Changes for page West Ranch Won Neg
Summary
-
Objects (0 modified, 21 added, 1 removed)
- Caselist.RoundClass[50]
- Caselist.CitesClass[50]
- Caselist.CitesClass[51]
- Caselist.CitesClass[52]
- Caselist.CitesClass[53]
- Caselist.CitesClass[54]
- Caselist.CitesClass[55]
- Caselist.CitesClass[56]
- Caselist.CitesClass[57]
- Caselist.CitesClass[58]
- Caselist.RoundClass[51]
- Caselist.RoundClass[52]
- Caselist.RoundClass[53]
- Caselist.RoundClass[54]
- Caselist.RoundClass[55]
- Caselist.RoundClass[56]
- Caselist.RoundClass[58]
- Caselist.RoundClass[59]
- Caselist.RoundClass[60]
- Caselist.RoundClass[61]
- Caselist.RoundClass[62]
- Caselist.RoundClass[63]
Details
- Caselist.RoundClass[50]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-20 00:57:05.292 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -John Overing - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Dougherty Valley KD - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,3 +1,0 @@ 1 -1AC whole res resistance aff 2 -1NC Funding DA Politcs DA case turns 3 -2NR DA's - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Berkeley
- Caselist.CitesClass[50]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,87 @@ 1 +=1-off = 2 + 3 + 4 +====A. Uniqueness: Federal funding for colleges and universities is growing now and has been increasing for several years ==== 5 +**Camera 16** ~~Lauren Camera, education reporter at US News, "Federal Education Funding: Where Does the Money Go?" US News, Jan. 14, 2016, http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2016/01/14/federal-education-funding-where-does-the-money-go~~ JW 6 +Government spending on education has surged over the last decade and a half, with 7 +AND 8 +$14.9 billion this year, an increase of 43 percent. 9 + 10 + 11 +====B. Title IX requires colleges to restrict constitutionally protected speech or lose federal funding.==== 12 +Fire 16, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Department of Justice: Title IX Requires Violating First Amendment, 2016, https://www.thefire.org/department-of-justice-title-ix-requires-violating-first-amendment/ 13 +WASHINGTON, April 25, 2016—The Department of Justice now interprets Title IX 14 +AND 15 +University presidents must find the courage to stand up to this federal overreach." 16 + 17 + 18 +====Federal funding is critical for college operations, especially financial aid==== 19 +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)** 20 +**States and the federal government have long provided substantial funding for higher education, but ** 21 +**AND** 22 +**, while state funds primarily pay for the general operations of public institutions.** 23 + 24 + 25 +====C. Benefactors will quit funding colleges if all speech is protected==== 26 +MacDonald 05**, **G. Jeffrey MacDonald Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor. Donors: too much say on campus speech? ; Colleges feel more pressure from givers who want to help determine who'll be speaking on campus. The Christian Science Monitor ~~Boston, Mass~~ 10 Feb 2005: 11. ~~Premier~~ 27 +According to Hamilton President Joan Hinde Stewart, angry benefactors threatened to quit giving if 28 +AND 29 +says Doyle, especially in terms of paid speakers who "promote hate." 30 + 31 + 32 +====D. Impact ==== 33 + 34 + 35 +====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. ==== 36 +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,** 37 +**Years of **cuts in** state **funding for public colleges and universities have driven up tuition** ** 38 +**AND** 39 + 40 +**o/w** 41 +**scale ** 42 +**size of link** 43 +**Turns the 1AC** 44 + 45 + 46 +=2-off = 47 + 48 + 49 +====A. Trump is pushing protectionism and tarrifs right now- Republicans are unwilling to support ==== 50 +Steinhaur Dec 5, Jennifer, House G.O.P. Signals Break With Trump Over Tariff Threat, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/us/politics/house-republicans-trade-trump.html 51 +WASHINGTON — House Republican leaders signaled on Monday that they would not support President- 52 +AND 53 +against protectionism and to urge a robust debate on free markets and trade." 54 + 55 + 56 +====B. Link ==== 57 + 58 + 59 +====1. Implementing the aff is the vindication that the Trump administration needs. He's losing pol-cap now after implementing a muslim ban and nominating a deeply unpopular cabinet. Aff lets him regain steam since he railed against "political correctness" during the campaign trail. ==== 60 +**Weigel 16** ~~Moira Weigel, writer and academic, "Political correctness: how the right invented a phantom enemy," The Guardian, November 30, 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/30/political-correctness-how-the-right-invented-phantom-enemy-donald-trump~~ JW 61 +Three weeks ago, around a quarter of the American population elected a demagogue with 62 +AND 63 +themselves as "politically correct". The phrase is only ever an accusation. 64 + 65 + 66 +====2. Trump's retaliation against the Berkeley protests means he gets credit for the implementation of the aff. It proves he can beat even the most liberal institutions. ==== 67 +**Brown and Mangan 17** ~~Sarah Brown and Katherine Mangan, "Trump Can't Cut Off Berkeley's Funds by Himself. His Threat Still Raised Alarm," The Chronicle of Higher Education, Feb. 3, 2017, http://www.chronicle.com/article/Trump-Can-t-Cut-Off/239100?cid=trend_right.~~ JW 68 +Back in October, when President Trump vowed to "end" political correctness on 69 +AND 70 +. "He had to do it in a way that was threatening." 71 + 72 + 73 +====C. internal link ==== 74 + 75 + 76 +====1. The plan is popular with Congressional Republicans that Trump needs to win over to his side ==== 77 +**McGrady 16** ~~Michael McGrady, CU Colorado Springs, "House Republicans to college students: Have you been censored? Let us know. Email us!" The College Fix, March 4, 2016, http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/26499/~~ JW 78 +House Republicans have called on students nationwide to email them stories of censorship in the 79 +AND 80 +stand up for you? Who would defend you in the public place?" 81 + 82 + 83 +====D. New tarrifs doom millions and millions to extreme poverty. They also have a spillover effect, multiplying the impact. ==== 84 +Beauchamp 16, Zach, Apr 5, 2016, If you're poor in another country, this is the scariest thing Bernie Sanders has said http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11139718/bernie-sanders-trade-global-poverty 85 +Free trade is one of the best tools we have for fighting extreme poverty. 86 +AND 87 +serious about it, the damage to the world's very poorest would be astronomical - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-02-20 01:01:01.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Braden James - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Brentwood RY - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +51 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +West Ranch Won Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - Berkeley R1 NC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Berkeley
- Caselist.CitesClass[51]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,91 @@ 1 +=1-off = 2 + 3 + 4 +===K – Black Safe Spaces === 5 + 6 + 7 +==== Imagine being stuck in a sort of vertigo that seems as if you have no where to go, no where to hide, no where to just be with people who understand your struggle – this is the analysis the 1AC fundamentally misses and affirms for more free speech – safe spaces on college campuses are necessary and needed to help black students deal with being black. ==== 8 +Tyler Kingkade Lilly Workneh Ryan Grenoble Nov 16^^th^^, 2015 Campus Racism Protests Didn't Come Out Of Nowhere, And They Aren't Going Away Quickly Mizzou seems to have catalyzed years of tension over inequality and race. Senior Editor/Reporter, The Huffington Post, Senior Black Voices Editor, The Huffington Post News Editor, The Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/campus-racism-protests-didnt-come-out-of-nowhere_us_56464a87e4b08cda3488bfb 9 +If there's one thing University of Missouri senior Alanna Diggs thinks people are getting wrong 10 +AND 11 +going to help our country live up to what we say we believe." 12 + 13 + 14 +====Forcing minorities to confront racial microaggressions without any other form of recourse or retreat induces racial "battle fatigue" that translates into actual material harms ==== 15 +**Smith et al 07** ~~William A. Smith University of Utah Walter R. Allen University of California, Los Angeles Lynette L. Danley University of Utah, ""Assume the Position . . . You Fit the Description" Psychosocial Experiences and Racial Battle Fatigue Among African American Male College Students," American Behavioral Scientist, 2007~~ JW 16 +Racial Microaggressions in Historically White Environments The concern about greater distress and academic attrition among 17 +AND 18 +broken between students of color and the HWI community (Smith, 2004) 19 + 20 + 21 +====Antiblackness is metaphysics – This means that it is engrained within the structure of society – trying to change the mind of racists with free speech can never occur – this also non unique the "productive" dialogue the aff seeks to achieve ==== 22 +Warren 15 ~~Calvin L., Black Nihilism and the Politics of Hope ; Surce: CR: The New Centennial Review, Vol. 15, No. 1, Derrida and French Hegelianism (Spr ing 2015), XMT, pp. 215-248 Published by: Michigan State University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor .org/stable/10.14321/crnewcentrevi.15.1.0215 . Accessed: 30/03/2015 23 +For the black nihilist, anti-blackness is metaphysics. It is the system 24 +AND 25 +account will inevitably reproduce the very structures of thought that it would dismantle. 26 + 27 + 28 +====The politics of the 1AC removes safe spaces on college campuses – this impact turns and outweighs the case – safe spaces are uniquely key for marginalized communities to come together and actually engage in conversations about identity ==== 29 +**Pickett 16 RaeAnn Pickett. August 31st 2016. **Pickett is senior director of communications and public Affairs at the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health and a Ms. Foundation Public Voices Fellows. Trigger Warnings and Safe Spaces Are Necessary. Published by TIME. 30 +After the birth of my first son, I had postpartum depression. I was 31 +AND 32 +should be at the vanguard of modeling the way forward—not backward. 33 + 34 + 35 +====The roll of the ballot is to endorse the debater with the best methodology to liberate the oppressed==== 36 + 37 + 38 +====The roll of the judge is to be a critical educator ==== 39 + 40 + 41 +====Thus, the alternative – safe spaces that are currently in the status quo should remain where they are. The negative cannot fiat more safe spaces will occur – but our method in the kritik is affirming the tangibility and productivity that safe spaces provide to black students on colleges campuses. ==== 42 +Okeke 16 43 +Okeke ,Cameron .I'm a black UChicago graduate. Safe spaces got me through college. Cameron Okeke is currently earning a master's in bioethics at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Berman Institute of Bioethics in Baltimore, Maryland. His views are his own and do not represent those of the institution he currently attends. Aug 29, 2016 http://www.vox.com/2016/8/29/12692376/university-chicago-safe-spaces-defense 44 +The University of Chicago sent a dizzying letter to its freshman class last week, 45 +AND 46 +free. Don't let us in if you can't make room for us. 47 + 48 + 49 +=2-off = 50 + 51 + 52 +====A. Uniqueness: Federal funding for colleges and universities is growing now and has been increasing for several years ==== 53 +**Camera 16** ~~Lauren Camera, education reporter at US News, "Federal Education Funding: Where Does the Money Go?" US News, Jan. 14, 2016, http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2016/01/14/federal-education-funding-where-does-the-money-go~~ JW 54 +Government spending on education has surged over the last decade and a half, with 55 +AND 56 +$14.9 billion this year, an increase of 43 percent. 57 + 58 + 59 +====B. Title IX requires colleges to restrict constitutionally protected speech or lose federal funding.==== 60 +Fire 16, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Department of Justice: Title IX Requires Violating First Amendment, 2016, https://www.thefire.org/department-of-justice-title-ix-requires-violating-first-amendment/ 61 +WASHINGTON, April 25, 2016—The Department of Justice now interprets Title IX 62 +AND 63 +University presidents must find the courage to stand up to this federal overreach." 64 + 65 + 66 +====Federal funding is critical for college operations, especially financial aid==== 67 +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)** 68 +**States and the federal government have long provided substantial funding for higher education, but ** 69 +**AND** 70 +**, while state funds primarily pay for the general operations of public institutions.** 71 + 72 + 73 +====C. Benefactors will quit funding colleges if all speech is protected==== 74 +MacDonald 05**, **G. Jeffrey MacDonald Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor. Donors: too much say on campus speech? ; Colleges feel more pressure from givers who want to help determine who'll be speaking on campus. The Christian Science Monitor ~~Boston, Mass~~ 10 Feb 2005: 11. ~~Premier~~ 75 +According to Hamilton President Joan Hinde Stewart, angry benefactors threatened to quit giving if 76 +AND 77 +says Doyle, especially in terms of paid speakers who "promote hate." 78 + 79 + 80 +====D. Impact ==== 81 + 82 + 83 +====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. ==== 84 +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,** 85 +**Years of **cuts in** state **funding for public colleges and universities have driven up tuition** ** 86 +**AND** 87 + 88 +**o/w** 89 +**scale ** 90 +**size of link** 91 +**Turns the 1AC** - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-02-20 01:02:09.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +John Overing - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Dougherty Valley KD - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +52 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +4 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +West Ranch Won Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - Berkeley R4 NC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Berkeley
- Caselist.CitesClass[52]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,103 @@ 1 +=1-off = 2 + 3 + 4 +====Counterplan text: The United States federal government should establish congressional oversight over the National Insider Threat Policy. ==== 5 + 6 + 7 +====The CP's oversight is key to allowing whistleblowers to criticize the military and resolves the chilling effect that stops them from coming out ==== 8 +**Canterbury 14 **(Angela, Director of Public Policy, "POGO's Angela Canterbury testifies on "Limitless Surveillance at the FDA: Protecting the Rights of Federal Whistleblowers" February 26, 2014, pg online @ http://www.pogo.org/our-work/testimony/2014/pogos-angela-canterbury-testifies.html //um-ef) 9 +Whistleblowers are the guardians of the public trust and safety. Without proper controls at 10 +AND 11 +and accountable to the American people. I look forward to your questions. 12 + 13 + 14 +====The Insiders Threat program affects thousands of military personnel preventing an effective check of military policies==== 15 +**Goztola 16** ~~Kevin Goztola, managing editor of Shadowproof Press, "'Insider Threat' Program: Hundred Thousand Pentagon Personnel Under Total Surveillance," Common Dreams, January 8, 2016, http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/01/08/insider-threat-program-hundred-thousand-pentagon-personnel-under-total-surveillance~~ JW 16 +At least a hundred thousand military, civilian, and contractor personnel at the Defense 17 +AND 18 +no good reason for the government to be sharing this data at all. 19 + 20 + 21 +====Solves the case – creates Congressional oversight that prevents militaristic overreach of power==== 22 +**Goodman 13** 23 +**(Melvin, PhD, former CIA Analyst, adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins University, former professor of international relations at the National War College, senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, "The Need for National Security Leaks," pg online @ https://consortiumnews.com/2013/06/19/the-need-for-national-security-leaks/ //um-ef)** 24 +The attack line against whistleblowers Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden – that they should have 25 +AND 26 +and the media defer to authorized sources, we will need courageous whistleblowers. 27 + 28 + 29 +=2-off = 30 + 31 + 32 +====Currently military academies are successfully implementing policies that combat sexual assault and stigma. Increased reporting indicates they are working. ==== 33 +**Baldor and Elliot 16** ~~LOLITA C. BALDOR and DAN ELLIOTT, Associated Press, "Pentagon: Reports of sexual assaults at major military academies surged in 2014-15 school year," US News, Jan. 8, 2016, http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-01-08/reports-of-sexual-assaults-spike-at-military-academies~~ JW 34 +WASHINGTON (AP) — Reports of sexual assaults at the three major military academies 35 +AND 36 +or don't want to go through the emotional turmoil of a court case. 37 + 38 + 39 +====Permitting free speech on military academies opens the flood gate for toxic militaristic discourse about sexual assault ==== 40 +**Witte 15** ~~Brian Witte, writer at the Baltimore Sun, "Civilian Naval Academy professor sues Navy over free speech," the Baltimore Sun, November 5, 2015, http://www.baltimoresun.com/g00/news/maryland/bs-md-bruce-fleming-naval-academy-lawsuit-20151105-story.html?i10c.referrer=~~ JW 41 +*brackets from original text 42 +A civilian professor at the U.S. 43 +AND 44 +Fleming for daring to criticize the ~~Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program.