| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 2 | Ardrey Kell RG | Saianurag Karavadi |
|
|
| |
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 3 | Acton-Boxborough SP | Jharick Shields |
|
|
| |
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Quads | All | All |
|
|
| |
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 5 | Strake Jesuit RC | Sarah Botsch-McGuinn |
|
|
| |
| All | Finals | Dingus | Dingi |
|
|
| |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | 2 | Westwood AP | Sam Anderson |
|
|
| |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | 4 | Southlake Carroll SD | Patrick Fox |
|
|
| |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | 6 | Los Altos BF | Mark Kivimaki |
|
|
| |
| Barkley Forum for High Schools | 1 | Ardrey Kell RG | Leah Clark-Villanueva |
|
|
| |
| Barkley Forum for High Schools | Finals | All | All |
|
|
| |
| Barkley Forum for High Schools | 4 | Southlake Carroll PK | Jenn Melin |
|
|
| |
| Barkley Forum for High Schools | 6 | Cary CP | Cale McCrary |
|
|
| |
| Barkley Forum for High Schools | Finals | All | All |
|
|
| |
| FFL Qualifier - Region 2 | 2 | 1 Mihir Kelkar | 7 Elle Manino |
|
|
| |
| FFL Qualifier - Region 2 | 4 | 5 lucas Niemas | 1 Rick Ramnath |
|
|
| |
| FFL Qualifier - Region 2 | 5 | 7 Amare Holmes | 3 Karla Guanilo |
|
|
| |
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | 2 | Harker PG | Lukas Krause |
|
|
| |
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | 4 | Westwood BJ | Derek Ying |
|
|
| |
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | 6 | Loyola AP | Jacob Palmer |
|
|
| |
| Lexington Winter Invitational | 2 | St Agnes EH | TJ Maher |
|
|
| |
| Lexington Winter Invitational | 4 | Loyola SG | Saied Beckford |
|
|
| |
| Lexington Winter Invitational | 6 | San Mateo YR | Claire Liu |
|
|
| |
| Lexington Winter Invitational | Octas | Summit JC | TJ Maher - Braedon Kirkpatrick - William Freedman |
|
|
| |
| Lexington Winter Invitational | Quarters | Mission San Jose SR | Eric He - TJ Maher - Evan Li |
|
|
| |
| Lexington Winter Invitational | Finals | Any | Any |
|
|
| |
| Lexington Winter Invitational | Finals | Any | Any |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | 1 | Lexington AK | Anthony Cui |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | 4 | Harker SS | TJ Maher |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | 6 | Scarsdale DH | Jim Gray |
|
|
| |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 1 | Iowa City NW | Conal Thomas-McGinnis |
|
|
| |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 3 | Lexington AR | Sesh Joe |
|
|
| |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 5 | Strake Jesuit EP | Nelson Okunlola |
|
|
| |
| Strake Jesuit Tournament | 5 | Denton Guyer SB | Megan Wu |
|
|
| |
| Strake Jesuit Tournament | Octas | Westlake MR | Andrew Qin - Angela Zhong - Joseph Georges |
|
|
| |
| Strake Jesuit Tournament | 2 | Carnegie Vanguard SR | Andrew Qin |
|
|
| |
| Strake Jesuit Tournament | Finals | All | All |
|
| ||
| Sunvite | 1 | Trinity Prep JC | Nethmin Liyanage |
|
|
| |
| Sunvite | 3 | Albuquerque AK | Jacob Nails |
|
|
| |
| Sunvite | 5 | Durham RL | Donny Peters |
|
|
| |
| Sunvite | Octas | Durham SA | Jacob Nails - Donny Peters - Alex Rivera |
|
|
| |
| Sunvite | Finals | All | All |
|
|
| |
| The Tradition | 2 | Trinity Prep MZ | Issac Chao |
|
|
| |
| The Tradition | 3 | Coral Glades MT | Nick Montecalvo |
|
|
| |
| The Tradition | 5 | Coral Glades OS | Matthew Doggett |
|
|
| |
| The Tradition | Semis | American Heritage Broward SS | Issac Chao - Nick Montecalvo - Colter Heirigs |
|
|
| |
| Tournament of Champions | 2 | Mercer Island KS | Tajaih Robinson |
|
|
| |
| Tournament of Champions | 2 | Mercer Island KS | Tajaih Robinson |
|
|
| |
| Tournament of Champions | 4 | Stockdale RP | Jack Quisenberry |
|
|
| |
| Tournament of Champions | 6 | Harker RM | Issac Chao |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 2 | Ardrey Kell SA | Annie Wang |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 3 | Milton AT | Anthony Cui |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | Triples | Charlotte Latin AP | Conal Thomas-McGinnis - Animesh Joshi - Alex Rivera |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | Doubles | Princeton ML | Conal Thomas-McGinnis - Owen Sayre - Keshav Dandu |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 6 | Lincoln JR | Conal Thomas-McGinnis |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 2 | Opponent: Ardrey Kell RG | Judge: Saianurag Karavadi 1AC - FALC |
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 3 | Opponent: Acton-Boxborough SP | Judge: Jharick Shields 1AC - FALC |
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Quads | Opponent: All | Judge: All Hi |
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 5 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit RC | Judge: Sarah Botsch-McGuinn 1AC - FALC |
| All | Finals | Opponent: Dingus | Judge: Dingi 1AC - why u looking at RR on contact info |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | 2 | Opponent: Westwood AP | Judge: Sam Anderson 1AC - Agonism |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | 4 | Opponent: Southlake Carroll SD | Judge: Patrick Fox 1AC - Agonism |
| Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | 6 | Opponent: Los Altos BF | Judge: Mark Kivimaki 1AC - Agonism |
| Barkley Forum for High Schools | 1 | Opponent: Ardrey Kell RG | Judge: Leah Clark-Villanueva 1AC - CHH |
| Barkley Forum for High Schools | Finals | Opponent: All | Judge: All All |
| Barkley Forum for High Schools | 4 | Opponent: Southlake Carroll PK | Judge: Jenn Melin 1AC - International Law v9 |
| Barkley Forum for High Schools | 6 | Opponent: Cary CP | Judge: Cale McCrary 1AC - International Law v10 |
| Barkley Forum for High Schools | Finals | Opponent: All | Judge: All All |
| FFL Qualifier - Region 2 | 2 | Opponent: 1 Mihir Kelkar | Judge: 7 Elle Manino 1AC - International Law v11 |
| FFL Qualifier - Region 2 | 4 | Opponent: 5 lucas Niemas | Judge: 1 Rick Ramnath 1AC - Ilaw |
| FFL Qualifier - Region 2 | 5 | Opponent: 7 Amare Holmes | Judge: 3 Karla Guanilo 1AC - Ilaw |
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | 2 | Opponent: Harker PG | Judge: Lukas Krause 1AC - Comrade |
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | 4 | Opponent: Westwood BJ | Judge: Derek Ying 1AC - Agonism |
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | 6 | Opponent: Loyola AP | Judge: Jacob Palmer 1AC - Agonism |
| Lexington Winter Invitational | 2 | Opponent: St Agnes EH | Judge: TJ Maher 1AC - I Law |
| Lexington Winter Invitational | 4 | Opponent: Loyola SG | Judge: Saied Beckford 1AC - FALC |
| Lexington Winter Invitational | 6 | Opponent: San Mateo YR | Judge: Claire Liu 1AC - Ilaw |
| Lexington Winter Invitational | Octas | Opponent: Summit JC | Judge: TJ Maher - Braedon Kirkpatrick - William Freedman 1AC - Ilaw |
| Lexington Winter Invitational | Quarters | Opponent: Mission San Jose SR | Judge: Eric He - TJ Maher - Evan Li 1AC - International Law v8 |
| Lexington Winter Invitational | Finals | Opponent: Any | Judge: Any hi |
| Lexington Winter Invitational | Finals | Opponent: Any | Judge: Any hi |
| Mid America Cup | 1 | Opponent: Lexington AK | Judge: Anthony Cui 1AC - Kant |
| Mid America Cup | 4 | Opponent: Harker SS | Judge: TJ Maher 1AC - Kant |
| Mid America Cup | 6 | Opponent: Scarsdale DH | Judge: Jim Gray 1AC - Lay |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 1 | Opponent: Iowa City NW | Judge: Conal Thomas-McGinnis 1AC - Kant |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 3 | Opponent: Lexington AR | Judge: Sesh Joe 1AC - Data Exclusivity |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 5 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit EP | Judge: Nelson Okunlola 1AC - Semiocap |
| Strake Jesuit Tournament | 5 | Opponent: Denton Guyer SB | Judge: Megan Wu 1AC - International Law |
| Strake Jesuit Tournament | Octas | Opponent: Westlake MR | Judge: Andrew Qin - Angela Zhong - Joseph Georges 1AC - International Law |
| Strake Jesuit Tournament | 2 | Opponent: Carnegie Vanguard SR | Judge: Andrew Qin 1AC - International Law |
| Sunvite | 1 | Opponent: Trinity Prep JC | Judge: Nethmin Liyanage 1AC - Common Human Heirtage |
| Sunvite | 3 | Opponent: Albuquerque AK | Judge: Jacob Nails 1AC - International Law |
| Sunvite | 5 | Opponent: Durham RL | Judge: Donny Peters 1AC - FALC |
| Sunvite | Octas | Opponent: Durham SA | Judge: Jacob Nails - Donny Peters - Alex Rivera 1AC - Fidelity |
| Sunvite | Finals | Opponent: All | Judge: All hi |
| The Tradition | 2 | Opponent: Trinity Prep MZ | Judge: Issac Chao 1AC - Agonism |
| The Tradition | 3 | Opponent: Coral Glades MT | Judge: Nick Montecalvo 1AC - Pettit |
| The Tradition | 5 | Opponent: Coral Glades OS | Judge: Matthew Doggett 1AC - Pettit |
| The Tradition | Semis | Opponent: American Heritage Broward SS | Judge: Issac Chao - Nick Montecalvo - Colter Heirigs 1AC - Agonism |
| Tournament of Champions | 2 | Opponent: Mercer Island KS | Judge: Tajaih Robinson 1AC - NFTs |
| Tournament of Champions | 2 | Opponent: Mercer Island KS | Judge: Tajaih Robinson 1AC - NFTs |
| Tournament of Champions | 4 | Opponent: Stockdale RP | Judge: Jack Quisenberry 1AC - Planetoid Bombs |
| Tournament of Champions | 6 | Opponent: Harker RM | Judge: Issac Chao 1AC - Hegel |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 2 | Opponent: Ardrey Kell SA | Judge: Annie Wang 1AC - Kant |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 3 | Opponent: Milton AT | Judge: Anthony Cui 1AC - Kant |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | Triples | Opponent: Charlotte Latin AP | Judge: Conal Thomas-McGinnis - Animesh Joshi - Alex Rivera 1AC - Kant |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | Doubles | Opponent: Princeton ML | Judge: Conal Thomas-McGinnis - Owen Sayre - Keshav Dandu 1AC - Kant |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 6 | Opponent: Lincoln JR | Judge: Conal Thomas-McGinnis 1AC - Kant |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 - Contact InfoTournament: All | Round: Finals | Opponent: Dingus | Judge: Dingi Ways to contact me: | 11/7/21 |
0 - Disclosure - Barkley ForumTournament: Barkley Forum for High Schools | Round: Finals | Opponent: All | Judge: All | 2/9/22 |
0 - Disclosure - HarvardTournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: Quads | Opponent: All | Judge: All | 2/19/22 |
0 - Disclosure - Lexington Winter InvitationalTournament: Lexington Winter Invitational | Round: Finals | Opponent: Any | Judge: Any ^ I law aff specifically is just broken idk why lol | 2/9/22 |
0 - Disclosure - Strake Jesuit TournamentTournament: Strake Jesuit Tournament | Round: Finals | Opponent: All | Judge: All | 2/9/22 |
0 - Disclosure - SunviteTournament: Sunvite | Round: Finals | Opponent: All | Judge: All | 2/9/22 |
G - Theory - ACCTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 6 | Opponent: Lincoln JR | Judge: Conal Thomas-McGinnis | 11/7/21 |
G - Theory - Condo Bad v2Tournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: 5 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit RC | Judge: Sarah Botsch-McGuinn | 2/20/22 |
G - Theory - Delineate StatusTournament: Tournament of Champions | Round: 4 | Opponent: Stockdale RP | Judge: Jack Quisenberry | 4/24/22 |
G - Theory - Delineate StatusTournament: Tournament of Champions | Round: 4 | Opponent: Stockdale RP | Judge: Jack Quisenberry | 4/24/22 |
G - Theory - Must Have Delineated Advocacy TextTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 6 | Opponent: Lincoln JR | Judge: Conal Thomas-McGinnis | 11/7/21 |
G - Theory - Must Have Delineated Advocacy Text v2Tournament: Lexington Winter Invitational | Round: 2 | Opponent: St Agnes EH | Judge: TJ Maher | 1/15/22 |
G - Theory - PICs BadTournament: Sunvite | Round: Octas | Opponent: Durham SA | Judge: Jacob Nails - Donny Peters - Alex Rivera | 1/10/22 |
G - Theory - PICs Bad v2Tournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: 5 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit RC | Judge: Sarah Botsch-McGuinn | 2/20/22 |
G - Theory - T or KTournament: Tournament of Champions | Round: 6 | Opponent: Harker RM | Judge: Issac Chao | 4/24/22 |
G - Theory - Write Down AdvocacyTournament: Tournament of Champions | Round: 4 | Opponent: Stockdale RP | Judge: Jack Quisenberry | 4/24/22 |
G - Theory - Write Down AdvocacyTournament: Tournament of Champions | Round: 4 | Opponent: Stockdale RP | Judge: Jack Quisenberry | 4/24/22 |
G - Win ConditionsTournament: Tournament of Champions | Round: 4 | Opponent: Stockdale RP | Judge: Jack Quisenberry If the aff is winning, they get the ballot is a tacit ballot conditional which means denying the premise proves the conclusion that I should get the ballot.3~ Resolved is defined as firm in purpose or intent; determined and I’m determined,4~ affirm means to express agreement and I did.5~ Resolved is past tense which means the rez is already decided to affirm6~ Rule Following Paradox – there is nothing inherent to a rule that tells us how we ought to follow it, which proves no internal motivation or direction to follow a particular rule, regardless of how correct the rule is. Since only our interpretation can tell us how to follow the rule, there can be no incorrect application.7~ Principle of explosionWikiwand. "Principle of Explosion." Wikiwand, 0AD, www.wikiwand.com/en/Principle'of'explosion. Massa AND the second part must be true, i.e., unicorns exist. 8~ Liar’s Paradox – the resolution is always trueCamus ~Albert Camus (existentialist). "The Myth of Sisyphus." Penguin Books. 1975(originally published 1942). Accessed 12/11/19. Pg 22. Copy on hand. Houston Memorial DX~ AND assertion proclaims simultaneously that it is true, and so on ad infinitum." 3~ Permissibility and presumption affirmA~ Statements are true before false since if I told you my name, you’d believe me.B~ Epistemics – we wouldn’t be able to start a strand of reasoning since we’d have to question that reason.C~ Illogical – presuming statements false is illogical since you can’t say things like P and ~P are both wrong.D~ Presuming obligations is logically safer since it’s better to be supererogatory than fail to meet an obligation.E~ Presuming statements false is impossible since we can’t operate in a world where we don’t trust anything.F~ To negate means to deny the truth of, which means if there isn’t offense to deny the truth of you should affirm.G~ Otherwise we’d have to have a proactive justification to do things like drink water. | 4/24/22 |
G - Win ConditionsTournament: Tournament of Champions | Round: 4 | Opponent: Stockdale RP | Judge: Jack Quisenberry If the aff is winning, they get the ballot is a tacit ballot conditional which means denying the premise proves the conclusion that I should get the ballot.3~ Resolved is defined as firm in purpose or intent; determined and I’m determined,4~ affirm means to express agreement and I did.5~ Resolved is past tense which means the rez is already decided to affirm6~ Rule Following Paradox – there is nothing inherent to a rule that tells us how we ought to follow it, which proves no internal motivation or direction to follow a particular rule, regardless of how correct the rule is. Since only our interpretation can tell us how to follow the rule, there can be no incorrect application.7~ Principle of explosionWikiwand. "Principle of Explosion." Wikiwand, 0AD, www.wikiwand.com/en/Principle'of'explosion. Massa AND the second part must be true, i.e., unicorns exist. 8~ Liar’s Paradox – the resolution is always trueCamus ~Albert Camus (existentialist). "The Myth of Sisyphus." Penguin Books. 1975(originally published 1942). Accessed 12/11/19. Pg 22. Copy on hand. Houston Memorial DX~ AND assertion proclaims simultaneously that it is true, and so on ad infinitum." 3~ Permissibility and presumption affirmA~ Statements are true before false since if I told you my name, you’d believe me.B~ Epistemics – we wouldn’t be able to start a strand of reasoning since we’d have to question that reason.C~ Illogical – presuming statements false is illogical since you can’t say things like P and ~P are both wrong.D~ Presuming obligations is logically safer since it’s better to be supererogatory than fail to meet an obligation.E~ Presuming statements false is impossible since we can’t operate in a world where we don’t trust anything.F~ To negate means to deny the truth of, which means if there isn’t offense to deny the truth of you should affirm.G~ Otherwise we’d have to have a proactive justification to do things like drink water. | 4/24/22 |
JF22 - AC - Common Human HeritageTournament: Sunvite | Round: 1 | Opponent: Trinity Prep JC | Judge: Nethmin Liyanage 1AC R1 Sunvite1ACPlanPlan Text: The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust. The just appropriation of outer space as is a collective, international act under the Common Human Heritage principle as enforced by the United Nations. Pop:Pop, Virgiliu. "Appropriation in outer space: the relationship between land ownership and sovereignty on the celestial bodies." Space Policy 16, no. 4 (2000): 275-282. AND international community holds in trust outer space and celestial bodies for human- kind The status quo is unclear about the CHH: we must clarify and specify a specific regime, Jakhu et alJakhu, R. S., and Pelton, J. N. (Eds.). (2017). Global Space Governance: an international study. Springer International Publishing. pg 398-400 AND the equitable sharing and use of such resources found in the global commons. Krerkonian specifies the implementation:Kerkonian, Aram Daniel. "The Possible Regulation of Certain Space Activities through an International Orgnaization: Tutmonda Spaco Agentejo." ZLW 67 (2018): 279. The aff defines outer space in accordance with the 1967 Outer Space Treaty to include celestial bodies and all space outside of low earth orbit.Adv 1 – DebrisPrivate space appropriation leads to a massive increase in space junk, HoldenJohn Holden, July 12, 2018, The Irish Times, Why space capitalism will eat itself, https://www.irishtimes.com/business/innovation/why-space-capitalism-will-eat-itself-1.3556368 Approval of tech to stop space debris is impossible b/c of current legal frameworks, only the aff solves, KrerkonianKerkonian, Aram Daniel. "The Possible Regulation of Certain Space Activities through an International Orgnaization: Tutmonda Spaco Agentejo." ZLW 67 (2018): 279. It cascades—-nuclear war.Les Johnson 13, Deputy Manager for NASA's Advanced Concepts Office at the Marshall Space Flight Center, Co-Investigator for the JAXA T-Rex Space Tether Experiment and PI of NASA's ProSEDS Experiment, Master's Degree in Physics from Vanderbilt University, Popular Science Writer, and NASA Technologist, Frequent Contributor to the Journal of the British Interplanetary Sodety and Member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, National Space Society, the World Future Society, and MENSA, Sky Alert!: When Satellites Fail, p. 9-12 ~language modified~ Nuclear war causes extinction – ozone losses, firestorms, and agricultural disruption, Starr 17:Steven Starr is the director of the University of Missouri’s Clinical Laboratory Science Program, as well as a senior scientist at the Physicians for Social Responsibility. He has been published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the Strategic Arms Reduction (STAR) website of the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology; Jan 09, 2017; "Turning a Blind Eye Towards Armageddon — U.S. Leaders Reject Nuclear Winter Studies"; Federation of American Scientists; https://fas.org/2017/01/turning-a-blind-eye-towards-armageddon-u-s-leaders-reject-nuclear-winter-studies/; DOA December 8, 2019; JPark) Adv 2 – AsteroidsThe Earth is overdue for asteroid strikes and is underprepared – only unified national efforts can solve, which private appropriation makes impossible, KrerkonianKerkonian, Aram Daniel. "The Possible Regulation of Certain Space Activities through an International Orgnaization: Tutmonda Spaco Agentejo." ZLW 67 (2018): 279. An asteroid collision would ensure extinction – would fundamentally alter the biosphere, don’t underestimate its riskWesley Hudson ’19, news reporter for Express, "Asteroid alert: NASA warning as kilometre long space rock set to skim Earth at 25,000mph", 8/28/19, Express, https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1170826/asteroid-news-NASA-latest-space-rock-asteroid-1998-HL1-earth-danger-apocalypse** Don’t write our impacts off as low probability – asteroid collision is complex and the existence of space keyholes exponentially increases the risk of collisionPeter Vereš ’19, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, "Chapter 6 Vision of Perfect Observation Capabilities", 2019, Planetary Defense, Space and Society, https://dl1.cuni.cz/pluginfile.php/634091/mod'resource/content/1/Planetary20Defence.pdf** FWKPain and pleasure are intrinsically valuable – to justify beyond that runs into moral incoherence. Moen 16,Moen 16 ~Ole Martin Moen, Research Fellow in Philosophy at University of Oslo "An Argument for Hedonism" Journal of Value Inquiry (Springer), 50 (2) 2016: 267–281~ SJDI RCT by JPark Thus, the standard is maximizing expected well-being (Act Util). Prefer additionally:~1~ Lexical pre-req. Threats to bodily security and life preclude the ability for moral actors to effectively act upon other moral theories since they are in a constant state of crisis. This means my offense OW under their fwk.~2~ Actor specificity~A~ governments must aggregate because their policies benefit some and harm others so the only non-arbitrary way to prioritize is by helping the most amount of people~B~ Actor specificity comes first because different agents have different obligations. Takes out calc indicts because they’re empirically denied.~3~ Degrees of wrongness – only consequences can explain why some actions are better or worse than others – breaking a promise to take someone to lunch isn’t as bad as breaking a promise to take a dying person to the hospital but only the consequences of breaking it can explain why, so all ethical theories collapse to util.~4~ Topic lit – most articles are written through the lens of util since they’re crafted for policymakers and the general public to understand who take consequences to be important, not philosophy majors. Leads to better real world ed, important because that is the terminal impact of debate. Not a reason to drop the debater.MethodExtinction hijacks and side constrains the framework – it o/w and comes firstPummer 15 ~Theron, Junior Research Fellow in Philosophy at St. Anne's College, University of Oxford. "Moral Agreement on Saving the World" Practical Ethics, University of Oxford. May 18, 2015~ AT UV====~1~ Cx checks solves – the neg can read infinite interps which can easily be prevented by asking in cross. No abuse if I provide whatever necessary before their prep. ==== ====~2~ 1AR theory paradigm –==== ====a~ grant me it else infinite abuse – neg won’t have any deterrence==== ====b~ drop the debater because the 1ar is too short to win theory and substance==== ====c~ no RVIs – the 2nr has enough time and the 2ar needs strategic flexibility==== ====d~ competing interps – 1ar interps aren’t bidirectional and Cis are best for normsetting==== ====1ar theory first – Strat skew – short 2AR needs collapse to counter the long 2N collapse ==== ====~3~ No omissions: All neg theory violations and kritik links must come from the text of the AC, not the absence of specification. ==== ====a~ I have a limited time to speak so it’s an infinite aff burden ==== ====b~ they can always make some sort of shell or link even if I don’t do anything which allows for infinite neg abuse.==== | 1/7/22 |
JF22 - AC - FidelityTournament: Sunvite | Round: Octas | Opponent: Durham SA | Judge: Jacob Nails - Donny Peters - Alex Rivera 1AC Octos SunvitePart 1 – The Capitalist InfosphereCapitalism has evolved. In the infosphere, workers are no longer hired, but bought as packets of time, disconnected from any collectivity and without labor relations. No longer people, they are machines to the capitalist system. Only through an existential continuity of the comrade is solvency possible, Berardi 11:Franco Berardi, "After The Future," 2011 ~philosopher~ LHP AB Capitalism is a death cult and the apocalypse is currently happening – Earth is doomed to climate change, but we can escape, Allinson 21Allinson, J. (2021). The tragedy of the worker: towards the proletarocene. Verso Books. pg 8-17 AND of ‘adaptation’ has become the ideology of capitalism’s triumph over all life. Part 2 – Capitalist SpaceThus, I affirm: Resolved: The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust. The affirmative defends the truth of an unjust practice but doesn’t defend a specific practice of what the next move is. Space is the domain needed for capital to extend surplus into while also being a new locus for exploitation – Shammas and Holen 19: ~(Victor L, a sociologist working at the Department of Sociology and Human Geography, University of Oslo; Tomas B., independent scholar in Oslo, Norway) "One giant leap for capitalistkind: private enterprise in outer space," 1-29-2019, pg. 5-6~ TDI AND as a domain made accessible in legal, technical, and economic ways. Private space is a façade that’s rooted in capitalism – the so called "leaders" of private space don’t care for conditions of life for the workers just the rich - Marx et al. 20:Marx, Paris, et al. "Yes to Space Exploration. No to Space Capitalism." Jacobin, 6 Aug. 2020, https://jacobinmag.com/2020/06/spacex-elon-musk-jeff-bezos-capitalism. LHP PS AND not challenge them in favor of space exploration for the benefit of all. Don’t be fooled – capitalism doesn’t end at the edge of the Earth’s atmosphere-the ideal privatization of space is the expansion into cosmic capitalism – Marx et al. 2:Marx, Paris, et al. "Yes to Space Exploration. No to Space Capitalism." Jacobin, 6 Aug. 2020, https://jacobinmag.com/2020/06/spacex-elon-musk-jeff-bezos-capitalism. LHP PS AND , not extended into the stars as part of a new colonial project. Part 3 – Fidelity to TruthThe role of the ballot is fidelity to the truth – dedication to a shared horizon is liberatory - Dean 19:Dean, Jodi. Comrade: An essay on political belonging. Verso, 2019. LHP BT + LHP PS AND that comrade relations produce. It concentrates comradeship even as comradeship exceeds it. Anti-capitalism must learn to compete with capitalism in the realm of desire, repurposing existing capitalist structures like the state and repurposing them to create Marxist possibility. Thus, the first step is one of transforming our libidinal desires and the direction of thought, not jumping to policy action – Heron:Heron, Kai. "Journal of the Marxist Literary Group." Mediations, https://mediationsjournal.org/articles/still-a-world. LHP PS AND might outlast neoliberalism by compromising with precisely such social-democratic projects.26 Fighting capitalist realism requires the comrade – Dean 2:Dean, Jodi. "Capitalism is the End of the World." https://mediationsjournal.org/articles/end-of-world LHP PS AND even if we could, without comrades there’s not a world to win. | 1/10/22 |
JF22 - AC - Fully Automated Luxury Space CommunismTournament: Sunvite | Round: 5 | Opponent: Durham RL | Judge: Donny Peters JF22 – AC – Space CommunismPart 1 – The Future of CapitalismAsteroid mining opens up the possibility of a utopian world of luxury in which the logic of scarcity along with capitalist exploitation no longer exists. However, private monopolization of asteroid mining will destroy the dream of space communism, dooming us, BASTANI 1 2019Bastani, A. (2019). Fully automated luxury communism. Verso Books. AND on Earth while maintaining price stability and guaranteeing huge profits for mining companies. Thus, I affirm the resolution, resolved: The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust. Private asteroid mining will make outer space the realm of the capitalists and new forms of exploitation, up to extermination. However, Fully Automated Luxury Communism avoids this fate – and it’s only possible with a populist movement focused on the unified end goal of space communism, BASTANI 2Bastani, A. (2019). Fully automated luxury communism. Verso Books. AND the good society where decline is marginally slower than it might otherwise be. The aff fiats enforcement of the Outer Space Treaty through the mechanism of the Madrid Protocol, making space socialized and orienting us under a unified horizon towards space communism, Bastani 3,Bastani, A. (2019). Fully automated luxury communism. Verso Books. AND is that scarcity will always exist. Except now we know it won’t. Part 2 – Space Communism is the MethodWith the abundance of outer space and new technologies, it is possible achieve a new communism characterized by international luxury. Only a communist, populous politics that deviates from traditional capitalist usage of technology and resources can solve capitalism. Thus, the role of the ballot is to vote for the debater who best resists capitalism through luxury populism, BASTANI 4,Bastani, A. (2019). Fully automated luxury communism. Verso Books. AND and the state, won’t rest in ensuring FALC never comes to pass. Fidelity to the truth frames all populist movements – success is only possible with dedication to a shared horizon, Dean 19:Dean, Jodi. Comrade: An essay on political belonging. Verso, 2019. LHP BT + LHP PS AND that comrade relations produce. It concentrates comradeship even as comradeship exceeds it. Part 3 – Apocalypse NowTechnology and infinite supply will either save the collective or kill it. Only FALC can solve international crises through utilizing space’s abundant resources to support the Earth, not destroy it, BASTANI 5Bastani, A. (2019). Fully automated luxury communism. Verso Books. AND . The binding decisions on all of us that we collectively choose to make Capitalism is a death cult and the apocalypse is already happening. Without an unshakable commitment to the total and complete rejection of the fetishization of capitalist value, we will all die like the dinosaurs, Allinson 21Allinson, J. (2021). The tragedy of the worker: towards the proletarocene. Verso Books. pg 8-17 AND of ‘adaptation’ has become the ideology of capitalism’s triumph over all life. Capitalist reactionary political influence is the root cause of Climate Change denial – capitalism needs climate change to survive, and the market will never deliver a solution, FRASE 2Frase, P. (2016). Four futures: Life after capitalism. Verso books AND this agenda. We will return to all of this in Chapter 4. We are on the brink of a post-scarcity world for the rich, where they will no longer need us for their luxuries. If dictated by the capitalist regime through private appropriation, a post-scarcity world would mean the extermination of the working-class, FRASE 2016Frase, P. (2016). Four futures: Life after capitalism. Verso books LHP HL + LHP AB AND to wall off the rich from what are deemed to be surplus populations. Our greatest ethical obligation is to resist capitalism – it’s relevant under any moral theory. MORGARIDGE 98:Morgaridge, Clayton, Prof of Philosophy at Lewis and Clark College, 1998, Why Capitalism is Evil 08/22 http://www.lclark.edu/~~clayton/commentaries/evil.html SLS AND capitalism is on the table will ethics have a seat at the table. Forms of fragmented politics completely cedes the political to capitalism. Engagement in under common communication is too individualized and resists collective and concrete change. This constitutes enjoyment of melancholic pleasures of being distanced and accommodated to the real world, and as a result remains stuck in parasitic oppression without change. Dean 13:"Communist Desire", Jodi Dean, , 2013, LHP AM AND as they capture us in activities that feel productive, important, radical. | 1/10/22 |
JF22 - AC - Fully Automated Luxury Space Communism v2Tournament: Lexington Winter Invitational | Round: 4 | Opponent: Loyola SG | Judge: Saied Beckford 1AC vs. Loyola SG1ACPart 1 – The Future of CapitalismAsteroid mining opens up the possibility of a utopian world of luxury in which the logic of scarcity along with capitalist exploitation no longer exists. However, private monopolization of asteroid mining will destroy the dream of space communism, dooming us, BASTANI 2019Bastani, A. (2019). Fully automated luxury communism. Verso Books. AND on Earth while maintaining price stability and guaranteeing huge profits for mining companies. Thus, I affirm the resolution, resolved: The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust. Private asteroid mining will make outer space the realm of the capitalists and new forms of exploitation, up to extermination. However, Fully Automated Luxury Communism avoids this fate – and it’s only possible with a populist movement focused on the unified end goal of space communism, BASTANI 2Bastani, A. (2019). Fully automated luxury communism. Verso Books. AND the good society where decline is marginally slower than it might otherwise be. The aff fiats enforcement of the Outer Space Treaty through the mechanism of the Madrid Protocol, making space socialized and orienting us under a unified horizon towards space communism, Bastani 3,Bastani, A. (2019). Fully automated luxury communism. Verso Books. AND is that scarcity will always exist. Except now we know it won’t. Part 2 – Space Communism is the MethodWith the abundance of outer space and new technologies, it is possible achieve a new communism characterized by international luxury. Only a communist, populous politics that deviates from traditional capitalist usage of technology and resources can solve capitalism. Thus, the role of the ballot is to vote for the debater who best resists capitalism through luxury populism, BASTANI 4,Bastani, A. (2019). Fully automated luxury communism. Verso Books. AND and the state, won’t rest in ensuring FALC never comes to pass. Fidelity to the truth frames all populist movements – success is only possible with dedication to a shared horizon, Dean 19:Dean, Jodi. Comrade: An essay on political belonging. Verso, 2019. LHP BT + LHP PS AND that comrade relations produce. It concentrates comradeship even as comradeship exceeds it. Part 3 – Apocalypse NowTechnology and infinite supply will either save the collective or kill it. Only FALC can solve international crises through utilizing space’s abundant resources to support the Earth, not destroy it, BASTANI 5Bastani, A. (2019). Fully automated luxury communism. Verso Books. AND . The binding decisions on all of us that we collectively choose to make Capitalism is a death cult and the apocalypse is already happening. Without an unshakable commitment to the total and complete rejection of the fetishization of capitalist value, we will all die like the dinosaurs, Allinson 21Allinson, J. (2021). The tragedy of the worker: towards the proletarocene. Verso Books. pg 8-17 AND of ‘adaptation’ has become the ideology of capitalism’s triumph over all life. Capitalist reactionary political influence is the root cause of Climate Change denial – capitalism needs climate change to survive, and the market will never deliver a solution, FRASE 16:Frase, P. (2016). Four futures: Life after capitalism. Verso books AND this agenda. We will return to all of this in Chapter 4. We are on the brink of a post-scarcity world for the rich, where they will no longer need us for their luxuries. If dictated by the capitalist regime through private appropriation, a post-scarcity world would mean the extermination of the working-class, FRASE 2:Frase, P. (2016). Four futures: Life after capitalism. Verso books LHP HL + LHP AB AND to wall off the rich from what are deemed to be surplus populations. UVInterpretation: Debaters must disclose all constructive positions on open source with highlighting on the 2021-22 NDCA LD wiki after the round in which they read them.Violation – they don’t for any rounds this tourney
1~ Debate resource inequities—you’ll say people will steal cards, but that’s good—it’s the only way to truly level the playing field for students such as novices in under-privileged programs who can’t bypass paywalled articles.Louden 10 – Allan D. Louden, professor of Communication at Wake Forest ("Navigating Opportunity: Policy Debate in the 21st Century" Wake Forest National Debate Conference. IDEA, 2010) AND multiple professional teaching positions, such as those discussed earlier in the chapter. 2~ Evidence ethics – open source is the only way to verify pre-round that cards aren’t miscut or highlighted or bracketed unethically. That’s a voter – maintaining ethical evidence practices is key to being good academics and we should be able to verify you didn’t cheat3~ Depth of clash – it allows debaters to have nuanced researched objections to their opponents evidence before the round at a much faster rate, which leads to higher quality evidence comparison – outweighs cause thinking on your feet is NUQ but the best quality responses come from full access to a case.Fairness- consittutive of comp activites, args presumeEdu- funded ny schoolsDTD- dta illogical, time skewNo RVI’s- illogical, baitingCI- intervention, race to bottom, collapses, yours vs best | 1/15/22 |
