American Heritage Broward Cheng Aff
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Florida Blue Key Speech and Debate Tournament | 1 | Neenah IH | Arjan Kang |
|
|
| |
| Florida Blue Key Speech and Debate Tournament | 4 | Lexington BF | Rohit Lakshman |
|
|
| |
| Florida Blue Key Speech and Debate Tournament | 6 | Strake Jesuit NW | Kristen Arnold |
|
|
| |
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | 4 | Marlborough AW | Sreyaash Das |
|
|
| |
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | 2 | Plano West TS | Jalyn Wu |
|
|
| |
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | 6 | Eagan AE | Gordon Krauss |
|
|
| |
| Harvard | 2 | Strake Jesuit KS | Lukas Krause |
|
|
| |
| Harvard | 3 | Lake Highland Prep HL | Michael Kurian |
|
|
| |
| Harvard | 5 | Tampa Jesuit TG | Muhammad Khattak |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | 5 | Mission San Jose SR | Aryan Jasani |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | Octas | Sage MP | James Stuckert - Phoenix Pittman - Aryan Jasani |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | 4 | Lake Highland Prep AV | Manasi Singh |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | 2 | Summit MR | Wyatt Hatfield |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup Sophomore Throw Down | 4 | Mission San Jose SS | Phoenix Pittman - Gordan Krauss |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup Sophomore Throw Down | 1 | Strake Jesuit NW | Charles Karcher - Jared Burke |
|
|
| |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 4 | University JB | Jamie Davenport |
|
|
| |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 5 | OES GK | Kyle Kopf |
|
|
| |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 2 | Holy Cross ND | Muhammad Khattak |
|
|
| |
| Sunvite | 2 | Unionville AS | Becca Traber |
|
|
| |
| Sunvite | 3 | Durham BG | Glenn Prince |
|
|
| |
| Sunvite | 5 | Albuquerqe AK | Grant Brown |
|
|
| |
| The Longhorn Classic | 6 | Westlake MR | Joseph Georges |
|
|
| |
| The Longhorn Classic | 1 | Immaculate Heart SS | Truman Le |
|
|
| |
| The Longhorn Classic | 3 | Memorial BD | Ben Erdmann |
|
|
| |
| Tournament of Champions | 1 | Saratoga AG |
|
|
| ||
| Tournament of Champions | 4 | Lexington JB | Grant Brown |
|
|
| |
| Waifu Invitational | 3 | Mai-San Senpai | jorjorsan uchiha |
|
|
| |
| Waifu Invitational | 2 | Mai-San Senpai | jorjorsan uchiha |
|
|
| |
| Waifu Invitational | 1 | Mai-San Senpai | jorjorsan uchiha |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 2 | Acton-Boxborough AM | Andrew Chin |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 5 | Millburn AX | Ben Waldman |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | Triples | Harrison MB | Mark Kivimaki - Ananya Natchukuri - Nathan Frenkel |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 4 | Ridge SN | Amulya Natchukuri |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Florida Blue Key Speech and Debate Tournament | 1 | Opponent: Neenah IH | Judge: Arjan Kang 1AC- Contracts |
| Florida Blue Key Speech and Debate Tournament | 4 | Opponent: Lexington BF | Judge: Rohit Lakshman 1AC- Contracts |
| Florida Blue Key Speech and Debate Tournament | 6 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit NW | Judge: Kristen Arnold 1AC- Kant |
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | 4 | Opponent: Marlborough AW | Judge: Sreyaash Das 1AC- Buber |
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | 2 | Opponent: Plano West TS | Judge: Jalyn Wu 1AC- Contracts |
| Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | 6 | Opponent: Eagan AE | Judge: Gordon Krauss 1AC- Kant |
| Harvard | 2 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit KS | Judge: Lukas Krause 1AC- Kant |
| Harvard | 3 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep HL | Judge: Michael Kurian 1AC- Kant |
| Harvard | 5 | Opponent: Tampa Jesuit TG | Judge: Muhammad Khattak 1AC- Contracts |
| Mid America Cup | 5 | Opponent: Mission San Jose SR | Judge: Aryan Jasani 1AC- Kant |
| Mid America Cup | Octas | Opponent: Sage MP | Judge: James Stuckert - Phoenix Pittman - Aryan Jasani 1AC- Kant |
| Mid America Cup | 4 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep AV | Judge: Manasi Singh 1AC- Virtue |
| Mid America Cup | 2 | Opponent: Summit MR | Judge: Wyatt Hatfield 1AC- Virtue |
| Mid America Cup Sophomore Throw Down | 4 | Opponent: Mission San Jose SS | Judge: Phoenix Pittman - Gordan Krauss 1AC- Virtue |
| Mid America Cup Sophomore Throw Down | 1 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit NW | Judge: Charles Karcher - Jared Burke 1AC- T FWK |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 4 | Opponent: University JB | Judge: Jamie Davenport 1AC- Opioids |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 5 | Opponent: OES GK | Judge: Kyle Kopf 1AC- Kant |
| New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | 2 | Opponent: Holy Cross ND | Judge: Muhammad Khattak 1AC- Kant |
| Sunvite | 2 | Opponent: Unionville AS | Judge: Becca Traber 1AC- Contracts |
| Sunvite | 3 | Opponent: Durham BG | Judge: Glenn Prince 1AC- Disposable Earth |
| Sunvite | 5 | Opponent: Albuquerqe AK | Judge: Grant Brown 1AC- Contracts |
| The Longhorn Classic | 6 | Opponent: Westlake MR | Judge: Joseph Georges 1AC- Buber |
| The Longhorn Classic | 1 | Opponent: Immaculate Heart SS | Judge: Truman Le 1AC- China |
| The Longhorn Classic | 3 | Opponent: Memorial BD | Judge: Ben Erdmann 1AC- Contracts |
| Tournament of Champions | 1 | Opponent: Saratoga AG | Judge: 1AC- Kant |
| Tournament of Champions | 4 | Opponent: Lexington JB | Judge: Grant Brown 1AC- Intuitions |
| Waifu Invitational | 3 | Opponent: Mai-San Senpai | Judge: jorjorsan uchiha important disclosure info |
| Waifu Invitational | 2 | Opponent: Mai-San Senpai | Judge: jorjorsan uchiha broken interps |
| Waifu Invitational | 1 | Opponent: Mai-San Senpai | Judge: jorjorsan uchiha contact info |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 2 | Opponent: Acton-Boxborough AM | Judge: Andrew Chin 1AC- Lay |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 5 | Opponent: Millburn AX | Judge: Ben Waldman 1AC- Virtue |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | Triples | Opponent: Harrison MB | Judge: Mark Kivimaki - Ananya Natchukuri - Nathan Frenkel 1AC- Buber |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 4 | Opponent: Ridge SN | Judge: Amulya Natchukuri 1AC- Suffering |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 - Contact InfoTournament: Waifu Invitational | Round: 1 | Opponent: Mai-San Senpai | Judge: jorjorsan uchiha Phone: 786-580-2431 | 12/6/21 |
1 - Broken InterpsTournament: Waifu Invitational | Round: 2 | Opponent: Mai-San Senpai | Judge: jorjorsan uchiha | 12/6/21 |
IMPORTANT INFOTournament: Waifu Invitational | Round: 3 | Opponent: Mai-San Senpai | Judge: jorjorsan uchiha | 10/17/21 |
JF - AC - ContractsTournament: Sunvite | Round: 2 | Opponent: Unionville AS | Judge: Becca Traber ACShell 1Interpretation – The negative must concede the affirmative framework or contention level offense.It's preemptive, you violate by reading turns or defense to my offense and reading an alternative framework.Prefer –1. Strat skew – A) It's impossible for the 1AR to win both layers of framing and offense when you can frame me out and read a bunch of turns to the aff making the round impossible in 4min – especially since the 2n can collapse on either the framework or the contention for 6 minutes B) Neg reactivity advantage, aff disclosure, and 1n time allocation means they can craft a perfect 1nc – conceding one layer of substance solves since it gives me weighing recourse and strategic 1ar maneuvers without having to brute force both.1AR theory is legitimate since the negative could do literally anything without the ability to call out the abuse. Aff theory is Drop the debater because four minutes isn't enough to read a shell and still have time to cover substance sufficiently. No RVI because the 2nr would get six minutes to collapse to turns on a shell I only spent 30 seconds on. Aff theory first – A) Proportionality – The 1ar has to dedicate a significantly larger portion of it's time reading theory and the 2n can spend much longer answering it B) Size of impact – neg abuse is always structurally worse since the 1ar only has 4 minutes to compensate whereas the NC has 13 to adapt.Shell 2====Interp – The negative must grant the aff presumption or permissibility. ==== ====A violation would be reading both ==== ====Prefer – ==== ====A) Strat skew – otherwise it incentivizes the 1n to read multiple NIBs and frontload the 1n with presumption and permissibility offense which is particularly bad since there isn't a substantive truth to either side it's a q of how long you can spend on it which means the neg wins substance every round ==== ====B) Timeskew – I have to invest major time in the 1ar winning both because 2n flexibility can collapse to either one with a hidden trigger, only having to answer one or do weighing saves me half that time which is key in the 4 min 1ar==== ROBThe Role of the ballot is to the test if the resolution is true.1~ Constitutivism: 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) the purpose of debate is the acquisition of knowledge in pursuit of truth – a resolutional focus is key to depth of exploration which o/w on specificity. It's a jurisdictional issue since it questions whether the judge should go outside the scope of the game and can only endorse what is within their burden 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 to2~ Reject the western binary of truth and futurism in favor of a more nuanced understanding of the world.Graham Priest, Distinguished professor of philosophy at City University of New York and professor emeritus at the University of Melbourne. His latest book is One (2014), Beyond true and false, 5 May 2014, https://aeon.co/essays/the-logic-of-buddhist-philosophy-goes-beyond-simple-truth /BA PB FrameworkI value morality. Ethical Internalism is true:1. Epistemology – A) Equality – Externalism incorrectly assumes certain individuals have stronger epistemic access to moral truths which justifies the exclusion of those individuals from the creation of ethics and B) Inaccessibility – There is no universal character of moral judgements that is epistemically accessible since every argument for its existence presumes the correct normative starting point. Markovits 14,Markovits, Julia. Moral reason. Oxford University Press, 2014.Scopa 2. Linguistics – To decide about the content of my own mind is to deliberate between reasons – only this can prevent the contents of my own mind from being external to me since I may not be able to control the external definitions of my thoughts but I can control the deliberation between them which solves epistemic skep about my ability to have true beliefs.3. Motivation – A) Externalist notions of ethics collapse to internal since the only reason agents follow external demands is those demands are consistent with their internal account of the good. Motivation is a necessary feature for ethics since normativity only matters insofar as agents follow through on the ethic that's generated from it B) Empirics – there is no factual account of the good since each agents' motivations are unique and there has been no conversion of differing beliefs into a unified ethic.4. Open Question – A) There is a gap between my ability to claim the truth of a moral belief and my ability to justify its truth. I can always be asked why I ought to follow an externalist principle, but there is no verifiable evidence to justify my claim in a satisfactory manner5. Moral truths are contextual rather than universal – A) Contradictions – it would be illogical to say that x is always true because there are situations in which we internally judge x to be false, for example to assert "murder is wrong" as an external force would be to say every instance like "self-defense is just" would be a contradiction. Contextual internalism solves because they are merely expressions of disagreements B) Experience – Even the most objective description of another individuals' experience cannot bridge the epistemic gap between my experience and theirs (for example, I cannot know what cilantro tastes like to a lemur), which means a universal understanding of experience is impossible C) Ethical theories are insular – they define the good and language to describe it in their own terms. Joyce 02,Joyce, Richard. Myth of Morality. Port Chester, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2002. p 45-47. Scopa Thus, agents justify their actions based on individual moral preferences and deal with ethical dilemmas by prioritizing certain beliefs. It's a constitutive feature of humanity to rationally maximize value under a particular index of the good. Gauthier 98,David Gauthier, Canadian-American philosopher best known for his neo-Hobbesian social contract theory of morality, Why Contractarianism?, 1998, /AHS PB Recut by Scopa And because agents takes their own ability to act as intrinsically valuable, permissibility is avoided through a system of mutual self restraint where agents refrain from impeding upon the actions of other agents, under the expectation that others will do the same out of rational self interest. This is achieved through a system of contracts which both parties' consent to in order to regulate behavior.Gauthier 2, David Gauthier, Canadian-American philosopher best known for his neo-Hobbesian social contract theory of morality, Why Contractarianism?, 1998 /AHS PB Recut by Scopa Thus, the standard is consistency with Contractarianism. And, the framework outweighs on actor specificity: States are not physical actors, but derive authority from contracts that allow them to constrain action.Prefer additionally –1. Flexibility – Contracts are key to a) Encompassing all other ethical calculus into our decision since we process the consistency of those frameworks with our self interest and b) Value pluralism – recognizing a singular ethic fails to account for the complexity of moral problems and genuine moral disagreement. My framework solves since we can recognize multiple legitimate values while allowing individuals to exclude ones that are bad.2. Bindingness – A) Arising of Ethics – Every interaction with another agent is mediated by consent to participate in that interaction since otherwise agents could simply leave, which means there is an implicit social contract formed in every ethical interaction and B) Culpability – Only contracts can ensure agents are held to their agreements since there is a verifiable basis for judging their action as wrong as well as a pre-established punishment for breaking it.3. Regress – A) Reason – Only my framework answers the question "why be moral", since agents have a reason to restrain their conflict due to self-interest rather than some non-existent transcendental principle B) Debates – When we compare between frameworks we suppose a higher evaluative mechanism, which presupposes a higher one, which means only self-contained rules in contracts are coherent.4. Reject consequences -a. 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. Otherwise ethical theories hold agents responsible for consequences external to their will which removes any reason to be moral because agents cannot control what they are being punished forc. Induction fails – it's incoherent to justify the past to justify the future because there's no logical certainty that what has happened before will happen againd. Consequences empirically impossible to predict. Menand 05, Louis Menand (the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of English at Harvard University) "Everybody's An Expert" The New Yorker 2005 http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/12/05/everybodys-an-expert// FSU SS "Expert Political Judgment" is not a work of media criticism. Tetlock is a psychologist—he teaches at Berkeley— OffenseI affirm the resolution- The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust.The Outer Space Treaty affirms – "national appropriation" in Article 2 applies to all entities under a national sovereign – that's the best legal meaning and most coherent.Kurt Taylor, Fictions of the Final Frontier: Why the United States SPACE Act of 2015 Is Illegal, 33 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 653 2019 https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/eilr/vol33/iss4/6 JS This is in line with the spirit of the treaty.Kurt Taylor, Fictions of the Final Frontier: Why the United States SPACE Act of 2015 Is Illegal, 33 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 653 2019 (2) https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/eilr/vol33/iss4/6 JS OST not mentioning private entities flows aff – accepted legal interpretation means this proves lack of intent to exclude private entities.Kurt Taylor, Fictions of the Final Frontier: Why the United States SPACE Act of 2015 Is Illegal, 33 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 653 2019 (3) https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/eilr/vol33/iss4/6 JS If Time1~ Permissibility affirms – A) Ought is defined as having sufficient reason because all instances of ought are just indexed to sufficient reason in particular contexts (i.e. moral, legal, logical, etc). That affirms since if every reason is equally invalid, that means any reason is a sufficient reason to justify an action C) 1AR flexibility – the neg has infinite more ground since they aren't constrained by the topic, 30 min to prep the perfect 1nc, and a 2n collapse which requires the 1ar to have more strategic options like permissibility triggers. | 1/8/22 |
