Tournament: XX | Round: 1 | Opponent: XX | Judge: XX
Hey - I'm Jaya Nayar. You can email me at jnayar1@hwemail.com.

Tournament: Newark Invitational | Round: 1 | Opponent: Harrison BS | Judge: Chippada, Preet
Plan text: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict constitutionally protected journalist speech 

Contention 1: Free speech is the controlling impact in any framework

1. Free speech is a pre-requisite to any rational moral system- without it self-realization is impossible
   Eberle, Law @ Roger Williams, 94
   (Wake Forest LR, Winter)

2. Free speech facilitates the development of moral reasoning- restrictions should be prima facie rejected
Dwyer, PhD, 01
(Susan, Phil@Maryland, Nordic Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 2, No. 2 ® Philosophia Press 2001)

3. Consequentially, Free speech is a gateway to every other impact.
D’Souza, PhD Phil @Oxford, 96
(Frances, Prof. Anthropology Oxford, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/hearings/19960425/droi/freedom_en.htm?textMode=on)

4. Epistemic humility demands free speech
Dalmia, PhD, 16
(Shikha,  Senior Analyst/Award winning Journalist   9-22-16. http://reason.com/blog/2016/09/22/debating-nyus-jeremy-waldron-on-free-spe)

Contention 2: Stop the Press 

1. Censorship of student journalism is increasing at the worst possible time. Censorship discourages questioning the government
   Schuman, PhD, 16
   (Rebecca, 12-8-16. http://www.slate.com/articles/life/education/2016/12/student_journalists_are_under_threat.html)

2. The legal justification for newspaper censorship is a 7th circuit decision that applied Hazelwood to universities-this allows unchecked arbitrary censorship by administrators
Goodman, Director Student Press Law Center, 05
( S. Mark Goodman, Michael C. Hiestand, Student Press Law Center 2005 WL 2736314 (U.S.) (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) Supreme Court of the United States. Margaret L. HOSTY, Jeni S. Porche, and Steven P. Barba, Petitioners, v. Patricia CARTER, Respondent. No. 05-377. October 20, 2005. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Brief of Amici Curiae Student Press Law Center, Associated Collegiate Press, College Media Advisers, Community College Journalism Association, Society for Collegiate Journalists, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, American Society of Newspaper Editors, National Newspaper Association, Newspaper Association of America, Society of Professional Journalists, Associated Press Managing Editors, College Newspaper Business and Advertising Managers, National Federation of Press Women, National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association and the Independent Press Association/Campus Journalism Project in Support of Petition of Margaret L. Hosty, Jeni S. Porche, and Steven P. Barba for Writ of Certiorari Of Counsel: S. Mark Goodman, Michael C. Hiestand, Student Press Law Center, 1101 Wilson Blvd., Ste 1100, Arlington, VA 22209-2211, (703) 807-1904. Richard M. Goehler, (Counsel of Record), Frost Brown Todd LLC, 2200 PNC Center, 201 East Fifth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, (513) 651-6800, Counsel for Amici Curiae.)

3. Regulation of newspapers is a crucial precedent used to justify widespread campus censorship-it uniquely empowers and protects administrators to censor
Lukianoff, JD Stanford, 05
(George, Samantha Harris, Foundation for Individual, Rights in Education, 2005 WL 2736313 (U.S.) (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) Supreme Court of the United States. Margaret L. HOSTY et al., Petitioners, v. Patricia CARTER, Respondent. No. 05-377. October 19, 2005. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Brief Amici Curiae of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education; The Coalition for Student and Academic Rights; Feminists for Free Expression; The First Amendment Project; Ifeminists.Net; National Association of Scholars; Accuracy in Academia; Leadership Institute; The Individual Rights Foundation; The American Council of Trustees and Alumni; and Students for Academic Freedom in Support of Petitioners)

