1ac - China aff 1nc - Lay 1ar - All 2nr - Lay 2ar - China
Emory
4
Opponent: Holy Cross ND | Judge: Ribera, Claudia
1ac - Wake Work 1nc - Deleuze K 1ar - All 2nr - all 2ar - all
Glenbrooks
1
Opponent: Loveless Academic Magnet Program RR | Judge: Copeland, Morgan
1ac-fem aff 1nc-disclosure set col k 1ar - all 2nr- set col k 2ar - all
Glenbrooks
4
Opponent: Immaculate Heart SS | Judge: Dua, Raunak
1ac-Brazil aff 1nc-Disclosure Set Col K 1ar-all 2nr-Set col 2ar-all
Glenbrooks
5
Opponent: Fairmont Prep SV | Judge: Montecalvo, Nick
1ac-Structural Violence Aff 1nc-Disclose Plan Text Set Col K 1ar-All 2nr-Disclose plan text 2ar-SV aff
Glenbrooks
7
Opponent: James Logan KL | Judge: Kurian, Michael
1ac-Palestine aff 1nc-Set col T Spec 1ar-all 2nr-T Spec 2ar-T Spec RVI
Harvard
3
Opponent: Princeton AS | Judge: Zinman, Ava
1ac-asteroids 1nc-deleuze k data cp asteroids da 1ar-all condo 2nr-deleuze 2ar-deleuze indep voter
Harvard
2
Opponent: Syosset LG | Judge: Ahuja, Ronak
1ac - Accelerationism bad 1nc - URL theory Util China DA 1ar - all 2nr - URL Theory 2ar - URL theory
Harvard
6
Opponent: Lynbrook SY | Judge: Etienne, Fabrice
1ac-Queer aff 1nc-T FW Case 1ar-all 2nr-T FW 2ar-all
Princeton
1
Opponent: Summit JC | Judge: Arianna Nelson
1ac-Util disclosure 1nc - Set col K 1ar -all 2nr - K 2ar - perm disclosure
Princeton
4
Opponent: Lake Highland Prep HL | Judge: Dossani, Faizaan
1ac-cap aff 1nc - set col k 1ar - all 2nr-set col 2ar-all
Princeton
5
Opponent: Durham ZG | Judge: Etienne, Fabrice
1ac-Fem aff 1nc-Set col 1ar-all 2nr-all 2ar-all
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
Entry
Date
0-Contact Info
Tournament: TOC | Round: Finals | Opponent: Na | Judge: Hey! My name is Andy (He/Him)
Here's my contact info (in order of preference): 1) FB Andy Xu 2) 610-504-0173 3) Email: andydebates@gmail.com
12/4/21
1 - Theory - Disclose Plan Text
Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 5 | Opponent: Fairmont Prep SV | Judge: Montecalvo, Nick 1 Interpretation: Aff debaters must disclose all past plan/advocacies before the round. To clarify, disclosure can occur on the wiki or over email. Violation: They didn’t disclose, see screenshots in the doc
First is prep and clash: Not disclosing gives the 1AC a competitive advantage over the negative where they can obscure their arguments and force me to prep an infinite amount of different positions that I could not possibly predict because of the broadness of the resolution. Skews my prep before the round which heavily dampens clash because I’ll be forced to resort to generics that barely contest the aff.