~~" 45 + 46 + 47 +====Military academies are sites for toxic hegemonic masculinity which means that status quo sexual assault prevention programs are key ==== 48 +**Scott 14** ~~Scott, Elizabeth H., "From the Barracks to the Frat House: Hegemonic Masculinity and the Normalization, Promotion and Replication of Rape Culture in Male Dominated Spaces— A Comparison of the United States Military and the American College Fraternity" (2014). College of William and Mary Undergraduate Honors Theses. Paper 57.~~ JW 49 +For some students, college is a time to establish connections and bonds— through 50 +AND 51 +expense of women and femininity—they are representative of a rape culture. 52 + 53 + 54 +====This kind of discourse is exactly what justifies a culture of rape in militaries that affirms a violent misogynist power structure==== 55 +**Lucero 15** ~~Gabriel Lucero, Master of Public Policy and Juris Doctor candidate at Duke University Sanford School of Public Policy and School of Law, "Military Sexual Assault: Reporting and Rape Culture," Sanford Journal of Public Policy, Vol. 6 No. 1 (Winter 2015), 1–32~~ JW 56 +"Rape culture," a term coined by feminists in the 1970s, is not 57 +AND 58 +to why victims ~~survivors~~ of military sexual assault are not reporting. 59 + 60 + 61 +=3-off = 62 + 63 + 64 +====A. Uniqueness: Federal funding for colleges and universities is growing now and has been increasing for several years ==== 65 +**Camera 16** ~~Lauren Camera, education reporter at US News, "Federal Education Funding: Where Does the Money Go?" US News, Jan. 14, 2016, http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2016/01/14/federal-education-funding-where-does-the-money-go~~ JW 66 +Government spending on education has surged over the last decade and a half, with 67 +AND 68 +$14.9 billion this year, an increase of 43 percent. 69 + 70 + 71 +====B. Title IX requires colleges to restrict constitutionally protected speech or lose federal funding.==== 72 +Fire 16, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Department of Justice: Title IX Requires Violating First Amendment, 2016, https://www.thefire.org/department-of-justice-title-ix-requires-violating-first-amendment/ 73 +WASHINGTON, April 25, 2016—The Department of Justice now interprets Title IX 74 +AND 75 +University presidents must find the courage to stand up to this federal overreach." 76 + 77 + 78 +====Federal funding is critical for college operations, especially financial aid==== 79 +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)** 80 +**States and the federal government have long provided substantial funding for higher education, but ** 81 +**AND** 82 +**, while state funds primarily pay for the general operations of public institutions.** 83 + 84 + 85 +====C. Benefactors will quit funding colleges if all speech is protected==== 86 +MacDonald 05**, **G. Jeffrey MacDonald Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor. Donors: too much say on campus speech? ; Colleges feel more pressure from givers who want to help determine who'll be speaking on campus. The Christian Science Monitor ~~Boston, Mass~~ 10 Feb 2005: 11. ~~Premier~~ 87 +According to Hamilton President Joan Hinde Stewart, angry benefactors threatened to quit giving if 88 +AND 89 +says Doyle, especially in terms of paid speakers who "promote hate." 90 + 91 + 92 +====D. Impact ==== 93 + 94 + 95 +====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. ==== 96 +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,** 97 +**Years of **cuts in** state **funding for public colleges and universities have driven up tuition** ** 98 +**AND** 99 + 100 +o/w 101 +scale 102 +size of link 103 +Turns the 1AC - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-02-20 17:01:53.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Neel Yerneni - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Dougherty Valley CS - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +53 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +6 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +West Ranch Won Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - Berkeley R6 NC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Berkeley
- Caselist.CitesClass[53]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +It was a mostly lay round so just message me if you really want the cites - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-03-05 16:57:24.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Zane Dille - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Elite of Irvine SS - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +54 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +West Ranch Won Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - USC R2 NC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +USC
- Caselist.CitesClass[54]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,71 @@ 1 +=1-off = 2 + 3 + 4 +====A. Uniqueness: Federal funding for colleges and universities is growing now and has been increasing for several years ==== 5 +**Camera 16** ~~Lauren Camera, education reporter at US News, "Federal Education Funding: Where Does the Money Go?" US News, Jan. 14, 2016, http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2016/01/14/federal-education-funding-where-does-the-money-go~~ JW 6 +Government spending on education has surged over the last decade and a half, with 7 +AND 8 +$14.9 billion this year, an increase of 43 percent. 9 + 10 + 11 +====B. Title IX requires colleges to restrict constitutionally protected speech or lose federal funding.==== 12 +Fire 16, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Department of Justice: Title IX Requires Violating First Amendment, 2016, https://www.thefire.org/department-of-justice-title-ix-requires-violating-first-amendment/ 13 +WASHINGTON, April 25, 2016—The Department of Justice now interprets Title IX 14 +AND 15 +University presidents must find the courage to stand up to this federal overreach." 16 + 17 + 18 +====Federal funding is critical for college operations, especially financial aid==== 19 +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)** 20 +**States and the federal government have long provided substantial funding for higher education, but ** 21 +**AND** 22 +**, while state funds primarily pay for the general operations of public institutions.** 23 + 24 + 25 +====C. Benefactors will quit funding colleges if all speech is protected==== 26 +MacDonald 05**, **G. Jeffrey MacDonald Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor. Donors: too much say on campus speech? ; Colleges feel more pressure from givers who want to help determine who'll be speaking on campus. The Christian Science Monitor ~~Boston, Mass~~ 10 Feb 2005: 11. ~~Premier~~ 27 +According to Hamilton President Joan Hinde Stewart, angry benefactors threatened to quit giving if 28 +AND 29 +says Doyle, especially in terms of paid speakers who "promote hate." 30 + 31 + 32 +====D. Impact ==== 33 + 34 + 35 +====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. ==== 36 +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,** 37 +**Years of **cuts in** state **funding for public colleges and universities have driven up tuition** ** 38 +**AND** 39 + 40 +a) scale 41 +b) size of link 42 +Turns the 1AC 43 + 44 + 45 +===DA Framing=== 46 + 47 + 48 +====Ideal theory strips away particularities making ethics inaccessible and epistemically skewed==== 49 +Mills 05, Charles, 2005, Ideal Theory" as Ideology, 50 +"The crucial common claim—whether couched in terms of ideology and fetishism, 51 +AND 52 +level, the descriptive concepts arrived at may be misleading." (175) 53 + 54 + 55 +=2-off = 56 +A. Trump is pushing protectionism and tarrifs right now- Republicans are unwilling to support 57 +Steinhaur Dec 5, Jennifer, House G.O.P. Signals Break With Trump Over Tariff Threat, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/us/politics/house-republicans-trade-trump.html 58 +WASHINGTON — House Republican leaders signaled on Monday that they would not support President-elect Donald J. Trump's threat to impose a heavy tax on companies that move jobs overseas, the first significant confrontation over the conservative economic orthodoxy that Mr. Trump relishes trampling. "I don't want to get into some kind of trade war," Representative Kevin McCarthy, Republican of California and majority leader, told reporters in response to Mr. Trump's threats over the weekend to seek a 35 percent import tariff on goods sold by United States companies that move jobs overseas and displace American workers. Speaker Paul D. Ryan also pushed back against Mr. Trump on Monday in an interview with a Wisconsin reporter, saying an overhaul of the corporate tax code would more effectively keep companies in the United States than tax penalties. "I think we can get at the goal here," he said, "which is to keep American businesses American, build things in America and sell them overseas — that can be properly addressed with comprehensive tax reform." Mr. Trump's economic positions clashed with traditional conservatives during the campaign, but now these differences — on trade, government spending on infrastructure, and tax policies — have set the incoming president on a perilous course with the lawmakers whose support he needs to keep his agenda on track. Continue reading the main story "There will be a tax on our soon to be strong border of 35 percent for these companies wanting to sell their product, cars, A.C. units etc., back across the border," Mr. Trump said in a series of Twitter messages over the weekend. The response from Republican leaders underscored the limits of legislating 140 characters at a time on Twitter, and gave Democrats cause to believe they can work with Mr. Trump to outmaneuver congressional Republicans next year. "The president-elect won in part by campaigning against the Republican establishment on many economic issues," said Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the incoming Democratic leader. "If he wants to get something done for working families in this country, he'll have to stand up to them when it comes time to govern, too." Mr. Trump first startled Republicans during the campaign when he attacked trade deals, putting himself more in line with Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont than Mr. Ryan. He repeatedly insisted that trade deals had displaced American workers and harmed the economy, upending two centuries of American economic policies that held trade up as a good thing, a position that Republicans have pushed in recent decades. His positions helped imperil President Obama's trade pact with Asian nations, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and abruptly stop further trade negotiations, which many experts in both parties believe limits the United States in its economic position against China, especially when paired with tariff threats. "I respect President-elect Trump for fulfilling his campaign promise to withdraw from T.P.P.," Representative Kevin Brady, Republican of Texas and chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, said shortly after the election. "We can't abandon these markets to China and other competitors, because American businesses and customers will lose out," he added. Mr. Trump made Republicans bend to his will — and against their long-held opposition to picking "winners and losers" in the economy — even before his inauguration when he announced last month that the Indiana-based air-conditioning manufacturer Carrier would keep roughly 1,000 jobs in the state rather than moving them to Mexico, thanks to $7 million in tax incentives negotiated by Vice President-elect Mike Pence, the current governor of Indiana. This is the sort of package Republicans have traditionally loathed. The once intensely conservative Mr. Pence channeled the views of Mr. Sanders when he explained the Carrier deal by saying, "The free market has been sorting it out, and America's been losing." Mr. Ryan and many other fiscal conservatives appeared to agree. "Everyone here knows what it means to lose jobs in their districts," said Representative Tom Cole, Republican of Oklahoma. "If Trump can keep a thousand families from going through such an ordeal, then good for him. And if it makes other companies think twice about the human consequences of their business decisions, so much the better." But big tariffs appear too much to abide. Both Mr. Ryan and Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, supported a bill that gave Mr. Obama and his successor special "fast track" authority to negotiate trade agreements, and are proponents of reducing tariff barriers. "Tax cuts and deregulation will make the American economy great again, but tariffs and trade wars will make it tank again," David McIntosh, president of the conservative group Club for Growth, said in a statement, adding, "The majority leader is right to caution against protectionism and to urge a robust debate on free markets and trade." 59 +B. Trump campaigned against political correctness and retaliated against the Berkeley protests, which means he gets credit for the implementation of the aff. It proves he can beat even the most liberal institutions. 60 +**Brown and Mangan 17** ~~Sarah Brown and Katherine Mangan, "Trump Can't Cut Off Berkeley's Funds by Himself. His Threat Still Raised Alarm," The Chronicle of Higher Education, Feb. 3, 2017, http://www.chronicle.com/article/Trump-Can-t-Cut-Off/239100?cid=trend_right.~~ JW 61 +Back in October, when President Trump vowed to "end" political correctness on college campuses, it was unclear how the then-presidential candidate planned to go about doing that. On Thursday, he dropped a hint: He threatened to cut off federal funding to the University of California at Berkeley after violent protests there prompted campus leaders to call off a talk by a far-right provocateur. Milo Yiannopoulos is a Breitbart News editor and Trump supporter who has for months traveled to campuses to give talks that often draw protests and have sometimes resulted in violence. He was once permanently banned from Twitter for his role in a harassment campaign against the actress Leslie Jones, and he has drawn heavy fire for his insulting comments about feminists, Black Lives Matters protesters, Islam, and topics he considers part of leftist ideology. Mr. Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak on Berkeley's campus late Wednesday, as part of his "Dangerous Faggot" tour, and more than 1,500 students gathered outside the venue to peacefully protest. Then about 100 additional protesters — mostly nonstudents, Berkeley officials said — joined the fray and hurled smoke bombs, broke windows, and started fires. The violence forced the campus police to put Berkeley on lockdown and led university leaders to cancel the event. The following morning, a political commentator suggested on Fox and Friends First that President Trump should take away Berkeley's federal funding. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Trump decided to weigh in. Not surprisingly, Mr. Yiannopoulos liked that idea. On Facebook Thursday, he linked to a Breitbart article about the federal money Berkeley receives, adding, "Cut the whole lot, Donald J. Trump." Others were quick to condemn the president's threat. U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee, a California Democrat whose district includes the Berkeley campus, tweeted back: "President Trump doesn't have a license to blackmail universities. He's the president, not a dictator, and his empty threats are an abuse of power." Later, in a statement, Ms. Lee said Mr. Yiannopoulos "has made a career of inflaming racist, sexist and nativist sentiments." Meanwhile, she wrote, "Berkeley has a proud history of dissent and students were fully within their rights to protest peacefully." Could Mr. Trump take away a university's federal funding for what he sees as a violation of the First Amendment? Not on his own, and not entirely, some scholars say, though there are ways he could advocate for cutting some of it. Regardless, Mr. Trump's singling out of Berkeley is worth paying attention to, they say, because it serves as a message to other campus officials that they may soon be put in the position of responding to the president's social-media whims. How Berkeley Prepared Berkeley's chancellor, Nicholas B. Dirks, went to great lengths last week to explain why the university would not give in to demands to cancel Mr. Yiannopoulos's appearance. The First Amendment, the chancellor wrote, does not allow the university to censor or prohibit such events. "In our view, Mr. Yiannopoulos is a troll and provocateur who uses odious behavior in part to 'entertain,' but also to deflect any serious engagement with ideas," Mr. Dirks wrote. But, he added, "we are defending the right to free expression at an historic moment for our nation, when this right is once again of paramount importance." Mr. Dirks went on to warn that the university "will not stand idly by" if anyone tries to violate university policies by disrupting the talk. Still, the furor over the protests delighted many activists who have been arguing for years that pressure to be politically correct on campuses has stifled those with conservative views. Among them were members of the "alt-right" movement, a loosely affiliated group characterized by its white nationalist, sexist, and anti-Semitic views. The group clearly felt vindicated by the president's assertion that Berkeley doesn't allow free speech, which came on the heels of the online discussion group Reddit banning an alt-right community for publishing personally identifiable information about people it is criticizing. The Left is trying to shut us down because they are losing. We're the real opposition on the Right. We're... https://t.co/Q9HayfRhSD — AltRight.com (@AltRight_com) February 2, 2017 On Thursday, Mr. Dirks released a statement doubling down on his earlier comments about the campus's commitment to free speech. The violence, he said, was perpetrated by "more than 100 armed individuals clad all in black who utilized paramilitary tactics to engage in violent, destructive behavior" designed to shut the event down. "We deeply regret that the violence unleashed by this group undermined the First Amendment rights of the speaker as well as those who came to lawfully assemble and protest his presence." The university had anticipated a large crowd of protesters at Mr. Yiannopoulos's talk on Wednesday night and had brought in dozens of police officers from across the university system to help maintain order. But "we could not plan for the unprecedented," Mr. Dirks wrote. The event was called off only after the campus police concluded that the speaker had to be evacuated for his own safety, he added. "We could not plan for the unprecedented." Mr. Trump's threat was also criticized by a group that is known for condemning campuses that it sees as violating free speech rights. