Changes for page Strake Jesuit Chen Neg
Summary
-
Objects (0 modified, 13 added, 6 removed)
- Caselist.CitesClass[118]
- Caselist.CitesClass[119]
- Caselist.CitesClass[120]
- Caselist.CitesClass[130]
- Caselist.CitesClass[131]
- Caselist.RoundClass[65]
- Caselist.CitesClass[142]
- Caselist.CitesClass[143]
- Caselist.CitesClass[144]
- Caselist.CitesClass[145]
- Caselist.CitesClass[146]
- Caselist.CitesClass[147]
- Caselist.CitesClass[148]
- Caselist.CitesClass[149]
- Caselist.RoundClass[72]
- Caselist.RoundClass[73]
- Caselist.RoundClass[74]
- Caselist.RoundClass[75]
- Caselist.RoundClass[76]
Details
- Caselist.CitesClass[118]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,32 +1,0 @@ 1 -A. Interpretation: The affirmative must defend not restricting any and all constitutionally protected speech—to clarify, they may not specify a constitutionally protected speech. 2 -Google Dictionary defines “not” as https://www.google.com/search?q=not+definitionandoq=not+definitionandaqs=chrome.0.0l6.2170j0j7andsourceid=chromeandie=UTF-8 “used with an auxiliary verb or “be” to form the negative.” 3 -Google Dictionary defines “any” as 4 -https://www.google.com/search?q=not+definitionandoq=not+definitionandaqs=chrome.0.0l6.2170j0j7andsourceid=chromeandie=UTF-8#q=any+definition 5 - “whichever of a specified class might be chosen.” 6 -So this means the resolution says we can not choose a case to restrict speech. Whatever case might be chosen should not be restricted. So to prove the resolution true, you should show that there does not exist a case where we restrict constitutionally protected speech, else you negate. 7 -B. ViolatIon: You spec. 8 -C. Standards: 9 -1. Accuracy- my interp is best 10 -A. Legal Precision- Multiple court rulings agree- any means all 11 -Elder 91, David, “Any and All": To Use Or Not To Use?,” 1991, http://www.michbar.org/file/generalinfo/plainenglish/pdfs/91_oct.pdf 12 -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) 13 -B. Your definition of any is of a different phrase, it is the strong form of any which isn’t used in negative sentences so your definition is out of context. 14 -Cambridge Dictionary Cambridge English Dictionary, “Any,” Cambridge University Press, Accessed 12-4-2016, http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/quantifiers/any 15 -Any as a determiner 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. 16 -2. Limits- 17 -Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. "Case Archive". Retrieved 2008-03-25. 18 -3. Topic Lit- 19 -VOters; 20 -Fairness 21 -Jurisdiction 22 -Drop debater on T- 23 -1 24 -2 25 -CI- 26 -1. 27 -2. 28 -3. 29 -No RVI 30 -1 31 -2 32 -3 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-16 01:40:26.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Wheeler, Shan - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harvard Westlake EE - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -61 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Strake Jesuit Chen Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JF - T - ANY - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harvard Westlake RR
- Caselist.CitesClass[119]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,11 +1,0 @@ 1 -A. Interpretation: Freedom of speech refers specifically to literal speech and expressive action—printed, written, or otherwise published information is freedom of the press. 2 -Volokh 12 Eugene Volokh (Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law), FREEDOM FOR THE PRESS AS AN INDUSTRY, OR FOR THE PRESS AS A TECHNOLOGY? FROM THE FRAMING TO TODAY, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 2012 3 -The freedom of the press-as-technology, of course, was not seen as redundant of the freedom of speech.56 St. George Tucker, for instance, discussed the freedom of speech as focusing on the spoken word and the freedom of the press as focusing on the printed: The best speech cannot be heard, by any great number of persons. The best speech may be misunderstood, misrepresented, and imperfectly remembered by those who are present. To all the rest of mankind, it is, as if it had never been. The best speech must also be short for the inves- tigation of any subject of an intricate nature, or even a plain one, if it be of more than ordinary length. The best speech then must be altogether inadequate to the due exercise of the censorial power, by the people. The only adequate supplementary aid for these defects, is the absolute freedom of the press. 57 at the Debates of the Constitutional Convention. Likewise, George Hay, who later became a U.S. Attorney and a federal judge, wrote in 1799 that “freedom of speech means, in the construc- tion of the Constitution, the privilege of speaking any thing without control” and “the words freedom of the press, which form a part of the same sentence, means the privilege of printing any thing without control.”58 4 -B. Violation: They defend journalism- my Volokh evidence explains this is freedom of press, not speech. The aff isn’t topical. 5 -C. Standards: 6 -1. Accuracy - 7 -B. Legal Context - 8 -C. Author qualifications – 9 -A. 10 -B. 11 -2. Limits- - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-16 01:40:28.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Wheeler, Shan - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harvard Westlake EE - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -61 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Strake Jesuit Chen Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JF - T - Speech - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harvard Westlake RR
- Caselist.CitesClass[120]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,11 +1,0 @@ 1 -Counterplan Text – Colleges and Universities ought to restrict student hate speech in instances of journalism. Competes- you have to defend all journalistic speech. 2 -Publications are a source of hate on campus – it’s been used to promote platforms for things like Holocaust Denial. 3 -Foxman 10 (Abraham H. Foxman National Director Anti-Defamation League, Fighting Holocaust Denial in Campus Newspaper Advertisements A Manual for Action Revised: May 2010) 4 -Holocaust denial is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory which claims that the well-documented destruction of six million Jews during World War II is actually a myth created by Jews to serve their own self-interested purposes. On college campuses, Holocaust denial is most often encountered in the form of advertisements submitted to student newspapers ads by Bradley Smith and his Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH). These ads are an affront to truth and an insult to tmemory of those who were murdered by the Nazis. They create a divisive atmosphere for Jews on campus and foster conflict among students, faculty, administrators and the local community. Hillel: The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life, and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) have worked together for years to counteract these ads and to restore civility to the campus community when they have been published. Students, campus professionals and local community leaders necessarily play the major role in this effort. The Holocaust is a central tragedy in the sweep of Jewish and human history and a trauma that continues to inform Jewish life today. It is also a cautionary tale about human character that deserves retelling in every generation, to Jews and non-Jews alike. By fighting Holocaust denial on campuses we honor the memory of the victims, confront the forces of hatred, and help shape a responsible new generation of Americans. We urge you to join us in this effort. 5 -Banning hate speech in journalism is good– they make underground movements less effective and destructive, deter people from joining and allow for coalitions of targeted groups to fight back. 6 -Parekh 12, Bhikhu (2012) ‘Is There a Case for Banning Hate Speech?’, in Herz, M. and Molnar, P. (eds.) The Content and Context of Hate Speech: Rethinking Regulation and Responses. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 37–56. 