Changes for page Westwood Mambapoor Aff
Summary
-
Objects (0 modified, 2 added, 13 removed)
- Caselist.CitesClass[3]
- Caselist.CitesClass[4]
- Caselist.CitesClass[5]
- Caselist.CitesClass[6]
- Caselist.CitesClass[7]
- Caselist.CitesClass[8]
- Caselist.CitesClass[9]
- Caselist.RoundClass[3]
- Caselist.RoundClass[4]
- Caselist.RoundClass[5]
- Caselist.RoundClass[6]
- Caselist.RoundClass[7]
- Caselist.RoundClass[8]
- Caselist.CitesClass[1]
- Caselist.RoundClass[1]
Details
- Caselist.CitesClass[3]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,107 +1,0 @@ 1 -=1AC – Arctic FNPP= 2 - 3 -==Framework== 4 - 5 -====The role of the ballot is to vote for the debater that presents the best governmental policy option.==== 6 -Nixon 2K (Themba-Nixon, Makani. Executive Director of The Praxis Project, a nonprofit organization helping communities use media and policy advocacy to advance health equity and justice~~, "Changing the Rules: What Public Policy Means for Organizing" Colorlines 3.2, 2000) 7 -Getting It in Writing Much of the work of framing what we stand for takes 8 -... 9 -should be. And then we must be committed to making it so. 10 - 11 -====I value morality, as per the evaluative term, ‘ought’ in the resolution.==== 12 - 13 -====The standard is minimizing suffering.==== 14 - 15 -====We ground our existence through experience. Practical reason is arbitrary, meaning sentience is the only non-arbitrary source of normativity. Pain is universally bad and pleasure is universally good. ==== 16 -Thomas **Nagel ‘86** ~~"The View From Nowhere", 1986~~ //AG 17 -I shall defend the unsurprising claim that sensory pleasure is good and pain bad, 18 -... 19 -such cases. There can be no reason to reject the appearances here. 20 - 21 -==Plan== 22 - 23 -====Plan Text: Countries should prohibit the production of Floating Nuclear Power Plants in the OSPAR region.==== 24 - 25 -====To clarify, that’s just the Arctic Ocean.==== 26 - 27 -====Floating Nuclear Power Plants are specifically bad in the arctic – high risk of accidents and annihilation of marine ecosystems.==== 28 -**KIMO et al 11 **(KIMO International (Kommunenes Internasjonale Miljøorganisasjon) a local authorities international environmental organization designed to give municipalities a political voice at regional, EU and international level. Greenpeace International is an independent global campaigning organization that acts to change attitudes and behavior, to protect and conserve the environment and to promote peace. "Concerns on Floating and Submerged Nuclear Power Plants," The OSPAR Commission. Deep Sea Research Part B. Oceanographic Literature Review 31.12. 2011. http://www.nuclearpolicy.info/docs/news/KIMO'OSPAR'Sellafield'FNPP.pdf) //WW JA 8/26/16 29 -*** OSPAR is basically the Arctic region. 30 -Recent developments in nuclear energy technology 31 -... 32 -requested to consider a ban on their use within the OSPAR Maritime region. 33 - 34 -==The Advantage is Environmental Damage== 35 - 36 -===2 Internal Link Scenarios=== 37 - 38 -====1 - Warmin==== 39 - 40 -====We’re on track to solve warming in the status-quo.==== 41 -**Khomami 9/3.** Nadia Khomami is a news reporter at the Guardian. She also writes features on music, politics and popular culture. You can follow her on Twitter. , 9-3-2016, "G20 summit: US and China ratify Paris climate change agreement," Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/sep/03/g20-summit-obama-to-make-climate-change-announcement-as-may-heads-to-china-live //RS 42 -The US has joined China to formally ratify the Paris agreement to curb climate- 43 -... 44 -expect a surge of ratifications around the UN Climate week later in September." 45 - 46 -====FNPPs erode the Arctic environment.==== 47 -**Nikitin et al 04** (Alexandr Konstantinovich Nikitin is a retired first rank captain and a former nuclear installations safety inspector for the Russian Ministry of Defense (1987-1992). He is an author of multiple publications concerning the problems of radiation safety in the northern seas. Vladimir Mikhailovich Desyatov is a trained shipbuilding engineer. He has also been a representative of the President of Russia in the Khabarovsk region Igor Victorovich Forofontov is the coordinator of the Greenpeace nuclear campaign in Russia. He graduated from the physics faculty of Leningrad State University. Yevgeney Yakovlevic Simonov is a senior engineer and chief of shift at the Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant (NPP), a nuclear operator on board the 900 series nuclear submarines and one of the heads of laboratory involved in the technical expert review of NPP project documentation. Ilya Borisovich Kolton was a scientific collaborator in the Kurchatov Institute within the technological-scientific centre of GosAtomNadzor. Alexey Vladimirovich Yablokov is a corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Science. He is a former environmental adviser to the Russian President and former chairman of the governmental commission on sea-dumping of radioactive wastes. Vladimir Mikhailovich Kuznetsov is a former head (1986-1993) of the Russian Federal Inspectorate for Nuclear and Radiation Safety’s (GosAtomNadzor) department for supervision and inspection of nuclear and radiation safety at atomic engineering installations. "FLOATING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IN RUSSIA: A THREAT TO THE ARCTIC, WORLD OCEANS AND NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY," Green Cross Russia Third edition Edited and published by "Agenstwo Rakurs Production" Ltd Moscow, 2004 ISBN 2004. http://www.greencross.ch/uploads/media/gc'fnpp'book.pdf) //TruLe 48 -*** IRG – Inert Radioactive Gases*** 49 -When normal operating of NPP the designers 50 -... 51 -as transit through a cavity of a protective shell and a vent pipe. 52 - 53 -====2 – Oil spills==== 54 - 55 -====FNPPs will be used to power oil rigs – the impact is major oil spills and annihilation of marine ecosystems.==== 56 -Robert **Hunziker 15** (Robert Hunziker. "Drilling and Nuclear Power in the Arctic", Counter Punch, 6-10-2015, http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/10/drilling-and-nuclear-power-in-the-arctic/)//DM Accessed 9-8-2016 57 -Not only that, but astonishingly, Russia is doubling down on its risky energy 58 -... 59 -to Shell’s response capabilities and to those of U.S. agencies. 60 - 61 -==Impacts== 62 - 63 -====Arctic oil spills and warming cause planetary extinction – the Arctic is a keystone ecosystem. ==== 64 -WWF 10 (World Wildlife Fund, "Drilling for Oil in the Arctic: Too Soon, Too Risky" 12/1/10, http://assets.worldwildlife.org/publications/393/files/original/Drilling'for'Oil'in'the'Arctic'Too'Soon'Too'Risky.pdf?1345753131)//WL 65 -The Arctic and the subarctic regions surrounding it are important for many reasons. One 66 -... 67 -of any credible and tested means of responding effectively to a major spill. 68 - 69 -====Deep sea biodiversity loss risks extinction ==== 70 -**Danovaro 8 **~~Professor Roberto Danovaro, Scitizen.Com, February 12, 2008. "Deep-Sea Biodiversity Conservation Needed to Avoid Ecosystem Collapse". http://scitizen.com/stories/Biodiversity/2008/02/Deep-Sea-Biodiversity-Conservation-Needed-to-Avoid-Ecosystem-Collapse/~~ 71 -The exploration of the abysses of our planet is one of the last frontiers of 72 -... 73 -for the sustainability of the functions of the largest ecosystems on the planet. 74 - 75 -====Biodiversity loss and global warming disproportionately harms minority groups – empirically proven with Arctic indigenous communities==== 76 -**Stepien 14** (Adam Stepien is a researcher at the Arctic Centre, University of Lapland, Finland. "Arctic Indigenous Peoples, Climate Change Impacts, and Adaptation," E-International Relations. April 10, 2014. http://www.e-ir.info/2014/04/10/arctic-indigenous-peoples-climate-change-impacts-and-adaptation/) //WW JA 8/27/16 77 -Identified impacts are numerous. Many Arctic indigenous communities are characterized by mixed economic systems 78 -... 79 -the appearance in the North of invasive species and vector-borne diseases. 80 - 81 -====There’s an unquestionable scientific consensus about warming. ==== 82 -**Nuccitelli 16** — Dana Nuccitelli, Climate Writer for the Guardian, Environmental Scientist at Tetra Tech—a private environmental consulting firm, holds an M.A. in Physics from the University of California-Davis and a B.A. in Astrophysics from the University of California-Berkeley, 2016 ("It’s settled: 90–100 of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming," Climate Consensus – The 97—a Guardian blog about climate change, April 13^^th^^, Available Online at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/apr/13/its-settled-90100-of-climate-experts-agree-on-human-caused-global-warming, Accessed 07-15-2016) 83 -There is an overwhelming expert scientific consensus on human-caused global warming. Authors 84 -... 85 -climate scientists, this paper should be the final word on the subject. 86 - 87 -====Russia will transition to renewables – multiple incentives.==== 88 -**Breyer 15.** Christian Breyer, Professor, 12-30-2015, "Russia can become one of the most energy-competitive areas based on renewables," LUT, http://www.lut.fi/web/en/news/-/asset'publisher/lGh4SAywhcPu/content/russia-can-become-one-of-the-most-energy-competitive-areas-based-on-renewables //RS 89 -A fully renewable energy system is achievable and economically viable in Russia and Central Asia 90 -... 91 --East Asia, South-East Asia, South America and Finland. 92 - 93 -==Underview== 94 - 95 -====1. Russia will have operating FNPPs in a month – plan uniquely key now.==== 96 -**Digges 15** (Charles Digges is an author for The Bellona Foundation and has a Bachelor’s and Master’s degree in Russian Literature from Harvard. He is also a journalist for a number of major newspapers and media companies worldwide such as The Moscow Times, the International Herald Tribune, BBC, The Nation and The Amsterdam Volkskraant. "Arctic-hopping Russian Deputy Minister promises floating nuclear plant by next year," The Bellona Foundation. April 23, 2015. http://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/nuclear-russia/2015-04-arctic-hopping-russian-deputy-minister-promises-russias-floating-nuclear-plant-next-year) //WW JA 8/27/16 97 -After years of delays and promises, Russia’s first floating nuclear power plant is now 98 -... 99 -not, it could end up as another orphaned, dangerous nuclear installation." 100 - 101 -====2. Ask if I will meet your interp in CX; avoids unnecessary theory- we can work something out; this allows for greater substantive debate which is the only form of education unique to debate – education at school is just soaking in information. Grant me an auto I meet on theory if the interp isn’t checked in cross-ex to discourage non-checking.==== 102 - 103 -====3. Moving away from the state dooms the lefts’ critique to failure - must work within the state without being statist==== 104 -Connolly 8 ~~William, Professor of Political Science at John Hopkins, Capitalism and Christianity, American Style, page numbers are at the bottom of the card.~~ 105 -Before turning to possible strategies to promote these objectives, we need to face an 106 -... 107 -were it to occur, would undermine rather than vitalize democratic culture.29 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-03 01:57:41.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -All - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -All - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood Mambapoor Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -SEPOCT - 1AC - Arctic FNPP v1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Grapevine
- Caselist.CitesClass[4]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,130 +1,0 @@ 1 -=1AC – Arctic FNPP= 2 - 3 - 4 -==Framework== 5 - 6 - 7 -====The role of the ballot is to vote for the debater that presents the best governmental policy option – key to out of round advocacy skills.==== 8 -Nixon 2K (Themba-Nixon, Makani. Executive Director of The Praxis Project, a nonprofit organization helping communities use media and policy advocacy to advance health equity and justice~~, "Changing the Rules: What Public Policy Means for Organizing" Colorlines 3.2, 2000) 9 -Getting It in Writing Much of the work of framing what we stand for takes 10 -... 11 -should be. And then we must be committed to making it so. 12 - 13 - 14 -====I value morality, as per the evaluative term, ‘ought’ in the resolution.==== 15 - 16 - 17 -====The standard is minimizing suffering.==== 18 - 19 - 20 -====We ground our existence through experience. Practical reason is arbitrary, meaning sentience is the only non-arbitrary source of normativity. Pain is universally bad and pleasure is universally good. ==== 21 -Thomas **Nagel ‘86** ~~"The View From Nowhere", 1986~~ //AG 22 -I shall defend the unsurprising claim that sensory pleasure is good and pain bad, 23 -... 24 -such cases. There can be no reason to reject the appearances here. 25 - 26 - 27 -==Plan== 28 - 29 - 30 -====Plan Text: Countries should prohibit the production of Floating Nuclear Power Plants in the OSPAR region. I reserve the right to clarify anything about the plan in cx.==== 31 - 32 - 33 -====Floating Nuclear Power Plants are specifically bad in the arctic – high risk of accidents and annihilation of marine ecosystems.==== 34 -**KIMO 11 **(KIMO International (Kommunenes Internasjonale Miljøorganisasjon) a local authorities international environmental organization designed to give municipalities a political voice at regional, EU and international level. Greenpeace International is an independent global campaigning organization that acts to change attitudes and behavior, to protect and conserve the environment and to promote peace. "Concerns on Floating and Submerged Nuclear Power Plants," The OSPAR Commission. Deep Sea Research Part B. Oceanographic Literature Review 31.12. 2011. http://www.nuclearpolicy.info/docs/news/KIMO'OSPAR'Sellafield'FNPP.pdf) //WW JA 8/26/16 35 -*** OSPAR is basically the Arctic region. 36 -Recent developments in nuclear energy technology 37 -... 38 -requested to consider a ban on their use within the OSPAR Maritime region. 39 - 40 - 41 -==The Advantage is Environmental Damage== 42 - 43 - 44 -===Two Internal Link Scenarios=== 45 - 46 - 47 -====1 – Warming==== 48 - 49 - 50 -====We’re on track to solve warming in the status-quo.==== 51 -**Khomami 16.** Nadia Khomami is a news reporter at the Guardian. She also writes features on music, politics and popular culture. You can follow her on Twitter. , 9-3-2016, "G20 summit: US and China ratify Paris climate change agreement," Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/sep/03/g20-summit-obama-to-make-climate-change-announcement-as-may-heads-to-china-live //RS 52 -The US has joined China to formally ratify the Paris agreement to curb climate- 53 -... 54 -expect a surge of ratifications around the UN Climate week later in September." 55 - 56 - 57 -====FNPPs erode the Arctic environment.