Changes for page Plano East Zhou Aff
Summary
-
Objects (1 modified, 0 added, 12 removed)
- Caselist.CitesClass[0]
- Caselist.CitesClass[1]
- Caselist.CitesClass[4]
- Caselist.CitesClass[5]
- Caselist.CitesClass[6]
- Caselist.RoundClass[0]
- Caselist.RoundClass[2]
- Caselist.RoundClass[5]
- Caselist.RoundClass[10]
- Caselist.RoundClass[11]
- Caselist.RoundClass[12]
- Caselist.RoundClass[13]
- Caselist.RoundClass[14]
Details
- Caselist.CitesClass[0]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,37 +1,96 @@ 1 -I value governmental obligation. According to the first definition of its entry in the Random-House Dictionary, ought is (auxiliary verb) 1. used to express duty or moral obligation: Every citizen ought to help. 2 -Prefer this definition on common usage. The Online Etymology Dictionary: ought (v.) Old AND the past subjunctive. 1 +I value morality – the evaluative term “ought” in the resolution implies an analysis of ethical obligation. 2 +The value criterion is promoting educational flourishing on university campuses – the judge should vote for the side who proposes the best method to prepare college students for the real world. 3 +There are three reasons to prefer my framework: 4 +First, actor specificity – analytic 5 +Second, topic literature - analytic 6 +Third, affirmative framework choice – analytic 3 3 4 -Obligations that bind the United States cannot stem from traditional ethical theories. Four warrants. 5 -ANALYTICS 8 +I advocate that the United States ought not restrict any written constitutionally protected speech. To clarify, this refers to any student-run press organizations and all books. 6 6 7 -Thus, the United States can only be obligated by a body that it has consented to and which has constitutive authority over it. The only entity with normative force is the Constitution. Six warrants. 8 -ANALYTICS 10 +==Inherency== 11 +The Hazelwood court case established a precedent that has been used to justify press restrictions on university campuses. 12 +Peters and Lomonte ‘13 – Jonathan Peters and Frank Lomonte. “College Journalists Need Free Speech More Than Ever.” The Atlantic. March 1st, 2013. https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/03/college-journalists-need-free-speech-more-than-ever/273634/ 13 +Even as college students and journalism programs are making more important contributions to independent reporting, the federal courts are curtailing First Amendment freedoms for students at public institutions. 14 +... 15 +That journalistic process can be challenging for students, but it engages students with the corresponding challenge of self-government, and with journalism's role in preserving democracy. 9 9 10 -Thus, the value criterion is minimizing violations of the United States Constitution. 17 +Extension of the Hazelwood decision would allow censorship to run rampant – currently, university administrators already attempt to restrict articles critical of them – without constitutional protection, watchdog journalism will die. 18 +Goodman and Hiestand ’05 – S. Mark Goodman, Michael C. Hiestand, Student Press Law Center. (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) Supreme Court of the United States. The Case of Hosty v. Carter. October 20, 2005. 19 +In contrast to many high school censorship incidents, public college administrators today are less likely to be successful in their efforts to restrict the student press. 20 +... 21 +Amici do not believe this Court intended the censorship of college and university student newspapers to be the legacy of Hazelwood. 11 11 12 -Plan Text: The United States ought to abolish qualified immunity for police officers. 23 +The vagueness of the guidelines imposed by Hosty, another Court decision, gives administrators unprecedented censorship power, threatening the very existence of the university press. In addition, these restrictions spill over – private university campuses base their speech codes on that of public universities. 24 +Lukianoff and Harris ‘05 – George Lukianoff. Samantha Harris. Foundation for Individual, Rights in Education. 2005. (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) Supreme Court of the United States. The Case of Hosty v. Carter. No. 05-377. October 19, 2005. 25 +Commentators from across the political spectrum, while often disagreeing on the source, the scale, and the cause of the chilling of free speech on campus, have described the current campus environment as one where the “marketplace of ideas” is under siege. 26 +... 27 +As FIRE co-founder Alan Charles Kors once said, “A nation that does not educate in freedom will not survive in freedom, and will not even know when it is lost.”20 13 13 14 -This will cause insurance and indemnification programs to fill the void. Kirby ’89 Qualified Immunity for Civil Rights Violations: Refining the Standard. Cornell L. Rev., 75, 461. Retrieved from http://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/clqv75andsection=23. (former Assistant United States Attorney) 15 -The most sweeping AND the first place 29 +==Contention 1 is Student Activism== 30 +Censorship of student journalism is horrible – it discourages intellectual inquiry and criticizing existing power structures. 31 +Schuman ’16 – Rebecca Schuman. “Student Journalists Are Under Threat.” Slate Magazine. December 8th, 2016. 32 +Well, here’s some great news to cheer you up: The American student press is under siege! 33 +... 34 +The last thing we need right now, in the creeping shadow of American authoritarianism, is an entire generation of fledgling journalists who’ve come up thinking censorship is acceptable. 16 16 17 -Advantage One is Gray Areas 18 -Because of qualified immunity, the Constitution is not being clarified and advanced. 19 -Black ’90 Black, H. A. (1990). Balance, Band-Aid, or Tourniquet: The Illusion of Qualified Immunity for Federal Officials. Wm. and Mary L. Rev., 32, 733. Retrieved from http://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/wmlr32andsection=25 (Professor of Law at University of Baltimore School of Law). 20 -Inhibition of Constitutional AND protecting constitutional rights 36 +An uncensored college press is key to student activism. 37 +Lomonte ’16 – Frank D. Lomonte. “NEWS RELEASE: Report spotlights threats to college press freedom, calls on nation's colleges to end retaliation against journalists and advisers.” Southern Poverty Law Center. December 1st, 2016. http://www.splc.org/article/2016/12/college-media-threats-report-2016 38 +Frank D. LoMonte, executive director of the SPLC, said, “It is hypocritical for colleges to claim they support civic engagement while defunding student news organizations, removing well-qualified faculty advisers, and otherwise intimidating journalists into compliance. 39 +... 40 +Their rights of free speech and free press must always be guaranteed.” 21 21 22 -However, police liability insurance promotes constitutional advancement. Rappaport ’16 Rappaport, J. (2016 II). How Private Insurers Regulate Public Police. U of Chicago, Public Law Working Paper, (562). Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2733783 (Assistant Professor of Law, The University of Chicago Law School). 23 -Second, and closely AND rules are broken 42 +Restrictions upon free speech silence movements for social progress. 43 +American Civil Liberties Union 1 – Nonprofit and Nonpartisan Non-Governmental Organization. Member dues as well as contributions and grants from private foundations and individuals pay for the work we do. Formed in 1920. ACLU, No Date. "Hate Speech on Campus." American Civil Liberties Union. 44 +A: Free speech rights are indivisible. Restricting the speech of one group or individual jeopardizes everyone's rights because the same laws or regulations used to silence bigots can be used to silence you. 45 +... 