7 - 8 -This is an important argument and its force should not be underestimated. However, it has its limits. A ban on hate speech might drive extremist groups underground, but it also persuades their moderate and law-abiding members to dissociate them-selves from these groups When extremist groups go underground, they are denied the oxygen of publicity and the aura of public respectability. This makes their operations more difficult and denies them the opportunity to link up with other similar groups and recruit their members. While the ban might alienate extremist groups, it has the compensating advantage of securing the enthusiastic commitment and support of their target groups. Besides, beyond a certain point, alienation need not he a source of worry. Some religious groups are alienated from their secular orientation of the liberal state, just as the communists and polyamourously inclined persons bitterly resent its commitment (respectively) to market economy and monogamy. We accept such forms of alienation as inherent in collective life and do not seek to redress them by abandoming the liberal state. The ban might harden the determination of some, bur it is also likely to weaken that of those who seek respectability and do not want to be associated with ideas and groups considered so disreputable as to be banned, or who are deterred by the cost involved in supporting them. There is the lure of the prohibited, but there is also the attraction of the respectable. 9 -Hate speech leads to a genocidal increase in crimes against marginalized groups. 10 -Greenblatt 15 Jonathan Greenblatt, When Hateful Speech Leads to Hate Crimes: Taking Bigotry Out of the Immigration Debate, Huffington Post, 8/21/15, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-greenblatt/when-hateful-speech-leads_b_8022966.html 11 -When police arrived at the scene in Boston, they found a Latino man shaking on the ground, his face apparently soaked in urine, with a broken nose. His arms and chest had been beaten. One of the two brothers arrested and charged with the hate crime reportedly told police, “Donald Trump was right — all these illegals need to be deported.” The victim, a homeless man, was apparently sleeping outside of a subway station in Dorchester when the perpetrators attacked. His only offense was being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The brothers reportedly attacked him for who he was — simply because he was Latino. In recent weeks anti-immigrant — and by extension anti-Latino — rhetoric has reached a fever pitch. Immigrants have been smeared as “killers” and “rapists.” They have been accused of bringing drugs and crime. A radio talk show host in Iowa has called for enslavement of undocumented immigrants if they do not leave within 60 days. There have been calls to repeal the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of citizenship to people born in the United States, with allegations that people come here to have so-called “anchor babies.” And the terms “illegal aliens” and “illegals” — which many mainstream news sources wisely rejected years ago because they dehumanize and stigmatize people — have resurged. The words used on the campaign trail, on the floors of Congress, in the news, and in all our living rooms have consequences. They directly impact our ability to sustain a society that ensures dignity and equality for all. Bigoted rhetoric and words laced with prejudice are building blocks for the pyramid of hate. Biased behaviors build on one another, becoming ever more threatening and dangerous towards the top. At the base is bias, which includes stereotyping and insensitive remarks. It sets the foundation for a second, more complex and more damaging layer: individual acts of prejudice, including bullying, slurs and dehumanization. Next is discrimination, which in turn supports bias-motivated violence, including apparent hate crimes like the tragic one in Boston. And in the most extreme cases if left unchecked, the top of the pyramid of hate is genocide. Just like a pyramid, the lower levels support the upper levels. Bias, prejudice and discrimination — particularly touted by those with a loud megaphone and cheering crowd — all contribute to an atmosphere that enables hate crimes and other hate-fueled violence. The most recent hate crime in Boston is just one of too many. In fact, there is a hate crime roughly every 90 minutes in the United States today. That is why last week ADL announced a new initiative, #50StatesAgainstHate, to strengthen hate crimes laws around the country and safeguard communities vulnerable to hate-fueled attacks. We are working with a broad coalition of partners to get the ball rolling. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-16 01:40:30.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Wheeler, Shan - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harvard Westlake EE - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -61 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Strake Jesuit Chen Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JF - CP - Hate Speech Journalism - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harvard Westlake RR
- Caselist.CitesClass[130]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,7 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Generic Theory/T 2 -2 - Generic K's 3 -3 - Generic Framework or substance (like a Util framework or impact turns, not that I read util much lol) 4 -SO - September October 5 -ND - November December 6 -JF - January February 7 -MA - March April - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-18 21:25:43.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -65 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Strake Jesuit Chen Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -0 - Read This - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any
- Caselist.CitesClass[131]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,16 +1,0 @@ 1 -Just some shells I may or may not read. 2 -1. Debaters cannot break new plans at the TOC 3 -2. The affirmative cannot read a theoretically justified burden structure unless the burden text and the full text of all theory standards are disclosed. 4 -3. Debaters must have round reports 5 -4. the affirmative has to spec what conpro speech is in the 1AC 6 -5. the affirmative has to grant DA links (i.e. concede that they defend x or y as conpro speech) if asked in CX 7 -6. The affirmative has to have a balancing test to determine what constitutes conpro speech in the 1ac 8 -7. the affirmative has to specify a mechanism by which to restrict conpro speech in the 1ac 9 -8. the affirmative has to spec what the punishment is for a violation of conpro speech 10 -9. the affirmative cannot claim the right to reclarify their advocacy in CX. 10. the aff cannot read CX checks as a meta-theory interp 11 -11. the sufficient neg burden is to prove that there is no coherent understanding of what constitutes constitutionally protected speech 12 -12. contigent standards are bad 13 -13. the aff needs a single weighing mechanism back to which all their offense links 14 -14. a prioris are bad 15 -15. if the aff doesn't define ought in the 1ac they can't in the 1ar 16 -16. no parallel turns in the 1ar if the 1nc reads util - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-18 21:25:44.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -65 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Strake Jesuit Chen Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Possible Interps List - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any
- Caselist.RoundClass[65]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -130,131 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-18 21:25:40.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any
