Changes for page Stuyvesant Fennell Neg
Summary
-
Objects (1 modified, 13 added, 13 removed)
- Caselist.CitesClass[101]
- Caselist.CitesClass[102]
- Caselist.CitesClass[103]
- Caselist.CitesClass[104]
- Caselist.CitesClass[105]
- Caselist.CitesClass[106]
- Caselist.CitesClass[107]
- Caselist.CitesClass[108]
- Caselist.RoundClass[78]
- Caselist.RoundClass[79]
- Caselist.RoundClass[80]
- Caselist.RoundClass[81]
- Caselist.RoundClass[82]
- Caselist.RoundClass[87]
- Caselist.CitesClass[116]
- Caselist.CitesClass[117]
- Caselist.CitesClass[118]
- Caselist.CitesClass[119]
- Caselist.CitesClass[120]
- Caselist.CitesClass[121]
- Caselist.CitesClass[122]
- Caselist.RoundClass[88]
- Caselist.RoundClass[89]
- Caselist.RoundClass[90]
- Caselist.RoundClass[91]
- Caselist.RoundClass[92]
- Caselist.RoundClass[93]
Details
- Caselist.CitesClass[101]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,20 +1,0 @@ 1 -Epistemology comes first because labeling things moral or immoral is just a function of knowledge. We need to know how we know what right and wrong are before we can pick the best definition. A priori reasoning is impossible so the only epistemologically sound basis for morality is experience. 2 - 3 -Schwartz 09 “A Defense of Naïve Empiricism: It is Neither Self-Refuting Nor Dogmatic.” Stephen P. Schwartz. Ithaca College. pp.1-14. 4 - The empirical support …an empirical claim. 5 - 6 -All humans experience the badness of pain and the goodness of pleasure. 7 - 8 -Nagel Thomas Nagel, The View From Nowhere, HUP, 1986: 156-168. 9 -I shall defend … the appearances here. 10 - 11 -Thus, because each agent values their own pleasure, they must also value the pleasure of others. 12 - 13 -Sayre-McCord Geoffrey Sayre-McCord "Mill's "Proof" of the Principle of Utility: A More than Half-Hearted Defense" volume 18, number 2 Spring 2001, 330-360. www.unc.edu/~gsmunc/phil22/Mill's_Proof.pdf 14 -According to the … of all the rest. 15 - 16 -Therefore, since we have no non-arbitrary reason to value our own pleasure over the pleasure of others, the standard is maximizing expected wellbeing. Prefer additionally: 17 - 18 -1. Topic Education – 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. 19 - 20 -2. Exclusion – Util is the least exclusive because (a) it’s the easiest to understand: most net benefits equals a win (b) it doesn’t require access to private sites such as jstor and (c) it’s largely influenced by weighing, which is unconstrained by resources. Exclusion comes first as we ought to maximize opportunities for people to join the activity before we can debate about their experience. Exclusion outweighs because people need to be in debate to get any benefits from it. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-04-12 03:10:56.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -78 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -9 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Stuyvesant Fennell Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -FW - Util - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any
- Caselist.CitesClass[102]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,4 +1,0 @@ 1 -Use epistemic modesty to account for the nonzero chance that you are wrong on the framework debate. That’s probability of the moral framework being true multiplied by the value of an action under that framework 2 - 3 -Christensen 13 David Christensen, Professor of Philosophy @ Brown University, “Epistemic Modesty Defended”. The Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays, edited by David Christensen and Jennifer Lackey, Oxford University Press, 2013 4 -One might, of …epistemic modesty entirely. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-04-12 03:10:57.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -78 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -9 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Stuyvesant Fennell Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -FW - Epistemic Modesty - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any
- Caselist.CitesClass[103]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,13 +1,0 @@ 1 -The standard is combatting material inequalities. This is the most epistemologically sound starting point for moral decisions. 2 - 3 -Mills 05, Charles, 2005, Ideal Theory” as Ideology, 4 - 5 -The crucial common …male-dominated philosophical literature. 6 - 7 -3 implications: 8 - 9 -First, only non-ideal theory is inclusive of all perspectives, increasing the probability that ethical deliberation can come to sound conclusions since exclusion of voices leads to privileged views of ethics that become ivory tower. 10 - 11 -Second, only this framework is motivating: oppressed groups cant participate in the aff framework which means they cant be compelled to action. That’s a prerequisite to ethics - if no one can adopt a theory it has no use. 12 - 13 -Third, non-ideal theory necessitates consequentialism since instead of following rules that assume an already equal playing field, we take steps to correct the material injustice. This means that the MOST important impacts in this debate are the lives of materially oppressed people living in the status quo. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-04-14 00:11:48.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -79 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Quarters - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Stuyvesant Fennell Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -FW - Materiality - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any
