Changes for page North Crowley Reed Aff
Summary
-
Attachments (0 modified, 0 added, 1 removed)
-
Objects (0 modified, 0 added, 13 removed)
- Caselist.CitesClass[24]
- Caselist.CitesClass[25]
- Caselist.CitesClass[26]
- Caselist.CitesClass[27]
- Caselist.CitesClass[28]
- Caselist.CitesClass[29]
- Caselist.RoundClass[29]
- Caselist.RoundClass[30]
- Caselist.RoundClass[31]
- Caselist.RoundClass[32]
- Caselist.RoundClass[33]
- Caselist.RoundClass[34]
- Caselist.RoundClass[35]
Details
- North Crowley-Reed-Aff-Strake Jesuit-Round2.docx
-
- Author
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -XWiki.loganreed101@attnet - Size
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -48.0 KB - Content
- Caselist.CitesClass[24]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -See open source! - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-16 22:18:19.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Kris Wright - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Prosper ZE - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -29 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -North Crowley Reed Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4- Dress AC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Strake Jesuit
- Caselist.CitesClass[25]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,33 +1,0 @@ 1 -Part one is framework 2 -First- I value morallity derived from ought in the resolution- any other value is nonsense, since we can al 3 - 4 -Second, the meta ethic- the resolution asks us a question of public colleges and universities. To answer this question, we should first look to the constitutive nature of colleges and universities to determine what type of framing arguments matter. A few warrants- 5 -analytic 6 - 7 -Third- now, we must define the nature of a public institute of higher learning. It is useful to understand the university in terms of pedagogy, which is the broader educational environment given by these institutions. In an educational space, participants can never be neutral, there will always BE a pedagogy in education, rather, it is a question of what type of pedagogy we should form. Thus universities should operate as a space for critical pedagogy- this is key to accessing identity and agency. Thus the standard is consistency with creating a space of critical pedagogy 8 -Henry A. Giroux | The Curse of Totalitarianism and the Challenge of Critical Pedagogy Friday, 02 October 2015 00:00 By Henry A. Giroux, Truthout | News Analysis, http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/33061-the-curse-of-totalitarianism-and-the-challenge-of-critical-pedagogy 9 -Pedagogy is a moral and political practice because it offers particular versions and visions of civic life, community, the future and how we might construct representations of ourselves, others, and our physical and social environment. But it does more; it also "represents a version of our own dreams for ourselves, our children, and our communities. But such dreams are never neutral; they are always someone's dreams and to the degree that they are implicated in organizing the future for others they always have a moral and political dimension." (13) It is in this respect that any discussion of pedagogy must begin with a discussion of educational practice as a particular way in which a sense of identity, place, worth and, above all, value is informed by practices that organize knowledge and meaning. (14) Central to my argument is the assumption that politics is not only about the exercise of economic and political power, but also, as Cornelius Castoriadis points out, "has to do with political judgements and value choices," (15) indicating that questions of civic education and critical pedagogy (learning how to become a skilled citizen) are central to the struggle over political agency and democracy. In this instance, critical pedagogy emphasizes critical reflection, bridging the gap between learning and everyday life, understanding the connection between power and difficult knowledge, and extending democratic rights and identities by using the resources of history and theory. 10 -Part two is the contention- I contend that affirming creates a space consistent with the pedagogical goals of the university 11 -First, restrictions on speech damage the purpose of universities 12 -Vince Herron, JD, University of Southern California, “Increasing the Speech: Diversity, Campus Speech Codes, and the Pursuit of Truth,” Southern California Law Review, 1993-1994. 13 -By reducing speech at the university by eliminating from the marketplace certain ideas which university administrators feel are unacceptable, speech codes also threaten the academic process. Speech codes which inhibit the free exchange of ideas trample on the very canons upon which universities are founded. Although the ideas that may be expressed when no speech code exists may be repugnant, the university is simply not a place where ideas and expression should be suppressed.73 When speech codes exist, “not only are the delicate, vital values of free speech seriously jeopardized, but suppression inevitably creates a climate of thought control, a habit of censorship and an atmosphere of reactionary conformity… .”I “The main purpose of a university is the search for knowledge …. For that reason, any coercive curtailment of unpopular viewpoints… is inconsistent with the very foundation of a university education.”7 5 The university especially is a marketplace of ideas and should be a bastion of unrestricted free speech.76 “Once you start telling people what they can’t say, you will end up telling them what they can’t think.”77 This obstruction of both academic freedom and the freedom to express all ideas threatens grave damage to the educational process and is a price which is far too high to pay for the modest, short-term gains garnered by speech codes. 14 -Second, Colleges and universities should be the last to censor free speech-there’s a constitutive duty of these institutions to create a maximumly educational environment. 15 -Thomas McAllister JD, Tennessee College of Law, “Rules and Rights Colliding: Speech Codes and the First Amendment on College Campuses,” Tennessee Law Review, Vol. 59, 1992. 16 -Would it not be preferable, though, for institutions to refrain from actions that might call into question their respect for First Amendment rights, regardless of those actions’ constitutionality? Colleges and universities should concern themselves with engendering a campus atmosphere in which speech of all kinds flourishes and the bounds of accepted norms and principles are always tested instead of concerning themselves with the nuances of First Amendment jurisprudence. University and college administrators should be the last to restrict speech. Rather they should be the first to protect it. Students have an interest in an unintimidating place of scholarship; however, part of scholarship is learning to cope with views that one finds abhorrent. Students’ verbal battles should not be fought for them by administrators with speech codes. As one writer put it, The same students who insist that they be treated as adults when it comes to their sexuality, drinking and school work, beg to be treated like children when it comes to politics, speech and controversy. They whine to . . . the president or provost of the university, to “protect” them from offensive speech, instead of themselves trying to combat it in the marketplace of ideas. 124 Students must learn tolerance for all ideas no matter how repugnant to their own beliefs. College and university administrators should not cast themselves in the role of censors. 17 -Third, Restrictions on speech only silence moderates, not extremists. This is inconsistent with a pedagogical space where we can critically examine the views of these moderates and in turn. 18 -Hentoff 91, Nat Hentoff. “ ‘Speech Codes’ On The Campus And Problems Of Free Speech.” Dissent v. 38 (Fall 1991) p. 546-9. 19 -At the University of Buffalo Law School, which has a code restricting speech, I could find just one faculty member who was against it. A liberal, he spoke only on condition that I not use his name. He did not want to be categorized as a racist. On another campus, a political science professor for whom I had great respect after meeting and talking with him years ago, has been silent-students told me—on what Justice William Brennan once called “the pall of orthodoxy” that has fallen on his campus. When I talked to him, the professor said, “It doesn’t happen in my class. There’s no ‘politically correct’ orthodoxy here. It may happen in other places at this university, but I don’t know about that.” He said no more. One of the myths about the rise of P. C. (politically correct) is that, coming from the left, it is primarily intimidating conservatives on campus. Quite the contrary. At almost every college I’ve been, conservative students have their own newspaper, usually quite lively and fired by a muckraking glee at exposing “politically correct” follies on campus. By and large, those most intimidated—not so much by the speech codes themselves but by the Madame Defarge-like spirit behind them—are liberal students and those who can be called politically moderate. I’ve talked to many of them, and they no longer get involved in class discussions where their views would go against the grain of P. C. righteousness. 20 -Fourth, free speech is needed to for civic engagement, which is a primary goal of critical pedagogy. This is true for both intrinsic and extrinsic reasons- when you leave school speech codes go away, we have to use the university as a space to learn how to fight the systems that then appear. Additionally, any censorship is bad because it internalizes power structures and domination 21 -Giroux, 22 -Rethinking Education as the Practice of Freedom: Paulo Freire and the Promise of Critical Pedagogy Friday, 01 January 2010 12:50 By Henry A. Giroux, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed |, http://www.truth-out.org/archive/item/87456:rethinking-education-as-the-practice-of-freedom-paulo-freire-and-the-promise-of-critical-pedagogy 23 -As the market-driven logic of neoliberal capitalism continues to devalue all aspects of the public good, one consequence has been that the educational concern with excellence has been removed from matters of equity, while the notion of schooling as a public good has largely been reduced to a private good. Both public and higher education are largely defined through the corporate demand that they provide the skills, knowledge and credentials that will provide the workforce necessary for the United States to compete and maintain its role as the major global economic and military power. Consequently, there is little interest in both public and higher education, and most importantly in many schools of education, for understanding pedagogy as a deeply civic, political and moral practice - that is, pedagogy as a practice for freedom. As schooling is increasingly subordinated to a corporate order, any vestige of critical education is replaced by training and the promise of economic security. Similarly, pedagogy is now subordinated to the narrow regime of teaching to the test coupled with an often harsh system of disciplinary control, both of which mutually reinforce each other. In addition, teachers are increasingly reduced to the status of technicians and deskilled as they are removed from having any control over their classrooms or school governance structures. Teaching to the test and the corporatization of education becomes a way of "taming" students and invoking modes of corporate governance in which public school teachers become deskilled and an increasing number of higher education faculty are reduced to part-time positions, constituting the new subaltern class of academic labor. 24 -Fifth, our Pedagogy is a prerequisite- a project of freedom not as a goal but as a process is needed. 25 -Giroux, 26 -Rethinking Education as the Practice of Freedom: Paulo Freire and the Promise of Critical Pedagogy Friday, 01 January 2010 12:50 By Henry A. Giroux, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed |, http://www.truth-out.org/archive/item/87456:rethinking-education-as-the-practice-of-freedom-paulo-freire-and-the-promise-of-critical-pedagogy 27 -But there is more at stake here than a crisis of authority and the repression of critical thought. Too many classrooms at all levels of schooling now resemble a "dead zone," where any vestige of critical thinking, self-reflection and imagination quickly migrate to sites outside of the school only to be mediated and corrupted by a corporate-driven media culture. The major issue now driving public schooling is how to teach for the test, while disciplining those students who because of their class and race undermine a school district's ranking in the ethically sterile and bloodless world of high stakes testing and empirical score cards.2 Higher education mimics this logic by reducing its public vision to the interests of capital and redefining itself largely as a credentializing factory for students and a Petri dish for downsizing academic labor. Under such circumstances, rarely do educators ask questions about how schools can prepare students to be informed citizens, nurture a civic imagination or teach them to be self-reflective about public issues and the world in which they live. As Stanley Aronowitz puts it: "Few of even the so-called educators ask the question: What matters beyond the reading, writing, and numeracy that are presumably taught in the elementary and secondary grades? The old question of what a kid needs to become an informed 'citizen' capable of participating in making the large and small public decisions that affect the larger world as well as everyday life receives honorable mention but not serious consideration. These unasked questions are symptoms of a new regime of educational expectations that privileges job readiness above any other educational values."3 Against this regime of "scientific" idiocy and "bare pedagogy" stripped of all critical elements of teaching and learning, Freire believed that all education in the broadest sense was part of a project of freedom, and eminently political because it offered students the conditions for self-reflection, a self-managed life and particular notions of critical agency. As Aronowitz puts it in his analysis of Freire's work on literacy and critical pedagogy: Thus, for Freire literacy was not a means to prepare students for the world of subordinated labor or "careers," but a preparation for a self-managed life. And self-management could only occur when people have fulfilled three goals of education: self-reflection, that is, realizing the famous poetic phrase, "know thyself," which is an understanding of the world in which they live, in its economic, political and, equally important, its psychological dimensions. Specifically "critical" pedagogy helps the learner become aware of the forces that have hitherto ruled their lives and especially shaped their consciousness. The third goal is to help set the conditions for producing a new life, a new set of arrangements where power has been, at least in tendency, transferred to those who literally make the social world by transforming nature and themselves.4 What Paulo made clear in "Pedagogy of the Oppressed," his most influential work, is that pedagogy at its best is about neither training, teaching methods nor political indoctrination. For Freire, pedagogy is not a method or an a priori technique to be imposed on all students, but a political and moral practice that provides the knowledge, skills and social relations that enable students to expand the possibilities of what it means to be critical citizens, while expanding and deepening their participation in the promise of a substantive democracy. Critical thinking for Freire was not an object lesson in test taking, but a tool for self-determination and civic engagement. 28 -And- we have to avoid indoctrination- we are a pre-requisite to actualizing agency in the context of power relations 29 -Giroux, 30 -Rethinking Education as the Practice of Freedom: Paulo Freire and the Promise of Critical Pedagogy Friday, 01 January 2010 12:50 By Henry A. Giroux, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed |, http://www.truth-out.org/archive/item/87456:rethinking-education-as-the-practice-of-freedom-paulo-freire-and-the-promise-of-critical-pedagogy 31 -And as a political and moral practice, way of knowing and literate engagement, pedagogy attempts to "make evident the multiplicity and complexity of history."6 History in this sense is engaged as a narrative open to critical dialogue rather than predefined text to be memorized and accepted unquestioningly. Pedagogy in this instance provides the conditions to cultivate in students a healthy skepticism about power, a "willingness to temper any reverence for authority with a sense of critical awareness."7 As a performative practice, pedagogy takes as one of its goals the opportunity for students to be able to reflectively frame their own relationship to the ongoing project of an unfinished democracy. It is precisely this relationship between democracy and pedagogy that is so threatening to so many of our educational leaders and spokespersons today and it is also the reason why Freire's work on critical pedagogy and literacy are more relevant today than when they were first published. According to Freire, all forms of pedagogy represent a particular way of understanding society and a specific commitment to the future. Critical pedagogy, unlike dominant modes of teaching, insists that one of the fundamental tasks of educators is to make sure that the future points the way to a more socially just world, a world in which the discourses of critique and possibility in conjunction with the values of reason, freedom and equality function to alter, as part of a broader democratic project, the grounds upon which life is lived. This is hardly a prescription for political indoctrination, but it is a project that gives critical education its most valued purpose and meaning, which, in part, is "to encourage human agency, not mold it in the manner of Pygmalion."8 It is also a position, that threatens right-wing private advocacy groups, neoconservative politicians and conservative extremists. 32 -Part three is the underview 33 -analytic - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-07 03:37:48.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Courtney DeVore - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Elkens MP - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -30 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -North Crowley Reed Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4- Giroux AC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Winston Churchill
