Tournament: Blake | Round: 2 | Opponent: Lakeville South AL | Judge: Jason Smith

My value is morality. Prefer my value because it asks the broadest question of right and wrong

My value criterion is the avoidance of extinction

My value criterion surpasses all others because extinction causes the death of currently living people and an incomprehensible amount of future generations

Bostrom, 11(“Existential Risk Prevention as The Most Important Task for Humanity”--Nick Bostrom is a philosopher at the University of Oxford, has published several books on the morality of existential risk prevention and inflation, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.229.3109andrep=rep1andtype=pdf)
Even if we use the most conservative of these estimates, which entirely ignores the possibility of space colonization and software
AND
percentage point is worth a hundred billion times as much as a billion human lives.

Morality can never be achieved in the status quo because humans haven’t reached a consensus on what morality is. Competing ethical theories prevent any definitive moral theories from surfacing.

 
Ord, 13(“Moral Uncertainty”--Toby Ord works at: Oxford University's Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics + Future of Humanity Institute, http://www.amirrorclear.net/academic/research-topics/ethics/moral-uncertainty.html)
There are many competing theories in normative ethics. Some people say the right thing to do is what would
AND
not know what to do. What you still need to know are the moral facts of the matter. Perhaps the philosophical community will eventually work out what these are: normative ethics will be settled once and for all. But what are you to do now, when you need to act?

Cultural evolution suggests that we will learn how to define morality in the far future; therefore, the only moral path possible is to prolong the existence of the human race.

Wright, 9(“The Evolution of God”--Robert Wright, Professor at Princeton University, Journalist, author of several books on the philosophy of morality, http://evolutionofgod.net/excerpts_afterword)
We spelled out some of those patterns in chapter 18: as natural selection ground along, creating more and more intelligent
AND
of a unified global civilization; and, if we make it over that final threshold, we’ll have gotten closer still to moral truth in the bargain. So to quit thinking about God now would be to abandon a path that has been successful on its own terms—not a path of scientific inquiry that has brought scientific progress, but a path of moral inquiry that has brought moral progress.

My contention is that free speech in universities is the key to US innovation and therefore global innovation

Free speech is necessary to make the university an innovative think space

Hirshman, 14 (Dr. Elliot Hirshman, PhD in cognitive psychology, president of San Diego State University, former chair of psychology at George Washington University and University of Colorado at Denver, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliot-hirshman/freedom-of-speech-on-camp_1_b_6069908.html)
The freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment has emerged as an extraordinarily contentious issue on many university campuses. Last spring, several speakers at commencements across the nation (e.g., former
AND
continue our powerful tradition of free expression — one that we must protect and nurture so our academic communities can continue their important work.

Innovation in universities is key to US innovation

Mitra, 9 (Sramana Mitra, writer for Forbes, president and founder of one million by one million which is a global virtual accelerator that aims to help one million entrepreneurs globally to reach $1 million in annual revenue and beyond, founder of several other companies, MIT graduate, http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/02/universities-innovation-government-technology-enterprise-tech-universities.html)
In an ideal world, a capitalist framework would facilitate all the economic progress essential to civilization. Unfortunately, we don’t exist in an ideal world. Innovation, however, is among the areas where capitalism as we know it–private, free market, borderless and without government intervention–fails. And as it turns out, innovation happens to be the need of the hour. The Internet, one of the greatest innovations of the 20th century, came out of the U.S. government’s Defense
AND
by the wayside. It needs to be recreated. The world that emerges from the ashes of this financial crisis needs to recognize that innovation is a central priority. And in doing so, beefing up the government-industry-academia collaboration is critical.

Increased innovation is needed to save the dying US economy

Asbury, 13(Neal Asbury, Writer for Newsmax, chief executive of The Legacy Companies, As a reflection of his political and business acumen, he is a sought-after guest on national network television news shows that include FOX, CNBC, ABC and BBC. He is frequently quoted in The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Le Monde and other well-known print media, http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/NealAsbury/Detroit-innovation-economy-Depression/2013/10/03/id/529041/)
The Business Roundtable recently proposed that the United States is the world's innovation leader because of a commitment to basic research, a world-class workforce and a climate that rewards innovation. This sense of pride has been eclipsed by a feeling of economic pessimism
AND
Henry Ford once wrote: "If everyone is moving forward together, then success takes care of itself."

