Tournament: Grapevine | Round: 2 | Opponent: Southlake Carroll SM | Judge: Abbie Chapman
I value morality because ought is defined as a moral obligation. The limits of human knowledge necessitate rejecting government coercion. Powell 13,
Aaron Ross Powell. “The Humble Case for Liberty.” Libertarianism.org. October 17th, 2013. http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/humble-case-liberty
The virtue of humility… use their nightsticks. 

Thus the standard is maintaining limited government, prefer the standard

 1) States only exist because of the social contract, an agreement between the citizens and the state so the state protects the citizens' rights in exchange for the citizens giving up some of their rights. If the state infringes on the rights it was made to protect then it becomes self-defeating and by definition can no longer be considered just as the resolution requires.

2) When people are oppressed that means that they do not have the capacity to make their own choices. Since morality is based off of what choices people make it can no longer be looked to if people are coerced into acting in ways other than if they had the freedom to choose. This means that if people are oppressed morality is unattainable because they can no longer act with morality in mind.

I contend that prohibiting the production of nuclear power restricts the rights of citizens and creates a tyrannical government. 

Libertarianism requires a minimalist state and would thus not regulate nuclear power. Vallentyne,
Vallentyne, Peter. “Libertarianism.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. January 07, 2014. Web. August 16, 2016. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/.  MP
Libertarianism requires that …one's fair share. 6 

Agents have a right to access natural resources. A government must respect this right. Vallentyne
Vallentyne, Peter. “Libertarianism.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. January 07, 2014. Web. August 16, 2016. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/.  MP
A plausible account o… use and appropriation.

Tournament: any | Round: 1 | Opponent: all | Judge: all
I negate: Resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech.

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 to create a healthy learning environment. A key component of this environment is the ability for each person to feel psychologically safe. Vander Ark writes,

Vander Ark, Tom (author of Smart Parents, Smart Cities, and Getting Smart) “Building Better Teams for Project-Based Work.” Getting Smart Online. May 19, 2016. http://www.gettingsmart.com/2016/05/building-better-teams-for-project-based-work/
Google organizes much
contributions are expected.

Therefore, in order to properly educate students and prepare them for the workforce, colleges and universities ought to ensure the psychological safety of their students. My criterion is therefore Increasing a Healthy Learning Environment. 

The thesis of the negative case is that public colleges and universities ought to restrict hate speech. Kaplin defines hate speech,

Kaplin, William A. (Professor of Law at the Catholic University of America). “A Proposed Process for Managing the First Amendment Aspects of Campus Hate Speech.” The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 63, No. 5, Racial Harassment on Campus (Sep. - Oct., 1992), pp. 517-538
Hate speech takes
history week parties.

Contention 1: Hate Speech harms minority groups. While some free speech advocates might say that individuals have a right to say whatever they want to say, these advocates fail to realize that language constructs reality. Hate speech constructs a harmful reality for minority groups. Nancy C. Cornwell writes,

Cornwell, Nancy C. (Montana State University) “Rethinking Free Expression in the Feminist Classroom: The Problem of Hate Speech.” Feminist Teacher, Vol. 12, No. 2 (1998), pp. 107-118
The individual, instead
It is power.

Hate Speech Codes are rules that prohibit harmful speech on college campuses. Uelmen explains these codes,

Uelmen, Gerald (dean of Santa Clara University School of Law and a fellow in the Center for Applied Ethics). “A pro-con discussion of speech codes and free speech.” Character Education, Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. https://www.scu.edu/character/resources/campus-hate-speech-codes/ November 15, 1990.
Those who advocate
limiting speech rights.

Without speech codes, minority students are not guaranteed psychological safety and are not afforded a healthy learning environment. 

Contention 2: Harmful hate speech ought to be restricted on campuses in order to maintain a proper educational environment. Chong writes, 

Chong, Dennis (Northwestern University). “Free Speech and Multiculturalism In and Out of the Academy.” Political Psychology, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Feb., 2006), pp. 29-54.
The speech codes
opportunity to thrive. 

In order to ensure that students can learn in a healthy, non-hostile environment, hate speech ought to be restricted. This is a simple concept that is applied to many other settings outside of the university. Uelman 2 explains,

Uelmen, Gerald (dean of Santa Clara University School of Law and a fellow in the Center for Applied Ethics). “A pro-con discussion of speech codes and free speech.” Character Education, Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. https://www.scu.edu/character/resources/campus-hate-speech-codes/ November 15, 1990.
As a society we
or university campuses.