- Caselist.CitesClass[26]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,49 +1,0 @@ 1 -First, definitions 2 - ‘public colleges and universities’ is defined by 3 -Every Kind of College and University Defined, Published by Jessica Velasco, https://www.collegeraptor.com/college-guide/college-search/every-kind-of-college-and-university-defined/ 4 -Public colleges and universities are funded by local and state governments. They typically offer lower tuition rates to residents of the states in which they are located. Out-of-state students can also attend public institutions, but rates are usually higher than the resident tuition rate. There are two-year colleges, also know as community colleges, and four-year public universities. Every state in the U.S. has at least one public college or university within their borders. Private colleges and universities are funded by tuition, fees, and other private sources. Most private institutions have higher “sticker” prices than public institutions, although they also often offer significant discounts for almost all students. Student populations at private colleges and universities vary from a few hundred students to over 30,000. 5 -College is defined by- 6 -Merriam Webster https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/college, 7 -college noun, often attributive col·lege \ˈkä-lij\. Definition of college 1 : a body of clergy living together and supported by a foundation 2 : a building used for an educational or religious purpose 3 a : a self-governing constituent body of a university offering living quarters and sometimes instruction but not granting degrees Balliol and Magdalen Colleges at Oxford —called also residential college b : a preparatory or high school c : an independent institution of higher learning offering a course of general studies leading to a bachelor's degree; also : a university division offering this d : a part of a university offering a specialized group of courses e : an institution offering instruction usually in a professional, vocational, or technical field business college 4 : company, group; specifically : an organized body of persons engaged in a common pursuit or having common interests or duties 5 a : a group of persons considered by law to be a unit b : a body of electors — compare electoral college 6 : the faculty, students, or administration of a college 8 - 9 -second, Framework 10 -First, I value morality, derived of ought in the resolution, which is defined to mean a moral obligation. Any other value is nonsensical, as we could always ask why that value is important, causing infinite regress until we arrive at morality. 11 -Second, Attempting to understand beings, communities, and ethics universal and free of difference will inevitably fail: 12 -There is no possibility of understanding people in and of themselves. All identities are understood through the differentiation of social relations, which are by necessity constantly changing. Your political opponent’s identity is necessary to construct your own. 13 -Butler 1, Judith, badass MoFo and mother of modern feminism in her text “Beside Oneself: On the Limits of Sexual Autonomy” 14 -, on a broader sociality, and this dependency is the basis of our endurance and survivability. When we assert our “right,” as we do and we must, we are not carving out a place for our autonomy—if by autonomy we mean a state of individuation, taken as self-persisting prior to and apart from any relations of dependency on the world of others. We do not negotiate with norms or with Others subsequent to our coming into the world. We come into the world on the condition that the social world is already there, laying the groundwork for us. This implies that I cannot persist without norms of recognition that support my persistence: the sense of possibility pertaining to me must first be imagined from somewhere else before I can begin to imagine myself. My reflexivity is not only socially mediated, but socially constituted. I cannot be who I am without drawing upon the sociality of norms that precede and exceed me. In this sense, I am outside myself from the outset, and must be, in order to survive, and in order to enter into the realm of the possible. To assert sexual rights, then, takes on a specific meaning against this background. It means, for instance, that when we struggle for rights, we are not simply struggling for rights that attach to my person, but we are struggling to be conceived as persons. And there is a difference between the former and the latter. If we are struggling for rights that attach, or should attach, to my personhood, then we assume that personhood as already constituted. But if we are struggling not only to be conceived as persons, but to create a social transformation of 32 Undoing Gender RT9239_C01.qxd 6/25/04 12:51 PM Page 32 the very meaning of personhood, then the assertion of rights becomes a way of intervening into the social and political process by which the human is articulated. International human rights is always in the process of subjecting the human to redefinition and renegotiation. It mobilizes the human in the service of rights, but also rewrites the human and rearticulates the human when it comes up against the cultural limits of its working conception of the human, as it does and must. Lesbian and gay human rights takes sexuality, in some sense, to be its issue. Sexuality is not simply an attribute one has or a disposition or patterned set of inclinations. It is a mode of being disposed toward others, including in the mode of fantasy, and sometimes only in the mode of fantasy. If we are outside of ourselves as sexual beings, given over from the start, crafted in part through primary relations of dependency and attachment, then it would seem that our being beside ourselves, outside ourselves, is there as a function of sexuality itself, where sexuality is not this or that dimension of our existence, not the key or bedrock of our existence, but, rather, as coextensive with existence, as Merleau-Ponty once aptly suggested.6 I have tried here to argue that our very sense of personhood is linked to the desire for recognition, and that desire places us outside ourselves, in a realm of social norms that we do not fully choose, but that provides the horizon and the resource for any sense of choice that we have. This means that the ec-static character of our existence is essential to the possibility of persisting as human. In this sense, we can see how sexual rights brings together two related domains of ec-stasy, two connected ways of being outside of ourselves. As sexual, we are dependent on a world of others, vulnerable to need, violence, betrayal, compulsion, fantasy; we project desire, and we have it projected onto us. To be part of a sexual minority means, most emphatically, that we are also dependent on the protection of public and private spaces, on legal sanctions that protect us from violence, on safeguards of various institutional kinds against unwanted aggression imposed upon us, and the violent actions they sometimes instigate. In this sense, our very lives, and the persistence of our desire, depend on there being norms of recognition that produce and sustain our viability as human. Thus, when we speak about sexual rights, we are not merely talking about rights that pertain to our individual desires but to the norms on which our very individuality depends. That means that the discourse of rights Beside Oneself: On the Limits of Sexual Autonomy 33 RT9239_C01.qxd 6/25/04 12:51 PM Page 33 avows our dependency, the mode of our being in the hands of others, a mode of being with and for others without which we cannot be 15 -2. Second, discrimination is constitutive of any moral theory because they all require a distinction between the ethical and anti-ethical. Differentiation becomes a condition for any decision, so justice is found in difference. 16 -3. The only way to resolve the inevitable conflict that comes with pluralism in our agency and ethics is to embrace that it is in fact inevitable. The question of ethics is to deal with this inevitability. The most productive way to do this is with an agonistic commitment, which recognizes that conflict is inevitable, but frames the other as a legitimate opponent instead of an enemy. All that agonism means is a free relationship- we must embrace every viewpoint and conflict, and not attempt to eliminate democratic clash 17 -MOUFFE: 18 -“The Democratic Paradox” by Chantal Mouffe 2000 DD 19 -"A well-functioning democracy calls for a vibrant clash of democratic political positions. If this is missing there is the danger that this democratic confrontation will be replaced by a confrontation among other forms of collective identification, as is the case with identity politics. Too much emphasis on consensus and the refusal of confrontation lead to apathy and disaffection with political participation. Worse still, the result can be the crystallization of collective passions around issues which cannot be managed by the democratic process and an explosion of antagonisms that can tear up the very basis of civility." (104) 20 -And, Aiming toward consensus is a false goal because consensus is impossible, difference in inevitable. Contestation is key. Dividing people up and treating them as enemies is also a false goal because it denies that the existence of their opposing identity is what constructs yours. 21 - 22 -Thus, the standard is promoting agonistic democracy. To clarify, the standard is concerned with the procedures of agonistic pluralism, not ends. Prefer additionally: 23 -, educational spaces must embrace contestation as a condition for resistance. Any attempt to exclude challenges reaffirms pedagogical imperialism because the teacher is telling the student what to think rather than how to think. Agonistic democracy is uniquely key for the debate space because it allows for contestation 24 - double bind – to act morally one must first know what is the right thing to do, which means any moral system has to be derivative of the procedures intrinsic to agonistic conflict: 25 -A. If our moral belief changes after an agonistic conflict, then it shows that preserving the relationship based off of openness and disagreement is necessary to identity moral errors. 26 -B. If my moral belief remains the same, I have practiced commitment to my belief because defending it assumes values in the belief. 27 -Advocacy 28 -Thus, I affirm the the resolution as an agonistic commitment to free speech. 29 -The AC doesn’t defend hate speech, as defined by individual colleges, as constitutionally protected- 30 -Hate speech isn’t constitutionally protected anyway- multiple warrents 31 -KENT GREENFIELD MAR 13, 2015 , The Limits of Free Speech, The Atlantic, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/the-limits-of-free-speech/387718/ 32 -No one with a frontal lobe would mistake this drunken anthem for part of an uninhibited and robust debate about race relations. The chant was a spew of hatred, a promise to discriminate, a celebration of privilege, and an assertion of the right to violence–all wrapped up in a catchy ditty. If the First Amendment has become so bloated, so ham-fisted, that it cannot distinguish between such filth and earnest public debate about race, then it is time we rethink what it means. The way we interpret the First Amendment need not be simplistic and empty of nuance, and was not always so. The Supreme Court unanimously held over eighty years ago that “those words which by their very utterance inflict injury … are no essential part of any exposition of ideas.” And in 1952 the Court upheld an Illinois statute punishing “false or malicious defamation of racial and religious groups.” These rulings, while never officially reversed, have shrunk to historical trinkets. But they mark a range of the possible, where one can be a staunch defender of full-throated discourse but still recognize the difference between dialogue and vomitus. 33 -Topicality is a constraint on my advocacy 34 -Next, the offence- 35 - 36 -Contention 3- Democratic Agonsism mandates a free space of discussion- this is key to accessing multiple perspectives on the good life. 37 -Taylor, Charles. Multiculturalism. Princeton University Press, 1994. 38 -Dignity is associated less with any particular understanding of the good life, such that someone’s departure from this would detract from his or her own dignity, than with the power to consider and espouse for oneself some view or other. We are not respecting this power equally in all subjects, it is claimed, if we raise the outcome of some people’s deliberations officially over that of others. A liberal society must remain neutral on the good life, and restrict itself to ensuring that however they see things, citizens deal fairly with each other and the state deals equally with all. The popularity of this view of the human agent as primarily a subject of self-determining or self-expressive choice helps to explain why this model of liberalism is so strong. But we must also consider that it has been urged with great force and intelligence by liberal thinkers in the United States, 57 C H A R L E S T A Y L O R and precisely in the context of constitutional doctrines of judicial review.33 Thus it is not surprising that the idea has become widespread, well beyond those who might subscribe to a specific Kantian philosophy, that a liberal society cannot accommodate publicly espoused notions of the good. This is the conception, as Michael Sandel has noted, of the “procedural republic,” which has a very strong hold on the political agenda in the United States, and which has helped to place increasing emphasis on judicial review on the basis of constitutional texts at the expense of the ordinary political process of building majorities with a view to legislative action.34 But a society with collective goals like Quebec’s violates this model. It is axiomatic for Quebec governments that the survival and flourishing of French culture in Quebec is a good. Political society is not neutral between those who value remaining true to the culture of our ancestors and those who might want to cut loose in the name of some individual goal of self-development. It might be argued that one could after all capture a goal like survivance for a proceduralist liberal society. One could consider the French language, for instance, as a collective resource that individuals might want to make use of, and act for its preservation, just as one does for clean air or green spaces. But this can’t capture the full thrust of policies designed for cultural survival. It is not just a matter of having the French language available for those who might choose it. 39 - 40 -Contention 2-And, if some objective good did exist- it would still be founded in democratic decision making (that’s Mouffee), and most students want free speech, so this affirms 41 -Gallup, 2016 data gathered feb 29- march 15 with the Knight foundation, Free Expression on Campus: A Survey of U.S. College Students and U.S. Adults, http://www.knightfoundation.org/media/uploads/publication_pdfs/FreeSpeech_campus.pdf 42 -Methodology This study includes a sample of U.S. college students, a sample of U.S. adults and a sample of U.S. Muslims. Results for the college student sample are based on telephone interviews with a random sample of 3,072 U.S. college students, aged 18 to 24, who are currently enrolled as full-time students at four-year colleges. Gallup selected a random sample of 240 U.S. four-year colleges, drawn from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), that were stratified by college enrollment size, public or private affiliation, and region of the country. Gallup then contacted each sampled college in an attempt to obtain a sample of their students. Thirty-two colleges agreed to participate. The participating colleges were University of California, Merced; Culver-Stockton College; Duke University; East Georgia State College; Georgia Institute of Technology; Green River College; Harrisburg University of Science and Technology; James Madison University; Keuka College; Kentucky State University; LaGrange College; University of Louisiana at Monroe; Lourdes University; Martin Luther College; Morehouse College; Minnesota State University Moorhead; University of North Alabama; University of North Carolina at Pembroke; Northwestern University; University of Oregon; University of the Ozarks; Pace University; Rocky Mountain College; Saint Francis University; The University of Scranton; Southeastern Baptist College; Southwest Minnesota State University; Spalding University; Tabor College; Texas Christian University; Trinity Baptist College; and Troy University. Gallup used random samples of 40 of each college’s student body, with one school providing a 32 sample, for its sample frame. The sample frame consisted of 54,806 college students from the 32 colleges. Gallup then emailed each sampled student to complete an Internet survey to confirm his or her eligibility for the study and to request a phone number where the student could be reached for a telephone interview. A total of 6,928 college students completed the Web survey, for a response rate of 13. Of these, 6,814 students were eligible and provided a working phone number. Telephone interviews were conducted Feb. 29-March 15, 2016. The response rate for the phone survey was 49 using the American Association for Public Opinion Research’s RR-III calculation. The combined response rate for the Web recruit and telephone surveys was 6. The college student sample was weighted to correct for unequal selection probability and nonresponse. It was also weighted to match the demographics of U.S. colleges on enrollment, public or private affiliation, and region of the country, based on statistics from the IPEDS database, to ensure the sample is nationally representative of U.S. college students. For results based on this sample of college students, the margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points at the 95 confidence level. Copyright © 2016 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. 32 FREE EXPRESSION ON CAMPUS Results for the U.S. adult sample are based on telephone interviews with a random sample of 2,031 U.S. adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. Interviews were conducted March 5-8, 2016, as part of the Gallup Daily tracking survey, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. The sample of U.S. adults included a minimum quota of 60 cellphone respondents and 40 landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by region. Landline and cellular telephone numbers were selected using random-digit-dial methods. Landline respondents were chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member has the next birthday. The response rate for the Gallup Daily tracking survey was 9. Samples were weighted to correct for unequal selection probability, nonresponse and double coverage of landline and cell users in the two sample frames. They were also weighted to match the national demographics of gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, population density and phone status (cellphone only, landline only, both, and cellphone mostly). Demographic weighting targets were based on the March 2015 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older U.S. population. Phone status targets were based on the January-June 2015 National Health Interview Survey. Population density targets were based on the 2010 census. For results based on this sample of U.S. adults, the margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points at the 95 confidence level. Results for the U.S. Muslim sample are based on telephone interviews with a random sample of 250 U.S. adults, aged 18 and older, who identified their religion as Muslim. All respondents had previously been interviewed for the Gallup Daily tracking survey in 2014 and 2015. Re-contact interviews were conducted March 4-10, 2016. The sample was weighted on region, gender and education to ensure it is representative of U.S. Muslims, based on Gallup Daily tracking estimates of the U.S. Muslim population. For results based on this sample of U.S. Muslims, the margin of sampling error is ±8 percentage points at the 95 confidence level. The response rate for the Muslim sample was 22. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls. The full questionnaire, topline results, detailed crosstabulations and raw data may be obtained upon request. 43 -A key aspect of recent debate has been a perceived conflict between encouraging free expression and fostering a learning environment where students feel safe, respected and included. College students strongly believe that creating an open learning environment should take precedence over creating a positive learning environment that attempts to protect students from hearing offensive or biased speech. When asked to choose, 78 of college students believe colleges should strive to create an open learning environment that exposes students to all types of speech and viewpoints, even some that are biased or offensive toward certain groups of people. Just 22 believe colleges should create a positive learning environment for all students that would be achieved in part by prohibiting certain speech or the expression of views that are offensive or biased against certain groups of people. Large majorities of all college student subgroups say openness should take precedence, but certain student segments are more inclined to hold that view, including men, whites, Republicans and independents. Students at private (80) and public institutions (77) differ little in their preference for an open college environment. 44 -Contention 3- Censorship is inherently exclusionary 45 -Rosenberg 91, David Rosenberg, Racist Speech the First Amendment and Public Universities: Taking a Stand on Neutrality , 76 Cornell L. Rev. 549. (1991). 46 -http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol76/iss2/6 47 -Certainly, the presence of one-sided racist speech harms the goal of inclusion. But the underlying philosophy that compels the university to allow racist speech is one whose primary values are tolerance and inclusion. While the immediate message the outsider student receives is one of hate, the overall message is one in which he should take comfort: that he too has the opportunity to think and to say whatever he wants with absolutely no fear of official condemnation. The university’s value of inclusion is truly all-encompassing. Matsuda’s proposal, although it means to protect racism’s victims, is actually one of exclusion. Contrary to Matsuda’s assertion, allowing racist speech does not ultimately hinder the development of ethics. Even if we argue that racist speech has no discernible content, we cannot deny that it exists and that it will not disappear in the near future.212 When the Supreme Court in Sweezy argued that free speech must reign at universities in order to allow students to “gain new maturity and understanding,” 213 it had difficult questions of ethics in mind. To ignore the ethical problem of the existence of racism by suppressing its expression hides from the real problem. 48 - 49 -underview- it existed, util is bad, counterspeech good, presume aff, all analytic - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-13 22:47:32.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -uh idk shes a FW judge - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -American Heritage KK - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -31 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -North Crowley Reed Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4-Agonism AC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Sunvite
