising-hell.html
24 +Higher education wears the cloak of liberalism, but in policy and practice, it can be...
25 +of the wealth.
26 +This is a link-
27 +a) Their attempts to prescribe the University ethics perpetuates, condones, and justifies capitalism- ethics is not applicable to such an unethical regime, and the attempt to make it so glorifies cap.
28 +b) Their failure to solve the capitalist element of these institutions means a) their ethics are skewed by capitalism, so if we win our impacts, this hijacks their framework and makes it a link and b) dooms it to failure because if a university is actively deciding to be capitalist, its “ethical” actions will likely be in favor of capitalist power relations.
29 +The constitution is merely a means of re-enforcing capitalist power relations. Avakian ‘10
30 +Constitution for the...
31 +its underlying dynamics.
32 +
33 +Part 3 is The Alternative
34 +The alternative is to reject my opponent in favor of embracing pedagogical Marxist socialism. It is the role of educators to expand our understandings of alternatives to capitalism.
35 +d’Annibale ‘06
36 +Valerie Scatamburlo d’Annibale, Award-Winning Author and Educator, is an Associate Professor of Communication Studies @ University of Windsor “Imagining the Impossible: Revolutionary Critical Pedagogy Against the 21st Century American Imperium” International Journal of Progressive Education Vol: 2 Issue: 3
37 +
38 +The Boy Emperor...
39 +domination of capital.
40 +Its try or die for the alt- either resist cap or assure environmental destruction and ecosystem collapse which assures extinction by starving us of necessary resources to live and warming to intolerable levels. Dawson ‘16
41 +Ashley Dawson / OR Books. "Why It's Impossible for a Capitalist Society to Cope With the Extinction Crisis." Alternet. N.p., 18 Apr. 2016. Web. 16 Dec. 2016.
42 +Can capitalist society...
43 +it is causing.
44 +
45 +Actions taken within capitalism only reproduce the capitalist system. Thats a disad to the perm. Zizek:, Slavoj. "Revolution at the Gates." (2002): 298,
46 +Indeed, since the...
47 +happening, really changing.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-12-17 03:35:43.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Jacob Koshak
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Lake Highland SS
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +8
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +3
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Murphy Middle Gera Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +JANFEB Cap K
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Strake Jesuit
Caselist.CitesClass[11]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,12 @@
1 +NOTE: THESE ARE ONLY THE NEW CARDS I READ IN THIS ROUND- everything I disclosed in the original cap entry is still fair game
2 +
3 +Capitalism is the root cause of racism and especially sexism by maintaining a system that always puts women and people of color at a disadvantage and reinforces white male superiority
4 +Pharr: (Suzanne Pharr. “Homophobia as a Weapon of Sexism.” Race, Class, and Gender in the United States. 6th edition. http://books.google.com/books?hl=enandlr=andid=9I7ExPk-920Candoi=fndandpg=PA160anddq=capitalism+root+cause+sexism+patriarchyandots=r8Sy4j_EANandsig=G0z-DnqAQK7YeETkia0qO14HQ1Y#v=onepageandqandf=true)
5 +
6 +Economics is the great controller in both sexism and racism. If a person can't acquire food, shelter, and clothing and provide them for children, then that person can be forced to do many things in order to survive. The major tactic, world- wide, is to provide unrecompensed or inadequately recompensed labor for the benefit of those who control wealth. Hence, we see women performing unpaid labor in the home or filling low-paid jobs, and we see people of color in the lowest-paid jobs available. The method is to complex: limit educational and training opportunities for women and for people of color and then withhold adequate paying jobs with the ex- cuse that people of color and women are incapable of filling them. Blame the economic victim and keep the victim's self-esteem low through invisibility and distortion within the media and education. Allow a few people of color and women to succeed among the profitmakers so that blaming those who don't "make it” can be intensified. Encourage those few who succeed in gaining power now to turn against those who remain behind rather than to use their resources to make change for all. Maintain the myth of scarcity – that there are not enough jobs, resources, etc., to go around among the middle class so that they will not unite with laborers, immigrants, and the unemployed. The method keeps in place a system of control and profit by a few and a constant source of cheap labor to maintain it. If anyone steps out of line, take her/his job away. Let homelessness and hunger do their work. The economic weapon works. And we end up saying, “I would do this or that – be openly who l am, speak out against injustice, work for civil rights, join a labor union, go to a political march, etc. – if l didn’t have this job. I can’t afford to lose it." We stay in an abusive situation because we see no other way to survive .... Violence against women is directly related to the condition of women in a society that refuses us equal pay, equal access to resources, and equal status with males. From this condition comes men's confirmation of their sense of ownership of women, power over women, and assumed right to control women for their own means. Men physically and emotionally abuse women because they can, because they live in a world that gives them permission. Male violence is fed by their sense of their right to dominate and control, and their sense of superiority over a group of people who, because of gender, they consider inferior to them.
7 +
8 +Fixation on personal identities prevents the coalition building needed to fight capitalism.
9 +Dean ‘05
10 +Jodi Dean. Teaches Political Theory @ Hobart and William Smith Colleges, 2005. “Žižek’s Politics, p.115-9.”
