Tournament: READ THIS | Round: Finals | Opponent: READ THIS | Judge: READ THIS
I will not be reading PICs out of specific types or methods of constitutionally protected speech against affs that are not parametricized at the USC tournament.

Examples of pics I can't read:
Only restrict hate speech
Only restrict revenge porn
Only restrict journalist speech

Examples I can still read:
Word PICs
Process PICs
Agent PICs

Tournament: x | Round: 1 | Opponent: x | Judge: x
Interpretation: Debaters' disclosure must include a listing of the labels of all positions they have read directly on the wiki page, and may not only post speech docs without a general description of the arguments within. To clarify, you can't just throw up a document on the wiki, if you disclose a warming DA, you must add a listing saying "Warming DA" or similarly descriptive entry title.

Tournament: all | Round: 1 | Opponent: x | Judge: x
Interpretation: Debaters who have attended at least 1 bid tournament must disclose all broken positions read in previous rounds (including Ks, DAs, ACs, NCs, CPs) on the NDCA LD 2016-2017 wiki under their name, school, and correct side, minimally including cites, tags, and the first three and last three words of all cards read.

Tournament: Golden Desert | Round: 6 | Opponent: Palo Alto Colin Fee | Judge: Adam Torson

Interp

Interpretation - the aff must defend and can only garner offense from the desirability of the hypothetical enactment of a topical policy enacted by the resolution's actors.

'Resolved' denotes a proposal to be enacted by law.

Words and Phrases 64 (Permanent Edition)
Definition of the word "resolve," given by Webster is "to express an
AND
," which is defined by Bouvier as meaning "to establish by law".  

Violation – confirmed in cx – you don't defend a policy

Net Benefits:

Limits

They destroy limits by allowing any possible aff – the topic is the only predictable point of preparation for both sides and is a key upper limit on the number of positions they can defend – only a precise and limited res creates deliberation on a point of mutual difference and promotes effective exchange

Steinberg and Freeley 13: * David, Lecturer in Communication studies and rhetoric. Advisor to Miami Urban Debate League. Director of Debate at U Miami, Former President of CEDA. And  Austin, attorney who focuses on criminal, personal injury and civil rights law, JD, Suffolk University, Argumentation and Debate, Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making, 121-4
Debate is a means of settling differences, so there must be a controversy,
AND
particular point of difference, which will be outlined in the following discussion.

Outweighs:

Quality of discussion – even if it's true that the scholarship they introduce is valuable, if I can't answer the aff then there's no point to reading the position. Debate's unique value is that it forces engagement and contestation of issues – but this is impossible if I don't even know what to prepare for 

Polarization

Defending the topic is hard because it requires you to admit you could be wrong—that generates competitive respect and dialogue. Voting aff reinforces group polarization and choir preaching

Talisse 5 – philosophy professor at Vanderbilt (Robert, Philosophy and Social Criticism, 31.4, "Deliberativist responses to activist challenges")
Nonetheless, the deliberativist conception of reasonableness differs from the activist's in at least one
AND
of justice. Insofar as the activist denies this, he is unreasonable.

Limits internal link turn exclusion—empiricism is on our side—an experimental debate tournament with no topic caused students to perceive a lack of educational value—this discouraged them from participating in debate—

The vast majority of students thought it was unfair.

Preston 3—Thomas Preston, Professor of communications at the University of Missouri-St. Louis ~Summer 2003, "No-topic debating in Parliamentary Debate: Students and Critic Reactions," http://cas.bethel.edu/dept/comm/npda/journal/vol9no5.pdf~~
The study involved forty-three students and nine critics who participated in a parliamentary
AND
indicated that the no-topic debate gave an advantage to the Opposition. 

fairness is a prerequisite to any form of discussion – turns all your K impacts. Galloway 7

Galloway 7 (Ryan Galloway, Samford Debate Coach, Professor of Communication Studies at Samford, Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28, 2007
Debate as a dialogue sets an argumentative table, where ~allows~ all parties ~to~ receive a relatively fair opportunity to voice their position. Anything that fails to allow participants to have their position articulated denies one side of the argumentative table a fair hearing. The affirmative side is set by the topic and fairness requirements. While affirmative teams have recently resisted affirming the topic, in fact, the topic selection process is rigorous, taking the relative ground of each topic as its central point of departure. Setting the affirmative reciprocally sets the negative. The negative crafts approaches to the topic consistent with affirmative demands. The negative crafts disadvantages, counter-plans, and critical arguments premised on the arguments that the topic allows for the affirmative team. According to fairness norms, each side sits at a relatively balanced argumentative table. When one side takes more than its share, competitive equity suffers. However, it also undermines the respect due to the other involved in the dialogue. When one side excludes the other, it fundamentally denies the personhood of the other participant (Ehninger, 1970, p. 110). A pedagogy of debate as dialogue takes this respect as a fundamental component. A desire to be fair is a fundamental condition of a dialogue that takes the form of a demand for equality of voice. Far from being a banal request for links to a disadvantage, fairness is a demand for respect, a demand to be heard, a demand that a voice backed by literally months upon months of preparation, research, and critical thinking not be silenced. Affirmative cases that suspend basic fairness norms operate to exclude particular negative strategies. Unprepared, one side comes to the argumentative table unable to meaningfully participate in a dialogue. They are unable to "understand what 'went on…'" and are left to the whims of time and power (Farrell, 1985, p. 114). Hugh Duncan furthers this line of reasoning: Opponents not only tolerate but honor and respect each other because in doing so they enhance their own chances of thinking better and reaching sound decisions. Opposition is necessary because it sharpens thought in action. We assume that argument, discussion, and talk, among free an informed people who subordinate decisions of any kind, because it is only through such discussion that we ~to~ reach agreement which binds us to a common cause…If we are to be equal…relationships among equals must find expression in many formal and informal institutions (Duncan, 1993, p. 196-197). Debate compensates for the exigencies of the world by offering a framework that maintain~ing~s equality for the sake of the conversation (Farrell, 1985, p. 114). For example, an affirmative case on the 2007-2008 college topic might defend neither state nor international action in the Middle East, and yet claim to be germane to the topic in some way. The case essentially denies the arguments that state action is oppressive or that actions in the international arena are philosophically or pragmatically suspect. Instead of allowing for the dialogue to be modified by the interchange of the affirmative case and the negative response, the affirmative subverts any meaningful role to the negative team, preventing them from offering effective "counter-word" and undermining the value of a meaningful exchange of speech acts. Germaneness and other substitutes for topical action do not accrue the dialogical benefits of topical advocacy.

Tournament: GHILL | Round: 6 | Opponent: Montgomery RM | Judge: Nick Smith
A. Interpretation – if the negative introduces a role of the ballot of “The role of the ballot is to affirm strategies of expenditures”, they must specify and define what it means to “affirm strategies of expenditures” with minimally a sentence in their role of the ballot.
B. Violation
C. Standards
a. Critical engagement
D. Fairness is a voter because debate is a competitive activity based on skill, wins and losses.  Unfair strategies skew the judge’s ability to determine the better debater, and the ballot asks you to vote for the better debater, not cheater.  Drop the debater to deter further abuse, if I’m winning the harms that’s a reason I could never engage in the first place.

fairness requirements are key to effective dialogue—monopolizing strategy and prep makes the discussion one-sided and subverts any meaningful neg role.  Galloway

Debate as a dialogue sets an argumentative table, where allows all parties to receive a relatively fair opportunity to voice their position. Anything that fails to allow participants to have their position articulated denies one side of the argumentative table a fair hearing. The affirmative side is set by the topic and fairness requirements. While affirmative teams have recently resisted affirming the topic, in fact, the topic selection process is rigorous, taking the relative ground of each topic as its central point of departure. Setting the affirmative reciprocally sets the negative. The negative crafts approaches to the topic consistent with affirmative demands. The negative crafts disadvantages, counter-plans, and critical arguments premised on the arguments that the topic allows for the affirmative team. According to fairness norms, each side sits at a relatively balanced argumentative table. When one side takes more than its share, competitive equity suffers. However, it also undermines the respect due to the other involved in the dialogue. When one side excludes the other, it fundamentally denies the personhood of the other participant (Ehninger, 1970, p. 110). A pedagogy of debate as dialogue takes this respect as a fundamental component. A desire to be fair is a fundamental condition of a dialogue that takes the form of a demand for equality of voice. Far from being a banal request for links to a disadvantage, fairness is a demand for respect, a demand to be heard, a demand that a voice backed by literally months upon months of preparation, research, and critical thinking not be silenced. Affirmative cases that suspend basic fairness norms operate to exclude particular negative strategies. Unprepared, one side comes to the argumentative table unable to meaningfully participate in a dialogue. They are unable to “understand what ‘went on…’” and are left to the whims of time and power (Farrell, 1985, p. 114). Hugh Duncan furthers this line of reasoning: Opponents not only tolerate but honor and respect each other because in doing so they enhance their own chances of thinking better and reaching sound decisions. Opposition is necessary because it sharpens thought in action. We assume that argument, discussion, and talk, among free an informed people who subordinate decisions of any kind, because it is only through such discussion that we to reach agreement which binds us to a common cause…If we are to be equal…relationships among equals must find expression in many formal and informal institutions (Duncan, 1993, p. 196-197). Debate compensates for the exigencies of the world by offering a framework that maintains equality for the sake of the conversation (Farrell, 1985, p. 114). For example, an affirmative case on the 2007-2008 college topic might defend neither state nor international action in the Middle East, and yet claim to be germane to the topic in some way. The case essentially denies the arguments that state action is oppressive or that actions in the international arena are philosophically or pragmatically suspect. Instead of allowing for the dialogue to be modified by the interchange of the affirmative case and the negative response, the affirmative subverts any meaningful role to the negative team, preventing them from offering effective “counter-word” and undermining the value of a meaningful exchange of speech acts. Germaneness and other substitutes for topical action do not accrue the dialogical benefits of topical advocacy.

 Galloway 7 – professor of communications at Samford University (Ryan, “Dinner And Conversation At The Argumentative Table: Reconceptualizing Debate As An Argumentative Dialogue”, Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28 (2007),

Tournament: ghill | Round: 3 | Opponent: Loyola DK | Judge: Mokrent
Interpretation – The aff must specify and delineate in the text of the AC a roll of the ballot, standard, or metric by which the judge evaluates the round

Tournament: The ryan younger invitational | Round: Quarters | Opponent: Jared Paul | Judge: me
See open source

My opponent puts a tilde in their case.  The tilde is a tool of the patriarchy and is the root cause of gender oppression.  Gordon-King 14  

Last weekend, Melbourne ... intersectionality of oppression. 

Patriarchy causes extinction.  Wells 14 

Patriarchy is already ... and the world.

Moral uncertainty means all ethical theories collapse to preventing extinction.  Bostrom 12  bracketed for clarity

These reflections on ... any existential catastrophe.

Tournament: GH | Round: 1 | Opponent: Strake JH | Judge: Nubel
A. Interpretation: If the aff reads a consequentialist framework  they must specify which theory of good they defend in the AC. To clarify, this means that the text of the standard must include the type of consequentialism they defend, for example minimizing existential risk or maximizing happiness. Err toward spirit of the interp – abuse is contextualized by the standards and otherwise you permit abuse to occur based on blippy semantic I meets.
B. Violation
C. Standards
a. Stable ground – Each nuance of the ethic entails different obligations and would exclude different offense. MASTIN describes five different theories of good:  
Luke Mastin, Consequentialism, The basics of philosophy http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_consequentialism.html
Some consequentialist theories ... of bad outcomes.
3 Impacts

1. Aff can filter neg responses
   2. Strat Skew
   3. Makes the round irresolvable

Tournament: Meadows | Round: Doubles | Opponent: CPS DB | Judge: Mokrent, James, Harris

Baudy

Link - Ecopess

The aff claims that we need to confront our death, nonunique – we already have. Our desire to master the world demanded constant experimentation of all life until our death. We haven't just been killing Nature, we kill everything indiscriminately. Their romantic approach to the end refuses the reality of the Anthropocene and only brings Nature further into the slaughter. Baudrillard 94:

~Jean Baudrillard (Old grumpy guy), "The Illusion of the End" p. 80-84. 1994~ SF
Hence the recent proposal, following this same logic, from the moment it achieved
AND
has already won out, the sacrificing of the species to boundless experimentation.

