| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grapevine | 1 | Bergen County Academies AK | Truman Le |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine | 3 | West HS SLC HZ | James Stuckert |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine | 5 | West Des Moines Valley MM | Andrew Shaw |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine | Triples | Evergreen Valley SS | Blake Andrews |
|
|
| |
| Jack Howe | 1 | Marlborough MS | Leah Clark-Villanueva |
|
|
| |
| Jack Howe | 4 | Harvard-Westlake SW | Dylan Liu |
|
|
| |
| Jack Howe | 5 | Homestead SL | Neda Bahrani |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | 6 | Catonsville AT | Vishnu Vennelakanti |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | 4 | Harrison AC | Joshua Michael |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | 2 | Peninsula CS | Claudia Ribera |
|
|
| |
| Loyola | 2 | Peninsula CS | Claudia Ribera |
|
| ||
| Nano Nagle | 1 | Monta Vista RD | Christopher Perez |
|
|
| |
| Nano Nagle | 3 | Summit JC | Squid Monteith |
|
|
| |
| Nano Nagle | 6 | Bergen County Academies AK | Quentin Clark |
|
|
| |
| New York City Invitational | 2 | Strake Jesuit NW | Brendon Morris |
|
|
| |
| New York City Invitational | 4 | Hunter AI | Saianurag Karavadi |
|
|
| |
| TOC | Quarters | You | Me |
|
| ||
| TOC | Semis | You | Me |
|
| ||
| TOC | Finals | You | Me |
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Grapevine | 1 | Opponent: Bergen County Academies AK | Judge: Truman Le 1AC - Util Covid Waviers |
| Grapevine | 3 | Opponent: West HS SLC HZ | Judge: James Stuckert 1AC - Wynter |
| Grapevine | 5 | Opponent: West Des Moines Valley MM | Judge: Andrew Shaw 1AC - Locke AFC 1 Response Shell TT Resolved Apriori |
| Grapevine | Triples | Opponent: Evergreen Valley SS | Judge: Blake Andrews 1AC - The Impossible Bomb |
| Jack Howe | 1 | Opponent: Marlborough MS | Judge: Leah Clark-Villanueva 1AC - Struc Vio AC |
| Jack Howe | 4 | Opponent: Harvard-Westlake SW | Judge: Dylan Liu 1AC - Util WTO |
| Jack Howe | 5 | Opponent: Homestead SL | Judge: Neda Bahrani 1AC - WTO Cred Util |
| Loyola | 6 | Opponent: Catonsville AT | Judge: Vishnu Vennelakanti 1AC - Bioterror AC |
| Loyola | 4 | Opponent: Harrison AC | Judge: Joshua Michael 1AC - Racial Cap |
| Loyola | 2 | Opponent: Peninsula CS | Judge: Claudia Ribera 1AC - Struc Vio |
| Nano Nagle | 1 | Opponent: Monta Vista RD | Judge: Christopher Perez 1AC - US Wavier |
| Nano Nagle | 3 | Opponent: Summit JC | Judge: Squid Monteith 1AC - Evergreening AC India Adv |
| Nano Nagle | 6 | Opponent: Bergen County Academies AK | Judge: Quentin Clark 1AC - Covid Wavier US |
| New York City Invitational | 2 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit NW | Judge: Brendon Morris 1AC - Asian Melancholy |
| New York City Invitational | 4 | Opponent: Hunter AI | Judge: Saianurag Karavadi 1AC - Semiocap K Aff |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 - Contact InformationTournament: TOC | Round: Finals | Opponent: You | Judge: Me | 10/4/21 |
0 - Content WarningTournament: TOC | Round: Quarters | Opponent: You | Judge: Me | 10/4/21 |
0 - NavigationTournament: TOC | Round: Semis | Opponent: You | Judge: Me | 10/4/21 |
1 - 1AR Theory HedgeTournament: Loyola | Round: 2 | Opponent: Peninsula CS | Judge: Claudia Ribera | 9/11/21 |
1 - Alternate FW ShellTournament: Grapevine | Round: 5 | Opponent: West Des Moines Valley MM | Judge: Andrew Shaw A. Interpretation: If the AFF claims they get to choose the framework for the round, they get to defend the framework they justify in the 1AC but must choose a different theoretically legitimate framework for the NEG. To clarify, the AFF must choose the framework for both themselves and the NEG, both of which are theoretically justified.B. Violation: They force me to debate the same framework as per the AFC argument.C. Standards:BUT, prefer my interpretation:1. Phil education extempted2. Strategy Skew extemptedFairness is a voter – debate is a competitive activity that requires objective evaluation and otherwise debaters quit. Education is a voter – it’s the only portable benefit and reason schools fund debate. No RVIs – a) good theory debaters will bait out theory and always win b) illogical – you shouldn’t win for being fair, and c) chilling effect – people are disincentivized from reading theory out of fear of losing on an RVI. Use competing interps – a) reasonability collapses because weighing between brightlines concedes the authority of an offense-defense paradigm b) reasonability requires judge intervention, and c) creates a race to the bottom where people read increasingly abusive practices that minimally fit the brightline. Drop the debater to deter future abuse and rectify time spent reading the shell. | 9/11/21 |