JF22 - AC - Fully Automated Luxury Space Communism v3Tournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: 2 | Opponent: Ardrey Kell RG | Judge: Saianurag Karavadi 1acPart 1 – The Future of CapitalismSpace and asteroid mining opens up the possibility of a utopian world of luxury in which scarcity and capitalist exploitation no longer exists, but capitalists manually create scarcity through rationing by claiming space to keep their power – BASTANI 19Bastani, A. (2019). Fully automated luxury communism. Verso Books. AND on Earth while maintaining price stability and guaranteeing huge profits for mining companies. Thus, I affirm the resolution, resolved: The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust.We are on the brink of a post-scarcity world for the rich, where they will no longer need us for their luxuries. If dictated by the capitalist regime through private appropriation, a post-scarcity world would mean the extermination of the working-class, FRASE 16Frase, P. (2016). Four futures: Life after capitalism. Verso books LHP HL + LHP AB AND to wall off the rich from what are deemed to be surplus populations. Part 2 – Apocalypse NowTechnology and infinite supply will either save the collective or kill it. Only FALC can solve international crises through utilizing space’s abundant resources to support the Earth, not destroy it, BASTANI 4Bastani, A. (2019). Fully automated luxury communism. Verso Books. AND . The binding decisions on all of us that we collectively choose to make Capitalism is a death cult and the apocalypse is already happening. Without an unshakable commitment to the total and complete rejection of the fetishization of capitalist value, we will all die like the dinosaurs, Allinson 21Allinson, J. (2021). The tragedy of the worker: towards the proletarocene. Verso Books. pg 8-17 AND of ‘adaptation’ has become the ideology of capitalism’s triumph over all life. With the abundance of outer space and new technologies, it is possible achieve a new communism characterized by international luxury. Only a communist, populous politics that deviates from traditional capitalist usage of technology and resources can solve capitalism while ensuring green living. BASTANI 3,Bastani, A. (2019). Fully automated luxury communism. Verso Books. AND and the state, won’t rest in ensuring FALC never comes to pass. Part 3 – Luxury PopulismAnti-capitalism must learn to compete with capitalism in the realm of desire, taking existing capitalist structures like the state and repurposing them to create Marxist possibility. Thus, we must transform our libidinal desires and direction of thought against capitalism – the aff does this through a unified horizon towards FALC – Heron:Heron, Kai. "Journal of the Marxist Literary Group." Mediations, https://mediationsjournal.org/articles/still-a-world. LHP PS AND might outlast neoliberalism by compromising with precisely such social-democratic projects.26 The role of the ballot is fidelity to the truth – unified dedication to a shared horizon is liberatory – the affirmative’s horizon is FALC, Dean 19:Dean, Jodi. Comrade: An essay on political belonging. Verso, 2019. LHP BT + LHP PS AND that comrade relations produce. It concentrates comradeship even as comradeship exceeds it. And, space optimism is key to resisting capitalism – it goes against dominant capitalist narratives and enables a unified social movement against capitalism, Levin 21,Annie Levin, 16 Aug 2021, https://christiansocialism.com/space-travel-capitalism-communism-fully-automated-luxury-dsa/ LHP AB AND space, but not until we fulfill our destiny right here on Earth. Underview1~ 1ar theory paradigm – A~ the aff gets it – otherwise the neg can engage in infinite abuse, making debate impossible B~ drop the debater on aff theory because the 1ar is too short to win theory and substance C~ no RVIs – the 2nr has enough time and the 2ar needs strategic flexibility D~ competing interps – 1ar interps aren’t bidirectional and reasonability incentivizes brute force defensive dumps2~ 1ar theory first –A~ Strat skew – short 2AR means I need to collapse to one layer to counter the long 2N collapse B~ Epistemic Indict – if the 1N was abusive then my ability to respond was skewed so you can’t truly evaluate the 1nc3~ Yes aff rvi – a~ time skew – 4 minute 1ar has to hedge against a 7 minute 1nc and counter a long 6 minute 2n collapse, no rvi make the 1ar virtually impossible and structurally behind on the debate which means we need rvi to be able to collapse to something in the 2ar and win4~ Presumption and permissibility affirm – A~ statements are true till false – if I said my name was Prateek, you would believe me absent evidence to the contrary B~ we shouldn’t need proactive justification for things – that means we couldn’t do things like drink water C~ affirming is harder – the 1ar has to answer 7 minutes of offense and hedge against a 6 minute 2nr collapse and empirics, Shah 2-13:Sachin Shah, ~LHP Debater, Attended TOC 2018 and TOC 2019, Broke at TOC 2019, 5 on AP Stats, Computer Science Major, Experience with side bias stats~ February 13, 2020, "A Statistical Analysis of Side-Bias on the 2020 January-February Lincoln Douglas Debate Topic by Sachin Shah" http://nsdupdate.com/2020/a-statistical-analysis-of-side-bias-on-the-2020-january-february-lincoln-douglas-debate-topic-by-sachin-shah/?fbclid=IwAR2P0AZqQtSiwMZlCpia-Fy1zFOdHn6JrGtcYgGulqeimd-V0a1xbaIMYYs LHP AV AND -February topic. So, once again, don’t lose the flip! | 2/19/22 |
JF22 - AC - Fully Automated Luxury Space Communism v4Tournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: Acton-Boxborough SP | Judge: Jharick Shields 1AC R3 vs. Acton Boxborough SP1acPart 1 – The Future of CapitalismSpace and asteroid mining opens up the possibility of a utopian world of luxury in which scarcity and capitalist exploitation no longer exists, but capitalists manually create scarcity through rationing by claiming space to keep their power – BASTANI 19Bastani, A. (2019). Fully automated luxury communism. Verso Books. AND on Earth while maintaining price stability and guaranteeing huge profits for mining companies. Thus, I affirm the resolution, resolved: The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust. I don’t necessarily defend the implementation or fiat of a specific action, but rather the affirmative claims the only just form of appropriation is one done through FALC. However, if you want me to The aff will fiat the enforcement of the Outer Space Treaty through the mechanism of the Madrid Protocol, making space socialized and orienting us under a unified horizon towards space communism - Bastani 2:Bastani, A. (2019). ~British journalist and writer. He co-founded the left-wing media organisation Novara Media in 2011, and has hosted and co-hosted many of its podcasts and videos, Bastani has also written for The Guardian, London Review of Books, openDemocracy and Vice, and is known for his Twitter activity., t the Royal Holloway, University of London, Bastani completed a PhD.~ Fully automated luxury communism. Verso Books. AND is that scarcity will always exist. Except now we know it won’t. We are on the brink of a post-scarcity world for the rich, where they will no longer need us for their luxuries. If dictated by the capitalist regime through private appropriation, a post-scarcity world would mean the extermination of the working-class, FRASE 16Frase, P. (2016). Four futures: Life after capitalism. Verso books LHP HL + LHP AB AND to wall off the rich from what are deemed to be surplus populations. Part 2 – Apocalypse NowTechnology and infinite supply will either save the collective or kill it. Only FALC can solve international crises through utilizing space’s abundant resources to support the Earth, not destroy it, BASTANI 3:Bastani, A. (2019). Fully automated luxury communism. Verso Books. AND . The binding decisions on all of us that we collectively choose to make Capitalism is a death cult and the apocalypse is already happening. Without an unshakable commitment to the total and complete rejection of the fetishization of capitalist value, we will all die like the dinosaurs, Allinson 21Allinson, J. (2021). The tragedy of the worker: towards the proletarocene. Verso Books. pg 8-17 AND of ‘adaptation’ has become the ideology of capitalism’s triumph over all life. With the abundance of outer space and new technologies, it is possible achieve a new communism characterized by international luxury. Only a communist, populous politics that deviates from traditional capitalist usage of technology and resources can solve capitalism while ensuring green living. BASTANI 4:Bastani, A. (2019). Fully automated luxury communism. Verso Books. AND and the state, won’t rest in ensuring FALC never comes to pass. Part 3 – Luxury PopulismAnti-capitalism must learn to compete with capitalism in the realm of desire, taking existing capitalist structures like the state and repurposing them to create Marxist possibility. Thus, we must transform our libidinal desires and direction of thought against capitalism – the aff does this through a unified horizon towards FALC – Heron:Heron, Kai. "Journal of the Marxist Literary Group." Mediations, https://mediationsjournal.org/articles/still-a-world. LHP PS AND might outlast neoliberalism by compromising with precisely such social-democratic projects.26 The role of the ballot is fidelity to the truth – unified dedication to a shared horizon is liberatory – the affirmative’s horizon is FALC, Dean 19:Dean, Jodi. Comrade: An essay on political belonging. Verso, 2019. LHP BT + LHP PS AND that comrade relations produce. It concentrates comradeship even as comradeship exceeds it. And, space optimism is key to resisting capitalism – it goes against dominant capitalist narratives and enables a unified social movement against capitalism, Levin 21,Annie Levin, 16 Aug 2021, https://christiansocialism.com/space-travel-capitalism-communism-fully-automated-luxury-dsa/ LHP AB AND space, but not until we fulfill our destiny right here on Earth. Underview1~ 1ar theory paradigm – A~ the aff gets it – otherwise the neg can engage in infinite abuse, making debate impossible B~ drop the debater on aff theory because the 1ar is too short to win theory and substance C~ no RVIs – the 2nr has enough time and the 2ar needs strategic flexibility D~ competing interps – 1ar interps aren’t bidirectional and reasonability incentivizes brute force defensive dumps2~ 1ar theory first –A~ Strat skew – short 2AR means I need to collapse to one layer to counter the long 2N collapse B~ Epistemic Indict – if the 1N was abusive then my ability to respond was skewed so you can’t truly evaluate the 1nc3~ Yes aff rvi – a~ time skew – 4 minute 1ar has to hedge against a 7 minute 1nc and counter a long 6 minute 2n collapse, no rvi make the 1ar virtually impossible and structurally behind on the debate which means we need rvi to be able to collapse to something in the 2ar and win4~ Presumption and permissibility affirm – A~ statements are true till false – if I said my name was Prateek, you would believe me absent evidence to the contrary B~ we shouldn’t need proactive justification for things – that means we couldn’t do things like drink water C~ affirming is harder – the 1ar has to answer 7 minutes of offense and hedge against a 6 minute 2nr collapse and empirics, Shah 2-13:Sachin Shah, ~LHP Debater, Attended TOC 2018 and TOC 2019, Broke at TOC 2019, 5 on AP Stats, Computer Science Major, Experience with side bias stats~ February 13, 2020, "A Statistical Analysis of Side-Bias on the 2020 January-February Lincoln Douglas Debate Topic by Sachin Shah" http://nsdupdate.com/2020/a-statistical-analysis-of-side-bias-on-the-2020-january-february-lincoln-douglas-debate-topic-by-sachin-shah/?fbclid=IwAR2P0AZqQtSiwMZlCpia-Fy1zFOdHn6JrGtcYgGulqeimd-V0a1xbaIMYYs LHP AV AND -February topic. So, once again, don’t lose the flip! | 2/19/22 |
JF22 - AC - Fully Automated Luxury Space Communism v5Tournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: 5 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit RC | Judge: Sarah Botsch-McGuinn Part 1 – The Future of CapitalismSpace and asteroid mining opens up the possibility of a utopian world of luxury in which scarcity and capitalist exploitation no longer exists, but capitalists manually create scarcity through rationing by claiming space to keep their power – BASTANI 19Bastani, A. (2019). Fully automated luxury communism. Verso Books. AND on Earth while maintaining price stability and guaranteeing huge profits for mining companies. Thus, I affirm the resolution, resolved: The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust. I don’t necessarily defend the implementation or fiat of a specific action, but rather the affirmative claims the only just form of appropriation is one done for the purpose of FALC. However, if you want me to The aff will fiat the enforcement of the Outer Space Treaty through the mechanism of the Madrid Protocol, making space socialized and orienting us under a unified horizon towards space communism - Bastani 2:Bastani, A. (2019). ~British journalist and writer. He co-founded the left-wing media organisation Novara Media in 2011, and has hosted and co-hosted many of its podcasts and videos, Bastani has also written for The Guardian, London Review of Books, openDemocracy and Vice, and is known for his Twitter activity., t the Royal Holloway, University of London, Bastani completed a PhD.~ Fully automated luxury communism. Verso Books. AND is that scarcity will always exist. Except now we know it won’t. We are on the brink of a post-scarcity world for the rich, where they will no longer need us for their luxuries. If dictated by the capitalist regime through private appropriation, a post-scarcity world would mean the extermination of the working-class, FRASE 16Frase, P. (2016). Four futures: Life after capitalism. Verso books LHP HL + LHP AB AND to wall off the rich from what are deemed to be surplus populations. Part 2 – Apocalypse NowTechnology and infinite supply will either save the collective or kill it. Only FALC can solve international crises through utilizing space’s abundant resources to support the Earth, not destroy it, BASTANI 3:Bastani, A. (2019). Fully automated luxury communism. Verso Books. AND . The binding decisions on all of us that we collectively choose to make Capitalism is a death cult and the apocalypse is already happening. Without an unshakable commitment to the total and complete rejection of the fetishization of capitalist value, we will all die like the dinosaurs, Allinson 21Allinson, J. (2021). The tragedy of the worker: towards the proletarocene. Verso Books. pg 8-17 AND of ‘adaptation’ has become the ideology of capitalism’s triumph over all life. With the abundance of outer space and new technologies, it is possible achieve a new communism characterized by international luxury. Only a communist, populous politics that deviates from traditional capitalist usage of technology and resources can solve capitalism while ensuring green living. BASTANI 4:Bastani, A. (2019). Fully automated luxury communism. Verso Books. AND and the state, won’t rest in ensuring FALC never comes to pass. Part 3 – Luxury PopulismAnti-capitalism must learn to compete with capitalism in the realm of desire, taking existing capitalist structures like the state and repurposing them to create Marxist possibility. Thus, we must transform our libidinal desires and direction of thought against capitalism – the aff does this through a unified horizon towards FALC – Heron:Heron, Kai. "Journal of the Marxist Literary Group." Mediations, https://mediationsjournal.org/articles/still-a-world. LHP PS AND might outlast neoliberalism by compromising with precisely such social-democratic projects.26 The role of the ballot is fidelity to the truth – unified dedication to a shared horizon is liberatory – the affirmative’s horizon is FALC, Dean 19:Dean, Jodi. Comrade: An essay on political belonging. Verso, 2019. LHP BT + LHP PS AND that comrade relations produce. It concentrates comradeship even as comradeship exceeds it. And, space optimism is key to resisting capitalism – it goes against dominant capitalist narratives and enables a unified social movement against capitalism, Levin 21,Annie Levin, 16 Aug 2021, https://christiansocialism.com/space-travel-capitalism-communism-fully-automated-luxury-dsa/ LHP AB AND space, but not until we fulfill our destiny right here on Earth. Underview1~ 1ar theory paradigm – A~ the aff gets it – otherwise the neg can engage in infinite abuse, making debate impossible B~ drop the debater on aff theory because the 1ar is too short to win theory and substance C~ no RVIs – the 2nr has enough time and the 2ar needs strategic flexibility D~ competing interps – 1ar interps aren’t bidirectional and reasonability incentivizes brute force defensive dumps2~ 1ar theory first –A~ Strat skew – short 2AR means I need to collapse to one layer to counter the long 2N collapse B~ Epistemic Indict – if the 1N was abusive then my ability to respond was skewed so you can’t truly evaluate the 1nc3~ Yes aff rvi – a~ time skew – 4 minute 1ar has to hedge against a 7 minute 1nc and counter a long 6 minute 2n collapse, no rvi make the 1ar virtually impossible and structurally behind on the debate which means we need rvi to be able to collapse to something in the 2ar and win4~ Presumption and permissibility affirm – A~ statements are true till false – if I said my name was Prateek, you would believe me absent evidence to the contrary B~ we shouldn’t need proactive justification for things – that means we couldn’t do things like drink water C~ affirming is harder – the 1ar has to answer 7 minutes of offense and hedge against a 6 minute 2nr collapse and empirics, Shah 2-13:Sachin Shah, ~LHP Debater, Attended TOC 2018 and TOC 2019, Broke at TOC 2019, 5 on AP Stats, Computer Science Major, Experience with side bias stats~ February 13, 2020, "A Statistical Analysis of Side-Bias on the 2020 January-February Lincoln Douglas Debate Topic by Sachin Shah" http://nsdupdate.com/2020/a-statistical-analysis-of-side-bias-on-the-2020-january-february-lincoln-douglas-debate-topic-by-sachin-shah/?fbclid=IwAR2P0AZqQtSiwMZlCpia-Fy1zFOdHn6JrGtcYgGulqeimd-V0a1xbaIMYYs LHP AV AND -February topic. So, once again, don’t lose the flip! | 2/20/22 |
JF22 - AC - HegelTournament: Tournament of Champions | Round: 6 | Opponent: Harker RM | Judge: Issac Chao 1acFrameworkOnly constructing ethics from our rational agency can explain the sources of normativity –A~ Bindingness – Any obligation must not only tell us what is good, but why we ought to be good or else agents can reject the value of goodness itself. That means ethics must start with what is constitutive of agents since it traces obligations to features that are intrinsic to being an agent – as an agent you must follow certain rules. Only practical agency is constitutive since agents can use rationality to decide against other values but the act of deciding to reject practical agency engages in it.B~ Action theory – every moral analysis requires an action to evaluate, but actions are infinitely divisible into smaller meaningless movements. The act of stealing can be reduced to going to a house, entering, grabbing things, and leaving, all of which are distinct actions without moral value. Only the practical decision to steal ties these actions together to give them any moral value.However, human beings as subjects are rational but also sensible. While rationality decides, sensibility provides the choices between which rationality can choose from, making it intrinsic to agency as well – Gobsch 14Wolfram Gobsch, The Idea of an Ethical Community: Kant and Hegel on the Necessity of Human Evil and the Love to Overcome It, 2014, LHP AM RECUT LHP YA AND its sensible nature: the individuality and finitude that make it an animal. That justifies a system of mutual recognition. Reason and freedom must exist in practice rather than only theory, or it cannot be stated that the subject is free. Freedom must be noumenal or uncaused by the laws of nature, but humans are phenomenal and subject to these laws and external interference meaning ensuring abstract rights materially is necessary for freedom. Since we are phenomenal and unavoidably change through life, our perception of the world is constantly in flux meaning there is no absolute truth for what rights we create, but they can only be recognized through intersubjectivity. Schroeder 05:Schroeder, Jeanne L. "Unnatural rights: Hegel and intellectual property." U. Miami L. Rev. 60 (2005): 453. https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1338andcontext=umlr AND ), they are a means by which man distinguishes himself from nature. 130 Thus, the standard is consistency with materializing abstract right.Impact calc –1~ abstract right is materialized in the community in the legal order – undermining the system through which we manifest our rights violates our freedom as subjects and outweighs. Buchwalter,Buchwalter, Andrew. "Hegel, Human Rights, and Political Membership." https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/hegel-bulletin/article/hegel-human-rights-and-political-membership1/6ED29436EACF9259E8B500E118E8DD88?scrlybrkr=2c739d6f AND by themselves and others, as subjects possessing rights (and corresponding duties) 2~ Consequences fail –A~ Aggregation fails – there is no one for whom aggregate good is good-for. Korsgaard:Christine Korsgaard, "The Origin of the Good and Our Animal Nature" Harvard, n.d. RE https://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~~korsgaar/CMK.MA1.pdf AND , is better captured by the third theory I am about to describe. B~ Actors can only be culpable for their rational decision, not the outcomes. Anything else means actors have no control over the morality of decisions meaning it is impossible for them to be obligated to act.C~ Consequences are infinite – I could save someone that turns out to be a mass murdered – unpredictability means they are not a stable basis for ethics which freezes action since agents never know what action to takePrefer –1~ Otherization: Only systems of recognition acknowledge the unique moral perspective of each agent—other theories are epistemologically incoherent because they can’t account for moral interactions and different moral motivations.Haase 14 ~Matthias Haase, (University of Chicago) "Am I You?" Philosophical Explorations 17 (3):358-371, 2014, https://philpapers.org/rec/HAA-6, DOA:2-28-2019 WWBW~ AND am not claiming rights against myself. That is for you to do. 2~ Pragmatism: Language is entirely self-referential—one cannot look to something outside of language to determine what words mean because that process would inevitably be mediated by language. This requires a pragmatic account of truth in which the meaning of words change according to their usage.Brandom 99 ~Robert B. Brandom, (University of Pittsburgh) "Some Pragmatist Themes In Hegel's Idealism: Negotiation And Administration In Hegel's Account Of The Structure And Content Of Conceptual Norms" European Journal Of Philosophy 7 (2):164–189, 1999, https://philpapers.org/rec/BRASPT, DOA:2-28-2019 WWBW~ AND is all that could settle – the meanings of the expressions used.11 3~ Through mutual recognition in spite of differences, we can rupture systems of power – the Haitian slave revolt proves, Buck-Morss 05:Susan Buck-Morss, March 1, 2005, "Hegel, Haiti, and Universal History" https://muse.jhu.edu/book/3727 LHP AV AND threat of culture’s betrayal that consciousness of a common humanity comes to be. ContentionMerriam-Webster defines Outer Space as:https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/outer20space LHP PS I affirm the resolution. Resolved: The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust. I’ll defend implementation if you wish, but it’s not relevant to the aff framework.1~ A legitimate claim of sovereignty on part of a private entities requires recognition by a nation that licenses the private entity, which would constitute illegal appropriation.TIMOTHY JUSTIN TRAPP, JD Candidate @ UIUC Law, ’13, TAKING UP SPACE BY ANY OTHER MEANS: COMING TO TERMS WITH THE NONAPPROPRIATION ARTICLE OF THE OUTER SPACE TREATY UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LAW REVIEW ~Vol. 2013 No. 4~ https://www.illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2013/4/Trapp.pdf AND be allowed to license a private entity to appropriate property in space.160 2~ For a property claim to be legitimate, it requires a common will – private appropriation is unjust, Chitty 13:Chitty, Andrew (2013) Recognition and property in Hegel and the early Marx. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 16 (4). pp. 685-697. ISSN 1386-2820 https://www.jstor.org/stable/24478775 LHP AV AND person others must recognise as ‘mine’ what I claim as ‘mine’. 3~ Making claims to things in space which are external to the scope of the ethical community falls prey to the absolute injustice of the state of nature protected against by the community making it definitionally unjust. Stilz 09:Stilz 1 (Anna Stilz, Anna Stilz is Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Politics and the University Center for Human Values. Her research focuses on questions of political membership, authority and political obligation, nationalism and self-determination, rights to land and territory, and collective agency. , 2009, accessed on 12-18-2021, Muse.jhu, "Project MUSE - Liberal Loyalty", https://muse.jhu.edu/book/30179)//phs st AND , both our rights over our bodies and our rights over external things. Theory1~ 1ar theory –A~ the aff gets it – otherwise the neg can engage in infinite abuse, making debate impossibleB~ drop the debater because the 1ar is too short to win theory and substanceC~ no RVIs – the 2nr has enough time and the 2ar needs strategic flexibility2~ Presumption affirms –A~ we presume statements true – if I said my name was Arjun, you would believe me absent evidence to the contraryB~ affirming is harder – the 1ar has to answer 7 minutes of offense and hedge against a 6 minute 2nr collapse and empirics, Shah 21,~Sachin Shah "A Statistical Analysis of the Impact of the Transition to Online Tournaments in Lincoln-Douglas Debate by Sachin Shah." January 29, 2021, http://nsdupdate.com/2021/a-statistical-analysis-of-the-impact-of-the-transition-to-online-tournaments-in-lincoln-douglas-debate-by-sachin-shah/~~ AND be structural and not topic specific as this analysis now includes 18 topics. 3~ Permissibility affirms – unjust means not morally right which includes permissibility, Cambridge:Cambridge Dictionary, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/unjust MethodThe state is not a monolith, but rather an institution of the collective that’s essential to revolutionary transformation and collective ethical consciousness – Hegelian reimagination of the state key, Hamza 21:Slavoj Zizek is Professor at the Institute of Sociology, Ljubljana, Slovenia. Frank Ruda is Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Dundee and Professor at the European Graduate School. Agon Hamza is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at ISSHS, Skopje. "Reading Hegel" pp. 192-200, November 30, 2021 LHP AV AND remains hidden beneath the national and commu- nal borders of national territories. | 4/24/22 |
JF22 - AC - International Law v11Tournament: FFL Qualifier - Region 2 | Round: 2 | Opponent: 1 Mihir Kelkar | Judge: 7 Elle Manino 1ACFrameworkI affirm the resolution. Resolved: The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust.Because this resolution is complex, I’d like to offer the following definition for clarification:"Appropriation of outer space" by private entities refers to the exercise of exclusive control of space. In other words, it is a claim of either property or sovereignty. Lawyer Trapp writes in 2013.TIMOTHY JUSTIN TRAPP, JD Candidate @ UIUC Law, ’13, TAKING UP SPACE BY ANY OTHER MEANS: COMING TO TERMS WITH THE NONAPPROPRIATION ARTICLE OF THE OUTER SPACE TREATY UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LAW REVIEW ~Vol. 2013 No. 4~ AND the Bogotá Declaration were trying to accomplish, albeit through different means.219 Thus, this resolution is questioning whether private entities claiming property in space is just or unjust.Therefore, I value justice, defined as giving each their social due. Morality, by itself, is individual; justice acknowledges that some moral goods must give way for the sake of other goods. Justice is therefore required to assess morality and the resolution. Unjust is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as:Black’s Law ~The Law Dictionary Featuring Black's Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed. No Date. https://thelawdictionary.org/unjust/~~ brett Therefore, the resolution demands an analysis of whether private appropriation of outer space is in line with the law. Accordingly, my value criterion is consistency with the rule of law.In addition to the above reasoning, I have two separate arguments in favor of my criterion:First, society ought to respect the rule of law because the social contract requires it. The basis of organized societies is that people give up the freedoms to commit heinous acts so that they might themselves be free of those heinous acts from others. Disregarding the rule of law disrespects both sides of the social covenant – citizens fail their end of the bargain by undertaking prohibited actions, and governments fail their end by permitting an illicit social situation. The rule of law, therefore, is the glue that keeps the social contract together at both ends.Second, the law is a prerequisite to justice: if laws are serially avoided in society, or treated as if they do not exist, society breaks down completely and justice is impossible.Contention 1 is International LawArticle 2 of The Outer Space Treaty of 1967, currently known as the Space Constitution, declares that outer space should be considered as res communis omnium, which means a province for free exploration, explicitly not subject to national appropriation. As the Co-Director of the Institute of Space Law and Strategy and Adjunct Professor of Comparative National Space law at the University of Mississippi, Fabio Tronchetti in 2007 explains:Tronchetti, Fabio. ~Dr. Fabio Tronchetti works as a Co-Director of the Institute of Space Law and Strategy and as a Zhuoyue Associate Professor at Beihang University, Beijing (China). He also holds the position of Adjunct Professor of Comparative National Space Law at the School of Law of the University of Mississippi (United States).~ "The Non-Appropriation Principle under Attack: Using Article II of the Outer Space Treaty in its Defence." International Institute of Space Law 50 (2007): 10. LHP PS AND or modification thereof should only be carried out by all States acting collectively. That outweighs for two main reasons:First, to build upon my main point, Article 6 of the same treaty indicates that private entities are allowed to explore and carry out missions in outer-space only if the state or country they belong to allows them to. Thus, in order for private entities to be legally allowed to appropriate outer-space, their respective state would need to authorize said action, which is impossible if the state is not allowed to appropriate themselves. As Fabio Tronchetti in 2007 continues:Tronchetti, Fabio. "The Non-Appropriation Principle under Attack: Using Article II of the Outer Space Treaty in its Defence." International Institute of Space Law 50 (2007): 10. LHP PS AND fact that this issue was considered to be settled during the negotiation phase. Secondly, this non-appropriation principle has allowed the peaceful exploration of space. Violating this principle would result in international conflict, rivalries, and tensions. As Fabio Tronchetti in 2007 continues:Tronchetti, Fabio. "The Non-Appropriation Principle under Attack: Using Article II of the Outer Space Treaty in its Defence." International Institute of Space Law 50 (2007): 10. LHP PS AND mentioned theories proposing its abolition or its non-relevance must be rejected. It's about more than just following the law too, an unwavering commitment to international law is vital to peace and avoiding major conflict. The Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy explains,~Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy. Rule of Power or Rule of Law? An Assessment of U.S. Policies and Actions Regarding Security-Related Treaties. May 2002. http://www.ieer.org/reports/treaties/execsumm.pdf~~ LHPSS AND has followed the U.S. example and opted out of compliance. Contention 2 is Property LawPrivate entities attempting to claim or appropriate things in outer space violates property laws in two ways. First, private entities arbitrarily assert their claims to property not owned by them as superior or prior to others, which is in direct contradiction to current property laws. Second, space is unique in that it is external to a government capable of enforcing property laws. By asserting claims about property where laws are not enforced, the entire purpose of property law is undermined because governments are not able to protect peoples’ property. Anna Stilz, professor of politics, explains,Stilz 1 (Anna Stilz, Anna Stilz is Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Politics and the University Center for Human Values. Her research focuses on questions of political membership, authority and political obligation, nationalism and self-determination, rights to land and territory, and collective agency. , 2009, accessed on 12-18-2021, Muse.jhu, "Project MUSE - Liberal Loyalty", https://muse.jhu.edu/book/30179)//phs st AND , both our rights over our bodies and our rights over external things. | 2/7/22 |
JF22 - AC - International Law v12Tournament: FFL Qualifier - Region 2 | Round: 4 | Opponent: 5 lucas Niemas | Judge: 1 Rick Ramnath 1ACFrameworkI affirm the resolution. Resolved: The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust.Because this resolution is complex, I’d like to offer the following definition for clarification:"Appropriation of outer space" by private entities refers to the exercise of exclusive control of space. In other words, it is a claim of either property or sovereignty. Lawyer Trapp writes in 2013.TIMOTHY JUSTIN TRAPP, JD Candidate @ UIUC Law, ’13, TAKING UP SPACE BY ANY OTHER MEANS: COMING TO TERMS WITH THE NONAPPROPRIATION ARTICLE OF THE OUTER SPACE TREATY UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LAW REVIEW ~Vol. 2013 No. 4~ AND the Bogotá Declaration were trying to accomplish, albeit through different means.219 Thus, this resolution is questioning whether private entities claiming property in space is just or unjust.Therefore, I value justice, defined as giving each their social due. Morality, by itself, is individual; justice acknowledges that some moral goods must give way for the sake of other goods. Justice is therefore required to assess morality and the resolution. Unjust is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as:Black’s Law ~The Law Dictionary Featuring Black's Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed. No Date. https://thelawdictionary.org/unjust/~~ brett Therefore, the resolution demands an analysis of whether private appropriation of outer space is in line with the law. Accordingly, my value criterion is consistency with the rule of law.In addition to the above reasoning, I have two separate arguments in favor of my criterion:First, society ought to respect the rule of law because the social contract requires it. The basis of organized societies is that people give up the freedoms to commit heinous acts so that they might themselves be free of those heinous acts from others. Disregarding the rule of law disrespects both sides of the social covenant – citizens fail their end of the bargain by undertaking prohibited actions, and governments fail their end by permitting an illicit social situation. The rule of law, therefore, is the glue that keeps the social contract together at both ends.Second, the law is a prerequisite to justice: if laws are serially avoided in society, or treated as if they do not exist, society breaks down completely and justice is impossible.Contention 1 is International LawArticle 2 of The Outer Space Treaty of 1967, currently known as the Space Constitution, declares that outer space should be considered as res communis omnium, which means a province for free exploration, explicitly not subject to national appropriation. As the Co-Director of the Institute of Space Law and Strategy and Adjunct Professor of Comparative National Space law at the University of Mississippi, Fabio Tronchetti in 2007 explains:Tronchetti, Fabio. ~Dr. Fabio Tronchetti works as a Co-Director of the Institute of Space Law and Strategy and as a Zhuoyue Associate Professor at Beihang University, Beijing (China). He also holds the position of Adjunct Professor of Comparative National Space Law at the School of Law of the University of Mississippi (United States).~ "The Non-Appropriation Principle under Attack: Using Article II of the Outer Space Treaty in its Defence." International Institute of Space Law 50 (2007): 10. LHP PS AND or modification thereof should only be carried out by all States acting collectively. That outweighs for two main reasons:First, to build upon my main point, Article 6 of the same treaty indicates that private entities are allowed to explore and carry out missions in outer-space only if the state or country they belong to allows them to. Thus, in order for private entities to be legally allowed to appropriate outer-space, their respective state would need to authorize said action, which is impossible if the state is not allowed to appropriate themselves. As Fabio Tronchetti in 2007 continues:Tronchetti, Fabio. "The Non-Appropriation Principle under Attack: Using Article II of the Outer Space Treaty in its Defence." International Institute of Space Law 50 (2007): 10. LHP PS AND fact that this issue was considered to be settled during the negotiation phase. Secondly, this non-appropriation principle has allowed the peaceful exploration of space. Violating this principle would result in international conflict, rivalries, and tensions. As Fabio Tronchetti in 2007 continues:Tronchetti, Fabio. "The Non-Appropriation Principle under Attack: Using Article II of the Outer Space Treaty in its Defence." International Institute of Space Law 50 (2007): 10. LHP PS AND mentioned theories proposing its abolition or its non-relevance must be rejected. It's about more than just following the law too, an unwavering commitment to international law is vital to peace and avoiding major conflict. The Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy explains,~Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy. Rule of Power or Rule of Law? An Assessment of U.S. Policies and Actions Regarding Security-Related Treaties. May 2002. http://www.ieer.org/reports/treaties/execsumm.pdf~~ LHPSS AND has followed the U.S. example and opted out of compliance. Contention 2 is Property LawPrivate entities attempting to claim or appropriate things in outer space violates property laws in two ways. First, private entities arbitrarily assert their claims to property not owned by them as superior or prior to others, which is in direct contradiction to current property laws. Second, space is unique in that it is external to a government capable of enforcing property laws. By asserting claims about property where laws are not enforced, the entire purpose of property law is undermined because governments are not able to protect peoples’ property. Anna Stilz, professor of politics, explains,Stilz 1 (Anna Stilz, Anna Stilz is Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Politics and the University Center for Human Values. Her research focuses on questions of political membership, authority and political obligation, nationalism and self-determination, rights to land and territory, and collective agency. , 2009, accessed on 12-18-2021, Muse.jhu, "Project MUSE - Liberal Loyalty", https://muse.jhu.edu/book/30179)//phs st AND , both our rights over our bodies and our rights over external things. | 2/7/22 |