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, known as FIRE, released a statement Thursday objecting to "both violence and attempts to silence protected expression." The group said, however, that it had seen no evidence that Berkeley, as an institution, had made any effort to silence Mr. Yiannopoulos, and that the university had, in fact, resisted calls to cancel his visit until the situation got out of hand. FIRE added a caution that seemed to be directed at President Trump's threat to strip funding from Berkeley. "To punish an educational institution for the criminal behavior of those not under its control and in contravention of its policies, whether through the loss of federal funds or through any other means, would be deeply inappropriate and most likely unlawful," its statement said. Withholding Federal Funds The idea of punishing colleges for free-speech controversies was originally Ben Carson's idea, said Jonathan Zimmerman, a professor of the history of education at the University of Pennsylvania. Mr. Carson, a neurosurgeon and former Republican presidential candidate, said in October 2015 that he would have the U.S. Department of Education "monitor our institutions of higher education for extreme political bias and deny federal funding if it exists." Terry W. Hartle, a senior vice president at the American Council on Education, took the question mark on the end of Mr. Trump's tweet literally. The president might have been asking, Could I withhold federal funds from Berkeley? Mr. Hartle said. Yes, the federal government has the authority to withhold federal funds like financial aid from colleges that engage in certain activities, Mr. Hartle said. And it has the authority to attach conditions to the money it gives out. The Solomon Amendment, for instance, requires colleges to admit ROTC or military recruiters to their campus or risk losing money. But Congress would have to act to give the government the ability to take away federal funds for controversies involving the First Amendment, Mr. Hartle said. The government also couldn't pull funding from Berkeley by retroactively saying the institution's federal money is contingent on protecting free speech, said Alexander (Sasha) Volokh, an associate professor of law at Emory University. "If the funding comes explicitly with strings attached, which is that you must adequately protect free speech on your campus if you want these funds, and if the university takes these funds knowing the condition, that's one thing," he said. The U.S. Supreme Court has weighed in several times on strings attached to federal funding, Mr. Volokh said, and has determined that such conditions must be clearly stated in advance and related to the matter being funded. For instance, he said, the court said it was OK for the government to tie federal highway funds to a requirement for states to adopt a drinking age of 21, because highway safety could be affected by the drinking age. But the National Institutes of Health probably couldn't attach a requirement for free-speech protection to a grant for researching Ebola, he said. Moving forward, Mr. Trump could tell federal research agencies that some of their contracts with colleges and researchers should now include stipulations about free speech, Mr. Volokh said. "I have the feeling that Trump had something much blunter in mind," he said. 'Uncharted Territory' Mr. Trump's social-media attack on Berkeley raises another question for colleges: how to respond to such tweets. "This is uncharted territory for all organizations," not just colleges, Mr. Hartle said, citing Mr. Trump's criticism of Boeing for what he considered to be an overpriced contract for constructing two Air Force One planes that future presidents will use. (Boeing subsequently promised to keep the cost below $4 billion.) "You can't just ignore it if the president of the United States tweets about you." It might not be wise to pick a fight with someone who has millions of Twitter followers, Mr. Hartle said, but "you can't just ignore it if the president of the United States tweets about you." Berkeley is in a particularly difficult situation, Mr. Hartle said, because in his view the university did everything right when Mr. Yiannopoulos came to the campus. "Berkeley tried to allow him to speak and to allow protesters to protest," he said. "Everything was fine until the protests turned violent." One challenge for colleges, he said, will probably involve dealing with people, particularly nonstudents, who want to disrupt speakers and who "now see resorting to violence as simply another tactic in an effort to accomplish their purpose." If Mr. Trump were to push Congress to pass a law giving him the authority to take away federal funds from colleges for free-speech controversies, Mr. Hartle said, "they should carve out some sort of exception when it involved violence or a police request." "Trump is not wrong when he says a lot of people on these campuses want to squelch free speech." While the president might not make such legislation a priority, college officials shouldn't dismiss his criticism of Berkeley, said Mr. Zimmerman, of Penn. "It's ridiculous and frightening for the president to be threatening to withhold money based on his perception of what's happening with free speech on campus," he said. On the other hand, he said, "Trump is not wrong when he says a lot of people on these campuses want to squelch free speech." When institutions disinvite speakers or try to quash a right-wing group's event or demonstration, Mr. Zimmerman said, "they're playing right into Trump's hands." Given the violence, Mr. Zimmerman doesn't begrudge Berkeley's administration for canceling the speech. But he described as problematic a letter signed by dozens of professors saying that Mr. Yiannopoulos shouldn't be allowed to speak on campus. Ultimately, Mr. Volokh is more concerned about the way in which Mr. Trump made his point, versus the content of the tweet. "It wasn't enough for him to say that free speech is important," Mr. Volokh said. "He had to do it in a way that was threatening." 62 +C. 63 +1. The plan wins over Congressional Republicans and the Ways and Means committee 64 +**McGrady 16** ~~Michael McGrady, CU Colorado Springs, "House Republicans to college students: Have you been censored? Let us know. Email us!" The College Fix, March 4, 2016, http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/26499/~~ JW 65 +House Republicans have called on students nationwide to email them stories of censorship in the wake of a subcommittee hearing on Wednesday at which testimony conveyed that colleges abuse their tax-exempt status as an excuse to restrict free speech. Students — as well as faculty and administrators — have been asked to send in their suppressed-speech stories to campus.speech@mail.house.gov. The request comes as concerns over freedom of speech on campus had its day in Washington D.C. as lawmakers examined whether universities that prohibit students' use of campus resources for political activity and enforce restrictive speech codes are operating lawfully under their tax-exempt status. "Confusion over IRS guidelines is the likely cause of this censorship," the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education's litigation director Catherine Sevcenko told lawmakers. "General counsel are not going to allow political activity that they fear would endanger the school's tax-exempt status." The debate among House Ways and Means oversight subcommittee members questioned whether colleges violate the public trust by not allowing students to voice political opinions. The Hill reports that Democrats on the panel questioned why the committee was even addressing the issue, suggesting "it would be a better use of the panel's time to hold hearings about the effect of budget cuts on the IRS's customer service and about identity thieves stealing taxpayer information." But Republicans stood firm that protecting campus free speech is vital. "Every single year, American taxpayers give colleges and universities billions of dollars worth of tax breaks. As a nation, we believe education is an extremely valuable public good. But is this bargain truly benefiting the American taxpayers—or the students—when colleges suppress speech on campus?" Rep. Peter Roskam, a Republican from Illinois, said at the start of the hearing. He pointed out most colleges, both public and private, are either tax-exempt organizations or have separate endowments that are tax-exempt. "Under these provisions of tax law, taxpayers give financial benefits to schools based on the educational value they offer our society," he said. "When colleges and universities suppress speech, however, we have to question whether that educational mission is really being fulfilled." And Republican Rep. Mike Lee of Pennsylvania added: "I don't care what college it is, private or public, all these folks are influenced some way or another by the tax code." "So, I don't want anybody to ever be confused about why we would hold this ~~hearing~~ today," Lee said. "If not us, who? Who would hear you? Who would stand up for you? Who would defend you in the public place?" 66 +2. Winners win: Presidential boldness creates a steamroll effect 67 +**Green 10** ~~David Michael Green, professor of political science at Hofstra University, "The Do-Nothing 44th President," OpEd News, June 11, 2010, http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Do-Nothing-44th-Presid-by-David-Michael-Gree-100611-648.html~~ JW 68 +Moreover, there is a continuously evolving and reciprocal relationship between presidential boldness and achievement. In the same way that nothing breeds success like success, nothing sets the president up for achieving his or her next goal better than succeeding dramatically on the last go around. This is absolutely a matter of perception, and you can see it best in the way that Congress and especially the Washington press corps fawn over bold and intimidating presidents like Reagan and George W. Bush. The political teams surrounding these presidents understood the psychology of power all too well. They knew that by simultaneously creating a steamroller effect and feigning a clubby atmosphere for Congress and the press, they could leave such hapless hangers-on with only one remaining way to pretend to preserve their dignities. By jumping on board the freight train, they could be given the illusion of being next to power, of being part of the winning team. And so, with virtually the sole exception of the now retired Helen Thomas, this is precisely what they did. 69 +D. New tarrifs doom millions and millions to extreme poverty. They also have a spillover effect, multiplying the impact. 70 +Beauchamp 16, Zach, Apr 5, 2016, If you're poor in another country, this is the scariest thing Bernie Sanders has said http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11139718/bernie-sanders-trade-global-poverty 71 +Free trade is one of the best tools we have for fighting extreme poverty. If Sanders wins, and is serious about implementing his trade agenda as outlined in the NYDN interview and elsewhere, he will impoverish millions of already-poor people. What's worse is that the specific ways Sanders has proposed to roll back previous trade agreements could lead to serious reprisals from the affected countries. The nightmare scenario, experts say, is a global slide toward protectionism, wherein China and other countries take cues from the US and impose their own retaliatory tariffs. That would devastate economies in the developing world, dooming many more millions to a lifetime of crushing poverty. What makes this issue particularly tricky, though, is that there's real truth to Sanders's critique: Recent economic research suggests that freer trade has hurt many Americans, particularly those who worked in manufacturing. The question, then, is how much we're willing to hurt the world's poor in order to help ourselves. Sanders wants to reverse decades of US trade liberalization Bernie Sanders's opposition to trade goes far beyond opposing new agreements, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). His website promises to "reverse" NAFTA and the Central American FTA (CAFTA), bills slashing US tariffs on goods from around the Americas. It also promises to get rid of permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) with China, a Clinton-era designation that prevents the US from imposing special tariffs on China that it doesn't impose on other trading partners. "If corporate America wants us to buy their products they need to manufacture those products in this country, not in China or other low-wage countries," Sanders's website says. According to Gary Hufbauer, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and an expert on trade law, Sanders could unilaterally withdraw from NAFTA and CAFTA. Ending PNTR for China would probably be impossible without congressional buy-in, but Sanders could unilaterally impose new tariffs on Chinese goods, which would accomplish the same end of limiting imports from China. "There is power within the White House to increase duties on imported goods," Hufbauer tells me. "That's especially true with so-called safeguard laws, where ~~the president alleges~~ an injury to a domestic industry." But would Sanders actually do it? There's certainly reason for skepticism. Kim Elliott, an expert on trade at the Center for Global Development, notes that previous candidates (including both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in 2008) have suggested they would quit NAFTA. Of course, she points out, Obama did no such thing. Daniel Drezner, a professor and trade expert at Tufts University's Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy who's been following the campaign closely, disagrees. He thinks Sanders's strong convictions on corporate America — his deep, ideological belief that American economic policy is arranged to benefit the rich and hurt the poor — would cause him to take a harder line on trade than any prior president. "Bernie thinks the American worker has gotten screwed," Drezner tells me. "He thinks the solution to that, at least in part, is to raise trade barriers against China and other low-wage economies." Sanders's record in Congress strongly supports Drezner's case. The candidate has bragged, in debates, of never supporting a trade agreement. In 1993, he was literally on the picket line against NAFTA; in 2005, Rep. Sanders spearheaded a congressional effort to reverse PNTR status for China. His campaign issued a fact sheet contrasting his decades of opposition to trade with Clinton's decades of supporting new agreements. "If we are serious about rebuilding the middle class and creating the millions of good paying jobs we desperately need, we must fundamentally rewrite our trade policies," Sanders wrote in a 2015 piece for the Guardian. There is no reason to doubt his sincerity on this issue. If he doesn't prioritize rolling back trade agreements, he betrays not only a series of campaign promises but an entire career's worth of advocacy. Sanders's policies would be devastating for China and Latin America To understand why these policies trouble development economists, you need to understand a little bit about who the world's poorest people really are. Extreme poverty — defined by the World Bank as living on less than $1.90 a day— is crushing. It's the kind of grinding poverty where you don't get access to running water, adequate food, proper toilets, or basic health care. Wealthy countries like the US have (nearly) eradicated this kind of poverty. Thankfully, extreme poverty is in decline globally, with the biggest declines (roughly 800 million people's worth since 1981) coming in China: Here's the problem for Sanders: The global decline in extreme poverty is inseparable from the global trading regime. When poor countries can sell cheap goods to rich countries, or bring in a lot of foreign direct investment, growth skyrockets. This means more jobs, better government services, and thus less poverty. "The free trade, or freer trade, that we've had since the end of the Second World War has been the great engine which has lifted up literally hundreds of millions of people out of poverty — far more than any aid programs," Hufbauer says. "The econometrics is indisputable." See, for example, this 2008 study by UCLA economist Romain Wacziarg and Karen Horn Welch. Wacziarg and Welch looked at 50 years of trade data to figure out the effects of trade liberalization on economic growth. They found that, on average, economic growth increased by 1.5 points after a country passed laws opening up to foreign trade: China is, of course, the most dramatic example of this effect: Its incredible economic growth since 1981 came principally from exports. While the Chinese economy has since shifted away from exports somewhat, the sector still makes up 22.6 percent of Chinese GDP. Trade with the US — the world's largest economy — is a key part of that story of uplift. Any serious attempt by a Sanders administration to impede trade with China would put a serious crimp in Chinese economic growth, which is already slowing down. This would make it harder for the roughly 54 million Chinese people still living in extreme poverty to escape — and it could potentially could throw even more Chinese people into poverty. "If Sanders were to impose significant trade barriers with China," Drezner says, "the marginal middle class, or the ones who had just gotten out of poverty, would likely wind up falling back into poverty." "China's economy is already not doing as well as it was," Charles Kenny, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development, says. "Anything that slows down the growth of