Bronx Science Paul Aff
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 2 | Rock Hill Shreya Srivathsan | Henry Eberhart |
|
|
| |
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 3 | Northern Valley HS Independent James Song | Andrew Shaw |
|
|
| |
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 4 | Academy Of Classical Christian Studies Jack Miller | James Stuckert |
|
|
| |
| Contact | 1 | Anyone | Someone |
|
|
| |
| Florida Blue Key Speech Debate Tournament | 4 | Sharon Rowan Gray | Wyatt Hatfield |
|
|
| |
| Florida Blue Key Speech Debate Tournament | 1 | William G Enloe Anisha Roy | Jackson DeConcini |
|
|
| |
| Florida Blue Key Speech Debate Tournament | 5 | Trinity Prep Lara Kullu | Sanjana Bhatnagar |
|
|
| |
| Greenhill Fall Classic | 1 | Harker Ansh Sheth | Saianurag Karavadi |
|
|
| |
| Greenhill Fall Classic | 3 | Harvard Westlake Claire Conner | Tej Gedela |
|
|
| |
| Greenhill Fall Classic | 6 | Harker Annmaria Antony | Matthew McMahon |
|
|
| |
| Princeton Classic | 2 | Lake Highland Prep Mayah Singh | Jack Daou |
|
|
| |
| Princeton Classic | 4 | Summit Mabel Rieger | Jenn Melin |
|
|
| |
| Princeton Classic | 5 | La Salle Zach Whiting | Uma Menon |
|
|
| |
| Virtual Scarsdale Invitational Scarvite | 2 | Solebury Leo Mokriski | Yan Gao |
|
|
| |
| Virtual Scarsdale Invitational Scarvite | 4 | Eden Prairie Avik Garg | Nethmin Liyanage |
|
|
| |
| Virtual Scarsdale Invitational Scarvite | 5 | Princeton Peter Eaton | Derek Ying |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 2 | Opponent: Rock Hill Shreya Srivathsan | Judge: Henry Eberhart 1AC - Virtue Ethics |
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 3 | Opponent: Northern Valley HS Independent James Song | Judge: Andrew Shaw 1AC - Virtue Ethics |
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 4 | Opponent: Academy Of Classical Christian Studies Jack Miller | Judge: James Stuckert 1AC - Virtue Ethics |
| Contact | 1 | Opponent: Anyone | Judge: Someone Contact |
| Florida Blue Key Speech Debate Tournament | 4 | Opponent: Sharon Rowan Gray | Judge: Wyatt Hatfield 1AC - Kant AC |
| Florida Blue Key Speech Debate Tournament | 1 | Opponent: William G Enloe Anisha Roy | Judge: Jackson DeConcini 1AC - Kant AC |
| Florida Blue Key Speech Debate Tournament | 5 | Opponent: Trinity Prep Lara Kullu | Judge: Sanjana Bhatnagar 1AC - Kant |
| Greenhill Fall Classic | 1 | Opponent: Harker Ansh Sheth | Judge: Saianurag Karavadi 1AC - Kant AC |
| Greenhill Fall Classic | 3 | Opponent: Harvard Westlake Claire Conner | Judge: Tej Gedela 1AC - Kant AC |
| Greenhill Fall Classic | 6 | Opponent: Harker Annmaria Antony | Judge: Matthew McMahon 1AC - Kant AC |
| Princeton Classic | 2 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep Mayah Singh | Judge: Jack Daou 1AC - Kant AC |
| Princeton Classic | 4 | Opponent: Summit Mabel Rieger | Judge: Jenn Melin 1AC - Kant AC |
| Princeton Classic | 5 | Opponent: La Salle Zach Whiting | Judge: Uma Menon 1AC - Kant AC |
| Virtual Scarsdale Invitational Scarvite | 2 | Opponent: Solebury Leo Mokriski | Judge: Yan Gao 1AC - Lay AC |
| Virtual Scarsdale Invitational Scarvite | 4 | Opponent: Eden Prairie Avik Garg | Judge: Nethmin Liyanage 1AC - Kant AC |
| Virtual Scarsdale Invitational Scarvite | 5 | Opponent: Princeton Peter Eaton | Judge: Derek Ying 1AC - Kant AC |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 - ContactTournament: Contact | Round: 1 | Opponent: Anyone | Judge: Someone Contact: | 9/2/21 |
Gen - Th - Condo PICs badTournament: Greenhill Fall Classic | Round: 3 | Opponent: Harvard Westlake Claire Conner | Judge: Tej Gedela Interp—CPs that include the aff must be uncondo—the PIC is condo.Standard is time skew—PICs force a 1AR restart and condo lets the 2NR kick it enabling a 2:1 skew. Uncondo PICs are best—forces them to find positions they are willing to defend which is best for research and clash. | 9/19/21 |
Gen - Th - PICs BadTournament: Princeton Classic | Round: 2 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep Mayah Singh | Judge: Jack Daou 1AR – PICs BadInterp—CPs can't include a disclosed aff—you read a PIC.Standard is ground—PICs steal the aff and force a 1AR restart on a subset of the aff that's inevitably skewed towards the neg and unpredictable in nature—means my ground is (a) underdeveloped, (b) smaller, and (c) qualitatively worse. The aff is stock and disclosed so you get all your ground—flips neg flex. Das and non-plan-inclusive CPs solve best—incentivizes research about details that matter. | 12/4/21 |
Gen - Th - Spec statusTournament: Greenhill Fall Classic | Round: 3 | Opponent: Harvard Westlake Claire Conner | Judge: Tej Gedela Spec status1 – strat skew –~a~ waiting till cx to clarify skews my prep – cx shouldn't be about status of things so ther'es a tradeoff~b~ in case I forget to ask in cx the 2nr can strategically collapse and destroy the 1ar – skews my ability of responding to the CP from the get goOutweigh on scope – 2nr has more time to collapse | 9/19/21 |