1 - Disclosure ShellTournament: Jack Howe | Round: 1 | Opponent: Marlborough MS | Judge: Leah Clark-Villanueva 1Interpretation: Debaters must disclose the framing and advantage area of new affs at least 15 minutes before the round.Violation: you didn’t do so – screenshot
~1~ Limits – Unbroken standard and advantage areas are unpredictable – they can read any framework and advantage area so it’s impossible to know what to specify since my prep won’t apply or be specific enough and I might have to read an alternative framework, so the neg has to prep every single one of thousands of different standards and advantages to have a shot at engaging whereas the aff only has to prep one, creating a massive prep skew.~2~ Argument quality: standard text and advantage disclosure discourages cheap shot aff’s with fringe authors and bad solvency – you could read a hyperspecific advantage that I can’t cut solvency deficits to or a super descriptive aff that I need prep for like Polls. If the aff is defeated by 15 minutes of research, it should lose. They had 3 weeks to prep – the neg is entitled to some research time to make sure the AFF is plausible, otherwise bad affs can win on purely surprise factor, which is a bad model b/c it encourages finding the most surprising case possible instead of a well researched and defensible aff. Also impacts to evidence ethics, without any disclosure you could have an aff where you make up everything about the authors or philosophers – evidence ethics comes before any impact of the ac It calls into question everything else. If they would lie about their evidence then anything else they may have said could be a lie as well and should be disregarded and be suspect of all their args. You’ll say you didn’t do enough prep but its your fault for not working hard – we shouldn’t have to suffer for your lack of preperation.You’ll say you disclosed your teammates wiki but its nonverifiable and nonintrinsic – you’re not tied down to reading that specific aff and can change it at anytime whereas disclosure ties you down to the aff which means that doesn’t solve.FairnessDisclosure has to be drop the debater and a voter- it is uniquely able to set norms and you can’t drop the argument. Competing interpretations because disclosure is a question of models of debate and we should be able to defend our models – also, reasonability is arbitrary, has no brightline, and invites judge intervention since it’s up to them to determine their BS meter – also best for a race to the top where we can have better debates in the future which outweighs on scope. No RVIs – a~ illogical, you don’t win for proving that you meet the burden of being fair, logic outweighs since it’s a prerequisite for evaluating any other argument, b~ RVIs incentivize baiting theory and prepping it out which leads to maximally abusive practices | 9/18/21 |
1 - Must Give Doc If New AffTournament: New York City Invitational | Round: 4 | Opponent: Hunter AI | Judge: Saianurag Karavadi 1A. Interpretation: Debaters must disclose the doc at least 15 minutes before round if it’s a new aff.Violation – screenshots in the doc1~ Evidence ethics – having the doc is the only way to verify pre-round that cards aren’t miscut or highlighted or bracketed unethically. That’s a voter – maintaining ethical ev practices is key to being good academics and we should be able to verify you didn’t cheat2~ Depth of clash – it allows debaters to have nuanced researched objections to their opponents evidence before the round at a much faster rate, which leads to higher quality ev comparison – outweighs cause thinking on your feet is NUQ but the best quality responses come from full access to a case.3~ Strat skew – it makes it so that its possible to negate since you can run any range of unpredictable acs – its key to stopping hidden tricks that disablity can’t always catch since there’s no way for us to verify preround, that proves the ablism and is an independent link into the k.Fairness is a voter – debates a comeptitive activity that requires objective evaluaation, everything collapses, education since it’s the only portable impact, no rvis, illogical shouldn’t win for being fair, 2. Youll just bait theory and prep out so no norm setting, chilling effect, debators will be scared to run theory in fear of abuse, competing interps, reasonability is arbitrary and a race to the bottom | 10/16/21 |
