Changes for page Strake Jesuit Chen Neg

Last modified by Administrator on 2017/08/29 03:40

From version < 538.1 >
edited by Matthew Chen
on 2017/04/30 02:02
To version < 505.1 >
edited by Matthew Chen
on 2017/03/25 17:53
< >
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[142]
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 -2017-03-25 17:53:19.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Wheeler, Shan
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Harvard Westlake EE
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -72
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[143]
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 -2017-03-25 17:53:20.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Wheeler, Shan
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Harvard Westlake EE
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -72
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 v Press
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Harvard Westlake RR
Caselist.CitesClass[144]
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 -2017-03-25 17:53:21.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Wheeler, Shan
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Harvard Westlake EE
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -72
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[145]
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 -2017-03-28 14:14:20.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Any
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Any
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -73
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[146]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,21 +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 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
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-04-06 02:51:00.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Any
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Any
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -74
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Quads
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Strake Jesuit Chen Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -1 - Possible Interps List for TOC
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -TOC
Caselist.CitesClass[147]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,17 +1,0 @@
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
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-04-29 17:32:47.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Bob Overing
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Sunset AB
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -75
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Strake Jesuit Chen Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -1 - T Implementation v2
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -TOC
Caselist.CitesClass[148]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,21 +1,0 @@
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
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-04-30 02:02:01.941
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Erik Legried
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Harker EM
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -76
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -4
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Strake Jesuit Chen Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -1 - Framework v3
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -TOC
Caselist.RoundClass[72]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -142,143,144
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-03-25 17:53:16.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Wheeler, Shan
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Harvard Westlake EE
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -1
RoundReport
... ... @@ -1,3 +1,0 @@
1 -1ac - chronicle
2 -1nc - t any t speech cp hate speech journalism case
3 -2nr - t any and t speech
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Harvard Westlake RR
Caselist.RoundClass[73]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -145
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-03-28 14:14:17.0
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.RoundClass[74]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -146
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-04-06 02:50:57.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Any
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Any
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Quads
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -TOC
Caselist.RoundClass[75]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -147
