American Heritage Broward Mathew Neg
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All | 1 | anyone | anyone |
|
|
| |
| Barkley Forum | 1 | jp stuckert | montgomery ch |
|
|
| |
| Barkley Forum | 3 | lilly broussard | jaylyn |
|
|
| |
| Barkley Forum | 6 | graham vestavia hills | dahlia |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | 2 | sophia tian | chansey agler |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | 4 | jayden shin | holden |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup | 6 | olivia liu | grant brown |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup Round Robin | 3 | max perin | panel |
|
|
| |
| Mid America Cup Round Robin | 1 | shrey raju | panel |
|
|
| |
| Sunvite | 2 | Aditya Kshirsagar | josh gavsie |
|
|
| |
| Sunvite | 3 | Roberto Sosa | chasia jeffries |
|
|
| |
| Sunvite | 5 | ayman Badawy | bennet dombick |
|
|
| |
| Sunvite | Quads | lex arun k | panel |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 1 | La Salle TP | Mark Kivimaki |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 5 | vik maan | conal |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | Octas | christian han | panel |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | Octas | christian han | panel |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | Doubles | jayden bai | panel |
|
|
| |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 4 | bryan shi | grant chmielewski |
|
|
| |
| any | 2 | anyone | anyone |
|
|
| |
| any | Finals | any | any |
|
|
| |
| any | 5 | any | any |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| All | 1 | Opponent: anyone | Judge: anyone ignore |
| Barkley Forum | 1 | Opponent: jp stuckert | Judge: montgomery ch mining ac |
| Barkley Forum | 3 | Opponent: lilly broussard | Judge: jaylyn larp ac |
| Barkley Forum | 6 | Opponent: graham vestavia hills | Judge: dahlia ac |
| Mid America Cup | 2 | Opponent: sophia tian | Judge: chansey agler ac |
| Mid America Cup | 4 | Opponent: jayden shin | Judge: holden ac |
| Mid America Cup | 6 | Opponent: olivia liu | Judge: grant brown ac |
| Mid America Cup Round Robin | 3 | Opponent: max perin | Judge: panel ac |
| Mid America Cup Round Robin | 1 | Opponent: shrey raju | Judge: panel ac |
| Sunvite | 2 | Opponent: Aditya Kshirsagar | Judge: josh gavsie lay ac |
| Sunvite | 3 | Opponent: Roberto Sosa | Judge: chasia jeffries ac |
| Sunvite | 5 | Opponent: ayman Badawy | Judge: bennet dombick ac |
| Sunvite | Quads | Opponent: lex arun k | Judge: panel ac |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 1 | Opponent: La Salle TP | Judge: Mark Kivimaki ac |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 5 | Opponent: vik maan | Judge: conal ac |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | Octas | Opponent: christian han | Judge: panel ac |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | Octas | Opponent: christian han | Judge: panel ac |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | Doubles | Opponent: jayden bai | Judge: panel ac |
| Yale University Invitational 2021 | 4 | Opponent: bryan shi | Judge: grant chmielewski *lay round |
| any | 2 | Opponent: anyone | Judge: anyone ignore |
| any | Finals | Opponent: any | Judge: any ev ethics update |
| any | 5 | Opponent: any | Judge: any os update |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 - ContactTournament: All | Round: 1 | Opponent: anyone | Judge: anyone Pronouns: she/her If there's anything I don't meet just message me before round so we can have a substantive debate. | 9/16/21 |
0 - Trigger Warnings - Read PlzTournament: any | Round: 2 | Opponent: anyone | Judge: anyone | 9/19/21 |
0 - ev ethicsTournament: any | Round: Finals | Opponent: any | Judge: any if i make one, it's definitely on accident and please just lmk so i can help us hve a better, engaging and educational round. not trying to be shady so why are u | 1/9/22 |
0 - os docs that might not work - contact me plzTournament: any | Round: 5 | Opponent: any | Judge: any ty | 1/9/22 |
g - descriptive standards badTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 4 | Opponent: jayden shin | Judge: holden A: Interp – All philosophical standards must be prescriptive.B: Violation – u read polls. end of cx proves – he says polls don’t conflict.C: Standards –1. Turn ground – Descriptive standards by definition don’t have turn ground since the offense always flows one way. That’s key to fairness since you can load up on framework warrants and pick a framework that always affirms/negates and win every round.2. Topic ed – It kills topic discussion since we can’t generate any turns so it forces a phil debate every round. That’s o/w since a) the topic only exists for 2 months b) it enhances phi led since it’s about the application of philosophy not just abstract principles and c) phi led is nonunique under my interp since we have them in addition to the topic.Voter: Fairness is a voter since if the rounds been skewed its impossible to determine who the better debater was. Education- constitutive purpose ie why schools fund. Competing interps: 1. Reasonability causes a race to the bottom where we read increasingly unfair practices that minimally fit the brightline 2. Necessitates judge intervention to see if we meet th brightline and 3 collapses because we use offense defense paradigm. Drop the debater on theory: 1. Drop the arg is the same thing since the argument was their entire advocacy text. 2. Its key to deterring future abuse No RVIs – a~ illogical – fairness is a burden just like the aff has the burden of inherency b~ norming – I can’t concede the counterinterp if I realize I’m wrong which forces me to argue for bad norms c~ chilling effect – debaters are scared to check real abuse which means inf abuse goes unchecked d~ substance crowdout – prevents 1AR blipstorms and allows us to get back to substance 1NC Theory o/w – 1. Lexicality – If the neg was abusive it was reactionary to aff abuse which means it’s justified 2. Norm setting – 1ar theory can never set norms since I only get 1 speech so we can’t fully develop the debate 3. Infinite abuse – Otherwise it would justify the aff baiting theory and uplayering and allows them to get away with infinite abuse just by being the better theory debater 4. Reject 2ar weighing since they get the last word and will win every theory debate if they can dump a bunch of new reasons their args come first for 3 minutes even if they are winning 10 seconds of offense. | 9/26/21 |
g - determinism ncTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 5 | Opponent: vik maan | Judge: conal Permissibility Negates –~1~ Semantics – Ought is defined as expressing obligation which means absent a proactive obligation you vote neg since there’s a trichotomy between prohibition, obligation, and permissibility and proving one disproves the other two.~2~ Safety – It’s ethically safer to presume the squo since we know what the squo is but we can’t know whether the aff will be good or not if ethics are incoherent.~3~ Logic – Propositions require positive justification before being accepted, otherwise one would be forced to accept the validity of logically contradictory propositions regarding subjects one knows nothing about, i.e if one knew nothing about P one would have to presume that both the "P" and "~P" are true.~4~ Shiftiness – Permissibility ground encourages the aff to load up with triggers and the 1ar controls the direction of the round which means they can moot all my offense, I need permissibility in the 2n to compensate.Determinism is true and negates: Determinism denies the moral value of prohibitions and obligations because our acts would be up to the consequences of nature. This negates the prescriptive value of ought statements making the aff incoherent because individuals cannot have control over their own actions. proves skep negates as the aff must prove the absolute existence of an obligation.~1~ Causality: The first law of thermodynamics holds that nothing can be created or destroyed, thus everything must have a cause if something cannot come from nothing. This means that either A) free will, which definitionally causes it self, is illogical as it does not have one or B) our free will is caused by something which is a contradiction and proves determinism true.~2~ Eternalism is true: Events do not solely exist in the present but instead exist with the past and future as one continuous spectrum meaning all our future actions already exist.Scott Ryan, Doctor of Philosophy in Religion from Baylor University and post doc fellow at Baylor, A Short Argument for Eternalism, 2013, http://www.scholardarity.com/?page'id=3845 /AHS PB AND by apparently cleaving to common sense in the end departs from it egregiously. ~3~ The best neuroscientific, psychological, and medical evidence show free will doesn’t exist.Andrea Lavazza, Neuroethics, Centro Universitario Internazionale, Arezzo, Italy, Free Will and Neuroscience: From Explaining Freedom Away to New Ways of Operationalizing and Measuring It, 2016, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4887467/ /AHS PB BRACKETED FOR CLARITY recut emi AND in the complete absence of consciousness" (Vierkant et al., 2013). ~4~ Double bind: Denying Determinist theory of causality proves that free will doesn’t existMcGinn 93 - Colin McGinn. British philosopher. He has held teaching posts and professorships at University College London, the University of Oxford, Rutgers University and the University of Miami, Problems in Philosophy: The Limits of Inquiry. London: Wiley, 1993. P. 80 "lol I copped this card off the big questions start pack so I guess I rehighlighted it." perrys card AND of possible world. The concept contains the seeds of its own destruction.. | 9/23/21 |
g - discloseTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 1 | Opponent: La Salle TP | Judge: Mark Kivimaki Interpretation: At all TOC bid-distributing tournaments, debaters must the plan text of the aff.Violation – u don’t hve a wiki. Net Benefits:1~ Accessibility: There is a section of literature base and evidence that is blanketed by paywalls and online protections. Full text disclosure means that even in the face of inaccessible evidence, debaters can still understand the crux of the arguments that are being detailed that a first three last three disclosure can never allow. Accessibility is an independent voter: we cannot have any debate without the ability to participate.2~ Research Burdens: The more disclosure happens the better – the more access we have to opponent cases, the more motivated we will be to read, learn and block out.Nails 13 A Defense of Disclosure (Including Third-Party Disclosure) by Jacob Nails NSD, Update October 10, 2013 AND , backfiles and briefs would have done LD in a long time ago.. Voter: Fairness is a voter since if the rounds been skewed its impossible to determine who the better debater was. Education- constitutive purpose ie why schools fund. Competing interps: 1. Reasonability causes a race to the bottom where we read increasingly unfair practices that minimally fit the brightline 2. Necessitates judge intervention to see if we meet th brightline and 3 collapses because we use offense defense paradigm. Drop the debater on theory: 1. Drop the arg is the same thing since the argument was their entire advocacy text. 2. Its key to deterring future abuse No RVIs – a~ illogical – fairness is a burden just like the aff has the burden of inherency b~ norming – I can’t concede the counterinterp if I realize I’m wrong which forces me to argue for bad norms c~ chilling effect – debaters are scared to check real abuse which means inf abuse goes unchecked d~ substance crowdout – prevents 1AR blipstorms and allows us to get back to substance | 9/23/21 |
g - opensource goodTournament: Barkley Forum | Round: 1 | Opponent: jp stuckert | Judge: montgomery ch Interpretation: Debaters must disclose all constructive positions on open source with highlighting on the 2021-22 NDCA LD wiki after the round in which they read them.Violation – screenshots in the doc prove they don’t 1- 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/) AND online library offerings or teams without college coaches, this matters a lot. 2~ Evidence ethics – open source is the only way to verify pre-round that cards aren’t miscut or highlighted or bracketed unethically. That’s a voter – maintaining ethical ev practices is key to being good academics and we should be able to verify you didn’t cheat3~ Depth of clash – it allows debaters to have nuanced researched objections to their opponents evidence before the round at a much faster rate, which leads to higher quality ev comparison – outweighs cause thinking on your feet is NUQ but the best quality responses come from full access to a case.Fairness is a voter since if the rounds been skewed its impossible to determine who the better debater was. Education- constitutive purpose ie why schools fund. Competing interps: 1. Reasonability causes a race to the bottom where we read increasingly unfair practices that minimally fit the brightline 2. Necessitates judge intervention to see if we meet th brightline and 3 collapses because we use offense defense paradigm. Drop the debater on theory: 1. Drop the arg is the same thing since the argument was their entire advocacy text. 2. Its key to deterring future abuse No RVIs – a~ illogical – fairness is a burden just like the aff has the burden of inherency b~ norming – I can’t concede the counterinterp if I realize I’m wrong which forces me to argue for bad norms c~ chilling effect – debaters are scared to check real abuse which means inf abuse goes unchecked d~ substance crowdout – prevents 1AR blipstorms and allows us to get back to substance | 1/28/22 |
