Academy Of Classical Christian Studies Miller Aff
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | Finals | - | - |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | 2 | Dulles JL | Abishek Stanley |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | 3 | OA Independent VD | Holden Bukowsky |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | 6 | Orange Lutheran AZ | Sam McLoughlin |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| - | Finals | Opponent: - | Judge: - 1AC - Policy |
| Loyola | 2 | Opponent: Dulles JL | Judge: Abishek Stanley 1AC - Disability |
| Loyola | 3 | Opponent: OA Independent VD | Judge: Holden Bukowsky 1AC - Kant |
| Loyola | 6 | Opponent: Orange Lutheran AZ | Judge: Sam McLoughlin 1AC - Korsgaard |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 - Accessibility FormattingTournament: - | Round: Finals | Opponent: - | Judge: - | 9/3/21 |
0 - Contact InfoTournament: - | Round: Finals | Opponent: - | Judge: - If you need to contact me for ANY reason, you can reach me through: I am most likely to respond to text, followed by Facebook, and am least likely to reply via email but I'll be checking each of them frequently so it shouldn't be a problem! | 9/3/21 |
0 - Content WarningsTournament: - | Round: Finals | Opponent: - | Judge: - As for me personally, I would request that you avoid purposeful shiftiness. ADHD combined with sensory processing disorders make it very hard for me to pay attention to fine-tuned details such as hidden arguments. Therefore, I would kindly request that for those of you who read long underviews, please be straight up about the arguments in cross-ex. (to clarify, I have nothing wrong with reading underviews; just don't be purposefully shifty) | 9/3/21 |
0 - NavigationTournament: - | Round: Finals | Opponent: - | Judge: - | 9/3/21 |
1 - Potential InterpsTournament: - | Round: Finals | Opponent: - | Judge: - DisclosureInterpretation: Debaters must disclose all constructive positions on open source in an accessible format on the 2021-2022 NDCA LD wiki after the round in which they read them in conjunction with a highlighted version. Interpretation: 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. Interpretation: For each position on their corresponding 2021-22 NDCA LD Interpretation: If debaters disclose full text, they must not post the full text of the cards in the cite box, but must upload an open source document with the full text of their cards. To clarify, you don’t have to disclose highlighting or underlining, you just need an open source document with minimally the full, un-underlined text of cards. Interpretation: Debaters must disclose round reports on the 2021-22 NDCA LD wiki for every round they have debated this season. Round reports disclose which positions (AC, NC, K, T, Theory, etc.) were read/gone for in every speech. Paragraph TheoryConditionality is a voting issue. PICs are a voting issue. Condo PICS are a voting issue. Floating PIKs are a voting issue. Dispo is a voting issue. Alt actor fiat is a voting issue. Multiple shells with DTD implications are a voting issue. Multiple NIBs is a voting issue. Consult CPs are a voting issue. Counterplans competing only through net benefits are a voting issue. Delay CPs are a voting issue. TJFs are a voting issue. Agent CPs are a voting issue. Not speccing status is a voting issue. Spec shells are a voting issue. Vague alts are a voting issue. MiscInterpretation: The negative must concede to the affirmative’s framework. Interpretation: Debaters may not read epistemic modesty. Interpretation: Debaters may not read epistemic modesty and extinction outweighs. Interpretation: Debaters may not read extinction first under any framework. Interpretation: The neg may not derive a route to the ballot premised on the flaws of the aff framework. To clarify, framework Ks are bad. Interpretation: Debaters must ask everyone in the room if they are okay with spreading before their first speech. Interpretation: Counterplans must not be conditional. Interpretation: All theory paradigms in the 1NC must be phrased as proactively bidirectional. Interpretation: Debaters may not defend at more than one conditional advocacy. Interpretation: If the negative proscribes a proactive change to the status quo, they must defend a governmental action. Interpretation: Negative debaters may only defend the status quo as an advocacy if the aff is whole res. Interpretation: All negative advocacies must be