- Caselist.CitesClass[27]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,65 +1,0 @@ 1 -RULE UTIL AC 2 -I value morality, derived of ought in the resolution 3 - 4 -1st- The reductionist view is empirically true and mandates util. SHOEMAKER 5 -summarizes Parfit: The Journal of Value Inquiry 33: 183–199, 1999. UTILITARIANISM AND PERSONAL IDENTITY © 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. 183 Utilitarianism and Personal Identity DAVID W. SHOEMAKER Department of Philosophy, University of Memphis, 327 Clement Hall, Memphis, TN 38152, USA Doing so has a number of significant implications for rationality and morality. For one thing, the unity of our lives is no longer guaranteed. Our lives may be more or less unified, given the degree to which psychological connectedness holds. For instance, I am presently strongly connected to that stage of myself that existed yesterday, but I am fairly weakly connected to that long-ago existing ten-year-old stage of myself. Parfit suggests the language of successive selves to illuminate the different degrees to which this relation might hold. We might use the word “self,” then, to refer to a collection of person-stages united by strong psychological connectedness, such that my ten-year-old self could be viewed as a past self, while my eighty- year-old self would presumably be a future self. The parts of my life with which I am strongly psychologically connected are united as my present self.7 In this way, different selves occasionally resemble different persons, and Parfit indicates that, at certain times and places, selves might be thought of as the appropriate objects of moral concern.8 But this notion also implies that our lives may not be unified in certain important respects. Psychological connectedness is certainly not guaranteed to unify our entire lives, and so the reductionist view itself implies at least the partial disintegration of persons.9 3. Utilitarianism and Reductionism Utilitarianism is an ethical theory for ranking various outcomes from an impersonal standpoint. Utilitarians hold that the best state of affairs among relevant alternatives contains the greatest net balance of aggregate individual welfare. Utilitarianism is impersonal insofar as it involves a focus solely on the total amounts of utility at stake in various outcomes, and “it makes no moral difference not how these amounts are distributed as between different people.”10 Many utilitarians claim that the impersonality of the theory is entailed by a close analogy that obtains between cases of intrapersonal and interpersonal maximization. As Parfit remarks: “Since their attitude to sets of lives is like ours to single lives, utilitarians ignore the boundaries between lives.”11 Parfit further believes that utilitarians accept this analogy because they accept a reductionismt view about personal identity. If a person’s life is less deeply integrated than it would be on a non-reductionist view, then while principles of distributive justice central to non-utilitarian views ought to be given greater scope, targeting past, present, and future selves, they nevertheless ought to be given less weight. After all, if a person’s life is less unified than we normally think, and this undermines the hard and fast boundaries between lives as well, then distributive principles relying on the separateness of persons and the individual unity of a person’s life as deep facts will have far less moral importance than they would on a non-reductionist view. Some critics have claimed that utilitarians ignore the boundaries between lives because they think of all people as together constituting a collective super-person, but this charge is false, according to Parfit. Because of the partial disintegration of persons suggested by reductionism, utilitarians “may be treating benefits and burdens, not as if they all came within the same life, but as if it made no moral difference where they came.”12 Thus, Parfit suggests that reductionism may lend significant support to utilitarianism, simply because utilitarians can claim to be treating sets of lives like single lives, given that single lives are not deeply unified and are, in fact, metaphysically like sets of lives. 6 - 7 -2nd There are no unified subjects of experience we have means-based obligations to. Means are not possessions of a person, so I can’t own anything. Only experiences exist, so any theory distinguishing between lives is wrong – we should aggregate experiences across time. 8 - 9 -3rd is epistemology. The mind cannot create its own perceptions without experience; it must know a feeling to be able to perceive it. The natural world imposes limits upon epistemology. This implies maximizing utility since desire to seek out experiences and avoid others collapses into maximizing good experiences. 10 - 11 -4th, no intention-foresight distinction - mental states have no bearing on action. ENOCH summarizes Thomson: 12 - Enoch, David (Professor of the Hebrew University at Jerusalem). Intending, Foreseeing, and the State. Legal Theory, Vol. 13, No. 2. 2007. Pgs. 16-17. Think about a hard medical decision – say, whether to give a suffering patient a deadly dose of morphine in order to relieve his pain (at the price of his likely death). And let’s assume that in the circumstances the (medically, and also morally) right thing to do is to give the morphine. Now add the following piece of information: The physician making the decision and administering the procedure enjoys perverted pleasures from killing patients. If he gives the patient the morphine, he will do it intending to enjoy these perverted pleasures. He foresees that the patient’s pain will be relieved by the morphine, but this is not why she acts as he does. Of course, now that we know these disturbing facts about the doctor and his relevant mental states, we will morally judge him accordingly, and will no doubt try to let someone else decide about the appropriate procedures. But – and this is the crucial point in our context – should this information make us change our mind regarding the permissibility of the relevant action? Could facts about these mental states of the doctor giving the morphine make us take back our judgments that this is the appropriate action in the circumstances, even when all other factors are held equal? The answer, it seems, is “no”. Thomson suggests that we learn from such examples that the agent’s mental states are simply irrelevant for the moral permissibility of the relevant action. They are very relevant, of course, for the evaluation of the agent, but this is an entirely different story. And because mental states are irrelevant for the moral status of the action, the intending-foreseeing distinction, understood as a distinction between two mental states, and applied to the moral evaluation of actions, is without moral weight22. Of course, as it stands this line of thought is too quick. Strictly speaking, what the example at most shows is that sometimes the agent's mental states are irrelevant to the permissibility of the relevant action, not that they never are. But the strength of the intuitive judgment Thomson uses, together with the distinction between the evaluation of the action and that of the agent, and given the absence of an obvious rationale for why it is that the mental states should be relevant to permissibility in some circumstances but not others – all these factors together strongly suggest, I think, the more general conclusion. 13 - 14 -If present action causes an effect in the future and there’s no distinction between the two, all harm must be taken into consideration, devolving into util. 15 - 16 -Independently- Rightness depends on whether acts accords with rules chosen for good consequences. Rules we accept must be subject to util consideration. RAWLS: 17 -Professor at Harvard University. “Two Concepts of Rules” The Philosophical Review, 1955. The other conception of rules I will call the practice conception. On this view rules are pictured as defining a practice. Practices are set up for various reasons, but one of them is that in many areas of conduct each person's deciding what to do on utilitarian grounds case-by-case leads to confusion, and that the attempt to coordinate behavior by trying to foresee how others will act will is bound to fail. As an alternative one realizes that what is required is the establishment of a practice, the specification of a new form of activity; and from this one sees that a practice necessarily involves the abdication of full liberty to act on utilitarian and prudential grounds. It is the mark of a practice that being taught how to engage in it involves being instructed in the rules, which define it, and that appeal is made to those rules to correct the behavior of those engaged in it. Those engaged in a practice recognize the rules as defining it. The rules cannot be taken as simply describing how those engaged in the practice in fact behave: it is not simply that they act as if they were obeying the rules. Thus it is essential to the notion of a practice that the rules are publicly known and understood as definitive; and it is essential also that the rules of a practice can be taught and can be acted upon to yield a coherent practice. On this conception, then, rules are not generalizations from the decisions of individuals applying the utilitarian principle directly and independently to recurrent particular cases. On the contrary, rules define a practice and are themselves the subject of the utilitarian principle. 18 - 19 -THUS the standard is rule consequentialism: 20 -Prefer it 21 -We won’t achieve good consequences due to coordination problems. If we punished to deter crime, we could punish the innocent since that would have the same effect, but false convictions would cripple the system. We need rules whose adoption WOULD lead to good results. People could break promises and kill people on util grounds. But with consistent principles we could coordinate given an expectation of how people would act and this benefit is more than individual util benefits. Coordination is allowed if we act on simpler rules that could be learned or internalized easily that usually lead to the greatest good. 22 - 23 -Act util leads to tragedies of the commons, where individual acts maximize utility but taken together decrease overall utility of a society 24 - 25 - It’s hard to calculate results. By calculating I lose time to do util acts, so I must calculate the expected value of calculating, which leads to regress. Different people should do different calculations, but we must calculate who is better for calculative roles. Rule util solves since a rule wouldn’t be beneficial if we couldn’t use it. We adopt principles that are accessible, and usability allows us to act for good without calculative problems. 26 - 27 -Act util can be counterintuitive. We should use more plausible principles. HOOKER: Brad Hooker, “Ideal Code Real World.” Oxford: Clarendon Press 2000 Does rule-consequentialism accord with the convictions we share about moral permissibility and requirement? Rule-consequentialism selects rules on the basis of expected value, impartially calculated. Thus the theory is clearly impartial at the level of rule selection. As I shall argue later, the impartial assessment of rules But this will favor rules that (a) allow partiality within limits, towards self and (b) require partiality, within limits, towards family, friends, etc. This partiality towards self and loved ones will then be allowed to guide a great number of people’s day to day decisions (not all, of course). Therefore, while rule-consequentialism is purely impartial at the foundational level where a code is selected, the code thus selected makes demands on action that are moderate and intuitively plausible. Rule-consequentialis is fundamentally impartial, but not implausibly demanding. // Rule-consequentialism It also and accord with common moral beliefs about what we are prohibited from doing to others. As I observed, most of us believe morality prohibits physically attacking innocent people, taking or harming the possessions of others, breaking promises, telling lies, whichand so on. Rule-consequentialism endorses prohibitions on these kinds of act, since on the whole the consequences, considered impartially, will be better if such prohibitions are widely accepted. (In Chapter 6, I argue that rule-consequentialism’s implications concerning prohibitions and special duties are plausible 28 - 29 - 30 - public policy decisions, even those of non-governmental institutions, must be consequentialist since collective action results in conflicts that only util can resolve. Side constraints paralyze state action – it's impossible to compare tradeoffs involving opportunity costs. Collectives lack intentionality or internal motivation since they're composed of multiple individuals – there is no act-omission distinction for them since they create permissions and prohibitions in terms of policies so authorizing action could never be considered an omission since the state assumes culpability in regulating the public domain. 31 - 32 -Impact calc- Rule util requires a decision calculus based on the adoption of rules. This excludes specific considerations of individual cases as the point is to solve paradoxes when one must evaluate the specifics rather than general patterns. This means a) reject DA scenarios based on unstable conceptions of uniqueness, contingent on variable circumstances, that would require new rules based on each fluctuation or initial set of conditions to coordinate action and devolve to requiring infinitely complex rules and b) no extinction impacts – we would rely on very specific link chains with unstable uniqueness and we can’t compare rules that are more likely to lead to human extinction since it hasn’t happened yet. 33 - Thus, I affirm the resolution as a general rule for colleges and universities 34 -I’ll specify to meet your interp, within reason 35 -Contentions 36 -Status quo focus on discourse and representations kills the liberal movements you seek to promote- the liberal climate caused by the aff is key to accessing PR needed to create social change 37 -Chait 15 Jonathan Chait “How the language police are perverting liberalism.” NY Magazine January 275h 2015 http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/not-a-very-pc-thing-to-say.html JW 38 -Or maybe not. The p.c. style of politics has one serious, possibly fatal drawback: It is exhausting. Claims of victimhood that are useful within the left-wing subculture may alienate much of America. The movement’s dour puritanism can move people to outrage, but it may and prove ill suited to the hopeful mood required of mass politics. Nor does it bode well for the movement’s longevity that many of its allies are worn out. “It seems to me now that the public face of social liberalism has ceased to seem positive, joyful, human, and freeing,” confessed the progressive writer Freddie deBoer. “There are so many ways to step on a land mine now, so many terms that have become forbidden, so many attitudes that will get you cast out if you even appear to hold them. I’m far from alone in feeling that it’s typically not worth it to engage, given the risks.” Goldberg wrote recently about people “who feel emotionally savaged by their involvement in online feminism — not because of sexist trolls, but because of the slashing righteousness of other feminists.” Former Feministing editor Samhita Mukhopadhyay told her, “Everyone is so scared to speak right now.” That the new political correctness has bludgeoned even many of its own supporters into despondent silence is a triumph, but one of limited us Politics in a democracy is still based on getting people to agree with you, not making them afraid to disagree. 39 - 40 -Rule util mandates a free space of discussion- this is key to maintaining dignity by allowing multiple perspectives to be considered without favoritism. 41 -Taylor, Charles. Multiculturalism. Princeton University Press, 1994. 