Their assumptions that we can't abandon capitalism kills their solvency – under late capitalism, there is a societal fear of biological death that makes good life impossible. Live humans create productivity for those in power, but when we reduce life to productivity, life becomes meaningless for us all. Robinson 12:

~Andrew Robinson (Author, writer for Ceasefire Magazine, political theorist and activist based in the UK)" Jean Baudrillard: The Rise of Capitalism and the Exclusion of Death" March 30, 2012. https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/in-theory-baudrillard-2/~~ SF
Symbolic exchange is based on a game, with game-like rules. When
AND
as long as 'his' life or death serves the reproduction of domination.

Link - Political

There is no political activism anymore if everything is political, then nothing can be because there are no longer any referentials designating what the political even is.  Pundits analyze every gesture, every facial expression, and every article of clothing until none of it has any meaning anymore.

Baudy 93, Jean Baudrillard Professor of Philosophy of Culture and Media Criticism at the European Graduate School,.  1993, The Transparency of Evil: Essays on Extreme Phenomena, p.7-10
The possibility of metaphor is disappearing in every sphere. This is an aspect of
AND
by a single figure: the transpolitical, the transsexual, the transaesthetic.

Link - ROB

The Role of the Ballot is a link, 3 reasons

analytic

analytic.

analytic.

Alt

The alternative is the radical nihilistic challenge of my speech act. Our blind adherence to fiat and poor political representation as a community has drained debate of meaning. There is no connection between what we do here and the political, only the refusal to participate in the fiat game can bring us closer to meaning.

Baudrillard in 81:
Jean Baudrillard, "Simulacra and Simulation." Published 1984, in English in 1994.
I am a nihilist. I observe, I accept, I assume the immense
AND
meaning or of non-meaning itself. This is where seduction begins.

Tournament: ghill | Round: 3 | Opponent: Loyola DK | Judge: Mokrent
See open source

Tournament: GHILL | Round: 6 | Opponent: Montgomery RM | Judge: Nick Smith
The hope for progress is a lie predicated on and reproducing anti-black violence Warren
Perverse juxtapositions structure ... to black suffering.

The politics of hope ignores that politics is inherently anti-black, the dream of progress through the political is cruel optimism enables anti-black violence Warren
To speak of ... problem itself.

The only alternative is political apostasy and abandoning the politics of hope.  Self-abandonment of the political is the only appropriate response to anti-black structures of violence. Warren
For West and ...and spiritual practice.

Warren, Calvin L. "Black Nihilism and the Politics of Hope." CR: The New Centennial Review 15.1 (2015): 215-248.

Tournament: ghill | Round: 3 | Opponent: Loyola DK | Judge: Mokrent
The 1AC is an example of intellectual arrogance. Framing our international presence as being one of destructive violent imperialism compromises the moral force of hegemony. The US has an obligation to secure less stable nations; it’s the only way to ensure global safety.  Hanson
My point is rather … as they pass away. 

The Affirmative’s criticism of American policy is dangerous – it contributes to isolationism and the eventual collapse of U.S. primacy Kagan

Those contributing to … next American humbling. 

The alternative is to vote negative to align yourself with American hegemony the rhetoric of support is critical to preserving international stability. Kristol and Kagan

TWENTY YEARS later, … and moral confidence.

 Hanson 03 (Victor Davis, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Professor Emeritus at California University, Fresno, Ph.D. from Stanford, “We Could Still Lose.” National Review Online. August 11. http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3050721.html.)
 Robert Kagan, senior associate at the CE for International Peace and PhD in American History from American University, 1998, http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=viewandid=275, “The Benevolent Empire”

 Kristol and Kagan, 96
 (William Kristol – visiting professor in government at Harvard University and Robert Kagan – senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and PhD in American History, “Toward a Neo-Reganite Foreign Policy,” Foreign Affairs. July/August, http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=viewandid=276)

Tournament: Berkeley | Round: 1 | Opponent: idk | Judge: Steve Knell

Depictions of white, right wing extremists as "lone wolves" or mentally disturbed perpetuates islamophobia and racism.

Butler 15 Bracketed for clarity ~Anthea Butler (Anthea Butler is an associate professor of religion and Africana studies at the University of Pennsylvania.), 6-18-2015, "Shooters of color are called 'terrorists' and 'thugs.' Why are white shooters called 'mentally ill'?," https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/06/18/call-the-charleston-church-shooting-what-it-is-terrorism/ BWSWJ~
Police are investigating the fatal shooting of nine African Americans at Emanuel AME Church in
AND
war," we should be calling him what he is: a terrorist.

The term "Jihadist" is offensive and derogatory to the billions of peaceful Muslims worldwide – this has a real world impact

Awad 15 ~Nihad Awad (Nihad Awad is national executive director for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation's largest Muslim civil liberties group.); March 11, 2015; "A Word of Truth on Jihad and Islam" https://www.cair.com/press-center/op-eds/11877-a-word-of-truth-on-jihad-and-islam.html BWSWJ~
There is a growing attempt by some commentators to label the recent bombings in Boston
AND
to criminals and their acts of violence, no matter their religious background.

The alternative is to reject their representations of terrorism, they turn into racism

Bizri 7 (Siwar, Policy Analyst @ SAIC, 11/16/7, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-12042007-153628/unrestricted/finalthesis.pdf)
Research shows that the repetitive association of certain words and images with an accompanying idea
AND
270), rather than measure any explicit statements of racial and ethnic schemas.

Tournament: GHILL | Round: 6 | Opponent: Montgomery RM | Judge: Nick Smith
see open source

Tournament: Meadows | Round: 2 | Opponent: Coral | Judge: Miyamoto
See open source

Tournament: Golden Desert | Round: Octas | Opponent: Westview RS | Judge: Fife, Fee, and Peris

The ideology of capital and symbolic economy predetermine legitimate speech through powerful actor's ability to project hegemonic speech without possibility of response. This is the death of communication; free speech is never real within a system of capital. Baudrillard 81:

They're left to watch the
AND
congealed, stockpiled, and redistributed in some corner of the social process. 

The critique refuses the logic of fear that dominates political discourse thus the alternative is the hostage taking of the debate space. We defy the logic that holds our model of politics together. This process is necessary to produce new mindsets that lead to revolutionary change. The idea of material change cannot be separated from a prior immaterial change. Baudrillard 76:

Jean Baudrillard (Philosopher of the upmost Swag) "Symbolic Exchange and Death" 1976.

We will not destroy the system by a direct, dialectical revolution of the economic
AND
forbidden it, the only violence it cannot exert: its own death.

The role of the ballot is to endorse the discourse that most authentically represents underlying power –micropolitics are key to real, macro change. Nayar 99 bracketed for ableist language:

~Jayan Nayar (School of Law, University of Warwick), Transnat'l L. and Contemp. Probs. 599, Fall, 1999~ SF
The "world," as we perceive it today, did not exist in times
AND
critique, it is necessary to consider the "technologies" of ordering.

Tournament: Golden Desert | Round: 3 | Opponent: Dan Taro | Judge: Fink

Court Clog DA

Courts are overburdened and nearly failing but the GOP election could reduce caseload

Bendery '15 ~Jennifer Bendery (White House and Congressional Reporter); 09/30/2015; "Federal Judges Are Burned Out, Overworked And Wondering Where Congress Is"; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/judge-federal-courts-vacancies_us_55d77721e4b0a40aa3aaf14b BWSWJ~
For many district and circuit court judges, going to work means doing their job
AND
thousands or even millions of lives. They're just spread way too thin.

Court involvement in public institution speech cases causes court clog

Less '09 ~Gia B. Less, Professor-UCLA School of Law, 2009, "First Amendment Enforcement in Government Institutions and Programs," UCLA Law Review, August, 56 UCLA L. Rev. 1691, p. 1723~
This theme - that the practice of judicial review itself, regardless of its outcome
AND
both undermine the initial government decisionmakers' institutional authority and overwhelm the courts. n169

Failure to defer to public institutions' speech restrictions imposes costs – effectiveness and court clog – that turns case and outweighs the benefit

Less 2 ~Gia B. Less, Professor-UCLA School of Law, 2009, "First Amendment Enforcement in Government Institutions and Programs," UCLA Law Review, August, 56 UCLA L. Rev. 1691, p. 1723~
For other institutions and programs, the need for substantial discretion to restrict speech depends
AND
and effectiveness, the costs of traditional heightened review there outweigh its benefits.

Economy

Court clog from new litigation independently destroys the economy

Fix-Fierro '03, Circuit Master Judge, 3 (Hector, Courts, Justice, and Efficiency: A Social Justice Legal Study of Economic Rationality in Adjudication, p. 123)
Regarding the second question, ie, competition between legal systems121 and the role of
AND
decision-making process of foreign ~{and domestic) economic actors.123 

Terrorism

Court clog causes terrorism

Little '06, Legal Policy Analyst in the the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, 9-22-6 (Erica, "Federalizing "Gang Crime" Is Counterproductive and Dangerous," www.heritage.org/Research/Crime/wm1221.cfm)
One of the more concrete problems that comes with federal overcriminalization is the misallocation of
AND
. Moreover, federal prosecution is more expensive than state-level prosecution.

Terrorism guarantees extinction

Hellman, Stanford Engineering Prof, 8 
~Martin E., emeritus prof of engineering at Stanford, Spring 2008, "Risk Analysis of Nuclear Deterrence" accessed 5-28-14, http://www.nuclearrisk.org/paper.pdf, hec)
The threat of nuclear terrorism looms much larger in the public's mind than the threat
AND
assume that  preventing World War III is a necessity—not an option.