46 +"Keeping a few Nazis off the streets of Skokie will serve Jews poorly if it means that the freedoms to speak, publish or assemble any place in the United States are thereby weakened." 24 24 25 -Advantage Two is Police Accountability 26 -First, use of insurance companies reforms police conduct by forcing them to follow the constitution. 27 -Rappaport ’16 Ibid. 28 -There can be AND point still holds 48 +Speech codes have historically backfired. 49 +American Civil Liberties Union 2 Ibid. 50 +Historically, defamation laws or codes have proven ineffective at best and counter-productive at worst. 51 +... 52 +"I have always felt as a minority person that we have to protect the rights of all because if we infringe on the rights of any persons, we'll be next." 29 29 30 -And, implementation of insurance policies deters constitutional violations far better than qualified immunity can. 31 -Abraham ‘09 Rappaport, J. (2016 II). How Private Insurers Regulate Public Police. U of Chicago, Public Law Working Paper, (562). Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2733783 (Assistant Professor of Law, The University of Chicago Law School). 32 -Conversely, a version AND sick or injured 54 +==Contention 2 is Educational Growth== 33 33 34 -The Underview 35 -Don’t evaluate theoretical violations if they are unchecked in cross-examination ANALYTIC 36 -Err aff by giving me choice over theoretical paradigm issues such as but not limited to RVIs, drop the debater versus drop the arg and competing interps and reasonability ANALYTIC 37 -Don’t evaluate any 2NR weighing arguments on the procedural layer of the flow ANALYTIC 56 +Free speech restrictions create intellectual “echo-chambers” that severely decrease the value of a student’s education. 57 +Kelly-Woessner ‘16 – KELLY-WOESSNER, APRIL. (Woessner is a professor and chairwoman of the political science department at Elizabethtown College) "The Fierce Debate over Free Speech on American College Campuses." LancasterOnline. N.p., 18 Sept. 2016. Web. 10 Jan. 2017. http://lancasteronline.com/opinion/columnists/the-fierce-debate-over-free-speech-on-american-college-campuses/article_8c208d66-7b65-11e6-88de-d78bce73d4c3.html. Premier 58 +We are all uncomfortable with speech that challenges our core values. The evidence from social psychology is that we are becoming less open to disagreement. Our social networks have narrowed, such that they have fewer friends across party lines. 59 +... 60 +When we characterize disagreement and value conflicts as forms of aggression, or define discussion participants as victims or perpetrators, we only exacerbate group conflicts. 61 + 62 +And, the “fighting words” doctrine will address any instances of real harassment – speech codes aren’t necessary to create a safe learning environment. 63 +American Civil Liberties Union 3 64 +A: The U.S. Supreme Court did ruled in 1942, in a case called Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, that intimidating speech directed at a specific individual in a face-to-face confrontation amounts to "fighting words," 65 +... 66 +Over the past 50 years, however, the Court hasn't found the "fighting words" doctrine applicable in any of the hate speech cases that have come before it, since the incidents involved didn't meet the narrow criteria stated above. 67 + 68 +==Underview 1== 69 +Blaming societal problems on root cause factors trades off with solving individual acts of violence, cedes responsibility and perpetuates oppression. 70 +Kappeler ‘95 Susanne Kappeler, Associate Prof @ Al-Akhawayn University, The Will to Violence: The Politics of Personal Behavior, 1995, pg. 6-7 71 +This means engaging also with the discourses which construct violence as a phenomenon but obliterate the agent’s decision to violate. 72 +... 73 +It is so naturalized, in fact, that it is not violent action which attracts attention, but any resistance to it: leaving a violent relationship or situations of violence, resisting bullying, pressure and blackmail, refusing to fight back. 74 + 75 +Constant criticism without realistic proposals for reform perpetuates oppression and changes nothing – Structural violence is a material problem that needs materials solutions. Academic theorizing and critique does nothing for morally excluded individuals that need our help. If we are to create an effective liberation strategy, then debate must be a place for carpentry rather than critique. 76 +Bryant 12 — Levi R. Bryant, Professor of Philosophy at Collin College, holds a Ph.D. in Philosophy from Loyola University in Chicago, 2012 (“Underpants Gnomes: A Critique of the Academic Left,” Larval Subjects—Levi R. Bryant’s philosophy blog, November 11th, Available Online at http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/underpants-gnomes-a-critique-of-the-academic-left/, Accessed 02-21-2014) 77 +I must be in a mood today–half irritated, half amused–because I find myself ranting. saying “revolution is the answer!” without addressing any of the infrastructural questions of just how revolution is to be produced, what alternatives it would offer, and how we would concretely go about building those alternatives. 78 +... 79 +Even the Tea Party knows something is wrong with the economic system, despite having the wrong economic theory. None of us, however, are proposing alternatives. Instead we prefer to shout and denounce. Good luck with that. 80 + 81 +Specific evidence is more accurate than broad root cause explanations. 82 +Price ’98 - Richard Price is a former prof in the Department of Anthropology at Yale University. Later, he moved to Johns Hopkins University to found the Department of Anthropology, where he served three terms as chair. A decade of freelance teaching (University of Minnesota, Stanford University, Princeton University, University of Florida, Universidade Federal da Bahia), ensued. This article is co-authored with CHRISTIAN REUS-SMIT – Monash University – European Journal of International Relations Copyright © 1998 via SAGE Publications. http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/~courses/PoliticalScience/661B1/documents/PriceReusSmithCriticalInternatlTheoryConstructivism.pdf 83 +One of the central departures of critical international theory from positivism is the view that we cannot escape the interpretive moment. 84 +... 85 +In short, if constructivists are not advancing totalizing discourses, and if making ‘small-t’ truth claims is inevitable if one is to talk about how the world works, then it is no more likely that constructivism per se violates the interpretive ethos of critical international theory than does critical theory itself. 86 + 87 +Abstract ethical theorizing prevents dealing with very material oppression – we should debate about tangible policies and real-world change. 88 +Curry ’14 - Dr. Tommy J. Curry. “The Cost of a Thing: A Kingian Reformulation of a Living Wage Argument in the 21st Century”, Victory Briefs, 2014. 89 +Despite the pronouncement of debate as an activity and intellectual exercise pointing to the real world consequences of dialogue, thinking, and (personal) politics when addressing issues of racism, sexism, economic disparity, global conflicts, and death, many of the discussions concerning these ongoing challenges to humanity are fixed to a paradigm which sees the adjudication of material disparities and sociological realities as the conquest of one ideal theory over the other. 90 +... 91 +In other words, King aims to reformulate the values which deny the legitimacy of the living wage, and those values predicated on the flawed views of the worker, Blacks, and the colonized (dignity, justice, fairness, rights, etc.) used to currently justify the living wages in under our contemporary moral parameters. 92 + 93 +==Underview 2== 94 +Use reasonability on T: 95 +a) preserves the value of substance 96 +b) promotes creative argument ~-~~-~- education outweighs fairness - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -201 6-11-12 21:10:46.01 +2017-02-23 21:38:02.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 - DavidStevens1 +w00t w00t - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 - BrandonBetancourt1 +AnyOne - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 - ND-Constitution AC1 +JanFeb - Journalism AC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 - Sachse1 +North Texas Longhorn NSDA Districts