42 -Dignity is associated less with any particular understanding of the good life, such that someone’s departure from this would detract from his or her own dignity, than with the power to consider and espouse for oneself some view or other. We are not respecting this power equally in all subjects, it is claimed, if we raise the outcome of some people’s deliberations officially over that of others. A liberal society must remain neutral on the good life, and restrict itself to ensuring that however they see things, citizens deal fairly with each other and the state deals equally with all. The popularity of this view of the human agent as primarily a subject of self-determining or self-expressive choice helps to explain why this model of liberalism is so strong. But we must also consider that it has been urged with great force and intelligence by liberal thinkers in the United States, 57 C H A R L E S T A Y L O R and precisely in the context of constitutional doctrines of judicial review.33 Thus it is not surprising that the idea has become widespread, well beyond those who might subscribe to a specific Kantian philosophy, that a liberal society cannot accommodate publicly espoused notions of the good. This is the conception, as Michael Sandel has noted, of the “procedural republic,” which has a very strong hold on the political agenda in the United States, and which has helped to place increasing emphasis on judicial review on the basis of constitutional texts at the expense of the ordinary political process of building majorities with a view to legislative action.34 But a society with collective goals like Quebec’s violates this model. It is axiomatic for Quebec governments that the survival and flourishing of French culture in Quebec is a good. Political society is not neutral between those who value remaining true to the culture of our ancestors and those who might want to cut loose in the name of some individual goal of self-development. It might be argued that one could after all capture a goal like survivance for a proceduralist liberal society. One could consider the French language, for instance, as a collective resource that individuals might want to make use of, and act for its preservation, just as one does for clean air or green spaces. But this can’t capture the full thrust of policies designed for cultural survival. It is not just a matter of having the French language available for those who might choose it. 43 - 44 -Affirming endorses a rule that prevents authoritarianism 45 -Global Internet Liberty Campaign, What is Censorship? http://gilc.org/speech/osistudy/censorship/ 46 -Censorship ~-~- the control of the information and ideas circulated within a society ~-~- has been a hallmark of dictatorships throughout history. In the 20th Century, censorship was achieved through the examination of books, plays, films, television and radio programs, news reports, and other forms of communication for the purpose of altering or suppressing ideas found to be objectionable or offensive. The rationales for censorship have varied, with some censors targeting material deemed to be indecent or obscene; heretical or blasphemous; or seditious or treasonous. Thus, ideas have been suppressed under the guise of protecting three basic social institutions: the family, the church, and the state. Not all censorship is equal, nor does all arise from government or external force. People self-censor all the time; such restraint can be part of the price of rational dialogue. The artist Ben Shahn's poster illustration reads: "You have not converted a man because you have silenced him." Silence can indicate a forced assent, or conversely, it can be contemplative, a necessary part of dialogue that rises above the din of quotidian life. To understand censorship, and the impulse to censor, it is necessary to strip away the shock epithet value that is attached to the word at first utterance. One must recognize that censorship and the ideology supporting it go back to ancient times, and that every society has had customs, taboos, or laws by which speech, dress, religious observance, and sexual expression were regulated. In Athens, where democracy first emerged, censorship was well known as a means of enforcing the prevailing orthodoxy. Indeed, Plato was the first recorded thinker to formulate a rationale for intellectual, religious, and artistic censorship. In his ideal state outlined in The Republic, official censors would prohibit mothers and nurses from relating tales deemed bad or evil. Plato also proposed that unorthodox notions about God or the hereafter be treated as crimes and that formal procedures be established to suppress heresy. Freedom of speech in Ancient Rome was reserved for those in positions of authority. The poets Ovid and Juvenal were both banished, and authors of seditious writings were punished severely. The emperor Nero deported his critics and burned their books. The organized church soon joined the state as an active censor. The Biblical injunction, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord, thy God, in vain" is clearly an early attempt to set limits on what would be acceptable theological discourse. Likewise, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" is an attempt to set limits on how the Divine may or may not be represented. (And no one, in any land, should think this is anachronistic. Across the world today, appeals to divinity are common reasons for banning the dissemination of a broad range of materials). Censorship is no more acceptable for being practiced in the name of religion than for national security (which is certainly an acceptable secular substitute for religious rationales in the 20th Century). It only indicates that confronting censorship must always involve confronting some part of ourselves and our common history that is both painful and deep-seated. Unique historical considerations can also spawn censorship. Perhaps the best example is the "Haßsprache" (hate speech) law in Germany. It is illegal, under German law, to depict any kind of glorification of the Nazis or even to display the emblem of the swastika. The law is enforced to the point where even historical battle simulations may not use the actual emblems that were used during World War II (by the Waffen SS, for instance). Significantly, almost all of Germany's close neighbors and allies have similar laws. The questions in Germany and elsewhere in the European Union (EU) form a particularly hard case because of the historical background and because the situation in the EU is fast-moving. That is why this series of snapshots of conditions in various countries and regions will first deal with other areas and levels of censorship and access problems, and then return to the situation in the EU. In a global context, governments have used a powerful array of techniques and arguments to marshal support for their censorship efforts. One of the earliest, as noted, is the religious argument. Certain things are deemed to be offensive in the eyes of the Deity. These things vary from country to country, religion to religion, even sect to sect. They are mostly, though not always, sexual in nature. The commentaries on the nature of the impulse to be censorious towards sexual expression are too numerous even for a wide ranging project like this. The curious reader is urged to read far and wide in the classic texts to see that the problem of governments and citizens reacting in this way is not a new one. What is new are the potential global consequences. National security and defense runs a very close second to the religious impulse as a rationale for suppression. While nowhere near as old as the religious impulse to censor, in its more modern form it has been even more pervasive. And while the influence of religion on secular affairs is muted in certain parts of the world, the influence of governments usually is not. It is difficult to think of any government that would forego the power, in perceived extreme circumstances, to censor all media, not simply those that appear online. The question, asked in a real world scenario, is what could be considered extreme enough circumstances to justify such action? There are also forms of censorship that are not so obtrusive, and that have to be examined very carefully to define. "Censorship through intimidation" can be anything from threats against individuals to a government proposing to monitor all activities online (as in one proposal current at the 47 - 48 -Absent the aff, the only principle remaining is repression. The international community is moving away from this rule- they have recognized the aff as good. 49 -Global Internet Liberty Campaign, What is Censorship? http://gilc.org/speech/osistudy/censorship/ 50 -The potential for expansion, or opening economic and political opportunities where there had been none before, is vast on a scale beyond imagination. So, too, is the potential for calamitous misuse, both by governments and by corporations. These essays and reports from the cyberfronts show that freedom from censorship is the exception in the world. The rule historically has been, and continues to be, repression and suppression of disfavored ideas. The one redeeming fact is that, in most parts of the world, the ideal of liberty is embraced at least theoretically, and no state openly claims a commitment to religious, intellectual, artistic, or political censorship. The universal philosophical embrace of free expression is reflected in the many covenants and declarations that have been passed in support of freedom and human rights; these include the UN Charter (1945), the UN Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the UN Covenants on Civil and Political Rights (1966) and on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (1966), the European Convention on Human Rights (1953), the Helsinki Final Act (1975), and the American (Western Hemisphere) Convention on Human Rights (1978). These documents form the basis of the hope that the Internet might yet succeed in realizing its promise of providing a free and unencumbered flow of information throughout the world. 51 - 52 -The aff is a rule that is key to fighting oppression. 53 -Koteskey Protecting Free Speech and Fighting Oppression Go Hand in Hand by Tyler Koteskey Nov 15 2015 54 -ng free speech, our constitution for much of our national history promoted a culture more respectful than much of the rest of the world of a free society’s principles. Rather than leaving them behind, the First Amendment has been marginalized communities’ most important tool in making their voices heard in America. The bedrock of the civil rights movement rests on it. Thanks to the First Amendment, the Supreme Court protected protest marches, sit-ins, even NAACP meetings and court participation from unlawful disruption. The First Amendment was so important during this period because anti-racist speech was viscerally offensive to authorities who would otherwise have quashed it. Today, our commitment to free speech still protects marginalized groups from overzealous authorities as they work for change. That trend holds true whether we’re talking about black people in 2015, Muslim-Americans, the transgender community, or countless other groups. No matter how frustratingly some people exercise their speech, suggesting that it’s less important than we think to oppose selective censorship for “enlightened” purposes puts all of these groups at risk. 55 - 56 -As a rule, its good for public institutions to follow their constitutional constraints 57 -Constitutionality is key to constrain states- if they are bound to their agreements with the people they cannot perpetrate atrocities 58 -Constitutionality is perceived positively by the people- a few implications 59 -Increases civic engagement- political efficacy increases when people think they can trust their government, which leads to the ability to unify for social change movements. 60 -Prevents disorganized violence from the far right- they gain increased legitimacy from viewing the left as non-compliant with the constitution, allowing violence and things like Trump 61 -Constitutional higher edu is good because it discourages the current culture war where the right feels like the left isn’t receptive- this gets the right involved in education, legitimizing intelligence and fighting back against the alt right 62 -As a general rule, its good for democracies to fulfill their function, otherwise all governments collapse into tyranny and violence, and they fail to furfill their constitutive duty as a democrocy. Polls affirm the aff as a general principle 63 -Gallup, 2016 data gathered feb 29- march 15 with the Knight foundation, Free Expression on Campus: A Survey of U.S. College Students and U.S. Adults, http://www.knightfoundation.org/media/uploads/publication_pdfs/FreeSpeech_campus.pdf 64 -Methodology This study includes a sample of U.S. college students, a sample of U.S. adults and a sample of U.S. Muslims. Results for the college student sample are based on telephone interviews with a random sample of 3,072 U.S. college students, aged 18 to 24, who are currently enrolled as full-time students at four-year colleges. Gallup selected a random sample of 240 U.S. four-year colleges, drawn from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), that were stratified by college enrollment size, public or private affiliation, and region of the country. Gallup then contacted each sampled college in an attempt to obtain a sample of their students. Thirty-two colleges agreed to participate. The participating colleges were University of California, Merced; Culver-Stockton College; Duke University; East Georgia State College; Georgia Institute of Technology; Green River College; Harrisburg University of Science and Technology; James Madison University; Keuka College; Kentucky State University; LaGrange College; University of Louisiana at Monroe; Lourdes University; Martin Luther College; Morehouse College; Minnesota State University Moorhead; University of North Alabama; University of North Carolina at Pembroke; Northwestern University; University of Oregon; University of the Ozarks; Pace University; Rocky Mountain College; Saint Francis University; The University of Scranton; Southeastern Baptist College; Southwest Minnesota State University; Spalding University; Tabor College; Texas Christian University; Trinity Baptist College; and Troy University. Gallup used random samples of 40 of each college’s student body, with one school providing a 32 sample, for its sample frame. The sample frame consisted of 54,806 college students from the 32 colleges. Gallup then emailed each sampled student to complete an Internet survey to confirm his or her eligibility for the study and to request a phone number where the student could be reached for a telephone interview. A total of 6,928 college students completed the Web survey, for a response rate of 13. Of these, 6,814 students were eligible and provided a working phone number. Telephone interviews were conducted Feb. 29-March 15, 2016. The response rate for the phone survey was 49 using the American Association for Public Opinion Research’s RR-III calculation. The combined response rate for the Web recruit and telephone surveys was 6. The college student sample was weighted to correct for unequal selection probability and nonresponse. It was also weighted to match the demographics of U.S. colleges on enrollment, public or private affiliation, and region of the country, based on statistics from the IPEDS database, to ensure the sample is nationally representative of U.S. college students. For results based on this sample of college students, the margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points at the 95 confidence level. Copyright © 2016 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. 32 FREE EXPRESSION ON CAMPUS Results for the U.S. adult sample are based on telephone interviews with a random sample of 2,031 U.S. adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. Interviews were conducted March 5-8, 2016, as part of the Gallup Daily tracking survey, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. The sample of U.S. adults included a minimum quota of 60 cellphone respondents and 40 landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by region. Landline and cellular telephone numbers were selected using random-digit-dial methods. Landline respondents were chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member has the next birthday. The response rate for the Gallup Daily tracking survey was 9. Samples were weighted to correct for unequal selection probability, nonresponse and double coverage of landline and cell users in the two sample frames. They were also weighted to match the national demographics of gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, population density and phone status (cellphone only, landline only, both, and cellphone mostly). Demographic weighting targets were based on the March 2015 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older U.S. population. Phone status targets were based on the January-June 2015 National Health Interview Survey. Population density targets were based on the 2010 census. For results based on this sample of U.S. adults, the margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points at the 95 confidence level. Results for the U.S. Muslim sample are based on telephone interviews with a random sample of 250 U.S. adults, aged 18 and older, who identified their religion as Muslim. All respondents had previously been interviewed for the Gallup Daily tracking survey in 2014 and 2015. Re-contact interviews were conducted March 4-10, 2016. The sample was weighted on region, gender and education to ensure it is representative of U.S. Muslims, based on Gallup Daily tracking estimates of the U.S. Muslim population. For results based on this sample of U.S. Muslims, the margin of sampling error is ±8 percentage points at the 95 confidence level. The response rate for the Muslim sample was 22. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls. The full questionnaire, topline results, detailed crosstabulations and raw data may be obtained upon request. 65 -A key aspect of recent debate has been a perceived conflict between encouraging free expression and fostering a learning environment where students feel safe, respected and included. College students strongly believe that creating an open learning environment should take precedence over creating a positive learning environment that attempts to protect students from hearing offensive or biased speech. When asked to choose, 78 of college students believe colleges should strive to create an open learning environment that exposes students to all types of speech and viewpoints, even some that are biased or offensive toward certain groups of people. Just 22 believe colleges should create a positive learning environment for all students that would be achieved in part by prohibiting certain speech or the expression of views that are offensive or biased against certain groups of people. Large majorities of all college student subgroups say openness should take precedence, but certain student segments are more inclined to hold that view, including men, whites, Republicans and independents. Students at private (80) and public institutions (77) differ little in their preference for an open college environment. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-31 15:08:18.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -IDK - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Southlake - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -32 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -9 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -North Crowley Reed Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4- rule util AC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Flomo
