Tournament: Colleyville | Round: 4 | Opponent: North Crowley LR | Judge: Dino

Part 1: Framework

Attempting to understand beings, communities, and ethics as pure will inevitably fail:

1. There is no possibility of understanding people in and of themselves. All identities are understood through the differentiation of social relations, which are by necessity constantly changing. BUTLER:

(Judith Butler. 1992. "Continent Foundations: Feminism and the Question of "Postmodernism" Feminists Theorize the Political)
"In a sense, the subject is constituted through an _{exclusion and}differentiation,
AND
the point in which it is claimed to be prior to politics itself." 

Implications:

A. Ethics has to start with the self – otherwise it can't guide action because its principle doesn't have a claim on what I ought to do. But, there is no single stable self. Any attempt to theorize the self would fail to understand the ontological status of the agent. MILLS:  Charles W. Mills, "Ideal Theory" as Ideology, 2005

"An idealized social
AND
 various kinds." (168)

B. Constraints K impacts – a social ontology conditions the subject in a way that resists concrete and structural inequalities, that's a second implication from Mills.

C. Discrimination is constitutive of any moral theory because it requires one to distinguish between the ethical and anti-ethical. Differentiation becomes a condition for any decision, so justice is found in violence. HÄGGLUND:

"THE NECESSITY OF DISCRIMINATION DISJOINING DERRIDA AND LEVINAS" MARTIN HÄGGLUND
"Derrida targets precisely this logic of opposition. As he argues in Of Grammatology
AND
is in the service of perpetrating the better." (46-48) 

====Impacts:====

====A. Analytic

====B. Precedes idealized frameworks. The belief in absolute peace is self-contradictory and justifies absolute violence. HÄGGLUND 2: "THE NECESSITY OF DISCRIMINATION DISJOINING DERRIDA AND LEVINAS" MARTIN HÄGGLUND====
"A possible objection
AND
 Thus, the idea of absolute peace is the idea of absolute violence." (49)  

And, democratic agonism is the only thing that can overcome ontological violence:

ONTOLOGICAL VIOLENCE MAKES EXTINCTION INEVITABLE.

A. The only way to resolve the inevitable conflict that comes with pluralism in our agency and ethics is to embrace that it is in fact inevitable. This requires an agonistic commitment, which recognizes that conflict is inevitable, but frames the other as a legitimate opponent instead of an enemy. MOUFFE:  "The Democratic Paradox" by Chantal Mouffe 2000

"A well-functioning democracy calls for a vibrant clash of democratic political positions. If this is missing
AND
very basis of civility." (104)

B. Our starting point is key- we don't pretend to overcome all exclusion, we just exclude the exclusionary thing. MOUFFE:

(Chantal Mouffe, Professor at the Department of Political Science of the Institute for Advanced Studies. June 2000. "The Democratic Paradox")
"To avoid any confusion, I should specify that, contrary to some postmodern
AND
outright and those who, while accepting them, fight for conflicting interpretations." 

C. Anaytic

Thus, the standard is promoting agonistic democracy. To clarify, it's a question of creating procedural elements that allow discussion, not specific ends.

Prefer additionally because:

1. Educational spaces must embrace contestation as a condition for resistance. Any attempt to exclude challenges reaffirms pedagogical imperialism. RICKERT:

(Thomas, ""Hands Up, You're Free": Composition in a Post-Oedipal World", JacOnline Journal,)
"This essay will employ Deleuze's and Zizek's theories to illustrate the limitations of writing
AND
is more aggressive than the desire to serve the other" (48)

2. ANALYTIC

Part 2: Advocacy

I defend the resolution

Part 3: Contention

Intelligibility:

Censorship on college campuses is being used to stifle democratic thought itself.

Sevcenko 16 ~Catherine Sevcenko, Email Congress about Campus Censorship Today, March 3, 2016, https://www.thefire.org/email-congress-about-campus-censorship-today/~~~~====
Nevertheless, colleges and
AND
it means censoring student speech.