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-04-29 17:32:44.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Bob Overing
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Sunset AB
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2
RoundReport
... ... @@ -1,6 +1,0 @@
1 -1AC - anarchy of becoming
2 -1NC - t implementation
3 -particularism NC
4 -1AR - everything
5 -2NR - particularism and turns
6 -2ar - substance
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -TOC
Caselist.RoundClass[76]
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-04-30 02:01:59.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Erik Legried
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Harker EM
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -4
RoundReport
... ... @@ -1,4 +1,0 @@
1 -1AC - queer anarchy
2 -1nc - Framework v3 Cap K case turns
3 -1ar2ar - all
4 -2nr - Framework
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -TOC
Caselist.CitesClass[119]
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 +2017-03-16 01:40:28.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Wheeler, Shan
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harvard Westlake EE
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +61
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
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harvard Westlake RR
Caselist.CitesClass[120]
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 +2017-03-16 01:40:30.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Wheeler, Shan
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harvard Westlake EE
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +61
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[130]
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 +2017-03-18 21:25:43.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Any
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Any
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +65
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[131]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,16 @@
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
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-03-18 21:25:44.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Any
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Any
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +65
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Strake Jesuit Chen Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1 - Possible Interps List
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Any
Caselist.RoundClass[65]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +130,131
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-03-18 21:25:40.0
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

Schools

Aberdeen Central (SD)
Acton-Boxborough (MA)
Albany (CA)
Albuquerque Academy (NM)
Alief Taylor (TX)
American Heritage Boca Delray (FL)
American Heritage Plantation (FL)
Anderson (TX)
Annie Wright (WA)
Apple Valley (MN)
Appleton East (WI)
Arbor View (NV)
Arcadia (CA)
Archbishop Mitty (CA)
Ardrey Kell (NC)
Ashland (OR)
Athens (TX)
Bainbridge (WA)
Bakersfield (CA)
Barbers Hill (TX)
Barrington (IL)
BASIS Mesa (AZ)
BASIS Scottsdale (AZ)
BASIS Silicon (CA)
Beckman (CA)
Bellarmine (CA)
Benjamin Franklin (LA)
Benjamin N Cardozo (NY)
Bentonville (AR)
Bergen County (NJ)
Bettendorf (IA)
Bingham (UT)
Blue Valley Southwest (KS)
Brentwood (CA)
Brentwood Middle (CA)
Bridgewater-Raritan (NJ)
Bronx Science (NY)
Brophy College Prep (AZ)
Brown (KY)
Byram Hills (NY)
Byron Nelson (TX)
Cabot (AR)
Calhoun Homeschool (TX)
Cambridge Rindge (MA)
Canyon Crest (CA)
Canyon Springs (NV)
Cape Fear Academy (NC)
Carmel Valley Independent (CA)
Carpe Diem (NJ)
Cedar Park (TX)
Cedar Ridge (TX)
Centennial (ID)
Centennial (TX)
Center For Talented Youth (MD)
Cerritos (CA)
Chaminade (CA)
Chandler (AZ)
Chandler Prep (AZ)
Chaparral (AZ)
Charles E Smith (MD)
Cherokee (OK)
Christ Episcopal (LA)
Christopher Columbus (FL)
Cinco Ranch (TX)
Citrus Valley (CA)
Claremont (CA)
Clark (NV)
Clark (TX)
Clear Brook (TX)
Clements (TX)
Clovis North (CA)
College Prep (CA)
Collegiate (NY)
Colleyville Heritage (TX)
Concord Carlisle (MA)
Concordia Lutheran (TX)
Connally (TX)
Coral Glades (FL)
Coral Science (NV)
Coral Springs (FL)
Coppell (TX)
Copper Hills (UT)
Corona Del Sol (AZ)
Crandall (TX)
Crossroads (CA)
Cupertino (CA)
Cy-Fair (TX)
Cypress Bay (FL)
Cypress Falls (TX)
Cypress Lakes (TX)
Cypress Ridge (TX)
Cypress Springs (TX)
Cypress Woods (TX)
Dallastown (PA)
Davis (CA)
Delbarton (NJ)
Derby (KS)
Des Moines Roosevelt (IA)
Desert Vista (AZ)
Diamond Bar (CA)
Dobson (AZ)
Dougherty Valley (CA)
Dowling Catholic (IA)
Dripping Springs (TX)
Dulles (TX)
duPont Manual (KY)
Dwyer (FL)
Eagle (ID)
Eastside Catholic (WA)
