Klein Oak Rashid Aff
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Any | 1 | Any | Any |
|
| ||
| Harvard | 2 | Dulles DH | Ria Mazumdar |
|
| ||
| Harvard | 3 | Tompkins AG | Maani Chotalla |
|
| ||
| TFA State | 2 | Newman Smith AM | Augillard III |
|
| ||
| UH | 3 | Crosby AL | Sandeep Shah |
|
| ||
| UT | 2 | Cypress Falls MR | Emily Nguyen |
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 - Contact InfoTournament: Any | Round: 1 | Opponent: Any | Judge: Any Preferred gender pronoun is he. | 12/2/16 |
JANFEB - Constitutivism 1ACTournament: UH | Round: 3 | Opponent: Crosby AL | Judge: Sandeep Shah Thus, the standard is consistency with the constitutive rules of agents. Constitutivism is concerned with the obligations of agents, which necessitates rule util. Prefer this over any other stance. Thus, the most important consequences to consider are those associated with abiding by a rule. The U.S. Constitution is the constitutive rule for all government agents. Public colleges and universities are agents and extensions of the government. Because public agents shouldn’t violate the Constitution, I advocate that public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech. I reserve the right to clarify in CX. Advantage 1: Credibility Constitutionality is key to credibility—violating the constitution kills trust. Inhibiting free speech would uniquely impact legitimacy—the majority of students don’t want restrictions. Credibility has three implications: a) Key to addressing crime Violent crime creates self-reinforcing cycles that doom youth and increases structural violence. b) Solves multiple scenarios for extinction. c) Constitutional credibility and free speech are prerequisites to all other impacts. Advantage 2: Rule of Law The U.S. constitution is a worldwide model for rule of law—other countries prove. Two extinction scenarios: a) Rule of law is key to combating oppression and global war. War causes extinction b) Maintaining the rule of law is k2 preventing pandemics. Pathogen outbreaks lead to extinction. Advantage 3: Terrorism The 1st amendment is key to preventing pro-terror backlash that increases terrorism—the AC supports engaging interactions that go against current militaristic approaches to terror. Two implications: 1) Increased terrorist backlash causes extinction. 2) Militaristic approaches to terror perpetuate Islamophobia and strengthen barriers. Islamophobia, especially in the classroom, destroys the health and learning capabilities of Muslims. | 1/6/17 |
JANFEB - Pettit 1ACTournament: Harvard | Round: 3 | Opponent: Tompkins AG | Judge: Maani Chotalla The best model of freedom should be one the minimizes institutional humiliation—non-domination solves. Non-domination is the only notion of freedom that can apply to state actors. Prefer civic republicanism—state interference promotes freedom if it ensures non-domination. Thus, the standard is consistency with non-domination, defined as curtailing the capacity for arbitrary interference. Prefer: 1)Non-domination is the primary moral good and turns other frameworks—it’s a pre-req to other values. 2)Comes first under util for state actors, like universities—k2 resolve the infeasibility of direct util calc. 3)Pre-req to Kant I defend the resolution as a general principle and will clarify if necessary. ADVANTAGE 1: DISSENT University restrictions on speech repress minority dissent and viewpoints. Communication is key—restricting speech dominates certain identities and destroys effective discourse. Institutions shouldn’t humiliate people; honor is a basic human good—restrictions on speech deprive people of honor. ADVANTAGE 2: UNIONS States can arbitrarily dominate labor movements from unions in public universities. Unions k2 pragmatic change within universities through their bargaining power—squo restrictions are an attack on free speech and protest Bargaining power k2 to non-domination. Bargaining power is key to solve income inequality Income inequality undermines civic republicanism and furthers dominant voices. UNDERVIEW Neg burden is to defend a competitive post-fiat policy. Offense-defense is key to fairness and real world education. | 2/19/17 |