Econ

Kills tech innovation

Kirk 6, Executive Director of the American Intellectual Property Law Association, 3-24-6 (Michael, http://www.aipla. org/Content/ContentGroups/Legislative_Action/109th_Congress/Testimony5/ImmigrationBillSenatorSpecter.pdf)
I am writing to you on behalf of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (
AND
Federal Circuit to give timely and consistent consideration to patent cases. Sincerely,

Tournament: USC | Round: 3 | Opponent: HW VC | Judge: Torson
Counterplan text: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict constitutionally protected journalist speech except for publication of personally identifying information of child victims of crimes
Jones et al 10 Jones, Lisa M., David Finkelhor, and Jessica Beckwith. "Protecting victims’ identities in press coverage of child victimization." Journalism 11.3 (2010): 347-367. BWSWJ
This study demonstrates that identifying information about child victims appears in media reports with considerable regularity. What we do not know and cannot say with authority, however, is how frequently or seriously this impacts on victims. Some research, discussed in the introduction, suggests that such coverage could add substantially to a victim’s sense of shame and anxiety or inhibit their recovery. Personal quotes and individual anecdotes provide evidence that it happens in at least some cases (Haws and Ramsey, 1996; Riski and Grusin, 2003). In addition, fears of media disclosure may also play a role in the reluctance of some victims or their families to report crimes to authorities or cooperate in criminal cases, as at least one survey suggested (Kilpatrick et al., 1992). The appearance of identifying information in news accounts may add to this concern, making it harder to promote disclosure. But no research has yet been undertaken to determine how often and to what degree these negative consequences occur. Such research is badly needed and could be easily incorporated into studies of child victimization. In follow-up studies of samples of victimized children and their families, for example, questions about the impact of media exposure need to be asked. In community surveys of victims, their concerns about the potential negative impact of being identified in the media need to be assessed, and its connection to reporting or non-reporting evaluated. Until such research is done, we need to be cautious, but there is substantial cause for concern. Even without direct evidence of its negative impact, discussions about media practices are warranted. Media organizations and public policy in general already recognize and accept the potential for negative impact on victims from media exposure. This recognition is reflected in the policies observed by many media outlets to withhold the names of sexual assault victims (Thayer and Pasternack, 1994). It is also implicit in the laws and practices protecting juvenile offenders from media exposure (Davis, 2000).
Publication of child victims information can extremely harm abuse victims and make them less likely to report crimes toward them
Jones et al 10 Jones, Lisa M., David Finkelhor, and Jessica Beckwith. "Protecting victims’ identities in press coverage of child victimization." Journalism 11.3 (2010): 347-367. BWSWJ
While media publicity is likely to have a negative effect on all victims, there is evidence to be particularly concerned about child victims. Children have the capacity for feelings of shame and embarrassment as early as 3 or 4 years old and research has demonstrated that by the age of 10, youth can experience shame just by guessing or assuming that others are evaluating them negatively (Abrams, 1988; Bennett, 1989; Bennett and Gillingham, 1991). Child abuse experts note that children may be more likely to develop shame in the wake of traumatic experiences because their views of themselves are still forming (Deblinger and Runyon, 2005). The effects of the publicity of their victimization may also be particularly hard on children because their self-concept is so dependent upon others, peers in particular (see for example, Adler and Adler, 1998; McLellan and Pugh, 1999). By middle childhood, anxiety about peer relationships intensifies and reputation becomes very important to children (Hill and Pillow, 2006; Parker and Gottman, 1989). Children as young as 8 years old perceive that associating with a stigmatized person may affect their own reputation (Bennett et al., 1998). The stigma of abuse or victimization could lead to avoidance and rejection by a child’s peers, which in turn is associated with isolation, loneliness, impaired school performance and the greater likelihood of future social problems that can persist into adulthood (Asher and Coie, 1990; Buhs and Ladd, 2001; Dodge et al., 2003). Furthermore, research on victimization and bullying suggests that a past history of victimization and a reputation as a victim sometimes causes children to be targeted for further hazing, exclusion and victimization (Schwartz et al., 1993). The US justice system already recognizes the need for particular protections for children. A key element of juvenile justice systems in almost all states is an enhanced level of confidentiality for juvenile offenders beyond the protections afforded to adult offenders – for example, sealed records and closed hearings (Regoli and Hewitt, 2006). These provisions are based in part on an assumption that stigma is particularly detrimental to the development of youth, and that it inhibits opportunities to grow beyond the constraints of unfavorable childhood circumstances. These same arguments also apply to juvenile victims. Child victims need to be able to trust that their privacy will be protected as much as possible by those whom they have turned to for help. The alternative means not only the risk of heightened distress, as the evidence presented above suggests, but also the possibility that fewer victims will come forward to get help at all. Victims are very concerned about the possibility that their private trauma may be broadcast publicly. In one study, over half the surveyed rape victims reported that they would be ‘a lot’ more likely to report an attack to the police if there was a law prohibiting the news media from disclosing their name 

Publishing personal info of child crime victims is extremely common – it puts children at risk
Jones et al 10 Jones, Lisa M., David Finkelhor, and Jessica Beckwith. "Protecting victims’ identities in press coverage of child victimization." Journalism 11.3 (2010): 347-367. BWSWJ
Our review found that newspaper articles on child victimization commonly included identifying information about the child. In 51 percent of the articles we reviewed, at least one type of identifying information about the child was included. Table 2 presents the frequency with which different types of identifying information about the child were included in newspaper coverage for all reviewed articles. Rates were also calculated separately for articles covering sexual and non-sexual victimizations. The most directly identifying source of information, the child’s name, was included in 9 percent of the child victimization articles we reviewed. While it was rare for newspapers to publish the child’s name in reports of child sexual assault, the name was printed in 21 percent of the articles covering non-sexual assaults against children. In coverage of non-sexual victimizations (most typically physical abuse and neglect), we found that it was relatively common for newspapers to publish information about where the child lives, and to include the full name of either a non-offending caregiver or a family member offender. Overall, in newspaper coverage of non-sexual victimizations, at least one type of identifying information about children was included in 78 percent of the articles we reviewed.

Tournament: Golden Desert | Round: 3 | Opponent: Dan Taro | Judge: Fink

Endowments

Endowments are high now but dropping rapidly - protests are alienating alumni donors, who are of older generations

Hartocollis 8/4 – Anemona Hartocollis, writer for NYT: August 4, 2016("College Students Protest, Alumni's Fondness Fades and Checks Shrink" New York Times Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/us/college-protests-alumni-donations.html?_r=0 Accessed on 12/15/16)IG
Scott MacConnell cherishes the memory of his years at Amherst College, where he discovered
AND
, said there was no evidence the drop was connected to campus protests.

Endowment funds are key to US competitiveness – ensures college quality

Leigh '14 Steven R. Leigh (dean of CU-Boulder's College of Arts and Sciences), "Endowments and the future of higher education," UColorado Boulder, March 2014 AZ
These broad trends point directly to the need for CU-Boulder's College of Arts
AND
affirm the importance of higher education and enduringly preserve its viability and vitality.

Innovation solves great power war

Taylor 4 – Professor of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Mark, "The Politics of Technological Change: International Relations versus Domestic Institutions," Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 4/1/2004, http://www.scribd.com/doc/46554792/Taylor) RGP
I. Introduction Technological innovation is of central importance to the study of international relations
AND
, and war, international systems would not exist in the first place.

Tournament: CPS | Round: 5 | Opponent: Harker CZ | Judge: Neil Tagare

Round 3 NC

Hate Speech Reps K

Links

Our understanding of hate speech and its impacts are defined by dominant cultural discourses. By minimizing the impacts of hate speech, the aff perpetuates a culture that excludes the experience of minority groups. Watterson 1 (Kim M. Watterson, 'THE POWER OF WORDS: THE POWER OF ADVOCACY CHALLENGING THE POWER OF HATE SPEECH', 1991 by the University of Pittsburgh Law Review; Kim M. Watterson, 52 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 955 University of Pittsburgh Law Review Summer, 1991, JL)

The right to speak freely and the minimization by judges of the harm of hate speech combine to create a sizable obstacle to its restriction. The most apparent obstacle to justifying anti-hate speech policies is that first amendment prohibits regulations of speech that are based on "viewpoint." 48 At first glance, these policies seem to prohibit the expression of racist and sexist viewpoints, and, as such, are contrary to the first amendment. Added to this potential doctrinal problem is that many judges may see hate speech as insignificant. But closer scrutiny will reveal that hate speech is something other than the expression of a constitutionally protected viewpoint. The biggest obstacle to hate speech policies is not the first amendment itself. It is, instead, the perspective of the judge who sees hate speech as "isolated and purposeless acts"49 or as "merely offensive,"50 *965rather than as a facet of the systematic repression of racial minorities 51 that has a long-standing history. 52 Maintaining that hate speech is "something less than a viewpoint" is not at odds with a position that invests hate speech with significance. What is significant, however, about hate speech is not its status as a protected viewpoint; rather, it is the effect that hate speech has on its victims and on society at large. 53 Definitions of hate speech are clouded by conventional preconceptions held by dominant social groups. "The typical reaction of non-target group members is to consider the incidents isolated pranks, the product of sick-but-harmless minds....It is not the kind of real and pervasive threat that requires the state's power to quell."54 For example, although the Doe Court phrased the fighting words exception 55 very broadly, and was willing to recognize that under certain circumstances racial epithets could be characterized as fighting words, 56 the court did not see hate speech as threatening the kind of injury encompassed in the fighting words exception. Nor did it explicate when an epithet was a fighting word. Discussing the applicability of the fighting words exception to hate speech, one commentator makes a point that reveals that the way in which courts conceive of this exception is colored by the perspective of dominant social groups: Under existing law, insults of such dimension that bring men—this is a male centered standard—to blows are subject to a first amendment exception. The problem is that racist speech is so common that it is seen as part of the ordinary jostling and conflict people are expected to tolerate, rather than fighting words. Another problem is that the effect of dehumanizing racist language is often flight rather than fight. 57 *966 Why should the first amendment yield in order to protect against fight but not flight? That courts are willing to protect against the typical reaction of dominant social groups, but not against other responses, is a stark illustration of our inability to reckon with difference and the way in which we tend to assume sameness.

Your representation of hate speech creates a sense of powerlessness for the victims. By refusing to acknowledge suffering, the aff adds to the injury experienced by all forms of oppression. Watterson 2 (Kim M. Watterson, 'THE POWER OF WORDS: THE POWER OF ADVOCACY CHALLENGING THE POWER OF HATE SPEECH', 1991 by the University of Pittsburgh Law Review; Kim M. Watterson, 52 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 955 University of Pittsburgh Law Review Summer, 1991, JL)

The physical and psychological pain caused by hate speech should be given special significance because of its devastating effects. Pain is too world-destroying to do otherwise: "~T~he victim's intangible normative world ~is~ crushed by the material reality of pain and its extension, fear." 72 Pain destroys language. It silences. ~F~or the person, in pain, so incontestably and unnegotiably present is it that "having pain" may come to be thought of as the most vibrant example of what it is to "have certainty," while for the other person it is so elusive that hearing about pain may exist as the primary model of what it is "to have doubt." Thus pain comes unshareably into our midst as at once that which cannot be denied and that which cannot be confirmed. Whatever pain achieves, it achieves in part through its unshareability, and it ensures this unshareability in part through its resistance to language . . . . Prolonged pain does not simply resist language but actively destroys it, bringing about an immediate reversion to a state anterior to language, to the sounds and cries a human being makes before language is learned. 73 Although it is impossible literally to share pain, judges must endeavor to understand the pain experienced by victims of hate speech. Otherwise the judge is himself or herself condoning the pain inflicted by those who speak hate. 74 Judges may be unable to avoide daling out pain but they should avoid doing so without first contemplating the reality of *970 this pain and then considering whether the imposition of this pain is right. 75 Because judges have the power to have their perspectives define meaning in the legal realm, it will be the judge who determines whether the pain experienced by the victim of hate speech is recognized, and whether that pain is deemed to matter. In this respect, not only do those who speak hate inflict pain upon their victims, judges who characterize hate speech as "isolated and purposeless acts" and as "merely offensive" inflict pain as well. Judges inflict two sorts of pain. First, judicial decisions that do not recognize the seriousness of hate speech tolerate (and implicitly authorize) the hate inflicted upon its victims. 76 Legal interpretation takes place in a field of pain and death . . . . Legal interpretive acts signal and occasion the imposition of violence upon others . . . . Interpretations in law also constitute justifications for violence which has already occurred or which is about to occur. When interpreters have finished their work, they frequently leave behind victims whose lives have been torn apart by these organized, social practices of violence. 77 Second, when a judge trivializes hate speech, the victims experience the pain of having their point of view discounted. Victims of hate speech, then, are inflicted with a double dose of injury. They suffer real and tangible pain stemming from the hate speech itself. Additionally, they experience the pain of being powerless—of being at the mercy of the perspective of judges who fail to see and acknowledge their pain, and of knowing that their perspective counts for little. One commentator has stated that "~t~o be hated, despised, and alone is the ultimate fear of all human beings" 78 and that " t he aloneness comes not only from the hate message itself, but also from the government response of tolerance." 79

