Changes for page Southlake Carroll Chiang Neg
Summary
-
Objects (0 modified, 0 added, 17 removed)
- Caselist.CitesClass[0]
- Caselist.CitesClass[1]
- Caselist.CitesClass[2]
- Caselist.CitesClass[3]
- Caselist.CitesClass[4]
- Caselist.CitesClass[5]
- Caselist.CitesClass[6]
- Caselist.CitesClass[7]
- Caselist.RoundClass[0]
- Caselist.RoundClass[1]
- Caselist.RoundClass[2]
- Caselist.RoundClass[3]
- Caselist.RoundClass[4]
- Caselist.RoundClass[5]
- Caselist.RoundClass[6]
- Caselist.RoundClass[7]
- Caselist.RoundClass[8]
Details
- Caselist.CitesClass[0]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,23 +1,0 @@ 1 -=CP-Thorium Reactors= 2 - 3 - 4 -==1NC== 5 - 6 - 7 -===Text: The aff actor ought to replace all uranium based reactors with thorium based reactors=== 8 - 9 - 10 -===Solvency=== 11 - 12 - 13 -**====CP solves the aff—Thorium based reactors have much better accident safeguards, produce significantly less nuclear waste, are extremely difficult to proliferate, and thorium is mined much more environmentally friendly than uranium====** 14 -**Warmflash**, David. "Thorium Power Is the Safer Future of Nuclear Energy."Discover. Discover Magazine, 16 Jan. 20**15**. Web. 15 Aug. 2016. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2015/01/16/thorium-future-nuclear-energy/~~#.V7JsF5grKUk. 15 -Nuclear power has long been a contentious topic. It generates huge amounts of electricity 16 -AND 17 -term – and to dramatically improve the world's energy sustainability in the process. 18 - 19 - 20 -====And, the CP is mutually exclusive—you can't prohibit nuclear power production and create more means to do so—perm is severance ==== 21 - 22 - 23 -====And, 2 net benefits to the CP—it doesn't link to the Navy subs or warming DA==== - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-09-09 23:26:10.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -A - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -A - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -0 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Southlake Carroll Chiang Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Thorium Reactor CP - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Plano Senior
- Caselist.CitesClass[1]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,44 +1,0 @@ 1 -=NASA DA= 2 - 3 - 4 -====Space leadership high now but sustained exploration key ==== 5 -Empsak 3/16 (Jesse Empsak , a freelance science writer based in New York City. His work has appeared in Scientific American, The Economist, New Scientist, "Space Race Losers? US Leadership in Danger, Report Warns", http://www.space.com/32185-united-states-space-exploration-leadership.html_ , March 8th, 2016 ) AP 6 -The United States could lose its long-held leadership position in space science, 7 -AND 8 -should be one sentence: 'Space is good — keep investing.'" 9 - 10 - 11 -====RPS key to maintain future space exploration ==== 12 -Nasa 14 (This is from the NASA official government website. NASA stands for National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA was started in 1958 as a part of the United States government. NASA is in charge of U.S. science and technology that has to do with airplanes or space. "Radioisoptope power systems". https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/rps/overview.cfm. August 19th, 2014)AP 13 -In 2011 the National Academy of Sciences completed a major study of the priorities for 14 -AND 15 -would maintain NASA's current space science capabilities and enable future space exploration missions. 16 - 17 - 18 -====RPS is the only possible long term fuel system for space exploration ==== 19 -Nasa 14 (This is from the NASA official government website. NASA stands for National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA was started in 1958 as a part of the United States government. NASA is in charge of U.S. science and technology that has to do with airplanes or space. "Radioisoptope power systems". https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/rps/overview.cfm. August 19th, 2014)AP 20 -Power is the one thing a spacecraft cannot do without. Without the technology to 21 -AND 22 -That heat is produced by the natural radioactive decay of plutonium-238. 23 - 24 - 25 -====Deep Space exploration key to reestablishing faltering STEM leadership ==== 26 -Tina beller sharing a report by Col. Robert S. Kimbrough 13(Col. Robert S. Kimbrough, Chief of Robotics at the NASA Astronaut Office, who is a former alumnus and assistant professor of mathematics at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. "Army Astronaut promotes STEM, inspires space exploration "https://www.army.mil/article/102748. May 7th, 2013) AP 27 -Becoming an astronaut takes more than just high physical fitness scores, mental abilities and 28 -AND 29 -can thrust forward and reestablish our country's position as the superpower of STEM." 30 - 31 - 32 -====Failure of American space leadership allows China to overtake the US, causing conflict by miscalculation.==== 33 -Dowd, 2K9 34 -(Alan, Senior Fellow of the Fraser Institute, Surrendering Outer Space, http://www.fraseramerica.org/commerce.web/article_details.aspx?pubID=6853 ~~accessed 6/19/11~~) 35 -"I am concerned that America's real and perceived leadership in the standing of the 36 -AND 37 -"This situation will naturally and understandably lead to hedging against the unknown." 38 - 39 - 40 -====War with China causes extinction==== 41 -Straits Times 6-25-2000 42 -THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full 43 -AND 44 -should that come to pass, we would see the destruction of civilisation. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-09-09 23:38:07.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -C - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -C - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Southlake Carroll Chiang Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Space DA - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Plano Senior