- Caselist.CitesClass[1]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,74 +1,0 @@ 1 -Framework 2 -The standard is maximizing expected human wellbeing. Prefer the standard for three reasons. 3 - 4 -First, reductionism. 5 -Brain studies prove that personal identity doesn’t exist. 6 -Parfit ‘84: Derek Parfit, Reasons and Persons (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984). 7 -Some recent medical AND this person’s two hands. 8 - 9 -In the absence of personal identity, only end states can matter. 10 -Shoemaker ‘99: Shoemaker, David (Dept of Philosophy, U Memphis). “Utilitarianism and Personal Identity.” The Journal of Value Inquiry 33: 183–199, 1999. http://www.csun.edu/~ds56723/jvipaper.pdf 11 -Extreme reductionism might AND such a theory. 12 - 13 -Second, moral uncertainty. 14 -Ethical agnosticism means that extinction comes first under any moral system. 15 -Bostrom ‘00: Nick Bostrom, 2001 prof of Philosophy, Oxford University Journal of Evolution and Technology, Vol. 9, March 2002. First version: 2001 March, JStor 16 -Brackets for clarity These reflections on AND lot of value. 17 - 18 -ANALYTIC 19 - 20 -Third, actor specificity. 21 -Woller ‘97: Professor at BYU, “An Overview by Gary Woller”, A Forum on the Role of Environmental Ethics, June 1997, pg. 10 22 -Brackets for clarity Moreover, virtually all AND making it worse. 23 - 24 -The Woller evidence serves five functions. 25 -A. ANALYTIC 26 -B. ANALYTIC 27 -C. ANALYTIC 28 -D. ANALYTIC 29 -E. ANALYTIC 30 - 31 -Plan Text: 32 -The United States Federal Government ought to abrogate qualified immunity for police officers. 33 -King 16: King, Andrew. (Author at Mimesis Law, Law Publication) “Keep Qualified Immunity...For Now” Mimesis Law. 2016 34 -In some ways AND of the community. 35 - 36 -Advantage One is Racism 37 -Racial tensions have been culminating into a peak. 38 -Norman on April 16th, 2016: Norman, Jim. "U.S. Worries About Race Relations Reach a New High."Gallup.com. N.P., 11 April 2016. 39 -More than a AND crime and violence. 40 - 41 -The court has a long history of discounting the interests of minority populations – qualified immunity just exacerbates racism entrenched in the system. 42 -Reinhardt in 2015: Stephen R. Reinhardt, Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, “The Demise of Habeas Corpus and the Rise of Qualified Immunity: The Court’s Ever Increasing Limitations on the Development and Enforcement of Constitutional Rights and some Particularly Unfortunate Consequences,” Michigan Law Review, Vol. 113, 2015. 43 -The Court has AND black defendants alone. 44 - 45 -Racism is the root cause of violence and war – we control the internal link to all of their impacts. 46 -Foucault in 1976: Michel Foucault. Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the College de France, 1975-1976, p. 254-257 Translated by David Macey. 47 -What in fact AND theme of racism. 48 - 49 -Conflict causes chronic poverty and many deaths. 50 -Goodhand ‘03: Johnathan Goodhand, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 2003 http://www.pik-potsdam.de/research/research-domains/transdisciplinary-concepts-and-methods/favaia/workspace/documents/world-development-volume-31-issue-3-special-issue-on-chronic-poverty-and-development-policy/pages629-646.pdf 51 -Research studies on AND direct battlefield deaths. 52 - 53 -Advantage Two is Soft Power 54 -U.S. soft power is low now. 55 -Lehmann on April 28th, 2016: Lehmann, Jean-Pierre (Professor of International Political Economy at IMD and the founding director of the Evian Group at IMD). "The Collapse of US Soft Power - Global Impacts. "Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 28 Apr. 2016. Web. 31 Oct. 2016 56 -Global governance is AND has replaced it yet. 57 - 58 -Qualified immunity exacerbates police brutality. 59 -Wright in 2015: Sam Wright (DC based attorney), Source: Thomson Reuters, Source: My Shingle, Source: Law Sites Blog, and Source: Above The Law. "Want to Fight Police Misconduct? Reform Qualified Immunity." Above the Law. Above the Law, 3 Nov. 2015. Web. 27 Oct. 2016 60 -I think Megan AND in the courts? 61 - 62 -Police brutality delegitimizes the United States in the eyes of the rest of the world, decreasing its soft power. 63 -Pullen in 2014: Pullen, Bethany (Master of Public Diplomacy from the University of Southern California and a B.A. in International Studies and currently works as a research project manager in education policy at the University of Pittsburgh). "The Achilles Heel of U.S. Public Diplomacy: Race Relations and Police Violence." USC Center of Public Diplomacy. USC Annenburg, 8 Sept. 2014. 64 -Becoming inured to AND promoting legislative changes. 65 - 66 -Soft power solves multiple scenarios for extinction. 67 -Nye and Armitage in 2007: Joseph S. Nye (University Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard University; Previous Dean of Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government; Inventor of the concept of soft power; not related to Bill Nye the Science Guy) and Richard Armitage (13th United States Deputy Secretary of State, second-in-command at the State Department, 2001 to 2005). “CSIS Reports – A Smarter, More Secure America.” November 6, 2007. http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_pubs/task,view/id,4156/type,1/ 68 -Soft power is AND will to fight. 69 - 70 -ANALYTIC 71 - 72 -Underview 73 - 74 -{I switched this out every round. Usually, it was just K pre-empts (generic "engaging w/ state good" cards)} - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-04 20:20:34.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Marcie Ashford - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Zachary Elmer - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Plano East Zhou Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -ND - LARP hard or LARP home - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Sachse
- Caselist.CitesClass[4]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,8 +1,0 @@ 1 -Pennyworth '08 2 -"Some (people) just want to watch the world burn." 3 -BRACKETED FOR GENDERED LANGUAGE. 4 - 5 -Full-text of the AC is disclosed open-source as 6 -Plano East-Zhou-Aff-Practice Round-Round1.docx 7 - 8 -Read at your own risk. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-09 22:00:37.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -None - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Nevin Gera - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -11 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Plano East Zhou Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JF - Polls AC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Practice Round
- Caselist.CitesClass[5]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,4 +1,0 @@ 1 -SKETCH DEBATERS UNITE! 2 - 3 -AC Disclosed Full Text 4 -w/ Frontlines - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-17 00:36:27.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Dino De la O - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Montgomery GC Not Sure About the Initials - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -12 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Plano East Zhou Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JF - Polls AC v2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Strake Jesuit
