The Instigator
rzentmayer
Con (against)
The Contender
Nonlin.org
Pro (for)

Resolved: Universities in the US ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
rzentmayer has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/3/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 626 times Debate No: 97595
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

rzentmayer

Con

I am a student participating in Lincoln-Douglas debate and would like to bring my resolution here in order to better my case. I'd like to structure this like a common LD debate in which morality is of the utmost value and more important than other factors such has practicality or efficiency. To write an LD cases values, definitions, value criterion, and moral frameworks are used. If you need clarification for the format of this debate I'd be happy to respond in the comments. Remember, this is just for fun to help me make my case better for competition.

1. Round one will be for acceptance
2. CON - address values and case PRO - address values, case and rebuttals
3. CON - Review case, rebuttals and values PRO - Case, rebuttals and values
4. Both - Summary
Nonlin.org

Pro

I don't see your argument, but it seems Universities should be in the business of teaching, not restricting anything. In addition, there's two different types of schools: public and private:
1. Public schools take public money so they have no right to restrict anything given that they are supported by and must represent the society as a whole.
2. Private schools are supported by private donors, so they should represent those interest groups. However, by restricting constitutionally protected speech, they wold discriminate against some groups which would restrict their appeal. The argument against these schools is not as strong. If catholic schools want to restrict anti-abortion speech on their campuses, they should be free to do so. Still, to broaden their appeal, they should exercise this right sparingly.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by warren42 1 year ago
warren42
Ah yes, the NSDA and their stupid wording of topics strikes again. I should have known.
Posted by rzentmayer 1 year ago
rzentmayer
I posted the resolution as it's written for National Speech and Debate but I agree the "ought not" part will be confusing, the revision will make pro and con much clearer.
Posted by warren42 1 year ago
warren42
One of you message me when this debate ends. I'm really interested and would love to vote
Posted by warren42 1 year ago
warren42
@tej it gets confusing, especially for voters. I agree with Hayd, I'd rather not have to think about whether I'm "Pro" or "Con"
Posted by rzentmayer 1 year ago
rzentmayer
I'll revise the debate and challenge Hayd.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
@Hayd

Why do you care if the resolution is a negative one? Like, that makes no difference...
Posted by YYW 1 year ago
YYW
This is tempting. Very tempting.
Posted by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
Do these following things and I will accept:

Change the voting system to select winner rather than 7 point. Extend votng period to 1 month. 72 hours between rounds to respond and 10k character limit. Make the round structure as first round acceptence and no new arguments in the final round (don't worry, I will still go by LD its just that this is too restrictive if I am to affirm the resolution), and change the resolution to a positive motion rather than a negative one so that Con is not arguing that we should not not do something. And change the resolution to leave out constituionally protected speech and just speech, constitutionally protected is too confusing. Then challenge me
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.