JANFEB - AC - Virtue EthicsTournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: 2 | Opponent: Rock Hill Shreya Srivathsan | Judge: Henry Eberhart | 2/19/22 |
JANFEB - AC - Virtue Ethics v2Tournament: 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: Northern Valley HS Independent James Song | Judge: Andrew Shaw | 2/20/22 |
NOVDEC - AC - KantTournament: Florida Blue Key Speech Debate Tournament | Round: 1 | Opponent: William G Enloe Anisha Roy | Judge: Jackson DeConcini 1ACFrameworkThe meta-ethic is practical reason:A – Action theory – any action can be infinitely subdivided into smaller actions. For example, my walk to the door can be split into steps, movements, or moments in time. Only practical reason, i.e. my intention to walk to the door, can unify these pieces into a single, coherent action.B – Bindingness – external accounts of the good cannot motivate action since we can always ask why we should care about that thing. Only practical reason solves regress since 'why should I follow reason' is asking for a reason, conceding its authority – proves my framework is inescapable and that others collapse.Next, actions must be willed freely from the choices of others. Otherwise, that would violate practical reason since you cannot will your unfreedom while also relying on your freedom to act to begin with. But, agents can't individually secure their own freedom since they can't wholly control what others do.Instead, they must jointly will the freedom of all, so that no one can subject another to their choice. Only a state, with power deriving from the participation of all, can enforce spheres of mutual independence while remaining impartial to each agent.Thus, the standard is protecting equal outer freedom. Impact calc—only intents matter—A~ Induction fails – it begs the question because it uses the past to predict the future but we only assume this is true because it's worked in the past which is circular.B~ Aggregation's impossible – freedom is a property of action and not a countable object. Saying that two free actions are "more free" than one actions is like saying two circles are more "circular" than one.Prefer additionally—~1~ Epistemology – Ethics must be a-priori –A~ Is/ought gap – empirical facts only describe how the world is, not why it ought to be that way. For example, just because I do pursue pleasure doesn't mean I ought to pursue pleasure.B~ Perception – The material world is not the way it is because it is that way but rather that we perceive it to be that way. That necessitates a-priori reason since it is universally applied to include everyone. Anything else justifies committing atrocities that are perceived to produce a net positive by one person.~2~ Performativity – Debate is an exchange of ideas, which requires that we respect each other as free, independent persons who seek ethical truth. Every response you make presupposes it. This respect extends to other people, since they are also agents who engage in dialogue.~3~ TJFs –A~ Critical thinking – Our framework forces you to make analytic arguments about the nature of IP – details like the geopolitical effects don't matter because none of us will ever be in a position to pass policies – but, we all make decisions in everyday life.B~ Small schools – Util debates reward debaters with more resources like coaches and backfiles – structural abuse outweighs – it rewards debaters because of factors outside of their control.~4~ The genesis of agency is intersubjective, which requires reciprocal constraints on freedom.Neuhouser ~Frederick (Professor of Philosophy at Columbia University). "Introduction to Foundations of Natural Right." Cambridge University Press, 2000, https://books.google.com/books?id=vw4tH2lKx3wC**.~~** OffenseI defend the resolution, Resolved: A just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike. PICs affirm since they don't disprove my general thesis. CX checks all theory: (A) I have to take stances on bidirectional interps. (B) Frivolous theory debates kill substantive education. Also, spec interps are irreciprocal since there's no stable neg advocacy for aff prep.Affirm:~1~ Gourevitch 18 Right to Strike defends liberty for workers to both set and pursue their own ends and resist coercion from others, Gourevitch '18:Gourevitch, Alex. "A Radical Defense of the Right to Strike." Jacobin 2018. https://jacobinmag.com/2018/07/right-to-strike-freedom-civil-liberties-oppression ~2~ Right to strike ensures a process of collective bargaining – absent a right to strike it would literally force workers to work