- Caselist.CitesClass[6]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,41 +1,0 @@ 1 -Welcome to the University – 2 -Burleigh ‘16 3 -Graduates of the Class of 2016 are leaving behind campuses that have become petri dishes of extreme political correctness and heading out into a world without trigger warnings, safe spaces and free speech zones, with no rules forbidding offensive verbal conduct or microaggressions, and where the names of cruel, rapacious capitalists are embossed in brass and granite on buildings across the land. Baby seals during the Canadian hunting season may have a better chance of survival. Their degrees look the same as ever, but in recent years the programs of study behind them have been altered to reflect the new sensitivities. Books now come with trigger warnings—a concept that originated on the internet to warn people with post-traumatic stress disorder (veterans, child abuse survivors) of content that might “trigger” a past trauma. Columbia’s English majors were opting out of reading Ovid (trigger: sexual assault), and some of their counterparts at Rutgers declined an assignment to study Virginia Woolf (trigger: suicidal ideation). Political science graduates from Modesto Junior College might have shied away from touching a copy of the U.S. Constitution in public, since a security guard stopped one of them from handing it out because he was not inside a 25-square-foot piece of concrete 30 yards away from the nearest walkway designated as the “free speech zone”—a space that needed to be booked 30 days in advance. Graduates of California public universities found it hard to discuss affirmative action policies, as administrators recently added such talk to a list of “microaggressions”—subtle but offensive comments or actions directed at a minority or other nondominant group that unintentionally reinforce a stereotype. More than half of America’s colleges and universities now have restrictive speech codes. And, according to a censorship watchdog group, 217 American colleges and universities—including some of the most prestigious—have speech codes that “unambiguously impinge upon free speech.” Judges have interpreted the First Amendment broadly, giving Americans some of the most expansive rights of speech in the world. But over the past two decades, and especially the past few years, American colleges administrators and many students have sought to confine speech to special zones and agitated for restrictions on language in classrooms as well. To protect undergrads from the discomfort of having to hear disagreeable ideas and opinions, administrators and students—and the U.S. Department of Education—have been reframing speech as “verbal conduct” that potentially violates the civil rights of minorities and women. Business leaders, authors, politicians and even comedians are now routinely barred from American campuses. Springtime—the commencement-speech time of year—is now dubbed “disinvitation season.” Students and faculty debate the moral fitness of announced commencement speakers on social media and engage in bitter fights over whether even mildly controversial speakers deserve to be behind a podium. Some disinvite themselves. Christine LaGarde, the head of the International Monetary Fund and one of the most powerful women on the planet, canceled a speech at Smith, one of America’s pre-eminent women’s colleges, after a Facebook protest against her by some students and faculty for her connection to “global capitalists.” Those who turn up can find themselves facing a heckler’s veto, as mild-mannered University of California, Berkeley, Chancellor Robert Birgeneau discovered in 2014 when he had the temerity to show up at tiny Haverford College without first apologizing for how his campus cops had treated Occupy Wall Streeters. As students are labeling more and more words as hate speech, demanding more trigger warnings and shouting down both commencement speakers and comedians, the censorship flashpoints can be sorted into three topics: sex, race and Donald Trump. The University of California, Berkeley, chancellor was slated to deliver the commencement speech at Haverford College in 2014 but backed out after students there objected because they didn’t like the way his campus police had handled Occupy Wall Street protesters three years earlier. 4 -The role of the ballot is to vote for the debater with the best method of resisting oppression. 5 -Henry A. Giroux 15 American scholar and cultural critic. One of the founding theorists of critical pedagogy in the United States, he is best known for his pioneering work in public pedagogy, “Beyond Dystopian Visions in the Age of Neoliberal Authoritarianism”, Truthout, 4 Nov 2015, BE 6 -If neoliberal authoritarianism is to be challenged and overcome, it is crucial that intellectuals, unions, workers, young people and various social movements unite to reclaim democracy as a central element in fashioning a radical imagination. Such action necessitates interrogating and rupturing the material and symbolic forces that hide behind a counterfeit claim to participatory democracy. This requires rescuing the promises of a radical democracy that can provide a living wage, quality health care for all, public works and massive investments in education, child care, housing for the poor, along with a range of other crucial social provisions that can make a difference between living and dying for those who have been relegated to the ranks of the disposable.¶ The growing global threat of neoliberal authoritarianism signals both a crisis of politics and a crisis of beliefs, values and individual and social agency. One indication of such a crisis is the fact that the economic calamity of 2008 has not been matched by a shift in ideas about the nature of finance capital and its devastating effects on US society. Banks got bailed out, and those everyday Americans who lost their houses bore the brunt of the crisis. The masters of finance capital were not held accountable for their crimes, and many of them received huge bonuses paid for by US taxpayers. Matters of education must be at the heart of any viable notion of politics, meaning that education must be at the center of any attempt to change consciousness - not just the ways in which people think, but also how they act and construct relationships to others and the larger world. Americans seem to have forgotten that the fate of democracy is inextricably linked to the profound crisis of knowledge, critical thinking and agency. As education is removed from the demands of civic culture, it undermines the political, ethical and governing conditions for individuals and social groups to participate in politics. Under such circumstances, knowledge is commodified, contingent faculty replace full-time tenured faculty, governance is removed from faculty control, the culture of higher education is replaced by the culture of business and students are viewed as customers. Consequently, higher education no longer is viewed as a public good or a place where students can imagine themselves as thoughtful and socially responsible citizens, and furthers the destructions of the formative culture that makes a democratizing politics possible.