==== 58 -**Nikitin 04** (Alexandr Konstantinovich Nikitin is a retired first rank captain and a former nuclear installations safety inspector for the Russian Ministry of Defense (1987-1992). He is an author of multiple publications concerning the problems of radiation safety in the northern seas. Vladimir Mikhailovich Desyatov is a trained shipbuilding engineer. He has also been a representative of the President of Russia in the Khabarovsk region Igor Victorovich Forofontov is the coordinator of the Greenpeace nuclear campaign in Russia. He graduated from the physics faculty of Leningrad State University. Yevgeney Yakovlevic Simonov is a senior engineer and chief of shift at the Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant (NPP), a nuclear operator on board the 900 series nuclear submarines and one of the heads of laboratory involved in the technical expert review of NPP project documentation. Ilya Borisovich Kolton was a scientific collaborator in the Kurchatov Institute within the technological-scientific centre of GosAtomNadzor. Alexey Vladimirovich Yablokov is a corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Science. He is a former environmental adviser to the Russian President and former chairman of the governmental commission on sea-dumping of radioactive wastes. Vladimir Mikhailovich Kuznetsov is a former head (1986-1993) of the Russian Federal Inspectorate for Nuclear and Radiation Safety’s (GosAtomNadzor) department for supervision and inspection of nuclear and radiation safety at atomic engineering installations. "FLOATING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IN RUSSIA: A THREAT TO THE ARCTIC, WORLD OCEANS AND NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY," Green Cross Russia Third edition Edited and published by "Agenstwo Rakurs Production" Ltd Moscow, 2004 ISBN 2004. http://www.greencross.ch/uploads/media/gc'fnpp'book.pdf) //TruLe 59 -*** IRG – Inert Radioactive Gases*** 60 -When normal operating of NPP the designers 61 -... 62 -as transit through a cavity of a protective shell and a vent pipe. 63 - 64 - 65 -====2 – Oil spills==== 66 - 67 - 68 -====FNPPs will be used to power oil rigs – the impact is major oil spills and annihilation of marine ecosystems.==== 69 -**Hunziker 15.** (Robert Hunziker. "Drilling and Nuclear Power in the Arctic", Counter Punch, 6-10-2015, http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/10/drilling-and-nuclear-power-in-the-arctic/)//DM Accessed 9-8-2016 70 -Not only that, but astonishingly, Russia is doubling down on its risky energy 71 -... 72 -to Shell’s response capabilities and to those of U.S. agencies. 73 - 74 - 75 -===Impacts=== 76 - 77 - 78 -====Arctic oil spills and warming cause planetary extinction – the Arctic is a keystone ecosystem. ==== 79 -WWF 10 (World Wildlife Fund, "Drilling for Oil in the Arctic: Too Soon, Too Risky" 12/1/10, http://assets.worldwildlife.org/publications/393/files/original/Drilling'for'Oil'in'the'Arctic'Too'Soon'Too'Risky.pdf?1345753131)//WL 80 -The Arctic and the subarctic regions surrounding it are important for many reasons. One 81 -... 82 -of any credible and tested means of responding effectively to a major spill. 83 - 84 - 85 -====Deep sea biodiversity loss risks extinction ==== 86 -**Danovaro 8 **~~Professor Roberto Danovaro, Scitizen.Com, February 12, 2008. "Deep-Sea Biodiversity Conservation Needed to Avoid Ecosystem Collapse". http://scitizen.com/stories/Biodiversity/2008/02/Deep-Sea-Biodiversity-Conservation-Needed-to-Avoid-Ecosystem-Collapse/~~ 87 -The exploration of the abysses of our planet is one of the last frontiers of 88 -... 89 -for the sustainability of the functions of the largest ecosystems on the planet. 90 - 91 - 92 -====Biodiversity loss and warming destroy Arctic indigenous communities.==== 93 -**Stepien 14** (Adam Stepien is a researcher at the Arctic Centre, University of Lapland, Finland. "Arctic Indigenous Peoples, Climate Change Impacts, and Adaptation," E-International Relations. April 10, 2014. http://www.e-ir.info/2014/04/10/arctic-indigenous-peoples-climate-change-impacts-and-adaptation/) //WW JA 8/27/16 94 -Identified impacts are numerous. Many Arctic indigenous communities are characterized by mixed economic systems 95 -... 96 -the appearance in the North of invasive species and vector-borne diseases. 97 - 98 - 99 -====Russia is shifting to renewables in the status-quo regardless of the plan.==== 100 -**Breyer 15.** Christian Breyer, Professor, 12-30-2015, "Russia can become one of the most energy-competitive areas based on renewables," LUT, http://www.lut.fi/web/en/news/-/asset'publisher/lGh4SAywhcPu/content/russia-can-become-one-of-the-most-energy-competitive-areas-based-on-renewables //RS 101 -A fully renewable energy system is achievable and economically viable in Russia and Central Asia 102 -... 103 --East Asia, South-East Asia, South America and Finland. 104 - 105 - 106 -====Russian FNPPs are located in seismic hotspots. Earthquake related devastation is inevitable.==== 107 -**Andreyev 11** (Alexandr Konstantinovich Nikitin is a retired first rank captain and a former nuclear installations safety inspector for the Russian Ministry of Defense (1987-1992). He is an author of multiple publications concerning the problems of radiation safety in the northern seas. Leonid Andreyev is a Doctor of Economics and an economics expert for the Bellona Foundation. "Floating nuclear power plants," The Bellona Foundation. 2011. http://bellona.no/assets/sites/4/Floating-nuclear-power-plants.pdf) //WW JA 8/26/16 108 -In terms of extreme impacts caused by natural forces and taking all possible factors into 109 -... 110 -powerful tsunami wave, a nuclear accident with grave consequences will be unavoidable. 111 - 112 - 113 -==U/V== 114 - 115 - 116 -====Give Aff RVIs on T/Theory. A) Strat skew- NC theory is a priori and renders the 1ac useless. They get 6 minutes to respond to a 4 minute 1ar. The neg doesn’t need an RVI because they have twice the rebuttal time. B) Discourages bad theory because debaters won’t run it frivolously if they know they can lose on it. C) No-risk issues hurt education because they provide competitive incentive to kick the shell instead of clashing. Prefer on grounds of reciprocity – I have to defend a policy they should too.==== 117 - 118 - 119 -====Even if my representations aren’t completely accurate- Our framing drives action that’s necessary to resolve problems in the status quo.==== 120 -**Schatz 12** (Jul. 2012. Dr. JL Schatz is a PhD. and professor at Binghamton University. He teaches Media and Politics, Argumentative Theory, and Literature and Technology. "The Importance of Apocalypse: The Value of End-of-the-World Politics While Advancing Ecocriticism" The Journal of Ecocriticism. A peer reviewed journal. http://ojs.unbc.ca/index.php/joe/article/viewFile/394/382) //WW JA 7/14/16 121 -It is no longer a question that human interaction with the world is destroying the 122 -... 123 -either ecological metaphors or environmental reality we only get part of the picture.` 124 - 125 - 126 -====Theories that can’t create material change in the real world are counter-productive and threaten actual solutions to oppression.==== 127 -**Curry 14** (Tommy J. "The Cost of a Thing: A Kingian Reformulation of a Living Wage Argument in the 21st Century" (2014) Victory Briefs, p. 55-56 Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, Texas AandM) 128 -Despite the pronouncement of debate as an activity and intellectual exercise pointing to the real 129 -... 130 -used to currently justify the living wages in under our contemporary moral parameters. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-03 01:58:42.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Brenden Dimmig - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Immaculate Heart DD - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood Mambapoor Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -SEPOCT - 1AC - Arctic FNPP v2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -St Marks
- Caselist.CitesClass[5]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,105 +1,0 @@ 1 -===Part 1 is The Fence=== 2 - 3 - 4 -====Qualified immunity gives the US Border Patrol a shield under which it brutally tortures and kills Mexicans.==== 5 -**Kennis 16.** (Andrew Kennis. Andrew Kennis is an international journalist, a higher education pedagogue and an academic researcher specializing in Digital Journalism Studies, Communication Policy Studies, Global Media, Political Communication, Political Economy and International Communications. Dr. Kennis was recently appointed as a Visiting Assistant Professor at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), where he will teach several courses, including a graduate seminar analyzing the news media and the drug war. He recently completed his third year as an Assistant Professor at the University of Texas, El Paso (UTEP), where he undertook research on and taught courses in journalism studies and practice, global media and the drug war. While publishing peer-reviewed, scholarly research and completing grant-funded studies, Dr. Kennis still continues to practice journalism from many corners of the globe. As a researcher, Dr. Kennis has published in peer review journals ranging across three different disciplines (communications, political science and technology studies). He has won top conference paper awards and presented his work in both the United States and abroad (London, Tokyo, Vancouver and Mexico City). University-level courses Dr. Kennis has designed and taught have included "Multimedia Writing," "Investigative and Public Affairs Reporting," "Digital Media and Globalization," "Global Media, Money and Power," "Media and the Drug War," "Media and Democracy," "Politics and the Media," and other classes in political science, policy studies and society and technology studies. As a journalist, Dr. Kennis has practiced online-based / convergence reporting, investigative and print reporting, citizen journalism, and online-based and traditional radio throughout the last fifteen years. He has reported from locations based in four continents and over twenty countries across the globe, including on-the-scene reporting from the El Paso / Ciudad Juarez border corridor, Brazil, Colombia, Israel and the Occupied Territories, Japan, Venezuela, Taiwan, Guatemala and Mexico. Dr. Kennis served as the border correspondent for teleSUR's English division and has also published in a variety of news sources, including The Christian Science Monitor, Al Jazeera English, teleSUR English, Proceso (Mexico), Time Out, emeequis (Mexico). His work has resulted in invited on-air expert appearances on both live international television and radio broadcasts. "Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Case That Challenges Cross-Border Killings by US Agents". 03/30/16. https://news.vice.com/article/supreme-court-cross-border-killing-patrol-agent-usa-mexico) //TruLe 6 -Sergio Adrián Hernández was a slender 15-year-old boy who loved soccer 7 -... 8 -in light of the pending decision to be taken by the Supreme Court. 9 - 10 - 11 -====The Border Patrol systematically uses the legal system as a tool to hide their violence and to absolve themselves of any responsibility.==== 12 -Bennett 15. Brian Bennett, 6-15-2015, "Border Patrol absolves itself in dozens of cases of lethal force," La Times, http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-border-patrol-shootings-20150615-story.html//AD 13 -A U.S. Border Patrol agent who killed an unarmed 15-year 14 -... 15 -. The official autopsy says Rodriguez was hit eight times in the back. 16 - 17 - 18 -====Qualified Immunity is used to commit racialized genocide at the border.==== 19 -Dunn 01. Dunn, Timothy J. "Border Militarization Via Drug And Immigration enforcement: Human Rights Implications." Social Justice, vol. 28, no. 2 (84), 2001, pp. 7–30. www.jstor.org/stable/29768073.//AD 20 -Military collaboration with the Border Patrol in the U.S.-Mexico border region 21 -... 22 -so will likely fan the mania for border enforcement and endanger human rights. 23 - 24 - 25 -===Part 2 is The Resistance=== 26 - 27 - 28 -====Plan text: The Supreme Court of the United States should limit qualified immunity for Border Patrol Agents. To clarify the Supreme Court should rule in favor of Hernandez in the ongoing Hernandez V. Mesa court case. I reserve the right to clarify in cx.==== 29 - 30 - 31 -====The plan sets a precedent that holds Border Patrol agents accountable.==== 32 -**TNAP 10/21 **(The Tucson News Associated Press frequently writes articles on local and national news related to the Tucson area. "Appeals court considers claim against agent in fatal cross-border shooting," Tucson.com. October 21, 2016. http://tucson.com/news/local/border/appeals-court-considers-claim-against-agent-in-fatal-cross-border/article'fe6f3ae8-97bc-11e6-9d7f-bb001c158b16.html) //WW JA 11/4/16 33 -Allowing a Border Patrol agent to escape trial for shooting a Mexican teen through the 34 -... 35 -no precedent set, freeing the 9th Circuit to reach its own conclusion. 36 - 37 - 38 -====The plan is key to accountability and spills over – we catalyze institutional reform.==== 39 -**De Stefan 16.** (Lindsey De Stefan is a former lawyer for Maceri and da Costa LLC and currently works for Seton Hall Law Review, 2017, " "No Man Is Above the Law and No Man Is Below It:" How Qualified Immunity Reform Could Create Accountability and Curb Widespread Police Misconduct," Law School Student Scholarship, http://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1861andamp;context=student'scholarship) //RS 40 -Irrespective of whether there has been an increase in the incidence of brutality or whether 41 -... 42 -step in decreasing the overall incidence of police misconduct in the United States. 43 - 44 - 45 -====They continue:==== 46 -By beginning to mend the qualified immunity doctrine 47 -... 48 -surely be a long path to rebuilding the trust that is so crucial. 49 - 50 - 51 -====Action must be grounded in anti-militarist epistemology – our literal reading of this aff is key to rupture dominant nationalist framing of the border.==== 52 -**Chávez 12** (Karma R. Chávez is an associate professor of rhetoric, politics, and culture at University of Wisconsin-Madison. Ph.D. Arizona State University, 2007. M.A. University of Alabama, 2003. M.A. University of Alabama, 2002. "Border Interventions: The need to Shift from a Rhetoric of Security to a Rhetoric of Militarization," 2012) //JA 11/24/15 53 -Scholars of rhetoric and performance have opened important terrains in the study of immigration and 54 -... 55 -are conflated, similarly to how undocumented migration and drug trafficking were conflated. 56 - 57 - 58 -====Anti-militarist knowledge production precedes T/Theory:==== 59 - 60 - 61 -====1~~ Militarism controls education – it has seeped into the debate space and corrupted our epistemology.==== 62 - 63 - 64 -====2~~ The 1AC appeals to social fairness i.e. the inclusion of minorities in political discourse – outweighs any trivial versions of fairness in the game of debate.==== 65 - 66 - 67 -====3~~ No impact to theory – people won’t stop being abusive after this round, but the classroom should be a focal point of resistance – militarism manifests itself in the debate space by silencing deviant viewpoints and rigorously conditioning students to accept the culture of war.==== 68 - 69 - 70 -===Part 3 is The Mechanism=== 71 - 72 - 73 -====The role of the ballot is to vote for the debater that best ruptures the ideology of militarization that has infected the public sphere. Resistance to the police state is a prior question. ==== 74 -**Giroux 04.** (Henry A. Giroux is an American and Canadian scholar and cultural critic. One of the founding theorists of critical pedagogy in the United States, he is best known for his pioneering work in public pedagogy, cultural studies, youth studies, higher education, media studies, and critical theory. "War on Terror The Militarising of Public Space and Culture in the United States", Third Text, Vol. 18, Issue 4, 2004. http://www.henryagiroux.com/online'articles/Third20Text202004-war20on20terror.pdf) //JA 11/26/15 75 -As militarisation spreads its influence both at home and abroad, a culture of fear 76 -... 77 -which a democratic future both at home and abroad stands in the balance. 