JF - AC - Contracts v2Tournament: Sunvite | Round: 5 | Opponent: Albuquerqe AK | Judge: Grant Brown | 1/8/22 |
JF - AC - Contracts v3Tournament: Harvard | Round: 5 | Opponent: Tampa Jesuit TG | Judge: Muhammad Khattak | 2/20/22 |
JF - AC - Disposable EarthTournament: Sunvite | Round: 3 | Opponent: Durham BG | Judge: Glenn Prince | 1/8/22 |
JF - AC - IntuitionsTournament: Tournament of Champions | Round: 4 | Opponent: Lexington JB | Judge: Grant Brown | 4/24/22 |
JF - AC - KantTournament: Harvard | Round: 2 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit KS | Judge: Lukas Krause | 2/19/22 |
JF - AC - Kant v2Tournament: Harvard | Round: 3 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep HL | Judge: Michael Kurian | 2/19/22 |
JF - AC - Kant v3Tournament: Tournament of Champions | Round: 1 | Opponent: Saratoga AG | Judge: | 4/24/22 |
ND - AC - BuberTournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: Marlborough AW | Judge: Sreyaash Das ShellInterpretation – The negative must concede the affirmative framework or contention level offense.It's preemptive, you violate by reading turns or defense to my offense and reading an alternative framework.Prefer –Strat skew – A) It's impossible for the 1AR to win both layers of framing and offense when you can frame me out and read a bunch of turns to the aff making the round impossible in 4min – especially since the 2n can collapse on either the framework or the contention for 6 minutes B) Neg reactivity advantage, aff disclosure, and 1n time allocation means they can craft a perfect 1nc – conceding one layer of substance solves since it gives me weighing recourse and strategic 1ar maneuvers without having to brute force both.Depth of Clash – We pick and choose whether to debate offense or framework and when, which means we have more discussion of each one every round. Depth o/w since reading 1 page of 100 different books is useless and superficial. Breadth is solved across multiple rounds when people choose a different layer in each. And, hijacks solve all your offense since they contest both the framework and the offense, while maintaining the 1ar ability to win substance.1ar theory is legitimate since the negative could do literally anything without the ability to call out the abuse. Aff theory is Drop the debater because four minutes isn't enough to read a shell and still have time to cover substance sufficiently. No RVI because the 2nr would get six minutes to collapse to turns on a shell I only spent 30 seconds on. Aff theory first – A) Proportionality – The 1ar has to dedicate a significantly larger portion of it's time reading theory and the 2n can spend much longer answering it B) Size of impact – neg abuse is always structurally worse since the 1ar only has 4 minutes to compensate whereas the NC has 13 to adapt.ROBThe ROB is to test if the resolution is true.1~ Constitutivsm: 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) the purpose of debate is the acquisition of knowledge in pursuit of truth – a resolutional focus is key to depth of exploration which o/w on specificity. It's a jurisdictional issue since it questions whether the judge should go outside the scope of the game and can only endorse what is within their burden 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 to2~ Reject the western binary of truth and futurism in favor of a more nuanced understanding of the world.Graham Priest, Distinguished professor of philosophy at City University of New York and professor emeritus at the University of Melbourne. His latest book is One (2014), Beyond true and false, 5 May 2014, https://aeon.co/essays/the-logic-of-buddhist-philosophy-goes-beyond-simple-truth /BA PB FWKI Affirm, there is no singe mind independent moral truth—instead each person creates their own conception of the goodJ.L Mackie, Australian Philosopher, The subjectivity of values, 1977, /AHS PB Instead the subject is created through an encounter with the other and determines what is by reflecting on what it is not. This mutual recognition constructs concepts of good and bad from the social and cultural standpoint the meeting occurs in.Sevilla A.L. (2017) Relationality vs. Singularity: Between Care Ethics and Poststructuralism. In: Watsuji Tetsurô's Global Ethics of Emptiness. Global Political Thinkers. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58353-2_2 /AHS PB Thus any account of ethics presupposes a coherent relationship with the Other: A~ Endpoints: The Only thing that distinguishes an immoral action like punching a person, from a morally neutral action like punching a statue is that an Other is being acted upon, since the it has the goal of effecting an agent. B~ Performativity: Responding to my framework concedes its authority since language presupposes multiple parties who mutually assign words meaning C~ Actor Spec: States are made up of Others, which means that any theory of good that only relates to the individual cannot motivate collective action, since Others couldn't access it.All relationships require reciprocal recognition, where the I and the Other treat each other with mutual respect and both recognize each other in a non-totalizing fashion. Such reciprocity is impeded by skewed power dynamics in the encounter and is key to any conception of linguistic and moral truth.Emmanuel Levinas, Jewish-Lithuanian Philosopher, Summarizes, "Martin Buber and the, Theory of Knowledge, 1967 ,/AHS PB Non-Reciprocal relationships prevent mutual ethics: A~ Framing: When the I and the Other don't view each other reciprocally, they reduce are reduced to ideas of what they are like instead of their real selves. B~ Epistemology: nonreciprocal relationships always benefit one party more than the other, which means that any ethical norms agreed too will be corrupted by the influence of those with power. C~ Normativity: nobody would agree to engage in an ethical relationship that arbitrarily discriminated against them, so reciprocal relations are key because both parties enter with the expectation of equal treatment.Thus the standard is preserving reciprocal relationships with the other. Even if your framework is the correct moral system, we cant access it without reciprocal relations, so my offense comes first as a side constraint. Prefer:~1~ Ethical theories are insular – they define the good and language to describe it in their own terms. Joyce 02, Joyce, Richard. Myth of Morality. Port Chester, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2002. p 45-47. Scopa 2~ Reject util - A) There are infinite end states to each action that I may take meaning we can never know if it is a good or bad action as per util because it could possibly result in many ways: For example, util would tell me to save 2 babies rather than one but there's a chance that baby turns out to be Hitler in which case util would condemn my actions B) Aggregation is impossible since there's no way to quantify different amounts of pain and pleasure – how can 2 headaches equal a migraine C) Induction paradox – Either it's the case we can predict the outcome of a situation, or we cannot. We cannot, insofar as no situation is ever replicated exactly, and even if it can, there's no guarantee the outcome will be the same. If we can predict situations, that means everyone can, which means we will always predict each other, making a paradox of action insofar as we always attempt to predict the outcomes of each other's actions, and will cancel out the obligations. D) Since it requires evaluating end-states we can't know whether the action was good until after it was taken which means the judge cannot determine whether the aff is good
E) Consequences empirically impossible to predict. Menand 05, 3~ Ideal theory is key: A~ Failure to abstract away from our subject position means agents are fully aware of their self-interest and will coopt your movement. B~ only ideal theory can say things like racism are always wrong because we have universal standard to hold people too, not just an individual perspective C~ Ideal theory prevents epistemic bias since by abstracting away from our identities and factors that cloud or judgement we can see what is universally good for everyone not just us.OffenseI affirm the resolution: A just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strikeAmendment is normal meansBrudney 20 Brudney, J. J. (2020). The Right to Strike is Recognised as Customary International Law. Yale Law, 10–11. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781509933587.ch-011/SJKS ~1~ The right to strike increases mutual recognition between workers.Richard D. Kahlenberg, January 6, 2016, "How Defunding Public Sector Unions Will Diminish Our Democracy" ~tcf.org/content/report/how-defunding-public-sector-unions-will-diminish-our-democracy/?session=1.~ swickle ~2~ Because employees are dependent upon their employer, employees are subject to a severe power imbalance that constitutes coercion.Budd and Scoville 05, John W. Budd and James G. Scoville "The Ethics of Human Resources and Industrial Relations.", p.70, LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS ASSOCIATION SERIES, Cornell University Press, October 15, 2005 ~http://jbudd.csom.umn.edu/RESEARCH/hrirethics.htm~~ AHSNPR Accessed 10/23/21 The right to unionize and strike corrects this power imbalance by ensuring an opportunity for organization and collective bargaining and allows for a reciprocal recognition between the employer and employee.Bowie 99, Norman E., professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota "Business Ethics: A Kantian Perspective" Wiley Blackwell. ~https://b-ok.cc/book/2885756/a063b7~~ AHSNPR | 12/5/21 |
ND - AC - Buber v2Tournament: The Longhorn Classic | Round: 6 | Opponent: Westlake MR | Judge: Joseph Georges 1ACShellInterpretation – The negative must concede the affirmative framework or contention level offense.It's preemptive, you violate by reading turns or defense to my offense and reading an alternative framework.Prefer –Strat skew – A) It's impossible for the 1AR to win both layers of framing and offense when you can frame me out and read a bunch of turns to the aff making the round impossible in 4min – especially since the 2n can collapse on either the framework or the contention for 6 minutes B) Neg reactivity advantage, aff disclosure, and 1n time allocation means they can craft a perfect 1nc – conceding one layer of substance solves since it gives me weighing recourse and strategic 1ar maneuvers without having to brute force both.1ar theory is legitimate since the negative could do literally anything without the ability to call out the abuse. Aff theory is Drop the debater because four minutes isn't enough to read a shell and still have time to cover substance sufficiently. No RVI because the 2nr would get six minutes to collapse to turns on a shell I only spent 30 seconds on.ROBThe ROB is to test if the resolution is true.1~ Constitutivsm: 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) the purpose of debate is the acquisition of knowledge in pursuit of truth – a resolutional focus is key to depth of exploration which o/w on specificity. It's a jurisdictional issue since it questions whether the judge should go outside the scope of the game and can only endorse what is within their burden 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 to2~ Reject the western binary of truth and futurism in favor of a more nuanced understanding of the world.Graham Priest, Distinguished professor of philosophy at City University of New York and professor emeritus at the University of Melbourne. His latest book is One (2014), Beyond true and false, 5 May 2014, https://aeon.co/essays/the-logic-of-buddhist-philosophy-goes-beyond-simple-truth /BA PB 3~ 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.FWKI Affirm, there is no singe mind independent moral truth—instead each person creates their own conception of the goodJ.L Mackie, Australian Philosopher, The subjectivity of values, 1977, /AHS PB Instead the subject is created through an encounter with the other and determines what is by reflecting on what it is not. This mutual recognition constructs concepts of good and bad from the social and cultural standpoint the meeting occurs in.Sevilla A.L. (2017) Relationality vs. Singularity: Between Care Ethics and Poststructuralism. In: Watsuji Tetsurô's Global Ethics of Emptiness. Global Political Thinkers. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58353-2_2 /AHS PB Thus any account of ethics presupposes a coherent relationship with the Other: A~ Endpoints: The Only thing that distinguishes an immoral action like punching a person, from a morally neutral action like punching a statue is that an Other is being acted upon, since the it has the goal of effecting an agent. B~ Performativity: Responding to my framework concedes its authority since language presupposes multiple parties who mutually assign words meaning C~ Actor Spec: States are made up of Others, which means that any theory of good that only relates to the individual cannot motivate collective action, since Others couldn't access it.All relationships require reciprocal recognition, where the I and the Other treat each other with mutual respect and both recognize each other in a non-totalizing fashion. Such reciprocity is impeded by skewed power dynamics in the encounter and is key to any conception of linguistic and moral truth.Emmanuel Levinas, Jewish-Lithuanian Philosopher, Summarizes, "Martin Buber and the, Theory of Knowledge, 1967 ,/AHS PB Non-Reciprocal relationships prevent mutual ethics: A~ Framing: When the I and the Other don't view each other reciprocally, they reduce are reduced to ideas of what they are like instead of their real selves. B~ Epistemology: nonreciprocal relationships always benefit one party more than the other, which means that any ethical norms agreed too will be corrupted by the influence of those with power. C~ Normativity: nobody would agree to engage in an ethical relationship that arbitrarily discriminated against them, so reciprocal relations are key because both parties enter with the expectation of equal treatment.Thus the standard is preserving reciprocal relationships with the other. Even if your framework is the correct moral system, we cant access it without reciprocal relations, so my offense comes first as a side constraint. Prefer:~1~ Ethical theories are insular – they define the good and language to describe it in their own terms.Joyce 02, Joyce, Richard. Myth of Morality. Port Chester, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2002. p 45-47. Scopa 2~ Reject util - A) There are infinite end states to each action that I may take meaning we can never know if it is a good or bad action as per util because it could possibly result in many ways: For example, util would tell me to save 2 babies rather than one but there's a chance that baby turns out to be Hitler in which case util would condemn my B) Induction paradox – Either it's the case we can predict the outcome of a situation, or we cannot. We cannot, insofar as no situation is ever replicated exactly, and even if it can, there's no guarantee the outcome will be the same. If we can predict situations, that means everyone can, which means we will always predict each other, making a paradox of action insofar as we always attempt to predict the outcomes of each other's actions, and will cancel out the obligations. C) Consequences empirically impossible to predict.Menand 05, Louis Menand (the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of English at Harvard University) "Everybody's An Expert" The New Yorker 2005 http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/12/05/everybodys-an-expert// FSU SS "Expert Political Judgment" is not a work of media criticism. Tetlock is a psychologist—he teaches at Berkeley— 3~ Ideal theory is key: A~ Failure to abstract away from our subject position means agents are fully aware of their self-interest and will coopt your movement. B~ only ideal theory can say things like racism are always wrong because we have universal standard to hold people too, not just an individual perspective C~ Ideal theory prevents epistemic bias since by abstracting away from our identities and factors that cloud or judgement we can see what is universally good for everyone not just us.OffenseI affirm the resolution: A just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike.~1~ The right to strike increases mutual recognition between workers.Richard D. Kahlenberg, January 6, 2016, "How Defunding Public Sector Unions Will Diminish Our Democracy" ~tcf.org/content/report/how-defunding-public-sector-unions-will-diminish-our-democracy/?session=1.~ swickle ~2~ Because employees are dependent upon their employer, employees are subject to a severe power imbalance that constitutes coercion.Budd and Scoville 05, John W. Budd and James G. Scoville "The Ethics of Human Resources and Industrial Relations.", p.70, LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS ASSOCIATION SERIES, Cornell University Press, October 15, 2005 ~http://jbudd.csom.umn.edu/RESEARCH/hrirethics.htm~~ AHSNPR Accessed 10/23/21 The right to unionize and strike corrects this power imbalance by ensuring an opportunity for organization and collective bargaining and allows for a reciprocal recognition between the employer and employee.Bowie 99, Norman E., professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota "Business Ethics: A Kantian Perspective" Wiley Blackwell. ~https://b-ok.cc/book/2885756/a063b7~~ AHSNPR | 12/5/21 |
