Academy Of Classical Christian Studies Miller Neg
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JW Patterson | 2 | Coppell RM | Colton Gilbert |
|
|
| |
| JW Patterson | 4 | James Bowie NW | Amanda Nobra |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | 1 | Tays KM | Abhinav Sinha |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | 4 | Mountain View EN | Neville Tom |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | 5 | Wenatchee JK | James Stuckert |
|
|
| |
| Yale | 3 | North Mecklenburg PM | Beckford, Saied |
|
|
| |
| Yale | 2 | Syosset BL | Ashish Tripathi |
|
|
| |
| Yale | 5 | Lincoln JR | David McGinnis |
|
|
| |
| Yale | Triples | Mountain View EN | Dumas, Cyprian Scopa, Stephen Lee, Andrew |
|
|
| |
| Yale | Doubles | Lexington AK | Lakshman, Rohit Natchukuri, Ananya Chang, Curtis |
|
|
| |
| Yale | Octas | American Heritage Broward SS | Rohit Lakshman, Ananya Natchukuri, Curtis Chang |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| JW Patterson | 2 | Opponent: Coppell RM | Judge: Colton Gilbert 1AC - Capitalism K |
| JW Patterson | 4 | Opponent: James Bowie NW | Judge: Amanda Nobra 1AC - Larp |
| Loyola | 1 | Opponent: Tays KM | Judge: Abhinav Sinha 1AC - larp |
| Loyola | 4 | Opponent: Mountain View EN | Judge: Neville Tom 1AC - larp |
| Loyola | 5 | Opponent: Wenatchee JK | Judge: James Stuckert 1AC - Policy |
| Yale | 3 | Opponent: North Mecklenburg PM | Judge: Beckford, Saied 1AC - Policy |
| Yale | 2 | Opponent: Syosset BL | Judge: Ashish Tripathi It was lay lol every speech was AC NC |
| Yale | 5 | Opponent: Lincoln JR | Judge: David McGinnis 1AC - Kant |
| Yale | Triples | Opponent: Mountain View EN | Judge: Dumas, Cyprian Scopa, Stephen Lee, Andrew 1AC - Policy |
| Yale | Doubles | Opponent: Lexington AK | Judge: Lakshman, Rohit Natchukuri, Ananya Chang, Curtis 1AC - Policy |
| Yale | Octas | Opponent: American Heritage Broward SS | Judge: Rohit Lakshman, Ananya Natchukuri, Curtis Chang 1AC - Virtue Ethics Must Grant Permissibility or Presumption |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 - Accessibility FormattingTournament: - | Round: Finals | Opponent: - | Judge: - | 9/4/21 |
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! | 9/4/21 |
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) | 9/4/21 |
0 - Wiki InfoTournament: - | Round: Finals | Opponent: - | Judge: - | 9/4/21 |
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: The aff must disclose the plan text, framework, and advantage area 30 minutes before the round. To clarify, disclosure can occur on the wiki or over message. 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 wiki page, debaters must disclose a summary of each analytic argument in their cases. To clarify – you don’t have to include the full text of each, you just have to substitute them with a few words that summarize the thesis of the argument i.e. ‘actor specificity’ rather than ‘analytic’ 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. Interpretation: if the aff reads an advocacy other than the current NSDA resolution, then they must disclose the advocacy on the 2021-2022 NDCA LD wiki before the round. To clarify, if you do not defend the topic, you must disclose the aff before the round. MiscInterpretation: The affirmative debater may not defend fiat for more than one 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: If either debater reads a truth testing role of the ballot, they must explicitly specify in a text how the round ought to play out under the role of the ballot. Interpretation: If debaters disclose multiple disclosure interpretations, then those interpretations must not conflict with one another. Interpretation: The affirmative debater must articulate a distinct ROB in the form of a delineated text in the first affirmative speech. Interpretation: All theory paradigms in the aff must be phrased as proactively bidirectional. Interpretation: If the affirmative debater claims that the rule following paradox is a relevant problem ethical theories must be able to resolve, and claim that social practices solve the rule following paradox, they must clarify in the form of a text in the AC what counts as an ethical practice verified by the community. Interpretation: All arguments concerning fairness or education that the negative could violate must be read first in the affirmative speech. To clarify, theory arguments must be read at the top of the affirmative case before all substantive