Tournament: Newark | Round: 2 | Opponent:  | Judge:
See Nirmal Balachundhar's wiki

Tournament: R2 | Round: 1 | Opponent: Brophy Prep AP | Judge: David Branse

CP Text—Public Colleges and universities in the US should remove all restrictions on constitutionally protected free speech except in hate speech, including hate speech not protected by the First Amendment.

McElwee 13: Sean McElwee. "The Case for Censoring Hate Speech." July 12, 2013. Alternet. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/case-censoring-hate-speech. HW
The negative impacts of hate speech do not lie in the responses of third-
AND
-gender, multi-sexually-oriented society, and it can.

Protections against hate speech work now- harassment decreases on campuses as a result as a result.

Sutton 16 Halley Sutton, Report shows crime on campus down across the country, Campus Security Report 13.4 (2016), 9/9/16,http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/casr.30185/full  
A recent report released by the National Center for Education Statistics found an overall decrease
AND
lower than in 2001 for every category except forcible sex offenses and murder.

Hate speech is constitutionally protected- the aff restricts

Moore 16 ~Social Studies Research and Practice www.socstrp.org  Volume 11 Number 1 112 Spring 2016  You Cannot Say That in American Schools: Attacks on the First Amendment James R. Moore Cleveland State University~
The first amendment, a crucial component of American constitutional law, is under attack
AND
, 2013; Saxe V. State College Area School District, 2001).

Removing restrictions on free speech allows hate speech – hate speech IS free speech

Volokh 15 Eugene Volokh,No, There’s No "hate Speech" Exception to the First Amendment, The Washington Post, 5/7/15, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/?utm'term=.05cfdd01dea4 
I keep hearing about a supposed "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment
AND
with any established definition of "hate speech" that I know of.) 

Speech codes are good– they diminish right-wing movements and form coalitions of targeted groups.

Parekh 12 ~Parekh, Bhikhu (2012) ‘Is There a Case for Banning Hate Speech?’, in Herz, M. and Molnar, P. (eds.) The Content and Context of Hate Speech: Rethinking Regulation and Responses. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 37–56. ~
It is sometimes argued that banning hate speech drives extremist groups under- ground and
AND
of the prohibited, but there is also the attraction of the respectable.

The DA turns the case and outweighs

1. Magnitude- Hate speech normalizes psychological violence which renders educational spaces null and increases likelihood of physical violence

Makes physical violence more likely—empirically proven
Causes psychological harms 
Makes educational spaces null and void
Normalizes oppressive practices
Easy to reject from 
AND
individual freedom" looks different from the viewpoint of historically vilified groups.’

Turns counterspeech- psychological violence hurts ability to participate in the movement

2. Empirics- the aff’s marketplace of ideas is too theoretical- prefer the best studies which prove they cause direct harm, empirics outweigh because they take into account every factor

3. Inclusivity- It causes less discursive participation from minorities which harms ability to reach the truth

Horne 16: Solveigh Horne, Minister of children and equality in Norway. "hate speech—a threat to freedom of speech." March 8, 2016. Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/solveig-horne/hate-speech—a-threat-to'b'9406596.html. RW
Hate speech in the public sphere takes place online and offline, and affects young
AND
liberal democracy like Norway strongly supports freedom of speech as a fundamental right. 

NC

1NC- Kant- TL- ~:25~

To negate means "to deny the truth of" which implies A. you presume neg since negating has no positive connotation and permissibility or skep negates by denying the truth of a moral obligation, B. truth testing paradigm is the only textual C. resolved means "firmly determined to do something" so in absence of obligation- the aff has failed their burden

Negate if I win a counterinterp to 1AR theory:

A. Even if RVI’s are false in general, they’re necessary here since I don’t have the ability to generate similar new layers in the 2N

B. Deterrence- since the 2AR can collapse onto 1AR theory and make new extrapolations, the neg always needs to overcover, skews time