exports … is going to be bad for future reductions in Chinese poverty." Canceling NAFTA and CAFTA would also be quite bad. While there's not a lot of extreme poverty in Mexico and Central America, these countries are still far poorer than the US. Impeding free trade with those countries would prevent US dollars from flowing in, thus further impoverishing their poorest. "The proposals to end particular trade agreements — that could be devastating for Central America," Elliott says. "If it meant going back to the trade barriers that we had in place a decade ago, that's going to mean much less trade coming out of Central America to the United States, ~~and thus~~ many fewer jobs." Even Dani Rodrik — a Harvard economist who called NAFTA a "huge disappointment" for Mexico in our conversation — thinks rolling back it and CAFTA would be a bad idea. "It would make a big difference to how America's partners in the world look at it, in terms of its credibility to be a leader," he says. Asked about a major tariff on Chinese goods, he waxed apocalyptic. "The example of the 1930s — with the US Smoot-Hawley tariff increases, and the kind of trade war that seriously exacerbated the Great Depression in the world economy, and the downward spiral of global trade — I think that should stand as a very serious warning," he says. The global consequences could be even worse These decisions don't happen in a vacuum. The global trade system, generally speaking, depends on leadership by example. When the United States opens up its own markets, other countries tend to do the same. If the US were to embrace protectionism, other countries would follow suit. The logic here is fairly ironclad. If the world's largest economy feels the need to protect its own industries from foreign competition, why shouldn't other, less economically powerful countries do the same? "Without the United States, you can't have global trade deals, you can't have progress in this area," Kenny says. "If the United States does start backsliding towards protectionism, that is quite likely to set off a spiral toward greater protectionism worldwide." American tariffs "are legally capped at 2, 3, 4 percent" under international trade law, says Elliott. Violating that restriction "risks setting off the kind of trade war that we saw in the early years of the Great Depression. Other countries are not just going to sit around and not respond to that." How bad this gets, of course, depends on how committed Sanders is to throwing up barriers to foreign trade. The more he uses executive authority to enact new tariffs, the more retaliation from other countries you're likely to see. The people who would be screwed over the most by a global backlash to free trade would, clearly, be the roughly 900 million people still living in extreme poverty. These people, clustered in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, could still reap tremendous benefits from exporting goods to foreign markets — essentially replicating a major part of China's growth strategy. But if richer countries like China and the US get into a serious trade war, with overall tariffs escalating on both sides, they could lose access to these markets. No more exports means much less growth, which in turn dooms millions — maybe hundreds of millions — of people to extreme poverty. Smaller, poorer countries "are just going to be bystanders who have to take what comes at them from the global economy," Elliott says. "The poor countries don't have anything in the way of fiscal or financial sources to cushion the blow, especially for the poorest people." Sanders's war on trade might be aimed at helping the American working class. But if he were really serious about it, the damage to the world's very poorest would be astronomical. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-03-05 17:06:32.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Ayden Loeffler - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Malborough GK - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +55 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +3 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +West Ranch Won Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - USC R3 NC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +USC
- Caselist.CitesClass[55]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,45 @@ 1 +=1-off = 2 +Interp: The aff must defend that all constitutionally protected speech in all venues ought not be restricted by public colleges or universities. To clarify, they can't defend removing a specific restriction on speech. 3 + 4 + 5 +=2-off = 6 +Interp: Constitutionally protected speech refers to either (a) literal speaking or (b) symbolic speech, so the affirmative must not defend the lifting of restrictions on printed, written, or published material. 7 + 8 + 9 +=3-off = 10 + 11 + 12 +====CP Text: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected journalistic speech except in instances of plagiarism or fabrication of article content==== 13 + 14 + 15 +====Plagiarism has happened on colleges and is not subject to copyright law. ==== 16 +**SPLC 15** ~~Student Press Law Center, advocate for student First Amendment rights, for freedom of online speech, and for open government on campus, "Avoiding plagiarism in the student media," August 31, 2015, http://www.splc.org/article/2015/08/avoiding-plagiarism-in-the-student-media~~ JW 17 +"Plagiarist!" It is an accusation that strikes fear in the hearts of students 18 +AND 19 +unique reason as to why plagiarized articles are necessary to access the aff impacts 20 + 21 + 22 +====Students also straight up fabricate articles, making up quotes and sources ==== 23 +**Tenore 12** ~~Mallory Jean Tenore, managing editor of The Poynter Institute's website, "10 ways to prevent plagiarism, fabrication at college newspapers (and in any newsroom)" Poynter, October 8, 2012, https://www.poynter.org/2012/10-ways-to-prevent-plagiarism-fabrication-at-college-newspapers-and-in-any-newsroom/190754/~~ JW 24 +Multiple news organizations have recently found themselves in the middle of plagiarism and fabrication scandals 25 +AND 26 +crazy how little support we give student journalists compared to what we expect." 27 + 28 + 29 +====Students who engage in such practices are fired in the status quo ==== 30 +**Reimold 13** ~~Dan Reimold, "Ethics Alert: Should Student Reporter Who Fabricated Sources Be Outed by Editors?" College Media Matters, October 10, 2013, http://www.collegemediamatters.com/2013/10/10/ethics-alert-should-student-reporter-who-fabricated-sources-be-outed-by-editors/~~ JW 31 +A reporter at The Daily O'Collegian made up "at least one and as many 32 +AND 33 +articles online by including information from real sources in place of the bogus ones 34 + 35 + 36 +====Some university publications don't have external accountability which leads to educationally bankrupt journalism and an inability to check journalism==== 37 +WSN 16, WSN Editorial Board, 2016, Fake News Problem Includes Quack Journalism, http://www.nyunews.com/2016/12/01/fake-news-problem-includes-quack-journalism/ 38 +Specifically on the university level, publications like The Odyssey have damaged journalism by providing 39 +AND 40 +Americans reject all kinds of fake news sites and support the genuine article. 41 + 42 + 43 +====Plagiarism harms the academic environment in universities==== 44 +Colantuono** ~~Florence Colantuono, "Academic Plagiarism." Explorable.~~** 45 +**The written word is used to gauge a persons experience and achievement, **when something is plagiarized it does not afford **the reader** a true opportunity **to understand the writer,** to gauge progress** in academia. Clearly this act impacts the writers learning. If when presented with a paper an unknowing instructor provides constructive criticism that is meant for the writer to help improve, it is wasted. The author can never know the status of their work if it is not their own. **Academic plagiarism** affects many people along the way. It obviously affects the person whose work has been plagiarized by not affording the author credit for hard work. It **affects the person who commits' the plagiarism by not affording** the person **an opportunity to receive constructive feedback.** By not sharing ones own ideas important milestones are missed. It affects the efforts of the instructor to gauge the material being taught as useful of not. Generally academic plagiarism affects the academic community as a whole. **Academic success is based on the ability of the institution to affect** both **public** and corporate **policy**, **with a high plagiarism rate the institution will lose standing and creditability. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-03-05 17:09:46.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Srividiya Desaraju - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Harvard Westlake EE - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +56 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +5 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +West Ranch Won Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - USC R5 NC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +USC
- Caselist.CitesClass[56]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,71 @@ 1 +=1-off = 2 +A. 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. 3 +It competes- The nonconsensual distribution of sexually explicit images is constitutionally protected speech – aff allows it on college campuses. 4 +Goldberg 16 – Bracketed for potentially offensive language Erica Goldberg Columbia Law Review Volume 116, No. 3 April 2016 "FREE SPEECH CONSEQUENTIALISM" 5 +States have begun to criminalize the publication of nude photos if the person publishing the photos knows or should have known that the subject of the image did not consent to the disclosure.296 Virginia law- makers introduced legislation, for example, that would criminalize pub- lishing sexually explicit pictures of someone without permission and with "the intent to cause them substantial emotional distress."297 A California defendant was convicted of felony charges of identity theft and extortion, for running a revenge porn website where he made aggrieved ex-lovers pay to have their photos removed from his site.298 His lawyer argued that although his behavior was immoral and offensive, he did not break any laws by allowing others to post sexually explicit photographs.299 The regulation of ~~non-consensual sexually explicit image distribution~~ revenge porn presents thorny First Amendment issues, even though the speech is considered both highly injurious and of low value.300 Some argue that ~~non-consensual sexually explicit image distribution~~ revenge porn can be regulated as obscenity,301 but, like much pornography, sexually explicit speech that does not rise to the level of obscenity is still protected speech.302 Criminal statutes and torts based on the invasion of privacy and emotional distress caused by of ~~non-consensual sexually explicit image distribution~~ revenge porn compromise the freedom to distribute protected speech lawfully obtained. Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized a right for the media to publish even unlawfully obtained content, so long as the publisher was not involved in the illegal so long as the publisher was not involved in the illegal conduct that produced the content.303 And in United States v. Stevens , the Supreme Court held that individuals cannot be held criminally liable for distributing speech depicting illegal acts, so long as the individuals did not perpetrate the underlying act.304 of ~~non-consensual sexually explicit image distribution~~ Revenge porn, as defined here, is both legally obtained and depicts a legal act. In the ultimate articulation of free speech consequentialism, Mary Anne Franks argues for criminalization of revenge porn because "some expressions ~~of free speech~~ are just considered so socially harmful and don't contribute any benefits to society."305 Yet this does not separate ~~non-consensual sexually explicit image distribution~~ revenge porn from any number of categories of protected speech that may cause others emotional distress and are considered by some to pos- sess little value; this is nothing more than a call for judges to make whole- sale and retail judgments about the value and harms that flow from particular forms of speech. If revenge porn can be regulated, legislators should not target the victim's emotional distress or the invasion of pri- vacy, as these focal points threaten to undermine strong free speech pro- tections exceptional to America's free speech regime. 6 +C. CP solves – deters perpetrators and creates a cultural shift. 7 +Citron and Franks 14 brackets 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. 8 +As this discussion shows, civil law cannot meaningfully deter and redress revenge porn. We now turn to the potential for a criminal law response. III. CRIMINAL LAW'S POTENTIAL TO COMBAT REVENGE PORN A criminal law solution is essential to deter judgment-proof perpetrators. As attorney and revenge porn expert Erica Johnstone puts it, "~~e~~ven if people aren't afraid of being sued because they have nothing to lose, they are afraid of being convicted of a crime because that shows up on their record forever."68 Nonconsensual ~~image distribution's~~ pornography's rise is surely related to the fact that malicious actors have little incentive to refrain from such behavior. While some critics believe that existing criminal law adequately addresses nonconsensual pornography, this Part highlights how existing criminal law fails to address most cases of revenge porn. A. The Importance of Criminal Law Criminal law has long prohibited privacy invasions and certain violations of autonomy. Criminal law is essential to send the clear message to potential perpetrators that nonconsensual ~~image distribution~~ pornography inflicts grave privacy and autonomy harms that have real consequences and penalties.69 While we share general concerns about over-incarceration, rejecting the criminalization of serious harms is not the way to address those concerns. We are also sensitive to objections that criminalizing revenge porn might reinforce the harmful and erroneous perception that women should be ashamed of their bodies or their sexual activities, but maintain that recognizing and protecting sexual autonomy does exactly the opposite.70 A criminal law solution would send the message that individuals' bodies (mostly female bodies) are their own and that society recognizes the grave harms that flow from turning individuals into objects of pornography without their consent. In this way, a criminal law approach will help us conceptualize the involuntary publication of someone's sexually explicit images as a form of sexual assault. When sexual abuse is inflicted on an individual's physical body, it is considered rape or sexual assault. The fact that nonconsensual pornography does not involve physical contact does not change the fact that it is a form of sexual abuse. Federal and state criminal laws regarding voyeurism demonstrate that physical contact is not necessary to cause great harm and suffering. Video voyeurism laws punish the nonconsensual recording of a person in a state of undress in places where individuals enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy. 71 Criminal laws prohibiting voyeurism rest on the commonly accepted assumption that observing a person in a state of undress or engaged in sexual activity without that person's consent not only inflicts dignitary harms upon the individual observed, but also inflicts a social harm serious enough to warrant criminal prohibition and punishment. International criminal law provides precedent and perspective on this issue. Both the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda ("ICTR") and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia ("ICTY") have employed a definition of sexual violence that does not require physical contact. In both tribunals, forced nudity was found to be a form of sexual violence.72 In the Akayesu case, the ICTR found that "~~s~~exual violence is not limited to physical invasion of the human body and may include acts which do not involve penetration or even physical contact." 73 In the Furundzija case, the ICTY similarly found that international criminal law punishes not only rape, but also "all serious abuses of a sexual nature inflicted upon the physical and moral integrity of a person by means of coercion, threat of force or intimidation in a way that is degrading and humiliating for the victim's dignity."74 The legal and social condemnation of child pornography exemplifies our collective understanding that the production, viewing, and distribution of certain kinds of sexual images are harmful. In New York v. Ferber,75 the United States Supreme Court recognized that the distribution of child pornography is distinct from the underlying crime of the sexual abuse of children.76 The Court observed that "~~t~~he distribution of photographs and films depicting sexual activity by juveniles . . . ~~is~~ a permanent record of the children's participation and the harm to the child is exacerbated by their circulation."77 When images and videos of sexual assaults and surreptitious observation are distributed and consumed, they inflict further harms on the victims and on society connected to, but distinct from, the criminal acts to which the victims were originally subjected.78 The trafficking of this material increases the demand for images and videos that exploit the individuals portrayed. This is why the Court in Ferber held that it is necessary to shut down the "distribution network" of child pornography to reduce the sexual exploitation of children: "The most expeditious if not the only practical method of law enforcement may be to dry up the market for this material by imposing severe criminal penalties on persons selling, advertising, or otherwise promoting the product."79 Nonconsensual pornography raises similar concerns. Disclosing sexually explicit images without permission can have lasting and destructive consequences. Victims often feel shame and humiliation every time they see them and every time they think that others are viewing them. Consider the experience of sports reporter Erin Andrews. After a stalker secretly taped her while she undressed in her hotel room, he posted as many as ten videos of her online.80 Google Trends data suggested that just after the release of the videos, much of the nation began looking for some variation of "Erin Andrews peephole video."81 Nearly nine months later, Andrews explained: "I haven't stopped being victimized—I'm going to have to live with this forever . . . . When I have kids and they have kids, I'll have to explain to them why this is on the Internet."82 She further lamented that when she walks into football stadiums to report on a game, she faces the taunts of fans who have seen her naked online.83 She explained that she "felt like ~~she~~ was continuing to be victimized" each time she talked about it.84 Andrews's experience is echoed by that of Lena Chen, who allowed her ex-boyfriend to take pictures of them having sex. 85 After he betrayed her trust and posted the pictures online, the pictures went viral.86 As Chen explained, feeling ashamed of her sexuality was not something that came naturally to her, but it is now something she knows inside and out. 87 Victims of nonconsensual pornography are harmed each time a person views or shares their intimate images. B. Current Criminal Law's Limits Existing federal and state criminal laws have limited application to the initial posters of nonconsensual pornography and the laws have even less force with regard to site operators. This Subpart first explores the potential of criminal harassment statutes in pursuing the original discloser. Then, it turns to the possibility of extortion and child pornography charges against revenge porn site operators. 