11 +
12 +Unlike most critical thinkers identified with the Left, Žižek rejects the current emphasis on multicultural tolerance. He has three primary reasons for rejecting multiculturalism as it is currently understood in cultural studies and democratic theory. First, agreeing with Wendy Brown, he argues that multiculturalism today rests on an acceptance of global capitalism. Insofar as Capital's deterritorializations create the conditions for the proliferation of multiple, fluid, political subjectivities, new social movements and identity politics rely on a political terrain established by global capitalism. As I explained with regard to the notion of class struggle in Chapter Two, multiculturalism ultimately accepts and depends on the depoliticization of the economy: "the way the economy functions (the need to cut social welfare, etc.) is accepted as a simple insight into the objective state of things."^" We might think here of feminist struggles over the right to an abortion, political work toward marriage benefits for same-sex couples, and energies spent on behalf of movies and television networks that target black audiences. In efforts such as these, political energy focuses on culture and leaves the economy as a kind of unquestioned, taken-for granted basis of the way things are. This is not to say that identity politics are trivial. On the contrary, Žižek fully acknowledges the way these new forms of political subjectivization "thoroughly reshaped our entire political and cultural landscape." The problem is that capitalism has adapted to these new political forms, incorporating previously transgressive urges and turning culture itself into its central component. To be sure, Žižek ‘s argument would be stronger were he to think of new social movements as vanishing or displaced mediators. Identity politics opened up new spaces and opportunities for capitalist intensification. As new social movements transformed the lifeworld into something to be questioned and changed, they disrupted fixed identities and created opportunities for experimentation. The market entered to provide these opportunities. Consider gay media. Joshua Gamson observes that while gay portal sites initially promised to offer safe and friendly spaces for gay community building, they now function primarily "to deliver a market share to corporations." In this gay media, "community needs are conflated with consumption desires, and community equated with market."41 Social victories paved the way for market incursions into and the commodification of ever more aspects of experience. Once cultural politics morphed into capitalist culture, identity politics lost its radical edge. With predictable frequency, the Republican Right in the United States regularly accuses the 110 Left of playing the race card whenever there is opposition to a non- Anglo political appointee. A second argument Žižek employs against multiculturalism concerns the way multicultural tolerance is part of the same matrix as racist violence. On the one hand, multicultural respect for the other is a way of asserting the superiority of the multiculturalists. The multiculturalist adopts an emptied-out, disembodied perspective toward an embodied, ethnic other. The ethnic other makes the universal position of the multiculturalist possible. Not only does this attitude disavow the particularity of the multiculturalist's own position, but it also repeats the key gesture of global corporate capitalism: the big corporations will eat up, colonize, exploit, and commodity anything. They are not biased. They are empty machines following the logic of Capital. On the other hand, tolerance toward the other "passes imperceptibly into a destructive hatred of all ('fundamentalist') Others who do not fit into our idea of tolerance-in short, against all actual Others."4i The idea is that the liberal democrat, or multiculturalist, is against hatred and harassment. Tolerance is tolerance for another who also does not hate or harass, that is, tolerance for an other who is not really so other at all.46 It thus works in tandem with a right not to be harassed, not to be victimized, inconvenienced by, or exposed to the particular enjoyment of another.47 To this extent, the multicultural position blurs into a kind of racism such that respect is premised on agreement and identity. The Other with deep fundamental beliefs, who is invested in a set of unquestionable convictions, whose enjoyment is utterly incomprehensible to me, is not the other of multiculturalism. For Žižek, then, today's tolerant liberal multiculturalism is "an experience of the Other deprived of its Otherness (the idealized Other who dances fascinating dances and has an ecologically sound holistic approach to reality, while practices like wife-beating remain out of sight . . .)."48 Just as in Eastern Europe after the fall of communism, so today's reflexive multicultural tolerance has as its opposite, and thus remains caught in the matrix of, a hard kernel of fundamentalism, of irrational, excessive, enjoyment. The concrete realization of rational inclusion and tolerance coincides with contingent, irrational, violence. Finally, Žižek's third argument against multiculturalism is that it precludes politicization. Žižek uses the example of the animated film series about dinosaurs, The Land Before Time, produced by Steven Spielberg The clearest articulation of the hegemonic liberal multiculturalist ideology," The Land Before Time iterates the basic message that everyone is different and all should learn to live with these differences-big and small, strong and weak, carnivore and herbivore. In the films, the dinosaurs sing songs about how one should not worry about being eaten because underneath those big teeth are real fears and anxieties that everyone shares. Of course, this image of cooperative dinosaurs is profoundly false. As Žižek asks, what does it really mean to say that it takes all kinds? "Does that mean nice and brutal, poor and rich, victims and torturer^?"^^ The vision of a plurality of horizontal differences precludes the notion of a vertical antagonism that cuts through the social body. Some are more powerful. Some do want to kill-and denying this in an acceptance of differences prevents the politicization of this inequality. To say that in our difference we are really all alike, underneath it all, disavows the underlying social antagonism. It prevents us from acknowledging and confronting the way that class struggle cuts through and conditions the multiplicity of differences. We can approach the same point from another direction. Identity politics today emphasizes the specificity of each identity and experience. Particular differences are supposed to be acknowledged and respected. As Žižek points out, the notion of social justice that corresponds to this view depends on asserting the rights of and redressing the wrongs inflicted upon victims. Institutionally, then, identity politics "requires an intricate police apparatus (for identifying the group in question, for punishing offenders against its rights . . . for providing the preferential treatment which should compensate for the wrong this group has suffered."'" Rather than opening up a terrain of political struggle, functioning as human rights that designate the very space of politicization, identity politics works through a whole series of depoliticizing moves to locate, separate, and redress wrong^."^ Systemic problems are reformulated as personal issues. No particular wrong or harm can then stand in for the "universal wrong."'" Multiculturalism is thus a dimension of postpolitics insofar as it prevents the universalization of particular demands.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-12-18 19:11:55.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Adam Brown
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Independent PY
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +9
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +6
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Murphy Middle Gera Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +JANFEB Cap Updates
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Strake jesuit
Caselist.CitesClass[12]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,7 @@
1 +Hi,
2 +
3 +If you plan on running disclosure theory, it would be best for you to email me prior to the round so I can disclose anything I may have forgotten to put up. If you need to contact me for any other reason-
4 +
5 +My most frequently used email is nevingera@gmail.com.
6 +
7 +Good Luck!
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-16 02:09:18.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +The Holy Spirit
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Jesus, our lord and savior
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +11
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Finals
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Murphy Middle Gera Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +0- Note
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Battle for Buddha
Caselist.CitesClass[13]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,21 @@
1 +Endowments are high now and key to college research programs.
2 +Onink 15 Troy Onink (contributor, CEO of Stratagee.com, a provider of college planning advice to families and college planning software and services for financial advisors), "As College Endowments Gain 15.5, Harvard Tops List Of 25 Biggest Endowment Funds," Forbes Magazine, 1/29/2015
3 +Investments in venture capital and domestic equity fueled a 15.5 average gain in college endowments in 2014, according to a study released today. Data gathered from 832 U.S. colleges and universities for the 2014 NACUBO-Commonfund Study of Endowments® (NCSE) show that these institutions’ endowments returned an average of 15.5 percent (net of fees) for the 2014 fiscal year (July 1, 2013 – June 30, 2014) compared with 11.7 percent for the 2013 fiscal year. The 832 institutions participating in this year’s Study represented $516.0 billion in endowment assets. These rising return rates have enabled colleges and universities to increase spending from their endowments to support student financial aid programs, faculty research, and other activities vital to their missions. Domestic equities generated the highest return in FY2014, at 22.8 percent, followed by international equities, at 19.2 percent. Alternative strategies returned 12.7 percent, fixed income returned 5.1 percent and short-term securities/cash/other returned 1.9 percent. Returns for all five asset classes were higher in FY2014 than they were in the previous fiscal year. (All returns are reported net of fees.)
