Academy Of Classical Christian Studies Miller Aff
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | Finals | - | - |
|
|
| |
| JW Patterson | 1 | Memorial SC | Alexa Glendinning |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | 3 | OA Independent VD | Holden Bukowsky |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | 6 | Orange Lutheran AZ | Sam McLoughlin |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | Triples | Bergen County Academies AK | Lena Mizrahi, James Stuckert, Aryan Jasani |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | 2 | Dulles JL | Abishek Stanley |
|
|
| |
| Yale | 1 | Mountain View EN | Mariana Colicchio |
|
|
| |
| Yale | 4 | Hunter AL | Rohit Lakshman |
|
|
| |
| Yale | 6 | Lexington CH | Anthony Survance |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| - | Finals | Opponent: - | Judge: - 1AC - Policy |
| JW Patterson | 1 | Opponent: Memorial SC | Judge: Alexa Glendinning 1AC - Dysfluency |
| Loyola | 3 | Opponent: OA Independent VD | Judge: Holden Bukowsky 1AC - Kant |
| Loyola | 6 | Opponent: Orange Lutheran AZ | Judge: Sam McLoughlin 1AC - Korsgaard |
| Loyola | Triples | Opponent: Bergen County Academies AK | Judge: Lena Mizrahi, James Stuckert, Aryan Jasani 1AC - Kant |
| Loyola | 2 | Opponent: Dulles JL | Judge: Abishek Stanley 1AC - Disability |
| Yale | 1 | Opponent: Mountain View EN | Judge: Mariana Colicchio 1AC - Mollow |
| Yale | 4 | Opponent: Hunter AL | Judge: Rohit Lakshman 1AC - Nonnaturalism |
| Yale | 6 | Opponent: Lexington CH | Judge: Anthony Survance 1AC - Becoming Soil |
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 |
2 - Becoming SoilTournament: Yale | Round: 6 | Opponent: Lexington CH | Judge: Anthony Survance ACChapter One is The RealizationWe’re on the road to nowhere – the squo attempt to preserve life is really nothing but an infinitely continuous quest created by our own desire to more and more of ourselves, this goal of survival is pointless and glorifies endless reproduction of bodies that has no purpose.Deleuze and Guattari 72 (Gilles and Felix, Anti-Oedipus, 1972, p. 107-109) SJCPJG AND choice is between the "neurotic outlet" and the "nonneurotic outlet." We are stuck in the middle. In the middle of becoming, living, becoming corpses. The restrictive identity of self-survival imprisons us in the body, preventing any lines of flight or becoming creating the basis for the idyllic melancholic subject.Mark 98 (John, Gilles Deleuze: Vitalism and Multiplicity, p. 29-33) SJCPJG AND flight that things come to pass, becomings evolve, revolutions take shape. Chapter Two is The OvercomingDeath is an illusion because our bodies are always already dead and dying. Thus, the aff advocacy: We make our passive affects active by a refusal to prolong death and an embracement of becoming soil – we surrender and allow ourselves to become and overcome the ignorance of life preservation rather than hover in the endless static position of the fear of death. Surrender is key to an embracement of change and becoming.Chopra 5 (Deepak, M.D. Chairman and co-founder of the chopra center for wellbeing, The Absolute Break Between Life and Death Is an Illusion, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/the-absolute-break-betwee'b'4843.html) SJCPJG AND The circle closes, and the mystic experiences himself as the one reality. The 1AC deterritorializes educational spaces with our method, we break the rules and attack the stagnation of debate. The role of the judge is to be a rhizomatic educator who endorses our deterritorialization of the debate space – this means breaking rules and refusing binaries as a performative action that instigates becoming and adopts rhizomatic politics.Allan Julie Allan (Rethinking Inclusive Education: The Philosophers of Difference in Practice) (Julie Allan is Head of the School of Education and Professor of Equity and Inclusion. She is also Visiting Professor at the University of Borås in Sweden. Her work encompasses inclusive education, disability studies and children’s rights and is both empirical and theoretical. She has a particular interest in educational theory and the insights offered through poststructural and social capital analyses. Julie has been advisor to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Dutch and Queensland Governments and has worked extensively with the Council of Europe.)Deterritorialization seeks to knock~s~ existing understandings and ways of acting into a different orbit or trajectory (Roy, 2004). Its purpose is to undo the ‘processes of continuous control and instantaneous communication’ (Smith, 1998, p. 264). It is a performative breaking of existing codes which is also a ‘making’ (Howard, 1998, p. 115). That is, it is an escape, but in a positive sense, so that new intensities open up: The result is a return to a field of forces, transversing the gaps, puncturing the holes, and opening up the new world order to a quite different and new world of the multiple (Howard, 1998, pp. 123–124). Deterritorialization creates ‘chaosmos’ (Deleuze and Guattari, 1994), a term coined by James Joyce and which Deleuze and Guattari considered an apt account of the effects of deterritorialization: ‘composed chaos, neither forseen nor preconceived’ (p. 204) and precipitating new ways of thinking and acting: ‘once one ventures outside what’s familiar and reassuring, once one has to invent new concepts for unknown lands, then methods and moral systems break down’ (Deleuze, 1995, p. 322). The potential areas for deterritorialization cannot be specified; rather it is a case of being alert to opportunities to interrupt: This is how it should be done: Lodge yourself on a stratum; experiment with the opportunities it offers, find an advantageous place on it, find potential movements of deterritorialization, possible lines of flight, experience them, produce flow conjunctions here and there, try out continuums of intensitities segment by segment, have a small plot of new land at all times (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987, p. 161). Deterritorialization has the potential to attack the rigid, striated – or territorialized – spaces of schooling, teacher education and policy, replacing these with ones which are smooth and full of creative possibilities. Within these newly created spaces ‘life reconstitutes its stakes, confronts new obstacles, invents new paces, switches adver- saries’ (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987, p. 500). These smooth spaces are depicted by Deleuze and Guattari (ibid) as ‘holey space’ (p. 413), like Swiss cheese. Crucially, deterritorialization takes us from communication – through ‘order-words’ (Deleuze and Parnett, 1987, p. 22), imperatives for others to act – to expression. Prefer our method of education, we foster inclusive norms that promotes better learning and understandings of the world through debate as an activity, and are willing to break the rules in order to preserve debate a space for social change.Koh HOW DO I REACH THESE KIDS?: AN AFFIRMATION OF POLYVOCAL DEBATE BY BEN KOH and REBAR NIEMI Posted by NSD'Update | Sep 15, 2015 http://nsdupdate.com/2015/how-do-i-reach-these-kids-an-affirmation-of-polyvocal-debate-by-ben-koh-rebar-niemi/ AND debate" do not allow for that, we advocate breaking those rules. I dare you to read T – claims of fairness are how you marginalize the out group and retrench power structures – impact turns fairness.Delgado 92, Law Prof at U. of Colorado, 1992 ~Richard, "Shadowboxing: An Essay On Power," In Cornell Law Review, May~ AND consult that culture meekly and humbly in order to judge our own acts. Pluralism is good.Bleiker 14 – (6/17, Roland, Professor of International Relations at the University of Queensland, "International Theory Between Reification and Self-Reflective Critique," International Studies Review, Volume 16, Issue 2, pages 325–327) AND and complexity theory—links that could have been explored in more detail. Chapter Three is The BasisSubjectivity is the basis for ethics –Transcendent subject hood fails because of differentiation through time causes instability.Deleuze 68 ~Deleuze, Gilles. Difference and Repitition. Translated by Paul Patton. 1968.~ AA AND Is it possible that Kantian philosophy should thus be the heir of Oedipus? There are two models of the subject that can exist in relation to the time that constitutes it:First, the melancholic subject –Second, the temporality of the new –Thus the ROB is a rejection of melancholic subjectivity in favor of the temporality of the new. That’s key to education – majoritarian stabilized schooling wrecks thought and is unethical.Carlin and Wallin ~Carlin, Matthew. Wallin, Jason. "Deleuze and Guattari, Politics and Education." Bloomsbury. 2014. Pg. 119-121~ MK AND a necessary violence to those habits of repetition with which thought becomes contracted. General understandings of the relation between norms, subjects, and the world are insufficient for ethics because there is a gap between discursive regimes and real subjectivity. Only structures of affect distinguish the subject from static concepts of it – it’s cruelly optimistic to think we can fit into stable structures.Schaefer 13 ~Schaefer ’13. Schaefer, D. "The Promise of Affect: The Politics of the Event in Ahmed's The Promise of Happiness and Berlant's Cruel Optimism." Theory and Event 16.2 (2013). Project MUSE. Web. LHP MK~ AND mapping the enfolding of bodies by power, cannot move forward without affect. Strategies of deterritorialization like what the aff does to the debate space are key to solving capitalism – shown through schizoanalysis as a deterritorialization of normalized forms of critique.Deleuze and Guattari 72 (Gilles and Felix, Anti-Oedipus, 1972, p. 244-247) SJCPJG AND but on the contrary its difference, its divergence, and its death. | 9/19/21 |