- Caselist.CitesClass[142]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,32 @@ 1 +A. Interpretation: The affirmative must defend not restricting any and all constitutionally protected speech—to clarify, they may not specify a constitutionally protected speech. 2 +Google Dictionary defines “not” as https://www.google.com/search?q=not+definitionandoq=not+definitionandaqs=chrome.0.0l6.2170j0j7andsourceid=chromeandie=UTF-8 “used with an auxiliary verb or “be” to form the negative.” 3 +Google Dictionary defines “any” as 4 +https://www.google.com/search?q=not+definitionandoq=not+definitionandaqs=chrome.0.0l6.2170j0j7andsourceid=chromeandie=UTF-8#q=any+definition 5 + “whichever of a specified class might be chosen.” 6 +So this means the resolution says we can not choose a case to restrict speech. Whatever case might be chosen should not be restricted. So to prove the resolution true, you should show that there does not exist a case where we restrict constitutionally protected speech, else you negate. 7 +B. ViolatIon: You spec. 8 +C. Standards: 9 +1. Accuracy- my interp is best 10 +A. Legal Precision- Multiple court rulings agree- any means all 11 +Elder 91, David, “Any and All": To Use Or Not To Use?,” 1991, http://www.michbar.org/file/generalinfo/plainenglish/pdfs/91_oct.pdf 12 +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) 13 +B. Your definition of any is of a different phrase, it is the strong form of any which isn’t used in negative sentences so your definition is out of context. 14 +Cambridge Dictionary Cambridge English Dictionary, “Any,” Cambridge University Press, Accessed 12-4-2016, http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/quantifiers/any 15 +Any as a determiner 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. 16 +2. Limits- 17 +Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. "Case Archive". Retrieved 2008-03-25. 18 +3. Topic Lit- 19 +VOters; 20 +Fairness 21 +Jurisdiction 22 +Drop debater on T- 23 +1 24 +2 25 +CI- 26 +1. 27 +2. 28 +3. 29 +No RVI 30 +1 31 +2 32 +3 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-03-25 17:53:19.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Wheeler, Shan - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Harvard Westlake EE - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +72 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Strake Jesuit Chen Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JF - T - ANY - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Harvard Westlake RR
- Caselist.CitesClass[143]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,11 @@ 1 +A. Interpretation: Freedom of speech refers specifically to literal speech and expressive action—printed, written, or otherwise published information is freedom of the press. 2 +Volokh 12 Eugene Volokh (Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law), FREEDOM FOR THE PRESS AS AN INDUSTRY, OR FOR THE PRESS AS A TECHNOLOGY? FROM THE FRAMING TO TODAY, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 2012 3 +The freedom of the press-as-technology, of course, was not seen as redundant of the freedom of speech.56 St. George Tucker, for instance, discussed the freedom of speech as focusing on the spoken word and the freedom of the press as focusing on the printed: The best speech cannot be heard, by any great number of persons. The best speech may be misunderstood, misrepresented, and imperfectly remembered by those who are present. To all the rest of mankind, it is, as if it had never been. The best speech must also be short for the inves- tigation of any subject of an intricate nature, or even a plain one, if it be of more than ordinary length. The best speech then must be altogether inadequate to the due exercise of the censorial power, by the people. The only adequate supplementary aid for these defects, is the absolute freedom of the press. 57 at the Debates of the Constitutional Convention. Likewise, George Hay, who later became a U.S. Attorney and a federal judge, wrote in 1799 that “freedom of speech means, in the construc- tion of the Constitution, the privilege of speaking any thing without control” and “the words freedom of the press, which form a part of the same sentence, means the privilege of printing any thing without control.”58 4 +B. Violation: They defend journalism- my Volokh evidence explains this is freedom of press, not speech. The aff isn’t topical. 5 +C. Standards: 6 +1. Accuracy - 7 +B. Legal Context - 8 +C. Author qualifications – 9 +A. 10 +B. 11 +2. Limits- - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-03-25 17:53:20.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Wheeler, Shan - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Harvard Westlake EE - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +72 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Strake Jesuit Chen Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JF - T - Speech v Press - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Harvard Westlake RR
- Caselist.CitesClass[144]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,11 @@ 1 +Counterplan Text – Colleges and Universities ought to restrict student hate speech in instances of journalism. Competes- you have to defend all journalistic speech. 2 +Publications are a source of hate on campus – it’s been used to promote platforms for things like Holocaust Denial. 3 +Foxman 10 (Abraham H. Foxman National Director Anti-Defamation League, Fighting Holocaust Denial in Campus Newspaper Advertisements A Manual for Action Revised: May 2010) 4 +Holocaust denial is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory which claims that the well-documented destruction of six million Jews during World War II is actually a myth created by Jews to serve their own self-interested purposes. On college campuses, Holocaust denial is most often encountered in the form of advertisements submitted to student newspapers ads by Bradley Smith and his Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH). These ads are an affront to truth and an insult to tmemory of those who were murdered by the Nazis. They create a divisive atmosphere for Jews on campus and foster conflict among students, faculty, administrators and the local community. Hillel: The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life, and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) have worked together for years to counteract these ads and to restore civility to the campus community when they have been published. Students, campus professionals and local community leaders necessarily play the major role in this effort. The Holocaust is a central tragedy in the sweep of Jewish and human history and a trauma that continues to inform Jewish life today. It is also a cautionary tale about human character that deserves retelling in every generation, to Jews and non-Jews alike. By fighting Holocaust denial on campuses we honor the memory of the victims, confront the forces of hatred, and help shape a responsible new generation of Americans. We urge you to join us in this effort. 5 +Banning hate speech in journalism is good– they make underground movements less effective and destructive, deter people from joining and allow for coalitions of targeted groups to fight back. 6 +Parekh 12, Bhikhu (2012) ‘Is There a Case for Banning Hate Speech?’, in Herz, M. and Molnar, P. (eds.) The Content and Context of Hate Speech: Rethinking Regulation and Responses. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 37–56. 7 + 8 +This is an important argument and its force should not be underestimated. However, it has its limits. A ban on hate speech might drive extremist groups underground, but it also persuades their moderate and law-abiding members to dissociate them-selves from these groups When extremist groups go underground, they are denied the oxygen of publicity and the aura of public respectability. This makes their operations more difficult and denies them the opportunity to link up with other similar groups and recruit their members. While the ban might alienate extremist groups, it has the compensating advantage of securing the enthusiastic commitment and support of their target groups. Besides, beyond a certain point, alienation need not he a source of worry. Some religious groups are alienated from their secular orientation of the liberal state, just as the communists and polyamourously inclined persons bitterly resent its commitment (respectively) to market economy and monogamy. We accept such forms of alienation as inherent in collective life and do not seek to redress them by abandoming the liberal state. The ban might harden the determination of some, bur it is also likely to weaken that of those who seek respectability and do not want to be associated with ideas and groups considered so disreputable as to be banned, or who are deterred by the cost involved in supporting them. There is the lure of the prohibited, but there is also the attraction of the respectable. 