g - pain narrativesTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: Octas | Opponent: christian han | Judge: panel Pain Narratives KPain narratives in the academy only ever serve colonial ends. Form over content, they have the most real world impact.Tuck and Yang 13 – Eve Tuck and Wayne Yang, Dec 19, 2013 "R-WORDS: REFUSING RESEARCH"~http://townsendgroups.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/tuckandyangrwords'refusingresearch.pdf~~ Accessed 10/19/18 SAO AND through erasure, but importantly also through inclusion, and its own imperceptibility. Representations must come first in scholarship production in the Global North.Curbishley 15 - Liddy Scarlet Curbishley student Masters of Humanities in Gender Studies August 2015 "Destabilizing the Colonization of Indigenous Knowledge In the Case of Biopiracy" ~https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/319612/Liddy20Thesis.pdf~~ Accessed 8/13/21 SAO AND instead move beyond these dominating dualistic ways of perceiving the world (200). | 9/23/21 |
g - pain narrativesTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: Octas | Opponent: christian han | Judge: panel Pain Narratives KPain narratives in the academy only ever serve colonial ends. Form over content, they have the most real world impact.Tuck and Yang 13 – Eve Tuck and Wayne Yang, Dec 19, 2013 "R-WORDS: REFUSING RESEARCH"~http://townsendgroups.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/tuckandyangrwords'refusingresearch.pdf~~ Accessed 10/19/18 SAO AND through erasure, but importantly also through inclusion, and its own imperceptibility. Representations must come first in scholarship production in the Global North.Curbishley 15 - Liddy Scarlet Curbishley student Masters of Humanities in Gender Studies August 2015 "Destabilizing the Colonization of Indigenous Knowledge In the Case of Biopiracy" ~https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/319612/Liddy20Thesis.pdf~~ Accessed 8/13/21 SAO AND instead move beyond these dominating dualistic ways of perceiving the world (200). | 9/23/21 |
g - psycho kTournament: Sunvite | Round: 3 | Opponent: Roberto Sosa | Judge: chasia jeffries KThe ROTB is to endorse the debater who best performatively and methodologically rejects the lack. links much better into meta-ethic of desire which ow on link specificity.Ruti 10 Mari Ruti. (2010). Winnicott with Lacan: Living Creatively in a Postmodern World. American Imago, 67(3), 353–374.~doi:10.1353/aim.20 sci-hub.tw/10.1353/aim.2010.0016~ ~https://muse.jhu.edu/article/414021/pdf~~ ahs emi AND prevent the subject from actively and imaginatively participating in the production of meaning. Prefer:A) recognition and embrace of our shared lack is the basis point of collective identity to form political change in the first place.B) Everything is constrained by the lack, even the flow because communication will always be coopted.C) most reciprocal because u cant embrace the lack more or less- it’s a binary so its more reciprocal and resolvable because one of us cant embrace more.The 1AC is an endorsement of a never-ending quest for knowledge, a striving toward the material and calculable, inseparable from an unconscious paranoia that eats at the subject as its lifelong quest for meaning is for not. We sacrifice the very nature of knowledge while disintegrating our psychic integrity and crushing any value to life.Mills, Mills, Jon. "Lacan on Paranoiac Knowledge." Dr. Jon Mills Psychoanalyst Philosopher Psychotherapy Psychologist, Process Psychology, www.processpsychology.com/new-articles/Lacan-PP-revised.htm.When these aspects of human life are broadly considered, it becomes easier to see how our linguistic-epistemological dependency has paranoiac a priori conditions. From Freud to Klein and Lacan, knowledge is a dialectical enterprise that stands in relation to fear—to the horror of possibility—the possibility of the not: negation, conflict, and suffering saturate our very beings, beings whose self-identities are linguistically constructed. The relation between knowledge and paranoia is a fundamental one, and perhaps no where do we see this dynamic so poignantly realized than in childhood. From the 'psychotic-like' universe of the newborn infant (e.g. see Klein, 1946), to the relational deficiencies and selfobject failures that impede the process of human attachment, to the primal scene and/or subsequent anxieties that characterize the Oedipal period, leading to the inherent rivalry, competition, and overt aggression of even our most sublimated object relations, — fear, trepidation, and dread hover over the very process of knowing itself. What is paranoid is that which stands in relation to opposition, hence that which is alien to the self. Paranoia is not simply that which is beyond the rational mind, but it is a generic process of nosis—'I take thought, I perceive, I intellectually grasp, I apprehend'—hence have apprehension for what I encounter in consciousness. With qualitative degrees of difference, we are all paranoid simply because others hurt us, a lesson we learn in early childhood. Others hurt us with their knowledge, with what they say, as do we. And we hurt knowing. 'What will the Other do next?' We are both pacified yet cower in extreme trembling over what we may and may not know—what we may and may not find out; and this is why our relation to knowledge is fundamentally paranoiac. For Aristotle (1958), "all men by nature desire to know" (p. 108). This philosophic attitude is kindled by our educational systems perhaps informing the popular adage, 'knowledge is power.' But whose? There is no doubt that the acquisition of knowledge involves a power differential, but what if knowledge itself is seen as too powerful because it threatens our psychic integrity? In the gathering of knowledge there is simultaneously a covering-over, a blinding to what one is exposed to; moreover, an erasure. I know (No)! Unequivocally, there are things we desire to know nothing about at all; hence the psychoanalytic attitude places unconscious defense—negation/denial and repression—in the foreground of human knowledge, the desire not to know. When we engage epistemology—the question and meaning of knowledge—we are intimately confronted with paranoia. For example, there is nothing more disturbing when after a lifetime of successful inquiry into a particular field of study it may be entirely debunked by the simple, arrogant question: 'How do you know?' Uncertainty, doubt, ambiguity, hesitation, insecurity—anxiety!: the process of knowing exposes us all to immense discomfort. And any epistemological claim is equally a metaphysical one. Metaphysics deals with first principles, the fundamental, ultimate questions that preoccupy our collective humanity: 'What is real? Why do I exist? Will I really die?' Metaphysics is paranoia—and we are all terrified by its questions: 'Is there God, freedom, agency, immortality?' Is? Why? Why not? Yes but why?! When the potential meaning and quality of one's personal existence hinge on the response to these questions, it is no wonder why most theists say only God is omniscient. And although Freud (1927) tells us that the very concept of God is an illusory derivative of the Oedipal situation—a wish to be rescued and comforted from the anxieties of childhood helplessness, He—our exalted Father in the sky—is always watching, judging. Knowing this, the true believer has every reason to be petrified. For those in prayer or in the madhouse, I can think of no greater paranoia. The aff’s nuclear deterrence focus recreate violence while envisioning a satisfaction of fiat. They craft infinite repetition and obsession with unifying the Real.Matheson 15 – Dr. Matheson is a former debate coach at Harvard University and a current candidate at the Pittsburgh Psychoanalytic Center, His research focuses on intersections of rhetoric, media, and theories of psychoanalysis and deconstruction."Desired Ground Zeroes: Nuclear Imagination and the Death Drive" ~https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/concern/dissertations/6682x4537~~ ahs em *bracketed for grammar AND sought to tame the world with human reason (Arbella 51-53). Fantasy productions are not neutral models of risk but collusions between capital and state that prevent the change they’ll talk about. The neg rejects this model of beautifying space policy.Ormrod 11 - "Beyond world risk society? A critique of Ulrich Beck’s world risk society thesis as a framework for understanding risk associated with human activity in outer space" by James S Ormrod School of Applied Social Science, University of Brighton, Falmer BN1 9PH, Sussex, England; e-mail: j.s.ormrod@brighton.ac.uk Received 17 August 2011; in revised form 19 September 2012 ~https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1068/d16511~~ ahs emi AND literature on risk (eg, Douglas, 1992; Joffe, 1999). The alternative is to embrace the death drive. Utopian ideals seek to achieve that which is impossible—our striving to reach enjoyment replicates the very thing we are trying to eliminate. Only by founding our politics upon recognition that our limitations provide the perfect source for endless enjoyment can we prevent the endless repetition of suffering.McGowan ‘13 "Enjoying What We Don’t Have: The Political Project of Psychoanalysis" (Todd, Assoc. Prof. of Film and Television Studies @ U. of Vermont) Accessed on 7/25/19 AHS emi AND freedom to enjoy rather than restricting it under the banner of the good. | 1/8/22 |
g - psycho v capTournament: Sunvite | Round: 5 | Opponent: ayman Badawy | Judge: bennet dombick KThe ROTB is to endorse the debater who best performatively and methodologically rejects the lack.Ruti 10 Mari Ruti. (2010). Winnicott with Lacan: Living Creatively in a Postmodern World. American Imago, 67(3), 353–374.~doi:10.1353/aim.20 sci-hub.tw/10.1353/aim.2010.0016~ ~https://muse.jhu.edu/article/414021/pdf~~ ahs emi AND prevent the subject from actively and imaginatively participating in the production of meaning. Prefer: A) recognition and embrace of our shared lack is the basis point of collective identity to form political change in the first place. B) Everything is constrained by the lack, even the flow because communication will always be coopted. C) most reciprocal because u cant embrace the lack more or less- it’s a binary so its more reciprocal and resolvable because one of us cant embrace more.framing – the aff defends quote "the dream of space communism." going to space is bad.Space Exploration is a narcissistic search for fulfillment and wholeness, which is structurally impossible because of alienation from the real.Kilbryde 15 - "Space Travel as a Means for Re-Enchantment, Unification, and Spiritual Fulfillment" by Ana Kilbryde* The University of Brighton, East Sussex, United Kingdom ~http://www.astrosociology.org/Library/PDF/Journal/JOA-Final/JournalOfAstrosociology-Vol1.pdf~~#page=89~~ ahs emi AND is a representation of a universal urge to detach themselves from the mother. Extraterrestrial imaginaries scapegoat culpability of environmental destruction and are unobtainable utopias.Rahder 2 - "Home and Away The Politics of Life after Earth" by Micha Rahder. Rahder, Micha (2019). Home and Away. Environment and Society, 10(1), 158–177. doi:10.3167/ares.2019.100110 ~https://sci-hubtw.hkvisa.net/~~ ahs emi AND off ered a chance to "do nature better," to recapture Eden. Envisioning utopias will always fail and causes psychic violence.Stavrakakis, 99 Yannis Stavrakakis, Visiting Professor, Department of Government @ University of Essex; Lacan and the Political, pg. 99-100 ahs emi AND :27). In structural terms the situation remains pretty much the same. technological management is what leads to all their impacts. here’s a clear link – bastani 4 "our technology is already making us god"Dodds 12 - Joseph Dodds, MPhil, Psychoanalytic Studies, Sheffield University, UK, MA, Psychoanalytic Studies, Sheffield University, UK BSc, Psychology and Neuroscience, Manchester University, UK, Chartered Psychologist (CPsychol) of the British Psychological Society (BPS), and a member of several other professional organizations such as the International Neuropsychoanalysis Society, 2012 ~"Psychoanalysis and Ecology at the Edge of Chaos" p 70 *gender mod~ cdm recut emi AND of bringing about our extinction. (Searles 1972: 371-372) The alternative is to embrace the death drive. Utopian ideals seek to achieve that which is impossible—our striving to reach enjoyment replicates the very thing we are trying to eliminate. Only by founding our politics upon recognition that our limitations provide the perfect source for endless enjoyment can we prevent the endless repetition of suffering.McGowan ‘13 "Enjoying What We Don’t Have: The Political Project of Psychoanalysis" (Todd, Assoc. Prof. of Film and Television Studies @ U. of Vermont) Accessed on 7/25/19 AHS emi AND freedom to enjoy rather than restricting it under the banner of the good. | 1/8/22 |