unconditional. Interpretation: If the negative reads a dispositional counterplan, they must defend that they go for it if I straight turn it. Interpretation: Negative debaters must not read an advocacy that defends the affirmative’s advocacy absent a particular part or parts. To clarify PICs bad. Interpretation: Negative counterplans must be functionally and textually competitive. Interpretation: If the affirmative defends a consequentialist framework, they must explicitly delineate which theory of the good they defend in the form of a text in the 1AC. Interpretation: Negative debaters must defend an advocacy that does not do part of the affirmative advocacy if the affirmative defends the entirety of the resolution. Interpretation: The negative may not advocate the entirety of the affirmative with the exception of one word. Interpretation: Negative debaters must defend an advocacy that does not do all of the aff advocacy except for a word or phrase unconditionally. Interpretation: The negative must not read an advocacy that can result in the world of the affirmative. To clarify, floating PIKs bad. Interpretation: Negative debaters must not read a counterplan that only competes through net benefits. To clarify, advantage counterplans are bad. Interpretation: If the negative debater reads a counterplan, the agent of the counterplan must be the same agent as the AC. Interpretation: If the negative reads a CP then they must have a carded solvency advocate, defined as an author with a scholarly degree in a relevant field to the topic that advocates for the CP. Interpretation: If the negative reads a plan inclusive counterplan, then the neg must have a solvency advocate, defined as an author with a scholarly degree in a relevant field to the topic that advocates for the explicit counterplan text. Interpretation: If the negative justifies competing interpretations, they must specify whether it operates under a norms-creation or an in-round abuse model. Default to norms-creation since the violation proves that your practice is bad in the context of a norm. Interpretation: All neg counterplans need to be a) disclosed if they have been read before and b) need to be currently implemented somewhere in the status quo. Interpretation: The negative must disclose text of PICs 30 minutes prior to the round on their own NSDA LD Wiki if the affirmative is whole res and disclosed. Interpretation: The negative must defend a unique ethical framework from the aff. To clarify you cannot straight ref. Interpretation: The negative debater must either only contest the aff framework or the aff offense functioning under their framework. Interpretation: the negative must have a counter-advocacy text in the NC. Interpretation: The negative debater must defend the converse of the resolution. Interpretation: The negative may not defend a counterplan that fiats an alternative actor that is distinct from the aff. Interpretation: Debaters must not read an alternative that only specifies that we must reject the aff in favor of a critical shift. Interpretation: Kritik alternatives must only be specific, solvent policy actions implemented by a single actor. The alt must have a solvency advocate that explains the implementation of the policy, and cannot fiat a rejection or mindset shift. Interpretation: The neg must only have topical K links. Interpretation: Debaters may not defend implementation of the resolution through state or location action. They must defend either federal legislation, an executive order, or a reversal of current decisions through the Supreme Court. Interpretation: The negative debater may not read more than one theory shell in the 1NC. Interpretation: If the negative reads a “pre-fiat kritik”, then the link cannot be derive from something in the resolution. Interp solves any abuse: They can still read their criticism but they have to impact it back to a substantive framework. That could be minimizing oppression, but it can’t have pre fiat implications. Interpretation: The negative may only link offense to the post-fiat advocacy of the aff. To clarify, no Reps K’s. Interpretation: The neg must gain offense only from at most one unconditional route to the ballot. To clarify, a route to the ballot is one independent layer of the debate that functions as a voting issue. Interpretation: The negative must defend a counter-advocacy with a solvency advocate from the topic literature and a text written down in the 1NC. Interpretation: Kritiks must