Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About jeongs

  • Rank
  • Birthday 08/15/2001

Profile Information

  • Name
  • School
  1. jeongs

    LD Jan/Feb

    Thank you both for your ideas! I know that while researching this topic the First Amendment does not protect some specific types of speech, specifically one that I came across was: "Fighting Words Government may prohibit the use of 'fighting words,' which is speech that is used to inflame another and that will likely incite physical retaliation. Likewise, language that is meant to incite the masses toward lawless action is not protected. This can include speech that is intended to incite violence or to encourage the audience to commit illegal acts. The test for fighting words is whether an average citizen would view the language as being inherently likely to provoke a violent response." I'm aware that communication about issues such as sexism and racism does not always elevate to "fighting words." But, how could the aff defend the importance of the discussions of these issues in society if the neg brings up that it's difficult to measure what is considered hate speech and what is not, especially in heated conversations about topics like that?
  2. jeongs

    LD Jan/Feb

    I have a tournament this Friday, does anyone happen to have any case ideas or cases they are willing to share for aff/neg of the 2017 Jan/Feb LD Resolution? Resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech. Note: I'm in a super traditional/lay circuit, so value-debate based things would be great Thanks!!