Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[29]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[28]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[29]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-01-13 01:32:20.481
	1	+2017-01-13 01:32:20.0

Caselist.CitesClass[28]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,85 @@
	1	+=1-off =
	2	+A. Interp: if the aff disclosed their advocacy text before round, they must read that advocacy text in round in the 1AC
	3	+B. screenshots prpove
	4	+C. Standards:
	5	+1. Prep skew: moots the prep time given before round
	6	+Lying is an independent voting issue
	7	+D. voter-
	8	+1. Fairness is a voter since the ballot asks who the better debater is and you can't make that decision accurately if the round is unfair.
	9	+2. Fairness outweighs education
	10	+Education loss is a reversible harm - I can always read up more on topic lit later, or do rebuttal redos to increase clash and critical thinking skills. But an unfair decision is permanent.
	11	+3. Drop the debater
	12	+a) Recourse- Drop the arg always incentivizes abusive positions because worse case scenario you lose access to the arg but best case you win on an abusive arg. Drop the debater to incentives further checking of abuse and to deter abuse.
	13	+4. Competing Interps
	14	+a) Reasonability begs the question of what's reasonable, requiring arbitrary intervention for the judge to evaluate the round. Even if you set a brighltine its arbitrary, allowing you to always set a brightline that lets you get away with abuse.
	15	+5. No RVIs
	16	+a) RVI's prevent theory from checking abuse. I wouldn't want to initiate a theory debate against an abusive case if my opponent could win the theory debate on an RVI. This is especially bad since they knew what they were defending beforehand but I didn't ensuring a huge prep skew on theory already.
	17	+b) Reciprocity-Theory is not a nib- you can go for link turns or impact turns- you can impact turn with fairness for who or link turn with arguments for why I violate or use the voters to generate offense on a new shell. Giving you another way out creates a 2:1 skew.
	18	+
	19	+
	20	+=2-off =
	21	+
	22	+
	23	+====Regardless of constitutionality, Title IX requires colleges to restrict hostile speech or lose federal funding.====
	24	+Bernstein 3 **(David E. Bernstein – George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law with a focus on constitutional history, "You Can't Say That: The Growing Threat to Civil Liberties From Antidiscrimination Laws", "Censoring Campus Speech", pg. 60-61,)**
	25	+**Given these constitutional barriers, public university speech codes were on the way out until **
	26	+**AND**
	27	+ban offensive speech by students and diligently punish** any **violations **of that ban. **
	28	+
	29	+
	30	+====Federal funding is critical for college operations, especially financial aid====
	31	+Pew 15 (**The Pew Charitable Trusts – compiles evidence and non-partisan analysis to inform the public and create better public policy, "Federal and State Funding of Higher Education: A Changing Landscape", http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2015/06/federal-and-state-funding-of-higher-education)**
	32	+**States and the federal government have long provided substantial funding for higher education, but **
	33	+**AND**
	34	+**, while state funds primarily pay for the general operations of public institutions.**
	35	+
	36	+
	37	+====Cuts to funding for higher ed and financial aid hampers college access, especially for students from low-income or minority backgrounds. This is a huge economic blow because college degrees reduce poverty, crime and a laundry list of impacts. ====
	38	+Mitchell et al 16 **(Report published by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; authors were Michael Mitchell (State Budget and Tax), Michael Leachman (State Budget and Tax), and Kathleen Masterson, "Funding Down, Tuition Up: State Cuts to Higher Education Threaten Quality and Affordability at Public Colleges", http://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/funding-down-tuition-up,**
	39	+**Years of **cuts in** state **funding for public colleges and universities have driven up tuition** **
	40	+**AND**
	41	+**the start of the recession will make it more difficult to achieve those goals**
	42	+
	43	+
	44	+=3-off =
	45	+
	46	+
	47	+====CP Text: The United States federal government shall pass the Anti-Harassment Act which legally defines and punishes harassment. ====
	48	+
	49	+
	50	+====CP solves the aff by eliminating the need for free speech codes on campuses to prevent harassment====
	51	+**Edelman 15** ~~Robert Davis Edelman, "Experts Urge Congress to Protect Free Speech on Campus," Free Beacon, June 3, 2015, http://freebeacon.com/politics/experts-urge-congress-to-protect-free-speech-on-campus/~~ JW
	52	+Led by Greg Lukianoff, president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights in
	53	+AND
	54	+Lukianoff said, they also "fail in the court of public opinion."
	55	+
	56	+
	57	+====The Act solves the need for any speech codes ====
	58	+**Lukianoff 6/1** ~~Greg Lukianoff, President and CEO, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, "My Testimony in Front of Congress About Free Speech on Campus (LIVE STREAM)," Huffington Post, June 1, 2016, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-lukianoff/my-testimony-in-front-of_b_7494280.html~~ JW
	59	+1. Pass our campus anti-harassment act, which simply asks the federal
	60	+AND
	61	+of the most common, tenacious and unconstitutional speech codes in one stroke.
	62	+
	63	+
	64	+=4-off=
	65	+
	66	+
	67	+==Oppression NC (Long)==
	68	+
	69	+
	70	+====Debate should deal with the real-world consequences of oppression. ====
	71	+Curry 14, Tommy, The Cost of a Thing: A Kingian Reformulation of a Living Wage Argument in the 21st Century, Victory Briefs, 2014,
	72	+Despite the pronouncement of debate as an activity and intellectual exercise pointing to the real
	73	+AND
	74	+used to currently justify the living wages in under our contemporary moral parameters.
	75	+
	76	+
	77	+====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: ====
	78	+
	79	+
	80	+====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 ====
	81	+"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?"
	82	+
	83	+
	84	+====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 ====
	85	+ "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)

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-01-13 01:32:23.92

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Louisa Melcher, Nadia Hussein

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Rowland Hall KO

ParentRound

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

Round

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

Team

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

Title

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

Tournament

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