At worst, these are additional reasons to structurally presume neg

1NC- Kant- FW Short- ~1:00~

The value is morality

Moral realism fails- prefer constructivism, we must derive truths from reflection and see humanity as an end in of itself

Bagnoli 14 ~Bagnoli, Carla, "Constructivism in Metaethics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/constructivism-metaethics/.~~ 
Among contemporary philosophers, Christine Korsgaard has developed the most ambitious, and controversial,
AND
these claims have been attacked on grounds that will be discussed in section §

This outweighs:

A. Arbitrary moral facts terminate in nonmoral reasons which are open to subjective interpretations

B. Self reflexitivity allows us to call other metaethics into question and always ask why?

C. Causal forces determine subjective value because we are predisposed to certain experiences - so they can’t ground objective ethics.

And, Freedom is a priori

A. Internal link to all ethics- every ethic requires an agent’s capability to select their principle of acton

B. Culpability- agents must be free in order to assort blame and responsibility to fulfill obligations

C. Resolvability- otherwise its impossible for the judge to make a decision because they can’t be free to vote for the better debater

And, freedom requires universal independence

Korsgaard 96 ~Christine Korsgaard. "The Sources of Normativity." Lecture 3. The Tanner Lectures on Human Values. 1996. Gender modified. http://tannerlectures.utah.edu/'documents/a-to-z/k/korsgaard94.pdf~~**
Kant defines a free will as a rational causality that is effective without being determined
AND
arise from reflective endorsement, then obligation arises from re - flective rejection. 

Outweighs:

A. Omissions don’t matter because the agent didn’t cause the event- willing contradictory ends result in failure to act

B. Reject absolute freedom because we are rational agents who live in a  spatiotepomra universe and the possibility of universal harm is bad

C. No protection on freedom is assured- only the omnilateral will has everyone’s consent and can protect a total state of freedom

Thus, the standard is preserving equal outer freedom through universal maxims

1NC- Kant- Contention- Short ~1:00~

That negates

1. Hate speech

Hate speech is constitutionally protected

Moore 16 ~Social Studies Research and Practice www.socstrp.org  Volume 11 Number 1 112 Spring 2016  You Cannot Say That in American Schools: Attacks on the First Amendment James R. Moore Cleveland State University~
The first amendment, a crucial component of American constitutional law, is under attack
AND
, 2013; Saxe V. State College Area School District, 2001).

Hate speech requires regulation and isn’t universalizable- that extends inclusion of exclusion which is contradictory

Varden 10: ~Helga Varden, Associate Professor of Philosophy and Associate Professor of Gender and Women's Studies @ U of Illinois, 5-22-2010, Academia.edu, https://www.academia.edu/2006079/A'Kantian'Conception'of'Free'Speech~~~~. NB
On the Kantian view I have been developing, hate speech and speech amounting to
AND
public debate and reflection followed by public regulation on behalf of all citizens.

2. Seditious Speech

It amounts to ending the omnilateral will- which makes freedom impossible

Varden 10: ~Helga Varden, Associate Professor of Philosophy and Associate Professor of Gender and Women's Studies @ U of Illinois, 5-22-2010, Academia.edu, https://www.academia.edu/2006079/A'Kantian'Conception'of'Free'Speech~~~~. RW

To understand Kant’s condemnation of seditious speech, remember that Kant, as
AND
" rather than citizens qua private citizens, it is a public crime. 

Seditious speech is constitutionally protected.

Justia no date: ~Justia, "Seditious Speech and Seditious Libel", http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-01/41-seditious-speech.html~~~~ . RW
Seditious Speech and Seditious Libel.—Opposition to government through speech alone has been subject
AND
in Madison’s view, a fundamental principle of the American form of government."

3. Restrictions constitute free speech- otherwise you can't understand speech because there's no bounds to set it's meanings.

4. Free speech violates the contract of the university- if you don't agree with the priniples you can leave campus and get educated elsewhere. Breaking contracts isn't universalizable because that entails breaking promises which is a contradiction in will