Alt and Impact Framing

The alternative is to prioritize the experience of the victim when analyzing instances of oppression. Challenging the dominant discourse is key – Watterson 3 (Kim M. Watterson, 'THE POWER OF WORDS: THE POWER OF ADVOCACY CHALLENGING THE POWER OF HATE SPEECH', 1991 by the University of Pittsburgh Law Review; Kim M. Watterson, 52 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 955 University of Pittsburgh Law Review Summer, 1991, JL)

Minow discusses the "unstated assumptions" that underlie perceptions of, and adjudication about, differences. These unstated assumptions reinforce and perpetuate stereotypes. As she describes the process: First, we often assume that "differences" are intrinsic, rather than viewing them as expressions of comparisons between people . . . . Second, typically, we adopt an unstated point of reference when assessing others. From the point of reference of this norm we determine who is different and who is normal . . . . Third, we treat the perspective of the person doing the seeing or judging as objective rather than subjective . . . . Fourth, we assume that the perspectives of those being judged are either irrelevant or are already taken into account through the perspective of the judge. That is, we regard a person's self conception or world view as unimportant to our treatment of that person . . . . Finally, there is an assumption that the existing social and economic arrangements are neutral. 58 Understanding how we think about difference helps to reveal how these unstated assumptions interact. All comparisons involve, whether stated or unstated, a baseline norm of comparison. This norm is the common evaluative standard that constitutes the point of view for judging. But, the deck is stacked. The dominant social group's perception is often the source of the norm. This explains the difficulty in discussing minority reactions in comparison with those of the dominant group—why fight not flight is considered significant. A realization that we tend to assume sameness and a recognition of difference must be incorporated into the adjudicative process. Hannah Arendt has remarked, "By closing your eyes you become . . . impartial . . ." 59 This implies that by starting with a blank slate one can see with unclouded vision. But no one is free of preconceptions; no one is a blank slate. So the question becomes: How do we make justice in a world that by definition is wrought with preconceptions and misunderstandings regarding the nature and effects of hate speech? Speaking of the process of judging, Arendt has stated that the thinking process which is active in judging something is not, like the thought process of pure reasoning, a dialogue between me and myself, but finds itself *967 always and primarily, even if I am quite alone in making up my mind, in an anticipated communication with others with whom I know I must finally come to some agreement. 60 The answer, then, to this question is that judging should be an inclusive process in which multiple and divergent perspectives are considered. It is the advocate who is the means by which the court is presented with alternative perspectives. That is, the mechanism by which victims of hate speech can have their voices heard is through the words of the advocate. Prior to presenting the court with this perspective, however, the advocate must herself come to understand 61 the relevant alternative perspective. In this respect, the advocate is the intermediary between the court and the victim; she is the voice of, but not the source of, the relevant perspective. One who is trying to understand victims of hate speech will surely benefit generally from considering the perspectives of others, thereby checking her own preconceptions. But, the perspective of the victims of hate speech provides the greatest insight because only this perspective will reveal fully the effects of hate speech. 62 If the advocate were the sole source of alternative perspectives we would be back to square one; that is, judging would not be an inclusive process which takes into account multiple voices. In short, when framing a strategy for her advocacy (a process that, of necessity, involves judging), the lawyer must listen to the voices of others.

Hate Speech PIC

Counterplan text: Public colleges and universities ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech except for hate speech. Lawrence bracketed is the solvency advocate

Charles R. Lawrence III, "Crossburning and the Sound of Silence: Antisubordination Theory and the First Amendment," 1992, ~http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2784andcontext=vlr~~
But there is no recognition in First Amendment law of the systematic private suppression of
AND
There can be no free speech where there are still masters and slaves. 

Competition: the counterplan competes both textually and functionally—you don't restrict any speech, we restrict hate speech.

Net Benefits:

Hate speech poses a direct threat to the oppressed. Banning it is necessary to promote inclusiveness.

Jared Taylor summarizes Waldron, 12, Why We Should Ban "Hate Speech", American Renaissance, summarizing Jeremy Waldron, The Harm in Hate Speech, Harvard University Press, 2012, 292 pp., 26.95. 8/24/12, http://www.amren.com/features/2012/08/why-we-should-ban-hate-speech/ Note – Taylor does not agree with but is summarizing Waldron's position
First-Amendment guarantees of free speech are a cherished part of the American tradition
AND
in which it is considered fine to beat up and drive out minorities.

Hate Speech DA

Current protections against hate speech are working – on campus harrassment is decreasing nationally now.  Sutton 16

Sutton 16 Halley Sutton, Report shows crime on campus down across the country, Campus Security Report 13.4 (2016), 9/9/16,http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/casr.30185/full LADI
A recent report released by the National Center for Education Statistics found an overall decrease
AND
lower than in 2001 for every category except forcible sex offenses and murder.

Removing restrictions on free speech allows hate speech – hate speech IS free speech

Volokh 15 Eugene Volokh,No, There's No "hate Speech" Exception to the First Amendment, The Washington Post, 5/7/15, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/?utm_term=.05cfdd01dea4 LADI
I keep hearing about a supposed "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment
AND
with any established definition of "hate speech" that I know of.) 

Hate speech leads to a genocidal increase in crimes against marginalized groups.

Greenblatt 15 Jonathan Greenblatt, When Hateful Speech Leads to Hate Crimes: Taking Bigotry Out of the Immigration Debate, Huffington Post, 8/21/15, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-greenblatt/when-hateful-speech-leads_b_8022966.html LADI
When police arrived at the scene in Boston, they found a Latino man shaking
AND
are working with a broad coalition of partners to get the ball rolling.

The aff's trivialization of hate speech undermines our project against systemic racism and oppression as a whole. EVEN if you grant them their silencing impacts – that silencing is KEY to create a cultural shift.

Watterson 91 (Kim M. Watterson, 'THE POWER OF WORDS: THE POWER OF ADVOCACY CHALLENGING THE POWER OF HATE SPEECH', 1991 by the University of Pittsburgh Law Review; Kim M. Watterson, 52 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 955 University of Pittsburgh Law Review Summer, 1991, JL)
Second, hate speech policies manifest our commitment to the elimination of invidious distinctions—
AND
racism will be continued and our commitment to equal rights will be strengthened.

Tournament: Golden Desert | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Will Berlin | Judge: Panel

CP

Counterplan Text – Colleges and Universities ought to allow all constitutionally protected speech in student publications except for hate speech

Competition – CP competes via mutual exclusivity – I limit hate speech but the aff allows all speech in publications
Net Benefits

Publicaitons are a source of hate on campus – it's been used to promote platforms for htings look holocaust denial. Foxman 10 (Abraham H. Foxman National Director Anti-Defamation League, Fighting Holocaust Denial in Campus Newspaper Advertisements A Manual for Action Revised: May 2010)

Holocaust denial is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory which claims that the well-documented destruction of six million Jews during World War II is actually a myth created by Jews to serve their own self-interested purposes. On college campuses, Holocaust denial is most often encountered in the form of advertisements submitted to student newspapers by Bradley Smith and his Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH). These ads are an affront to truth and an insult to the memory of those who were murdered by the Nazis. They create a divisive atmosphere for Jews on campus and foster conflict among students, faculty, administrators and the local community. Hillel: The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life, and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) have worked together for years to counteract these ads and to restore civility to the campus community when they have been published. Students, campus professionals and local community leaders necessarily play the major role in this effort. The Holocaust is a central tragedy in the sweep of Jewish and human history and a trauma that continues to inform Jewish life today. It is also a cautionary tale about human character that deserves retelling in every generation, to Jews and non-Jews alike. By fighting Holocaust denial on campuses we honor the memory of the victims, confront the forces of hatred, and help shape a responsible new generation of Americans. We urge you to join us in this effort. 

Hate speech leads to a genocidal increase in crimes against marginalized groups.

Greenblatt 15 Jonathan Greenblatt, When Hateful Speech Leads to Hate Crimes: Taking Bigotry Out of the Immigration Debate, Huffington Post, 8/21/15, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-greenblatt/when-hateful-speech-leads_b_8022966.html LADI
When police arrived at the scene in Boston, they found a Latino man shaking
AND
are working with a broad coalition of partners to get the ball rolling.

Hate speech chills campus behavior – this turns AC impacts. Tsesis 10(Tsesis, Alexander. "Burning Crosses On Campus: University Hate Speech Codes." Connecticut Law Review 617. 2010. Web. December 05, 2016. http://lawecommons.luc.edu/facpubs/131/.)====**
Allowing students or faculty members to intimidate others through hate symbols or expressions favors the bigots' desire to advocate discrimination and violence while denying the victims' reasonable expectation of security while on campus. 29 0 The constitutional importance of the First Amendment to democratic governance and self-assertion does not extend to menacing messages that tend to diminish the targeted group's sense of security and its ability to enjoy college commons areas and to attend university sponsored events.291 Students and faculty members are more likely to think twice before going to hear the college orchestra or heading to the student union if it requires walking through an area where a cross has recently been burned, a swastika has been displayed, or a supremacist rally has taken place. Hate speakers are neither inviting intellectual debate and rejoinder nor seeking political dialogue. Theirs is a campaign of silencing through intimidation-something that threatens the university's "marketplace of ideas" and is no benefit to educational interactions.292 Academic freedom is not alicense for harassment. Neither does hate speech further the pursuit for' truth: calling Jews vermin, blacks apes, women whores, Native Americans savages, Tutsis cockroaches, or Mexicans lazy has nothing to do with truth. These derogatory statements are meant to exclude and stamp certain groups with the label of outsider to the university community. Derisive speech becomes academically punishable when it is meant to defame, intimidate, threaten, terrify, or instigate violence.

Codes work – their arguments against it are empirically denied

Hodulik 91 ~Racist Speech on Campus; Wayne Law Review, Vol. 37, Issue 3 (Winter 1991), pp. 1433-1450 Hodulik, Patricia https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/waynlr37andstart_page=1433andcollection=journalsandid=1445 BWSWJ~
As the controversy over speech rules has continued in the press and other media,
AND
amendment values appears to have occurred as a result of enforcing the rule.

Wisconsin is a good model – tons of colleges enact codes similar to it

Hodulik 91 ~Racist Speech on Campus; Wayne Law Review, Vol. 37, Issue 3 (Winter 1991), pp. 1433-1450 Hodulik, Patricia https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/waynlr37andstart_page=1433andcollection=journalsandid=1445 BWSWJ~
To assess the policy implications of adopting university rules regulating hate speech, it is
AND
Wisconsin System-responded with policies or rules prohibiting racist or discriminatory harassment.

Tournament: Berkeley | Round: 1 | Opponent: idk | Judge: Steve Knell

Contention – Blackmail

Blackmail stops the exercise of freedom – it should be banned.

Varden:  Helga Varden ~Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Illinois~ "A Kantian Conception of Free Speech" Springer. 2010 BWSWJ
Finally, why is blackmail a matter of public right?17 As we have
AND
It is a public crime, since it endangers public right as such.

Blackmail is free speech – its not a violation of the first amendment

Block and Gordon 85 ~Walter Block and David Gordon, Blackmail, Extortion and Free Speech: A Reply to Posner, Epstein, Nozick and Lindgren, 19 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 37 (1985). Available at: h p://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol19/iss1/4 BWSWJ~~
As defined, blackmail should not be accorded the legal sanctions usually meted out in
AND
, to threaten to do X. Blackmail is thus a noncriminal act.