¶ Politics is an imminently educative task, and it is only through such recognition that initial steps can be taken to challenge the powerful ideological and affective spaces through which market fundamentalism produces the desires, identities and values that bind people to its forms of predatory governance. The noxious politics of historical, social and political amnesia and the public pedagogy of the disimagination machine must be challenged and disassembled if there is any hope of creating meaningful alternatives to the dark times in which we live. Young people need to think otherwise in order to act otherwise, but in addition, they need to become cultural producers who can produce their own narratives about their relationship to the larger world, what it means to sustain public commitments, develop a sense of compassion for others, locally and globally. 7 -Contention One is Inherency 8 -Millennials were raised in an environment of fear and parental protection – the reluctance of school administrators to protect free speech on campus and the students’ desire for safety have traded off with intellectual liberty and personal growth. 9 -Cole ‘16 10 -Born in the mid-1990s, seniors in my Columbia University undergraduate seminars today likely have not experienced major national threats, except for their vague memories of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Yet these “millennials” might better be labeled “children of war and fear.” During their politically conscious lifetime, they have known only a United States immersed in protracted wars against real and so-called terrorists, a place where fear itself influences their attitudes toward other civil liberties. Students are asked to pit freedom of expression or privacy against personal security. During times when elected officials have exploited the public’s fear of terrorism for political gain, students seem more willing to trade civil liberties for a sense of security. Since the 9/11 tragedy, the use of fear is still pervasive in the United States. Indeed, the distortion of fear pervades today’s students’ thinking—they tend to overestimate, for example, the probability of a terrorist attack affecting them. When this fear is combined with the rapid expansion of social media and the prevalence of government surveillance, students often dismiss concepts like “privacy” as old-fashioned values that are irrelevant to them. In fact, my experience at Columbia suggests that many students believe that the very idea of privacy is obsolete; most of my students don’t seem to mind this loss when it’s weighed against uncovering potential terrorists. Add to this apprehension the fears that so many students of color experienced before college—a rational fear of the police, of racial stereotypes, of continual exposure to epithets and prejudice—and it is no wonder that they seek safe havens. They may have expected to find this safe haven in college, but instead they find prejudice, stereotyping, slurs, and phobic statements on the campuses as well. Additionally, many of these students employ the classification of “the insider.” Believing that “outsiders” cannot possibly understand the situation that faces these groups of offended individuals, by virtual of race, gender, ethnicity, or some other category, the students often dismiss the views of their professors and administrators who can’t “get it” because they are not part of the oppressed group. 11 - 12 -he continues 13 - 14 -But there is a different, though equally important, reason many students today are willing to suppress free expression on campus. And the fault largely lies at the feet of many of the country’s academic leaders. Students and their families have been increasingly treated as “customers.” Presidents of colleges and universities have been too reluctant to “offend” their customers, which may help explain why they so often yield to wrong-headed demands by students. Courage at universities is, unfortunately, a rare commodity—and it’s particularly rare among leaders of institutions pressured by students to act in a politically correct way. It seems that the vast majority of presidents and provosts of the finest U.S. universities have not seized this moment of concern voiced by students as a teaching moment—a moment to instruct and discuss with students what college is about. Too many academic leaders are obsessed with the security of their own jobs and their desire to protect the reputation of their institution, and too few are sufficiently interested in making statements that may offend students but that show them why they are at these colleges—and why free expression is a core and enabling value of any higher-learning institution that considers itself of the first rank. Of course, there are strong academic leaders who do encourage open discussions of issues raised by students while also speaking out against restrictions on campus speech, against speech codes, safe-space psychology, and micro-aggressions. But they are too few and far between. Students want to be protected against slurs, epithets, and different opinions from their own—protected from challenges to their prior beliefs and presuppositions. They fear not being respected because of a status that they occupy. But that is not what college is about. While some educators and policymakers see college primarily as a place where students develop skills for high-demand jobs, the goal of a college education is for students to learn to think independently and skeptically and to learn how to make and defend their point of view. It is not to suppress ideas that they find opprobrious. Yet students are willing to trade off free expression for greater inclusion and the suppression of books or speech that offend—even if this means that many topics of importance to their development never are openly discussed. Of all of America’s great universities, the University of Chicago seems to have come the closest historically to getting this right. The school’s well-known 1967 Kalven Committee report was, I believe, correct when it stated: “The mission of the university is the discovery, improvement, and dissemination of knowledge. Its domain and scrutiny includes all aspects and all values of society. A university faithful to its mission will provide enduring challenges to social values, policies, practices, and institutions. By design and by effect, it is the institution which creates discontent with the existing social arrangements and proposes new ones. In brief, a good university, like Socrates, will be upsetting.” Almost 50 years later, at the request of its President Robert Zimmer, The University of Chicago again articulated its position on “freedom of expression.” The short document quotes the historian and former Chicago president, Hanna Holborn Gray: “Education should not be intended to make people comfortable, it is made to make them think. Universities should be expected to provide the conditions within which hard thought, and therefore strong disagreement, independent judgment, and the questioning of stubborn assumptions, can flourish in an environment of the greatest freedom.” “In a word,” the report goes on, “the University’s fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed.” Yet students may be signaling that their commitment to “community” values may take precedence over this core value that many administrators have seen as essential for truly great institutions of learning. A physically safe environment is an absolutely necessary condition for heated debate over ideas. The university cannot tolerate violations of personal space, physical threats, sustained public interruptions of speakers, or verbal epithets directed toward specific students; that lies beyond the boundaries of academic freedom. That doesn’t mean, however, that a college or university should introduce policies that will curtail or chill debate, that adhere to the politically correct beliefs of the moment, or that let their leaders off the hook through capitulation to “demands” that stifle discourse and conversations about what a university education aims to produce. 