9 + 10 + 11 +====D. Impact: Non-consensual image distribution causes chilling effect for survivors who are afraid to speak out and are silenced. Causes psychological violence. ==== 12 +Citron and Franks 14 Brackets 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. 13 +Victims' fear can be profound. They do not feel safe leaving their homes. 14 +AND 15 +~~survivors~~ victims, it constitutes a vicious form of sex discrimination. 16 + 17 + 18 +==Materiality Double Bind== 19 +The PIC does everything that the aff does except allow nonconsensual image distribution. In the world of the PIC, one of three things happen: Either 20 +Nonconsensual image distribution is bad under the AC FW and thus you vote negative because there is a unique piece of offense on the CP, or 21 +Nonconsensual image distribution doesn't link to the AC FW in which case both the aff and the neg have equal offense under the FW because they do the same thing, and you presume neg, or 22 +Nonconsensual image distribution is a good thing under your framework and there is a performative DA and independent reason to vote against you because you justify things like psychological violence and sexual assault as being good which makes debate dangerously unsafe. Also means you are the definition of abstraction because your framework can ignore things like assault which is a reason to drop you because debate needs to care about the real world consequences of our discourse. 23 +**Smith 13, Elijah. A Conversation in Ruins: Race and Black Participation in Lincoln Douglas Debate ** 24 +It will be uncomfortable, it will be hard, and it will require continued effort but the necessary step in fixing this problem, like all problems, is the community as a whole admitting that such a problem with many "socially acceptable" choices exists in the first place. Like all systems of social control, the reality of racism in debate is constituted by the singular choices that institutions, coaches, and students make on a weekly basis. I have watched countless rounds where competitors attempt to win by rushing to abstractions to distance the conversation from the material reality that black debaters are forced to deal with every day. One of the students I coached, who has since graduated after leaving debate, had an adult judge write out a ballot that concluded by "hypothetically" defending my student being lynched at the tournament. Another debate concluded with a young man defending that we can kill animals humanely, "just like we did that guy Troy Davis". Community norms would have competitors do intellectual gymnastics or make up rules to accuse black debaters of breaking to escape hard conversations but as someone who understands that experience, the only constructive strategy is to acknowledge the reality of the oppressed, engage the discussion from the perspective of authors who are black and brown, and then find strategies to deal with the issues at hand. It hurts to see competitive seasons come and go and have high school students and judges spew the same hateful things you expect to hear at a Klan rally. A student should not, when presenting an advocacy that aligns them with the oppressed, have to justify why oppression is bad. Debate is not just a game, but a learning environment with liberatory potential . Even if the form debate gives to a conversation is not the same you would use to discuss race in general conversation with Bayard Rustin or Fannie Lou Hamer, that is not a reason we have to strip that conversation of its connection to a reality that black students cannot escape. 25 + 26 + 27 +=2-off= 28 + 29 + 30 +====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: ==== 31 + 32 + 33 +====Social Reality- 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. ==== 34 +MILLS : Charles W. Mills, "Ideal Theory" as Ideology, 2005 35 + "I suggest that this spontaneous reaction, far from being philosophically naïve or 36 +AND 37 +-as-idealized-model will never be achieved." (170) 38 + 39 + 40 +====Standpoint Epistemology: Ideal theory strips away questions of particularities and isolates a universal feature of agents. This normalizes a single experience and epistemically skews ethical theorizing. ==== 41 +MILLS 2: Charles W. Mills, "Ideal Theory" as Ideology, 2005 42 +"The crucial common claim—whether couched in terms of ideology and fetishism, 43 +AND 44 +level, the descriptive concepts arrived at may be misleading." (175) 45 + 46 + 47 +====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. Prefer additionally- ==== 48 + 49 + 50 +====States have no act-omission distinction which means they are responsible for the state of affairs they bring about, so constraint based theories collapse to consequentialism.==== 51 +**Sunstein and Vermule 05** (Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermuele, "Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? The Relevance of Life-Life Tradeoffs," Chicago Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper No. 85 (March 2005), p. 17.) 52 +In our view, both the argument from causation and the argument from intention go 53 +AND 54 +All means based and side constraint theories collapse because two violations require aggregation. 55 + 56 + 57 +====Only consequences are relevant because the government is a collection of individuals so it doesn't have a unified intent. Even if it does there is no way to epistemologically access it. And, conflicting side constraints means that the state always violates rights with every action it takes. Only consequentialism solves because it assigns equal weights to all citizens rather than arbitrarily valuing certain people or procedural methods. Prefer government specific obligations because obligations differ by agent- surgeons have an obligation to cut open people while that would be repugnant for a normal person to do. ==== 58 + 59 + 60 +====Only naturalism is epistemically accessible==== 61 +**Papinaeu 11** ~~David Papineau, "Naturalism," Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2007~~ 62 +Moore took this argument to show that moral facts comprise a distinct species of non 63 +AND 64 +it is hard to see how we can have any knowledge of them. 65 + 66 + 67 +====Experience is epistemic – it is how we empirically ground our existence. Pain is universally bad and pleasure is universally good.==== 68 +**Nagel '86**. Thomas ~~"The View From Nowhere", 1986~~ 69 +I shall defend the unsurprising claim that sensory pleasure is good and pain bad, 70 +AND 71 +such cases. There can be no reason to reject the appearances here. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-29 13:39:37.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +John Overing - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Kamiak NB - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +58 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +West Ranch Won Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - TOC R1 NC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +TOC
- Caselist.CitesClass[57]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,68 @@ 1 +=1-off= 2 +Interp: The aff must defend that all constitutionally protected speech in all venues ought not be restricted by public colleges or universities. To clarify, they can't defend removing a specific restriction on speech. 3 +Counterplans that place restrictions on only specific types of speech but eliminate all others are theoretically illegitimate. 4 +B. Violation: 5 +**C. 1. Legal Precision- Multiple court rulings agree- any means every ** 6 +Elder 91**, David, "Any and All": To Use Or Not To Use?," 1991, http://www.michbar.org/file/generalinfo/plainenglish/pdfs/91_oct.pdf** 7 +The Michigan Supreme Court seemed to approve our dictionary definitions of "any" in Harrington v Interstate Business Men's Accident Ass'n, 210 Mich 327, 330; 178 NW 19 (1920), when it quoted Hopkins v Sanders, 172 Mich 227; 137 NW 709 (1912). The Court defined "any" like this: "In broad language, it covers 'arl'v final decree' in 'any suit at law or in chancery' in 'any circuit court.' Any' means ,every,' 'each one of all."' In a later case, the Michigan Supreme Court again held that the use of "any" in an agency contract meant "all." In Gibson v Agricultural Life Ins Co, 282 Mich 282, 284; 276 NW 450 (1937), the clause in controversy read: "14. The Company shall have, and is hereby given a first lien upon any commissions or renewals as security for any claim due or to become due to the Company from said Agent." (Emphasis added.) The Gibson court was not persuaded by the plaintiff's insistence that the word "any" meant less than "all": "Giving the wording of paragraph 14 oJ the agency contract its plain and unequivocable meaning, upon arriving at the conclusion that the sensible connotation of the word any' implies 'all' and not 'some,' the legal conclusion follows that the defendant is entitled to retain the earned renewal commissions arising from its agency contract with Gibson and cannot be held legally liable for same in this action," Gibson at 287 (quoting the trial court opinion). The Michigan Court of Appeals has similarly interpreted the word "any" as used in a Michigan statute. In McGrath v Clark, 89 Mich App 194; 280 NW2d 480 (1979), the plaintiff accepted defendant's offer of judgment. The offer said nothing about prejudgment interest. The statute the Court examined was MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013: "Interest shall be allowed on any money judgment recovered in a civil action...." The Court held that "the word 'any' is to be considered all-inclusive," so the defendants were entitled to interest. McGrath at 197 Recently, the Court has again held that "~~alny means 'every,' 'each one of all,' and is unlimited in its scope." Parker v Nationwide Mutual Ins Co, 188 Mich App 354, 356; 470 NW2d 416 (1991) (quoting Harrington v InterState Men's Accident Ass'n, supra) 8 +This outweighs- this is a legal definition, which the topic necessitates because it questions first amendment rights, a legal concept. 9 +2. Limits- Your interp allows a near infinite number of aff's. 10 +FIRE lists 170 different speech codes that infringe on due process student rights alone, meaning there's at least 170 plans you could get a solvency advocate for right then and there.^^ ^^ 11 +Even assuming only a third of these are viable, you have justified a caselist with 50 distinct plans, not even counting permutations of plans and non-FIRE, That's ridiculous because we've only had this topic for a month, there is no way I could prep that many specific case negs and also prep for other aspects of the resolution and also live a normal life. 12 +Multiple impacts to limits 13 +Fairness- this pigeonholes the negative into generics like the Kant NC every single time. This gives the aff a huge prep advantage because they know what the 1NC will be literally every single time. It also means I never get to debate util debate even if it is my best layer. 14 +Topic education—the neg ensures every round can be about the topic even if the neg doesn't have specific prep to the aff's scenarios. 15 + Reciprocity- their interp requires the neg to bifurcate their prep between tons of aff's while the aff focuses on just one. That means the 1nc will get destroyed by 1ar frontlines in every debate since the aff has had at least 30 times more prep on it. 16 +Fire Cite: Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. "Case Archive". Retrieved 2008-03-25. 17 +3. Ground- Speech zones are fundamentally different than the core controversy of the topic. Empirically proven no neg generics apply. Things like the hate speech DA don't link because the aff still defends squo restrictions outside of speech zones. All you defend is removing the silencing of protests, which is obviously good. This is particularly important because solvency about protests goes aff, so I need generics to outweigh. Ground is key to fairness since equal access to arguments controls equal access to the ballot. 18 +4. Topical version of the aff solves: you can read your specific rights as advantages under a whole res aff. Takes out overlimiting- any aff is fair just as an advantage. Also means my model has more breadth AND we can still discuss specific issues because good debaters like me are always incentivized to cut case answers specific to your aff for SOL. 19 +D. voter- 20 +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. 21 +2. Fairness outweighs education 22 +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. 23 +3. Drop the debater: Drop the arg is severance on T because it shifts their advocacy to whole res in the 1ar. This is unfair because the 1nc strategy was premised on the AC plantext. If you allow them to shift it punishes me for their abuse. 24 +4. Competing Interps: 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. 25 +5. No RVIs 26 +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. 27 +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. 28 + 29 + 30 +=2-off = 31 +**The 1AC is an affirmation of the legal system- public colleges is part of the state. Supreme Court Cases prove. ** 32 +Buchter 73, Jonathan. "Contract law and the student-university relationship." Indiana Law Journal, vol. 48, issue. 2, article 5, Winter 1973. 33 +"This theoretical mixture was applied in student-university litigation until Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education was decided in 1961. Dixon held, generally, that a public university's actions were state actions and therefore subject to constitutional restraints and, more particularly, that a student must be afforded procedural due process prior to expulsion. However, the state action doctrine in Dixon has not replaced the implied contract theory. Courts still view the student-university relationship as one of contract with certain constitutional protections required if the institution is public. Thus, there may currently be some limits on what the public university may demand from the student. For example, a public university may not be able to deny a student certain first amendment rights. However, since the Dixon holding is limited to public institutions, a private university may be able to contract in such a way as to limit these constitutional rights." 34 +Thus the 1ac affirms that the state can create progress, which is a link to the K. Supercharged because the aff relies on constitutionally protected speech, which relies on the US constitution that deemed blacks 3/5 of a person. 35 +**The depiction of progress within civil society formulates cruel optimism- that is another link** 36 +Warren 15**, Calvin, Assistant Prof of American Studies at GW, Black Nihilism and the Politics of Hope, 2015, http://www.academia.edu/21900580/Black_Nihilism_and_the_Politics_of_Hope** 37 +**This brilliant analysis compels us to **rethink political rationality and the value in "means"—as a structuring agent by itself. What I would like to think through, however, is the distinction between "hope" and "despair" and "expec- tations" and "object." Whereas Farred understands political participation as an act without a political object, or recognizable outcome—without an "end," if we think of "end" and "object" as synonyms—I would suggest that the Politics of Hope reconfigures despair and expectation so that black political action pursues an impossible object. We can describe~~s~~ this contradictory object as the lure of metaphysical political activity: every act brings one closer to a "not-yet-social order." What one achieves, then, and expects is "closer." The political object that black participation encircles endlessly, like the Lacanian drive and its object, is the idea of linear proximity—we can call this "progress,"** "betterment," or "more perfect." **This idea of achieving the impossible allows one to disregard the historicity of anti-blackness** **and its continued legacy** and conceive of political engagement as **bringing one **incrementally **closer to that which does not exist**—one's impossible object. In this way, the Politics of hope recasts despair as possibility, struggle as triumph, and lack as propinquity. This impossible object is not tethered to real history, so it is unassailable and irrefutable because it is the object of political fantasy. **The politics of hope**, then, **constitutes** what Lauren Berlant would call "**cruel optimism**" for blacks (Berlant 2011). It bundles certain promises about redress, equality, freedom, justice, and progress into a political object that always lies beyond reach. **The objective** of the Political **is to keep blacks** in a relation to this political object—**in** an **unending pursuit** of it. **This **pursuit, however, is detrimental because it **strengthens the **very **anti-black system that** would pulverize black being. The pursuit of the object certainly has an "irra- tional" aspect to it, as Farred details, but it is not mere means without expec- tation; instead, it is a means that undermines the attainment of the impossible object desired. In other words, the pursuit marks a cruel attachment to the means of subjugation and the continued widening of the gap between historical reality and fantastical ideal. ** 38 +The demand for legal relief is the perfection of slavery. 