| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,248 @@ |
|
1 |
+=1AC= |
|
2 |
+ |
|
3 |
+ |
|
4 |
+ |
|
5 |
+===1AC – Framing=== |
|
6 |
+ |
|
7 |
+ |
|
8 |
+ |
|
9 |
+====Ethics must begin a priori==== |
|
10 |
+ |
|
11 |
+ |
|
12 |
+ |
|
13 |
+====A~~ Dogmatism Paradox – disregard the 1NC==== |
|
14 |
+**Sorensen** Sorensen, Roy, Professor of Philosophy at Washington University in St. Louis. "Epistemic Paradoxes." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 21 June 2006. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemic-paradoxes/. PeteZ |
|
15 |
+Saul Kripke’s ruminations on the surprise test paradox led him to a paradox about dogmatism |
|
16 |
+ |
|
17 |
+AND |
|
18 |
+ |
|
19 |
+future evidence that seems to tell against h. (1973, 148) |
|
20 |
+ |
|
21 |
+ |
|
22 |
+ |
|
23 |
+====B~~ Negative arguments presuppose the aff being true since they begin with a descriptive premise about the affirmative such as the aff does x, and then justify why x is bad. However, if the aff does not have truth value, that entails the descriptive premise would also not have truth value, which is contradictory.==== |
|
24 |
+ |
|
25 |
+ |
|
26 |
+ |
|
27 |
+====C~~ Empirical Uncertainty – evil demon could deceive us and inability to know others experience make empiricism an unreliable basis for universal ethics. Outweighs since it would be escapable since people could say they don’t experience the same. ==== |
|
28 |
+ |
|
29 |
+ |
|
30 |
+ |
|
31 |
+====D~~ Decision Making Paradox- in order to judge we need a decision-making procedure to determine it is a good decision. But to chose a decision-making procedure requires another meta level decision making procedure leading to infinite regress so just vote aff to break the paradox.==== |
|
32 |
+ |
|
33 |
+ |
|
34 |
+ |
|
35 |
+====E~~ Constitutive Authority – The meta-ethic is bindingness. Practical reason is the only unescapable authority because to ask why I should be a reasoner concedes it’s authority since you’re actively reasoning.==== |
|
36 |
+ |
|
37 |
+ |
|
38 |
+ |
|
39 |
+====F~~ Naturalistic fallacy – 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.==== |
|
40 |
+ |
|
41 |
+ |
|
42 |
+ |
|
43 |
+====G~~ Transcendental Idealism – what we see is not what is, but our representations of reality – only a priori knowledge is a lane to truth as perception is the lane to truth insofar as a lack of the subject removes material constitution and abstracts sensibility as it is then unknown.==== |
|
44 |
+ |
|
45 |
+ |
|
46 |
+ |
|
47 |
+====That justifies universality –a priori principles like reason apply to everyone since they are independent of human experience and – any non-universalizable norm justifies someone’s ability to impede on your ends i.e. if I want to eat ice cream, I must recognize that others may affect my pursuit of that end.==== |
|
48 |
+ |
|
49 |
+ |
|
50 |
+ |
|
51 |
+====Additionally:==== |
|
52 |
+ |
|
53 |
+ |
|
54 |
+ |
|
55 |
+====~~A~~ Resource disparities—focusing on evidence privileges debaters with the most prep excluding lone-wolfs. A debater under my framework can easily be won without any prep since minimal evidence is required. That pre-req to accessing the activity.==== |
|
56 |
+ |
|
57 |
+ |
|
58 |
+ |
|
59 |
+====~~B~~ Practical identities – we find our lives worth living under practical identities such as student but that presupposes agency.==== |
|
60 |
+Korsgaard 92 CHRISTINE M. Korsgaard 92 ~~I am a Professor of Philosophy at Harvard University, where I have taught since 1991. From July 1996 through June 2002, I was Chair of the Department of Philosophy. (The current chair is Sean Kelly.) From 2004-2012, I was Director of Graduate Studies in Philosophy. (The current DGS is Mark Richard.) Before coming here, I held positions at Yale, the University of California at Santa Barbara, and the University of Chicago, as well as visiting positions at Berkeley and UCLA. I served as President of the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association in 2008-2009, and held a Mellon Distinguished Achievement Award from 2006-2009. I work on moral philosophy and its history, practical reason, the nature of agency, personal identity, normativity, and the ethical relations between human beings and the other animals~~, "The Sources of Normativity", THE TANNER LECTURES ON HUMAN VALUES Delivered at Clare Hall, Cambridge University 16-17 Nov 1992, BE |