against their will, violating freedom, Croucher '11:Croucher, Richard, Mark Kely, and Lilian Miles. "A Rawlsian basis for core labor rights." Comp. Lab. L. and Pol'y J. 33 (2011): 297. Yoaks ~3~ Absent a right to strike, employers use workers as a mere means to an end because they give workers little say in the process of negotiating employment conditions which treats them as passive tools for the use of profit, a right to strike ensures that workers give continual meaningful consent to the employment relationship without threat of coercionMethodThe role of the ballot is evaluate the normative desirability of the resolution. Anything else moots 6 minutes of 1AC offense, guts valuable topic education, and exacerbates 1AR time skews. Prefer—~A~ Textuality – Resolved denotes a proposal to be enacted by law | 10/30/21 |
NOVDEC - AC - Kant v2Tournament: Florida Blue Key Speech Debate Tournament | Round: 4 | Opponent: Sharon Rowan Gray | Judge: Wyatt Hatfield 1AC (UV at Bottom)FrameworkThe meta-ethic is practical reason:A – Action theory – any action can be infinitely subdivided into smaller actions. For example, my walk to the door can be split into steps, movements, or moments in time. Only practical reason, i.e. my intention to walk to the door, can unify these pieces into a single, coherent action.B – Bindingness – external accounts of the good cannot motivate action since we can always ask why we should care about that thing. Only practical reason solves regress since 'why should I follow reason' is asking for a reason, conceding its authority – proves my framework is inescapable and that others collapse.Next, actions must be willed freely from the choices of others. Otherwise, that would violate practical reason since you cannot will your unfreedom while also relying on your freedom to act to begin with. But, agents can't individually secure their own freedom since they can't wholly control what others do.Instead, they must jointly will the freedom of all, so that no one can subject another to their choice. Only a state, with power deriving from the participation of all, can enforce spheres of mutual independence while remaining impartial to each agent.Thus, the standard is protecting equal outer freedom. Impact calc—only intents matter—A~ Induction fails – it begs the question because it uses the past to predict the future but we only assume this is true because it's worked in the past which is circular.B~ Aggregation's impossible – freedom is a property of action and not a countable object. Saying that two free actions are "more free" than one actions is like saying two circles are more "circular" than one.Prefer additionally—~1~ Epistemology – Ethics must be a-priori –A~ Is/ought gap – empirical facts only describe how the world is, not why it ought to be that way. For example, just because I do pursue pleasure doesn't mean I ought to pursue pleasure.B~ Perception – The material world is not the way it is because it is that way but rather that we perceive it to be that way. That necessitates a-priori reason since it is universally applied to include everyone. Anything else justifies committing atrocities that are perceived to produce a net positive by one person.~2~ Performativity – Debate is an exchange of ideas, which requires that we respect each other as free, independent persons who seek ethical truth. Every response you make presupposes it. This respect extends to other people, since they are also agents who engage in dialogue.~3~ The genesis of agency is intersubjective, which requires reciprocal constraints on freedom.Neuhouser ~Frederick (Professor of Philosophy at Columbia University). "Introduction to Foundations of Natural Right." Cambridge University Press, 2000, https://books.google.com/books?id=vw4tH2lKx3wC**.~~** OffenseI defend the resolution, Resolved: A just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike. PICs affirm since they don't disprove my general thesis. CX checks all theory: (A) I have to take stances on bidirectional interps. (B) Frivolous theory debates kill substantive education. Also, spec interps are irreciprocal since there's no stable neg advocacy for aff prep.Affirm:~1~ Gourevitch 18 Right to Strike defends liberty for workers to both set and pursue their own ends and resist coercion from others, Gourevitch '18:Gourevitch, Alex. "A Radical Defense of the Right to Strike." Jacobin 2018. https://jacobinmag.com/2018/07/right-to-strike-freedom-civil-liberties-oppression ~2~ Right to strike ensures a process of collective bargaining – absent a right to strike it would literally force workers to work against their will, violating freedom, Croucher '11:Croucher, Richard, Mark Kely, and Lilian Miles. "A Rawlsian basis for core labor rights." Comp. Lab. L. and Pol'y J. 33 (2011): 297. Yoaks ~3~ Absent a right to strike, employers use workers as a mere means to an end because they give workers little say in the process of negotiating employment conditions which treats them as passive tools for the use of profit, a right to strike ensures that workers give continual meaningful consent to the employment relationship without threat of coercionMethodThe role of the ballot is evaluate the normative desirability of the resolution. Anything else moots 6 minutes of 1AC offense, guts valuable topic education, and exacerbates 1AR time skews. Prefer—~A~ Textuality – Resolved denotes a proposal to be enacted by law | 10/30/21 |