ND - AC - ChinaTournament: The Longhorn Classic | Round: 1 | Opponent: Immaculate Heart SS | Judge: Truman Le Longhorn R1 1ACPlanPlan – A just People's Republic of China ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike.That solves worker liberation, labor reforms, and re-establishes credible Collective Bargaining in China – establishing legal protection for Labor Unions reduces overall labor-related discontent.Dongfang 11 Han Dongfang 4-6-2011 "Liberate China's Workers" https://archive.md/7RvDG~~#selection-307.0-316.0 (director of China Labour Bulletin, a nongovernmental organization that defends the rights of workers in China.)Elmer AdvantageLack of Chinese Right to Strike devastates Collective Bargaining – undermines any legal leverage for Strikes.Friedman 17 Eli Friedman 4-20-2017 "Collective Bargaining in China is Dead: The Situation is Excellent" https://www.chinoiresie.info/collective-bargaining-in-china-is-dead-the-situation-is-excellent/ (Assistant Professor of International and Comparative Labour at Cornell University)Elmer Any credible union power is under-cut by detentions of labor activists, plan is keyMerkley and McGovern 13 Jeff Merkley and James McGovern 12-20-2013 "Detention of Labor Representative Highlights Challenges for Collective Bargaining in China" https://www.cecc.gov/publications/commission-analysis/detention-of-labor-representative-highlights-challenges-for (Representative and Co-Chair of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China)Elmer The Right to Strike re-balances China's Economy, closes wage gap and increases consumer spendingRoberts 10 Dexter Roberts 8-5-2010 "Is the Right to Strike Coming to China" https://archive.md/hjNI7 (Editor at Bloomberg)Elmer That's bad, underpaid workers are the most prevalent cause of deindustrialization and lower domestic consumption—sustained growth is keyHaack 21 Michael Haack 2-13-2021 "Could Biden Make US-China Trade Better for Workers?" https://thediplomat.com/2021/02/could-biden-make-us-china-trade-better-for-workers/ (Michael Haack currently a contractor with the China Labor Translation Project, a project of the Chinese Progressive Association. He previously worked with industrial workers in southern China. Michael holds master's degrees from SOAS, University of London and American University)Elmer China's Economy is hosed and threatened by rampant Inequality gaps that devastate consumption.Bloomberg 21 1-19-2021 "China's Wide Income Gap Undercut Spending as Growth Recovers" https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-18/china-s-strong-growth-masks-unbalanced-recovery-as-incomes-lag Elmer That's critical for Soft Power Projection BUT authoritarianism regarding activists puts efforts on the brink – re-establishing credibility of governance is important.Albert 18 Eleanor Albert 2-9-2018 "China's Big Bet on Soft Power" https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-big-bet-soft-power (a third-year PhD student concentrating in international relations and comparative politics)Elmer 2 Impacts—1~ Taiwan warChinese Economic Decline leads to all-out War – specifically over Taiwan.Joske 18 Stephen Joske 10-23-2018 "China's Coming Financial Crisis And The National Security Connection" https://warontherocks.com/2018/10/chinas-coming-financial-crisis-and-the-national-security-connection/ (senior adviser to the Australian Treasurer during the 1997–98 Asian crisis)re-cut by Elmer Taiwan goes Nuclear.Talmadge 18 ~Caitlin, Associate Professor of Security Studies at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, "Beijing's Nuclear Option: Why a U.S.-China War Could Spiral Out of Control," accessible online at https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2018-10-15/beijings-nuclear-option, published Nov/Dec 2018~re-cut by Elmer Nuke war causes extinction AND outweighs other existential risksChecked 2~ BalancingChinese Economic Strength increases Economic Diplomacy Efforts, specifically OBOR, AND decreases need for Military Expansion.Cai 18, Kevin G. "The one belt one road and the Asian infrastructure investment bank: Beijing's new strategy of geoeconomics and geopolitics." Journal of Contemporary China 27.114 (2018): 831-847. (Associate Professor at Renison University College, University of Waterloo, Canada)Elmer Solves Central Asian and South Asia War.Muhammad et Al 19, Imraz, Arif Khan, and Saif ul Islam. "China Pakistan Economic Corridor: Peace, Prosperity and Conflict Resolution in the Region." (Lecturer, Department of Political Science, University of Buner)Elmer Central Asia Instability explodes globallyBlank 2k ~Stephen J. - Expert on the Soviet Bloc for the Strategic Studies Institute, "American Grand Strategy and the Transcaspian Region", World Affairs. 9-22~ FramingThe standard is utilitarianism.~1~ Util is a lexical pre-requisite to any other framework: Threats to bodily security and life preclude the ability for moral actors to effectively utilize and act upon other moral theories since they are in a constant state of crisis that inhibit the ideal moral conditions which other theories presuppose – so, util comes first and my offense outweighs theirs under their own framework.~2~ Only natural observable moral facts exist:Papineau 07, David Papineau, "Naturalism," Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2007SS Proves Util since we physically know the pleasure is good and pain is bad.~3~ Actor specificity: util is the best for governments, which is the actor in the rez – multiple warrants:~a~ Governments must aggregate since every policy benefits some and harms others, which also means side constraints freeze action.~b~ No act-omission distinction—governments are responsible for everything in the public sphere so inaction is implicit authorization of action: they have to yes/no bills, which means everything collapse to aggregation.~c~ No intent-foresight distinction – the actions we take are inevitably informed by predictions from certain mental states, meaning consequences are a collective part of the will.~d~ Actor-specificity comes first since different agents have different ethical standings. Takes out util calc indicts since they're empirically denied and link turns them because the alt would be no action.UV1~ 1ar theory is legitimate since the negative could do literally anything without the ability to call out the abuse. Aff theory is Drop the debater because four minutes isn't enough to read a shell and still have time to cover substance sufficiently. No RVI because the 2nr would get six minutes to collapse to turns on a shell I only spent 30 seconds on. Aff theory first – A) Proportionality – The 1ar has to dedicate a significantly larger portion of it's time reading theory and the 2n can spend much longer answering it B) Size of impact – neg abuse is always structurally worse since the 1ar only has 4 minutes to compensate whereas the NC has 13 to adapt.2~ No new 2NR theory, paradigm issues, or weighing – A) It allows the 1nc to spend all it's time reading pure offense and then collapse the debate to one shell and dump 6 minutes of new weighing that is impossible for the 2ar to wade through in 3 minutes B) It's irreciprocal cause they would get 13 minutes to develop theory arguments without being restrained by the previous speech whereas judges would never vote on 2ar theory C) It's a violation of the rules of debate since my framing issues were in the 1ac.3~ "a" just government entails one governmenthttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/a 4~ The aff gets RVIs on 1n shells – a~ reciprocity – they can read shells like T that I don't have access to – reciprocity is key to fairness by definition b~ norming – the 1N can afford to read throwaway shells because they have a time advantage but RVIs ensure that they only read shells that promote quality norms – outweighs because norm setting is the ultimate purpose of theory debate5~ Isolating China as a uniquely unjust state is sinophobic – read China's rise contextually rather than through Western structural bias.Powers 21 Martin Powers 3-4-2021 "The West portrays itself as a defender of human rights, but does it still have a right to moral leadership?" https://archive.md/blSqg~~#selection-6315.0-6341.214 (Professor Emeritus at the University of Michigan. He has written three books on the history of social justice in China.)Elmer | 12/6/21 |
ND - AC - ContractsTournament: Florida Blue Key Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: Neenah IH | Judge: Arjan Kang FrameworkI value morality. Ethical Internalism is true:1 Epistemology – A) Equality – Externalism incorrectly assumes certain individuals have stronger epistemic access to moral truths which justifies the exclusion of those individuals from the creation of ethics and B) Inaccessibility – There is no universal character of moral judgements that is epistemically accessible since every argument for its existence presumes the correct normative starting point. Markovits 14,Markovits, Julia. Moral reason. Oxford University Press, 2014.Scopa 2. Linguistics –3. Motivation –4. Open Question – A) There is a gap between my ability to claim the truth of a moral belief and my ability to justify its truth. I can always be asked why I ought to follow an externalist principle, but there is no verifiable evidence to justify my claim in a satisfactory manner B) Goodness cannot be a property of an object because it would make moral claims tautological. Pidgen 07,Pigden, Charles. “Russell’s Moral Philosophy.” SEP. 2007. Scopa 5. Moral truths are contextual rather than universal – A) Contradictions – it would be illogical to say that x is always true because there are situations in which we internally judge x to be false, for example to assert “murder is wrong” as an external force would be to say every instance like “self-defense is just” would be a contradiction. Contextual internalism solves because they are merely expressions of disagreements B) Experience – Even the most objective description of another individuals’ experience cannot bridge the epistemic gap between my experience and theirs (for example, I cannot know what cilantro tastes like to a lemur), which means a universal understanding of experience is impossible C) Ethical theories are insular – they define the good and language to describe it in their own terms.Joyce 02, Joyce, Richard. Myth of Morality. Port Chester, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2002. p 45-47. Scopa Thus, agents justify their actions based on individual moral preferences and deal with ethical dilemmas by prioritizing certain beliefs. It’s a constitutive feature of humanity to rationally maximize value under a particular index of the good. Gauthier 98,David Gauthier, Canadian-American philosopher best known for his neo-Hobbesian social contract theory of morality, Why Contractarianism?, 1998, /AHS PB Recut by Scopa And because agents takes their own ability to act as intrinsically valuable, permissibility is avoided through a system of mutual self restraint where agents refrain from impeding upon the actions of other agents, under the expectation that others will do the same out of rational self interest. This is achieved through a system of contracts which both parties’ consent to in order to regulate behavior. Gauthier 2,David Gauthier, Canadian-American philosopher best known for his neo-Hobbesian social contract theory of morality, Why Contractarianism?, 1998 /AHS PB Recut by Scopa Thus, the standard is consistency with Contractarianism. And, the framework outweighs on actor specificity: States are not physical actors, but derive authority from contracts that allow them to constrain action.Prefer additionally –1. Flexibility –2. Bindingness –3. Regress –And, Only evaluate Intents:1. 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 will2. Otherwise ethical theories hold agents responsible for consequences external to their will which removes any reason to be moral because agents cannot control what they are being punished for3. Aggregation is impossible since there’s no way to quantify different amounts of pain and pleasure – how can 2 headaches equal a migraine4. Induction fails – it’s incoherent to justify the past to justify the future because there’s no logical certainty that what has happened before will happen again5. Since it requires evaluating end-states we can’t know whether the action was good until after it was taken which means the judge cannot determine whether the aff is good6. Consequences empirically impossible to predict. Menand 05, Louis Menand (the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of English at Harvard University) “Everybody’s An Expert” The New Yorker 2005 http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/12/05/everybodys-an-expert// FSU SS “Expert Political Judgment” is not a work of media criticism. Tetlock is a psychologist—he teaches at Berkeley— ContentionI contend that a just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike1 Contractarianism requires parties to be on equal footing when entering agreements, as otherwise the agreement is corrupted by the unequal influence of those in power. Because some inequality is inevitable, ideal solutions can only be found by abstracting away into a hypothetical bargaining situation. Gauthier 3,David Gauthier, Canadian-American philosopher best known for his neo-Hobbesian social contract theory of morality, Why Contractarianism?, 1998, /AHS PB Recut by Scopa That affirms – 1) Because employees are dependent upon their employer, employees are subject to a severe power imbalance that constitutes coercion.Budd and Scoville 05, John W. Budd and James G. Scoville "The Ethics of Human Resources and Industrial Relations.", p.70, LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS ASSOCIATION SERIES, Cornell University Press, October 15, 2005 http://jbudd.csom.umn.edu/RESEARCH/hrirethics.htm AHSNPR Accessed 10/23/21 The right to unionize and strike corrects this power imbalance by ensuring an opportunity for organization and collective bargaining.Bowie 99, Norman E., professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota “Business Ethics: A Kantian Perspective” Wiley Blackwell. https://b-ok.cc/book/2885756/a063b7 AHSNPR 2. The National Labor Relations Act explicitly defends the right to strikeNational Labor Relations Board ND, National Labor Relations Board is comprised of a team of professionals who work to assure fair labor practices and workplace democracy nationwide, https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-rights/nlra-and-the-right-to-strike Accessed 10/25/21 AHSNPR | 12/6/21 |