1 - Must Read Plan TextTournament: New York City Invitational | Round: 2 | Opponent: Strake Jesuit NW | Judge: Brendon Morris | 10/16/21 |
2 - FW - UtilTournament: Grapevine | Round: 5 | Opponent: West Des Moines Valley MM | Judge: Andrew Shaw The standard is maximizing expected well-being.1. 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 deductively determine why.2. Actor specificity:Util is the best for governments, which is the actor in the rez. Governments must aggregate since every policy benefits some and harms others, which also means side constraints freeze action. 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.3. Extinction comes first under any framework.Pummer 15 ~Theron, Junior Research Fellow in Philosophy at St. Anne's College, University of Oxford. "Moral Agreement on Saving the World" Practical Ethics, University of Oxford. May 18, 2015~ AT AND be acting very wrongly." (From chapter 36 of On What Matters) | 9/11/21 |
2 - K - Disability PessimismTournament: Loyola | Round: 2 | Opponent: Peninsula CS | Judge: Claudia Ribera The alt is unconditional, I can’t kick it.HedgeReasonability on 1AR shells – 1AR theory is super aff-biased because the 2AR gets to line-by-line every 2NR standard with new answers that never get responded to– reasonability checks 2AR sandbagging by preventing super abusive 1NCs while still giving the 2N a chance.DTA on 1AR shells - They can blow up a blippy 20 second shell to 3 min of the 2AR while I have to split my time and can’t preempt 2AR spin which necessitates judge intervention and means 1AR theory is irresolvable so you shouldn’t stake the round on it.RVIs on 1AR theory – 1AR being able to spend 20 seconds on a shell and still win forces the 2N to allocate at least 2:30 on the shell which means RVIs check back time skew – ows on quantifiability1NC ShellBehold the image of the disgusting disabled child, which causes one to wince in the face of egoistic empathy. This is self-reflection, a process constitutive of the psyche that results in the disability drive, the culmination of primary pity where the non-disabled subject embodies itself in the position of the disabled object, and secondary pity, which portrays the ego’s overcompensation to regain its position and pushes a desire from lack for the eradication of disability.Mollow 15 Anna (2015): The Disability Drive, A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in English in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Kent Puckett, Chair Professor Celeste G. Langan Professor Melinda Y. Chen Spring 2015 https://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/etd/ucb/text/Mollow'berkeley'0028E'15181.pdf SJCPJG AND of violation" that resonates with experiences recounted by survivors of sexual assault. The affirmative’s politics are tied to a rehabilitative futurism where the signifier of the fantasmatic child is placed forward to eradicate and cure disability – this deems the disabled child a threat and excludes disability from the political. They don’t get to weigh case – if we win their starting point is violent, they don’t get to weigh their end point since we indict the process of how they got there.Mollow 2 Anna (2015): The Disability Drive, A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in English in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Kent Puckett, Chair Professor Celeste G. Langan Professor Melinda Y. Chen Spring 2015 https://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/etd/ucb/text/Mollow'berkeley'0028E'15181.pdf SJCPJG AND the disabled, eugenicists promised, would bring forth a better future.110 The starting point of the 1AC is epistemically flawed and an independent link – fiat is illusory and anything that doesn’t begin from the question of disability allows for ableism to infiltrate modes of thought which means we’re an epistemic prerequisite. Thus, the role of the ballot is to vote for the debater who best methodologically challenges ableism.Campbell 13 Fiona Kumari (2013): Problematizing Vulnerability: Engaging Studies in Ableism and Disability Jurisprudence, Fiona Kumari Campbell undertakes research in Studies in Ableism, coloniality, disability studies as well as explorations about Buddhist formations of disability. Trained in sociology, theology and legal studies; she is interested in ways that law, new technologies and the governance of marginal populations produces understandings of the