|
61 |
+The Solution: Those who think that the human mind is internally luminous and transparent |
|
62 |
+ |
|
63 |
+AND |
|
64 |
+ |
|
65 |
+identity, your nature; your obligations spring from what that identity forbids. |
|
66 |
+ |
|
67 |
+ |
|
68 |
+ |
|
69 |
+====Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative. ==== |
|
70 |
+ |
|
71 |
+ |
|
72 |
+ |
|
73 |
+====~~1~~ Presumption and Permissibility affirm: a~~ Statements are true before false since if I told you my name, you’d believe me. b~~ If anything is permissible, then so is the aff since there is nothing prohibiting us. ==== |
|
74 |
+ |
|
75 |
+ |
|
76 |
+ |
|
77 |
+====~~2~~ Consequences Fail: a~~ Yes act/omission distinction – there are infinite events occurring over which you have no control, so you can never be moral b~~ Every action has infinite stemming consequences so we can’t predict. c~~ Induction is circular because it assumes nature will hold uniform d~~ aggregation impossible – impossible to measure pain and pleasure e~~ Every action is infinitely divisible, only intents unify ==== |
|
78 |
+ |
|
79 |
+ |
|
80 |
+ |
|
81 |
+====~~3~~ Interpretation: the neg must concede the aff framework provided that the aff standard is consistency with the categorical imperative.==== |
|
82 |
+ |
|
83 |
+ |
|
84 |
+ |
|
85 |
+====Violation’s pre-emptive.==== |
|
86 |
+ |
|
87 |
+ |
|
88 |
+ |
|
89 |
+====Strat skew – neg is reactive and can up-layer the aff on moral frameworks, procedurals, and discursive arguments – AFC levels the playing field by forcing the neg to commit to the aff on substance, which ensures the AC matters. ==== |
|
90 |
+ |
|
91 |
+ |
|
92 |
+ |
|
93 |
+====No RVI on 1ac theory that has a pre-emptive violation—they would have 7 minutes to answer a minute-long shell and the debate would end right there—the entire 1ac cant be the shell because then they could just choose not to violate it==== |
|
94 |
+ |
|
95 |
+ |
|
96 |
+ |
|
97 |
+====1AC Theory is DTD—its key to making sure they’re held accountable since they chose to violate it==== |
|
98 |
+ |
|
99 |
+ |
|
100 |
+ |
|
101 |
+====Competing interps on 1AC Theory- A~~ 7 minutes is more than enough time to robustly justify their counter interp ==== |
|
102 |
+ |
|
103 |
+ |
|
104 |
+ |
|
105 |
+===Advocacy=== |
|
106 |
+ |
|
107 |
+ |
|
108 |
+ |
|
109 |
+====Thus, the plan – Resolved: The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust. Definitions and enforcement in the doc and I’ll clarify in cross.==== |
|
110 |
+To clarify we’ll defend implementation and a revision to the Outer Space Treaty that explicitly bans appropriation of outer space by private entities |
|
111 |
+ |
|
112 |
+ |
|
113 |
+ |
|
114 |
+===Offense=== |
|
115 |
+ |
|
116 |
+ |
|
117 |
+ |
|
118 |
+====~~1~~ Privatization is bad==== |
|
119 |
+ |
|
120 |
+ |
|
121 |
+ |
|
122 |
+====~~a~~ The OST allows for regions that could be under the exclusive control of corporations, while no government has authority. ==== |
|
123 |
+**Ward 19** Peter Ward (Peter Ward studied journalism at the University of Sheffield before moving to Dubai, where he reported on the energy sector. After three years in the Middle East, he earned his master’s degree in business journalism from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. His work has appeared in GQ, Bloomberg Buisnessweek, The Economist, and Newsweek. He lives in New York City.) "The unintended consequences of privatising space," ScienceFocus (Online version of BBC Science Focus Magazine). Nov. 6th, 2019. https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/the-unintended-consequences-of-privatising-space/ SJMS |
|
124 |
+Imagine a colony on the Moon or Mars run by a corporation. That one |
|
125 |
+ |
|
126 |
+AND |
|
127 |
+ |
|
128 |
+the necessary small steps now to avoid potentially disastrous consequences in the future. |
|
129 |
+ |
|
130 |
+ |
|
131 |
+ |
|
132 |