Tournament: CPS | Round: 2 | Opponent: James Naumovski | Judge: Lynbrook SZ

NC

I value morality.

To value any end, I must value the conditions necessary to will that end – independence is one of those conditions, since end-setting requires I be free from another's control. Willing means I hold myself to be able to fulfill that end, which requires freedom.  There can be no objection to deny another's freedom since they possess the same right and that would deny my worth – resolving disputes via unilateral coercion is a contradiction.

Korsgaard:  Christine M. Korsgaard "Taking the Law into Our Own Hands: Kant on the Right to Revolution" Oxford University Press. 2008
Suppose we are in the state of nature and we get into a dispute about
AND
, is to settle the particular dispute in question in some lawful way.

Thus we must have an omnilateral will since it's a contradiction by willing a world where the will is denied or clashing without resolution. All claims are provisional until brought under public right – only reciprocal coercion is consistent with freedom.

Korsgaard 2:  Christine M. Korsgaard "Taking the Law into Our Own Hands: Kant on the Right to Revolution" Oxford University Press. 2008
Now, with respect to an external and contingent possession, a unilateral Will cannot
AND
:256)
Thus the standard is consistency with the omnilateral will. 

Seditious speech violates freedom – revolution amounts to a contradiction, so speech supporting it is willing a world where there is no omnilateral will.

Varden:  Helga Varden ~Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Illinois~ "A Kantian Conception of Free Speech" Springer. 2010
To understand Kant's condemnation of seditious speech, remember that Kant, as mentioned above
AND
qua private citizens, it is a public crime (6: 331).

That negates – seditious speech is constitutionally protected.

JUSTIA Law:  "Seditious Speech and Seditious Libel" http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-01/41-seditious-speech.html *brackets in original
Seditious Speech and Seditious Libel.—Opposition to government through speech alone has been subject
AND
in Madison's view, a fundamental principle of the American form of government."

Tournament: Golden Desert | Round: 2 | Opponent: Rock Springs | Judge: Travis Fife

NC

I value morality.

To value any end, I must value the conditions necessary to will that end – independence is one of those conditions, since end-setting requires I be free from another's control. Willing means I hold myself to be able to fulfill that end, which requires freedom.  There can be no objection to deny another's freedom since they possess the same right and that would deny my worth – resolving disputes via unilateral coercion is a contradiction.

Korsgaard:  Christine M. Korsgaard "Taking the Law into Our Own Hands: Kant on the Right to Revolution" Oxford University Press. 2008
Suppose we are in the state of nature and we get into a dispute about
AND
, is to settle the particular dispute in question in some lawful way.

Thus we must have an omnilateral will since it's a contradiction by willing a world where the will is denied or clashing without resolution. All claims are provisional until brought under public right – only reciprocal coercion is consistent with freedom.

Korsgaard 2:  Christine M. Korsgaard "Taking the Law into Our Own Hands: Kant on the Right to Revolution" Oxford University Press. 2008
Now, with respect to an external and contingent possession, a unilateral Will cannot
AND
, a society under a civil constitution. (MPJ 6:256)

Thus the standard is consistency with the omnilateral will.

Contention – Sedition

Seditious speech violates freedom – revolution amounts to a contradiction, so speech supporting it is willing a world where there is no omnilateral will.

Varden:  Helga Varden ~Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Illinois~ "A Kantian Conception of Free Speech" Springer. 2010
To understand Kant's condemnation of seditious speech, remember that Kant, as mentioned above
AND
qua private citizens, it is a public crime (6: 331).

That negates – seditious speech is constitutionally protected.

JUSTIA Law:  "Seditious Speech and Seditious Libel" http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-01/41-seditious-speech.html *brackets in original
Seditious Speech and Seditious Libel.—Opposition to government through speech alone has been subject
AND
in Madison's view, a fundamental principle of the American form of government."

Contention – Hate Speech

Hate speech negates.

Varden:  Helga Varden ~Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Illinois~ "A Kantian Conception of Free Speech" Springer. 2010
On the Kantian view I have been developing, hate speech and speech amounting to
AND
public debate and reflection followed by public regulation on behalf of all citizens.

Contention – Lies

Coercive speech and intentional lies undermine the state's monopoly on force – that negates

Varden:  Helga Varden ~Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Illinois~ "A Kantian Conception of Free Speech" Springer. 2010 BWSWJ
The refutation of a natural executive right also explains why Kant holds that public right
AND
laws'. They are not regulated by private law (6: 331).

Lies and false statements are protected – that's the Supreme Court in New York Times v Sullivan '64

~Chief Justice Brennan, joined by Warren, Clark, Harlan, Stewart, White; the other 2 justices concurred; New York Times Co. v. Sullivan No. 39 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 376 U.S. 254 Argued January 6, 1964 Decided March 9, 1964 http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/nytvsullivan.html BWSWJ~
That erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and that it must be protected
AND
libel is taken from the field of free debate. ~note 13~

Tournament: CPS | Round: 2 | Opponent: James Naumovski | Judge: Lynbrook SZ

The claim that free speech leads to democratic debate and social progress is a neoliberal myth – the AFF's faith in the free exchange of ideas displaces a focus on direct action and re-entrenches multiple forms of oppression.  Instead, the alternative is to reject the AFF's neoliberal framing of speech and direct pedagogy to focus on direct action against oppression.

Tillett-Saks 13 Andrew Tillett-Saks (Labor organizer and critical activist author for Truth-Out and Counterpunch), Neoliberal Myths, Counterpunch, 11/7/13, http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/11/07/neoliberal-myths/ LADI
In the wake of the Brown University shout-down of Ray Kelly, champion
AND
greater freedom. To the contrary, direct action has always proved necessary. 

A radical pedagogical stance is key – anti-capitalist movements can be effective, but critical consciousness is a necessary prerequisite.

Peter Mclaren 4, Education and Urban Schooling Division prof, UCLA—and Valerie Scatamburlo-D'Annibale; University of Windsor, Educational Philosophy and Theory, Vol. 36, No. 2, 2004, www.freireproject.org/articles/node2065/RCGS/class_dismissed-val-peter.10.pdf. LADI
These are the concrete realities of our time—realities that require a vigorous class
AND
memories. Its potential remains untapped and its promise needs to be redeemed.

Link – Right to Free Speech

The AFF's assumption of a property right to free speech assumes an overly idealistic notion of society that ignores economic barriers and is a product of the neoliberal myth that individuality should be protected at all costs.

Tillett-Saks 13 Andrew Tillett-Saks (Labor organizer and critical activist author for Truth-Out and Counterpunch), Neoliberal Myths, Counterpunch, 11/7/13, http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/11/07/neoliberal-myths/ LADI
Yet there are many critics of the protestors who do not claim Ray Kelly's policies
AND
on: The oppressors or the protestors. The status quo or progress.

Tournament: Berkeley | Round: 3 | Opponent: Loyola | Judge: Matt Conrad

Counterplan Text: Public colleges and universities ought not restrict constitutionally protected speech except for posts on RateMyProfessors.com and other related teacher rating websites

RateMyProfessors ratings reflect racism towards Asian professors and cause criticism for their accents

Subtirelu 15  ~Subtirelu, Nicholas Close. ""She does have an accent but…": Race and language ideology in students' evaluations of mathematics instructors on RateMyProfessors. com." Language in Society 44.01 (2015): 35-62. BWSWJ~
I return now to my original research questions, attempting to provide answers to them
AND
to comment on 'Asian' instructors' language serves as a disadvantage for them.

Tournament: CPS | Round: 2 | Opponent: James Naumovski | Judge: Lynbrook SZ

Pic

Counterplan Text: "Public colleges and universities in the United States ought to expand the view of sexual violence violations to include revenge pornography as harassment and restrict it accordingly." Rennison and Addington 14 is the solvency advocate:

~Callie Rennison (associate professor in the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver) and Lynn Addington (associate professor in the Department of Justice, Law and Criminology, School of Public Affairs at American University in Washington, DC), "Violence Against College Women: A Review to Identify Limitations in Defining the Problem and Inform Future Research" Trauma, Violence, and Abuse. July 2014. Vol. 15, no. 3. Pgs. 159-169. http://tva.sagepub.com/content/15/3/159.full~~#sec-11~~ SF
The current violence against college women literature has expanded knowledge about the prevalence and characteristics
AND
such as cyberstalking or identity theft (which can generate significant emotional harm).

The counterplan competes through mutual exclusivity; the aff defends all constitutionally protected speech and revenge pornography is federally protected under the first amendment.

ACLU v. Arizona gives the best precedent. Harrison 15:

~Anne Harrison (Student Writer for the Journal of Gender, Race and Justice), "Revenge Porn: Protected by the Constitution?" The Journal of Gender, Race and Justice. Vol 18. February 2015. https://jgrj.law.uiowa.edu/article/revenge-porn-protected-constitution~~ SF
Because the anti-revenge-porn criminal statutes at issue are content-based
AND
and images that are "truly newsworthy, artistic, and historical images."

Revenge porn is the Internet evolution of stalking and begets real stalking. It is constitutively psychological harassment. Robertson 15:

~Hope Robertson (3L student at Campbell Law School), "The Criminalization of Revenge Porn" Campbell Law Observer. July 21, 2015. http://campbelllawobserver.com/the-criminalization-of-revenge-porn/~~ SF
With the advancement of the Internet and continued heightened sexualization of younger generations, Revenge
AND
both those who create the websites and those who post on the websites.

Revenge Pornography is inherently sexist – there is no debate. Filipovic 13:

~Jill Filipovic (Journalist) "'Revenge Porn' Is About Degrading Women Sexually and Professionally." The Guardian, 2013. Accessed 11/10/14. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/28/revenge-porn-degrades-women~~ SF
Society sees it differently – at least when the nude photo is of a woman
AND
hating women, taking enjoyment in seeing them violated, and harming them.

Don't let them say free speech good; discursive objectification of women on college campuses takes away their speech. Turns case. Pinar 12:

~William F. Pinar (American educator, curriculum theorist and international studies scholar; has taught at LSU, Colgate, Columbia, and Ohio State), "The Gender of Violence on Campus" Published in Gendered Futures in Higher Education: Critical Perspectives for Change. Edited by Becky Ropers-Huilman. Feb 1, 2012. SUNY Press~ SF
The culture of rape is reflected in fraternity culture, especially in its language and
AND
is my dick. I'm gonna fuck you. No more stupid questions."

Tournament: USC | Round: 3 | Opponent: HW VC | Judge: Torson
b. Field Context – Any means all, that’s the supreme court precedent
Justice O’Connor 96 United States v. Gonzales 520 U.S. 1 (1997); O'CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined; Supreme Court; https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/520/1/case.html WJ
The question we face is whether the phrase "any other term of imprisonment" "means what it says, or whether it should be limited to some subset" of prison sentences, Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U. S. 1, 4 (1980)-namely, only federal sentences. Read naturally, the word "any" has an expansive meaning, that is, "one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 97 (1976). Congress did not add any language limiting the breadth of that word, and so we must read § 924(c) as referring to all "terms of imprisonment," including those imposed by state courts. Cf. United States v. AlvarezSanchez, 511 U. S. 350, 358 (1994) (noting that statute referring to "any law enforcement officer" includes "federal, state, or local" officers); Collector v. Hubbard, 12 Wall. 1, 15 (1871) (stating "it is quite clear" that a statute prohibiting the filing of suit "in any court" "includes the State courts as well as the Federal courts," because "there is not a word in the statute tending to show that the words 'in any court' are not used in their ordinary sense"). There is no basis in the text for limiting § 924(c) to federal sentences.

