Summary

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

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[53]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,26 +1,0 @@
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

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-2016-12-19 05:17:47.0

Judge

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

Opponent

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

ParentRound

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

Round

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

Team

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

Title

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

Tournament

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