15 - 16 -Their generic free speech indicts don’t apply – the media creates a strawman of “radical, racist free speech” advocates that mask what free speech truly protects – critique and resistance and resistance against power structures. 17 -Khan ’15 Khan, Tariq. "Masking Oppression As “Free Speech”: An Anarchist Take." Agency. October 28, 2015. Web. December 08, 2016. http://www.anarchistagency.com/commentary/masking-oppression-as-free-speech-an-anarchist-take/. 18 -In the present-day United States, a shallow idea of “free speech” is often wielded by the privileged as a way to direct attention away from critiques of existing conditions and systems; particularly critiques of capitalism, imperialism, white supremacy, and patriarchy. For example, two years ago when UC Berkeley students organized to keep comedian Bill Maher from speaking on their campus, leading media outlets framed it as a controversy about free speech rather than engaging with the much deeper critiques the students had about Maher’s perpetuation of US imperialist, Orientalist discourse which fuels militarism abroad and racist violence at home. Yet, while students who protest imperialist discourse are characterized as a threat to free speech, the actual threat to free speech in academia goes unchallenged by leading media outlets. October 8, 2015, at the Community College of Philadelphia, English professor Divya Nair spoke at a rally organized by students in protest of police recruiters on campus. The students and Professor Nair drew connections between colonialism and modern US policing; particularly the police tactic of recruiting poor people of color to act as the capitalist state’s foot-soldiers to control poor Black and Brown communities. Later that day, school authorities suspended Professor Nair without pay, and they have since suspended three student group members who are facing disciplinary hearings. In the past few years there has been a noticeable campus crackdown on anti-colonialist expression. 19 - 20 -Prohibiting offensive speech will silence movements for social progress. 21 -American Civil Liberties Union 1 22 -A: Free speech rights are indivisible. Restricting the speech of one group or individual jeopardizes everyone's rights because the same laws or regulations used to silence bigots can be used to silence you. Conversely, laws that defend free speech for bigots can be used to defend the rights of civil rights workers, anti-war protesters, lesbian and gay activists and others fighting for justice. For example, in the 1949 case of Terminiello v. Chicago, the ACLU successfully defended an ex-Catholic priest who had delivered a racist and anti-semitic speech. The precedent set in that case became the basis for the ACLU's successful defense of civil rights demonstrators in the 1960s and '70s. The indivisibility principle was also illustrated in the case of Neo-Nazis whose right to march in Skokie, Illinois in 1979 was successfully defended by the ACLU. At the time, then ACLU Executive Director Aryeh Neier, whose relatives died in Hitler's concentration camps during World War II, commented: "Keeping a few Nazis off the streets of Skokie will serve Jews poorly if it means that the freedoms to speak, publish or assemble any place in the United States are thereby weakened." 23 -Speech codes have historically backfired. 24 -American Civil Liberties Union 2 25 -Historically, defamation laws or codes have proven ineffective at best and counter-productive at worst. For one thing, depending on how they're interpreted and enforced, they can actually work against the interests of the people they were ostensibly created to protect. Why? Because the ultimate power to decide what speech is offensive and to whom rests with the authorities ~-~- the government or a college administration ~-~- not with those who are the alleged victims of hate speech. In Great Britain, for example, a Racial Relations Act was adopted in 1965 to outlaw racist defamation. But throughout its existence, the Act has largely been used to persecute activists of color, trade unionists and anti-nuclear protesters, while the racists ~-~- often white members of Parliament ~-~- have gone unpunished. Similarly, under a speech code in effect at the University of Michigan for 18 months, white students in 20 cases charged black students with offensive speech. One of the cases resulted in the punishment of a black student for using the term "white trash" in conversation with a white student. The code was struck down as unconstitutional in 1989 and, to date, the ACLU has brought successful legal challenges against speech codes at the Universities of Connecticut, Michigan and Wisconsin. These examples demonstrate that speech codes don't really serve the interests of persecuted groups. The First Amendment does. As one African American educator observed: "I have always felt as a minority person that we have to protect the rights of all because if we infringe on the rights of any persons, we'll be next." 26 -Speech codes are a band-aid for a bullet wound – they merely sweep racist beliefs under the carpet 27 -American Civil Liberties Union 3 28 -Bigoted speech is symptomatic of a huge problem in our country; it is not the problem itself. Everybody, when they come to college, brings with them the values, biases and assumptions they learned while growing up in society, so it's unrealistic to think that punishing speech is going to rid campuses of the attitudes that gave rise to the speech in the first place. Banning bigoted speech won't end bigotry, even if it might chill some of the crudest expressions. The mindset that produced the speech lives on and may even reassert itself in more virulent forms. Speech codes, by simply deterring students from saying out loud what they will continue to think in private, merely drive biases underground where they can't be addressed. In 1990, when Brown University expelled a student for shouting racist epithets one night on the campus, the institution accomplished nothing in the way of exposing the bankruptcy of racist ideas. 29 -Real change needs to occur to prevent bigotry and regressive beliefs – speech codes hide the problem rather than addressing it. 30 -American Civil Liberties Union 4 31 -The ACLU believes that the best way to combat hate speech on campus is through an educational approach that includes counter-speech, workshops on bigotry and its role in American and world history, and real ~-~- not superficial ~-~- institutional change. Universities are obligated to create an environment that fosters tolerance and mutual respect among members of the campus community, an environment in which all students can exercise their right to participate fully in campus life without being discriminated against. Campus administrators on the highest level should, therefore, speak out loudly and clearly against expressions of racist, sexist, homophobic and other bias, and react promptly and firmly to acts of discriminatory harassment; create forums and workshops to raise awareness and promote dialogue on issues of race, sex and sexual orientation; intensify their efforts to recruit members of racial minorities on student, faculty and administrative levels; and reform their institutions' curricula to reflect the diversity of peoples and cultures that have contributed to human knowledge and society, in the United States and throughout the world. ACLU Executive Director Ira Glasser stated, in a speech at the City College of New York: "There is no clash between the constitutional right of free speech and equality. Both are crucial to society. Universities ought to stop restricting speech and start teaching." 