NOVDEC - AC - Kant v3Tournament: Florida Blue Key Speech Debate Tournament | Round: 5 | Opponent: Trinity Prep Lara Kullu | Judge: Sanjana Bhatnagar | 10/30/21 |
NOVDEC - AC - Kant v4Tournament: Princeton Classic | Round: 2 | Opponent: Lake Highland Prep Mayah Singh | Judge: Jack Daou FrameworkThe meta-ethic is practical reason:A – Action theory – any action can be infinitely subdivided into smaller actions. For example, my walk to the door can be split into steps, movements, or moments in time. Only practical reason, i.e. my intention to walk to the door, can unify these pieces into a single, coherent action.B – Inescapable – external accounts of the good cannot motivate action since we can always ask why we should care about that thing. Only practical reason solves regress since 'why should I follow reason' is asking for a reason, conceding its authority – proves my framework is inescapable and that others collapse.Next, the relevant feature of reason is universality – any non-universalizable norm justifies someone's ability to impede on your ends i.e. if I want to eat ice cream, I must recognize that others may affect my pursuit of that end and demand the value of my end be recognized by others which also means universalizability acts as a side constraint on all other frameworks. It's impossible to will a violation of freedom since deciding to do would will incompatible ends since it logically entails willing a violation of your own freedomThus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative. Impact calc—only intents matter—A~ Induction fails – it begs the question because it uses the past to predict the future but we only assume this is true because it's worked in the past which is circular.B~ Aggregation's impossible – freedom is a property of action and not a countable object. Saying that two free actions are "more free" than one actions is like saying two circles are more "circular" than one.Prefer additionally—~1~ Performativity – Debate is an exchange of ideas, which requires that we respect each other as free, independent persons who seek ethical truth. Every response you make presupposes it. This respect extends to other people, since they are also agents who engage in dialogue.~2~ Epistemology – Ethics must be a-priori –A~ Is/ought gap – empirical facts only describe how the world is, not why it ought to be that way. For example, just because I do pursue pleasure doesn't mean I ought to pursue pleasure.B~ Perception – The material world is not the way it is because it is that way but rather that we perceive it to be that way. That necessitates a-priori reason since it is universally applied to include everyone. Anything else justifies committing atrocities that are perceived to produce a net positive by one person.~3~ The genesis of agency is intersubjective, which requires reciprocal constraints on freedom.Neuhouser ~Frederick (Professor of Philosophy at Columbia University). "Introduction to Foundations of Natural Right." Cambridge University Press, 2000, https://books.google.com/books?id=vw4tH2lKx3wC**.~~** OffenseI defend the resolution, Resolved: A just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike. PICs affirm since they don't disprove my general thesis.Affirm:~1~ Gourevitch 18 Right to Strike defends liberty for workers to both set and pursue their own ends and resist coercion from others, Gourevitch '18:Gourevitch, Alex. "A Radical Defense of the Right to Strike." Jacobin 2018. https://jacobinmag.com/2018/07/right-to-strike-freedom-civil-liberties-oppression ~2~ Right to strike ensures a process of collective bargaining – absent a right to strike it would literally force workers to work against their will, violating freedom, Croucher '11:Croucher, Richard, Mark Kely, and Lilian Miles. "A Rawlsian basis for core labor rights." Comp. Lab. L. and Pol'y J. 33 (2011): 297. Yoaks ~3~ Absent a right to strike, employers use workers as a mere means to an end because they give workers little say in the process of negotiating employment conditions which treats them as passive tools for the use of profit, a right to strike ensures that workers give continual meaningful consent to the employment relationship without threat of coercionMethodThe role of the ballot is evaluate the normative desirability of the resolution. Anything else moots 6 minutes of 1AC offense, guts valuable topic education, and exacerbates 1AR time skews. Prefer—~A~ Textuality – Resolved denotes a proposal to be enacted by law | 12/4/21 |