4. Universities are the most important site of first amendment activity- ignore negative evidence written about other contexts
Goodman, Director Student Press Law Center, 05
( S. Mark Goodman, Michael C. Hiestand, Student Press Law Center 2005 WL 2736314 (U.S.) (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) Supreme Court of the United States. Margaret L. HOSTY, Jeni S. Porche, and Steven P. Barba, Petitioners, v. Patricia CARTER, Respondent. No. 05-377. October 20, 2005. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Brief of Amici Curiae Student Press Law Center, Associated Collegiate Press, College Media Advisers, Community College Journalism Association, Society for Collegiate Journalists, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, American Society of Newspaper Editors, National Newspaper Association, Newspaper Association of America, Society of Professional Journalists, Associated Press Managing Editors, College Newspaper Business and Advertising Managers, National Federation of Press Women, National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association and the Independent Press Association/Campus Journalism Project in Support of Petition of Margaret L. Hosty, Jeni S. Porche, and Steven P. Barba for Writ of Certiorari Of Counsel: S. Mark Goodman, Michael C. Hiestand, Student Press Law Center, 1101 Wilson Blvd., Ste 1100, Arlington, VA 22209-2211, (703) 807-1904. Richard M. Goehler, (Counsel of Record), Frost Brown Todd LLC, 2200 PNC Center, 201 East Fifth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, (513) 651-6800, Counsel for Amici Curiae.)

5. The plan promotes activism and actively encourages dissent. Status quo Hosty decisions give a green light to admin involvement in all forms of politics. This censorship depoliticizes young people and spills into their future politics. Sanders 06
Chris Sanders Jd Censorship 101: Anti-Hazelwood Laws and the Preservation of Free Speech at Colleges and Universities 58 Ala. L. Rev. 159, 2006

6. Censorship is based in PR/funding concerns, not student wellbeing. Protest solves NC offense
Schuman, PhD, 12-8-16
(Rebecca, http://www.slate.com/articles/life/education/2016/12/student_journalists_are_under_threat.html)

Contention 3: Civic Engagement 

1. Censorship of college journalism guts civic engagement
   LoMonte, SPLC Exec. Director, 06
   (Frank D., 12-1-06. http://www.splc.org/article/2016/12/college-media-threats-report-2016)

2. Civic engagement is the vital internal link to solving problems which affects massive populations and devastate those who need help in society the most.
Small 06 (Jonathan, former Americorps VISTA for the Human Services Coalition,  “Moving Forward,” The Journal for Civic Commitment,  Spring, http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/other/engagement/Journal/Issue7/Small.jsp)

3. Trump victory proves the case is a disad to every K- failure to prioritize civic engagement causes rightwing takeover
Rorty, PhD, 98 (Richard, Stanford Philosophy Professor, Achieving Our Country, pp. 87-94)

Contention 4: Minority empowerment

1. Counter speech is effective and empowers students. Calleros, Professor of Law at ASU, 95
   Charles R. Calleros, Paternalism, Counterspeech, and Campus Hate-Speech Codes: A Reply to Delgado and Yun, 27 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 1249 (1995). CC

2. Hate speech restrictions empower far right politicians and get modeled to justify repression in other countries Economist 12/15/16
Economist 12-15-16 (http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21711914-criminalising-offensive-language-only-empowers-bigots-defence-hate-speech)

Tournament: Newark Round Robin | Round: 3 | Opponent: Dulles AW | Judge: Shagun Kukreja, Bailey Rung
Plan text: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict constitutionally protected journalist speech 

Contention 1: Free speech is the controlling impact in any framework

1. Free speech is a pre-requisite to any rational moral system- without it self-realization is impossible
   Eberle, Law @ Roger Williams, 94
   (Wake Forest LR, Winter)

2. Free speech facilitates the development of moral reasoning- restrictions should be prima facie rejected
Dwyer, PhD, 01
(Susan, Phil@Maryland, Nordic Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 2, No. 2 ® Philosophia Press 2001)

3. Consequentially, Free speech is a gateway to every other impact.
D’Souza, PhD Phil @Oxford, 96
(Frances, Prof. Anthropology Oxford, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/hearings/19960425/droi/freedom_en.htm?textMode=on)

4. Epistemic humility demands free speech
Dalmia, PhD, 16
(Shikha,  Senior Analyst/Award winning Journalist   9-22-16. http://reason.com/blog/2016/09/22/debating-nyus-jeremy-waldron-on-free-spe)

Contention 2: Stop the Press 

1. Censorship of student journalism is increasing at the worst possible time. Censorship discourages questioning the government
   Schuman, PhD, 16
   (Rebecca, 12-8-16. http://www.slate.com/articles/life/education/2016/12/student_journalists_are_under_threat.html)