32 -Contention Two is Solvency 33 -Free speech is key to the exchange of ideas and intellectual progress. 34 -Maloney ‘16 35 -America is a free-speech zone, period. In grade school, I learned that debate is defined as “a discussion between people in which they express different opinions about something.” Such open discourse was historically encouraged on our college campuses. Universities exemplified intellectual discussion and debate in America. No one voiced their opinions louder than students, professors and administrators. They pushed society’s limits by admitting women and people of color, and by encouraging diversity of thought amongst the college community. Historically, young people flocked to universities to learn more about the world around them, to encounter people from different backgrounds, to expand their minds and to form their own opinions. Unfortunately, things have changed. Recently on college campuses, our open discourse has been threatened, particularly when discussing politics. While the current presidential election represents polarizing wings of both the Democratic and Republican parties, we should be able to openly debate their policies and the direction in which they plan to take our country if elected. We should be able to discuss the abuse of power within our government and the consistent violations of our Bill of Rights. We should be able to participate in the free market of ideas. But our students are being silenced. University campuses are now home to a plethora of speech restrictions. From sidewalk-sized “free-speech zones” to the criminalization of microaggressions, America’s college campuses look and feel a lot more like an authoritarian dictatorship than they do the academic hubs of the modern free world. When rolling an inflated free-speech ball around campus, students at the University of Delaware were halted by campus police for their activities. A Young Americans for Liberty leader at Fairmont State University in West Virginia was confronted by security when he was attempting to speak with other students about the ideas he believes in. A man at Clemson University was barred from praying on campus because he was outside of the free-speech zone. And a student at Blinn College in Texas abolished her campus’ free-speech zone in a lawsuit after administrators demanded she seek special permission to advocate for self-defense. How have we let this happen in America, the land of the free? It’s because of what our universities have taught a generation of Americans: If you don’t agree with someone, are uncomfortable with an idea, or don’t find a joke funny, then their speech must be suppressed. Especially if they don’t politically agree with you. Instead of actually debating ideas that span topics from the conventional to the taboo, a generation of American students don’t engage, they just get enraged. In doing so, many students believe that they have a right to literally shut other people up. This is not only a threat to the First Amendment, but also to American democracy. In their manifestation, safe spaces and free-speech zones at public universities enable prejudice against unfavorable ideologies. Guised as progressive measures to ensure inclusion, these often unconstitutional policies exclude new and competing ideas, and are antithetical to a free academia. In excluding different ideologies, supposedly progressive campus speech codes do one thing: prevent the progression of ideas. Restrictive campus speech codes are, in fact, regressive. With over 750 chapters nationwide at Young Americans for Liberty, we are fighting against public universities that stifle free speech. We’ve launched the national Fight for Free Speech campaign to reform unconstitutional speech codes and abolish these so-called free-speech zones on college campuses. By hosting events such as large free speech balls, YAL chapters across the country are petitioning their campuses to adopt the University of Chicago’s principles on freedom of expression—the hallmark of campus speech policies. Our members have geared up with First Amendment organizations to ensure that their free speech rights on campus are protected. America is a land rooted in the ideas of a free society: the freedom to be who you are, to speak your mind and to innovate. By silencing our students and young people, we have started down a slippery slope. It is up to us to fight back to ensure that our First Amendment rights remain protected—not just on college campuses, but everywhere in America. 36 -Campus speech codes fail to adequately prepare students for the real world – exposure to new ideas and “uncomfortable learning” is crucial to personal growth. 37 -Lukianoff and Haidt ‘15 38 -Something strange is happening at America’s colleges and universities. A movement is arising, undirected and driven largely by students, to scrub campuses clean of words, ideas, and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offense. Last December, Jeannie Suk wrote in an online article for The New Yorker about law students asking her fellow professors at Harvard not to teach rape law—or, in one case, even use the word violate (as in “that violates the law”) lest it cause students distress. In February, Laura Kipnis, a professor at Northwestern University, wrote an essay in The Chronicle of Higher Education describing a new campus politics of sexual paranoia—and was then subjected to a long investigation after students who were offended by the article and by a tweet she’d sent filed Title IX complaints against her. In June, a professor protecting himself with a pseudonym wrote an essay for Vox describing how gingerly he now has to teach. “I’m a Liberal Professor, and My Liberal Students Terrify Me,” the headline said. A number of popular comedians, including Chris Rock, have stopped performing on college campuses (see Caitlin Flanagan’s article in this month’s issue). Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Maher have publicly condemned the oversensitivity of college students, saying too many of them can’t take a joke. Two terms have risen quickly from obscurity into common campus parlance. Microaggressions are small actions or word choices that seem on their face to have no malicious intent but that are thought of as a kind of violence nonetheless. For example, by some campus guidelines, it is a microaggression to ask an Asian American or Latino American “Where were you born?,” because this implies that he or she is not a real American. Trigger warnings are alerts that professors are expected to issue if something in a course might cause a strong emotional response. For example, some students have called for warnings that Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart describes racial violence and that F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby portrays misogyny and physical abuse, so that students who have been previously victimized by racism or domestic violence can choose to avoid these works, which they believe might “trigger” a recurrence of past trauma. Some recent campus actions border on the surreal. In April, at Brandeis University, the Asian American student association sought to raise awareness of microaggressions against Asians through an installation on the steps of an academic hall. The installation gave examples of microaggressions such as “Aren’t you supposed to be good at math?” and “I’m colorblind! I don’t see race.” But a backlash arose among other Asian American students, who felt that the display itself was a microaggression. The association removed the installation, and its president wrote an e-mail to the entire student body apologizing to anyone who was “triggered or hurt by the content of the microaggressions.” This