g - rodl ncTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 2 | Opponent: sophia tian | Judge: chansey agler Permissibility Negates –1. Semantics – Ought is defined as expressing obligation which means absent a proactive obligation you vote neg since there’s a trichotomy between prohibition, obligation, and permissibility and proving one disproves the other two. Semantics o/w – a) it’s key to predictability since we prep based on the wording of the res and b) it’s constitutive to the rules of debate since the judge is obligated to vote on the resolutional text.2. Logic – Propositions require positive justification before being accepted, otherwise one would be forced to accept the validity of logically contradictory propositions regarding subjects one knows nothing about, i.e if one knew nothing about P one would have to presume that both the "P" and "~P" are true.Moral theories must judge action as a unified whole. If they did not, the separate steps in the chain of action would not be justified. In the process of doing a whole action, the steps are not disconnected, but rather so connected that one interruption would disrupt the entire action. Rodl 2K, Rodl I (Rödl, Sebastian. Self-Consciousness, Harvard University Press, 2000) Suppose I walked from a to c, via b. It may be that I decided to walk from a to b, and, having got there, ~then~ decided to walk from b to c. Or I decided to walk from a to c, and did. In the former case, I was walking from a to b, and then I was walking from b to c. But only in the latter case, not in the former, was I walking from a to c. As a movement, an action is not an aggregate, but a unity of phases. AND
Action theory comes first –1. States of affairs only care about ethical decision making insofar as there is an entity and an action that is coherent enough to achieve that normative end. Every decision made is an action, even inaction which means the NC is inescapable.2. The AC framework collapses – A) Conceptual Necessity – Even if we were to compare worlds it would require the AC to defend a world in which an obligation is produced to create that state of affairs which means if I win the NC any world that is not the aff is a better one since we can create obligations B) Culpability – To conceive yourself as the cause of your actions, an analysis of how one acts is a priori – otherwise we would never hold agents accountable since they would claim they were not an agent capable of generating an action with normative force.3- rule based ethics come first – A) rules can be generated for every particular situation that guides action while virtue depend upon individual calculations of circumstances. b) Rule based ethics also ensure that individuals can be held to a proper standard absent an unawareness of what they ought to do, which is necessary for culpability.C) Non-proceduralist frameworks collapse since every moral framework attempts to generate its own particular rule about ethics which proves the demand for rules based ethics.I contend the aff violates the principles of action theory.1. Agency – The aff does not have a coherent conception of agency that can follow through on an action – A) The aff defends multiple states taking the same action simultaneously which is incoherent since each state has its own set of obligations to its citizens and sets of laws. Absent a unified body they cannot act simultaneously B) States aren’t agents – they cannot have a unified intention to act since each agent that comprises the state has a different understanding of the good C) Aggregation fails – agential quantities are not additive, 2 agents added to one another does not create a unified agent, in the same way 2 circles combined does not add to the circular quality of the object.2. Temporality – The aff violates the temporal conditions of action – A) The aff assigns a temporal bound to its ethical claim since it isolates a particular time property rights are incoherent, namely when it applies to intellectual property and medicine | 9/25/21 |
g - rodl ncTournament: Sunvite | Round: Quads | Opponent: lex arun k | Judge: panel NCMoral theories must judge action as a unified whole. If they did not, the separate steps in the chain of action would not be justified. In the process of doing a whole action, the steps are not disconnected, but rather so connected that one interruption would disrupt the entire action. Rodl 2K, Rodl I (Rödl, Sebastian. Self-Consciousness, Harvard University Press, 2000) Suppose I walked from a to c, via b. It may be that I decided to walk from a to b, and, having got there, ~then~ decided to walk from b to c. Or I decided to walk from a to c, and did. In the former case, I was walking from a to b, and then I was walking from b to c. But only in the latter case, not in the former, was I walking from a to c. As a movement, an action is not an aggregate, but a unity of phases. Action theory comes first –1. States of affairs only care about ethical decision making insofar as there is an entity and an action that is coherent enough to achieve that normative end. Every decision made is an action, even inaction which means the NC is inescapable.2. Culpability – To conceive yourself as the cause of your actions, an analysis of how one acts is a priori – otherwise we would never hold agents accountable since they would claim they were not an agent capable of generating an action with normative force.I contend the aff violates the principles of action theory.1.The resolution is a passive statement – it doesn’t prescribe action but rather makes a value statement about justice so there’s no action to judge the morality of the aff by and u negate.2. The aff can’t generate an atemporal obligation because it is contingent on empirical circumstances that the aff is currently taking place in (ie uniqueness) | 1/9/22 |
g - round reportsTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 4 | Opponent: jayden shin | Judge: holden Interp: Debaters must disclose round reports on the 2020-21 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 – they only disclosed one round from this tournament. they’ve disclosed one which proves they don’t think it’s a bad norm. Standards:1~ Level Playing Field – big schools can go around and scout and collect flows but independents are left in the dark so round reports are key to prep- they give you an idea of overall what layers debaters like going for so you can best prepare your strategy when you hit them. Accessibility first and independent voter – it’s an impact multiplier2~ Strategy Education – round reports help novices understand the context in which positions are read by good debaters and help with brainstorming potential 1NCs vs affs – helps compensate for kids who can’t afford coaches to prep out affs. | 9/26/21 |
g - spec violation on spikeTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 4 | Opponent: jayden shin | Judge: holden Interp – If the affirmative reads offensive theoretical arguments that impact into fairness and/or education, they must provide an example violation with each one of them. To clarify, every interpretation must explain how I would violate in the NC.B: Violation – You do not provide a corresponding violation to the 2 spikes at the bottom of the docsC: Standards –1. Advocacy shift – The 1ar can contrive a violation, shift meaning of their interp after I concede a spike. Like "one uncondo route" could mean at least one route, one position, or turns count as a route. Infinite abuse since you just need a risk of a violation and I can’t respond to the shell in the 2NR.2. Norming – Without an exact text of a violation it’s impossible know what the aff considers a good norm which makes setting norms on theory impossible since you’ll always change the norm based on the NC, which defeats the purpose of reading theory in the first place. Norming is a voting issue since it controls the internal link to any type of abuse insofar as we set and follow good norms. | 9/26/21 |
g - theory hedgeTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 2 | Opponent: sophia tian | Judge: chansey agler Evaluate 1AR theory through an in-round abuse model – a) it’s impossible for the 1ar to set norms since the 2ar responses to the 2nr will always be enough to win risk of offense on the shell which means the debate is too short to set the better norm absent a 3nr b) AC theory norms allow true norm setting since you can establish them prior to my violation – 1ar theory proves it’s read for the purpose of strategy rather than actual norm setting.1AR theory is drop the argument – a) 2ar collapse means the 1ar can read multiple shells and collapse on any one of them to win – the 2n can’t put 3 min of sufficient responses on every one of them b) Rectifies the skew since the 2n can’t go for the argument anyway which means the 2ar doesn’t have to answer the cause of the abuse.Give the neg an RVI on 1ar theory – that’s key to checking frivolous 1ar theory since it will only read legitimate shells if it can lose on an RVI. Checking friv theory is key to substantive education since it preserves the requirement for substance. | 9/25/21 |
g - tt robTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 6 | Opponent: olivia liu | Judge: grant brown The 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 itC~ Isomorphism: ROBs that aren’t phrased as binaries maximize leeway for interpretation as to who is winning offense. Scalar framing mechanisms necessitate that the judge has to intervene to see who is closest at solving a problem. Truth testing solves since it’s solely a question of if something is true or false, there isn’t a closest estimate. | 9/26/21 |
g - util fwkTournament: Sunvite | Round: 2 | Opponent: Aditya Kshirsagar | Judge: josh gavsie utilthe standard is hedonistic Utilitarianism. Prefer:~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 Moore took this argument to show that moral facts comprise a distinct species of non-natural fact. However, any such non-naturalist view of morality faces immediate difficulties, deriving ultimately from the kind of causal closure thesis discussed above. If all physical effects are due to a limited range of natural causes, and if moral facts lie outside this range, then it follow that moral facts can never make any difference to what happens in the physical world (Harman, 1986). At first sight this may seem tolerable (perhaps moral facts indeed don't have any physical effects). But it has very awkward epistemological consequences. For beings like us, knowledge of the spatiotemporal world is mediated by physical processes involving our sense organs and cognitive systems. If moral facts cannot influence the physical world, then it is hard to see how we can have any knowledge of them~3~ Actor-specificity: side constraints freeze action b/c government policies always require trade-offs—the only justifiable way to resolve those conflicts is by benefiting everyone.~4~ Ethical frameworks must be theoretically legitimate. Any standard is an interpretation of the word ought-thus framework is functionally a topicality argument about how to define the terms of the resolution. Prefer my interpretation: AND ed and phil ed—it’s important to talk about contention-level offense | 1/8/22 |