- Caselist.CitesClass[2]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,42 +1,0 @@ 1 -====Nuclear energy is becoming one of the main sources of electricity for most countries – energy production will only increase with time==== 2 -**WNA 16 1 **(The World Nuclear Association (WNA) is the international organization that promotes nuclear power and supports the companies that comprise the global nuclear industry. Its members come from all parts of the nuclear fuel cycle, including uranium mining, uranium conversion, uranium enrichment, nuclear fuel fabrication, plant manufacture, transport, and the disposition of used nuclear fuel as well as electricity generation itself. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today.aspx JC) 3 -In the 1950s attention turned to the peaceful purposes of nuclear fission, notably for 4 -AND 5 -The rest of the improvement is due to better performance from existing units. 6 - 7 - 8 -====Nuclear energy is cheaper than coal – switching now will increase costs.==== 9 -**WNA 16 2**("The Economics of Nuclear Power" The World Nuclear Association (WNA) is the international organization that promotes nuclear power and supports the companies that comprise the global nuclear industry. Its members come from all parts of the nuclear fuel cycle, including uranium mining, uranium conversion, uranium enrichment, nuclear fuel fabrication, plant manufacture, transport, and the disposition of used nuclear fuel as well as electricity generation itself. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx JC) 10 -There have been many studies carried out examining the economics of future generation options, 11 -AND 12 -5-4.5 c/kWh, depending greatly on fuel price 13 - 14 - 15 -====Electricity is key to the economy – even a 10 decreases causes an irreversible collapse==== 16 -**NRECA 15 **(NRECA is the national service organization for more than 900 not-for-profit rural electric cooperatives and public power districts providing retail electric service to more than 42 million consumers in 47 states and whose retail sales account for approximately 12 percent of total electricity sales in the United States. "New Study Highlights Impact of Increased Electricity Prices" http://www.nreca.coop/new-study-highlights-impact-of-increased-electricity-prices/ JC) 17 -The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) released a new economic study detailing 18 -AND 19 -by electric cooperatives is 11.5 percent less than the national average. 20 - 21 - 22 -====Impacts – Choose 1==== 23 - 24 - 25 -====War==== 26 - 27 - 28 -====Economic decline causes war and an increased threat of terror attacks – multiple warrants.==== 29 -**Royal, 2010, in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives' eds. Goldsmith and Brauer, ~~Director Cooperative Threat Reduction DOD, Jedediah~~, p. 213-215** 30 -Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict 31 -AND 32 -with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels. This implied connection 33 - 34 - 35 -====SV==== 36 - 37 - 38 -====Economic decline disproportionally affect the black body racializing their daily lives and making their recovery inevitable.==== 39 -**White 15'** (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/06/black-recession-housing-race/396725/ 40 -The ~~A~~ recession, while painful for everyone, was especially ~~is 41 -AND 42 -slim, even as white Americans start to get back on their feet. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-09-17 02:46:45.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Varad Agarwala - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Union BS - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Southlake Carroll Chiang Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Electricity DA - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Grapevine
- Caselist.CitesClass[3]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,12 +1,0 @@ 1 -====We endorse the genealogy of the affirmative absent their prescription for action via an advocacy statement - Ending your genealogy with the simple, easily-digestible recommendation that we “insert advocacy” ruins the entire point of genealogical investigation in the first place – Foucault wrote genealogies as a direct rejection of Lenin's question "What is to be done?" – by providing a direct instruction manual for political action, the affirmative has corrupted the unsettling critical potential of genealogy – the goal of our genealogy is to make you feel uncomfortable with everything about how we are currently acting, and that uneasiness cannot be achieved if we tell you exactly what to do==== 2 -lyvberg and Richardon 2 – dept of development @ Aalborg University (Bent, Aalborg University, Department of Development and Planning and Tim, University of Sheffield, Department of Town and Regional Planning, Planning and Foucault: In Search of the Dark Side of Planning Theory, http://flyvbjerg.plan.aau.dk/DarkSide2.pdf 3 -3. Towards Foucault Instead of side-stepping or seeking to remove the traces 4 -AND 5 -versus 'constitution' thinking, about struggle versus control, conflict versus consensus. 6 - 7 - 8 -====Genealogical strategies are easily coopted unless there is an unending, constant stream of critical investigation and epistemic questioning – their concrete advocacy is a closure of epistemic uncertainty in favor of a universal truth of what should be done – turns all of case and solidifies new hegemonies==== 9 -Medina 11 prof @ Vanderbilt (Jose, Toward a Foucaultian Epistemology of Resistance: Counter-Memory, Epistemic Friction, and Guerrilla Pluralism, Foucault Studies, No. 12, pp. 9-35, October 2011) 10 -As Foucault puts it, genealogies can be described as the ‚attempt to desubjugate 11 -AND 12 -conversation with other epistemological pluralistic approaches to memory and knowledge of the past. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-09-17 02:50:45.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Rodrigo Paramo - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harvard-Westlake MG - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Southlake Carroll Chiang Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Geneology PIK - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Grapevine