- Caselist.CitesClass[104]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,11 +1,0 @@ 1 -Voting aff increases the amount of hate speech – 2 - 3 -a. The plan legitimizes and legalizes hate speech which means people will take advantage of the lack of regulation and will start saying racist things because there is no fear of recourse and it is socially acceptable 4 - 5 -b. Your solvency relies on hate speech increasing – the only way counter speech works is if we know who the racists are because they say racist things out loud, which means double bind – either (a) hate speech doesn’t increase and your solvency is denied and you vote negative on presumption because you need to justify a shift from the squo or (b) your solvency is true, and you increase hate speech 6 - 7 -This causes psychological violence and internalized hatred. Even if speech codes don’t decrease hate speech, codes stop the impression that hate speech can go unpunished. 8 - 9 -Delgado and Stefacic 09, Richard Delgado - University Professor, Seattle University School of Law; J.D., 1974, University of California, Berkeley. Jean Stefancic – Research Professor, Seattle University School of Law; M.A., 1989, University of San Francisco. “FOUR OBSERVATIONS ABOUT HATE SPEECH.” WAKE FOREST LAW REVIEW. 2009. http://wakeforestlawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Delgado_LawReview_01.09.pdf, 10 - 11 -II. OBSERVATION NUMBER TWO: THE … to that result?97 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-04-14 00:37:26.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -80 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -6 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Stuyvesant Fennell Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB - DA - Hate Speech - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any
- Caselist.CitesClass[105]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,9 +1,0 @@ 1 -1. Reverse enforcement is empirically denied- FBI studies prove 2 - 3 -Delgado and Yun 94 Richard Delgado - Charles Inglis Thomson Professor of Law, University of Colorado. J.D. 1974, University of California, Berkeley. David H. Yun – Member of the Colorado Bar. J.D. 1993, University of Colorado. “Pressure Valves and Bloodied Chickens: An Analysis of Paternalistic Objections to Hate Speech Regulation.” California Law Review. 1994. http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1712andcontext=californialawreview 4 -B. The "Reverse Enforcement" … minorities seems remote. 5 - 6 -2. Empirically denied – Wisconsin’s speech codes prove that only racists are punished. 7 - 8 -Hodulik 91 Hodulik, Patricia University of Wisconsin-Madison. Senior System Legal Counsel, University of Wisconsin System Administration. “Racist Speech on Campus.” Wayne Law Review. 1990-1991. 9 -A further concern ,,, cases at Wisconsin. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-04-14 00:44:39.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -81 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -7 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Stuyvesant Fennell Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB - Case - A2 Reverse Enforcement - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any
- Caselist.CitesClass[106]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,4 +1,0 @@ 1 -Turn –alt-right exploits the idea of free speech to develop a platform and becomes legitimate – the free speech of the 1AC allows white supremacist groups to become legitimized 2 - 3 -Burley 16 Burley, Shane Contributor, Waging Nonviolence “How the Alt Right is trying to create a ‘safe space’ for racism on college campuses.” Waging Nonviolence October 2016 4 -A murmur began … ‘we’re here,’” Spencer explained. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-04-14 00:44:40.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -81 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -7 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Stuyvesant Fennell Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB - Turn - A2 White Supremacists - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any
- Caselist.CitesClass[107]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,4 +1,0 @@ 1 -Status quo solves – you can organize an independent newspaper or make a website and it’s been done at several colleges already 2 - 3 -Kabay 10 Kabay, M.E. Network World “Free speech issues: Controlling content in college newspapers.” Network World. December 2010. 4 -If students feel …non-random sample data. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-04-14 00:44:42.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -81 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -7 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Stuyvesant Fennell Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB - Case - A2 Journalism - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any