JF22 - AC - International Law v13Tournament: FFL Qualifier - Region 2 | Round: 5 | Opponent: 7 Amare Holmes | Judge: 3 Karla Guanilo 1ACFrameworkI affirm the resolution. Resolved: The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust.Because this resolution is complex, I’d like to offer the following definition for clarification:"Appropriation of outer space" by private entities refers to the exercise of exclusive control of space. In other words, it is a claim of either property or sovereignty. Lawyer Trapp writes in 2013.TIMOTHY JUSTIN TRAPP, JD Candidate @ UIUC Law, ’13, TAKING UP SPACE BY ANY OTHER MEANS: COMING TO TERMS WITH THE NONAPPROPRIATION ARTICLE OF THE OUTER SPACE TREATY UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LAW REVIEW ~Vol. 2013 No. 4~ AND the Bogotá Declaration were trying to accomplish, albeit through different means.219 Thus, this resolution is questioning whether private entities claiming property in space is just or unjust.Therefore, I value justice, defined as giving each their social due. Morality, by itself, is individual; justice acknowledges that some moral goods must give way for the sake of other goods. Justice is therefore required to assess morality and the resolution. Unjust is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as:Black’s Law ~The Law Dictionary Featuring Black's Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed. No Date. https://thelawdictionary.org/unjust/~~ brett Therefore, the resolution demands an analysis of whether private appropriation of outer space is in line with the law. Accordingly, my value criterion is consistency with the rule of law.In addition to the above reasoning, I have two separate arguments in favor of my criterion:First, society ought to respect the rule of law because the social contract requires it. The basis of organized societies is that people give up the freedoms to commit heinous acts so that they might themselves be free of those heinous acts from others. Disregarding the rule of law disrespects both sides of the social covenant – citizens fail their end of the bargain by undertaking prohibited actions, and governments fail their end by permitting an illicit social situation. The rule of law, therefore, is the glue that keeps the social contract together at both ends.Second, the law is a prerequisite to justice: if laws are serially avoided in society, or treated as if they do not exist, society breaks down completely and justice is impossible.Contention 1 is International LawArticle 2 of The Outer Space Treaty of 1967, currently known as the Space Constitution, declares that outer space should be considered as res communis omnium, which means a province for free exploration, explicitly not subject to national appropriation. As the Co-Director of the Institute of Space Law and Strategy and Adjunct Professor of Comparative National Space law at the University of Mississippi, Fabio Tronchetti in 2007 explains:Tronchetti, Fabio. ~Dr. Fabio Tronchetti works as a Co-Director of the Institute of Space Law and Strategy and as a Zhuoyue Associate Professor at Beihang University, Beijing (China). He also holds the position of Adjunct Professor of Comparative National Space Law at the School of Law of the University of Mississippi (United States).~ "The Non-Appropriation Principle under Attack: Using Article II of the Outer Space Treaty in its Defence." International Institute of Space Law 50 (2007): 10. LHP PS AND or modification thereof should only be carried out by all States acting collectively. That outweighs for two main reasons:First, to build upon my main point, Article 6 of the same treaty indicates that private entities are allowed to explore and carry out missions in outer-space only if the state or country they belong to allows them to. Thus, in order for private entities to be legally allowed to appropriate outer-space, their respective state would need to authorize said action, which is impossible if the state is not allowed to appropriate themselves. As Fabio Tronchetti in 2007 continues:Tronchetti, Fabio. "The Non-Appropriation Principle under Attack: Using Article II of the Outer Space Treaty in its Defence." International Institute of Space Law 50 (2007): 10. LHP PS AND fact that this issue was considered to be settled during the negotiation phase. Secondly, this non-appropriation principle has allowed the peaceful exploration of space. Violating this principle would result in international conflict, rivalries, and tensions. As Fabio Tronchetti in 2007 continues:Tronchetti, Fabio. "The Non-Appropriation Principle under Attack: Using Article II of the Outer Space Treaty in its Defence." International Institute of Space Law 50 (2007): 10. LHP PS AND mentioned theories proposing its abolition or its non-relevance must be rejected. It's about more than just following the law too, an unwavering commitment to international law is vital to peace and avoiding major conflict. The Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy explains,~Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy. Rule of Power or Rule of Law? An Assessment of U.S. Policies and Actions Regarding Security-Related Treaties. May 2002. http://www.ieer.org/reports/treaties/execsumm.pdf~~ LHPSS AND has followed the U.S. example and opted out of compliance. Contention 2 is Property LawPrivate entities attempting to claim or appropriate things in outer space violates property laws in two ways. First, private entities arbitrarily assert their claims to property not owned by them as superior or prior to others, which is in direct contradiction to current property laws. Second, space is unique in that it is external to a government capable of enforcing property laws. By asserting claims about property where laws are not enforced, the entire purpose of property law is undermined because governments are not able to protect peoples’ property. Anna Stilz, professor of politics, explains,Stilz 1 (Anna Stilz, Anna Stilz is Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Politics and the University Center for Human Values. Her research focuses on questions of political membership, authority and political obligation, nationalism and self-determination, rights to land and territory, and collective agency. , 2009, accessed on 12-18-2021, Muse.jhu, "Project MUSE - Liberal Loyalty", https://muse.jhu.edu/book/30179)//phs st AND , both our rights over our bodies and our rights over external things. | 2/7/22 |
JF22 - AC - Planetoid BombsTournament: Tournament of Champions | Round: 4 | Opponent: Stockdale RP | Judge: Jack Quisenberry 1ACAdvantageThe advantage is planetoid bombs -Asteroid mining is coming now, but still needs better tech – Gilbert 21:Gilbert 21 Alex Gilbert, 4-26-2021, "Mining in Space Is Coming," Milken Institute Review, https://www.milkenreview.org/articles/mining-in-space-is-coming//SJJK AND , we’ll need new agreements to facilitate private investment and ensure international cooperation. However, mining efforts and development also require the development of technology to control asteroids orbital paths. This brings us into the new age of militarism against ourselves – planetoid bombs allowing the destruction of our planet and targeted use towards minorities – Deudney 20:Deudney, Daniel. Dark Skies: Space Expansionism, Planetary Geopolitics, and the ends of humanity. Oxford University Press. (2020). pg 250-253 LHP BT + LHP PS AND the vast reaches of the human space diaspora that he embraces so enthusiastically. Thus, the plan: I affirm: The appropriation of outer space for weapons by private entities is unjust via asteroidal weaponization. To clarify, the aff allows for asteroid mining, but says weaponizing asteroids is an unjust form of appropriation. I don’t defend implementation but if you want to me I can, and ill clarify all questions about the violations for your shells. Planetoid bombs are the worst WMD and allow for the destruction of the planet – Deudney 2:Deudney, Daniel. Dark Skies: Space Expansionism, Planetary Geopolitics, and the ends of humanity. Oxford University Press. (2020). pg 176- LHP BT + LHP PS AND , tornados, earthquakes, volcanoes, and tsunamis for military purposes.83 Asteroid mining can happen without captureMares 15 ~Miroslav Mares, Professor, at the Division of Security and Strategic Studies, Masaryk University, Czech Republic. Jakub Drmola PhD student, at the Divison of Security and Strategic Studies, Masaryk University, Czech Republic. Revisiting the deflection dilemma. October 1, 2015. https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/56/5/5.15/235650~~ AND et al. 2012, Burchell 2014, Gates et al. 2015). Merriam-Webster defines Outer Space as:https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/outer20space LHP PS It’s actively confusing and bad for international law to conflate outer space and celestial bodies – our interpretation is the only topical one– Cheng 2k:Cheng, Bin. "Properly speaking, only celestial bodies have been reserved for use exclusively for peaceful (non-military) purposes, but not outer void space." International Law Studies 75.1 (2000): 21. LHP BT + LHP PS AND It has become nameless, causing a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding. Space terrorism is a legitimate threat with extensive historical precedentMiller 19 ~(Gregory, PhD, The Ohio State University, is an associate professor of Leadership Studies at the Air Command and Staff College at Maxwell AFB, Alabama.) "Space Pirates, Geosynchronous Guerrillas, and Nonterrestrial Terrorists" AIR and SPACE POWER JOURNAL, Fall 2019. https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/ASPJ/journals/Volume-33'Issue-3/F-Miller.pdf~~ BC AND valuable but also invite retaliation against the technology itself, or its operators. Outer space is terrorists’ most likely target – symbolism, investment, and media coverageMehmood and Ahmed 21 ~(Ashna Mehmood is a student of International Relations at National Defence University, Islamabad) (Shiza Ahmed is a student of International Relations at National Defence University, Islamabad.) "Terrorism in Space: A Possibility" A Journal of Strategic Studies, Summer 2021. http://journal.ciss.org.pk/index.php/ciss-insight/article/view/204~~ BC AND US, as it has significant dependency on satellites and space based assets. Motive existsMiller 2— (Gregory D. Miller, Gregory Miller is Chair of the Department of Spacepower and Director of the Schriever Scholars program at the Air Command and Staff College, Maxwell AFB, AL. His research interests include International Relations (especially alliances, reputation, and deterrence); terrorism; strategy; and space., Space Pirates, Geosynchronous Guerrillas, and Nonterrestrial Terrorists: Nonstate Threats in Space, 8-27-19, Available Online at https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/ASPJ/journals/Volume-33'Issue-3/F-Miller.pdf, accessed 3-25-2022, HKR-AR) AND a stretch to expect violence in opposition to using resources on space.22 Resources won’t be equitably distributed to solve scarcity, and benefits are impossible to predict.Matt Davis 09/28/2018 ~"Will asteroid mining be an outer-space gold rush?"~ ~DS~ ~https://bigthink.com/hard-science/economic-impact-of-asteroid-mining/~~ AND , it’ll be used to make rocket fuel for further asteroid mining ventures. Yes, it’s possible, the tech is on the rise, but not there yet – mining puts over the brink, and much more impactful than nukes, energy released from a small asteroid just entering the atmosphere rivals atomic bombs, but no radioactive fallout so no S.A.D. and higher probability of use. Err aff – physicists and astronomers agree – Santos 21:Santos, Raquel. "Yep, We Can Weaponize an Asteroid." The Debrief, 30 Nov. 2021, https://thedebrief.org/asteroid-weapon/. LHP PS AND hard to get them through the atmosphere intact and accurately hit a target." Cascades and extinction – Deudney 3:Deudney, Daniel. Dark Skies: Space Expansionism, Planetary Geopolitics, and the ends of humanity. Oxford University Press. (2020). LHP PS AND , enlarging the potential for the occur- rence of a catastrophic event. An asteroid collision would ensure extinction – would fundamentally alter the biosphere, don’t underestimate its risk – Hudson 19:Wesley Hudson ’19, news reporter for Express, "Asteroid alert: NASA warning as kilometre long space rock set to skim Earth at 25,000mph", 8/28/19, Express, https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1170826/asteroid-news-NASA-latest-space-rock-asteroid-1998-HL1-earth-danger-apocalypse LHP PS AND A big rock will hit Earth eventually and we currently have no defence." FrameworkThe meta-ethic is moral naturalism. Non-natural moral facts are epistemically inaccessiblePapineau 7 ~David, Academic philosopher. He works as Professor of Philosophy of Science at King's College London, having previously taught for several years at Cambridge University and been a fellow of Robinson College, Cambridge, "Naturalism". http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/~~ AND it is hard to see how we can have any knowledge of them. All experience is justified through an end result of increase in pleasure and decrease of pain – anything else regresses and collapses – Nagel 86:Nagel, Thomas (University Professor of Philosophy and Law Emeritus at New York University). "The View From Nowhere." 1986. AND fairly simple way; they are not backed up by any further reasons. Thus, the standard is maximizing expected well-being – it’s hedonistic act-util. To clarify, the standard is concerned with preventing death. Prefer:1~ Death is bad and o/wA~ It ontologically destroys the subject.Paterson 1 – Department of Philosophy, Providence College, Rhode Island. (Craig, "A Life Not Worth Living?", Studies in Christian Ethics, http://sce.sagepub.com) AND the person, the very source and condition of all human possibility.82 B~ You don’t get the choice to determine death for other people.Paterson 2 – Department of Philosophy, Providence College, Rhode Island. (Craig, "A Life Not Worth Living?", Studies in Christian Ethics, http://sce.sagepub.com) AND is essentially left up to the individual to determine for himself or herself. 2~ Extinction hijacks and side constrains the framework – it o/w and comes first -A~ Uncertainty – Pummer 15: AND be acting very wrongly." (From chapter 36 of On What Matters) B~ Forecloses future improvement – we can never improve society because our impact is irreversibleC~ Turns suffering – mass death causes suffering because people can’t get access to resources and basic necessitiesD~ Moral obligation – allowing people to die is unethical and should be prevented because it creates ethics towards other peopleE~ Objectivity – body count is the most objective way to calculate impacts because comparing suffering is unethicalF~ Lexicality – you need to be alive to act in their ethical theory3~ Theory –A~ Ground – Every impact can be linked to util but other ethics exclude most impacts. Ground key to fairness since you need arguments to win.B~ Topic Lit – Most articles are written through the lens of util since they’re written for policymakers and the general public to understand who take consequences to be important, not philosophy majors. Key to fairness and education since it’s a lens through which we engage the res.C~ Resolvability - Only consequences can explain degrees of wrongness, i.e. why it’s worse to break a promise to a dying friend than to skip meeting someone for lunch – either ethical theories cannot explain comparative badness, or it collapses4~ Use epistemic modesty for evaluating the framework debate – that’s multiplying the probability a framework is true by its relative offenseA~ Substantively true since high probability of winning your framework increases the odds that your impacts matters, but that probability is still dependent of the impacts. A 51 chance your framework is true still means there is a 49 chance my impacts matter – modesty produces the highest chance of moral actionsB~ Clash—disincentives debaters from going all in for framework which means we get the ideal balance between topic ed and phil ed5~ No act-omission distinction -MethodApocalyptic images challenge dominant power structures to create futures of social justiceJessica Hurley 17, Assistant Professor in the Humanities at the University of Chicago, "Impossible Futures: Fictions of Risk in the Longue Durée", Duke University Press, https://read.dukeupress.edu/american-literature/article/89/4/761/132823/Impossible-Futures-Fictions-of-Risk-in-the-Longue AND of the world. Just wait long enough. Stranger things will happen.¶ Youth participatory action research enables transformative resistance and is crucial to make activism workCammarota and Fine 08 AND means by which young people engage transformational resistance. (1-4) | 4/24/22 |
JF22 - AC - Planetoid BombsTournament: Tournament of Champions | Round: 4 | Opponent: Stockdale RP | Judge: Jack Quisenberry 1ACAdvantageThe advantage is planetoid bombs -Asteroid mining is coming now, but still needs better tech – Gilbert 21:Gilbert 21 Alex Gilbert, 4-26-2021, "Mining in Space Is Coming," Milken Institute Review, https://www.milkenreview.org/articles/mining-in-space-is-coming//SJJK AND , we’ll need new agreements to facilitate private investment and ensure international cooperation. However, mining efforts and development also require the development of technology to control asteroids orbital paths. This brings us into the new age of militarism against ourselves – planetoid bombs allowing the destruction of our planet and targeted use towards minorities – Deudney 20:Deudney, Daniel. Dark Skies: Space Expansionism, Planetary Geopolitics, and the ends of humanity. Oxford University Press. (2020). pg 250-253 LHP BT + LHP PS AND the vast reaches of the human space diaspora that he embraces so enthusiastically. Thus, the plan: I affirm: The appropriation of outer space for weapons by private entities is unjust via asteroidal weaponization. To clarify, the aff allows for asteroid mining, but says weaponizing asteroids is an unjust form of appropriation. I don’t defend implementation but if you want to me I can, and ill clarify all questions about the violations for your shells. Planetoid bombs are the worst WMD and allow for the destruction of the planet – Deudney 2:Deudney, Daniel. Dark Skies: Space Expansionism, Planetary Geopolitics, and the ends of humanity. Oxford University Press. (2020). pg 176- LHP BT + LHP PS AND , tornados, earthquakes, volcanoes, and tsunamis for military purposes.83 Asteroid mining can happen without captureMares 15 ~Miroslav Mares, Professor, at the Division of Security and Strategic Studies, Masaryk University, Czech Republic. Jakub Drmola PhD student, at the Divison of Security and Strategic Studies, Masaryk University, Czech Republic. Revisiting the deflection dilemma. October 1, 2015. https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/56/5/5.15/235650~~ AND et al. 2012, Burchell 2014, Gates et al. 2015). Merriam-Webster defines Outer Space as:https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/outer20space LHP PS It’s actively confusing and bad for international law to conflate outer space and celestial bodies – our interpretation is the only topical one– Cheng 2k:Cheng, Bin. "Properly speaking, only celestial bodies have been reserved for use exclusively for peaceful (non-military) purposes, but not outer void space." International Law Studies 75.1 (2000): 21. LHP BT + LHP PS AND It has become nameless, causing a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding. Space terrorism is a legitimate threat with extensive historical precedentMiller 19 ~(Gregory, PhD, The Ohio State University, is an associate professor of Leadership Studies at the Air Command and Staff College at Maxwell AFB, Alabama.) "Space Pirates, Geosynchronous Guerrillas, and Nonterrestrial Terrorists" AIR and SPACE POWER JOURNAL, Fall 2019. https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/ASPJ/journals/Volume-33'Issue-3/F-Miller.pdf~~ BC AND valuable but also invite retaliation against the technology itself, or its operators. Outer space is terrorists’ most likely target – symbolism, investment, and media coverageMehmood and Ahmed 21 ~(Ashna Mehmood is a student of International Relations at National Defence University, Islamabad) (Shiza Ahmed is a student of International Relations at National Defence University, Islamabad.) "Terrorism in Space: A Possibility" A Journal of Strategic Studies, Summer 2021. http://journal.ciss.org.pk/index.php/ciss-insight/article/view/204~~ BC AND US, as it has significant dependency on satellites and space based assets. Motive existsMiller 2— (Gregory D. Miller, Gregory Miller is Chair of the Department of Spacepower and Director of the Schriever Scholars program at the Air Command and Staff College, Maxwell AFB, AL. His research interests include International Relations (especially alliances, reputation, and deterrence); terrorism; strategy; and space., Space Pirates, Geosynchronous Guerrillas, and Nonterrestrial Terrorists: Nonstate Threats in Space, 8-27-19, Available Online at https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/ASPJ/journals/Volume-33'Issue-3/F-Miller.pdf, accessed 3-25-2022, HKR-AR) AND a stretch to expect violence in opposition to using resources on space.22 Resources won’t be equitably distributed to solve scarcity, and benefits are impossible to predict.Matt Davis 09/28/2018 ~"Will asteroid mining be an outer-space gold rush?"~ ~DS~ ~https://bigthink.com/hard-science/economic-impact-of-asteroid-mining/~~ AND , it’ll be used to make rocket fuel for further asteroid mining ventures. Yes, it’s possible, the tech is on the rise, but not there yet – mining puts over the brink, and much more impactful than nukes, energy released from a small asteroid just entering the atmosphere rivals atomic bombs, but no radioactive fallout so no S.A.D. and higher probability of use. Err aff – physicists and astronomers agree – Santos 21:Santos, Raquel. "Yep, We Can Weaponize an Asteroid." The Debrief, 30 Nov. 2021, https://thedebrief.org/asteroid-weapon/. LHP PS AND hard to get them through the atmosphere intact and accurately hit a target." Cascades and extinction – Deudney 3:Deudney, Daniel. Dark Skies: Space Expansionism, Planetary Geopolitics, and the ends of humanity. Oxford University Press. (2020). LHP PS AND , enlarging the potential for the occur- rence of a catastrophic event. An asteroid collision would ensure extinction – would fundamentally alter the biosphere, don’t underestimate its risk – Hudson 19:Wesley Hudson ’19, news reporter for Express, "Asteroid alert: NASA warning as kilometre long space rock set to skim Earth at 25,000mph", 8/28/19, Express, https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1170826/asteroid-news-NASA-latest-space-rock-asteroid-1998-HL1-earth-danger-apocalypse LHP PS AND A big rock will hit Earth eventually and we currently have no defence." FrameworkThe meta-ethic is moral naturalism. Non-natural moral facts are epistemically inaccessiblePapineau 7 ~David, Academic philosopher. He works as Professor of Philosophy of Science at King's College London, having previously taught for several years at Cambridge University and been a fellow of Robinson College, Cambridge, "Naturalism". http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/~~ AND it is hard to see how we can have any knowledge of them. All experience is justified through an end result of increase in pleasure and decrease of pain – anything else regresses and collapses – Nagel 86:Nagel, Thomas (University Professor of Philosophy and Law Emeritus at New York University). "The View From Nowhere." 1986. AND fairly simple way; they are not backed up by any further reasons. Thus, the standard is maximizing expected well-being – it’s hedonistic act-util. To clarify, the standard is concerned with preventing death. Prefer:1~ Death is bad and o/wA~ It ontologically destroys the subject.Paterson 1 – Department of Philosophy, Providence College, Rhode Island. (Craig, "A Life Not Worth Living?", Studies in Christian Ethics, http://sce.sagepub.com) AND the person, the very source and condition of all human possibility.82 B~ You don’t get the choice to determine death for other people.Paterson 2 – Department of Philosophy, Providence College, Rhode Island. (Craig, "A Life Not Worth Living?", Studies in Christian Ethics, http://sce.sagepub.com) AND is essentially left up to the individual to determine for himself or herself. 2~ Extinction hijacks and side constrains the framework – it o/w and comes first -A~ Uncertainty – Pummer 15: AND be acting very wrongly." (From chapter 36 of On What Matters) B~ Forecloses future improvement – we can never improve society because our impact is irreversibleC~ Turns suffering – mass death causes suffering because people can’t get access to resources and basic necessitiesD~ Moral obligation – allowing people to die is unethical and should be prevented because it creates ethics towards other peopleE~ Objectivity – body count is the most objective way to calculate impacts because comparing suffering is unethicalF~ Lexicality – you need to be alive to act in their ethical theory3~ Theory –A~ Ground – Every impact can be linked to util but other ethics exclude most impacts. Ground key to fairness since you need arguments to win.B~ Topic Lit – Most articles are written through the lens of util since they’re written for policymakers and the general public to understand who take consequences to be important, not philosophy majors. Key to fairness and education since it’s a lens through which we engage the res.C~ Resolvability - Only consequences can explain degrees of wrongness, i.e. why it’s worse to break a promise to a dying friend than to skip meeting someone for lunch – either ethical theories cannot explain comparative badness, or it collapses4~ Use epistemic modesty for evaluating the framework debate – that’s multiplying the probability a framework is true by its relative offenseA~ Substantively true since high probability of winning your framework increases the odds that your impacts matters, but that probability is still dependent of the impacts. A 51 chance your framework is true still means there is a 49 chance my impacts matter – modesty produces the highest chance of moral actionsB~ Clash—disincentives debaters from going all in for framework which means we get the ideal balance between topic ed and phil ed5~ No act-omission distinction -MethodApocalyptic images challenge dominant power structures to create futures of social justiceJessica Hurley 17, Assistant Professor in the Humanities at the University of Chicago, "Impossible Futures: Fictions of Risk in the Longue Durée", Duke University Press, https://read.dukeupress.edu/american-literature/article/89/4/761/132823/Impossible-Futures-Fictions-of-Risk-in-the-Longue AND of the world. Just wait long enough. Stranger things will happen.¶ Youth participatory action research enables transformative resistance and is crucial to make activism workCammarota and Fine 08 AND means by which young people engage transformational resistance. (1-4) | 4/24/22 |
ND21 - AC - AgonismTournament: Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Round: 2 | Opponent: Westwood AP | Judge: Sam Anderson Minneapple R2 1AC v Westwood AP1ACFramingThe resolution is a question of what states ought to do so actor specificity is a side constraint on the framework debate.The state necessitates the paradox of exclusion — the necessary determination of who belongs to the state requires the exclusion of who doesn’t while including everyone makes exercising rights impossible, Mouffe 2k(Chantal Mouffe, Professor at the Department of Political Science of the Institute for Advanced Studies. June 2000. "The Democratic Paradox") AND are the ‘demos’ and the ‘people’." (41-44) Even if that’s not always true it’s specifically true in the context of this resolution—it’s a question of what is the just way for distinct states ought to channel disputes.Next, if the state require exclusion, the goal of politics should not be to overcome the us/them distinction. Instead, we should reorient the us/them distinction towards agonism instead of antagonism – this means recognizing the Other’s right to their own ideas without labeling them an enemy to destroy. This constructs a polity despite the us/them distinction. Mouffe 10 bracketed for glang:*Bracketed for Gendered Language* Chantal Mouffe, political theorist, 7-25-2010, "Chantal Mouffe: Agonistic Democracy and Radical Politics," Pavilion ~#15, http://pavilionmagazine.org/chantal-mouffe-agonistic-democracy-and-radical-politics/ AND which requires that citizens genuinely have the possibility of choosing between real alternatives. Thus, the standard is consistency with agonistic pluralism.Impact Calc –A~ There are 3 ways states can orient themselves with the us/them distinction: First, universality, in which they falsely deny the distinction’s existence, second, antagonism, in which you try to destroy the other, and third, agonism in which you accept the others’ difference. Since the resolution is a question of how states should interact, the only way to deny my framework is to prove either antagonism or false universality is better than agonism.B~ Agonism posits the conditions for truth construction – that means it functions as a metaethical constraint on other ethics and they aren’t competitive with our principle.Prefer the standard additionally–1~ K solvency –A~ Only a state that accepts opposing views can ever be open to radical revision – other systems insist on their own foundation and can’t accommodate changing views that make them exclusionary or illegitimate. Controls the internal link to other evaluative mechanisms: agonism makes it possible to implement them AND be receptive of the demands of justice to comeB~ Controls the internal link to all K alts and radical politics – the ability to speak out and fight for particular reforms is guaranteed by the agonistic mindset – alternatives shut down the collective ability to communicate to others to advance that agenda.2~ Rules cannot determine their own application: we reason within a framework of language and norms, but how to apply each of those norms in to a new situation is radically indeterminate. For example, there is nothing inherent in an arrow that shows a direction. Only agonism accounts for the diversity of interpretations of our norms. Democratic citizenship has diverse forms, none of which can be privileged a priori. If agents have different perspectives, there is no way to formulate a correct understanding – we need to accommodate different practices.3~ Performativity – debate assumes that difference exists, which is specifically true for switch side debate, and debate must protect the right to disagree without being targeted for your difference to ensure safety. That is a constitutive necessity of discourse spaces that outweighs on a pre and post fiat layer.A~ it is specific to the judge’s obligation in the debate space, not just educational spaceB~ switch side debate could not exist without agonism, making it a pre-requisite to being in debate in the first place so participating in debate concedes it4~ Contradictions – willing lack of inquiry is a contradiction in terms because the assertion of a statement presupposes the validity of judgments in relation to a community of testers. Putnam 90:A RECONSIDERATION OF DEWEYAN DEMOCRACY HILARY PUTNAM* Walter Beverly Pearson Professor of Mathematical Logic, Harvard University. 1990 AND then I am committed to the idea of a possible community of inquirers. 5~ Motivation – Ethics must recognize the right to provide and contest opinions – otherwise, people could disagree have no reason for them to accept standards. Morality would just be a hypothetical imperative, which can’t produce an obligation. Merely justifying why an ethical theory is "true" does not matter if a person would never bind themselves to it.ContentionPlan: Resolved: A just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike.Recognizing the right to strike allows workers to engage in a form of violence, but one that can remain in the control of the state, and not escalate out of control of the law. Crepon and Bez 19:Crépon, Marc, and Micol Bez. "The Right to Strike and Legal War in Walter Benjamin's "Toward the Critique of Violence"." Critical Times 2.2 (2019): 252-260. AND
That links to my framework – objectivity is impossible so procedures for agonism have to be institutionalized, Mouffe 6:Chantal Mouffe, ~Chantal Mouffe (French: ~muf~; born 17 June 1943)~1~ is a Belgian political theorist, formerly teaching at University of Westminster.~2~ She is best known for her contribution to the development—jointly with Ernesto Laclau, with whom she co-authored Hegemony and Socialist Strategy—of the so-called Essex School of discourse analysis,~3~~4~ a type of post-Marxist political inquiry drawing on Gramsci, post-structuralism and theories of identity, and redefining Leftist politics in terms of radical democracy. Her highest cited publication is Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics.~5~ She is also the author of influential works on agonistic political theory, including Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically and The Democratic Paradox.~ 2000, "The Democratic Paradox" LHP AV AND thinking which disguises the necessary frontiers and forms of exclusion behind pretenses of 'neutrality' ROBThe role of the ballot is to evaluate the truth or falsity of the resolution through a normatively justified framework via fair, safe, and educational arguments. no tricks, yes phil and yes theory. Prefer it –1~ Reciprocity – normative frameworks provide a reciprocal burden of justifying an obligation with the ability to turn them – other frameworks are arbitrarily impact exclusive and don’t articulate a 1-1 burden2~ Philosophy – only our role of the ballot incentivizes nuanced discussions over the interactions of different ethical theories. That comes first –A~ constitutivism – LD debate is a values debate which means the intrinsic purpose of the activity is philosophical discussionB~ hijacks any voter – the question of why those are good relies on philosophical justification, ie constitutivism or something.Theory1~ 1ar theory paradigm –A~ the aff gets it – otherwise the neg can engage in infinite abuse, making debate impossibleB~ drop the debater because the 1ar is too short to win theory and substanceC~ no RVIs – the 2nr has enough time and the 2ar needs strategic flexibilityD~ competing interps – 1ar interps aren’t bidirectional and reasonability incentivizes brute force defensive dumps2~ 1ar theory first –A~ Strat skew – short 2AR means I need to collapse to one layer to counter the long 2N collapseB~ Epistemic Indict – if the 1N was abusive then my ability to respond was skewed so you can’t truly evaluate the 1ncC~ Magnitude – the 1nc has 7 minutes of potential abuse whereas I have 6D~ Investment – 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 time3~ Yes aff rvi – a~ time skew – 4 minute 1ar has to hedge against a 7 minute 1nc and counter a long 6 minute 2n collapse, no rvi make the 1ar virtually impossible and structurally behind on the debate which means we need rvi to be able to collapse to something in the 2ar and win4~ Presumption and permissibility affirm –A~ statements are true till false – if I said my name was Prateek, you would believe me absent evidence to the contraryB~ we shouldn’t need proactive justification for things – that means we couldn’t do things like drink water C~ affirming is harder – the 1ar has to answer 7 minutes of offense and hedge against a 6 minute 2nr collapse and empirics, Shah 2-13:Sachin Shah, ~LHP Debater, Attended TOC 2018 and TOC 2019, Broke at TOC 2019, 5 on AP Stats, Computer Science Major, Experience with side bias stats~ February 13, 2020, "A Statistical Analysis of Side-Bias on the 2020 January-February Lincoln Douglas Debate Topic by Sachin Shah" http://nsdupdate.com/2020/a-statistical-analysis-of-side-bias-on-the-2020-january-february-lincoln-douglas-debate-topic-by-sachin-shah/?fbclid=IwAR2P0AZqQtSiwMZlCpia-Fy1zFOdHn6JrGtcYgGulqeimd-V0a1xbaIMYYs LHP AV AND -February topic. So, once again, don’t lose the flip! D~ Epistemics – we wouldn’t be able to start a strand of reasoning since we’d have to question that reason – means that presuming neg is incoherent because it relies on some presumptive truths.E~ Presuming obligations is logically safer since it’s better to be supererogatory than fail to meet an obligationF~ nothing in the aff will trigger it – punish them for moving the debate away from valuable substantive educationG~ risk analysis, Ross 6:Jacob Ross (Philosopher, USC "Rejecting Ethical Deflationism," Ethics 116. July 2006. JDN. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/505234 AND deliberate on the supposition that the nondeflationary theory, T, is true. 5~ 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 – outweighs on magnitude C) It kills the 2ar since I’d have to answer 6 min of new offense in 3 min.6~ cx checks solve – there’s no abuse if I provide whatever you need before your prep time, asking in cx for me to meet your interps solves abuse | 11/5/21 |
ND21 - AC - Agonism v2Tournament: Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: Southlake Carroll SD | Judge: Patrick Fox Minneapple R4 1AC v Southlake Carroll1ACFramingThe resolution is a question of what states ought to do so actor specificity is a side constraint on the framework debate – that o/w the resolution questions what an ideal state ought to doThe state necessitates the paradox of exclusion — the necessary determination of who belongs to the state requires the exclusion of who doesn’t while including everyone makes exercising rights impossible, Mouffe 2k(Chantal Mouffe, Professor at the Department of Political Science of the Institute for Advanced Studies. June 2000. "The Democratic Paradox") AND are the ‘demos’ and the ‘people’." (41-44) Even if that’s not always true it’s specifically true in the context of this resolution—it’s a question of what is the just way for distinct states ought to channel disputes.Next, if the state require exclusion, the goal of politics should not be to overcome the us/them distinction. Instead, we should reorient the us/them distinction towards agonism instead of antagonism – this means recognizing the Other’s right to their own ideas without labeling them an enemy to destroy. This constructs a polity despite the us/them distinction. Mouffe 10 bracketed for glang:*Bracketed for Gendered Language* Chantal Mouffe, political theorist, 7-25-2010, "Chantal Mouffe: Agonistic Democracy and Radical Politics," Pavilion ~#15, http://pavilionmagazine.org/chantal-mouffe-agonistic-democracy-and-radical-politics/ AND which requires that citizens genuinely have the possibility of choosing between real alternatives. Thus, the standard is consistency with agonistic pluralism.Impact Calc –A~ There are 3 ways states can orient themselves with the us/them distinction: First, universality, in which they falsely deny the distinction’s existence, second, antagonism, in which you try to destroy the other, and third, agonism in which you accept the others’ difference. Since the resolution is a question of how states should interact, the only way to deny my framework is to prove either antagonism or false universality is better than agonism.B~ Agonism posits the conditions for truth construction – that means it functions as a metaethical constraint on other ethics and they aren’t competitive with our principle.Prefer the standard additionally–1~ K solvency –A~ Only a state that accepts opposing views can ever be open to radical revision – other systems insist on their own foundation and can’t accommodate changing views that make them exclusionary or illegitimate. Controls the internal link to other evaluative mechanisms: agonism makes it possible to implement them AND be receptive of the demands of justice to comeB~ Controls the internal link to all K alts and radical politics – the ability to speak out and fight for particular reforms is guaranteed by the agonistic mindset – alternatives shut down the collective ability to communicate to others to advance that agenda.2~ Rules cannot determine their own application: we reason within a framework of language and norms, but how to apply each of those norms in to a new situation is radically indeterminate. For example, there is nothing inherent in an arrow that shows a direction. Only agonism accounts for the diversity of interpretations of our norms. Democratic citizenship has diverse forms, none of which can be privileged a priori. If agents have different perspectives, there is no way to formulate a correct understanding – we need to accommodate different practices.3~ Performativity – debate assumes that difference exists, which is specifically true for switch side debate, and debate must protect the right to disagree without being targeted for your difference to ensure safety. That is a constitutive necessity of discourse spaces that outweighs on a pre and post fiat layer.A~ it is specific to the judge’s obligation in the debate space, not just educational spaceB~ switch side debate could not exist without agonism, making it a pre-requisite to being in debate in the first place so participating in debate concedes it4~ Contradictions – willing lack of inquiry is a contradiction in terms because the assertion of a statement presupposes the validity of judgments in relation to a community of testers. Putnam 90:A RECONSIDERATION OF DEWEYAN DEMOCRACY HILARY PUTNAM* Walter Beverly Pearson Professor of Mathematical Logic, Harvard University. 1990 AND then I am committed to the idea of a possible community of inquirers. 5~ Motivation – Ethics must recognize the right to provide and contest opinions – otherwise, people could disagree have no reason for them to accept standards. Morality would just be a hypothetical imperative, which can’t produce an obligation. Merely justifying why an ethical theory is "true" does not matter if a person would never bind themselves to it.ContentionPlan: Resolved: A just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike.Recognizing the right to strike allows workers to engage in a form of violence, but one that can remain in the control of the state, and not escalate out of control of the law. Crepon and Bez 19:Crépon, Marc, and Micol Bez. "The Right to Strike and Legal War in Walter Benjamin's "Toward the Critique of Violence"." Critical Times 2.2 (2019): 252-260. AND