ND - AC - Contracts v2Tournament: Florida Blue Key Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: Lexington BF | Judge: Rohit Lakshman OVInterpretation – The negative must concede the affirmative framework or contention level offense.It’s preemptive, you violate by reading turns or defense to my offense and reading an alternative framework.Prefer –1. Strat skew –ROBThe Role of the ballot is to the test if the resolution is true.1 Constitutivism:2 Reject the western binary of truth and futurism in favor of a more nuanced understanding of the world.Graham Priest, Distinguished professor of philosophy at City University of New York and professor emeritus at the University of Melbourne. His latest book is One (2014), Beyond true and false, 5 May 2014, https://aeon.co/essays/the-logic-of-buddhist-philosophy-goes-beyond-simple-truth /BA PB FrameworkI value morality. Ethical Internalism is true:1 Epistemology – A) Equality – Externalism incorrectly assumes certain individuals have stronger epistemic access to moral truths which justifies the exclusion of those individuals from the creation of ethics and B) Inaccessibility – There is no universal character of moral judgements that is epistemically accessible since every argument for its existence presumes the correct normative starting point. Markovits 14,Markovits, Julia. Moral reason. Oxford University Press, 2014.Scopa 2. Linguistics –3. Motivation –4. Open Question –5. Moral truths are contextual rather than universal – A) Contradictions – it would be illogical to say that x is always true because there are situations in which we internally judge x to be false, for example to assert “murder is wrong” as an external force would be to say every instance like “self-defense is just” would be a contradiction. Contextual internalism solves because they are merely expressions of disagreements B) Experience – Even the most objective description of another individuals’ experience cannot bridge the epistemic gap between my experience and theirs (for example, I cannot know what cilantro tastes like to a lemur), which means a universal understanding of experience is impossible C) Ethical theories are insular – they define the good and language to describe it in their own terms.Joyce 02, Joyce, Richard. Myth of Morality. Port Chester, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2002. p 45-47. Scopa Thus, agents justify their actions based on individual moral preferences and deal with ethical dilemmas by prioritizing certain beliefs. It’s a constitutive feature of humanity to rationally maximize value under a particular index of the good. Gauthier 98,David Gauthier, Canadian-American philosopher best known for his neo-Hobbesian social contract theory of morality, Why Contractarianism?, 1998, /AHS PB Recut by Scopa And because agents takes their own ability to act as intrinsically valuable, permissibility is avoided through a system of mutual self restraint where agents refrain from impeding upon the actions of other agents, under the expectation that others will do the same out of rational self interest. This is achieved through a system of contracts which both parties’ consent to in order to regulate behavior. Gauthier 2, David Gauthier, Canadian-American philosopher best known for his neo-Hobbesian social contract theory of morality, Why Contractarianism?, 1998 /AHS PB Recut by Scopa Thus, the standard is consistency with Contractarianism. And, the framework outweighs on actor specificity: States are not physical actors, but derive authority from contracts that allow them to constrain action.Prefer additionally –1. Flexibility –2. Bindingness –3. Regress –4. Reject consequencesa. 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. Otherwise ethical theories hold agents responsible for consequences external to their will which removes any reason to be moral because agents cannot control what they are being punished forc. Aggregation is impossible since there’s no way to quantify different amounts of pain and pleasure – how can 2 headaches equal a migrained. Induction fails – it’s incoherent to justify the past to justify the future because there’s no logical certainty that what has happened before will happen again
e. Since it requires evaluating end-states we can’t know whether the action was good until after it was taken which means the judge cannot determine whether the aff is goodf. Consequences empirically impossible to predict. Menand 05, Louis Menand (the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of English at Harvard University) “Everybody’s An Expert” The New Yorker 2005 http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/12/05/everybodys-an-expert// FSU SS “Expert Political Judgment” is not a work of media criticism. Tetlock is a psychologist—he teaches at Berkeley— ContentionI contend that a just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike1 Contractarianism requires parties to be on equal footing when entering agreements, as otherwise the agreement is corrupted by the unequal influence of those in power. Because some inequality is inevitable, ideal solutions can only be found by abstracting away into a hypothetical bargaining situation. Gauthier 3, That affirms – 1) Because employees are dependent upon their employer, employees are subject to a severe power imbalance that constitutes coercion. The right to unionize and strike corrects this power imbalance by ensuring an opportunity for organization and collective bargaining.Bowie 99, Norman E., professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota “Business Ethics: A Kantian Perspective” Wiley Blackwell. https://b-ok.cc/book/2885756/a063b7 AHSNPR 2. The National Labor Relations Act explicitly defends the right to strikeNational Labor Relations Board ND, National Labor Relations Board is comprised of a team of professionals who work to assure fair labor practices and workplace democracy nationwide, https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-rights/nlra-and-the-right-to-strike Accessed 10/25/21 AHSNPR | 12/6/21 |
ND - AC - Contracts v3Tournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 2 | Opponent: Plano West TS | Judge: Jalyn Wu ShellInterpretation – The negative must concede the affirmative framework or contention level offense.It's preemptive, you violate by reading turns or defense to my offense and reading an alternative framework.Prefer –Strat skew – A) It's impossible for the 1AR to win both layers of framing and offense when you can frame me out and read a bunch of turns to the aff making the round impossible in 4min – especially since the 2n can collapse on either the framework or the contention for 6 minutes B) Neg reactivity advantage, aff disclosure, and 1n time allocation means they can craft a perfect 1nc – conceding one layer of substance solves since it gives me weighing recourse and strategic 1ar maneuvers without having to brute force both.Shell====Interp – The negative must grant the aff presumption or permissibility. ==== ====A violation would be reading both or contesting one in the 2n. ==== ====Prefer – ==== ====A) Strat skew – otherwise it incentivizes the 1n to read multiple NIBs and frontload the 1n with presumption and permissibility offense which is particularly bad since there isn't a substantive truth to either side it's a q of how long you can spend on it which means the neg wins substance every round ==== ====B) Timeskew – I have to invest major time in the 1ar winning both because 2n flexibility can collapse to either one with a hidden trigger, only having to answer one or do weighing saves me half that time which is key in the 4 min 1ar==== 1ar theory is legitimate since the negative could do literally anything without the ability to call out the abuse. Aff theory is Drop the debater because four minutes isn't enough to read a shell and still have time to cover substance sufficiently. No RVI because the 2nr would get six minutes to collapse to turns on a shell I only spent 30 seconds on. Aff theory first – A) Proportionality – The 1ar has to dedicate a significantly larger portion of it's time reading theory and the 2n can spend much longer answering it B) Size of impact – neg abuse is always structurally worse since the 1ar only has 4 minutes to compensate whereas the NC has 13 to adapt.FrameworkThe ROB is to test the truth or falsity of the resolution.1~ Constitutivsm: 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) the purpose of debate is the acquisition of knowledge in pursuit of truth – a resolutional focus is key to depth of exploration which o/w on specificity. It's a jurisdictional issue since it questions whether the judge should go outside the scope of the game and can only endorse what is within their burden 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 toI value morality. Ethical Internalism is true:1. Epistemology – A) Equality – Externalism incorrectly assumes certain individuals have stronger epistemic access to moral truths which justifies the exclusion of those individuals from the creation of ethics and B) Inaccessibility – There is no universal character of moral judgements that is epistemically accessible since every argument for its existence presumes the correct normative starting point. Markovits 14, Markovits, Julia. Moral reason. Oxford University Press, 2014.Scopa 2. Linguistics – To decide about the content of my own mind is to deliberate between reasons – only this can prevent the contents of my own mind from being external to me since I may not be able to control the external definitions of my thoughts but I can control the deliberation between them which solves epistemic skep about my ability to have true beliefs.3. Motivation – A) Externalist notions of ethics collapse to internal since the only reason agents follow external demands is those demands are consistent with their internal account of the good. Motivation is a necessary feature for ethics since normativity only matters insofar as agents follow through on the ethic that's generated from it B) Empirics – there is no factual account of the good since each agents' motivations are unique and there has been no conversion of differing beliefs into a unified ethic.4. Open Question – A) There is a gap between my ability to claim the truth of a moral belief and my ability to justify its truth. I can always be asked why I ought to follow an externalist principle, but there is no verifiable evidence to justify my claim in a satisfactory manner B) Goodness cannot be a property of an object because it would make moral claims tautological. Pidgen 07,Pigden, Charles. "Russell's Moral Philosophy." SEP. 2007. Scopa 5. Moral truths are contextual rather than universal – A) Contradictions – it would be illogical to say that x is always true because there are situations in which we internally judge x to be false, for example to assert "murder is wrong" as an external force would be to say every instance like "self-defense is just" would be a contradiction. Contextual internalism solves because they are merely expressions of disagreements B) Experience – Even the most objective description of another individuals' experience cannot bridge the epistemic gap between my experience and theirs (for example, I cannot know what cilantro tastes like to a lemur), which means a universal understanding of experience is impossible C) Ethical theories are insular – they define the good and language to describe it in their own terms. Joyce 02, Joyce, Richard. Myth of Morality. Port Chester, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2002. p 45-47. Scopa Thus, agents justify their actions based on individual moral preferences and deal with ethical dilemmas by prioritizing certain beliefs. It's a constitutive feature of humanity to rationally maximize value under a particular index of the good. Gauthier 98,David Gauthier, Canadian-American philosopher best known for his neo-Hobbesian social contract theory of morality, Why Contractarianism?, 1998, /AHS PB Recut by Scopa And because agents takes their own ability to act as intrinsically valuable, permissibility is avoided through a system of mutual self restraint where agents refrain from impeding upon the actions of other agents, under the expectation that others will do the same out of rational self interest. This is achieved through a system of contracts which both parties' consent to in order to regulate behavior. Gauthier 2,David Gauthier, Canadian-American philosopher best known for his neo-Hobbesian social contract theory of morality, Why Contractarianism?, 1998 /AHS PB Recut by Scopa Thus, the standard is consistency with Contractarianism. And, the framework outweighs on actor specificity: States are not physical actors, but derive authority from contracts that allow them to constrain action.Prefer additionally –1. Flexibility – Contracts are key to a) Encompassing all other ethical calculus into our decision since we process the consistency of those frameworks with our self interest and b) Value pluralism – recognizing a singular ethic fails to account for the complexity of moral problems and genuine moral disagreement. My framework solves since we can recognize multiple legitimate values while allowing individuals to exclude ones that are bad.2. Bindingness – A) Arising of Ethics – Every interaction with another agent is mediated by consent to participate in that interaction since otherwise agents could simply leave, which means there is an implicit social contract formed in every ethical interaction and B) Culpability – Only contracts can ensure agents are held to their agreements since there is a verifiable basis for judging their action as wrong as well as a pre-established punishment for breaking it.3. Regress – A) Reason – Only my framework answers the question "why be moral", since agents have a reason to restrain their conflict due to self-interest rather than some non-existent transcendental principle B) Debates – When we compare between frameworks we suppose a higher evaluative mechanism, which presupposes a higher one, which means only self-contained rules in contracts are coherent.4. Reject util - A) There are infinite end states to each action that I may take meaning we can never know if it is a good or bad action as per util because it could possibly result in many ways: For example, util would tell me to save 2 babies rather than one but there's a chance that baby turns out to be Hitler in which case util would condemn my actions B) Aggregation is impossible since there's no way to quantify different amounts of pain and pleasure – how can 2 headaches equal a migraine C) Induction paradox – Either it's the case we can predict the outcome of a situation, or we cannot. We cannot, insofar as no situation is ever replicated exactly, and even if it can, there's no guarantee the outcome will be the same. If we can predict situations, that means everyone can, which means we will always predict each other, making a paradox of action insofar as we always attempt to predict the outcomes of each other's actions, and will cancel out the obligationsContentionI contend that a just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strikeAmendment is normal meansBrudney 20 Brudney, J. J. (2020). The Right to Strike is Recognised as Customary International Law. Yale Law, 10–11. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781509933587.ch-011/SJKS 1. Contractarianism requires parties to be on equal footing when entering agreements, as otherwise the agreement is corrupted by the unequal influence of those in power. Because some inequality is inevitable, ideal solutions can only be found by abstracting away into a hypothetical bargaining situation. Gauthier 3, David Gauthier, Canadian-American philosopher best known for his neo-Hobbesian social contract theory of morality, Why Contractarianism?, 1998, /AHS PB Recut by Scopa | 12/6/21 |
ND - AC - Contracts v4Tournament: The Longhorn Classic | Round: 3 | Opponent: Memorial BD | Judge: Ben Erdmann | 12/6/21 |