jf - appropriation good ncTournament: Barkley Forum | Round: 3 | Opponent: lilly broussard | Judge: jaylyn Volition, or the structure of the will, is a pre-condition for ethics and has intrinsic value – A) Proceduralism – the will is the mechanism by which every agent engages in any activity, which means regardless of the content of any ethical theory, the ability to will that theory is an intrinsic good B) Foundations – the will is the basis for what constitutes an ethical subject which means its relation to the world is the primary ethical consideration C) Motivation – the structure of the will is the primary source of all our desires, reasons, and beliefs since it generates what counts as motivational to the subjectThe will operates materially – individuals exercise their agency in the world, as ideas and actions clash against one another. This takes place through a dialectical process that unfolds in three stages: First, a thesis is introduced by action or reason – for example a group of workers exercises their intention to strike against poor working conditions. Second, an antithesis is produced in response by the agent acted against – the corporation. The exercise of these opposing wills terminates in a synthesis – a conclusion that terminates in a mix of the thesis and antithesis – like a contractual agreement that re-negotiates labor conditions.This view of the will has 3 benefits: First, it prevents a contradiction of wills from generating a contradiction – it allows a process of iterative testing by which the negation of an idea does not terminate the process of truth making, but furthers it by addition of new information. Second, it ensures that epistemological starting points do not have to appear from nowhere, since thought is a continuous flow of ideas rather than a negation of an idea that requires a spontaneous creation of a new one. Third, the material approach ensures that A) we have a verifiable way of deciphering the conflict between multiple wills and B) non-material starting points always necessarily materialize themselves in action, which requires a material analysis to understand the effectiveness of any immaterial approach.This culminates in the act of appropriation – the ability to view yourself as a practical agent capable of taking up a project that actively changes your own subject and the role itself. Jaeggi 14, Jaeggi, Rahel. "Alienation." Columbia University Press, cup.columbia.edu/book/alienation/Scopa. What does it mean to appropriate something?12 If the concept of appropriation refers to a specific relation between self and world, between individuals and objects (whether spiritual or material), what precisely does this relation look like, what are its particular character and its specific structure? Various aspects come together here, and together they account for the concept’s appeal and potential. As opposed to the mere learning of certain contents, talk of appropriation emphasizes that something is not merely passively taken up but actively worked through and independently assimilated. In contrast to merely theoretical insight into some issue, appropriation—comparable to the psychoanalytic process of "working through"—means that one can "deal with" what one knows, that it stands at one’s disposal as knowledge and that one really and practically has command over it. And appropriating a role means more than being able to fill it: one is, we could say, identified with it. Something that we appropriate does not remain external to ourselves. In making something our own, it becomes a part of ourselves in a certain respect. This suggests a kind of introjection and a mixing of oneself with the objects of appropriation. It also evokes the idea of productively and formatively interacting with what one makes one’s own. Appropriation does not leave what is appropriated unchanged. This is why the appropriation of public spaces, for example, means more than that one uses them. We make them our own by making a mark on them through what we do in and with them, by transforming them through appropriative use such that they first acquire a specific form through this use (though not necessarily in a material sense). Although it has one of its roots in an account of property relations, the concept of appropriation, in contrast to mere possession, emphasizes the particular quality of a process that first constitutes a real act of taking possession of something. Accordingly, appropriation is a particular mode of seizing possession.13 Someone who appropriates something puts her individual mark on it, inserts her own ends and qualities into it. This means that sometimes we must still make something that we already possess our own. Relations of appropriation, then, are characterized by several features: appropriation is a form of praxis, a way of relating practically to the world. It refers to a relation of penetration, assimilation, and internalization in which what is appropriated is at the same time altered, structured, and formed. The crucial point of this model (also of great importance for Marx) is a consequence of this structure of penetration and assimilation: appropriation always means a transformation of both poles of the relation. In a process of appropriation both what is appropriated and the appropriator are transformed. In the process of incorporation (appropriative assimilation) the incorporator does not remain the same. This point can be given a constructivist turn: what is appropriated is itself constituted in the process of appropriation; by the same token, what is appropriated does not exist in the absence of appropriation. (In some cases this is obvious: there is no public space as such without its being publicly appropriated; but even social roles exist only insofar as they are constantly reappropriated.) One now sees the potential and the peculiar character of the concept: the possibility of appropriating something refers, on the one hand, to a subject’s power to act and form and to impose its own meaningful mark on the world it appropriates. (A successful appropriation of social roles or activities and, by extension, the appropriating relation one can take to one’s life in general constitute something like self-determination and being the author of one’s own life.) On the other hand, a process of appropriation is always bound to a given, previously existing content and thereby also to an independent meaning and dynamic over which one does not have complete command. (Thus a role, for example, in order to be appropriated, must always be "found" as an already existing model and complex of rules; it can be reinterpreted but not invented from scratch. Skills that we appropriate are constrained by success conditions; leading our own life depends on circumstances over which we do not have complete command.) There is, then, an interesting tension in the idea of appropriation between what is previously given and what is formable, between taking over and creating, between the subject’s sovereignty and its dependence. The crucial relation here is that between something’s being alien and its accessibility: objects of appropriation are neither exclusively alien nor exclusively one’s own. As Michael Theunissen puts it, "I do not need to appropriate what is exclusively my own, and what is exclusively alien I am unable to appropriate."14 In contrast to Marx, then, for whom appropriation is conceived of according to a model of reappropriation, the account of the dynamic of appropriation and alienation that I am proposing reconceives the very concept of appropriation. This involves rehabilitating what is alien in the model of appropriation and radicalizing that model in the direction of a nonessentialist conception of appropriation. Appropriation would then be a permanent process of transformation in which what is appropriated first comes to be through its appropriation, without one needing to fall back into the myth of a creation ex nihilo. Understanding appropriation as a relation in which we are simultaneously bound to something and separated from it, and in which what is appropriated always remains both alien and our own, has important implications for the ideas of emancipation and alienation bound up with the concept of appropriation. The aspiration of a successful appropriation of self and world would be, then, to make the world one’s own without it having been already one’s own and in wanting to give structure to the world and to one’s own life without beginning from a position of already having complete command over them. Thus, the standard is consistency with dialectical appropriation.~1~ Action theory – Only viewing an agent as an active body capable of generating intentions can hold agents culpable and decipher the difference between actions and wishes. That’s a necessary feature of ethics since we must be able to warrant a coherent conception of what motivates our actions in order to provide a method to actually implement ethical principles.~2~ Psychology – Agents intuitively don’t like consequences. 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. Specifically, we study how making a tragic choice, versus having the same tragic choice externally made, affects individuals’ desire for autonomy and their emotional reactions to the same decision outcome. Prior research has shown that the sense of agency and internal locus of control associated with the act of choosing lead to perceptions of personal causality, whereas the imposition of a choice is removed from the idea of personal causality because it presupposes an external, rather than internal, locus of control (Brehm 1966; deCharms 1968; Deci and Ryan 1985; Langer 1975; Seligman 1975; Taylor and Brown 1988). Stronger causal ascriptions, in turn, have been found to magnify the intensity of emotional responses to an event, so that perceptions of personal causation intensify positive affect from desirable outcomes but also enhance negative affect from undesirable outcomes (Gilovich, Medvec, and Chen 1995; Landman 1987; Ritov and Baron 1995; Weiner 1986). Thus, we hypothesize that a decision outcome following a tragic choice will generate more extreme negative emotions when it is personally chosen because of a greater sense of causality; in contrast, when the same tragic choice is externally determined, negative emotions will be lessened by the per- ceived absence of a causal link with the aversive experience. Yet the torments of making tragic choices do not necessarily reduce people’s desire for autonomy. Prior research has shown that consumers confronted with choices that detrimentally affect their well-being still prefer making these choices themselves rather than having the same choices made for them by somebody else (Botti and Iyengar 2004; Botti and McGill 2006). This desire for choice in spite of its negative consequences can be attributed to consumers’ belief that they will maximize subjective utility by selecting the option that best matches personal preferences (Hotelling 1929). Even when individuals are unaware of their preferences, choosing activates a psychological immune system that facilitates preference matching by subjectively bolstering the value of a personally selected outcome (Gilbert et al. 1998). Through subjective bolstering decision makers are able to reduce the emotional discomfort of decisions that may not be consistent with individual preferences by con- vincing themselves and others that they had chosen the best- matching option (Brehm 1966; Festinger 1957; Shafir et al. 1993).I contend that the appropriation of outer space is not unjust.1. A) Appropriation is what produces meaning. mixing our will with the cosmos is what allows us to ground ourselves as subjects. B) Fixation – Preventing space exploration artificially limits the possibility of human experience, which alienates us from our potential and from the world that exists beyond the arbitrary limits of our atmosphere C) Increases our connection to nature2. Epistemology – Ideas are generated through material action and confrontation – that requires an exploration of an idea in order to create a thesis and begin the epistemological process of ethics creation. This requires us to appropriate space since only the act of appropriation can begin the process of understanding and making a judgement of it as an externality.3. Private property is key to recognizing agents through the personality in their work. Recognition is necessary for agents to be non-alienated bc we need to establish relations with the world.Hughes 98 - "The Philosophy of Intellectual Property," 77 Georgetown L.J. 287, 330-350 (1988) by Justin Hughes ~https://cyber.harvard.edu/IPCoop/88hugh2.html~~ ahs emi AND is destroyed; when the second condition is violated, it is distorted. | 1/28/22 |
jf - contracts ncTournament: Barkley Forum | Round: 1 | Opponent: jp stuckert | Judge: montgomery ch NCI 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. Externalism claims that some individuals have better ability to access the truth but that doesn’t explain how we deliberate between who is motivated correctly.2. 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.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, Essay by David Gauthier, Canadian-American philosopher best known for his neo-Hobbesian social contract theory of morality, "Why Contractarianism", within the book Contractarianism and Rational Choice: Essays on David Gauthier’s Morals By Agreement. Book written by Peter Vallentyne ~https://b-ok.cc/book/975363/60f3f7~~ 1998, /AHS PB Recut by ScopaFortunately, I do not have to defend normative foundationalism. One problem with accepting moral justification as part of our ongoing practice is that, as I have suggested, we no longer accept the world view on which it depends. But perhaps a more immediately pressing problem is that we have, ready to hand, an alternative mode for justifying our choices and actions. In its more austere and, in my view, more defensible form, this is to show that choices and actions maximize the agent ’s expected utility, where utility is a measure of considered preference. In its less austere version, this is to show that choices and actions satisfy, not a subjectively defined requirement such as utility, but meet the agent ’ s objective interests. Since I do not believe that we have objective interests, I shall ignore this latter. But it will not matter. For the idea is clear; we have a mode of justification that does not require the introduction of moral considerations. 