- Caselist.CitesClass[108]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,20 +1,0 @@ 1 -First is CP Text: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech except in the case of the nonconsensual distribution of sexually explicit images. 2 - 3 -Second is the DA: 4 - 5 -A. Uniqueness: The nonconsensual distribution of sexually explicit images is constitutionally protected speech – aff allows it on college campuses. 6 - 7 -Goldberg 16 – Bracketed for potentially offensive language Erica Goldberg Columbia Law Review Volume 116, No. 3 April 2016 "FREE SPEECH CONSEQUENTIALISM" 8 -States have begun …free speech regime. 9 - 10 -B. Link: CP solves – deters perpetrators and creates a cultural shift. 11 - 12 -Citron and Franks 14 Danielle Keats Citron, Mary Anne Franks. "CRIMINALIZING REVENGE PORN" 4/21/2014 https://www.law.yale.edu/system/files/area/center/isp/documents/danielle_citron_-_criminalizing_revenge_porn_-_fesc.pdf Danielle Keats Citron is a Lois K. Macht Research Professor and Professor of Law, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law; Affiliate Scholar, Stanford Center on Internet and Society; Affiliate Fellow, Yale Information Society Project. Mary Anne Franks is an Associate Professor of Law, University of Miami School of Law. 13 - 14 -As this discussion … porn site operators. 15 - 16 -C. Impact: Non-consensual image distribution causes chilling effect for survivors who are afraid to speak out and are silenced. Causes psychological violence. 17 - 18 -Citron and Franks 14 – Bracketed for potentially offensive language Danielle Keats Citron, Mary Anne Franks. "CRIMINALIZING REVENGE PORN" 4/21/2014 https://www.law.yale.edu/system/files/area/center/isp/documents/danielle_citron_-_criminalizing_revenge_porn_-_fesc.pdf Danielle Keats Citron is a Lois K. Macht Research Professor and Professor of Law, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law; Affiliate Scholar, Stanford Center on Internet and Society; Affiliate Fellow, Yale Information Society Project. Mary Anne Franks is an Associate Professor of Law, University of Miami School of Law. 19 - 20 -Victims’ fear can be …of sex discrimination. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-04-14 00:47:58.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -82 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -8 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Stuyvesant Fennell Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB - CP - Nonconsensual sexually explicit image distribution v2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any
- Caselist.RoundClass[78]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -101,102 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-04-12 03:10:54.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any - OpenSource
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -https://hsld.debatecoaches.org/download/Stuyvesant/Fennell+Neg/Stuyvesant-Fennell-Neg-Any-Round9.docx - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -9 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any
- Caselist.RoundClass[79]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -103 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-04-14 00:11:44.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any - OpenSource
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -https://hsld.debatecoaches.org/download/Stuyvesant/Fennell+Neg/Stuyvesant-Fennell-Neg-Any-Quarters.docx - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Quarters - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any
- Caselist.RoundClass[80]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -104 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-04-14 00:37:23.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any - OpenSource
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -https://hsld.debatecoaches.org/download/Stuyvesant/Fennell+Neg/Stuyvesant-Fennell-Neg-Any-Round6.docx - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -6 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any
- Caselist.RoundClass[81]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -105,106,107 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-04-14 00:44:37.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any - OpenSource
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -https://hsld.debatecoaches.org/download/Stuyvesant/Fennell+Neg/Stuyvesant-Fennell-Neg-Any-Round7.docx - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -7 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any
- Caselist.RoundClass[82]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -108 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-04-14 00:47:56.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any - OpenSource
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -https://hsld.debatecoaches.org/download/Stuyvesant/Fennell+Neg/Stuyvesant-Fennell-Neg-Any-Round8.docx - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -8 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any
- Caselist.RoundClass[87]
-
- OpenSource