ND - AC - KantTournament: Florida Blue Key Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 6 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit NW | Judge: Kristen Arnold OverviewInterpretation – The negative must concede the affirmative framework or contention level offense.It’s preemptive, you violate by reading turns or defense to my offense and reading an alternative framework.Prefer –1. Strat skew – A) It’s impossible for the 1AR to win both layers of framing and offense when you can frame me out and read a bunch of turns to the aff making the round impossible in 4min – especially since the 2n can collapse on either the framework or the contention for 6 minutes B) Neg reactivity advantage, aff disclosure, and 1n time allocation means they can craft a perfect 1nc – conceding one layer of substance solves since it gives me weighing recourse and strategic 1ar maneuvers without having to brute force both.ROBThe role of the ballot is to endorse the debater who proves the truth or falsity of the resolution –A Text – five dictionaries define negate as to deny the truth of . Text first – Text comes first – a) Key to jurisdiction since the judge can only endorse what is within their burden b) 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.B 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 itFrameworkI value morality. The Meta-Ethic is Non-Naturalism.1 The naturalistic fallacy – examples of goodness fail to define the ultimate good. Moore 03,Moore, G. E. “Principia Ethica” http://fair-use.org/g-e-moore/principia-ethica/. Published 1903 SHS ZS 2 Only a priori knowledge is epistemically reliable. Descartes 41,René, 1641. Discourse On Method ; and, Meditations on First Philosophy, NPR There are three ways to categorize the substance of these non-natural properties: Internally, Externally, or from our Constitutive nature as beings. Internalism and Externalism fail – only constitutivism can be solve their deficiencies. Kastafanas 14,Kastafanas, Paul. "Constitutivism About Practical Reasons". Philarchive.Org, 2014, https://philarchive.org/archive/KATCAP. Scopa That requires practical reason as the basis for ethics:1 Regress – Ethical theories must have a basis. We can always ask why we should follow the basis of a theory, so they aren’t morally binding because they don’t have a starting point. Practical reason solves – When we ask why we should follow reason, we demand a reason, which concedes to the authority of reason itself, so it’s the only thing we can follow2 Inescapability – Every agent intrinsically values practical reason when they go about setting and pursuing an end under a moral theory, as it presupposes that the end they are committing is an intrinsic good. That necessitates practical reason as a necessary means to follow through on any given end. | 12/6/21 |
ND - AC - Kant v2Tournament: Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament | Round: 6 | Opponent: Eagan AE | Judge: Gordon Krauss | 12/6/21 |
SO - AC - BuberTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: Triples | Opponent: Harrison MB | Judge: Mark Kivimaki - Ananya Natchukuri - Nathan Frenkel ROBThe Role of the ballot is to the test if the resolution is true.1~ Inclusion:2~. Constitutivism.C~ Isomorphism:.FrameworkI Affirm, there is no singe mind independent moral truth—instead each person creates their own conception of the goodJ.L Mackie, Australian Philosopher, The subjectivity of values, 1977, /AHS PB Instead the subject is created through an encounter with the other and determines what is by reflecting on what it is not. This mutual recognition constructs concepts of good and bad from the social and cultural standpoint the meeting occurs in.Sevilla A.L. (2017) Relationality vs. Singularity: Between Care Ethics and Poststructuralism. In: Watsuji Tetsurô's Global Ethics of Emptiness. Global Political Thinkers. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58353-2_2 /AHS PB Thus any account of ethics presupposes a coherent relationship with the Other: A Endpoints: The Only thing that distinguishes an immoral action like punching a person, from a morally neutral action like punching a statue is that an Other is being acted upon, since the it has the goal of effecting an agent. B Performativity: Responding to my framework concedes its authority since language presupposes multiple parties who mutually assign words meaning C Actor Spec: States are made up of Others, which means that any theory of good that only relates to the individual cannot motivate collective action, since Others couldn’t access it.All relationships require reciprocal recognition, where the I and the Other treat each other with mutual respect and both recognize each other in a non-totalizing fashion. Such reciprocity is impeded by skewed power dynamics in the encounter and is key to any conception of linguistic and moral truth.Emmanuel Levinas, Jewish-Lithuanian Philosopher, Summarizes, "Martin Buber and the, Theory of Knowledge, 1967 ,/AHS PB Non-Reciprocal relationships prevent mutual ethics: A Framing: When the I and the Other don’t view each other reciprocally, they reduce are reduced to ideas of what they are like instead of their real selves. B Epistemology: nonreciprocal relationships always benefit one party more than the other, which means that any ethical norms agreed too will be corrupted by the influence of those with power. C Normativity: nobody would agree to engage in an ethical relationship that arbitrarily discriminated against them, so reciprocal relations are key because both parties enter with the expectation of equal treatment.Thus the standard is Buberian ethics. Even if your framework is the correct moral system, we cant access it without reciprocal relations, so my offense comes first as a side constraint. Prefer:~1~ The negative must concede the affirmative framework if it is about reciprocal relations..~2~ And, Only evaluate Intents: Consequences empirically impossible to predict. Menand 05, Louis Menand (the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of English at Harvard University) "Everybody's An Expert" The New Yorker 2005http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/12/05/everybodys-an-expert// FSU SS "Expert Political Judgment" is not a work of media criticism. Tetlock is a psychologist—he teaches at Berkeley— 7. Psychology – Agents intuitively prefer intent. Botti et al 09, Botti, Simona, Kristina Orfali, and Sheena S. Iyengar. "Tragic Choices: Autonomy and Emotional Responses to Medical Decisions." J Consum Res Journal of Consumer Research 36.3 (2009): 337-52. 2009. Web. ~3~ Ideal theory is key:Offense~1~ IP rights structurally prevent all people from accessing the same intellectual rights by not giving life-saving medication to poorer nations which means relations between people are not reciprocal.Morabito 15 - "Essay: Pharmaceuticals and Global Justice: Balancing Public Health and Intellectual Property Rights" by Marisa Morabito ~https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.com/andhttpsredir=1andarticle=1808andcontext=student_scholarship~~ ahs emi ~2~ Property rights dont treat people as equal – assumes that some people have a divine right to help other people. This is because if you have property rights you have more power then people who don't because you have access and they don't. It also asserts that the people who came up with the idea are better than others. | 12/16/21 |
SO - AC - KantTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 5 | Opponent: Mission San Jose SR | Judge: Aryan Jasani Interp – The negative must grant the aff presumption or permissibility.A violation would be reading both or contesting one in the 2n.Prefer –A) Strat skew –B) Timeskew –C) Topic ed –Framework Ill defend Truth testingI value morality. The Meta-Ethic is Non-Naturalism.1 The naturalistic fallacy – examples of goodness fail to define the ultimate good. Moore 03,Moore, G. E. “Principia Ethica” http://fair-use.org/g-e-moore/principia-ethica/. Published 1903 SHS ZS 2 Only a priori knowledge is epistemically reliable. Descartes 41,René, 1641. Discourse On Method ; and, Meditations on First Philosophy, NPR 3 Only Non-naturalism through reason solves determinism. Kant 81, Critique of Pure Reason.Because this empirical character There are three ways to categorize the substance of these non-natural properties: Internally, Externally, or from our Constitutive nature as beings. Internalism and Externalism fail – only constitutivism can be solve their deficiencies. Kastafanas 14,Kastafanas, Paul. "Constitutivism About Practical Reasons". Philarchive.Org, 2014, https://philarchive.org/archive/KATCAP. Scopa That requires practical reason as the basis for ethics:1 Regress –2 Inescapability –That justifies a universal moral law –1. Absent universal ethics morality becomes arbitrary since it can be meaninglessly applied in different ways without reason. Non-arbitrariness is a side constraint – only non-arbitrary principles can hold agent culpable for their actions since otherwise we could make up ethical rules for different situations to punish people.2. A priori principles like reason apply to everyone since they are independent of human experience. That means to allow one to violate a rule without another would be a contradiction. Contradictions are a side constraint – it’s an inescapable condition that undermines all arguments since something can’t be both true and false simultaneously3. Every agent is equally morally relevant, which requires equal treatment and equal standards for ethics.Therefore, In order to respect each agent as a practical reasoner, we require a universal set of moral laws for what counts as a violation of the principles of rational reflection. That’s the categorical imperative – it has 4 formulations. Pecorino 02,pecorino, philip. "Categorical Imperative". Qcc.Cuny.Edu, 2002, https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/medical_ethics_text/Chapter_2_Ethical_Traditions/Categorical_Imperative.htm. However, we require an enforcement mechanism for these principles since rights claims can’t exist in the state of nature. What follows is the omnilateral will.Varden 10, Helga. "A Kantian Conception of Free Speech." Freedom of Expression in a Diverse World, 2010 AHS RG Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative as enacted through the omnilateral will.Prefer –1. Motivation –And, Only evaluate Intents:1. Induction fails –2. Consequences empirically impossible to predict. Menand 05, Louis Menand (the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of English at Harvard University) “Everybody’s An Expert” The New Yorker 2005 http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/12/05/everybodys-an-expert// FSU SS “Expert Political Judgment” is not a work of media criticism. I contend that member nations of the WTO ought to eliminate intellectual property protections on medicine. Ill defend any ip relevant to medicines. Medicine isU.S. National Library of Medicine, Doctor of medicine profession (MD), No Date, https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001936.htm BA PB 1. Universalizability – A) IP is created to encourage innovation but necessarily entails a prevention of innovation through restriction of necessary prior knowledge and B) In attempting to allow freedom, it restricts it. Pievatolo 10, Pievatolo, Maria. “Freedom, Ownership and Copyright: Why Does Kant Reject the Concept of Intellectual Property?” Freedom, Ownership and Copyright: Why Does Kant Reject the Concept of Intellectual Property?, 7 Feb. 2010, bfp.sp.unipi.it/chiara/lm/kantpisa1.html. SJEP 2. Means to an End –And, your free-riding turns make no sense. Absolute protection on patents allows free-riding and stifles scientific growthVethan Law Firm 16, (Vethan Law, 11-14-2016, accessed on 9-12-2021, Info.vethanlaw, "Free Rider Problem: What Is IP and the Problem of Free Riding?", https://info.vethanlaw.com/blog/intellectual-property-what-is-ip-and-the-problem-of-free-riding) 3. Kingdom of Ends – A) Intellect – the intellectual realm is a public good because no agent has special access to it, which means cornering off aspects of it for ownership is incoherent, since non-naturalism entails an equal accessibility to the realm of ideas, individuals cannot claim to own a portion of that realm B) Medicine – Medicine specifically is a necessary good that an agent in a kingdom of ends would never claim ownership over, because it is necessarily required for an agent to exist. In the same way no agent would allow for an individual to have ownership over the chemical compound that comprises water, no agent would allow for ownership of medicinal properties.And, your property rights libertarianism turns are incoherent: A) Logic – it’s impossible for an individual to claim ownership over a non-natural property because the protections of property requires a good to be protected. You cannot ensure another agents doesn’t steal an idea since the idea exists purely metaphysically in the realm of ideas B) Creationism – Property rights are based on the notion of an individual mixing a unique aspect of themselves with a physical property that justifies a deserving of ownership, but intellectual property is not created by individuals, but rather, is discovered. That means we’d be providing arbitrary ownership of an idea to an agent that didn’t create it. | 12/16/21 |
SO - AC - Kant v2Tournament: Mid America Cup | Round: Octas | Opponent: Sage MP | Judge: James Stuckert - Phoenix Pittman - Aryan Jasani OverviewInterpretation – The negative must concede the affirmative framework or contention level offense.It’s preemptive, you violate by reading turns or defense to my offense and reading an alternative framework.Prefer –1. Strat skew –ROBThe role of the ballot is to endorse the debater who proves the truth or falsity of the resolution –A Text –B Inclusion:FrameworkI value morality. The Meta-Ethic is Non-Naturalism.1 The naturalistic fallacy – examples of goodness fail to define the ultimate good. Moore 03,Moore, G. E. “Principia Ethica” http://fair-use.org/g-e-moore/principia-ethica/. Published 1903 SHS ZS 2 Only a priori knowledge is epistemically reliable. Descartes 41,René, 1641. Discourse On Method ; and, Meditations on First Philosophy, NPR There are three ways to categorize the substance of these non-natural properties: Internally, Externally, or from our Constitutive nature as beings. Internalism and Externalism fail – only constitutivism can be solve their deficiencies. Kastafanas 14,Kastafanas, Paul. "Constitutivism About Practical Reasons". Philarchive.Org, 2014, https://philarchive.org/archive/KATCAP. Scopa That requires practical reason as the basis for ethics:1 Regress –2 Inescapability –That justifies a universal moral law –1. Absent universal ethics morality becomes arbitrary since it can be meaninglessly applied in different ways without reason. Non-arbitrariness is a side constraint – only non-arbitrary principles can hold agent culpable for their actions since otherwise we could make up ethical rules for different situations to punish people.2. A priori principles like reason apply to everyone since they are independent of human experience. That means to allow one to violate a rule without another would be a contradiction. Contradictions are a side constraint – it’s an inescapable condition that undermines all arguments since something can’t be both true and false simultaneously3. Every agent is equally morally relevant, which requires equal treatment and equal standards for ethics.Therefore, In order to respect each agent as a practical reasoner, we require a universal set of moral laws for what counts as a violation of the principles of rational reflection. That’s the categorical imperative – it has 4 formulations. Pecorino 02,pecorino, philip. "Categorical Imperative". Qcc.Cuny.Edu, 2002, https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/medical_ethics_text/Chapter_2_Ethical_Traditions/Categorical_Imperative.htm. However, we require an enforcement mechanism for these principles since rights claims can’t exist in the state of nature. What follows is the omnilateral will.Varden 10, Helga. "A Kantian Conception of Free Speech." Freedom of Expression in a Diverse World, 2010 AHS RG The first important distinction between Kant and much contemporary liberal thought issues from Kant’s argument that it is not in principle possible for individuals to realize right in the state of nature. Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative as enacted through the omnilateral will.Prefer –1 Motivation –2 Equality— only universalizable reason can effectively explain the perspectives of agents – that’s the best method for combatting oppression.Farr 02 Arnold Farr (prof of phil @ UKentucky, focusing on German idealism, philosophy of race, postmodernism, psychoanalysis, and liberation philosophy). “Can a Philosophy of Race Afford to Abandon the Kantian Categorical Imperative?” JOURNAL of SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY, Vol. 33 No. 1, Spring 2002, 17–32. Accessed 9/21/19 AHSNPR 3 Ideal theory is key: A Failure to abstract away from our subject position means agents are fully aware of their self-interest and will coopt your movement. B only ideal theory can say things like racism are always wrong because we have universal standard to hold people too, not just an individual perspective C Ideal theory prevents epistemic bias since by abstracting away from our identities and factors that cloud or judgement we can see what is universally good for everyone not just us. Ideal theory is good and outweighs . 4 Only ideal theory can justify the K. Shelby 13,Shelby, Tommie Tadwell Titcomb Professor of African-American Studies and Philosophy, Harvard University. “Racial Realities and Corrective Justice: A Reply to Charles Mills.” Critical Philosophy of Race 1.2 (2013): 145-162. And, Only evaluate Intents:1. 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 will2. Induction fails –3. Consequences empirically impossible to predict. Menand 05,Louis Menand (the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of English at Harvard University) “Everybody’s An Expert” The New Yorker 2005 http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/12/05/everybodys-an-expert// FSU SS ContentionI contend that member nations of the WTO ought to eliminate intellectual property protections on medicine.1. Universalizability – A) IP is created to encourage innovation but necessarily entails a prevention of innovation through restriction of necessary prior knowledge and B) In attempting to allow freedom, it restricts it. Pievatolo 10,Pievatolo, Maria. “Freedom, Ownership and Copyright: Why Does Kant Reject the Concept of Intellectual Property?” Freedom, Ownership and Copyright: Why Does Kant Reject the Concept of Intellectual Property?, 7 Feb. 2010, bfp.sp.unipi.it/chiara/lm/kantpisa1.html. SJEP 2. Means to an End – Property rights on medicine use individuals suffering from disease or injury as a means for the owners of medicine to make as much profit as possible. This is a direct violation since property owners use their freedom to leverage the life of another agent for their own gain, rather than considering all agents ends that we ought to relieve our instrumental goods for.And, your free-riding turns make no sense. Absolute protection on patents allows free-riding and stifles scientific growth And, your property rights libertarianism turns are incoherent: A) Logic – it’s impossible for an individual to claim ownership over a non-natural property because the protections of property requires a good to be protected. You cannot ensure another agents doesn’t steal an idea since the idea exists purely metaphysically in the realm of ideas B) Creationism – Property rights are based on the notion of an individual mixing a unique aspect of themselves with a physical property that justifies a deserving of ownership, but intellectual property is not created by individuals, but rather, is discovered. That means we’d be providing arbitrary ownership of an idea to an agent that didn’t create it. | 12/16/21 |