78 - 79 - 80 -====Debates over qualified immunity require a focus on consequences.==== 81 -**Chen 97.** Alan Chen is a leading national expert in free speech doctrine and theory, 1997, " THE BURDENS OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY: SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND THE ROLE OF FACTS IN CONSTITUTIONAL TORT LAW," The American University Law Review, http://www.americanuniversitylawreview.org/pdfs/47/47-1/chen.pdf //RS 82 -In the modem constitutional era, the Court defines the scope of substantive constitutional law 83 -... 84 -decisionmaker determines the outcome by evaluating which interest or value is "weightier." 85 - 86 - 87 -====Pure critique is useless without concrete solutions and moving away from the state dooms the left’s critique to failure – must work within the state without being statist==== 88 -**Connolly 08.** (William, Professor of Political Science at John Hopkins, Capitalism and Christianity, American Style, page numbers are at the bottom of the card.) 89 -Before turning to possible strategies to promote these objectives, we need to face an 90 -... 91 -were it to occur, would undermine rather than vitalize democratic culture.29 92 - 93 - 94 -====Inequality creates flawed epistemic conclusions, making normative decision making impossible.==== 95 -**Medina 11.** Medina, J. (2011). Toward a Foucaultian Epistemology of Resistance: Counter-Memory, Epistemic Friction, and Guerrilla Pluralism. Foucault Studies, 1(12), 9–35 96 -Foucault invites us to pay attention to the past and ongoing epistemic battles among competing 97 -... 98 -until past epistemic battles are reopened and established frameworks become open to contestation. 99 - 100 - 101 -====Particularism is good—root cause claims and focus on overarching structures ignore application to material injustice.==== 102 -Gregory Fernando Pappas 16 ~~Texas AandM University~~ "The Pragmatists’ Approach to Injustice", The Pluralist Volume 11, Number 1, Spring 2016, BE 103 -The pragmatists’ approach should be distinguished from nonideal theories whose starting point seems to be 104 -... 105 -in making us see aspects of injustices we would not otherwise appreciate.15 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-03 02:02:24.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Castillo, Chris - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Athens DR - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood Mambapoor Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -NOVDEC - 1AC - Border Patrol - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -University of Austin
- Caselist.CitesClass[6]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,129 +1,0 @@ 1 -=Strake 1AC= 2 - 3 - 4 -===Framework=== 5 - 6 - 7 -====Resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech.==== 8 - 9 - 10 -====I value morality.==== 11 - 12 - 13 -====First, to evaluate ethical judgments we must interrogate ontologies of exclusion to filter out ethical biases.==== 14 -Butler 09. Judith Butler, "Frames of War: When is Life Grievable?" Jan 1st 2009, Pg.138, http://books.google.com/books/about/Frames'of'War.html?id=ga7hAAAAMAAJ 15 -We ask such normative questions as if we know what we mean by the subjects even as we do not always know how best to represent or recognize various subjects. Indeed, the “we” who asks such questions for the most part assumes that the problem is a normative one, namely, how best to arrange political life so that recognition and representation can take place. And though surely this is a crucial, if not the most crucial, normative question to ask, we cannot possibly approach an answer if we do not consider the ontology of the subject whose recognition and representation is at issue. Moreover, any inquiry into that ontology requires that we consider another level at which the normative operates, namely, through norms that produce the idea of the human who is worthy of recognition and representation at all. That is to say, we cannot ask and answer the most commonly understood normative questions, regarding how best to represent or recognize such subjects, if we fail to understand the differential of power at work that distinguishes between those subjects who will be eligible for recognition and those who will not. 16 - 17 - 18 -====Morality mandates expression of all voices, which necessarily prohibits structural oppression.==== 19 -Young 74. Iris Marion Young, Professor in Political Science at the University of Chicago since 2000, masters and doctorate in philosophy in 1974 from Pennsylvania State University. ~~"Justice and the Politics of Difference". Princeton University Press, 1990, Digital Copy.~~ 20 -Group representation, third, encourages the expression of individual ¶ and group needs and interests in terms that appeal to justice, that transform an "I want" into an "I am entitled to," in Hannah Pitkin's words. In ¶ Chapter 4 I argued that publicity itself encourages this transformation ¶ because a condition of the public is that people call one another to account. Group representation adds to such accountability because it serves as an antidote to self-deceiving self-interest masked as an impartial or general interest. Unless confronted with different perspectives on social relations and events, different values and language, most people tend to assert their perspective as universal. When social privilege allows some group perspectives to dominate a public while others are silent, such universalizing of the particular will be reaffirmed by many others. Thus the test of whether a claim upon the public is just or merely an expression of self interest is best made when those making it must confront the opinion of ¶ others who have explicitly with different, though not necessarily conflicting, ¶ experiences, priorities, and needs (cf. Sunstein, 1988, p. 1588). As a person of social privilege, I am more likely to go outside myself and have ¶ regard for social justice when I must listen to the voice of those my privilege otherwise tends to silence. 21 - 22 - 23 -====Thus the standard is combatting structural violence.==== 24 - 25 - 26 -====Prefer consequence-based frameworks:==== 27 - 28 - 29 -====Only naturalism is epistemically accessible==== 30 -**Papinaeu 11** ~~David Papineau, "Naturalism," Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2007~~ 31 -Moore took this argument to show that moral facts comprise a distinct species of non-natural fact. However, any such non-naturalist view of morality faces immediate difficulties, deriving ultimately from the kind of causal closure thesis discussed above. If all physical effects are due to a limited range of natural causes, and if moral facts lie outside this range, then it follow that moral facts can never make any difference to what happens in the physical world (Harman, 1986). At first sight this may seem tolerable (perhaps moral facts indeed don't have any physical effects). But it has very awkward epistemological consequences. For beings like us, knowledge of the spatiotemporal world is mediated by physical processes involving our sense organs and cognitive systems. If moral facts cannot influence the physical world, then it is hard to see how we can have any knowledge of them. 32 - 33 - 34 -====Intentions and states of being are non-falsifiable and can only be informed by hypothetical consequences==== 35 - 36 - 37 -====Life is a pre-requisite to agency and freedom – that justifies exceptions to hyper-individualist ethics==== 38 - 39 - 40 -====Experience is epistemic – it is how we empirically ground our existence. Pain is universally bad and pleasure is universally good.==== 41 -**Nagel ‘86**. Thomas ~~"The View From Nowhere", 1986~~ 42 -I shall defend the unsurprising claim that sensory pleasure is good and pain bad, no matter who’s they are. The point of the exercise is to see how the pressures of objectification operate in a simple case. Physical pleasure and pain do not usually depend on activities or desires which themselves raise questions of justification and value. They are just is a sensory experiences in relation to which we are fairly passive, but toward which we feel involuntary desire or aversion. Almost everyone takes the avoidance of his own pain and the promotion of his own pleasure as subjective reasons for action in a fairly simple way; they are not back up by any further reasons. On the other hand if someone pursues pain or avoids pleasure, either it as a means to some end or it is backed up by dark reasons like guilt or sexual masochism. What sort of general value, if any, ought to be assigned to pleasure and pain when we consider these facts from an objective standpoint? What kind of judgment can we reasonably make about these things when we view them in abstraction from who we are? We can begin by asking why there is no plausibility in the zero position, that pleasure and pain have no value of any kind that can be objectively recognized. That would mean that I have no reason to take aspirin for a severe headache, however I may in fact be motivated; and that looking at it from outside, you couldn't even say that someone had a reason not to put his hand on a hot stove, just because of the pain… Without some positive reason to think there is nothing in itself good or bad about having an experience you intensely like or dislike, we can't seriously regard the common impression to the contrary as a collective illusion. Such things are at least good or bad for us, if anything is. What seems to be going on here is that we cannot from an objective standpoint withhold a certain kind of endorsement of the most direct and immediate subjective value judgments we make concerning the contents of our own consciousness. We regard ourselves as too close to those things to be mistaken in our immediate, nonideological evaluative impressions. No objective view we can attain could possibly overrule our subjective authority in such cases. There can be no reason to reject the appearances here. 43 - 44 - 45 -====Only consequence-based ethics can drive action – neuroimaging shows it’s the most intuitive ethical theory==== 46 -**Greene 07** Professor Joshua Greene of Harvard writes; Greene, J. D. (2007). The secret joke of Kant's soul, in Moral Psychology, Vol. 3: The Neuroscience of Morality: Emotion, Disease, and Development, W. Sinnott-Armstrong, Ed., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. 47 -To summarize, people’s moral judgments appear to be products of at least two different kinds of psychological processes. First, both brain imaging and reaction-time data suggest that there are prepotent negative emotional responses that drive people to disapprove of the personally harmful actions proposed in cases like the footbridge and crying baby dilemmas. These responses are characteristic of deontology, but not of consequentialism. Second, further brain imaging results suggest that “cognitive” psychological processes can compete with the aforementioned emotional processes, driving people to approve of personally harmful moral violations, primarily when there is a strong consequentialist rationale for doing so, as in the crying baby case. The parts of the brain that exhibit increased activity when people make characteristically consequentialist judgments are those that are most closely associated with higher cognitive functions such as executive control (Koechlin et al., 2003; Miller and Cohen, 2001), complex planning (Koechlin, Basso, Pietrini, Panzer, and Grafman, 1999), deductive and inductive reasoning (Goel and Dolan, 2004), taking the long view in economic decision making (McClure, Laibson, Loewenstein, and Cohen., 2004), and so on. Moreover, these brain regions are among those most dramatically expanded in humans compared with other primates (Allman, Hakeem, and Watson, 2002). 48 - 49 - 50 -===Advantage 1: Oppression=== 51 - 52 - 53 -====Free speech eliminates structures of oppression –==== 54 - 55 - 56 -====It allows us to identify racists so that we can persuade them otherwise; this solves the root cause of oppression.==== 57 -ACLU 16. American Civil Liberties Union. ~~For almost 100 years, the ACLU has worked to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States.~~, "Hate Speech on Campus", ACLU, 2016. https://www.aclu.org/other/hate-speech-campus//AD 58 -Many universities, under pressure to respond to the concerns of those who are the objects of hate, have adopted codes or policies prohibiting speech that offends any group based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation. That's the wrong response, well-meaning or not. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content. Speech codes adopted by government-financed state colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution. And the ACLU believes that all campuses should adhere to First Amendment principles because academic freedom is a bedrock of education in a free society. How much we value the right of free speech is put to its severest test when the speaker is someone we disagree with most. Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way of life warrants the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible: When one of us is denied this right, all of us are denied. Since its founding in 1920, the ACLU has fought for the free expression of all ideas, popular or unpopular. That's the constitutional mandate. Where racist, sexist and homophobic speech is concerned, the ACLU believes that more speech ~-~- not less ~-~- is the best revenge. This is particularly true at universities, whose mission is to facilitate learning through open debate and study, and to enlighten. Speech codes are not the way to go on campuses, where all views are entitled to be heard, explored, supported or refuted. Besides, when hate is out in the open, people can see the problem. Then they can organize effectively to counter bad attitudes, possibly change them, and forge solidarity against the forces of intolerance. College administrators may find speech codes attractive as a quick fix, but as one critic put it: "Verbal purity is not social change." Codes that punish bigoted speech treat only the symptom: The problem itself is bigotry. The ACLU believes that instead of opting for gestures that only appear to cure the disease, universities have to do the hard work of recruitment to increase faculty and student diversity; counseling to raise awareness about bigotry and its history, and changing curricula to institutionalize more inclusive approaches to all subject matter. 59 - 60 - 61 -====Restrictions on hate speech fail – they’ll just repackage the message using a dog-whistle.==== 62 -**Malik 12** (Kenan Malik, I am a writer, lecturer and broadcaster. My latest book is The Quest for a Moral Compass: A Global History of Ethics, "why hate speech should not be banned", April 12, 2012, https://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2012/04/19/why-hate-speech-should-not-be-banned/) 63 -Kenan Malik: I am not sure that ‘hate speech’ is a particularly useful concept. Much is said and written, of course, that is designed to promote hatred. But it makes little sense to lump it all together in a single category, especially when hatred is such a contested concept. In a sense, hate speech restriction has become a means not of addressing specific issues about intimidation or incitement, but of enforcing general social regulation. This is why if you look at hate speech laws across the world, there is no consistency about what constitutes hate speech. Britain bans abusive, insulting, and threatening speech. Denmark and Canada ban speech that is insulting and degrading. India and Israel ban speech that hurts religious feelings and incites racial and religious hatred. In Holland, it is a criminal offense deliberately to insult a particular group. Australia prohibits speech that offends, insults, humiliates, or intimidates individuals or groups. Germany bans speech that violates the dignity of, or maliciously degrades or defames, a group. And so on. In each case, the law defines hate speech in a different way. One response might be to say: Let us define hate speech much more tightly. I think, however, that the problem runs much deeper. Hate speech restriction is a means not of tackling bigotry but of rebranding certain, often obnoxious, ideas or arguments as immoral. It is a way of making certain ideas illegitimate without bothering politically to challenge them. And that is dangerous. 