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +https://hsld.debatecoaches.org/download/Stuyvesant/Fennell+Neg/Stuyvesant-Fennell-Neg-Harrison%20RR-Round2.docx
- Caselist.CitesClass[116]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,20 @@ 1 +Epistemology comes first because labeling things moral or immoral is just a function of knowledge. We need to know how we know what right and wrong are before we can pick the best definition. A priori reasoning is impossible so the only epistemologically sound basis for morality is experience. 2 + 3 +Schwartz 09 “A Defense of Naïve Empiricism: It is Neither Self-Refuting Nor Dogmatic.” Stephen P. Schwartz. Ithaca College. pp.1-14. 4 + The empirical support …an empirical claim. 5 + 6 +All humans experience the badness of pain and the goodness of pleasure. 7 + 8 +Nagel Thomas Nagel, The View From Nowhere, HUP, 1986: 156-168. 9 +I shall defend … the appearances here. 10 + 11 +Thus, because each agent values their own pleasure, they must also value the pleasure of others. 12 + 13 +Sayre-McCord Geoffrey Sayre-McCord "Mill's "Proof" of the Principle of Utility: A More than Half-Hearted Defense" volume 18, number 2 Spring 2001, 330-360. www.unc.edu/~gsmunc/phil22/Mill's_Proof.pdf 14 +According to the … of all the rest. 15 + 16 +Therefore, since we have no non-arbitrary reason to value our own pleasure over the pleasure of others, the standard is maximizing expected wellbeing. Prefer additionally: 17 + 18 +1. Topic Education – 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. 19 + 20 +2. Exclusion – Util is the least exclusive because (a) it’s the easiest to understand: most net benefits equals a win (b) it doesn’t require access to private sites such as jstor and (c) it’s largely influenced by weighing, which is unconstrained by resources. Exclusion comes first as we ought to maximize opportunities for people to join the activity before we can debate about their experience. Exclusion outweighs because people need to be in debate to get any benefits from it. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-16 13:49:28.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +88 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +9 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Stuyvesant Fennell Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +FW - Util - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any
- Caselist.CitesClass[117]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,4 @@ 1 +Use epistemic modesty to account for the nonzero chance that you are wrong on the framework debate. That’s probability of the moral framework being true multiplied by the value of an action under that framework 2 + 3 +Christensen 13 David Christensen, Professor of Philosophy @ Brown University, “Epistemic Modesty Defended”. The Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays, edited by David Christensen and Jennifer Lackey, Oxford University Press, 2013 4 +One might, of …epistemic modesty entirely. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-16 13:49:30.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +88 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +9 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Stuyvesant Fennell Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +FW - Epistemic Modesty - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any
- Caselist.CitesClass[118]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,20 @@ 1 +First is CP Text: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech except in the case of the nonconsensual distribution of sexually explicit images. 2 + 3 +Second is the DA: 4 + 5 +A. Uniqueness: The nonconsensual distribution of sexually explicit images is constitutionally protected speech – aff allows it on college campuses. 6 + 7 +Goldberg 16 – Bracketed for potentially offensive language Erica Goldberg Columbia Law Review Volume 116, No. 3 April 2016 "FREE SPEECH CONSEQUENTIALISM" 8 +States have begun …free speech regime. 9 + 10 +B. Link: CP solves – deters perpetrators and creates a cultural shift. 11 + 12 +Citron and Franks 14 Danielle Keats Citron, Mary Anne Franks. "CRIMINALIZING REVENGE PORN" 4/21/2014 https://www.law.yale.edu/system/files/area/center/isp/documents/danielle_citron_-_criminalizing_revenge_porn_-_fesc.pdf Danielle Keats Citron is a Lois K. Macht Research Professor and Professor of Law, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law; Affiliate Scholar, Stanford Center on Internet and Society; Affiliate Fellow, Yale Information Society Project. Mary Anne Franks is an Associate Professor of Law, University of Miami School of Law. 13 + 14 +As this discussion … porn site operators. 15 + 16 +C. Impact: Non-consensual image distribution causes chilling effect for survivors who are afraid to speak out and are silenced. Causes psychological violence. 17 + 18 +Citron and Franks 14 – Bracketed for potentially offensive language Danielle Keats Citron, Mary Anne Franks. "CRIMINALIZING REVENGE PORN" 4/21/2014 https://www.law.yale.edu/system/files/area/center/isp/documents/danielle_citron_-_criminalizing_revenge_porn_-_fesc.pdf Danielle Keats Citron is a Lois K. Macht Research Professor and Professor of Law, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law; Affiliate Scholar, Stanford Center on Internet and Society; Affiliate Fellow, Yale Information Society Project. Mary Anne Franks is an Associate Professor of Law, University of Miami School of Law. 19 + 20 +Victims’ fear can be …of sex discrimination. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-16 13:50:08.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +89 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +8 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Stuyvesant Fennell Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - CP - Nonconsensual sexually explicit image distribution v2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any
