Summary

• Objects (0 modified, 0 added, 1 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[40]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[40]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,14 +1,0 @@
1		-A. Interpretation: The affirmative must defend that no constitutionally protected speech can be restricted. To clarify, they may not specify a specific form of constitutionally protected speech that they defend not restricting.
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 https://www.google.com/search?q=not+definitionandoq=not+definitionandaqs=chrome.0.0l6.2170j0j7andsourceid=chromeandie=UTF-8#q=any+definition “whichever of a specified class might be chosen.”
4		-Any also uniquely prevents specification.
5		-Cambridge Dictionary writes Cambridge English Dictionary, “Any,” Cambridge University Press, Accessed 12-4-2016, http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/quantifiers/any
6		-We use any before nouns to refer to indefinite or unknown quantities or an unlimited entity.
7		-B. Violation: They spec a type of free speech.
8		-1. Grammar
9		-Being semantically in line controls the internal link to pragmatic benefits.
10		-Nebel 15 Jake “The Priority of Resolutional Semantics” vbriefly February 20th 2015 http://vbriefly.com/2015/02/20/the-priority-of-resolutional-semantics-by-jake-nebel/
11		-1.1 The Topicality Rule vs. Pragmatic Considerations There is an obvious objection to my argument above. If the topicality rule is justified for reasons that have to do with fairness and education, then shouldn’t we just directly appeal to such considerations when determining what proposition we ought to debate? There are at least three ways I see of responding to this objection. One way admits that such pragmatic considerations are relevant—i.e., they are reasons to change the topic—but holds that they are outweighed by the reasons for the topicality rule. It would be better if everyone debated the resolution as worded, whatever it is, than if everyone debated whatever subtle variation on the resolution they favored. Affirmatives would unfairly abuse (and have already abused) the entitlement to choose their own unpredictable adventure, and negatives would respond (and have already responded) with strategies that are designed to avoid clash—including an essentially vigilantist approach to topicality in which debaters enforce their own pet resolutions on an arbitrary, round-by-round basis. Think here of the utilitarian case for internalizing rules against lying, murder, and other intuitively wrong acts. As the great utilitarian Henry Sidgwick argued, wellbeing is maximized not by everyone doing what they think maximizes wellbeing, but rather (in general) by people sticking to the rules of common sense morality. Otherwise, people are more likely to act on mistaken utility calculations and engage in self-serving violations of useful rules, thereby undermining social practices that promote wellbeing in the long run. That is exactly what happens if we reject the topicality rule in favor of direct appeals to pragmatic considerations.
12		-2. Limits
13		-3. TVA
14		-Fairness, Jurisdiction, DTD, Competing Interps

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-2017-01-06 15:58:20.0

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Neel Yerneni

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Kempner AB

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-29

Round

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

Team

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

Title

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-JF - T - Not Any

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-UH Cougar Classic