Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[50]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[59]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[50]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-01-28 01:31:48.324
	1	+2017-01-28 01:31:48.0

Caselist.CitesClass[59]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,43 @@
	1	+I negate
	2	+Presume neg
	3	+Negate means to deny the truth of, thus if theres no obligation to vote aff I’ve met my burden
	4	+Substantive presumption comes first- it means I’ve met my burden so there’s no reason to presume
	5	+Ought is to mean an obligation so permissibility negates as it’s the aff’s resolutional burden to prove an obligation
	6	+
	7	+I value justice- the normative function of institutional ethics is to promote justice within the institution
	8	+
	9	+Ethics devolve to the individual perspective since people constantly gain new knowledge, making their perspective the most indicative of truth.
	10	+
	11	+Anker, (Michael Anker, PhD Dissertation “The Ethics of Uncertainty: Aporetic Openings”, Atropos Press, 2009. Pg 25)
	12	+
	13	+As mentioned and affirmed, all things (concepts, words, objects, subjects, etc.) are in a state of becoming. Gaining knowledge or insight into any of these particulars thus entails an unstable terrain. If some-thing is constantly in a state of also becoming some-thing other, there is no stable ground for absolute knowledge and judgment. Furthermore, and to complicate matters even more so, it is not only the object being considered that exists in a state of transformation, but also the “subject” doing the interpretation. What we have left is a thoroughly perspectival (Nietzsche) relation to viewing and interpreting what we see and know of this world. By affirming this, knowledge becomes not a ground or an end in itself, but the means for a continual perspectival shifting. Perspectivism, as a thoroughly ungrounded and continuously shifting mode of interpretation, furthermore affirms the uncertainty of an indeterminate subject, object, and conceptual becoming.
	14	+
	15	+And, disagreement plagues objectivist systems of justice since there’s no way to resolve differences, so evaluation devolves to the first person.
	16	+
	17	+McGrath, (Sarah McGrath, Moral Disagreement and Moral Expertise, http://www.princeton.edu/~smcgrath/moraldisagreement.pdf)
	18	+
	19	+In some ways, moral disagreement seems to parallel the diversity of opinion as color to which shade of green is unique green. Unique green is that shade of green that is neither bluish nor yellowish. When asked to select the a particular shade shade which is unique green, different subjects with normal color vision will select different shades. As in the case of our controversial moral views, opinion about which shade is unique green not only fails to be unanimous, but is substantially divided. Perhaps if there were relatively widespread agreement as to which shade is unique green, then the dissenting judgments of a few who possessed otherwise normal color vision could be dismissed. But the fact that the actual division of opinion is substantial suggests that human beings are not reliable detectors of the relevant property. That relevantly similar creatures—since creatures with the same type of visual system—arrive at different verdicts when similarly situated seems to show that that kind of creature is simply not well equipped to detect the presence or absence of the property in question. That human beings are not, as a species, reliable detectors of unique green seems to tell against crediting any individual with knowledge that a certain shade is unique green, particularly if the individual knows of this general lack of reliability and has no good reason to think that he is exceptional in this respect. Note that although questions about which shade of green is unique green are hard questions for human beings, such questions do not present themselves to us as difficult ones. In fact, most subjects are quite confident of their initial judgments; each person’s view strikes her as obviously correct. This seems parallel to the moral case: in the moral case too, many find that their own views about controversial moral questions strike them as obviously correct.
	20	+
	21	+In order to reconcile our subjective beliefs, we must look towards community desires. In a first person world, community is epistemologically most likely to be true and key to identity construction.
	22	+
	23	+Christiano, (Thomas Christiano. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Jul 27, 2006. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/democracy/#NonInsVal Democracy)
	24	+