11 Let me call this alternative nonmoral mode of justification, neutrally, deliberative justification. Now moral and deliberative justification are directed at the same objects – our choices and actions. What if they conflict? And what do we say to the person who offers a deliberative justification of his choices and actions and refuses to offer any other? We can say, of course, that his behavior lacks moral justification, but this seems to lack any hold, unless he chooses to enter the moral framework. And such entry, he may insist, lacks any deliberative justification, at least for him. If morality perishes, the justificatory enterprise, in relation to choice and action, does not perish with it. Rather, one mode of justification perishes, a mode that, it may seem, now hangs unsupported. But not only unsupported, for it is difficult to deny that deliberative justification is more clearly basic, that it cannot be avoided insofar as we are rational agents, so that if moral justification conflicts with it, morality seems not only unsupported but opposed by what is rationally more fundamental. Deliberative justification relates to our deep sense of self. What distinguishes human beings from other animals, and provides the basis for rationality, is the capacity for semantic representation. You can, as your dog on the whole cannot, represent a state of affairs to yourself, and consider in particular whether or not it is the case, and whether or not you would want it to be the case. You can represent to yourself the contents of your beliefs, and your desires or preferences. But in representing them, you bring them into relation with one another. You represent to yourself that the Blue Jays will win the World Series, and that a National League team will win the World Series, and that the Blue Jays are not a National League team. And in recognizing a conflict among those beliefs, you find rationality thrust upon you. Note that the first two beliefs could be replaced by preferences, with the same effect. Since in representing our preferences we become aware of conflict among them, the step from representation to choice becomes complicated. We must, somehow, bring our conflicting desires and preferences into some sort of coherence. And there is only one plausible candidate for a principle of coherence – a maximizing principle. We order our preferences, in relation to decision and action, so that we may choose in a way that maximizes our expectation of preference fulfillment. And in so doing, we show ourselves to be rational agents, engaged in deliberation and deliberative justification. There is simply nothing else for practical rationality to be. The foundational crisis of morality thus cannot be avoided by pointing to the existence of a practice of justification within the moral framework, and denying that any extramoral foundation is relevant. For an extramoral mode of justification is already present, existing not side by side with moral justification, but in a manner tied to the way in which we unify our beliefs and preferences and so acquire our deep sense of self. We need not suppose that this deliberative justification is itself to be understood foundationally. All that we need suppose is that moral justification does not plausibly survive conflict with it.Since agents take 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.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.OffenseI negate that the appropriation of outer space is unjust.~1~ Banning appropriation prevents private entities from fulfilling existing contracts with governments.Loren Grush, daughter of 2 NASA engineers so she knows whats up, June 18, 2019, The Verge, "Commercial space companies have received $7.2 billion in government investment since 2000", ~https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/18/18683455/nasa-space-angels-contracts-government-investment-spacex-air-force~~ mc AND Anderson. "They couldn’t have done it without the help of NASA." ~2~ Forecloses the ability for future contracts.Christensen 16, "Building Confidence and Reducing Risk in Space Resources Policy," Ian Christensen. Project Manager ~https://room.eu.com/article/building-confidence-and-reducing-risk-in-space-resources-policy~~ recut ahs emi AND the commercial sector while simultaneously upholding national obligations to the international legal system. ~3~ Private appropriation is consistent with international law. No OST violation – sovereignty and private property are distinct.Pace 11 (Scott Pace is the director of the Space Policy Institute at the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University, and former Associate Administrator for Program Analysis and Evaluation at NASA. "Merchant and Guardian Challenges in the Exercise of Spacepower" Toward a Theory of Spacepower, Chapter 7, February 2011, National Defense University Press, http://www.ndu.edu/press/space-Ch7.html, TDA)recut emi AND allow them to recognize and confer property rights, even under common law. ~4~ The aff is not in mutual self-interest because countries want to keep their own economies ahead of others. only privatization can spur that economic growth.Edwards 09 (Chris, Director of Tax Policy Studies @ CATO Institute, M.A. in Economics, "Privatization", February 2009 http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/privatization) recut mc AND to miss out on the innovations that private entrepreneurs could bring to them. | 1/28/22 |
jf - innovation daTournament: Sunvite | Round: 2 | Opponent: Aditya Kshirsagar | Judge: josh gavsie DACompetition in space between private entities lowers costs and barriers of entry for other companies increasing technological innovationLizzy Gurdus, FEB 27 2021, CNBC, "Private companies such as SpaceX are driving costs down for everyone in the space race, says man behind UFO ETF", ~https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/27/private-companies-like-spacex-are-driving-industry-costs-down-ceo.html~~ ahs ja AND over 14 year to date, while ROKT is up nearly 2. This innovation is occurring in the squo – the aff plan will only harm progressSeetha Raghava, August 4th 2021, UFC TODAY, "The Impact of Innovation in the New Era of Space Exploration", ~https://www.ucf.edu/news/the-impact-of-innovation-in-the-new-era-of-space-exploration/~~ ahs ja AND one of positive benefit for all, while making opportunities inclusive to all. Strong Innovation solves Extinction.Matthews 18 Dylan Matthews 10-26-2018 "How to help people millions of years from now" https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/10/26/18023366/far-future-effective-altruism-existential-risk-doing-good (Co-founder of Vox, citing Nick Beckstead @ Rutgers University)Re-cut by Elmer AND far future, then effective altruism just becomes plain ol’ do-goodery. | 1/8/22 |
jf - solar flares daTournament: Sunvite | Round: 2 | Opponent: Aditya Kshirsagar | Judge: josh gavsie DA====Deadly solar flares will hit soon==== AND someone shouldn’t be worrying about it," says Greg Laughlin at Yale University. Private sector key to early warnings.USGPO 19’ – Chairwoman Kendra Horn, "SPACE WEATHER: ADVANCING RESEARCH, MONITORING, AND FORECASTING CAPABILITIES", U.S Government Publishing Office, October 23rd, 2019, ~https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-116hhrg38122/html/CHRG-116hhrg38122.htm~~ Accessed 12/14/21 AHSAP AND weather research and forecasting, and I look forward to answering your questions. Early warnings are key to protect gridsWinick 19 - Erin Winick, MIT Technology Review, March 27th, 2019 "The space mission to buy us vital extra hours before a solar storm strikes" ~https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/03/27/136297/the-space-mission-to-buy-us-vital-extra-hours-before-a-solar-storm-strikes/~~ Accessed 12/15/21 SAO AND and power grid operators could be given the chance to protect their equipment. Grid collapse—9 of 10 American’s will diePry 15’ - PETER VINCENT PRY Executive Director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security, EMP TASK FORCE ON NATIONAL AND HOMELAND SECURITY, 2-28-2015 ~"Terrorism–An Existential Threat", http://www.emptaskforcenhs.com/uncategorized/terrorism-an-existential-threat/, 3-24-2019~ AWS AND the national electric grid and other life sustaining critical infrastructures, perhaps permanently. | 1/8/22 |
jf - space debris daTournament: Sunvite | Round: 2 | Opponent: Aditya Kshirsagar | Judge: josh gavsie DA====Space debris is rising to dangerous levels==== AND it’s now (that) we have to remove large objects from space." Private companies are key to cleanupMoore and Burken 21’ – Adrian Moore and Rebecca van Burken, Adrian Moore is vice president and Rebecca van Burken is a senior policy fellow at Reason Foundation, where they are authors of the report, "U.S. Space Traffic Management And Orbital Debris Policy.", "It's time for US to get serious about cleaning up space junk", The Hill, July 27th, 2021, ~https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/564945-its-time-for-us-to-get-serious-about-cleaning-up-space-junk~~ Accessed 12/14/21 AHSAP AND threats posed by orbital debris and create sustainable policies for safe space exploration. Space debris damages lead to war and economic collapseBlatt 20 - Talia M. Blatt, I am a rising sophomore at Harvard, considering a joint concentration in Social Studies and Integrative Biology with a citation in Chinese. I specialize in East Asian geopolitics and security issues, "Anti-Satellite Weapons and the Emerging Space Arms Race," Harvard International Review, May 26th, 2020, ~https://hir.harvard.edu/anti-satellite-weapons-and-the-emerging-space-arms-race/~~ Accessed 12/12/21 recut AHSAP AND are playing a crucial role in geospatial data collection for infectious disease modeling. Conflict scenarios escalate to nuclear war 0 leads to extinction.Van der Meer 19: Sico van der Meer: Drs. Sico van der Meer is a Research Fellow at the Clingendael Institute. His research is focussing on non-conventional weapons like Weapons of Mass Destruction and cyber weapons from a strategic policy perspective. He graduated from the Radboud University Nijmegen in 1999 with a Master’s in History. Before joining the Clingendael Institute, he worked as a journalist and as a Fellow of a think tank on civil-military relations. In 2016 he was seconded to the Taskforce International Cyber Policies of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs. "NUCLEAR ARMS CONTROL: THE END OF AN ERA?" ~https://spectator.clingendael.org/en/publication/nuclear-arms-control-end-era~~ NPR recut ahsemi AND Conference failed to reach any consensus document. The prospects for the next Review | 1/8/22 |
so - alienation side constraintTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 5 | Opponent: vik maan | Judge: conal Being non-alienated is a side constraint on the aff fwk: Only way to evaluate non-natural properties is through our relationsOur functional capacity of willing and taking actions is mediated by social roles – as the authentic self is inexplicably linked to the self that engages in social communities with others through duplication. Understanding the functionality of the will is impossible in a vacuum.Jaeggi 1, Jaeggi, Rahel. "Alienation." Columbia University Press, cup.columbia.edu/book/alienation/Scopa. The positions of both authors can be reduced to the following common denominator: roles are less alienating than constitutive for the development of persons and personality. They are constitutive in the sense that they are directly bound up with a person’s development and, so, "productive." At first glance this position might seem to come down on one side of the two alternatives—an unconditional affirmation of roles—but after giving a brief account of the position, I will make use of it to move beyond the two alternatives. Once the "productivity thesis" has been articulated, it will be possible to distinguish between alienating and non-alienating aspects of role behavior. THE HUMAN BEING AS DOPPELGÄNGER Roles are productive. In and through them we first become ourselves. This is the essence of Helmuth Plessner’s conception of the positive significance of roles (which he developed as a direct response to critiques of them as alienating). "The human being is always himself only in ‘doubling’ in relation to a role figure he can experience. Also, all that he sees as comprising his authenticity is but the role he plays before himself and others.22 Roles on this view are not only necessary in order to make social interaction possible, whether this be a "being together" of individuals or a benign "passing each other by;" interaction mediated by roles is also constitutive of an individual’s relation to herself.This culminates in the act of appropriation – the ability to view yourself as a practical agent capable of taking up a project that actively changes your own subject and the role itself. Jaeggi 2, Jaeggi, Rahel. "Alienation." Columbia University Press, cup.columbia.edu/book/alienation/Scopa. What does it mean to appropriate something?12 If the concept of appropriation refers to a specific relation between self and world, between individuals and objects (whether spiritual or material), what precisely does this relation look like, what are its particular character and its specific structure? Various aspects come together here, and together they account for the concept’s appeal and potential. As opposed to