SO - AC - Kant v3Tournament: New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 2 | Opponent: Holy Cross ND | Judge: Muhammad Khattak ShellInterp: 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.Violation: screenshot in the doc
Standards:1 Level Playing Field –2 Strategy Education –3 ReciprocityReject the counterinterp- u disclose round reports for some rounds which proves that u can do it and that its good yet u still chose not toROBThe role of the ballot is to endorse the debater who proves the truth or falsity of the resolution –A Text –FrameworkI value morality. The Meta-Ethic is Non-Naturalism.1 The naturalistic fallacy – examples of goodness fail to define the ultimate good. Moore 03,Moore, G. E. “Principia Ethica” http://fair-use.org/g-e-moore/principia-ethica/. Published 1903 SHS ZS 2 Only a priori knowledge is epistemically reliable. Descartes 41,René, 1641. Discourse On Method ; and, Meditations on First Philosophy, NPR There are three ways to categorize the substance of these non-natural properties: Internally, Externally, or from our Constitutive nature as beings. Internalism and Externalism fail – only constitutivism can be solve their deficiencies. Kastafanas 14, Kastafanas, Paul. "Constitutivism About Practical Reasons". Philarchive.Org, 2014, https://philarchive.org/archive/KATCAP. Scopa That requires practical reason as the basis for ethics:1 Regress –2 Inescapability –That justifies a universal moral law –1. Absent universal ethics morality becomes arbitrary since it can be meaninglessly applied in different ways without reason. Non-arbitrariness is a side constraint – only non-arbitrary principles can hold agent culpable for their actions since otherwise we could make up ethical rules for different situations to punish people.2. A priori principles like reason apply to everyone since they are independent of human experience. That means to allow one to violate a rule without another would be a contradiction. Contradictions are a side constraint – it’s an inescapable condition that undermines all arguments since something can’t be both true and false simultaneously3. Every agent is equally morally relevant, which requires equal treatment and equal standards for ethics.4. An obligation existing doesn’t mean that there can’t be a stronger obligation to do something else, as an obligation is a locus of moral duty and there can always be different obligations, particularly allowing for individual meaning creation is inherently good regardless of the content of index.Therefore, In order to respect each agent as a practical reasoner, we require a universal set of moral laws for what counts as a violation of the principles of rational reflection. That’s the categorical imperative – it has 4 formulations. Pecorino 02,pecorino, philip. "Categorical Imperative". Qcc.Cuny.Edu, 2002, https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/medical_ethics_text/Chapter_2_Ethical_Traditions/Categorical_Imperative.htm. However, we require an enforcement mechanism for these principles since rights claims can’t exist in the state of nature. What follows is the omnilateral will.Varden 10, Helga. "A Kantian Conception of Free Speech." Freedom of Expression in a Diverse World, 2010 AHS RG Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative as enacted through the omnilateral will.Prefer –1. Motivation–And, Only evaluate Intents:
1. 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 will2. Induction fails – it’s incoherent to justify the past to justify the future because there’s no logical certainty that what has happened before will happen again3. Consequences empirically impossible to predict. Menand 05, Louis Menand (the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of English at Harvard University) “Everybody’s An Expert” The New Yorker 2005 http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/12/05/everybodys-an-expert// FSU SS “Expert Political Judgment” is not a work of media criticism. Tetlock is a psychologist—he teaches at Berkeley— ContentionI contend that member nations of the WTO ought to eliminate intellectual property protections on medicine.1. Universalizability – A) IP is created to encourage innovation but necessarily entails a prevention of innovation through restriction of necessary prior knowledge and B) In attempting to allow freedom, it restricts it. Pievatolo 10,Pievatolo, Maria. “Freedom, Ownership and Copyright: Why Does Kant Reject the Concept of Intellectual Property?” Freedom, Ownership and Copyright: Why Does Kant Reject the Concept of Intellectual Property?, 7 Feb. 2010, bfp.sp.unipi.it/chiara/lm/kantpisa1.html. SJEP 2. Means to an End –And, your property rights libertarianism turns are incoherent: A) Logic – it’s impossible for an individual to claim ownership over a non-natural property because the protections of property requires a good to be protected. You cannot ensure another agents doesn’t steal an idea since the idea exists purely metaphysically in the realm of ideas B) Creationism – Property rights are based on the notion of an individual mixing a unique aspect of themselves with a physical property that justifies a deserving of ownership, but intellectual property is not created by individuals, but rather, is discovered. That means we’d be providing arbitrary ownership of an idea to an agent that didn’t create it. | 12/16/21 |
SO - AC - Kant v4Tournament: New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament | Round: 5 | Opponent: OES GK | Judge: Kyle Kopf FrameworkI value morality. The Meta-Ethic is Non-Naturalism.1 The naturalistic fallacy – examples of goodness fail to define the ultimate good. Moore 03,Moore, G. E. “Principia Ethica” http://fair-use.org/g-e-moore/principia-ethica/. Published 1903 SHS ZS 2 Only a priori knowledge is epistemically reliable. Descartes 41,René, 1641. Discourse On Method ; and, Meditations on First Philosophy, NPR There are three ways to categorize the substance of these non-natural properties: Internally, Externally, or from our Constitutive nature as beings. Internalism and Externalism fail – only constitutivism can be solve their deficiencies. Kastafanas 14,Kastafanas, Paul. "Constitutivism About Practical Reasons". Philarchive.Org, 2014, https://philarchive.org/archive/KATCAP. Scopa That requires practical reason as the basis for ethics:1 Regress –2 Inescapability –That justifies a universal moral law –1. Absent universal ethics morality becomes arbitrary since it can be meaninglessly applied in different ways without reason. Non-arbitrariness is a side constraint – only non-arbitrary principles can hold agent culpable for their actions since otherwise we could make up ethical rules for different situations to punish people.2. A priori principles like reason apply to everyone since they are independent of human experience. That means to allow one to violate a rule without another would be a contradiction. Contradictions are a side constraint – it’s an inescapable condition that undermines all arguments since something can’t be both true and false simultaneouslyTherefore, In order to respect each agent as a practical reasoner, we require a universal set of moral laws for what counts as a violation of the principles of rational reflection. That’s the categorical imperative – it has 4 formulations. Pecorino 02, pecorino, philip. "Categorical Imperative". Qcc.Cuny.Edu, 2002, https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/medical_ethics_text/Chapter_2_Ethical_Traditions/Categorical_Imperative.htm. However, we require an enforcement mechanism for these principles since rights claims can’t exist in the state of nature. What follows is the omnilateral will.Varden 10, Helga. "A Kantian Conception of Free Speech." Freedom of Expression in a Diverse World, 2010 AHS RG The first important distinction between Kant and much contemporary liberal thought issues from Kant’s argument that it is not in principle possible for individuals to realize right in the state of nature. Kant explicitly Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative as enacted through the omnilateral will.Prefer –1. Motivation –2. Theoretically prefer –A Real World Education –B Resource Disparities –And, Only evaluate Intents:1. 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 will2. Otherwise ethical theories hold agents responsible for consequences external to their will which removes any reason to be moral because agents cannot control what they are being punished for3. Aggregation is impossible since there’s no way to quantify different amounts of pain and pleasure – how can 2 headaches equal a migraine4. Induction fails – it’s incoherent to justify the past to justify the future because there’s no logical certainty that what has happened before will happen again5. Since it requires evaluating end-states we can’t know whether the action was good until after it was taken which means the judge cannot determine whether the aff is good6. Consequences empirically impossible to predict. Menand 05, Louis Menand (the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of English at Harvard University) “Everybody’s An Expert” The New Yorker 2005 http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/12/05/everybodys-an-expert// FSU SS “Expert Political Judgment” is not a work of media criticism. Tetlock is a psychologist—he teaches at Berkeley— ContentionI contend that member nations of the WTO ought to eliminate intellectual property protections on medicine.1. Universalizability – A) IP is created to encourage innovation but necessarily entails a prevention of innovation through restriction of necessary prior knowledge and B) In attempting to allow freedom, it restricts it. Pievatolo 10,Pievatolo, Maria. “Freedom, Ownership and Copyright: Why Does Kant Reject the Concept of Intellectual Property?” Freedom, Ownership and Copyright: Why Does Kant Reject the Concept of Intellectual Property?, 7 Feb. 2010, bfp.sp.unipi.it/chiara/lm/kantpisa1.html. SJEP 2. Means to an End –And, your free-riding turns make no sense. Absolute protection on patents allows free-riding and stifles scientific growthVethan Law Firm 16, (Vethan Law, 11-14-2016, accessed on 9-12-2021, Info.vethanlaw, "Free Rider Problem: What Is IP and the Problem of Free Riding?", https://info.vethanlaw.com/blog/intellectual-property-what-is-ip-and-the-problem-of-free-riding) And, your property rights libertarianism turns are incoherent: A) Logic – it’s impossible for an individual to claim ownership over a non-natural property because the protections of property requires a good to be protected. You cannot ensure another agents doesn’t steal an idea since the idea exists purely metaphysically in the realm of ideas B) Creationism – Property rights are based on the notion of an individual mixing a unique aspect of themselves with a physical property that justifies a deserving of ownership, but intellectual property is not created by individuals, but rather, is discovered. That means we’d be providing arbitrary ownership of an idea to an agent that didn’t create it.ShellInterpretation – The negative must concede the affirmative framework or contention level offense.It’s preemptive, you violate by reading turns or defense to my offense and reading an alternative framework.Prefer –1. Strat skew –AFF theory is no RVI, Drop the debater, competing interps, under an interp that aff theory is legit A) infinite abuse since otherwise it would be impossible to check NC abuse B) the 2n can dump on a script to a CI and go for RVI’s making it impossible to check abuse C) The 1ar is too short to win theory and substance D) The 2n can always create infinite reasonability arguments the 2ar can’t get through E) New 2ar weighing is legit otherwise the 2n can collapse and sandbag one issue for 6 min and I’ll always lose. | 12/16/21 |
SO - AC - LayTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 2 | Opponent: Acton-Boxborough AM | Judge: Andrew Chin FWKI affirm the resolution Resolved: Member nations of the WTO ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines.I value moralityThe standard is utilitarinsm- or maximizing expected well being.Pain is intrinsically bad and pleasure in instrincaly bad- shown by how if you hot a stove you immeditably move your finger away. This affects what actions we take for example we don’t try to get hit by cars since that would cause pain or kids eat candy because it gives them pleasure. This means that morality should be centered around pain and pleasure since its what guides human actions.Contention 1Only the plan can solve covid access – inequalities heighten the risk of mutations and uneven development – neg objections miss the boat.Kumar 21 Rajeesh; Associate Fellow at the Institute, currently working on a project titled “Emerging Powers and the Future of Global Governance: India and International Institutions.” He has PhD in International Organization from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Prior to joining MP-IDSA in 2016, he taught at JamiaMilliaIslamia, New Delhi (2010-11and 2015-16) and University of Calicut, Kerala (2007-08). His areas of research interest are International Organizations, India and Multilateralism, Global Governance, and International Humanitarian Law. He is the co-editor of two books;Eurozone Crisis and the Future of Europe: Political Economy of Further Integration and Governance (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014); and Islam, Islamist Movements and Democracy in the Middle East: Challenges, Opportunities and Responses (Delhi: Global Vision Publishing, 2013); “WTO TRIPS Waiver and COVID-19 Vaccine Equity,” IDSA Issue Briefs; https://idsa.in/issuebrief/wto-trips-waiver-covid-vaccine-rkumar-120721 Justin Yes scale-up for covid.Erfani et al 21 Parsa; Lawrence Gostin; Vanessa Kerry; Parsa Erfani is a Fogarty Global Health Scholar at Harvard Medical School and the University of Global Health Equity. Lawrence Gostin is a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, director of the school’s O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, and director of the World Health Organization Center on National and Global Health Law. Vanessa Kerry is a critical care physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, director of the Program for Global Public Policy at Harvard Medical School, and CEO of Seed Global Health, a nonprofit that trains health workers in countries with critical shortages; “Beyond a symbolic gesture: What’s needed to turn the IP waiver into Covid-19 vaccines,” STAT; 5/19/21; https://www.statnews.com/2021/05/19/beyond-a-symbolic-gesture-whats-needed-to-turn-the-ip-waiver-into-covid-19-vaccines/ Justin Independently strategic patenting harms innovation incentives during pandemics – encourages reproduction of generics and decrease breakthroughs.Gurgula 