Tournament: Grapevine | Round: 1 | Opponent: Isadore Newman SG | Judge: Varad Agarwala
Part 1 is the problem

Capitalists have created a ruse that socialists are starting to believe. It states that we need control of nuclear energy to revolt. This could be farther from the truth, not only do we not control production, but the energy production is harming the working class Kinder writes,

Nuclear Power and …such capitalist crimes? 

And, This hasn’t been an issue just in Japan, it is a mindset that supports Capitalism. We cannot sit by while capitalists try to convince us that they are taking care of the world with nuclear energy. Instead they are harming not only the environment but the working class Kinder 2, 

Trotskyists seek to …and here’s how.

Moreover, Nuclear Production Fragments Labor another loss for the working class, Spence

Nuclear capital, Martin Spence, Capital and Class, 1982
If we now …job at another. 21 .

Further, the capitalist really do have everyone fooled. They tell us that these nuclear programs are state run. Since the 1960’s privately run for profit corporations have had control Spence 2, 

As soon as …was a disaster.

The problem is clear, the privately owned corporations tell us the lie that A) we can only survive if we have nuclear energy and B) we don’t care about accidents. This seems to be an issue for the working class. In State’s like France they are so dependent on nuclear energy that the Capitalist can literally control the State. Accidents like Japan happen and the companies pay a nice settlement, then call it even. Half of the working class sits back and watches it happen, thinking this is the technology of the future, while indeed it is just a way to make the rich richer. 

Part 2 is the solution. We must affirm the resolution and get production prohibited before it is too late. The State may be built up on a capitalist house, but the regulations are the only way to get out of the fire that is nuclear power, the complexities are too much to handle in a revolution Spence 3, 

There is a …side-stepping the regulations ."

Taking steps towards a non-nuclear energy is the first way to secure jobs for the working class. Without this step we can never have a revolution in the future. This is key.
Spence 4,
Technology is not …jobs as well .

A stand is far from overdue. Yet, many socialists are still believing that we cannot do anything. Many see the anti-nuclear lobby as the middle class posing a threat to the working class We have to have some sort of cooperation to see that the problem doesn’t get any worse.
Spence 5,
If nuclear power… explore this possibility .

Its try or die for the affirmative. This problem is not going away without a stand in the nuclear energy field. In fact it will just get worse, the harms to the job field, the public, and accidents will just get worse and worse. This is the step to take us in the right direction as the working class.
Spence 6,
To sum up, …that wider campaign .

Couple of implications: a) non-uniques disadvantages to the aff; the situation can’t possibly get worse, because there’s already complete capitalist control. If there’s a risk the aff makes things better, we should affirm; b) automatically perms counterplans that aren’t mutually exclusive with the aff, because the aff can’t make things worse, so we should always affirm on the risk that the perm improves the situation.
Part 3 is the Role of the Judge.
Intervening into the ballot to block any from approving the capitalist resolution is essential – we must stifle the circulation of capital  and indeed the intellectual ideal of capitalism wherever possible to create new sites of solidarity.  Debate can be one of those places of solidarity.  The ballot is key as a micro-gesture. Gharavi explains,
 2012 (May 19, Maryam Monalisa, Ph.D. candidate in Comparative Literature and Film and Visual Studies at Harvard University, “In Defense of Spontaneous Contestation and/or Beauty,” The New Inquiry, http://thenewinquiry.com/blogs/southsouth/in-defense-of-spontaneous-contestation-andor-beauty/) D.L. 

His starting point: … data-body solidarity.

Resisting capitalism is our ultimate ethical obligation. Status quo modes of thought only serve to legitimize the system. Zizek and Daly 4 write
For Zizek it …of differential affirmation.
Capitalism is the reason other forms of exclusion exist – the aff is a prerequisite to effectuating change in any other types of exclusion.  Kovel writes,  

(Joel, Professor of Social Studies at Bard College, The Enemy of Nature, p. 122-24, , 2002, arh)
Unlike gender…  of woman’s labour.
And, put away your theory.  Fairness and any arbitrary standards you read are only used to silence voices.  Delgado.
Delgado, Law Prof at U. of Colorado, 1992 Richard, “Shadowboxing: An Essay On Power,” In Cornell Law Review, May

We have … way of judging action.