Second is evidence ethics: Disclosing the speech doc is the only way to verify pre-round that cards aren’t miscut or highlighted or bracketed unethically. Independent voter – maintaining ethical ev practices is key to being good academics and we should be able to verify you didn’t cheat
Procedural Fairness first
Ballot pic – at the end of the day they care about competition and want their arguments to be flowed which proves they care about competition, if they don’t care about winning then just vote neg. Solves their offense, there is no reason a ballot is key 2. Competitive incentives – debate is a game and games are silly without a level playing field. There is no incentive to prep and research for hundreds of hours if you know you’ll be at a structural disadvantage which makes the game bad and prevents rigorous contestation of positions which produces the best advocates. 1 DTD on 1nc theory and disclosure – a) disclosure cannot be drop the argument because it would just drop you because you’re the norm b) deterrence 2 Reject all responses to disclosure – they selectively comply with our norm because they disclose some round reports that meet our criteria which proves we can’t verify what norms they actually agree with. 3 No RVI’s because you shouldn’t win for being fair 4 CI – 1 reasonability is arbitrary – impossible to know what is reasonable until you establish a brightline 2 bites judge intervention cuz they have to gut check what they think is good 3 reasonability collapses cuz u use offense defense to evaluate offense under the BL 4 norms – you can sidestep norms by selectively choosing a different brightline you meet every round. 5 Disclosure outweighs – it’s key to assessing the honesty of the form of your argumentation and how you presented arguments which means it precludes 1ar claims.
11/21/21
1 - Theory - Disclosure
Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 1 | Opponent: Loveless Academic Magnet Program RR | Judge: Copeland, Morgan Interp: Debaters must disclose their affirmative on both the NDCA LD wiki's cite box and round reports Violation: They don’t, see screenshots in doc
1) Navigation: The aff is only disclosed in the open source, but NOT in the cite box which makes it impossible to recognize the correct disclosed to read aff, especially when the only two cite boxes are their wiki belongs to two completely different offs for a different topic. This outweighs, novice debaters new to debate, or even debaters with visual impairments or disabilities would struggle to locate the correct aff. 2) Strat Skew: Round reports provide insight to the strategy of the aff and refusing to properly disclose them on the wiki obfuscates the 1NC’s vision of the aff and how you debate it, we don’t know the true meaning or implication of an aff argument until it’s made in the 1AR as a result. Hold them to a small threshold for responses because they disclose round reports in some rounds, but intentionally not in others 1 DTD on 1ac theory and disclosure – a) disclosure cannot be drop the argument because it would just drop you because you’re the norm b) deterrence 2 Reject all responses to disclosure – they selectively comply with our norm because they disclose some round reports that meet our criteria which proves we can’t verify what norms they actually agree with. 3 No RVI’s because you shouldn’t win for being fair 4 CI – 1 reasonability is arbitrary – impossible to know what is reasonable until you establish a brightline 2 bites judge intervention cuz they have to gut check what they think is good 3 reasonability collapses cuz u use offense defense to evaluate offense under the BL 4 norms – you can sidestep norms by selectively choosing a different brightline you meet every round. 5 Disclosure outweighs – it’s key to assessing the honesty of the form of your argumentation and how you presented arguments which means it precludes 1nc claims. 6 Fairness is a voter because debate is a game governed by rules and you can’t tell who actually won if the layer was skewed.
11/20/21
1 - Theory - Must Spec Indig Solvency Advocate
Tournament: Bronx | Round: 2 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep AV | Judge: Joe, Sesh Interpretation: Affirmatives must specify and cite an indigenous solvency advocate in the 1ac Violation: Standards: 1) In round violence 2) Methods of resistance
10/16/21
JF - Asteroid DA
Tournament: Harvard | Round: 3 | Opponent: Princeton AS | Judge: Zinman, Ava Check OS
2/19/22
JF - China DA
Tournament: Harvard | Round: 2 | Opponent: Syosset LG | Judge: Ahuja, Ronak Xi’s regime is stable now, but its success depends on strong growth and private sector development. Mitter and Johnson 21 Rana Mitter and Elsbeth Johnson, Rana Mitter is a professor of the history and politics of modern China at Oxford. Elsbeth Johnson, formerly the strategy director for Prudential PLC’s Asian business, is a senior lecturer at MIT’s Sloan School of Management and the founder of SystemShift, a consulting firm. May-June 2021, "What the West Gets Wrong About China," Harvard Business Review, https://hbr.org/2021/05/what-the-west-gets-wrong-about-china accessed 12/14/21 Adam
In China, however AND in scientific research.