That links to my framework – objectivity is impossible so procedures for agonism have to be institutionalized, Mouffe 6:Chantal Mouffe, ~Chantal Mouffe (French: ~muf~; born 17 June 1943)~1~ is a Belgian political theorist, formerly teaching at University of Westminster.~2~ She is best known for her contribution to the development—jointly with Ernesto Laclau, with whom she co-authored Hegemony and Socialist Strategy—of the so-called Essex School of discourse analysis,~3~~4~ a type of post-Marxist political inquiry drawing on Gramsci, post-structuralism and theories of identity, and redefining Leftist politics in terms of radical democracy. Her highest cited publication is Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics.~5~ She is also the author of influential works on agonistic political theory, including Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically and The Democratic Paradox.~ 2000, "The Democratic Paradox" LHP AV AND thinking which disguises the necessary frontiers and forms of exclusion behind pretenses of 'neutrality' ROBThe role of the ballot is to evaluate the truth or falsity of the resolution through a normatively justified framework via fair, safe, and educational arguments. no tricks, yes phil and yes theory. Prefer it –1~ Reciprocity – normative frameworks provide a reciprocal burden of justifying an obligation with the ability to turn them – other frameworks are arbitrarily impact exclusive and don’t articulate a 1-1 burden2~ Philosophy – only our role of the ballot incentivizes nuanced discussions over the interactions of different ethical theories. That comes first –A~ constitutivism – LD debate is a values debate which means the intrinsic purpose of the activity is philosophical discussionB~ hijacks any voter – the question of why those are good relies on philosophical justification, ie constitutivism or something.MethodForms of fragmented politics completely cedes the political to capitalism. Engagement in undercommon communication is too individualized and resists collective and concrete change. This constitutes enjoyment of melancholic pleasures of being distanced and accommodated to the real world, and as a result remains stuck in parasitic oppression without change – Dean 13:"Communist Desire", Jodi Dean, , 2013, LHP AM AND as they capture us in activities that feel productive, important, radical. Theory1~ 1ar theory paradigm –A~ the aff gets it – otherwise the neg can engage in infinite abuse, making debate impossibleB~ drop the debater because the 1ar is too short to win theory and substanceC~ no RVIs – the 2nr has enough time and the 2ar needs strategic flexibilityD~ competing interps – 1ar interps aren’t bidirectional and reasonability incentivizes brute force defensive dumps2~ 1ar theory first –A~ Strat skew – short 2AR means I need to collapse to one layer to counter the long 2N collapseB~ Epistemic Indict – if the 1N was abusive then my ability to respond was skewed so you can’t truly evaluate the 1ncC~ Magnitude – the 1nc has 7 minutes of potential abuse whereas I have 6D~ Investment – 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 time3~ Yes aff rvi – a~ time skew – 4 minute 1ar has to hedge against a 7 minute 1nc and counter a long 6 minute 2n collapse, no rvi make the 1ar virtually impossible and structurally behind on the debate which means we need rvi to be able to collapse to something in the 2ar and win4~ Presumption and permissibility affirm –A~ statements are true till false – if I said my name was Prateek, you would believe me absent evidence to the contraryB~ we shouldn’t need proactive justification for things – that means we couldn’t do things like drink water C~ affirming is harder – the 1ar has to answer 7 minutes of offense and hedge against a 6 minute 2nr collapse and empirics, Shah 2-13:Sachin Shah, ~LHP Debater, Attended TOC 2018 and TOC 2019, Broke at TOC 2019, 5 on AP Stats, Computer Science Major, Experience with side bias stats~ February 13, 2020, "A Statistical Analysis of Side-Bias on the 2020 January-February Lincoln Douglas Debate Topic by Sachin Shah" http://nsdupdate.com/2020/a-statistical-analysis-of-side-bias-on-the-2020-january-february-lincoln-douglas-debate-topic-by-sachin-shah/?fbclid=IwAR2P0AZqQtSiwMZlCpia-Fy1zFOdHn6JrGtcYgGulqeimd-V0a1xbaIMYYs LHP AV AND -February topic. So, once again, don’t lose the flip! D~ Epistemics – we wouldn’t be able to start a strand of reasoning since we’d have to question that reason – means that presuming neg is incoherent because it relies on some presumptive truths.E~ Presuming obligations is logically safer since it’s better to be supererogatory than fail to meet an obligationF~ nothing in the aff will trigger it – punish them for moving the debate away from valuable substantive educationG~ risk analysis, Ross 6:Jacob Ross (Philosopher, USC "Rejecting Ethical Deflationism," Ethics 116. July 2006. JDN. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/505234 AND deliberate on the supposition that the nondeflationary theory, T, is true. 5~ 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 – outweighs on magnitude C) It kills the 2ar since I’d have to answer 6 min of new offense in 3 min.6~ cx checks solve – there’s no abuse if I provide whatever you need before your prep time, asking in cx for me to meet your interps solves abuse | 11/6/21 |
ND21 - AC - Agonism v3Tournament: Apple Valley MinneApple Debate Tournament | Round: 6 | Opponent: Los Altos BF | Judge: Mark Kivimaki Minneapple R6 1AC v Los Altos BF1ACFramingThe resolution is a question of what states ought to do so actor specificity is a side constraint on the framework debate – that o/w the resolution questions what an ideal state ought to doThe state necessitates the paradox of exclusion — the necessary determination of who belongs to the state requires the exclusion of who doesn’t while including everyone makes exercising rights impossible, Mouffe 2k(Chantal Mouffe, Professor at the Department of Political Science of the Institute for Advanced Studies. June 2000. "The Democratic Paradox") AND are the ‘demos’ and the ‘people’." (41-44) Even if that’s not always true it’s specifically true in the context of this resolution—it’s a question of what is the just way for distinct states ought to channel disputes.Next, if the state require exclusion, the goal of politics should not be to overcome the us/them distinction. Instead, we should reorient the us/them distinction towards agonism instead of antagonism – this means recognizing the Other’s right to their own ideas without labeling them an enemy to destroy. This constructs a polity despite the us/them distinction. Mouffe 10 bracketed for glang:*Bracketed for Gendered Language* Chantal Mouffe, political theorist, 7-25-2010, "Chantal Mouffe: Agonistic Democracy and Radical Politics," Pavilion ~#15, http://pavilionmagazine.org/chantal-mouffe-agonistic-democracy-and-radical-politics/ AND which requires that citizens genuinely have the possibility of choosing between real alternatives. Thus, the standard is consistency with agonistic pluralism.Impact Calc –A~ There are 3 ways states can orient themselves with the us/them distinction: First, universality, in which they falsely deny the distinction’s existence, second, antagonism, in which you try to destroy the other, and third, agonism in which you accept the others’ difference. Since the resolution is a question of how states should interact, the only way to deny my framework is to prove either antagonism or false universality is better than agonism.B~ Agonism posits the conditions for truth construction – that means it functions as a metaethical constraint on other ethics and they aren’t competitive with our principle.Prefer the standard additionally–1~ K solvency –A~ Only a state that accepts opposing views can ever be open to radical revision – other systems insist on their own foundation and can’t accommodate changing views that make them exclusionary or illegitimate. Controls the internal link to other evaluative mechanisms: agonism makes it possible to implement them AND be receptive of the demands of justice to comeB~ Controls the internal link to all K alts and radical politics – the ability to speak out and fight for particular reforms is guaranteed by the agonistic mindset – alternatives shut down the collective ability to communicate to others to advance that agenda.2~ Rules cannot determine their own application: we reason within a framework of language and norms, but how to apply each of those norms in to a new situation is radically indeterminate. For example, there is nothing inherent in an arrow that shows a direction. Only agonism accounts for the diversity of interpretations of our norms. Democratic citizenship has diverse forms, none of which can be privileged a priori. If agents have different perspectives, there is no way to formulate a correct understanding – we need to accommodate different practices.3~ Performativity – debate assumes that difference exists, which is specifically true for switch side debate, and debate must protect the right to disagree without being targeted for your difference to ensure safety. That is a constitutive necessity of discourse spaces that outweighs on a pre and post fiat layer.A~ it is specific to the judge’s obligation in the debate space, not just educational spaceB~ switch side debate could not exist without agonism, making it a pre-requisite to being in debate in the first place so participating in debate concedes it4~ Contradictions – willing lack of inquiry is a contradiction in terms because the assertion of a statement presupposes the validity of judgments in relation to a community of testers. Putnam 90:A RECONSIDERATION OF DEWEYAN DEMOCRACY HILARY PUTNAM* Walter Beverly Pearson Professor of Mathematical Logic, Harvard University. 1990 AND then I am committed to the idea of a possible community of inquirers. 5~ Motivation – Ethics must recognize the right to provide and contest opinions – otherwise, people could disagree have no reason for them to accept standards. Morality would just be a hypothetical imperative, which can’t produce an obligation. Merely justifying why an ethical theory is "true" does not matter if a person would never bind themselves to it.ContentionPlan: Resolved: A just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike.Recognizing the right to strike allows workers to engage in a form of violence, but one that can remain in the control of the state, and not escalate out of control of the law. Crepon and Bez 19:Crépon, Marc, and Micol Bez. "The Right to Strike and Legal War in Walter Benjamin's "Toward the Critique of Violence"." Critical Times 2.2 (2019): 252-260. AND
That links to my framework – objectivity is impossible so procedures for agonism have to be institutionalized, Mouffe 6:Chantal Mouffe, ~Chantal Mouffe (French: ~muf~; born 17 June 1943)~1~ is a Belgian political theorist, formerly teaching at University of Westminster.~2~ She is best known for her contribution to the development—jointly with Ernesto Laclau, with whom she co-authored Hegemony and Socialist Strategy—of the so-called Essex School of discourse analysis,~3~~4~ a type of post-Marxist political inquiry drawing on Gramsci, post-structuralism and theories of identity, and redefining Leftist politics in terms of radical democracy. Her highest cited publication is Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics.~5~ She is also the author of influential works on agonistic political theory, including Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically and The Democratic Paradox.~ 2000, "The Democratic Paradox" LHP AV AND thinking which disguises the necessary frontiers and forms of exclusion behind pretenses of 'neutrality' ROBThe role of the ballot is to evaluate the truth or falsity of the resolution through a normatively justified framework via fair, safe, and educational arguments. no tricks, yes phil and yes theory. Prefer it –1~ Reciprocity – normative frameworks provide a reciprocal burden of justifying an obligation with the ability to turn them – other frameworks are arbitrarily impact exclusive and don’t articulate a 1-1 burden2~ Philosophy – only our role of the ballot incentivizes nuanced discussions over the interactions of different ethical theories. That comes first –A~ constitutivism – LD debate is a values debate which means the intrinsic purpose of the activity is philosophical discussionB~ hijacks any voter – the question of why those are good relies on philosophical justification, ie constitutivism or something.MethodForms of fragmented politics completely cedes the political to capitalism. Engagement in undercommon communication is too individualized and resists collective and concrete change. This constitutes enjoyment of melancholic pleasures of being distanced and accommodated to the real world, and as a result remains stuck in parasitic oppression without change – Dean 13:"Communist Desire", Jodi Dean, , 2013, LHP AM AND as they capture us in activities that feel productive, important, radical. Theory1~ 1ar theory paradigm –A~ the aff gets it – otherwise the neg can engage in infinite abuse, making debate impossibleB~ drop the debater because the 1ar is too short to win theory and substanceC~ no RVIs – the 2nr has enough time and the 2ar needs strategic flexibilityD~ competing interps – 1ar interps aren’t bidirectional and reasonability incentivizes brute force defensive dumps2~ 1ar theory first –A~ Strat skew – short 2AR means I need to collapse to one layer to counter the long 2N collapseB~ Epistemic Indict – if the 1N was abusive then my ability to respond was skewed so you can’t truly evaluate the 1ncC~ Magnitude – the 1nc has 7 minutes of potential abuse whereas I have 6D~ Investment – 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 time3~ Yes aff rvi – a~ time skew – 4 minute 1ar has to hedge against a 7 minute 1nc and counter a long 6 minute 2n collapse, no rvi make the 1ar virtually impossible and structurally behind on the debate which means we need rvi to be able to collapse to something in the 2ar and win4~ Presumption and permissibility affirm –A~ statements are true till false – if I said my name was Prateek, you would believe me absent evidence to the contraryB~ we shouldn’t need proactive justification for things – that means we couldn’t do things like drink water C~ affirming is harder – the 1ar has to answer 7 minutes of offense and hedge against a 6 minute 2nr collapse and empirics, Shah 2-13:Sachin Shah, ~LHP Debater, Attended TOC 2018 and TOC 2019, Broke at TOC 2019, 5 on AP Stats, Computer Science Major, Experience with side bias stats~ February 13, 2020, "A Statistical Analysis of Side-Bias on the 2020 January-February Lincoln Douglas Debate Topic by Sachin Shah" http://nsdupdate.com/2020/a-statistical-analysis-of-side-bias-on-the-2020-january-february-lincoln-douglas-debate-topic-by-sachin-shah/?fbclid=IwAR2P0AZqQtSiwMZlCpia-Fy1zFOdHn6JrGtcYgGulqeimd-V0a1xbaIMYYs LHP AV AND -February topic. So, once again, don’t lose the flip! D~ Epistemics – we wouldn’t be able to start a strand of reasoning since we’d have to question that reason – means that presuming neg is incoherent because it relies on some presumptive truths.E~ Presuming obligations is logically safer since it’s better to be supererogatory than fail to meet an obligationF~ nothing in the aff will trigger it – punish them for moving the debate away from valuable substantive educationG~ risk analysis, Ross 6:Jacob Ross (Philosopher, USC "Rejecting Ethical Deflationism," Ethics 116. July 2006. JDN. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/505234 AND deliberate on the supposition that the nondeflationary theory, T, is true. 5~ 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 – outweighs on magnitude C) It kills the 2ar since I’d have to answer 6 min of new offense in 3 min.6~ cx checks solve – there’s no abuse if I provide whatever you need before your prep time, asking in cx for me to meet your interps solves abuse | 11/6/21 |
ND21 - AC - Agonism v4Tournament: The Tradition | Round: 2 | Opponent: Trinity Prep MZ | Judge: Issac Chao 1ACFrameworkThe meta-ethic is moral pluralism – ethics can’t be defined universally rather conflicting ethical viewpoints have equal ethical worth – prefer:First, ethics are based in language - It creates out ability to think and makes us agents – life outside language is deterministic and without morality - Pettit 09:Phillip Pettit. Made With Words, Hobbes on Language, Mind, and Politics. 2009. http://www.jstor.com/stable/j.ctt7rp73.3 LHPYA AND to distinguish men from all other living creatures."(L 3.11). Language is structurally negative and doesn’t refer to reality – if I say I saw an oak tree you know I didn’t see a car or person but you can’t visualize what I did see – since our rationality is based in language truth is created by individuals rather than extrinsically found but that creates infinite violence over meaning creation - Parrish:Derrida`s Economy of Violence in Hobbes` Social Contract, Richard Parrish AND regarding whether or not a specific situation fits a commonly-held definition. However, the world doesn’t simply exist in irresolvable plurality. Pluralism creates constitutive competition over power within society. Only agonistic pluralism is capable of recognizing this and maintaining politics and ethics without arbitrarily granting power to certain groups by prioritizing their viewpoints. That means recognizing the Other’s right to their own ideas without labeling them an enemy to destroy – Mouffe 2k:(Chantal Mouffe, Professor at the Department of Political Science of the Institute for Advanced Studies. June 2000. "The Democratic Paradox") LHP YA AND
Thus, the standard is consistency with agonistic pluralism.Impact Calc:A~ There are 3 ways states can orient themselves with the us/them distinction: First, universality, in which they falsely deny the distinction’s existence, second, antagonism, in which you try to destroy the other, and third, agonism in which you accept the others’ difference. Since the resolution is a question of how states should interact, the only way to deny my framework is to prove either antagonism or false universality is better than agonism.B~ Agonism posits the conditions for truth construction – that means it functions as a metaethical constraint on other ethics and they aren’t competitive with our principle.Prefer the standard:1~ Actor specificity – the resolution is a question of what an ideal state ought to do - the state necessitates the paradox of exclusion — the necessary determination of who belongs to the state requires the exclusion of who doesn’t while including everyone makes exercising rights impossible - Mouffe 2:(Chantal Mouffe, Professor at the Department of Political Science of the Institute for Advanced Studies. June 2000. "The Democratic Paradox") AND are the ‘demos’ and the ‘people’." (41-44) 2~ K Solvency –A~ Only a state that accepts opposing views can ever be open to radical revision – other systems insist on their own foundation and can’t accommodate changing views that make them exclusionary or illegitimate. Controls the internal link to other evaluative mechanisms: agonism makes it possible to implement them AND be receptive of the demands of justice to comeB~ Controls the internal link to all K alts and radical politics – the ability to speak out and fight for particular reforms is guaranteed by the agonistic mindset – alternatives shut down the collective ability to communicate to others to advance that agenda.C~ Mobilization requires pragmatic demands - Mouffe 16:Shahid, Waleed. "America in Populist Times: An Interview With Chantal Mouffe." The Nation, 15 Dec. 2016, www.thenation.com/article/archive/america-in-populist-times-an-interview-with-chantal-mouffe/. LHPYA AND bonds of solidarity must be actively constructed by leaders with care and discipline. 3~ Rule-following – there’s no correct interpretation of a rule, so only agonism is legitimate – it opens up spaces for diverse interpretations, Mouffe 4:Chantal Mouffe, ~Chantal Mouffe (French: ~muf~; born 17 June 1943)~1~ is a Belgian political theorist, formerly teaching at University of Westminster.~2~ She is best known for her contribution to the development—jointly with Ernesto Laclau, with whom she co-authored Hegemony and Socialist Strategy—of the so-called Essex School of discourse analysis,~3~~4~ a type of post-Marxist political inquiry drawing on Gramsci, post-structuralism and theories of identity, and redefining Leftist politics in terms of radical democracy. Her highest cited publication is Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics.~5~ She is also the author of influential works on agonistic political theory, including Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically and The Democratic Paradox.~ 2000, "The Democratic Paradox" LHP AV AND formulation, and this is why his contribution to democratic thinking is invaluable. 4~ Contradictions – willing lack of inquiry is a contradiction in terms because the assertion of a statement presupposes the validity of judgments in relation to a community of testers. Putnam 90:A RECONSIDERATION OF DEWEYAN DEMOCRACY HILARY PUTNAM* Walter Beverly Pearson Professor of Mathematical Logic, Harvard University. 1990 AND then I am committed to the idea of a possible community of inquirers. 5~ Performativity – debate assumes that difference exists, which is specifically true for switch side debate, and debate must protect the right to disagree without being targeted for your difference to ensure safety. That is a constitutive necessity of discourse spaces that outweighs on a pre and post fiat layer.A~ it is specific to the judge’s obligation in the debate space, not just educational spaceB~ switch side debate could not exist without agonism, making it a pre-requisite to being in debate in the first place6~ Motivation – Ethics must recognize the right to provide and contest opinions – otherwise, people could disagree have no reason for them to accept standards. Morality would just be a hypothetical imperative, which can’t produce an obligation. Merely justifying why an ethical theory is "true" does not matter if a person would never bind themselves to it.7~ Any other framework is circular – it requires a political judgement to justify itself but then undermines politics itself, Mouffe 5:Chantal Mouffe, ~Chantal Mouffe (French: ~muf~; born 17 June 1943)~1~ is a Belgian political theorist, formerly teaching at University of Westminster.~2~ She is best known for her contribution to the development—jointly with Ernesto Laclau, with whom she co-authored Hegemony and Socialist Strategy—of the so-called Essex School of discourse analysis,~3~~4~ a type of post-Marxist political inquiry drawing on Gramsci, post-structuralism and theories of identity, and redefining Leftist politics in terms of radical democracy. Her highest cited publication is Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics.~5~ She is also the author of influential works on agonistic political theory, including Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically and The Democratic Paradox.~ 2000, "The Democratic Paradox" LHP AV AND who, by definition, are persons who accept the principles of political liberalism 8~ Only agonism is pragmatic – any other framework is just preaching to the choir, Mouffe 2:Chantal Mouffe, ~Chantal Mouffe (French: ~muf~; born 17 June 1943)~1~ is a Belgian political theorist, formerly teaching at University of Westminster.~2~ She is best known for her contribution to the development—jointly with Ernesto Laclau, with whom she co-authored Hegemony and Socialist Strategy—of the so-called Essex School of discourse analysis,~3~~4~ a type of post-Marxist political inquiry drawing on Gramsci, post-structuralism and theories of identity, and redefining Leftist politics in terms of radical democracy. Her highest cited publication is Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics.~5~ She is also the author of influential works on agonistic political theory, including Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically and The Democratic Paradox.~ 2000, "The Democratic Paradox" LHP AV AND of its perfect implementation. Hence the importance of acknowledging its paradoxical nature. OffensePlan: Resolved: A just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike.Recognizing the right to strike allows workers to engage in a form of violence, but one that can remain in the control of the state, and not escalate out of control of the law. Crepon and Bez 19:Crépon, Marc, and Micol Bez. "The Right to Strike and Legal War in Walter Benjamin's "Toward the Critique of Violence"." Critical Times 2.2 (2019): 252-260. AND
That links to my framework – objectivity is impossible so procedures for agonism have to be institutionalized, Mouffe 6:Chantal Mouffe, ~Chantal Mouffe (French: ~muf~; born 17 June 1943)~1~ is a Belgian political theorist, formerly teaching at University of Westminster.~2~ She is best known for her contribution to the development—jointly with Ernesto Laclau, with whom she co-authored Hegemony and Socialist Strategy—of the so-called Essex School of discourse analysis,~3~~4~ a type of post-Marxist political inquiry drawing on Gramsci, post-structuralism and theories of identity, and redefining Leftist politics in terms of radical democracy. Her highest cited publication is Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics.~5~ She is also the author of influential works on agonistic political theory, including Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically and The Democratic Paradox.~ 2000, "The Democratic Paradox" LHP AV AND thinking which disguises the necessary frontiers and forms of exclusion behind pretenses of 'neutrality' ROBThe role of the ballot is to evaluate the truth or falsity of the resolution through a normatively justified framework via fair, safe, and educational arguments. no tricks, yes phil and yes theory. Prefer it –1~ Reciprocity – normative frameworks provide a reciprocal burden of justifying an obligation with the ability to turn them – other frameworks are arbitrarily impact exclusive and don’t articulate a 1-1 burden2~ Philosophy – only our role of the ballot incentivizes nuanced discussions over the interactions of different ethical theories. That comes first –A~ constitutivism – LD debate is a values debate which means the intrinsic purpose of the activity is philosophical discussionB~ hijacks any voter – the question of why those are good relies on philosophical justification, ie constitutivism or something.Theory1~ 1ar theory –A~ the aff gets it – otherwise the neg can engage in infinite abuse, making debate impossibleB~ drop the debater because the 1ar is too short to win theory and substanceC~ no RVIs – the 2nr has enough time and the 2ar needs strategic flexibilityD~ Fairness is a voter – debate’s a game that requires objective evaluation – judges have obligations to vote for the better debater which fairness controls.It also controls truth value – absent fairness, args were not subject to contestation, so they only won their arg because they were unfair.2~ 1ar theory first –A~ Strat skew – short 2AR means I need to collapse to one layer to counter the long 2N collapseB~ Epistemic Indict – if the 1N was abusive then my ability to respond was skewed so you can’t truly evaluate the 1ncC~ Investment – 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 time3~ Presumption and permissibility affirm –A~ we presume statements true – if I said my name was Arjun, you would believe me absent evidence to the contraryB~ affirming is harder – the 1ar has to answer 7 minutes of offense and hedge against a 6 minute 2nr collapse and empirics – presumption is this card’s only implication, Shah 1-29,~Sachin Shah "A Statistical Analysis of the Impact of the Transition to Online Tournaments in Lincoln-Douglas Debate by Sachin Shah." January 29, 2021, http://nsdupdate.com/2021/a-statistical-analysis-of-the-impact-of-the-transition-to-online-tournaments-in-lincoln-douglas-debate-by-sachin-shah/~~ AND be structural and not topic specific as this analysis now includes 18 topics. | 11/13/21 |
ND21 - AC - Agonism v5Tournament: The Tradition | Round: Semis | Opponent: American Heritage Broward SS | Judge: Issac Chao - Nick Montecalvo - Colter Heirigs Tradition Semis – 1AC v American Heritage SS1ACFrameworkThe meta-ethic is moral pluralism – ethics can’t be defined universally rather conflicting ethical viewpoints have equal ethical worth – prefer:First, ethics are based in language - It creates out ability to think and makes us agents – life outside language is deterministic and without morality - Pettit 09:Phillip Pettit. Made With Words, Hobbes on Language, Mind, and Politics. 2009. http://www.jstor.com/stable/j.ctt7rp73.3 LHPYA AND to distinguish men from all other living creatures."(L 3.11). Language is structurally negative and doesn’t refer to reality – if I say I saw an oak tree you know I didn’t see a car or person but you can’t visualize what I did see – since our rationality is based in language truth is created by individuals rather than extrinsically found but that creates infinite violence over meaning creation - Parrish:Derrida`s Economy of Violence in Hobbes` Social Contract, Richard Parrish AND regarding whether or not a specific situation fits a commonly-held definition. However, the world doesn’t simply exist in irresolvable plurality. Pluralism creates constitutive competition over power within society. Only agonistic pluralism is capable of recognizing this and maintaining politics and ethics without arbitrarily granting power to certain groups by prioritizing their viewpoints. That means recognizing the Other’s right to their own ideas without labeling them an enemy to destroy – Mouffe 2k:(Chantal Mouffe, Professor at the Department of Political Science of the Institute for Advanced Studies. June 2000. "The Democratic Paradox") LHP YA AND
Thus, the standard is consistency with agonistic pluralism.Impact Calc:A~ There are 3 ways states can orient themselves with the us/them distinction: First, universality, in which they falsely deny the distinction’s existence, second, antagonism, in which you try to destroy the other, and third, agonism in which you accept the others’ difference. Since the resolution is a question of how states should interact, the only way to deny my framework is to prove either antagonism or false universality is better than agonism.B~ Agonism posits the conditions for truth construction – that means it functions as a metaethical constraint on other ethics and they aren’t competitive with our principle.Prefer the standard:1~ Actor specificity – the resolution is a question of what an ideal state ought to do - the state necessitates the paradox of exclusion — the necessary determination of who belongs to the state requires the exclusion of who doesn’t while including everyone makes exercising rights impossible - Mouffe 2:(Chantal Mouffe, Professor at the Department of Political Science of the Institute for Advanced Studies. June 2000. "The Democratic Paradox") AND are the ‘demos’ and the ‘people’." (41-44) 2~ K Solvency –A~ Only a state that accepts opposing views can ever be open to radical revision – other systems insist on their own foundation and can’t accommodate changing views that make them exclusionary or illegitimate. Controls the internal link to other evaluative mechanisms: agonism makes it possible to implement them AND be receptive of the demands of justice to comeB~ Controls the internal link to all K alts and radical politics – the ability to speak out and fight for particular reforms is guaranteed by the agonistic mindset – alternatives shut down the collective ability to communicate to others to advance that agenda.C~ Mobilization requires pragmatic demands - Mouffe 16:Shahid, Waleed. "America in Populist Times: An Interview With Chantal Mouffe." The Nation, 15 Dec. 2016, www.thenation.com/article/archive/america-in-populist-times-an-interview-with-chantal-mouffe/. LHPYA AND bonds of solidarity must be actively constructed by leaders with care and discipline. 3~ Rule-following – there’s no correct interpretation of a rule, so only agonism is legitimate – it opens up spaces for diverse interpretations, Mouffe 4:Chantal Mouffe, ~Chantal Mouffe (French: ~muf~; born 17 June 1943)~1~ is a Belgian political theorist, formerly teaching at University of Westminster.~2~ She is best known for her contribution to the development—jointly with Ernesto Laclau, with whom she co-authored Hegemony and Socialist Strategy—of the so-called Essex School of discourse analysis,~3~~4~ a type of post-Marxist political inquiry drawing on Gramsci, post-structuralism and theories of identity, and redefining Leftist politics in terms of radical democracy. Her highest cited publication is Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics.~5~ She is also the author of influential works on agonistic political theory, including Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically and The Democratic Paradox.~ 2000, "The Democratic Paradox" LHP AV AND formulation, and this is why his contribution to democratic thinking is invaluable. 4~ Contradictions – willing lack of inquiry is a contradiction in terms because the assertion of a statement presupposes the validity of judgments in relation to a community of testers. Putnam 90:A RECONSIDERATION OF DEWEYAN DEMOCRACY HILARY PUTNAM* Walter Beverly Pearson Professor of Mathematical Logic, Harvard University. 1990 AND then I am committed to the idea of a possible community of inquirers. 5~ Performativity – debate assumes that difference exists, which is specifically true for switch side debate, and debate must protect the right to disagree without being targeted for your difference to ensure safety. That is a constitutive necessity of discourse spaces that outweighs on a pre and post fiat layer.A~ it is specific to the judge’s obligation in the debate space, not just educational spaceB~ switch side debate could not exist without agonism, making it a pre-requisite to being in debate in the first place6~ Motivation – Ethics must recognize the right to provide and contest opinions – otherwise, people could disagree have no reason for them to accept standards. Morality would just be a hypothetical imperative, which can’t produce an obligation. Merely justifying why an ethical theory is "true" does not matter if a person would never bind themselves to it.7~ Any other framework is circular – it requires a political judgement to justify itself but then undermines politics itself, Mouffe 5:Chantal Mouffe, ~Chantal Mouffe (French: ~muf~; born 17 June 1943)~1~ is a Belgian political theorist, formerly teaching at University of Westminster.~2~ She is best known for her contribution to the development—jointly with Ernesto Laclau, with whom she co-authored Hegemony and Socialist Strategy—of the so-called Essex School of discourse analysis,~3~~4~ a type of post-Marxist political inquiry drawing on Gramsci, post-structuralism and theories of identity, and redefining Leftist politics in terms of radical democracy. Her highest cited publication is Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics.~5~ She is also the author of influential works on agonistic political theory, including Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically and The Democratic Paradox.~ 2000, "The Democratic Paradox" LHP AV AND who, by definition, are persons who accept the principles of political liberalism 8~ Only agonism is pragmatic – any other framework is just preaching to the choir, Mouffe 2:Chantal Mouffe, ~Chantal Mouffe (French: ~muf~; born 17 June 1943)~1~ is a Belgian political theorist, formerly teaching at University of Westminster.~2~ She is best known for her contribution to the development—jointly with Ernesto Laclau, with whom she co-authored Hegemony and Socialist Strategy—of the so-called Essex School of discourse analysis,~3~~4~ a type of post-Marxist political inquiry drawing on Gramsci, post-structuralism and theories of identity, and redefining Leftist politics in terms of radical democracy. Her highest cited publication is Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics.~5~ She is also the author of influential works on agonistic political theory, including Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically and The Democratic Paradox.~ 2000, "The Democratic Paradox" LHP AV AND of its perfect implementation. Hence the importance of acknowledging its paradoxical nature. OffensePlan: Resolved: A just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike.Recognizing the right to strike allows workers to engage in a form of violence, but one that can remain in the control of the state, and not escalate out of control of the law. Crepon and Bez 19:Crépon, Marc, and Micol Bez. "The Right to Strike and Legal War in Walter Benjamin's "Toward the Critique of Violence"." Critical Times 2.2 (2019): 252-260. AND