Edgemont (NY)
Edina (MN)
Edmond North (OK)
Edmond Santa Fe (OK)
El Cerrito (CA)
Elkins (TX)
Enloe (NC)
Episcopal (TX)
Evanston (IL)
Evergreen Valley (CA)
Ferris (TX)
Flintridge Sacred Heart (CA)
Flower Mound (TX)
Fordham Prep (NY)
Fort Lauderdale (FL)
Fort Walton Beach (FL)
Freehold Township (NJ)
Fremont (NE)
Frontier (MO)
Gabrielino (CA)
Garland (TX)
George Ranch (TX)
Georgetown Day (DC)
Gig Harbor (WA)
Gilmour (OH)
Glenbrook South (IL)
Gonzaga Prep (WA)
Grand Junction (CO)
Grapevine (TX)
Green Valley (NV)
Greenhill (TX)
Guyer (TX)
Hamilton (AZ)
Hamilton (MT)
Harker (CA)
Harmony (TX)
Harrison (NY)
Harvard Westlake (CA)
Hawken (OH)
Head Royce (CA)
Hebron (TX)
Heights (MD)
Hendrick Hudson (NY)
Henry Grady (GA)
Highland (UT)
Highland (ID)
Hockaday (TX)
Holy Cross (LA)
Homewood Flossmoor (IL)
Hopkins (MN)
Houston Homeschool (TX)
Hunter College (NY)
Hutchinson (KS)
Immaculate Heart (CA)
Independent (All)
Interlake (WA)
Isidore Newman (LA)
Jack C Hays (TX)
James Bowie (TX)
Jefferson City (MO)
Jersey Village (TX)
John Marshall (CA)
Juan Diego (UT)
Jupiter (FL)
Kapaun Mount Carmel (KS)
Kamiak (WA)
Katy Taylor (TX)
Keller (TX)
Kempner (TX)
Kent Denver (CO)
King (FL)
Kingwood (TX)
Kinkaid (TX)
Klein (TX)
Klein Oak (TX)
Kudos College (CA)
La Canada (CA)
La Costa Canyon (CA)
La Jolla (CA)
La Reina (CA)
Lafayette (MO)
Lake Highland (FL)
Lake Travis (TX)
Lakeville North (MN)
Lakeville South (MN)
Lamar (TX)
LAMP (AL)
Law Magnet (TX)
Langham Creek (TX)
Lansing (KS)
LaSalle College (PA)
Lawrence Free State (KS)
Layton (UT)
Leland (CA)
Leucadia Independent (CA)
Lexington (MA)
Liberty Christian (TX)
Lincoln (OR)
Lincoln (NE)
Lincoln East (NE)
Lindale (TX)
Livingston (NJ)
Logan (UT)
Lone Peak (UT)
Los Altos (CA)
Los Osos (CA)
Lovejoy (TX)
Loyola (CA)
Loyola Blakefield (MA)
Lynbrook (CA)
Maeser Prep (UT)
Mannford (OK)
Marcus (TX)
Marlborough (CA)
McClintock (AZ)
McDowell (PA)
McNeil (TX)
Meadows (NV)
Memorial (TX)
Millard North (NE)
Millard South (NE)
Millard West (NE)
Millburn (NJ)
Milpitas (CA)
Miramonte (CA)
Mission San Jose (CA)
Monsignor Kelly (TX)
Monta Vista (CA)
Montclair Kimberley (NJ)
Montgomery (TX)
Monticello (NY)
Montville Township (NJ)
Morris Hills (NJ)
Mountain Brook (AL)
Mountain Pointe (AZ)
Mountain View (CA)
Mountain View (AZ)
Murphy Middle (TX)
NCSSM (NC)
New Orleans Jesuit (LA)
New Trier (IL)
Newark Science (NJ)
Newburgh Free Academy (NY)
Newport (WA)
North Allegheny (PA)
North Crowley (TX)
North Hollywood (CA)
Northland Christian (TX)
Northwood (CA)
Notre Dame (CA)
Nueva (CA)
Oak Hall (FL)
Oakwood (CA)
Okoboji (IA)
Oxbridge (FL)
Oxford (CA)
Pacific Ridge (CA)
Palm Beach Gardens (FL)
Palo Alto Independent (CA)
Palos Verdes Peninsula (CA)
Park Crossing (AL)
Peak to Peak (CO)
Pembroke Pines (FL)
Pennsbury (PA)
Phillips Academy Andover (MA)
Phoenix Country Day (AZ)
Pine Crest (FL)
Pingry (NJ)
Pittsburgh Central Catholic (PA)
Plano East (TX)
Polytechnic (CA)
Presentation (CA)
Princeton (NJ)
Prosper (TX)
Quarry Lane (CA)
Raisbeck-Aviation (WA)
Rancho Bernardo (CA)
Randolph (NJ)
Reagan (TX)
Richardson (TX)
Ridge (NJ)
Ridge Point (TX)
Riverside (SC)
Robert Vela (TX)
Rosemount (MN)
Roseville (MN)
Round Rock (TX)
Rowland Hall (UT)
Royse City (TX)
Ruston (LA)
Sacred Heart (MA)
Sacred Heart (MS)
Sage Hill (CA)
Sage Ridge (NV)
Salado (TX)
Salpointe Catholic (AZ)
Sammamish (WA)
San Dieguito (CA)
San Marino (CA)
SandHoke (NC)
Santa Monica (CA)
Sarasota (FL)
Saratoga (CA)
Scarsdale (NY)
Servite (CA)
Seven Lakes (TX)
Shawnee Mission East (KS)
Shawnee Mission Northwest (KS)
Shawnee Mission South (KS)
Shawnee Mission West (KS)
Sky View (UT)
Skyline (UT)
Smithson Valley (TX)
Southlake Carroll (TX)
Sprague (OR)
St Agnes (TX)
St Andrews (MS)
St Francis (CA)
St James (AL)
St Johns (TX)
St Louis Park (MN)
St Margarets (CA)
St Marys Hall (TX)
St Thomas (MN)
St Thomas (TX)
Stephen F Austin (TX)
Stoneman Douglas (FL)
Stony Point (TX)
Strake Jesuit (TX)
Stratford (TX)
Stratford Independent (CA)
Stuyvesant (NY)
Success Academy (NY)
Sunnyslope (AZ)
Sunset (OR)
Syosset (NY)
Tahoma (WA)
Talley (AZ)
Texas Academy of Math and Science (TX)
Thomas Jefferson (VA)
Thompkins (TX)
Timber Creek (FL)
Timothy Christian (NJ)
Tom C Clark (TX)
Tompkins (TX)
Torrey Pines (CA)
Travis (TX)
Trinity (KY)
Trinity Prep (FL)
Trinity Valley (TX)
Truman (PA)
Turlock (CA)
Union (OK)
Unionville (PA)
University High (CA)
University School (OH)
University (FL)
Upper Arlington (OH)
Upper Dublin (PA)
Valley (IA)
Valor Christian (CO)
Vashon (WA)
Ventura (CA)
Veritas Prep (AZ)
Vestavia Hills (AL)
Vincentian (PA)
Walla Walla (WA)
Walt Whitman (MD)
Warren (TX)
Wenatchee (WA)
West (UT)
West Ranch (CA)
Westford (MA)
Westlake (TX)
Westview (OR)
Westwood (TX)
Whitefish Bay (WI)
Whitney (CA)
Wilson (DC)
Winston Churchill (TX)
Winter Springs (FL)
Woodlands (TX)
Woodlands College Park (TX)
Wren (SC)
Yucca Valley (CA)