NOVDEC - AC - Kant v5Tournament: Princeton Classic | Round: 4 | Opponent: Summit Mabel Rieger | Judge: Jenn Melin FrameworkThe meta-ethic is practical reason:A – Action theory – any action can be infinitely subdivided into smaller actions. For example, my walk to the door can be split into steps, movements, or moments in time. Only practical reason, i.e. my intention to walk to the door, can unify these pieces into a single, coherent action.B – Inescapable – external accounts of the good cannot motivate action since we can always ask why we should care about that thing. Only practical reason solves regress since 'why should I follow reason' is asking for a reason, conceding its authority – proves my framework is inescapable and that others collapse.Next, the relevant feature of reason is universality – any non-universalizable norm justifies someone's ability to impede on your ends i.e. if I want to eat ice cream, I must recognize that others may affect my pursuit of that end and demand the value of my end be recognized by others which also means universalizability acts as a side constraint on all other frameworks. It's impossible to will a violation of freedom since deciding to do would will incompatible ends since it logically entails willing a violation of your own freedomThus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative. Impact calc—only intents matter—A~ Induction fails – it begs the question because it uses the past to predict the future but we only assume this is true because it's worked in the past which is circular.B~ Aggregation's impossible – freedom is a property of action and not a countable object. Saying that two free actions are "more free" than one actions is like saying two circles are more "circular" than one.Prefer additionally—~1~ Performativity – Debate is an exchange of ideas, which requires that we respect each other as free, independent persons who seek ethical truth. Every response you make presupposes it. This respect extends to other people, since they are also agents who engage in dialogue.~2~ Epistemology – Ethics must be a-priori –A~ Is/ought gap – empirical facts only describe how the world is, not why it ought to be that way. For example, just because I do pursue pleasure doesn't mean I ought to pursue pleasure.B~ Perception – The material world is not the way it is because it is that way but rather that we perceive it to be that way. That necessitates a-priori reason since it is universally applied to include everyone. Anything else justifies committing atrocities that are perceived to produce a net positive by one person.~3~ The genesis of agency is intersubjective, which requires reciprocal constraints on freedom.Neuhouser ~Frederick (Professor of Philosophy at Columbia University). "Introduction to Foundations of Natural Right." Cambridge University Press, 2000, https://books.google.com/books?id=vw4tH2lKx3wC**.~~** ~4~ TJFs –A~ Critical thinking – Our framework forces you to make analytic arguments about the nature of LAWs – details like the geopolitical effects don't matter because none of us will ever be in a position to pass policies – but, we will have to make decisions in everyday life.B~ Small schools – Util debates reward debaters with more resources like coaches and backfiles – structural abuse outweighs – it rewards debaters because of factors outside of their control.OffenseI defend the resolution, Resolved: A just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike. PICs affirm since they don't disprove my general thesis. CX checks all theory: (A) I have to take stances on bidirectional interps. (B) Frivolous theory debates kill substantive education. Also, spec interps are irreciprocal since there's no stable neg advocacy for aff prep.Affirm:~1~ Gourevitch 18 Right to Strike defends liberty for workers to both set and pursue their own ends and resist coercion from others, Gourevitch '18:Gourevitch, Alex. "A Radical Defense of the Right to Strike." Jacobin 2018. https://jacobinmag.com/2018/07/right-to-strike-freedom-civil-liberties-oppression ~2~ Right to strike ensures a process of collective bargaining – absent a right to strike it would literally force workers to work against their will, violating freedom, Croucher '11:Croucher, Richard, Mark Kely, and Lilian Miles. "A Rawlsian basis for core labor rights." Comp. Lab. L. and Pol'y J. 33 (2011): 297. Yoaks ~3~ Absent a right to strike, employers use workers as a mere means to an end because they give workers little say in the process of negotiating employment conditions which treats them as passive tools for the use of profit, a right to strike ensures that workers give continual meaningful consent to the employment relationship without threat of coercionMethodThe role of the ballot is evaluate the normative desirability of the resolution. Anything else moots 6 minutes of 1AC offense, guts valuable topic education, and exacerbates 1AR time skews. Prefer—~A~ Textuality – Resolved denotes a proposal to be enacted by law | 12/4/21 |