- Caselist.CitesClass[4]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,28 +1,0 @@ 1 -====Frame this round only in terms of education. You writing "Aff" on that paper has no impact on the USFG – the plan doesn't happen– you should focus on advocacy skills we can use as students – that's the neg. Our role of the ballot is to interrogate our ontology – that is the biggest internal link into education because it teaches us about us and those around us, allowing us to place our social location and existence in the context of a broader world.==== 2 - 3 - 4 -====This debate is question of mindset and ontology – the alternative is a prerequisite to affirmative solvency because their ontological assumptions ensure serial policy failure – ==== 5 - 6 - 7 -====Our interpretation: the judge should consider the mindset of the aff pre-fiat. Questions of mindset are key to advocacy skills – they affect how we advocate for improving the world every day.==== 8 - 9 - 10 -====Progress is the elaboration of civil society into the future. The politics of the 1AC can only reproduce the violence of the state -a state predicated off the violence of the black body- and their racial progress is only a justification for more violence –and create an Antiblack future.==== 11 -**Dillon 13 ~~Stephen Dillon, Assistant Professor of Queer Studies at Hampshire College, Ph.D. in American Studies and Feminist / Sexuality Scholar, "'It's here, it's that time:' Race, queer futurity, and the temporality of violence in Born in Flames"~~** 12 -In one of the first lines of the film, a state newscaster covering the 13 -AND 14 -specifically about the continuation of sexual violence in the revolution, they respond: 15 - 16 - 17 -====Impact: Time does not pass; it accumulates and as a result, blackness marked as slavery since the middle passage has remained a death sentence even in the present – there's a history of violence.==== 18 -**Dillon 13 ~~Stephen Dillon, Assistant Professor of Queer Studies at Hampshire College, Ph.D. in American Studies and Feminist / Sexuality Scholar, "'It's here, it's that time:' Race, queer futurity, and the temporality of violence in Born in Flames"~~** 19 -In Specters of the Atlantic: Finance Capital, Slavery, and the Philosophy of 20 -AND 21 -, but they are also temporal intensities that structure subjectivity and life chances. 22 - 23 - 24 -====The alternative is to burn down the conception of the future and time as a method to destroy the notions of temporality as we know it in order to stop the accumulation of time. Black bodies are always already dying and always have been – there is no tomorrow for those who die tonight. There is no time to care about their impacts when they are always already systematically destroyed in society.==== 25 -**Dillon 13 ~~Stephen Dillon, Assistant Professor of Queer Studies at Hampshire College, Ph.D. in American Studies and Feminist / Sexuality Scholar, "'It's here, it's that time:' Race, queer futurity, and the temporality of violence in Born in Flames"~~** 26 -In his 1972 text Blood in My Eye, published shortly after he was shot 27 -AND 28 -. The future was not coming and so the present could not wait. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-09-17 02:58:04.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Rodrigo Paramo - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harvard-Westlake MG - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Southlake Carroll Chiang Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Dillon K - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Grapevine
- Caselist.CitesClass[5]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,26 +1,0 @@ 1 -====Ryan pushing for continuing resolution to solve shutdown now – leadership is key==== 2 -**Drum 9-14**, Kevin. "Sam Wang Wants Everyone to Settle down." Mother Jones. N.p., 14 Sept. 2016. Web. 16 Sept. 2016. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/09/sam-wang-wants-everyone-settle-down. 3 -Then sometime before the end of the month, the House will need to bring 4 -AND 5 -Democratic votes to pass a reasonable continuing resolution. But will he?1 6 - 7 - 8 -**====Nuclear power contentious issue - leads to partisan fights that destroy Ryan's control====** 9 -**Siciliano 16 ~~John Siciliano, Political Reporter @ the Washington Examiner, Washington Examiner, "The 2016 politics of nuclear energy", 1/10/16, http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-2016-politics-of-nuclear-energy/article/2579855~~** 10 -Nuclear power is one of the cleanest forms of electricity, yet the question of 11 -AND 12 -runner Hillary Clinton is "not going to endorse it," Zycher said. 13 - 14 - 15 -====New government shutdown would collapse the economy – largest risk facing the global economy ==== 16 -**Matthews 2015** Chris Matthews. Fortune. "Let the Debt Ceiling Games Begin: The government has once again reached the $18.1 trillion debt ceiling. Are we headed for another shutdown?" http://fortune.com/2015/03/16/debt-ceiling/ 17 -2015 could wind up being the best economic year for the developed world in nearly 18 -AND 19 -2015. Let's hope the President and Congress can learn to play nice. 20 - 21 - 22 -====Global nuclear war ==== 23 -**Kemp 10** Geoffrey Kemp, Director of Regional Strategic Programs at The Nixon Center, served in the White House under Ronald Reagan, special assistant to the president for national security affairs and senior director for Near East and South Asian affairs on the National Security Council Staff, Former Director, Middle East Arms Control Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2010, The East Moves West: India, China, and Asia's Growing Presence in the Middle East, p. 233-4 24 -The second scenario, called Mayhem and Chaos, is the opposite of the first 25 -AND 26 -expected, with dire consequences for two-thirds of the planet's population. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-09-17 17:37:00.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -idk - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -idk - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Southlake Carroll Chiang Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Spending DA - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Greenhill
- Caselist.CitesClass[6]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,43 +1,0 @@ 1 -====Interpretation: The aff must defend that public colleges or universities may restrict no constitutionally protected speech. To clarify, they can't defend a restriction on only a kind, setting, or timing of speech.