4 +These programs on university campus are key to fight climate change.
5 +Snibbe 15 Kris Snibbe, "Colleges have ‘special’ role in fighting climate change," Harvard Gazette, 3/17/2015
6 +In an address to faculty and students at Tsinghua University today, Harvard President Drew Faust argued forcefully that universities have a unique and critical role to play in combating climate change. She opened her remarks by recalling her last visit to Tsinghua in 2008. “There is a proverb that the best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago — and the second-best time is now,” Faust told the audience of about 250 Chinese students, faculty, and journalists. “When I first visited Tsinghua seven years ago … I planted a tree with former Tsinghua President Gu Binglin in the Friendship Garden … I am glad the Tsinghua-Harvard tree stands as a symbol of the many relationships across our two universities, relationships which continue to grow and thrive,” she said. “More than ever, it is as a testament to the possibilities that, by working together, we offer the world. That is why I want to spend a few minutes today talking about the special role universities like ours play in addressing climate change.” Faust’s speech marked the culmination of a series of events in Beijing at which climate change was a central topic. At a gathering of alumni, faculty, and friends on Sunday, she looked on as Ali Malkawi, professor of architectural technology at the Harvard Graduate School of Design (GSD) and founding director of the Harvard Center for Green Buildings and Cities, explained his efforts to reduce the carbon footprint of large human-made structures and systems, from individual buildings to whole cities. On Monday, Faust and Chinese President Xi Jinping, meeting at the Great Hall of the People, discussed governmental and academic efforts to address the threat of climate change. Faust used the opportunity to highlight the important work being undertaken by faculty and students at Harvard and at institutions across the globe such as Tsinghua to develop substantive technological and policy solutions to this global challenge and to urge continued faculty collaborations. “Last November, President Xi and President Obama made a joint announcement on climate change, pledging to limit the greenhouse gas emissions of China and the United States over the next several decades,” Faust said. “It is a landmark accord, setting ambitious goals for the world’s two largest carbon-emitting countries and establishing a marker that presidents Xi and Obama hope will inspire other countries to do the same. “We could not have predicted such a shared commitment seven years or even one year ago between these two leaders — both, in fact, our alumni — one a Tsinghua graduate in chemical engineering and the humanities and the other a graduate of Harvard Law School,” she continued. “And yet our two institutions had already sown the seeds of this agreement decades ago by educating leaders who can turn months of discussion into an international milestone, and by collaborating for more than 20 years on the climate analyses that made the agreement possible. In other words, by doing the things universities are uniquely designed to do.” Calling the recent agreement a “defining moment … worthy of celebration,” and giving China credit for building the world’s largest wind-power capacity as well as the second-largest capacity in solar energy, Faust nonetheless said that these efforts represent “only a beginning” of what needs to be done. “Industry, education, agriculture, business, finance, individual citizens — all are necessary participants in what must become an energy and environmental revolution, a new paradigm that will improve public health, care for the planet, and put both of our nations on the path toward a prosperous, low-carbon economy,” she argued. “Universities are especially good at ‘thinking different,’ ” Faust said in her prepared text, quoting an expression often used by Apple founder Steve Jobs. “To every generation falls a daunting task. This is our task: to ‘think different’ about how we inhabit the Earth. Where better to meet this challenge than in Boston and Beijing? How better to meet it than by unlocking and harnessing new knowledge, building political and cultural understanding, promoting dialogue, and sharing solutions? Who better to meet it than you, the most extraordinary students — imaginative, curious, daring. The challenge we face demands three great necessities.” Faust made the case that the three great necessities of creating partnerships, undertaking research, and training students to ask and answer the big questions ultimately will yield substantive solutions to this global challenge.
7 +
8 +The aff destroys endowments. 3 Links:
9 +3. the Aff angers key investors, who are of older generations and dislike identity politics.
10 +Hartocollis 16 Anemona Hartocollis, writer for NYT: August 4, 2016(“College Students Protest, Alumni’s Fondness Fades and Checks Shrink” New York Times Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/us/college-protests-alumni-donations.html?_r=0 Accessed on 12/15/16)
11 +
12 +Scott MacConnell cherishes the memory of his years at Amherst College, where he discovered his future métier as a theatrical designer. But protests on campus over cultural and racial sensitivities last year soured his feelings. Now Mr. MacConnell, who graduated in 1960, is expressing his discontent through his wallet. In June, he cut the college out of his will. “As an alumnus of the college, I feel that I have been lied to, patronized and basically dismissed as an old, white bigot who is insensitive to the needs and feelings of the current college community,” Mr. MacConnell, 77, wrote in a letter to the college’s alumni fund in December, when he first warned that he was reducing his support to the college to a token $5. A backlash from alumni is an unexpected aftershock of the campus disruptions of the last academic year. Although fund-raisers are still gauging the extent of the effect on philanthropy, some colleges — particularly small, elite liberal arts institutions — have reported a decline in donations, accompanied by a laundry list of g5. Alumni from a range of generations say they are baffled by today’s college culture. Among their laments: Students are too wrapped up in racial and identity politics. They are allowed to take too many frivolous courses. They have repudiated the heroes and traditions of the past by judging them by today’s standards rather than in the context of their times. Fraternities are being unfairly maligned, and men are being demonized by sexual assault investigations. And university administrations have been too meek in addressing protesters whose messages have seemed to fly in the face of free speech. Scott C. Johnston, who graduated from Yale in 1982, said he was on campus last fall when activists tried to shut down a free speech conference, “because apparently they missed irony class that day.” He recalled the Yale student who was videotaped screaming at a professor, Nicholas Christakis, that he had failed “to create a place of comfort and home” for students in his capacity as the head of a residential college. A rally at New Haven Superior Court demanding justice for Corey Menafee, an African-American dining hall worker at Yale’s Calhoun College who was charged with breaking a window pane that depicted black slaves carrying cotton. Credit Peter Hvizdak/New Haven Register, via Associated Press “I don’t think anything has damaged Yale’s brand quite like that,” said Mr. Johnston, a founder of an internet start-up and a former hedge fund manager. “This is not your daddy’s liberalism.” “The worst part,” he continued, “is that campus administrators are wilting before the activists like flowers.” Yale College’s alumni fund was flat between this year and last, according to Karen Peart, a university spokeswoman. Among about 35 small, selective liberal arts colleges belonging to the fund-raising organization Staff, or Sharing the Annual Fund Fundamentals, that recently reported their initial annual fund results for the 2016 fiscal year, 29 percent were behind 2015 in dollars, and 64 percent were behind in donors, according to a steering committee member, Scott Kleinheksel of Claremont McKenna College in California. His school, which was also the site of protests, had a decline in donor participation but a rise in giving. At Amherst, the amount of money given by alumni dropped 6.5 percent for the fiscal year that ended June 30, and participation in the alumni fund dropped 1.9 percentage points, to 50.6 percent, the lowest participation rate since 1975, when the college began admitting women, according to the college. The amount raised from big donors decreased significantly. Some of the decline was because of a falloff after two large reunion gifts last year, according to Pete Mackey, a spokesman for Amherst. At Princeton, where protesters unsuccessfully demanded the removal of Woodrow Wilson’s name from university buildings and programs, undergraduate alumni donations dropped 6.6 percent from a record high the year before, and participation dropped 1.9 percentage points, according to the university’s website.
