Bergen County Kim Neg
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Duke | 1 | Durham JH | Daye, Michelle |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine | 2 | Memorial BD | Sun, Favian |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine | 4 | Interlake KK | Jeffries, Chasia |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine | Triples | Houston SC | Shaw, Andrew |
|
|
| |
| Greenhill | 2 | Harvard-Westlake CC | Park, Felicity |
|
|
| |
| Greenhill | 3 | Plano East NG | Le, Truman |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | 1 | Brookfield East DJ | Sinha, Abhinav |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | 4 | Solebury LM | Georges, Joseph |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | 6 | Tays KM | Clough, Zac |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | Triples | Academy Of Classical Christian Studies JM | panel |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | Doubles | Strake Jesuit JX | panel |
|
|
| |
| any | Finals | any | any |
|
| ||
| any | Finals | any | any |
|
| ||
| any | Finals | any | any |
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Duke | 1 | Opponent: Durham JH | Judge: Daye, Michelle 1ac - lay |
| Grapevine | 2 | Opponent: Memorial BD | Judge: Sun, Favian 1ac - prag |
| Grapevine | 4 | Opponent: Interlake KK | Judge: Jeffries, Chasia 1ac - neocolonialism |
| Grapevine | Triples | Opponent: Houston SC | Judge: Shaw, Andrew 1ac - kant |
| Greenhill | 2 | Opponent: Harvard-Westlake CC | Judge: Park, Felicity 1ac - covid waiver |
| Greenhill | 3 | Opponent: Plano East NG | Judge: Le, Truman 1ac - evergreening |
| Loyola | 1 | Opponent: Brookfield East DJ | Judge: Sinha, Abhinav 1ac - whole rez kant |
| Loyola | 4 | Opponent: Solebury LM | Judge: Georges, Joseph 1ac - libertarianism |
| Loyola | 6 | Opponent: Tays KM | Judge: Clough, Zac 1ac - covid whole rez |
| Loyola | Triples | Opponent: Academy Of Classical Christian Studies JM | Judge: panel 1ac - kant |
| Loyola | Doubles | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JX | Judge: panel 1ac - korsgaard |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
Tournament: | Round: | Opponent: | Judge: | 9/6/21 |
0 - ContactTournament: any | Round: Finals | Opponent: any | Judge: any I prefer email, but facebook works too. | 9/4/21 |
0 - DebateDrillsTournament: any | Round: Finals | Opponent: any | Judge: any | 8/25/21 |
0 - Wiki GlitchesTournament: any | Round: Finals | Opponent: any | Judge: any if not, please contact me for disclosure | 9/5/21 |
1 - combo shell v1Tournament: Grapevine | Round: 2 | Opponent: Memorial BD | Judge: Sun, Favian | 9/11/21 |
1 - neg interps are counterinterps, no rvisTournament: Loyola | Round: 1 | Opponent: Brookfield East DJ | Judge: Sinha, Abhinav | 9/4/21 |
1 - new affs badTournament: Loyola | Round: 4 | Opponent: Solebury LM | Judge: Georges, Joseph Fairness matters – debate is a competitive activity, the better debater should win Drop the debater Competing interps – reasonability is vague and arbitrary No rvis | 9/5/21 |
2 - utilitarianismTournament: Loyola | Round: 1 | Opponent: Brookfield East DJ | Judge: Sinha, Abhinav 1 Actor specificity: A Governments must aggregate since every policy benefits some and harms others, which also means side constraints freeze action. B States lack wills or intentions since policies are collective actions. Actor-specificity comes first since different agents have different ethical standings. Takes out util calc indicts since they’re empirically denied and link turns them because the alt would be no action. 2 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. 3 Weighability – only consequentialism explains degrees of wrongness—if I break a promise to meet up for lunch, that is not as bad as breaking a promise to take a dying person to the hospital. Only the consequences of breaking the promise explain why the second one is much worse than the first. Intuitions outweigh—they’re the foundational basis for any argument and theories that contradict our intuitions are most likely false even if we can’t deduce why. 4 No act-omission distinction—governments are responsible for everything in the public sphere so inaction is implicit authorization of action: they have to yes/no bills, which means everything collapse to aggregation. 5 No intent-foresight distinction – If we’re knowledgeable about the consequence of an action then we calculate that into our intention because we could always decide not to act. Thus means based theories devolve to util. 6 Epistemic modesty - Substantively true since it maximizes the probability of achieving net most moral value—beating a framework acts as mitigation to their impacts but the strength of that mitigation is contingent. 7 Extinction outweighs under any framework | 9/4/21 |
3 - psychoanalysis kTournament: Grapevine | Round: 2 | Opponent: Memorial BD | Judge: Sun, Favian Thus, the role of the ballot is to traverse the fantasy – that means exposing drives. Their deployment of debate is an agential fantasy – the affirmative is an investment into subjectivity as a teleological entity dependent on external recognition to satisfy its goals, which is addicting and causes passivity That destroys politics, ethics, and the value to life Vote negative to embrace the lack – this requires being open to the anxiety that occurs from an encounter with the real of the other and breaks down fantasy and drives. | 9/11/21 |
