Bronx Science Paul Neg
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 6 | Montville Sunay Hegde | Amit Kukreja |
|
|
| |
| Contact | 1 | Anyone | Someone |
|
|
| |
| Florida Blue Key Speech Debate Tournament | 2 | Strake Jesuit Nathan Wei | Nigel Taylor-Ward |
|
|
| |
| Florida Blue Key Speech Debate Tournament | 3 | King Aarush Tripathi | Eshwar Mohan |
|
|
| |
| Florida Blue Key Speech Debate Tournament | 6 | Dougherty Valley Katie Zheng | Tej Gedela |
|
|
| |
| Greenhill Fall Classic | 2 | Harker Deeya Viradia | Jack Quisenberry |
|
|
| |
| Greenhill Fall Classic | 3 | Eagan Aerin Engelstad | Ishan Rereddy |
|
|
| |
| Greenhill Fall Classic | 5 | Westlake Anastasia Keeler | Andres Rosero |
|
|
| |
| Princeton Classic | 1 | Durham Jacob Hornstein | Katherine Brainard |
|
|
| |
| Princeton Classic | 3 | Harrison Mai Blaustein | Wesley Loofbourrow |
|
|
| |
| Princeton Classic | 6 | Ardsley Zafir Sayyed | Andrew Lee |
|
|
| |
| Virtual Scarsdale Invitational Scarvite | 1 | Northland Christian lilly broussard | Chianli Hang |
|
|
| |
| Virtual Scarsdale Invitational Scarvite | 3 | Stuyvesant Ivan Li | Victor Chen |
|
|
| |
| Virtual Scarsdale Invitational Scarvite | 6 | Lexington Everest Yang | Meera Sehgal |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| 48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament | 6 | Opponent: Montville Sunay Hegde | Judge: Amit Kukreja 1AC - Megaconstellations Debris Adv - Ozone Adv |
| Contact | 1 | Opponent: Anyone | Judge: Someone Contact |
| Florida Blue Key Speech Debate Tournament | 2 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit Nathan Wei | Judge: Nigel Taylor-Ward 1AC - Asian Melancholy - TT - Bunch of tricks |
| Florida Blue Key Speech Debate Tournament | 3 | Opponent: King Aarush Tripathi | Judge: Eshwar Mohan 1AC - Kant AC with tricks |
| Florida Blue Key Speech Debate Tournament | 6 | Opponent: Dougherty Valley Katie Zheng | Judge: Tej Gedela 1AC - Wages AC |
| Greenhill Fall Classic | 2 | Opponent: Harker Deeya Viradia | Judge: Jack Quisenberry 1AC - EU |
| Greenhill Fall Classic | 3 | Opponent: Eagan Aerin Engelstad | Judge: Ishan Rereddy 1AC - PHE |
| Greenhill Fall Classic | 5 | Opponent: Westlake Anastasia Keeler | Judge: Andres Rosero 1AC - Beller |
| Princeton Classic | 1 | Opponent: Durham Jacob Hornstein | Judge: Katherine Brainard 1AC - Locke AC |
| Princeton Classic | 3 | Opponent: Harrison Mai Blaustein | Judge: Wesley Loofbourrow 1AC - Prison Workers Aff |
| Princeton Classic | 6 | Opponent: Ardsley Zafir Sayyed | Judge: Andrew Lee 1AC - Deleuze |
| Virtual Scarsdale Invitational Scarvite | 1 | Opponent: Northland Christian lilly broussard | Judge: Chianli Hang 1AC - Lay AC |
| Virtual Scarsdale Invitational Scarvite | 3 | Opponent: Stuyvesant Ivan Li | Judge: Victor Chen 1AC - Strikes |
| Virtual Scarsdale Invitational Scarvite | 6 | Opponent: Lexington Everest Yang | Judge: Meera Sehgal 1AC - Open source disclosure - United Kingdom 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 - FW - Util vs BellerTournament: Greenhill Fall Classic | Round: 5 | Opponent: Westlake Anastasia Keeler | Judge: Andres Rosero 1The standard is maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. The role of the ballot is to evaluate the consequences of the aff.1 – Moral purity is tautological—material focus is keyChristopher A. Bracey 6, Associate Professor of Law, Associate Professor of African and African American Studies, Washington University in St. Louis, September, Southern California Law Review, 79 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1231, p. 1318 2 – All impacts collapse back to pleasure – their framing is impact justified.Moen '16 – (Ole Martin, PhD, Research Fellow in Philosophy @ University of Oslo, "An Argument for Hedonism." Journal of Value Inquiry 50.2 (2016): 267). Modified for glang 3 – Death first – their framework assumes perfect rationality but agents can't deliberate on ethics if they fear for their bodily security – proves my offense turns and outweighs theirs.4 – No education or spillover – no debate round has ever influenced policy and voting aff definitely doesn't make a difference – debate should be about learning accurate policy simulation – it's the only portable skill.Hold them to the line in CX – they said if we win our framing mechanism with our offense we win the debate. | 9/19/21 |
Gen - K - KantTournament: Florida Blue Key Speech Debate Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: King Aarush Tripathi | Judge: Eshwar Mohan 4Their philosophy requires rationality that constructs a "perfect subject" – this "perfect subject" is inaccessible to everyone, which rectifies ableismRyan 11 "~Group 2~ Cognitive Disability, Misfortune, and Justice (Deontology-Ryan) « Introduction to Ethics," No Publication, http://parenethical.com/phil140win11/2011/01/17/group-3-cognitive-disability-misfortune-and-justice-deontology-ryan/ MM They read morally repugnant args – Thus the alt is to drop them – ableism permeates all form of violence and is a representation of human inferiority and oppressionSiebers 9: Siebers, Tobin ~Professor of Literary and Cultural Criticism @ University of Michigan~, "The Aesthetics of Human Disqualification". October 2009. / MM | 10/30/21 |