9 +Hate speech leads to a genocidal increase in crimes against marginalized groups. 10 +Greenblatt 15 Jonathan Greenblatt, When Hateful Speech Leads to Hate Crimes: Taking Bigotry Out of the Immigration Debate, Huffington Post, 8/21/15, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-greenblatt/when-hateful-speech-leads_b_8022966.html 11 +When police arrived at the scene in Boston, they found a Latino man shaking on the ground, his face apparently soaked in urine, with a broken nose. His arms and chest had been beaten. One of the two brothers arrested and charged with the hate crime reportedly told police, “Donald Trump was right — all these illegals need to be deported.” The victim, a homeless man, was apparently sleeping outside of a subway station in Dorchester when the perpetrators attacked. His only offense was being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The brothers reportedly attacked him for who he was — simply because he was Latino. In recent weeks anti-immigrant — and by extension anti-Latino — rhetoric has reached a fever pitch. Immigrants have been smeared as “killers” and “rapists.” They have been accused of bringing drugs and crime. A radio talk show host in Iowa has called for enslavement of undocumented immigrants if they do not leave within 60 days. There have been calls to repeal the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of citizenship to people born in the United States, with allegations that people come here to have so-called “anchor babies.” And the terms “illegal aliens” and “illegals” — which many mainstream news sources wisely rejected years ago because they dehumanize and stigmatize people — have resurged. The words used on the campaign trail, on the floors of Congress, in the news, and in all our living rooms have consequences. They directly impact our ability to sustain a society that ensures dignity and equality for all. Bigoted rhetoric and words laced with prejudice are building blocks for the pyramid of hate. Biased behaviors build on one another, becoming ever more threatening and dangerous towards the top. At the base is bias, which includes stereotyping and insensitive remarks. It sets the foundation for a second, more complex and more damaging layer: individual acts of prejudice, including bullying, slurs and dehumanization. Next is discrimination, which in turn supports bias-motivated violence, including apparent hate crimes like the tragic one in Boston. And in the most extreme cases if left unchecked, the top of the pyramid of hate is genocide. Just like a pyramid, the lower levels support the upper levels. Bias, prejudice and discrimination — particularly touted by those with a loud megaphone and cheering crowd — all contribute to an atmosphere that enables hate crimes and other hate-fueled violence. The most recent hate crime in Boston is just one of too many. In fact, there is a hate crime roughly every 90 minutes in the United States today. That is why last week ADL announced a new initiative, #50StatesAgainstHate, to strengthen hate crimes laws around the country and safeguard communities vulnerable to hate-fueled attacks. We are working with a broad coalition of partners to get the ball rolling. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-03-25 17:53:21.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Wheeler, Shan - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Harvard Westlake EE - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +72 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Strake Jesuit Chen Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JF - CP - Hate Speech Journalism - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Harvard Westlake RR
- Caselist.CitesClass[145]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,7 @@ 1 +1 - Generic Theory/T 2 +2 - Generic K's 3 +3 - Generic Framework or substance (like a Util framework or impact turns, not that I read util much lol) 4 +SO - September October 5 +ND - November December 6 +JF - January February 7 +MA - March April - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-03-28 14:14:20.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +73 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Strake Jesuit Chen Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +0 - Read This - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any
- Caselist.CitesClass[146]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,21 @@ 1 +Just some shells I may or may not read. 2 +1. Debaters cannot break new plans at the TOC 3 +2. The affirmative cannot read a theoretically justified burden structure unless the burden text and the full text of all theory standards are disclosed. 4 +3. Debaters must say what the aff is at least 15 minutes before the round, unless it's a new aff. 5 +4. the affirmative has to spec what conpro speech is in the 1AC 6 +5. the affirmative has to grant DA links (i.e. concede that they defend x or y as conpro speech) if asked in CX 7 +6. The affirmative has to have a balancing test to determine what constitutes conpro speech in the 1ac 8 +7. the affirmative has to specify a mechanism by which to restrict conpro speech in the 1ac 9 +8. the affirmative has to spec what the punishment is for a violation of conpro speech 10 +9. the affirmative cannot claim the right to reclarify their advocacy in CX. 11 +10. the aff cannot read CX checks as a meta-theory interp 12 +11. the sufficient neg burden is to prove that there is no coherent understanding of what constitutes constitutionally protected speech 13 +12. contigent standards are bad 14 +13. the aff needs a single weighing mechanism back to which all their offense links 15 +14. a prioris are bad 16 +15. if the aff doesn't define ought in the 1ac they can't in the 1ar 17 +16. no parallel turns in the 1ar if the 1nc reads util 18 +17. The affirmative can only defend a plan that gets rid of speech restrictions if that speech restriction is enforced on at least 40 percent of college campuses. 19 +18. multiple nibs bad 20 +19. must spec truth testing or comparing worlds in the aff 21 +20. must only defend truth testing ROB - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-06 02:51:00.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +74 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Quads - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Strake Jesuit Chen Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Possible Interps List for TOC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +TOC
- Caselist.CitesClass[147]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,17 @@ 1 +A Interpretation: The affirmative must defend that a hypothetical world where public colleges and universities implement the resolution. 2 +“Resolved” implies enactment of a law. 3 +Words and Phrases 64 Words and Phrases Permanent Edition (Multi-volume set of judicial definitions). “Resolved”. 1964. 4 +Definition of the word “resolve,” given by Webster is “to express an opinion or determination by resolution or vote; as ‘it was resolved by the legislature;” It is of similar force to the word “enact,” which is defined by Bouvier as meaning “to establish by law”. 5 +Protected speech is a legal doctrine relating to the 1st Amendment, so the topic inherent requires legal action. 6 +FLD 16 "Freedom of Speech", Definition. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Freedom+of+Speech 7 +The Framers of the Constitution guaranteed freedom of speech and expression to the citizens of the United States with the First Amendment, which reads, in part, "Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech." Almost since the adoption of the Bill of Rights, however, the judiciary has struggled to define speech and expression and the extent to which freedom of speech should be protected. Some, like Justice hugo l. black, have believed that freedom of speech is absolute. But most jurists, along with most U.S. citizens, agree with Justice oliver wendell holmes jr., who felt that the Constitution allows some restrictions on speech under certain circumstances. To illustrate this point, Holmes wrote, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic" (schenck v. united states, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 1919). 