The global economy is heavily dependent on the US economy

 
Mead, 4(Senior Fellow at Council on Foreign Relations Walter Russell, “America's STICKY Power,” Foreign Policy, Mar/Apr, Proquest
Similarly, in the last 60 years, as foreigners have acquired a greater value in the United States-government and private bonds, direct and portfolio private investments-more and more of them have acquired an interest in maintaining the strength of the U.S.-led system.
AND
 collapsing U.S. economy would inflict enormous, unacceptable damage on the rest of the world. That is sticky power with a vengeance. 

Continued global economic decline will cause WWIII

Mead, 9(Walter Russell Mead, U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, 2/4/2009, The New Republic, “Only Makes You Stronger,” http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887-4d81-8542-92e83915f5f8andp=2)
So far, such half-hearted experiments not only have failed to work; they have left the societies that have tried them in a progressively worse position, farther behind the front-runners as time goes by. Argentina has lost ground to Chile; Russian development has fallen farther behind that of the Baltic states and Central Europe. Frequently, the crisis has weakened the power of the merchants, industrialists, financiers, and professionals who
AND
born? The United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight.

A global war will inevitably go nuclear and causes extinction

Hellman 8 (Martin E. Hellman, emeritus prof of engineering @ Stanford, “Risk Analysis of Nuclear Deterrence” SPRING 2008 THE BENT OF TAU BETA PI, http://www.nuclearrisk.org/paper.pdf)
The threat of nuclear terrorism looms much larger in the public’s mind than the threat of a full-scale nuclear war, yet this article focuses primarily on the latter. An explanation is
AND
of smoke that would be generated by fires in modern megacities. While it is uncertain how destructive World War III would be, prudence dictates that we apply the same engineering conservatism that saved the Golden Gate Bridge from collapsing on its 50th anniversary and assume that preventing World War

Tournament: Sandburg | Round: 1 | Opponent: The man | Judge: The boy

I affirm that Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech.

My definitions are morality, which is the distinction between right and wrong, and ought, which is an auxiliary verb being used to precede a moral duty or obligation.

My value for this round will be morality, as implied by the word “ought” in the resolution. Morality also encompasses the broadest version of right and wrong, and therefore all other values fall under this subset.

My value criterion is resisting structural oppression

Structural violence and oppression eliminates value to life. This outweighs any other calculable impact.

Callahan 73 Daniel J. Callahan, The Tyranny of Survival: And other pathologies of civilized life. Pg 91-93
That individuals, tribes, communities and nations have committed so much will, energy and intelligence to survival has meant that they have survived, and their descendants are present to tell the tale. Nothing is so powerful a motive force, for self or society, as the threat of annihilation, nothing so energizing as the necessity to live. Without life, all else is
AND
degradation, then there is no moral reason why an effort should be made to ensure that survival. It would be the Pyrrhic victory to end all Pyrrhic victories. Yet it would be the defeat of all defeats if, because human beings could not properly manage their need to survive, they succeeded in not doing so. Either way, then, would represent a failure, and one can take one's pick about which failure would be worse, that of survival at the cost of everything decent in man or outright extinction.

Structural oppression otherizes entire groups through excluding them from moral circles. Only through being all inclusive can morality ever be achieved.

Winter and Leighton, 99(Deborah DuNann Winter, PhD, professor of psychology at Whitman college, Received 1997 Robert Y. Fluno award for outstanding teaching in social sciences, Dana Leoghton, PhD, professor of psychology at Marywood University, http://sites.saumag.edu/danaleighton/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2015/09/SVintro-2.pdf)
Finally, to recognize the operation of structural violence forces us to ask questions about how and why we tolerate it, questions which often have painful answers for the privileged elite who unconsciously support it. A final question of this section is how and why we allow ourselves to be so oblivious to structural violence. Susan Opotow offers an
AND
nefarious effects, we must be vigilant in noticing and listening to the oppressed, invisible, outsiders. 