Xi has committed to the commercial space industry as the linchpin of China’s rise – the plan is seen as a complete 180 Patel 21 Neel V. Patel, Neel is a space reporter for MIT Technology Review. 1-21-2021, "China’s surging private space industry is out to challenge the US," MIT Technology Review, https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/01/21/1016513/china-private-commercial-space-industry-dominance/ accessed 12/14/21 Adam Until recently, China’s AND expand,” he says.
Loss of stability causes the CCP to escalate tensions and lash out – uniquely threatens Taiwan. Blumenthal and Urda 9/28 09-28-20, Dan Blumenthal, Jakob Urda, The National Interest, “China’s aggressive tactics aim to bolster the Communist Party’s legitimacy”, https://www.aei.org/articles/chinas-aggressive-tactics-aim-to-bolster-the-communist-partys-legitimacy/, Jakob Urda is a Masters Student at Georgetown University and research specialist at a technology consultancy. He has previously worked at the Chicago Project on Security and Threats and studied in the Institute for the Study of War’s War Studies Program. Dan Blumenthal is the director of Asian Studies at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of the forthcoming book The China Nightmare: the Grand Ambitions of a Decaying State (AEI Press, November 17, 2020 Lex AKu Yet for the AND drills near Taiwan.
US-China war goes nuclear Talmadge 18, Caitlin PoliSci PhD from MIT, Government BA from Harvard, Prof of Security Studies at Georgetown’s Walsh School of Foreign Service. “Beijing’s Nuclear Option.” Foreign Affairs. October 15, 2018. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2018-10-15/beijings-nuclear-option TG As China’s power AND still able to.
Extinction – nuke war fallout creates Ice Age and mass starvation Steven Starr 15. “Nuclear War: An Unrecognized Mass Extinction Event Waiting To Happen.” Ratical. March 2015. https://ratical.org/radiation/NuclearExtinction/StevenStarr022815.html TG A war fought AND Earth essentially uninhabitable.
2/19/22
JF - Data CP
Tournament: Harvard | Round: 3 | Opponent: Princeton AS | Judge: Zinman, Ava Check os
2/19/22
JF - Deleuze K
Tournament: Emory | Round: 4 | Opponent: Holy Cross ND | Judge: Ribera, Claudia Time fractures the subject. Thinking only affects a subject as a being in time and so is not a transcendent feature. Transcendent subjecthood fails because differentiation through times causes instability Deleuze 68 Deleuze, Gilles. Difference and Repitition. Translated by Paul Patton. 1968. Accessed 9/17/21 https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctt1g09x57 Temporally speaking - in AND heir of Oedipus?
The aff tries to extract moments in history and glue them together as a whole account, but that fails to recognize the constant unfolding of time --- time does not exist in the binary between history and the present, rather it exists fluidly in a constant unfolding. LORRAINE: Lorraine, Tamsin “Deleuze and Guattari’s Immanent Ethics. Theory, subjectivity, and duration” LHP Bool Squad – AA and MK ¶ The key difference between AND be the reality.
The aff is localized in the wake of black oppression, where the violent trauma of the slave trade tore blackness from its subject position and completely denied the relationality between whiteness and blackness. To maintain this narrative, however, is the last thing we should do. The relation between whiteness and blackness may inevitably define blackness, but understanding the constant interrelatedness of those identities is essential to finding life-affirming moments in spite of structural antagonisms. Drabinski 10 John E. Drabinski, 2010 “What is Trauma to the Future?: On Glissant’s Poetics.” Qui Parle: Critical Humanities and Social Sciences, Volume 18, Number 2, Spring/Summer 2010, pp. 303-306. MK The rhizome is AND a word, future.
They recreate the oppression they try to fight --- in attempting to eliminate difference through a politics of inclusion, they in turn target individuals who represent deviancy. EVANS ’10: Brad Evans, 2010 “Foucault’s Legacy: Security, War, and Violence in the 21st Century,” Security Dialogue vol.41, no. 4, August 2010, pg. 422-424. Imposing liberalism has AND the liberal order.