JANFEB - Structural Violence 1ACTournament: Harvard | Round: 2 | Opponent: Dulles DH | Judge: Ria Mazumdar 1) Debate should deal with material impacts—abstraction reflects privilege 2) Structural barriers are based in moral exclusion—we cannot come to ethical conclusions if individuals aren’t seen as human Advantage 1: Echo Chambers Speech restrictions force bigots to retreat back to those with similar viewpoints—they exacerbate harmful ideologies and kill constructive debate. Echo chambers kill coalitional politics and forces the problem underground. The neg causes a substitution effect where new forms of hate speech emerge. Identifying and engaging with the problem through discourse is key—solves root cause of their impacts. Empirics flow aff—speech codes lead to more violence—open dialogue is key to solve. We say fight hate speech with activist speech. Advantage 2: Dissent University restrictions on speech destroy minority dissent and viewpoints. Communication is key—restricting speech hinders certain identities and destroys effective discourse. A framework for alternate views to be heard is k2 pragmatic change and solves Ks. Advantage 3: Unions States can suppress labor movements from unions in public universities. Unions k2 pragmatic change within universities—squo restrictions are an attack on free speech and protest Advantage 4: Terrorism The 1st amendment is key to preventing pro-terror backlash that increases terrorism—the AC supports engaging interactions that go against current militaristic approaches to terror. Militaristic approaches to terror perpetuate Islamophobia and strengthen barriers. Islamophobia, especially in the classroom, destroys the health and learning capabilities of Muslims. Underview PICs are a voting issue against whole res affs Neg burden is to defend a competitive post-fiat policy. Offense-defense is key to fairness and real world education—ignore skep. Relativism justifies mass genocide | 2/18/17 |
NOVDEC - Islamophobia 1ACTournament: UT | Round: 2 | Opponent: Cypress Falls MR | Judge: Emily Nguyen IN 2002 AT A NEW YORK AIRPORT, AN INNOCENT MUSLIM NAMED MAHER ARAR WAS DETAINED ON SUSPICION OF WORKING WITH AL-QAEDA, WHERE HE WAS TORTURED FOR 10 MONTHS. WHEN TAKEN TO COURT, THE OFFICERS INVOKED QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AND THE CASE WAS DISMISSED. ARAR IS NOT ALONE—HUNDREDS OF MUSLIMS HAVE BEEN TREATED AS SLAVES AND UNABLE TO GAIN RETRIBUTION DUE TO THE GWOT AND THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DOCTRINE In 2009, the Supreme Court overturned the mandatory two-pronged requirement for QI—its usage has only increased. This ruling has caused Constitutional stagnation that uniquely affects GWOT victims—alternatives have failed The stagnation from GWOT cases leads to continued judicial review evasion and circular rights violations by not clarifying core constitutional rights The unchecked privilege of officers in GWOT cases has caused the hyper-incarceration of Muslims as terrorists Islamophobia has sought to exclude Muslims from our communities and create a vicious cycle of oppression—the problem lies in how we portray them Incarceration is a form of modern genocide Part 2: Solvency Plan Text: The U.S. courts ought to limit qualified immunity for police officers in cases of The Global War On Terror (GWOT) by invoking the Saucier sequence. I defend normal means and will clarify if necessary in CX. The AC is topical—Saucier sequencing limits officers’ ability to invoke QI The plan solves—it helps to clearly establish constitutional rights and improves police conduct—leads to reduced future litigation, torture, and foreign conflicts that perpetuate anti-Islamic resentment The stricter standard in courts would declare the most abusive Islamophobic actions un-Constitutional and reduce the executional ability of these agencies—solves both discrimination and terror threats Understanding Islamophobia in conjunction with the War on Terror is key to addressing securitization and imperialism Part 3: The Classroom Before we can take action, we must first question and understand the power relations that allow oppression to come up. Thus, the ROJ: To be a critical educator, focused on the liberation of the oppressed. This space is key—it is our responsibility to use the classroom to challenge violent racism and Islamophobia. Thus, the ROB: To vote for the debater who best methodologically combats Islamophobic power structures. A vote affirmative is an ethical stance taken by the judge to refuse Islamophobia—every affirmation of our project is key to the process of awareness. The only productive start is challenging the culture of the American security state. | 1/5/17 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|