productive citizen, normative bodies, ideas of periphery and ways that ablement privileges and entitles certain groups in society. Campbell is the author of Contours of Ableism: The Production of Disability and Abledness (Palgrave, 2009) and numerous other journal articles and book chapters. SJCPJG AND a form of harm in need of improvement, cure or indeed eradication. Vote negative to endorse an unwavering pessimism and radical failure – we reject the political and notions of futurism in exchange for an affirmation of disability’s abjection as something beautiful.Selck 16 Michael (2016): Crip Pessimism: The Language of Dis/ability and the Culture that Isn't, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, SJCPJG AND seeking a world that exists beyond good and evil and instead just is. Psychoanalysis is both falsifiable and accurate – studies prove.Grant and Harari 5 (Don and Edwin, psychiatrists, "Psychoanalysis, science and the seductive theory of Karl Popper," Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry) AND bureaucrats ~15~, although what exactly is being attacked is often unclear. No perms: (a) view it as artificially distinct since it’s key to fully flesh out the individual intricacies of both methods and create more concrete proposals (b) justifies infinite aff conditionality – allowings permutations allows infinite new 1AR advocacies which skews 1 mins of the 1NC and destroys neg ground (c) irreciprocal – we can’t permute their methods which means they can always intrinsic perm or sever which destroys neg ground (d) illogical – the alt isn’t fiated in the sense of the aff so endorsing a fiated world mixed with a pre-fiat orientation is incoherent (e) hold the 1AC method by itself since anything else endorses bad scholarship since it justifies severence – justifying both in the aff solves. | 9/6/21 |
2 - K - Disability Pessimism v2Tournament: Grapevine | Round: 3 | Opponent: West HS SLC HZ | Judge: James Stuckert The alt is unconditional – we can’t kick it.HedgeReasonability on 1AR shells – 1AR theory is super aff-biased because the 2AR gets to line-by-line every 2NR standard with new answers that never get responded to– reasonability checks 2AR sandbagging by preventing super abusive 1NCs while still giving the 2N a chance.DTA on 1AR shells - They can blow up a blippy 20 second shell to 3 min of the 2AR while I have to split my time and can’t preempt 2AR spin which necessitates judge intervention and means 1AR theory is irresolvable so you shouldn’t stake the round on it.RVIs on 1AR theory – 1AR being able to spend 20 seconds on a shell and still win forces the 2N to allocate at least 2:30 on the shell which means RVIs check back time skew – ows on quantifiability1NC ShellAbleism is seeded in a process constitutive of the disability drive – composing of primary pity, when one witnesses a fall of the ego and a recognition of the ability status as temporary, and secondary pity, which describes the egos attempt to overcompensate necessitating disabled violence.Mollow 15 Anna (2015): The Disability Drive, A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in English in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Kent Puckett, Chair Professor Celeste G. Langan Professor Melinda Y. Chen Spring 2015 https://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/etd/ucb/text/Mollow'berkeley'0028E'15181.pdf SJCPJG AND of violation" that resonates with experiences recounted by survivors of sexual assault. The affirmatives optimistic hope of a better future is complicit in rehabilitative futurism, as the disabled object is seen through a lens of nonproduction – this discludes disability from the political and notions of reformism. They don’t get to weigh case – if we win their starting point is violent then they shouldn’t be able to weigh their endpoint.Mollow 2 Anna (2015): The Disability Drive, A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in English in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Kent Puckett, Chair Professor Celeste G. Langan Professor Melinda Y. Chen Spring 2015 https://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/etd/ucb/text/Mollow'berkeley'0028E'15181.pdf SJCPJG AND the disabled, eugenicists promised, would bring forth a better future.110 The 1ACs focus on epistemic performativity erases the material conditions of disability.Siebers 6 (Tobin, Prof of Literary and Cultural Criticism at the U of Michigan, "Disability Studies and the Future of Identity Politics") DR 16 AND Sontag insists that "the reality