have an alternative. Interpretation: All kritik alternatives must have an explicitly delineated text in the 1NC. Interpretation: If the negative reads both theory and a kritik, they must explicitly say which layer outweighs in an explicit text in the 1NC. Interpretation: If the negative debater reads a K, they must not read multiple links into the K. Interpretation: The negative may only read theory shells that indict the aff for an advocacy shift after the shift has occurred. To clarify you may not read a shell indicting a potential advocacy shift. Interpretation: If debaters read theory and a K and don’t explicitly weigh between them in the speech they were read or in CX, they must grant me an RVI. Interpretation: Debaters may not read multiple theory and/or T shells with an implication of drop the debater and no RVI’s. Interpretation: Debaters may not read affirming/negating is harder arguments. Interpretation: If the negative reads a negating is harder arguments, they must specify the implication they have in a delineated text of the speech they read them. Interpretation: If the negative reads negating is harder arguments, they may not specify more than one implication. Interpretation: Debaters cannot impose identity specific burdens. To clarify, they can’t set certain conditions that are contingent based on the identity of the debater. Interpretation: The neg must specify the status of all advocacies in the form of a delineated text in 1NC during the 1NC immediately after reading the advocacy text. To clarify, you must say if advocacies are condo, uncondo, or dispo in the 1NC. Note: I reserve the right to read shells contextual to the round in order to check for abuse if I feel as though the violation is particularly egregious. | 9/3/21 |
SO - KorsgaardTournament: Loyola | Round: 3 | Opponent: OA Independent VD | Judge: Holden Bukowsky FramingThe meta-ethic is Procedural Moral Realism.~1~ Collapses –~2~ Uncertainty –~3~ Is/Ought Gap –Practical reason is that procedure –Moral law must be universal –Thus, the standard is Consistency with The Categorical Imperative.Prefer:~1~ Performativity –~2~ Humanity Principle –~3~ Ethical frameworks must be theoretically legitimate. All frameworks are functionally topicality interpretations of the word ought so they must theoretically justified. Prefer our standard –A~ Resource Disparities –B~ Ground –~4~ Frameworks all share equal value –~5~ Identifying your own rational agency requires you to know that you are taking an action with a certain principle of choiceKorsgaard 99 ~CHRISTINE M. KORSGAARD, "SELF-CONSTITUTION IN THE ETHICS OF PLATO AND KANT". The Journal of Ethics 1999, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 1-29. Specifically, "VII. GOOD ACTION AND THE UNITY OF THE KANTIAN WILL". Professor of Philosphy, Harvard University.~ ACCS JM AND then, requires identification with the principle of choice on which you act. ~6~ Abductivism disproves the best guess – normative judgements require certainty which necessitates deductive foundations.Douven 17, Igor, "Abduction", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/abduction/. Massa AND abduction or, somewhat more commonly nowadays, Inference to the Best Explanation. OffenseI affirm Resolved: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines.~1~ An exclusive and unconditional right to property is not entailed by the categorical imperative – only conditional use is universalizable.Westphal 97 ~(Kenneth R., Professor of Philosophy at Boðaziçi Üniversitesi, PhD in Philosophy from Wisco) "Do Kant’s Principles Justify Property or Usufruct?" Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik/Annual Review of Law and Ethics 5 (1997):141–94.~ RE AND in RL §6 suffer analogous weaknesses (see §§2.4f.). That implies that intellectual property is unjust.Westphal 97 ~(Kenneth R., Professor of Philosophy at Boðaziçi Üniversitesi, PhD in Philosophy from Wisco) "Do Kant’s Principles Justify Property or Usufruct?" Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik/Annual Review of Law and Ethics 5 (1997):141–94.