- Caselist.CitesClass[119]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,13 @@ 1 +The standard is combatting material inequalities. This is the most epistemologically sound starting point for moral decisions. 2 + 3 +Mills 05, Charles, 2005, Ideal Theory” as Ideology, 4 + 5 +The crucial common …male-dominated philosophical literature. 6 + 7 +3 implications: 8 + 9 +First, only non-ideal theory is inclusive of all perspectives, increasing the probability that ethical deliberation can come to sound conclusions since exclusion of voices leads to privileged views of ethics that become ivory tower. 10 + 11 +Second, only this framework is motivating: oppressed groups cant participate in the aff framework which means they cant be compelled to action. That’s a prerequisite to ethics - if no one can adopt a theory it has no use. 12 + 13 +Third, non-ideal theory necessitates consequentialism since instead of following rules that assume an already equal playing field, we take steps to correct the material injustice. This means that the MOST important impacts in this debate are the lives of materially oppressed people living in the status quo. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-16 13:51:02.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +90 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Quarters - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Stuyvesant Fennell Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +FW - Materiality - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any
- Caselist.CitesClass[120]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,13 @@ 1 +The standard is combatting material inequalities. This is the most epistemologically sound starting point for moral decisions. 2 + 3 +Mills 05, Charles, 2005, Ideal Theory” as Ideology, 4 + 5 +The crucial common …male-dominated philosophical literature. 6 + 7 +3 implications: 8 + 9 +First, only non-ideal theory is inclusive of all perspectives, increasing the probability that ethical deliberation can come to sound conclusions since exclusion of voices leads to privileged views of ethics that become ivory tower. 10 + 11 +Second, only this framework is motivating: oppressed groups cant participate in the aff framework which means they cant be compelled to action. That’s a prerequisite to ethics - if no one can adopt a theory it has no use. 12 + 13 +Third, non-ideal theory necessitates consequentialism since instead of following rules that assume an already equal playing field, we take steps to correct the material injustice. This means that the MOST important impacts in this debate are the lives of materially oppressed people living in the status quo. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-16 13:51:11.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +91 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Quarters - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Stuyvesant Fennell Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +FW - Materiality - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any
- Caselist.CitesClass[121]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,11 @@ 1 +Voting aff increases the amount of hate speech – 2 + 3 +a. The plan legitimizes and legalizes hate speech which means people will take advantage of the lack of regulation and will start saying racist things because there is no fear of recourse and it is socially acceptable 4 + 5 +b. Your solvency relies on hate speech increasing – the only way counter speech works is if we know who the racists are because they say racist things out loud, which means double bind – either (a) hate speech doesn’t increase and your solvency is denied and you vote negative on presumption because you need to justify a shift from the squo or (b) your solvency is true, and you increase hate speech 6 + 7 +This causes psychological violence and internalized hatred. Even if speech codes don’t decrease hate speech, codes stop the impression that hate speech can go unpunished. 8 + 9 +Delgado and Stefacic 09, Richard Delgado - University Professor, Seattle University School of Law; J.D., 1974, University of California, Berkeley. Jean Stefancic – Research Professor, Seattle University School of Law; M.A., 1989, University of San Francisco. “FOUR OBSERVATIONS ABOUT HATE SPEECH.” WAKE FOREST LAW REVIEW. 2009. http://wakeforestlawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Delgado_LawReview_01.09.pdf, 10 + 11 +II. OBSERVATION NUMBER TWO: THE … to that result?97 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-16 13:51:41.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +92 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +6 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Stuyvesant Fennell Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - DA - Hate Speech - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any
