Tournament: NEW YORK CITY INVITATIONAL DEBATE AND SPEECH TOURNAMENT | Round: 1 | Opponent: Fischers CG | Judge: Forrest, Jayanne
Overview
1 Permissibility Affirms – A) Hijacks obligation-based definitions – Having an obligation means that we have the best reason. All reasons to take or not take an action are evaluated comparatively on the basis of the strength of reasons. Sufficient strength requires only that the reason be equal to comparative reasons. If no valid justification exists, then all reasons are sufficient in comparison to the other equally invalid justifications. B) Reciprocity – it’s reciprocal since the neg gets exclusive access to T which gives them a 2-1 advantage on the theoretical layer – granting me permissibility solves since I get a 2-1 substantive advantage
2 Presumption Affirms – A) Epistemics – we wouldn’t be able to start a strand of reasoning since we’d have to question that reason B) Otherwise we’d have to have a proactive justification to do things like drink water C) Its Intuitive – If I told you my name was sebastian you’d believe me
3 AFF theory is no RVI, Drop the debater, competing interps, under an interp that aff theory is legit A) infinite abuse since otherwise it would be impossible to check NC abuse B) the 2n can dump on a script to a CI and go for RVI’s making it impossible to check abuse C) The 1ar is too short to win theory and substance D) The 2n can always create infinite reasonability arguments the 2ar can’t get through.
4 No 2n theory arguments and paradigm issues – A) All the paradigm issues were in the aff which means any 2n argument is new and can’t be evaluated B) it becomes impossible to check NC abuse if you can dump on reasons the shell doesn't matter in the 2n
5 Let’s make a deal – The negative must concede that either Permissibility or presumption affirms. Violations are preemptive and inherent to the interp. A) key to 1AR strat, the 1AR is much too short to win multiple layers such as theory, framework and contention as well as disprove arguments like skepticism so I need creative outs and triggers to substantively compensate. B) Anything else incentivizes the NC to load up with multiple forms of triggers but splitting up the two forces more nuanced engagement as they can be leveraged against one another.
Framework
The Is-Ought gap results in an inability to evaluate ethics – Only constitituvism resolves it because it can discern a logical ethical obligation from a matter of fact.
Grey Grey, JW. "The Is/Ought Gap: How Do We Get "Ought" from "Is?"" Ethical Realism. N.p., 19 July 2011. Web. 28 Oct. 2015. Facts are states of affairs—
AND
do naturally once we are perfect.
Thus, constitituvism is a meta-ethical determinant for the validity of moral theories.
Further –
1 Normativity – Both internalist and externalist theories of ethics fail as they are either merely optional or non-universal. Constitutivism solves as we cannot participate in action without a constitutive aim to that action. For instance, playing chess always necessitates achieving checkmate even if it doesn’t require that we have fun.
Kastafanas 14, Kastafanas, Paul. "Constitutivism About Practical Reasons". Philarchive.Org, 2014, https://philarchive.org/archive/KATCAP. Consider a perfectly homely normative claim, such as “you have to go to the movies.” If we ask what would render this claim true,
AND
it generates universal reasons while sidestepping the problems of practicality and queerness.
2 Obligations are constitutive of features that define different entities.
Geach bracketed for clarity GOOD AND EVIL By P. T. GEACHhttp://www.pitt.edu/~mthompso/readings/geach2.pdf
There are familiar examples of what I call attributive adjectives. 'Big' and' small' are
AND
mere disguise. The latter attempt is, on my thesis, illegitimate.)
Impact Calc – 1 Use epistemic confidence: a) Impossible to determine probability of framework and offense being true as truth isn’t scalar b) Modesty assumes outside knowledge or judge biases on whether certain arguments are true which trades off with competitive equity 2 The constitutive aim of debate is to test the truth or falsity of the resolution because Affirm means to prove true and negate means to deny the truth of
That requires practical reason as the basis for ethics:
1 Regress – Ethical theories must have a basis. We can always ask why we should follow the basis of a theory, so they aren’t morally binding because they don’t have a starting point. Practical reason solves – When we ask why we should follow reason, we demand a reason, which concedes to the authority of reason itself making reason constitutive of any justification.
2 Inescapability – Every agent intrinsically values practical reason when they go about setting and pursuing an end under a moral theory, as it presupposes that the end they are committing is an intrinsic good. That necessitates practical reason as a necessary means to follow through on any given end.
3 Action Theory – Every action can be broken down to infinite amounts of movements, i.e. me moving my arm can be broken down to the infinite moments of every state my arm is in. Only reason can unify these movements because we use practical reason to achieve our goals, means all actions collapse to reason.