13 +2. Endowments directly trade off with not restricting constitutionally protected speech.
14 +Kurtz 15 Stanley Kurtz, senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a former adjunct fellow with Hudson Institute,“A Plan to Restore Free Speech on Campus,” The National Review, December 7, 2015, http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/428122/plan-restore-free-speech-campus-stanley-kurtz
15 +Fifth: Colleges and universities ought to adopt policies on institutional political neutrality based on the University of Chicago’s Kalven Committee Report of 1967. The Kalven Report explains that the ability of a university to foster political dissent and criticism by faculty and students actually depends upon the political neutrality of the institution itself. The principles of academic freedom and institutional neutrality embodied in the Kalven Report are the surest antidote to demands that universities divest themselves of stock in fossil-fuel providers, Israeli companies, and other political targets. Advocates who attempt to inject universities into the political process by means of their endowments substantially inhibit the intellectual freedom of faculty and students who wish to explore contrary points of view. The National Association of Scholars’ recent reports on campus sustainability and fossil-fuel divestment detail the illiberal implications of these movements. The American Council of Trustees and Alumni includes the text of the Kalven Report and an excellent commentary by civil libertarian attorney Harvey Silverglate in its guide to academic freedom. Trustees should take note.
16 +1. Endowment benefactors blame college administrators for choosing to allow all constitutionally protected speech.
17 +G. Jeffrey MacDonald 5 – Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor. Donors: too much say on campus speech? ; Colleges feel more pressure from givers who want to help determine who'll be speaking on campus. The Christian Science Monitor Boston, Mass 10 Feb 2005: 11.
18 +According to Hamilton President Joan Hinde Stewart, angry benefactors threatened to quit giving if the Clinton, N.Y., college were to give a podium to the University of Colorado professor who had likened World Trade Center workers to Nazis in a 2001 essay. In doing so, they employed an increasingly popular tactic used at colleges in Utah, Nevada and Virginia with mixed degrees of success last fall in attempts to derail scheduled appearances by "Fahrenheit 9-11" filmmaker Michael Moore. Although demanding givers are nothing new, observers of higher education see in recent events signs of mounting clout for private interests to determine which ideas get a prominent platform on campus and which ones don't. Faced with such pressures, administrators say they're trying to resist manipulation. Mr. Hamilton canceled Mr. Churchill's speech, Stewart said, only after a series of death threats pushed the situation "beyond our capacity to ensure the safety of our students and visitors." Yet in an age when financiers increasingly want to set the terms for how their gifts are to be used, those responsible for the presentation of ideas and speakers seem to be approaching them much like other commodities on campus. "People are wanting their values portrayed and wanting institutions to do exactly what they want them to do," said Dr. Wes Willmer, vice president of university advancement at Biola University in La Miranda, Calif., and a frequent writer on the topic of university fundraising. "They're not giving for the common good. They're giving because they want to accomplish something, and that plays out in the speaker realm as well." Pressure to reshape the landscape of ideas is coming from various corners. At the University of Nevada, Reno, seven-figure donor Rick Reviglio threatened this fall to stop giving altogether unless the university, which had invited Mr. Moore, would instead arrange for the filmmaker to debate a prominent conservative. The university declined his $100,000 offer to stage the event. In California and Virginia, state lawmakers helped persuade presidents at California State University San Marcos and George Mason University, respectively, that upwards of $30,000 for Moore's appearance would constitute an "inappropriate" use of state funds on the eve of an election. The San Marcos campus hosted the event anyway, however, after a student group raised its own money to sponsor it. In the case of Mr. Churchill, the controversy rages on. Since Hamilton's decision, administrators have nixed Mr. Churchill's scheduled appearances at Wheaton College (Mass.), Eastern Washington University and even his own institution, the University of Colorado at Boulder. Security concerns were officially to blame in each case, although activists who opposed Churchill's message have offered another explanation. "Everything comes back down to money, and they were worried about funding at Hamilton College," says Bill Doyle, outreach director for the World Trade Center United Families Group. He said survivors who lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks had lobbied Hamilton's four largest corporate donors to withhold future gifts if Churchill were allowed to speak. "You have all these rich corporations throughout the world and the country. Perhaps they'll take a look at what they're funding," says Doyle, especially in terms of paid speakers who "promote hate."
19 +Failure to reduce warming causes extinction.
20 +Tickell 8 Tickell, Oliver. "On a Planet 4C Hotter, All We Can Prepare for Is Extinction." The Guardian. Kyoto2, 11 Aug. 2008. Web.