That links to my framework – objectivity is impossible so procedures for agonism have to be institutionalized, Mouffe 6:Chantal Mouffe, ~Chantal Mouffe (French: ~muf~; born 17 June 1943)~1~ is a Belgian political theorist, formerly teaching at University of Westminster.~2~ She is best known for her contribution to the development—jointly with Ernesto Laclau, with whom she co-authored Hegemony and Socialist Strategy—of the so-called Essex School of discourse analysis,~3~~4~ a type of post-Marxist political inquiry drawing on Gramsci, post-structuralism and theories of identity, and redefining Leftist politics in terms of radical democracy. Her highest cited publication is Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics.~5~ She is also the author of influential works on agonistic political theory, including Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically and The Democratic Paradox.~ 2000, "The Democratic Paradox" LHP AV AND thinking which disguises the necessary frontiers and forms of exclusion behind pretenses of 'neutrality' ROBThe role of the ballot is to evaluate the truth or falsity of the resolution through a normatively justified framework via fair, safe, and educational arguments. no tricks, yes phil andx yes theory. Prefer it –1~ Reciprocity – normative frameworks provide a reciprocal burden of justifying an obligation with the ability to turn them – other frameworks are arbitrarily impact exclusive and don’t articulate a 1-1 burden2~ Philosophy – only our role of the ballot incentivizes nuanced discussions over the interactions of different ethical theories. That comes first –A~ constitutivism – LD debate is a values debate which means the intrinsic purpose of the activity is philosophical discussionB~ hijacks any voter – the question of why those are good relies on philosophical justification, ie constitutivism or something.Theory1~ 1ar theory –A~ the aff gets it – otherwise the neg can engage in infinite abuse, making debate impossibleB~ drop the debater because the 1ar is too short to win theory and substanceC~ no RVIs – the 2nr has enough time and the 2ar needs strategic flexibilityD~ Fairness is a voter – debate’s a game that requires objective evaluation – judges have obligations to vote for the better debater which fairness controls. It also controls truth value – absent fairness, args were not subject to contestation, so they only won their arg because they were unfair.2~ 1ar theory first –A~ Strat skew – short 2AR means I need to collapse to one layer to counter the long 2N collapseB~ Epistemic Indict – if the 1N was abusive then my ability to respond was skewed so you can’t truly evaluate the 1ncC~ Investment – 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 time3~ Presumption and permissibility affirm –A~ we presume statements true – if I said my name was Arjun, you would believe me absent evidence to the contraryB~ affirming is harder – the 1ar has to answer 7 minutes of offense and hedge against a 6 minute 2nr collapse and empirics – presumption is this card’s only implication, Shah 1-29,~Sachin Shah "A Statistical Analysis of the Impact of the Transition to Online Tournaments in Lincoln-Douglas Debate by Sachin Shah." January 29, 2021, http://nsdupdate.com/2021/a-statistical-analysis-of-the-impact-of-the-transition-to-online-tournaments-in-lincoln-douglas-debate-by-sachin-shah/~~ AND be structural and not topic specific as this analysis now includes 18 topics. | 11/15/21 |
ND21 - AC - Agonism v6Tournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: Westwood BJ | Judge: Derek Ying Glenbrooks R4 1AC v Westwood BJ1ACFrameworkThe meta-ethic is moral pluralism – ethics can’t be defined universally rather conflicting ethical viewpoints have equal ethical worth – prefer:First, ethics are based in language - It creates out ability to think and makes us agents – life outside language is deterministic and without morality - Pettit 09:Phillip Pettit. Made With Words, Hobbes on Language, Mind, and Politics. 2009. http://www.jstor.com/stable/j.ctt7rp73.3 LHPYA AND to distinguish men from all other living creatures."(L 3.11). Language is structurally negative and doesn’t refer to reality – if I say I saw an oak tree you know I didn’t see a car or person but you can’t visualize what I did see – since our rationality is based in language truth is created by individuals rather than extrinsically found but that creates infinite violence over meaning creation - Parrish:Derrida`s Economy of Violence in Hobbes` Social Contract, Richard Parrish AND regarding whether or not a specific situation fits a commonly-held definition. However, the world doesn’t simply exist in irresolvable plurality. Pluralism creates constitutive competition over power within society. Only agonistic pluralism is capable of recognizing this and maintaining politics and ethics without arbitrarily granting power to certain groups by prioritizing their viewpoints. That means recognizing the Other’s right to their own ideas without labeling them an enemy to destroy – Mouffe 2k:(Chantal Mouffe, Professor at the Department of Political Science of the Institute for Advanced Studies. June 2000. "The Democratic Paradox") LHP YA AND
Thus, the standard is consistency with agonistic pluralism.Impact Calc:A~ There are 3 ways states can orient themselves with the us/them distinction: First, universality, in which they falsely deny the distinction’s existence, second, antagonism, in which you try to destroy the other, and third, agonism in which you accept the others’ difference. Since the resolution is a question of how states should interact, the only way to deny my framework is to prove either antagonism or false universality is better than agonism.B~ Agonism posits the conditions for truth construction – that means it functions as a metaethical constraint on other ethics and they aren’t competitive with our principle.Prefer the standard:1~ Actor specificity – the resolution is a question of what an ideal state ought to do - the state necessitates the paradox of exclusion — the necessary determination of who belongs to the state requires the exclusion of who doesn’t while including everyone makes exercising rights impossible - Mouffe 2:(Chantal Mouffe, Professor at the Department of Political Science of the Institute for Advanced Studies. June 2000. "The Democratic Paradox") AND are the ‘demos’ and the ‘people’." (41-44) 2~ K Solvency –A~ Only a state that accepts opposing views can ever be open to radical revision – other systems insist on their own foundation and can’t accommodate changing views that make them exclusionary or illegitimate. Controls the internal link to other evaluative mechanisms: agonism makes it possible to implement them AND be receptive of the demands of justice to comeB~ Controls the internal link to all K alts and radical politics – the ability to speak out and fight for particular reforms is guaranteed by the agonistic mindset – alternatives shut down the collective ability to communicate to others to advance that agenda.C~ Mobilization requires pragmatic demands - Mouffe 16:Shahid, Waleed. "America in Populist Times: An Interview With Chantal Mouffe." The Nation, 15 Dec. 2016, www.thenation.com/article/archive/america-in-populist-times-an-interview-with-chantal-mouffe/. LHPYA AND bonds of solidarity must be actively constructed by leaders with care and discipline. 3~ Rule-following – there’s no correct interpretation of a rule, so only agonism is legitimate – it opens up spaces for diverse interpretations, Mouffe 4:Chantal Mouffe, ~Chantal Mouffe (French: ~muf~; born 17 June 1943)~1~ is a Belgian political theorist, formerly teaching at University of Westminster.~2~ She is best known for her contribution to the development—jointly with Ernesto Laclau, with whom she co-authored Hegemony and Socialist Strategy—of the so-called Essex School of discourse analysis,~3~~4~ a type of post-Marxist political inquiry drawing on Gramsci, post-structuralism and theories of identity, and redefining Leftist politics in terms of radical democracy. Her highest cited publication is Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics.~5~ She is also the author of influential works on agonistic political theory, including Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically and The Democratic Paradox.~ 2000, "The Democratic Paradox" LHP AV AND formulation, and this is why his contribution to democratic thinking is invaluable. 4~ Contradictions – willing lack of inquiry is a contradiction in terms because the assertion of a statement presupposes the validity of judgments in relation to a community of testers. Putnam 90:A RECONSIDERATION OF DEWEYAN DEMOCRACY HILARY PUTNAM* Walter Beverly Pearson Professor of Mathematical Logic, Harvard University. 1990 AND then I am committed to the idea of a possible community of inquirers. 5~ Performativity – debate assumes that difference exists, which is specifically true for switch side debate, and debate must protect the right to disagree without being targeted for your difference to ensure safety. That is a constitutive necessity of discourse spaces that outweighs on a pre and post fiat layer.A~ it is specific to the judge’s obligation in the debate space, not just educational spaceB~ switch side debate could not exist without agonism, making it a pre-requisite to being in debate in the first place6~ Motivation – Ethics must recognize the right to provide and contest opinions – otherwise, people could disagree have no reason for them to accept standards. Morality would just be a hypothetical imperative, which can’t produce an obligation. Merely justifying why an ethical theory is "true" does not matter if a person would never bind themselves to it.7~ Any other framework is circular – it requires a political judgement to justify itself but then undermines politics itself, Mouffe 5:Chantal Mouffe, ~Chantal Mouffe (French: ~muf~; born 17 June 1943)~1~ is a Belgian political theorist, formerly teaching at University of Westminster.~2~ She is best known for her contribution to the development—jointly with Ernesto Laclau, with whom she co-authored Hegemony and Socialist Strategy—of the so-called Essex School of discourse analysis,~3~~4~ a type of post-Marxist political inquiry drawing on Gramsci, post-structuralism and theories of identity, and redefining Leftist politics in terms of radical democracy. Her highest cited publication is Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics.~5~ She is also the author of influential works on agonistic political theory, including Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically and The Democratic Paradox.~ 2000, "The Democratic Paradox" LHP AV AND who, by definition, are persons who accept the principles of political liberalism 8~ Only agonism is pragmatic – any other framework is just preaching to the choir, Mouffe 2:Chantal Mouffe, ~Chantal Mouffe (French: ~muf~; born 17 June 1943)~1~ is a Belgian political theorist, formerly teaching at University of Westminster.~2~ She is best known for her contribution to the development—jointly with Ernesto Laclau, with whom she co-authored Hegemony and Socialist Strategy—of the so-called Essex School of discourse analysis,~3~~4~ a type of post-Marxist political inquiry drawing on Gramsci, post-structuralism and theories of identity, and redefining Leftist politics in terms of radical democracy. Her highest cited publication is Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics.~5~ She is also the author of influential works on agonistic political theory, including Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically and The Democratic Paradox.~ 2000, "The Democratic Paradox" LHP AV AND of its perfect implementation. Hence the importance of acknowledging its paradoxical nature. OffensePlan: Resolved: A just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike except for police workers. I’m willing to clarify to meet neg interps in cross – Nolan 20:Nolan , Hamilton. "It's Time to Kick Police Unions out of the Labor Movement. They Aren't Allies | Hamilton Nolan." The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 13 June 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/13/police-unions-afl-cio-labor-movement?ref=hvper.com. LHP PS AND guarding the door. Time to make a choice. People over police. Recognizing the right to strike allows workers to engage in a form of violence, but one that can remain in the control of the state, and not escalate out of control of the law. Crepon and Bez 19:Crépon, Marc, and Micol Bez. "The Right to Strike and Legal War in Walter Benjamin's "Toward the Critique of Violence"." Critical Times 2.2 (2019): 252-260. AND
That links to my framework – objectivity is impossible so procedures for agonism have to be institutionalized, Mouffe 6:Chantal Mouffe, ~Chantal Mouffe (French: ~muf~; born 17 June 1943)~1~ is a Belgian political theorist, formerly teaching at University of Westminster.~2~ She is best known for her contribution to the development—jointly with Ernesto Laclau, with whom she co-authored Hegemony and Socialist Strategy—of the so-called Essex School of discourse analysis,~3~~4~ a type of post-Marxist political inquiry drawing on Gramsci, post-structuralism and theories of identity, and redefining Leftist politics in terms of radical democracy. Her highest cited publication is Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics.~5~ She is also the author of influential works on agonistic political theory, including Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically and The Democratic Paradox.~ 2000, "The Democratic Paradox" LHP AV AND thinking which disguises the necessary frontiers and forms of exclusion behind pretenses of 'neutrality' ROBThe role of the ballot is to evaluate the truth or falsity of the resolution through a normatively justified framework via fair, safe, and educational arguments. no tricks, yes phil and yes theory. Prefer it –1~ Reciprocity – normative frameworks provide a reciprocal burden of justifying an obligation with the ability to turn them – other frameworks are arbitrarily impact exclusive and don’t articulate a 1-1 burden2~ Philosophy – only our role of the ballot incentivizes nuanced discussions over the interactions of different ethical theories. That comes first –A~ constitutivism – LD debate is a values debate which means the intrinsic purpose of the activity is philosophical discussionB~ hijacks any voter – the question of why those are good relies on philosophical justification, ie constitutivism or something.Underview1~ 1ar theory paradigm –A~ the aff gets it – otherwise the neg can engage in infinite abuse, making debate impossibleB~ drop the debater because the 1ar is too short to win theory and substanceC~ no RVIs – the 2nr has enough time and the 2ar needs strategic flexibilityD~ competing interps – 1ar interps aren’t bidirectional and reasonability incentivizes brute force defensive dumps2~ 1ar theory first –A~ Strat skew – short 2AR means I need to collapse to one layer to counter the long 2N collapseB~ Epistemic Indict – if the 1N was abusive then my ability to respond was skewed so you can’t truly evaluate the 1ncC~ Magnitude – the 1nc has 7 minutes of potential abuse whereas I have 6D~ Investment – 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 time3~ Yes aff rvi – a~ time skew – 4 minute 1ar has to hedge against a 7 minute 1nc and counter a long 6 minute 2n collapse, no rvi make the 1ar virtually impossible and structurally behind on the debate which means we need rvi to be able to collapse to something in the 2ar and win4~ Reject consequentialism – a~ Cascading b~ False Universality – their framework ignores the us/them distinction and pluralism – it falsely asserts that we can create a universal obligation to maximize the entire worlds pleasure which fails | 11/21/21 |
ND21 - AC - Agonism v7Tournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 6 | Opponent: Loyola AP | Judge: Jacob Palmer 1AC Glenbrooks R61ACFrameworkThe meta-ethic is moral pluralism – ethics can’t be defined universally rather conflicting ethical viewpoints have equal ethical worth – prefer:First, ethics are based in language - It creates out ability to think and makes us agents – life outside language is deterministic and without morality - Pettit 09:Phillip Pettit. Made With Words, Hobbes on Language, Mind, and Politics. 2009. http://www.jstor.com/stable/j.ctt7rp73.3 LHPYA AND to distinguish men from all other living creatures."(L 3.11). Language is structurally negative and doesn’t refer to reality – if I say I saw an oak tree you know I didn’t see a car or person but you can’t visualize what I did see – since our rationality is based in language truth is created by individuals rather than extrinsically found but that creates infinite violence over meaning creation - Parrish:Derrida`s Economy of Violence in Hobbes` Social Contract, Richard Parrish AND regarding whether or not a specific situation fits a commonly-held definition. However, the world doesn’t simply exist in irresolvable plurality. Pluralism creates constitutive competition over power within society. Only agonistic pluralism is capable of recognizing this and maintaining politics and ethics without arbitrarily granting power to certain groups by prioritizing their viewpoints. That means recognizing the Other’s right to their own ideas without labeling them an enemy to destroy – Mouffe 2k:(Chantal Mouffe, Professor at the Department of Political Science of the Institute for Advanced Studies. June 2000. "The Democratic Paradox") LHP YA AND
Thus, the standard is consistency with agonistic pluralism.Impact Calc:A~ There are 3 ways states can orient themselves with the us/them distinction: First, universality, in which they falsely deny the distinction’s existence, second, antagonism, in which you try to destroy the other, and third, agonism in which you accept the others’ difference. Since the resolution is a question of how states should interact, the only way to deny my framework is to prove either antagonism or false universality is better than agonism.B~ Agonism posits the conditions for truth construction – that means it functions as a metaethical constraint on other ethics and they aren’t competitive with our principle.Prefer the standard:1~ Actor specificity – the resolution is a question of what an ideal state ought to do - the state necessitates the paradox of exclusion — the necessary determination of who belongs to the state requires the exclusion of who doesn’t while including everyone makes exercising rights impossible - Mouffe 2:(Chantal Mouffe, Professor at the Department of Political Science of the Institute for Advanced Studies. June 2000. "The Democratic Paradox") AND are the ‘demos’ and the ‘people’." (41-44) 2~ K Solvency –A~ Only a state that accepts opposing views can ever be open to radical revision – other systems insist on their own foundation and can’t accommodate changing views that make them exclusionary or illegitimate. Controls the internal link to other evaluative mechanisms: agonism makes it possible to implement them AND be receptive of the demands of justice to comeB~ Controls the internal link to all K alts and radical politics – the ability to speak out and fight for particular reforms is guaranteed by the agonistic mindset – alternatives shut down the collective ability to communicate to others to advance that agenda.C~ Mobilization requires pragmatic demands - Mouffe 16:Shahid, Waleed. "America in Populist Times: An Interview With Chantal Mouffe." The Nation, 15 Dec. 2016, www.thenation.com/article/archive/america-in-populist-times-an-interview-with-chantal-mouffe/. LHPYA AND bonds of solidarity must be actively constructed by leaders with care and discipline. 3~ Rule-following – there’s no correct interpretation of a rule, so only agonism is legitimate – it opens up spaces for diverse interpretations, Mouffe 4:Chantal Mouffe, ~Chantal Mouffe (French: ~muf~; born 17 June 1943)~1~ is a Belgian political theorist, formerly teaching at University of Westminster.~2~ She is best known for her contribution to the development—jointly with Ernesto Laclau, with whom she co-authored Hegemony and Socialist Strategy—of the so-called Essex School of discourse analysis,~3~~4~ a type of post-Marxist political inquiry drawing on Gramsci, post-structuralism and theories of identity, and redefining Leftist politics in terms of radical democracy. Her highest cited publication is Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics.~5~ She is also the author of influential works on agonistic political theory, including Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically and The Democratic Paradox.~ 2000, "The Democratic Paradox" LHP AV AND formulation, and this is why his contribution to democratic thinking is invaluable. 4~ Contradictions – willing lack of inquiry is a contradiction in terms because the assertion of a statement presupposes the validity of judgments in relation to a community of testers. Putnam 90:A RECONSIDERATION OF DEWEYAN DEMOCRACY HILARY PUTNAM* Walter Beverly Pearson Professor of Mathematical Logic, Harvard University. 1990 AND then I am committed to the idea of a possible community of inquirers. 5~ Performativity – debate assumes that difference exists, which is specifically true for switch side debate, and debate must protect the right to disagree without being targeted for your difference to ensure safety. That is a constitutive necessity of discourse spaces that outweighs on a pre and post fiat layer.A~ it is specific to the judge’s obligation in the debate space, not just educational spaceB~ switch side debate could not exist without agonism, making it a pre-requisite to being in debate in the first place6~ Motivation – Ethics must recognize the right to provide and contest opinions – otherwise, people could disagree have no reason for them to accept standards. Morality would just be a hypothetical imperative, which can’t produce an obligation. Merely justifying why an ethical theory is "true" does not matter if a person would never bind themselves to it.OffensePlan: Resolved: A just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike except for police workers. I’m willing to clarify to meet neg interps in cross – Nolan 20:Nolan , Hamilton. "It's Time to Kick Police Unions out of the Labor Movement. They Aren't Allies | Hamilton Nolan." The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 13 June 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/13/police-unions-afl-cio-labor-movement?ref=hvper.com. LHP PS AND guarding the door. Time to make a choice. People over police. Recognizing the right to strike allows workers to engage in a form of violence, but one that can remain in the control of the state, and not escalate out of control of the law. Crepon and Bez 19:Crépon, Marc, and Micol Bez. "The Right to Strike and Legal War in Walter Benjamin's "Toward the Critique of Violence"." Critical Times 2.2 (2019): 252-260. AND
That links to my framework – objectivity is impossible so procedures for agonism have to be institutionalized, Mouffe 6:Chantal Mouffe, ~Chantal Mouffe (French: ~muf~; born 17 June 1943)~1~ is a Belgian political theorist, formerly teaching at University of Westminster.~2~ She is best known for her contribution to the development—jointly with Ernesto Laclau, with whom she co-authored Hegemony and Socialist Strategy—of the so-called Essex School of discourse analysis,~3~~4~ a type of post-Marxist political inquiry drawing on Gramsci, post-structuralism and theories of identity, and redefining Leftist politics in terms of radical democracy. Her highest cited publication is Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics.~5~ She is also the author of influential works on agonistic political theory, including Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically and The Democratic Paradox.~ 2000, "The Democratic Paradox" LHP AV AND thinking which disguises the necessary frontiers and forms of exclusion behind pretenses of 'neutrality' ROBThe role of the ballot is to evaluate the truth or falsity of the resolution through a normatively justified framework via fair, safe, and educational arguments. no tricks, yes phil and yes theory. Prefer it –1~ Reciprocity – normative frameworks provide a reciprocal burden of justifying an obligation with the ability to turn them – other frameworks are arbitrarily impact exclusive and don’t articulate a 1-1 burden2~ Philosophy – only our role of the ballot incentivizes nuanced discussions over the interactions of different ethical theories. That comes first –A~ constitutivism – LD debate is a values debate which means the intrinsic purpose of the activity is philosophical discussionB~ hijacks any voter – the question of why those are good relies on philosophical justification, ie constitutivism or something.Underview1~ 1ar theory paradigm –A~ the aff gets it – otherwise the neg can engage in infinite abuse, making debate impossibleB~ drop the debater because the 1ar is too short to win theory and substanceC~ no RVIs – the 2nr has enough time and the 2ar needs strategic flexibilityD~ competing interps – 1ar interps aren’t bidirectional and reasonability incentivizes brute force defensive dumps2~ 1ar theory first –A~ Strat skew – short 2AR means I need to collapse to one layer to counter the long 2N collapseB~ Epistemic Indict – if the 1N was abusive then my ability to respond was skewed so you can’t truly evaluate the 1ncC~ Magnitude – the 1nc has 7 minutes of potential abuse whereas I have 6D~ Investment – 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 time3~ Yes aff rvi – a~ time skew – 4 minute 1ar has to hedge against a 7 minute 1nc and counter a long 6 minute 2n collapse, no rvi make the 1ar virtually impossible and structurally behind on the debate which means we need rvi to be able to collapse to something in the 2ar and win4~ Conseqeuntalism is a false way of viewing ethics – a~ Cascading b~ False Universality – their framework ignores the us/them distinction and pluralism – it falsely asserts that we can create a universal obligation to maximize the entire worlds pleasure which fails5~ The negative must only defend the status quo – a~ limits b~ topic education | 11/21/21 |
ND21 - AC - ComradeTournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 2 | Opponent: Harker PG | Judge: Lukas Krause Part 1 – The Capitalist InfosphereCapitalism has evolved. In the infosphere, workers are no longer hired, but bought as packets of time, disconnected from any collectivity and without labor relations. No longer people, they are machines to the capitalist system. Only through an existential continuity of the comrade is solvency possible, Berardi 11:Franco Berardi, "After The Future," 2011 AND continuity, we lack the conditions for cellularized bodies to become a community. Only the collective can control the subjectivity and power necessary to have existential continuity and solve cap. This is contrary to capitalist logic, which suppresses the crowd in favor of individualism. Dean 16:Jodl Dean, "Crowds and Party" 2016 LHP AV AND intense: the crowd expresses the paradoxical power of the people as subject. Capitalism is a death cult and the apocalypse is already happening. Without an unshakable commitment to the total and complete rejection of the fetishization capitalist value, we will all die like the dinosaurs, Allinson 21Allinson, J. (2021). The tragedy of the worker: towards the proletarocene. Verso Books. pg 8-17 AND of ‘adaptation’ has become the ideology of capitalism’s triumph over all life. Part 2 – MicroworkMicrowork preys on the marginalized – individuals label data and do scattered freelance tasks key to the existence of the wealthy tech companies responsible for their displacement under a brutal capitalist system – Jones 21,Jones, Phil. (Phil Jones is a researcher for the think tank Autonomy. He regularly writes for publications such as the London Review of Books, the Guardian, the New Statesman and Novara Media). Work Without the Worker: Labour in the Age of Platform Capitalism. Verso Books, 2021. LHP AB AND to search for another task, workers constantly oscillate between the two states. Micro and platform workers striking would crush big tech’s power over the masses – however, companies, aided by current national structures, stifle any opportunity for this, Jones 2:Jones, Phil. (Phil Jones is a researcher for the think tank Autonomy. He regularly writes for publications such as the London Review of Books, the Guardian, the New Statesman and Novara Media). Work Without the Worker: Labour in the Age of Platform Capitalism. Verso Books, 2021. LHP AB AND a nascent digital militancy into a proper movement still remains to be seen. Platform and micro-work functions to evade legal protections by situating workers in a third zone of sub-employment as neither workers nor non-workers. All future labor rights including striking depend on the firm classification of micro-work as work.Thus, the plan: A just government ought to recognize the unconditional right of platform and micro-workers to strike. This is the only way to firmly assert their status as workers rather than fragmented surplus populations, raising their class consciousness along with providing tools for resistance Leterme and Dufresne 21:Dufresne, Anne, and Cédric Leterme. "App Workers United." The Left in the European Parliament, European Parliamentary Group, Jan. 2021, https://mirador-multinationales.be/IMG/pdf/study'empl'version'finale'en.pdf. LHP AB AND representation and collective bargaining practices. At the same time, there is another The aff improves material conditions and collectivizes workers, Dufresne 2:Dufresne, Anne, and Cédric Leterme. "App Workers United." The Left in the European Parliament, European Parliamentary Group, Jan. 2021, https://mirador-multinationales.be/IMG/pdf/study'empl'version'finale'en.pdf. LHP AB AND the current course of the "digital transition" (JNC, 2019) Part 3 – The ComradeThe relationship of the comrade – one oriented toward a better future – provides the means necessary for organization to solve capitalism and create any coherent resistance movements, Dean 19:JODI DEAN, January 18, 2019, "Capitalism is the End of the World" https://mediationsjournal.org/articles/end-of-world LHP AV AND lose our comrades. The fact of an end should not forestall beginning. Thus, the role of the ballot is promoting the politics of the comrade – a new relation towards an emancipatory future. This is a pre-fiat methodological resistance strategy that applies to debate.Prefer:1~ Forms of fragmented politics completely cedes the political to capitalism. Engagement in under common communication is too individualized and resists collective and concrete change. This constitutes enjoyment of melancholic pleasures of being distanced and accommodated to the real world, and as a result remains stuck in parasitic oppression without change. Dean 13:"Communist Desire", Jodi Dean, , 2013, LHP AM AND as they capture us in activities that feel productive, important, radical. 2~ The only way to make radical change is through a process of finding a target and building a movement – targeted demands are key, Malm 21:Malm, Andreas. "We Must Nationalise Total." Versobooks.com, 2021, https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/5168-we-must-nationalise-total. AND include forms of destruction of property, and that could increase the pressure. | 11/20/21 |
ND21 - AC - PettitTournament: The Tradition | Round: 3 | Opponent: Coral Glades MT | Judge: Nick Montecalvo Cypress Bay R3 v Coral Glades MT1ACFrameworkFreedom is a primary ethical good –1~ In setting an end, every agent must recognize freedom as a necessary good, Gewirth 84 bracketed for grammar and gendered language~Alan Gewirth, () "The Ontological Basis of Natural Law: A Critique and an Alternative" American Journal Of Jurisprudence: Vol. 29: Iss. 1 Article 5, 1984, https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ajj/vol29/iss1/5/, DOA:9-10-2018 WWBW Recut LHP AV~ AND consistency with the material consideration of the generic features and rights of action. 2~ The exercise of practical rationality requires that one regards practical rationality as intrinsically good – that justifies a right to freedom.Wood 07 ~Allen W. Wood, (Stanford University, California) "Kantian Ethics" Cambridge University Press, 2007, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/kantian-ethics/769B8CD9FCC74DB6870189AE1645FAC8, DOA:8-12-2020 WWBW~ AND is an end in itself whether the person is morally good or bad. There are two models of freedom—the non-interference model and the non-domination model. The non-interference model holds that a person’s freedom is violated if they are actually interfered with, while the non-domination model holds that a person’s freedom is violated if someone has the capacity to arbitrarily interfere in their life. Only the non-domination model can ground legitimate state interference and cohere with intuitions about freedom. Pettit 12:Philip Pettit, "Legitimacy and Justice in Republican Perspective" Current Legal Problems, 2012 RE Recut LHP AV AND , I turn to a consideration of this challenge in the final section. Thus, the standard is consistency with freedom as non-domination, defined as establishing institutional constraints that eliminate the capacity for arbitrary interference.Impact calc – power can be exercised non-arbitrarily insofar as those interfered with have control over domination, Pettit 2:Pettit P. Freedom in the market. Politics, Philosophy and Economics. 2006;5(2):131-149. doi:10.1177/1470594X06064218 LHP AV Accessed 7/4/21 AND , but under the republican approach it will not take such freedom away. Prefer –1~ Discourse – Any genuine discourse requires non-domination and concedes its authority. Pettit 3 bracketed for glang:PETTIT, PHILIP. "THE DOMINATION COMPLAINT." Nomos, vol. 46, 2005, pp. 87–117. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24220143. Accessed 19 Aug. 2020. AND that person a real voice or give him or her a genuine hearing. 2~ Oppression – Domination as a condition takes away a person’s status as human – categorical dehumanization is created by communal recognition of domination. Pettit 4:PETTIT, PHILIP. "THE DOMINATION COMPLAINT." Nomos, vol. 46, 2005, pp. 87–117. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24220143. Accessed 19 Aug. 2020. AND that cower at their masters' feet or snuggle that up their mistress’s skirt. ContentionAbsent a right to strike, workers are dominated –1~ Structural Domination – a labor market structurally requires exploitation and domination – workers need an alternative, Gourevitch 16:Gourevitch, A.. "Quitting Work but Not the Job: Liberty and the Right to Strike." Perspectives on Politics 14 (2016): 307 - 323. LHP AV Accessed 7/4/21 AND refuse to believe that they can overcome their exploitation through purely individual efforts. 2~ Workplace Domination – authority within the workplace arbitrarily resides in the hands of employers, which alienates and dominates workers, Gourevitch 2:Gourevitch, A.. "Quitting Work but Not the Job: Liberty and the Right to Strike." Perspectives on Politics 14 (2016): 307 - 323. LHP AV Accessed 7/4/21 AND labor legislation) or that she owes obligations of deference to the employer. Thus, the plan: A just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike. Gourevitch 3:Gourevitch, A.. "Quitting Work but Not the Job: Liberty and the Right to Strike." Perspectives on Politics 14 (2016): 307 - 323. LHP AV Accessed 7/4/21 AND jobs from which they have withdrawn performance belong to them, they maintain. Current legal norms effectively eliminate a right to strike – the aff’s philosophical defense grounds an unconditional right to strike that’s distinct from the traditional voluntarist version, Gourevitch 4:Gourevitch, A.. "Quitting Work but Not the Job: Liberty and the Right to Strike." Perspectives on Politics 14 (2016): 307 - 323. LHP AV Accessed 7/4/21 AND commodification of ‘labor-power’ subjects workers to overlapping forms of unfreedom. The plan solves –1~ Power – it reverses power relationships and challenges the structure of economic control itself – that alleviates domination, Gourevitch 5:Gourevitch, A.. "Quitting Work but Not the Job: Liberty and the Right to Strike." Perspectives on Politics 14 (2016): 307 - 323. LHP AV Accessed 7/4/21 AND is why they may not take jobs that striking workers refuse to perform. 2~ Decommodification – strikes challenge the notion of labor as a mere commodity – that empowers workers and resists arbitrary managerial authority, Gourevitch 6:Gourevitch, A.. "Quitting Work but Not the Job: Liberty and the Right to Strike." Perspectives on Politics 14 (2016): 307 - 323. LHP AV Accessed 7/4/21 AND Burns 2011, 47-55; Atleson 1983, 67-96). ROBThe Role of the Ballot is to vote for the debater who best proves the truth or falsity of the resolution:1~ Critical pedagogy forces the judge into the role of coercer – Rickert:(Thomas, ""Hands Up, You're Free": Composition in a Post-Oedipal World", JacOnline Journal, wbem) AND liberatory pedagogy also opens up a cynical distance toward the writing produced in class 2~ Inclusion: a) other ROBs open the door for personal lives of debaters to factor into decisions and compare who is more oppressed which causes violence in a space where some people go to escape. b) Anything can function under truth testing insofar as it proves the resolution either true or false. Specific role of the ballots exclude all offense besides those that follow from their framework which shuts out people without the technical skill or resources to prep for it.3~ Constitutive: The ballot asks you to either vote aff or neg based on the given resolution a) Five dictionaries define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true which means its intrinsic to the nature of the activity b) Anything else is intervention - Branse: David Brasne '15 (), 9-4-2015, "The Role of the Judge By David Branse (Part One)," NSD Update,http://nsdupdate.com/2015/09/04/the-role-of-the-judge-by-david-branse-part-one AND activity with oscillating rules where judges cannot be held to any predictable standard. MethodAny resistance to systemic injustice must be based on a comprehensive normative theory which determines what the best response to specific injustices are – 4 warrants – Laurence,Laurence, Ben. "The Priority of Ideal Theory." PDF File. LHPYA AND about practical reasoning, which all depend on ideal theory for their systematic character The aff aligns itself with historical labor movements that challenged industrial capitalism and wage-slavery – that opens up the potentiality for cooperative control over the means of production, Gourevitch 6:Gourevitch, Alex. "Labor Republicanism and the Transformation of Work." Political Theory, vol. 41, no. 4, 2013, pp. 591–617. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23484596. Accessed 6 July 2021. LHP AV AND conceptual possibilities for thinking about work and economy that these labor republicans inspire. | 11/13/21 |
