Tournament: Woodward | Round: 1 | Opponent: IDK | Judge: idk

CP

My counter value is justice – we must prevent domination of oppressed groups.  My criteria is maximizing benefits for the least well off. We must protect the people least well off in society in order for everyone to have equal access to social benefits like education.

Text: Public colleges and universities ought not restrict constitutionally protected speech, except for gender based violent speech by Fraternity members. Colleges and universities ought to establish prevention and investigation measures to stop violence by fraternity members.

Observation One – The Affirmative protects all forms of speech, including Fraternities sites – semantic and practical reasons:

A. Semantic: "any" means that they must protect all speech.

Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary ~https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/any~~    
DO YOU DEFEND THE WHOLE RESOLUTION?
Definition of any 1 : one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind: a :
AND
appreciably large or extended could not endure it any length of time

B. Practical: Normal means – Upholding free speech rights on campus will allow frats to do what they want

Lukianoff - 2011 ~Greg Lukianoff, President and CEO of Fire, "To Survive, Fraternities Need to Stand for Something, Anything," August 1^st, 2015, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-lukianoff/fraternities-and-free-spe_b_912673.html~~====

A lot of fraternities seem to know that their freedom of association …, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, as well.)

3. Normal means evidence is good for debate

a. It is necessary to fill in the gaps. Resolutions and plans are single sentences – this leaves the vast majority of details undefined. Only evidence can fill that blank

b. It links debate to the real world – it shows how the plan would Actually be implemented. This forces research and helps make our education portable.

Observation Two – Competition

1. I solve the affirmative advantage by passing the resolution for every form of speech other than In Fraternities. The affirmative must link any solvency deficit to Fraternities.

2. Any legitimate permutation severs out of the part of plan that protects Fraternity speech. This is Functionally part of the plan. Severance does not test competition of the counterplan, makes the aff a moving target, and destroys stable advocacy skills.

3. Functional Competition is better than Textual Competition

a. It is necessary for time limits – actual legislation is hundreds of pages long – no AC could put everything that they defend into the text. Functional competition allows us to fill in the details with evidence about how a plan would be done.

b. It is educational because it encourages research into how a plan would be implemented, because we need evidence to fill in the details. Research is a key portable skill that will help in every other subject or job.

Observation Three – Net Benefits –

Frats have empirically lead to massive amounts of sexual abuse – limiting their speech solves
Valenti – 2014 ~Jessica Valenti, Writer at The Guardian, "Frat brothers rape 300 more. One in 5 women is sexually assaulted on campus. Should we ban frats?", September 24, 2017 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/24/rape-sexual-assault-ban-frats~~
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee police are currently investigating a fraternity after several women were
AND
or serious injury" of a healthy young person at a fraternity function.

Observation Four: PICs are good

1. PICs are key to test the wording of the resolution – this is key to predictable negative ground, because the resolution is the only thing I have before the debate.

2. PICs give the affirmative automatic ground – by excluding a portion of the Affirmative, it gives the Aff an automatic solvency deficit.

3. Key to negative flexibility – PICs give the negative an option against new cases or small plans, which is key to offset Aff's infinite prep.

4. PICs are key to force the affirmative to defend the entirety of their plan – it forces them to improve plan writing and to establish strategic contentions.

5. Their Policy making framework legitimizes PICs. If I can prove that it is a superior policy option, then a logical policy maker would vote for it.

6. Theory is not a voting issue – they cannot prove either in round abuse or that the counterplan sets a precedent. They don't create a threshold for theory that justifies voting. PICs are reasonable – they are well known and have substantial backfiles. Err(air) negative on theory because the affirmative gets an inherent side bias by speaking first and last and having infinite prep