2 - DysfluencyTournament: JW Patterson | Round: 1 | Opponent: Memorial SC | Judge: Alexa Glendinning 1ACCommunicative spaces such as debate are governed through biopolitical technologies of fluency which smooth over semiotic interruptions in search for stable and univocal operations. This bends bodies to align their speech patterns with compulsory able-bodiedness.St. Pierre 17 Becoming Dysfluent: Fluency as Biopolitics and Hegemony Joshua St. Pierre Journal of Literary and Cultural Disability Studies, Volume 11, Issue 3, 2017, pp. 342-344 (Article) Published by Liverpool University Press UTDD AND event toward specific, technical ends through the logic of optimization and closure. This is part of a larger shift in the socioeconomic terrain whereby semiocapitalism now requires information to move quickly and effortlessly. The result is the capacitation of certain disabled bodies at the expense of debilitating dysfluent laborers.St. Pierre 2 Becoming Dysfluent: Fluency as Biopolitics and Hegemony Joshua St. Pierre Journal of Literary and Cultural Disability Studies, Volume 11, Issue 3, 2017, pp. 344 (Article) Published by Liverpool University Press UTDD AND and possess "excellent communication skills" marginalize dysfluent laborers in postindustrial economies. Neoliberal biocapitalism operates through disabling certain bodies at the expense of enhancing others. Through figure of the Child, biocapitalism sustains a reproductive order geared towards the future in the image of a better than able-bodied subject. In reality, this sacred Child is impossible to satisfy and requires the simultaneous death and enhancement of disability. This replicates a cruel optimism towards the promise of the future that only works to disable others.Fritsch 15 The Neoliberal Biopolitics of Disability: Towards Emergent Intracorporeal Practices by Kelly Fritsch JUNE 2015 pp. 145-146 UTDD AND sliding into neoliberalism’s forms of capacitation and enhancement that incapacitates and disables others." The figure of the better than able-bodied Child circulates happy affects of pride, hope, cure, and progress, which sustains a neoliberal order whereby the promise of happiness shapes our affective dispositions. This affective economy determines the value and circulation of social goods which allows biocapitalism to frame disability through a narrative of overcoming suffering. This produces disability as tragedy, pity, and disgust.Fritsch 2 The Neoliberal Biopolitics of Disability: Towards Emergent Intracorporeal Practices by Kelly Fritsch JUNE 2015 pp. 82-84 UTDD AND circulate, even in the face of contested understandings of disability or accessibility. Neoliberal biocapitalism sustains itself through wounded attachments. This forecloses futures by locking groups into existing insofar as they suffer and ignores the ways that other disabled groups suffer. What is needed is a move away from the politics of recognition that creates a division between the abled and disabled towards gradations of debility and capacity that focus on ecologies of sensation and bodily capacities.Fritsch 3 The Neoliberal Biopolitics of Disability: Towards Emergent Intracorporeal Practices by Kelly Fritsch JUNE 2015 pp. 116-119 UTDD AND in multiple ways that could allow for a more just future for everyone. Thus, the role of the ballot is to vote for the debater that best resist the logic of fluency which functions through debilitating and capacitating certain bodies.We enact dysfluency as an interruption to the semiotic flow of debate. This is not a "communicative breakdown" but a flight that escapes the totalizing demands of fluency. Our politics of the mouth trips over proper speech and resist the spell of the linguistic.St. Pierre 3 Becoming Dysfluent: Fluency as Biopolitics and Hegemony Joshua St. Pierre Journal of Literary and Cultural Disability Studies, Volume 11, Issue 3, 2017, pp. 353-354 (Article) Published by Liverpool University Press UTDD AND agential capacity of dysfluency lies precisely in its flight from understanding and intelligibility. The affirmative is not merely a war waged on futurity – we recognize that the battle must be fought within relationality and the figure of the Child. Instead, the aff complicates neoliberalism’s current investments in the future and negates the options it has offered us. The figure of the Child is understood for what it is, a regime of hygiene that co-constitutes disability, race, class, and queerness as sites of delimiting reproductive futurity. This is a demand for a better future, not for our children, but as an ethical call that affirms our relationality.Fritsch 4 The Neoliberal Biopolitics of Disability: Towards Emergent Intracorporeal Practices by Kelly Fritsch JUNE 2015 pp.169-172 UTDD AND to heterotopically and intracorporeally invest otherwise in social relations that complicate this horizon. Voting affirmative engages in a heterotopic imagination of disability. This is a method of imagining disability differently outside of the current neoliberal conditions. The product is a figure of disability not as something to overcome but as a life worth living.Fritsch 5 The Neoliberal Biopolitics of Disability: Towards Emergent Intracorporeal Practices by Kelly Fritsch JUNE 2015 pp. 174-175 UTDD AND disability is, how it is practiced, and what it can be. | 10/9/21 |
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 |