Gen - NC - SkepticismTournament: Princeton Classic | Round: 6 | Opponent: Ardsley Zafir Sayyed | Judge: Andrew Lee 2Permissibility and presumption negate –~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~ 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.Skep is true and negates –1~ Infinite regress – In order to believe in a fact, you need knowledge of other facts to justify your belief in that fact, but the same applies to those facts, which means knowledge is infinitely regressive – epistemic skep.2~ Motivation double bind – either a) your framework isn't motivational and it doesn't guide action so obligations can't be generated or b) morality is motivational and people will do what is says no matter what so it's just descriptive of action, not providing an obligation.3~ Morality is circular – The framework starts from the premise of upholding morality. Your framework then defines what constitutes morality. That's a double bind because either a) your framework is circular because by defining morality you are changing the burden of what your framework must be in the first place or b) morality is an undefinable concept which means normative obligations cannot be generated.4~ Paradoxes –A~ Good Samaritan- In order to say I want to fix X problem, you must say that you want X problem to exist, since it requires the problem to exist to solve, which makes a moral attempt inherently immoral. This also means affirming negates because you need the resolution to not have happened in order to have an obligation.B~ Meno's- In order to discover something, it must already be known – this makes the quest for knowledge incomprehensible and impossible.C~ Rule following – there in nothing inherent in a rule that mandates a certain interpretation – for example, there in nothing inherent in an arrow about showing direction. That means we can't set moral rules because those rules need rules to interpret them – the moral rule they set is infinitely regressive.D~ Derrida's – a moral action must be immediate because waiting allows for injustice to occur, however in acting early we suspend our cognitive deliberation and thus lack the ability to make a fully informed, just decision. Thus, striving for morality is inherently immoral and obligations are contradictory. | 2/2/22 |
Gen - ROB - Truth TestingTournament: Princeton Classic | Round: 6 | Opponent: Ardsley Zafir Sayyed | Judge: Andrew Lee 1The role of the ballot is to determine the truth or falsity of the resolution –~1~ Textuality – "Affirm" means "assert as valid" and "negate" means "deny the … truth of." Text comes first – A) Controls the internal link to fairness since it's the basis of things like predictability and prep. B) Key to jurisdiction since the judge can only endorse what is within their burden. C) Even if another role of the ballot is better for debate, that is not a reason it ought to be the role of the ballot, just a reason we ought to discuss it.~2~ Necessity – All statements assert implicit truth value i.e. if I say "I smell violets" that is the same as saying "It is true that I smell violets." 2 impacts –~A~ Double bind—either they assert the truth value of their indicts to truth testing meaning they implicitly accept truth testing as a paradigm or they don't assert the truth value of their indicts which means that they are false and truth testing is true anyways.~B~ Even if we're losing on the framework debate, their framework is going to collapse to truth testing anyways.~3~ Constituvism- Truth Testing is the only constitutive feature of debate – if affirm and negate means to prove true and deny the truth of then that means it must be constitutively truth testingNardin 92 Terry Nardin, "International Ethics and International Law". Review of International Studies, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Jan., 1992), pp. 19-30, published by Cambridge University Press. The first thing to observe in considering this objection is that the purposes of a practice are not necessarily the same as the purposes either of those who designed or of those who participate in it. From the standpoint of an umpire supervising a particular game of chess, the paramount consideration governing the play is that it should be in conformity with the rules of chess. If a player makes an illegal move, arguing that it will result in a more intellectually challenging game, the proper response is to ignore the argument and prohibit the move. In other words, the kinds of reasons that are valid within the game are different from those that might be considered by chess federation officials contemplating changes in the rules of the game. From the internal perspective of the player or the umpire, the authority of the rules is absolute Players or umpires may disagree about the interpretation or proper application of the rules, but they may not take the position that a valid, authoritative rule should be set aside. It is also important to distinguish between the intentions that may be embedded in a rule or system of rules and the consequences of observing that rule or participating in the system. Constitutive aims are important in that they are non-optionalKatsafanas 11 ~Paul. (2011), "Deriving Ethics from Action: A Nietzschean Version of Constitutivism." Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 83: 620–660.~ | 2/2/22 |
Gen - Th - 1AR Theory HedgeTournament: Florida Blue Key Speech Debate Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: King Aarush Tripathi | Judge: Eshwar Mohan Reject 1AR theory —1 – It screws over the 2NR since I have to split my speech time to cover two different flows – outweighs any neg abuse since the 2AR collapse will always win if I can't consolidate offense especially since the 2AR just needs to win one standard and weigh.2 – One speech isn't enough to develop clear clash – outweighs since resolvability is a gateway issue to other impacts.3 – Guts education – affs will always ditch substance and go for theory because it's so strategic.And, they'll say infinite abuse but (a) spikes solve and (b) this particular instance isn't that abusive.Also, if you think it's too harsh, then default to drop the arg. | 10/30/21 |
Gen - Th - A-SpecTournament: Florida Blue Key Speech Debate Tournament | Round: 6 | Opponent: Dougherty Valley Katie Zheng | Judge: Tej Gedela 2Aff must specify which branch passes the plan – they don'tVote neg –1 – Ground – robs courts, congress, executive counterplans, agent specific disads and specific case arguments2 – No solvency – there's no such actor as the "Federal Government", only specific branchesBrovero 94 (Adrienne, Debate Coach, "Immigration Policies", Debater's Research Guide, http://www.wfu.edu/Student-organizations/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/Brovero1994Immigration.htm) 3 – Policy ed – a-spec is affects everything – proves our ground argHeminway 5 (Joan MacLeod , Associate Professor – University of Tennessee College of Law, "Rock, Paper, Scissors: Choosing the Right Vehicle for Federal Corporate Governance Initiatives", Fordham Journal of Corporate and Financial Law, 10 Fordham J. Corp. and Fin. L. 225) 4 – CX doesn't check –A~ Guts pre-round prep which is best for researchB~ It's not binding and judges don't pay attentionC~ Avoids textual competition for counterplan – the 1AR could still read a permCA Paradigm issues and voters | 10/31/21 |
Gen - Th - CX Checks BadTournament: Florida Blue Key Speech Debate Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: King Aarush Tripathi | Judge: Eshwar Mohan 3Interpreation – The Aff must defend theory interpretations and arguments unconditionally as presented in the 1ac. In other words, the aff may not run cx checks.Violation –~1~ Theory recourse – CX checks (a) causes sidestepping, encouraging you to have hidden abusive args since I either call you out on it in cx and you kick it or I concede it and you win, which makes debates innocuous and is empirically confirmed with Jake Steirn, (b) causes ambiguity – what constitutes a sufficient "check" is unclear. Even if we isolate the abusive practice in CX, the aff can still go for the arg and establish new parameters for checking, and (c) prep skew – even if you don't kick the abuse, you get extra time to prep my interp since you know what I'll indict. That gives you nearly double the time to prep and creates irreciprocal burdens. Theory recourse is key to any voter since it ensures I can check back abusive strategies.~2~ Value of CX – There's a big difference between cross-examining a position and clarifying what the aff is. The point of CX is to do former. Your norm encourages debaters to not work at becoming good at questioning their opponents. Also no reason we need to use CX as clarification – you had 6 minutes to clarify what you defended. That's key to education since CX and the ability to ask good questions is one of the most unique skills garnered in LD. Key to fairness because it allows aff to waste negative CX time and keeps the neg from gaining concessions. | 10/30/21 |
Gen - Th - Permenant planTournament: Greenhill Fall Classic | Round: 3 | Opponent: Eagan Aerin Engelstad | Judge: Ishan Rereddy 3Interpretation: The plan must be permanent.Violation: They don't reduce IP when there is no global public health emergency – that was CX.Standard is ground – (extempted) | 9/19/21 |
Gen - Th - ROB SpecTournament: Florida Blue Key Speech Debate Tournament | Round: 2 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit Nathan Wei | Judge: Nigel Taylor-Ward 2Interpretation: If the someone reads a role of the ballot then they must clarify (1) an explicit mechanism of weighing offense, ex: if the role the ballot is explicitly based on material consequences or principles and reps (2) whether the role the ballot comes before theory.Violation:Standards:1 – engagement– without offense or theory weighing I don't know if the args I'm going for are actually relevant or if we're 2 ships passing in the night – else the 1ar can shift to non-unique 1nc offense o/w: (a) scope – they'll always shift to the issue they're ahead on and get extra credence on any role of the ballot clarifications so even if I weigh my offense I'm still behind (b) turns your method – no stasis point limits discussion and just tries to not have any contestation on their offense.2 – Resolvability – we can't resolve offense if you don't say what offense counts. Resolvability is a voting issue.No weighing rotb vs the shell – (a) I don't indict the rob just how you read it; my model of debate defends your role of the ballot plus specification and (b) it proves the abuse.Vote on fairness – abuse skews your evaluation of substance. Drop the debater – letting the 1AR spec is the abuse. No RVI: (A) I'll lose to the 2AR collapse every time. (B) Chills legit theory which leads to a race to the bottom—outweighs deterrence since you could just beat a bad theory shell. Use competing interps—reasonability is interventionist. | 10/30/21 |