new climate is slowly being institutionalized, and is affecting what can be said in the classroom, even as a basis for discussion. During the 2014–15 school year, for instance, the deans and department chairs at the 10 University of California system schools were presented by administrators at faculty leader-training sessions with examples of microaggressions. The list of offensive statements included: “America is the land of opportunity” and “I believe the most qualified person should get the job.” The press has typically described these developments as a resurgence of political correctness. That’s partly right, although there are important differences between what’s happening now and what happened in the 1980s and ’90s. That movement sought to restrict speech (specifically hate speech aimed at marginalized groups), but it also challenged the literary, philosophical, and historical canon, seeking to widen it by including more-diverse perspectives. The current movement is largely about emotional well-being. More than the last, it presumes an extraordinary fragility of the collegiate psyche, and therefore elevates the goal of protecting students from psychological harm. The ultimate aim, it seems, is to turn campuses into “safe spaces” where young adults are shielded from words and ideas that make some uncomfortable. And more than the last, this movement seeks to punish anyone who interferes with that aim, even accidentally. You might call this impulse vindictive protectiveness. It is creating a culture in which everyone must think twice before speaking up, lest they face charges of insensitivity, aggression, or worse. There’s a saying common in education circles: Don’t teach students what to think; teach them how to think. The idea goes back at least as far as Socrates. Today, what we call the Socratic method is a way of teaching that fosters critical thinking, in part by encouraging students to question their own unexamined beliefs, as well as the received wisdom of those around them. Such questioning sometimes leads to discomfort, and even to anger, on the way to understanding. But vindictive protectiveness teaches students to think in a very different way. It prepares them poorly for professional life, which often demands intellectual engagement with people and ideas one might find uncongenial or wrong. The harm may be more immediate, too. A campus culture devoted to policing speech and punishing speakers is likely to engender patterns of thought that are surprisingly similar to those long identified by cognitive behavioral therapists as causes of depression and anxiety. The new protectiveness may be teaching students to think pathologically. 39 -“Safe spaces” destroy the very fabric of democracy – they cause unending lawsuits, political polarization and policy paralysis. 40 -Lukianoff and Haidt ‘15 41 -Attempts to shield students from words, ideas, and people that might cause them emotional discomfort are bad for the students. They are bad for the workplace, which will be mired in unending litigation if student expectations of safety are carried forward. And they are bad for American democracy, which is already paralyzed by worsening partisanship. When the ideas, values, and speech of the other side are seen not just as wrong but as willfully aggressive toward innocent victims, it is hard to imagine the kind of mutual respect, negotiation, and compromise that are needed to make politics a positive-sum game. Rather than trying to protect students from words and ideas that they will inevitably encounter, colleges should do all they can to equip students to thrive in a world full of words and ideas that they cannot control. One of the great truths taught by Buddhism (and Stoicism, Hinduism, and many other traditions) is that you can never achieve happiness by making the world conform to your desires. But you can master your desires and habits of thought. This, of course, is the goal of cognitive behavioral therapy. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-17 04:15:08.182 - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Lake Highland Kid - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -14 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Plano East Zhou Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JF - Stock AC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Strake Jesuit
- Caselist.RoundClass[0]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -0 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-11-12 21:10:40.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -David Stevens - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Brandon Betancourt - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Aff read a constitutionality AC neg went for topicality - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Sachse
- Caselist.RoundClass[2]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-11-19 16:06:56.0 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,2 +1,0 @@ 1 -ac - LARP 2 -nc - CP turns - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Southlake Carroll
- Caselist.RoundClass[5]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-04 20:20:32.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Marcie Ashford - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Zachary Elmer - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,2 +1,0 @@ 1 -Aff read a structural violence AC 2 -Neg read a Cap K - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Sachse
- Caselist.RoundClass[10]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-09 21:58:02.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -None - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Nevin Gera - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,2 +1,0 @@ 1 -AFF went for theory (duh) 2 -NEG read Cap Spikes Bad - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Practice Round
- Caselist.RoundClass[11]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-09 22:00:36.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -None - OpenSource
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -https://hsld.debatecoaches.org/download/Plano+East/Zhou+Aff/Plano%20East-Zhou-Aff-Practice%20Round-Round1.docx - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Nevin Gera - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,2 +1,0 @@ 1 -AFF went for theory (duh) 2 -NEG read Cap Spikes Bad - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Practice Round
- Caselist.RoundClass[12]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-17 00:36:25.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Dino De la O - OpenSource
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -https://hsld.debatecoaches.org/download/Plano+East/Zhou+Aff/Plano%20East-Zhou-Aff-Strake%20Jesuit-Round1.docx - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Montgomery GC Not Sure About the Initials - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,2 +1,0 @@ 1 -aff won on presumption 2 -(hahahahaaha) - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Strake Jesuit
- Caselist.RoundClass[13]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-17 04:14:47.0 - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Lake Highland Kid - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,2 +1,0 @@ 1 -stock aff 2 -legalism K (schlag) - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Strake Jesuit
- Caselist.RoundClass[14]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-17 04:15:06.0 - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Lake Highland Kid - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,2 +1,0 @@ 1 -stock aff 2 -legalism K (schlag) - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Strake Jesuit