==== 2 - 3 - 4 -====B. Violation- ==== 5 - 6 - 7 -====C. Reasons to prefer:==== 8 - 9 - 10 -====1. The term "any" is the res is the weak form of "any" - "not any" statements refer to "all". Cambridge Dictionary^^ ^^==== 11 -We use any before nouns to refer to indefinite or unknown quantities or an unlimited entity: Did you bring any bread? Mr Jacobson refused to answer any questions. If I were able to travel back to any place and time in history, I would go to ancient China. Any as a determiner has two forms: a strong form and a weak form. The forms have different meanings. Weak form any: indefinite quantities We use any for indefinite quantities in questions and negative sentences. We use some in affirmative sentences: Have you got any eggs? I haven't got any eggs. I've got some eggs. Not: I've got any eggs. We use weak form any only with uncountable nouns or with plural nouns: ~~talking about fuel for the car~~ Do I need to get any petrol? (+ uncountable noun) There aren't any clean knives. They're all in the dishwasher. (+ plural noun) Warning: We don't use any with this meaning with singular countable nouns: Have you got any Italian cookery books? (or … an Italian cookery book?) Not: Have you got any Italian cookery book? Strong form any meaning 'it does not matter which' We use any to mean 'it does not matter which or what', to describe something which is not limited. We use this meaning of any with all types of nouns and usually in affirmative sentences. In speaking we often stress any:. (+ uncountable noun) When you make a late booking, you don't know where you're going to go, do you? It could be any destination. (+ singular countable noun) ~~talking about a contract for new employees~~ Do we have any form of agreement with new staff when they start? (+ singular countable noun) ~~a parent talking to a child about a picture he has painted~~ A: I don't think I've ever seen you paint such a beautiful picture before. Gosh! Did you choose the colours? B: We could choose any colours we wanted. (+ plural countable noun) See also: Determiners and types of noun Some and any Any as a pronoun Any can be used as a pronoun (without a noun following) when the noun is understood. A: Have you got some £1 coins on you? B: Sorry, I don't think I have any. (understood: I don't think I have any £1 coins.) ~~parents talking about their children's school homework~~ A: Do you find that Elizabeth gets lots of homework? Marie gets a lot. B: No not really. She gets hardly any. (understood: She gets hardly any homework.) A: What did you think of the cake? It was delicious, wasn't it? B: I don't know. I didn't get any. (understood: I didn't get any of the cake.) See also: Determiners used as pronouns Any of We use any with of before articles (a/an, the), demonstratives (this, these), pronouns (you, us) or possessives (his, their): Shall I keep any of these spices? I think they're all out of date. Not: … any these spices? We use any of to refer to a part of a whole: Are any of you going to the meeting? I couldn't answer any of these questions. I listen to Abba but I've never bought any of their music. Any doesn't have a negative meaning on its own. It must be used with a negative word to mean the same as no. Compare Not Any: there aren't any biscuits left. They've eaten them all. No: There are no biscuits left. They've eaten them all. 12 - 13 - 14 -====Outweighs - it takes into account AFF definitions which assume a strong form of "any" that justifies singular cases.==== 15 - 16 - 17 -====Empirically proven—multiple court rulings agree with our interp. Elder 91^^ ^^==== 18 -The Michigan Supreme Court seemed to approve our dictionary definitions of "any" in Harrington v Interstate Business Men's Accident Ass'n, 210 Mich 327, 330; 178 NW 19 (1920), when it quoted Hopkins v Sanders, 172 Mich 227; 137 NW 709 (1912). The Court defined "any" like this: "In broad language, it covers 'arl'v final decree' in 'any suit at law or in chancery' in 'any circuit court.' Any' means ,every,' 'each one of all."' In a later case, the Michigan Supreme Court again held that the use of "any" in an agency contract meant "all." In Gibson v Agricultural Life Ins Co, 282 Mich 282, 284; 276 NW 450 (1937), the clause in controversy read: "14. The Company shall have, and is hereby given a first lien upon any commissions or renewals as security for any claim due or to become due to the Company from said Agent." (Emphasis added.) The Gibson court was not persuaded by the plaintiff's insistence that the word "any" meant less than "all": "Giving the wording of paragraph 14 oJ the agency contract its plain and unequivocable meaning, upon arriving at the conclusion that the sensible connotation of the word any' implies 'all' and not 'some,' the legal conclusion follows that the defendant is entitled to retain the earned renewal commissions arising from its agency contract with Gibson and cannot be held legally liable for same in this action," Gibson at 287 (quoting the trial court opinion). The Michigan Court of Appeals has similarly interpreted the word "any" as used in a Michigan statute. In McGrath v Clark, 89 Mich App 194; 280 NW2d 480 (1979), the plaintiff accepted defendant's offer of judgment. The offer said nothing about prejudgment interest. The statute the Court examined was MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013: "Interest shall be allowed on any money judgment recovered in a civil action...." The Court held that "the word 'any' is to be considered all-inclusive," so the defendants were entitled to interest. McGrath at 197 Recently, the Court has again held that "~~alny means 'every,' 'each one of all,' and is unlimited in its scope." Parker v Nationwide Mutual Ins Co, 188 Mich App 354, 356; 470 NW2d 416 (1991) (quoting Harrington v InterState Men's Accident Ass'n, supra) 19 - 20 - 21 -====2. Anything less than full freedom falls under regulation, not restriction. Taylor 12:^^ ^^==== 22 -Following Rawls and others, I distinguish between the "regulation" and the "restriction" of basic liberties like free speech. "The priority of these liberties," Rawls says, "is not infringed when they are merely regulated—as they must be—in order to be combined into one scheme as well as adapted to certain social conditions necessary for their enduring exercise" (Rawls 1993, 295). For instance, so-called "time, place, and manner" rules (e.g., scheduling speakers at a public forum on a "first-come, first-served" basis) usually qualify as regulations of speech, as they are merely intended to make communication mutually consistent or to protect the "central range of application" of other basic liberties. On the other hand, prohibitions on the advocacy of particular scientific or political doctrines count as restrictions of speech because they limit its content and thereby place at risk a core liberal value associated with open expression: intellectual autonomy achieved by way of the free exercise of public reason (Rawls 1993, 296; Kant 1996). Certain narrow limitations on the content of speech (e.g., bans on "fighting words," such as racial epithets used confrontationally) could be defended as regulations rather than restrictions, on the grounds that they do not threaten the free exercise of public reason and may protect the central range of application of other basic liberties (e.g., bodily security), but limitations on hate speech as I defined it above are prima facie restrictions, because they strike at the heart of such free exercise, which depends crucially on open access to all available arguments regarding scientific and political matters.2 ~~…~~ To begin, however, I should define my terms. For reasons that will become clear below, I define "hate speech" as a type of group libel: speech (oral or written) that argues for the mental, physical, and/or ethical inferiority of members of particular historically-oppressed groups (e.g., blacks, women, Jews, and homosexuals). Several other definitions of hate speech are available, of course, including ones that characterize it as "face-to-face vilification" by means of ~~which I count as~~ "fighting words" or as "hostile-environment harassment." 