Gen - Th - Spec type of consequentialismTournament: Greenhill Fall Classic | Round: 3 | Opponent: Eagan Aerin Engelstad | Judge: Ishan Rereddy 1NC1Interpretation: If a debater reads a consequentialist framework, then they must specify in a delineated text which theory of good they defend. (Eg hedonism, act vs rule util, eudaimonia).Violation: They are consequentialist – that was CX and they don't even have a standard.1 – Shiftiness – They can shift out of disads and case turns by reframing their vague theory of good. That's true here because their justifications have different implications for different versions of consequentialism and I would not know until the 1AR which moots 1NC offense.2 – Strat skew – I lose the 6 mins spent in the 1AC trying to develop a strategy since I don't know what turns or case specific arguments would link under the standard whereas they clearly know that links under my standard.3 – Resolvability – They make the round irresolvable because the judge has no idea how to evaluate offense absent specification. That's an independent voter because judges need to resolve debates to make a decision.4 – CX doesn't check –A~ Guts pre-round prep which is best for researchB~ It's not binding and judges don't pay attentionVote on fairness – abuse skews your evaluation of substance – precedes education since if there's abuse, you can't expect me to clash. Drop the debater – I can't respond to a new aff in the 2NR since I don't have a 3NR to defend my offense – link turns 1AR theory – proves the aff forced me to be abusive.No RVIs on spec: (A) The 1AR would just sit on the shell so I'll always lose to the unchecked 2AR collapse—also means evaluate theory after the 2NR. (B) Chills legit theory which leads to a race to the bottom—outweighs deterrence since you could just beat a bad theory shell. Use competing interps—either there's a bright line which collapses, or there isn't which causes intervention. | 9/19/21 |
Gen - Th - Spikes on TopTournament: Florida Blue Key Speech Debate Tournament | Round: 3 | Opponent: King Aarush Tripathi | Judge: Eshwar Mohan 1Interpretation: All affirmative paradigm issues concerning theory and arguments concerning fairness or education that the negative could violate must be read first in the affirmative speech. To clarify, theory arguments must be read at the top of the affirmative case before all substantive arguments.Violation:Vote neg:~1~ Strat – theory preempts drastically change neg strat since they're the highest layer of the debate. If the aff reads all their substance, then covers theory, the neg is disadvantaged since any substantive case neg work could be drastically reduced by the norms they purport. The neg needs to know what conditions they need to meet prior to setting a strat, outweighs – reversibility – you've spent a long time prepping this aff so you should know how long it takes to get through it, but I don't know the conditions of engagement which severely skews neg strat.~2~ Norm setting – Negs are more likely to conform to their interps if they're at the top of the aff since they establish a context under which we construct our case neg. Any arg for why we should respond to the spikes are a net benefit to my interp.~3~ Substantive education – Spikes on top makes it easier for the neg to plan a strategy that meets your paradigm to ensure better engagement since the discussion is shifted away from theory spike extensions to the crux of the topic.Also you can't use your spikes to take out my shell:~1~ No abuse – my shell doesn't indict your ability to read spikes or these specific ones, just their placement.~2~ Meta-theory outweighs – similar to how theory precludes substance by establishing norms around it, meta theory should preclude their args.Vote on fairness – abuse skews your evaluation of substance – precedes education since if there's abuse, you can't expect me to clash. Drop the debater – I can't respond to a new aff in the 2NR since I don't have a 3NR to defend my offense – link turns 1AR theory – proves the aff forced me to be abusive.No RVIs: (A) The 1AR would just sit on the shell so I'll always lose to the unchecked 2AR collapse—also means evaluate theory after the 2NR. (B) Chills legit theory which leads to a race to the bottom—outweighs deterrence since you could just beat a bad theory shell. Use competing interps—either there's a bright line which collapses, or there isn't which causes intervention. | 10/30/21 |
