Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[26]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[25]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[26]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-12-17 23:17:54.10
	1	+2016-12-17 23:17:54.0

Caselist.CitesClass[25]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,72 @@
	1	+=1-off=
	2	+
	3	+
	4	+==1NC Shell ==
	5	+A. Interpretation: The affirmative may not specify a specific form of constitutionally protected speech that they defend not restricting.
	6	+"Any" when used in a negative sentence is a weak determiner referring to an indefinite number of things AND cannot be used for a singular countable thing
	7	+**Cambridge Dictionary writes** ~~Cambridge English Dictionary, "Any," Cambridge University Press, Accessed 12-4-2016, http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/quantifiers/any~~ JW
	8	+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. We use weak form any only with uncountable nouns or with plural nouns: ~~talking about fuel for the car~~ Do I need to get any petrol? (+ uncountable noun) There aren't any clean knives. They're all in the dishwasher. (+ plural noun) Warning: We don't use any with this meaning with singular countable nouns: Have you got any Italian cookery books? (or … an Italian cookery book?) Not: Have you got any Italian cookery book?
	9	+B. Violation: They only defend journalist speech
	10	+C. Standards
	11	+1. Grammar:
	12	+2. Limits:
	13	+3. Topical version of the aff solves:
	14	+D. Voters
	15	+
	16	+
	17	+=2-off =
	18	+
	19	+
	20	+====Hate speech is permissible under the first amendment despite the exceptions ====
	21	+**Volokh 15** ~~Eugene Volokh, Law Professor at UCLA, "No, there's no "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment," The Washington Post, May 7, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/?utm_term=.9e1ed85e9262~~ JW
	22	+I keep hearing about a supposed "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment
	23	+AND
	24	+that people might condemn but that does not constitute a legally relevant category.
	25	+
	26	+
	27	+====Free speech used as a cover to justify hate speech like anti-semitic speech ====
	28	+**Marcus 08** ~~Kenneth L. Marcus, Lillie and Nathan Ackerman Chair in Equality and Justice in America, Baruch College School of Public Affairs, "Higher Education, Harassment, and First Amendment Opportunism," 16 Wm. and Mary Bill Rts. J. 1025 (2008), http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol16/iss4/5~~ JW
	29	+During recent years, American college campuses have seen numerous alarming examples8° of the
	30	+AND
	31	+This has been an enormous challenge for civil rights enforcement in this area.
	32	+
	33	+
	34	+====Empirics prove that hate speech leads to hate crimes ====
	35	+**Singh 12** ~~Hansdeep Singh, Co-Founder and Director of Legal Programs for the International Center for Advocates Against Discrimination, Simran Jeet Singh, a scholar and activist who writes primarily on culture and religion "The Rise of Hate Crimes Can Be Tied Directly to Hateful Speech," The Daily Beast, Sept. 6, 2012, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/06/the-rise-of-hate-crimes-can-be-tied-directly-to-hateful-speech.html~~ JW
	36	+Although there are flaws in the FBI's method of tracking and monitoring hate crimes,
	37	+AND
	38	+this great nation—the discrimination and "othering" of minority communities.
	39	+
	40	+
	41	+=3-off =
	42	+
	43	+
	44	+====CP Text: AFF actors should remove all restrictions on constitutionally protected free speech, and ban the usage of all hate speech, including hate speech not protected by the First Amendment. Hate speech poses a direct threat to the oppressed. Banning it is necessary to promote inclusiveness.====
	45	+Jared **Taylor summarizes Waldron, 12**, Why We Should Ban "Hate Speech", American Renaissance, summarizing Jeremy Waldron, The Harm in Hate Speech, Harvard University Press, 2012, 292 pp., 26.95. 8/24/12, http://www.amren.com/features/2012/08/why-we-should-ban-hate-speech/ **Note – Taylor does not agree with but is summarizing Waldron's position //LADI
	46	+First-Amendment guarantees of free speech are a cherished part of the American tradition
	47	+AND
	48	+in which it is considered fine to beat up and drive out minorities.
	49	+
	50	+
	51	+=4-off =
	52	+
	53	+
	54	+====Debate should deal with the real-world consequences of oppression. ====
	55	+Curry 14, Tommy, The Cost of a Thing: A Kingian Reformulation of a Living Wage Argument in the 21st Century, Victory Briefs, 2014,
	56	+Despite the pronouncement of debate as an activity and intellectual exercise pointing to the real
	57	+AND
	58	+used to currently justify the living wages in under our contemporary moral parameters.