arguments. Interpretation: If the aff claims they get to choose the framework for the round, they get to defend the framework they justify in the 1AC but must choose a different theoretically legitimate framework for the neg. Interpretation: The aff must defend theory interpretations and arguments unconditionally as presented in the 1AC. Interpretation: Debaters who make presumption arguments must articulate the set of conditions under which presumption can become relevant in the evaluation of the round. Interpretation: Debaters may not read affirming is harder arguments to justify any theoretical or substantive paradigm issues in the aff. Interpretation: Debaters may not read affirming is harder arguments. Interpretation: If the affirmative reads affirming is harder arguments, they may not specify more than one implication. Interpretation: If the affirmative defends anything other than the exact text of the resolution, then they must provide a counter-solvency advocate for their specific advocacy. 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: All evidence that derives claims from historical events must have a citation. To clarify, this isn’t saying that you should cite that something like WWII happened, but nuanced empirical claims about historical projects and society’s reactions to those projects should have a citation. Interpretation: Debaters may not read epistemic modesty. Interpretation: Debaters may not justify both 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: On the 2021-2022 September-October LD Topic, the affirmative may not gain offense from outside the scope of the resolution. Interpretation: Debaters must ask everyone in the room if they are okay with spreading before their first speech. Interpretation: If the aff differs from the conventional truth testing model, they must explicitly specify a comprehensive role of the ballot and clarify how the round will play out under that role of the ballot in the form of a text in the 1AC. Interpretation: If the affirmative reads graphic depictions of ableism, they must give a content warning before their speech. Interpretation: If the affirmative reads an offensive theoretical argument that claims that the negative must concede the affirmative framework, they must provide a list of potential violations and permissible practices under that interpretation. Interpretation: Debaters cannot impose race specific burdens. To clarify, they can’t set certain conditions that are contingent based on the racial identity of the debater. Interpretation: Debaters cannot impose disability specific burdens. To clarify, they can’t set certain conditions that are contingent based on the ability status of the debater. Interpretation: Debaters cannot impose queerness specific burdens. To clarify, they can’t set certain conditions that are contingent based on the sexual orientation or gender of the debater. Clarification about the three shells above, this is NOT saying identity based arguments are bad, but rather that you shouldn't make arguments like "disabled debaters get RVIs." Interpretation: The affirmative must use personal knowledge, organic intellectuals, and academic intellectuals, to garner offense. Interpretation: Debaters may not read offensive theoretical interpretations in the 1AC. Interpretation: Debaters may not defend implementation of the resolutional action. Interpretation: All debater’s theory shells must operate through NCM, or the norm-creation model, not the abuse model. To clarify, an interpretation under NCM necessitates that a proposed interpretation would produce better norms for debate than the mutually exclusive counter-interp and that those norms should be endorsed. Interpretation: Debaters may not defend the resolution in active voice. Interpretation: The Aff must present a concrete strategy for the operationalization of their advocacy through specific institution outside of debate. Interpretation: The affirmative debater may not read multiple necessary burdens for themselves but is also an insufficient burden for me. To clarify more than one NIBs bad. Interpretation: The affirmative must explicitly indicate their standards conception of the subject or their identity if it exists in a delineated text in the 1AC. Interpretation: Debaters may not read descriptive frameworks. Interpretation: If debaters read evidence whose text is modified with brackets, for each affected card the debater must say out loud that the evidence is bracketed and for what purpose, either immediately before or after reading the evidence. Interpretation: Debaters cannot have graphs, images, or charts used to garner offense in their speech doc. Interpretation: All offense proving the resolution true or false must impact to a necessary and sufficient standard. Standards must have only one evaluative mechanism, which is a comprehensive normative theory that entails all true normative propositions. Interpretation: All theoretical interpretations must be worded proactively to indicate what debaters must do. 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. | 9/4/21 |