64 - 65 -====Spillover effect – challenging oppression in everyday discussions is key to shaping larger cultural landscapes.==== 66 -**Malik 2** (Kenan Malik, I am a writer, lecturer and broadcaster. My latest book is The Quest for a Moral Compass: A Global History of Ethics, "why hate speech should not be banned", April 12, 2012, https://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2012/04/19/why-hate-speech-should-not-be-banned/) 67 -Much of what we call hate speech consists, however, of claims that may be contemptible but yet are accepted by many as morally defensible. Hence I am wary of the argument that some sentiments are so immoral they can simply be condemned without being contested. First, such blanket condemnations are often a cover for the inability or unwillingness politically to challenge obnoxious sentiments. Second, in challenging obnoxious sentiments, we are not simply challenging those who spout such views; we are also challenging the potential audience for such views. Dismissing obnoxious or hateful views as not worthy of response may not be the best way of engaging with such an audience. Whether or not an obnoxious claim requires a reply depends, therefore, not simply on the nature of the claim itself, but also on the potential audience for that claim. 68 - 69 - 70 -====This solves – empirics prove you can’t eliminate bigotry by banning it.==== 71 -**Malik 3** (Kenan Malik, I am a writer, lecturer and broadcaster. My latest book is The Quest for a Moral Compass: A Global History of Ethics, "why hate speech should not be banned", April 12, 2012, https://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2012/04/19/why-hate-speech-should-not-be-banned/) 72 -And in practice, you cannot reduce or eliminate bigotry simply by banning it. You simply let the sentiments fester underground. As Milton once put it, to keep out ‘evil doctrine’ by licensing is ‘like the exploit of that gallant man who thought to pound up the crows by shutting his Park-gate’. Take Britain. In 1965, Britain prohibited incitement to racial hatred as part of its Race Relations Act. The following decade was probably the most racist in British history. It was the decade of ‘Paki-bashing’, when racist thugs would seek out Asians to beat up. It was a decade of firebombings, stabbings, and murders. In the early 1980s, I was organizing street patrols in East London to protect Asian families from racist attacks. Nor were thugs the only problem. Racism was woven into the fabric of public institutions. The police, immigration officials – all were openly racist. In the twenty years between 1969 and 1989, no fewer than thirty-seven blacks and Asians were killed in police custody – almost one every six months. The same number again died in prisons or in hospital custody. When in 1982, cadets at the national police academy were asked to write essays about immigrants, one wrote, ‘Wogs, nignogs and Pakis come into Britain take up our homes, our jobs and our resources and contribute relatively less to our once glorious country. They are, by nature, unintelligent. And can’t at all be educated sufficiently to live in a civilised society of the Western world’. Another wrote that ‘all blacks are pains and should be ejected from society’. So much for incitement laws helping create a more tolerant society. Today, Britain is a very different place. Racism has not disappeared, nor have racist attacks, but the open, vicious, visceral bigotry that disfigured the Britain when I was growing up has largely ebbed away. It has done so not because of laws banning racial hatred but because of broader social changes and because minorities themselves stood up to the bigotry and fought back. Of course, as the British experience shows, hatred exists not just in speech but also has physical consequences. Is it not important, critics of my view ask, to limit the fomenting of hatred to protect the lives of those who may be attacked? In asking this very question, they are revealing the distinction between speech and action. Saying something is not the same as doing it. But, in these post-ideological, postmodern times, it has become very unfashionable to insist on such a distinction. In blurring the distinction between speech and action, what is really being blurred is the idea of human agency and of moral responsibility. Because lurking underneath the argument is the idea that people respond like automata to words or images. But people are not like robots. They think and reason and act on their thoughts and reasoning. Words certainly have an impact on the real world, but that impact is mediated through human agency. Racists are, of course, influenced by racist talk. It is they, however, who bear responsibility for translating racist talk into racist action. Ironically, for all the talk of using free speech responsibly, the real consequence of the demand for censorship is to moderate the responsibility of individuals for their actions. Having said that, there are clearly circumstances in which there is a direct connection between speech and action, where someone’s words have directly led to someone else taking action. Such incitement should be illegal, but it has to be tightly defined. There has to be both a direct link between speech and action and intent on the part of the speaker for that particular act of violence to be carried out. Incitement to violence in the context of hate speech should be as tightly defined as in ordinary criminal cases. In ordinary criminal cases, incitement is, rightly, difficult legally to prove. The threshold for liability should not be lowered just because hate speech is involved. 73 - 74 - 75 -====Perceived assault on free speech drives voters to the right wing – that’s how Trump got elected president.==== 76 -**Soave 16** (Robby Soave, Associate editor at Reason.com, enjoys writing about college news, education policy, criminal justice reform, and television, "Trump Won Because Leftist Political Correctness Inspired a Terrifying Backlash", Nov. 9, 2016, http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/09/trump-won-because-leftist-political-corr 77 -Trump won because of a cultural issue that flies under the radar and remains stubbornly difficult to define, but is nevertheless hugely important to a great number of Americans: political correctness. More specifically, Trump won because he convinced a great number of Americans that he would destroy political correctness. I have tried to call attention to this issue for years. I have warned that political correctness actually is a problem on college campuses, where the far-left has gained institutional power and used it to punish people for saying or thinking the wrong thing. And ever since Donald Trump became a serious threat to win the GOP presidential primaries, I have warned that a lot of people, both on campus and off it, were furious about political-correctness-run-amok—so furious that they would give power to any man who stood in opposition to it. I have watched this play out on campus after campus. I have watched dissident student groups invite Milo Yiannopoulos to speak—not because they particularly agree with his views, but because he denounces censorship and undermines political correctness. I have watched students cheer his theatrics, his insulting behavior, and his narcissism solely because the enforcers of campus goodthink are outraged by it. It's not about his ideas, or policies. It's not even about him. It's about vengeance for social oppression. Trump has done to America what Yiannopoulos did to campus. This is a view Yiannopoulos shares. When I spoke with him about Trump's success months ago, he told me, "Nobody votes for Trump or likes Trump on the basis of policy positions. That's a misunderstanding of what the Trump phenomenon is." He described Trump as "an icon of irreverent resistance to political correctness." Correctly, I might add. What is political correctness? It's notoriously hard to define. I recently appeared on a panel with CNN's Sally Kohn, who described political correctness as being polite and having good manners. That's fine—it can mean different things to different people. I like manners. I like being polite. That's not what I'm talking about. The segment of the electorate who flocked to Trump because he positioned himself as "an icon of irreverent resistance to political correctness" think it means this: smug, entitled, elitist, privileged leftists jumping down the throats of ordinary folks who aren't up-to-date on the latest requirements of progressive society. Example: A lot of people think there are only two genders—boy and girl. Maybe they're wrong. Maybe they should change that view. Maybe it's insensitive to the trans community. Maybe it even flies in the face of modern social psychology. But people think it. Political correctness is the social force that holds them in contempt for that, or punishes them outright. If you're a leftist reading this, you probably think that's stupid. You probably can't understand why someone would get so bent out of shape about being told their words are hurtful. You probably think it's not a big deal and these people need to get over themselves. Who's the delicate snowflake now, huh? you're probably thinking. I'm telling you: your failure to acknowledge this miscalculation and adjust your approach has delivered the country to Trump. There's a related problem: the boy-who-cried-wolf situation. I was happy to see a few liberals, like Bill Maher, owning up to it. Maher admitted during a recent show that he was wrong to treat George Bush, Mitt Romney, and John McCain like they were apocalyptic threats to the nation: it robbed him of the ability to treat Trump more seriously. The left said McCain was a racist supported by racists, it said Romney was a racist supported by racists, but when an actually racist Republican came along—and racists cheered him—it had lost its ability to credibly make that accusation. This is akin to the political-correctness-run-amok problem: both are examples of the left's horrible over-reach during the Obama years. The leftist drive to enforce a progressive social vision was relentless, and it happened too fast. I don't say this because I'm opposed to that vision—like most members of the under-30 crowd, I have no problem with gender neutral pronouns—I say this because it inspired a backlash that gave us Trump. My liberal critics rolled their eyes when I complained about political correctness. I hope they see things a little more clearly now. The left sorted everyone into identity groups and then told the people in the poorly-educated-white-male identity group that that's the only bad one. It mocked the members of this group mercilessly. It punished them for not being woke enough. It called them racists. It said their video games were sexist. It deployed Lena Dunham to tell them how horrible they were. Lena Dunham! I warned that political-correctness-run-amok and liberal overreach would lead to a counter-revolution if unchecked. That counter-revolution just happened. There is a cost to depriving people of the freedom (in both the legal and social senses) to speak their mind. The presidency just went to the guy whose main qualification, according to his supporters, is that he isn't afraid to speak his. 78 - 79 - 80 -===Advantage 2: Sexual Assault=== 81 - 82 - 83 -====Teachers are dissuaded from teaching rape law due to a culture of fear surrounding political correctness==== 84 -**Fisher 16** (Anthony L. Fisher, Dec 13, 2016, "Opposition to "offensive" speech on campuses will ultimately burn dissidents", http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/12/13/13931524/free-speech-pen-america-campus-censorship) 85 -PEN America, the literary and human rights association that lists as one of its core principles a commitment to "protect open expression in the United States and worldwide," set out to explore the state of free speech on the nation’s campuses — re-examining several high-profile incidents and controversies. While not comprehensive, the report, published this fall, is impressively thorough, treating much of its content as teachable case studies, rather than a set of self-affirming anecdotes. Some press coverage, however, suggested that the PEN America report — titled “And Campus For All: Diversity, Inclusion, and Freedom of Speech at U.S. Universities" — had exonerated campuses from the charge that they insufficiently protect free speech, and that it sided with students who think "cries of ‘free speech’ are too often used as a cudgel against them,” as the New York Times put it. The report itself contributes in a small way to this confused take, largely due to a single line in its conclusion which (improbably) asserts that there is no “pervasive ‘crisis’ for free speech on campus.” But that same report exhaustively details dozens of cases where certain speech was inappropriately muted on campus. More examples: Skidmore College’s Bias Response Group determined that the posting of Donald Trump's official campaign motto "Make America Great Again" in classrooms where women and people of color worked constituted "racialized, targeted attacks." A tenured associate professor at Louisiana State University, Teresa Buchanan, was dismissed for the offenses of using off-color language (including "fuck no”) in class, and off campus (where she said “pussy” in a conversation with another teacher). Like the University of Colorado’s Adler, Buchanan was deemed to have created a "hostile learning environment." The authors write of the "chilling effect" such administrative actions have on professors who fear reprisals for unintentional offense, and as a result, will avoid certain subjects, including rape law and even some aspects of Greek mythology, out of an abundance of caution. 86 - 87 - 88 -====Two impacts:==== 89 - 90 - 91 -====Lack of rape law education hurts survivors of sexual assault – they won’t win court cases==== 92 -**Soave 14** (Robby Soave, Dec. 16, 2014, "Profs Have Stopped Teaching Rape Law Now That Everything 'Triggers' Students", http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/16/profs-have-stopped-teaching-rape-law-now) 93 -Students seem more anxious about classroom discussion, and about approaching the law of sexual violence in particular, than they have ever been in my eight years as a law professor. Student organizations representing women’s interests now routinely advise students that they should not feel pressured to attend or participate in class sessions that focus on the law of sexual violence, and which might therefore be traumatic. These organizations also ask criminal-law teachers to warn their classes that the rape-law unit might “trigger” traumatic memories. Individual students often ask teachers not to include the law of rape on exams for fear that the material would cause them to perform less well. One teacher I know was recently asked by a student not to use the word “violate” in class—as in “Does this conduct violate the law?”