- Caselist.CitesClass[28]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,53 +1,0 @@ 1 -Yay debate! AC 2 - 3 -Trigger warning for description of sexual harrassment 4 -First, framing- 5 -Every time we debate, we discuss inclusion. Sometimes these discussions are explicit, other times these discussions are the lack of these discussions- when our practices exclude gender and racial minorities, bodies are consigned to a comment on a ballot, at best, destroying the ethical subjectivity of the very debaters we try to educate and mold. Instead, we become a space so privileged, we silence attempts at community change with calls to abstract ethics, fairness claims, root cause claims, and even moral skepticism- these responses allow us to replicate the systems of oppression in our space with impunity, preventing us from accessing normative judgments as we never genuinely encounter the other that we speak about. We prefer to discuss ‘safe’ interpretations of the topic, abstract ethics, or policy positions. However, these discussions are unsafe for the oppressed because they never include the non-subject. 6 -Leonardo and Porter 10. Zeus and Ronald K. Ronald K. Pedagogy of fear: toward a Fanonian theory of 'safety' in race dialogu. Race Ethnicity and Education, 13: 2, 139 — 157. July 9, 2010. AKB. 7 -In other words, There is the category of people who are neither self nor others. They are no-one. The dialectics of recognition is disrupted, and the struggle of such people becomes one of achieving such a dialectics. Put differently, they are not fighting against being others. They are fighting to become others and, in so doing, entering ethical relationships. This argument results in a peculiar critique of liberal political theory. Such theory presupposes ethical foundations of political life. What Fanon has shown is that political work needs to be done to make ethical life possible. That is because racism and colonialism derail ethical life. (italics added) A Pedagogical approach that avoids safety in the interest of image and personal management makes such an ethical relationship possible. ¶ If we are truly interested in racial pedagogy, then we must become comfortable with the idea that For marginalized and oppressed minorities, there is no safe space. As implied above, mainstream race dialogue in education is arguably already hostile and unsafe for many students of color whose perspectives and experiences are consistently minimized. Violence is already there. In other words, like Fanon’s understanding of colonialism, safe space enacts violence. Those who are interested in engaging in Racial pedagogy must be prepared to (1) undo the violence that is inherent to safe-space dialogue, and (2) enact a form of liberatory violence within race discussions to allow for a creativity that shifts the standards of humanity. In other words, anger, hostility, frustration, and pain are characteristics that are not to be avoided under the banner of safety, which only produces Freire’s (1993) ‘culture of silence’. They are attributes that are to be recognized on the part of both whites and people of color in order to engage in a process that is creative enough to establish new forms of social existence, where both parties are transformed. This is not a form of in violence that is life threatening and narcissistic, but one that is life affirming through its ability to promote mutual recognition. 8 - 9 - 10 -This is especially damming considering the current meta-game in LD- we tell our students to read structural violence impacts for easy wins but never train them to actually give a shit about the oppressed. A pre-requisate for debate to be a useful site of discourse is a relentless self-critique 11 -There are no sources in the current document. 12 - “What’s left is a community of very ‘woke’ students who thrive on a set of, honestly, quite bizarre community norms framed by espousals of a community ethic of academic progressivism. As we’ve started speaking faster and spending more time with our faces buried in academic literature studying the root conditions of social inequity, I think we’ve lost sight of the intersection between the now ever-present discussions of the oppressed in rounds and the real marginalized students who aren’t given the opportunity to speak in the debate space that we’ve carved out around their social image. Debate, with the apparent tenure of role of the ballot-style arguments, is evolving into it’s potential as a micropolitical space that would be incredibly valuable for oppressed voices who are all too often placed in educational settings that, fatally, do not give them the skills to question their own situations. We must go forth with unwavering self-critique of our tendency to fall into internalist tunnel vision if we are to reclaim authenticity in an increasingly obfuscated debate climate. I debated locally on the New Orleans, Louisiana LD circuit for Benjamin Franklin High School all four years of high school. My sophomore year I became cognizant of the national (or TOC) circuit of debate and knew I wanted to be part of it. I looked up to the national circuit debaters I watched, they seamlessly could control a round and think fast on their feet. But those debaters generally came from big programs with funding for coaches and travel, which made their presence on the national circuit of little controversy. I never felt the same comfort. Coming from a small charter school in education budget-stripped Louisiana, my school was unable to monetarily assist me in the, frankly, enormous costs to travel nationally and could only give me the ability to use the school name. My family isn’t rich, but we get by, and I was lucky enough to have a father invested enough in debate to travel with me to tournaments across the country out of our pocket. I traveled nationally my junior and senior years and qualified to the Tournament of Champions both years and saw, first hand, the ways that debate excludes those who need it most. During my time debating, one thing always tore at my connection to the activity: the hands-on disparities I felt as an independent (or “lone wolf”) debater and, much larger than my own struggle, the unspoken truth of the barrier to entry faced by countless racially and economically disenfranchised students across the country. The national circuit rests on a set of paradoxes: we speak rapidly in an intense lexicon of jargon indecipherable by those outside of our nerd commune, but read cases that tout frameworks about establishing social conditions for participatory and moral inclusion; tournament directors homogenize independent debaters as anarchic forces that threaten the stability of established program hegemony, but if a debater defends any long-standing institution of power they are likely to be critiqued as a degenerate peddling the ideology of absolute evil; programs would rather hire a new coach to turn debaters into perfect social justice allies for ballots, instead of dedicating funds to scholarships to allow low-income students in middle school debate leagues to access the established, well-funded programs that win rounds off of recycled images of these students very real social position. Sadly, the inconsistencies go on and, upon examination of this quiet hypocrisy, our supposed devotion to the radical restructuring of powerful systems in favor of the oppressed looks more like soft-boiled, self-moralizing liberalism. It seems to be the case that it’s time to put our intellectual money where are mouths are and for the prevailing in-and-out of round discussion to shift from, ‘What can debate do for the marginalized?’ to ‘How can we incorporate the marginalized into high levels of debate?’ Talking to local circuit debaters coming from a background in national circuit debate was always incredibly humbling because I had no greater claim to my ability to travel than the less privileged debaters I spoke to. They would speak longingly about the ability to travel and see the regional spectrums of the national circuit, be privy to experienced judges, and have the ground to read new philosophy. These students often dealt with various combinations of undedicated and/or inexperienced coaches, lack of school funding, and personally unstable financial situations. These students have all the passion and curiosity (if not more) of the greatest national circuit debaters and the barrier they face is unacceptable in a community that espouses mass, unabashed openness. Some tournaments and debate camps have begun to feature open table discussions about community issues of exclusion surrounding race, gender, sexuality, etc. These discussions are incredibly valuable and I have been a part of many of them, but they are ultimately not encompassing of those who have no voice in those discussions at all. They are part of a privileged form of liberalism that has proliferated national circuit debate. It hails anyone’s inclusion into discursive spaces…as long as you can pay for your plane tickets to the Glenbrooks. We must understand discrimination in debate as multi-leveled. The type of discrimination we are generally concerned about is the institutional disparities between social groups within debate. This is only the surface and it overlooks the web of structural violence and exclusion that keeps debate, and many sites of political discourse, defined by class lines and prejudice. It is the lived reality of these forgotten, yet never introduced students that show us exactly whom debate’s “critical pedagogy” is not made for. “Critical pedagogy” is a term often thrown around in debate rounds without much inquiry as to what it constitutes, it has just become another assumption in our jargon and a buzzword. Paulo Freire, one of the first to write extensively on the subject, explains these forgotten, yet defining features of critical pedagogy in Pedagogy of the Oppressed: “Authentic education is not carried on by “A” for “B” or by “A” about “B,” but rather by “A” with “B,” mediated by the world—a world which impresses and challenges both parties, giving rise to views or opinions about it. These views, impregnated with anxieties, doubts, hopes, or hopelessness, imply significant themes on the basis of which the program content of education can be built. In its desire to create an ideal model of the “good human,” a naively conceived humanism often overlooks the concrete, existential, present situation of real people. … For the truly humanist educator and the authentic revolutionary, the object of action is the reality to be transformed by them together with other people—not other men and women themselves… The revolutionary’s role is to liberate, and be liberated, with the people—not to win them over.” Critical arguments and identity politics attempt to create a model of good human conduct towards the Other, but currently do very little materially to include many of those that they claim to liberate with their words. Critical pedagogy is defined by the egalitarian academic relationship between the marginalized student, educators, and academic spheres, such that they can come together to draft authentic liberatory strategies for the historically marginalized. These arguments may exist as cathartic and crucial academic avenues for traditionally societally marginalized students who are fortunately allowed to debate, but the proliferation of these arguments has not lead to the proliferation of attempts to bridge the socially deprived and the national circuit – these arguments can only benefit those who have already been integrated, which seems odd from a community that treats Wynter and Leighton like one of the 10 Commandments. Impersonal appeals to roles of ballots and judges are ultimately what Freire characterizes as revolutionary’s appealing to the marginalized in an attempt to ‘win them over.’ This is problematic because it imagines the marginalized solely as an object of suffering and not as a concrete, political subject with potential for creating positive, material change. Debate heroism drains the marginalized of agency through false representation and, like any self-serving palliative in the economy of white supremacy, tells us that our dues have been paid to the marginalized without having to actually interact with them. Sure, the education that current debaters gain now is important, but are well-off students the ones who are really lacking an academic source of the critical thinking skills that debate fosters in comparison to students whose classroom setting are cyclically underfunded and present a façade of learning. Freire’s model of critical pedagogy critiqued the “banking model” of teaching that runs supreme in these destitute classrooms. Banking is characterized by the teaching of ‘objective’ facts to be memorized and repeated, but never critically examined – this is the demand of a society that mixes quality of academia and capital. The crucial issue with this model of education is that marginalized students never learn how to question the terms and conditions of their social location from this system because their social position is taught to them as fact to be internalized for regurgitation. Absent an educational site for marginalized students to relate their quotidian experiences with oppression to larger systems of social division’s historical construction, authentic and informed social and policy changes will never come because the voice of the marginalized is not its foundation. National circuit debate often only produces the privileged conjecture of what world the oppressed must desire if they think like the rest of us, and that approach disguises itself as a humanist gesture from elites to cover up their conscious use of narratives of real suffering to fulfill self-interested ends, which constitutes the total commodification of the suffering of the Other. Which is to say, the suffering of the Other is used as a strong persuasive tool to breed fear-based politics around a narrative of moral absolution to Western liberalism. In a society structured heavily by class lines, we continually consume images of the suffering to relieve deep-seated anxieties about our own social locations through displacement. This is why people watch mindless reality television and shows like Narcos or Orange is the New Black, which serve as disaster porn for an increasingly numbed audience. When heteronormative, sexist, and racist violence is what average people watch before they go to bed, how do we actually process impacts of structural violence and social death against groups of people who are largely not even present? In The Illusion of the End, sociologist Jean Baudrillard examines this frenzied devouring of suffering: “We have long denounced the capitalistic, economic exploitation of the poverty of the ‘other half of the world’ ‘autre monde. We must today denounce the moral and sentimental exploitation of that poverty – charity cannibalism being worse than oppressive violence. The extraction and humanitarian reprocessing of a destitution, which has become the equivalent of oil deposits and gold mines. The extortion of the spectacle of poverty and, at the same time, of our charitable condescension: a worldwide appreciated surplus of fine sentiments and bad conscience. … material exploitation is only there to extract that spiritual raw material that is the misery of peoples, which serves as psychological nourishment for the rich countries and media nourishment for our daily lives.” Without an authentic attempt to place the exploited in the center of our discussions, we commodify their real, lived experiences to moralistic ballot appeals that quarantine potentially liberatory discussion to a 45-minute discursive proxy wars where the only real goal is the accumulation of communal prestige. Fiat fuels our politics of exaggeration by establishing an undue assumption of reality behind the advocacies of debaters. This allows debaters to make claims like voting aff is a “try-or-die” situation for the marginalized people the aff speaks about, but after the round the aff doesn’t happen, no one is saved and those people may still ‘or-die’, but the judge and debater leave and feel like they’re done the ‘right’ thing. Here we see exactly why the subjectivities of the marginalized are absolutely essential when deconstructing historical lines of oppression. The marginalized are the sole interlocutor between perspectives defined by survival and subversion against prevailing paradigms of total antagonism, and the revolutionary energy stored within the silenced for reclamation of a stolen humanity. It is critical education that allows the marginalized to synthesize these two conditions into real change that defies our scheduled demands for suffering. An example familiar to a fair amount of debaters who have, inadvertently or not, read this argument is Damien Schnyder, UC President’s Postdoctoral Fellow, when he writes about the importance of including ‘black thought’ in light of it’s historic exclusion by virtue of it’s ability to imagine alternatives to our major systems of economy. It is this hegemonic fear of possibility that explains both the debate community’s flocking to Blackness studies as the new, cool outlook, and it’s simultaneous disavowal of personal narrativity through a culture that worships academic evidence: “Black bodies, through their collective experiences of subjugated Blackness, become a threat to the very function of civil society. Blackness has to be contained and managed in order to protect white supremacy. … It is at this moment – when Blackness becomes identified as antithetical to the notions of work –that white supremacy is able to unleash it’s fury upon the Black body. For it is within this space that the Black body can have anything and everything done to protect the order of civil society.46 Thus in order to contain the threat of Blackness, the Herculean managers of the hydra-like attack upon society are teachers (Linebaugh and Rediker, 2000).47 Within the development of civil society, the function of teachers is to both categorize states of being and enclose Blackness. … Students are prevented from interjecting alternative versions of economic systems within the framework of the discussion. Students must perform the perfunctory duty of work (basic memorization and recitation skills) not to only to be awarded with a passing grade, but not to be penalized. The result is a silencing of Black voices whose life experiences are in direct contradiction with hegemonic constructions of economy (i.e. supply and demand) that was taught by Mr. Keynes. There was no space to analyze the racial structure that frames economic modes of relation, nor was there opportunity to engage in dialogue with regards to the economics of why many of the students had to work to support their families.” If we are to create true critical pedagogy, centrally interested in the marginalized student’s liberation, the community must devote itself to actually doing the ‘right’ thing after these rounds and confirming that direction with those we intend to recover full humanity with. If we legitimately care about the community principle of fighting structural violence, we must start with those who understand that violence as quotidian. Hegemonic systems privilege established factions because the marginalized have very purposefully never been given an active voice in social construction. We are beginning to face a challenge to the extent of our progressivism and it increasingly seems like we’re only willing to draw attention to the marginalized when it posits us as discursive Robin Hoods and fills our ego with ballots. This orientation risks inculcating bad dispositions towards life and political agency outside of debate. When judges aren’t there to drool over social justice parlor tricks, debaters have no incentive to do anything more than change their Facebook profile pictures in line with social events to get the same self-moralism through ‘likes’ and validation. Therefore, if we are to earnestly reverse this trend, the role of the debate community is to give marginalized students a new and encompassing means by which they can speak in the supposed ‘space of inclusion’ we’ve built, 13 - 14 -And, the discursive performance of the ac is a prior question to the inclusion of the marginalized 15 -Butler 5, Judith, badass MoFo and mother of modern feminism in her text “Beside Oneself: On the Limits of Sexual Autonomy” 16 - or that violence might be said to realize or apply this discourse. Violence against those who are already not quite lives, who are living in a state of suspension between life and