2 - EdelmanTournament: Yale | Round: Triples | Opponent: Mountain View EN | Judge: Dumas, Cyprian Scopa, Stephen Lee, Andrew Desire from lack projects identity which we can never fully reach which urges the political to determine which identities are legitimate. Thus, the role of the ballot is to vote for the debater with the best method of traversing the fantasy.Edelman 1 (Lee Edelman, No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive, 2004, Duke University Press, p. 7-9) SJCPJG AND force of what insists outside or beyond, because foreclosed by, signification. Politics and futurism is built on the premise that any negation of the signifier of the child is essential in order to fulfill desire from lack which deems queerness out of the political – the impact is reproductive futurism which is a system of structural overkill that places queerness in a position of ontological exclusion.Edelman 2 (Lee Edelman, No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive, 2004, Duke University Press, p. 10-13) SJCPJG AND of social organization, collective reality, and, inevitably, life itself. Ignore statistics regarding material progress for queerness – they’re geared at hiding the truth of the situation which means only our ontology claim explains the reality of overkill.Stanley 11 (Eric Stanley, Near Life, Queer Death: Overkill and Ontological Capture, 2011, p. 5-6) SJCPJG AND of a body of a "man in a dress" discovered.15 The alternative is to embrace the death drive – a full affirmation of queer negativity in which we reject the 1AC in favor of traversing the fantasy and realizing the structural positionality of queer identity.Edelman 3 (Lee Edelman, No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive, 2004, Duke University Press, p. 4-7) SJCPJG AND the sign by establishing the psychoanalytic context within which my argument takes shape. | 9/19/21 |
2 - MollowTournament: Loyola | Round: 4 | Opponent: Mountain View EN | Judge: Neville Tom Abled subjectivity is tied up in a two-tiered affective response that explains disabled life – primary pity which reflects disability upon the ego threatening its ability status, which invokes secondary pity to overcorrect for the shattered-ego necessitating disabled death.Mollow 15 The Disability Drive by Anna Mollow A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in English in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Kent Puckett, Chair Professor Celeste G. Langan Professor Melinda Y. Chen Spring 2015 ACCS JM AND fantasmatically, perhaps already is—an image of one’s own self undone? The 1AC’s belief of a better future becomes complicit in the logic of rehabilitative futurism, which is threatened by the Disabled Child – that comes prior to materialism because the underlying structures that create the problems within society can only be understood and explained by an ontological thesis stemming from ableism.Mollow 2 The Disability Drive by Anna Mollow A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in English in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Kent Puckett, Chair Professor Celeste G. Langan Professor Melinda Y. Chen Spring 2015 ACCS JM AND promised, would bring forth a better future." (68-69) The only ethical alternative is to affirm crippessimism – only a refusal of the world can disrupt the current notion of optimism to validate the fragmented subject. If we win their starting point is ableist they cannot weigh the consequences of it.Selck 16 ~Selck, Michael L. "Crip Pessimism: The Language of Dis/ability and the Culture that Isn't." (Jan 2016) WHSRS and Lex VM~ AND able-bodied standards, I have come to a comfort with pessimism. ====Academia is riddled with ableism – knowledge production requires assumptions to be made, and absent talking about disability, those assumptions are always violent. If you aren’t part of the solution, you’re part of the problem – their failure to proactively discuss questions of disability is both a link and an epistemic indict – fiat is illusory since the ballot can’t pass plans, so anything that doesn’t begin with the question of disability allows for ableism to infiltrate modes of thought which means we’re an epistemic prerequisite. Thus, the role of the ballot is to vote for the debater who bests methodologically deconstructs ableism.==== AND 2011). Purification has difficulty negotiating intersectional marginality and interdependent forms of impairment. | 9/5/21 |