Tournament: Golden Desert | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Will Berlin | Judge: Panel

K

The 1ACs intellectualization of free speech to problematize the activism of students ignores the real struggles people of color and other minorities face every day.  By immediately criticizing marginalized people for their tactics, you give an easy out to discard discussion of the issues they face.

Cornett 15 ~SARAH CORNETT (The editor of the Whitman College student-run weekly newspaper, The Pioneer); Friday, December 04, 2015; "Racism on Campus - Not Free Speech - Is the Real Story: Mainstream Media Are Missing the Mark"; http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/33904-racism-on-campus-not-free-speech-is-the-real-story-mainstream-media-are-missing-the-mark BWSWJ~
As the clip gained traction on social media, national news organizations began to pay
AND
nation," Kumar said. "But we can't afford to stop there."

Claims of "free speech" are just a right wing power grab – speech has never been free but that doesn't stop dominant power structures from using it to protect repugnant viewpoints while censoring others at the same time

Jacobs 15 ~Ron Jacobs; NOVEMBER 16, 2015; "Shove Your Free Speech in Their Face"; http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/11/16/shove-your-free-speech-in-their-face/ BWSWJ~
Recently, the US mainstream press made a big deal over a freelance photographer who
AND
Shove your free speech in their cameras and microphones and make it heard.

Welcome to Victim Blaming 2.0^TM, with included self righteousness and claims of moral superiority! The aff's invocation of free speech is the new trick to avoid ever discussing concrete material claims of racism.  The alternative is to end the diversion embodied by the 1AC and confront issues of racism and oppression head on instead of abstracting to higher principles like free speech. Free speech good is non-responsive and just links harder into the K, even if free speech is good, your tactics of using it to deflect real world harms is bad.

Cobb 15 ~Jelani Cobb (Jelani Cobb has been contributing to The New Yorker and newyorker.com since 2012, and became a staff writer in 2015. He writes frequently about race, politics, history, and culture. His most recent book is "The Substance of Hope: Barack Obama and the Paradox of Progress." He's a professor of journalism at Columbia University. He won the 2015 Sidney Hillman Prize for Opinion and Analysis Journalism, for his columns on race, the police, and injustice.) ; November 10, 2015; "RACE AND THE FREE-SPEECH DIVERSION"; http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/race-and-the-free-speech-diversion BWSWJ~
Of the many concerns unearthed by the protests at two major universities this week,
AND
, from the look of things, will there be any time soon.

Tournament: Berkeley | Round: Triples | Opponent: Lynbrook YZ | Judge: Joseph, James, and Hughes
Prescriptive claims can’t be derived from descriptive properties like how we descriptively reason. Explanatory meta-ethical accounts of morality commit a conceptual error. Morality exists to explain what is right, not what is so.
Reader Reader, Soren. Late Professor of Philosophy, Durham University “New Directions in Ethics: Naturalism, Reasons, and Virtue.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, Vol. 3, No. 4, Dec. 2000.
What is the … need to go.
Instead, a virtue paradigm views ethics as a developmental social phenomenon in which the pre-existing moral categories and inculcated as a disposition.
Reader 2: Reader, Soren. Late Professor of Philosophy, Durham University “New Directions in Ethics: Naturalism, Reasons, and Virtue.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, Vol. 3, No. 4, Dec. 2000.
Virtue is a … what constitutes it.
Thus the standard is Promoting Human Flourishing.
Contention
The state has an obligation to inculcate civic virtue.
Smith:  George H. Smith FEB 28, 2012 The Roots of State Education Part 3: Aristotle and Civic Virtue formerly Senior Research Fellow for the Institute for Humane Studies, a lecturer on American History for Cato Summer Seminars, and Executive Editor of Knowledge Products. Smith's fourth book, The System of Liberty, was recently published by Cambridge University Press.
Aristotle explicitly repudiated … of the State….”
That entails restricting university speech.
Byrne 91, J. Peter Byrne (Associate Professor, Georgetown University Law Center), Racial Insults and Free Speech Within the University, 79 Geo. L.J. 399 (1991).
The university’s relationship … been insufficiently studied.

Tournament: Golden Desert | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Will Berlin | Judge: Panel

Interp and violation

Interpretation – The Cambridge Dictionary defines any:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/quantifiers/any
We use any before nouns to refer to indefinite or unknown quantities or an unlimited
AND
any clean knives. They're all in the dishwasher. (+ plural noun)

Any is a determiner in the context of the resolution – it specifies the scope of constitutionally protected speech we shouldn't prohibit. Thus the aff is required to defend that all constitutionally protected speech must be allowed on college campus – and cannot specify to any finite quality / specific speech restriction to overturn.

Violation –

C. Standards

a. Field Context:

Any is unambiguously all-inclusive – that's circuit court precedent.

Murnaghan in US v Atkins ~United States v. Atkins, 872 F.2d 94, 96 (4th Cir.1989), "OPINION: ~*95~ Murnaghan", Circuit Judge, http://mtweb.mtsu.edu/cewillis/Hermeneutics/US20v20Atkins.pdf BWSWJ~
Thus, considering the plain meaning of the subject language, Atkins' conviction appears to
AND
consequently, conclude that the judgment of the district court should be affirmed.

And analysis of congress' intent and purpose when drafting laws including the word "any" confirms the interpretation is most applicable to governmental action

Basler 2 ~Tracey A. Basler, 2002, NEW ENGLAND LAW REVIEW: Vol. 37:1, p 147-182, "Does "Any" Mean "All" or Does "Any" Mean "Some"? An Analysis of the "Any Court" Ambiguity of the Armed Career Criminal Act and Whether Foreign Convictions Count as Predicate Convictions"  BWSWJ~
Analysis of the plain language of the ACCA, and the referenced felony possession statute
AND
can be kept out of all dangerous criminals' hands, not just some.

Field context is key to any voter –topic lit is constructed based on shared assumptions in the field. Debate is simulated policymaking; correct interpretation of the legal system is constitutive of the activity.

Semantic justifications outweigh pragmatic ones – you proving another interpretation is more educational or fair is a reason only justifies that it would be more beneficial to debate another topic, not a reason we should use that definition while debating the actual one.  And debating according to semantics is most pragmatic, there are an infinite number of changes to the resolution that might be more educational or fair to debate, but I can never know or prep for all of them. That's incredibly unfair and uneducational because you will always have an advantage to your specific interpretation. Also means it's not in the judges jurisdiction to vote for you if you're not semantically topical.

b. Limits

There are thousands of speech codes and policies that the aff can choose to overturn – destroying my ability to engage the aff. Lukianoff (Greg Lukianoff, "Campus Speech Codes: Absurd, Tenacious, and Everywhere", May 23, 2008 , https://www.nas.org/articles/Campus_Speech_Codes_Absurd_Tenacious_and_Everywhere)====
For our 2007 report, FIRE surveyed publicly available policies at the 100 "Best National Universities" and at the 50 "Best Liberal Arts Colleges," as rated in the August 28, 2006 "America's Best Colleges" issue of U.S. News and World Report. FIRE surveyed an additional 196 major public universities. (because public universities are legally bound by the First Amendment, FIRE is continually adding data on public universities to our database, at a rate consistent with our available resources). Several FIRE staff members spent a substantial portion of their year researching literally thousands of policies and rules in student handbooks, other official campus materials, and on schools' websites. The policies were then evaluated by FIRE's specialized lawyers and assigned a red (worst), yellow or green light (best) rating to the university based on the extent to which their written policies restricted constitutionally protected speech. We publicly post all of the relevant materials, our ratings, and excerpts containing the language most dangerous to basic liberties on our Spotlight website (www.thefire.org/spotlight). It is, to our knowledge, the most extensive evaluation of campus codes ever attempted. A school is given a "red light" if it has at least one policy that both clearly and substantially restricts freedom of speech. A "clear" restriction involves a threat to free speech which is obvious on the face of the policy, whereas a "substantial" restriction is one that is broadly applicable to important categories of campus expression. A "yellow light" institution is one that has policies which could be interpreted to suppress protected speech, or policies that, while restrictive of freedom of speech, restrict only narrow categories of speech. For example, a policy banning "verbal abuse" would have broad applicability and would pose a substantial threat to free speech, but it would not be a clear violation because "abuse" might refer to unprotected speech, such as threats of violence or genuine harassment. "Yellow light" policies may still be unconstitutional,28 but they do not clearly and substantially restrict speech in the same manner as "red light" policies. If FIRE finds no policies that seriously imperil protected speech, a college or university receives a "green light." This does not necessarily mean that a school actively supports free expression. It simply means that the school does not have any publicly available written policies which violate students' free speech rights. Of the 346 schools reviewed by FIRE, 259 received a red-light rating (75), 73 received a yellow-light rating (21), and only 8 received a green-light rating (2). Six schools did not receive any rating from FIRE. Surprisingly, public schools, which are unambiguously legally bound by the First Amendment, actually had a somewhat higher percentage of "red light" ratings; a full 79 of public schools were "red light," 19 "yellow light", and 2 green.

Even if the aff is predictable, limits prevents me from adequately engaging. Limits are key to fairness because they protect the negative's ability to engage the aff and ensure the neg can form a coherent strategy.

3. Ground – any other interpretation gives the aff functionally infinite ground.

Eckert 16:  Bennett Eckert "Topic Analysis by Bennett Eckert." Champion Briefs: Jan/Feb 2017. 2016.
This is potentially the most frustrating word in the topic. Merriam-Webster's first
AND
discussion in the next two sections on affirmatives that defend the whole resolution.

Tournament: Loyola | Round: 2 | Opponent:  | Judge: Michael Harris
Counterplan Text: Countries ought to ban and destroy all nuclear weapons

Tournament: Meadows | Round: 6 | Opponent: Green Valley | Judge: Rory
CP: The United States will ban the production of nuclear power.  China will ban the production of floating nuclear power, nuclear warships, and reprocessing.

Tournament: Meadows | Round: 6 | Opponent: Green Valley | Judge: Rory

Warming DA

China is the top emitter, but not for long. China's plan to reduce emissions relies on massive nuclear power production and it's posited to succeed. WNA 16:

~World Nuclear Association (The WNA's mission is to promote a wider understanding of nuclear energy among key international influencers by producing authoritative information, developing common industry positions, and contributing to the energy debate. It works closely with the IAEA, the inter-governmental body for technical and scientific cooperation in nuclear energy and WANO, the industry's reactor safety organisation; and other regional and national nuclear associations around the world), "Nuclear Power in China" August 2016. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx~~ SF
While coal is the main energy source, most reserves are in the north or
AND
 in 2007. The action plan aim was 62 in 2020.

China's current plan to solve their emissions is wholly contingent on a mass nuclear power program, the aff would destroy this. Anderson 15:

~Richard Anderson (Business Reporter at BBC News and works with the Science of Online Communication), "Nuclear power: Energy for the future or relic of the past?" BBC News. Feb 27, 2015. http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30919045~~ SF
In fact, according to Dr Jonathan Cobb at the World Nuclear Association (WNA
AND
says, "China's banks are ready to finance ~nuclear power plants~."

China is the tipping point on global warming. Human survival in the long run depends on if they can fix their emissions now. Heydarian 15:

~Richard Heydarian (specialist in Asian geopolitical/economic affairs at Al Jazeera), "Climate change and China: The indispensable nation" Al Jazeera. Dec 15, 2015. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/12/climate-change-china-indispensable-nation-151214121546159.html~~ SF
The message is clear. If the world is to avert a climate disaster,
AND
the gravity of the issue, but also an imperative for humanity's survival.