23 - 24 - 25 -====Framework – Topicality is decided based only on the meaning of terms in the resolution, not matters of fairness/education. Nebel 1:^^ ^^==== 26 -One reason why LDers may be suspicious of my view is because they see topicality as just another theory argument. But unlike other theory arguments, topicality involves two "interpretations." The first is an interpretation, in the ordinary sense of the word, of the resolution or of some part of it. ~~and~~ The second is a rule—namely, that the affirmative must defend the resolution.2 If we don't distinguish between these two interpretations, then the negative's view is merely that the affirmative must defend whatever proposition they think should be debated, not because it is the proposition expressed by the resolution, but rather because it would be good to debate. This failure to see what is distinctive about topicality leads quickly to the pragmatic approach, by ignoring what the interpretation is supposed to be an interpretation of. By contrast, the topicality rule—i.e., that the affirmative must defend the resolution—justifies the semantic approach. This rule is justified by appeals to fairness and education: it would be unfair to expect the negative to prepare against anything other than the resolution, because that is the only mutually acceptable basis for preparation; the educational benefits that are unique to debate stem from clash focused on a proposition determined beforehand. The inference to the priority of semantic considerations is simple. Consider the following argument: 1. We ought to debate the resolution. 2. The resolution means X. Therefore, 3. We ought to debate X. The first premise is just the topicality rule. The second premise is that X is the semantically correct interpretation. Pragmatic considerations for or against X do not, in themselves, support or deny this second premise. They ~~Fairness and education~~ might show that it would be better or worse if the resolution meant ~~something else~~ X, but sentences do not in general mean what it would be best for them to mean. At best, pragmatic considerations may ~~they only~~ show that we should debate some proposition other than the resolution. They are (if anything) reasons to change the topic, contrary to the topicality rule. Pragmatic considerations must, therefore, be weighed against the justifications for ~~debating the topic~~ the topicality rule, not against the semantic considerations: they are objections to the first premise, not the second premise, in the argument above. 27 - 28 - 29 -====Voter –. ==== 30 - 31 - 32 -====Preempt ~~#1 –==== 33 - 34 - 35 -====First, accepting the tournament invitation generates an obligation to debate the topic regardless of the consequences. Nebel 2:==== 36 -A second strategy denies that such pragmatic benefits are ~~not~~ relevant. This strategy is more deontological. One version of this strategy appeals to the importance of consent or agreement. Suppose that you give your opponents prior notice that you'll be affirming ~~a~~ the September/October 2012 resolution instead of the current one. There is a sense in which your affirmation of that resolution is now predictable: your opponents know, or are in a position to know, what you will be defending. And suppose that the older resolution is conducive to better (i.e., more fair and more educational) debate. ~~But~~ Still, it's unfair of you to expect your opponents to follow suit. Why? Because they didn't agree to debate that topic. They registered for a tournament whose invitation specified the current resolution, not the Sept/Oct 2012 resolution or a free-for-all. The "social contract" argument for topicality holds that accepting a tournament invitation constitutes implicit consent to debate the specified topic. This claim might be contested, depending on what constitutes implicit consent. What is less contestable is this: given that some proposition must be debated in each round and that the tournament has specified a resolution, no one can reasonably reject a principle that requires everyone to debate the announced resolution as worded. This appeals to Scanlon's contractualism. Someone who wishes to debate only the announced resolution has ~~I have~~ a strong claim against changing the topic, and no one has a stronger claim against ~~it~~ debating the announced resolution (ignoring, for now, some possible exceptions to be discussed in the next subsection). So it is unfair to expect your opponent to debate anything other than the announced resolution. This unfairness is a constraint on the pursuit of education or other goods: it wrongs and is unjustifiable to ~~me~~ your opponent. 37 - 38 - 39 -====Second, even pragmatic concerns justify debating the topic. Nebel 3:==== 40 -One reason why LDers may be suspicious of my view is because they see topicality as just another theory argument. But unlike other theory arguments, topicality involves two "interpretations." The first is an interpretation, in the ordinary sense of the word, of the resolution or of some part of it. The second is a rule—namely, that the affirmative must defend the resolution.2 If we don't distinguish between these two interpretations, then the negative's view is merely that the affirmative must defend whatever proposition they think should be debated, not because it is the proposition expressed by the resolution, but rather because it would be good to debate. This failure to see what is distinctive about topicality leads quickly to the pragmatic approach, by ignoring what the interpretation is supposed to be an interpretation of. By contrast, the topicality rule—i.e., that the affirmative must defend the resolution—justifies the semantic approach. This rule is justified by appeals to fairness and education: it would be unfair to expect the negative to prepare against anything other than the resolution, because that is the only mutually acceptable basis for preparation; the educational benefits that are unique to debate stem from clash focused on a proposition determined beforehand. The inference to the priority of semantic considerations is simple. Consider the following argument: 1. We ought to debate the resolution. 