Changes for page Strake Jesuit Chen Neg

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

From version < 547.1 >
edited by Matthew Chen
on 2017/04/30 18:32
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[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 02:02:01.0
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.CitesClass[149]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,15 +1,0 @@
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
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-04-30 02:02:03.0
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 -2 - Cap K v Queer Anarchy
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -TOC
Caselist.CitesClass[150]
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. debaters must disclose at least 10 round reports with the past 2nrs on the NDCA wiki.
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 -2017-04-30 11:12:28.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Any
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Any
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -77
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[151]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,26 +1,0 @@
1 -The standard is maximizing well-being.
2 -1. Moral substitutability is true and only consequentialism explains it.
3 -Walter Sinnott-Armstrong ’92 Dartmouth College Philosophical Perspectives, 6, Ethics, AN ARGUMENT FOR CONSEQUENTIALISM
4 -Since general substitutability works for other kinds of reasons for action, we would need a strong argument to deny that it holds also for moral reasons. If moral reasons obeyed different principles, it would be hard to understand why moral reasons are also called 'reasons' and how moral reasons interact with other reasons when they apply to the same action. Nonetheless, this extension has been denied, so we have to look at moral reasons carefully. I have a moral reason to feed my child tonight, both because I promised my wife to do so, and also because of my special relation to my child along with the fact that she will go hungry if I don't feed her. I can't feed my child tonight without going home soon, and going home soon will enable me to feed her tonight. Therefore, there is a moral reason for me to go home soon. It need not be imprudent or ugly or sacrilegious or illegal for me not to feed her, but the requirements of morality give me a moral reason to feed her. This argument assumes a special case of substitutability: (MS) If there is a moral reason for A to do X, and if A cannot do X without doing Y, and if doing Y will enable A to do X, then there is a moral reason for A to do Y. I will call this 'the principle of moral substitutability', or just 'moral substitutability'.
5 -He continues:
6 -Of course, there are many other versions of deontology. I cannot discuss them all. Nonetheless, these examples suggest that it is the very nature of deontological reasons that makes deontological theories unable to explain moral substitutability. This comes out clearly if we start from the other side and ask which properties create the moral reasons that are derived by moral substitutability. What gives me a moral reason to start the mower is the consequences of starting the mower. Specifically, it has the consequence that I can am able to mow the grass. This reason cannot derive from the same property as my moral reason to mow the lawn unless what gives me a moral reason to mow the lawn is its consequences. Thus, any non-consequentialist moral theory will have to posit two distinct kinds of moral reasons: one for starting the mower and another for mowing the grass. Once these kinds of reasons are separated, we need to understand the connection between them. But this connection cannot be explained by the substantive principles of the theory. That is why all deontological theories must lack the explanatory coherence which is a general test of adequacy for all theories. I conclude that no deontological theory can adequately explain moral substitutability.
7 -He continues:
8 -All other moral reasons are non-consequential. Thus, a moral reason to do an act is non-consequential if and only if the reason depends even partly on some property that the act has independently of its consequences. For example, an act can be a lie regardless of what happens as a result of the lie (since some lies are not believed), and some moral theories claim that that property of being a lie provides a moral reason not to tell a lie regardless of the consequences of this lie. Similarly, the fact that an act fulfills a promise is often seen as a moral reason to do the act, even though the act has that property of fulfilling a promise independently of its consequences. All such moral reasons are non-consequential. In order to avoid so many negations, I will also call them 'deontological'. This distinction would not make sense if we did not restrict the notion of consequences. If I promise to mow the lawn, then one consequence of my mowing might seem to be that my promise is fulfilled. One way to avoid this problem is to specify that the consequences of an act must be distinct from the act itself. My act of fulfilling my promise and my act of mowing are not distinct, because they are done by the same bodily movements.10 Thus, my fulfilling my promise is not a consequence of my mowing. A consequence of an act need not be later in time than the act, since causation can be simultaneous, but the consequence must at least be different from the act. Even with this clarification, it is still hard to classify some moral reasons as consequential or deontological,11 but I will stick to examples that are clear. In accordance with this distinction between kinds of moral reasons, I can now distinguish different kinds of moral theories. I will say that a moral theory is consequentialist if and only if it implies that all basic moral reasons are consequential. A moral theory is then non-consequentialists or deontological if it includes any basic moral reasons which are not consequential. 