Hunter College Sheinerman Neg
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All | 1 | All | All |
|
| ||
| Big Lex | 6 | Walt Whitman XR | Paul Zhao |
|
| ||
| Newark | 1 | Scarsdale SB | Joe Sahlman |
|
| ||
| Newark | 4 | Ridge JY | Linnea Warburton |
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
InterpsTournament: All | Round: 1 | Opponent: All | Judge: All A: The affirmative debater must directly defend the resolutional action of prohibiting production of nuclear power, i.e. they may not defend an action that could lead to that prohibition. A: If the affirmative debater bans the production of nuclear power within the world of a science fiction story, then they must read the entirety of the story in the 1AC. A: The affirmative must defend the implementation of a policy by a government. A: The affirmative debater may not defend condo logic, that the neg burden is to prove the falsity of the resolution, and trivialism, i.e. that proving the falsity of a statement only proves it is true. A: Theory violations must stem from in-round abuse, i.e. debaters may not read theory that indicts out of round practices. | 1/9/17 |
Jan Feb - Hate Speech CPTournament: Newark | Round: 4 | Opponent: Ridge JY | Judge: Linnea Warburton Thus, CP Text: Public colleges and universities will not restrict constitutionally protected speech except in cases of hate speech. And universities should not have the free speech rules of a public forum – key difference is that listeners cannot leave. The CP definitely competes – hate speech is constitutionally protected and the aff cannot defend “any” restrictions on it – perming means you’re non-T Net Benefits: 1) Public Debate – hate speech causes some groups to withdraw from discussion, dooming it exclusive and thus unproductive – turns the aff. 2) Safety of Minority Students -- hate speech intentionally deprives minority students of self-worth and safety on campus; makes their academic experience unequal to those of their privileged classmates. 3) Genocide – History proves hate speech acts as justification of genocide. And the aff doesn’t give speech to everyone – just the powerful, since minorities are silenced by hate speech. I just reverse the script. | 1/9/17 |
Jan Feb - Revenge Porn CPTournament: Big Lex | Round: 6 | Opponent: Walt Whitman XR | Judge: Paul Zhao Competition is through mutual exclusivity — revenge porn is constitutionally protected free speech, which means that the aff defends it — delinking means you’re non-topical since AC says “any." Revenge porn is a crisis on college campuses – it’s a tool for oppressing women and queer students that leads to self-harm. Revenge porn also translates into real world violence – outweighs on longevity in terms of effects on victims. | 2/14/17 |
Jan Feb - Sick Woman KTournament: Newark | Round: 1 | Opponent: Scarsdale SB | Judge: Joe Sahlman Not only are these bodies doomed apolitical, they are made completely invisible, leading to internalized oppression that says they can only be “worthy” if they are “fixed.” The alternative is to shift from a Public Sphere notion of activism and recognize and empower invisible activism. The role of the ballot is to endorse the debater who best performatively and methodologically addresses the needs of and incorporates the voices of invisible bodies. Ableist norms are embodied in our epistemic thought processes – the debate space is key to breaking through them. Beckett 13: And my narrative-based method is a prerequisite to theirs since the narratives allow the oppressed to tell their experiences, which is key to any discussion of power relations. Reinsborough and Canning: | 1/9/17 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|