the mere learning of certain contents, talk of appropriation emphasizes that something is not merely passively taken up but actively worked through and independently assimilated. In contrast to merely theoretical insight into some issue, appropriation—comparable to the psychoanalytic process of "working through"—means that one can "deal with" what one knows, that it stands at one’s disposal as knowledge and that one really and practically has command over it. And appropriating a role means more than being able to fill it: one is, we could say, identified with it. Something that we appropriate does not remain external to ourselves. In making something our own, it becomes a part of ourselves in a certain respect. This suggests a kind of introjection and a mixing of oneself with the objects of appropriation. It also evokes the idea of productively and formatively interacting with what one makes one’s own. Appropriation does not leave what is appropriated unchanged. This is why the appropriation of public spaces, for example, means more than that one uses them. We make them our own by making a mark on them through what we do in and with them, by transforming them through appropriative use such that they first acquire a specific form through this use (though not necessarily in a material sense). Although it has one of its roots in an account of property relations, the concept of appropriation, in contrast to mere possession, emphasizes the particular quality of a process that first constitutes a real act of taking possession of something. Accordingly, appropriation is a particular mode of seizing possession.13 Someone who appropriates something puts her individual mark on it, inserts her own ends and qualities into it. This means that sometimes we must still make something that we already possess our own. Relations of appropriation, then, are characterized by several features: appropriation is a form of praxis, a way of relating practically to the world. It refers to a relation of penetration, assimilation, and internalization in which what is appropriated is at the same time altered, structured, and formed. The crucial point of this model (also of great importance for Marx) is a consequence of this structure of penetration and assimilation: appropriation always means a transformation of both poles of the relation. In a process of appropriation both what is appropriated and the appropriator are transformed.Thus, the side-constraint is consistency with non-alienated relations.Prefer –1. Performativity – Every exercise you engage in is an instance of using your volition to establish some relation to the world and only non-alienation can establish that relationship as normatively legitimate.2. Action theory – Only viewing an agent as an active body capable of generating intentions can hold agents culpable and decipher the difference between actions and wishes. That’s a necessary feature of ethics since we must be able to warrant a coherent conception of what motivates our actions in order to provide a method to actually implement ethical principles.3. Epistemology – Only an understanding of appropriation can unify the distinction between theoretical and practical knowledge. Theoretical abstract concepts like 2+24 are true and necessary, but can only become useful once explained in context of how they actualize in the world through our intentions. That means absent an explanation of how that knowledge mixes with the world around us, it becomes useless. ==== I contend that member nations of the WTO ought not reduce intellectual property protections for medicine.~1~ Intellectual property is a self-expression of the subject. When it’s used in a way that doesn’t reflect the framer’s intent, it is alienating.Justin Hughes 98, "The Philosophy of Intellectual Property," 77 Georgetown L.J. 287, 330-350 (1988) ~https://cyber.harvard.edu/IPCoop/88hugh2.html~~ AHSMAK recut emi Accessed 8/10/21 AND permanence and a greater ability than other property to give its own economic security ~2~ IP is key to recognizing agents through the personality in their work. Recognition is necessary for agents to be non-alienated bc we need to establish relations with the world.Hughes 2 - "The Philosophy of Intellectual Property," 77 Georgetown L.J. 287, 330-350 (1988) by Justin Hughes ~https://cyber.harvard.edu/IPCoop/88hugh2.html~~ ahs emi AND is destroyed; when the second condition is violated, it is distorted. ~3~ Objectification - Absent intellectual property, agents feel like objects since they aren’t recognized for their exercise of agency. This procedurally prevents further appropriation bc agents lack incentive to innovate when they’re detached from their goods. | 9/23/21 |
so - bioprospecting cp v imperialism acTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: Octas | Opponent: christian han | Judge: panel CP Text: Countries in the WTO should create a consent and compensation mechanism to prevent biopiracy in drug developmentNard 03 - Craig Allen Nard, Director, Center for Law, Technology, and the Arts, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Minnesota Law Review, October 2003 "IN DEFENSE OF GEOGRAPHIC DISPARITY" ~http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1277andcontext=faculty'publications~~ Accessed 8/26/21 SAO AND turn are to be invested, in part, in conservation efforts.58 Mutually Exclusivity: Countries can’t reduce patents and use them as mechanism for wealth transfer.Net Benefit: Capacity BuildingEmpirically bioprospecting with compensation leads to conservation and capacity building which is key to moving past an extractive imperial economy. Solves CaseCastree 2 - Noel Castree, in the journal Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, October 2002 "Bioprospecting: from theory to practice (and back again)" ~https://www.jstor.org/stable/3804566~~ Accessed 8/26/21 SAO AND for mutual gain’ (Pearce and Moran 1994, 102) that green developmentalism | 9/23/21 |
so - bioprospecting cp v imperialism acTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: Octas | Opponent: christian han | Judge: panel CP Text: Countries in the WTO should create a consent and compensation mechanism to prevent biopiracy in drug developmentNard 03 - Craig Allen Nard, Director, Center for Law, Technology, and the Arts, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Minnesota Law Review, October 2003 "IN DEFENSE OF GEOGRAPHIC DISPARITY" ~http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1277andcontext=faculty'publications~~ Accessed 8/26/21 SAO AND turn are to be invested, in part, in conservation efforts.58 Mutually Exclusivity: Countries can’t reduce patents and use them as mechanism for wealth transfer.Net Benefit: Capacity BuildingEmpirically bioprospecting with compensation leads to conservation and capacity building which is key to moving past an extractive imperial economy. Solves CaseCastree 2 - Noel Castree, in the journal Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, October 2002 "Bioprospecting: from theory to practice (and back again)" ~https://www.jstor.org/stable/3804566~~ Accessed 8/26/21 SAO AND for mutual gain’ (Pearce and Moran 1994, 102) that green developmentalism | 9/23/21 |
so - combo shell v jaydenTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: Doubles | Opponent: jayden bai | Judge: panel TheoryInterp – The affirmative debater must allow the negative a path to winning the debate.Violation – You read aff theory first, no rvi on aff theory, rvi on nc theory, and negating affirms.The standard is infinite abuse – I can’t answer aff theory which means you always win since I just don’t get to debate and it comes before substnace. Even if that’s not true, by negating u still vote aff.Impacts –A) Destroys clash since I literally am not allowed to make arguments, which controls the IL to education since the any form of education we can get happens through discussion.B) Prevents norm creation – the aff can claim literally any norm is good and the 1N cannot respond, which justifies infinitely unfair theory norms that set the model for all future debates. Use a norm setting model and theory and frame it as an independent voter – 1. It solves long term abuse whereas IRA only matters one round at a time 2. It’s best for the activity since it encourages deep reflection and debate about what the best world of debate looks like and strives toward it. C) Constitutivism – preventing me from making any arguments is a violation of the rules of debate since it’s essentially eliminating my speech time. IOnly evaluate the counter-interp – Anything else allows the aff to be infinitely abusive and use the tactics that gained them the competitive advantage to ensure they win every round by uplayering a true shell with meta-theory, takeouts, and deflationary paradigm issues, justifying the original abuse on the shell.Fairness is a voter since debate is a competitive activity that intrinsically requires equal footing when participating, to minimize one’s ability to participate in discussion disrespects the other member of the activity. It o/w – A) Evaluation – even if their arguments seem true, that’s only because they already had an advantage – fairness is a meta constraint on your ability to determine who best meets their ROB B) Inescapable – every argument you make concedes the authority of fairness: i.e. that the judge will evaluate your arguments. Absent some judge-debater reciprocal relationship, they could just hack against or for you.Drop the debater – 1. Deterrence – Prevents reading the abusive practice in the future since it’s not worth risking the loss which is k2 norm setting indefensible practices die out 2. TS – Otherwise you’ll read a bunch of abusive practices for the time trade off 3. Epistemic Skew – The round has already been skewed so it’s impossible to evaluate the rest of the flow 4. Drop the argument is incoherent under norm setting since you’re voting for the best rule, not a punishment of someone else’s wrong-doing.Use spirit of the interp since text encourages spamming blippy i-meets that avoid discussion of the actual abuse story.1NC Theory o/w – 1. Lexicality – If the neg was abusive it was reactionary to aff abuse which means it’s justified 2. Norm setting – 1ar theory can never set norms since I only get 1 speech so we can’t fully develop the debate 3. Infinite abuse – Otherwise it would justify the aff baiting theory and uplayering and allows them to get away with infinite abuse just by being the better theory debater 4. Reject 2ar weighing since they get the last word and will win every theory debate if they can dump a bunch of new reasons their args come first for 3 minutes even if they are winning 10 seconds of offense. | 9/23/21 |
so - especTournament: Mid America Cup | Round: 4 | Opponent: jayden shin | Judge: holden Interpretation: The aff must specify which enforcement mechanism they use to reduce IP rights.Violation – they don’t.~1~ RW Education - Current IP laws are designed domestically. Absent speccing a specific country model, I don’t know what the nuances or offense that links to the aff’s passing of the plan. Also, all policy mechanisms hve different facets which means we need to know what the aff defends to get nuanced clash on the nature of their policy.Upreti 21- "The Role of National and International Intellectual Property Law and Policy in Reconceptualising the Definition of Investment" by Pratyush Nath Upreti ~https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40319-020-01009-7~~ ahs emi AND IP laws are based on social, political, cultural and market values. ~2~ Shiftiness: I can read a DA or CP but the 1ar can avoid the link by speccing an enforcement that avoids the issue. That kills speech time and strat since the aff can wait til the 1ar to defend the implementation that is best for them. Controls strongest il to fairness cuz I couldn’t hve engaged.CX doesn’t solve – 1~ verifiability – judges don’t flow CX in round which means it’s a bad norm 2~ shiftiness – people will be super shifty in CX about what they specify 3~ it’s their burden to defend their advocacy, not mine to ask them. | 9/26/21 |