—because the word was triggering. Some students have even suggested that rape law should not be taught because of its potential to cause distress. Suk—who is one of the signatories on this statement of opposition to Harvard's illiberal sexual assault policy—goes on to note that the very real, terrible consequence of not teaching rape law will be the proliferation of lawyers ill-equipped to deal with such matters. Victims of sexual assault deserve competent legal representation; the legal system needs prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges who have vigorously studied the nuances of rape adjudication. Social progress on all these fronts will be rolled back if law professors stop educating students about rape. That would be a travesty of justice. 94 - 95 - 96 -====Stunts sexual assault activism on campus and reduces awareness of the issue==== 97 -**Baker 15** (Katie J.M. Baker, Apr. 3, 2015, "Teaching Rape Law In The Age Of The Trigger Warning", https://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbaker/teaching-rape-law-in-the-age-of-the-trigger-warning?utm'term=.par3Gy4V7~~#.gcKwr03L4) 98 -One criminal law professor at the college was so upset that she told the administration she would rather not teach rape law at all than be forced to teach it in a manner based on one student’s “deeply held personal feelings.” The professor, who would only speak anonymously, has decades of experience studying rape law and said she planned to discuss everything from the effects of trauma to campus rape activism. Instead, she spent class time reassuring students that she would not treat rape differently than other sensitive subjects. Some of her students were thankful for the email, she said, but others were confused since it came out of nowhere and was endorsed by the school. One distraught student told the professor that she was a rape survivor and now had no idea if she would be able to handle whatever was coming next. Some professors told BuzzFeed News that they had no problem incorporating their students’ concerns. Brooklyn Law professor Bennett Capers said he begins his section on rape law by reminding students that it’s a particularly sensitive subject and providing them with sexual assault statistics. “On the first day, a lot of students are reluctant to engage on the subject, but by the second, we have some of the most rewarding conversation I’ve had all semester,” he said. Capers also tells his students that rape law is a particularly fascinating area because it’s currently evolving. “They can push the law in new directions as they become lawyers,” he said. Deborah Tuerkheimer, a former sex crimes prosecutor and professor at Northwestern Law School, said she believes it’s up to the professor to manage the class well. She’s never had any problems. “I think students can make comments that have the potential to be deeply upsetting, but that can be navigated,” she said. Other professors aren’t as quick to bend to students’ requests for sensitivity. Professor Suk told BuzzFeed News that she wrote her New Yorker piece because she was hearing about more students who objected to or absented themselves from the classroom discussion on rape law than ever before. “I wanted to reflect on why, just at a time when sexual assault, particularly on campus, is getting so much attention, we might see a shrinking away from classroom discussion of these topics,” she told BuzzFeed News. Suk said she thinks the shift is indicative of a new form of “social suffering” as classroom experience that goes beyond the pain of individual victims of sexual violence. “The social designation of topics and forms of discussion as ‘traumatic’ has real consequences for classroom intellectual exploration,” she said. 99 - 100 - 101 - 102 -===Advantage 3: Education=== 103 - 104 - 105 -====A~~ Rights Precedent: restrictions on free speech creates a dangerous slippery slope. Universities should not be the arbiters of communication.==== 106 -*Climate change NC, Sustainability Florida 107 -**Fisher 16** (Anthony L. Fisher, Dec 13, 2016, "Opposition to "offensive" speech on campuses will ultimately burn dissidents", http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/12/13/13931524/free-speech-pen-america-campus-censorship) 108 -In perhaps the most cogent line of the entire report, the authors write: “Overreaction to problematic speech may impoverish the environment for speech for all.” In the name of social justice, some students are demanding administrators become the arbiters of what speech is legitimate and what isn’t. These students don’t seem to grasp that by granting authority figures the power to adjudicate which speakers have the right to be heard, they will inevitably find their own speech silenced when opponents claim offense, fear, or discomfort. Calls for crackdowns on “offensive” speech inevitably boomerang It’s already happening. Just ask the Palestinian activists whose boycott campaigns against Israel have been deemed hate speech by a number of public universities, and whose future political activities could be endangered by an act of Congress. Just this month, the Senate unanimously passed the "Anti-Semitism Awareness Act,” which directs the Department of Education to use the bill's contents as a guideline when adjudicating complaints of anti-Semitism on campus. Among the speech-chilling components of the bill, the political (and subjective) act of judging Israel by an "unfair double standard" could be considered hate speech. To cite other examples of unintended consequences of the crackdown on “offensive” speech, a black student at the University of Michigan was punished for calling another student “white trash,” and conservative law students at Georgetown claimed they were “traumatized” when an email critical of deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia landed in their inboxes. The PEN America report also notes the Foundation for Individual Rights’ analysis of hundreds of campuses with “severely restrictive” speech codes. While a number of these campuses don't aggressively enforce their speech codes, the rules remain on the books; more than a dozen such codes have been overturned in the courts. What’s even more concerning is the increasingly popular notion that some ideas, such as opposition to abortion, should simply be “non-platformed" — that is, deemed unworthy of even being heard on campus. Although the trend of denying contentious speakers such as former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice or refugee-turned-Dutch politician and critic of Islam Ayaan Hirsi Ali public platforms by "disinviting" them from campus is disconcerting, it is not censorship. However, a pro-choice group physically blocking the display of a pro-life group on the campus of the University of Georgia is a form of censorship. As is the case of University of California-Santa Barbara professor Mireille Miller-Young, who assaulted a young woman holding a pro-life placard including graphic imagery in a "free speech" zone on campus and stole her sign. When the young woman objected to the theft of her property, Miller-Young replied, "I may be a thief, but you're a terrorist." Like it or not, almost half of all Americans consider themselves pro-life. Banning their perspective from campus won't win over converts, and it’s both immoral and counterproductive to declare completely legitimate political perspectives beyond the pale. Think of anti-war protests or demonstrations in support of integration when both causes were broadly unpopular, and then try to consider a majority on campus declaring their school a "safe space" from such "offensive" expressions of free speech. 109 - 110 - 111 -====B~~ Free speech prepares students for the real world by reducing academic insulation.==== 112 -**Vivanco 16** (Leonor Vivanco, August 25^^th^^, 2016, "U. of C. tells incoming freshmen it does not support 'trigger warnings' or 'safe spaces'", http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-university-of-chicago-safe-spaces-letter-met-20160825-story.html3 113 -"It is not the proper role of the University to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive," the report states. "Although the University greatly values civility, and although all members of the University community share in the responsibility for maintaining a climate of mutual respect, concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community." The university is preparing students for the real world and would not be serving them by shielding them from unpleasantness, said Geoffrey Stone, chair of the committee, law professor and past provost at the U. of C. "The right thing to do is empower the students, help them understand how to fight, combat and respond, not to insulate them from things they will have to face later," Stone said. While the university doesn't support, require or encourage trigger warnings, it does not prohibit them, he added. Professors are still free to alert students to certain material if they choose to do so. Jane Kirtley, a media ethics and law professor at the University of Minnesota, called U. of C.'s move "refreshing." She said colleges should resist setting limits on what views and opinions are acceptable to air in open forum and should encourage students to discuss things they find uncomfortable. "If universities are not providing platforms for people to be offensive, then I don't think that they're doing part of their job," Kirtley said. "If listening to Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is going to make your blood pressure go up 400 points, then fine, don't listen to them. But that doesn't mean you can say we can't have Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton speaking on campus because it would be offensive to even know they were talking." Another Midwestern institution has followed the University of Chicago's lead. In 2015, the board of trustees at Purdue University in Indiana endorsed the principles articulated in the U. of C. report. "Our commitment to open inquiry is not new, but adopting these principles provides a clear signal of our pledge to live by this commitment and these standards," board Chairman Tom Spurgeon said in a statement at the time. 114 - 115 - 116 -====Three impacts:==== 117 - 118 - 119 -====Preparation for the real world gives students the tools necessary to fight oppression for life; that outweighs in the long run.==== 120 - 121 - 122 -====An atmosphere of academic openness is a prerequisite to knowledge.==== 123 -**Jacobson 16** (Daniel Jacobson (Professor of Philosophy at the University of Michigan). "Freedom of Speech under Assault on Campus." Cato Institute. 30 August 2016. https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/freedom-speech-under-assault- campus~~#full 124 -Mill held that an atmosphere of intellectual freedom not only cultivates genius but is also a prerequisite for even commonplace knowledge. For our beliefs to be justified, we must be able to respond to the best arguments against them. Yet people naturally dislike what Mill called adverse discussion—that is, exposure to opposing arguments—and tend to avoid it. Hence, they are led to argue against straw men as much from ignorance as dishonesty. For those reasons and others, Mill defended freedom of speech in uncom- promising terms: “There ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine,” regardless of its falsity, immorality, or even harmfulness.4 Mill’s arguments for free speech anticipated several psychological phenomena that are now widely recognized: epistemic closure, group polarization, and confirmation bias, as well as simple conformism. Epistemic closure is the tendency to restrict one’s sources of information, including other people, to those largely in agreement with one’s views, thereby avoiding adverse discussion. Group polarization describes how like-minded people grow more extreme in their beliefs when unchecked by the presence of dissenters. (Whence Nietzsche: “Madness is rare in individuals—but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule.”5) Confirmation bias is the tendency to focus on evidence that supports what we already believe and to discount contrary evidence. These phenomena are widespread and well documented, and they all tend to undermine the justification of our beliefs. Hence, the toleration of unpopular opinions constitutes a prerequisite for knowledge. Yet such toleration amounts only to its immunity to punishment, not its protection from criticism. 125 - 126 - 127 -====Lack of counter-narratives produce echo-chambers that sustains existing power structures whilst deluding liberals otherwise.==== 128 -**Sunstein 12** (Cass R. Sunstein. Sep 17, 2012. "Breaking up the echo". http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/opinion/balanced-news-reports-may-only-inflame.html?'r=0) 129 -It is well known that when likeminded people get together, they tend to end up thinking a more extreme version of what they thought before they started to talk. The same kind of echochamber effect can happen as people get news from various media. Liberals viewing MSNBC or reading leftofcenter blogs may well end up embracing liberal talking points even more firmly; Conservative fans of Fox News may well react in similar fashion on the right. The result can be a situation in which is that beliefs do not merely harden but migrate toward the extreme ends of the political spectrum. As current events in the Middle East demonstrate, discussions among likeminded people can ultimately produce violence. What explains this? The answer is called “biased assimilation,” which means that people assimilate new information selectively in a selective fashion. When people get endorsing information that supports what they initially thought, they give it considerable weight. When they get and dismissing information that undermines their initial beliefs, they tend to dismiss it. In this light, it is understandable that when people begin with opposing initial beliefs on, say, the death penalty, balanced information can heighten their initial disagreement. Those who tend to favor capital punishment credit the information that supports their original view and dismiss the opposing information. The same happens on the other side. As a result, divisions widen. This natural human tendency explains why it’s so hard to dislodge false rumors and factual errors. Corrections can even be selfdefeating, leading people to stronger commitment to their erroneous beliefs. The news here is not encouraging. In the face of entrenched social divisions, there’s a risk that presentations that carefully explore both sides will be counterproductive. And when a group, responding to false information, becomes more strident, efforts to correct the record may make things worse. Can anything be done? There is no simple term for the answer, so let’s make one up: surprising validators. However People tend to dismiss information that would falsify their convictions. But they may reconsider their views if the information comes from a like-minded source they cannot dismiss. People are most likely to find a source credible if they closely identify with it or begin in essential agreement with it. In such cases, their reaction is not, “how predictable and uninformative that someone like that would think something so evil and foolish,” but instead, they say “if someone like that disagrees with me, maybe I had better rethink.” Our initial convictions are more apt to be shaken if it’s not easy to dismiss the source as biased, confused, selfinterested or simply mistaken. This is one reason that seemingly irrelevant characteristics, like appearance, or taste in food and drink, can have a big impact on credibility. Such characteristics can suggest that the validators are in fact surprising — that they are “like” the people to whom they are speaking. It follows that turncoats, real or apparent, can be immensely persuasive. If civil rights leaders oppose affirmative action, or if wellknown climate change skeptics say that they were wrong, people are more likely to change their views. Here, then, is a lesson for all those who provide information. What matters most may be not what is said, but who, exactly, is saying it. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-16 22:40:41.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Sharma, Arun - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Murphy Middle NG - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -6 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood Mambapoor Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB - 1AC - Stock - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Strake Jesuit