- Caselist.CitesClass[122]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,9 @@ 1 +1. Reverse enforcement is empirically denied- FBI studies prove 2 + 3 +Delgado and Yun 94 Richard Delgado - Charles Inglis Thomson Professor of Law, University of Colorado. J.D. 1974, University of California, Berkeley. David H. Yun – Member of the Colorado Bar. J.D. 1993, University of Colorado. “Pressure Valves and Bloodied Chickens: An Analysis of Paternalistic Objections to Hate Speech Regulation.” California Law Review. 1994. http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1712andcontext=californialawreview 4 +B. The "Reverse Enforcement" … minorities seems remote. 5 + 6 +2. Empirically denied – Wisconsin’s speech codes prove that only racists are punished. 7 + 8 +Hodulik 91 Hodulik, Patricia University of Wisconsin-Madison. Senior System Legal Counsel, University of Wisconsin System Administration. “Racist Speech on Campus.” Wayne Law Review. 1990-1991. 9 +A further concern ,,, cases at Wisconsin. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-16 13:52:42.606 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +93 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +7 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Stuyvesant Fennell Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - Case - A2 Reverse Enforcement - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB
- Caselist.RoundClass[88]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +116,117 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-16 13:49:25.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - OpenSource
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +https://hsld.debatecoaches.org/download/Stuyvesant/Fennell+Neg/Stuyvesant-Fennell-Neg-Any-Round9.docx - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +9 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,2 @@ 1 +FW - Util 2 +FW - Epistemic Modesty - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any
- Caselist.RoundClass[89]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +118 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-16 13:50:03.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - OpenSource
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +https://hsld.debatecoaches.org/download/Stuyvesant/Fennell+Neg/Stuyvesant-Fennell-Neg-Any-Round8.docx - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +8 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +CP - Nonconsensual image distribution - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any
- Caselist.RoundClass[90]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +119 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-16 13:50:56.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - OpenSource
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +https://hsld.debatecoaches.org/download/Stuyvesant/Fennell+Neg/Stuyvesant-Fennell-Neg-Any-Quarters.docx - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Quarters - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +FW - Materiality - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any
- Caselist.RoundClass[91]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +120 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-16 13:51:08.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - OpenSource
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +https://hsld.debatecoaches.org/download/Stuyvesant/Fennell+Neg/Stuyvesant-Fennell-Neg-Any-Quarters.docx - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Quarters - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +FW - Materiality - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any
- Caselist.RoundClass[92]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +121 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-16 13:51:38.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - OpenSource
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +https://hsld.debatecoaches.org/download/Stuyvesant/Fennell+Neg/Stuyvesant-Fennell-Neg-Any-Round6.docx - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +6 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +DA - Hate Speech - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any
- Caselist.RoundClass[93]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-16 13:52:40.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - OpenSource
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +https://hsld.debatecoaches.org/download/Stuyvesant/Fennell+Neg/Stuyvesant-Fennell-Neg-Any-Round7.docx - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +7 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,3 @@ 1 +A2 Reverse Enforcement 2 +A2 White Supremacists 3 +A2 Journalism - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB