| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,127 @@ |
|
1 |
+==1AC – Framing~~LONG~~== |
|
2 |
+ |
|
3 |
+ |
|
4 |
+====The starting point of morality is practical reason.==== |
|
5 |
+ |
|
6 |
+ |
|
7 |
+====1~~ Bindingness – A theory is only binding when you can answer the question "why should I do this?" and not continue to ask "why". Only practical reason provides a deductive foundation for ethics since the question "why should I be rational" already concedes the authoritative power of agency since your agency is at work. Bindingness ow a) its meta-ethical, so it determines what counts as a warrant for a standard, so absent grounding in some metaethical framework, their arguments aren't relevant normative considerations b) Absent a binding starting point frameworks would all share equal value. Weighing between them would be infinitely regressive as it presupposes there is a higher metric to determine who has the better justifications. That would make contestation vacuous as any locus of moral duty is sufficient since it would have an uncontested obligatory power c) for obligations to have normative force they must be categorically binding because otherwise actors could contingently disregard them.==== |
|
8 |
+ |
|
9 |
+ |
|
10 |
+====2~~ Action theory – only evaluating action through reason solves since reason is key to evaluate intent, otherwise we could infinitely divide actions. For example: If I was brewing tea, I could break up that one big action into multiple small actions. Only our intention, to brew tea unifies these actions if we were never able to unify action, we could never classify certain actions as moral or immoral since those actions would be infinitely divisible. ==== |
|
11 |
+ |
|
12 |
+ |
|
13 |
+====3~~ Empirical uncertainty – Evil demon deceiving us or inability to know others' experience make empiricism/induction an unreliable basis for universal ethics. Outweighs since it would be escapable since people could say they don't experience the same. ==== |
|
14 |
+ |
|
15 |
+ |
|
16 |
+====4~~ Is/ought gap – experience only tells us what is since we can only perceive what is, not what ought to be. But it's impossible to derive an ought from descriptive premises, so there needs to be additional a priori premises to make a moral theory.==== |
|
17 |
+ |
|
18 |
+ |
|
19 |
+====5~~ 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.==== |
|
20 |
+ |
|
21 |
+ |
|
22 |
+====Next, the relevant feature of reason is universality – 3 warrants:==== |
|
23 |
+ |
|
24 |
+ |
|
25 |
+====1~~ Absent universal ethics, morality becomes arbitrary and fails to guide action, which means that ethics is rendered useless, necessitating a priori abstraction from physical experience. ==== |
|
26 |
+ |
|
27 |
+ |
|
28 |
+====2~~ A priori principles like reason definitionally apply to everyone since they are independent of human experience therefore ethics is universal. ==== |
|
29 |
+ |
|
30 |
+ |
|
31 |
+====3~~ Any non-universal norm is contradictory as it justifies someone's ability to impede on your ends, which also means universalizability acts as a side constraint on ends-based frameworks.==== |
|
32 |
+ |
|
33 |
+ |
|
34 |
+====Key for following rules since rules are arbitrary since the agent can form a unique interpretation and understanding which makes it impossible to verify a violation. Only universality solves since universalizing a violation of freedom entails a violation of your own freedom, thus a recognizable violation appears also means universalizability acts as a side constraint on all other frameworks.==== |
|
35 |
+ |
|
36 |
+ |
|
37 |
+====Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative as enacted through the omnilateral will. ==== |
|
38 |
+ |
|
39 |
+ |
|
40 |
+==== Prefer:==== |
|
41 |
+ |
|
42 |
+ |
|
43 |
+====~~1~~ Performativity—freedom is the key to the process of justification of arguments. Willing that we should abide by their ethical theory presupposes that we own ourselves in the first place. Thus, it is logically incoherent to justify the neg arguments/standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others.==== |
|
44 |
+ |
|
45 |
+ |
|
46 |
+====~~2~~ Consequences Fail: ~~A~~ Every action has infinite stemming consequences, because every consequence can cause another consequence. ~~B~~ Induction is circular because it relies on the assumption that nature will hold uniform and we could only reach that conclusion through inductive reasoning based on observation of past events. ~~C~~ Aggregation Fails – suffering is not additive can't compare between one migraine and 10 headaches ~~D~~ Predictions are impossible because anything could lead to a butterfly effect of unexpected consequences i.e. sneezing becoming a tornado and killing thousands ==== |
|
47 |
+ |
|
48 |
+ |
|
49 |
+====~~3~~ What the neg reads doesn't prove the resolution false but challenges an assumption of it. Statements which make assumptions like the resolution should be read as a tacit conditional which is an if p then q statement. For all conditionals, if the antecedent is false, then the conditional as a whole is true.==== |
|
50 |
+ |
|
51 |
+ |
|
52 |
+====~~4~~ The Categorical Imperative unites the abstract with the concrete—this is key to challenging oppression. ==== |
|
53 |
+**Farr 2**, Arnold Farr (prof of phil @ UKentucky, focusing on German idealism, philosophy of race, postmodernism, psychoanalysis, and liberation philosophy). "Can a Philosophy of Race Afford to Abandon the Kantian Categorical Imperative?" JOURNAL of SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY, Vol. 33 No. 1, Spring 2002, 17–32. |
|
54 |
+One of the most popular criticisms of Kant's moral philosophy is that it is too |
|
55 |
+AND |
|
56 |
+choosing my maxims I attempt to include the perspective of other moral agents. |
|
57 |
+ |
|
58 |
+ |
|
59 |
+====~~5~~ Motivation – consequentialist theories hold agents responsible for consequences external to their will which removes any reason to act ethically because agents are punished for ends they did not intend.==== |
|
60 |
+ |
|
61 |
+ |
|
62 |
+====~~6~~ Practical identities – we set ends based on practical identities like student or debater. However, human identity – or agency – is the source of practical identity, since it's necessary to choose which roles to take on. Impacts: A~~ Justifies valuing humanity as an end – we find our lives worth living under our practical identities and activities, but that means we must value agency as the source of that value. B~~ Hijacks the role of the judge – judge is a practical identity, which requires first valuing human identity.==== |
|
63 |
+ |
|
64 |
+ |
|
65 |
+====~~7~~ Resource Disparities – A focus on statistics and evidence rewards the debaters with the most preround prep which just increases the disparity between large schools with huge evidence files and lone wolves without coaches. A Kantian debate can easily be won without any preround prep as all that is need is analytical arguments. ==== |
|
66 |
+ |
|
67 |
+ |
|
68 |
+==1AC – Contention == |
|
69 |
+ |
|
70 |
+ |
|
71 |
+====I affirm; In a democracy, a free press ought to prioritize objectivity over advocacy.==== |
|
72 |
+ |
|
73 |
+ |
|
74 |
+====1~~ Anything other than objectivity renders a story fiction thus violating the categorical imperative==== |
|
75 |
+**Beggs 19**(Erine Beggs, April 22, 2019, The Importance of Kantian ethics for journalists., https://thecircular.org/if-youre-a-journalistyou-kant-and-you-must/) //dhsNJ |
|
76 |
+Kant stated that humans must never lie and that this is a perfect duty which |
|
77 |
+AND |
|
78 |
+that the journalist must not exploit them as useful subjects. (Scruton) |
|
79 |
+ |
|
80 |
+ |
|
81 |
+====2~~ Advocacy with the aim of shifting media coverage towards your side is incoherent when universalized because if everyone was biased, the benefits are offset terminating in a contradiction.==== |
|
82 |
+ |
|
83 |
+ |
|
84 |
+====3~~ Advocacy violates the principle of equality as it treats some viewpoints as more important than others.==== |
|
85 |
+ |
|
86 |
+ |
|
87 |
+==1AC – Underview == |
|
88 |
+ |
|
89 |
+ |
|
90 |
+====1~~ 1ar theory is key to checking back against infinitely abusive 1NCs, and recourse outweighs on predictability since 1NC reactivity means there are infinite permutations of possible hard negs but the aff is tied to the topic. Use drop the debater for aff recourse and preventing 2n sandbagging and because the 1ar is too short to win theory and substance. Competing interps on 1ar shells a~~ prevents 2ns that collapse to 6 min of reasonability good b~~ 1ars don't have enough time to win substance and paradigm issues. No RVIs on 1ar shells: a~~ overcompensation – they have 2 speeches so they can win the 2n in other ways like impact turns b~~ time investment is larger so err aff on abuse stories c~~ creates a chilling effect against checking legitimate NC abuse. We don't preclude you from contesting these paradigm issues, so combo shells on the underview are non-sensical and concede you could've just line by lined.==== |
|
91 |
+ |
|
92 |
+ |
|
93 |
+====2~~ AFF fairness issues come prior to NC arguments a) The 1ar can't engage on multiple layers if there is a skew since the speech is already time-crunched b) Sets up an invincible 2n since there are a million of unfair things you can collapse to to win every round c) its key to compensate the structural skew==== |
|
94 |
+**Shah 19** ~~Sachin Shah, 2019, "A Statistical Analysis of Side-Bias on the 2019 January-February Lincoln-Douglas Debate Topic," NSD Update, http://nsdupdate.com/2019/a-statistical-analysis-of-side-bias-on-the-2019-january-february-lincoln-douglas-debate-topic/~~ AG accessed 6-22-2019 |
|
95 |
+As a final note, it is also interesting to look at the trend over |
|
96 |
+AND |
|
97 |
+, and not topic specific, as this data spans six different topics. |
|
98 |
+ |
|
99 |
+ |
|
100 |
+====3~~ No 2n theory arguments and paradigm issues. a) overloads the 2AR with a massive clarification burden b) it becomes impossible to check NC abuse if you can dump on reasons the shell doesn't matter in the 2n.==== |
|
101 |
+ |
|
102 |
+ |
|
103 |
+====4~~ The role of the ballot is to determine the truth or falsity of the resolution==== |
|
104 |
+ |
|
105 |
+ |
|
106 |
+====~~a~~–reject their framing on inclusion – they exclude all offense except what follows from their specific fwk which shuts out those without the resources to prepare ~~b~~ the ballot says vote aff or neg based on a topic and five dictionaries^^ ^^ define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm^^ ^^ as to prove true which means it's constitutive and jurisdictional. Text comes first – a) Controls the internal link to fairness since it's the basis of things like predictability and prep b) Key to jurisdiction since the judge can only endorse what is within their burden c) Even if another role of the ballot is better for debate, that is not a reason it ought to be the role of the ballot, just a reason we ought to discuss it.==== |
|
107 |
+ |
|
108 |
+ |
|
109 |
+====5~~ Presumption and Permissibility affirm- ~~a~~ – Freezes action: requiring pro-active justification for all our actions would make it impossible to make morally neutral claims like 'I ought to drink water' which means we always assume we can take an action absent a proactive reason not to. ~~b~~ – Epistemics: We could never start a strand of reasoning if we had to question that reasoning. ~~c~~ – If I told you my name was Vishnu you'd believe me==== |
|
110 |
+ |
|
111 |
+ |
|
112 |
+===Added cuz I had extra time:=== |
|
113 |
+ |
|
114 |
+ |
|
115 |
+====~~A~~ Real World Education – Governments operate in consistency to Kantian conceptions of the state. Empirically proven – legitimate states have deontic side constraints like a bill of rights or constitutional courts, but no state is allowed to violate citizens' liberties for the purpose of the greater good==== |
|
116 |
+ |
|
117 |
+ |
|
118 |
+====~~2~~ Externalism fails: no reason why we ought to care about higher order because they can just say screw it and not follow that order which takes out consequences and kritiks because we don't care about them.==== |
|
119 |
+ |
|
120 |
+ |
|
121 |
+====~~4~~ There is an intent-foresight distinction. Multiple people can intend the same action looking for different consequences i.e. going home to avoid work vs to see family ==== |
|
122 |
+ |
|
123 |
+ |
|
124 |
+====~~2~~ Resolvability: Clarity of weighing under our framework: perfect duties above imperfect duties. Duties in right. Explicit categories that supersede other categories. All other FWs are consequentialist that use unquantifiable prob, mag, or prob x mag. ==== |
|
125 |
+ |
|
126 |
+ |
|
127 |
+====5. 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 ==== |