21 +We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean, in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction. The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland. The world's geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die. ¶ Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, who warned that "if we get to a four-degree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase." This is a remarkable understatement. The climate system is already experiencing significant feedbacks, notably the summer melting of the Arctic sea ice. The more the ice melts, the more sunshine is absorbed by the sea, and the more the Arctic warms. And as the Arctic warms, the release of billions of tonnes of methane – a greenhouse gas 70 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years – captured under melting permafrost is already under way. ¶ To see how far this process could go, look 55.5m years to the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when a global temperature increase of 6C coincided with the release of about 5,000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, both as CO2 and as methane from bogs and seabed sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions, and sea levels rose to 100m higher than today. It appears that an initial warming pulse triggered other warming processes. Many scientists warn that this historical event may be analogous to the present: the warming caused by human emissions could propel us towards a similar hothouse Earth.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-05-13 16:21:56.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Ava Vargason
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harker AV
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +13
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Murphy Middle Gera Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +JANFEB Endowments Warming DA
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +MSTOC
Caselist.CitesClass[14]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,19 @@
1 +Text: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any form of constitutionally protected speech except cyberbullying.
2 +The counterplan is competitive – cyberbullying is constitutionally protected speech– 2 reasons.
3 +1 It’s a content based speech restriction, which violates free speech.
4 +Miller and Zoeller 16: Vanessa Miller and Mary Zoeller, "Supreme Court of North Carolina Finds Cyberbullying Law Violates First Amendment," Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, 6/15/2016
5 +But last week, the state’s highest court agreed with Bishop and reversed the appellate court, finding that the statute indeed “violates the First Amendment” because it regulates speech rather than conduct. Content-based statutes must withstand strict scrutiny, the most rigorous constitutional standard. Strict scrutiny is a two-pronged analysis inquiring whether (1) the regulation furthers a compelling state interest and (2) the means to accomplish the state interest are narrowly tailored. The state Supreme Court, quoting Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015), found the cyberbullying statute is content-based because it “defines regulated speech by its particular subject matter.” However, the state Supreme Court found the statute was not narrowly tailored to “serve the state’s asserted interest in protecting children from the harms resulting from online bullying.” Rather, it unconstitutionally “prohibits a wide range of online speech,” including speech protected by the First Amendment.
6 +2 No consistent legal definition – results in overbreadth and first amendment violations.
7 +Miller and Zoeller 2: Vanessa Miller and Mary Zoeller, "Supreme Court of North Carolina Finds Cyberbullying Law Violates First Amendment," Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, 6/15/2016
8 +FIRE has previously noted that North Carolina’s cyberbullying statute is part of a worrying trend of online speech regulations that fail to properly define cyberbullying—a term that, unlike “hostile environment harassment,” does not have a consistent legal definition. While the statute may have been drafted with the laudable intent to protect children from online harassment, it encompasses protected speech. That means, as Creeley cautioned, it “can be used by administrators to censor unwanted speech.” The Supreme Court of North Carolina got it right when it struck down the cyberbullying statute as unconstitutional. And states seeking to enact their own cyberbullying laws should emulate the narrow, speech-protective standard for student-on-student harassment set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999). In Davis, the nation’s highest court defined student-on-student harassment as behavior that is “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bars the victim’s access to an educational opportunity or benefit.” Adopting this definition would ensure the protection of First Amendment rights, while simultaneously insulating children from the harms of online bullying.
9 +This means they’ll never withstand a first amendment free speech challenge, so the aff does away with them.
10 +Hayward 13: Hayward, John O. "Anti-Cyberbullying Laws Are a Threat to Free Speech." Netiquette and Online Ethics, edited by Noah Berlatsky, Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010868216/OVIC?u=nysl_we_bcsdandxid=34680cbd. Accessed 14 Dec. 2016. Originally published as "Anti-Cyber Bullying Statutes Threat to Student Free Speech," Selected Works of John O. Hayward, Sept. 2010.
11 +
12 +Because of their vagueness and overbreadth, it is likely that many anti-cyber bullying statutes will suffer the same fate as campus speech codes and some anti-harassment policies. They share many of their characteristics in seeking to prohibit "hostile environments" and end "intimidating" school speech. They usually contain these phrases along with prohibitions against "interfering with a student's educational performance and benefits" or strictures against comments that are "motivated by actual or perceived characteristics or traits of a student." Whether these expressions encompass simple acts of teasing or name-calling among schoolchildren the courts will have to decide, but the Supreme Court has said they cannot be a basis for damages under federal anti-discrimination law and so it is doubtful they can withstand a First Amendment challenge. New Hampshire's revised bullying law is a good example of just how far anti-bullying hysteria can go in silencing student free speech. One section reads "Bullying" shall include actions motivated by an imbalance of power based on a pupil's actual or perceived personal characteristics, behaviors, or beliefs, or motivated by the pupil's association with another person and based on the other person's characteristics, behaviors, or beliefs. This certainly takes in a large area of speech that could include teasing someone because they are obese, skinny, tall, short, wear eyeglasses, have long, short or no hair, or speak with a high- or low-pitched voice. One court characterized attempts to prohibit such speech in the context of an anti-harassment policy as "brave, futile, or merely silly." However, the court had harsher words for attempts to censor speech dealing with "beliefs" or "values." To quote: But attempting to proscribe negative comments about "values," as that term is commonly used today, is something else altogether. By prohibiting disparaging speech directed at a person's "values," the anti-harassment policy strikes at the heart of moral and political discourse—the lifeblood of constitutional self-government (and democratic education) and the core concern of the First Amendment. That speech about "values" may offend is not cause for its prohibition, but rather the reason for its protection: "a principal 'function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.'" No court or legislature has ever suggested that unwelcome speech directed at another's "values" may be prohibited under the rubric of anti-discrimination. Undoubtedly suppressing student speech under the guise of preventing "cyber bullying" is no more permissible than attempting to stifle it under the rubric of "anti-harassment." Both run afoul of the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. Anti-cyber bullying statutes often include the phrase "hostile environment," words often found in anti-harassment and anti-discrimination codes. The Massachusetts statute defines the phrase as a "situation in which bullying causes the school environment to be permeated with intimidation, ridicule or insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the student's education." The law does not define "intimidation, ridicule or insult" so students speak to each other at their own peril hoping others won't be "intimidated, ridiculed or insulted" by what they say. This is the essence of what First Amendment jurisprudence terms a "chilling effect" on free speech. It "chills" speech, or makes it less likely that citizens will exercise their rights to free speech because of the fear of criminal punishment. Generally, a statute is unconstitutionally vague if persons "of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application." Therefore the law has always required "a precise statute 'evincing a legislative judgment that certain specific conduct be ... proscribed.'" Anti-cyber bullying statutes are replete with terms such as "effect of substantially interfering with a student's education" or "causes emotional distress to a pupil" a low grade also can cause "emotional distress". Anti-cyber bullying laws are more perfidious than speech codes because the latter operate only on school premises whereas many anti-cyber bullying laws seek to regulate student speech off campus.