39 +**Farley 05**, Anthony, Professor of Law @ Boston College, "Perfecting Slavery", 1/27/2005,http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028andcontext=lsfp –) 40 +The progress of slavery runs in the opposite direction of the past present-future timeline. The slave only becomes the perfect slave at the end of the timeline, only under conditions of total juridical freedom. It is only under conditions of freedom, of bourgeois legality, that the slave can perfect itself as a slave by freely choosing to bow down before its master. The slave perfects itself as a slave by offering a prayer for equal rights. The system of marks is a plantation. The system of property is a plantation. The system of law is a plantation. These plantations, all part of the same system, hierarchy, produce white-overblack, white-over-black only, and that continually. The slave perfects itself as a slave through its prayers for equal rights. The plantation system will not commit suicide and the slave, as stated above, has knowing non-knowledge of this fact. The slave finds its way back from the undiscovered country only by burning down every plantation. When the slave prays for equal rights it makes the free choice to be dead, and it makes the free choice to not be. 41 +Violence against black people is fundamentally gratuitous and irrational- rational legal structures cannot solve. 42 +Barlow 16, Jr. Michael, Addressing Shortcomings in Afro-Pessimism, 2016, http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1435/addressing-shortcomings-in-afro-pessimism 43 +White people operated on libidinal conceptions of the African long before there ever existed a slave. The libido is a concept most relevant in the field of psychoanalysis which studies and attempts to map the unconscious mind. It influences and shapes the basis for sexual desire as a pursuit of power. The libidinal economy then is an organization of signs and symbols at the level of the metaphysical that originate from a sexualized need for control. Simply put, the libidinal economy can be understood as an intersection between sexual desire and domination. In terms of Africa, "White violence against the black body was compelled by a complex mixture of conscious identification, unconscious fears, and subconscious longings" (Tibbs and Woods 2008). Evidence of this is at the first European interaction with the African. Their first recorded observations of the Africans were not of their culture, but rather they were imaginations of the alleged African sexual bestiality (L-SAW 2010). Thus, the African became known by a bestial and sexual rubric within the white mind, and that shaped further interactions. Evidence of white libidinal desires to control and possess the African are also in the lines of demarcation drawn between the civilizations. The very basis of racial slavery began "…with desire for the symbols of purity, honor, and humanity represented by whiteness and made possible by blackness and for the pleasure, exoticism, and self-loathing epitomized by blackness as constructed in opposition to whiteness (Tibbs and Woods 2008)." This is the organization of those metaphysical curiosities that fueled the projection of sexual representations onto the flesh. This libidinal construction is how African breasts and buttocks came to be represented as sexually abnormal, and in turn, it is ultimately what led to the construction of the Black woman as sexually insatiable. This was the basis for the white libidinal imagination to set the stage for a type a slavery previously unknown to the world: racial slavery. 44 +The Middle Passage created the ontological category of the slave- civil society is defined against blackness. 45 +Pak 12, Yumi, Outside Relationality: Autobiographical Deformations and the Literary Lineage of Afro-Pessimism in 20th and 21st Century African American Literature, 2012, http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2h76s393~~#page-1 46 +Blackness functions as a scandal to ontology because, as Wilderson states, black suffering forms the ethical backbone of civil society. He writes, ~~c~~hattel slavery did not simply reterritorialize the ontology of the African. It also created the Human out of cultural disparate identities from Europe to the East… Put another way, through chattel slavery the world gave birth and coherence to both its joys of domesticity and to its struggles of political discontent, and with these joys and struggles, the Human was born, but not before it murdered the Black, forging a symbiosis between the political ontology of Humanity and the social death of Blacks. (Red, White and Black 20 – 21) 47 +The loss of culture for the slave creates social death 48 +Barlow 2, Jr. Michael, Addressing Shortcomings in Afro-Pessimism, 2016, http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1435/addressing-shortcomings-in-afro-pessimism 49 +One of the most controversial tenants of Afro-Pessimism is the ontological concept by which the Black is understood: social death. This concept comes from Orlando Patterson who conducted a comparative study of 65 slaveholding cultures including Africa, Greece, Rome, Medieval Europe, China, and others (Franklin 1983). Social death relates to the inability to hold and wield power within society. It is the ultimate position of numbness; it is the state of existing as a mere commodity submissive to the rule of the master. Common definitions of slavery begin with some level of ownership that reduces the body to property, but Patterson draws an important delineation between slaveness and property. Ownership fails to speak to the level of ontology. Thus, slavery is more accurately understood as "the permanent, violent domination of natally alienated and generally dishonored persons" (Patterson 1982).From this comes the three tenants of social death: natal alienation, general dishonor, and powerlessness. First, natal alienation refers to the initial and continued separation of the slave from biological and cultural ties. While the slave undoubtedly formed kinship structures on the plantation, natal alienation speaks to the way in which slaves were inhuman in their inability to move "freely to integrate the experience of their ancestors into their lives, to inform understanding of social reality with the inherited meanings of their forebears, or to anchor the living present in any conscious community of memory" (Patterson 1982). It is not to say that kinship structures on the plantation were insignificant, but to highlight that the loss of natal ties is significant at the level of ontology. The fact that the descendants of slaves are now referred to by their relationship to the entire continent rather than a specific ethnic community is telling in this regard. Even when there are Black productions of culture in terms of music, food, or clothing, it is inevitably consumed and commodified by society. This cultural consumption should not be mistaken as acceptance, but rather it is an "expression of ontological expansiveness, which is a habit of white privileged people to treat all spaces—whether geographical, existential, linguistic, cultural, or other—as available for them to inhabit at their choosing" (Sullivan 2008). The Black exists in a state of cultural impossibility where it has no organic heritage and those artificial cultural products are appropriated by the libidinal desires of whiteness. The absence of natal relationality highlights the ontological nature of Blackness because it separates Black bodies from every other subject position in that they exist in the world without lineage. 50 +The alternative is to reject the law and to engage in unflinching critical analysis of how the state causes anti-blackness. We must completely withdraw from the logic of civil society. 51 +Kokontis 11 Kate, PhD in Performance Studies from UC-Berkeley, "Performative Returns and the Rememory of History: genealogy and performativity in the American racial state," Dissertation available on Proquest 52 +On one hand, she addresses the literal politics that the theological narratives espouse. There is a long tradition of deploying the Exodus narrative toward the pursuit of social reform. That is, instead of appealing to it in a way that focuses on the next world, "~~t~~hrough biblical typology, particularly uses of Exodus, African Americans elevated their common experiences to biblical drama and found resources to account for their circumstances and respond effectively to them. ~~...~~ Exodus history sustained hope and a sense of possibility in the face of insurmountable evil. The analogical uses of the story enabled a sense of agency and resistance in persistent moments of despair and disillusionment."64 But even these efforts have – not exclusively, but often – relied on a particular iteration of the social gospel that presupposes a set of moral and institutional imperatives (for instance, the ideal of training racial, religious, sexual, social, or institutional "deviants" or outlyers to behave according to an ostensibly correct set of moral principles) that run counter to a radical critique of the underlying terms of the state and civil society which tend to ratify, naturalize, and invisibilize antiblackness and/or policies that adversely impact black people who are not part of the middle class, rather than to critique or subvert it. Hartman, on the other hand, does call for, and mount, a radical critique of the terms of the state and civil society: for her, they are inherently unethical rather than redeemable, having engendered centuries of black social death and historical unknowability, and thus any struggle toward freedom demands an unflinching critical analysis rather than an implicit or explicit ratification of these institutions and the terms on which they are predicated. But more fundamentally, she addresses the political implications of the assumptive logic of a theological teleology. I interpret Hartman to posit that there is a kind of freedom that can be predicated on not-knowing: if there is no predetermined future, there is no divine imperative that might encourage an investment in the moral prescriptions of a conservative social gospel: a toppled faith in the redemptive possibilities of the struggle has the potential to open the door to invention, speculation, refashioning, and cobbling together something from nothing, presence from absence. I interpret her to posit that a viable freedom dream necessitates the acknowledgment of loss and absence and the history of processes of dehumanizing antiblackness, the acknowledgement of the wound and its psychic, social, political, and ethical causes ~~and~~ – as well as an acknowledgement of its persistence – rather than being deluded by tidy or optimistic but under-analyzed narratives of progress or redemption. Only then can any realistic stock be taken toward re-imagining the world and the possibilities and imperatives of a black freedom struggle. While Haley and Gates draw on narratives that say that the past, including its suffering, was meaningful, Hartman offers what might appear to be a much bleaker interpretation that insists that it is meaningless insofar as it is not folded into any sort of teleology. But in that is a kind of freedom/dream, because the subjects of her narrative are free from a predetermination of the terms on which liberation is possible, the structures around its enactment. What she calls for is a profound refashioning of the epistemology of the invisible, which is as fundamental a component of the black freedom struggle as is an epistemology of verifiable evidence of oppression. That is, she advocates the excavation of psychic structures and historical silences to replace an implicit or explicit faith in a divine logic in the (racial) order of things. Genealogy cannot connect with the unknown, so it becomes a ghost story, an excavation. The term might then be interpreted less as a means of accessing literal ancestors, and more as a process toward understanding. Hartman constructs, in her text, not a genealogy of anyone's family, but a genealogy of the stranger, of the slave; a genealogy of loss, of the lost, of searching. Projects that make use of imaginative, performative, quasi-fictional or poetic devices can't rest with not-knowing: the imaginative devices emerge, in fact, from attempts to piece together or construct/invent evidence from its lack. They all insist on the importance of knowing, whether because of some large-scale sense of collective responsibility, or because of personal yearning, or both. The imaginative devices don't exist for the sake of being imaginative; they exist for the sake of survival. But in being imaginative, they allow for radical possibilities to emerge that literality forecloses. Part of what performance might offer the study of history is a) different keys to be able to fill in the gaps, that aren't so heavily reliant upon explicit, legible empiricism, and b) not only permission for, but encouragement of what uncertainty can yield. 53 +This solves the case (explain…) 54 + 55 + 56 +===Role of the Ballot=== 57 +The Role of the Ballot is to resist anti-blackness in every instance. Anything else is just intellectual gymnastics to avoid talking about oppression, excluding oppressed debaters. 58 +Smith 13, Elijah "A Conversation in Ruins: Race and Black Participation in Lincoln Douglas Debate." Vbriefly. September 6, 2013 59 +At every tournament you attend this year look around the cafeteria and take note of which students are not sitting amongst you and your peers. Despite being some of the best and the brightest in the nation, many students are alienated from and choose to not participate in an activity I like to think of as homeplace. In addition to the heavy financial burden associated with national competition, the exclusionary atmosphere of a debate tournament discourages black students from participating. Widespread awareness of the same lack of participation in policy debate has led to a growing movement towards alternative styles and methods of engaging the gatekeepers of the policy community, (Reid-Brinkley 08) while little work has been done to address or even acknowledge the same concern in Lincoln Douglas debate. Unfortunately students of color are not only forced to cope with a reality of structural violence outside of debate, but within an activity they may have joined to escape it in the first place. We are facing more than a simple trend towards marginalization occurring in Lincoln Douglas, but a culture of exclusion that locks minority participants out of the ranks of competition. It will be uncomfortable, it will be hard, and it will require continued effort but the necessary step in fixing this problem, like all problems, is the community as a whole admitting that such a problem with many "socially acceptable" choices exists in the first place. Like all systems of social control, the reality of racism in debate is constituted by the singular choices that institutions, coaches, and students make on a weekly basis. I have watched countless rounds where competitors attempt to win by rushing to abstractions to distance the conversation from the material reality that black debaters are forced to deal with every day. One of the students I coached, who has since graduated after leaving debate, had an adult judge write out a ballot that concluded by "hypothetically" defending my student being lynched at the tournament. Another debate concluded with a young man defending that we can kill animals humanely, "just like we did that guy Troy Davis". Community norms would have competitors do intellectual gymnastics or make up rules to accuse black debaters of breaking to escape hard conversations but as someone who understands that experience, the only constructive strategy is to acknowledge the reality of the oppressed, engage the discussion from the perspective of authors who are black and brown, and then find strategies to deal with the issues at hand. It hurts to see competitive seasons come and go and have high school students and judges spew the same hateful things you expect to hear at a Klan rally. A student should not, when presenting an advocacy that aligns them with the oppressed, have to justify why oppression is bad. Debate is not just a game, but a learning environment with liberatory potential. Even if the form debate gives to a conversation is not the same you would use to discuss race in general conversation with Bayard Rustin or Fannie Lou Hamer, that is not a reason we have to strip that conversation of its connection to a reality that black students cannot escape. 