SO - Korsgaard v3Tournament: Loyola | Round: Triples | Opponent: Bergen County Academies AK | Judge: Lena Mizrahi, James Stuckert, Aryan Jasani 1AC TripsFramingThe standard is consistency with the categorical imperative. To clarify, consequences don’t link to the framework. I defend that we ought to abide by universalizable maxims and that we ought to always act so as to treat humanity as an end. Prefer:~1~ The existence of extrinsic goodness requires unconditional human worth—that means we must treat others as ends in themselves.Korsgaard ’83 ~Christine M., "Two Distinctions in Goodness," The Philosophical Review Vol. 92, No. 2 (Apr., 1983), pp. 169-195, JSTOR~ OS *Bracketed for gendered language. AND -and, in general, to make the highest good our end. ~2~ Practical reason solves regress—it’s impossible to deny reason’s authority.Velleman ~David, "Self To Self", Cambridge University Press, 2006, pg 18-19~ Lex VM AND something self-defeating about asking for a reason to act for reasons. ~3~ Other frameworks collapse—they contain conditional obligations which derive their authority from the categorical imperative.Korsgaard 2 ~CHRISTINE M. KORSGAARD, greatest philosopher alive, 1998, "Introduction", Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals~ AG AND act on those principles, principles which are themselves laws. Kant continues: ~4~ Induction for probability fails –~5~ Kant is procedurally best –OffenseI affirm Resolved: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines. Presumption and Permissibility affirms a) statements are more often true until proven false i.e. if I tell you my name is Jack you’ll believe that unless proven otherwise b) requiring pro-active justification for all our actions would make it impossible to make morally neutral claims like ‘I ought to drink water’.~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? | 9/17/21 |
SO - Non-NaturalismTournament: Yale | Round: 4 | Opponent: Hunter AL | Judge: Rohit Lakshman FrameworkI value morality. Ethics must first start by defining good and bad because ethical answers rely on a correct interpretation of what they’re representing –Therefore, the meta-ethic is moral non-naturalism.Hume 72 Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1772). Hackett Publ Co. 1993; Chapter on Cause and Effect. Massa AND and taking that for granted, which is the very point in question. Since moral properties cannot be defined by natural properties, it becomes impossible to externally distinguish good and bad. Non-naturalism, however, does not deny the ability to internally recognize the good just like distinguishing between natural observations.McHugh http://brothersjuddblog.com/archives/2002/05/an'open'question.html *original website is down but this URL works and cites the original IEP article* ACCS JM AND matters is whether we can simply recognize the goodness of a particular action. That means non-naturalism prima facie justifies intuitionism as the only ethical theory that can guide action. The fallacy of Loki’s Wager is true because we know certain things are observationally relevant despite a clear articulation of what they are, just like I know the difference between red and blue. Thus, the standard is consistency with a priori moral intuitions.McMahan, Jeff ~http://www.philosophy.rutgers.edu/joomlatools-files/docman-files/Moral20Intuition202nd20edition.pdf~~ Massa AND a highly complex work of art in order to judge or appreciate it. Prefer the standard additionally:First, rule following fails –Second, motivation –Third, not following intuitions produces poor ontological understandings of the self –Fourth, the neg may not contest both the standard and ROB –Impact Calc:First, frameworks all share equal value –Second, moral intuitions can be rationally unsound –OffenseI affirm Resolved: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines.Altruism and fairness are a priori intuitive – brain and psychological studies across age ranges prove.Lucas 08, Margery. "FAIR GAME: THE INTUITIVE ECONOMICS OF RESOURCE EXCHANGE IN FOUR-YEAR OLDS." Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Behavioral Psychology, 2008, citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.470.8506andrep=rep1andtype=pdf. Massa AND (Fehr and Gachter, 2002; de Quervain et al., 2004). That affirms – An intrinsic characteristic behind discussions of waivers is altruism – it’s the intention.Melimopoulos 21, E. (2021, June 29). Explainer: What are patent waivers for COVID vaccines? Breaking News, World News and Video from Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/6/29/explainer-what-are-covid-vaccine-patent-waivers Massa AND on Wednesday, we take a look at the intensifying debate around waivers. Intuitions flow innovation – medical tech can’t be privately owned. Agents recreating, redistributing, and remodeling is an intuitive transferal of ownership – brain studies prove.APS 10. (2010, August 17). An intuitive sense of property. Association for Psychological Science - APS. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/were-only-human/an-intuitive-sense-of-property.html Massa AND belief in squatters’ rights, replacing this sensibility with formal laws and regulations. | 9/19/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
9/5/21 | brazilismyteam@icloudcom |
| |
9/5/21 | brazilismyteam@icloudcom |
| |
9/17/21 | brazilismyteam@icloudcom |
| |
10/8/21 | brazilismyteam@icloudcom |
| |
9/17/21 | brazilismyteam@icloudcom |
| |
9/19/21 | brazilismyteam@icloudcom |
| |
9/19/21 | brazilismyteam@icloudcom |
|