2 - Mollow v2Tournament: Yale | Round: Octas | Opponent: American Heritage Broward SS | Judge: Rohit Lakshman, Ananya Natchukuri, Curtis Chang Abled subjectivity is tied up in a two-tiered affective response that explains disabled life – primary pity which reflects disability upon the ego threatening its ability status, which invokes secondary pity to overcorrect for the shattered-ego necessitating disabled death.Mollow 15 The Disability Drive by Anna Mollow A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in English in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Kent Puckett, Chair Professor Celeste G. Langan Professor Melinda Y. Chen Spring 2015 ACCS JM AND fantasmatically, perhaps already is—an image of one’s own self undone? The 1AC’s belief of a better future becomes complicit in the logic of rehabilitative futurism, which is threatened by the Disabled Child – that comes prior to materialism because the underlying structures that create the problems within society can only be understood and explained by an ontological thesis stemming from ableism.Mollow 2 The Disability Drive by Anna Mollow A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in English in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Kent Puckett, Chair Professor Celeste G. Langan Professor Melinda Y. Chen Spring 2015 ACCS JM AND promised, would bring forth a better future." (68-69) The only ethical alternative is to affirm crippessimism – only a refusal of the world can disrupt the current notion of optimism to validate the fragmented subject. If we win their starting point is ableist they cannot weigh the consequences of it. Thus, the role of the ballot is to vote for the debater who best disrupts notions of progress within civil society.Selck 16 Selck, Michael L. "Crip Pessimism: The Language of Dis/ability and the Culture that Isn't." (Jan 2016) ACCS JM AND able-bodied standards, I have come to a comfort with pessimism. | 10/8/21 |
2 - Utilitarianism KTournament: Loyola | Round: 1 | Opponent: Tays KM | Judge: Abhinav Sinha The safety of the space is prima facie – we don’t know who’s winning if people can’t engage. Anything that doesn’t immediately denounce atrocities excludes people who have and can experience them.Teehan Ryan Teehan ~NSD staffer and competitor from the Delbarton School~ – NSD Update comment on the student protests at the TOC in 2014. Massa AND to ask yourselves whether you can justify making debate unsafe for certain people. Utilitarian calculus fails to account for moral atrocities.Jeffrey Gold, Utilitarian and Deontological Approaches to Criminal Justice Ethics Massa AND we are always treating the victim as a means to our own ends. Util justifies horrific conclusions, since no state of affairs could be intrinsically bad from its standpoint – it also literally doesn’t believe in rights.Vallentyne, Peter. Against Maximizing Act-Consequentialism. 2006, mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/10174/AgainstMaximizingActConsequentialism.pdf?sequence=1. Massa AND slightly happier. This would be sacrificing her for the benefit of others. The alt is to vote neg – it’s as simple as not to vibe with oppression – as an educator it’s your job to dismiss racist, sexist, homophobic, and ableist discourse that kills the spirit of marginalized debaters. | 9/4/21 |