60 + 61 + 62 +===Add-On Roleplaying Bad=== 63 +Fiat is illusory- colleges aren't spurred into action by voting aff. The aff is merely addictive roleplay which breeds self-hatred- turns the case because it means the plan opens up a space for tyranny 64 +Antonio 95 (Nietzsche's antisociology: Subjectified Culture and the End of History"; American Journal of Sociology; Volume 101, No. 1; July 1995, jstor,) 65 +According to Nietzsche, the "subject" is Socratic culture's most central, durable foundation. This prototypic expression of ressentiment, master reification, and ultimate justification for slave morality and mass discipline "separates strength from expressions of strength, as if there were a neutral substratum . . . free to express strength or not to do so. But there is no such substratum; there is no 'being' behind the doing, effecting, becoming; 'the doer' is merely a fiction added to the deed" (Nietzsche 1969b, pp. 45-46). Leveling of Socratic culture's "objective" foundations makes its "subjective" features all the more important. For example, the subject is a central focus of the new human sciences, appearing prominently in its emphases on neutral standpoints, motives as causes, and selves as entities, objects of inquiry, problems, and targets of care (Nietzsche 1966, pp. 19-21; 1968a, pp. 47-54). Arguing that subjectified culture weakens the personality, Nietzsche spoke of a "remarkable antithesis between an interior which fails to correspond to any exterior and an exterior which fails to correspond to any interior" (Nietzsche 1983, pp. 78-79, 83). The "problem of the actor," Nietzsche said, "troubled me for the longest time."'12 He considered "roles" as "external," "surface," or "foreground" phenomena and viewed close personal identification with them as symptomatic of estrangement. While modern theorists saw differentiated roles and professions as a matrix of autonomy and reflexivity, Nietzsche held that persons (especially male professionals) in specialized occupations overidentify with their positions and engage in gross fabrications to obtain advancement. They look hesitantly to the opinion of others, asking themselves, "How ought I feel about this?" They are so thoroughly absorbed in simulating effective role players that they have trouble being anything but actors-"The role has actually become the character." This highly subjectified social self or simulator suffers devastating inauthenticity. The powerful authority given the social greatly amplifies Socratic culture's already self-indulgent "inwardness." Integrity, decisiveness, spontaneity, and pleasure are undone by paralyzing overconcern about possible causes, meanings, and consequences of acts and unending internal dialogue about what others might think, expect, say, or do (Nietzsche 1983, pp. 83-86; 1986, pp. 39-40; 1974, pp. 302-4, 316-17). Nervous rotation of socially appropriate "masks" reduces persons to hypostatized "shadows," "abstracts," or simulacra. One adopts "many roles," playing them "badly and superficially" in the fashion of a stiff "puppet play." Nietzsche asked, "Are you genuine? Or only an actor? A representative or that which is represented? . . . ~~Or~~ no more than an imitation of an actor?" Simulation is so pervasive that it is hard to tell the copy from the genuine article; social selves "prefer the copies to the originals" (Nietzsche 1983, pp. 84-86; 1986, p. 136; 1974, pp. 232- 33, 259; 1969b, pp. 268, 300, 302; 1968a, pp. 26-27). Their inwardness and aleatory scripts foreclose genuine attachment to others. This type of actor cannot plan for the long term or participate in enduring networks of interdependence; such a person is neither willing nor able to be a "stone" in the societal "edifice" (Nietzsche 1974, pp. 302-4; 1986a, pp. 93-94). Superficiality rules in the arid subjectivized landscape. Neitzsche (1974, p. 259) stated, "One thinks with a watch in one's hand, even as one eats one's midday meal while reading the latest news of the stock market; one lives as if one always 'might miss out on something. ''Rather do anything than nothing': this principle, too, is merely a string to throttle all culture. . . . Living in a constant chase after gain compels people to expend their spirit to the point of exhaustion in continual pretense and overreaching and anticipating others." Pervasive leveling, improvising, and faking foster an inflated sense of ability and an oblivious attitude about the fortuitous circumstances that contribute to role attainment (e.g., class or ethnicity). The most mediocre people believe they can fill any position, even cultural leadership. Nietzsche respected the self-mastery of genuine ascetic priests, like Socrates, and praised their ability to redirect ressentiment creatively and to render the "sick" harmless. But he deeply feared the new simulated versions. Lacking the "born physician's" capacities, these impostors amplify the worst inclinations of the herd; they are "violent, envious, exploitative, scheming, fawning, cringing, arrogant, all according to circumstances. " Social selves are fodder for the "great man of the masses." Nietzsche held that "the less one knows how to command, the more urgently one covets someone who commands, who commands severely- a god, prince, class, physician, father confessor, dogma, or party conscience. The deadly combination of desperate conforming and overreaching and untrammeled ressentiment paves the way for a new type of tyrant (Nietzsche 1986, pp. 137, 168; 1974, pp. 117-18, 213, 288-89, 303- 66 +Roleplaying causes psychological violence and assumes an distanced view that creates imperialism. 67 +Reid-Brinkley 08, Dr. Shanara , University of Pittsburgh Department of Communications, "THE HARSH REALITIES OF "ACTING BLACK": HOW AFRICAN-AMERICAN POLICY DEBATERS NEGOTIATE REPRESENTATION THROUGH RACIAL PERFORMANCE AND STYLE" 2008 68 +And participation does not result in the majority of the debate community engaging in activism around the issues they research. Mitchell observes that the stance of the policymaker in debate comes with a "sense of detachment associated with the spectator posture."115 In other words, its participants are able to engage in debates where they are able to distance themselves from the events that are the subjects of debates. Debaters can throw around terms like torture, terrorism, genocide and nuclear war without blinking. Debate simulations can only serve to distance the debaters from real world participation in the political contexts they debate about. As William Shanahan remarks: …the topic established a relationship through interpellation that inhered irrespective of what the particular political affinities of the debaters were. The relationship was both political and ethical, and needed to be debated as such. When we blithely call for United States Federal Government policymaking, we are not immune to the colonialist legacy that establishes our place on this continent. We cannot wish away the horrific atrocities perpetrated everyday in our name simply by refusing to acknowledge these implications" (emphasis in original). The "objective" stance of the policymaker is an impersonal or imperialist persona. The policymaker relies upon "acceptable" forms of evidence, engaging in logical discussion, producing rational thoughts. As Shanahan, and the Louisville debaters' note, such a stance is integrally linked to the normative, historical and contemporary practices of power that produce and maintain varying networks of oppression. In other words, the discursive practices of policy oriented debate are developed within, through and from systems of power and privilege. Thus, these practices are critically implicated in the maintenance of hegemony. So, rather than seeing themselves as government or state actors, Jones and Green choose to perform themselves in debate, violating the more "objective" stance of the "policymaker" and require their opponents to do the same. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-29 14:44:15.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Panel - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +West KN - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +61 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Triples - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +West Ranch Won Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - Berkeley Triples NC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Berkeley
- Caselist.CitesClass[58]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,90 @@ 1 +=1-off = 2 +Interp: Debaters must read an explicitly labeled standard or role of the ballot text in the 1AC, specify whether it's ends or means based, and link their offense to it. 3 +Violation: They didn't, you can call for the speech doc. CX clarifies: 4 +1. Strat skew—the 1AC framework is a moving target that you can recontextualize to crowd out my impacts, which kills fairness because you need a strat to win. They'll say they won't exclude any arguments but: 5 +A. Saying your framework is contextualized by your impact or framing cards is even worse, that means all your impacts automatically link to your framework whereas at best I have to waste time justifying why neg offense links and at worst you can delink it 6 +B. This is non-verifiable, they absolutely could have if I didn't read theory but they're just saying they wouldn't to get out of the abuse story 7 +C. bad for neg flex: kick impx 8 +2. Resolvability— if there's dispute about whether certain impacts matter at the end of the round, the judge has to intervene because there's no stable text to refer to. They'll say we can just weigh under the framework but: 9 +A. There's no way to weigh between impacts, discussion of impacts presuppose bigger practices of what impacts are moral, for example even if consequentialism is true arguments like "death good" have different implications under hedonism vs rule util 10 +B. Impact justified frameworks arbitrarily pick one impact over another without giving normative proposition to it; for instance you could literally just read a standard of stopping climate change or minimizing terrorism that presupposes act-consequentialism 11 +Resolvability is an independent voter because we need a judge to have a debate and even if you feel comfortable evaluating this round a text solves every time there's not an experienced judge in the back of the room. 12 +3. Their reliance on intuition and implied premises of the framework makes the judge an authoritarian adjudicator who fits students into a mold, turning any hope for critical citizenship 13 +**Rickert 01 ** ~~Rickert, Thomas. ""Hands Up, You're Free": Composition in a Post-Oedipal World." JacOnline Journal, 2001~~ 14 +**"An example of the connection between **violence** and pedagogy **is implicit in the notion** of being "schooled" as it has been conceptualized by Giroux and Peter Mclaren. They explain, "Fundamental to the principles that inform critical pedagogy is the conviction **that schooling for** self- and **social empowerment is ethically prior to questions of epistemology** or to a mastery of technical or social skills that are primarily tied to the logic of the marketplace" (153-54). **A presumption** here is** that** it is the **teacher** who **knows (best)**, and this orientation gives the concept of schooling a particular bite: though it presents itself as oppositional to the state and the dominant forms of pedagogy that serve the state and its capitalist interests, it nevertheless **reinscribes an authoritarian model** that is congruent with any number of oedipalizing pedagogies **that "school" the student in proper behavior.** As Diane Davis notes, radical, feminist, and liberatory **pedagogies** "often **camouflage** pedagogical **violence in their move from one** mode of **'normalization'** **to another**" and "function within a disciplinary matrix of power, a covert carceral system, that aims to create useful subjects for particular political agendas" (212). Such oedipalizing pedagogies are less effective in practice than what the claims for them assert; indeed, the attempt to "school" students in the manner called for by Giroux and McLaren is complicitous with the malaise of postmodern cynicism. Students will dutifully go through their liberatory motions, producing the proper assignments, but it remains an open question whether they carry an oppositional politics with them. The "critical distance" supposedly created with liberatory pedagogy also opens up a cynical distance toward the writing produced in class." (299-300)** 15 + 16 + 17 +=2-off = 18 + 19 + 20 +====A. Uniqueness: Federal funding for colleges and universities is growing now and has been increasing for several years ==== 21 +**Camera 16** ~~Lauren Camera, education reporter at US News, "Federal Education Funding: Where Does the Money Go?" US News, Jan. 14, 2016, http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2016/01/14/federal-education-funding-where-does-the-money-go~~ JW 22 +Government spending on education has surged over the last decade and a half, with 23 +AND 24 +$14.9 billion this year, an increase of 43 percent. 25 + 26 + 27 +====B. Title IX requires colleges to restrict constitutionally protected speech or lose federal funding.==== 28 +Fire 16, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Department of Justice: Title IX Requires Violating First Amendment, 2016, https://www.thefire.org/department-of-justice-title-ix-requires-violating-first-amendment/ 29 +WASHINGTON, April 25, 2016—The Department of Justice now interprets Title IX 30 +AND 31 +University presidents must find the courage to stand up to this federal overreach." 32 + 33 + 34 +====Federal funding is critical for college operations, especially financial aid==== 35 +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)** 36 +**States and the federal government have long provided substantial funding for higher education, but ** 37 +**AND** 38 +**, while state funds primarily pay for the general operations of public institutions.** 39 + 40 + 41 +====C. Benefactors will quit funding colleges if all speech is protected==== 42 +MacDonald 05**, **G. Jeffrey MacDonald Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor. Donors: too much say on campus speech? ; Colleges feel more pressure from givers who want to help determine who'll be speaking on campus. The Christian Science Monitor ~~Boston, Mass~~ 10 Feb 2005: 11. ~~Premier~~ 43 +According to Hamilton President Joan Hinde Stewart, angry benefactors threatened to quit giving if 44 +AND 45 +says Doyle, especially in terms of paid speakers who "promote hate." 46 + 47 + 48 +====D. Impact ==== 49 + 50 + 51 +====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. ==== 52 +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,** 53 +**Years of **cuts in** state **funding for public colleges and universities have driven up tuition** ** 54 +**AND** 55 + 56 +**o/w** 57 +**scale ** 58 +**size of link** 59 +**Turns the 1AC** 60 + 61 + 62 +=3-off = 63 +I negate. It is impossible to derive morality from academic reflection 64 +**We are always bound by our individual perspectives- language and other basic assumptions are not bounded by external authority but merely by axioms ** 65 +**Parrish 05**, Rick. "Derrida's economy of violence in Hobbes' social contract." Theory and Event 7.4 (2005). 66 +The point, as Richard Beardsworth (one of Derrida's most noteworthy commentators) explains, is that "a decision is always needed because there is no natural status to language, and that given this irreducibility of a decision, there are different kinds of decisions — those that recognize their legislative and executive force and those which hide it under some claim to naturality qua 'theory' or 'objective science'."22 In the first case the person recognizes and embraces its status as a creator of meaning, but in the second case the person more closely resembles Nietzsche's scientific ascetic who, while still a person and thus a creator, denies his nature and instead claims to discover fact. But in either event, a person "is always . . . a legislator and policeman,"23 a creator and subsequent enforcer of its creations of meaning and value. So for Derrida, any discursive positioning is the outcome of an ordeal of the undecidable that is itself necessary because there is no objective, transparently discoverable truth. Rather, persons exist as the choosers, the creators, of discursive positionality (meaning; value). Violence is then the unavoidable denial of the other as a source of meaning independent of oneself. Derrida argues that both pure violence and pure non-violence are paradoxical, but before explaining this point I shall lay out why Hobbes agrees that humans are the creators of meaning and value, and proceed from there. Perhaps the single most telling quote from Hobbes on this point comes from The Philosophical Rudiments Concerning Government and Society (usually known by its Latin name, De Cive), in which he states that "to know truth, is the same thing as to remember that it was made by ourselves by the very usurpation of the words."24 "For Hobbes truth is a function of logic and language, not of the relation between language and some extralinguistic reality,"25 so the "connections between names and objects are not natural."26 They are artificially constructed by persons, based on individual psychologies and desires. These individual desires are for Hobbes the only measure of good and bad, because value terms "are ever used with relation to the person that useth them, there being nothing simply and absolutely so, nor any common rule of good and evil to be taken from the nature of the objects themselves."27 Since "there are no authentical doctrines concerning right and wrong, good and evil,"28 these labels are placed upon things by humans in acts of creation rather than discovered as extrinsic facts. 67 +Using academic frameworks presupposes values itself such as the value of truth or good scholarship. Thus any attempt at deduction would beg the question by assuming value in the first place. 68 +The obligation to reconcile different values falls upon the sovereign who can assert the normative system. 69 +Parish 06, Rick, Violence Inevitable: The Play of Force and Respect in Derrida, Nietzsche, 2006, https://books.google.com/books?id=YC6OxLoixdgCandpg=PA55andlpg=PA55anddq=the+sovereign27s+job+is+to+be+an+ultimate+definer+peace+is+only+possibleandsource=blandots=3RPGXKlMNhandsig=TjzxedcCuuvmUIpqa5O1ZwqsFPwandhl=enandsa=Xandved=0CCAQ6AEwAGoVChMIuZXujP7lyAIVU9ZjCh3JOgvd~~#v=onepageandq=the20sovereign's20job20is20to20be20an20ultimate20definer20peace20is20only20possibleandf=false 70 +All of the foregoing pints to the conclusion that in the commonwealth the sovereign's first and most fundamental job is to be the ultimate definer. Several other commentators have also reached this conclusion. By way of elaborating upon the importance of the moderation of individuality in Hobbes' theory of government, Richard Flathman claims that peace "is possible only if the ambiguity and disagreement that pervade general thinking and acting are eliminated by the stipulations of a sovereign." Pursuant to debunking the perennial misinterpretation of Hobbes' mention of people as wolves, Paul Johnson argues that "one of the primary functions of the sovereign is to provide the necessary unity of meaning and reference for the' primary terms in which ~~people~~ men try to conduct their social lives." "The whole ~~purpose in the sovereign's ruling~~ raison d'entre of sovereign helmsmanship lies squarely in the chronic defusing of interpretive clashes," without which humans would "fly off in all directions" and fall inevitably into the violence of the natural condition. 