Tournament: 31st Annual Stanford Invitational | Round: 2 | Opponent: Loyola DW | Judge: Ellen Ivens-Duran

First, Framework. Recognizing that the epistemology of capitalism manipulates our understanding of policy is a pre-condition to evaluating the resolution. Marsh 95,

Marsh 95- Professor of Philosophy at Fordham University, PhD from Northwestern University (James, Critique Action and Liberation, p 331-2)
Is it reasonable, therefore, even to talk about the possibility of a socialism
AND
move on. Recent events in eastern Europe only confirm such a judgment.

The role of the ballot and judge as an educator is to reject arguments based on asymmetrical power relations—because pedagogical contexts are inherently political, we have a unique opportunity to promote real change.  Trifonas 03,

PETER PERICLES TRIFONAS. PEDAGOGIES OF DIFFERENCE: RETHINKING EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL CHANGE/ RoutledgeFalmer. New York, London. 2003. Questia.
If we superimpose my formulation of "power as relation" on the discussion concerning
AND
to make the world a better place for us and for our children.

Second, Links Their conception of free expression promotes market ideals that undermine genuine free exchange of ideas—that both turns the aff and is the backbone of capitalism. Dawes '15

Dawes 15 (Simon, Sociology @ Universite Paul Valery, Montpelier, France, "Charlie Hebdo, Free Speech and Counter-Speech", http://www.socresonline.org.uk/20/3/3.html)**
In both French and Anglo-Saxon contexts, however, the concepts of 'freedom
AND
, above and beyond those of an individual, in a multicultural society.

Free speech is impossible in a capitalist environment—the right to free speech hinders on social relations and economic status; all means of expression assume socioeconomic means that the aff glosses over.

Our Cherished Freedom of Speech Myth Written by Daniel MorleyFriday, 20 February 2015 http://www.marxist.com/our-cherished-freedom-of-speech-myth.htm**
As Lenin succinctly summed up, "Freedom in capitalist society always remains just about
AND
that is the demand of those who fight for real freedom of expression!

The affirmative's call to a 'marketplace of ideas' where progress is made is a ruse—Privileged perspectives always win out. That is terminal defense on their solvency claims—counterspeech can solve nothing unless we strip the system apart. Beijer '16

Carl Beijer Friday, May 6, 2016 Three critiques of liberal discourse http://www.carlbeijer.com/2016/05/three-critiques-of-liberal-discourse.html**

1. The discourse is controlled by capital. Barack Obama, in The Audacity
   AND
   and turn off the megaphones. Everything else is shouting into a fugue.

Third, Impact. Capitalism causes extinction—multiple ways. Webb 04,

Webb, 04 (Sam Webb, National Chairman, Communist Party USA. "War, Capitalism, and George W. Bush." 4-20-04. http://www.pww.org/article/view/ 4967/1/207/O/)
Capitalism was never a warm, cuddly, stable social system. It came into
AND
pressures, and endemic diseases, is the threat of nuclear mass annihilation.

Fourth, the alternative is the rise of an environmental working class that breaks down hegemonic structures and capitalism. Foster '13

Foster 13 – John Bellamy Foster, Professor of Sociology at the University of Oregon, Editor of the Monthly Review, holds a Ph.D. from York University, 2013 ("The Epochal Crisis," Monthly Review, Volume 65, Issue 05 (October), Accessed on 7/18/2014 from http://monthlyreview.org/2013/10/01/epochal-crisis)
It is an indication of the sheer enormity of the historical challenge confronting humanity in
AND
humanity thus rests as never before on the revolutionary struggle of humanity itself.

Tournament: Harvard Westlake Debates | Round: 2 | Opponent: Chaminade Jatin Batta | Judge: Dan Miyamoto

PIC

AFF actors should remove all restrictions on constitutionally protected free speech, and ban the usage of all hate speech, including hate speech not protected by the First Amendment. 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 LADI
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.

Tournament: Harvard Westlake Debates | Round: 4 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit Matthew Chen | Judge: John Scoggin

T – "Any"

Interpretation: The affirmative must defend that public colleges and universities in the Unites States ought to restrict NO constitutionally protected speech. To clarify they may not specify any one type of constitutionally protected speech that ought not be restricted.

Counterplans by the negative that PIC out of specific kinds of constitutionally protected speech are illegitimate.

Violation:

Vote Neg

Textuality – repeated court rulings define "any" as "all" and explicitly rejected using "any" to refer to "some".

Elder '91(David S. Elder, October 1991, "Any and All": To Use Or Not To Use?" "Plain Language' is a regular feature of the Michigan Bar Journal, edited by Joseph Kimble for the State Bar Plain English Committee. Assistant editor is George H. Hathaway. Through this column the Committee hopes to promote the use of plain English in the law. Want to contribute a plain English article? Contact Prof. Kimble at Thomas Cooley Law School, P.O. Box 13038, Lansing, MI 48901, http://www.michbar.org/file/generalinfo/plainenglish/pdfs/91_oct.pdf | SP)
The Michigan Supreme Court seemed to approve our dictionary definitions of "any" in
AND
(1991) (quoting Harrington v InterState Men's Accident Ass'n, supra)

Outweighs:

Semantic Context – yes, any may have a bunch of different, more inclusive definitions, but only ours takes into consideration groups of words together. "security for any claim due or to become due to" is the passage analyzed in Gibson v Agricultural Life, which mirrors the structure of the words in the res, with "any" followed by a singular object (ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech).

Legal Context – Courts are the definitive interpreters of what a law and its words mean. Defer to courts over the slew of dictionary definition coming in the 1ar, they lack the context necessary to evaluate semantics in a legal setting. By defending a subsection of constitutional rights, they have literally inserted their own words into the resolution, which have fundamentally changed the policy they defend.

Semantics come prior to pragmatic considerations:

Decision Rule – The topicality rule is superior and non uniques your offense.

Nebel 15 Jake Nebel (debate coach his students have won the TOC, NDCA, Glenbrooks, Bronx, Emory, TFA State, and the Harvard Round Robin. As a debater, he won six octos-bid championships and was top speaker at the TOC and ten other major tournaments) "The Priority of Resolutional Semantics by Jake Nebel" VBriefly February 20^th 2015 http://vbriefly.com/2015/02/20/the-priority-of-resolutional-semantics-by-jake-nebel/ JW 2/20/15
One reason why LDers may be suspicious of my view is because they see topicality
AND
the first premise, not the second premise, in the argument above.

Jurisdiction – the ballot asks you to endorse the better debater in the context of the resolution issued by the tournament rules-if you don't defend the topic then it's impossible to vote for you, that's the most important voter.

Limits – Free Speech is incredibly broad. Star this card, it literally says the only coherent way to conceive of the free speech debate is to consider its few exceptions, which is a comparison of the whole res with its converse.

Silvergate '05 (Harvey A. Silvergate, attorney in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He is the co-founder, with Alan Charles Kors, of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, for which he also serves as the current Chairman of the Board of Directors. January 2005, "FIRE's Guide to Free Speech on Campus," https://www.thefire.org/pdfs/free-speech-2.pdf | SP)
The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make "no law…abridging the freedom
AND
will briefly describe the limited categories of so-called "unprotected speech."

Outweighs:

Fairness – There's just too many affs for the negative to reasonably prep out. You can specify other things like subsets of public universities, or question the scope of constitutionally protected in the 1AC, which grants you a reasonably large case list without the explosion outlined in the Silvergate evidence. This means the affirmative always has a significant advantage because they only have to prepare and frontline one position. Disclosure and solvency advocates don't solve, even if we could perfectly predict every aff, there's just too many for the neg to reasonably prepare for in the world of their interpretation.

Clash – Theirs is a model of debate that reduces each debate to the negative trying to apply generics to cases where they probably don't usually apply. Ours is one where we engage in the actual debate that's taking place in the literature. It's the most important form of education because its most real world and is also key to opinion formation because detailed disagreement is better than vacuous monologues. The level of depth their interpretation seeks to reach in each policy can only ever be reached by one side, which makes the discussion useless.

Voters (Long):

Fairness is a voter, debate's a competitive activity with wins and losses-if the round is skewed towards once debater you can longer test debate skill. Education's a voter since it's the end goal of debate and provides portable skills.

Drop the debater on T:

Severance – Drop the arg is severance from the AC- you can read new args in the 1AR and connect the plan to whole res which is like restarting in the 1AR.

Recourse – Drop the arg discourages me from reading T to check back abuse since I lose speech time, making non-topical affs strategic.

Time Skew – I had to spend time reading T to check back abuse- dropping the arg moots a portion of the 1NC.

Competing interps:

Race to the Bottom: reasonability encourages increasingly unfair practices that minimally fit the brightline. Competing interps maximizes fairness and education by fostering good norms for the activity.

Judge intervention: Each debater and the judge will have differing interpretations of reasonableness, which ultimately makes the decision arbitrary, which will always be unfair to one debater.

No RVIs:

Topical clash – once theory is initiated we never go back to substance because its unnecessary so no one engages in the topic.

Chilling effect – debaters will be scared to read theory for fear of losing to a prepped out counter interp, proliferating abuse.

Voters (Short): Drop the debater since the round is irreversibly skewed because their advocacy excluded my ability to structure 1NC offense. Dropping the argument means dropping the debater, b/c no aff advocacy means presume neg —- ALSO it's critical to setting a precedent.

