Tournament: Every | Round: Quads | Opponent: La Jolla RP | Judge: James Sanger
A: If asked by their opponent, debaters must allow their opponents to view their speech either by sending it to their opponent via e-mail, giving them a viewing computer, giving them a physical copy, or flashing it to them before the speech

A. Interpretation: debaters may not specify a single public college or university or a group of public colleges or universities in their plan text—they must defend all public colleges and universities.

Tournament: Blake | Round: 1 | Opponent: Golda Meir AH | Judge: Lai, William

Habermas NC LB

1NC

Framework

Agents lack the ability to fully ground knowledge since people come to their own conclusions, so our perspectives is the most indicative of truth.

Anker 09 Michael Anker "The Ethics of Unvertainty: Aporetic Openings" 2009 Atropos Press LB
As mentioned and affirmed, all things (concepts, words, objects, subjects
AND
furthermore affirms the uncertainty of an indeterminate subject, object, and conceptual becoming

Each agent has their own experience that makes their ethics unique, so ethics should focus in closing the gap between agents

Nagel 86 Thomas Nagel "The View from Nowhere" 1986 Oxford University Press https://www.scribd.com/doc/168073579/Nagel-The-View-From-Nowhere-pdf LB
In the pursuit of this goal, however, even at its most successful,
AND
any objective conception of reality must include an acknowledgment of its own incompleteness. 

NC framework outweighs AC. It their framework were true it could only be understood and acted upon through interactions within the community. Any ethic must facilitate inclusion to derive a truth.

Habermas 98 Jurgen Habermas "The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory" MIT Press 1998 LB
In the absence of a substantive agreement on particular norms, the participants must now
AND
good, from the form and perspectival structure of unimpaired, intersubjective socialization.

Justifying an ethical theory means nothing if the agent isn’t included in the discussion. We can only understand and create ethics through discourse.

Habermas 2 Jurgen Habermas "The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory" MIT Press 1998
Social interactions mediated by the use of language oriented to mutual understanding are constitutive for
AND
seated than the tangible vulnerability of bodily integrity, though connected with it.

The state only has power to make decisions from the communicative process.

Flynn, (Jeffery, Communicative Power in Habermas’s Theory of Democracy, Middlebury College, Vermont, European Journal of Political Theory)
Habermas argues that the attempt to interpret popular sovereignty in procedural terms must be ‘
AND
administrative power is only legitimate if bound to this discursively generated communicative power.

Thus the standard is ensuring equal inclusion in discourse

Contention

Hate speech is a huge problem on college campuses

Ma 95 Alice K. Ma "Campus Hate Speech Codes: Affirmative Action in the Allocation of Speech Rights" California Law Review Volume 83 Issue 2 http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1679andcontext=californialawreview LB
It should not be surprising, therefore, that hate crime and hate speech permeate
AND
a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.28

Hate speech preempts the ability for agents to be in an equal discursive position

Lawrence 90 Charles Lawrence III "If He Hollers Let Him Go: Regulating Racist Speech On Campus." Duke Law Journal, Vol. 1990, No. 3. June 01, 1990. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1372554?seq=1~~#page'scan'tab'contents LB
Face-to-face racial insults, like fighting words, are undeserving of
AND
survival techniques of suppressing and disguising rage and anger at an early age. 

College Speech codes create an increase of free speech. 3 warrants

Garrett 02 Deanna M. Garrett Deanna M. Garrett graduated from the University of Virginia in 1997 with a bachelor's degree in Religious Studies and a minor in Biology. She is a second-year HESA student and a Graduate Assistant in the Department of Residential Life. "Silenced Voices:  Hate Speech Codes on Campus" University of Vermont July 29, 2002 http://www.uvm.edu/~~vtconn/?Page=v20/garrett.html LB
Advocates of hate speech codes contend that the inclusion of racist, sexist, and
AND
shock" of racist speech systematically preempts response. (p. 143)

Tournament: Harvard westlake | Round: 4 | Opponent: Immaculate Heart LM | Judge: Eckert, Bennett

In engaging in any activity, we can always ask why we engage in it. For example, if you’re playing chess I can ask why you moved the pawn forward one. If you give any answer other than "because I’m playing chess," there’s regress because I can question your answer with another "why" to infinity. And, the constitutive feature of being an agent is rational reflection. To even question whether we want to be agents concedes the authority of agency because we’re reflecting on our desires. Thus, practical reflection is an inescapable aspect of agency. Next, rational reflection requires that the maxims we act upon be universalizable. Any reasoner would know that two plus two equals four because there is no a priori distinction between agents so norms must be universally valid. And- willing coercion is a contradiction in conception because you extend your own freedom while simultaneously undermining your ability to act in the first place. In order to prevent coercion individuals must submit to the omnilateral will.

Kant Immanuel Kant (leading Kantian scholar) The Metaphysical Elements of Justice, trans. John Ladd. 1797. Indianapolis: Hackett Publsihing, 1999.
When I declare (by word or deed), "I will that an external
AND
a thing can be externally yours or mine only in a civil society.

Thus, the standard is consistency with the omnilateral will. Prefer the standard: all frameworks presuppose freedom. People can only be held responsible for unethical actions if they chose to do them, but choice itself requires that people can pick which actions to take without threat of force. For example, if someone holds a gun to my head and makes me steal someone’s apple, I am not truly culpable because I wasn’t free.

Impact analysis: Only freedom violations intrinsic to the structure of the action are relevant. 1. Freedom is a property of agency, not a consequence. Adding two circles doesn’t make anything more circular than it was before, just like two humans aren’t freer than one human. 2. We can’t be culpable for foreseen consequences.

Hegel 20 George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel The Philosophy of Right 1820
The will has before it an outer reality, upon which it operates. But
AND
adopt only the first consequences, since they alone lie in the purpose.

I contend that public entities have an obligation to restrict some constitutionally protected free speech.

First, speech acts that intend to incite revolution dissolve the authority of the sovereign and must be prohibited.

Varden 10 Helga Varden (Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Illinois) "A Kantian Conception of Free Speech" May 22^nd 2010 Freedom of Expression in a Diverse World Volume 3 of the series AMINTAPHIL: The Philosophical Foundations of Law and Justice pp 39-55 http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10072F978-90-481-8999-1'4 JW
To understand Kant’s condemnation of seditious speech, remember that Kant, as mentioned above
AND
qua private citizens, it is a public crime (6: 331).

Second, hate speech relies on historical oppression, which obligates the state to intervene.

Varden 10 Helga Varden (Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Illinois) "A Kantian Conception of Free Speech" May 22^nd 2010 Freedom of Expression in a Diverse World Volume 3 of the series AMINTAPHIL: The Philosophical Foundations of Law and Justice pp 39-55 http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10072F978-90-481-8999-1'4 JW
Kant’s distinction between public and private right can also be used to make sense of
AND
debate and reflection followed by public regulation on behalf of all citizens.