8 +B Violation- advocacy text and the framing of the aff prove the abuse. They only defend the resolution as a “thought experiment.” 9 +C Net Benefits: 10 +1. Ground 11 +2. T version 12 + 13 +D: voting issue: 14 +fairness jurisdiction drop debater competing interps 15 +Dogmatic assertions of identity destroy the possibility of communication – constraints and procedural guidelines are a pre-condition to engagement in discussion. 16 +John Dryzek 6, Professor of Social and Political Theory, The Australian National University, Reconciling Pluralism and Consensus as Political Ideals, American Journal of Political Science,Vol. 50, No. 3, July 2006, Pp. 634–649 17 +Mouffe is a radical pluralist: “By pluralism I mean the end of a substantive idea of the good life” (1996, 246). But neither Mouffe nor Young want to abolish communication in the name of pluralism and difference; much of their work advocates sustained attention to communication. Mouffe also cautions against uncritical celebration of difference, for some differences imply “subordination and should therefore be challenged by a radical democratic politics” (1996, 247). Mouffe raises the question of the terms in which engagement across difference might proceed. Participants should ideally accept that the positions of others are legitimate, though not as a result of being persuaded in argument. Instead, it is a matter of being open to conversion due to adoption of a particular kind ofdemocratic attitude that converts antagonism into agonism, fighting into critical engagement, enemies into adversaries who are treated with respect. Respect here is notjust (liberal) toleration, but positive validation of the position of others. For Young, a communicative democracy would be composed of people showing “equal respect,” under “procedural rules of fair discussion and decisionmaking” (1996, 126). Schlosberg speaks of “agonistic respect” as “a critical pluralist ethos” (1999, 70). Mouffe and Young both want pluralism to be regulated by a particular kind of attitude, be it respectful, agonistic, or even in Young’s (2000, 16–51) case reasonable. Thus neither proposes unregulated pluralism as an alternative to (deliberative) consensus. This regulation cannot be just procedural, for that would imply “anything goes” in terms of the substance of positions. Recall that Mouffe rejects differences that imply subordination. Agonistic ideals demand judgments about what is worthy of respect and what is not. Connolly (1991, 211) worries about dogmatic assertions and denials of identity that fuel existential resentments that would have to be changed to make agonism possible. Young seeks “transformation of private, self-regarding desires into public appeals to justice” (2000, 51). Thus for Mouffe, Connolly, and Young alike, regulative principles for democratic communication are not just attitudinal or procedural; they also refer to the substance of the kinds of claims that are worthy of respect. These authors would not want to legislate substance and are suspicious of the content of any alleged consensus. But in retreating from “anything goes” relativism, they need principles to regulate the substance of what rightfully belongs in democratic debate. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-29 17:32:47.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Bob Overing - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Sunset AB - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +75 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Strake Jesuit Chen Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - T Implementation v2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +TOC
- Caselist.CitesClass[148]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,21 @@ 1 +A Interpretation: The affirmative should defend the desirability of hypothetical action in which public colleges and universities in United States stop restricting constitutionally protected speech. 2 +Resolved reflects policy passage before a legislative body. 3 +Parcher 01 (Jeff, Fmr. Debate Coach at Georgetown University, February, http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200102/0790.html) 4 +(1) Pardon me if I turn to a source besides Bill. American Heritage Dictionary: Resolve: 1. To make a firm decision about. 2. To decide or express by formal vote. 3. To separate something into constituent parts See Syns at *analyze* (emphasis in orginal) 4. Find a solution to. See Syns at *Solve* (emphasis in original) 5. To dispel: resolve a doubt. - n 1. Frimness of purpose; resolution. 2. A determination or decision. (2) The very nature of the word "resolution" makes it a question. American Heritage: A course of action determined or decided on. A formal statemnt of a deciion, as by a legislature. (3) The resolution is obviously a question. Any other conclusion is utterly inconcievable. Why? Context. The debate community empowers a topic committee to write a topic for ALTERNATE side debating. The committee is not a random group of people coming together to "reserve" themselves about some issue. There is context - they are empowered by a community to do something. In their deliberations, the topic community attempts to craft a resolution which can be ANSWERED in either direction. They focus on issues like ground and fairness because they know the resolution will serve as the basis for debate which will be resolved by determining the policy desireablility of that resolution. That's not only what they do, but it's what we REQUIRE them to do. We don't just send the topic committee somewhere to adopt their own group resolution. It's not the end point of a resolution adopted by a body - it's the prelimanary wording of a resolution sent to others to be answered or decided upon. (4) Further context: the word resolved is used to emphasis the fact that it's policy debate. Resolved comes from the adoption of resolutions by legislative bodies. 5 +Protected speech is a legal doctrine relating to the 1st Amendment. 6 +FLD 16 "Freedom of Speech", Definition. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Freedom+of+Speech 7 +The Framers of the Constitution guaranteed freedom of speech and expression to the citizens of the United States with the First Amendment, which reads, in part, "Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech." Almost since the adoption of the Bill of Rights, however, the judiciary has struggled to define speech and expression and the extent to which freedom of speech should be protected. Some, like Justice hugo l. black, have believed that freedom of speech is absolute. But most jurists, along with most U.S. citizens, agree with Justice oliver wendell holmes jr., who felt that the Constitution allows some restrictions on speech under certain circumstances. To illustrate this point, Holmes wrote, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic" (schenck v. united states, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 1919). 8 +B Violation: You don’t defend the topic. 9 +C Net Benefits: 10 +1 Fairness: 11 +constraints and procedural guidelines are a pre-condition to engagement in discussion. 