3 - redaction kTournament: Loyola | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Strake Jesuit JX | Judge: panel Their investment into philosophical discussion about our relationship towards otherness is a tool of speed-elitism. The move for more transparent discussions about ethics mystifies the reliance on highly exlcusive and unethical technologies of travel and communication. By figuring those technics as the metrics for liberatory theology, that expands Debate’s state of exploitation. Evaluate the debate after the 1NC – take a zoom break key to solve psychic burnout The Conditioning of debate as a sight for liberal discussions about our orientations towards ethics merely engenders a semiotic fantasy of radicalism – paving over very real conditions of pain and death that make this space possible. Its try or die for a semiotic insurrection. Thus The alternative is _Sike You Thought_ Voting neg is a withdrawal from the instrumental game of call-and-response into an aesthetic under-commons of redaction, opacity, and fugitive resonance. The refusal of demands for transparent or professionalized theory of ethics frustrates the professional logistics of academia. And K Turns the Case – we are opposing the aff’s exclusion of non-academics– which comes prior because voting aff can’t result in nations reducing IP protections but it does have an impact of speed-elitism. This flow comes before everything: a. It questions whether the form of which the 1AC was presented in – weighing the case begs the question of whether deliberating about various philosophical thought is good. b. Any fairness offense relies on winning the game of debate is good – which is why the K comes before any procedurals. No Permutations a. The very process of a permutation would include the affirmative’s philosophical project – Grant us a negative ballot to frustrate debates desire for philosophical discussion. b. Any permutation proves alt solvency – that we have forced them to realize the violence of academia – commodification is inevitable – it’s a question of whether the things you commodify ie. the alternative leave anything productive. More and more negative ballots tell phil debaters about the violence in which their discussions have in this community. c. Permutations only make sense if there is an alternative – in so far as I win a UQ claim about debate collpases now – any investment into making debate productive risks linking and I don’t need an alternative d. We have impact turned prag discourse in debate | 9/6/21 |
so - cap kTournament: Greenhill | Round: 3 | Opponent: Plano East NG | Judge: Le, Truman The aff is co-opted by an agenda of “health diplomacy” that only further expands capitalist imperialism Capitalism causes massive violence and inevitable extinction – the fundamental task is developing tools for organization and tactics to bring about revolution. Vote neg to join the party – dual power organizing is the only path to revolutionary change. We allow for innovation but better—our Marxist dictatorship still provides the incentive for innovating without the profit and productivity based mindset that pushes us to overconsumption and death | 9/18/21 |
so - econ daTournament: Loyola | Round: 1 | Opponent: Brookfield East DJ | Judge: Sinha, Abhinav Biotech is resilient and fundamentals are strong – but this trend relies on innovation and investment Pharma collapses without strong IP protections Biopharmaceutical research is the bedrock of our economy – even minor reductions in income result in mass unemployment and butterfly effects Bipoharma collapse causes economic meltdown – it’s far worse than previous recessions Extinction | 9/4/21 |
so - midterms daTournament: Loyola | Round: 6 | Opponent: Tays KM | Judge: Clough, Zac The plan is unpopular-~--it’s seen as soft on China. China is the key for the midterms-~--Senate control hinges on it. GOP control of the Senate will be used to usher in a new wave of Trumpism, crushing democracy. Extinction | 9/5/21 |
so - nebel tTournament: Greenhill | Round: 2 | Opponent: Harvard-Westlake CC | Judge: Park, Felicity Medicines is a generic bare plural It applies to this topic – a the noun “medicines” in the topic has no determiner preceding it to justify speccing a subset of medicines. that means medicines is an existential bare plural b it fails the upward entailment test bc “member nations ought to reduce ip protections for medicines” does not entail that “member nations ought to reduce ip protections for pharmaceuticals” even though all medicines are pharmaceuticals. Violation – they only defend medicines for COVID-19 Standards: 1 Limits: There’s an infinite number of medicines – hundreds of vaccines (Influenza, Coronavirus, Diptheria, Yellow Fever, etc.) and thousands of pharmaceutical drugs (Metformin, Lisinopril, Atorvastatin, and many more) – the negative could spec AND choose combinations – that’s supercharged by the fact that they can also spec countries. Kills neg burdens – it’s impossible for me to research every possible combination of medicines. Functional limits don’t check – each individual weapon has implications and articles as to why it is bad 2 Prep hazard – there are an infinite number of medicines they could possibly spec exploding neg prep – generics and functional limits don’t apply because each medicine has different effects, capabilities, and implications which makes there infinite arguments for each weapon being bad 3 TVA Solves – just read your aff as an advantage to a whole rez aff. We aren’t stopping them from reading new FWs, mechanisms, or advantages. PICs don’t solve – it’s ridiculous to say that neg potential abuse justifies the aff making it impossible for me to win Fairness and education are voters – debate’s a game that needs rules to evaluate it and education gives us portable skills for life like research and thinking. Precision o/w – anything else justifies the aff arbitrarily jettisoning words in the resolution at their whim which decks negative ground and preparation because the aff is no longer bounded by the resolution. Drop the debater – a) they have a 7-6 rebuttal advantage and the 2ar to make args I can’t respond to, b) it deters future abuse and sets a positive norm. Use competing interps – a) reasonability invites arbitrary judge intervention since we don’t know your bs meter, b) collapses to competing interps – we justify 2 brightlines under an offense defense paradigm just like 2 interps. No RVIs – a) illogical – you shouldn’t win for being fair – it’s a litmus test for engaging in substance, 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 – forces you to split your 2AR so you can’t collapse and misconstrue the 2NR, d) topic ed – prevents 1AR blipstorm scripts and allows us to get back to substance after resolving theory Evaluate T before 1AR theory – a) norms – we only have a couple months to set T norms but can set 1AR theory norms anytime, b) magnitude – T affects a larger portion of the debate since the aff advocacy determines every speech after it | 9/18/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
9/4/21 | akimender@gmailcom |
| |
9/5/21 | akimender@gmailcom |
| |
9/5/21 | akimender@gmailcom |
| |
9/6/21 | akimender@gmailcom |
|