Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[52]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[53]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[52]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-12-19 05:17:46.548
	1	+2016-12-19 05:17:46.0

Caselist.CitesClass[53]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,26 @@
	1	+===Plan Text===
	2	+
	3	+
	4	+====Thus, the counterplan: "~~Aff plan text~~ except for hate speech, which they should limit."====
	5	+**Uelmen**, Gerald. American attorney, writer, civil servant, and academic. November 15, 1990. "A pro-con discussion of speech codes and free speech," Santa Clara University. https://www.scu.edu/character/resources/campus-hate-speech-codes/.
	6	+Discriminatory harassment includes conduct (oral, written, graphic or physical) directed against
	7	+AND
	8	+can ignore public law rulings and draft whatever hate speech policy it chooses.
	9	+
	10	+
	11	+===Competition===
	12	+
	13	+
	14	+====The CP is mutually exclusive to the Aff – the AC endorses not limiting hate speech, while the CP does – either you limit it or you don't, but you can't do both, so the CP is functionally competitive with the Aff.====
	15	+
	16	+
	17	+===Solvency===
	18	+
	19	+
	20	+====The CP solves case – none of your offense is reliant on you not limiting hate speech – if we do the CP, we still get literally 100 of the AC offense.====
	21	+
	22	+
	23	+===Net Benefits===
	24	+
	25	+
	26	+====The net benefit of the CP is the disad – the CP doesn't link into the disad, while the Aff does, so that's a reason why colleges should limit hate speech compared to the 0 reasons Aff gave why we shouldn't limit.====

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-12-19 05:17:47.119

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Michael Harris

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Brentwood ELi

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+28

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+North Hollywood Stern Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+JANFEB Hate Speech PIC

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+College Prep