13 +
14 +And, the counterplan solves and turns the case
15 +1. There’s no reason permitting cyberbullying is uniquely key to their advantages.
16 +2. Turn – cyberbullying makes dissent substantially harder, which increases things like echo chambers and silencing rather than decreasing them.
17 +Delgado and Stefancic 14: Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic Delgado is Charles Inglis Thomson Professor of Law, University of Colorado. J.D., U. California-Berkeley, 1974. Stefancic is the Technical Services Librarian, University of San Francisco School of Law. M.L.S., Simmons College, 1963; M.A., University of San Francisco, 1989. “Hate Speech in Cyberspace.” Wake Forest Law Review. Summer 2014. RP Some of the usual means that First Amendment devotees urge to counter ordinary - spoken or written - hate speech are even less promising with the Internet variety. Talking back to the aggressor (the favorite approach of First Amendment absolutists) is impossible for speech that is anonymous or that occurs in a forum of the like-minded. The same is true for the suggestion that victims of hate speech should tolerate it because it serves as a pressure valve that enables hate speakers to harmlessly air feelings that, if bottled up, could explode in even more harmful forms later. n125 The idea that racist feelings will cease once a speaker expresses them is unfounded even with ordinary speech; n126 with the Internet variety, it holds even less. Most Internet speech, as mentioned, takes place anonymously or among the like-minded. The first tirade eggs an audience on. Far from producing a pacified speaker and audience, the speech incites another and another. A chorus of "right ons" or "likes" encourages the speaker to believe that his or her attitude is widely shared, when it in fact is not. A further riposte from the free speech side is that minorities ought to toughen up and not run to the authorities every time they hear something that offends their feelings. n129 But it is hard to put this approach into effect with hate speech in cyberspace, since one is often unaware that it is taking place or that one's identity or good name has been impugned. And with the kind that shows up suddenly, unbidden on one's computer screen, one has little opportunity to harden oneself in advance. Moreover, this approach places the burden of countering hate speech on those who bear the brunt of it in the first place. A final rejoinder is what is known as the "bellwether" argument, which holds that the racist who is known is better - that is, safer - than one who is not known. This argument, even with ordinary speech, is flawed, since it ignores a third alternative - that the racist who is deterred by firm application of rules and norms is even safer than one who spews it constantly. n132 With cyberspeech the bellwether argument holds with even less force than it does with ordinary speech, since much of Internet speech proceeds in privacy, arriving suddenly and without identifying the source. n133
18 +3. Turn – Cyberbullying causes substance abuse and suicide.
19 +Selkie and Moreno 16: Ellen Selkie (certified psychiatrist and pediatric doctor), and Megan Moreno, "Cyberbullying and College Students: What Can Be Done?," Psychiatric Times, 4/28/2016 Cyberbullying among college students may represent a continuation of behaviors from middle and high school but in new contexts. Aggressors may use more subtle attacks that are meant to exclude or leverage power over others rather than being overtly aggressive. Prominent components of cyberbullying in college can include electronic criticisms of identity, sexual harassment, and “outing” of private information such as sexual orientation or health diagnoses without consent (eg, sexually transmitted infections, psychiatric conditions). These behaviors are considered in the context of a spectrum of aggressive behaviors that are typical concerns on college campuses, such as intimate partner violence and physical and sexual assault. In addition, the alarming issue of students bullying faculty members has been anecdotally described.1 Several campuses have debated banning the location-based, anonymous app Yik Yak following postings of abusive content about faculty and students. College students are an important population on which to focus regarding cyberbullying because older adolescence can be formative for habits that persist into young adulthood. Promotion of open dialogue and free speech is a hallmark of the college experience; however, heated online debates have the potential to devolve into personal attacks and harassment. Bullying behaviors that attack college students’ identities may have a considerable impact, given that the undergraduate years are critical for adult identity formation. Psychiatric correlates of cyberbullying The most concerning potential negative consequence of cyberbullying is suicide, which has been reported in mainstream media but not empirically studied in college students. One notable example is that of Tyler Clementi, a young man who died of suicide following the spread of derogatory content regarding his sexuality through social media by his college roommate.2 There is no current research published about actual suicide attempts or completion among college students involved in cyberbullying. A few studies have examined the negative health sequelae of cyberbullying among college students. In a study of college students who were members of fraternities or sororities, behavioral characteristics of those involved in cyberbullying included callous, unemotional traits (reflective of sociopathy).3 Moreover, both perpetrators and victims had increased depressive symptoms and fewer social skills. Two other studies suggest increased depression, anxiety, and suicidality in victims of cyberbullying and depression and alcohol abuse in perpetrators.4,5 Among younger adolescents, cyberbullying has been associated with suicidality, depression, substance abuse, somatic symptoms, and school problems.6 Reactions to cyberbullying can include feelings of depression and suicidality or feelings that may be less extreme, such as transient distress, embarrassment, and sadness.7 In addition, bullying in college may be either electronic or face to face. Regardless, it is important to consider potential negative sequelae of cyberbullying because depression and alcohol use are already among the most common and consequential health concerns for college students.8 Given the high prevalence of depression and alcohol abuse in this population, examination of risk factors is crucial for prevention of morbidity and mortality.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-05-13 16:23:11.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Ava Vargason