5. Against Deontology So defined, the class of deontological moral theories is very large and diverse. This makes it hard to say anything in general about it. Nonetheless, I will argue that no deontological moral theory can explain why moral substitutability holds. My argument applies to all deontological theories because it depends only on what is common to them all, namely, the claim that some basic moral reasons are not consequential. Some deontological theories allow very many weighty moral reasons that are consequential, and these theories might be able to explain why moral substitutability holds for some of their moral reasons: the consequential ones. But even these theories cannot explain why moral substitutability holds for all moral reasons, including the non-consequential reasons that make the theory deontological. The failure of deontological moral theories to explain moral substitutability in the very cases that make them deontological is a reason to reject all deontological moral theories. I cannot discuss every deontological moral theory, so I will discuss only a few paradigm examples and show why they cannot explain moral substitut- ability. After this, I will argue that similar problems are bound to arise for all other deontological theories by their very nature. The simplest deontological theory is the pluralistic intuitionism of Prichard and Ross. Ross writes that, when someone promises to do something, 'This we consider obligatory in its own nature, just because it is a fulfillment of a promise, and not because of its consequences.'12 Such deontologists claim in effect that, if I promise to mow the grass, there is a moral reason for me to mow the grass, and this moral reason is constituted by the fact that mowing the grass fulfills my promise. This reason exists regardless of the consequences of mowing the grass, even though it might be overridden by certain bad consequences. However, if this is why I have a moral reason to mow the grass, then, even if I cannot mow the grass without starting my mower, and starting the mower would enable me to mow the grass, it still would not follow that I have any moral reason to start my mower, since I did not promise to start my mower, and starting my mower does not fulfill my promise. Thus, a moral theory cannot explain moral substitutability if it claims that properties like this provide moral reasons.
9 -2. Only naturalism is epistemically accessible
10 -Papinaeu 11 David Papineau, “Naturalism,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2007
11 -Moore took this argument to show that moral facts comprise a distinct species of non-natural fact. However, any such non-naturalist view of morality faces immediate difficulties, deriving ultimately from the kind of causal closure thesis discussed above. If all physical effects are due to a limited range of natural causes, and if moral facts lie outside this range, then it follow that moral facts can never make any difference to what happens in the physical world (Harman, 1986). At first sight this may seem tolerable (perhaps moral facts indeed don't have any physical effects). But it has very awkward epistemological consequences. For Beirne ngs like us, knowledge of the spatiotemporal world is mediated by physical processes involving our sense organs and cognitive systems. If moral facts cannot influence the physical world, then it is hard to see how we can have any knowledge of them.
12 -Experience is epistemic – it is how we empirically ground our existence. Pain is universally bad and pleasure is universally good.
13 -Nagel ‘86. Thomas “The View From Nowhere”, 1986
14 -I shall defend the unsurprising claim that sensory pleasure is good and pain bad, no matter who’s they are. The point of the exercise is to see how the pressures of objectification operate in a simple case. Physical pleasure and pain do not usually depend on activities or desires which themselves raise questions of justification and value. They are just is a sensory experiences in relation to which we are fairly passive, but toward which we feel involuntary desire or aversion. Almost everyone takes the avoidance of his own pain and the promotion of his own pleasure as subjective reasons for action in a fairly simple way; they are not back up by any further reasons. On the other hand if someone pursues pain or avoids pleasure, either it as a means to some end or it is backed up by dark reasons like guilt or sexual masochism. What sort of general value, if any, ought to be assigned to pleasure and pain when we consider these facts from an objective standpoint? What kind of judgment can we reasonably make about these things when we view them in abstraction from who we are? We can begin by asking why there is no plausibility in the zero position, that pleasure and pain have no value of any kind that can be objectively recognized. That would mean that I have no reason to take aspirin for a severe headache, however I may in fact be motivated; and that looking at it from outside, you couldn't even say that someone had a reason not to put his hand on a hot stove, just because of the pain… Without some positive reason to think there is nothing in itself good or bad about having an experience you intensely like or dislike, we can't seriously regard the common impression to the contrary as a collective illusion. Such things are at least good or bad for us, if anything is. What seems to be going on here is that we cannot from an objective standpoint withhold a certain kind of endorsement of the most direct and immediate subjective value judgments we make concerning the contents of our own consciousness. We regard ourselves as too close to those things to be mistaken in our immediate, nonideological evaluative impressions. No objective view we can attain could possibly overrule our subjective authority in such cases. There can be no reason to reject the appearances here.