so - flay contracts ncTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 4 | Opponent: bryan shi | Judge: grant chmielewski NCEthical 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 Relatedly, internalism about reasons seems less presumptive than externalism. We should not assume that some of us have special epistemic access to what matters, especially in the absence of any criterion for making such a judgment. It’s better to start from the assumption, as internalism does, that everyone’s ends are equally worthy of pursuit – and correct this assumption only by appealing to standards that are as uncontroversial as possible. According to externalism about reasons, what matters normatively – that is, what we have reason to do or pursue or protect or respect or promote – does not depend in any fundamental way on what in fact matters to us – that is, what we do do and pursue and protect and respect and promote. Some of us happen to be motivated by what actually matters, and some of us are "wrongly" motivated. But externalists can offer no explanation for this supposed difference in how well we respond to reasons – no explanation of why some of us have the right motivations and some of us the wrong ones – that doesn’t itself appeal to the views about what matters that they’re trying to justify. (They can explain why some people have the right motivations by saying, e.g., that they’re good people, but that assumes the truth of the normative views that are at issue.22) A comparison to the epistemic case helps bring out what is unsatisfactory in the externalist position. We sometimes attribute greater epistemic powers to some people than to others despite not being able to explain why they’re more likely to be right in their beliefs about a certain topic. Chicken-sexing is a popular example of this among philosophers. We think some people are more likely to form true beliefs about the sex of chickens than others even though we can’t explain why they are better at judging the sex of chickens. But in the case of chicken-sexing, we have independent means of determining the truth, and so we have independent verification that chicken-sexers usually get things right. Externalism seems to tell~s~ us that some of us are better reasons- sensors than others, but without providing the independent means of determining which of us are in fact more reliably motivated by genuine normative reasons (or even that some of us are).2. 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.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 Fortunately, I do not have to defend normative foundationalism. One problem with accepting moral justification as part of our ongoing practice is that, as I have suggested, we no longer accept the world view on which it depends. But perhaps a more immediately pressing problem is that we have, ready to hand, an alternative mode for justifying our choices and actions. In its more austere and, in my view, more defensible form, this is to show that choices and actions maximize the agent ’s expected utility, where utility is a measure of considered preference. In its less austere version, this is to show that choices and actions satisfy, not a subjectively defined requirement such as utility, but meet the agent ’ s objective interests. Since I do not believe that we have objective interests, I shall ignore this latter. But it will not matter. For the idea is clear; we have a mode of justification that does not require the introduction of moral considerations. 11 Let me call this alternative nonmoral mode of justification, neutrally, deliberative justification. Now moral and deliberative justification are directed at the same objects – our choices and actions. What if they conflict? And what do we say to the person who offers a deliberative justification of his choices and actions and refuses to offer any other? We can say, of course, that his behavior lacks moral justification, but this seems to lack any hold, unless he chooses to enter the moral framework. And such entry, he may insist, lacks any deliberative justification, at least for him. If morality perishes, the justificatory enterprise, in relation to choice and action, does not perish with it. Rather, one mode of justification perishes, a mode that, it may seem, now hangs unsupported. But not only unsupported, for it is difficult to deny that deliberative justification is more clearly basic, that it cannot be avoided insofar as we are rational agents, so that if moral justification conflicts with it, morality seems not only unsupported but opposed by what is rationally more fundamental. Deliberative justification relates to our deep sense of self. What distinguishes human beings from other animals, and provides the basis for rationality, is the capacity for semantic representation. You can, as your dog on the whole cannot, represent a state of affairs to yourself, and consider in particular whether or not it is the case, and whether or not you would want it to be the case. You can represent to yourself the contents of your beliefs, and your desires or preferences. But in representing them, you bring them into relation with one another. You represent to yourself that the Blue Jays will win the World Series, and that a National League team will win the World Series, and that the Blue Jays are not a National League team. And in recognizing a conflict among those beliefs, you find rationality thrust upon you. Note that the first two beliefs could be replaced by preferences, with the same effect. Since in representing our preferences we become aware of conflict among them, the step from representation to choice becomes complicated. We must, somehow, bring our conflicting desires and preferences into some sort of coherence. And there is only one plausible candidate for a principle of coherence – a maximizing principle. We order our preferences, in relation to decision and action, so that we may choose in a way that maximizes our expectation of preference fulfillment. And in so doing, we show ourselves to be rational agents, engaged in deliberation and deliberative justification. There is simply nothing else for practical rationality to be. The foundational crisis of morality thus cannot be avoided by pointing to the existence of a practice of justification within the moral framework, and denying that any extramoral foundation is relevant. For an extramoral mode of justification is already present, existing not side by side with moral justification, but in a manner tied to the way in which we unify our beliefs and preferences and so acquire our deep sense of self. We need not suppose that this deliberative justification is itself to be understood foundationally. All that we need suppose is that moral justification does not plausibly survive conflict with it.Since agents take 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.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.Neg gets framework choice – a) aff speaks first and last which means they control the direction of the round b) infinite pre-round prep means they’re prepared for any debate – prep controls quality of arguments c) they get one more speech to contextualize arguments in different ways.I contend that the member nations of the World Trade Organization ought not reduce intellectual property protections for medicines.~1~ Stronger IPRs help equalize the bargaining field for developing countries to check western coercion which would diminish their place as world enforcer. Therefore, it’s not in mutual self-interest for them to remove IPs because they want to keep their own economies ahead of others.Hassan et al 10 "Intellectual Property and Developing Countries: A review of the literature: by Emmanuel Hassan, Ohid Yaqub, Stephanie Diepeveen. RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world. ~https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical'reports/2010/RAND'TR804.pdf~~ ahs emi AND development, which initially falls as income rises, then increases after that. ~2~ IP rights are included in multiple international contracts – the aff violates that.Franklin 13 - "International Intellectual Property Law" by Jonathan Franklin* He earned his A.B., A.M. Anthropology and J.D. degrees from Stanford University and M.Libr. with a Certificate in Law Librarianship from the University of Washington. Prior to the University of Washington, he spent five years as an reference librarian and foreign law selector at the University of Michigan Law Library. In law school, he was a Senior Editor of the Stanford Environmental Law Journal and a Note Editor for the Stanford Law Review. He is a member of the American Association of Law Libraries. ~https://www.asil.org/sites/default/files/ERG'IP.pdf~~ ahs emi AND ) provides a substantial list of country comparisons touching on intellectual property law. ~3~ Forecloses the ability for future contracts.Hilty et al 21 ~Reto Hilty Director at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition and a professor at the University of Zurich Pedro Henrique D. Batista Doctoral student and Junior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Suelen Carls Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Daria Kim Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Matthias Lamping Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Peter R. Slowinski Doctoral student and Junior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition; "10 Arguments against a Waiver of Intellectual Property Rights," Oxford Law; 6/29/21; https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/business-law-blog/blog/2021/06/10-arguments-against-waiver-intellectual-property-rights~~ Justin AND of these rights may therefore have detrimental consequences for the willingness to cooperate. | 9/23/21 |
so - psycho kTournament: Mid America Cup Round Robin | Round: 1 | Opponent: shrey raju | Judge: panel | 9/24/21 |
so - psycho k v2Tournament: Mid America Cup Round Robin | Round: 3 | Opponent: max perin | Judge: panel | 9/24/21 |
so - volition ncTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 1 | Opponent: La Salle TP | Judge: Mark Kivimaki NCVolition, or the structure of the will, is a pre-condition for ethics and has intrinsic value – A) Proceduralism – the will is the mechanism by which every agent engages in any activity, which means regardless of the content of any ethical theory, the ability to will that theory is an intrinsic good B) Motivation – the structure of the will is the primary source of all our desires, reasons, and beliefs since it generates what counts as motivational to the subject C) Identity – the nature of the will is most constitutive to the creation of the subject since it determines what each subject considers intrinsic to its identity and what exists externally as an façade.Ethical theories to evaluate the will face a dilemma – they are either paternally objectivist to the extent they restrict the will, or they are weakened by subjectivism to the extent that it’s impossible to make true moral claims. Jaeggi 14, Jaeggi, Rahel. "Alienation." Columbia University Press, cup.columbia.edu/book/alienation/Scopa. From the perspective of liberal theory one aspect of the critique of alienation appears problematic above all others: theories of alienation appear to appeal to objective criteria that lie beyond the "sovereignty" of individuals to interpret for themselves what the good life consists in. Herbert Marcuse exemplifies this tendency of many theories of alienation in One Dimensional Man—a book that provided a crucial impulse for the New Left’s critique of alienation in the 1960s and 1970s— when, unconcerned with the liberal objection, he defends the validity of diagnoses of alienation with respect to the increased integration and identification with social relations that characterize the members of affluent industrial societies: "I have just suggested that the concept of alienation seems to become questionable when the individuals identify themselves with the existence which is imposed upon them and have in it their own development and satisfaction. This identification is not illusion, but reality. However, the reality constitutes a more progressive stage of alienation. The latter has become entirely objective; the subject which is alienated is swallowed up by its alienated existence."10 The subjective satisfaction of those who are integrated into objectively alienated relations is, according to Marcuse, "a false consciousness which is immune against its falsehood."11 Here, however, the theory of alienation appears to have made itself immune to refutation. It would seem, then, that the concept of alienation belongs to a perfectionist ethical theory that presupposes, broadly speaking, that it is possible to determine what is objectively good for humans by identifying a set of properties or a set of functions inherent in human nature—a "purpose"—that ought to be realized. But if the foundation of modern morality and the fundamental conviction of liberal conceptions of society is the idea "that it should be left to each individual how he lives his own life" 12—that individuals are sovereign with respect to interpreting their own lives—then a theory of alienation that relies on objective perfectionist ideals appears to reject this idea in favor of a paternalist perspective that claims to "know better." For the latter (and as seems to be the case for Marcuse), it is possible for something to count as objectively good for someone without him subjectively valuing it as such. By the same token, it is possible to criticize a form of life as alienated or false without there being any subjective perception of suffering. But can someone be alienated from herself in the sense outlined here if she herself fails to perceive it? Can we claim of someone that she is alienated from her own desires or driven by false (alienated) needs or that she pursues an alienated way of life if she claims to be living precisely the life she wants to lead? In diagnoses of alienation the question arises, then, whether there can be objective evidence of pathology that contradicts individuals’ subjective assessments or preferences. This is a dilemma that is difficult to resolve. On the one hand, the concept of alienation (this is what distinguishes it from weaker forms of critique) claims to be able to bring to individuals’ prima facie evaluations and preferences a deeper dimension of critique—a critical authority—that functions as a corrective to their own assertions. On the other hand, it is not easy to justify the position of such a critical corrective. What could the objective criteria that overrule the assessments and preferences of individuals be in this case? 13 The arguments from human nature frequently appealed to in this context demonstrate, even in their most methodologically sophisticated, "thin" variants, the problems that plague attempts to derive normative standards from some conception of human nature. 