Tournament: Loyola3 | Round: 3 | Opponent: Oakwood LB | Judge: David Dosch
See open source

Tournament: Meadows | Round: 2 | Opponent: Coral | Judge: Miyamoto
see open source

Tournament: Meadows | Round: 2 | Opponent: Coral | Judge: Miyamoto
See open source

Tournament: Loyola | Round: 5 | Opponent: Crossroads NS | Judge: Fried
See open source

Tournament: Loyola | Round: 3 | Opponent: Oakwood LB | Judge: David Dosch
See open source

Tournament: GHILL | Round: 3 | Opponent: Loyola DK | Judge: mokrent
A. Interpretation. Affirmatives must defend countries in general and must not defend that only a single government or combination of any type of governments prohibit production of nuclear power.
B. Violation
C. Standards

1. Textuality - The resolution’s use of bare plurals with “countries” and “nuclear power” requires an unspecific approach. Nebel
    Jake Nebel Executive Director of Victory Briefs and a PhD candidate in Philosophy at New York University. He holds an AB in Philosophy from Princeton and a BPhil in Philosophy from Oxford, where he studied as a Marshall Scholar “Jake Nebel on Specifying “Just Governments”” VBriefly. DECEMBER 19, 2014. http://vbriefly.com/2014/12/19/jake-nebel-on-specifying-just-governments/

 I believe that debaters shouldn’t specify a government on the living wage topic. The standard argument for this is simple: “just governments” is a plural noun phrase, so it refers to more than one just government. Most debaters will stop there. But there is much more to say. (Some seem not to care about the plural construction. I plan to address this view in a later article about the parametric conception of topicality.) Some noun phrases include articles like “the,” demonstratives like “these,” possessives like “my,” or quantifiers like “some” or “all.” These words are called determiners. Bare plurals, including “just governments,” lack determiners. There’s no article, demonstrative, possessive, or quantifier in front of the noun to tell you how many or which governments are being discussed. We use bare plurals for two main purposes. Consider some examples: Debaters are here. Debaters are smart. In (1), “debaters” seems equivalent to “some debaters.” It is true just in case there is more than one debater around. If I enter a restaurant and utter (1), I speak truly if there are a couple of debaters at a table. This is an existential use of the bare plural, because it just says that there exist things of the relevant class (debaters) that meet the relevant description (being here). In (2), though, “debaters” seems to refer to debaters in general. This use of the bare plural is generic. Some say that generics refer to kinds of things, rather than particular members of their kinds, or that they refer to typical cases. There is a large literature on understanding generics. Here my aim is not to figure out the truth conditions for the generic reading of the resolution; I shall simply work with our pre-theoretical grip on the contrast between sentences like (1) and (2). This distinction bears importantly on the resolution. If “just governments” is a generic bare plural, then the debate is about whether just governments in general ought to require that employers pay a living wage. If it is an existential bare plural, then the debate is about whether some just governments—i.e., more than one—ought to require that employers pay a living wage. Only the second interpretation allows one to affirm by specifying a few governments

Tournament: ghill | Round: 3 | Opponent: Loyola DK | Judge: Mokrent
A. Interpretation. Affirmatives must defend countries in general and must not defend that only a single government or combination of any type of governments prohibit production of nuclear power.
B. Violation
C. Standards

Textuality - The resolution’s use of bare plurals with “countries” and “nuclear power” requires an unspecific approach. Nebel
 Jake Nebel Executive Director of Victory Briefs and a PhD candidate in Philosophy at New York University. He holds an AB in Philosophy from Princeton and a BPhil in Philosophy from Oxford, where he studied as a Marshall Scholar “Jake Nebel on Specifying “Just Governments”” VBriefly. DECEMBER 19, 2014. http://vbriefly.com/2014/12/19/jake-nebel-on-specifying-just-governments/
 I believe that debaters shouldn’t specify a government on the living wage topic. The standard argument for this is simple: “just governments” is a plural noun phrase, so it refers to more than one just government. Most debaters will stop there. But there is much more to say. (Some seem not to care about the plural construction. I plan to address this view in a later article about the parametric conception of topicality.) Some noun phrases include articles like “the,” demonstratives like “these,” possessives like “my,” or quantifiers like “some” or “all.” These words are called determiners. Bare plurals, including “just governments,” lack determiners. There’s no article, demonstrative, possessive, or quantifier in front of the noun to tell you how many or which governments are being discussed. We use bare plurals for two main purposes. Consider some examples: Debaters are here. Debaters are smart. In (1), “debaters” seems equivalent to “some debaters.” It is true just in case there is more than one debater around. If I enter a restaurant and utter (1), I speak truly if there are a couple of debaters at a table. This is an existential use of the bare plural, because it just says that there exist things of the relevant class (debaters) that meet the relevant description (being here). In (2), though, “debaters” seems to refer to debaters in general. This use of the bare plural is generic. Some say that generics refer to kinds of things, rather than particular members of their kinds, or that they refer to typical cases. There is a large literature on understanding generics. Here my aim is not to figure out the truth conditions for the generic reading of the resolution; I shall simply work with our pre-theoretical grip on the contrast between sentences like (1) and (2). This distinction bears importantly on the resolution. If “just governments” is a generic bare plural, then the debate is about whether just governments in general ought to require that employers pay a living wage. If it is an existential bare plural, then the debate is about whether some just governments—i.e., more than one—ought to require that employers pay a living wage. Only the second interpretation allows one to affirm by specifying a few governments

Tournament: Meadows | Round: 3 | Opponent: Indu Pandey | Judge: Kathy  Bond

We reject the affs use of the term "production" in favor of the word "extraction"

The affirmative's deployment of "production" reifies a deadly linguistic spillover that glorifies calculative, economic thought—this is uniquely true of energy usage. The more accurate term is extraction.

Catton '73 (William Jr., Well-known American sociologist, former professor of sociology at Wash. State., "EXTENSIONAL ORIENTATION AND THE ENERGY PROBLEM," http://www.generalsemantics.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/articles/etc/63-3-catton.pdf,)
The semantic malfunction that accounts for the president's enormously inadequate recognition of "stark fact
AND
how these processes may be articulated with other natural processes that affect us.

Clinging to outdated word-maps like "production" turns the case

Catton '73  (William Jr., Well-known American sociologist, former professor of sociology at Wash. State., "EXTENSIONAL ORIENTATION AND THE ENERGY PROBLEM, http://www.generalsemantics.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/articles/etc/63-3-catton.pdf)
Humanitarian attitudes to which many of us have been proud to adhere have caused us
AND
will make a bad situation worse as long as we cling to them.

Tournament: Loyola1 | Round: 3 | Opponent: Oakwood LB | Judge: David Dosch
See open source