death, leaves a mark that is no mark. If there is a discourse, it is a silent and melancholic writing in which there have been no lives, and no losses, there has been no common physical condition, no vulnerability that serves as the basis for an apprehension of our commonality, and there has been no sundering of that commonality. None of this takes place on the order of the event. None of this takes place. How many lives have been lost from AIDS in Africa in the last few years? Where are the media representations of this loss, the discursive elaborations of what these losses mean for communities there? I began this chapter with a suggestion that perhaps the interrelated movements and modes of inquiry that collect here might need to consider autonomy as one dimension of their normative aspirations, one value to realize when we ask ourselves, in what direction ought we to proceed, and what kinds of values ought we to be realizing? I suggested as well that the way in which the body figures in gender and sexuality studies, and in the struggles for a less oppressive social world for the otherwise gendered and for sexual minorities of all kinds, is precisely to underscore the value of being beside oneself, of being a porous boundary, given over to others, finding oneself in a trajectory of desire in which one is taken out of oneself, and resituated irreversibly in a field of others in which one is not the presumptive center. The particular sociality that belongs to bodily life, to sexual life, and to becoming gendered (which is always, to a certain extent, becoming gendered for others) establishes a field of ethical enmeshment with others and a sense of disorientation for the first-person, that is, the perspective of the ego. As bodies, we are always for something more than, and other than, ourselves. To articulate this as an entitlement is not always easy, but perhaps not impossible. It suggests, for instance, that “association” Beside Oneself: On the Limits of Sexual Autonomy 25 RT9239_C01.qxd 6/25/04 12:51 PM Page 25 is not a luxury, but one of the very conditions and prerogatives of freedom. Indeed, the kinds of associations we maintain importantly take many forms. It will not do to extol the marriage norm as the new ideal for this movement, as the Human Rights Campaign has erroneously done.1 No doubt, marriage and same-sex domestic partnerships should certainly be available as options, but to install either as a model for sexual legitimacy is precisely to constrain the sociality of the body in acceptable ways. In light of seriously damaging judicial decisions against second parent adoptions in recent years, it is crucial to expand our notions of kinship beyond the heterosexual frame. It would be a mistake, however, to reduce kinship to family, or to assume that all sustaining community and friendship ties are extrapolations of kin relations. I make the argument in “Is Kinship Always Already Heterosexual” in this volume that kinship ties that bind persons to one another may well be no more or less than the intensification of community ties, may or may not be based on enduring or exclusive sexual relations, may well consist of ex-lovers, nonlovers, friends, and community members. The relations of kinship cross the boundaries between community and family and sometimes redefine the meaning of friendship as well. When these modes of intimate association produce sustaining webs of relationships, they constitute a “breakdown” of traditional kinship that displaces the presumption that biological and sexual relations structure kinship centrally. In addition, the incest taboo that governs kinship ties, producing a necessary exogamy, does not necessarily operate among friends in the same way or, for that matter, in networks of communities. Within these frames, sexuality is no longer exclusively regulated by the rules of kinship at the same time that the durable tie can be situated outside of the conjugal frame. Sexuality becomes open to a number of social articulations that do not always imply binding relations or conjugal ties. That not all of our relations last or are meant to, however, does not mean that we are immune to grief. On the contrary, sexuality outside the field of monogamy well may open us to a different sense of community, intensifying the question of where one finds enduring ties, and so become the condition for an attunement to losses that exceed a discretely private realm. Nevertheless, those who live outside the conjugal frame or maintain modes of social organization for sexuality that are neither monogamous nor quasi-marital are more and more considered unreal, and their loves 26 Undoing Gender RT9239_C01.qxd 6/25/04 12:51 PM Page 26 and losses less than “true” loves and “true” losses. 17 - 18 -Thus the advocacy; debate rounds within public colleges and universities should not restrict any speech protected by the current Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) constitution. 19 -Advantage 1- performance debate 20 -First, the CEDA constitution protects all styles of debate, including ‘performance’ debate- it both positively and negatively protects speech that creates minority participation 21 -CEDA constitution . "Section 1: The Nature of the Academic Debate Community." CONSTITUTION OF THE CROSS EXAMINATION DEBATE ASSOCIATION ARTICLE I: THE ORGANIZATION (n.d.): n. pag. Mar. 2016. Web. 22 -Preamble: The Cross Examination Debate Association is dedicated to the principle of free expression and exploration of ideas in an atmosphere of civility and mutual respect. Related to this principle is the belief that all members of this community will have access to CEDA debate activities without regard to race, creed, age, sex, national origin, sexual or affectional preference, or non-disqualifying handicap. These principles should guide the behavior of the organization's members and participants. Section 1: The Nature of the Academic Debate Community It is the nature of the academic debate community to provide a forum for the robust expression, criticism and discussion (and for the tolerance) of the widest range of opinions. 23 -And, CEDA protects against censoring certain styles of debate 24 -CEDA constitution . " CONSTITUTION OF THE CROSS EXAMINATION DEBATE ASSOCIATION ARTICLE I: THE ORGANIZATION (n.d.): n. pag. Mar. 2016. Web. 25 -Judges are important to the debate activity. In addition to supplying decisions as judges, they educate the student participants through their reasons for decision and suggestions for improvement. CEDA recognizes the inherent tension and potential conflict between these two roles. In an attempt to facilitate both functions, CEDA encourages judge-educators to acknowledge their two-fold responsibility and act with competence, integrity, fairness and courtesy before, during and after each debate round. Debate seeks to be a full, free testing of ideas. Yet as educators, some feel a responsibility to discourage student behavior they find to be counterproductive. Often judges must delicately balance these two considerations: the need for rigorous examination of any and all views, however unpopular or unrealistic and the guidance and direction of student behavior. If undesirable behavior is discouraged in a positive, fair and courteous manner, the judge/educator roles can be simultaneously satisfied. Ethical principles for judges participating in CEDA include: A. Judges should strive at all times to render impartial decisions. Judges should excuse themselves from rounds they do not feel they could judge fairly. B. Judges should be willing to inform debaters, either through a statement of philosophy or through response to student questions, of strongly held beliefs or standards that could affect the outcome of the debate round. C. Judges should evaluate debate rounds on the arguments as they are presented by the debaters, rather than on personal knowledge of or opinion about particular substantive arguments. Judges need not be "tabula rasa" but do need to be fair. D. Judges should provide detailed and constructive criticism of any and all rounds of debate they evaluate. Reasons for decision should be in accordance with any beliefs or standards announced at the outset of the round. Judges are expected to provide written comments on the ballots provided by the tournament, even if they also provide an oral critique. These written comments should be made available to all the debaters a judge has heard by the conclusion of the tournament. E. Judges have an ethical obligation to uphold without exception the tournament rules. Judges should inform the tournament director of any conflicts which could prevent them from carrying out this duty. F. Judges who have the misfortune of witnessing fraudulent behavior on the part of Current as of March, 2016 (questions, contact jeffrey.jarman@wichita.edu) 45 competitors they are judging should: 1. conform to tournament rules (if any), and 2. act in accordance with their consciences in assessing appropriate sanctions. 26 - 27 -And, sqo debate has judges that automatically reject non-T affs or affs without plans- both are important 28 -Here’s some of Maggie’s Berthiaume’s Paradigm. I picked them at random as an example of how some forms of debate are rejected in the squo 29 -https://www.tabroom.com/index/tourn/paradigms.mhtml?tourn_id=4745andcategory_id=11881 30 -Do I have to be topical? 31 -Yes. Affirmatives are certainly welcome to defend the resolution in interesting and creative ways, but that defense should be tied to a topical plan to ensure that both sides are prepared for the debate. Affirmatives do not need to “role play” or “pretend to be the USFG” to suggest that the USFG should change a policy. 32 -And, Performance debate empowers black and minority students by eliminating the forced choice between assimilation and exiting the activity- we don’t need every debate to be performative, but it HAS TO BE AN OPTION. 33 -Polson 12 (Dana Roe Polson, PhD in Language Literacy and Culture, UMBC, Baltimore city public and public charter schools high school teacher, “’Longing for Theory:’ Performance Debate in Action” Dissertain directed by Dr. Christine Mallinson, Assistant Professor, Language, Literacy, and Culture pp. 142)CEFS 34 -Further, I would argue that the policy debate world is in some ways hyper-white: it rewards and represents white cultural and epistemological norms to a degree many students might not experience in public schools, even majority-white ones. But again: this rejection of whiteness does not necessarily equate with rejection of academic success. While I will look at this issue of cultural authenticity more specifically in chapters 4 and 5, I will mention here that I think performance debate finds away around this bind for African American debaters. The style gives them a practice that is race-based and conscious, within the policy debate community. There is no forced choice to assimilate or to leave the activity. As coach participant Jason Burton put it, And so like the question was, what motivates students to participate in the activity? And for, for us, that was the style component of the activity... when we brought the hip hop music into it and changed the style of it, that we saw had an effect on the way it motivated students to use their life experiences, their personal narrative, you know um being able to see how things within the arguments that they were making about social policy actually could affect the communities and the lives around them. (Jason Burton, group interview I, p. 4) Burton’s team at the time was working out stylistic choices that felt to them more culturally familiar. As he points out, these culturally familiar styles led them to bring their own experience into debate, and to understand how the theory they were using in debate related to their communities. Performance debate thus does what I think Ogbu’s schools should do: instead of blaming involuntary minorities’ culture for lack of achievement, they should recognize the full historical and cultural depths of the problem. A mismatch between white ways of schooling and the culture of African American children, a mismatch that devalues the children and their culture, is a profound problem not to be explained away by the existence of often successful voluntary minorities. While I do reject what I see as Ogbu’s overgeneralization, if it were true that even some African American students reject schooling (or debate) as white spaces, perhaps we should consider this situation carefully rather than reject it as unlike the often-effective instrumental responses of voluntary minorities. Instead of idealizing dominant white ways of being in schools, we could investigate some African American students’ responses to those white ways as critique, as critical resistance, rather than as an automatic and counterproductive reactivity. Indeed, Yosso suggests that resistant capital is a feature of African American cultural wealth: “Resistant capital refers to those knowledges and skills fostered through oppositional behavior that challenges inequality” (Yosso, 2005, p. 80). Ogbu sometimes seemed to write as if the problems faced by involuntary minority students in schools were all in their or their parents’ heads; what if they were, instead, contemporary examples of structural racism? 35 - 36 - Advantage 2- harassment 37 -Debate is patriarchal- womyn quit, causing performance gaps that create a cycle of marginalization. 38 -New Evidence on Gender Disparities in Competitive High School Lincoln-Douglas Debate BY DANIEL TARTAKOVSKY, http://vbriefly.com/2016/05/15/new-evidence-on-gender-disparities-in-competitive-high-school-lincoln-douglas-debate/ 39 -Table 1 reports summary statistics for men and women separately. There are three key take-aways. First, men comprise about 60 of the competitors and an even higher fraction of total observations. On average men in the database compete in 42 preliminary rounds while women compete in about 35. Second, men win a higher fraction of debates: There is a 3.7 percentage point male-female win gap in preliminary rounds. Finally, the performance gap in elimination rounds is even larger. Men are 12 percentage points more likely to win an elimination round than women. These differences are all statistically significant (see Table 1). Table 1. Summary Statistics: Performance of National Circuit Lincoln Douglas Debaters by Gender DT Table 1 Note: Table 1 reports summary statistics for high school Lincoln Douglas debate tournament results on Tabroom.com. The unit of observation is an individual. a The total number of identifiable unique competitors (those whose genders are either labeled or can be inferred using Census data) is 4,666. b Restricted to National Circuit tournaments with 6 preliminary rounds. c Speaker points are generally awarded on a scale of 0-30; in practice, the scale is about 25-30, with 27.5-28 being an average varsity debater. Standard errors in parentheses. Source: Tabroom.com National Circuit Lincoln Douglas Debate competition results for a sample of 89 tournaments spanning the 2011-12 to 2015-16 seasons. See Appendix C for list of tournaments. Are Women Leaving the Activity? One explanation for differential performance may be that women are less likely to continue debating for all four years of high school. If male debaters are more likely than female debaters to persist in the activity, all else being equal they will accumulate more experience and perform better. Two data points suggest that this is the case. First, the average graduation year for men is about 2 months earlier than than for women. Moreover, 46 of current high school freshmen are female compared to only 33 of those who graduated high school in 2015. However, this statistic could be misleading: If more women have begun competing in Lincoln-Douglas debate over the last few years, we would expect there to be relatively more young female debaters even absent differential attrition. To resolve this issue, I restrict the sample to the cohort of debaters graduating from high school in 2016. I then calculate a “participation gap,” defined as the difference between fraction of male and female debaters who, conditional on having debated as sophomores, also debate as juniors and as seniors. Table 2 shows that women who debated in at least one tournament as sophomores are about 2.5 percentage points less likely than men to debate as juniors. However, the participation gap does not seem to grow from junior to senior year. There is thus some evidence that women are more likely to quit National Circuit Lincoln-Douglas debate than men 40 -why does this happen? Sexual harassment is a huge part of the problem- we all know this happens. Its underreported and exclusionary practices are almost never checked. Here’s a narrative explaining the problem- 41 -Allison Pickett, SAID, SHE SAID, GENDER ISSUES IN LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE, https://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/ldPickett20and20Scott0202.pdf 42 -In the fall of 1994, my debate career nearly ended as quickly as it had begun. Lord knows I was already nervous enough as I stood outside the classroom, waiting for my very first debate round to begin. Never mind the fact that I had three (!) more to do before I could go home and cry, the only thing I could imagine doing after what promised to be one of the most mortifying days of my life. (Yes, ladies and gentlemen, I think I may have had a self-confidence problem.) I was on the brink of emotional meltdown—and then, it happened… Whew! Hey baby, what’s your name? I need your number. And so it went. For twenty minutes outside the room and then throughout the entire round. No, you can’t be a freshman, you’ve gotta be a junior—or even my judge…where did you get those eyes? Aw, honey, don’t be scared, I’m just going to ask you a few easy questions. Could I really cross-examine someone with such beautiful eyes as yours? Did I mention the starring, perhaps better termed leering? I’m not kidding; I was ready to quit debate forever after round one. Luckily, I didn’t, and I learned a few things along the way: Gender in debate rounds was usually subtle, but often important. A seemingly clear concept became anything but in assessing what to wear, how to talk, what to say, whom to imitate… For some people, the choice of a skirt versus pants in the morning was decided on a whim; for me, and for many of my fellow female debaters, what to wear was inevitably a decision about my image as a young woman as well. Makeup or not and how much became more of an issue than I had ever thought it could be. And there was always that question in the back of my head: Am I a debater who happens to be a girl, or am I a girl who happens to be a debater? 43 -Thus-Use the aff to reject this-our advocacy protects the positive ability for womyn to speak in the space, and recognizes that this entails prohibiting harassment. The 44 -CEDA constitution . "Section 1: The Nature of the Academic Debate Community." CONSTITUTION OF THE CROSS EXAMINATION DEBATE ASSOCIATION ARTICLE I: THE ORGANIZATION (n.d.): n. pag. Mar. 2016. Web. 45 -It does not provide a license for bigotry in the form of demeaning, discriminatory speech actions and it does not tolerate sexual harassment. Any member of this community who is threatened by discrimination or harassment is liable to be harmed in mind, body or performance and is denied the guarantee of an equal opportunity to work, learn and grow inherent in the above principles. In the debate community, the presentation of a reasoned or evidenced claim about a societal group that offends members of that group is to be distinguished from a gratuitous denigrating claim about, or addressed to, an individual or group such as those enumerated above. The former is bona fide academic behavior while the latter may demean, degrade or victimize in a discriminatory manner and, if so, undermines the above principles. Sexual harassment is a form of discrimination and consists of verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, imposed on the basis of sex, that has the effect of denying or limiting one's right to participate in the activity, or creates a hostile, intimidating or offensive environment that places the victim in an untenable situation and/or diminishes the victim's opportunity to participate fairly. Sexual conduct can become discriminatory and harassing when the nature of the interaction is unwelcome, or when a pattern of behavior that is offensive to a "reasonable woman" exists. Discrimination or harassment by one person against another is particularly abhorrent when the first person is in a position of power with respect to the second. 