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harker AV
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +14
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Murphy Middle Gera Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +JANFEB Cyberbullying CP
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +MSTOC
Caselist.RoundClass[3]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +3
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-11-30 03:51:11.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Unknown
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Grapevine
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Hockaday
Caselist.RoundClass[4]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +4,5
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-11-30 03:52:56.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Brock Estep
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Greenhill MR
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +4
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Hockaday
Caselist.RoundClass[5]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +6
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-11-30 14:42:52.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +GanG
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Grapevine
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +5
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Hockaday
Caselist.RoundClass[6]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +7
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-11-30 22:37:27.0
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Unbroken
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +None
Caselist.RoundClass[7]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +8,9
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-12-16 22:51:09.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Arun Sharma
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Westlake DM
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Strake Jesuit
Caselist.RoundClass[8]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +10
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-12-17 03:35:42.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Jacob Koshak
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Lake Highland SS
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +3
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Strake Jesuit
Caselist.RoundClass[9]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +11
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-12-18 19:11:54.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Adam Brown
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Independent PY
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +6
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Strake jesuit
Caselist.RoundClass[10]
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-16 02:06:55.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +The Holy Spirit
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Our lord and savior Jesus
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Finals
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Battle for Buddha
Caselist.RoundClass[11]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +12
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-16 02:09:16.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +The Holy Spirit
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Jesus, our lord and savior
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Finals
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Battle for Buddha
Caselist.RoundClass[13]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +13
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-05-13 16:21:53.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Ava Vargason
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harker AV
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +MSTOC
Caselist.RoundClass[14]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +14
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-05-13 16:23:10.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Ava Vargason
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harker AV
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +MSTOC
Caselist.RoundClass[15]
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-05-25 22:52:56.441
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Tim Alderete, Ava Vargason, Spencer Schumacher
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Kudos EC
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Finals
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +MSTOC
Caselist.RoundClass[16]
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-05-25 22:55:13.797
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Spencer Schumacher, Tim Alderete, Ava Vargason
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Kudos EC
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Finals
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +MSTOC

Schools

Aberdeen Central (SD)
Acton-Boxborough (MA)
Albany (CA)
Albuquerque Academy (NM)
Alief Taylor (TX)
American Heritage Boca Delray (FL)
American Heritage Plantation (FL)
Anderson (TX)
Annie Wright (WA)
Apple Valley (MN)
Appleton East (WI)
Arbor View (NV)
Arcadia (CA)
Archbishop Mitty (CA)
Ardrey Kell (NC)
Ashland (OR)
Athens (TX)
Bainbridge (WA)
Bakersfield (CA)
Barbers Hill (TX)
Barrington (IL)
BASIS Mesa (AZ)
BASIS Scottsdale (AZ)
BASIS Silicon (CA)
Beckman (CA)
Bellarmine (CA)
Benjamin Franklin (LA)
Benjamin N Cardozo (NY)
Bentonville (AR)
Bergen County (NJ)
Bettendorf (IA)