2. The legal justification for newspaper censorship is a 7th circuit decision that applied Hazelwood to universities-this allows unchecked arbitrary censorship by administrators
Goodman, Director Student Press Law Center, 05
( S. Mark Goodman, Michael C. Hiestand, Student Press Law Center 2005 WL 2736314 (U.S.) (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) Supreme Court of the United States. Margaret L. HOSTY, Jeni S. Porche, and Steven P. Barba, Petitioners, v. Patricia CARTER, Respondent. No. 05-377. October 20, 2005. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Brief of Amici Curiae Student Press Law Center, Associated Collegiate Press, College Media Advisers, Community College Journalism Association, Society for Collegiate Journalists, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, American Society of Newspaper Editors, National Newspaper Association, Newspaper Association of America, Society of Professional Journalists, Associated Press Managing Editors, College Newspaper Business and Advertising Managers, National Federation of Press Women, National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association and the Independent Press Association/Campus Journalism Project in Support of Petition of Margaret L. Hosty, Jeni S. Porche, and Steven P. Barba for Writ of Certiorari Of Counsel: S. Mark Goodman, Michael C. Hiestand, Student Press Law Center, 1101 Wilson Blvd., Ste 1100, Arlington, VA 22209-2211, (703) 807-1904. Richard M. Goehler, (Counsel of Record), Frost Brown Todd LLC, 2200 PNC Center, 201 East Fifth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, (513) 651-6800, Counsel for Amici Curiae.)

3. Regulation of newspapers is a crucial precedent used to justify widespread campus censorship-it uniquely empowers and protects administrators to censor
Lukianoff, JD Stanford, 05
(George, Samantha Harris, Foundation for Individual, Rights in Education, 2005 WL 2736313 (U.S.) (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) Supreme Court of the United States. Margaret L. HOSTY et al., Petitioners, v. Patricia CARTER, Respondent. No. 05-377. October 19, 2005. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Brief Amici Curiae of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education; The Coalition for Student and Academic Rights; Feminists for Free Expression; The First Amendment Project; Ifeminists.Net; National Association of Scholars; Accuracy in Academia; Leadership Institute; The Individual Rights Foundation; The American Council of Trustees and Alumni; and Students for Academic Freedom in Support of Petitioners)

4. Universities are the most important site of first amendment activity- ignore negative evidence written about other contexts
Goodman, Director Student Press Law Center, 05
( S. Mark Goodman, Michael C. Hiestand, Student Press Law Center 2005 WL 2736314 (U.S.) (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) Supreme Court of the United States. Margaret L. HOSTY, Jeni S. Porche, and Steven P. Barba, Petitioners, v. Patricia CARTER, Respondent. No. 05-377. October 20, 2005. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Brief of Amici Curiae Student Press Law Center, Associated Collegiate Press, College Media Advisers, Community College Journalism Association, Society for Collegiate Journalists, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, American Society of Newspaper Editors, National Newspaper Association, Newspaper Association of America, Society of Professional Journalists, Associated Press Managing Editors, College Newspaper Business and Advertising Managers, National Federation of Press Women, National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association and the Independent Press Association/Campus Journalism Project in Support of Petition of Margaret L. Hosty, Jeni S. Porche, and Steven P. Barba for Writ of Certiorari Of Counsel: S. Mark Goodman, Michael C. Hiestand, Student Press Law Center, 1101 Wilson Blvd., Ste 1100, Arlington, VA 22209-2211, (703) 807-1904. Richard M. Goehler, (Counsel of Record), Frost Brown Todd LLC, 2200 PNC Center, 201 East Fifth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, (513) 651-6800, Counsel for Amici Curiae.)

5. Campus free speech solves extinction
Lukianoff, JD Stanford, 05
(George, Samantha Harris, Foundation for Individual, Rights in Education, 2005 WL 2736313 (U.S.) (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) Supreme Court of the United States. Margaret L. HOSTY et al., Petitioners, v. Patricia CARTER, Respondent. No. 05-377. October 19, 2005. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Brief Amici Curiae of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education; The Coalition for Student and Academic Rights; Feminists for Free Expression; The First Amendment Project; Ifeminists.Net; National Association of Scholars; Accuracy in Academia; Leadership Institute; The Individual Rights Foundation; The American Council of Trustees and Alumni; and Students for Academic Freedom in Support of Petitioners)