46 - 47 - 48 -Advantage 3- attire 49 -1st- Cross apply the second CEDA card- arbitrary, non-argumentative factors like dress is a protected speech that is granted by the CEDA constitution 50 -2nd- formal and informal dress codes function as a method of oppression within debate- female debaters are harmed. Additionally, they create a fucked up environments where dressing in accordance to ones identity risks backlash from conservative judges, while not doing so opens one up to an increase in micro-aggressions. 51 -ZHOU The Sexism of School Dress Codes These policies can perpetuate discrimination against female students, as well as LGBT students. Alfaguarilla / Shutterstock LI ZHOU OCT 20, 2015, http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/10/school-dress-codes-are-problematic/410962/ 52 -Maggie Sunseri was a middle-school student in Versailles, Kentucky, when she first noticed a major difference in the way her school’s dress code treated males and females. Girls arewere disciplined disproportionately, she says, a trend she’s seen continue over the years. At first Sunseri simply found this disparity unfair, but upon realizing administrators’ troubling rationale behind the dress code—that certain articles of girls’ attire should be prohibited because they “distract” boys—she decided to take action. “I’ve never seen a boy called out for his attire even though they also break the rules,” says Sunseri, who last summer produced Shame: A Documentary on School Dress Code, a film featuring interviews with dozens of her classmates and her school principal, that explores the negative impact biased rules can have on girls’ confidence and sense of self. The documentary now has tens of thousands of YouTube views, while a post about the dress-code policy at her high school—Woodford County High—has been circulated more than 45,000 times on the Internet. Although dress codes have long been a subject of contention, the growth of platforms like Facebook and Instagram, along with a resurgence of student activism, has prompted a major uptick in protests against attire rules, including popular campaigns similar to the one championed by Sunseri. Conflict over these policies has also spawned hundreds of Change.org petitions and numerous school walkouts. Many of these protests have criticized the dress codes as sexist in that they unfairly target girls by body-shaming and blaming them for promoting sexual harassment. Documented cases show female students being chastised by school officials, sent home, or barred from attending events like prom. Meanwhile, gender non-conforming and transgender students have also clashed with such policies on the grounds that they rigidly dictate how kids express their identities. Transgender students have been sent home for wearing clothing different than what’s expected of their legal sex, while others have been excluded from yearbooks. Male students, using traditionally female accessories that fell within the bounds of standard dress code rules, and vice versa, have been nonetheless disciplined for their fashion choices. These cases are prompting their own backlash. Dress codes—given the power they entrust school authorities to regulate student identity—can, according to students, ultimately establish discriminatory standards as the norm. The prevalence and convergence of today’s protests suggest that schools not only need to update their policies—they also have to recognize and address the latent biases that go into creating them. * * * At Woodford County High, the dress code bans skirts and shorts that fall higher than the knee and shirts that extend below the collarbone. Recently, a photo of a female student at the school who was sent home after wearing a seemingly appropriate outfit that nonetheless showed collarbone—went viral on Reddit and Twitter. Posted by Stacie Dunn on Thursday, August 13, 2015 The restrictions and severity of dress codes vary widely across states, 22 of which have some form of law granting local districts the power to establish these rules, according to the Education Commission of the States. In the U.S., over half of public schools have a dress code, which frequently outline gender-specific policies. Some administrators see these distinctions as necessary because of the different ways in which girls and boys dress. In many cases, however, female-specific policies account for a disproportionate number of the attire rules included in school handbooks. Certain parts of Arkansas’s statewide dress code, for example, exclusively applies to females.* Passed in 2011, the law “requires districts to prohibit the wearing of clothing that exposes underwear, buttocks, or the breast of a female student.” (The provision prohibiting exposure of the "underwear and buttocks" applies to all students.) Depending on administrators and school boards, some places are more relaxed, while others take a hard line. Policies also tend to fluctuate, according to the University of Maryland American-studies professor and fashion historian Jo Paoletti, who described dress-code adaptations as very “reactionary” to whatever happens to be popular at the time—whether it’s white go-go boots or yoga pants. Jere Hochman, the superintendent of New York’s Bedford Central School District echoes Paoletti in explaining that officials revisit his district’s policy, which has been in place “for years and years and years,” “on an informal basis.” “It’s likely an annual conversation, he notes, “based on the times and what’s changed and fads.” While research on dress codes remains inconclusive regarding the correlation between their implementation with students’ academic outcomes, many educators agree that they can serve an important purpose: helping insure a safe and comfortable learning environment, banning T-shirts with offensive racial epithets, for example. When students break the rules by wearing something deemed inappropriate, administrators must, of course, enforce school policies. The process of defining what’s considered “offensive” and “inappropriate,” however, can get quite murky. Schools may promote prejudiced policies, even if those biases are unintentional. For students who attend schools with particularly harsh rules like that at Woodford, one of the key concerns is the implication that women should be hypercognizant about their physical identity and how the world responds to it. “The dress code makes girls feel self-conscious, ashamed, and uncomfortable in their own bodies,” says Sunseri. Yet Sunseri emphasizes that this isn’t where she and other students take the most issue. “It's not really the formal dress code by itself that is so discriminatory, it’s the message behind the dress code,” she says, “My principal constantly says that the main reason for it is to create a ‘distraction-free learning zone’ for our male counterparts.” Woodford County is one of many districts across the country to justify female-specific rules with that logic, and effectively, to place the onus on girls to prevent inappropriate reactions from their male classmates. (Woodford County High has not responded to multiple requests for comment.) “These are not girls who are battling for the right to come to school in their bikinis—it’s a principle.” “To me, that’s not a girl’s problem, that’s a guy’s problem,” says Anna Huffman, who recently graduated from Western Alamance High School in Elon, North Carolina, and helped organize a protest involving hundreds of participants. Further north, a group of high-school girls from South Orange, New Jersey, similarly launched a campaign last fall, #IAmMoreThanADistraction, which exploded into a trending topic on Twitter and gleaned thousands of responses from girls sharing their own experiences. Educators and sociologists, too, have argued that dress codes grounded in such logic amplify a broader societal expectation: that women are the ones who need to protect themselves from unwanted attention and that those wearing what could be considered sexy clothing are “asking for” a response. “Often they report hearing phrases like, ‘boys will be boys,’ from teachers,” says Laura Bates, a co-founder of The Everyday Sexism Project. “There’s a real culture being built up through some of these dress codes where girls are receiving very clear messages that male behavior, male entitlement to your body in public space is socially acceptable, but you will be punished. 53 -Since yall aren’t gonna engage the aff, heres the underview - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-04 15:25:05.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -William Ponder - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood RS I think - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -33 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -North Crowley Reed Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4-CEDA AC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Collyville
- Caselist.CitesClass[29]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,53 +1,0 @@ 1 -Part one is framework- 2 -First, I value morality derived of ought in the resolution- any other value is infinitely regressive as we can always ask why that value matters 3 -Second, In a democratic society our principles of justice must be based on the idea that all citizens are free and equal moral persons because basic equality is a necessary condition for democratic citizenship. Thus, only what citizens would rationally will from a shared point of view, called the original position, can be just because it is the only mechanism that respects citizens as free and equal. 4 - 5 -Samuel Freeman Avalon Professor in the Humanities at The University of Pennsylvania. Justice and the Social Contract: Essays on Rawlsian Political Philosophy. Oxford University Press. New York, NY. 2007. 40-42 6 - 7 -Agreement from the original position serves this role; it is a procedural interpretation of practical reason in matters of justice (CP, 345–46; TJ, 256/226 rev.) or, more exactly, of a conception of persons as both reasonable and rational. Since this procedure is designed to model the moral powers,51 the content of the principles chosen from that point of view will be determined by these reasoning capacities and the conception of the person to which they give rise (CP, 303, 306).52 In this sense, moral principles are constructed on the basis of reason.¶ The objectivity that Rawls ascribes to his of these principles rests on his claim that they would be willed and agreed to from a shared point of view, which is objective in that everyone abstracts from their particular (subjective) aims, beliefs, and perspectives to view society on an equal footing (TJ, 516–19/452–55 rev.). This conception of objectivity is practical, as opposed to theoretical, in the following sense: Rawls's claim is not that, being impartially situated, we all have a clear, undistorted view that allows us to make true judgments about a prior and independent moral order. In constructivism, Rawls says, there is no order of moral facts, prior to human reasoning, for our moral judgments to be true of (CP, 354). This does not mean that Rawls one must deny that a prior order of moral facts or principles can exist rather, for that metaphysical commitment would conflict with his the practical aim. Rather, it means that if there is such an order, it is not because certain principles are true of it that we are bound, as democratic citizens, to follow them. What commits us, as citizens, to these principles is that they are most reasonable for us (CP, 340), in that they best accord with our capacities for practical reasoning in the circumstances of a democratic society. The conception of objectivity that informs this claim is practical, since the shared point of view from which we would agree to these principles is designed not to give us privileged access to a prior moral order but to represent our powers of practical reasoning in a way appropriate to our democratic conception of ourselves as free and equal.53 8 - 9 - 10 -And, The shared point-of-view necessary for rational agreement is represented by the original position, the idea that citizens can imagine themselves behind a veil of ignorance. This is a thought experiment that lets us understand equality- behind the veil citizens would not know whether they were rich or poor, their gender, their race, or any other contingent fact about their place in society, and so would be represented purely as free and equal. And, that also means it is the only system that has no risk of bias and so is not arbitrary decision-making. Preventing arbitrariness is a prerequisite to any framework because morality serves to guide action so it must prevent arbitrariness that contradicts rationally adopted rules and undermines any moral code. 11 - 12 -And, behind the veil, citizens would design a system that benefitted the least advantaged because 1) diminishing marginal utility dictates that helping the most advantaged provides less utility than the least advantaged. This is why giving a dollar to a homeless person would probably make them happier than giving a dollar to a billionaire; already having goods makes each additional good less valuable. 2) People are risk-averse, meaning that they would avoid risks of occupying the worst social position, but this would ensure reasonable treatment regardless. 13 - 14 - 15 -Therefore, in order to rectify the arbitrary disadvantages of the natural lottery, we must adopt a principle of equality of opportunity. 16 - 17 -Danny Scoccia prof of phil, NM State. " Rawls, The Difference Principle, and Equality of Opportunity." http://web.nmsu.edu/~dscoccia/320web/320RawlsDP.pdf 18 - 19 -The basic motivation behind the equality of opportunity (EO) principle is this: if you can walk into a nursery and correctly make statistical predictions like “this baby because of his skin color and/or his family’s socioeconomic status is likely to make $20,000 per year less when he grows up than that baby over there,” then the society in which such predictions can be made is unjust and ought to be changed so that such predictions are no longer true of it. Equality of opportunity attempts to mitigates the effects of social caste. It requires a legal ban on racist/sexist hiring and promotion practices in the private sector, as well as state efforts to improve the educational opportunities of the poor by providing free public education, Head Start programs, etc. Equality of opportunity and does not forbid inequalities in wealth and power that are due to people's free choices. Suppose that I’m poor because I've chosen not to make the sacrifices necessary to develop highly marketable labor skills (I dropped out of the public high school because it bored me), or because I frittered away my inheritance from my grandmother playing Internet blackjack. You, on the other hand, have a large stock portfolio and a high paying job because you've saved and made sacrifices. EO as usually understood implies that there is no injustice in the inequality between us. I deserve my poverty and you your wealth, because they are due entirely to our choices. It is only some inequalities of outcome that equality of opportunity condemns, namely, the undeserved ones that are due to unequal opportunity. 20 - 21 - 22 -Thus, the standard is ensuring equality of opportunity. This implies that our primary moral consideration should be the less well off, namely, the global poor, as we don’t choose where we are born, thus we have equivalent obligations to all. 23 -Prefer the standard for 2 additional reasons: 24 - 25 -First, people are moral equals unless a morally relevant distinction exists because no characteristics exist to differentiate them, so the results of the natural lottery shouldn’t arbitrarily disadvantage some people over others, which requires equality of opportunity. 26 - 27 -Second, people born with disadvantages are subject to external pressures that affect the choices they have, which destroys their autonomy because they don’t have free reign over their own lives, which outweighs any individual violation on magnitude. And, autonomy is a prerequisite to moral theorizing because free will is responsible for the judgment of principles and commitment to a certain action. 28 - 29 -Part two is the contention 30 -Contention one is trade bias- globalization will always help the poor more than the wealthy, ensuring a more equal society. This evidence is really good, its recent and takes into account all statistical outliers, the authors literally created new statistical methodologies to answer the question of who is helped most by globalization. Be highly skeptical of any evidence opposing it, especially if theirs comes from a newspaper. 