Jump to content

Photo
- - - - -

LD Jan/Feb


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 jeongs

jeongs

    Novice

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
0
Neutral
  • Name:Jeong
  • School:CNEC

Posted 09 January 2017 - 06:19 PM

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!!


Edited by jeongs, 09 January 2017 - 06:20 PM.

  • 0

#2 RyleethePFDer

RyleethePFDer

    Wulverine

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 155 posts
40
Good
  • Name:Jaws R. Blockah
  • School:Jefferson High School

Posted 09 January 2017 - 07:34 PM

This shouldn't be too hard -

 

Aff - Free Speech Good

 

Constitutionally protected speech is being threatened now by public colleges and universities of the status quo, and that is bad - thus it justifies the necessity of the resolution - 

 

Neg - Free Speech Bad 

 

Free speech (of constitutional mandates) cannot be allowed because it includes hate speech, and that is bad - you don't have to be totalitarian in your restriction since the resolution says "any," so you can prove that the implications of hate speech outweigh the affirmative benefits.


  • 1

#3 vmanAA738

vmanAA738

    Top Speaker

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 528 posts
160
Excellent
  • Name:Vinay
  • School:UC Berkeley

Posted 10 January 2017 - 11:07 AM

on aff, i would read a constitutionality aff- essentially the framework would be adhering to the constitution, and then the offense is essentially affirming is consistent with the consitution

on neg, you could read a Kant NC, since allowing all protected speech would trample on the freedom/rights of some


  • 1

in the UC machine


#4 jeongs

jeongs

    Novice

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
0
Neutral
  • Name:Jeong
  • School:CNEC

Posted 10 January 2017 - 05:59 PM

This shouldn't be too hard -

 

Aff - Free Speech Good

 

Constitutionally protected speech is being threatened now by public colleges and universities of the status quo, and that is bad - thus it justifies the necessity of the resolution - 

 

Neg - Free Speech Bad 

 

Free speech (of constitutional mandates) cannot be allowed because it includes hate speech, and that is bad - you don't have to be totalitarian in your restriction since the resolution says "any," so you can prove that the implications of hate speech outweigh the affirmative benefits.

 

on aff, i would read a constitutionality aff- essentially the framework would be adhering to the constitution, and then the offense is essentially affirming is consistent with the consitution

on neg, you could read a Kant NC, since allowing all protected speech would trample on the freedom/rights of some

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? 


Edited by jeongs, 10 January 2017 - 06:00 PM.

  • 0

#5 InItToWinIt

InItToWinIt

    Junior-Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
1
Okay
  • Name:Zoe
  • School:Perry High School

Posted 10 January 2017 - 06:15 PM

Hello! I have a few ideas and can help answer your question,

 

I would recommend reading up on Kant ethics before pursuing that route. Kant contradicts himself at points, but used effectively and wisely, can be good. My value for Aff is Democracy and my criterion is along the lines of constitutionalism. As the other two have said, go with constitutionality or something of the sort, but make sure to have a good defense for it (like, make sure you can explain why we must follow the Constitution or why it's good). As for Neg, my value is Deontological ethics and my criterion is Government legitimacy. Deontology deals with Kant, so as I said read up on him if you choose that route. Other good Neg values are discourse (importance of discourse), structural violence, and justice. A great criterion for Neg would also be the purpose of education. 

 

Fighting words are NOT constitutionally protected, so there is no need to bring them up. This really depends on whether or not you think hate speech is constitutionally protected. For Aff and Neg, I would say yes. If you insist that hate speech isn't protected for Neg, then why are you arguing it? Same goes for Aff. To defend hate speech for Aff (if it comes up, which is highly likely), then state that violent and harmful hate speech is not protected (liability, fighting words, etc). That means you're defending hate speech that doesn't incite violence and is protected.

 

Another route of defense is by stating that freedom of speech helps minorities (more than hurts). Minorities can choose to respond to hate speech and in instances have used freedom of speech to create change (MLJK, Susan B. Anthony, etc) You can also use the "marketplace of ideas" strategy, which basically states that all speech must be allowed since it helps generate ideas and can help stop bad ones (racism etc). I would research "marketplace of ideas" as a defense

 

Hope this helps. Good luck!


Edited by InItToWinIt, 10 January 2017 - 06:18 PM.

  • 1

"Perm Aff then the non-exclusionary parts of the Neg" --What I should've said to win round 6 at National Qualifiers 

 

I'd sell my soul for the Cosmic Lobster K
 






Similar Topics Collapse

  Topic Forum Started By Stats Last Post Info

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users