ND21 - AC - Pettit v2Tournament: The Tradition | Round: 5 | Opponent: Coral Glades OS | Judge: Matthew Doggett The Tradition R51ACFrameworkFreedom is a primary ethical good –1~ In setting an end, every agent must recognize freedom as a necessary good, Gewirth 84 bracketed for grammar and gendered language~Alan Gewirth, () "The Ontological Basis of Natural Law: A Critique and an Alternative" American Journal Of Jurisprudence: Vol. 29: Iss. 1 Article 5, 1984, https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ajj/vol29/iss1/5/, DOA:9-10-2018 WWBW Recut LHP AV~ AND consistency with the material consideration of the generic features and rights of action. 2~ The exercise of practical rationality requires that one regards practical rationality as intrinsically good – that justifies a right to freedom.Wood 07 ~Allen W. Wood, (Stanford University, California) "Kantian Ethics" Cambridge University Press, 2007, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/kantian-ethics/769B8CD9FCC74DB6870189AE1645FAC8, DOA:8-12-2020 WWBW~ AND is an end in itself whether the person is morally good or bad. There are two models of freedom—the non-interference model and the non-domination model. The non-interference model holds that a person’s freedom is violated if they are actually interfered with, while the non-domination model holds that a person’s freedom is violated if someone has the capacity to arbitrarily interfere in their life. Only the non-domination model can ground legitimate state interference and cohere with intuitions about freedom. Pettit 12:Philip Pettit, "Legitimacy and Justice in Republican Perspective" Current Legal Problems, 2012 RE Recut LHP AV AND , I turn to a consideration of this challenge in the final section. Thus, the standard is consistency with freedom as non-domination, defined as establishing institutional constraints that eliminate the capacity for arbitrary interference.Impact calc – power can be exercised non-arbitrarily insofar as those interfered with have control over domination, Pettit 2:Pettit P. Freedom in the market. Politics, Philosophy and Economics. 2006;5(2):131-149. doi:10.1177/1470594X06064218 LHP AV Accessed 7/4/21 AND , but under the republican approach it will not take such freedom away. Prefer –1~ Discourse – Any genuine discourse requires non-domination and concedes its authority. Pettit 3 bracketed for glang:PETTIT, PHILIP. "THE DOMINATION COMPLAINT." Nomos, vol. 46, 2005, pp. 87–117. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24220143. Accessed 19 Aug. 2020. AND that person a real voice or give him or her a genuine hearing. 2~ Oppression – Domination as a condition takes away a person’s status as human – categorical dehumanization is created by communal recognition of domination. Pettit 4:PETTIT, PHILIP. "THE DOMINATION COMPLAINT." Nomos, vol. 46, 2005, pp. 87–117. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24220143. Accessed 19 Aug. 2020. AND that cower at their masters' feet or snuggle that up their mistress’s skirt. ContentionAbsent a right to strike, workers are dominated –1~ Structural Domination – a labor market structurally requires exploitation and domination – workers need an alternative, Gourevitch 16:Gourevitch, A.. "Quitting Work but Not the Job: Liberty and the Right to Strike." Perspectives on Politics 14 (2016): 307 - 323. LHP AV Accessed 7/4/21 AND refuse to believe that they can overcome their exploitation through purely individual efforts. 2~ Workplace Domination – authority within the workplace arbitrarily resides in the hands of employers, which alienates and dominates workers, Gourevitch 2:Gourevitch, A.. "Quitting Work but Not the Job: Liberty and the Right to Strike." Perspectives on Politics 14 (2016): 307 - 323. LHP AV Accessed 7/4/21 AND labor legislation) or that she owes obligations of deference to the employer. Thus, the plan: A just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike. Gourevitch 3:Gourevitch, A.. "Quitting Work but Not the Job: Liberty and the Right to Strike." Perspectives on Politics 14 (2016): 307 - 323. LHP AV Accessed 7/4/21 AND jobs from which they have withdrawn performance belong to them, they maintain. Current legal norms effectively eliminate a right to strike – the aff’s philosophical defense grounds an unconditional right to strike that’s distinct from the traditional voluntarist version, Gourevitch 4:Gourevitch, A.. "Quitting Work but Not the Job: Liberty and the Right to Strike." Perspectives on Politics 14 (2016): 307 - 323. LHP AV Accessed 7/4/21 AND commodification of ‘labor-power’ subjects workers to overlapping forms of unfreedom. The plan solves –1~ Power – it reverses power relationships and challenges the structure of economic control itself – that alleviates domination, Gourevitch 5:Gourevitch, A.. "Quitting Work but Not the Job: Liberty and the Right to Strike." Perspectives on Politics 14 (2016): 307 - 323. LHP AV Accessed 7/4/21 AND is why they may not take jobs that striking workers refuse to perform. 2~ Decommodification – strikes challenge the notion of labor as a mere commodity – that empowers workers and resists arbitrary managerial authority, Gourevitch 6:Gourevitch, A.. "Quitting Work but Not the Job: Liberty and the Right to Strike." Perspectives on Politics 14 (2016): 307 - 323. LHP AV Accessed 7/4/21 AND Burns 2011, 47-55; Atleson 1983, 67-96). ROBThe Role of the Ballot is to vote for the debater who best proves the truth or falsity of the resolution:1~ Critical pedagogy forces the judge into the role of coercer – Rickert:(Thomas, ""Hands Up, You're Free": Composition in a Post-Oedipal World", JacOnline Journal, wbem) AND liberatory pedagogy also opens up a cynical distance toward the writing produced in class 2~ Inclusion: a) other ROBs open the door for personal lives of debaters to factor into decisions and compare who is more oppressed which causes violence in a space where some people go to escape. b) Anything can function under truth testing insofar as it proves the resolution either true or false. Specific role of the ballots exclude all offense besides those that follow from their framework which shuts out people without the technical skill or resources to prep for it.3~ Constitutive: The ballot asks you to either vote aff or neg based on the given resolution a) Five dictionaries define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm as to prove true which means its intrinsic to the nature of the activity b) Anything else is intervention - Branse: David Brasne '15 (), 9-4-2015, "The Role of the Judge By David Branse (Part One)," NSD Update,http://nsdupdate.com/2015/09/04/the-role-of-the-judge-by-david-branse-part-one AND activity with oscillating rules where judges cannot be held to any predictable standard. MethodAny resistance to systemic injustice must be based on a comprehensive normative theory which determines what the best response to specific injustices are – 4 warrants – Laurence,Laurence, Ben. "The Priority of Ideal Theory." PDF File. LHPYA AND about practical reasoning, which all depend on ideal theory for their systematic character The aff aligns itself with historical labor movements that challenged industrial capitalism and wage-slavery – that opens up the potentiality for cooperative control over the means of production, Gourevitch 6:Gourevitch, Alex. "Labor Republicanism and the Transformation of Work." Political Theory, vol. 41, no. 4, 2013, pp. 591–617. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23484596. Accessed 6 July 2021. LHP AV AND conceptual possibilities for thinking about work and economy that these labor republicans inspire. | 11/15/21 |
SO21 - AC - Data ExclusivityTournament: New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: Lexington AR | Judge: Sesh Joe Bronx R2FWK====Pain and pleasure are intrinsically valuable – to justify beyond that runs into moral incoherence. Moen 16,==== AND places where we reach the end of the line in matters of value. Thus, the standard is maximizing expected well-being (Act Util). Prefer additionally.~1~ It’s a lexical pre-requisite. Threats to bodily security and life preclude the ability for moral actors to effectively act upon other moral theories since they are in a constant state of crisis, and if people are dead they can’t actualize any ethical theory.~2~ Actor specificity~A~ governments must aggregate because their policies benefit some and harm others so the only non-arbitrary way to prioritize is by helping the most amount of people~B~ Actor specificity comes first because different agents have different obligations. Takes out calc indicts because they’re empirically denied.~3~ Degrees of wrongness – only consequences can explain why some actions are better or worse than others – breaking a promise to take someone to lunch isn’t as bad as breaking a promise to take a dying person to the hospital but only the consequences of breaking it can explain why, so all ethical theories collapse to util and other ethical theories are irresolvable/unweighable.~4~ No intent-foresight distinction—if we foresee a consequence, then it becomes part of our deliberation which makes it intrinsic to our action since we intend it to happen.~5~ Topic lit – most articles are written through the lens of util since they’re crafted for policymakers and the general public to understand who take consequences to be important, not philosophy majors. Fairness bc you vote for better debater not better cheater. Education because that is the terminal impact of debate. These are framework warrants, not a reason to drop the debater.Plan====Plan Text: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to eliminate data exclusivity intellectual property protections for medicines through TRIPs – Diependaele 17 ==== AND pharmaceutical industry, rather than allowing them to have a legitimate demand fulfilled. It’s topical and the aff solves – Data Exclusivity is a TRIPs Plus IP protection – Thrasher 21Thrasher, Rachel. "How Data Exclusivity Laws Impact Drug Prices:" Global Development Policy Center Chart of the Week How Data Exclusivity Laws Impact Drug Prices Comments, 25 May 2021, www.bu.edu/gdp/2021/05/25/chart-of-the-week-how-data-exclusivity-laws-impact-drug-prices/. LHP AB AND it does not require exclusivity rules that block the registration of generic products. Data Exclusivity is uniquely bad when compared to patents, especially in developing countries, in the context of monopolies, WHO 17"Data Exclusivity and Other ‘Trips-plus’ Measures." UHC Technical Brief, WHO, 2017, apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1140151/retrieve. LHP AB AND do not have to grant or enforce patents for pharmaceuticals until 2033.b OffenseAdvantage – Medicine AccessTRIPs Plus Provisions, namely data exclusivity, are being used in many bilateral trade agreements – Thrasher et al 21Thrasher, Rachel, Veronika J. Wirtz, Warren Kaplan, Kevin P. Gallagher, Hattie Werk. "How Data Exclusivity Laws Impact Drug Prices:" Global Development Policy Center Chart of the Week How Data Exclusivity Laws Impact Drug Prices Comments, 25 May 2021, www.bu.edu/gdp/2021/05/25/chart-of-the-week-how-data AND availability of data, and a lack of uniformity in indicators and methods. ====AND ==== ====Links:==== ====~1~ In depth analysis – data exclusivity raises medicine prices – Palmedo 21==== AND larger pharmaceutical purchases are associated with lower prices (Helbe and Aizawa 2017). Impacts:~1~ They directly push people into povertyHoban 10 Rose Hoban 9-13-2010 "High Cost of Medicine Pushes More People into Poverty" https://www.voanews.com/science-health/high-cost-medicine-pushes-more-people-poverty (spent more than six years as the health reporter for North Carolina Public Radio – WUNC, where she covered health care, state health policy, science and research with a focus on public health issues. She left to start North Carolina Health News after watching many of her professional peers leave or be laid off of their jobs, leaving NC with few people to cover this complicated and important topic. ALSO cites Laurens Niens who is a Health Researcher at Erasmus University Rotterdam)Elmer AND reaches a patient, markups are sometimes up to 1,000 percent." ~3~ They force patients to go underground for drugs.Bryant 11 Clifton Bryant 2011 "The Routledge Handbook of Deviant Behaviour" (former professor of sociology at VA Tech)Elmer Recut LHP AB AND medicines increase, the implications for increased crime and deviance become almost limitless. ====Counterfeit drugs kill millions –==== AND case, these counterfeit drugs had been sold through a fraudulent online pharmacy. UVThe role of the ballot should be a critical pedagogy of hope centering around formulating concrete alternatives to existing conditions.Amsler, Sarah S. 2007 "Pedagogy against "dis-utopia": From conscientization to the education of desire." AND the authoritarian imposition of abstract generality that critical theory must aim to transcend. And, forms of fragmented politics completely cedes the political to capitalism. Engagement in undercommon communication is too individualized and resists collective and concrete change. This constitutes enjoyment of melancholic pleasures of being distanced and accommodated to the real world, and as a result remains stuck in parasitic oppression without change. Dean13"Communist Desire", Jodi Dean, , 2013, LHP AM AND as they capture us in activities that feel productive, important, radical. Integrating the state is essential to any overarching analysis of oppression.Barma 16 ~May 2016, ~Advance Publication Online on 11/6/15~, Naazneen Barma, PhD in Political Science from UC-Berkeley, Assistant Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School, Brent Durbin, PhD in Political Science from UC-Berkeley, Professor of Government at Smith College, Eric Lorber, JD from UPenn and PhD in Political Science from Duke, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, Rachel Whitlark, PhD in Political Science from GWU, Post-Doctoral Research Fellow with the Project on Managing the Atom and International Security Program within the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard, "‘Imagine a World in Which’: Using Scenarios in Political Science," International Studies Perspectives 17 (2), pp. 1-19, http://www.naazneenbarma.com/uploads/2/9/6/9/29695681/using'scenarios'in'political'science'isp'2015.pdf~~ AND analysts from anticipating and understanding the pivotal junctures that arise in international affairs. Apocalyptic images challenge dominant power structures to create futures of social justiceJessica Hurley 17, Assistant Professor in the Humanities at the University of Chicago, "Impossible Futures: Fictions of Risk in the Longue Durée", Duke University Press, https://read.dukeupress.edu/american-literature/article/89/4/761/132823/Impossible-Futures-Fictions-of-Risk-in-the-Longue Stuff I didn’t read is BelowIf contemporary ecocriticism has a shared premise about environmental risk it is that genre is the key to both perceiving and, possibly, correcting ecological crisis. Frederick Buell’s 2003 From Apocalypse to Way of Life: Environmental Crisis in the American Century has established one of the most central oppositions of this paradigm. As his title suggests, Buell tells the story of a discourse that began in the apocalyptic mode in the 1960s and 70s, when discussions of "the immanent end of nature" most commonly took the form of "prophecy, revelation, climax, and extermination" before turning away from apocalypse when the prophesied ends failed to arrive (112, 78). Buell offers his suggestion for the appropriate literary mode for life lived within a crisis that is both unceasing and inescapable: new voices, "if wise enough….will abandon apocalypse for a sadder realism that looks closely at social and environmental changes in process and recognizes crisis as a place where people dwell" (202-3). In a world of threat, Buell demands a realism that might help us see risks more clearly and aid our survival.¶ Buell’s argument has become a broadly held view in contemporary risk theory and ecocriticism, overlapping fields in the social sciences and humanities that address the foundational question of second modernity: "how do you live when you are at such risk?" (Woodward 2009, 205).1 Such an assertion, however, assumes both that realism is a neutral descriptive practice and that apocalypse is not something that is happening now in places that we might not see, or cannot hear. This essay argues for the continuing importance of apocalyptic narrative forms in representations of environmental risk to disrupt conservative realisms that maintain the status quo. Taking the ecological disaster of nuclear waste as my case study, I examine two fictional treatments of nuclear waste dumps that create different temporal structures within which the colonial history of the United States plays out. The first, a set of Department of Energy documents that use statistical modeling and fictional description to predict a set of realistic futures for the site of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico (1991), creates a present that is fully knowable and a future that is fully predictable. Such an approach, I suggest, perpetuates the state logics of implausibility that have long undergirded settler colonialism in the United States. In contrast, Leslie Marmon Silko’s contemporaneous novel Almanac of the Dead (1991) uses its apocalyptic form to deconstruct the claims to verisimilitude that undergird state realism, transforming nuclear waste into a prophecy of the end of the United States rather than a means for imagining its continuation. In Almanac of the Dead, the presence of nuclear waste introjects a deep-time perspective into contemporary America, transforming the present into a speculative space where environmental catastrophe produces not only unevenly distributed damage but also revolutionary forms of social justice that insist on a truth that probability modeling cannot contain: that the future will be unimaginably different from the present, while the present, too, might yet be utterly different from the real that we think we know.¶ Nuclear waste is rarely treated in ecocriticism or risk theory, for several reasons: it is too manmade to be ecological; its catastrophes are ongoing, intentionally produced situations rather than sudden disasters; and it does not support the narrative that subtends ecocritical accounts of risk perception in which the nuclear threat gives rise to an awareness of other kinds of threat before reaching the end of its relevance at the end of the Cold War.2 In what follows, I argue that the failure of nuclear waste to fit into the critical frames created by ecocriticism and risk theory to date offers an opportunity to expand those frames and overcome some of their limitations, especially the impulse towards a paranoid, totalizing realism that Peter van Wyck (2005) has described as central to ecocriticism in the risk society. Nuclear waste has durational forms that dwarf the human. It therefore dwells less in the economy of risk as it is currently conceptualized and more in the blown-out realm of deep time. Inhabiting the temporal scale that has recently been christened the Anthropocene, the geological era defined by the impact of human activities on the world’s geology and climate, nuclear waste unsettles any attempt at realist description, unveiling the limits of human imagination at every turn.3 By analyzing risk society through a heuristic of nuclear waste, this essay offers a critique of nuclear colonialism and environmental racism. At the same time, it shows how the apocalyptic mode in deep time allows narratives of environmental harm and danger to move beyond the paranoid logic of risk. In the world of deep time, all that might come to pass will come to pass, sooner or later. The endless maybes of risk become certainties. The impossibilities of our own deaths and the deaths of everything else will come. But so too will other impossibilities: talking macaws and alien visitors; the end of the colonial occupation of North America, perhaps, or a sudden human determination to let the world live. The end of capitalism may yet become more thinkable than the end of the world. Just wait long enough. Stranger things will happen.¶ Youth participatory action research enables transformative resistance and is crucial to make activism workCammarota and Fine 08 AND means by which young people engage transformational resistance. (1-4) | 10/16/21 |
SO21 - AC - KantTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 2 | Opponent: Ardrey Kell SA | Judge: Annie Wang 1AC Yale R2 vs. Ardrey Kell SA1acFrameworkOnly constructing ethics from our rational agency can explain the sources of normativity –A~ Bindingness – Any obligation must not only tell us what is good, but why we ought to be good or else agents can reject the value of goodness itself. That means ethics must start with what is constitutive of agents since it traces obligations to features that are intrinsic to being an agent – as an agent you must follow certain rules. Only practical agency is constitutive since agents can use rationality to decide against other values but the act of deciding to reject practical agency engages in it.B~ Action theory – every moral analysis requires an action to evaluate, but actions are infinitely divisible into smaller meaningless movements. The act of stealing can be reduced to going to a house, entering, grabbing things, and leaving, all of which are distinct actions without moral value. Only the practical decision to steal ties these actions together to give them any moral value.That justifies universalizability.A~ The principle of equality is true since anything else assigns moral value to contingent factors like identity and justifies racism, and the principle of non-contradiction is true since 2+2 can’t equal 4 for me and not for you meaning ethical statements true for one must be true for all.B~ Ethics must be defined a priori because of the is ought gap – experience only tells us what is since that’s what we perceive, 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. Applying reason to a priori truth results in universal obligations.Coercion isn’t universalizable—willing your own freedom while violating someone else’s is a conceptual contradiction.Engstrom ~Stephen Engstrom, (Professor of Philosophy @ the University of Pittsburgh) "Universal Legislation as the Form of Practical Knowledge" http://www.academia.edu/4512762/Universal'Legislation'As'the'Form'of'Practical'Knowledge, DOA:5-5-2018 WWBW~ AND a person’s outer freedom is incompatible with the limitation of that same freedom. This requires a system of property – mere empirical possession is insufficient and contrary to freedom, Hogdson 10:Louis Philippe Hogdson, 2010, "Kant on Property Rights and the State" http://www.yorku.ca/lhodgson/kant-on-property-rights-and.pdf LHP AV AND them physically. Nothing more is required for the rest of our argument. However, we are rational and impulsive – this nonideal situation requires a state with coercive authority that secures equal outer freedom and property, Koch 92:*bracketed for gendered language* Koch, Andrew M. "Immanuel Kant, The Right of Necessity, and the Liberal Foundation of Social Welfare" Southeastern Political Review, 20: 2 (Fall 1992) 295-314. https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/koch'andrew'1992'Immanuel'Kant.pdf LHP AV DOA: 9/14/21 AND force to compel compliance to the laws which protect the freedom of all. Thus, the standard is consistency with a system of equal outer freedom.Prefer –First, transcendental idealism – there’s a distinction between the noumenal world and the phenomenal world – freedom, as noumenal and undetermined by natural laws, is the supreme principle of ethics, Korsgaard 96:Korsgaard, Christine. "Creating The Kingdom of Ends: Reciprocity and Responsibility in Personal Relations." (p. 317-318). July 28, 1996 Recut LHP AV AND it is better regarded as something we say not about but to her. Second, ontology – being a human is constituted by rational reflection to answer the normative question – this is abstraction that is consistent with our identity, Shoaibi:Nader Shoaibi, ~Nader Shoaibi is a visiting assistant professor at University of Indianapolis, Department of Philosophy and Religion~ "In Defense of Kantian Moral Theory" http://fresnostate.edu/artshum/philosophy/documents/ShoaibiCUPR.pdf LHP AV DOA: 7/20/21 AND fallen short of its original aim of being a viable account of morality. Humanity is the fundamental identity – this grounds a system of equal and outer freedom, Shoaibi:Nader Shoaibi, ~Nader Shoaibi is a visiting assistant professor at University of Indianapolis, Department of Philosophy and Religion~ "In Defense of Kantian Moral Theory" http://fresnostate.edu/artshum/philosophy/documents/ShoaibiCUPR.pdf LHP AV DOA: 7/20/21 AND It is our humanity that requires us to value humanity, nothing else. Third, performativity – an intrinsic feature to any action is the acceptance of the goodness of universal freedom, Gewirth 84 bracketed for grammar and gendered language~Alan Gewirth, () "The Ontological Basis of Natural Law: A Critique and an Alternative" American Journal Of Jurisprudence: Vol. 29: Iss. 1 Article 5, 1984, https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ajj/vol29/iss1/5/, DOA:9-10-2018 WWBW Recut LHP AV~ AND consistency with the material consideration of the generic features and rights of action. ContentionPlan: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to eliminate patent protections for life-saving medicines. Rizvi 20:Husna Rizvi, "WHAT IF…DRUG PATENTS WERE SCRAPPED?" 24 June 2020, https://newint.org/features/2020/06/11/what-if-drug-patents-were-scrapped LHP AV DOA: 9/17/21 AND add: ‘the final goal cannot be anything short of abolition.’ Vote aff –1~ IP rights violate an individual’s actual right to property and the grounds on which they are justified,Cernea and Uszkai 12 Cernea, Mihail-Valentin, and Radu Uszkai. The Clash between Global Justice and Pharmaceutical Patents: A Critical Analysis. 2012, the-clash-between-global-justice-and-drug-patents-a-critical-analysis.pdf. SJEP AND use of tangible objects which we acquired fully in line with market rules. 2~ Right of necessity – nations can legitimately break patents in order to produce life-saving medicines, Bierson 21:Marshall Bierson, ~Marshall is currently completing his PhD in Philosophy at Florida State University. His primarily studies the intersection of ethics and the nature of persons. Outside of Academia, Marshall also directs curricular design for high school debate camps with the Victory Briefs Institute.~ "Intellectual Property and the Right of Necessity" August 18, 2021, https://www.prindlepost.org/2021/08/intellectual-property-and-the-right-of-necessity/ LHP AV DOA:9/14/21 AND right of necessity suggests a standing right to break many international medical patents. The right of necessity is a logical constraint on the coercive powers of the state – even if not ethical, reducing IP for life saving medicines is not in the jurisdiction of legal punishment – that would undermine the very foundation of the omnilateral will, Koch 92:Koch, Andrew M. "Immanuel Kant, The Right of Necessity, and the Liberal Foundation of Social Welfare" Southeastern Political Review, 20: 2 (Fall 1992) 295-314. https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/koch'andrew'1992'Immanuel'Kant.pdf LHP AV DOA: 9/14/21 AND , the state's legal and coercive functions are inseparable from its welfare functions. Underview1~ 1ar theory –A~ the aff gets it – otherwise the neg can engage in infinite abuse, making debate impossibleB~ drop the debater because the 1ar is too short to win theory and substanceC~ no RVIs – the 2nr has enough time and the 2ar needs strategic flexibilityD~ Fairness is a voter – debate’s a game that requires objective evaluation – judges have obligations to vote for the better debater which fairness controls. It also controls truth value – absent fairness, args were not subject to contestation, so they only won their arg because they were unfair.2~ 1ar theory first –A~ Strat skew – short 2AR means I need to collapse to one layer to counter the long 2N collapseB~ Epistemic Indict – if the 1N was abusive then my ability to respond was skewed so you can’t truly evaluate the 1ncC~ Investment – 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 time3~ Presumption and permissibility affirm –A~ we presume statements true – if I said my name was Arjun, you would believe me absent evidence to the contraryB~ affirming is harder – the 1ar has to answer 7 minutes of offense and hedge against a 6 minute 2nr collapse and empirics – presumption is this card’s only implication, Shah 2-13:Sachin Shah, ~LHP Debater, Attended TOC 2018 and TOC 2019, Broke at TOC 2019, 5 on AP Stats, Computer Science Major, Experience with side bias stats~ February 13, 2020, "A Statistical Analysis of Side-Bias on the 2020 January-February Lincoln Douglas Debate Topic by Sachin Shah" http://nsdupdate.com/2020/a-statistical-analysis-of-side-bias-on-the-2020-january-february-lincoln-douglas-debate-topic-by-sachin-shah/?fbclid=IwAR2P0AZqQtSiwMZlCpia-Fy1zFOdHn6JrGtcYgGulqeimd-V0a1xbaIMYYs LHP AV AND -February topic. So, once again, don’t lose the flip! | 9/18/21 |
SO21 - AC - Kant v2Tournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 3 | Opponent: Milton AT | Judge: Anthony Cui 1AC Yale R3 vs. Milton AT1acFrameworkOnly constructing ethics from our rational agency can explain the sources of normativity –A~ Bindingness – Any obligation must not only tell us what is good, but why we ought to be good or else agents can reject the value of goodness itself. That means ethics must start with what is constitutive of agents since it traces obligations to features that are intrinsic to being an agent – as an agent you must follow certain rules. Only practical agency is constitutive since agents can use rationality to decide against other values but the act of deciding to reject practical agency engages in it.B~ Action theory – every moral analysis requires an action to evaluate, but actions are infinitely divisible into smaller meaningless movements. The act of stealing can be reduced to going to a house, entering, grabbing things, and leaving, all of which are distinct actions without moral value. Only the practical decision to steal ties these actions together to give them any moral value.That justifies universalizability.A~ The principle of equality is true since anything else assigns moral value to contingent factors like identity and justifies racism, and the principle of non-contradiction is true since 2+2 can’t equal 4 for me and not for you meaning ethical statements true for one must be true for all.B~ Ethics must be defined a priori because of the is ought gap – experience only tells us what is since that’s what we perceive, 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. Applying reason to a priori truth results in universal obligations.Coercion isn’t universalizable—willing your own freedom while violating someone else’s is a conceptual contradiction.Engstrom ~Stephen Engstrom, (Professor of Philosophy @ the University of Pittsburgh) "Universal Legislation as the Form of Practical Knowledge" http://www.academia.edu/4512762/Universal'Legislation'As'the'Form'of'Practical'Knowledge, DOA:5-5-2018 WWBW~ AND a person’s outer freedom is incompatible with the limitation of that same freedom. This requires a system of property – mere empirical possession is insufficient and contrary to freedom, Hogdson 10:Louis Philippe Hogdson, 2010, "Kant on Property Rights and the State" http://www.yorku.ca/lhodgson/kant-on-property-rights-and.pdf LHP AV AND them physically. Nothing more is required for the rest of our argument. However, we are rational and impulsive – this nonideal situation requires a state with coercive authority that secures equal outer freedom and property, Koch 92:*bracketed for gendered language* Koch, Andrew M. "Immanuel Kant, The Right of Necessity, and the Liberal Foundation of Social Welfare" Southeastern Political Review, 20: 2 (Fall 1992) 295-314. https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/koch'andrew'1992'Immanuel'Kant.pdf LHP AV DOA: 9/14/21 AND force to compel compliance to the laws which protect the freedom of all. Thus, the standard is consistency with a system of equal outer freedom.Prefer –First, transcendental idealism – there’s a distinction between the noumenal world and the phenomenal world – freedom, as noumenal and undetermined by natural laws, is the supreme principle of ethics, Korsgaard 96:Korsgaard, Christine. "Creating The Kingdom of Ends: Reciprocity and Responsibility in Personal Relations." (p. 317-318). July 28, 1996 Recut LHP AV AND it is better regarded as something we say not about but to her. Second, ontology – being a human is constituted by rational reflection to answer the normative question – this is abstraction that is consistent with our identity, Shoaibi:Nader Shoaibi, ~Nader Shoaibi is a visiting assistant professor at University of Indianapolis, Department of Philosophy and Religion~ "In Defense of Kantian Moral Theory" http://fresnostate.edu/artshum/philosophy/documents/ShoaibiCUPR.pdf LHP AV DOA: 7/20/21 AND fallen short of its original aim of being a viable account of morality. Humanity is the fundamental identity – this grounds a system of equal and outer freedom, Shoaibi:Nader Shoaibi, ~Nader Shoaibi is a visiting assistant professor at University of Indianapolis, Department of Philosophy and Religion~ "In Defense of Kantian Moral Theory" http://fresnostate.edu/artshum/philosophy/documents/ShoaibiCUPR.pdf LHP AV DOA: 7/20/21 AND It is our humanity that requires us to value humanity, nothing else. Third, performativity – an intrinsic feature to any action is the acceptance of the goodness of universal freedom, Gewirth 84 bracketed for grammar and gendered language~Alan Gewirth, () "The Ontological Basis of Natural Law: A Critique and an Alternative" American Journal Of Jurisprudence: Vol. 29: Iss. 1 Article 5, 1984, https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ajj/vol29/iss1/5/, DOA:9-10-2018 WWBW Recut LHP AV~ AND consistency with the material consideration of the generic features and rights of action. ContentionPlan: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to eliminate patent protections for life-saving medicines. Rizvi 20:Husna Rizvi, "WHAT IF…DRUG PATENTS WERE SCRAPPED?" 24 June 2020, https://newint.org/features/2020/06/11/what-if-drug-patents-were-scrapped LHP AV DOA: 9/17/21 AND add: ‘the final goal cannot be anything short of abolition.’ Vote aff –1~ IP rights violate an individual’s actual right to property and the grounds on which they are justified,Cernea and Uszkai 12 Cernea, Mihail-Valentin, and Radu Uszkai. The Clash between Global Justice and Pharmaceutical Patents: A Critical Analysis. 2012, the-clash-between-global-justice-and-drug-patents-a-critical-analysis.pdf. SJEP AND use of tangible objects which we acquired fully in line with market rules. 2~ Right of necessity – nations can legitimately break patents in order to produce life-saving medicines, Bierson 21:Marshall Bierson, ~Marshall is currently completing his PhD in Philosophy at Florida State University. His primarily studies the intersection of ethics and the nature of persons. Outside of Academia, Marshall also directs curricular design for high school debate camps with the Victory Briefs Institute.~ "Intellectual Property and the Right of Necessity" August 18, 2021, https://www.prindlepost.org/2021/08/intellectual-property-and-the-right-of-necessity/ LHP AV DOA:9/14/21 AND right of necessity suggests a standing right to break many international medical patents. The right of necessity is a logical constraint on the coercive powers of the state – even if not ethical, reducing IP for life saving medicines is not in the jurisdiction of legal punishment – that would undermine the very foundation of the omnilateral will, Koch 92:Koch, Andrew M. "Immanuel Kant, The Right of Necessity, and the Liberal Foundation of Social Welfare" Southeastern Political Review, 20: 2 (Fall 1992) 295-314. https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/koch'andrew'1992'Immanuel'Kant.pdf LHP AV DOA: 9/14/21 AND , the state's legal and coercive functions are inseparable from its welfare functions. Underview1~ 1ar theory –A~ the aff gets it – otherwise the neg can engage in infinite abuse, making debate impossibleB~ drop the debater because the 1ar is too short to win theory and substanceC~ no RVIs – the 2nr has enough time and the 2ar needs strategic flexibilityD~ Fairness is a voter – debate’s a game that requires objective evaluation – judges have obligations to vote for the better debater which fairness controls. It also controls truth value – absent fairness, args were not subject to contestation, so they only won their arg because they were unfair.2~ 1ar theory first –A~ Strat skew – short 2AR means I need to collapse to one layer to counter the long 2N collapseB~ Epistemic Indict – if the 1N was abusive then my ability to respond was skewed so you can’t truly evaluate the 1ncC~ Investment – 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 time3~ Presumption and permissibility affirm –A~ we presume statements true – if I said my name was Arjun, you would believe me absent evidence to the contraryB~ affirming is harder – the 1ar has to answer 7 minutes of offense and hedge against a 6 minute 2nr collapse and empirics – presumption is this card’s only implication, Shah 2-13:Sachin Shah, ~LHP Debater, Attended TOC 2018 and TOC 2019, Broke at TOC 2019, 5 on AP Stats, Computer Science Major, Experience with side bias stats~ February 13, 2020, "A Statistical Analysis of Side-Bias on the 2020 January-February Lincoln Douglas Debate Topic by Sachin Shah" http://nsdupdate.com/2020/a-statistical-analysis-of-side-bias-on-the-2020-january-february-lincoln-douglas-debate-topic-by-sachin-shah/?fbclid=IwAR2P0AZqQtSiwMZlCpia-Fy1zFOdHn6JrGtcYgGulqeimd-V0a1xbaIMYYs LHP AV AND -February topic. So, once again, don’t lose the flip! | 9/18/21 |