15 -3. To let die is to intend death, means side-constrains devolve into aggregation.
16 -Robert Luhdvig Muhlnickel, Ph.D, Thesis for University of Rochester 2008 - “Consequentialism and doing and allowing” urresearch.rochester.edu/institutionalPublicationPublicView.action?institutionalItemId=4681
17 -“Quinn intends both to justify (1) and to show that In the trolley dilemma ‘not to switch’ is an instance of doing, despite the appearance that ‘not to switch’ is an instance of allowing. Quinn thinks there are only two acceptable reasons that not switching (1) is morally permissible: (i) the agent’s motive of keeping clean hands (that is, avoiding doing what is morally wrong); or (ii) preventing the death of the one on the sidetrack. The driver’s keeping morally clean hands is not an “acceptable reason” for not switching because it presupposes that it is morally wrong not to switch. We are trying to determine whether not switching is morally wrong, so we should avoid assuming. that not switching is morally wrong. Reason (ii) for (1), that it is morally permissible not to switch because If the driver intends to prevent the one’s death, entails that the driver intends that the train move to in such a way that it prevents the one’s death. If the driver intends that the train move in a way that it to prevents the one’s death, the driver intends the train to move in a way that it the train’s movement kills the five since moving in a way that kills the five is causally necessary for preventing the death of the one.”
18 -4. Psychological evidence proves we don’t identify with our future selves. Continuous personal identity doesn’t exist.
19 -Alisa Opar (articles editor at Audubon magazine; cites Hal Hershfield, an assistant professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business; and Emily Pronin, a psychologist at Princeton) “Why We Procrastinate” Nautilus January 2014
20 -“The British philosopher Derek Parfit espoused a severely reductionist view of personal identity in his seminal book, Reasons and Persons: It does not exist, at least not in the way we usually consider it. We humans, Parfit argued, are not a consistent identity moving through time, but a chain of successive selves, each tangentially linked to, and yet distinct from, the previous and subsequent ones. The boy who begins to smoke despite knowing that he may suffer from the habit decades later should not be judged harshly: “This boy does not identify with his future self,” Parfit wrote. “His attitude towards this future self is in some ways like his attitude to other people.” Parfit’s view was controversial even among philosophers. But psychologists are beginning to understand that it may accurately describe our attitudes towards our own decision-making: It turns out that we see our future selves as strangers. Though we will inevitably share their fates, the people we will become in a decade, quarter century, or more, are unknown to us. This impedes our ability to make good choices on their—which of course is our own—behalf. That bright, shiny New Year’s resolution? If you feel perfectly justified in breaking it, it may be because it feels like it was a promise someone else made. “It’s kind of a weird notion,” says Hal Hershfield, an assistant professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business. “On a psychological and emotional level we really consider that future self as if it’s another person.” Using MRI, Hershfield and colleagues studied brain activity changes when people imagine their future and consider their present. They homed in on two areas of the brain called the medial prefrontal cortex and the rostral anterior cingulate cortex, which are more active when a subject thinks about themselves himself than when they he thinks of someone else. They found these same areas were more strongly activated when subjects thought of themselves today, than of themselves in the future. Their future self “felt” like somebody else. In fact, their neural activity when they described themselves in a decade was similar to that when they described Matt Damon or Natalie Portman. And subjects whose brain activity changed the most when they spoke about their future selves were the least likely to favor large long-term financial gains over small immediate ones. Emily Pronin, a psychologist at Princeton, has come to similar conclusions in her research. In a 2008 study, Pronin and her team told college students that they were taking part in an experiment on disgust that required drinking a concoction made of ketchup and soy sauce. The more they, their future selves, or other students consumed, they were told, the greater the benefit to science. Students who were told they’d have to down the distasteful quaff that day committed to consuming two tablespoons. But those that were committing their future selves (the following semester) or other students to participate agreed to guzzle an average of half a cup. We think of our future selves, says Pronin, like we think of others: in the third person. The disconnect between our present and time-shifted selves has real implications for how we make decisions. We might choose to procrastinate, and let some other version of our self deal with problems or chores. Or, as in the case of Parfit’s smoking boy, we can focus on that version of our self that derives pleasure, and ignore the one that pays