71 +Thus the standard is consistency with the sovereign's authority 72 +Prefer 73 +1. All frameworks collapse into a Hobbesian framework 74 +A. All rights claims are problematic in the state of nature, justifying infinite rights violations. Other framework authors agree 75 +Varden 10 "A Kantian Conception of Free Speech" by Helga Varden Chapter from: "Freedom of Expression in a Diverse World" edited by Deirdre Golash 2010 76 +"The first important distinction between Kant and much contemporary liberal thought issues from Kant's argument that it is not in principle possible for individuals to realize right in the state of nature. Kant explicitly rejects the common assumption in liberal theories of his time as well as today that virtuous private individuals can interact in ways reconcilable both with one another's right to freedom and their corresponding innate and acquired private rights. All the details of this argument are beyond the scope of this paper. It suffices to say that ideal problems of assurance and indeterminacy regarding the specification, application and enforcement of the principles of private right to actual interactions lead Kant to conclude that rightful interaction is in principle impossible in the state of nature.5 Kant argues that only a public authority can solve these problems in a way reconcilable with everyone's right to freedom. This is why we find Kant starting his discussion of public right with this claim: however well disposed and right-loving men might be, it still lies a priori in the rational idea of such a condition (one that is not rightful) that before a public lawful condition is established individual human beings... can never be secure against violence from one another, since each has her own right to do what seems right and good to her and not be dependent upon another's opinion about this (6: 312).6 There are no rightful obligations in the state of nature, since in this condition might ('violence', or arbitrary judgments and 'opinion' about 'what seems right and good') rather than right (freedom under law) ultimately governs interactions. According to Kant, therefore, only the establishment of a public authority can enable interaction in ways reconcilable with each person's innate right to freedom. Moreover, only a public authority can ensure interaction consistent with what Kant argues are our innate rights (to bodily integrity and honor) and our acquired rights (to private prop- erty, contract and status relations). The reason is that only the public authority can solve the problems of assurance and indeterminacy without violating anyone's right to freedom. The public authority can solve these problems because it represents the will of all and yet the will of no one in particular. Because the public authority is representative in this way – by being "united a priori " or by being an "omnilateral" will (6: 263) – it can regulate on behalf of everyone rather than on behalf of anyone in particular. For these reasons, civil society is seen as the only means through which our interactions can become subject to universal laws that restrict everyone's freedom reciprocally rather than as subject to anyone's arbitrary choices." (46-47) 77 +B. The Neg Framework is inevitable because even if we remove the sovereign, everyone becomes their own sovereign. 78 +Parish 06, Rick, Violence Inevitable: The Play of Force and Respect in Derrida, Nietzsche, 2006, https://books.google.com/books?id=YC6OxLoixdgCandpg=PA55andlpg=PA55anddq=the+sovereign27s+job+is+to+be+an+ultimate+definer+peace+is+only+possibleandsource=blandots=3RPGXKlMNhandsig=TjzxedcCuuvmUIpqa5O1ZwqsFPwandhl=enandsa=Xandved=0CCAQ6AEwAGoVChMIuZXujP7lyAIVU9ZjCh3JOgvd~~#v=onepageandq=the20sovereign's20job20is20to20be20an20ultimate20definer20peace20is20only20possibleandf=false 79 +But even more significantly for his relationship with Derrida, Hobbes argues that in the state of nature persons must not only try to control as many objects as possible — they must also try to control as many persons as possible. "There is no way for any man to secure himself so reasonable as anticipation, that is, by force or wiles to master the persons of all men he can, so long till he see no other power great enough to endanger him. And this is no more than his own conservation requireth, and is generally allowed."37 While it is often assumed that by this Hobbes means a person will try to control others with physical force alone, when one approaches Hobbesian persons as meaning creators this control takes on a more discursive, arche-violent character. First," says Hobbes, "among ~~persons in the state of nature~~ there is a contestation of honour and preferment,"38 a discursive struggle not over what physical objects each person will possess, but over who or what will be considered valuable. Persons, as rationally self-interested beings who "measure, not only other men, but all other things, by themselves,"39 and value themselves above all others, attempt to force that valuation on others. "The human desire for 'glory', which in today's language translates not simply as the desire for prestige, but also the desire to acquire power over others," is therefore primarily about subsuming others beneath one's own personhood, as direct objects or merely phenomenal substances. As above, the inevitability of this situation is given by the fact that the primarily egoistic nature of all experience renders the other in a "state of empirical alter-ego"41 to oneself. Those who prefer a more directly materialistic reading of Hobbes may attempt to bolster their position by pointing to his comment that "the most frequent reason why men desire to hurt each other, ariseth hence, that many men at the same time have an appetite to the same thing; which yet very often they can neither enjoy in common, nor yet divide it; whence it follows that the strongest must have it, and who is strongest must be decided by the sword."42 This quote also supports my reading of Hobbes, because quite simply the primary thing all persons want but can never have in common is the status of the ultimate creator of meaning, the primary personhood, from which all other goods flow. Everyone, by their natures as creators of meaning whose "desire of power after power . . . ceaseth only in death,"43 tries to subsume others beneath their personhood in order to control these others and glorify themselves. As Piotr Hoffman puts it, "every individual acting under the right of nature views himself as the center of the universe; his aim is, quite simply and quite closely, to become a small "god among men," to use Plato's phrase."Hobbes argues that this discursive struggle rapidly becomes physical by writing that "every man thinking well of himself, and hating to see the same in others, they must needs provoke one another by words, and other signs of contempt and hatred, which are incident to all comparison, till at last they must determine the pre-eminence by strength and force of body."45 The ultimate violence, the surest and most complete way of removing a person's ability to create meaning, is to kill that person, and the escalating contentiousness of the state of nature makes life short in the war of all against all. But this does not render the fundamental reason for this violence any less discursive, any less based on "one's sense of self-importance in comparison with others"46 or human nature as a creator of meaningThree 80 +2 impacts 1) All DA's to my framework are non-unqiue because the sovereign will always exist. The only question is the sovereign's effectiveness and normative power, which the NC endorses. 2) Proves that even if the AC framework is true, it doesn't matter because the sovereign will always exist and shut off its normative power. 81 + 82 + 83 +==Contention== 84 +1. Public colleges are the sovereign- Supreme Court cases have explicitly ruled 85 +Buchter 73, Jonathan. "Contract law and the student-university relationship." Indiana Law Journal, vol. 48, issue. 2, article 5, Winter 1973. 86 +"This theoretical mixture was applied in student-university litigation until Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education was decided in 1961. Dixon held, generally, that a public university's actions were state actions and therefore subject to constitutional restraints and, more particularly, that a student must be afforded procedural due process prior to expulsion. However, the state action doctrine in Dixon has not replaced the implied contract theory. Courts still view the student-university relationship as one of contract with certain constitutional protections required if the institution is public. Thus, there may currently be some limits on what the public university may demand from the student. For example, a public university may not be able to deny a student certain first amendment rights. However, since the Dixon holding is limited to public institutions, a private university may be able to contract in such a way as to limit these constitutional rights." 87 +Thus colleges are under no obligations to retrict speech because they can do as they please. And status quo proves that they want restrictions. Even if the sovereign wished to restrict speech, it wouldn't be as a result of an obligation but merely self-interest, which answers aff turns. 88 +2. The aff allows seditious speech, which wills that individual have the right to subvert the sovereign and reinstitute the state of nature. 89 +Varden 2, "A Kantian Conception of Free Speech" by Helga Varden Chapter from: "Freedom of Expression in a Diverse World" edited by Deirdre Golash 2010 90 +"To understand Kant's condemnation of seditious speech, remember that Kant, as mentioned above, takes himself to have shown that justice is impossible in the state of nature or that there is no natural executive right. Since Kant considers himself to have successfully refuted any defense of the natural executive right, he takes himself also to have shown that no one has the right to stay in the state of nature. This, in turn, explains why Kant can and does consider seditious speech a public crime. The intention behind seditious speech is not merely to criticize the government or to discuss theories of government critically, say. In order to qualify as seditious, the speaker's intention must be to encourage and support efforts to subvert the government or to instigate its violent overthrow, namely revolution. To have such a right would be to have the right to destroy the state. Since the state is the means through which right is possible, such a right would involve having the right to annihilate right (6: 320). That is, since right is impossible in the state of nature, to have a right to subversion would be to have the right to replace right with might. Since the state is the only means through which right can replace might, the state outlaws it. And since it is a crime that "endanger~~s~~ the commonwealth" rather than citizens qua private citizens, it is a public crime (6: 331)." (52) - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-29 14:50:18.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Panel - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Harvard Westlake CE - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +62 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Quarters - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +West Ranch Won Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - Berkeley Quarters NC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Berkeley
- Caselist.RoundClass[51]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +50 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-02-20 01:00:58.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Braden James - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Brentwood RY - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,3 @@ 1 +1AC whole res resistance aff 2 +1NC funding da politics da case turns 3 +2NR DA's - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Berkeley
- Caselist.RoundClass[52]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +51 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-02-20 01:02:02.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +John Overing - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Dougherty Valley KD - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +4 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,3 @@ 1 +1AC whole res critical pedagogy aff 2 +1NC Safe Spaces K funding DA case turns 3 +2NR K and DA - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Berkeley
- Caselist.RoundClass[53]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +52 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-02-20 17:01:50.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Neel Yerneni - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Dougherty Valley CS - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +6 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,3 @@ 1 +1AC militarism aff 2 +1NC whistleblowers adv cp rape culture da funding da 3 +2NR everything - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Berkeley
- Caselist.RoundClass[54]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +53 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-03-05 16:57:21.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Zane Dille - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Elite of Irvine SS - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,3 @@ 1 +1AC lay 2 +1NC Funding DA structural violence NC 3 +2NR DA - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +USC
- Caselist.RoundClass[55]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +54 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-03-05 17:06:12.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Ayden Loeffler - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Malborough GK - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +3 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,3 @@ 1 +1AC dissent aff 2 +1NC funding DA politics DA case turns 3 +2NR Funding DA - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +USC
- Caselist.RoundClass[56]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +55 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-03-05 17:09:41.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Srividiya Desaraju - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Harvard Westlake EE - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +5 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,3 @@ 1 +1AC journalism aff 2 +1NC t-any t-written plagiarism PIC 3 +2NR PIC t-any - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +USC
- Caselist.RoundClass[58]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +56 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-29 13:39:35.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +John Overing - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Kamiak NB - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,3 @@ 1 +1AC aesthetics aff 2 +1NC Non consensual image distribution PIC structural violence FW case turns 3 +2NR PIC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +TOC
- Caselist.RoundClass[59]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-29 13:41:13.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Panel - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Loyola DW - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Octas - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,3 @@ 1 +1AC lyotard aff 2 +1NC safe spaces K funding DA case turns 3 +2NR K - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +USC
- Caselist.RoundClass[60]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-29 13:42:08.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Panel - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Brentwood WJ - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Quarters - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,3 @@ 1 +1AC whole res resistance aff 2 +1NC Safe Spaces K funding DA case turns 3 +2NR K and DA - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +USC
- Caselist.RoundClass[61]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +57 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-29 14:44:13.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Panel - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +West KN - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Triples - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,3 @@ 1 +1AC speech zones aff 2 +1NC T-any wilderson plan flaw case 3 +2NR T - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Berkeley
- Caselist.RoundClass[62]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +58 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-29 14:47:46.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Panel - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Harvard Westlake CE - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Quarters - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,3 @@ 1 +1AC whole res 2 +1NC standard text theory funding DA Hobbes NC case turns 3 +2NR NC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Berkeley
- Caselist.RoundClass[63]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-29 14:54:05.589 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Panel - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Lynbrook CW - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Semis - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,3 @@ 1 +1AC military colleges plan 2 +1NC T-colleges solomon amendment CP sexual assault DA 3 +2NR CP and DA - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Berkeley