Tournament: all | Round: 1 | Opponent: any | Judge: any
I affirm: Resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech.
Hate speech is excluded from protected speech
Badamchi 15, Devrim Kabasakal Badamchi (Izmir University, Turkey). “Justifications of freedom of speech: Towards a double-grounded non-consequentialist approach.” Philosophy and Social Criticism. 2015, Vol. 41(9) 907–927.
What categories of speech are included in the definition of political speech? As stated above, speech intended as a political contribution to public deliberation counts as political speech. In this sense, like Meiklejohn, a double-grounded theory considers most artwork and literature as political speech since they are eventually social contributions. The reasonable judgment of people is enough to claim that a particular type of speech is political. Yet, what about hate speech? Is this counted as political speech? A double- grounded justification does not consider hate speech as political communication that aims to contribute to public deliberation. Similarly to Meiklejohn, it takes political speech to be communication among free and equal persons.9 Since hate speech does not recognize the individuals that it targets as free and equal, it does not respect them. Therefore, hate speech falls categorically outside the scope of fully protected free speech, belonging instead to the category of non-political speech, a category that includes violent pornography, private libel, false and deceptive commercial speech. Therefore, it can be regulated.
This creates a double bind on the neg either a) they cannot defend restricting hate speech since it is not constitutionally protected anyways via the definition above or b) they cannot prove that hate speech doesn't not lead to fighting words or defamation, neither of which are protected by the constitution, Cornell law explains,
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942).
Words which would likely make the person whom they are addressed commit an act of violence.  Fighting words are a category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment.

Some speech is not protected, such as shouting “fire” in a crowded movie theater. The resolution asks whether speech that is protected ought to be allowed on public colleges and universities. It is therefore not topical to debate speech acts that are illegal (like yelling “fire”) under the First Amendment. 

Because the resolution questions what ought or ought not be done in a public college or university, I value Education. The best way to ensure education and preparation in colleges and universities is a Liberal Education. The Association of American Colleges and Universities defines “Liberal Education” as,

AACU, “What is a 21st Century Liberal Education?” Association of American Colleges and Universities Online. Accessed January 3, 2017. https://www.aacu.org/leap/what-is-a-liberal-education
An approach to college learning that empowers individuals and prepares them to deal with complexity, diversity, and change. This approach emphasizes broad knowledge of the wider world (e.g., science, culture, and society) as well as in-depth achievement in a specific field of interest. It helps students develop a sense of social responsibility; strong intellectual and practical skills that span all major fields of study, such as communication, analytical, and problem-solving skills; and the demonstrated ability to apply knowledge and skills in real-world settings 

Former president of the AACU, Carol Geary Schneider, explains why a Liberal Education is important for democracy and student development, 

Schneider, Carol Geary (President Emerita of the Association of American Colleges and Universities). “Presidents CALL: Campaign for the Advancement of Liberal Education” Winter 2002, Vol. 88, No. 1 of Liberal Education. https://www.aacu.org/publications-research/periodicals/presidents-call-campaign-advancement-liberal-education
Chief among these is the Jeffersonian recognition that democracy depends for its vitality upon education, while education serves democracy best when it prepares us for just the kinds of questions we face now: questions about the wider world, about our own values, and about difficult choices we must make both as human beings and citizens. Our new hunger for deepened understanding, however, finds Americans standing at an educational crossroads. For the first time in our own or any nation's history, the great majority of Americans not only desire higher education for themselves and their children, but actually enroll in some form of postsecondary education. We have become the first nation to encourage near-universal participation in higher learning. Yet even as students of all ages flock to college, many of them are not enrolled in the kind of studies that will prepare them well for the challenges of our turbulent and interdependent world. The approach to higher learning that best serves individuals, our globally engaged democracy and an innovating economy is liberal education. Liberal education comes in many shapes and forms in the contemporary academy, but in every one of those forms, its aims include: 1 developing intellectual and ethical judgment; 2 expanding cultural, societal and scientific horizons; 3 cultivating democratic and global knowledge and engagement; and 4 preparation for work in a dynamic and rapidly evolving economy.

Therefore, my criterion is Ensuring a Liberal Education. If I can prove that restricting constitutionally protected speech harms a student’s ability to receive a proper Liberal Education, then it ought not be done and you affirm. 

The thesis of the affirmative case is that public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech, because free speech is essential to a university experience that adequately prepares students for their futures. 

Contention 1: Free speech on campuses helps students to develop their own values and thoughts. A central component of this pedagogical process is free speech. Juhan explains,

Juhan, S. Cagle (Law Clerk, US District Court for the North District of Alabama; J.D., University of Virginia School of Law). “Free Speech, Hate Speech, and the Hostile Speech Environment.” Virginia Law Review, Vol. 98, No. 7 (November 2012), pp. 1577-1619
Yet on the issue of hate speech, freedom of thought (or speech) is sometimes what colleges and universities appear not to want. Instead, attempts are occasionally made to inculcate particular view points and conceptualizations of mantras such as "diversity" in an effort to squash out the thoughts and expressions inherent in hateful (or merely politically incorrect) speech. Speech codes are but one of many manifestations of the "attempt to dictate primarily how students (and faculty) think."168 There is a substantial and concerted effort to "enforce... a 'politically correct' orthodoxy" through "raw political power"169 despite the glaring fact that imposing such an orthodoxy is exactly what the First Amendment forbids.17" Individuals have an interest in freely and authentically formulating their thoughts, beliefs, and opinions without being bombarded by mentally meddlesome messages.171 Freedom of thought cannot be maintained in the face of constant, officious interference that attempts to overwhelm the mind into submissive acceptance of the propounded view.172 Thus, while state action may not burden speech directly, it can still endanger or obstruct freedom of thought to the degree necessary to justify restrictions on the government and its speech.1

Speech codes are rules on college campuses that forbid certain speech acts. They are restrictive and harmful to the student, as they prohibit thought processes that are essential for personal and professional growth. Students must be able to hear speech they disagree with to form their own opinions. This is key to a Liberal Education.