The alternative is to dismantle the face --- this undermines the faciality machines that they seek recognition through and their normative value. BIGNALL ’12: Bignall, Simone. “Dismantling the Face: Pluralism and the Politics of Recognition.” University of New South Wales. 2012. LHP MK Deleuze and Guattari AND inevitability and stability.
The role of the ballot is to promote pedagogy of becoming --- it allows us to create a learning environment that account for the flow of forces and the dynamic interaction between values. SEMETSKY: “Deleuze, Education and Becoming” Inna Semetsky. Monash University, Australia. LHP AA
Deleuze’s pedagogy of AND all who are
1/29/22
JF - Lay NC
Tournament: Emory | Round: 2 | Opponent: Harker DS | Judge: Suryawanshi, Praphulla Contention 1 – Satellites 1 – Current, privately owned satellites are key to agricultural success, addressing natural disasters, and reducing geopolitical tension Dilanian 19 (Ken Dilanian and Kevin Monahan NBC, Tiny, privately owned satellites are changing how we view the Earth, 11/3/19, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/tiny-privately-owned-satellites-are-changing-how-we-view-earth-n1042386) AX SAN FRANCISCO — In AND to good policy."
Contention 2 – Asteroid Mining The products of space mining and satellites produced by private entities can reduce harmful economic conditions on earth Brodey ’21: Thomas Brodey. “How Space Travel can reduce poverty”. Borgen Magazine. September 28th, 2021. CHAPEL HILL, North AND the wonders of space.
Asteroid mining solves environmental terrestrial mining impacts—particularly ocean acidification and global warming Hlimi 14 (Tina Hlimi is a International Secretariat Member and Health and Hazards Coordinator for the Centre for International Sustainable Development Law (CISDL) in Montreal, Quebec, “THE NEXT FRONTIER: AN OVERVIEW OF THE LEGAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS OF NEAR-EARTH ASTEROID MINING”, Annals of Air and Space Law Vol. 39, 2014, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2546924)//NotJacob Near earth asteroids - NEA In addition to AND and population growth.
1/28/22
JF - T FW
Tournament: Harvard | Round: 6 | Opponent: Lynbrook SY | Judge: Etienne, Fabrice Interpretation: Topical affirmatives may only garner offense from the hypothetical implementation of the resolution. Resolved: The Appropriation of Space by Private Entities is Unjust Resolved requires policy action Louisiana State Legislature (https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/Glossary.aspx) Ngong Resolution A legislative instrument that generally is used for making declarations, stating policies, and making decisions where some other form is not required. A bill includes the constitutionally required enacting clause; a resolution uses the term "resolved". Not subject to a time limit for introduction nor to governor's veto. ( Const. Art. III, §17(B) and House Rules 8.11 , 13.1 , 6.8 , and 7.4 and Senate Rules 10.9, 13.5 and 15.1)
appropriation involves permanent, exclusive use of land and resource extraction Stephen Gorove, Stephen Gorove (1917-2001) was a space law education pioneer. He served as a professor of space law and director of space studies and policy, from 1991-1998, at the University of Mississippi., 1969 " Interpreting Article II of the Outer Space Treaty" Fordham Law Review, https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1966andcontext=flr With respect to the concept of appropriation the basic question is what constitutes "appropriation," as used in the Treaty, especially in contradistinction to casual or temporary use. The term "appropriation" is used most frequently to denote the taking of property for one's own or exclusive use with a sense of permanence. Under such interpretation the establishment of a permanent settlement or the carrying out of commercial activities by nationals of a country on a celestial body may constitute national appropriation if the activities take place under the supreme authority (sovereignty) of the state. Short of this, if the state wields no exclusive authority or jurisdiction in relation to the area in question, the answer would seem to be in the negative, unless, the nationals also use their individual appropriations as cover-ups for their state's activities.5 In this connection, it should be emphasized that the word "appropriation" indicates a taking which involves something more than just a casual use. Thus a temporary occupation of a landing site or other area, just like the temporary or nonexclusive use of property, would not constitute appropriation. By the same token, any use involving consumption or taking with intention of keeping for one's own exclusive use would amount to appropriation. Violation – creation of medicines is NOT permanent appropriation, 1AC Kulu specifically cites space craft and the ISS as the perfect