Gen - Th - Spikes on Top v2Tournament: Florida Blue Key Speech Debate Tournament | Round: 6 | Opponent: Dougherty Valley Katie Zheng | Judge: Tej Gedela 1Interpretation: All affirmative paradigm issues concerning theory and arguments concerning fairness or education that the negative could violate must be read first in the affirmative speech. To clarify, theory arguments must be read at the top of the affirmative case before all substantive arguments.Violation:Vote neg:~1~ Strat – theory preempts drastically change neg strat since they're the highest layer of the debate. If the aff reads all their substance, then covers theory, the neg is disadvantaged since any substantive case neg work could be drastically reduced by the norms they purport. The neg needs to know what conditions they need to meet prior to setting a strat, outweighs – reversibility – you've spent a long time prepping this aff so you should know how long it takes to get through it, but I don't know the conditions of engagement which severely skews neg strat.~2~ Norm setting – Negs are more likely to conform to their interps if they're at the top of the aff since they establish a context under which we construct our case neg. Any arg for why we should respond to the spikes are a net benefit to my interp.Also you can't use your spikes to take out my shell:~1~ No abuse – my shell doesn't indict your ability to read spikes or these specific ones, just their placement.~2~ Meta-theory outweighs – similar to how theory precludes substance by establishing norms around it, meta theory should preclude their args.Vote on fairness – abuse skews your evaluation of substance – precedes education since if there's abuse, you can't expect me to clash. Drop the debater – I can't respond to a new aff in the 2NR since I don't have a 3NR to defend my offense – link turns 1AR theory – proves the aff forced me to be abusive.No RVIs: (A) The 1AR would just sit on the shell so I'll always lose to the unchecked 2AR collapse—also means evaluate theory after the 2NR. (B) Chills legit theory which leads to a race to the bottom—outweighs deterrence since you could just beat a bad theory shell. Use competing interps—either there's a bright line which collapses, or there isn't which causes intervention. | 10/31/21 |
NOVDEC - CP - Police UnionsTournament: Princeton Classic | Round: 1 | Opponent: Durham Jacob Hornstein | Judge: Katherine Brainard 1CP Text: A just government should recognize the unconditional right of non-police workers to strike, abolishing police unions.The aff makes police collective bargaining worse and gives more power to police unions.Andrew Grim, 20 Ph.D. candidate in history at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, is at work on a dissertation on anti-police brutality activism in post-WWII Newark Police unions use collective bargaining to reinforce systems of racism and violence. Clark '19Paul F. Clark ~School Director and Professor of Labor and Employment Relations, Penn State~, 10-10-2019, "Why police unions are not part of the American labor movement," Conversation, https://theconversation.com/why-police-unions-are-not-part-of-the-american-labor-movement-142538 accessed 10/20/2021 marlborough jh | 12/4/21 |
NOVDEC - DA - Healthcare WorkersTournament: Florida Blue Key Speech Debate Tournament | Round: 6 | Opponent: Dougherty Valley Katie Zheng | Judge: Tej Gedela | 10/31/21 |
NOVDEC - DA - InnovationTournament: Princeton Classic | Round: 1 | Opponent: Durham Jacob Hornstein | Judge: Katherine Brainard 2Global tech innovation high now.Mercury News et al 6/4 ~Mercury News and East Bay Times Editorial Boards, June 4, 2021, "Editorial: How America can Win the Global Tech War" https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/06/04/editorial-why-silicon-valley-needs-endless-frontier-bill/ gord0~ Violent strike efforts are increasing – they slow innovation, specifically in the tech sector.Hanasoge 16 ~Chaithra; Senior Research Analyst, Market Researcher, Consumer Insights, Strategy Consulting; "The Union Strikes: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly," Supply Wisdom; April/June 2016 (Doesn't specifically say but this is the most recent event is cites); https://www.supplywisdom.com/resources/the-union-strikes-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/~~//SJWen Victories like the aff mobilizes unions in the IT sector.Vynck et al 21 ~Gerrit De; Carleton University, BA in Journalism and Global Politics, tech reporter for The Washington Post. He writes about Google and the algorithms that increasingly shape society. He previously covered tech for seven years at Bloomberg News; Nitashu Tiku; Columbia University, BA in English, New York University, MA in Journalism, Washington Post's tech culture reporter based in San Francisco; Macalester College, BA in English, Columbia University, MS in Journalism, reporter for The Washington Post who is focused on technology coverage in the Pacific Northwest; "Six things to know about the latest efforts to bring unions to Big Tech," The Washington Post; https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/26/tech-unions-explainer/~~//SJWen Technological innovation solves every existential threat – which outweighs.Matthews 18 Dylan. Co-founder of Vox, citing Nick Beckstead @ Rutgers University. 10-26-2018. "How to help people millions of years from now." Vox. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/10/26/18023366/far-future-effective-altruism-existential-risk-doing-good | 12/4/21 |