31 - 32 -Fajgelbaum, Pablo D., and Amit K. Khandelwal. "Measuring the unequal gains from trade." The Quarterly Journal of Economics (2015): qjw013. https://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/akhandelwal/papers/mugft_FINAL.pdf 33 - 34 -Understanding the distributional impact of international trade is one of the central tasks pursued by international economists. A vast body of research has examined this question through the effect of trade on the distribution of earnings across workers (e.g., Stolper and Samuelson 1941). A second channel operates through the cost of living. It is well known that the consumption baskets of high- and low-income consumers look very different (e.g., Deaton and Muellbauer 1980b). International trade therefore has a distributional impact whenever it affects the relative price of goods that are consumed at different intensities by rich and poor consumers. For example, a trade-induced increase in the price of food has a stronger negative effect on low-income consumers, who typically have larger food expenditure shares than richer consumers. How important are the distributional effects of international trade through this expenditure channel? How do they vary across countries? Do they typically favor high- or low- income consumers? In this paper we develop a methodology to answer these questions. The approach is based on aggregate statistics and model parameters that can be estimated from readily available bilateral trade and production data. It can therefore be implemented across many countries and over time (…..) This paper develops a methodology to measure the distribution of welfare changes across hetero- geneous consumers through the expenditure channel for many countries over time. The approach has broad applicability as it is based on aggregate statistics and model parameters that can be estimated from readily available bilateral trade and production data. This is possible by using the AIDS demand structure which allows for non-homotheticities and has convenient aggregation properties. We estimate a non-homothetic gravity equation generated by the model to obtain the key parameters required by the approach, and identify the effect of trade on the distribution of welfare changes through counterfactual changes in trade costs. The estimated parameters suggest large differences in how trade affects individuals along the income distribution in different countries. The multi-sector analysis reveals that the gains from trade are typically biased towards the poor. This is because the poor tend to concentrate expenditures in sectors that are more traded, and because these sectors have lower price elasticities. Heterogeneity in the pro-poor bias of trade is driven, in part, by a country’s pattern of specialization relative to its trading partners. While our goal in this paper is to demonstrate the importance of demand heterogeneity across consumers for the distributional effects of trade, we believe that a promising avenue lies in integrat- ing this approach with a richer supply-side structure to measure jointly the impact of trade through both the expenditure and income channels across consumers. We leave this for future work. 35 - 36 -Contention two is global poverty rate- Free trade is great for the global poor, history proves 37 - Worstall, OCT 1, 2015 @ 07:06 AM 3,009 VIEWS Peek Inside The Billionaire Portfolio Of Trump’s Key Advisor If You're Anti-Poverty You Should Be Pro- Free Trade And Globalization Tim Worstall , CONTRIBUTOR, http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/10/01/if-youre-anti-poverty-you-should-be-pro-free-trade-and-globalisation/2/#352c5b4460d6 38 -The Minneapolis Fed has a little piece out making an argument that I’ve been stating for some time now. If you’re pro-poor, then you really should be vehemently pro- free trade and globalization. Because those are the two things that have led to the greatest reduction in poverty in the history of our species. Meaning, obviously, that they have been the two most effective things at reducing poverty across history. As to why this is it’s really very simply derived from the economics of Smith and Ricardo. The division and specialization of labor, along with the resultant trade in production, just is what economic growth consists of. Sure, there’s other things as well, but that’s still a very good description of what economic growth actually consists of. So, the more of this we do and the more people we do it with then the more economic growth there is. And given that someone gets to consume that greater production then obviously the less poverty there is. As they point out about recent historical experience: According to a World Bank Study, in the three decades between 1981 and 2010, the rate of extreme poverty in the developing world (subsisting on less than $1.25 per day) has gone down from more than one out of every two citizens to roughly one out of every five, all while the population of the developing world increased by 59 percent.8 This reduction in extreme poverty represents the single greatest decrease in material human deprivation in history. That’s a pretty good outcome from an economic policy and it’s why I support the process of globalization quite as much as I do. Absolute poverty, that peasant destitution, is something I regard as an abhorrence. Killing it off through economic growth I thus regard as not just desirable but a moral duty. OK, but there’s a problem with this, as the paper points out. For some policies will be good for one set of poor people, those absolutely poor out in the Great Big World, yet bad for another set of the poor, those who are the poor in the already rich societies. And this globalization and free trade mixture is exactly one of those policies that has this effect. Rising inequality in the rich nations is a logical result of adding those couple of billion low wage workers to the global economy. We could predict it would happen, theory tells us it should happen and it has happened: no one should be surprised about that. I’ve made clear around here a number of times that I both understand this point and also think that it’s a perfectly fair price to be paying. Yes, of course, that’s easy enough for me to say as I’ve not got to pay it. Although that’s not actually true either. Online writing is one of those things that does indeed face very high and hard competition from other parts of the world. Wages in this field have been falling substantially over these decades. No, not a complaint, it’s still well paid, thank you. But that the relatively lowly paid in the rich countries stand still for a bit while the absolutely poor of the world climb the economic ladder to the joys of three squares a day, yes, I think that a price well worth us all paying. For as the Fed says: A typical American in the lowest 5 percent of income (for America) has a higher income than 95 percent of Indians, 80 percent of Chinese and 50 percent of Brazilians. Another such statistic is that if you’re getting just that average SNAP or food stamps payment of $29 a week then you’re in the top 20 of all incomes world wide. Our poor, the rich world poor, are only relatively poor by our standards, they’re both absolutely and relatively rich by global and historical standards. Of course this justification only works if the two results are indeed from the same policy. And they are: Recommended by Forbes Facebook's Billion User Day And The Strange Death Of Globalisation We Can Think Of Globalisation As A Sort Of Keynesianism For The World IBMVoice: How Blockchain Could Help To Make The Food We Eat Safer... Around The World Increased Globalisation Explains Some Of The Increase In The US Profit Sha... US Inequality Not Caused By Soaring CEO Pay; Globalisation Instead MOST POPULAR Photos: The Richest Person In Every State +222,466 VIEWS iPhone 8 Leak Reveals Apple's Expensive Secrets MOST POPULAR Photos: The World's Highest-Paid Models 2016 MOST POPULAR Stan Lee Introduces Augmented Reality For His Kids Universe One possible cause of both trends has been the increase in international trade, which lessens the market value of less-skilled labor in developed countries while increasing its value in developing countries.9 If one uses a behind-the-veil criterion focused only on developed countries, then the increase in trade has made things worse. If instead one considers the entire world, then the trade increase has made the world phenomenally better. All of which is what I have myself been arguing. Where the Fed goes further is in the next step. Which is this: Consider the following highly stylized example: In a world with just two countries, one developed and the other poor, output is produced in each by a combination of skilled workers and unskilled workers. When they’re young, unskilled workers have the opportunity to become skilled by working with older, skilled workers. But imagine that young, unskilled workers can work with older, skilled workers from either country. In particular, assume that skilled, older workers (such as plant managers) from developed countries can train young, unskilled workers from developing countries. (Alternatively, imagine that young, unskilled workers from developing countries travel to developed countries to become educated and then return home as skilled workers.) When these young workers age, they in turn train future generations of young workers at home. Suppose further that in each country only some young workers are born with an innate ability to acquire skills, while others are born without that ability. Suppose also that young workers who have this ability must exert effort to acquire skills and therefore must be provided with appropriate incentives to do so. A rich-country policy to tax high incomes will redistribute income (within that country) from those with high innate abilities (and, by assumption, with the ability to become highly skilled) to those with lower innate abilities. In so doing, that policy will reduce inequality within the rich country, but it will also create disincentives there to becoming highly skilled and thereby reduce the global supply of skilled workers. This reduced supply of skilled workers from the developed country then reduces opportunities for young workers in the poor country to become skilled. Yes, it is highly stylized but that’s just to illustrate the point that they want to get across. It’s entirely possible that we could have some policy or other that makes our own, rich world , poor better off. But which at the same time makes the absolutely poor of the world worse off. And if we did have such a policy, and we were also concerned about the poor, then we shouldn’t have that policy. Even though it benefits our poor they’re not in fact all of the poor. And given where our poor are in the global income distribution then they’re almost certainly not the poor that we should be worrying about. There’s an obvious example of such a policy too: the US sugar regime deliberately keeps sugar grown by poor people in poor countries out of the US. To the benefit of some very small number of cane and beet farmers in the US and to the disbenefit of those poor farmers elsewhere. And, of course, to the cost of all US consumers. It would actually be a pro-poor policy simply to abolish this entire regime and throw the sugar market open to free trade. I would make the same argument about any import restriction upon trade in fact. For buying things made by poor people in poor countries is a remarkably, see above for proof, method of making poor people less poor. So, a pro-poor policy is one of free trade. 39 - 40 -And, globalization is a pre-requisate for the economic development of less wealthy nations. 41 -Vitez, Small BusinessFinances and TaxesFree Trade The Benefits of Free Trade for Developing Countries by Osmond Vitez, Chron, http://smallbusiness.chron.com/benefits-trade-developing-countries-3834.html 42 -Free trade is an economic practice whereby countries can import and export goods without fear of government intervention. Government intervention includes tariffs and import/export bans or limitations. Free trade offers several benefits to countries, especially those in the developing stage. "Developing countries" is a broad term. According to a widely used definition, a developing country is a nation with low levels of economic resources and/or low standard of living. Developing countries can often advance their economy through strategic free trade agreements. Ads by Google Top Franchises for 2017 Find Franchises for Sale. Be Your Own Boss - Connect Today! franchise.com Increased Resources Developing countries can benefit from free trade by increasing their amount of or access to economic resources. Nations usually have limited economic resources. Economic resources include land, labor and capital. Land represents the natural resources found within a nationandrsquo;s borders. Small developing nations often have the lowest amounts of natural resources in the economic marketplace. Free trade agreements ensure small nations can obtain the economic resources needed to produce consumer goods or services. Improved Quality of Life Free trade usually improves the quality of life for a nationandrsquo;s citizens. Nations can import goods that are not readily available within their borders. Importing goods may be cheaper for a developing country than attempting to produce consumer goods or services within their borders. Many developing nations do not have the production processes available for converting raw materials into valuable consumer goods. Developing countries with friendly neighbors may also be able to import goods more often. Importing from neighboring countries ensures a constant flow of goods that are readily available for consumption. Better Foreign Relations Better foreign relations is usually an unintended result of free trade. Developing nations are often subject to international threats. Developing strategic free trade relations with more powerful countries can help ensure a developing nation has additional protection from international threats. Developing countries can also use free trade agreements to improve their military strength and their internal infrastructure, as well as to improve politically. This unintended benefit allows developing countries to learn how they should govern their economy and what types of government policies can best benefit their people. Production Efficiency Developing countries can use free trade to improve their production efficiency. Most nations are capable of producing some type of goods or service. However, a lack of knowledge or proper resources can make production inefficient or ineffective. Free trade allows developing countries to fill in the gaps regarding their production processes. Individual citizens may also visit foreign countries to increase education or experience in specific production or business methods. These individuals can then bring back crucial information about improving the nationandrsquo;s production processes. 43 -Contention three is existence- globalization key to promoting peace that is needed for poor countries to exist in the first place. 44 -Vitez, Small BusinessFinances and TaxesFree Trade The Benefits of Free Trade for Developing Countries by Osmond Vitez, Chron, http://smallbusiness.chron.com/benefits-trade-developing-countries-3834.html 45 -Many developing nations do not have the production processes available for converting raw materials into valuable consumer goods. Developing countries with friendly neighbors may also be able to import goods more often. Importing from neighboring countries ensures a constant flow of goods that are readily available for consumption. Better Foreign Relations Better foreign relations is usually an unintended result of free trade. Developing nations are often subject to international threats. Developing strategic free trade relations with more powerful countries can help ensure a developing nation has additional protection from international threats. Developing countries can also use free trade agreements to improve their military strength and their internal infrastructure, as well as to improve politically. This unintended benefit allows developing countries to learn how they should govern their economy and what types of government policies can best benefit their people. Production Efficiency Developing countries can use free trade to improve their production efficiency. Most nations are capable of producing some type of goods or service. However, a lack of knowledge or proper resources can make production inefficient or ineffective. Free trade allows developing countries to fill in the gaps regarding their production processes. Individual citizens may also visit foreign countries to increase education or experience in specific production or business methods. These individuals can then bring back crucial information about improving the nationandrsquo;s production processes. 46 - 47 - 48 -Part three is observations- 49 -1. the resolution sets up a clear burden structure; the affirmative must advocate that we should prefer globalization over protectionism. This means that the neg has the inverse burden; they must prove that we should value protectionism over globalization. Just proving that globalization is bad is insufficient, because it may still be better than protectionism. 50 - 51 -2. Protectionism is really bad- it promotes fascist tendencies, leading to a collapse into genocide and world war 52 -Williams BERENBERG: Politics right now 'evokes memories of the dreadful 1930s' Oscar Williams-Grut Nov. 14, 2016, 5:57 AM 6,967, http://www.businessinsider.com/berenberg-similarities-trump-brexit-1930s-protectionism-populism-nationalism-2016-1 53 -The private German bank Berenberg believes that "some aspects of Donald Trump's successful election campaign evoke memories of the dreadful 1930s." The bank's chief economist, Holger Schmieding, said in a note sent out on Monday, "After the Brexit vote and the triumph of Trump, the echo of the early 1930s sounds a little less faint than it did before." Schmieding highlights populism, rising protectionism and nationalism, isolationism, and the erosion of the political middle ground as key features of both the current political climate and the 1930s. "Populist" leaders — including the dictators Hitler and Mussolini — came to power across Europe in the 1930s with promises to restore glory and honour to their countries, often blaming individual races - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-11 16:28:27.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -IDK - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -IDK - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -34 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -North Crowley Reed Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -UIL- Rawls AC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Grandview
- Caselist.RoundClass[29]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -24 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-16 22:18:16.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Kris Wright - OpenSource
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -https://hsld.debatecoaches.org/download/North+Crowley/Reed+Aff/North%20Crowley-Reed-Aff-Strake%20Jesuit-Round2.docx - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Prosper ZE - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Nc was-Decedence DA K and AC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Strake Jesuit
- Caselist.RoundClass[30]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -25 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-07 03:37:45.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Courtney DeVore - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Elkens MP - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -SV NC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Winston Churchill
- Caselist.RoundClass[31]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -26 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-13 22:46:00.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -uh idk shes a FW judge - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -American Heritage KK - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -hate speech NC slow round - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Sunvite
- Caselist.RoundClass[32]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -27 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-31 15:08:14.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -IDK - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Southlake - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -9 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Hate speech NC framework and weighing - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Flomo
- Caselist.RoundClass[33]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -28 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-04 15:25:02.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -William Ponder - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood RS I think - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -T theory and K - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Collyville
- Caselist.RoundClass[34]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -29 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-11 16:28:23.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -IDK - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -IDK - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Stock nc - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Grandview
- Caselist.RoundClass[35]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-19 04:23:52.135 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Policy dude - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -lmao - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Stock NC I can't believe i got to read this 4 times at a smalllllll oil tournament Thank god for old school policy judges who do ld judging - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Grandview