Contention 3: Civic Engagement 

1. Censorship of college journalism guts civic engagement
   LoMonte, SPLC Exec. Director, 06
   (Frank D., 12-1-06. http://www.splc.org/article/2016/12/college-media-threats-report-2016)

2. Civic engagement is the vital internal link to solving every existential problem- its try or die for the affirmative
Small 06 (Jonathan, former Americorps VISTA for the Human Services Coalition,  “Moving Forward,” The Journal for Civic Commitment,  Spring, http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/other/engagement/Journal/Issue7/Small.jsp)

3. Trump victory proves the case is a disad to every K- failure to prioritize civic engagement causes rightwing takeover
Rorty, PhD, 98 (Richard, Stanford Philosophy Professor, Achieving Our Country, pp. 87-94)

Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 2 | Opponent: Appleton East MM | Judge: Alderete, Tim
Framing
The standard should be preserving the rule of law

First, the rule of law animates democracy- its crucial to rights protections and reducing all forms of violence
Rummel 91 – Professor of Political Science @ University of Hawaii R.J. Rummel, THE RULE OF LAW:TOWARDS ELIMINATING WAR AND DEMOCIDE, S peech given to the ABA National Security Conference on "The Rule of Law in United States Foreign Policy and the New World Order. Washington, D.C., October 10-11, 1991. pg. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/ABA.SPEECH.HTM

Second, Rule of law is a gateway to every disad impact
RHYNE ‘58 – FORMER PRESIDENT AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
LAW DAY SPEECH, VOICE OF AMERICA, 1958 http://www.abanet.org/publiced/lawday/rhyne58.html)

Third, the rule of law requires the protection of individual civil rights
Novak ‘05 Michael, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Human Rights Commission and to the Bern Round of the Helsinki Talks, holds the George F. Jewett Chair in Religion and Public Policy at the American Enterprise Institute, “Global Liberty,” National Review, 1/20, p. Lexis

Harms

SCOTUS ruled in Saucier V Katz that a duplicative “double reasonableness” standard must be applied in 4th amendment cases. This has disrupted the balance of immunity jurisprudence tilting the playing field overwhelmingly in favor of police gutting section 1983 and civil rights protections broadly
Brown 03
(Peter A., JD - Qualified Immunity Illogically Applies to Excessive Force Claims Suffolk University Law Review 2003 36 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 607 )

The 4th amendment already provides broad protection for police conduct-Saucier goes too far in protecting police at the expense of civil rights through duplicative legal sleight of hand
Shapiro et al, 01
(JD - Steven R. Shapiro American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 125 Broad Street New York, New York 10004 (212) 549-2500 Alan L. Schlosser American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California 1663 Mission Street San Francisco, California 94103 (415) 621-2488 William Goodman Center for Constitutional Rights 666 Broadway New York, New York 10012 (212) 614-6464 David Rudovsky (Counsel of Record) 924 Cherry Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 (215) 925-4400 Michael Avery Suffolk Law School 41 Temple Street Boston, Massachusetts 02114 (617) 573-8551 Ruth E. Harlow Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund 120 Wall Street, Suite 1500 New York, New York 10005 (212) 809-8585 2001 WL 173522 (U.S.) (Appellate Brief) United States Supreme Court Amicus Brief. Donald SAUCIER, Petitioner, v. Elliot M. KATZ and In Defense of Animals, Respondents. No. 99-1977. October Term, 2000. February 16, 2001. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT )

Double reasonableness warp the rule of law in favor of police defendants
Hassel 09
(Diana,Law @ Roger Williams, JD Rutgers, Excessive Reasonableness The Trustees of Indiana University Indiana Law Review 2009 Indiana Law Review 43 Ind. L. Rev. 117)

Duplicative immunity is a threat to freedom- it eviscerates the 4th amendment by allowing illogical exceptions
Shapiro et al, 01
(JD - Steven R. Shapiro American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 125 Broad Street New York, New York 10004 (212) 549-2500 Alan L. Schlosser American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California 1663 Mission Street San Francisco, California 94103 (415) 621-2488 William Goodman Center for Constitutional Rights 666 Broadway New York, New York 10012 (212) 614-6464 David Rudovsky (Counsel of Record) 924 Cherry Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 (215) 925-4400 Michael Avery Suffolk Law School 41 Temple Street Boston, Massachusetts 02114 (617) 573-8551 Ruth E. Harlow Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund 120 Wall Street, Suite 1500 New York, New York 10005 (212) 809-8585 2001 WL 173522 (U.S.) (Appellate Brief) United States Supreme Court Amicus Brief. Donald SAUCIER, Petitioner, v. Elliot M. KATZ and In Defense of Animals, Respondents. No. 99-1977. October Term, 2000. February 16, 2001. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT )

1983 is crucial to the rule of law- it’s the lynchpin of rights protections
Pittman 12
(JD candidate - Nathan R., UNINTENTIONAL LEVELS OF FORCE IN § 1983 EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIMS William and Mary Law Review William and Mary Law Review May, 2012 William and Mary Law Review 53 Wm. and Mary L. Rev. 2107)

Successful civil rights challenges to police misconduct are crucial to challenging cultural militarism. Carter ‘15
Tom Carter – WSWS Legal Correspondent, a lawyer (https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/02/24/cart-f24.html). “US Supreme Court Expands Immunity for Killer Cops.” Center for Research on Globalization. November 12, 2015. http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-supreme-court-expands-immunity-for-killer-cops/5488366 JJN

Independent of civil rights protections an incoherent, government biased QI system undercuts law enforcement and the rule of law broadly
Pittman 12
(JD candidate - Nathan R., UNINTENTIONAL LEVELS OF FORCE IN § 1983 EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIMS William and Mary Law Review William and Mary Law Review May, 2012 William and Mary Law Review 53 Wm. and Mary L. Rev. 2107)

Solvency

The Supreme Court ought to limit qualified immunity in excessive force cases 

The plan strikes a goldilocks middle ground by eliminating massive pro police bias in existing immunity jurisprudence
Stoelting 89
(David P, JD and co-chair of the International Criminal Law Committee, QUALIFIED IMMUNITY FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS IN SECTION 1983 EXCESSIVE FORCE CASES 1989 University of Cincinnati Law Review. University of Cincinnati 1989 58 U. Cin. L. Rev. 243)

The aff is goldilocks- it protects officers while eliminating judicial confusion and bias
Sheng 11
(Philip, JD with distinction @ Bringham Young, B.A., Stanford University, John Arrillaga Scholar. An "Objectively Reasonable" Criticism of the Doctrine of Qualified Immunity in Excessive Force Cas-es Brought Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 BYU Journal of Public Law 2011 The BYU Journal of Public Law 26 BYU J. Pub. L. 99)

QI is the key barrier- counterplans don’t solve the case
Hassel 09
(Diana, Law @ Roger Williams, JD Rutgers, Excessive Reasonableness The Trustees of Indiana University Indiana Law Review 2009 Indiana Law Review 43 Ind. L. Rev. 117) 

The aff is key to meaningful challenges to police conduct and legitimacy of rule of law
Hassel 09
(Diana, Law @ Roger Williams, JD Rutgers, Excessive Reasonableness The Trustees of Indiana University Indiana Law Review 2009 Indiana Law Review 43 Ind. L. Rev. 117)

Pre-empt biz

Apply a strict filter to all negative arguments- if they aren’t
A. About the use of excessive force
B. Based on legal reasoning other than Anderson V. Creighton
Then their evidence comes from inaccurate and incoherent legal scholarship and should be ignored
Shapiro et al 01
(JD - Steven R. Shapiro American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 125 Broad Street New York, New York 10004 (212) 549-2500 Alan L. Schlosser American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California 1663 Mission Street San Francisco, California 94103 (415) 621-2488 William Goodman Center for Constitutional Rights 666 Broadway New York, New York 10012 (212) 614-6464 David Rudovsky (Counsel of Record) 924 Cherry Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 (215) 925-4400 Michael Avery Suffolk Law School 41 Temple Street Boston, Massachusetts 02114 (617) 573-8551 Ruth E. Harlow Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund 120 Wall Street, Suite 1500 New York, New York 10005 (212) 809-8585 2001 WL 173522 (U.S.) (Appellate Brief) United States Supreme Court Amicus Brief. Donald SAUCIER, Petitioner, v. Elliot M. KATZ and In Defense of Animals, Respondents. No. 99-1977. October Term, 2000. February 16, 2001. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT )

Err aff- consensus of experts agree
Pittman 12
(Nathan R., JD candidate, UNINTENTIONAL LEVELS OF FORCE IN § 1983 EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIMS William and Mary Law Review William and Mary Law Review May, 2012 William and Mary Law Review 53 Wm. and Mary L. Rev. 2107)