Bingham (UT)
Blue Valley Southwest (KS)
Brentwood (CA)
Brentwood Middle (CA)
Bridgewater-Raritan (NJ)
Bronx Science (NY)
Brophy College Prep (AZ)
Brown (KY)
Byram Hills (NY)
Byron Nelson (TX)
Cabot (AR)
Calhoun Homeschool (TX)
Cambridge Rindge (MA)
Canyon Crest (CA)
Canyon Springs (NV)
Cape Fear Academy (NC)
Carmel Valley Independent (CA)
Carpe Diem (NJ)
Cedar Park (TX)
Cedar Ridge (TX)
Centennial (ID)
Centennial (TX)
Center For Talented Youth (MD)
Cerritos (CA)
Chaminade (CA)
Chandler (AZ)
Chandler Prep (AZ)
Chaparral (AZ)
Charles E Smith (MD)
Cherokee (OK)
Christ Episcopal (LA)
Christopher Columbus (FL)
Cinco Ranch (TX)
Citrus Valley (CA)
Claremont (CA)
Clark (NV)
Clark (TX)
Clear Brook (TX)
Clements (TX)
Clovis North (CA)
College Prep (CA)
Collegiate (NY)
Colleyville Heritage (TX)
Concord Carlisle (MA)
Concordia Lutheran (TX)
Connally (TX)
Coral Glades (FL)
Coral Science (NV)
Coral Springs (FL)
Coppell (TX)
Copper Hills (UT)
Corona Del Sol (AZ)
Crandall (TX)
Crossroads (CA)
Cupertino (CA)
Cy-Fair (TX)
Cypress Bay (FL)
Cypress Falls (TX)
Cypress Lakes (TX)
Cypress Ridge (TX)
Cypress Springs (TX)
Cypress Woods (TX)
Dallastown (PA)
Davis (CA)
Delbarton (NJ)
Derby (KS)
Des Moines Roosevelt (IA)
Desert Vista (AZ)
Diamond Bar (CA)
Dobson (AZ)
Dougherty Valley (CA)
Dowling Catholic (IA)
Dripping Springs (TX)
Dulles (TX)
duPont Manual (KY)
Dwyer (FL)
Eagle (ID)
Eastside Catholic (WA)
Edgemont (NY)
Edina (MN)
Edmond North (OK)
Edmond Santa Fe (OK)
El Cerrito (CA)
Elkins (TX)
Enloe (NC)
Episcopal (TX)
Evanston (IL)
Evergreen Valley (CA)
Ferris (TX)
Flintridge Sacred Heart (CA)
Flower Mound (TX)
Fordham Prep (NY)
Fort Lauderdale (FL)
Fort Walton Beach (FL)
Freehold Township (NJ)
Fremont (NE)
Frontier (MO)
Gabrielino (CA)
Garland (TX)
George Ranch (TX)
Georgetown Day (DC)
Gig Harbor (WA)
Gilmour (OH)
Glenbrook South (IL)
Gonzaga Prep (WA)
Grand Junction (CO)
Grapevine (TX)
Green Valley (NV)
Greenhill (TX)
Guyer (TX)
Hamilton (AZ)
Hamilton (MT)
Harker (CA)
Harmony (TX)
Harrison (NY)
Harvard Westlake (CA)
Hawken (OH)
Head Royce (CA)
Hebron (TX)
Heights (MD)
Hendrick Hudson (NY)
Henry Grady (GA)
Highland (UT)
Highland (ID)
Hockaday (TX)
Holy Cross (LA)
Homewood Flossmoor (IL)
Hopkins (MN)
Houston Homeschool (TX)
Hunter College (NY)
Hutchinson (KS)
Immaculate Heart (CA)
Independent (All)
Interlake (WA)
Isidore Newman (LA)
Jack C Hays (TX)
James Bowie (TX)
Jefferson City (MO)
Jersey Village (TX)
John Marshall (CA)
Juan Diego (UT)
Jupiter (FL)
Kapaun Mount Carmel (KS)
Kamiak (WA)
Katy Taylor (TX)
Keller (TX)
Kempner (TX)
Kent Denver (CO)
King (FL)
Kingwood (TX)
Kinkaid (TX)
Klein (TX)
Klein Oak (TX)
Kudos College (CA)
La Canada (CA)
La Costa Canyon (CA)
La Jolla (CA)
La Reina (CA)
Lafayette (MO)
Lake Highland (FL)
Lake Travis (TX)
Lakeville North (MN)
Lakeville South (MN)
Lamar (TX)
LAMP (AL)
Law Magnet (TX)
Langham Creek (TX)
Lansing (KS)
LaSalle College (PA)
Lawrence Free State (KS)
Layton (UT)
Leland (CA)
Leucadia Independent (CA)
Lexington (MA)
Liberty Christian (TX)
Lincoln (OR)
Lincoln (NE)
Lincoln East (NE)
Lindale (TX)
Livingston (NJ)
Logan (UT)
Lone Peak (UT)
Los Altos (CA)
Los Osos (CA)
Lovejoy (TX)
Loyola (CA)
Loyola Blakefield (MA)
Lynbrook (CA)
Maeser Prep (UT)
Mannford (OK)
Marcus (TX)
Marlborough (CA)
McClintock (AZ)
McDowell (PA)
McNeil (TX)
Meadows (NV)
Memorial (TX)
Millard North (NE)
Millard South (NE)
Millard West (NE)
Millburn (NJ)
Milpitas (CA)
Miramonte (CA)
Mission San Jose (CA)
Monsignor Kelly (TX)
Monta Vista (CA)
Montclair Kimberley (NJ)
Montgomery (TX)
Monticello (NY)
Montville Township (NJ)
Morris Hills (NJ)
Mountain Brook (AL)
Mountain Pointe (AZ)
Mountain View (CA)
Mountain View (AZ)
Murphy Middle (TX)
NCSSM (NC)
New Orleans Jesuit (LA)
New Trier (IL)
Newark Science (NJ)
Newburgh Free Academy (NY)
Newport (WA)
North Allegheny (PA)
North Crowley (TX)
North Hollywood (CA)
Northland Christian (TX)
Northwood (CA)
Notre Dame (CA)
Nueva (CA)
Oak Hall (FL)
Oakwood (CA)
Okoboji (IA)
Oxbridge (FL)
Oxford (CA)
Pacific Ridge (CA)
Palm Beach Gardens (FL)
Palo Alto Independent (CA)
Palos Verdes Peninsula (CA)
Park Crossing (AL)
Peak to Peak (CO)
Pembroke Pines (FL)
Pennsbury (PA)
Phillips Academy Andover (MA)
Phoenix Country Day (AZ)
Pine Crest (FL)
Pingry (NJ)
Pittsburgh Central Catholic (PA)
Plano East (TX)
Polytechnic (CA)
Presentation (CA)
Princeton (NJ)
Prosper (TX)
Quarry Lane (CA)
Raisbeck-Aviation (WA)
Rancho Bernardo (CA)
Randolph (NJ)
Reagan (TX)
Richardson (TX)
Ridge (NJ)
Ridge Point (TX)
Riverside (SC)
Robert Vela (TX)
Rosemount (MN)
Roseville (MN)
Round Rock (TX)
Rowland Hall (UT)
Royse City (TX)
Ruston (LA)
Sacred Heart (MA)
Sacred Heart (MS)
Sage Hill (CA)
Sage Ridge (NV)
Salado (TX)
Salpointe Catholic (AZ)
Sammamish (WA)
San Dieguito (CA)
San Marino (CA)
SandHoke (NC)
Santa Monica (CA)
Sarasota (FL)
Saratoga (CA)
Scarsdale (NY)
Servite (CA)
Seven Lakes (TX)
Shawnee Mission East (KS)
Shawnee Mission Northwest (KS)
Shawnee Mission South (KS)
Shawnee Mission West (KS)
Sky View (UT)
Skyline (UT)
Smithson Valley (TX)
Southlake Carroll (TX)
Sprague (OR)
St Agnes (TX)
St Andrews (MS)
St Francis (CA)
St James (AL)
St Johns (TX)
St Louis Park (MN)
St Margarets (CA)
St Marys Hall (TX)
St Thomas (MN)
St Thomas (TX)
Stephen F Austin (TX)
Stoneman Douglas (FL)
Stony Point (TX)
Strake Jesuit (TX)
Stratford (TX)
Stratford Independent (CA)
Stuyvesant (NY)
Success Academy (NY)
Sunnyslope (AZ)
Sunset (OR)
Syosset (NY)
Tahoma (WA)
Talley (AZ)
Texas Academy of Math and Science (TX)
Thomas Jefferson (VA)
Thompkins (TX)
Timber Creek (FL)
Timothy Christian (NJ)
Tom C Clark (TX)
Tompkins (TX)
Torrey Pines (CA)
Travis (TX)
Trinity (KY)
Trinity Prep (FL)
Trinity Valley (TX)
Truman (PA)
Turlock (CA)
Union (OK)
Unionville (PA)
University High (CA)
University School (OH)
University (FL)
Upper Arlington (OH)
Upper Dublin (PA)
Valley (IA)
Valor Christian (CO)
Vashon (WA)
Ventura (CA)
Veritas Prep (AZ)
Vestavia Hills (AL)
Vincentian (PA)
Walla Walla (WA)
Walt Whitman (MD)
Warren (TX)
Wenatchee (WA)
West (UT)
West Ranch (CA)
Westford (MA)
Westlake (TX)
Westview (OR)
Westwood (TX)
Whitefish Bay (WI)
Whitney (CA)
Wilson (DC)
Winston Churchill (TX)
Winter Springs (FL)
Woodlands (TX)
Woodlands College Park (TX)
Wren (SC)
Yucca Valley (CA)