SO - AuthenticityTournament: Yale | Round: Triples | Opponent: Mountain View EN | Judge: Dumas, Cyprian Scopa, Stephen Lee, Andrew The standard is consistency with epistemic and experiential authenticity.Experience Machine: Pleasures are intrinsically worthless without authentic experience.Nozick 74 ~Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, State and Utopia. 1974, rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil3160/Nozick1.pdf.~ Massa recut Lex VM Brackets for gendered language AND machine, others view as following one of the reasons not to surrender! Offense –Value theories must make sense of the experiences we have and give us reasons why certain experiences are better than others.Summarizing Nozick ~"Robert Nozick The Experience Machine." ND. PDF file. ~http://www.uky.edu/~~mwa229/RobertNozickTheExperienceMachine.pdf~~ Massa AND . Thus, Hedonism is incoherent with respect to our considered moral judgments. Negate – objective knowledge of the external world is epistemically nonsensical.Neta 14 ~Neta, Ram. "External World Skepticism." The Problem of The External World, 2014, philosophy.unc.edu/files/2014/06/The-Problem-of-the-External-World.pdf.~ Massa AND not such a brain, then you cannot know that you have hands. | 9/19/21 |
SO - BenatarTournament: Loyola | Round: 4 | Opponent: Mountain View EN | Judge: Neville Tom Extinction is good under util—there is an asymmetry of pleasure and pain. The absence of pain is good, while the absence of pleasure is not bad. Even if life is pleasurable, err neg because non-existence is always good while pleasure in life is variable.Benatar 97 (David, Associate Professor of Philosophy at University of Cape Town, "Why it is better never to come into existence." American Philosophical Quarterly 34.3 (1997): 345+. General OneFile.) SJCPJG AND (given that there would be nobody who would be deprived of it). Life has net-negative utility – death is key to stop future accumulation of negative value because it precludes procreation.Benatar 15 Benatar, David. "‘We Are Creatures That Should Not Exist’: The Theory of Anti-Natalism." The Critique. N.p., 15 July 2015. Web. http://www.thecritique.com/articles/we-are-creatures-that-should-not-exist-the-theory-of-anti-natalism/. Recut ACCS JM AND at least in principle, to reflect on whether they should create offspring. | 9/5/21 |
SO - Cant Spec MedicinesTournament: Loyola | Round: 5 | Opponent: Wenatchee JK | Judge: James Stuckert A. Interpretation: The aff may not defend that we ought to reduce a subset of medicines or a single medicine."States" is a generic bare plural.Nebel 19 ~Jake Nebel is an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Southern California and executive director of Victory Briefs. He writes a lot of this stuff lol – duh.~ "Genericity on the Standardized Tests Resolution." Vbriefly. August 12, 2019. https://www.vbriefly.com/2019/08/12/genericity-on-the-standardized-tests-resolution/?fbclid=IwAR0hUkKdDzHWrNeqEVI7m59pwsnmqLl490n4uRLQTe7bWmWDO'avWCNzi14 TG AND "colleges and universities" is generic rather than existential in the resolution. It applies to "medicines" –B. Violation: They only defend synethic biology medicines.C. Standards –1. Precision –2. Limits and Ground –3. TVA – Read your aff as an advantage under a whole advantage – solves all your offense and also incentivizes more cheaty word PICs like agent and consult against plan affs since they lose access to DAs.D. Voters:Fairness is a voter –Drop the debater –Competing interps –No RVIs – | 9/5/21 |
SO - LayTournament: Yale | Round: 2 | Opponent: Syosset BL | Judge: Ashish Tripathi Value was justice Criterion was consistency with universal freedom or smth like that Contention was just property is good and IP doesnt undermine ur freedom | 9/18/21 |
SO - SkepticismTournament: Loyola | Round: 1 | Opponent: Tays KM | Judge: Abhinav Sinha Every reason is equally as violent in its creation.Derrida, Jacques Derrida, "Force of Law: The Mystical Foundation of Authority" Massa External world skep is true.Neta 14, Ram. "External World Skepticism." The Problem of The External World, 2014, philosophy.unc.edu/files/2014/06/The-Problem-of-the-External-World.pdf. Massa AND not such a brain, then you cannot know that you have hands. Even if it was possible to form sufficient reasons, those reasons are epistemically bankrupt in terms of their truth value because of the Gettier problem.Chapman 18, Andrew. "The Gettier Problem." 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology, 25 July 2018, 1000wordphilosophy.com/2014/04/10/the-gettier-problem Massa | 9/4/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
10/9/21 | apulapaka8839@stuneisdnet |
| |
9/4/21 | brazilismyteam@icloudcom |
| |
9/5/21 | brazilismyteam@icloudcom |
| |
9/5/21 | brazilismyteam@icloudcom |
| |
9/18/21 | brazilismyteam@icloudcom |
| |
9/18/21 | brazilismyteam@icloudcom |
| |
9/19/21 | brazilismyteam@icloudcom |
| |
9/19/21 | brazilismyteam@icloudcom |
| |
10/8/21 | brazilismyteam@icloudcom |
|