Tournament: Damus | Round: 2 | Opponent: Harker AC | Judge: McHugh, Tim
Part 1 is Framing
The starting point of government deliberation has to be the individual and how they relate to the social world around them. Rules only gain their force if they are open to public criticism. This means we need a procedural democracy that transcends the exact content of any moral rule. . Adorno:
Adorno, Theodor. “Education after Auschwitz,” Critical Model

Government action is about the process of deliberation not finding an exact rule to follow in every circumstance. Generation of values requires the ability to speak out. . Singer 84
Singer, Joseph William. "The player and the cards: nihilism and legal theory." The Yale Law Journal 94.1 (1984): 1-70.

The law can either be used to forward the claims of the powerless or to perpetuate those of the powerful. We embrace a system of politics that allows for the powerless to speak out. Balkin 08
Balkin, Jack M. "Critical legal theory today." (2008).

Part 2 – The Police State
Qualified immunity reflects a culture of policing that justifies terrorizing black neighborhoods and lets police know they can get away with anything. Carter ‘15
Tom Carter – WSWS Legal Correspondent, a lawyer (https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/02/24/cart-f24.html). “US Supreme Court Expands Immunity for Killer Cops.” Center for Research on Globalization. November 12, 2015. http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-supreme-court-expands-immunity-for-killer-cops/5488366 JJN

Qualified immunity makes questions of civil rights irrelevant. It shuts down democratic debates about which rights we should value and prevents forms of activism that fight for legal recognition. Hassel ‘99
Diana Hassel - Associate Professor, Roger Williams University School of Law. B.A. 1979, Mount Holyoke College; J.D. 1985, Rutgers, the State University of New JerseyNewark. “Living a Lie: The Cost of Qualified Immunity.” Missouri Law Review. Winter 1999. http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3402andcontext=mlr JJN

Part 3 - The plan
Plan Text: In all cases in which a police officer is a named defendant against an accusation of violating the 4th amendment by excessive force, the SCOTUS will strike down the "clearly established" and "reasonable officer" clauses in Harlow. Wright ‘15
Sam Wright is a public interest lawyer who has spent his career exclusively in nonprofits and government. “Want to Fight Police Misconduct? Reform Qualified Immunity.” Above the Law. November 3, 2015. http://abovethelaw.com/2015/11/want-to-fight-police-misconduct-reform-qualified-immunity/?rf=1 JJN

Excessive force is the worst manifestation of this form of structural violence – 4th amendment cases get shut down before they even have a chance. Jeffries ‘13
Jeffries Jr, John C - David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law, the University of Virginia. "The Liability Rule for Constitutional Torts." Virginia Law Review (2013): 207-270. 

The AFF changes police behavior – lawsuits are used by departments to create reform and individuals know their behavior will be watched – they don’t’ even need to win the lawsuits. Schwartz 10
Schwartz, Joanna. "What Police Learn from Lawsuits." Cardozo Law Review, 2010. http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/event/265497/media/slspublic/What_Police_Learn_From_Lawsuits.pdf. SGK

The AFF changes culture – it is a form of social condemnation that validates the claims of the survivor.  Armacost 98
Armacost 98 Barbara Armacost, Vanderbilt Law Review, April, 1998, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=90852, “Qualified Immunity: Ignorance Excused,” WP

The plan fosters cooperation, which operates as a key check against police departments. De Stefan ‘16
Lindsey de Stefan - J.D. Candidate, 2017, Seton Hall University School of Law; B.A., Ramapo College of New Jersey. ““No Man Is Above the Law and No Man Is Below It:” How Qualified Immunity Reform Could Create Accountability and Curb Widespread Police Misconduct.” The date is claimed to be 2017… but that’s impossible. So it says it has had 360 downloads since July 26, 2016 which is when the article is most likely to have been assumed to be released on the website. Stetan Hall Law. http://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1861andcontext=student_scholarship JJN

Tournament: Loyola | Round: 2 | Opponent: Brentwood LR | Judge: Joseph Barquin
Open Source

Tournament: Yale | Round: 2 | Opponent: Durham OC | Judge: Kathryn Kenny
Open Source

Tournament: Yale | Round: 5 | Opponent: Scarsdale GZ | Judge: Mariah Cook
Open Source