condition to create medicine, rather than a permanent settlement + they don’t defend policy conseq Plan text in a vacuum bad for fairness because it allows for incongruency between 99 of the aff and 1 of the aff – the worst version of their model is that the plan text is different from the advantage, so it makes no sense – hold them to reading a plan text defined contextually with the advantage Vote neg – 1 Ground – allowing affs to not defend permanent appropriation kills negative ground – we can’t read the innovation DA, since they can say innovative appropriation efforts are allowed, we can’t read asteroid mining or disads to specific types of appropriation since they can defend an exemption for that, etc. – Since the government gets to interpret whether or not the aff applies to appropriation in specific instances, the negative can’t reasonably predict what the aff defends restricting and what it doesn’t. Ground controls the internal link to clash and fairness since the aff makes being neg impossible. 2) Limits: their model has no resolutional bound and creates the possibility for literally an infinite number of 1ACs. Not defending implementation means they create an infinite prep skew against the neg. Cutting negs to every possible aff wrecks small schools, which has a disparate impact on under-resourced and minority debaters. Counter-interpretations are arbitrary, unpredictable, and don’t solve the world of neg prep because there’s no grounding in the resolution 3) TVA – Policy action of rejecting private appropriation -
Fairness- consittutive of comp activites, args presume Edu- funded schools DTD- dta illogical, time skew No RVI’s- illogical, baiting CI- intervention, race to bottom , collapses, yours vs best T isn’t violent – A I don’t have the power to impose a norm – only to convince you my side is better. T doesn’t ban you from the activity – the whole point is that norms should be contestable – I just say make a better arg next time. B Exclusion is inevitable – every role of the ballot excludes some arguments and even saying T bad excludes it – that means we should delineate ground along reciprocal lines, not abandon division altogether.
Reading T isn’t psychic violence – that was above, but especially if we’re not going for it since reading T can be used to prevent aff shiftiness and make substance a viable option. No silencing DA - T is just like a disad or critique we’ve said a certain practice the aff took was bad and it would’ve been better had they done it differently not that they are bad debaters – just like the cap k says the aff engaged in some practice that reinforced capitalism and it would’ve been better if they had emphasized Marxism – impositions in some form are inevitable because the negative has the burden of rejoinder and needs link arguments – every disad link says the aff did something wrong and theres an implicit version of the aff that wouldn’t have linked
Theory before the K – A Prior question. My theory argument calls into question the ability to run the argument in the first place. They can’t say the same even if they criticize theory because theory makes rules of the game not just normative statements about what debaters should say. B Fair testing. Judge their arguments knowing I wasn’t given a fair shot to answer them. Prefer theory takes out K because they could answer my arguments, but I couldn’t answer theirs. Without testing their args, we don’t know if they’re valid, so you prefer fairness impacts on strength of link. Impact turns any critical education since a marketplace of ideas where we innovate, and test ideas presumes equal access. Q of what the ballot can solve for – even if ableism is the highest impact- a ballot only signsals an impact on fairness
2/20/22
ND - K - Set Col
Tournament: Apple Valley | Round: 1 | Opponent: Westlake MR | Judge: Chris Castillo Check OS
11/6/21
ND - K - Set Col v2
Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 7 | Opponent: James Logan KL | Judge: Kurian, Michael The labor movement is built on the exploitation of indigenous populations. The aff’s “right to strike” only seeks to benefit the settler labor movement. Settler labor movements fight for higher wages and living standards while simultaneously exploiting indigenous labor and excluding indigenous workers from the labor market. The collective dispossession of the indigenous population ties the settler community together through settler quietism. The aff’s foundational assumptions perpetuate the destruction of Native life and governance. Englert 20 Englert, S. Institute for Area Studies, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands (2020), Settlers, Workers, and the Logic of Accumulation by Dispossession. Antipode, 52: 1647-1666. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12659 AX Dispossession – deprive of land In order to ... against one another.