Agonism forces everyone to acknowledge each other's beliefs as structurally legitimate to have engagement.

Mouffe 2 ~Chantal Mouffe, Professor at the Department of Political Science of the Institute for Advanced Studies. June 2000. "The Democratic Paradox"~
I submit that
AND
 democratic thinking is invaluable.

This means censorship is never justifiable since censorship relies on the assumption that some viewpoint is not legitimate enough to be voiced.

Pohlhaus and Wright. ~Using Wittgenstein Critically: A Political Approach to Philosophy Author(s): Gaile Pohlhaus and John R. Wright~
 Insofar as a plurality
AND
 by saying that they do not have to answer m 

Discussion:

Silencing bigots only re-entrenches their position and galvanizes their opposition to social justice movements

Levinovitz 16 ~Alan Levinovitz, assistant professor of religion at James Madison University, "How Trigger Warnings Silence Religious Students," The Atlantic, August 30, 2016, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/silencing-religious-students-on-campus/497951/~~~~
There is no doubt that in America,
AND
 It would be a shame to execute him again.

Allowing for freedom of discussion solves better for issues of hate speech.

ACLU ~American Civil Liberties Union, Hate Speech On Campus, https://www.aclu.org/other/hate-speech-campus~~~~
Where racist,
AND
 and forge solidarity against the forces of intolerance. 

Censorship is deconstructive and regressive and turns any criticism – blocking the freedom of speech will only guarantee the domination of current prevailing discursive practices.

Ward 90 ( David V.  Ph.D. Professor of Philosophy at Widener University in Pennsylvania.    "Library Trends" Philosophical Issues in Censorship and Intellectual Freedom, Volume 39, Nos 1 and 2. Summer/Fall 1990. Pages 86-87)
Second, even if the opinion
AND
 to the expressions of others.

A) Adversarial Democracy: 

Free speech was written into the constitution explicitly to be a counter-majoritarian right to promote agonistic discourse

Redish and Mollen 09 ~Martin H. Redish, Louis and Harriet Ancel Professor of Law and Public Policy, Northwestern University School of Law, Abby Marie Mollen, B.A. 2001, J.D. 2008, Northwestern University, "UNDERSTANDING POST'S AND MEIKLEJOHN'S MISTAKES: THE CENTRAL ROLE OF ADVERSARY DEMOCRACY IN TxHE THEORY OF FREE EXPRESSION," Northwestern University Law Review Vol. 103, No. 3, 2009~
According to political
and
and the conflict it will often produce. 

Part 4 is the Underview:

1) Hate speech is not constitutionally protected.  ITLW
Information Technology Law Wiki, "Constitutionally protected speech", itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Constitutionally_protected_speech

2) The criticism of oppression is a prior question to theoretical objections –T and Theory just feed the issue by  avoiding the issue and further marginalizing subordinate groups.

James McElwain, Coaches at St. Thomas Academy in Minnesota, "Pre-Fiat in LD: A Defense of "Kritikal" Engagement," April 21, 2014.
When coaches and educators dismiss literature from other parts of the library for referencing "
AND
justify its own educational value, why should it ever win a round?

3) Analytic

4) The neg must defend the exact opposite of the resolution for

1. Reciprocity

Analytic

2. Ground

Analytic

5) Proliferation of hate speech does not correlate to increased violence, but hate speech bans increase hate speech.

Heinze 14 Eric Heinze, Nineteen arguments for hate speech bans – and against them, Free Speech Debate, 3/31/14, http://freespeechdebate.com/en/discuss/nineteen-arguments-for-hate-speech-bans-and-against-them///LADI
Here too, within the LSPD model, no statistically reliable causation from patterns of
AND
as hate groups routinely tailor their responses to the existing bans and penalties.

6) Solutions to critical issues require acting within the hegemony first. Kapoor 

There are perhaps several
and
quash them or deflect their claims