~ RE AND thing, regardless of subsequent disuse (cf. §3.10). ~2~ Patents attempt to assert ownership over nature and impede individuals’ abilities to pursue their own ends.Long 95 ~(Roderick T., professor of philosophy at Auburn University, editor of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, director and president of the Molinari Institute and a Senior Fellow at the Center for a Stateless Society) "The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights," Free Nation Foundation, 1995~ JL recut Lex VM AND the idea on his own, will be forbidden to market his invention. ~3~ IPR is nonuniversalizable and interferes with the freedom of people who need medicine.Merges 11 ~(Robert, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati Professor of Law and Technology, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law) "Justifying Intellectual Property," Harvard University Press, 2011~ JL recut Lex VM AND to cut off or restrain the freedom of those who might be treated? ~4~ A universal system of freedom justifies a libertarian state.Otteson 9 ~brackets in original~ James R. Otteson (professor of philosophy and economics at Yeshiva University) "Kantian Individualism and Political Libertarianism" The Independent Review, v. 13, n. 3, Winter 2009 AND in the absence of invasions or threats of invasions, it is inactive. That affirms – enforcing intellectual property rights is an illegitimate use of governmental power. | 9/5/21 |
SO - Korsgaard v2Tournament: Loyola | Round: 6 | Opponent: Orange Lutheran AZ | Judge: Sam McLoughlin FramingThe meta-ethic is Procedural Moral Realism.~1~ Collapses –~2~ Uncertainty –~3~ Is/Ought Gap –Practical reason is that procedure –Moral law must be universal –Thus, the standard is Consistency with The Categorical Imperative.Prefer:~1~ Performativity –~2~ Humanity Principle –~3~ Ethical frameworks must be theoretically legitimate. All frameworks are functionally topicality interpretations of the word ought so they must theoretically justified. Prefer our standard –A~ Resolvability –B~ Resource Disparities –~4~ Abductivism disproves the best guess – normative judgements require certainty which necessitates deductive foundations.Douven 17, Igor, "Abduction", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/abduction/. Massa AND abduction or, somewhat more commonly nowadays, Inference to the Best Explanation. ~5~ Frameworks all share equal value –~6~ Reason is an epistemic side-constraint on empirical reliability –OffenseI affirm Resolved: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines.~1~ An exclusive and unconditional right to property is not entailed by the categorical imperative – only conditional use is universalizable.Westphal 97 ~(Kenneth R., Professor of Philosophy at Boðaziçi Üniversitesi, PhD in Philosophy from Wisco) "Do Kant’s Principles Justify Property or Usufruct?" Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik/Annual Review of Law and Ethics 5 (1997):141–94.~ RE AND in RL §6 suffer analogous weaknesses (see §§2.4f.). That implies that intellectual property is unjust.Westphal 97 ~(Kenneth R., Professor of Philosophy at Boðaziçi Üniversitesi, PhD in Philosophy from Wisco) "Do Kant’s Principles Justify Property or Usufruct?" Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik/Annual Review of Law and Ethics 5 (1997):141–94.~ RE AND thing, regardless of subsequent disuse (cf. §3.10). ~2~ Patents attempt to assert ownership over nature and impede individuals’ abilities to pursue their own ends.Long 95 ~(Roderick T., professor of philosophy at Auburn University, editor of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, director and president of the Molinari Institute and a Senior Fellow at the Center for a Stateless Society) "The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights," Free Nation Foundation, 1995~ JL recut Lex VM AND the idea on his own, will be forbidden to market his invention. ~3~ IPR is nonuniversalizable and interferes with the freedom of people who need medicine.Merges 11 ~(Robert, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati Professor of Law and Technology, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law) "Justifying Intellectual Property," Harvard University Press, 2011~ JL recut Lex VM AND to cut off or restrain the freedom of those who might be treated? ~4~ A universal system of freedom justifies a libertarian state.Otteson 9 ~brackets in original~ James R. Otteson (professor of philosophy and economics at Yeshiva University) "Kantian Individualism and Political Libertarianism" The Independent Review, v. 13, n. 3, Winter 2009 AND in the absence of invasions or threats of invasions, it is inactive. | 9/5/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
9/4/21 | brazilismyteam@icloudcom |
| |
9/5/21 | brazilismyteam@icloudcom |
| |
9/5/21 | brazilismyteam@icloudcom |
|