SO21 - AC - Kant v3Tournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 6 | Opponent: Lincoln JR | Judge: Conal Thomas-McGinnis Yale – R6 ACTheory1~ 1ar theory paradigm – A~ the aff gets it – otherwise the neg can engage in infinite abuse, making debate impossible B~ drop the debater because the 1ar is too short to win theory and substance C~ no RVIs – the 2nr has enough time and the 2ar needs strategic flexibility D~ competing interps – 1ar interps aren’t bidirectional and reasonability incentivizes brute force defensive dumps2~ 1ar theory first – A~ Strat skew – short 2AR means I need to collapse to one layer to counter the long 2N collapse B~ Epistemic Indict – if the 1N was abusive then my ability to respond was skewed so you can’t truly evaluate the 1nc C~ Magnitude – the 1nc has 7 minutes of potential abuse whereas I have 6 D~ Investment – 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 time3~ Yes aff rvi – a~ time skew – 4 minute 1ar has to hedge against a 7 minute 1nc and counter a long 6 minute 2n collapse, no rvi make the 1ar virtually impossible and structurally behind on the debate which means we need rvi to be able to collapse to something in the 2ar and win4~ Presumption and permissibility affirm – A~ statements are true till false – if I said my name was Prateek, you would believe me absent evidence to the contrary B~ we shouldn’t need proactive justification for things – that means we couldn’t do things like drink water C~ affirming is harder – the 1ar has to answer 7 minutes of offense and hedge against a 6 minute 2nr collapse and empirics – presumption is this card’s only implication, Shah 2-13:Sachin Shah, ~LHP Debater, Attended TOC 2018 and TOC 2019, Broke at TOC 2019, 5 on AP Stats, Computer Science Major, Experience with side bias stats~ February 13, 2020, "A Statistical Analysis of Side-Bias on the 2020 January-February Lincoln Douglas Debate Topic by Sachin Shah" http://nsdupdate.com/2020/a-statistical-analysis-of-side-bias-on-the-2020-january-february-lincoln-douglas-debate-topic-by-sachin-shah/?fbclid=IwAR2P0AZqQtSiwMZlCpia-Fy1zFOdHn6JrGtcYgGulqeimd-V0a1xbaIMYYs LHP AV AND -February topic. So, once again, don’t lose the flip! 5~ 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 – outweighs on magnitude C) It kills the 2ar since I’d have to answer 6 min of new offense in 3 min.6~ cx checks solve – there’s no abuse if I provide whatever you need before your prep time, asking in cx for me to meet your interps solves abuse7~ to say something is permitted is not to say there is no possibility of prohibition, its just permitted under one locus of duty Joyce 02:This distinction between what is accepted from within an institution, and "stepping out" of that institution and appraising it from an exterior perspective, is close to Carnap’s distinction between internal and external questions. 15 Certain "linguistic frameworks" (as Carnap calls them) bring with them new terms and ways of talking: accepting the language of "things" licenses making assertions like "The shirt is in the cupboard"; accepting mathematics allows one to say "There is a prime number greater than one hundred"; accepting the language of propositions permits saying "Chicago is large is a true proposition," etc. Internal to the framework in question, confirming or disconfirming the truth of these propositions is a trivial matter. But traditionally philosophers have interested themselves in the external question – the issue of the adequacy of the framework itself: "Do objects exist?", "Does the world exist?", "Are there numbers?", "Are the propositions?", etc. Carnap’s argument is that the external question, as it has been typically construed, does not make sense. From a perspective that accepts mathematics, the answer to the question "Do numbers exist?" is just trivially "Yes." From a perspective which has not accepted mathematics, Carnap thinks, the only sensible way of construing the question is not as a theoretical question, but as a practical one: "Shall I accept the framework of mathematics?", and this pragmatic question is to be answered by consideration of the efficiency, the fruitfulness, the usefulness, etc., of the adoption. But the (traditional) philosopher’s questions – "But is mathematics true?", "Are there really numbers?" – are pseudo-questions. By turning traditional philosophical questions into practical questions of the form "Shall I adopt...?", Carnap is offering a noncognitive analysis of metaphysics. Since I am claiming that we can critically inspect morality from an external perspective – that we can ask whether there are any non-institutional reasons accompanying moral injunctions – and that such questioning would not amount to a "Shall we adopt...?" query, Carnap’s position represents a threat. What arguments does Carnap offer to his conclusion? He starts with the example of the "thing language," which involves reference to objects that exist in time and space. To step out of the thing language and ask "But does the world exist?" is a mistake, Carnap thinks, because the very notion of "existence" is a term which belongs to the thing language, and can be understood only within that framework, "hence this concept cannot be meaningfully applied to the system itself." 16 Moving on to the external question "Do numbers exist?" Carnap cannot use the same argument – he cannot say that "existence" is internal to the number language and thus cannot be applied to the system as a whole. Instead he says that philosophers who ask the question do not mean material existence, but have no clear understanding of what other kind of existence might be involved, thus such questions have no cognitive content. It appears that this is the form of argument which he is willing to generalize to all further cases: persons who dispute whether propositions exist, whether properties exist, etc., do not know what they are arguing over, thus they are not arguing over the truth of a proposition, but over the practical value of their respective positions. Carnap adds that this is so because there is nothing that both parties would possibly count as evidence that would sway the debate one way or the other. ~8~ Interpretation – the negative must only defend the resolution – to clarify, counterplans are bad, prefer:~1~ limits – predictability – engagement – fairnessROBThe roll of the ballot is to vote for the debater who best proves the truth or falsity of the resolution. To clarify, vote aff if I prove the resolution true and vote neg if they prove it false.1. Text – Dictionary.com defines affirm as to maintain as true Dictionary.com, ~https://www.dictionary.com/browse/affirm~~ And to negate as to deny the existence, evidence, or truth of Dictionary.com, ~https://www.dictionary.com/browse/negate~~ Text first – 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. Jurisdiction always comes first, anything else is intervention 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.FramingThe metaethic is practical reason.Only constructing ethics from our rational agency can explain the sources of normativity –A~ Bindingness – Any obligation must not only tell us what is good, but why we ought to be good or else agents can reject the value of goodness itself. That means ethics must start with what is constitutive of agents since it traces obligations to features that are intrinsic to being an agent – as an agent you must follow certain rules. Only practical agency is constitutive since agents can use rationality to decide against other values but the act of deciding to reject practical agency engages in it.B~ Action theory – every moral analysis requires an action to evaluate, but actions are infinitely divisible into smaller meaningless movements. The act of stealing can be reduced to going to a house, entering, grabbing things, and leaving, all of which are distinct actions without moral value. Only the practical decision to steal ties these actions together to give them any moral value.That justifies universalizability.A~ The principle of equality is true since anything else assigns moral value to contingent factors like identity and justifies racism, and the principle of non-contradiction is true since 2+2 can’t equal 4 for me and not for you meaning ethical statements true for one must be true for all.B~ Ethics must be defined a priori because of the is ought gap – experience only tells us what is since that’s what we perceive, 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. Applying reason to a priori truth results in universal obligations.That justifies reciprocal constraints on freedom –Coercion isn’t universalizable—willing your own freedom while violating someone else’s is a conceptual contradiction.Engstrom ~Stephen Engstrom, (Professor of Philosophy @ the University of Pittsburgh) "Universal Legislation as the Form of Practical Knowledge" http://www.academia.edu/4512762/Universal'Legislation'As'the'Form'of'Practical'Knowledge, DOA:5-5-2018 WWBW~ AND a person’s outer freedom is incompatible with the limitation of that same freedom. This requires a system of property – mere empirical possession is insufficient and contrary to freedom, Hogdson 10:Louis Philippe Hogdson, 2010, "Kant on Property Rights and the State" http://www.yorku.ca/lhodgson/kant-on-property-rights-and.pdf LHP AV AND them physically. Nothing more is required for the rest of our argument. However, we are rational and impulsive – this nonideal situation requires a state with coercive authority that secures equal outer freedom and property, Koch 92:*bracketed for gendered language* Koch, Andrew M. "Immanuel Kant, The Right of Necessity, and the Liberal Foundation of Social Welfare" Southeastern Political Review, 20: 2 (Fall 1992) 295-314. https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/koch'andrew'1992'Immanuel'Kant.pdf LHP AV DOA: 9/14/21 AND force to compel compliance to the laws which protect the freedom of all. Thus, the standard is consistency with a system of equal and outer freedom.To clarify, the standard is concerned with intent –A~ There’s an intent-foresight distinction—to account for all foreseen impacts would prevent action because individuals would become morally culpable for all actions and states of affairs not just those that factor into the willB~ Induction is circular because it relies on past experiences of induction working in order to justify it working in the future which just is inductionC~ Consequences fail – there are infinite conseqeunces -Prefer the standard –~1~ The existence of extrinsic goodness requires unconditional human worth – when someone makes a decision, they presuppose the goodness of that action. However, the source of that goodness cannot be temporal desires because those are conditional – thus, the rational will must be the unconditional source of value – we must treat others as ends in themselves because all agents can create value.~2~ 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 a standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others.ContentionPlan: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to eliminate patent protections for life-saving medicines. Rizvi 20:Husna Rizvi, "WHAT IF…DRUG PATENTS WERE SCRAPPED?" 24 June 2020, https://newint.org/features/2020/06/11/what-if-drug-patents-were-scrapped LHP AV DOA: 9/17/21 AND add: ‘the final goal cannot be anything short of abolition.’ Vote aff –1~ IP rights violate an individual’s actual right to property and the grounds on which they are justified,Cernea and Uszkai 12 Cernea, Mihail-Valentin, and Radu Uszkai. The Clash between Global Justice and Pharmaceutical Patents: A Critical Analysis. 2012, the-clash-between-global-justice-and-drug-patents-a-critical-analysis.pdf. SJEP AND use of tangible objects which we acquired fully in line with market rules. 2~ Right of necessity – nations can legitimately break patents in order to produce life-saving medicines, Bierson 21:Marshall Bierson, ~Marshall is currently completing his PhD in Philosophy at Florida State University. His primarily studies the intersection of ethics and the nature of persons. Outside of Academia, Marshall also directs curricular design for high school debate camps with the Victory Briefs Institute.~ "Intellectual Property and the Right of Necessity" August 18, 2021, https://www.prindlepost.org/2021/08/intellectual-property-and-the-right-of-necessity/ LHP AV DOA:9/14/21 AND right of necessity suggests a standing right to break many international medical patents. The right of necessity is a logical constraint on the coercive powers of the state – even if not ethical, reducing IP for life saving medicines is not in the jurisdiction of legal punishment – that would undermine the very foundation of the omnilateral will, Koch 92:Koch, Andrew M. "Immanuel Kant, The Right of Necessity, and the Liberal Foundation of Social Welfare" Southeastern Political Review, 20: 2 (Fall 1992) 295-314. https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/koch'andrew'1992'Immanuel'Kant.pdf LHP AV DOA: 9/14/21 AND , the state's legal and coercive functions are inseparable from its welfare functions. ExtraExplosion.Wikiwand. "Principle of Explosion." Wikiwand, 0AD, www.wikiwand.com/en/Principle'of'explosion. Massa AND the second part must be true, i.e., unicorns exist. | 11/7/21 |
SO21 - AC - Kant v4Tournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: Triples | Opponent: Charlotte Latin AP | Judge: Conal Thomas-McGinnis - Animesh Joshi - Alex Rivera Yale – Trips – 1AC v Charlotte Latin APFramingThe metaethic is practical reason.Only constructing ethics from our rational agency can explain the sources of normativity –A~ Bindingness – Any obligation must not only tell us what is good, but why we ought to be good or else agents can reject the value of goodness itself. That means ethics must start with what is constitutive of agents since it traces obligations to features that are intrinsic to being an agent – as an agent you must follow certain rules. Only practical agency is constitutive since agents can use rationality to decide against other values but the act of deciding to reject practical agency engages in it.B~ Action theory – every moral analysis requires an action to evaluate, but actions are infinitely divisible into smaller meaningless movements. The act of stealing can be reduced to going to a house, entering, grabbing things, and leaving, all of which are distinct actions without moral value. Only the practical decision to steal ties these actions together to give them any moral value.That justifies universalizability.A~ The principle of equality is true since anything else assigns moral value to contingent factors like identity and justifies racism, and the principle of non-contradiction is true since 2+2 can’t equal 4 for me and not for you meaning ethical statements true for one must be true for all.B~ Ethics must be defined a priori because of the is ought gap – experience only tells us what is since that’s what we perceive, 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. Applying reason to a priori truth results in universal obligations.That justifies reciprocal constraints on freedom –Coercion isn’t universalizable—willing your own freedom while violating someone else’s is a conceptual contradiction.Engstrom ~Stephen Engstrom, (Professor of Philosophy @ the University of Pittsburgh) "Universal Legislation as the Form of Practical Knowledge" http://www.academia.edu/4512762/Universal'Legislation'As'the'Form'of'Practical'Knowledge, DOA:5-5-2018 WWBW~ AND a person’s outer freedom is incompatible with the limitation of that same freedom. This requires a system of property – mere empirical possession is insufficient and contrary to freedom, Hogdson 10:Louis Philippe Hogdson, 2010, "Kant on Property Rights and the State" http://www.yorku.ca/lhodgson/kant-on-property-rights-and.pdf LHP AV AND them physically. Nothing more is required for the rest of our argument. However, we are rational and impulsive – this nonideal situation requires a state with coercive authority that secures equal outer freedom and property, Koch 92:*bracketed for gendered language* Koch, Andrew M. "Immanuel Kant, The Right of Necessity, and the Liberal Foundation of Social Welfare" Southeastern Political Review, 20: 2 (Fall 1992) 295-314. https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/koch'andrew'1992'Immanuel'Kant.pdf LHP AV DOA: 9/14/21 AND force to compel compliance to the laws which protect the freedom of all. Thus, the standard is consistency with a system of equal and outer freedom.To clarify, the standard is concerned with intent –A~ There’s an intent-foresight distinction—to account for all foreseen impacts would prevent action because individuals would become morally culpable for all actions and states of affairs not just those that factor into the willB~ Induction is circular because it relies on past experiences of induction working in order to justify it working in the future which just is inductionC~ Consequences fail – there are infinite conseqeunces -Prefer the standard –~1~ The existence of extrinsic goodness requires unconditional human worth – when someone makes a decision, they presuppose the goodness of that action. However, the source of that goodness cannot be temporal desires because those are conditional – thus, the rational will must be the unconditional source of value – we must treat others as ends in themselves because all agents can create value.~2~ 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 a standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others.~3~ Regress – other theories result in a regress—they generate requirements conditional on some further principle, which must itself be derived. The AC framework escapes this because it is derivable from the concept of an unconditional law in general.~4~ Self-ownership is the only conceptually coherent principle – either a group owns others which is repugnant or everyone owns everyone which is infinitely regressive because to act requires permission but the act of giving permission requires permission.MethodAny resistance to systemic injustice must be based on a comprehensive normative theory which determines what the best response to specific injustices are – 4 warrants – Laurence,Laurence, Ben. "The Priority of Ideal Theory." PDF File. LHPYA AND about practical reasoning, which all depend on ideal theory for their systematic character ContentionPlan: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to eliminate patent protections for life-saving medicines. Rizvi 20:Husna Rizvi, "WHAT IF…DRUG PATENTS WERE SCRAPPED?" 24 June 2020, https://newint.org/features/2020/06/11/what-if-drug-patents-were-scrapped LHP AV DOA: 9/17/21 AND add: ‘the final goal cannot be anything short of abolition.’ Vote aff –1~ IP rights violate an individual’s actual right to property and the grounds on which they are justified,Cernea and Uszkai 12 Cernea, Mihail-Valentin, and Radu Uszkai. The Clash between Global Justice and Pharmaceutical Patents: A Critical Analysis. 2012, the-clash-between-global-justice-and-drug-patents-a-critical-analysis.pdf. SJEP AND use of tangible objects which we acquired fully in line with market rules. 2~ Right of necessity – nations can legitimately break patents in order to produce life-saving medicines, Bierson 21:Marshall Bierson, ~Marshall is currently completing his PhD in Philosophy at Florida State University. His primarily studies the intersection of ethics and the nature of persons. Outside of Academia, Marshall also directs curricular design for high school debate camps with the Victory Briefs Institute.~ "Intellectual Property and the Right of Necessity" August 18, 2021, https://www.prindlepost.org/2021/08/intellectual-property-and-the-right-of-necessity/ LHP AV DOA:9/14/21 AND right of necessity suggests a standing right to break many international medical patents. The right of necessity is a logical constraint on the coercive powers of the state – even if not ethical, reducing IP for life saving medicines is not in the jurisdiction of legal punishment – that would undermine the very foundation of the omnilateral will, Koch 92:Koch, Andrew M. "Immanuel Kant, The Right of Necessity, and the Liberal Foundation of Social Welfare" Southeastern Political Review, 20: 2 (Fall 1992) 295-314. https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/koch'andrew'1992'Immanuel'Kant.pdf LHP AV DOA: 9/14/21 AND , the state's legal and coercive functions are inseparable from its welfare functions. Theory1~ 1ar theory paradigm – A~ the aff gets it – otherwise the neg can engage in infinite abuse, making debate impossible B~ drop the debater because the 1ar is too short to win theory and substance C~ no RVIs – the 2nr has enough time and the 2ar needs strategic flexibility D~ competing interps – 1ar interps aren’t bidirectional and reasonability incentivizes brute force defensive dumps2~ 1ar theory first – A~ Strat skew – short 2AR means I need to collapse to one layer to counter the long 2N collapse B~ Epistemic Indict – if the 1N was abusive then my ability to respond was skewed so you can’t truly evaluate the 1nc3~ Yes aff rvi – a~ time skew – 4 minute 1ar has to hedge against a 7 minute 1nc and counter a long 6 minute 2n collapse, no rvi make the 1ar virtually impossible and structurally behind on the debate which means we need rvi to be able to collapse to something in the 2ar and win4~ Presumption and permissibility affirm – A~ statements are true till false – if I said my name was Prateek, you would believe me absent evidence to the contrary B~ we shouldn’t need proactive justification for things – that means we couldn’t do things like drink water C~ affirming is harder – the 1ar has to answer 7 minutes of offense and hedge against a 6 minute 2nr collapse and empirics – presumption is this card’s only implication, Shah 2-13:Sachin Shah, ~LHP Debater, Attended TOC 2018 and TOC 2019, Broke at TOC 2019, 5 on AP Stats, Computer Science Major, Experience with side bias stats~ February 13, 2020, "A Statistical Analysis of Side-Bias on the 2020 January-February Lincoln Douglas Debate Topic by Sachin Shah" http://nsdupdate.com/2020/a-statistical-analysis-of-side-bias-on-the-2020-january-february-lincoln-douglas-debate-topic-by-sachin-shah/?fbclid=IwAR2P0AZqQtSiwMZlCpia-Fy1zFOdHn6JrGtcYgGulqeimd-V0a1xbaIMYYs LHP AV AND -February topic. So, once again, don’t lose the flip! | 9/19/21 |
SO21 - AC - Kant v5Tournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Princeton ML | Judge: Conal Thomas-McGinnis - Owen Sayre - Keshav Dandu Yale – Dubs – 1AC v Princeton ML*spikes on bottom lol*FramingThe metaethic is practical reason.Only constructing ethics from our rational agency can explain the sources of normativity –A~ Bindingness – Any obligation must not only tell us what is good, but why we ought to be good or else agents can reject the value of goodness itself. That means ethics must start with what is constitutive of agents since it traces obligations to features that are intrinsic to being an agent – as an agent you must follow certain rules. Only practical agency is constitutive since agents can use rationality to decide against other values but the act of deciding to reject practical agency engages in it.B~ Action theory – every moral analysis requires an action to evaluate, but actions are infinitely divisible into smaller meaningless movements. The act of stealing can be reduced to going to a house, entering, grabbing things, and leaving, all of which are distinct actions without moral value. Only the practical decision to steal ties these actions together to give them any moral value.That justifies universalizability.A~ The principle of equality is true since anything else assigns moral value to contingent factors like identity and justifies racism, and the principle of non-contradiction is true since 2+2 can’t equal 4 for me and not for you meaning ethical statements true for one must be true for all.B~ Ethics must be defined a priori because of the is ought gap – experience only tells us what is since that’s what we perceive, 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. Applying reason to a priori truth results in universal obligations.That justifies reciprocal constraints on freedom –Coercion isn’t universalizable—willing your own freedom while violating someone else’s is a conceptual contradiction.Engstrom ~Stephen Engstrom, (Professor of Philosophy @ the University of Pittsburgh) "Universal Legislation as the Form of Practical Knowledge" http://www.academia.edu/4512762/Universal'Legislation'As'the'Form'of'Practical'Knowledge, DOA:5-5-2018 WWBW~ AND a person’s outer freedom is incompatible with the limitation of that same freedom. This requires a system of property – mere empirical possession is insufficient and contrary to freedom, Hogdson 10:Louis Philippe Hogdson, 2010, "Kant on Property Rights and the State" http://www.yorku.ca/lhodgson/kant-on-property-rights-and.pdf LHP AV AND them physically. Nothing more is required for the rest of our argument. However, we are rational and impulsive – this nonideal situation requires a state with coercive authority that secures equal outer freedom and property, Koch 92:*bracketed for gendered language* Koch, Andrew M. "Immanuel Kant, The Right of Necessity, and the Liberal Foundation of Social Welfare" Southeastern Political Review, 20: 2 (Fall 1992) 295-314. https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/koch'andrew'1992'Immanuel'Kant.pdf LHP AV DOA: 9/14/21 AND force to compel compliance to the laws which protect the freedom of all. Thus, the standard is consistency with a system of equal and outer freedom.To clarify, the standard is concerned with intent –A~ There’s an intent-foresight distinction—to account for all foreseen impacts would prevent action because individuals would become morally culpable for all actions and states of affairs not just those that factor into the willB~ Induction is circular because it relies on past experiences of induction working in order to justify it working in the future which just is inductionC~ Consequences fail – there are infinite conseqeunces -Prefer the standard –~1~ The existence of extrinsic goodness requires unconditional human worth – when someone makes a decision, they presuppose the goodness of that action. However, the source of that goodness cannot be temporal desires because those are conditional – thus, the rational will must be the unconditional source of value – we must treat others as ends in themselves because all agents can create value.~2~ 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 a standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others.~3~ Regress – other theories result in a regress—they generate requirements conditional on some further principle, which must itself be derived. The AC framework escapes this because it is derivable from the concept of an unconditional law in general.~4~ Self-ownership is the only conceptually coherent principle – either a group owns others which is repugnant or everyone owns everyone which is infinitely regressive because to act requires permission but the act of giving permission requires permission.ContentionPlan: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to eliminate patent protections for life-saving medicines. Rizvi 20:Husna Rizvi, "WHAT IF…DRUG PATENTS WERE SCRAPPED?" 24 June 2020, https://newint.org/features/2020/06/11/what-if-drug-patents-were-scrapped LHP AV DOA: 9/17/21 AND add: ‘the final goal cannot be anything short of abolition.’ Vote aff –1~ IP rights violate an individual’s actual right to property and the grounds on which they are justified,Cernea and Uszkai 12 Cernea, Mihail-Valentin, and Radu Uszkai. The Clash between Global Justice and Pharmaceutical Patents: A Critical Analysis. 2012, the-clash-between-global-justice-and-drug-patents-a-critical-analysis.pdf. SJEP AND use of tangible objects which we acquired fully in line with market rules. 2~ Right of necessity – nations can legitimately break patents in order to produce life-saving medicines, Bierson 21:Marshall Bierson, ~Marshall is currently completing his PhD in Philosophy at Florida State University. His primarily studies the intersection of ethics and the nature of persons. Outside of Academia, Marshall also directs curricular design for high school debate camps with the Victory Briefs Institute.~ "Intellectual Property and the Right of Necessity" August 18, 2021, https://www.prindlepost.org/2021/08/intellectual-property-and-the-right-of-necessity/ LHP AV DOA:9/14/21 AND right of necessity suggests a standing right to break many international medical patents. The right of necessity is a logical constraint on the coercive powers of the state – even if not ethical, reducing IP for life saving medicines is not in the jurisdiction of legal punishment – that would undermine the very foundation of the omnilateral will, Koch 92:Koch, Andrew M. "Immanuel Kant, The Right of Necessity, and the Liberal Foundation of Social Welfare" Southeastern Political Review, 20: 2 (Fall 1992) 295-314. https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/koch'andrew'1992'Immanuel'Kant.pdf LHP AV DOA: 9/14/21 AND , the state's legal and coercive functions are inseparable from its welfare functions. ROBThe role of the ballot is to evaluate the truth or falsity of the resolution through a normatively justified framework via fair, safe, and educational arguments. No skep, no tricks, yes phil and yes theory. Prefer it –1~ Reciprocity – normative frameworks provide a reciprocal burden of justifying an obligation with the ability to turn them – other frameworks are arbitrarily impact exclusive and don’t articulate a 1-1 burden2~ Philosophy – only our role of the ballot incentivizes nuanced discussions over the interactions of different ethical theories. That comes first –A~ constitutivism – LD debate is a values debate which means the intrinsic purpose of the activity is philosophical discussionB~ hijacks any voter – the question of why those are good relies on philosophical justification, ie constitutivism or something.3~ Collapses – A~ any framing presupposes a motivation to vote one way or another which means all framings concede the validity of normativity B~ Ethics comes prior to logical truth, Peirce 02:CS Peirce, "CP 2.198" 1902, https://colorysemiotica.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/peirce-collectedpapers.pdf LHP AV AND it; but my labors will have done good work toward its improvement. Theory1~ 1ar theory paradigm – A~ the aff gets it – otherwise the neg can engage in infinite abuse, making debate impossible B~ drop the debater because the 1ar is too short to win theory and substance C~ no RVIs – the 2nr has enough time and the 2ar needs strategic flexibility D~ competing interps – 1ar interps aren’t bidirectional and reasonability incentivizes brute force defensive dumps E~ Fairness is a voter – debate is a competitive game that requires objective evaluation – every argument asumes the ability to be evaluated fairly2~ Presumption and permissibility affirm – A~ statements are true till false – if I said my name was Prateek, you would believe me absent evidence to the contrary B~ we shouldn’t need proactive justification for things – that means we couldn’t do things like drink water C~ affirming is harder – the 1ar has to answer 7 minutes of offense and hedge against a 6 minute 2nr collapse and empirics – presumption is this card’s only implication, Shah 2-13:Sachin Shah, ~LHP Debater, Attended TOC 2018 and TOC 2019, Broke at TOC 2019, 5 on AP Stats, Computer Science Major, Experience with side bias stats~ February 13, 2020, "A Statistical Analysis of Side-Bias on the 2020 January-February Lincoln Douglas Debate Topic by Sachin Shah" http://nsdupdate.com/2020/a-statistical-analysis-of-side-bias-on-the-2020-january-february-lincoln-douglas-debate-topic-by-sachin-shah/?fbclid=IwAR2P0AZqQtSiwMZlCpia-Fy1zFOdHn6JrGtcYgGulqeimd-V0a1xbaIMYYs LHP AV AND -February topic. So, once again, don’t lose the flip! D~ Epistemics – we wouldn’t be able to start a strand of reasoning since we’d have to question that reason – means that presuming neg is incoherent because it relies on some presumptive truths.E~ Presuming obligations is logically safer since it’s better to be supererogatory than fail to meet an obligationF~ nothing in the aff will trigger it – punish them for moving the debate away from valuable substantive educationG~ risk analysis, Ross 6:Jacob Ross (Philosopher, USC "Rejecting Ethical Deflationism," Ethics 116. July 2006. JDN. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/505234 AND nihilistic theory, TN. And again suppose that I must decide between sending 3) Even if there are no moral rules, that doesn’t mean we don’t know characteristics of what morality would have to be. So the term morality does not lack content. A) Coming to the conclusion there are no morals doesn’t prevent you from making deductions about what a moral system should be. For example, we could say any moral system must be internally motivating. That can be true even if no moral system satisfies that requirement as the deduction of those features do not assume a true moral system could meet those requirements. It is proven by the fact that in every debate case, there is a meta-ethical framework that deduces an ethical framework.The meta-ethic shows the features of what a moral system ought to be, to allow us to then deduce the moral system. Even if we can’t make the second deduction, we can still make the first. B) The truth of skepticism would prove that we can understand the feature of morality. The way to produce skepticism is to say a true moral system must X, Y, Z and no moral system can meet those features. | 9/19/21 |
SO21 - AC - Kant v6Tournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 1 | Opponent: Lexington AK | Judge: Anthony Cui 1AC Valley R1 v Lexington AKTheory1~ 1ar theory paradigm – A~ the aff gets it – otherwise the neg can engage in infinite abuse, making debate impossible B~ drop the debater because the 1ar is too short to win theory and substance C~ no RVIs – the 2nr has enough time and the 2ar needs strategic flexibility D~ competing interps – 1ar interps aren’t bidirectional and reasonability incentivizes brute force defensive dumps2~ 1ar theory first – A~ Strat skew – short 2AR means I need to collapse to one layer to counter the long 2N collapse B~ Epistemic Indict – if the 1N was abusive then my ability to respond was skewed so you can’t truly evaluate the 1nc C~ Magnitude – the 1nc has 7 minutes of potential abuse whereas I have 6 D~ Investment – 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 time3~ Yes aff rvi – a~ time skew – 4 minute 1ar has to hedge against a 7 minute 1nc and counter a long 6 minute 2n collapse, no rvi make the 1ar virtually impossible and structurally behind on the debate which means we need rvi to be able to collapse to something in the 2ar and win4~ Presumption and permissibility affirm – A~ statements are true till false – if I said my name was Prateek, you would believe me absent evidence to the contrary B~ we shouldn’t need proactive justification for things – that means we couldn’t do things like drink water C~ affirming is harder – the 1ar has to answer 7 minutes of offense and hedge against a 6 minute 2nr collapse and empirics – presumption is this card’s only implication, Shah 2-13:Sachin Shah, ~LHP Debater, Attended TOC 2018 and TOC 2019, Broke at TOC 2019, 5 on AP Stats, Computer Science Major, Experience with side bias stats~ February 13, 2020, "A Statistical Analysis of Side-Bias on the 2020 January-February Lincoln Douglas Debate Topic by Sachin Shah" http://nsdupdate.com/2020/a-statistical-analysis-of-side-bias-on-the-2020-january-february-lincoln-douglas-debate-topic-by-sachin-shah/?fbclid=IwAR2P0AZqQtSiwMZlCpia-Fy1zFOdHn6JrGtcYgGulqeimd-V0a1xbaIMYYs LHP AV AND -February topic. So, once again, don’t lose the flip! 5~ 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 – outweighs on magnitude C) It kills the 2ar since I’d have to answer 6 min of new offense in 3 min.6~ cx checks solve – there’s no abuse if I provide whatever you need before your prep time, asking in cx for me to meet your interps solves abuse7~ to say something is permitted is not to say there is no possibility of prohibition, its just permitted under one locus of duty Joyce 02:This distinction between what is accepted from within an institution, and "stepping out" of that institution and appraising it from an exterior perspective, is close to Carnap’s distinction between internal and external questions. 15 Certain "linguistic frameworks" (as Carnap calls them) bring with them new terms and ways of talking: accepting the language of "things" licenses making assertions like "The shirt is in the cupboard"; accepting mathematics allows one to say "There is a prime number greater than one hundred"; accepting the language of propositions permits saying "Chicago is large is a true proposition," etc. Internal to the framework in question, confirming or disconfirming the truth of these propositions is a trivial matter. But traditionally philosophers have interested themselves in the external question – the issue of the adequacy of the framework itself: "Do objects exist?", "Does the world exist?", "Are there numbers?", "Are the propositions?", etc. Carnap’s argument is that the external question, as it has been typically construed, does not make sense. From a perspective that accepts mathematics, the answer to the question "Do numbers exist?" is just trivially "Yes." From a perspective which has not accepted mathematics, Carnap thinks, the only sensible way of construing the question is not as a theoretical question, but as a practical one: "Shall I accept the framework of mathematics?", and this pragmatic question is to be answered by consideration of the efficiency, the fruitfulness, the usefulness, etc., of the adoption. But the (traditional) philosopher’s questions – "But is mathematics true?", "Are there really numbers?" – are pseudo-questions. By turning traditional philosophical questions into practical questions of the form "Shall I adopt...?", Carnap is offering a noncognitive analysis of metaphysics. Since I am claiming that we can critically inspect morality from an external perspective – that we can ask whether there are any non-institutional reasons accompanying moral injunctions – and that such questioning would not amount to a "Shall we adopt...?" query, Carnap’s position represents a threat. What arguments does Carnap offer to his conclusion? He starts with the example of the "thing language," which involves reference to objects that exist in time and space. To step out of the thing language and ask "But does the world exist?" is a mistake, Carnap thinks, because the very notion of "existence" is a term which belongs to the thing language, and can be understood only within that framework, "hence this concept cannot be meaningfully applied to the system itself." 