Tournament: GH | Round: 1 | Opponent: Strake JH | Judge: Nubel
Warming is getting worse - we need to cut emissions or we’ll cross a critical threshold.
Harvey 13 Fiona, Guardian Environment Reporter, IPCC climate report: human impact is 'unequivocal', September 27 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/27/ipcc-climate-report-un-secretary-general
World leaders must now respond to an "unequivocal" message from climate scientists and act with policies to cut greenhouse gas emissions, the United Nations secretary-general urged on Friday. Introducing a major report from a high level UN panel of climate scientists, Ban Ki-moon said, "The heat is on. We must act." The world's leading climate scientists, who have been meeting in all-night sessions this week in the Swedish capital, said there was no longer room for doubt that climate change was occurring, and the dominant cause has been human actions in pouring greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. In their starkest warning yet, following nearly seven years of new research on the climate, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said it was "unequivocal" and that even if the world begins to moderate greenhouse gas emissions, warming is likely to cross the critical threshold of 2C by the end of this century. That would have serious consequences, including sea level rises, heatwaves and changes to rainfall meaning dry regions get less and already wet areas receive more. In response to the report, the US secretary of state, John Kerry, said in a statement: "This is yet another wakeup call: those who deny the science or choose excuses over action are playing with fire." "Once again, the science grows clearer, the case grows more compelling, and the costs of inaction grow beyond anything that anyone with conscience or commonsense should be willing to even contemplate," he said. He said that livelihoods around the world would be impacted. "With those stakes, the response must be all hands on deck. It's not about one country making a demand of another. It's the science itself, demanding action from all of us. The United States is deeply committed to leading on climate change." In a crucial reinforcement of their message – included starkly in this report for the first time – the IPCC warned that the world cannot afford to keep emitting carbon dioxide as it has been doing in recent years. To avoid dangerous levels of climate change, beyond 2C, the world can only emit a total of between 800 and 880 gigatonnes of carbon. Of this, about 530 gigatonnes had already been emitted by 2011. That has a clear implication for our fossil fuel consumption, meaning that humans cannot burn all of the coal, oil and gas reserves that countries and companies possess. As the former UN commissioner Mary Robinson told the Guardian last week, that will have "huge implications for social and economic development." It will also be difficult for business interests to accept. The central estimate is that warming is likely to exceed 2C, the threshold beyond which scientists think global warming will start to wreak serious changes to the planet. That threshold is likely to be reached even if we begin to cut global greenhouse gas emissions, which so far has not happened, according to the report. Other key points from the report are: • Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide are now at levels "unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years." • Since the 1950's it's "extremely likely" that human activities have been the dominant cause of the temperature rise. • Concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased to levels that are unprecedented in at least 800,000 years. The burning of fossil fuels is the main reason behind a 40 increase in C02 concentrations since the industrial revolution. • Global temperatures are likely to rise by 0.3C to 4.8C, by the end of the century depending on how much governments control carbon emissions. • Sea levels are expected to rise a further 26-82cm by the end of the century. • The oceans have acidified as they have absorbed about a third of the carbon dioxide emitted. Thomas Stocker, co-chair of the working group on physical science, said the message that greenhouse gases must be reduced was clear. "We give very relevant guidance on the total amount of carbon that can't be emitted to stay to 1.5 or 2C. We are not on the path that would lead us to respect that warming target which has been agreed by world governments." He said: "Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions." Though governments around the world have agreed to curb emissions, and at numerous international meetings have reaffirmed their commitment to holding warming to below 2C by the end of the century, greenhouse gas concentrations are still rising at record rates. Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC, said it was for governments to take action based on the science produced by the panel, consisting of thousands of pages of detail, drawing on the work of more than 800 scientists and hundreds of scientific papers. The scientists also put paid considered to claims that global warming has "stopped" because global temperatures in the past 15 years have not continued the strong upward march of the preceding years, which is a key argument put forward by sceptics to cast doubt on climate science. But the IPCC said the longer term trends were clear: "Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth's surface than any preceding decade since 1850 in the northern hemisphere the earliest date for reliable temperature records for the whole hemisphere." The past 15 years were not such an unusual case, said Stocker. "People always pick 1998 but that was a very special el Niño made it unusually hot, and since then there have been some medium-sized volcanic eruptions that have cooled the climate." But he said that further research was needed on the role of the oceans, which are thought to have absorbed more than 90 of the warming so far. The scientists have faced sustained attacks from so-called sceptics, often funded by "vested interests" according to the UN, who try to pick holes in each item of evidence for climate change. The experts have always known they must make their work watertight against such an onslaught, and every conclusion made by the IPCC must pass scrutiny by all of the world's governments before it can be published. Their warning on Friday was sent out to governments around the globe, who convene and fund the IPCC. It was 1988 when scientists were first convened for this task, and in the five landmark reports since then the research has become ever clearer. Now, scientists say they are certain that "warming in the climate system is unequivocal and since 1950 many changes have been observed throughout the climate system that are unprecedented over decades to millennia." That warning, from such a sober body, hemmed in by the need to submit every statement to extraordinary levels of scrutiny, is the starkest yet. "Heatwaves are very likely to occur more frequently and last longer. As the earth warms, we expect to see currently wet regions receiving more rainfall, and dry regions receiving less, although there will be exceptions," Stocker said. Qin Dahe, also co-chair of the working group, said: "As the ocean warm, and glaciers and ice sheets reduce, global mean sea level will continue to rise, but at a faster rate than we have experienced over the past 40 years." Prof David Mackay, chief scientific adviser to the Department of Energy and Climate Change, said: "The far-reaching consequences of this warming are becoming understood, although some uncertainties remain. The most significant uncertainty, however, is how much carbon humanity will choose to put into the atmosphere in the future. It is the total sum of all our carbon emissions that will determine the impacts. We need to take action now, to maximise our chances of being faced with impacts that we, and our children, can deal with. Waiting a decade or two before taking climate
Warming causes extinction – need to act now
McCoy ’14: (Dr. David McCoy et al., MD, Centre for International Health and Development, University College London, “Climate Change and Human Survival,” BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL v. 348, 4—2—14,  doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g2510, )
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has just published its report on the impacts of global warming. Building on its recent update of the physical science of global warming 1, the IPCC’s new report should leave the world in no doubt about the scale and immediacy of the threat to human survival, health, and well-being. The IPCC has already concluded that it is “virtually certain that human influence has warmed the global climate system” and that it is “extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010” is anthropogenic 1. Its new report outlines the future threats of further global warming: increased scarcity of food and fresh water; extreme weather events; rise in sea level; loss of biodiversity; areas becoming uninhabitable; and mass human migration, conflict and violence. Leaked drafts talk of hundreds of millions displaced in a little over 80 years. This month, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) added its voice: “the well being of people of all nations is at risk.” 2 Such comments reaffirm the conclusions of the Lancet/UCL Commission: that climate change is “the greatest threat to human health of the 21st century.” 3 The changes seen so far—massive arctic ice loss and extreme weather events, for example—have resulted from an estimated average temperature rise of 0.89°C since 1901. Further changes will depend on how much we continue to heat the planet. The release of just another 275 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide would probably commit us to a temperature rise of at least 2°C—an amount that could be emitted in less than eight years. 4 “Business as usual” will increase carbon dioxide concentrations from the current level of 400 parts per million (ppm), which is a 40 increase from 280 ppm 150 years ago, to 936 ppm by 2100, with a 50:50 chance that this will deliver global mean temperature rises of more than 4°C. It is now widely understood that such a rise is “incompatible with an organised global community.” 5. The IPCC warns of “tipping points” in the Earth’s system, which, if crossed, could lead to a catastrophic collapse of interlinked human and natural systems. The AAAS concludes that there is now a “real chance of abrupt, unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes with highly damaging impacts on people around the globe.” 2 And this week a report from the World Meteorological Office (WMO) confirmed that extreme weather events are accelerating. WMO secretary general Michel Jarraud said, “There is no standstill in global warming . . . The laws of physics are non-negotiable.” 6  
Nuclear energy solves climate change and decrease air pollution – outweighs any externalities.
Jogalekar ’13 *bracketed*: (Ashutosh Jogalekar. “Nuclear power may have saved 1.8 million lives otherwise lost to fossil fuels, may save up to 7 million more.” Scientific American. April 2, 2013FT)  
Nuclear power is often promoted as a low-carbon source that mitigates fossil fuel emissions and the resulting health damage and deaths caused by air pollution. But is it possible to provide estimates and actually quantify these effects? A new paper from NASA’s Goddard Institute authored by Pushker Kharecha and James Hansen in the journal Environmental Science and Technology purports to do just that. Hansen is well known as one of the founders of modern global warming science. The authors come up with the striking figure of estimate 1.8 million as the number of lives saved by replacing fossil fuel sources with nuclear. They also estimate the saving of up to 7 million lives in the next four decades, along with substantial reductions in carbon emissions, were nuclear power to replace fossil fuel usage on a large scale. In addition the study finds that the proposed expansion of natural gas would not be as effective in saving lives and preventing carbon emissions. In general the paper provides optimistic reasons for the responsible and widespread use of nuclear technologies in the near future. It also drives home the point that nuclear energy has prevented many more deaths than what it has caused. Let’s start with the abstract: “In the aftermath of the March 2011 accident at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, the future contribution of nuclear power to the global energy supply has become somewhat uncertain. Because nuclear power is an abundant, low-carbon source of base-load power, on balance it could make a large contribution to mitigation of global climate change and air pollution. Using historical production data, we calculate that global nuclear power has prevented about 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes (Gt) CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have resulted from fossil fuel burning. Based on global projection data that take into account the effects of Fukushima, we find that by midcentury, nuclear power could prevent an additional 420,000 to 7.04 million deaths and 80 to 240 GtCO2-eq emissions due to fossil fuels, depending on which fuel it replaces. By contrast, we assess that large-scale expansion of natural gas use would not mitigate the climate problem and would cause far more deaths than expansion of nuclear power.” The authors look at deaths caused by various power sources during the period 1971-2009. To provide a comparison they build a model in which all the power which was provided by nuclear energy was hypothetically replaced by fossil fuel sources. They employ the same technique for the projected 2010-2050 period, assuming that all current nuclear power sources have been replaced by fossil fuels. Two scenarios are considered - one in which nuclear is replaced by coal and another in which it is replaced by gas. This takes into account the uncertainty regarding the nature of fossil fuel usage that’s inherent in future energy projections. It’s worth noting that the authors consider only deaths and exclude from the model serious health crises such as heart failure, bronchitis and other respiratory problems; including these problems would further weaken the case for fossil fuels. The study also excludes aspects of nuclear power that cannot be easily quantified, such as deaths from nuclear proliferation. The results are quite clear. In the 2000-2009 period alone nuclear power may have prevented an average of 76,000 deaths. This is an average and the range is quite large, but even the lower limit runs into the tens of thousands. For countries like Germany which have cut back on nuclear, the range of deaths is naturally higher. This is a result that Japan's current leaders should take to heart. What is even more starkly clear is that the number of deaths caused by nuclear power is far lower than those saved by it; in fact there’s scant comparison. As the report notes, even the worst nuclear accident in history (Chernobyl) caused about 40 deaths; these include 28 immediate responders and about 15 deaths caused among 6000 victims of excess cancers (it’s always very difficult to detect statistically significant excess cancers in the presence of a high natural background rate). There have been no deaths attributable to the Three Mile Island accident. And while the verdict on Fukushima is still not definitive, the latest report on the accident predicts no direct deaths and a much lower exposure to radiation for the surrounding population than that purported to lead to fatal cancers. The bottom line is that, even assuming pessimistic scenarios, the number of deaths caused by nuclear power is a minuscule fraction of those lives which were saved by nuclear power replacing fossil fuels. Nuclear-free projections for the next four decades look even more dire. The authors estimate between 4 to and 7 million deaths for the “All-Coal” scenario and between 420, 000 – 680, 000 deaths for an “All-Gas” energy policy. This is something which countries like Germany and Japan that are planning to phase out nuclear must seriously consider. Only if all the nuclear power were replaced by equipotent renewable energy sources in the next four decades would these deaths be prevented. This kind of high-capacity deployment of renewables seems quite uncertain for now. Of course it’s not just the deaths. All the fossil fuel sources replacing nuclear power would contribute a very significant concentration of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and severely aggravate the effects of climate change. The authors estimate an additional 80 to 240 GtCO2-equivalents of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel sources in the next forty years if nuclear power were to decline. To put this into perspective, consider that the total amount of “allowable” input of greenhouse gases required to achieve a 350 ppm CO2 target by the end of the century is 500 GtCO2-equivalent. Nuclear power could thus reduce this load by 16-48. Deploying some of the new promising reactor technologies could reduce this load even more. The conclusions of the study are quite unambiguous. Even assuming uncertainties, nuclear power has saved at least hundreds of thousands of lives in the past forty years, and possibly millions. This is in stark contrast to the small number of lives lost in only one catastrophic nuclear accident. There are many more millions that would be lost if countries were to embark on a nuclear-free future replaced by fossil fuels. Natural gas might be a reasonable bridge to this future but it’s clear that it cannot be a sustainable one. It would take “heroic” efforts (in the words of the International Energy Agency) to replace all the nuclear power in the world with renewables in the next forty years. New generations of nuclear reactors like the molten salt and pebble bed reactors promise to make nuclear energy even more safe, efficient and cheap. Even Bill Gates is investing in a novel reactor design. The verdict is staring us in the face; we ignore energy from the atom at our own peril, and at the potential cost of a staggering number of lives from our children and grandchildren’s generation. It's not the kind of legacy we want to be remembered for.
Nuclear power supplies 11 of the world’s electricity – prohibiting would be a huge increase in yearly emissions.
WNA ’16: (World Nuclear Association, “Plans For New Reactors Worldwide,” April 2016 http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx)
Today there are some 440 nuclear power reactors operating in 31 countries plus Taiwan, with a combined capacity of over 385 GWe. In 2014 these provide 2411 billion kWh, over 11 of the world's electricity. Over 60 power reactors are currently being constructed in 13 countries plus Taiwan (see Table below), notably China, South Korea, UAE and Russia. Each year, the OECD's International Energy Agency (IEA) sets out the present situation and also reference and other, particularly carbon reduction scenarios. World Energy Outlook 2014 had a special focus on nuclear power, and extends the scope of scenarios to 2040. In its New Policies scenario, installed nuclear capacity growth is 60 through 543 GWe in 2030 and to 624 GWe in 2040 out of a total of 10,700 GWe, with the increase concentrated heavily in China (46 of it), plus India, Korea and Russia (30 of it together) and the USA (16), countered by a 10 drop in the EU. Despite this, the percentage share of nuclear power in the global power mix increases to only 12, well below its historic peak. Low-Nuclear and so-called High-Nuclear cases give 366 and 767 GWe nuclear respectively in 2040. The low-carbon ‘450 Scenario’ gives a cost-effective transition to limiting global warming assuming an effective international agreement in 2015, and this brings about more than doubling nuclear capacity to 862 GWe in 2040, while energy-related CO2 emissions peak before 2020 and then decline. In this scenario, almost all new generating capacity built after 2030 needs to be low-carbon. "Despite the challenges it currently faces, nuclear power has specific characteristics that underpin the commitment of some countries to maintain it as a future option," it said. "Nuclear plants can contribute to the reliability of the power system where they increase the diversity of power generation technologies in the system. For countries that import energy, it can reduce their dependence on foreign supplies and limit their exposure to fuel price movements in international markets." It is noteworthy that in the 1980s, 218 power reactors started up, an average of one every 17 days. These included 47 in USA, 42 in France and 18 in Japan. These were fairly large - average power was 923.5 MWe. So it is not hard to imagine a similar number being commissioned in the years ahead. But with China and India getting up to speed in nuclear energy and a world energy demand increasing, a realistic estimate of what is possible (but not planned at this stage) might be the equivalent of one 1000 MWe unit worldwide every 5 days. Increased nuclear capacity in some countries is resulting from the uprating of existing plants. This is a highly cost-effective way of bringing on new capacity. There is a question of scale, and large units will not fit into small grids. A conservative guide is that peak power demand must be met with effective installed capacity and about 20 reserve margin. Also, the largest single plant should not be more than 10 of base-load, or 5 of peak demand. Numerous power reactors in USA, Belgium, Sweden and Germany, for example, have had their generating capacity increased.