	59	+
	60	+
	61	+====Ethics is divided between ideal and non-ideal theory. Ideal theory ask what justice demands in a perfect world while non-ideal theory ask what justice demands in a world that is already unjust. Prefer non-ideal theory as a meta-ethical starting point: ====
	62	+
	63	+
	64	+====1. Motivation: Ideal theory cannot guide action since its starting point has diverged from the descriptive model of the real world. Non-ideal theory is key for ethical motivation. MILLS: Charles W. Mills, "Ideal Theory" as Ideology, 2005 ====
	65	+"A first possible argument might be the simple denial that moral theory should have any concern with making realistic assumptions about human beings, their capacities, and their behavior. Ethics is concerned with the ideal, so it doesn't have to worry about the actual. But even for mainstream ethics this wouldn't work, since, of course, ought is supposed to impl~~ies~~ can the ideal has to be achievable by humans. Nor could it seriously be cal imed that moral theory is concerned only with mapping beautiful ideals, not their actual implementation. If any ethicist actually said this, it would be an astonishing abdication of the classic goal of ethics, and its link with practical reason. The normative here would then be weirdly detached from the prescriptive: this is the good and the right—but we are not concerned with their actual realization. Even for Plato, a classic example in at least one sense of an ideal theorist, this was not the case: the Form of the Good was supposed to motivate us, and help philosophers transform society. Nor could anyone seriously say that ideal theory is a good way to approach ethics because as a matter of fact (not as a conceptual necessity following from what "model" or "ideal" means), the normative here has come ~~is~~ close to converging with the descriptive: ideal- as-descriptive-model has approximated to ideal-as-idealized-model. Obviously, the dreadful and dismaying course of human history has not remotely been a record of close-to-ideal behavior, but rather of behavior that has usually been quite the polar opposite of the ideal, with oppression and inequitable treatment of the majority of humanity (whether on grounds of gender, or nationality, or class, or religion, or race) being the norm. So the argument cannot be that as a matter of definitional truth, or factual irrelevance, or factual convergence, ideal theory is required. The argument has to be, as in the quote from Rawls above, that this is the best way of doing normative theory, better than all the other contenders. But why on earth should anyone think this? Why should anyone think that abstaining from theorizing about oppression and its consequences is the best way to bring about an end to oppression? Isn't this, on the face of it, just completely implausible?"
	66	+
	67	+
	68	+====2. Descriptive Ideality: ideal theory ignores social realities, which in turn contradicts ideals. Normative ideals aren't created separately from the social norms that govern us because those influence what we can count as an ideal in the first place. MILLS 2: Charles W. Mills, "Ideal Theory" as Ideology, 2005 ====
	69	+ "I suggest that this spontaneous reaction, far from being philosophically naïve or jejune, is in fact the correct one. If we start from what is presumably the uncontroversial premise that the ultimate point of ethics is to guide our actions and make ourselves better people and the world a better place, then the framework above will not only be unhelpful, but will in certain respects be deeply antithetical to the proper goal of theoretical ethics as an enterprise. In modeling humans, human capacities, human interaction, human institutions, and human society on ideal-as-idealized-models, in never exploring how deeply different this is from ideal-as-descriptive-models, we are abstracting away from realities crucial to our comprehension of the actual workings of injustice in human interactions and social institutions, and thereby guaranteeing that the ideal-as-idealized-model will never be achieved." (170)
	70	+
	71	+
	72	+====Thus, the standard is resisting material inequalities. 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. ====

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-12-17 23:17:56.115

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Arjun Tambe

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Harvard-Westlake KK

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+26

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+West Ranch Won Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+JANFEB - CPS R2 NC

Tournament

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