- Caselist.CitesClass[7]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,146 +1,0 @@ 1 -=1AC – Stock= 2 - 3 - 4 -==Framework== 5 - 6 - 7 -====The role of the ballot is to vote for the debater that presents the best governmental policy option – key to out of round advocacy skills. Role playing as public actors shatters apathy and political alienation which is critical to check oppression ==== 8 -**Mitchell 2000**. Gordon Mitchell, Associate Professor of Communication at University of Pittsburgh, Winter 2000, "Stimulated Public Argument As Pedagogical Play on Worlds", Argumentation and Advocacy, vol 36, no 3, pq 9 -When we assume the posture of the other in dramatic performance, we tap into 10 -… 11 -that highlight this component of students' self-identities carry significant emancipatory potential. 12 - 13 - 14 -====I value morality, as per the evaluative term, ‘ought’ in the resolution.==== 15 - 16 - 17 -====First, to evaluate ethical judgments we must interrogate ontologies of exclusion to filter out ethical biases.==== 18 -**Butler 9** (Judith Butler, "Frames of War: When is Life Grievable?" Jan 1st 2009, Pg.138, http://books.google.com/books/about/Frames'of'War.html?id=ga7hAAAAMAAJ) 19 -We ask such normative questions as if we know what we mean by the subjects 20 -… 21 -those subjects who will be eligible for recognition and those who will not. 22 - 23 - 24 -====Thus, the standard is combatting structural violence.==== 25 - 26 - 27 -====Prefer consequence-based frameworks:==== 28 - 29 - 30 -====1~~ Intent and means-based frameworks reflect privilege and decenter oppressed voices==== 31 -**Utt ’13. **Jamie Utt is a writer and a diversity and inclusion consultant and sexual violence prevention educator, "Intent vs. Impact: Why Your Intentions Don’t Really Matter," July 30, 2013 32 -Imagine for a moment that you’re standing with your friends in a park, enjoying 33 -AND 34 -And we can do our best to move forward by acting more accountably. 35 - 36 - 37 -====2~~ Experience is epistemic – it is how we empirically ground our existence. Pain is universally bad and pleasure is universally good.==== 38 -**Nagel 86** (Thomas ~~"The View From Nowhere", 1986~~) 39 -I shall defend the unsurprising claim that sensory pleasure is good and pain bad, 40 -… 41 -such cases. There can be no reason to reject the appearances here. 42 - 43 - 44 -====3~~ Intentions and states of being are non-falsifiable and can only be informed by hypothetical consequences==== 45 - 46 - 47 -====4~~ Life is a pre-requisite to agency and freedom – that justifies exceptions to hyper-individualist ethics==== 48 - 49 - 50 -====5~~ Discussions of free speech and the constitution mandate a consequentialist approach==== 51 -**Goldberg 15** (Erica Goldberg is a Climenko Fellow and Lecturer on Law for the Harvard Law School and Assistant Professor for the Ohio Northern Law School. "FREE SPEECH CONSEQUENTIALISM," Columbia Law Review Vol. 116:687. August 17, 2015. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract'id=2645869) //WW JA 1/5/16 52 -Even scholars who favor what they deem nonconsequentialist theories of free speech, and who 53 -… 54 -, when free speech doctrine intersects with both criminal and tort law.23 55 - 56 - 57 -==Plan== 58 - 59 - 60 -====Plan Text: Public colleges and universities in the United States should not restrict any constitutionally protected speech.==== 61 - 62 - 63 -====I can clarify questions about implementation in cx.==== 64 - 65 - 66 -==Advantage 1 is Echo Chambers== 67 - 68 - 69 -====Campus speech codes are controlled by liberals – they utilize them to exclude conservatives from campuses. This creates liberal echo chambers wherein liberals insulate themselves from conservative ideas, thus never learning how to contest opposing views.==== 70 -**Powers 15.** Kirsten Powers is a columnist for The Daily Beast. She is also a contributor to USA Today and a Fox News political analyst. She served in the Clinton administration from 1993 to 1998 and has worked in New York state and city politics. Her writing has been published in The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, New York Post, The New York Observer, Salon.com, Elle magazine, and American Prospect online., 5-11-2015, "How Liberals Ruined College," Daily Beast, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/11/how-liberals-have-ruined-college.html //RS 71 -The root of nearly every free-speech infringement on campuses across the country is 72 -… 73 -even if their actions would likely not constitute a violation of university policy." 74 - 75 - 76 -====Rights Precedent: restrictions on free speech creates a dangerous slippery slope. Universities should not be the arbiters of communication.==== 77 -*Climate change NC, Sustainability Florida 78 -**Fisher 16** (Anthony L. Fisher, Dec 13, 2016, "Opposition to "offensive" speech on campuses will ultimately burn dissidents", http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/12/13/13931524/free-speech-pen-america-campus-censorship) 79 -In perhaps the most cogent line of the entire report, the authors write: 80 -… 81 -"safe space" from such "offensive" expressions of free speech. 82 - 83 - 84 -**====The 1AC is key to challenge the broader culture of bigotry – restrictions on hate speech fail – multiple warrants.====** 85 -**Majeed 9.** Azhar Majeed, a native of Grosse Pointe, Michigan, received a B.A. in Political Science with a minor in History from the University of Michigan in 2004. He is also a 2007 graduate of the University of Michigan Law School. As an undergraduate, his academic interests included comparative constitutional law and political philosophy, particularly from the time period of the Enlightenment. During law school, Azhar represented the University of Michigan at the 2006 Tulane International Moot Court competition. Azhar was one of FIRE’s inaugural Robert H. Jackson Legal Fellows and was also a FIRE legal intern in 2005. , 11-18-2009, "Defying the Constitution: The Rise, Persistence, And Prevalence Of Campus Speech Codes," FIRE, https://www.thefire.org/defying-the-constitution-the-rise-persistence-and-prevalence-of-campus-speech-codes/ //RS ***BRACKETS IN ORIGINAL*** 86 -The fourth major argument in defense of speech codes is that they combat the existence 87 -… 88 -cannot be justified under the rationale of eliminating societal prejudice and advancing equality. 89 - 90 - 91 -==Advantage 2 is Sexual Assault== 92 - 93 - 94 -===Scenario 1 – Rape Law=== 95 - 96 - 97 -====Teachers are dissuaded from teaching rape law due to a culture of fear surrounding liberal speech codes.==== 98 -**Fisher 2** (Anthony L. Fisher, Dec 13, 2016, "Opposition to "offensive" speech on campuses will ultimately burn dissidents", http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/12/13/13931524/free-speech-pen-america-campus-censorship) 99 -PEN America, the literary and human rights association that lists as one of its 100 -… 101 -even some aspects of Greek mythology, out of an abundance of caution. 102 - 103 - 104 -====Lack of rape law education hurts survivors of sexual assault – they won’t win court cases==== 105 -**Soave 14** (Robby Soave, Dec. 16, 2014, "Profs Have Stopped Teaching Rape Law Now That Everything 'Triggers' Students", http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/16/profs-have-stopped-teaching-rape-law-now) 106 -Students seem more anxious about classroom discussion, and about approaching the law of sexual 107 -… 108 -stop educating students about rape. That would be a travesty of justice. 109 - 110 - 111 -===Scenario 2 – Student Journalism=== 112 - 113 - 114 -====Universities continuously abuse legislation to hide sexual violence by denying information to reporters, redacting information about the perpetrator, and suing students who disclose reports – Student Journalism is key to sexual assault justice. ==== 115 -**Saul 12-2-16** ~~Stephanie Saul is a reporter for The New York Times and a recipient of the Pulitzer Prize in journalism. Saul attended public schools in New Albany, where she showed an early interest in journalism as editor of the high school newspaper. At Ole Miss, Saul was on the staff of the Daily Mississippian and the yearbook. She was a member of Phi Kappa Phi, the academic honor society, and Kappa Delta social sorority. After graduating in 1975 with a B.A. in journalism, Saul joined The Clarion-Ledgeras a reporter, covering Mississippi government and the state legislature. A succession of reporting jobs at other newspapers led her to The New York Timesin 2005, where she is currently a member of the newspaper’s investigative reporting team. "Campus Press vs. Colleges: Kentucky Suit Highlights Free-Speech Fight,". 12-2-2016. New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/02/us/kentucky-student-journalism-free-speech.html~~//roman 116 -The confidential informant had an explosive tip for the University of Kentucky's campus newspaper: 117 -… 118 -First Amendment Center endowed by the venerable Scripps Howard broadcasting and newspaper chain. 119 - 120 - 121 -==Underview== 122 - 123 - 124 -====To clarify, the First Amendment doesn’t permit meaningless obscenity, child pornography, expressions that in and of itself causes injury, and remarks intended to cause violence==== 125 -**Ruane 14** ~~Kathleen Anne Ruane – Legislative Attorney. Her report was published by the Congressional Research Service, which is a branch of government, "Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the First Amendment", https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf,pgs. 1-5~~//roman 126 -The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no 127 -… 128 -report will be updated periodically to reflect new developments in the case law. 129 - 130 - 131 -====Ask if I will meet your interp in cx; this avoids unnecessary theory- we can work something out; this allows for greater substantive debate which is the only form of education which is unique to debate. Grant me an auto I meet on theory if the interp isn’t checked in cross-ex to discourage nonchecking.==== 132 - 133 - 134 -====Abstract theorizing without providing material solutions to problems turns itself==== 135 -**Bryant 12** (Levi Bryant, professor of philosophy at Collin College, "Underpants Gnomes: A Critique of the Academic Left," 11/11/2012, http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/underpants-gnomes-a-critique-of-the-academic-left/) 136 -**edited for gendered language 137 -But finally, and worst of all, us 138 -… 139 -alternatives. Instead we prefer to shout and denounce. Good luck with that 140 - 141 - 142 -==== Particularism is good—root cause claims and focus on overarching structures ignore application to material injustice.==== 143 -Gregory Fernando Pappas 16 ~~Texas AandM University~~ "The Pragmatists’ Approach to Injustice", The Pluralist Volume 11, Number 1, Spring 2016, BE 144 -The pragmatists’ approach should be distinguished from nonideal theories whose starting point seems to be 145 -… 146 -in making us see aspects of injustices we would not otherwise appreciate.15 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-07 13:47:54.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Jalaj Sood - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -LCAnd SJ - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -7 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood Mambapoor Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB - 1AC - Stock v2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Winston Churchill Classic
- Caselist.CitesClass[8]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,10 +1,0 @@ 1 -==CP== 2 - 3 - 4 -====CP text: Public colleges and universities should allow for free speech except in the instance of revenge pornography ==== 5 -Koppelman 15 . Andrew Koppelman ~~John Paul Stevens Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science~~, "Revenge Pornography and First Amendment Exceptions," Emory University School of Law, Volume 65, Issue 3, 09/14/15, http://law.emory.edu/elj/content/volume-65/issue-3/articles/revenge-pornography-first-amendment-exceptions.html//AD 6 -People are marvelously inventive in devising new ways to hurt each other. Some of these new ways involve speech. The Supreme Court has recently declared that speech is protected by the First Amendment unless it is a type of communication that has traditionally been unprotected. If this is the law, then harms will accumulate and the law will be helpless to remedy them. A recent illustration is the new phenomenon of “revenge pornography”—the online posting of sexually explicit photographs without the subject’s consent, usually by rejected ex-boyfriends. The photos are often accompanied by the victim’s name, address, phone number, Facebook page, and other personal information. They are sometimes shared with other websites, viewed by thousands of people, and become the first several pages of hits that a search engine produces for the victim’s name. The photos are emailed to the victim’s family, friends, employers, fellow students, or coworkers. They are seen on the Internet by prospective employers and customers. Victims have been subjected to harassment, stalking, and threats of sexual assault. Some have been fired from their jobs. Others have been forced to change schools. The pictures sometimes follow them to new jobs and schools. The pictures’ availability can make it difficult to find new employment. Most victims are female. 1 Twenty-six states have passed laws prohibiting this practice, and others are considering them. 2 (Civil remedies are often available but have not been much of a deterrent: victims often cannot afford to sue, and perpetrators often have few assets to collect. 3 ) The constitutionality of such laws is uncertain, however. These laws restrict speech on the basis of its content. Content-based restrictions (unless they fall within one of the categories of unprotected speech) are invalid unless necessary to a compelling state interest. 4 The state’s interest in prohibiting revenge pornography, so far from being compelling, may not even be one that the state is permitted to pursue. The central harm that such a prohibition aims to prevent is the acceptance, by the audience of the speech, of the message that this person is degraded and appropriately humiliated because she once displayed her naked body to a camera. The harm, in other words, consists in the acceptance of a viewpoint. Viewpoint-based restrictions on speech are absolutely forbidden. 5 There are exceptions to the ban on content-based restrictions: the Court has held that the First Amendment does not protect incitement, threats, obscenity, child pornography, defamation of private figures, criminal conspiracies, and criminal solicitation, for example. 