2. The resolution means X. Therefore, 3. We ought to debate X. The first premise is just the topicality rule. The second premise is that X is the semantically correct interpretation. Pragmatic considerations for or against X do not, in themselves, support or deny this second premise. They might show that it would be better or worse if the resolution meant ~~something else~~ X, but sentences do not in general mean what it would be best for them to mean. At best, pragmatic considerations may ~~only~~ show that we should debate some proposition other than the resolution. They are (if anything) reasons to change the topic, contrary to the topicality rule. Pragmatic considerations must, therefore, be weighed against the justifications for ~~debating the topic~~ the topicality rule, not against the semantic considerations: they are objections to the first premise, not the second premise, in the argument above. 1.1 The Topicality Rule vs. Pragmatic Considerations There is an obvious objection to my argument above. If the topicality rule is justified for reasons that have to do with fairness and education, then shouldn't we just directly appeal to such considerations when determining what proposition we ought to debate? There are at least three ways I see of responding to this objection. One way admits that such pragmatic considerations are relevant—i.e., they are ~~may be~~ reasons to change the topic—but holds that they are outweighed by the reasons for ~~debating it~~ the topicality rule. It would be better if everyone debated the resolution as worded, whatever it is, than if everyone debated whatever subtle variation on the resolution they favored. Affirmatives would unfairly abuse (and have already abused) the entitlement to choose their own unpredictable adventure, and negatives would respond (and have already responded) with strategies that are designed to avoid clash—including an essentially vigilantist approach to topicality in which debaters ~~would~~ enforce their own pet resolutions on an arbitrary, round-by-round basis. Think here of the utilitarian case for internalizing rules against lying, murder, and other intuitively wrong acts. As the great utilitarian Henry Sidgwick argued, wellbeing is maximized not by everyone doing what they think maximizes wellbeing, but rather (in general) by people sticking to the rules of common sense morality. Otherwise, people are more likely to act on mistaken utility calculations and engage in self-serving violations of useful rules, thereby undermin~~e~~ing ~~the~~ social practices that promote wellbeing in the long run. That is exactly what happens if we reject the topicality rule in favor of direct appeals to pragmatic considerations. Sticking to a rule that applies regardless of the topic, of the debaters' preferred variations on the topic, and of debaters' familiarity with the national circuit's flavor of the week, avoids these problems. 41 - 42 - 43 -====Preempt ~~#2 ==== - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-18 12:51:35.0 - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood JA - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -6 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Southlake Carroll Chiang Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB T-Any - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Colleyville Heritage
- Caselist.CitesClass[7]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,12 +1,0 @@ 1 -Hate speech is protected under the first amendment 2 -McGough 15, Michael. "Sorry, Kids, the 1st Amendment Does Protect 'hate Speech'." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 30 Oct. 2015. Web. 08 Jan. 2017. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-colleges-hate-speech-1st-amendment-20151030-story.html. SM 3 -As Eugene Volokh of UCLA law school pointed out on his blog in the Washington Post: “Hateful ideas (whatever exactly that might mean) are just as protected under the 1st Amendment as other ideas. One is as free to condemn Islam — or Muslims, or Jews, or blacks, or whites, or illegal aliens, or native-born citizens — as one is to condemn capitalism or Socialism or Democrats or Republicans.” (Volokh’s parenthesis about “whatever exactly that might mean” points to a different issue: the defining down of the word “hate.” Opposing same-sex marriage, a position embraced not that long ago by President Obama, is sometimes viewed as anti-gay hate speech. So is criticism of the Catholic Church. Bill Donohue of the Catholic League asserted that a Jon Stewart skit involving a Nativity scene "ranks with the most vulgar expression of hate speech ever aired on television.") So where does the idea that the 1st Amendment doesn’t protect hate speech come from? Not from thin air. While the Supreme Court hasn't said that there is a "hate speech" exception to the 1st Amendment, it has in the past upheld some restrictions on hateful speech. “For instance," Volokh notes, "there is an exception for ‘fighting words’ — face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific person, of the sort that are likely to start an immediate fight. But this exception isn’t limited to racial or religious insults, nor does it cover all racially or religiously offensive statements.” Also, he notes, in the 1952 case of Beauharnais vs. Illinois the court "did ... uphold a ‘group libel’ law that outlawed statements that expose racial or religious groups to contempt or hatred, unless the speaker could show that the statements were true, and were said with ‘good motives’ and for ‘justifiable ends.' But this too was treated by the court as just a special case of a broader 1st Amendment exception — the one for libel generally. And Beauharnais is widely understood to no longer be good law, given the court’s later restrictions on the libel exception.” Some hateful speech is unprotected if it crosses over into conduct ~-~- such as the use of a racial slur to threaten or intimidate someone. And hateful speech in the workplace can create a “hostile environment” that the courts have treated as a form of discrimination. (Some courts have also recognized an analogue to a hostile workplace environment in educational settings, though this is more controversial.) Outside those situations, hate speech is protected by the 1st Amendment against abridgment by the government, including a state university. (As a private institution, Williams College isn’t bound by the 1st Amendment in the way the University of California is. But its policies on speech have nothing to do with “legally recognized hate speech.”) “Haters gotta hate," the saying goes. But if they do, their words are protected by the Constitution ~-~- whatever college students think. 