14 Even if there is—in a banal sense—something humans share on the basis of their natural, biological constitution, and even if—in a banal sense—certain functional needs can be derived from these basic presuppositions of human life (all humans need nourishment or certain climatic conditions in order to survive), these basic conditions imply very little when it comes to evaluating how humans, in relation to issues beyond mere survival, lead their lives. On the other hand, the more human nature is given a specific content such that it becomes relevant to (culturally specific) forms of life, the more controversial and contestable the claims become. How are we to define human nature when its extraordinary variability and malleability appear to be part of human nature itself?15 And how are we to pick out among diverse forms of human life those that really correspond to human nature, given that even forms of life criticized as alienated have been in some way developed, advanced, and lived by human beings? Only a functional understanding of the will solves – it ensures the very nature of the will is taken care of through appropriate willing capacities, without over-limiting it to a strict set of substantive rules. This functional capacity of willing is mediated by social roles – as the authentic self is inexplicably linked to the self that engages in social communities with others through duplication. Understanding the functionality of the will is impossible in a vacuum. Jaeggi 2, Jaeggi, Rahel. "Alienation." Columbia University Press, cup.columbia.edu/book/alienation/Scopa. The positions of both authors can be reduced to the following common denominator: roles are less alienating than constitutive for the development of persons and personality. They are constitutive in the sense that they are directly bound up with a person’s development and, so, "productive." At first glance this position might seem to come down on one side of the two alternatives—an unconditional affirmation of roles—but after giving a brief account of the position, I will make use of it to move beyond the two alternatives. Once the "productivity thesis" has been articulated, it will be possible to distinguish between alienating and non-alienating aspects of role behavior. THE HUMAN BEING AS DOPPELGÄNGER Roles are productive. In and through them we first become ourselves. This is the essence of Helmuth Plessner’s conception of the positive significance of roles (which he developed as a direct response to critiques of them as alienating). "The human being is always himself only in ‘doubling’ in relation to a role figure he can experience. Also, all that he sees as comprising his authenticity is but the role he plays before himself and others.22 Roles on this view are not only necessary in order to make social interaction possible, whether this be a "being together" of individuals or a benign "passing each other by;" interaction mediated by roles is also constitutive of an individual’s relation to herself.This culminates in the act of appropriation – the ability to view yourself as a practical agent capable of taking up a project that actively changes your own subject and the role itself. Jaeggi 3, Jaeggi, Rahel. "Alienation." Columbia University Press, cup.columbia.edu/book/alienation/Scopa. What does it mean to appropriate something?12 If the concept of appropriation refers to a specific relation between self and world, between individuals and objects (whether spiritual or material), what precisely does this relation look like, what are its particular character and its specific structure? Various aspects come together here, and together they account for the concept’s appeal and potential. As opposed to the mere learning of certain contents, talk of appropriation emphasizes that something is not merely passively taken up but actively worked through and independently assimilated. In contrast to merely theoretical insight into some issue, appropriation—comparable to the psychoanalytic process of "working through"—means that one can "deal with" what one knows, that it stands at one’s disposal as knowledge and that one really and practically has command over it. And appropriating a role means more than being able to fill it: one is, we could say, identified with it. Something that we appropriate does not remain external to ourselves. In making something our own, it becomes a part of ourselves in a certain respect. This suggests a kind of introjection and a mixing of oneself with the objects of appropriation. It also evokes the idea of productively and formatively interacting with what one makes one’s own. Appropriation does not leave what is appropriated unchanged. This is why the appropriation of public spaces, for example, means more than that one uses them. We make them our own by making a mark on them through what we do in and with them, by transforming them through appropriative use such that they first acquire a specific form through this use (though not necessarily in a material sense). Although it has one of its roots in an account of property relations, the concept of appropriation, in contrast to mere possession, emphasizes the particular quality of a process that first constitutes a real act of taking possession of something. Accordingly, appropriation is a particular mode of seizing possession.13 Someone who appropriates something puts her individual mark on it, inserts her own ends and qualities into it. This means that sometimes we must still make something that we already possess our own. Relations of appropriation, then, are characterized by several features: appropriation is a form of praxis, a way of relating practically to the world. It refers to a relation of penetration, assimilation, and internalization in which what is appropriated is at the same time altered, structured, and formed. The crucial point of this model (also of great importance for Marx) is a consequence of this structure of penetration and assimilation: appropriation always means a transformation of both poles of the relation. In a process of appropriation both what is appropriated and the appropriator are transformed.Thus, the standard is consistency with non-alienated relations.Prefer –1. Performativity – Every exercise you engage in is an instance of using your volition to establish some relation to the world and only non-alienation can establish that relationship as normatively legitimate.2. Action theory – Only viewing an agent as an active body capable of generating intentions can hold agents culpable and decipher the difference between actions and wishes. That’s a necessary feature of ethics since we must be able to warrant a coherent conception of what motivates our actions in order to provide a method to actually implement ethical principles.3. Epistemology – Only an understanding of appropriation can unify the distinction between theoretical and practical knowledge. Theoretical abstract concepts like 2+24 are true and necessary, but can only become useful once explained in context of how they actualize in the world through our intentions. That means absent an explanation of how that knowledge mixes with the world around us, it becomes useless. ==== offenseI contend that member nations of the WTO ought not reduce intellectual property protections for medicine.~1~ Intellectual property is a self-expression of the subject. When it’s used in a way that doesn’t reflect the framer’s intent, it is alienating.Justin Hughes 98, "The Philosophy of Intellectual Property," 77 Georgetown L.J. 287, 330-350 (1988) ~https://cyber.harvard.edu/IPCoop/88hugh2.html~~ AHSMAK recut emi Accessed 8/10/21 AND permanence and a greater ability than other property to give its own economic security ~2~ IP is key to recognizing agents through the personality in their work. Recognition is necessary for agents to be non-alienated bc we need to establish relations with the world.Hughes 2 - "The Philosophy of Intellectual Property," 77 Georgetown L.J. 287, 330-350 (1988) by Justin Hughes ~https://cyber.harvard.edu/IPCoop/88hugh2.html~~ ahs emi AND is destroyed; when the second condition is violated, it is distorted. ~3~ Objectification - Absent intellectual property, agents feel like objects since they aren’t recognized for their exercise of agency. This procedurally prevents further appropriation bc agents lack incentive to innovate when they’re detached from their goods. | 9/23/21 |
so - waivers tTournament: Yale University Invitational 2021 | Round: 1 | Opponent: La Salle TP | Judge: Mark Kivimaki Interpretation: Affirmatives must reduce intellectual property protections for medicines unconditionally and permanently.Reynolds 59: Judge (In the Matter of Doris A. Montesani, Petitioner, v. Arthur Levitt, as Comptroller of the State of New York, et al., Respondents ~NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL~ Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Third Department 9 A.D.2d 51; 189 N.Y.S.2d 695; 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7391 August 13, 1959, lexis) AND or degrade. The word "reduce" seems adequately to indicate permanency. Violation: The waiver is temporary.Gupta and Namboodiri 21: Gupta, Vineeta ~a maternal and child health physician, human rights advocate, and a passionate activist for health equity. As director, she leads the ACTION Global Health Advocacy Partnership as well as a volunteer-based policy advocacy organization that unites the Indian diaspora to mount a prompt, global response to the COVID-19 crisis in India. Dr. Gupta has more than 20 years of tri-sector experience in leading and supporting projects in more than 25 countries. In addition to conducting organization development, diversity, inclusion, equity, and global health equity workshops, Gupta has designed and facilitated partnership projects to achieve agreements and results on complex issues. She has been invited to speak in more than 60 universities in the US and Europe.~ Namboodiri, Sreenath ~LLM, LLB, is assistant professor at the School of Ethics, Governance, Culture and Social Systems at Chinmaya Vishwavidyapeeth and a post-graduate on law of intellectual property rights (IPR) from Inter University Centre for IPR Studies, CUSAT, Kochi. His areas of interest are in intellectual property rights vis-à-vis health systems, sustainable development and innovation, pharmaceutical patents, knowledge governance, and technology and law. He is an honorary fellow of the Centre for Economy, Development, and Law since 2013. Namboodiri is part of the editorial team of Elenchus Law Review, a biannual peer-reviewed journal from the Centre (CEDandL). He has also worked as a guest lecturer in Inter University Centre for IPR Studies, CUSAT, Kochi, where he provided courses on access to medicine and IP, and patents and biotechnology~ "America And The TRIPS Waiver: You Can Talk The Talk, But Will You Walk The Walk?," July 13, 2021 AA AND so far the US has not gone further than its announcement of support. No plan text in a vacuum – the offense defines what the plan looks like. Worst case scenario, you vote neg on presumption because all their solvency evidence is about a waiver.Prefer my interpretation:1~ Limits: they open the door to an infinite number of affs – from any condition to any time restriction. Each one becomes its own new aff.2~ Ground: condition and delay counterplans are all ground we are entitled to because they disprove the idea of passing the plan right now.3~ Topic lit: authors aren’t writing about a reduction that happens a few years or now or under a specific condition.4~ Semantics: not defending the text of the resolution justifies the affirmative doing away with random words in the resolution which destroys predictability because they are no longer bounded by the resolution. | 9/23/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
1/28/22 | pl237812@ahschoolcom |
| |
1/28/22 | pl237812@ahschoolcom |
| |
9/25/21 | pl237812@ahschoolcom |
| |
9/26/21 | pl237812@ahschoolcom |
| |
9/26/21 | pl237812@ahschoolcom |
| |
9/24/21 | pl237812@ahschoolcom |
| |
9/24/21 | pl237812@ahschoolcom |
| |
1/8/22 | pl237812@ahschoolcom |
| |
1/8/22 | pl237812@ahschoolcom |
| |
1/8/22 | pl237812@ahschoolcom |
| |
1/9/22 | pl237812@ahschoolcom |
| |
9/23/21 | pl237812@ahschoolcom |
| |
9/23/21 | pl237812@ahschoolcom |
| |
9/23/21 | pl237812@ahschoolcom |
| |
9/23/21 | pl237812@ahschoolcom |
| |
9/23/21 | pl237812@ahschoolcom |
| |
9/23/21 | pl237812@ahschoolcom |
|