Changes for page Strake Jesuit Li Neg
Summary
-
Objects (2 modified, 0 added, 3 removed)
Details
- Caselist.CitesClass[77]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -2017-01-28 21:07:09. 01 +2017-01-28 21:07:09.69
- Caselist.CitesClass[78]
-
- 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 -2017-01-28 21:07:09.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Neel Yerneni - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Kempner AB - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -49 - 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
- Caselist.CitesClass[79]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,12 +1,0 @@ 1 -CP Text: Public Colleges and Universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech except for term papers produced by professionals who sell them to students who turn them in as original work. 2 -Competes through mutual exclusivity- I don’t include term papers while the aff does. 3 -The sale of term papers, although blatant plagiarism, is speech protected by the first amendment 4 -Duke Law Journal 73, Term Paper Companies and the Constitution, 1973, 1275-1317 (1974) Available at: http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol22/iss6/3 5 -TERM PAPERS AS PROTECTED SPEECH UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT The preparation and sale of term papers involves not only written communication but also "pure speech," an exchange of ideas arguably protectable under the first amendment . 2 The Supreme Court has indicated that this protection extends to even the most marginal "exchanges of ideas." Justice Frankfurter conceded in his dissent to Winters v. New York17 that "wiholly neutral futilities, of course, come under the protection of free speech as fully as do Keats' poems or Donne's sermons." The majority in Winters stated, with more enthusiasm, that even though the magazines in question contained "nothing of any possible value," they were "as much entitled to the protection of free speech as the best of literature." ' A term paper, arguably, is somewhat more than a "wiholly neutral futility" and is clearly entitled to as much constitutional protection as magazines which contain "nothing of any possible value to society." 6 -Turns and outweighs the case 7 -1 Plagiarism is free-riding the system because it requires the exploitation of others by taking advantage of one’s efforts. Free riding is immoral under the omnilateral will. 8 -Ripstein 09 Arthur Ripstein, Force and Freedom. Harvard University Press, 2009. 9 -So mandatory cooperation cannot treat terms of interaction as reciprocal because they are voluntary. Instead, there is a more direct requirement of reciprocity: everyone must do his or her own part; the person who fails to do so violates reciprocity by taking advantage of the cooperative efforts of others, like the one who fails to keep up his end of a contract. From this perspective, the “free rider” wrongs his fellow citizens by taking advantage of their efforts. The free rider may claim—and it may even be true— that he would rather do without the rightful condition and go it alone. That claim is beside the point, because the obligation to enter a rightful condition is unconditional, that is, it does not depend upon any particular person’s subjective assessment of the benefits it will yield. Others are entitled to treat the creating and sustaining of a rightful condition as one of the free rider’s purposes, quite apart from what he may have to say about it. Thus they can rightly complain that they are being required to work for the purposes of another, or that they and are being used by the free rider, and they can make this claim even if the free rider’s failure to contribute costs them nothing. 10 -2 Plagiarism misrepresents the will of the original author and the plagiarizer 11 -Sadler 11 Brook J. Sadler, “Nothing New Left to Say: Plagiarism, Originality, and the Discipline of Philosophy,” Florida Philosophical Review Volume XII, Issue 1, Winter 2012 12 -Kant’s own view of the author may constitute a metaphysically perplexing extreme, insofar as it suggests that the text, qua speech of a rational agent, is an extension of his noumenal self. But the modern idea that writing emanates from, manifests, or represents the unique personality of an author is what underwrites, so to speak, the modern notion of plagiarism. We must believe in the notion of original writing, seemingly freed of influences, in order to think plagiarism a distinctive, identifiable violation, especially when financial effects are absent. And the violation points in two directions. It points toward the original author, whose very person is co-opted or misrepresented through the unacknowledged taking of her words, and it points toward the plagiarizer, who misrepresents her own person by writing in someone else’s voice, making a puppet of herself as she enacts an original author’s speech. Thus, the modern complaint against plagiarism is doubly invested in the idea that the text is an enactment of the person, and that as such, it must be original. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-19 01:55:36.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Bob Overing - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Hunter College TF - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -50 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Strake Jesuit Li Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JF - CP - Term Papers - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harvard
- Caselist.RoundClass[49]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -77,78
- Caselist.RoundClass[50]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -79 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-19 01:55:34.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Bob Overing - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Hunter College TF - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harvard