20 Olga; Lecturer in Intellectual Property Law at Brunel Law School, Brunel University London. She is also a Visiting Fellow at the Oxford Martin Programme on Affordable Medicines, University of Oxford; “Strategic Patenting by Pharmaceutical Companies – Should Competition Law Intervene?” Springer Link; 10/28/20; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40319-020-00985-0#Sec4 Justin Future diseases are coming- the aff sets a precedent for medicine sharing that is key to solve.Brink Lindsey, June 3, 2021, Brookings, “Why intellectual property and pandemics don’t mix”, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2021/06/03/why-intellectual-property-and-pandemics-dont-mix/ mc Future pandemics will cause extinction – it only takes one ‘super-spreader’.Bar-Yam 16 Yaneer Bar-Yam 7-3-2016 “Transition to extinction: Pandemics in a connected world” http://necsi.edu/research/social/pandemics/transition (Professor and President, New England Complex System Institute; PhD in Physics, MIT)Elmer Contention 2IP is the main reason for the opioid crisis – 3 warrantsDaniel J Hemel, Lisa Larrimore Ouellete, “ Innovation institutions and the opioid crisis, June 9th 2020, https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/7/1/lsaa001/5854401 Swickle MAK Recut 8/25/21 Opioid induced Labor shortage leads to US economic downturns. The impact is housing and oil markets as well as wage drop and production disturbanceAnora M. Gaudiano 18, June 29, Market Watch, “How the opioid epidemic is exacerbating a U.S. labor-market shortage” https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-the-opioid-epidemic-is-exacerbating-a-us-labor-market-shortage-2018-06-28 AHSVAMAK Recut 8/24/21 The opioid crisis devastates national security and readinessXu 2018 - U.S. Air Force officers Readiness is key to effective deterrence – that solves existential great power warsDowd, 2015 (Alan W., Senior fellow with the Sagamore Institute for Policy Research and Senior Fellow at the Fraser Institute, “Shield and Sword: The Case for Military Deterrence”, Providence Mag, 12/31/2015, https://providencemag.com/2015/12/shield-sword-the-case-for-military-deterrence/)//JBS Extinction – nuke war fallout creates Ice Age and mass starvationSteven Starr 15. “Nuclear War: An Unrecognized Mass Extinction Event Waiting To Happen.” Ratical. March 2015. https://ratical.org/radiation/NuclearExtinction/StevenStarr022815.html TG Contention 3IPR leads to BioD loss – Multiple warrants in both cards -1 Pamun 18’ (In partnership with United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and THIMUN, 2018). “PAMUN XVIII RESEARCH REPORT— QUESTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND BIODIVERSITY” http://asp-edu.net/pamun/pamun2013/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/OK_EDITED_-UNCTAD-biodiversity-and-IP-1.pdf AHSMAK Accessed 8/23/21 This causes Extinction.Schelske 20 Why managing biodiversity risk is critical for the global economy By Oliver Schelske, Natural Assets and ESG Research Lead, Swiss Re Institute and Bernd Wilke, Senior Risk Manager, Group Risk Management Published on:23 Sep 2020 https://www.swissre.com/risk-knowledge/mitigating-climate-risk/managing-biodiversity-risk-is-critical-for-global-economy.html | 12/16/21 |
SO - AC - SufferingTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 4 | Opponent: Ridge SN | Judge: Amulya Natchukuri ShellInterpretation: Debaters must disclose all previously read positions on open source with highlighting on the 2021-22 NDCA LD wiki after the round in which they read them.Violation – screenshots in the doc prove I do and they don't
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.Open source does equal the playing fieldOvering 18 – Bob Overing, LD Scholar ("Holiday Disclosure Post ~#6 – 10 Things Edition" JANUARY 12, 2018. http://www.premierdebate.com/disclosure-post-6/) 2~ Evidence ethics –3~ Depth of clash –ROBThe Role of the ballot is to the test if the resolution is true.1~ Inclusion:2~. Constituitvism3~ Reject the western binary of truth and futurism in favor of a more nuanced understanding of the world.Graham Priest, Distinguished professor of philosophy at City University of New York and professor emeritus at the University of Melbourne. His latest book is One (2014), Beyond true and false, 5 May 2014, https://aeon.co/essays/the-logic-of-buddhist-philosophy-goes-beyond-simple-truth /BA PB FramingThe metaethic is dependent origin or the idea that we cannot separate any specific experience or object from the context of other experiences or objects. In short, everything is interconnected.First, its impossible to establish one thing as the cause of something else, instead every event is interrelated. Think universal butterfly effect.David Cummiskey, Guy with wrong opinions about Kant and professor at Bates college, and Alex Hamilton, Some grad student idk, Dependent Origination, Emptiness, and the Value of Nature http://blogs.dickinson.edu/buddhistethics/ Volume 24, 2017 BA PB Second, objects are defined relationally. Just as a car has no meaning without car parts, and car parts have no meaning without a car, the world is defined as a series of parts and wholes.David Cummiskey, Guy with wrong opinions about Kant and professor at Bates college, and Alex Hamilton, Some grad student idk, Dependent Origination, Emptiness, and the Value of Nature http://blogs.dickinson.edu/buddhistethics/ Volume 24, 2017 BA PB ~2~ Because every object is defined by other objects, this entails that nothing has an essential essence that makes it what it is and gives it value.David Cummiskey, Guy with wrong opinions about Kant and professor at Bates college, and Alex Hamilton, Some grad student idk, Dependent Origination, Emptiness, and the Value of Nature http://blogs.dickinson.edu/buddhistethics/ Volume 24, 2017 BA PB ~3~ However, if everything is devoid of essence then intrinsic value is impossible. Instead, the relational nature of life means that any attempt of the self to avoid harm must also apply to others.David Cummiskey, Guy with wrong opinions about Kant and professor at Bates college, and Alex Hamilton, Some grad student idk, Dependent Origination, Emptiness, and the Value of Nature http://blogs.dickinson.edu/buddhistethics/ Volume 24, 2017 BA PB ~4~ Thus, the standard is to refrain from causing suffering.OffenseI affirm the resolution as a general principle: Member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines.IP regimes are tied to rising biodiversity loss.PAMUN 14 – "PAMUN Xviii Research Report— Question Of Intellectual Property And Biodiversity" ~http://asp-edu.net/pamun/pamun2013/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/OK_EDITED_-UNCTAD-biodiversity-and-IP-1.pdf~~ ahs emi This causes Extinction.Schelske 20 Why managing biodiversity risk is critical for the global economy By Oliver Schelske, Natural Assets and ESG Research Lead, Swiss Re Institute and Bernd Wilke, Senior Risk Manager, Group Risk Management Published on:23 Sep 2020 https://www.swissre.com/risk-knowledge/mitigating-climate-risk/managing-biodiversity-risk-is-critical-for-global-economy.html | 12/16/21 |
SO - AC - T FWKTournament: Mid America Cup Sophomore Throw Down | Round: 1 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit NW | Judge: Charles Karcher - Jared Burke Our interpretation is that debate is a game and the affirmative should have to defend the implementation of United States government action grounded in the resolution.This does not require any use of a particular form of argumentation, type of evidence or the assumption of the role of the judge – the resolution is especially meant to limit the form of debate, and that’s pretty neat!Hoofd’07|Ingrid M. Hoofd, National University of Singapore, “The Neoliberal Consolidation of Play and Speed: Ethical Issues in Serious Gaming” in “CRITICAL LITERACY: Theories and Practices Volume 1: 2, December 2007,” p. 6-14, 2007|KZaidi recut ahs emi Failure to defend topical action decimates the quality of reality. Three reasons –a. Fairness – it’s like, really important. I promise.b. Implosive violence – Their investment in the need for medicine creates a consumptive culture that constantly begs for miracles to become happy, leading to complicity with the hyperreal and all its giftsFrank 2k, Arthur W. Frank PhD., University of Calgary, “All the Things Which Do Not Fit: Baudrillard and Medical Consumerism” Families, Systems, and Health, 18(2), 205–216 https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2000-05119-005 Accessed 8/12/21 AHSNPR c. Clash – Tailoring arguments to the format of switch-side deliberation promotes self-reflexive openness – that’s the best way to cause wide-scale opinion shifts over time which have absolutely no impact on the real world. Absent normative meta-consensus on procedural terms for debate that guarantee switch-side deliberative testing within mutually-understood constraints, we encourage dogmatism and group polarization. And none of that matters at all.Mclennan 16 Mark McLennan is a graduate student at the London School of Economics and Political Science, having completed a BA and a JD at the University of Sydney. Simulacra and Simulated Policing: Baudrillard and Criminology.Scopa The topical version of the aff solves all their offense – the only option is a radical mimicry of the forms of the system, one that accelerates them to the point of their obvious vacuity. Fatal theory seeks to restore the symbolic space of mystery by operating in the margins, issuing the ironic force of the object in lieu of mastery of it. We must infuse education with symbolic exchange, breaking open the determinism of language and penchant for falsifiability that grounds political violence. Our paradoxical politics dwells in the poetic aporia of hyper-commodification, issuing signs against signs in a bitter but happy duel with reality as suchPawlett 13 - William Pawlett, Senior Lecturer in the School of Law, Social Sciences and Communication at the University of Wolverhampton, in Ashgate Publishing, in 2013 "Violence society and radical theory: Bataille, Baudrillard and contemporary society", https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288148526_Violence_society_and_radical_theory_Bataille_Baudrillard_and_contemporary_society, pg. 33-35, 1-5-2019 recut ahs emi Now for the paradigm issues:1 Fairness and Education are voters! Appeals to fairness and education buy into a global ponzi schemeSenese and Page 95 - Guy B Senese, Professor of Educational Foundations at North Illinois University and Ralph Page, Associate professor of Philosophy at the University of Illinois, Published April 30, 1995 “Simulation, Spectacle, and the Ironies of Education Reform” https://www.amazon.com/Simulation-Spectacle-Education-Critical-Paperback-ebook/dp/B000WEX9BQ Accessed 8/29/19 SAO 2 We can cross apply the aff to theory. Solves ideological dogmatism and content explorationKoh 13 - Ben Koh, NSD Update, October 1st, 2013 “Breaking Down Borders: Rethinking the Interaction Between Theory and Ethics” http://nsdupdate.com/2013/breaking-down-borders-rethinking-the-interaction-between-theory-and-ethics/ Accessed 8/14/20 SAO 3 Theory is disciplinary tool that upholds hierarchiesPawlett 8 - Dr William Pawlett, International Journal of Baudrillard Studies, January 2008 “Against Banality – The Object System, the Sign System and the Consumption System” https://baudrillardstudies.ubishops.ca/against-banality-the-object-system-the-sign-system-and-the-consumption-system/ Accessed 8/25/20 SAO 4 The ROB is to vote for the debater with the best strategy to interrogate and rupture the hyperreal.Prefer –a Bindingness –b Motivation –c Sociological Subjectivity –d All our other cards are reasons as to why the ROB is important.5 Differentiation of ideas motivates technological masteryGermain 14 - Gil Germain, Voegelin View, December 13th, 2014 “Scientism Unbound: Baudrillard and the Critique of Technology (Part I)” https://voegelinview.com/scientism-unbound-baudrillard-critique-technology-part-1/ Accessed 8/27/20 SAO 6 Our ROB is key to create good liberation strategies.Holliday-Karre 15 - Dr. Erin Amann Holliday-Karre, Assistant Professor of Literature at Qatar University, in the Journal Feminist Theory, March 24th, 2015 “The seduction of feminist Theory” https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1464700114562530 Accessed 1/29/20 SAO 7 Implosion- Aff is key to avoid corporate cooption.Robinson 12 - Andrew Robinson, Ceasefire, August 24th, 2012 “An A to Z of Theory | Jean Baudrillard: From Revolution to Implosion” https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/in-theory-baudrillard-10/ Accessed 3/9/20 SAO 8 Images of suffering increase desire for images of suffering.Alford 20 - Aaron J. Alford, Medium, January 13th, 2020 “Disaster Pornography and the American Media”https:medium.com/@aaronjalford1/disaster-pornography-and-the-american-media-f01ee1cb4512 Accessed 1/30/20 SAO 9 Implosive strategies o/w10 No presumption | 12/16/21 |
SO - AC - VirtueTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 5 | Opponent: Millburn AX | Judge: Ben Waldman ShellInterpretation – The negative must concede the affirmative framework or contention level offense.It's preemptive, you violate by reading turns or defense to my offense and reading an alternative framework.Prefer –1. Strat skew –2. Depth of Clash –ACThe meta-ethic is consistency with transcendental form of subjects.Moral Realism is true – there is an ethical truth that exists metaphysically: a) otherwise we could not make moral claims since we would merely claim disagreement rather than an absolute wrong, justifying any ethical statement b) relativism is circular since asserting relativism assumes its own universal truth, which concedes the authority of realism c) regressive moral debates always terminate in an endpoint of agreement, we just compare different values in an attempt to find the ultimate one. D) proving the converse of the resolution is not sufficient to disprove the resolution's truth. And, this is also true of obligations since an obligation existing doesn't mean that there can't be a stronger obligation to do something else, as an obligation is a locus of moral duty and there can always be different obligations, particularly allowing for individual meaning creation is inherently good regardless of the content of index.Moral truths are only accessible through procedural transcendental idealism – a) Is/ought gap – appeals to the empirical world merely explain how the world is rather than what it ought to be b) The Naturalistic Fallacy: It is impossible to reduce goodness to an observable property, since the two are fundamentally separate. For example, if we believe an action that produces pleasure is good, it does not logically follow that pleasure and goodness are the same property, since the fact they describe the same thing does not make them the same thing. c) Natural properties are aribitrary since one could observe any natural phenomenon and equate it with goodness d) Motivation – empirical circumstances change based one each individual, only transcendent moral truths can motivate all agents absent those features.Jindal 99, Jindal, Bobby. Louisiana Law Review, 1999. Web. http://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5780andcontext=lalrev.//Scopa That transcendental truth is the forms – they are the essence of the world that transcend space and time. The material world inherently lacks a capability to manifest the form and cannot generate true reality, only the forms themselves understood by reason allow for true moral and epistemic knowledge.Heyüman 15, http://ftp.oxfordphilsoc.org/Documents/StudentPrize/2015_H1b.pdf scopa Prefer –1. Infinite regress –2. Performativity –3. Constitutivism –Prefer the aretaic:1~ consequentialist theories fail- Consequentialism fails— a) Induction fails since it relies on the assumption that nature will hold uniform and we could only reach that conclusion through inductive reasoning based on observations of past events b) Consequences trigger more consequences and there is no non-arbitrary stopping point to evaluating them which makes evaluating them impossible c) Humans can predict an infinite amount of possible extinction scenarios which makes preventing extinction impossible if we have to mitigate them all d) A lack of pleasure is not intrinsically bad but lack of pain is inherently good which means extinction would be ethically obligatory e) There is nothing ever intrinsically wrong under consequentialism since the ethic would make morally abhorrent actions obligatory under the guise of preventing extinction— that justifies atrocities and makes the debate round inaccessible which is a reason to drop themNext, the only ethics consistent with the aretaic is a virtue paradigm: This does not presuppose descriptive normative claims; we rather focus on developing agents to make them virtuous. Reader.