Thus the alternative is generative refusal – a simultaneous affirmation of indigenous sovereignty and a political force to generate action Wrightson 20 KELSEY R. WRIGHTSON PhD in Political Science at the University of British Columbia, She is continuing to research Indigenous peoples' arts and practices of sovereignty. November 2 2020“Generative Refusal: Creative Practice and Relational Indigenous Sovereignty” https://www.exeley.com/borderlands/pdf/10.21307/borderlands-2020-013 AX In Dancing on ... sometimes a necessity.
11/21/21
ND - T - Spec
Tournament: Apple Valley | Round: 1 | Opponent: Westlake MR | Judge: Chris Castillo Interpretation: The affirmative may not specify a just government.
“A” is an indefinite article that modifies “just government” in the res – means that you have to prove the resolution true in a vacuum, not a particular instance
The article “a” implies a nonspecific or generic reading of the word “just government”.
Violation: they spec China Standards: 1 Precision – the counter-interp justifies them arbitrarily doing away with random words in the resolution which decks negative ground and preparation because the aff is no longer bounded by the resolution. Independent voter for jurisdiction – the judge doesn’t have the jurisdiction to vote aff if there wasn’t a legitimate aff. 2 Limits – there are infinite governments that could be just – explodes limits since there are tons of independent affs plus functionally infinite combinations, all with different advantages in different political situations. Kills neg prep and debatability since there are no DAs that apply to every aff – i.e. laws about the right to strike in the US are different than in New Zealand – means the aff is always more prepared and wins just for speccing. 3 TVA – just read your aff as an advantage under a whole adv, solves your offense Fairness – debate is a competitive activity that requires fairness for objective evaluation. Outweighs – it constrains your ability to evaluate the rest of the flow because they require fair evaluation. Drop the debater – to deter future abuse and set better norms for debate. Competing interps – reasonability is arbitrary and invites judge intervention but we creates a race to the top where we create the best norms for debate. No RVIs – a illogical, you don’t win for proving that you meet the burden of being fair, logic outweighs since it’s a prerequisite for evaluating any other argument, b RVIs incentivize baiting theory and prepping it out which leads to maximally abusive practices 1AR theory is dta and reasonability – sandbagging o/w, irresolvable o/w RVI on 1AR theory – time skew o/w
11/6/21
SO - CP - Indigenous CP
Tournament: Bronx | Round: 2 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep AV | Judge: Joe, Sesh CP text: The member nations of the world trade organization should ---exclude patent applications for medicines based on Indigenous knowledge from patentability except for claims filed by Indigenous people. --- Transfer existing settler patents to indigenous people ---establish an international legal instrument to protect indigenous intellectual property from the IGC
Tournament: Bronx | Round: 2 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep AV | Judge: Joe, Sesh Reducing IP leads to an increase in the production of low quality generics in the Global South which causes antimicrobial resistance Hegde 17 Raghuraj S Hegde “Why Branded Drugs Cost Way More than Their Generic Counterparts-India News , Firstpost.” Firstpost, 29 Apr. 2017, Accessed 9/16/21 https://www.firstpost.com/india/why-branded-drugs-cost-way-more-than-their-generic-counterparts-3412922.html. AX
Antimicrobial resistsnace is rising now, the increase of antimicrobial resistance from generics pushes us over the brink Neily 14 Jim O Neily(Jim O Neily is an Honorary Professor of Economics at the University of Manchester.He was appointed Commercial Secretary to the Treasury in the Second Cameron Ministry, a position he held until his resignation on 23 September 2016, He is the current chairman of the Council of Chatham House, the Royal Institute of International Affairs.) “The Review on Antimicrobial Resistance”, 2014, Accessed 9/16/21 https://amr-review.org/home.html AX
Tournament: Duke | Round: 2 | Opponent: Durham MM | Judge: Pellicciotta, RJ Check OS
10/16/21
SO - Util NC
