| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,30 @@ |
|
1 |
+===Plan Text=== |
|
2 |
+ |
|
3 |
+ |
|
4 |
+====Thus, I propose: "~~Aff plan text~~ except for racist hate speech, which they should restrict."==== |
|
5 |
+Kaplin, William A. Professor of Law, Catholic University of America. 1992. "Hate Speech on the College Campus: Freedom of Speech and Equality at the Crossroads," Winston Howard Lecture, Land and Water Law Review. |
|
6 |
+Sixth, a university might be able to regulate certain types of hate speech that |
|
7 |
+AND |
|
8 |
+regulations could provide sanctions against student organizations as well as against individual students. |
|
9 |
+ |
|
10 |
+ |
|
11 |
+===Competition=== |
|
12 |
+ |
|
13 |
+ |
|
14 |
+====The CP is mutually exclusive to the Aff – either way you don't limit Constitutionally protected speech other than racist speech, but either you do or you don't restrict hate speech – you can't do both – as a perm would imply.==== |
|
15 |
+ |
|
16 |
+ |
|
17 |
+===Solvency=== |
|
18 |
+ |
|
19 |
+ |
|
20 |
+====The CP solves 100 of case – they gave no reasons as to why racist speech is good – at best they can go for discourse, but 1) the disad outweighs, so the CP is still better, and 2) turn - racist speech doesn't have any discursive value – no reasons why we it's key to their Aff, but racist speech actually harms discourse. That means that even without winning net benefits, you vote Neg on the CP because I solve case better than they do.==== |
|
21 |
+Byrne, Peter J. Professor, Georgetown University Law Center. 1991. "Racial Insults and Free Speech Within the University," Georgetown University Law Journal, Vol. 79. |
|
22 |
+What constitutional status can racial insults claim in society at large? At first blush |
|
23 |
+AND |
|
24 |
+issues to that of the least reflective and constructive members of the community. |
|
25 |
+ |
|
26 |
+ |
|
27 |
+===Net Benefits=== |
|
28 |
+ |
|
29 |
+ |
|
30 |
+====The net benefits are 1) the disad, and 2) the fact that I solve case better than they do.==== |