4 -Hate speech has long term silencing effects—that’s terminal defense on the aff. Even if people aren’t silenced they’re more likely to agree with the dominant voice to avoid opposition 5 -West 12, Caroline. "Words that silence? Freedom of expression and racist hate speech." Speech and Harm: controversies over free speech (2012): 222-48. 6 -In addition to its immediate disabling effects, racist hate speech may have indirect and longer-lived silencing effects. There is considerable evidence that being subjected to racist verbal abuse reduces the self-esteem of targets, especially when individuals are targeted repeatedly. It is not hard to see how this could work. If others repeatedly tell you that you are worthless or contemptible—if they say that you are dumb, dirty, or lazy, simply in virtue of your race which you are powerless to change or conceal—then it is likely that eventually you will come yourself to believe that this is so, especially if the message of inferiority is reinforced in subtle and not so subtle ways by the culture at large. 25 (One needs only to think of the well-known effects on children of parental verbal abuse to get a sense of the way in which racist hate speech may impact psychologically on its targets; and indeed there is evidence that some of the effects of racist abuse on its targets are not dissimilar to the short-term effects of sexual abuse on children.) 26 Low self-esteem has numerous adverse outcomes. One less commonly emphasized effect concerns its impact on speech. Individuals who suffer low self-esteem tend to believe they have nothing worth saying, and so are generally less likely to voice their opinions. Even when they do speak, they are less likely to persist in arguing their case in the face of disagreement or opposition. They tend to seek affirmation from others and typically desire to avoid confrontation. Insofar as being subjected to racist abuse contributes to a process whereby targets come to internalize feelings of worthlessness, it makes it less likely in general that they will speak at all; and less likely still that, when they do speak, the opinions that they voice will be ones that contest established opinions. 7 -And this disproportionately harms minorities—it justifies their exclusion from discussions which perpetuates dominant ideologies 8 -West 12, Caroline. "Words that silence? Freedom of expression and racist hate speech." Speech and Harm: controversies over free speech (2012): 222-48. 9 -In these and other ways, racist hate speech may cause those it targets to withdraw from participation in public life and discourse. This is unfortu- nate for society as a whole, insofar as it adversely affects the quality of the deliberations that take place without the benefit of their input. But it is especially unfortunate for those who are silenced, not least because delib- erations that take place without their input may issue in decisions that fail to take account of their interests. While everyone may lose if some people are deterred from participating in collective decision-making, especially if those silenced have worthwhile things to say, those who are silenced are likely to bear a disproportionate share of the loss. 10 -Hate speech leads to a cycle of marginalization in which members of the dominant group are able to easily dismiss the concerns of minorities, silencing them. 11 -West 12, Caroline. "Words that silence? Freedom of expression and racist hate speech." Speech and Harm: controversies over free speech (2012): 222-48. 12 -We should distinguish comprehension failure from another kind of silenc- ing that might occur when, for instance, an audience is caused to think that speakers are intellectually limited or otherwise inferior. In this case, the audience grasps what the speaker means to say perfectly well, but ignores it or dismisses it out of hand because they believe the speaker is not the kind of person worth listening to. This constitutes consideration failure. There is considerable evidence that racist hate speech—especially when directed by a member of a dominant group against a member of a historically marginalized group—functions to undermine the attention and consider- ation that is paid to the speech of those it targets. 33 This is not surprising. If certain groups are sufficiently pilloried this may have a purely causal impact on the audience, such that they are less likely to attend to what members of the targeted group have to say or to give it much consideration. Here is Lawrence again: Racist speech . . . distorts the marketplace of ideas by muting or devaluing the speech of Blacks and other despised minorities. Regardless of intrinsic value, their words and ideas become less saleable in the marketplace of ideas. An idea that would be embraced by large numbers of individuals if it were offered by a white individual will be rejected or given less credence if its author belongs to a group demeaned and stigmatized by racist beliefs. The point here is an important, if familiar, one. How much attention and consideration is paid to what a speaker has to say varies in accordance with the esteem in which the speaker is held in a community. Esteem matters less for a speaker’s ability to communicate ideas that conform to established opinion. Accepted opinions bring with them credence of their own; and the credence attached to established ideas may in fact sometimes spill over to confer additional credibility on the speaker in the eyes of the audience. Esteem is absolutely critical, however, when it comes to a speaker’s ability to communicate new or unfamiliar ideas, especially ideas that challenge prevailing orthodoxies. When a member of a respected group in society expresses an unorthodox or unpopular opinion they may not succeed in persuading others to their point of view, but their opinion tends at least to be listened to and given some consideration. This occurs simply in virtue of the fact that, however implausible the idea may at first sight seem, it is the opinion of someone esteemed, someone generally taken to be worth listening to. But when members of a group generally held in low regard express an unorthodox or unpopular view, that opinion is considerably less likely to be attended to or considered—at least, absent a conspicuous counter-veiling reason for thinking that the speaker in question has some special domain-specific expertise regarding the particular subject matter at hand. 35 This, I take it, is part of what Catharine Mackinnon has in mind when she notes that powerful and respected members of society get to do more, say more, have their words count for more, than do the powerless. 