Tournament: Bronx | Round: 2 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep AV | Judge: Joe, Sesh Pleasure is the root of all good, and pain is the root of all bad, proves that all moral theories devolve to Util Moen 15 Ole Martin Moen, Centre for the Study of Mind in Nature, Department of Philosophy, 9-12-2015, Springer, “An Argument for Hedonism”, file:///C:/Users/axema/Documents/Debate/NSD202020/Homework/AnArgumentForHedonism.pdf AX
Thus, the standard is maximizing expected well being. Prefer Additionally: 1)Preventing extinction is a pre-req to all other frameworks. Even if extinction is good, we still have reason to prevent it. MacAskill 14, William, Oxford Philosopher and youngest tenured philosopher in the world, Normative Uncertainty, 2014. AX Accessed 9/19/21 http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/MacAskill-Normative-Uncertainty.pdf
2) Weighability: only consequentialism explains degrees of wrongness—if I break a promise to hang out with my friends, that is not as bad as breaking a promise to take a dying person to the hospital. Only the consequences of breaking the promise explain why the second one is so much worse than the first. 3 Util is a lexical pre-requisite to any other framework: Threats to bodily security and life preclude the ability for moral actors to effectively utilize and act upon other theories since they are in a constant state of crisis that inhibit the ideal moral conditions which other theories presuppose – so, util comes first and my offense outweighs theirs under their own framework 4 Actor specificity: a Governments aren’t philosophers—officials don’t know how to apply more complex moral principles but they know how to do studies. Empirically proven—congressional reports are always about end-states and helping the majorityb Governments must aggregate since every policy benefits some and harms others, which also means side constraints freeze action.
Prefer this interp: A Resolvability – it is impossible way to weigh between deontological violations but you only need basic math for util. That outweighs – every round needs a winner. B ground – a) most articles are written through the lens of util because they’re crafted for policymakers and the public who take consequences to be important, not philosophy majors. Even if another framework is substantively true, there isn’t good discussion of it in the topic lit so we can’t have good debates. Impacts to real world education. B) every impact functions under util whereas other ethics flow to one side exclusively. Kills fairness since we both need arguments to win and harms education since we have little args Permissibility negates – Neg is to deny the truth of obligation, the aff must prove an obligation Presumption negates – because its more likely a statement is false then it is true – Eg. there are only a few correct answers but infinite wrong answers
10/16/21
SO - Util NC v2
Tournament: Bronx | Round: 4 | Opponent: University AP | Judge: Choi, Jeong-Wan Pleasure is the root of all good, and pain is the root of all bad, proves that all moral theories devolve to Util Moen 15 Ole Martin Moen, Centre for the Study of Mind in Nature, Department of Philosophy, 9-12-2015, Springer, “An Argument for Hedonism”, file:///C:/Users/axema/Documents/Debate/NSD202020/Homework/AnArgumentForHedonism.pdf AX
Thus, the standard is maximizing expected well being. Prefer Additionally: 1)Preventing extinction is a pre-req to all other frameworks. Even if extinction is good, we still have reason to prevent it. MacAskill 14, William, Oxford Philosopher and youngest tenured philosopher in the world, Normative Uncertainty, 2014. AX Accessed 9/19/21 http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/MacAskill-Normative-Uncertainty.pdf
2) Weighability: only consequentialism explains degrees of wrongness—if I break a promise to hang out with my friends, that is not as bad as breaking a promise to take a dying person to the hospital. Only the consequences of breaking the promise explain why the second one is so much worse than the first. 3 Util is a lexical pre-requisite to any other framework: Threats to bodily security and life preclude the ability for moral actors to effectively utilize and act upon other theories since they are in a constant state of crisis that inhibit the ideal moral conditions which other theories presuppose – so, util comes first and my offense outweighs theirs under their own framework