+====~~b~~ That’s an instance of a unilateral will governing individuals while universal decision making is absent. This is an unjust state which violates people’s freedoms and violates the categorical imperative.==== |
|
133 |
+**Cordelli 16** Chiara Cordelli ~~Chiara Cordelli is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Chicago. Her main areas of research are social and political philosophy, with a particular focus on theories of distributive justice, political legitimacy, normative defenses of the state, and the public/private distinction in liberal theory. She is the author of The Privatized State (Princeton University Press, 2020), which was awarded the 2021 ECPR political theory prize for best first book in political theory. She is also the co-editor of, and a contributor to, Philanthropy in Democratic Societies (University of Chicago Press, 2016). — cordelli@uchicago.edu~~ "WHAT IS WRONG WITH PRIVATIZATION?", University of Chicago, Political Science and the College, https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/What-is-Wrong-With-Privatization'UCB.pdf |
|
134 |
+The intrinsic wrong of privatization, I will suggest, rather consists in the creation |
|
135 |
+ |
|
136 |
+AND |
|
137 |
+ |
|
138 |
+as the implementation of public, justice-based responsibilities through private agents. |
|
139 |
+ |
|
140 |
+ |
|
141 |
+ |
|
142 |
+===1AC – Underview=== |
|
143 |
+ |
|
144 |
+ |
|
145 |
+ |
|
146 |
+====1~~ The role of the ballot is to determine whether the resolution is a true or false statement ==== |
|
147 |
+ |
|
148 |
+ |
|
149 |
+ |
|
150 |
+====Aff flex – other frameworks moots the entire aff and exacerbates the fact that the 1nc is reactionary since I should be able to compensate by choosing Collapses – you must say it is true that a world is better than another in order to compare the two. ==== |
|
151 |
+ |
|
152 |
+ |
|
153 |
+ |
|
154 |
+====Scalar methods rely on intervention – the persuasion of certain DA or advantages sway decisions – only a binary resolves that and prevents intervention which is the biggest impact under fairness.==== |
|
155 |
+ |
|
156 |
+ |
|
157 |
+ |
|
158 |
+====Substantive skews – there is always a more correct side of the topic but we compensate for flaws in the lit. ==== |
|
159 |
+ |
|
160 |
+ |
|
161 |
+ |
|
162 |
+====Most inclusive because other ROBs allow for oppression Olympics allowing personal lives and experiences to factor in decisions.==== |
|
163 |
+ |
|
164 |
+ |
|
165 |
+ |
|
166 |
+====The ballot says vote aff or neg based on a topic – five dictionaries^^ ^^ define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm^^ ^^ as to prove true which means it’s constitutive and jurisdictional – that outweighs – all your arguments presume the judge evaluates them and controls the IL to topic ed and fairness since the rules of the activity is what we base our arguments on.==== |
|
167 |
+ |
|
168 |
+ |
|
169 |
+ |
|
170 |
+====Logical arguments aren’t justified in a vacuum – they’re in the context of the resolution so we only defend the resolutional application – misapplications are infinitely regressive since every argument can be used to justify something bad so you should frame this debate through specificity ==== |
|
171 |
+ |
|
172 |
+ |
|
173 |
+ |
|
174 |
+====2~~ 1AR theory is legit – anything else means infinite abuse – drop the debater, competing interps, no rvis– 1AR is too short to make up for the time trade-off – no RVIs or 2NR theory and paradigm issues– 6 min 2NR means they can brute force me every time. Aff theory first – it’s a much larger strategic loss because 1min is ¼ of the 1AR vs 1/7 of the 1NC which means there’s more abuse if I’m devoting a larger fraction of time.==== |
|
175 |
+ |
|
176 |
+ |
|
177 |
+ |
|
178 |
+====3~~ NC Theory – ==== |
|
179 |
+ |
|
180 |
+ |
|
181 |
+ |
|
182 |
+====A~~ It’s drop the argument since the 1AC speaks in the dark and violates countless bidirectional interps no matter what so we shouldn’t be punished for it. ==== |
|
183 |
+ |
|
184 |
+ |
|
185 |
+ |
|
186 |
+====B~~ Reasonability since the 1AR is too short to effectively win offense against a 6-minute 2nr dump. ==== |
|
187 |
+ |
|
188 |
+ |
|