NOVDEC - K - CapitalismTournament: Princeton Classic | Round: 3 | Opponent: Harrison Mai Blaustein | Judge: Wesley Loofbourrow 1The telos of the 1ac's politics is the strike – that naturalizes capital's control and is parasitic on political organizing.Eidlin 20 Barry Eidlin (assistant professor of sociology at McGill University and the author of Labor and the Class Idea in the United States and Canada), 1-6-2020, "Why Unions Are Good – But Not Good Enough," Jacobin, https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/01/marxism-trade-unions-socialism-revolutionary-organizing Recognizing a right to strike reduces revolutionary potential and fractures class organizing – turns the perm.Crépon 19 Mark Crépon (French philosopher), translated by Micol Bez "The Right to Strike and Legal War in Walter Benjamin's 'Toward the Critique of Violence,'" Critical Times, 2:2, August 2019, DOI 10.1215/26410478-7708331 Capitalism's successes necessitate human extinction and destroy the value to life – it's try or die for alternative organizingDuzgun 20 Eren Duzgun (teaches Historical Sociology and International Relations at Leiden University, Netherlands), 4-5-2020, "Capitalism, Coronavirus and the Road to Extinction," Socialist Project, https://socialistproject.ca/2020/04/capitalism-coronavirus-and-road-to-extinction/ The alternative is the abolition of the wage system through democratic popular control of the means of production, distribution and exchange – reactions to COVID-19 prove it is possibleMorning Star 7/13 ~(The Morning Star is a left-wing British daily newspaper with a focus on social, political and trade union issues. The paper was founded in 1930 as the Daily Worker by the Communist Party of Great Britain.) "What did Marx mean by 'abolish the wages system'?" Morning Star, 7/13/2020~ BC Framing – neoliberalism infects policy education – you should prioritize epistemologically challenging itBall 17 Stephen J. Ball (Distinguished Service Professor of Sociology of Education at the University College London, Institute of Education. He was elected Fellow of the British Academy in 2006; and is also Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences; and Society of Educational Studies, and a Laureate of Kappa Delta Phi; he has honorary doctorates from the Universities of Turku (Finland), and Leicester. He is co-founder and Managing Editor of the Journal of Education Policy), 2017, "Laboring to Relate: Neoliberalism, Embodied Policy, and Network Dynamics," Peabody Journal of Education, 92:1, 29-41, DOI: 10.1080/0161956X.2016.1264802, this part is pgs. 37-39 | 12/4/21 |
NOVDEC - NC - ParticularismTournament: Princeton Classic | Round: 6 | Opponent: Ardsley Zafir Sayyed | Judge: Andrew Lee 3Their mobility of identity parallels a mobility in truth; our relation to ethics constantly changes – this necessitates experimentation with our moral norms and their particularities.Jun and Smith 11 ~Nathan Jun (Ph.D., Philosophy and Literature, Purdue University; M.A., Philosophy, University of Pennsylvania) and Daniel W. Smith (Professor of Philosophy at Purdue University and one of the world's leading commentators on Deleuze. He has translated his work, edited collections and written numerous articles on Deleuze). "Deleuze and Ethics." 2011. Edinburgh University Press. JStor.~ MK The standard is embracing an ethics of particular experimentation. Defined as recognizing there's no set norm that we follow in all situations and test different maxims to see which are life affirming.Vote neg:The AC is an absolute principle; it claims there cannot be any instance in which the state shouldn't recognize an unconditional right to strike, which ignores the possibility of alternate circumstances we can't respond to until we respond ad hoc. A universal statement like the resolution can't have universal truth; its truth is contextual, which contradicts the principles of experimentation. | 2/2/22 |
NOVDEC - T - FrameworkTournament: Florida Blue Key Speech Debate Tournament | Round: 2 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit Nathan Wei | Judge: Nigel Taylor-Ward 1The aff must defend a government policy that recognizes an unconditional workers' right to strike – hold the line, CX and the absence of a plan prove there's no I-meet."Resolved" means to enact a policy by law.Words and Phrases 64 (Words and Phrases; 1964; Permanent Edition) The agent in the resolution is a government.Debate is a game and we're all here to win – that means procedural questions like T come first. The only role of the ballot and judge is to vote for whoever does the better debating over the topic question.Vote neg – their interp explodes limits and allows affs to monopolize the moral high ground. The lack of a stable mechanism lets them radically re-contextualize their aff and erase neg ground via perms. Impacts—A~ Fairness is good and prior – debate's a game that requires effective competition and negation, which makes their offense inevitable.B~ Cutting negs to every possible aff wrecks small schools, which has a disparate impact on under-resourced and minority debaters.C~ Can't weigh the aff—it's just as likely that they're winning it because we weren't able