	25	+Two kinds of in instrumental benefits are commonly attributed to democracy: relatively good laws and policies and improvements in the characters of the participants. John Stuart Mill argued that a democratic method of making legislation is better than non-democratic methods in three ways: strategically, epistemically and via the improvement of the characters of democratic citizens (Mill, 1861, Chapter 3). Strategically, democracy has an advantage because it forces decision-makers to take into account the interests, rights and opinions of most people in society. Since democracy gives some political power to each more people are taken into account than under aristocracy or monarchy. The most forceful contemporary statement of this instrumental argument is provided by Amartya Sen, who argues, for example, that “no substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent country with a democratic form of government and a relatively free press” (Sen 1999, 152). The basis of this argument is that politicians in a multiparty democracy with free elections and a free press have incentives to respond to the expressions of needs of the poor. Epistemologically, democracy is thought to be the best decision-making method on the grounds that it is generally more reliable in helping participants discover the right decisions. Since democracy brings a lot of people into the process of decision making, it can take advantage of many sources of information and critical assessment of laws and policies. Democratic decision-making tends to be more informed than other forms about the interests of citizens and the causal mechanisms necessary to advance those interests. Furthermore, the broad based discussion typical of democracy enhances the critical assessment of the different moral ideas that guide decision-makers. Many have endorsed democracy on the basis of the proposition that democracy has beneficial effects on character. Many have noted with Mill and Rousseau that democracy tends to make people stand up for themselves more than other forms of rule do because it makes collective decisions depend on them more than monarchy or aristocracy do. Hence, in democratic societies individuals are encouraged to be more autonomous. In addition, democracy tends to get people to think carefully and rationally more than other forms of rule because it makes a difference whether they do or not. Finally, some have argued that democracy tends to enhance the moral qualities of citizens. In Addition When they participate in making decisions, they have to listen to others, they are called upon to justify themselves to others and they are forced to think in part in terms of the interests of others. Some have argued that when people find themselves in this kind of circumstance, they come genuinely to think in terms of the common good and justice. Hence, some have argued that democratic processes tend to enhance the autonomy, rationality and morality of participants. Since these beneficial effects are thought to be worthwhile in themselves, they count in favor of democracy and against other forms of rule (Mill 1861, p. 74, Elster 2002, p. 152).Some argue in addition that the above effects on character tend to enhance the quality of legislation as well. A society of autonomous, rational, and moral decision-makers Democracy is more likely to produce good legislation than a society ruled by a self-centered person or small group of persons who rule over slavish and unreflective subjects.
	26	+
	27	+
	28	+
	29	+The US is a federal republic defined as “a state in which power rests with the people or their representatives” (CIA.gov), so the US definitionally ought to do what its people will, making it justified. This means not only that democracy is the only way to say what public institutions of the US should do in terms of justice, but also that any other ethical system would change the agent we are talking about, and is thus incoherent, so textually it precedes other justifications.
	30	+
	31	+Thus, the standard is consistency with communal norms, defined as looking towards what the within a community view on an issue.
	32	+And, this means that in colleges we should look to the majority opinion of students, as they form the community within colleges
	33	+Also-tyranny of the majority turns don’t apply- college attendance is voluntary
	34	+
	35	+Next- the offence:
	36	+Community norms means you negate- the majority of college students believe that certain constitutionally protected speech should be restricted.
	37	+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
	38	+Methodology sorry its tiny its like two pages long, ill disclose it of course 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.
	39	+Despite college students’ clear preference for an open environment, they are willing to restrict some speech — particularly speech that intentionally seeks to hurt or offend. Roughly two-thirds 69 of college students say colleges should be allowed to establish policies that restrict slurs and other language that is intentionally offensive to certain groups (69), as well as the wearing of costumes that stereotype certain racial or ethnic groups (63). However, college students mostly reject the idea that colleges should be able to restrict speech expressing political views that may upset or offend members of certain groups. Just 27 say colleges should be able to limit such speech, while 72 say they should not.
	40	+
	41	+
	42	+Prefer my evidence because
	43	+Counter studies are biased; Gallup conducted this poll to understanding the public’s opinion. Gallup is reputable and uses the best available methods-theres no ulterior motive in my evidence.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-01-28 01:31:51.22

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Old policy

Opponent

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

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+50

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+North Crowley Reed Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+4- Polls NC

Tournament

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