NOVDEC - AC - Kant v6Tournament: Princeton Classic | Round: 5 | Opponent: La Salle Zach Whiting | Judge: Uma Menon 1ACFrameworkThe value is morality because the resolution is a question of whether an action is moral.The practical reason defined as the capacity of agents to set and pursue their own ends is the starting point of ethics –1 – Action theory – any action can be infinitely subdivided into smaller actions. For example, my walk to the door can be split into steps, movements, or moments in time. Only practical reason, i.e. my intention to walk to the door, can unify these pieces into a single, coherent action.2 – Inescapable – external accounts of the good cannot motivate action since we can always ask why we should care about that thing. Only practical reason solves regress since 'why should I follow reason' is asking for a reason, conceding its authority – proves my framework is inescapable and that others collapse.However, agents can't violate the freedom of others since that would violate practical reason since you can't will your unfreedom while also relying on your freedom to act to begin with. Thus, coercion would be a contradiction in conception. But, since we can't individually control the actions of others, we must, instead, rely on a state whose obligation it is to jointly will the equal freedom of all.Thus, the value criterion is protecting equal outer freedom.Prefer it additionally –~1~ Performativity – Debate is an exchange of ideas, which requires that we respect each other as free, independent persons who seek ethical truth. Every response you make presupposes it. This respect extends to other people, since they are also agents who engage in dialogue.~2~ Epistemology – Ethics must be a-priori –A~ Is/ought gap – empirical facts only describe how the world is, not why it ought to be that way. For example, just because I do pursue pleasure doesn't mean I ought to pursue pleasure.B~ Perception – The material world is not the way it is because it is that way but rather that we perceive it to be that way. That necessitates a-priori reason since it is universally applied to include everyone. Anything else justifies committing atrocities that are perceived to produce a net positive by one person.~3~ The genesis of agency is intersubjective, which requires reciprocal constraints on freedom.Neuhouser 2k ~Frederick (Professor of Philosophy at Columbia University). "Introduction to Foundations of Natural Right." Cambridge University Press, 2000, https://books.google.com/books?id=vw4tH2lKx3wC**.~~** ~4~ Consequentialism fails – A. Induction fails – It begs the question because it uses empirics to predict the future from the past but we only assume this is true because it has worked in the past which is circular. B. No aggregation – Pain isn't an additive function since we can't compare a migraine to multiple headaches. C. There are infinite consequences since every consequence causes other consequences. Any point where we stop measuring consequences would be arbitrary. Thus, agents would never be able to solve ethical problems. D. It can't guide action since we never know the results of our action until they happen – proves intentions come first.OffenseI defend the resolution, Resolved: A just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike. Plan inclusive counterplans affirm since they don't disprove my general thesis.Affirm:~1~ Gourevitch 18 Right to Strike defends liberty for workers to both set and pursue their own ends and resist coercion from others, Gourevitch '18:Gourevitch, Alex. "A Radical Defense of the Right to Strike." Jacobin 2018. https://jacobinmag.com/2018/07/right-to-strike-freedom-civil-liberties-oppression ~2~ Right to strike ensures a process of collective bargaining – absent a right to strike it would literally force workers to work against their will, violating freedom, Croucher '11:Croucher, Richard, Mark Kely, and Lilian Miles. "A Rawlsian basis for core labor rights." Comp. Lab. L. and Pol'y J. 33 (2011): 297. Yoaks ~3~ Absent a right to strike, employers use workers as a mere means to an end because they give workers little say in the process of negotiating employment conditions which treats them as passive tools for the use of profit, a right to strike ensures that workers give continual meaningful consent to the employment relationship without threat of coercion~4~ Sheppard 96 The right to strike is consistent with negative rights – otherwise it requires direct government intervention to break the negotiation process that is already skewed towards employers, Sheppard '96:
| 12/4/21 |
NOVDEC - AC - Kant v7Tournament: Virtual Scarsdale Invitational Scarvite | Round: 4 | Opponent: Eden Prairie Avik Garg | Judge: Nethmin Liyanage | 2/15/22 |
NOVDEC - AC - Kant v8Tournament: Virtual Scarsdale Invitational Scarvite | Round: 5 | Opponent: Princeton Peter Eaton | Judge: Derek Ying | 2/15/22 |
NOVDEC - AC - LayTournament: Virtual Scarsdale Invitational Scarvite | Round: 2 | Opponent: Solebury Leo Mokriski | Judge: Yan Gao | 2/15/22 |
SEPOCT - AC - KantTournament: Greenhill Fall Classic | Round: 1 | Opponent: Harker Ansh Sheth | Judge: Saianurag Karavadi 1ACFrameworkThe meta-ethic is practical reason:A – Action theory – any action can be infinitely subdivided into smaller actions. For example, my walk to the door can be split into steps, movements, or moments in time. Only practical reason, i.e. my intention to walk to the door, can unify these pieces into a single, coherent action.B – Bindingness – external accounts of the good cannot motivate action since we can always ask why we should care about that thing. Only practical reason solves regress since 'why should I follow reason' is asking for a reason, conceding its authority – proves my framework is inescapable and that others collapse.Next, actions must be willed freely from the choices of others. Otherwise, that would violate practical reason since you cannot will your unfreedom while also relying on your freedom to act to begin with. But, agents can't individually secure their own freedom since they can't wholly control what others do.Instead, they must jointly will the freedom of all, so that no one can subject another to their choice. Only a state, with power deriving from the participation of all, can enforce spheres of mutual independence while remaining impartial to each agent.Thus, the standard is protecting equal outer freedom. Impact calc—only intents matter—A~ Induction fails – it begs the question because it uses the past to predict the future but we only assume this is true because it's worked in the past which is circular.B~ Aggregation's impossible – freedom is a property of action and not a countable object. Saying that two free actions are "more free" than one actions is like saying two circles are more "circular" than one.Prefer additionally—~1~ Epistemology – Ethics must be a-priori –A~ Is/ought gap – empirical facts only describe how the world is, not why it ought to be that way. For example, just because I do pursue pleasure doesn't mean I ought to pursue pleasure.B~ Perception – The material world is not the way it is because it is that way but rather that we perceive it to be that way. That necessitates a-priori reason since it is universally applied to include everyone. Anything else justifies committing atrocities that are perceived to produce a net positive by one person.Epistemology outweighs since it determines how we know what is true.~2~ Performativity – Debate is an exchange of ideas, which requires that we respect each other as free, independent persons who seek ethical truth. Every response you make presupposes it. This respect extends to other people, since they are also agents who engage in dialogue.~3~ The genesis of agency is intersubjective, which requires reciprocal constraints on freedom.Neuhouser ~Frederick (Professor of Philosophy at Columbia University). "Introduction to Foundations of Natural Right." Cambridge University Press, 2000, https://books.google.com/books?id=vw4tH2lKx3wC**.~~** ~4~ TJFs –A~ Critical thinking – Our framework forces you to make analytic arguments about the nature of IP – details like the geopolitical effects don't matter because none of us will ever be in a position to pass policies – but, we all make decisions in everyday life.B~ Small schools – Util debates reward debaters with more resources like coaches and backfiles – structural abuse outweighs – it rewards debaters because of factors outside of their control.OffenseI defend the resolution, Resolved: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines. PICs affirm since they don't disprove my general thesis. CX checks all theory: (A) I have to take stances on bidirectional interps. (B) Frivolous theory debates kill substantive education. Also, spec interps are irreciprocal since there's no stable neg advocacy for aff prep.Affirm:1 – IP stops individuals from using the info they have to benefit their own end.Long 95 Roderick T. Long, Professor of philosophy at Auburn University and left-libertarian blogger, He also serves as an editor of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, director and president of the Molinari Institute and a Senior Fellow at the Center for a Stateless Society. "The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights." 