~Reader 2k (Reader, Soren. Late Professor of Philosophy, Durham University "New Directions in Ethics: Naturalism, Reasons, and Virtue." Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, Vol. 3, No. 4, Dec. 2000.)~ SHS ZS Thus, the standard is promoting virtue.1. Motivation –2. Performativity –3. Eudaimonia— Living a life consistent with virtues is key to human flourishing and fulfillment, the ultimate happiness. It's the basis of an entire field of psychology. Anything else denies self-value which kills value to lifeMoore 20, Dr. Catherine Moore PhD is a psychologist with a passion for positive psychology research, “What is Eudaimonia? Aristotle and Eudaimonic Well-Being”, 1/09/20, Positive Psychologist https://positivepsychology.com/eudaimonia/ Accessed 1/11/21 AHS/NPR Impact calc: 1. The framing evaluates offense based on whether or not a decision allows for the procedural cultivation of virtues— takes out most calc indicts since we don't need to know what a virtue is, we just need to have humans making decisions 2. Reject impact calc indicts – a) just proves being virtuous is hard but moral practice is the point, so it just proves the aff is necessary b) actions aimed toward the good are virtuous resolved by intuitions since we can't trust our own judgements about morality.OffenseI defend that the member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines.~1~ IP rights structurally prevent all people from accessing the same intellectual virtues and violates the virtue of empathy by not giving life-saving medication to poorer nations.Morabito 15 - "Essay: Pharmaceuticals and Global Justice: Balancing Public Health and Intellectual Property Rights" by Marisa Morabito ~https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.com/andhttpsredir=1andarticle=1808andcontext=student_scholarship~~ ahs emi ~2~ Removing IPs fosters the social relationships needed to cultivate communal virtues.Grimmelmann 9 - "Ethical Visions of Copyright Law" by James Grimmelmann ~https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4433andcontext=flr~~ ahs emi ~4~ Property rights are incoherent. Everything material intrinsically has a form that's universally accessible to all people. That means individuals can't claim ownership to something everyone has access to.AdvIP regimes are tied to rising biodiversity loss.PAMUN 14 – "PAMUN Xviii Research Report— Question Of Intellectual Property And Biodiversity" ~http://asp-edu.net/pamun/pamun2013/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/OK_EDITED_-UNCTAD-biodiversity-and-IP-1.pdf~~ ahs emi This causes Extinction.Schelske 20 Why managing biodiversity risk is critical for the global economy By Oliver Schelske, Natural Assets and ESG Research Lead, Swiss Re Institute and Bernd Wilke, Senior Risk Manager, Group Risk Management Published on:23 Sep 2020 https://www.swissre.com/risk-knowledge/mitigating-climate-risk/managing-biodiversity-risk-is-critical-for-global-economy.html | 12/16/21 |
SO - AC - Virtue v2Tournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 2 | Opponent: Summit MR | Judge: Wyatt Hatfield ShellInterp – The negative must grant the aff presumption or permissibility.A violation would be reading both or contesting one in the 2n.Prefer –A) Strat skew –B) Timeskew –ROBThe Role of the ballot is to the test if the resolution is true.1 Inclusion:2. Constitutivism:3 Reject the western binary of truth and futurism in favor of a more nuanced understanding of the world.Graham Priest, Distinguished professor of philosophy at City University of New York and professor emeritus at the University of Melbourne. His latest book is One (2014), Beyond true and false, 5 May 2014, https://aeon.co/essays/the-logic-of-buddhist-philosophy-goes-beyond-simple-truth /BA PB FWKThe meta-ethic is consistency with transcendental form of subjects.Moral Realism is true – there is an ethical truth that exists metaphysically: a) otherwise we could not make moral claims since we would merely claim disagreement rather than an absolute wrong, justifying any ethical statement b) regressive moral debates always terminate in an endpoint of agreement, we just compare different values in an attempt to find the ultimate one c) Weighing practices is incoherent because it relies on an assessment of ends, which relies on a further assessment. A practice that negates is not contradictory to a practice that affirms, and thus proving my end affirms is sufficient. So, proving the converse of the resolution is not sufficient to disprove the resolution’s truth. And, this is also true of obligations since an obligation existing doesn’t mean that there can’t be a stronger obligation to do something else, as an obligation is a locus of moral duty and there can always be different obligations, particularly allowing for individual meaning creation is inherently good regardless of the content of index. I think the aff is amazing and super cool so here is my framing mechanism.And, that’s only accessible through procedural transcendental idealism – a) Is/ought gap – appeals to the empirical world merely explain how the world is rather than what it ought to be b) Motivation – empirical circumstances change based one each individual, only transcendent moral truths can motivate all agents absent those features. Jindal 99, Jindal, Bobby. Louisiana Law Review, 1999. Web. http://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5780andcontext=lalrev.//Scopa That transcendental truth is the forms – they are the essence of the world that transcend space and time. The material world inherently lacks a capability to manifest the form and cannot generate true reality, only the forms themselves understood by reason allow for true moral and epistemic knowledge.Heyüman 15, http://ftp.oxfordphilsoc.org/Documents/StudentPrize/2015_H1b.pdf scopa Prefer –1. Infinite regress –2. Performativity –3. Constitutivism –Next, ethics are split between the deontic and the aretaic. Deontic theories guide ethics by looking at the actions of moral actors, whereas aretaic theories guide ethics by looking at the character of moral actors themselves. By developing good moral character, good actions will naturally follow.Prefer the aretaic:1 Descriptively – The aretaic provides an infinitely richer vocabulary for evaluating actions that extends beyond goodness and badness. Gryz 11.Gryz ’11 (Jarek, Prof in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at York University, “On the Relationship Between the Aretaic and the Deontic,” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 2011, 14:493–501, Springer) SHS ZS 2 Deontic theories collapse –3 Motivation –Next, the only ethics consistent with the aretaic is a virtue paradigm: This does not presuppose descriptive normative claims; we rather focus on developing agents to make them virtuous. Reader.Reader 2k (Reader, Soren. Late Professor of Philosophy, Durham University “New Directions in Ethics: Naturalism, Reasons, and Virtue.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, Vol. 3, No. 4, Dec. 2000.) SHS ZS Thus, the standard is promoting virtue.1. Motivation –2. Performativity –Impact Calc: 1) The framing evaluates offense based on whether or not an action allows for the procedural cultivation of virtues— takes out calc indicts since we don’t need to know what a virtue is, we just need to have humans making decisions. 2. Reject calc indicts – a) just proves being virtuous is hard but moral practice is the point, so it just proves the aff is necessary b) actions aimed toward the good are virtuous resolved by intuitions. Anything else collapses to skepticism since we can’t trust our own judgements about morality.OffenseI defend that the member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines.1 IP rights structurally prevent all people from accessing the same intellectual virtues and violates the virtue of empathy by not giving life-saving medication to poorer nations.Morabito 15 - “Essay: Pharmaceuticals and Global Justice: Balancing Public Health and Intellectual Property Rights” by Marisa Morabito https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.com/andhttpsredir=1andarticle=1808andcontext=student_scholarship ahs emi 2 Removing IPs fosters the social relationships needed to cultivate communal virtues.Grimmelmann 9 - “Ethical Visions of Copyright Law” by James Grimmelmann https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4433andcontext=flr ahs emi 4 Property rights are incoherent. Everything material intrinsically has a form that’s universally accessible to all people. That means individuals can’t claim ownership to something everyone has access to.AdvIP regimes are tied to rising biodiversity loss.PAMUN 14 – “PAMUN Xviii Research Report— Question Of Intellectual Property And Biodiversity” http://asp-edu.net/pamun/pamun2013/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/OK_EDITED_-UNCTAD-biodiversity-and-IP-1.pdf ahs emi This causes Extinction.Schelske 20 Why managing biodiversity risk is critical for the global economy By Oliver Schelske, Natural Assets and ESG Research Lead, Swiss Re Institute and Bernd Wilke, Senior Risk Manager, Group Risk Management Published on:23 Sep 2020 https://www.swissre.com/risk-knowledge/mitigating-climate-risk/managing-biodiversity-risk-is-critical-for-global-economy.html | 12/16/21 |
SO - AC - Virtue v3Tournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 4 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep AV | Judge: Manasi Singh O/VInterpretation – The negative must concede the affirmative framework or contention level offense.It's preemptive, you violate by reading turns or defense to my offense and reading an alternative framework.Prefer –1. Strat skew –2. Depth of Clash –FwkThe meta-ethic is consistency with transcendental form of subjects.Moral Realism is true – there is an ethical truth that exists metaphysically: a) otherwise we could not make moral claims since we would merely claim disagreement rather than an absolute wrong, justifying any ethical statement b) relativism is circular since asserting relativism assumes its own universal truth, which concedes the authority of realism c) regressive moral debates always terminate in an endpoint of agreement, we just compare different values in an attempt to find the ultimate one.And, that's only accessible through procedural transcendental idealism – a) Is/ought gap – appeals to the empirical world merely explain how the world is rather than what it ought to be b) Absent universal ethics morality becomes arbitrary since it can be meaninglessly applied in different ways without reason. Non-arbitrariness is a side constraint – only non-arbitrary principles can hold agent culpable for their actions since otherwise we could make up ethical rules for different situations to punish people. c) Motivation – empirical circumstances change based one each individual, only transcendent moral truths can motivate all agents absent those features. Jindal 99,Jindal, Bobby. Louisiana Law Review, 1999. Web. http://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5780andcontext=lalrev.//Scopa That transcendental truth is the forms – they are the essence of the world that transcend space and time. The material world inherently lacks a capability to manifest the form and cannot generate true reality, only the forms themselves understood by reason allow for true moral and epistemic knowledge. Heyüman 15, http://ftp.oxfordphilsoc.org/Documents/StudentPrize/2015_H1b.pdf scopaForms can be Prefer –1. Infinite regress –2. Performativity -3. Constitutivism –Next, ethics are split between the deontic and the aretaic. Deontic theories guide ethics by looking at the actions of moral actors, whereas aretaic theories guide ethics by looking at the character of moral actors themselves. By developing good moral character, good actions will naturally follow.Prefer the aretaic:~1~ Descriptively –~2~ Deontic theories collapse –~3~ Motivation –Next, the only ethics consistent with the aretaic is a virtue paradigm: This does not presuppose descriptive normative claims; we rather focus on developing agents to make them virtuous. Reader.~Reader 2k (Reader, Soren. Late Professor of Philosophy, Durham University "New Directions in Ethics: Naturalism, Reasons, and Virtue." Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, Vol. 3, No. 4, Dec. 2000.)~ SHS ZS Thus, the standard is promoting virtue.1. Motivation –2. Performativity –Impact Calc: 1) The framing evaluates offense based on whether or not an action allows for the procedural cultivation of virtues— takes out calc indicts since we don't need to know what a virtue is, we just need to have humans making decisions. 2. Reject calc indicts – a) just proves being virtuous is hard but moral practice is the point, so it just proves the aff is necessary b) actions aimed toward the good are virtuous resolved by intuitions. Anything else collapses to skepticism since we can't trust our own judgements about morality.OffenseI defend that the member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines. I defend all reduction of all ip protections. I wont shift out of any das based on how much I reduce.~1~ IP rights structurally prevent all people from accessing the same intellectual virtues and violates the virtue of empathy by not giving life-saving medication to poorer nations.Morabito 15 - "Essay: Pharmaceuticals and Global Justice: Balancing Public Health and Intellectual Property Rights" by Marisa Morabito ~https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.com/andhttpsredir=1andarticle=1808andcontext=student_scholarship~~ ahs emi ~2~ Removing IPs fosters the social relationships needed to cultivate communal virtues.Grimmelmann 9 - "Ethical Visions of Copyright Law" by James Grimmelmann ~https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4433andcontext=flr~~ ahs emi ~3~ Communitarian open-source platforms for developing biotechnology cultivate charity-based virtues and intellectual virtues aimed at healing the world of ailmentsOpderbeck 07, David W. Opderbeck, Maine Law Review Vol. 59 No.2 (2007) "A Virtue-Centered Approach to the Biotechnology Commons (Or, The Virtuous Penguin)" ~https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol59/iss2/5/~~ Accessed 8/11/21 NPR ~4~ Property rights are incoherent. Everything material intrinsically has a form that's universally accessible to all people. That means individuals can't claim ownership to something everyone has access to.~5~ Creationism: Property rights are based on the notion of an individual mixing a unique aspect of themselves with a physical property that justifies a deserving of ownership, but intellectual property is not created by individuals, but rather, is discovered. That means we'd be providing arbitrary ownership of an idea to an agent that didn't create it.AdvIP regimes are tied to rising biodiversity loss for medicinal plants.PAMUN 14 – "PAMUN Xviii Research Report— Question Of Intellectual Property And Biodiversity" ~http://asp-edu.net/pamun/pamun2013/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/OK_EDITED_-UNCTAD-biodiversity-and-IP-1.pdf~~ ahs emi This causes Extinction.Schelske 20 Why managing biodiversity risk is critical for the global economy By Oliver Schelske, Natural Assets and ESG Research Lead, Swiss Re Institute and Bernd Wilke, Senior Risk Manager, Group Risk Management Published on:23 Sep 2020 https://www.swissre.com/risk-knowledge/mitigating-climate-risk/managing-biodiversity-risk-is-critical-for-global-economy.html | 12/16/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
12/6/21 | pl237921@ahschoolcom |
| |
12/6/21 | pl237921@ahschoolcom |
| |
12/6/21 | pl237921@ahschoolcom |
| |
12/5/21 | pl237921@ahschoolcom |
| |
12/6/21 | pl237921@ahschoolcom |
| |
12/6/21 | pl237921@ahschoolcom |
| |
2/19/22 | pl237921@ahschoolcom |
| |
2/19/22 | pl237921@ahschoolcom |
| |
2/20/22 | pl237921@ahschoolcom |
| |
12/16/21 | pl237921@ahschoolcom |
| |
12/16/21 | pl237921@ahschoolcom |
| |
12/16/21 | pl237921@ahschoolcom |
| |
12/16/21 | pl237921@ahschoolcom |
| |
12/16/21 | pl237921@ahschoolcom |
| |
12/16/21 | pl237921@ahschoolcom |
| |
12/16/21 | pl237921@ahschoolcom |
| |
12/16/21 | pl237921@ahschoolcom |
| |
12/16/21 | pl237921@ahschoolcom |
| |
1/8/22 | pl237921@ahschoolcom |
| |
1/8/22 | pl237921@ahschoolcom |
| |
1/8/22 | pl237921@ahschoolcom |
| |
12/5/21 | pl237921@ahschoolcom |
| |
12/6/21 | pl237921@ahschoolcom |
| |
12/6/21 | pl237921@ahschoolcom |
| |
4/24/22 | pl237921@ahschoolcom |
| |
4/24/22 | pl237921@ahschoolcom |
| |
12/16/21 | pl237921@ahschoolcom |
| |
12/16/21 | pl237921@ahschoolcom |
| |
12/16/21 | pl237921@ahschoolcom |
| |
12/16/21 | pl237921@ahschoolcom |
|