| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Any | 1 | Any | Any |
|
| ||
| any | 1 | Any | Any |
|
| ||
| nano nagle classic | 2 | Harker AR | Perez, Christopher |
|
|
| |
| nano nagle classic | 4 | Los Altos BF | Wilson, Avery |
|
|
| |
| nano nagle classic | 5 | Vestavia Hills DS | Moore, Kwodwo |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| nano nagle classic | 2 | Opponent: Harker AR | Judge: Perez, Christopher AC - Pettit |
| nano nagle classic | 4 | Opponent: Los Altos BF | Judge: Wilson, Avery 1AC - Covid Waiver |
| nano nagle classic | 5 | Opponent: Vestavia Hills DS | Judge: Moore, Kwodwo AC - Pettit |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 - Contact InfoTournament: Any | Round: 1 | Opponent: Any | Judge: Any Please contact me before a round if there are any issues | 10/9/21 |
0 - Debate DrillsTournament: any | Round: 1 | Opponent: Any | Judge: Any | 10/9/21 |
so - Civic Republicanism v1Tournament: nano nagle classic | Round: 2 | Opponent: Harker AR | Judge: Perez, Christopher Every agent must recognize freedom as a necessary good.Gewirth 84: Alan Gewirth (UChi Prof) "THE ONTOLOGICAL BASIS OF NATURAL LAW: A CRITIQUE AND AN ALTERNATIVE." 29 American Journal of Jurisprudence. 95. 1984. HeinOnline. However, the non-interference model of freedom allows institutional humiliation—non-domination solvesPettit 97: Philip Pettit (Laurence Rockefeller University Professor of Politics and Human Values at Princeton University). "Freedom with Honor: A Republican Ideal." Spring 1997. http://www.princeton.edu/~~ppettit/papers/FreedomwithHonor_SocialResearch_1997.pdf
Social institutions shouldn't humiliate people; honor is a basic human good – answers liberty NCs .Pettit 97: Philip Pettit (Laurence Rockefeller University Professor of Politics and Human Values at Princeton University). "Freedom with Honor: A Republican Ideal." Spring 1997. http://www.princeton.edu/~~ppettit/papers/FreedomwithHonor_SocialResearch_1997.pdf Non-domination is the only notion of freedom that can apply to state actors. Prefer civic republicanism—state interference promotes freedom if it ensures non-dominationWaltman 2: Jerry Waltman (taught political science at the University of Southern Mississippi for 25 years; in 15 of those he participated in the British Studies Program. He currently holds an endowed professorship in political science at Baylor University, where he teaches British politics and comparative public law. He received his Ph.D. from Indiana University, and is the author of eight books and numerous articles in academic journals on both British and American politics. In addition to his years spent on the British Studies Program, he has traveled and taught in the UK on many occasions). "Civic Republicanism, The Basic Income Guarantee, and the Living Wage." USBIG Discussion Paper. No. 25, March 2002. Thus, the standard is non-domination, defined as minimizing the capacity for arbitrary interference. 3 more reasons.First, non-domination is the primary moral good and turns other frameworks; it's a pre-req to other values.Pettit 99: Pettit, Philip (Professor at Princeton). Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government. Oxford University Press, USA (September 30, 1999). Second, non-domination comes first under util for state actors. It's key to resolve the infeasibility of direct util calc.Pettit 99: Pettit, Philip (Professor at Princeton). Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government. Oxford University Press, USA (September 30, 1999). Third, Kantianism requires non-domination.Ripstein 9 Property rights minimize the opportunity of innovation which limits individual freedom through creating monopolies. They also limit the use of tangible objects such as medicines for good purposes.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 Underview1~ Allow 1AR theory because it checks against infinite abuse in the neg. 1AR theory is drop the debater, no RVI, and competing interps – the 4-minute 1ar does not have time to win both theory and substance so you must be punished. It's also key to deterring abusive NC's from spreading out the 1AR on paradigm issues or the 2NR from overwhelming the 2A on the line by line. Fairness is a voter because debaters must be on an equitable level before engaging in substantive education.2~ Presumption and permissibility affirm – a) 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) Otherwise, we'd have to have a proactive justification to do things like drink water. d) If anything is permissible, then definitively so is the aff since there is nothing that prevents us from doing it.3) Reject Extinction First Weighing,a) Extinction based politics is a form of domination, it allows states to always intervene in people's rights through an arbitrary justification of solving for random extinction impacts, which my syllogism specifically rejects. My framework means extinction impacts don't matter. All they do is serve to pull us away from thinking about the right and moral responses to the world around us. Additionally, even if greed is the only way to stop extinction it would still be wrong..C.S. Lewis 86. Present Concerns: A Compelling Collection of Timely, Journalistic Essays. "On Living in an Atomic Age." Compiled in 1986. | 10/9/21 |
so - Civic Republicanism v2Tournament: nano nagle classic | Round: 5 | Opponent: Vestavia Hills DS | Judge: Moore, Kwodwo | 10/9/21 |
so - Covid WaiverTournament: nano nagle classic | Round: 4 | Opponent: Los Altos BF | Judge: Wilson, Avery | 10/9/21 |
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
10/9/21 | hotdogdaniel105@gmailcom |
| |
10/9/21 | hotdogdaniel105@gmailcom |
| |
10/9/21 | hotdogdaniel105@gmailcom |
|