12 +John Dryzek 6, Professor of Social and Political Theory, The Australian National University, Reconciling Pluralism and Consensus as Political Ideals, American Journal of Political Science,Vol. 50, No. 3, July 2006, Pp. 634–649 13 +Mouffe is a radical pluralist: “By pluralism I mean the end of a substantive idea of the good life” (1996, 246). But neither Mouffe nor Young want to abolish communication in the name of pluralism and difference; much of their work advocates sustained attention to communication. Mouffe also cautions against uncritical celebration of difference, for some differences imply “subordination and should therefore be challenged by a radical democratic politics” (1996, 247). Mouffe raises the question of the terms in which engagement across difference might proceed. Participants should ideally accept that the positions of others are legitimate, though not as a result of being persuaded in argument. Instead, it is a matter of being open to conversion due to adoption of a particular kind ofdemocratic attitude that converts antagonism into agonism, fighting into critical engagement, enemies into adversaries who are treated with respect. Respect here is notjust (liberal) toleration, but positive validation of the position of others. For Young, a communicative democracy would be composed of people showing “equal respect,” under “procedural rules of fair discussion and decisionmaking” (1996, 126). Schlosberg speaks of “agonistic respect” as “a critical pluralist ethos” (1999, 70). Mouffe and Young both want pluralism to be regulated by a particular kind of attitude, be it respectful, agonistic, or even in Young’s (2000, 16–51) case reasonable. Thus neither proposes unregulated pluralism as an alternative to (deliberative) consensus. This regulation cannot be just procedural, for that would imply “anything goes” in terms of the substance of positions. Recall that Mouffe rejects differences that imply subordination. Agonistic ideals demand judgments about what is worthy of respect and what is not. Connolly (1991, 211) worries about dogmatic assertions and denials of identity that fuel existential resentments that would have to be changed to make agonism possible. Young seeks “transformation of private, self-regarding desires into public appeals to justice” (2000, 51). Thus for Mouffe, Connolly, and Young alike, regulative principles for democratic communication are not just attitudinal or procedural; they also refer to the substance of the kinds of claims that are worthy of respect. These authors would not want to legislate substance and are suspicious of the content of any alleged consensus. But in retreating from “anything goes” relativism, they need principles to regulate the substance of what rightfully belongs in democratic debate. 14 +2 Critical Engagement: Requiring the debate to be topical forces them to interrogate the issue of oppression from multiple perspectives. This enriches our understanding of how oppression operates. 15 +Keller, et. al, 01 – Asst. professor School of Social Service Administration U. of Chicago(Thomas E., James K., and Tracly K., Asst. professor School of Social Service Administration U. of Chicago, professor of Social Work, and doctoral student School of Social Work, “Student debates in policy courses: promoting policy practice skills and knowledge through active learning,” Journal of Social Work Education, Spr/Summer 2001, EBSCOhost) 16 +Finally, and perhaps most importantly, debates may help to stimulate critical thinking by shaking students free from established opinions and helping them to appreciate the complexities involved in policy dilemmas.Relationships between Policy Practice Skills, Critical Thinking, and Learning Policy practice encompasses social workers' "efforts to influence the development, enactment, implementation, or assessment of social policies" (Jansson, 1994, p. 8). Effective policy practice involves analytic activities, such as defining issues, gathering data, conducting research, identifying and prioritizing policy options, and creating policy proposals (Jansson, 1994). It also involves persuasive activities intended to influence opinions and outcomes, such as discussing and debating issues, organizing coalitions and task forces, and providing testimony. According to Jansson (1984,pp. 57-58), social workers rely upon five fundamental skills when pursuing policy practice activities: value-clarification skills for identifying and assessing the underlying values inherent in policy positions; conceptual skills for identifying and evaluating the relative merits of different policy options; interactional skills for interpreting the values and positions of others and conveying one's own point of view in a convincing manner; political skills for developing coalitions and developing effective strategies; and position-taking skills for recommending, advocating, and defending a particular policy. These policy practice skills reflect the hallmarks of critical thinking (see Brookfield, 1987; Gambrill, 1997). The central activities of critical thinking are identifying and challenging underlying assumptions, exploring alternative ways of thinking and acting, and arriving at commitments after a period of questioning, analysis, and reflection (Brookfield, 1987). Significant parallels exist with the policy-making process~-~-identifying the values underlying policy choices, recognizing and evaluating multiple alternatives, and taking a position and advocating for its adoption. Developing policy practice skills seems to share much in common with developing capacities for critical thinking.R.W. Paul (as cited in Gambrill, 1997) states that critical thinkers acknowledge the imperative to argue from opposing points of view and to seek to identify weakness and limitations in one's own position. Critical thinkers are aware that there are many legitimate points of view, each of which (when thought through) may yield some level of insight. (p. 126)John Dewey, the philosopher and educational reformer, suggested that the initial advance in the development of reflective thought occurs in the transition from holding fixed, static ideas to an attitude of doubt and questioning engendered by exposure to alternative views in social discourse (Baker, 1955, pp. 36-40). Doubt, confusion, and conflict resulting from discussion of diverse perspectives "force comparison, selection, and reformulation of ideas and meanings" (Baker, 1955, p. 45). Subsequent educational theorists have contended that learning requires openness to divergent ideas in combination with the ability to synthesize disparate views into a purposeful resolution (Kolb, 1984; Perry, 1970). On the one hand, clinging to the certainty of one's beliefs risks dogmatism, rigidity, and the inability to learn from new experiences. On the other hand, if one's opinion is altered by every new experience, the result is insecurity, paralysis, and the inability to take effective action. The educator's role is to help students develop the capacity to incorporate new and sometimes conflicting ideas and experiences into a coherent cognitive framework. Kolb suggests that, "if the education process begins by bringing out the learner's beliefs and theories, examining and testing them, and then integrating the new, more refined ideas in the person's belief systems, the learning process will be facilitated" (p. 28).The authors believe that involving students in substantive debates challenges them to learn and grow in the fashion described by Dewey and Kolb. Participation in a debate stimulates clarification and critical evaluation of the evidence, logic, and values underlying one's own policy position. In addition, to debate effectively students must understand and accurately evaluate the opposing perspective. The ensuing tension between two distinct but legitimate views is designed to yield a reevaluation and reconstruction of knowledge and beliefs pertaining to the issue. 17 +3 T version of the aff solves: here’s some examples: 18 +a) read a queer anarchy aff that says that universities are oppressive , and therefore cannto be trusted to impose speech restrictions, which would affirm. Solves your offense about state bad since you can be a negative state action. 19 +b) read protests good for queer anarchy. Just because you read some rando card for free speech bad doesn’t mean you can’t defned the topic: that’s like reading a hate speech disad in your 1ac and saying “I can’t affirm anymore”. Obviously there will be opposing lit to any topic, meaning the logic you justify is absurd. 20 +D Voting issue: Drop the debater on T: 21 +Competing interps - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-30 02:02:01.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Erik Legried - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Harker EM - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +76 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +4 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Strake Jesuit Chen Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Framework v3 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +TOC