4 Naturalistic Fallacy – Naturalism fails
Moore 03,
Moore, G. E. “Principia Ethica” http://fair-use.org/g-e-moore/principia-ethica/. Published 1903 SHS ZS
Good, then, if we mean by it that quality which we assert to
AND
call the naturalistic fallacy and of it I shall now endeavour to dispose.
Therefore, In order to respect each agent as a practical reasoner, we require a universal set of moral laws for what counts as a violation of the principles of rational reflection.
Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative as enacted through the omnilateral will.
1 Absent universal ethics morality becomes arbitrary since it can be meaninglessly applied in different ways without reason. Non-arbitrariness is a side constraint – only non-arbitrary principles can hold agent culpable for their actions since otherwise we could make up ethical rules for different situations to punish people.
2 A priori principles like reason apply to everyone since they are independent of human experience. That means to allow one to violate a rule without another would be a contradiction. Contradictions are a side constraint – it’s an inescapable condition that undermines all arguments since something can’t be both true and false simultaneously
3 Motivation – The categorical imperative is intrinsically motivational since it respects the nature of agency, which is the mechanism by which we can set and pursue any end – absent the motivation to pursue ends you would no longer be an agent, which means to be an agent necessitates being motivated to act.
Only evaluate Intents:
1 Otherwise ethical theories hold agents responsible for consequences external to their will which removes any reason to be moral because agents cannot control what they are being punished for
2 Induction fails – it’s incoherent to justify the past to justify the future because there’s no logical certainty that what has happened before will happen again
3 Since it requires evaluating end-states we can’t know whether the action was good until after it was taken which means the judge cannot determine whether the aff is good
4 Consequences empirically impossible to predict. Menand 05, Louis Menand (the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of English at Harvard University) “Everybody’s An Expert” The New Yorker 2005 http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/12/05/everybodys-an-expert// “Expert Political Judgment” is not a work of media criticism. Tetlock is a psychologist—he teaches at Berkeley—and his conclusions are based on
AND
are poorer forecasters than dart-throwing monkeys, who would have distributed their picks evenly over the three choices.
Contention
I contend that member nations of the WTO ought to reduce intellectual property protections on medicine. Ill defend the resolution as a general principle – Check questions of the advocacy in cx
- Universalizability – A) IP is created to encourage innovation but necessarily entails a prevention of innovation through restriction of necessary prior knowledge and B) In attempting to allow freedom, it restricts it. Pievatolo 10, Pievatolo, Maria. “Freedom, Ownership and Copyright: Why Does Kant Reject the Concept of Intellectual Property?” Freedom, Ownership and Copyright: Why Does Kant Reject the Concept of Intellectual Property?, 7 Feb. 2010, bfp.sp.unipi.it/chiara/lm/kantpisa1.html. SJEP
In the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant seems to take for granted
AND
Kant does not stick to the Roman Law tradition because of conservatism, but because of Enlightenment.
2. Means to an End – Property rights on medicine use individuals suffering from disease or injury as a means for the owners of medicine to make as much profit as possible. This is a direct violation since property owners use their freedom to leverage the life of another agent for their own gain, rather than considering all agents ends that we ought to relieve our instrumental goods for.
And, your free-riding turns make no sense. Absolute protection on patents allows free-riding and stifles scientific growth
Vethan Law Firm 16, (Vethan Law, 11-14-2016, accessed on 9-12-2021, Info.vethanlaw, "Free Rider Problem: What Is IP and the Problem of Free Riding?", https://info.vethanlaw.com/blog/intellectual-property-what-is-ip-and-the-problem-of-free-riding)
The free rider problem found in intellectual property protection is that owners of patents,
AND
patented article or process will be otherwise legally compliant, or profitably marketable!
3. Kingdom of Ends – A) Intellect – the intellectual realm is a public good because no agent has special access to it, which means cornering off aspects of it for ownership is incoherent, since non-naturalism entails an equal accessibility to the realm of ideas, individuals cannot claim to own a portion of that realm B) Medicine – Medicine specifically is a necessary good that an agent in a kingdom of ends would never claim ownership over, because it is necessarily required for an agent to exist. In the same way no agent would allow for an individual to have ownership over the chemical compound that comprises water, no agent would allow for ownership of medicinal properties.
And, your property rights libertarianism turns are incoherent: A) Logic – it’s impossible for an individual to claim ownership over a non-natural property because the protections of property requires a good to be protected. You cannot ensure another agents doesn’t steal an idea since the idea exists purely metaphysically in the realm of ideas B) Creationism – Property rights are based on the notion of an individual mixing a unique aspect of themselves with a physical property that justifies a deserving of ownership, but intellectual property is not created by individuals, but rather, is discovered.