1995. http://freenation.org/a/f31l1.html. 2 – The distinction between the implementation of ideas and ideas themselves is artificial.Long 95 Roderick T. Long, Professor of philosophy at Auburn University and left-libertarian blogger, He also serves as an editor of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, director and president of the Molinari Institute and a Senior Fellow at the Center for a Stateless Society. "The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights." 1995. http://freenation.org/a/f31l1.html. Proves IP rights are incoherent since it results in an inability to perform simple actions that have already been thought of before.MethodThe role of the ballot is evaluate the normative desirability of the resolution. Anything else moots 6 minutes of 1AC offense, guts valuable topic education, and exacerbates 1AR time skews. Prefer—Comparative worlds is constitutive, fair, and educational.Nelson '08 Adam F., J.D.1. Towards a Comprehensive Theory of Lincoln-Douglas Debate. 2008. http://ldtheoryjournal.blogspot.com/2008/04/towards-comprehensive-theory-of-ld-adam.html. MBPZ *modified for language Underview~1~ Aff theory is legit and drop the debater. 1AR theory is key to check infinite abuse. The 1AR is already too short so strat skew and time loss reading theory makes it impossible to have a fair shot at other areas of the flow, which also means aff theory comes lexically prior. And, no neg RVIs—let's them dump on the shell for 6 minutes making the 2AR impossible.AdvantageIndia is in crisis – the recent COVID surge is fundamentally different from that of the past.Khullar 21. ~(Dhruv Khullar is a contributing writer at The New Yorker, where he writes primarily about medicine, health care, and politics. He is also a practicing physician and an assistant professor at Weill Cornell Medical College) "India's Crisis Marks a New Phase in the Pandemic," The New Yorker, May 13, 2021. https://www.newyorker.com/science/medical dispatch/indias-crisis-marks-a-new-phase-in-the-pandemic~ TDI That causes Indo-Pak conflict escalation.Somos 20. ~Christy Somos is a CTVNews.ca Writer) "COVID-19 has escalated armed conflict in India, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya and the Philippines, study finds," CTV News, December 17, 2020. https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/covid-19-has-escalated-armed-conflict-in-india-pakistan-iraq libya-and-the-philippines-study-finds-1.5236738~ TDI That causes major death.Roblin 21. ~(Sébastien Roblin holds a master's degree in Conflict Resolution from Georgetown University and served as a university instructor for the Peace Corps in China, "If the Next India Pakistan War Goes Nuclear, It Will Destroy the World," The National Interest, March 26, 2021. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/if-next-india-pakistan-war-goes-nuclear-it-will-destroy world-181134~ TDI The plan solves by removing barriers to scaled-up vaccine production.Pandey 21. ~(Ashutosh Pandey) "Rich countries block India, South Africa's bid to ban COVID vaccine patents," DW, April 2, 2021. https://www.dw.com/en/rich-countries-block-india-south africas-bid-to-ban-covid-vaccine-patents/a-56460175 If Time3 – IPP exist for a certain period. Setting a 6 year patent vs a 7 year patent is arbitrary. That violates the non-domination model of freedom which holds that someone's freedom is violated if someone has the capacity to arbitrarily interfere because the state can set arbitrary limits on the duration and scope of IP laws.Critique cannot be divorced from Kantian thinking. A priori reason is necessary to identify oppressive beliefs.Wood 07 ~Wood, Allen (Allen Wood is Professor of Philosophy at Stanford University). Kantian Ethics, Cambridge University Press, pg. 11-12, 2007. 11/21/17~ MB PZ | 9/18/21 |
SEPOCT - AC - Kant v4Tournament: Greenhill Fall Classic | Round: 6 | Opponent: Harker Annmaria Antony | Judge: Matthew McMahon | 2/2/22 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
2/19/22 | paulr@bxscienceedu |
| |
2/20/22 | paulr@bxscienceedu |
| |
10/30/21 | paulr@bxscienceedu |
| |
10/30/21 | paulr@bxscienceedu |
| |
10/30/21 | paulr@bxscienceedu |
| |
9/18/21 | paulr@bxscienceedu |
| |
9/19/21 | paulr@bxscienceedu |
| |
2/2/22 | paulr@bxscienceedu |
| |
12/4/21 | paulr@bxscienceedu |
| |
12/4/21 | paulr@bxscienceedu |
| |
12/4/21 | paulr@bxscienceedu |
| |
2/15/22 | paulr@bxscienceedu |
| |
2/15/22 | paulr@bxscienceedu |
| |
2/15/22 | paulr@bxscienceedu |
|