Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[70]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[139]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[70]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-03-25 16:13:16.959
	1	+2017-03-25 16:13:16.0

Caselist.CitesClass[139]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,9 @@
	1	+Interpretation: The aff must defend that all constitutionally protected speech in all venues ought not be restricted by public colleges or universities. To clarify, they can’t defend removing a specific restriction on speech.
	2	+Violation: You spec.
	3	+Net Benefits:
	4	+1. Semantics decisively negate- almost test and framers intent prove
	5	+Lallas 17, Jackson, A DEFENSE OF T-ANY, 2017, http://www.theladi.org/blog/2017/2/9/a-defense-of-t-any
	6	+Consider these sentences: (1) Did you debate any debaters? (2) Any debater could win that round. In (1) any seems to function as an existential. If you debated at least one debater, you would answer yes to the question. However, (2) operates as a universal – pick any debater and they should be able to win the round. A good rule of thumb for telling the difference between a universal and existential any is the ‘almost test,’ (See Carlson 1981, and Kadmon and Landman 1993). Almost can only modify universal determiners (Kadmon and Landman 1993). Consider: (3) Did you debate almost any debaters? (4) Almost any debater could win that round. We see that (3) is incoherent, but (4) still makes sense. (4) now has a smaller scope than (2), as some debaters would not be able to win the round. Using the almost test, it’s clear that our current topic is an example of the universal any: (5) Public colleges and universities ought not prohibit almost any constitutionally protected speech. Though awkward, this sentence has a clear meaning. It reads: “With a small amount of exceptions, constitutionally protected speech ought not be prohibited by public colleges and universities.” Since the resolution passes the almost test, we know that it uses any as a universal determiner. This demonstrates that the semantics of the resolution favor a generic reading, as we would intuitively expect. I will note that there is debate about the meaning of a universal any. However, I have not encountered an article advocating for a model allows the affirmative position to be the more accurate reading of the resolution. There is a lot of literature on the semantics of any and some of the articles are 300 + pages long, so it’s possible I missed something. Another semantic justification for the negative position comes from the ‘widening effect’ of any (Kadmon and Landman 1993). Consider this example, slightly modified for clarity from Kadmon and Landman: (6) Owls hunt mice. (7) Any owl hunts mice. Although both sentences are generic, they conclude that (7) rules out exceptions more strongly than (6). (7) applies to more cases than (6) so it is a broader statement. From an intuitive perspective, this happens because the determiner any emphasizes a statement’s generality. Now consider the following sentences: (8) Countries ought to prohibit the production of nuclear power. (9) Countries ought to prohibit any production of nuclear power. (10) In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. (11) In the United States, all private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. (12) Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict constitutionally protected speech. (13) Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech. There are two observations to be made here that support the negative side of T - Any. The first is that (12) and (13) are analogous to the construction of (6) and (7), so the widening effect indicates that (13) applies to a larger quantity. The second is that the use of any seems to be very deliberate. Our past resolutions (8) and (10) were general statements that omitted universal determiners.
	7	+2. Limits
	8	+3. Ground
	9	+same voters as all my other shells

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-03-25 16:13:19.776

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Jacob Koshak, Travis Fife

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Westwood RS

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+70

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+4

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Strake Jesuit Chen Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+JF - T - ANY - V2

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Kandi King RR