36 The ability to have one’s speech attended to and considered by others is both a consequence of occupying a position of social power and part of what constitutes and maintains that position of power, for it is a significant part of what enables individuals to use speech to influence others and so to shape the social and political environment around them. Conversely, the inability to have one’s speech attended to and considered is both a mark of powerlessness and part of what constitutes one as powerless. Those whose speech is widely ignored or unreflectively dismissed cannot use speech, as the powerful can, to influence the beliefs and attitudes of others and, through this, impact on the community around them. It should be clear why consideration failure is of special concern when those affected are members of historically marginalized groups. It is not that oppressed minorities are more virtuous or more likely to be right, although this may sometimes be true. It is rather that consideration failure can here form part of a self-reinforcing cycle of marginalization. Many of the groups most commonly targeted by hate speech have quite literally been denied a voice in public affairs. Only comparatively recently have many of them been granted the right to vote, for instance. As a result, they live in a society whose dominant culture and institutions have arisen substantially without their input and often without much if any concern for their interests. Effecting social reform by means of rational persuasion requires that members of these groups are in a position to use speech to challenge established patterns of thought and practice. This in turn re- quires that their views—which are likely frequently to be unfamiliar and sometimes confrontational—stand a reasonable chance of being given some consideration by others. Only then can minority views genuinely compete with established opinion. But the attitudes of intolerance and disrespect that underpin and sustain existing discrimination may them- selves prevent the views of those disadvantaged from receiving the fair hearing required to challenge these attitudes. Insofar as racist hate speech functions to reproduce and reinforce in its audience attitudes of hostility and contempt for minority groups it targets, it may operate as a kind of protective buffer to the ideology of racism, shielding it from challenge by sapping the power of minority speech to contest it. This cycle must somehow be interrupted if members of historically marginalized groups are to have a reasonable chance of reshaping the moral and political environment through speech. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-18 12:55:44.0 - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood JA - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -7 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Southlake Carroll Chiang Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB Hate Speech DA - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Colleyville Heritage
- Caselist.RoundClass[0]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -0 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-09-09 23:26:08.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -A - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -A - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Plano Senior
- Caselist.RoundClass[1]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-09-09 23:38:06.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -C - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -C - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Plano Senior
- Caselist.RoundClass[2]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-09-17 02:46:44.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Varad Agarwala - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Union BS - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Grapevine
- Caselist.RoundClass[3]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-09-17 02:50:44.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Rodrigo Paramo - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harvard-Westlake MG - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Grapevine
- Caselist.RoundClass[4]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-09-17 02:58:03.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Rodrigo Paramo - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harvard-Westlake MG - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Grapevine
- Caselist.RoundClass[5]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-09-17 17:36:58.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -idk - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -idk - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Greenhill
- Caselist.RoundClass[6]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -6 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-18 12:51:30.0 - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood JA - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Colleyville Heritage
- Caselist.RoundClass[7]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -7 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-18 12:55:42.0 - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood JA - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Colleyville Heritage
- Caselist.RoundClass[8]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-18 13:15:30.972 - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -a - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Colleyville Heritage