to effectively prepare to defeat it.D~ Inescapable – the AC conforms to every norm of debate – speed, speech times, ballots – proves they value playing the game and isolating T as the one bad rule is arbitrary.E~ Probability – ballots can't shape our subjectivity or create broad political change but can rectify in-round skews.Vote neg – 1AR restarts force late-developing debates that favor the aff since they get a 7-6 time skew and ensure surface-level clash.T isn't violent – A~ I don't have the power to impose a norm – only to convince you my side is better. T doesn't ban you from the activity – the whole point is that norms should be contestable – I just say make a better arg next time. B~ Exclusion is inevitable – every role of the ballot excludes some arguments and even saying T bad excludes it – that means we should delineate ground along reciprocal lines, not abandon division altogether.No impact turns or RVIs – A~ Substance – if T's bad then we should try debating on substance – impact turns force me to go for T since I need to defend my position. B~ Dead end – strategy guides debates so they'll desire that people read T to beat them on the impact turn – that proves their strategy is reactive and can't solve since they rely on the structures they critique. | 10/30/21 |
SEPOCT - DA - China RelationsTournament: Greenhill Fall Classic | Round: 5 | Opponent: Westlake Anastasia Keeler | Judge: Andres Rosero 2US-China interdependence strong now from tech, academia, and scientific research but it can go downhill.Hass 8/12 ~Ryan Hass (Senior Fellow - Foreign Policy, Center for East Asia Policy Studies, John L. Thornton China Center The Michael H. Armacost Chair Chen-Fu and Cecilia Yen Koo Chair in Taiwan Studies Nonresident Fellow, Paul Tsai China Center, Yale Law School), 8-12-2021, "The "new normal" in US-China relations: Hardening competition and deep interdependence," Brookings, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2021/08/12/the-new-normal-in-us-china-relations-hardening-competition-and-deep-interdependence/ belle (recut)~ The plan rolls back trade agreement promising to stop Chinese IP violations – brings in the US.Shape 2/19 ~Steven M. Shape; registered patent attorney and electrical engineer who has represented preeminent technology companies in complex, high-stakes Intellectual Property litigation; 2-19-2021, "IP Law Looms Large Over U.S.-China Relations," No Publication, https://www.mondaq.com/trademark/1038030/ip-law-looms-large-over-us-china-relations belle (recut)~ Stable US-China relations key to engagement in dialogue about nuclear activity preventing nuclear war.CSIS '13 ~CSIS (CSIS is a nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington, D.C. The Center's 220 full- time staff and large network of affiliated scholars conduct research and analysis and develop policy initiatives that look into the future and anticipate change), March 2013, " Nuclear Weapons and U.S.-China Relations a way forward," Center for Strategic and International Studies, https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/publication/130307_Colby_USChinaNuclear_Web.pdf belle (recut)~ US-China war escalates to nuclear use.Talmadge 18, Caitlin ~PoliSci PhD from MIT, Government BA from Harvard, Prof of Security Studies at Georgetown's Walsh School of Foreign Service.~ "Beijing's Nuclear Option." Foreign Affairs. October 15, 2018. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2018-10-15/beijings-nuclear-option TG (recut) | 9/19/21 |
SEPOCT - NC - KantTournament: Greenhill Fall Classic | Round: 2 | Opponent: Harker Deeya Viradia | Judge: Jack Quisenberry 2Presumption and permissibility negate—~1~ They have to prove the existence of an obligation to reduce IP protections – permissibility denies that.~2~ There's an infinite number of other, mutually exclusive actions and one of them is probably better than the aff.~3~ Statements are more likely false than true since there's infinite ways to deny a statement but only one way to prove it.The 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 wholly control what others do so they must form a state with the power to will the freedom of all.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.C~ Consequences of every act span across infinite time and space so no consequence can be causally traced to a single agent.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.~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.Negate –1 – Absence of IPP allows free-riding where individuals use others' work. Free-riding violates equal freedom.Ripstein '9 (Arthur Ripstein; Arthur Ripstein is Professor of Law and Philosophy and University Professor. He was appointed to the Department of Philosophy in 1987, promoted to Full Professor in 1996, appointed to the Faculty of Law in 1999, and appointed to the rank of University Professor in 2016. He received a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Pittsburgh, a master's degree in law from Yale, and an undergraduate degree from the University of Manitoba. He was Chair of the Philosophy Department 2011-14 and Acting Chair 2019-20; 10-15-2009; Force and Freedom, accessed 8-20-2020; JPark Bracketed for Gendered Language) 2 – The government is obligated to protect IP. The inventor has a right to own their creation. The same applies to intellectual property. A world where everyone can use the inventions of another without consent is stealing which violates the categorical imperative since people who steal do not wish to be stolen from. | 9/18/21 |