Topicality is competing interps since 1~ reasonability is 100 arbitrary with definitions that carry subjective interpretations, which forces intervention, 2) T is about the correct interpretation of the topic so out-of-round impacts matter, and 3) you can't be reasonably topical since T functions so that either the aff is topical or isn't. —- also this shell functions as a disad to the brightline they choose – b/c indicates the brightline justifies including these affs – which are abusive.

Tournament: Harvard Westlake Debates | Round: 2 | Opponent: Chaminade Jatin Batta | Judge: Dan Miyamoto

Title IX DA

State cuts have led tuition to spike harming the ability to students to enter college, especially those who come from low income backgrounds or are people of color – The impact is a blow to the national economy because a college degree is a crucial internal link to working in a skilled job, decreasing health care costs, and bringing greater wealth to local communities

Mitchell et al 16 (Report published by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; authors were Michael Mitchell (State Budget and Tax), Michael Leachman (State Budget and Tax), and Kathleen Masterson, "Funding Down, Tuition Up: State Cuts to Higher Education Threaten Quality and Affordability at Public Colleges", http://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/funding-down-tuition-up, EmmieeM)
Years of cuts in state funding for public colleges and universities have driven up tuition
AND
the start of the recession will make it more difficult to achieve those goals

The only thing keeping graduation rates stable is financial aid —- allows students to study full-time, encourages academic progress, and is the only way low-income students can afford to enroll

Johnson 14 (Hans Johnson – supported by the College Access Foundation of California and writing for the Public Policy Institute of California, "Making College Possible for Low-Income Students: Grant and Scholarship Aid in California", http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_1014HJR.pdf, pg. 20-24, EmmieeM)
Students fail to complete college for many reasons, including financial constraints. Certainly it
AND
earn a degree if they first enroll at a four-year college. 

There's a contradiction within government policy —- restricting free speech may be unconstitutional, but not doing so causes public colleges to lose federal funding under Title IX

Bernstein 3 (David E. Bernstein – George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law with a focus on constitutional history, "You Can't Say That: The Growing Threat to Civil Liberties From Antidiscrimination Laws", "Censoring Campus Speech", https://books.google.com/books?id=zU2QAAAAQBAJandpg=PA60andlpg=PA60anddq=public+colleges+could+lose+funding+if+they+allow+for+racistsandsource=blandots=W67N5E3bznandsig=xXeBW8YaTy_Ilb34MIbu-grciy4andhl=enandsa=Xandved=0ahUKEwiBoqTkn_nQAhVBjFQKHcc7CIkQ6AEITDAI~~#v=onepageandq=public20colleges20could20lose20funding20if20they20allow20for20racistsandf=false, pg. 60-61, EmmieeM)
Given these constitutional barriers, public university speech codes were on the way out until
AND
Amendment, then so can they. Unfortunately, they may be right. 

Federal funding is used to maintain financial aid resources and colleges are only growing more dependent on it as state funding goes down

Pew 15 (The Pew Charitable Trusts – compiles evidence and non-partisan analysis to inform the public and create better public policy, "Federal and State Funding of Higher Education: A Changing Landscape", http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2015/06/federal-and-state-funding-of-higher-education, EmmieeM)
States and the federal government have long provided substantial funding for higher education, but
AND
, while state funds primarily pay for the general operations of public institutions.

The impact is massive – combatting the structural barriers (!structural viol) that prevent individuals from attending college is the main internal link to competitiveness

U.S. Department of Commerce 12 (Prepared by the U.S. Department of Commerce with consultation from the National Economic Council, "The Competitiveness and Innovative Capacity in the United States", http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/thecompetitivenessandinnovativecapacityoftheunitedstates.pdf, pgs. 2-10, EmmieeM)
Education is a key element for promoting economic growth and increasing the innovative capacity of
AND
schools in 2011–2012 was lower than in 2007–2008.21 

Competitiveness is key to US dominance – we need to keep innovating faster to ensure economic prosperity and hegemony

Segal 04 – Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations
~Adam, Foreign Affairs, "Is America Losing Its Edge?" November / December 2004, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20041101facomment83601/adam-segal/is-america-losing-its-edge.html~~
The United States' global primacy depends in large part on its ability to develop new
AND
, the United States must get better at fostering technological entrepreneurship at home.

Loss of competitiveness results in great power conflict—retrenchment makes war inevitable and ensures the US would be dragged in – that causes your heg bad impacts so it's try or die for the AFF

Khalilzad 11 — Zalmay Khalilzad, Counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, served as the United States ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United Nations during the presidency of George W. Bush, served as the director of policy planning at the Defense Department during the Presidency of George H.W. Bush, holds a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, 2011 ("The Economy and National Security," National Review, February 8^th, Available Online at http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/259024, Accessed 02-08-2011)
Today, economic and fiscal trends pose the most severe long-term threat to
AND
leading the world toward a new, dangerous era of multi-polarity.