CONTENTION: SPEECH IS NEEDED TO EMPOWER OPPRESSED GROUPS WITHIN UNIVERSITIES

Universities perpetuate structural oppression through exclusive academic curriculums

Ross, 16(“Universities do not Challenge Racism, Says UK’s First Black Studies Professor”—Alice Ross, writer for The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/oct/23/universities-do-not-challenge-racism-says-uks-first-black-studies-professor)
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/oct/23/universities-do-not-challenge-racism-says-uks-first-black-studies-professor
Institutional racism in Britain’s universities is harming the performance of minority ethnic students, the UK’s first professor of black studies has said. Kehinde Andrews, an associate professor at Birmingham City University (BCU), told a conference last week marking Black History Month that universities are “no less
AND
the rest of the world … it’s really difficult to get into that stuff.” The most glaring illustrations of racial inequality in universities is in their staffing, Andrews said: just 60 of the UK’s 14,000 professors are black.

Speech and student led activism in college campuses has historically been the only thing able achieve progress in reforming policies, and it is therefore needed to address the oppression experienced in modern universities.

Wong, 15(“The Renaissance of Student Activism”--Alia Wong is an associate editor at The Atlantic, where she oversees the education section, http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/05/the-renaissance-of-student-activism/393749/)
Maybe the campus protests seemed rather isolated at first. Dissatisfaction with the administration. Outrage over bad decisions. A student altercation gone bad. For example: The protest at Florida State University last fall, when students didn’t like the idea of having the Republican state politician John Thrasher as
AND
as a mecca of radical politics—delivered one-and-a-half year suspensions to a group of students who blocked a major highway in protest of tuition hikes. (The students each face sentences of 30 days in jail and restitution, too.) Critics accused the school of capitulating to community members, who were furious over the gridlock caused by the protesters. Undergraduate tuition at UC schools has more than doubled in the last decade to its current level of $12,192—increasing at an even higher rate than has the national average. “There has been a real powerful sense among a lot of student activists that the future they were promised has been taken away from them,” Johnston said. “One of the thing that ties (the campus movements) all together is a sense that the future doesn’t look as rosy as it might have a few years ago.”

The current restrictions on free speech in college campuses hinder students’ abilities to express themselves and speak out against oppressive authority figures.

Hudson, 16(“How Campus Policies Limit Free Speech”—David L. Hudson Jr. is a First Amendment expert and law professor who serves as First Amendment Ombudsman for the Newseum Institute’s First Amendment Center, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-conversation-us/how-campus-policies-limit_b_10249690.html)
Colleges and universities are supposed to be places where freedom of expression flourishes. Sadly, that is not the case. At a recent debate on the Yale University campus, 66 percent of the attendees supported a proposition that “free speech is threatened.” Places of higher learning seem
AND
zone as “moronic and oxymoronic.” College or university campuses should be a place where free speech not only survives but thrives.

Current harassment policies in universities that don’t violate the first amendment adequately prevent any injurious speech or speech that discourages groups from continuing with their education, so therefore further reform is unnecessary to create a safe space for students.

Majeed, 9(“Defying The Constitution: The Rise, Persistence, and Prevalence of Campus Speech Codes”—Azhar Majeed, Azhar Majeed, a native of Grosse Pointe, Michigan, received a B.A. in Political Science with a minor in History from the University of Michigan in 2004. He is also a 2007 graduate of the University of Michigan Law School. As an undergraduate, his academic interests included comparative constitutional law and political philosophy, particularly from the time period of the Enlightenment. During law school, Azhar represented the University of Michigan at the 2006 Tulane International Moot Court competition. Azhar was one of FIRE’s inaugural Robert H. Jackson Legal Fellows and was also a FIRE legal intern in 2005, https://www.thefire.org/defying-the-constitution-the-rise-persistence-and-prevalence-of-campus-speech-codes/#_ftnref231)
Secondly, speech codes are not necessary to protect historically disadvantaged minorities from harmful speech because existing First Amendment exceptions and true harassment codes address virtually all verbal conduct which is truly injurious to
AND
unprincipled approach represents a dangerous step in the wrong direction. Therefore, universities should not continue to maintain speech codes under the rationale of insulating historically disadvantaged minority students from allegedly injurious speech because existing First Amendment exceptions and true harassment codes are sufficient for the purpose of protecting students and because it is imprudent under the First Amendment to restrict speech any further.

Student speech is therefore a necessary tool to fight structural oppression in academic spaces, and this resolution advocates for an increase in the ability of students to exercise their right to speak. Thus, I affirm.