SEPOCT - NC - Kant v2Tournament: Greenhill Fall Classic | Round: 3 | Opponent: Eagan Aerin Engelstad | Judge: Ishan Rereddy 2The 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 wholly control what others do so they must form a state with the power to will the freedom of all.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~ 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~ 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.Negate –1 – Absence of IPP allows free-riding where individuals use others' work. Free-riding violates equal freedom.Ripstein '9 (Arthur Ripstein; Arthur Ripstein is Professor of Law and Philosophy and University Professor. He was appointed to the Department of Philosophy in 1987, promoted to Full Professor in 1996, appointed to the Faculty of Law in 1999, and appointed to the rank of University Professor in 2016. He received a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Pittsburgh, a master's degree in law from Yale, and an undergraduate degree from the University of Manitoba. He was Chair of the Philosophy Department 2011-14 and Acting Chair 2019-20; 10-15-2009; Force and Freedom, accessed 8-20-2020; JPark Bracketed for Gendered Language) 2 – The government is obligated to protect IP. The inventor has a right to own their creation. The same applies to intellectual property. A world where everyone can use the inventions of another without consent is stealing which violates the categorical imperative since people who steal do not wish to be stolen from. | 9/19/21 |
SEPOCT - T - NebelTournament: Greenhill Fall Classic | Round: 2 | Opponent: Harker Deeya Viradia | Judge: Jack Quisenberry 1Interpretation: "member nations" is a generic bare plural. The aff may not defend that a member nation or specific member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines.Nebel 19. ~Jake Nebel is an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Southern California and executive director of Victory Briefs. He writes a lot of this stuff lol – duh.~ "Genericity on the Standardized Tests Resolution." Vbriefly. August 12, 2019. https://www.vbriefly.com/2019/08/12/genericity-on-the-standardized-tests-resolution/?fbclid=IwAR0hUkKdDzHWrNeqEVI7m59pwsnmqLl490n4uRLQTe7bWmWDO_avWCNzi14 TG It applies to "member nations" – 1~ upward entailment test – "member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines" doesn't entail that member nations of the EU ought to reduce IPP for medicines because it doesn't prove that the EU should reduce IP. 2~ adverb test – adding "all" to the res doesn't substantially change its meaning because the WTO is a collective.Violation: They spec member nations of the EU.Standards:~1~ Semantics – the counter-interp justifies them arbitrarily doing away with random words in the resolution which decks negative ground and preparation because the aff is no longer bounded by the resolution. Independent voter for jurisdiction – the judge doesn't have the jurisdiction to vote aff if there wasn't a legitimate aff.~2~ Limits and ground – Their model allows affs to defend anything from a specific member nation or groups of them which means there's no universal disad since each group has a different function and different political capabilities. – That explodes neg prep and leads to worse ground. They eliminate core topic disads like the China heg disad and Chinese relations disad as well as other politics and infrastructure disads. That forces the neg with generics that are easily prepped out meaning my ground is smaller and quantitatively worse.~3~ TVA solves – you could've read your plan as an advantage under a whole res advocacy.Voter – fairness – debate is a competitive activity that requires an equal playing field; else you can't evaluate the better debater.Competing interps –A~ Reasonability creates a race to the bottom that where debaters use marginal brightlines to get away with huge abuseB~ reasonability collapses since we use offense-defense to compare brightlines.Drop the debater –A~ it's incoherent with T since you'd drop the advocacy which is functionally the sameB~ deters abuse – empirically proven with a prioris.No RVI's –A~ The 1AR would just sit on T with frontlines so I'll always lose to the unchecked 2AR collapse.B~ The aff has the burden of being topical so I have an unconditional right to read T.C~ Enables a 2AR on theory which disincentivizes the 2NR from going for substanceD~ Illogical – you don't win for being fair. | 9/18/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
10/30/21 | paulr@bxscienceedu |
| |
10/30/21 | paulr@bxscienceedu |
| |
10/31/21 | paulr@bxscienceedu |
| |
9/18/21 | paulr@bxscienceedu |
| |
9/19/21 | paulr@bxscienceedu |
| |
9/19/21 | paulr@bxscienceedu |
| |
12/4/21 | paulr@bxscienceedu |
| |
12/4/21 | paulr@bxscienceedu |
| |
2/2/22 | paulr@bxscienceedu |
| |
2/15/22 | paulr@bxscienceedu |
| |
2/15/22 | paulr@bxscienceedu |
| |
2/15/22 | paulr@bxscienceedu |
|