Contention 2: Free speech on campuses helps students to be prepared for the workplace. If the overall purpose of college and universities is to train students to get jobs and be productive citizens, then campuses must be places of free speech. Lukianoff and Haidt write,

Lukianoff, Greg (Constitutional lawyer and president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) and Haidt, Jonathan (social psychologist), “The Coddling of the American Mind.” The Atlantic, September 2015 Issue. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/?utm_source=twb
Attempts to shield students from words, ideas, and people that might cause them emotional discomfort are bad for the students. They are bad for the workplace, which will be mired in unending litigation if student expectations of safety are carried forward. And they are bad for American democracy, which is already paralyzed by worsening partisanship. When the ideas, values, and speech of the other side are seen not just as wrong but as willfully aggressive toward innocent victims, it is hard to imagine the kind of mutual respect, negotiation, and compromise that are needed to make politics a positive-sum game. Rather than trying to protect students from words and ideas that they will inevitably encounter, colleges should do all they can to equip students to thrive in a world full of words and ideas that they cannot control. One of the great truths taught by Buddhism (and Stoicism, Hinduism, and many other traditions) is that you can never achieve happiness by making the world conform to your desires. But you can master your desires and habits of thought. This, of course, is the goal of cognitive behavioral therapy. With this in mind, here are some steps that might help reverse the tide of bad thinking on campus.

People will inevitably hear speech acts in the workplace that they do not like. If colleges and universities have shielded students from these speech acts, then students are not prepared to appropriately and productively respond in the workplace. Moreover, many suggested speech codes adversely affect job training. Lukianoff and Haidt 2 give an example,

Lukianoff, Greg (Constitutional lawyer and president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) and Haidt, Jonathan (social psychologist), “The Coddling of the American Mind.” The Atlantic, September 2015 Issue. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/?utm_source=twb
Jeannie Suk’s New Yorker essay described the difficulties of teaching rape law in the age of trigger warnings. Some students, she wrote, have pressured their professors to avoid teaching the subject in order to protect themselves and their classmates from potential distress. Suk compares this to trying to teach “a medical student who is training to be a surgeon but who fears that he’ll become distressed if he sees or handles blood.”

Attempting to control speech on campuses spills over into the workplace, creating an undertrained and unprepared workforce. Since colleges ought to prepare students for their jobs, campuses should not restrict constitutionally protected speech. A Liberal Education is one that is focused on job training, whereas an education that restricts free speech is not. 

Contention 3: Free speech on campuses helps students to process psychological issues. One reason used to limit speech on campuses is that some speech acts can be potentially harmful to students. While this may be true, shielding students from this kind of speech is ultimately harmful. Lukainoff and Haidt 3 explain, 

Lukianoff, Greg (Constitutional lawyer and president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) and Haidt, Jonathan (social psychologist), “The Coddling of the American Mind.” The Atlantic, September 2015 Issue. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/?utm_source=twb
However, there is a deeper problem with trigger warnings. According to the most-basic tenets of psychology, the very idea of helping people with anxiety disorders avoid the things they fear is misguided. A person who is trapped in an elevator during a power outage may panic and think she is going to die. That frightening experience can change neural connections in her amygdala, leading to an elevator phobia. If you want this woman to retain her fear for life, you should help her avoid elevators. But if you want to help her return to normalcy, you should take your cues from Ivan Pavlov and guide her through a process known as exposure therapy. You might start by asking the woman to merely look at an elevator from a distance—standing in a building lobby, perhaps—until her apprehension begins to subside. If nothing bad happens while she’s standing in the lobby—if the fear is not “reinforced”—then she will begin to learn a new association: elevators are not dangerous. (This reduction in fear during exposure is called habituation.) Then, on subsequent days, you might ask her to get closer, and on later days to push the call button, and eventually to step in and go up one floor. This is how the amygdala can get rewired again to associate a previously feared situation with safety or normalcy.

Likewise, if a student has anxiety related to certain speech acts, the correct way to help her is not to shield her from these speech acts, but rather to help her find positive ways to interact with this speech. Restricting speech on campus harms the student’s ability to positively work through anxiety, and harms the student’s access to a Liberal Education.

For these reasons, I affirm.