- Caselist.CitesClass[149]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,15 @@ 1 +Queer theory emulates capitalism—it sees the logic of individualism as a good model for queer anarchy but fails to interrogate the late capitalist underpinnings. 2 +Kirsch 6 (Max, PhD Florida Atlantic University, “Queer Theory, Late Capitalism and Internalized Homophobia,” Journal of Homosexuality, Harrington Park Press, Vol. 52, No. ½, 2006, pp. 19-45, DES.) 3 +This mirroring of late capitalism in queer theory has unforeseen consequences for the individual in society and has hindered its practioners from engaging important ways of envisioning collective action. Queer theory promotes the “self” of the individual as an alternative to wider social interaction but, disassembling the social ties that bind. Recognizing that oppression and violence, symbolic and physical, are part of the daily reality for those of us who do not correspond to dominant standards is compromised by queer theory’s rejection of the category of identity, and indeed, categories as a whole. The stance that it is limiting to pose categories of behavior and belief, even if those constructs are fluid and changing, puts the individual subject in the position of internalizing thoughts and feelings without the benefit of peer feedback. 4 +Queer theory’s fragmentation hinders community and prevents identification 5 +Yep 03 Gust Yep, Karen Lovaas, and John Elia (Professors @ San Francisco University, Journal of Homosexual Studies, Vol. 45, No. 2/3/4, p. 45 6 +On the other hand, queer theorists are criticized for their neglect of community organizing, based on a shared identity, to promote social change. Kirsch (2000), for example, argues that instead of focusing on specific areas of oppression and strategies to change them, queer theory focuses on the individual as a site of change. Such a move insulates individuals and hinders community building. In other words, collective identities and power in numbers are politically effective. Collective identities require clear membership boundaries, that is, discrete in-group/out-group distinctions (Gamson, 1997). Kirsch (2000) cautions us that queer theory, with a focus on individual self-expression, might actually be harmful to people by making it more difficult to identify with others. Queer theory, Kirsch vociferously argues, “needs to be refocused to take into account the realities of everyday life in a capitalist world system. This means an end to academic posturing, where obfuscation is more valued than strategies for recognition and community-building” (2000, p. 123). 7 +Commodification turns case and outweighs—destroys value of free speech and kills value to life by making them mere objects. 8 +Morgaridge 98 Morgaridge, Clayton, Prof of Philosophy at Lewis and Clark College, 1998, Why Capitalism is Evil 08/22 http://www.lclark.edu/~clayton/commentaries/evil.html 9 +Now none of these philosophers are naive: none of them thinks that sympathy, love, or caring determines all, or even most, human behavior. The 20th century proves otherwise. What they do offer, though, is the hope that human beings have the capacity to want the best for each other. So now we must ask, What forces are at work in our world to block or cripple the ethical response? This question, of course, brings me back to capitalism. But before I go there, I want to acknowledge that capitalism is not the only thing that blocks our ability to care. Exploitation and cruelty were around long before the economic system of capitalism came to be, and the temptation to use and abuse others will probably survive in any future society that might supersede capitalism. Nevertheless, I want to claim, the putting the world at the disposal of those with capital has done more damage to the ethical life than anything else. To put it in religious terms, capital is the devil. To show why this is the case, let me turn to capital's greatest critic, Karl Marx. Under capitalism, Marx writes, everything in nature and everything that human beings are and can do becomes an object: a resource for, or an obstacle, to the expansion of production, the development of technology, the growth of markets, and the circulation of money. For those who manage and live from capital, nothing has value of its own. Mountain streams, clean air, human lives ~-~- all mean nothing in themselves, but are valuable only if they can be used to turn a profit.1 If capital looks at (not into) the human face, it sees there only eyes through which brand names and advertising can enter and mouths that can demand and consume food, drink, and tobacco products. If human faces express needs, then either products can be manufactured to meet, or seem to meet, those needs, or else, if the needs are incompatible with the growth of capital, then the faces expressing them must be unrepresented or silenced. Obviously what capitalist enterprises do have consequences for the well being of human beings and the planet we live on. Capital profits from the production of food, shelter, and all the necessities of life. The production of all these things uses human lives in the shape of labor, as well as the resources of the earth. If we care about life, if we see our obligations in each others faces, then we have to want all the things capital does to be governed by that care, to be directed by the ethical concern for life. But feeding people is not the aim of the food industry, or shelter the purpose of the housing industry. In medicine, making profits is becoming a more important goal than caring for sick people. As capitalist enterprises these activities aim single-mindedly at the accumulation of capital, and such purposes as caring for the sick or feeding the hungry becomes a mere means to an end, an instrument of corporate growth. Therefore ethics, the overriding commitment to meeting human need, is left out of deliberations about what the heavyweight institutions of our society are going to do. Moral convictions are expressed in churches, in living rooms, in letters to the editor, sometimes even by politicians and widely read commentators, but almost always with an attitude of resignation to the inevitable. People no longer say, "You can't stop progress," but only because they have learned not to call economic growth progress. They still think they can't stop it. And they are right ~-~- as long as the production of all our needs and the organization of our labor is carried out under private ownership. Only a minority ("idealists") can take seriously a way of thinking that counts for nothing in real world decision making. Only when the end of capitalism is on the table will ethics have a seat at the table. 10 +The alternative is to reject the 1AC’s representations and to entirely withdraw from the logic of capital—a collective epistemological reorientation is key to solve 11 +Kovel 07 (Joel, Professor of Social Studies at Bard, The Enemy of Nature, pg 77-79) 12 +Relentless criticism can delegitimate the system and release people into struggle. And as struggle develops, victories that are no more than incremental by their own terms- stopping a meeting stopping the IMF, the hopes stirred forth by a campaign such as Ralph Nader’s in 2000 – can have a symbolic effect far greater than their external result, and constitute points of rupture with capital. This rupture is not a set of facts added to our knowledge of the world, but a change in our relation to the world. Its effects are dynamic, not incremental, and like all genuine insights it changes the balance of forces and can propagate very swiftly. Thus the release from inertia can trigger a rapid cascade of changes, so that it could be said that the forces pressing towards radical change need not be linear and incremental, but can be exponential in character. In this way, conscientious and radical criticism of the given, even in advance of having blueprints for an alternative, can be a material force, because it can seize the mind of the masses of people. There is no greater responsibility for intellectuals. 