189 |
+ |
|
190 |
+====C~~ Affirm means to express agreement^^ ^^ and you already know I do.==== |
|
191 |
+ |
|
192 |
+ |
|
193 |
+ |
|
194 |
+===Advantage=== |
|
195 |
+ |
|
196 |
+ |
|
197 |
+ |
|
198 |
+====The advantage is Debris:==== |
|
199 |
+ |
|
200 |
+ |
|
201 |
+ |
|
202 |
+====Privatization of space is unsustainable and increases debris – triggers the Kessler Syndrome==== |
|
203 |
+**Thompson 21** ~~Clive, 11/17/21, Clive Thompson is a contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine, a columnist for Wired and Smithsonian magazines, and a regular contributor to Mother Jones. He’s the author of Coders: The Making of a New Tribe and the Remaking of the World, and Smarter Than You Think: How Technology is Changing our Minds for the Better. He’s @pomeranian99 on Twitter and Instagram, "Get Ready for the "Kessler Syndrome" to Wreck Outer Space," OneZero, https://onezero.medium.com/get-ready-for-the-kessler-syndrome-to-wreck-outer-space-7f29cfe62c3e~~ Justin |
|
204 |
+Back in 1978, the astrophysicist Donald Kessler made an alarming prediction: Space junk |
|
205 |
+ |
|
206 |
+AND |
|
207 |
+ |
|
208 |
+orbit but unintentional ones — bits of rocket parts and detritus from launches. |
|
209 |
+ |
|
210 |
+ |
|
211 |
+ |
|
212 |
+====Privatization exponentially increases the curve but ending dangerous missions prevents it.==== |
|
213 |
+**Bernat 20** ~~Pawel, 2020, Military University of Aviation, "ORBITAL SATELLITE CONSTELLATIONS AND THE GROWING THREAT OF KESSLER SYNDROME IN THE LOWER EARTH ORBIT," SAFETY ENGINEERING OF ANTHROPOGENIC OBJECTS, Volume 4, PDF~~ Justin |
|
214 |
+5. Orbital satellite constellations and the growing threat of the Kessler syndrome Space 2 |
|
215 |
+ |
|
216 |
+AND |
|
217 |
+ |
|
218 |
+the global level, apart from first-come, first-served. |
|
219 |
+ |
|
220 |
+ |
|
221 |
+ |
|
222 |
+**====Goes nuclear.====** |
|
223 |
+Les **Johnson 14**. Baen science fiction author, popular science writer, and NASA technologist. "Living without satellites". https://www.baen.com/living'without'satellites. |
|
224 |
+Satellite imagery is used by the military and our political leaders to maintain the peace |
|
225 |
+ |
|
226 |
+AND |
|
227 |
+ |
|
228 |
+would be significantly reduced (loss of military logistics and intelligence gathering satellites). |
|
229 |
+ |
|
230 |
+ |
|
231 |
+ |
|
232 |
+====Debris causes nuclear war—-Noko, Iran, and China.==== |
|
233 |
+**Beauchamp 14** – Zack, 4/21/14, Zack Beauchamp is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he covers global politics and ideology, and a host of Worldly, Vox's podcast on foreign policy and international relations. His work focuses on the rise of the populist right across the West, the role of identity in American politics, and how fringe ideologies shape the mainstream. Before coming to Vox, he edited TP Ideas, a section of Think Progress devoted to the ideas shaping our political world. He has an MSc from the London School of Economics in International Relations and grew up in Washington, DC, where he currently lives with his wife, daughter, and two (rescue) dogs ~~"How space trash could start a nuclear war," Vox, https://www.vox.com/2014/4/21/5625246/space-war-china-north-korea-iran~~ Justin *Brackets added for ableist language |
|
234 |
+If debris from a Chinese test destroys a US military satellite, the US could |
|
235 |
+ |
|
236 |
+AND |
|
237 |
+ |
|
238 |
+war is imminent — an assessment that could have self-fulfilling consequences." |
|
239 |
+ |
|
240 |
+ |
|
241 |
+ |
|
242 |
+====Convergence of factors guarantee space escalation. ==== |
|
243 |
+Thomas González **Roberts 17**. A space security researcher at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and host of Moonstruck, a podcast about humans in space. "Why We Should Be Worried about a War in Space ," 12-15-2017. Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/12/why-we-should-be-worried-about-a-war-in-space/548507/ |
|
244 |
+One hundred miles above the Earth’s surface, orbiting the planet at thousands of miles |
|
245 |
+ |
|
246 |
+AND |
|
247 |
+ |
|
248 |
+to align, and agree on norms of behavior. They need rules. |