16 Moving on to the external question "Do numbers exist?" Carnap cannot use the same argument – he cannot say that "existence" is internal to the number language and thus cannot be applied to the system as a whole. Instead he says that philosophers who ask the question do not mean material existence, but have no clear understanding of what other kind of existence might be involved, thus such questions have no cognitive content. It appears that this is the form of argument which he is willing to generalize to all further cases: persons who dispute whether propositions exist, whether properties exist, etc., do not know what they are arguing over, thus they are not arguing over the truth of a proposition, but over the practical value of their respective positions. Carnap adds that this is so because there is nothing that both parties would possibly count as evidence that would sway the debate one way or the other. ROBThe roll of the ballot is to vote for the debater who best proves the truth or falsity of the resolution. To clarify, vote aff if I prove the resolution true and vote neg if they prove it false.1. Text – Dictionary.com defines affirm as to maintain as true Dictionary.com, ~https://www.dictionary.com/browse/affirm~~ And to negate as to deny the existence, evidence, or truth of Dictionary.com, ~https://www.dictionary.com/browse/negate~~ Text first – 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. Jurisdiction always comes first, anything else is intervention 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.FramingThe metaethic is practical reason.Only constructing ethics from our rational agency can explain the sources of normativity –A~ Bindingness – Any obligation must not only tell us what is good, but why we ought to be good or else agents can reject the value of goodness itself. That means ethics must start with what is constitutive of agents since it traces obligations to features that are intrinsic to being an agent – as an agent you must follow certain rules. Only practical agency is constitutive since agents can use rationality to decide against other values but the act of deciding to reject practical agency engages in it.B~ Action theory – every moral analysis requires an action to evaluate, but actions are infinitely divisible into smaller meaningless movements. The act of stealing can be reduced to going to a house, entering, grabbing things, and leaving, all of which are distinct actions without moral value. Only the practical decision to steal ties these actions together to give them any moral value.That justifies universalizability.A~ The principle of equality is true since anything else assigns moral value to contingent factors like identity and justifies racism, and the principle of non-contradiction is true since 2+2 can’t equal 4 for me and not for you meaning ethical statements true for one must be true for all.B~ Ethics must be defined a priori because of the is ought gap – experience only tells us what is since that’s what we perceive, 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. Applying reason to a priori truth results in universal obligations.That justifies reciprocal constraints on freedom –Coercion isn’t universalizable—willing your own freedom while violating someone else’s is a conceptual contradiction.Engstrom ~Stephen Engstrom, (Professor of Philosophy @ the University of Pittsburgh) "Universal Legislation as the Form of Practical Knowledge" http://www.academia.edu/4512762/Universal'Legislation'As'the'Form'of'Practical'Knowledge, DOA:5-5-2018 WWBW~ AND a person’s outer freedom is incompatible with the limitation of that same freedom. This requires a system of property – mere empirical possession is insufficient and contrary to freedom, Hogdson 10:Louis Philippe Hogdson, 2010, "Kant on Property Rights and the State" http://www.yorku.ca/lhodgson/kant-on-property-rights-and.pdf LHP AV AND them physically. Nothing more is required for the rest of our argument. However, we are rational and impulsive – this nonideal situation requires a state with coercive authority that secures equal outer freedom and property, Koch 92:*bracketed for gendered language* Koch, Andrew M. "Immanuel Kant, The Right of Necessity, and the Liberal Foundation of Social Welfare" Southeastern Political Review, 20: 2 (Fall 1992) 295-314. https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/koch'andrew'1992'Immanuel'Kant.pdf LHP AV DOA: 9/14/21 AND force to compel compliance to the laws which protect the freedom of all. Thus, the standard is consistency with a system of equal and outer freedom.To clarify, the standard is concerned with intent –A~ There’s an intent-foresight distinction—to account for all foreseen impacts would prevent action because individuals would become morally culpable for all actions and states of affairs not just those that factor into the willB~ Induction is circular because it relies on past experiences of induction working in order to justify it working in the future which just is inductionC~ Consequences fail – there are infinite conseqeunces -Prefer the standard –~1~ The existence of extrinsic goodness requires unconditional human worth – when someone makes a decision, they presuppose the goodness of that action. However, the source of that goodness cannot be temporal desires because those are conditional – thus, the rational will must be the unconditional source of value – we must treat others as ends in themselves because all agents can create value.~2~ 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 a standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others.~3~ Regress – other theories result in a regress—they generate requirements conditional on some further principle, which must itself be derived. The AC framework escapes this because it is derivable from the concept of an unconditional law in general.ContentionPlan: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to eliminate patent protections for life-saving medicines. Rizvi 20:Husna Rizvi, "WHAT IF…DRUG PATENTS WERE SCRAPPED?" 24 June 2020, https://newint.org/features/2020/06/11/what-if-drug-patents-were-scrapped LHP AV DOA: 9/17/21 AND add: ‘the final goal cannot be anything short of abolition.’ Vote aff –1~ IP rights violate an individual’s actual right to property and the grounds on which they are justified,Cernea and Uszkai 12 Cernea, Mihail-Valentin, and Radu Uszkai. The Clash between Global Justice and Pharmaceutical Patents: A Critical Analysis. 2012, the-clash-between-global-justice-and-drug-patents-a-critical-analysis.pdf. SJEP AND use of tangible objects which we acquired fully in line with market rules. 2~ Right of necessity – nations can legitimately break patents in order to produce life-saving medicines, Bierson 21:Marshall Bierson, ~Marshall is currently completing his PhD in Philosophy at Florida State University. His primarily studies the intersection of ethics and the nature of persons. Outside of Academia, Marshall also directs curricular design for high school debate camps with the Victory Briefs Institute.~ "Intellectual Property and the Right of Necessity" August 18, 2021, https://www.prindlepost.org/2021/08/intellectual-property-and-the-right-of-necessity/ LHP AV DOA:9/14/21 AND right of necessity suggests a standing right to break many international medical patents. The right of necessity is a logical constraint on the coercive powers of the state – even if not ethical, reducing IP for life saving medicines is not in the jurisdiction of legal punishment – that would undermine the very foundation of the omnilateral will, Koch 92:Koch, Andrew M. "Immanuel Kant, The Right of Necessity, and the Liberal Foundation of Social Welfare" Southeastern Political Review, 20: 2 (Fall 1992) 295-314. https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/koch'andrew'1992'Immanuel'Kant.pdf LHP AV DOA: 9/14/21 AND , the state's legal and coercive functions are inseparable from its welfare functions. ExtraExplosion.Wikiwand. "Principle of Explosion." Wikiwand, 0AD, www.wikiwand.com/en/Principle'of'explosion. Massa AND the second part must be true, i.e., unicorns exist. | 9/25/21 |
SO21 - AC - Kant v7Tournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 4 | Opponent: Harker SS | Judge: TJ Maher 1AC R4 Valley v Harker SSTheory1~ 1ar theory paradigm – A~ the aff gets it – otherwise the neg can engage in infinite abuse, making debate impossible B~ drop the debater because the 1ar is too short to win theory and substance C~ no RVIs – the 2nr has enough time and the 2ar needs strategic flexibility D~ competing interps – 1ar interps aren’t bidirectional and reasonability incentivizes brute force defensive dumps2~ 1ar theory first – A~ Strat skew – short 2AR means I need to collapse to one layer to counter the long 2N collapse B~ Epistemic Indict – if the 1N was abusive then my ability to respond was skewed so you can’t truly evaluate the 1nc C~ Magnitude – the 1nc has 7 minutes of potential abuse whereas I have 6 D~ Investment – 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 time3~ Yes aff rvi – a~ time skew – 4 minute 1ar has to hedge against a 7 minute 1nc and counter a long 6 minute 2n collapse, no rvi make the 1ar virtually impossible and structurally behind on the debate which means we need rvi to be able to collapse to something in the 2ar and win4~ Presumption and permissibility affirm – A~ statements are true till false – if I said my name was Prateek, you would believe me absent evidence to the contrary B~ we shouldn’t need proactive justification for things – that means we couldn’t do things like drink water C~ affirming is harder – the 1ar has to answer 7 minutes of offense and hedge against a 6 minute 2nr collapse and empirics – presumption is this card’s only implication, Shah 2-13:Sachin Shah, ~LHP Debater, Attended TOC 2018 and TOC 2019, Broke at TOC 2019, 5 on AP Stats, Computer Science Major, Experience with side bias stats~ February 13, 2020, "A Statistical Analysis of Side-Bias on the 2020 January-February Lincoln Douglas Debate Topic by Sachin Shah" http://nsdupdate.com/2020/a-statistical-analysis-of-side-bias-on-the-2020-january-february-lincoln-douglas-debate-topic-by-sachin-shah/?fbclid=IwAR2P0AZqQtSiwMZlCpia-Fy1zFOdHn6JrGtcYgGulqeimd-V0a1xbaIMYYs LHP AV AND -February topic. So, once again, don’t lose the flip! 5~ 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 – outweighs on magnitude C) It kills the 2ar since I’d have to answer 6 min of new offense in 3 min.6~ cx checks solve – there’s no abuse if I provide whatever you need before your prep time, asking in cx for me to meet your interps solves abuse7~ to say something is permitted is not to say there is no possibility of prohibition, its just permitted under one locus of duty Joyce 02:This distinction between what is accepted from within an institution, and "stepping out" of that institution and appraising it from an exterior perspective, is close to Carnap’s distinction between internal and external questions. 15 Certain "linguistic frameworks" (as Carnap calls them) bring with them new terms and ways of talking: accepting the language of "things" licenses making assertions like "The shirt is in the cupboard"; accepting mathematics allows one to say "There is a prime number greater than one hundred"; accepting the language of propositions permits saying "Chicago is large is a true proposition," etc. Internal to the framework in question, confirming or disconfirming the truth of these propositions is a trivial matter. But traditionally philosophers have interested themselves in the external question – the issue of the adequacy of the framework itself: "Do objects exist?", "Does the world exist?", "Are there numbers?", "Are the propositions?", etc. Carnap’s argument is that the external question, as it has been typically construed, does not make sense. From a perspective that accepts mathematics, the answer to the question "Do numbers exist?" is just trivially "Yes." From a perspective which has not accepted mathematics, Carnap thinks, the only sensible way of construing the question is not as a theoretical question, but as a practical one: "Shall I accept the framework of mathematics?", and this pragmatic question is to be answered by consideration of the efficiency, the fruitfulness, the usefulness, etc., of the adoption. But the (traditional) philosopher’s questions – "But is mathematics true?", "Are there really numbers?" – are pseudo-questions. By turning traditional philosophical questions into practical questions of the form "Shall I adopt...?", Carnap is offering a noncognitive analysis of metaphysics. Since I am claiming that we can critically inspect morality from an external perspective – that we can ask whether there are any non-institutional reasons accompanying moral injunctions – and that such questioning would not amount to a "Shall we adopt...?" query, Carnap’s position represents a threat. What arguments does Carnap offer to his conclusion? He starts with the example of the "thing language," which involves reference to objects that exist in time and space. To step out of the thing language and ask "But does the world exist?" is a mistake, Carnap thinks, because the very notion of "existence" is a term which belongs to the thing language, and can be understood only within that framework, "hence this concept cannot be meaningfully applied to the system itself." 16 Moving on to the external question "Do numbers exist?" Carnap cannot use the same argument – he cannot say that "existence" is internal to the number language and thus cannot be applied to the system as a whole. Instead he says that philosophers who ask the question do not mean material existence, but have no clear understanding of what other kind of existence might be involved, thus such questions have no cognitive content. It appears that this is the form of argument which he is willing to generalize to all further cases: persons who dispute whether propositions exist, whether properties exist, etc., do not know what they are arguing over, thus they are not arguing over the truth of a proposition, but over the practical value of their respective positions. Carnap adds that this is so because there is nothing that both parties would possibly count as evidence that would sway the debate one way or the other. ROBThe roll of the ballot is to vote for the debater who best proves the truth or falsity of the resolution. To clarify, vote aff if I prove the resolution true and vote neg if they prove it false.1. Text – Dictionary.com defines affirm as to maintain as true Dictionary.com, ~https://www.dictionary.com/browse/affirm~~ And to negate as to deny the existence, evidence, or truth of Dictionary.com, ~https://www.dictionary.com/browse/negate~~ Text first – 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. Jurisdiction always comes first, anything else is intervention 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.FramingThe metaethic is practical reason.Only constructing ethics from our rational agency can explain the sources of normativity –A~ Bindingness – Any obligation must not only tell us what is good, but why we ought to be good or else agents can reject the value of goodness itself. That means ethics must start with what is constitutive of agents since it traces obligations to features that are intrinsic to being an agent – as an agent you must follow certain rules. Only practical agency is constitutive since agents can use rationality to decide against other values but the act of deciding to reject practical agency engages in it.B~ Action theory – every moral analysis requires an action to evaluate, but actions are infinitely divisible into smaller meaningless movements. The act of stealing can be reduced to going to a house, entering, grabbing things, and leaving, all of which are distinct actions without moral value. Only the practical decision to steal ties these actions together to give them any moral value.That justifies universalizability.A~ The principle of equality is true since anything else assigns moral value to contingent factors like identity and justifies racism, and the principle of non-contradiction is true since 2+2 can’t equal 4 for me and not for you meaning ethical statements true for one must be true for all.B~ Ethics must be defined a priori because of the is ought gap – experience only tells us what is since that’s what we perceive, 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. Applying reason to a priori truth results in universal obligations.That justifies reciprocal constraints on freedom –Coercion isn’t universalizable—willing your own freedom while violating someone else’s is a conceptual contradiction.Engstrom ~Stephen Engstrom, (Professor of Philosophy @ the University of Pittsburgh) "Universal Legislation as the Form of Practical Knowledge" http://www.academia.edu/4512762/Universal'Legislation'As'the'Form'of'Practical'Knowledge, DOA:5-5-2018 WWBW~ AND a person’s outer freedom is incompatible with the limitation of that same freedom. This requires a system of property – mere empirical possession is insufficient and contrary to freedom, Hogdson 10:Louis Philippe Hogdson, 2010, "Kant on Property Rights and the State" http://www.yorku.ca/lhodgson/kant-on-property-rights-and.pdf LHP AV AND them physically. Nothing more is required for the rest of our argument. However, we are rational and impulsive – this nonideal situation requires a state with coercive authority that secures equal outer freedom and property, Koch 92:*bracketed for gendered language* Koch, Andrew M. "Immanuel Kant, The Right of Necessity, and the Liberal Foundation of Social Welfare" Southeastern Political Review, 20: 2 (Fall 1992) 295-314. https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/koch'andrew'1992'Immanuel'Kant.pdf LHP AV DOA: 9/14/21 AND force to compel compliance to the laws which protect the freedom of all. Thus, the standard is consistency with a system of equal and outer freedom.To clarify, the standard is concerned with intent –A~ There’s an intent-foresight distinction—to account for all foreseen impacts would prevent action because individuals would become morally culpable for all actions and states of affairs not just those that factor into the willB~ Induction is circular because it relies on past experiences of induction working in order to justify it working in the future which just is inductionC~ Consequences fail – there are infinite conseqeunces -Prefer the standard –~1~ The existence of extrinsic goodness requires unconditional human worth – when someone makes a decision, they presuppose the goodness of that action. However, the source of that goodness cannot be temporal desires because those are conditional – thus, the rational will must be the unconditional source of value – we must treat others as ends in themselves because all agents can create value.~2~ 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 a standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others.~3~ Regress – other theories result in a regress—they generate requirements conditional on some further principle, which must itself be derived. The AC framework escapes this because it is derivable from the concept of an unconditional law in general.ContentionPlan: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to eliminate patent protections for life-saving medicines. Rizvi 20:Husna Rizvi, "WHAT IF…DRUG PATENTS WERE SCRAPPED?" 24 June 2020, https://newint.org/features/2020/06/11/what-if-drug-patents-were-scrapped LHP AV DOA: 9/17/21 AND add: ‘the final goal cannot be anything short of abolition.’ Vote aff –1~ IP rights violate an individual’s actual right to property and the grounds on which they are justified,Cernea and Uszkai 12 Cernea, Mihail-Valentin, and Radu Uszkai. The Clash between Global Justice and Pharmaceutical Patents: A Critical Analysis. 2012, the-clash-between-global-justice-and-drug-patents-a-critical-analysis.pdf. SJEP AND use of tangible objects which we acquired fully in line with market rules. 2~ Right of necessity – nations can legitimately break patents in order to produce life-saving medicines, Bierson 21:Marshall Bierson, ~Marshall is currently completing his PhD in Philosophy at Florida State University. His primarily studies the intersection of ethics and the nature of persons. Outside of Academia, Marshall also directs curricular design for high school debate camps with the Victory Briefs Institute.~ "Intellectual Property and the Right of Necessity" August 18, 2021, https://www.prindlepost.org/2021/08/intellectual-property-and-the-right-of-necessity/ LHP AV DOA:9/14/21 AND right of necessity suggests a standing right to break many international medical patents. The right of necessity is a logical constraint on the coercive powers of the state – even if not ethical, reducing IP for life saving medicines is not in the jurisdiction of legal punishment – that would undermine the very foundation of the omnilateral will, Koch 92:Koch, Andrew M. "Immanuel Kant, The Right of Necessity, and the Liberal Foundation of Social Welfare" Southeastern Political Review, 20: 2 (Fall 1992) 295-314. https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/koch'andrew'1992'Immanuel'Kant.pdf LHP AV DOA: 9/14/21 AND , the state's legal and coercive functions are inseparable from its welfare functions. ExtraExplosion.Wikiwand. "Principle of Explosion." Wikiwand, 0AD, www.wikiwand.com/en/Principle'of'explosion. Massa AND the second part must be true, i.e., unicorns exist. Liars paradox is true – consider the sentence "this sentence is false" – if the statement is false then it is true but it would be contradictory for it to be true given that it would prove falsityI Resolved is defined as firm in purpose or intent; determined and I’m determined. a priori’s 1st – even worlds framing requires ethics that begin from a priori principles like reason or pleasure so we control the internal link to functional debates.Since there are infinite worlds, the aff is logical in one which is sufficient.Vaidman 2 Vaidman, Lev, 3-24-2002, "Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)," No Publication, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/ AND and it explains why a world appears to be indeterministic for human observers. If I win one layer, vote aff a) they have 7 minutes to uplayer and nullify my offense b) forces engagement with the aff since they have to defend all arguments which means they read better ones. | 9/26/21 |
SO21 - AC - Kant v8Tournament: New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: Iowa City NW | Judge: Conal Thomas-McGinnis Theory1~ 1ar theory paradigm –A~ the aff gets it – otherwise the neg can engage in infinite abuse, making debate impossibleB~ drop the debater because the 1ar is too short to win theory and substanceC~ no RVIs – the 2nr has enough time and the 2ar needs strategic flexibilityD~ competing interps – 1ar interps aren’t bidirectional and reasonability incentivizes brute force defensive dumps2~ 1ar theory first –A~ Strat skew – short 2AR means I need to collapse to one layer to counter the long 2N collapseB~ Epistemic Indict – if the 1N was abusive then my ability to respond was skewed so you can’t truly evaluate the 1ncC~ Magnitude – the 1nc has 7 minutes of potential abuse whereas I have 6D~ Investment – 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 time3~ Yes aff rvi – a~ time skew – 4 minute 1ar has to hedge against a 7 minute 1nc and counter a long 6 minute 2n collapse, no rvi make the 1ar virtually impossible and structurally behind on the debate which means we need rvi to be able to collapse to something in the 2ar and win4~ Presumption and permissibility affirm –A~ statements are true till false – if I said my name was Prateek, you would believe me absent evidence to the contraryB~ we shouldn’t need proactive justification for things – that means we couldn’t do things like drink water C~ affirming is harder – the 1ar has to answer 7 minutes of offense and hedge against a 6 minute 2nr collapse and empirics, Shah 2-13:Sachin Shah, ~LHP Debater, Attended TOC 2018 and TOC 2019, Broke at TOC 2019, 5 on AP Stats, Computer Science Major, Experience with side bias stats~ February 13, 2020, "A Statistical Analysis of Side-Bias on the 2020 January-February Lincoln Douglas Debate Topic by Sachin Shah" http://nsdupdate.com/2020/a-statistical-analysis-of-side-bias-on-the-2020-january-february-lincoln-douglas-debate-topic-by-sachin-shah/?fbclid=IwAR2P0AZqQtSiwMZlCpia-Fy1zFOdHn6JrGtcYgGulqeimd-V0a1xbaIMYYs LHP AV AND -February topic. So, once again, don’t lose the flip! D~ Epistemics – we wouldn’t be able to start a strand of reasoning since we’d have to question that reason – means that presuming neg is incoherent because it relies on some presumptive truths.E~ Presuming obligations is logically safer since it’s better to be supererogatory than fail to meet an obligationF~ nothing in the aff will trigger it – punish them for moving the debate away from valuable substantive educationG~ risk analysis, Ross 6:Jacob Ross (Philosopher, USC "Rejecting Ethical Deflationism," Ethics 116. July 2006. JDN. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/505234 AND deliberate on the supposition that the nondeflationary theory, T, is true. 5~ 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 – outweighs on magnitude C) It kills the 2ar since I’d have to answer 6 min of new offense in 3 min.6~ cx checks solve – there’s no abuse if I provide whatever you need before your prep time, asking in cx for me to meet your interps solves abuseFramingThe metaethic is practical reason.Only constructing ethics from our rational agency can explain the sources of normativity –A~ Bindingness – Any obligation must not only tell us what is good, but why we ought to be good or else agents can reject the value of goodness itself. That means ethics must start with what is constitutive of agents since it traces obligations to features that are intrinsic to being an agent – as an agent you must follow certain rules. Only practical agency is constitutive since agents can use rationality to decide against other values but the act of deciding to reject practical agency engages in it.B~ Action theory – every moral analysis requires an action to evaluate, but actions are infinitely divisible into smaller meaningless movements. The act of stealing can be reduced to going to a house, entering, grabbing things, and leaving, all of which are distinct actions without moral value. Only the practical decision to steal ties these actions together to give them any moral value.That justifies universalizability.A~ The principle of equality is true since anything else assigns moral value to contingent factors like identity and justifies racism, and the principle of non-contradiction is true since 2+2 can’t equal 4 for me and not for you meaning ethical statements true for one must be true for all.B~ Ethics must be defined a priori because of the is ought gap – experience only tells us what is since that’s what we perceive, 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. Applying reason to a priori truth results in universal obligations.That justifies reciprocal constraints on freedom –Coercion isn’t universalizable—willing your own freedom while violating someone else’s is a conceptual contradiction.Engstrom ~Stephen Engstrom, (Professor of Philosophy @ the University of Pittsburgh) "Universal Legislation as the Form of Practical Knowledge" http://www.academia.edu/4512762/Universal'Legislation'As'the'Form'of'Practical'Knowledge, DOA:5-5-2018 WWBW~ AND a person’s outer freedom is incompatible with the limitation of that same freedom. This requires a system of property – mere empirical possession is insufficient and contrary to freedom, Hogdson 10:Louis Philippe Hogdson, 2010, "Kant on Property Rights and the State" http://www.yorku.ca/lhodgson/kant-on-property-rights-and.pdf LHP AV AND them physically. Nothing more is required for the rest of our argument. However, we are rational and impulsive – this nonideal situation requires a state with coercive authority that secures equal outer freedom and property, Koch 92:*bracketed for gendered language* Koch, Andrew M. "Immanuel Kant, The Right of Necessity, and the Liberal Foundation of Social Welfare" Southeastern Political Review, 20: 2 (Fall 1992) 295-314. https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/koch'andrew'1992'Immanuel'Kant.pdf LHP AV DOA: 9/14/21 AND force to compel compliance to the laws which protect the freedom of all. Thus, the standard is consistency with a system of equal and outer freedom.To clarify, the standard is concerned with intent –A~ There’s an intent-foresight distinction—to account for all foreseen impacts would prevent action because individuals would become morally culpable for all actions and states of affairs not just those that factor into the willB~ Induction is circular because it relies on past experiences of induction working in order to justify it working in the future which just is inductionC~ Consequences fail – there are infinite conseqeunces -Prefer the standard –~1~ The existence of extrinsic goodness requires unconditional human worth – when someone makes a decision, they presuppose the goodness of that action. However, the source of that goodness cannot be temporal desires because those are conditional – thus, the rational will must be the unconditional source of value – we must treat others as ends in themselves because all agents can create value.~2~ 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 a standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others.~3~ Regress – other theories result in a regress—they generate requirements conditional on some further principle, which must itself be derived. The AC framework escapes this because it is derivable from the concept of an unconditional law in general.~4~ Self-ownership is the only conceptually coherent principle – either a group owns others which is repugnant or everyone owns everyone which is infinitely regressive because to act requires permission but the act of giving permission requires permission.ContentionPlan: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to eliminate patent protections for life-saving medicines. Rizvi 20:Husna Rizvi, "WHAT IF…DRUG PATENTS WERE SCRAPPED?" 24 June 2020, https://newint.org/features/2020/06/11/what-if-drug-patents-were-scrapped LHP AV DOA: 9/17/21 AND add: ‘the final goal cannot be anything short of abolition.’ Vote aff –1~ IP rights violate an individual’s actual right to property and the grounds on which they are justified,Cernea and Uszkai 12 Cernea, Mihail-Valentin, and Radu Uszkai. The Clash between Global Justice and Pharmaceutical Patents: A Critical Analysis. 2012, the-clash-between-global-justice-and-drug-patents-a-critical-analysis.pdf. SJEP AND use of tangible objects which we acquired fully in line with market rules. 2~ Right of necessity – nations can legitimately break patents in order to produce life-saving medicines, Bierson 21:Marshall Bierson, ~Marshall is currently completing his PhD in Philosophy at Florida State University. His primarily studies the intersection of ethics and the nature of persons. Outside of Academia, Marshall also directs curricular design for high school debate camps with the Victory Briefs Institute.~ "Intellectual Property and the Right of Necessity" August 18, 2021, https://www.prindlepost.org/2021/08/intellectual-property-and-the-right-of-necessity/ LHP AV DOA:9/14/21 AND right of necessity suggests a standing right to break many international medical patents. The right of necessity is a logical constraint on the coercive powers of the state – even if not ethical, reducing IP for life saving medicines is not in the jurisdiction of legal punishment – that would undermine the very foundation of the omnilateral will, Koch 92:Koch, Andrew M. "Immanuel Kant, The Right of Necessity, and the Liberal Foundation of Social Welfare" Southeastern Political Review, 20: 2 (Fall 1992) 295-314. https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/koch'andrew'1992'Immanuel'Kant.pdf LHP AV DOA: 9/14/21 AND , the state's legal and coercive functions are inseparable from its welfare functions. ROBThe role of the ballot is to evaluate the truth or falsity of the resolution through a normatively justified framework via fair, safe, and educational arguments. No skep, no tricks, yes phil and yes theory. Prefer it –1~ Reciprocity – normative frameworks provide a reciprocal burden of justifying an obligation with the ability to turn them – other frameworks are arbitrarily impact exclusive and don’t articulate a 1-1 burden2~ Philosophy – only our role of the ballot incentivizes nuanced discussions over the interactions of different ethical theories. That comes first –A~ constitutivism – LD debate is a values debate which means the intrinsic purpose of the activity is philosophical discussionB~ hijacks any voter – the question of why those are good relies on philosophical justification, ie constitutivism or something.3~ Collapses – A~ any framing presupposes a motivation to vote one way or another which means all framings concede the validity of normativity B~ Ethics comes prior to logical truth, Peirce 02:CS Peirce, "CP 2.198" 1902, https://colorysemiotica.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/peirce-collectedpapers.pdf LHP AV AND it; but my labors will have done good work toward its improvement. | 10/15/21 |
SO21 - AC - LayTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 6 | Opponent: Scarsdale DH | Judge: Jim Gray DefinitionsI affirm the resolution resolved: The Member Nations of The World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicine.Because the resolution involves international trade law, a notoriously complex topic, I would like to start this debate by offering the following definitions:First, as financial analyst and writer Evan Tarver in 2021 explains:Tarver, Evan. "How Best to Define the World Trade Organization (WTO)." Investopedia, Investopedia, 15 June 2021, www.investopedia.com/terms/w/wto.asp. LHP PS AND joined in July 2016, and 25 "observer" countries and governments. Second, intellectual property for medicine is explained best by Oxfam America as: "Intellectual Property and Access to Medicine." Oxfam, www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/issues/economic-well-being/intellectual-property-and-access-to-medicine/. AND D. At the same time, the public benefits from technological advancement. Finally, The term "ought" in the resolution implies a moral obligation. Therefore, my value is morality.My value criterion is maximizing societal well being. Prefer this for the following reasons:~1~ People give up some of their rights to the government in return for protection from that government. That’s called the social contract. Because the people agree to follow the law, the government is obligated to protect them.~2~ Real governments have an obligation to base their policy decisions on what will help the greatest number of people, as philosopher Robert Goodin explainsROBERT GOODIN1Consider, first, the argument from necgooessity. Public officials are obliged to make their choices under uncertainty, and uncertainty of a very special sort at that. All choices – public and private alike – are made under some degree of uncertainty, of course. But in the nature of things, private individuals will usually have more complete information on the peculiarities of their own circumstances and on the ramifications that alternative possible choices might have for them. Public officials, in contrast, are relatively poorly informed as to what effects that their choices will have on individuals, one by one. What they typically do know are generalities: averages and aggregates. They know what will happen most often to most people as a result of their various possible choices. But that is all. That is enough to allow public policy-makers to use utilitarian calculus – if they want to use it fat all – to choose general rules of conduct. Knowing aggregates and averages, they can proceed to calculate the utility payoffs from adopting each alternative possible general rule. ~3~ Social welfare is a prerequisite for any other rights. If people are suffering, then freedom is meaningless.Accordingly, my thesis is that reducing intellectual property for medicines is essential to societal well-being.Contention 1: AccessibilityIn the status quo, innocent people are dying to diseases that can be easily prevented. However, these diseases continue to kill due to the lack of access to medicines and vaccines.Subpoint a) RotavirusA prominent example of this is the rotavirus in Africa, as journalists Carmen Garcia and Philip Whiteside in 2019 explainGarcia, Carmen, and Philip Whiteside . "Why 7,000 People Die Needlessly Every Day." Sky News, 2019, news.sky.com/story/why-7-000-people-die-needlessly-every-day-11770982~#. LHP PS AND of preventing up to a third of all diarrhoea across the developing world. Subpoint B) COVID VaccineIPR is preventing the distribution of the COVID-19 Vaccine to low and middle income countries as Eccleston-Turner and Rourke in 2021 explain ~Mark, Lecturer of Global Health Law, Keele University, Michelle, CSIRO Synthetic Biology Future Science Fellow, Griffith University, Australia, American Society of International Law, "The TRIPS Waiver is Necessary, but it Alone is not Enough to Solve Equitable Access to COVID-19 Vaccines" 25(9) May 27, https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/25/issue/9 AND and techniques (know-how) are protected informally as trade secrets. Subpoint C) Reducing intellectual Property SolvesBillions of people lack access to these medicines that could prevent millions of deaths. High levels of IP protections like the status quo continue to make accessibility even harder as Oxfam America explains"Intellectual Property and Access to Medicine." Oxfam, www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/issues/economic-well-being/intellectual-property-and-access-to-medicine/. AND such high levels of IP protection are extremely damaging to public health outcomes.
| 9/26/21 |
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
2/19/22 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
2/19/22 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
2/20/22 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
11/5/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
11/6/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
11/6/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
1/28/22 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
2/7/22 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
2/7/22 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
2/7/22 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
2/7/22 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
2/7/22 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
11/20/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
11/21/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
11/21/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
1/15/22 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
1/15/22 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
1/16/22 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
2/7/22 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
2/7/22 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
9/25/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
9/26/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
9/26/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
10/15/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
10/16/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
11/8/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
12/18/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
12/19/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
2/7/22 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
1/7/22 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
1/8/22 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
1/10/22 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
1/10/22 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
11/13/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
11/13/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
11/15/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
11/15/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
4/23/22 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
4/23/22 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
4/24/22 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
4/24/22 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
9/18/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
9/18/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
9/19/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
9/19/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
| |
11/7/21 | prateekseela24@gmailcom |
|