6 None of those exceptions is applicable here. The pathologies of revenge pornography I have just described are the product of entirely new technologies: digital photography and the Internet. Because it is so new, however, it is not a category of speech that has traditionally been denied First Amendment protection. The Court has recently announced that unless speech falls into such a category, it is fully protected. There can be no new categories of unprotected speech. Laws prohibiting revenge pornography thus violate the First Amendment as the Court now understands it. The crux of the problem is the Court’s announced unwillingness to create new categories of non-protection. That unwillingness is not a necessary inference from the First Amendment. The present exceptions to free speech protection are judge-made doctrines. The courts that made them are by the same authority free to construct additional exceptions. Those exceptions would be justified by whatever justified the exceptions already on the books. Free speech is a complex cultural formation that aims at a distinctive set of goods. Its rules must be formulated and reformulated with those specific goods in mind. Pertinently here, one of those goods is a citizenry with the confidence to participate in public discussion. Traumatized, stigmatized women are not the kind of people that a free speech regime aims to create. Revenge pornography threatens to create a class of people who are chronically dogged by a spoiled social identity, and a much larger class of people who know that they could be subjected to such treatment without hope of redress. That state of affairs is directly contrary to the ideal of a regime in which everyone is empowered to participate in public discourse. Part I of this Article examines the constitutional objections to a statute that bans revenge pornography, and argues that those objections, although they are firmly rooted in the doctrines laid down by the Supreme Court, rest on an indefensibly wooden vision of free speech. Part II argues that this vision rests on an impoverished understanding of liberalism, which does not merely aim at constraint on government but which affirmatively seeks a society whose citizens have certain desirable traits of character, notably the courage to participate in public discourse. I develop this claim with a close reading of John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty. Part III argues that revenge pornography has a silencing effect on its victims that directly attacks the Millian ideal. Part IV argues that the creation of free speech exceptions cannot persuasively be ruled out in the way the Court has done, but are a normal part of judicial construction of the First Amendment’s text. The Conclusion reflects on the mechanical character of the free speech rules that the Court has constructed. 7 - 8 -====Pornography reinforces a cultural of male-dominant sexuality and normalizes sexual violence – turns case==== 9 -Jensen and Okrina 4. Robert Jensen ~~Professor in the School of Journalism at the University of Texas, a founding board member of the Third Coast Activist Resource Center, and a member of the board of Culture Reframed.~~, Debbie Okrina ~~Member of VAWnet – staff writer~~, "Pornography and Sexual Violence", National Resource Center on Domestic Violence 10 -Commercial pornography in the United States is at the same time increasingly more normalized and more denigrating to women. There is understandable interest in the question about the connection between pornography and sexual violence. Rather than asking "does pornography cause rape?" we would be better served by investigating whether pornography is ever a factor that contributes to rape. In other words, Is pornography implicated in sexual violence in this culture? There are limits to what research can tell us about the complex interactions of mass media and human behavior. But from both laboratory research and the narratives of men and women, it is not controversial to argue that pornography can: (1) be an important factor in shaping a male-dominant view of sexuality; (2) be used to initiate victims and break down their resistance to unwanted sexual activity; (3) contribute to a user's difficulty in separating sexual fantasy and reality; and (4) provide a training manual for abusers. These conclusions provide support for the feminist critique of pornography that emerged in the 1970s and '80s, which highlighted pornography's harms to the women and children: (1) used in the production of pornography; (2) who have pornography forced on them; (3) who are sexually assaulted by men who use pornography; and (4) living in a culture in which pornography reinforces and sexualizes women's subordinate status. People who raise critical questions about pornography and the sex industry often are accused of being prudish, anti-sex, or repressive, but just the opposite is true. Such questions are crucial not only to the struggle to end sexual and domestic violence, but also to the task of building a healthy sexual culture. Activists in the anti-violence and anti-pornography movements have been at the forefront of that task. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-08 00:11:16.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Nikunj Patel - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Katya E - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -8 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood Mambapoor Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB - CP - Revenge Pornography - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Winston Churchill Classic
- Caselist.CitesClass[9]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,10 +1,0 @@ 1 -==DA== 2 - 3 - 4 -====Hateful discourse is constitutionally protected==== 5 -Volokh 15. Volokh, Eugene ~~teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and tort law, at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy~~, "No, there’s no "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment", Washington Post, 08/07/15. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/?utm'term=.0285ca6aa92b//AD 6 -I keep hearing about a supposed “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment, or statements such as, “This isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech,” or “When does free speech stop and hate speech begin?” But there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. Hateful ideas (whatever exactly that might mean) are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas. One is as free to condemn Islam — or Muslims, or Jews, or blacks, or whites, or illegal aliens, or native-born citizens — as one is to condemn capitalism or Socialism or Democrats or Republicans. To be sure, there are some kinds of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment. But those narrow exceptions have nothing to do with “hate speech” in any conventionally used sense of the term. For instance, there is an exception for “fighting words” — face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific person, of the sort that are likely to start an immediate fight. But this exception isn’t limited to racial or religious insults, nor does it cover all racially or religiously offensive statements. Indeed, when the City of St. Paul tried to specifically punish bigoted fighting words, the Supreme Court held that this selective prohibition was unconstitutional (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)), even though a broad ban on all fighting words would indeed be permissible. (And, notwithstanding CNN anchor Chris Cuomo’s Tweet that “hate speech is excluded from protection,” and his later claims that by “hate speech” he means “fighting words,” the fighting words exception is not generally labeled a “hate speech” exception, and isn’t coextensive with any established definition of “hate speech” that I know of.) The same is true of the other narrow exceptions, such as for true threats of illegal conduct or incitement intended to and likely to produce imminent illegal conduct (i.e., illegal conduct in the next few hours or maybe days, as opposed to some illegal conduct some time in the future). Indeed, threatening to kill someone because he’s black (or white), or intentionally inciting someone to a likely and immediate attack on someone because he’s Muslim (or Christian or Jewish), can be made a crime. But this isn’t because it’s “hate speech”; it’s because it’s illegal to make true threats and incite imminent crimes against anyone and for any reason, for instance because they are police officers or capitalists or just someone who is sleeping with the speaker’s ex-girlfriend. The Supreme Court did, in Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952), uphold a “group libel” law that outlawed statements that expose racial or religious groups to contempt or hatred, unless the speaker could show that the statements were true, and were said with “good motives” and for “justifiable ends.” But this too was treated by the Court as just a special case of a broader First Amendment exception — the one for libel generally. And Beauharnais is widely understood to no longer be good law, given the Court’s restrictions on the libel exception. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) (rejecting the view that libel is categorically unprotected, and holding that the libel exception requires a showing that the libelous accusations be “of and concerning” a particular person); Garrison v. Louisiana (1964) (generally rejecting the view that a defense of truth can be limited to speech that is said for “good motives” and for “justifiable ends”); Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps (1986) (generally rejecting the view that the burden of proving truth can be placed on the defendant); R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) (holding that singling bigoted speech is unconstitutional, even when that speech fits within a First Amendment exception); Nuxoll ex rel. Nuxoll v. Indian Prairie Sch. Dist. # 204, 523 F.3d 668, 672 (7th Cir. 2008) (concluding that Beauharnais is no longer good law); Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1200 (9th Cir. 1989) (likewise); Am. Booksellers Ass’n, Inc. v. Hudnut, 771 F.2d 323, 331 n.3 (7th Cir. 1985) (likewise); Collin v. Smith, 578 F.2d 1197, 1205 (7th Cir. 1978) (likewise); Tollett v. United States, 485 F.2d 1087, 1094 n.14 (8th Cir. 1973) (likewise); Erwin Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies 1043-45 (4th ed. 2011); Laurence Tribe, Constitutional Law, §12-17, at 926; Toni M. Massaro, Equality and Freedom of Expression: The Hate Speech Dilemma, 32 Wm. and Mary L. Rev. 211, 219 (1991); Robert C. Post, Cultural Heterogeneity and Law: Pornography, Blasphemy, and the First Amendment, 76 Calif. L. Rev. 297, 330-31 (1988). Finally, “hostile environment harassment law” has sometimes been read as applying civil liability — or administrative discipline by universities — to allegedly bigoted speech in workplaces, universities, and places of public accommodation. There is a hot debate on whether those restrictions are indeed constitutional; they have generally been held unconstitutional when applied to universities, but decisions are mixed as to civil liability based on speech that creates hostile environments in workplaces (see the pages linked to at this site for more information on the subject). But even when those restrictions have been upheld, they have been justified precisely on the rationale that they do not criminalize speech (or otherwise punish it) in society at large, but only apply to particular contexts, such as workplaces. None of them represent a “hate speech” exception, nor have they been defined in terms of “hate speech.” For this very reason, “hate speech” also doesn’t have any fixed legal meaning under U.S. law. U.S. law has just never had occasion to define “hate speech” — any more than it has had occasion to define rudeness, evil ideas, unpatriotic speech, or any other kind of speech that people might condemn but that does not constitute a legally relevant category. Of course, one can certainly argue that First Amendment law should be changed to allow bans on hate speech (whether bigoted speech, blasphemy, blasphemy to which foreigners may respond with attacks on Americans or blasphemy or flag burning or anything else). Perhaps some statements of the “This isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech” variety are deliberate attempts to call for such an exception, though my sense is that they are usually (incorrect) claims that the exception already exists. I think no such exception should be recognized, but of course, like all questions about what the law ought to be, this is a matter that can be debated. Indeed, people have a First Amendment right to call for speech restrictions, just as they have a First Amendment right to call for gun bans or bans on Islam or government-imposed race discrimination or anything else that current constitutional law forbids. Constitutional law is no more set in stone than any other law. But those who want to make such arguments should acknowledge that they are calling for a change in First Amendment law, and should explain just what that change would be, so people can thoughtfully evaluate it. Calls for a new First Amendment exception for “hate speech” shouldn’t just rely on the undefined term “hate speech” — they should explain just what viewpoints the government would be allowed to suppress, what viewpoints would remain protected, and how judges, juries, and prosecutors are supposed to distinguish the two. Saying “this isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech” doesn’t, I think, suffice. 7 - 8 -====Hate speech entrenches power structures and kills education and debate, turns case ==== 9 -Uelmen 90. Gerald F. Uelmen, ~~dean of Santa Clara University School of Law and a fellow of the Center for Applied Ethics~~, "A pro-con discussion of speech codes and free speech", Santa Clara University, November 1990, https://www.scu.edu/character/resources/campus-hate-speech-codes///AD 10 -Those who advocate hate speech codes believe that the harm codes prevent is more important than the freedom they restrict. When hate speech is directed at a student from a protected group, like those listed in Emory University's code, the effect is much more than hurt feelings. The verbal attack is a symptom of an oppressive history of discrimination and subjugation that plagues the harmed student and hinders his or her ability to compete fairly in the academic arena. The resulting harm is clearly significant and, therefore, justifies limiting speech rights. In addition to minimizing harm, hate speech codes result in other benefits. The university is ideally a forum where views are debated using rational argumentation; part of a student's education is learning how to derive and rationally defend an opinion. The hate speech that codes target, in contrast, is not presented rationally or used to provoke debate. In fact, hate speech often intends to provoke violence. Hate speech codes emphasize the need to support convictions with facts and reasoning while protecting the rights of potential victims. As a society we reason that it is in the best interest of the greatest number of citizens to sometimes restrict speech when it conflicts with the primary purpose of an event. A theater owner, for example, has a right to remove a heckler when the heckler's behavior conflicts with the primary purpose of staging a play - to entertain an audience. Therefore, if the primary purpose of an academic institution is to educate students, and hate speech obstructs the educational process by reducing students' abilities to learn, then it is permissible to extend protection from hate speech to students on college or university campuses. Hate speech codes also solve the conflict between the right to freely speak and the right to an education. A student attending a college or university clearly has such a right. But students exercising their "free speech" right may espouse hateful or intimidating words that impede other students abilities to learn and thereby destroy their chances to earn an education. Finally, proponents of hate speech codes see them as morally essential to a just resolution of the conflict .between civil rights (e.g., freedom from harmful stigma and humiliation) and civil liberties (e.g., freedom of speech). At the heart of the conflict is the fact that under-represented students cannot claim fair and equal access to freedom of speech and other rights when there is an imbalance of power between them and students in the majority. If a black student, for example, shouts an epithet at a white student, the white student may become upset or feel enraged, but he or she has little reason to feel terror or intimidation. Yet when a white student directs an epithet toward a black student or a Jewish student, an overt history of subjugation intensifies the verbal attack that humiliates and strikes institutional fear in the victim. History shows that words of hatred are amplified when they come from those in power and abridged when spoken by the powerless. Discrimination on college and university campuses is a growing problem with an uncertain future. Whether hate speech codes are morally just responses to campus intolerance depends on how society interprets the harms of discriminatory harassment, the benefits and costs of restricting free speech, and the just balance between individual rights and group rights. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-08 00:11:16.747 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Nikunj Patel - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Katya E - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -8 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood Mambapoor Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB - DA - Hate Speech - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Winston Churchill Classic
