Tournament: All | Round: 1 | Opponent: All | Judge: All
Disclosing all broken positions for Emory!!
Contact: danagong8@gmail.com

Tournament: Emory | Round: 2 | Opponent: Vestavia Hills JC | Judge: Brian Wiora
Part One is the Framework
I value Justice
People are inherently equal at birth, so systemic exclusion of particular groups arbitrarily denies due.
Winter and Leighton 99 99 |Deborah DuNann Winter and Dana C. Leighton. Winter|Psychologist that specializes in Social Psych, Counseling Psych, Historical and Contemporary Issues, Peace Psychology. Leighton: PhD graduate student in the Psychology Department at the University of Arkansas. Knowledgable in the fields of social psychology, peace psychology, and justice and intergroup responses to transgressions of justice “Peace, conflict, and violence: Peace psychology in the 21st century.” Pg 4-5 ghsVA
Finally to recognize...to building lasting peace.

Since justice requires rectifying actual mistreatment, we should address material conditions of violence first.
Pappas: Pappas, Gregory Fernando. Texas AandM University “The Pragmatists’ Approach to Injustice.” The Pluralist, Volume 11, Number 1, Spring 2016. BE
In Experience and...to each patient.

The standard is reducing structural violence. 

Part Two is the Myth of Speech Restrictions
Speech restrictions, although meant to help actually crack down on minorities since they are implemented and enforced by those in power 

Gates 94(Henry Louis Gates 94, Professor and Director of the Hutchins Center for African and African American Research at Harvard University, “War of Words: Critical Race Theory and the First Amendment”, in Speaking of Race, Speaking of Sex: Hate Speech, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, New York University Press, 1994. RFK)

First, the attempt...the central problems

Speech codes do nothing to address the structural problems that need to be solved within society, they just drive oppressive thoughts underground where they are allowed to fester

Strossen 90 (Strossen, Nadine. John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law, New York Law School “Regulating Racist Speech on Campus: A Modest Proposal?” Duke Law Journal, 484-573, 1990. BE)

There is a third...follow from it

Part Three is Challenging the Oppression

Speech restrictions by a university will always limit the amount of ideas which can be engaged with. Because banning these ideas removes them from the public eye, problematic opinions and beliefs can never be challenged or changed. 

ACLU explains that; (Hate Speech on Campus, The American Civil Liberties Union
https://www.aclu.org/other/hate-speech-campus)
Where racist, sexist...not social change