13 +Historical materialism provides the best frame for analyzing the fragmentation of queerness—that means the alt solves case better 14 +Drucker 11 Peter, International Institute of Research and Education; 2011; http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/156920611x606412; The Fracturing of LGBT Identities under Neoliberal Capitalism; 06/29/15 15 +Whether they cite Marx, Foucault, or both, historians’ analysis of lesbian/gay identity has linked its emergence to the development of modern, industrialised, urbanised societies. Some historians3 have linked its emergence, in a more-or-less explicitly Marxist way, to the development of capitalism. This connection has continued to be made by writers working within a Marxist framework.4 Recently, Kevin Floyd has detected more broadly a ‘greater openness in queer thought to the kind of direct engagement with Marxism that emphasizes its explanatory power’.5 Yet some theorists have seemed uneasy in recent years about the questions that were initially not asked in these accounts. Once this specific form of lesbian/gay identity has been explored and its emergence mapped, the question arises: is this the end of the story? Especially as more writings have charted the spread of LGBT communities in Asia and Africa, some have wondered whether all other forms of same-sex sexuality are surrendering to what Dennis Altman has critiqued as the triumphant ‘global gay’, a monolithic figure riding the wave of capitalist globalisation.6 In much the same way that homo sapiens was once naively viewed as the culmination of biological evolution, and liberal democracy (according to Francis Fukuyama) as the culmination of human history, one might have sometimes imagined that all roads of LGBT history 2. For example, Fernbach 1981; D’Emilio 1983a and 1983b. A word on terminology: the term ‘lesbian/gay’ in this article refers to a historically specific phenomenon, defined in Section I below. ‘LGBT’ (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) is used as a broader term for people with same-sex sexualities or identities. Although the word ‘queer’ is sometimes used by others to refer generally to LGBT people, I try to reserve the word in this article to those who self-identify as queer, who are often rebelling, not only against the heterosexual norm, but also against the dominant forms of lesbian/gay identity. I sometimes use ‘gay’, ‘lesbian/gay’ or ‘LGB’ particularly to refer to more ‘respectable’ people who emphatically do not identify as queer. 3. See, for example, D’Emilio 1983a. 4. See, for example, Hennessy 2000; Sears 2005. 5. Floyd 2009, p. 2. 6. Altman 2003. P. Drucker / Historical Materialism 19.4 (2011) 3–32 5 led to Castro Street in San Francisco. A few queer theorists have tried to undermine any such monolithic vision of gay identity, rejecting the onedimensional focus on gender-orientation that underlies it.7 But, despite their abstract championing of ‘difference’, queer theorists they have rarely engaged concretely with the historiography that sometimes seems to suggest that LGBT history is a one-way street. In Paul Reynolds’s words, they have ‘centred on the social production of categories discursively rather than determinantly through essential causality and power of the social relations of production’.8 This article argues that there are socioeconomic forces that have been leading LGBT people to question lesbian/gay identity as it took shape by the 1970s. A historically-based, social constructionist, Marxist approach9 can examine historically different sexual identities under capitalism, without privileging any particular form of identity; can chart not only the emergence of lesbian/gay identities, but also shifts in sexual identities in recent decades, exploring connections between shifting identities and successive phases of capitalist development. One useful tool is the Marxist theory of capitalist long waves, and specifically Marxist analyses of the mode of capitalist accumulation that was on the upswing until the early 1970s and turned sharply downward with the recessions of 1974–5 and 1979–82.10 A historical-materialist analysis of this kind may provide a more solid theoretical basis for addressing a central political concern of recent queer theory – the defence of nonconformist or less privileged LGBT people against ‘homonormativity’11 – than queer theory itself offers, while helping to lay the foundation for a queer anticapitalism. It is by now nothing new to link the rise of what might be called classic lesbian/gay identity to the rise of a ‘free’ labour-force under capitalism. This has taken centuries, and historians have generally looked at it as a long process. But the breakthrough of gay identity as we know it on a mass-scale is in fact very recent, more a matter of decades than of centuries. On closer examination, the consolidation and spread of gay identity, especially among the mass of working-class people, took place to a large extent during what some Marxist economists refer to as the expansive long wave of 1945–73. Gay identity on a mass-scale, emerging gradually after a period of repression from the 1930s to the 1950s,12 was dependent on the growing prosperity of the working and middle-classes, catalysed by profound cultural changes from the 1940s to the 1970s (from the upheavals of the Second World-War13 to the mass-radicalisation of the New Left years) that prosperity helped make possible. This means that gay identity was shaped in many ways by the mode of capitalist accumulation that some economists call ‘Fordism’: specifically by mass-consumer societies and welfare-states. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-30 02:02:03.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Erik Legried - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Harker EM - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +76 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +4 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Strake Jesuit Chen Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - Cap K v Queer Anarchy - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +TOC
- Caselist.RoundClass[72]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +142,143,144 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-03-25 17:53:16.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Wheeler, Shan - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Harvard Westlake EE - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,3 @@ 1 +1ac - chronicle 2 +1nc - t any t speech cp hate speech journalism case 3 +2nr - t any and t speech - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Harvard Westlake RR
- Caselist.RoundClass[73]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +145 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-03-28 14:14:17.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any
- Caselist.RoundClass[74]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +146 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-06 02:50:57.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Quads - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +TOC
- Caselist.RoundClass[75]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +147 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-29 17:32:44.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Bob Overing - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Sunset AB - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,6 @@ 1 +1AC - anarchy of becoming 2 +1NC - t implementation 3 +particularism NC 4 +1AR - everything 5 +2NR - particularism and turns 6 +2ar - substance - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +TOC
- Caselist.RoundClass[76]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +148,149 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-30 02:01:59.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Erik Legried - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Harker EM - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +4 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,4 @@ 1 +1AC - queer anarchy 2 +1nc - Framework v3 Cap K case turns 3 +1ar2ar - all 4 +2nr - Framework - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +TOC