- Caselist.RoundClass[3]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-03 01:57:39.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -All - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -All - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Grapevine
- Caselist.RoundClass[4]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-03 01:58:27.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Brenden Dimmig - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Immaculate Heart DD - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -St Marks
- Caselist.RoundClass[5]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-03 02:02:21.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Castillo, Chris - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Athens DR - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -University of Austin
- Caselist.RoundClass[6]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -6 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-16 22:40:39.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Sharma, Arun - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Murphy Middle NG - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Strake Jesuit
- Caselist.RoundClass[7]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -7 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-07 13:47:51.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Jalaj Sood - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -LCAnd SJ - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Winston Churchill Classic
- Caselist.RoundClass[8]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-08 00:11:07.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Nikunj Patel - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Katya E - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Went for PIC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Winston Churchill Classic
- Caselist.CitesClass[1]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,107 @@ 1 +=1AC – Arctic FNPP= 2 + 3 +==Framework== 4 + 5 +====The role of the ballot is to vote for the debater that presents the best governmental policy option.==== 6 +Nixon 2K (Themba-Nixon, Makani. Executive Director of The Praxis Project, a nonprofit organization helping communities use media and policy advocacy to advance health equity and justice~~, "Changing the Rules: What Public Policy Means for Organizing" Colorlines 3.2, 2000) 7 +Getting It in Writing Much of the work of framing what we stand for takes 8 +... 9 +should be. And then we must be committed to making it so. 10 + 11 +====I value morality, as per the evaluative term, ‘ought’ in the resolution.==== 12 + 13 +====The standard is minimizing suffering.==== 14 + 15 +====We ground our existence through experience. Practical reason is arbitrary, meaning sentience is the only non-arbitrary source of normativity. Pain is universally bad and pleasure is universally good. ==== 16 +Thomas **Nagel ‘86** ~~"The View From Nowhere", 1986~~ //AG 17 +I shall defend the unsurprising claim that sensory pleasure is good and pain bad, 18 +... 19 +such cases. There can be no reason to reject the appearances here. 20 + 21 +==Plan== 22 + 23 +====Plan Text: Countries should prohibit the production of Floating Nuclear Power Plants in the OSPAR region.==== 24 + 25 +====To clarify, that’s just the Arctic Ocean.==== 26 + 27 +====Floating Nuclear Power Plants are specifically bad in the arctic – high risk of accidents and annihilation of marine ecosystems.==== 28 +**KIMO et al 11 **(KIMO International (Kommunenes Internasjonale Miljøorganisasjon) a local authorities international environmental organization designed to give municipalities a political voice at regional, EU and international level. Greenpeace International is an independent global campaigning organization that acts to change attitudes and behavior, to protect and conserve the environment and to promote peace. "Concerns on Floating and Submerged Nuclear Power Plants," The OSPAR Commission. Deep Sea Research Part B. Oceanographic Literature Review 31.12. 2011. http://www.nuclearpolicy.info/docs/news/KIMO'OSPAR'Sellafield'FNPP.pdf) //WW JA 8/26/16 29 +*** OSPAR is basically the Arctic region. 30 +Recent developments in nuclear energy technology 31 +... 32 +requested to consider a ban on their use within the OSPAR Maritime region. 33 + 34 +==The Advantage is Environmental Damage== 35 + 36 +===2 Internal Link Scenarios=== 37 + 38 +====1 - Warmin==== 39 + 40 +====We’re on track to solve warming in the status-quo.==== 41 +**Khomami 9/3.** Nadia Khomami is a news reporter at the Guardian. She also writes features on music, politics and popular culture. You can follow her on Twitter. , 9-3-2016, "G20 summit: US and China ratify Paris climate change agreement," Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/sep/03/g20-summit-obama-to-make-climate-change-announcement-as-may-heads-to-china-live //RS 42 +The US has joined China to formally ratify the Paris agreement to curb climate- 43 +... 44 +expect a surge of ratifications around the UN Climate week later in September." 45 + 46 +====FNPPs erode the Arctic environment.==== 47 +**Nikitin et al 04** (Alexandr Konstantinovich Nikitin is a retired first rank captain and a former nuclear installations safety inspector for the Russian Ministry of Defense (1987-1992). He is an author of multiple publications concerning the problems of radiation safety in the northern seas. Vladimir Mikhailovich Desyatov is a trained shipbuilding engineer. He has also been a representative of the President of Russia in the Khabarovsk region Igor Victorovich Forofontov is the coordinator of the Greenpeace nuclear campaign in Russia. He graduated from the physics faculty of Leningrad State University. Yevgeney Yakovlevic Simonov is a senior engineer and chief of shift at the Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant (NPP), a nuclear operator on board the 900 series nuclear submarines and one of the heads of laboratory involved in the technical expert review of NPP project documentation. Ilya Borisovich Kolton was a scientific collaborator in the Kurchatov Institute within the technological-scientific centre of GosAtomNadzor. Alexey Vladimirovich Yablokov is a corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Science. He is a former environmental adviser to the Russian President and former chairman of the governmental commission on sea-dumping of radioactive wastes. Vladimir Mikhailovich Kuznetsov is a former head (1986-1993) of the Russian Federal Inspectorate for Nuclear and Radiation Safety’s (GosAtomNadzor) department for supervision and inspection of nuclear and radiation safety at atomic engineering installations. "FLOATING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IN RUSSIA: A THREAT TO THE ARCTIC, WORLD OCEANS AND NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY," Green Cross Russia Third edition Edited and published by "Agenstwo Rakurs Production" Ltd Moscow, 2004 ISBN 2004. http://www.greencross.ch/uploads/media/gc'fnpp'book.pdf) //TruLe 48 +*** IRG – Inert Radioactive Gases*** 49 +When normal operating of NPP the designers 50 +... 51 +as transit through a cavity of a protective shell and a vent pipe. 52 + 53 +====2 – Oil spills==== 54 + 55 +====FNPPs will be used to power oil rigs – the impact is major oil spills and annihilation of marine ecosystems.==== 56 +Robert **Hunziker 15** (Robert Hunziker. "Drilling and Nuclear Power in the Arctic", Counter Punch, 6-10-2015, http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/10/drilling-and-nuclear-power-in-the-arctic/)//DM Accessed 9-8-2016 57 +Not only that, but astonishingly, Russia is doubling down on its risky energy 58 +... 59 +to Shell’s response capabilities and to those of U.S. agencies. 60 + 61 +==Impacts== 62 + 63 +====Arctic oil spills and warming cause planetary extinction – the Arctic is a keystone ecosystem. ==== 64 +WWF 10 (World Wildlife Fund, "Drilling for Oil in the Arctic: Too Soon, Too Risky" 12/1/10, http://assets.worldwildlife.org/publications/393/files/original/Drilling'for'Oil'in'the'Arctic'Too'Soon'Too'Risky.pdf?1345753131)//WL 65 +The Arctic and the subarctic regions surrounding it are important for many reasons. One 66 +... 67 +of any credible and tested means of responding effectively to a major spill. 68 + 69 +====Deep sea biodiversity loss risks extinction ==== 70 +**Danovaro 8 **~~Professor Roberto Danovaro, Scitizen.Com, February 12, 2008. "Deep-Sea Biodiversity Conservation Needed to Avoid Ecosystem Collapse". http://scitizen.com/stories/Biodiversity/2008/02/Deep-Sea-Biodiversity-Conservation-Needed-to-Avoid-Ecosystem-Collapse/~~ 71 +The exploration of the abysses of our planet is one of the last frontiers of 72 +... 73 +for the sustainability of the functions of the largest ecosystems on the planet. 74 + 75 +====Biodiversity loss and global warming disproportionately harms minority groups – empirically proven with Arctic indigenous communities==== 76 +**Stepien 14** (Adam Stepien is a researcher at the Arctic Centre, University of Lapland, Finland. "Arctic Indigenous Peoples, Climate Change Impacts, and Adaptation," E-International Relations. April 10, 2014. http://www.e-ir.info/2014/04/10/arctic-indigenous-peoples-climate-change-impacts-and-adaptation/) //WW JA 8/27/16 77 +Identified impacts are numerous. Many Arctic indigenous communities are characterized by mixed economic systems 78 +... 79 +the appearance in the North of invasive species and vector-borne diseases. 80 + 81 +====There’s an unquestionable scientific consensus about warming. ==== 82 +**Nuccitelli 16** — Dana Nuccitelli, Climate Writer for the Guardian, Environmental Scientist at Tetra Tech—a private environmental consulting firm, holds an M.A. in Physics from the University of California-Davis and a B.A. in Astrophysics from the University of California-Berkeley, 2016 ("It’s settled: 90–100 of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming," Climate Consensus – The 97—a Guardian blog about climate change, April 13^^th^^, Available Online at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/apr/13/its-settled-90100-of-climate-experts-agree-on-human-caused-global-warming, Accessed 07-15-2016) 83 +There is an overwhelming expert scientific consensus on human-caused global warming. Authors 84 +... 85 +climate scientists, this paper should be the final word on the subject. 86 + 87 +====Russia will transition to renewables – multiple incentives.==== 88 +**Breyer 15.** Christian Breyer, Professor, 12-30-2015, "Russia can become one of the most energy-competitive areas based on renewables," LUT, http://www.lut.fi/web/en/news/-/asset'publisher/lGh4SAywhcPu/content/russia-can-become-one-of-the-most-energy-competitive-areas-based-on-renewables //RS 89 +A fully renewable energy system is achievable and economically viable in Russia and Central Asia 90 +... 91 +-East Asia, South-East Asia, South America and Finland. 92 + 93 +==Underview== 94 + 95 +====1. Russia will have operating FNPPs in a month – plan uniquely key now.==== 96 +**Digges 15** (Charles Digges is an author for The Bellona Foundation and has a Bachelor’s and Master’s degree in Russian Literature from Harvard. He is also a journalist for a number of major newspapers and media companies worldwide such as The Moscow Times, the International Herald Tribune, BBC, The Nation and The Amsterdam Volkskraant. "Arctic-hopping Russian Deputy Minister promises floating nuclear plant by next year," The Bellona Foundation. April 23, 2015. http://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/nuclear-russia/2015-04-arctic-hopping-russian-deputy-minister-promises-russias-floating-nuclear-plant-next-year) //WW JA 8/27/16 97 +After years of delays and promises, Russia’s first floating nuclear power plant is now 98 +... 99 +not, it could end up as another orphaned, dangerous nuclear installation." 100 + 101 +====2. Ask if I will meet your interp in CX; avoids unnecessary theory- we can work something out; this allows for greater substantive debate which is the only form of education unique to debate – education at school is just soaking in information. Grant me an auto I meet on theory if the interp isn’t checked in cross-ex to discourage non-checking.==== 102 + 103 +====3. Moving away from the state dooms the lefts’ critique to failure - must work within the state without being statist==== 104 +Connolly 8 ~~William, Professor of Political Science at John Hopkins, Capitalism and Christianity, American Style, page numbers are at the bottom of the card.~~ 105 +Before turning to possible strategies to promote these objectives, we need to face an 106 +... 107 +were it to occur, would undermine rather than vitalize democratic culture.29 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-10-15 13:01:34.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +All - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +All - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Westwood Mambapoor Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1AC - Arctic FNPP v1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Grapevine
- Caselist.RoundClass[1]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-10-15 13:01:32.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +All - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +All - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Grapevine