the price. But if procrastination or irresponsibility can derive from a poor connection to your future self, strengthening this connection may prove to be an effective remedy. This is exactly the tactic that some researchers are taking. Anne Wilson, a psychologist at Wilfrid Laurier University in Canada, has manipulated people’s perception of time by presenting participants with timelines scaled to make an upcoming event, such as a paper due date, seem either very close or far off. “Using a longer timeline makes people feel more connected to their future selves,” says Wilson. That, in turn, spurred students to finish their assignment earlier, saving their end-of-semester self the stress of banging it out at the last minute. We think of our future selves, says Pronin, like we think of others: in the third person. Hershfield has taken a more high-tech approach. Inspired by the use of images to spur charitable donations, he and colleagues took subjects into a virtual reality room and asked them to look into a mirror. The subjects saw either their current self, or a digitally aged image of themselves (see the figure, Digital Old Age). When they exited the room, they were asked how they’d spend $1,000. Those exposed to the aged photo said they’d put twice as much into a retirement account as those who saw themselves unaged. This might be important news for parts of the finance industry. Insurance giant Allianz is funding a pilot project in the midwest in which Hershfield’s team will show state employees their aged faces when they make pension allocations. Merrill Edge, the online discount unit of Bank of America Merrill Lynch, has taken this approach online, with a service called Face Retirement. Each decade-jumping image is accompanied by startling cost-of-living projections and suggestions to invest in your golden years. Hershfield is currently investigating whether morphed images can help people lose weight. Of course, the way we treat our future self is not necessarily negative: Since we think of our future self as someone else, our own decision making reflects how we treat other people. Where Parfit’s smoking boy endangers the health of his future self with nary a thought, others might act differently. “The thing is, we make sacrifices for people all the time,” says Hershfield. “In relationships, in marriages.” The silver lining of our dissociation from our future self, then, is that it is another reason to practice being good to others. One of them might be you.”
21 -This means util is the only coherent moral theory.
22 -A. Since a there is not continuous persons, distribution of goods among people is irrelevant, so we just maximize benefits among people.
23 -B. It is impossible to violate a constraint since identity is in constant flux. Anything such as a promise a made a year ago is no long my promise, etc.
24 -5. Theory – every framework must be theoretically legitimate, since they are all functionally interpretations of the word ought. My framework defines ‘ought’. Prefer my definition:
25 -a) Ground. (a) gives best turn ground since debaters are able read link and impact turns since the standard concerns itself with maximizing things like pleasure, where as things like deont can’t be impact turned since it already outlines what is absolutely good. (b) gives best weighing ground and clash—debater are encourages to weigh between the impacts of their argument since any policy will have some benefits and some harms. In contrast, constraint based theories just encourage debaters to collapse to thing like permissibility and presumption.
26 -b) Topic lit: Util forces debates about what actually happens in the real world because we have to use empirics and analyze the consequences of the plan versus neg advocacy. This increases topic education because it forces research on the effects of the resolution and thus learn more about the topic. Topic education is key to education because we use it in the real-world to talk about current topics.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-04-30 18:32:43.610
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Rahul Gosain
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Lake Highland Prep MK
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -78
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -6
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Strake Jesuit Chen Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -3 - Util FW V2
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[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]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -148,149
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.RoundClass[77]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -150
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-04-30 11:12:26.0
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[78]
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-04-30 18:32:40.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Rahul Gosain
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Lake Highland Prep MK
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -6
RoundReport
... ... @@ -1,5 +1,0 @@
1 -1AC - psychoanalysis
2 -1NC - nonconsensual image distribution PIC Util FW
3 -1AR - all plus a 1 line K of fiat
4 -2NR - all
5 -2AR - K of fiat
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)