has to be explained" (55). The starting point of the 1AC is epistemically flawed and an independent link – fiat is illusory and anything that doesn’t begin from the question of disability allows for ableism to infiltrate modes of thought which means we’re an epistemic prerequisite. Thus, the role of the ballot is to vote for the debater who best methodologically challenges ableism.Campbell 13 Fiona Kumari (2013): Problematizing Vulnerability: Engaging Studies in Ableism and Disability Jurisprudence, Fiona Kumari Campbell undertakes research in Studies in Ableism, coloniality, disability studies as well as explorations about Buddhist formations of disability. Trained in sociology, theology and legal studies; she is interested in ways that law, new technologies and the governance of marginal populations produces understandings of the productive citizen, normative bodies, ideas of periphery and ways that ablement privileges and entitles certain groups in society. Campbell is the author of Contours of Ableism: The Production of Disability and Abledness (Palgrave, 2009) and numerous other journal articles and book chapters. SJCPJG AND a form of harm in need of improvement, cure or indeed eradication. The alternative is to endorse the negative and unwavering pessimism – we reject the political and notions of futurism in exchange for an affirmation of disability’s abjection as something beautiful.Selck 16 Michael (2016): Crip Pessimism: The Language of Dis/ability and the Culture that Isn't, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, SJCPJG AND seeking a world that exists beyond good and evil and instead just is. Psychoanalysis is both falsifiable and accurate – studies prove.Grant and Harari 5 (Don and Edwin, psychiatrists, "Psychoanalysis, science and the seductive theory of Karl Popper," Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry) AND bureaucrats ~15~, although what exactly is being attacked is often unclear. No perms: (a) view it as artificially distinct since it’s key to fully flesh out the individual intricacies of both methods and create more concrete proposals (b) justifies infinite aff conditionality – allowings permutations allows infinite new 1AR advocacies which skews 1 mins of the 1NC and destroys neg ground (c) irreciprocal – we can’t permute their methods which means they can always intrinsic perm or sever which destroys neg ground (d) illogical – the alt isn’t fiated in the sense of the aff so endorsing a fiated world mixed with a pre-fiat orientation is incoherent (e) hold the 1AC method by itself since anything else endorses bad scholarship since it justifies severence – justifying both in the aff solves. | 9/11/21 |
2 - K - Disability Pessimism v3Tournament: Grapevine | Round: Triples | Opponent: Evergreen Valley SS | Judge: Blake Andrews The alt is unconditional – we can’t kick it.1NC ShellAbleism is seeded in a process constitutive of the disability drive – composing of primary pity, when one witnesses a fall of the ego and a recognition of the ability status as temporary, and secondary pity, which describes the egos attempt to overcompensate necessitating disabled violence.Mollow 15 Anna (2015): The Disability Drive, A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in English in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Kent Puckett, Chair Professor Celeste G. Langan Professor Melinda Y. Chen Spring 2015 https://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/etd/ucb/text/Mollow'berkeley'0028E'15181.pdf Brookfield East DJ AND of violation" that resonates with experiences recounted by survivors of sexual assault. The affirmatives optimistic hope of a better future is complicit in rehabilitative futurism, as the disabled object is seen through a lens of nonproduction – this discludes disability from the political and notions of reformism. They don’t get to weigh case – if we win their starting point is violent then they shouldn’t be able to weigh their endpoint.Mollow 2 Anna (2015): The Disability Drive, A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in English in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Kent Puckett, Chair Professor Celeste G. Langan Professor Melinda Y. Chen Spring 2015 https://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/etd/ucb/text/Mollow'berkeley'0028E'15181.pdf Brookfield East DJ AND the disabled, eugenicists promised, would bring forth a better future.110 The 1ACs focus on epistemic performativity erases the material conditions of disability.Siebers 6 (Tobin, Prof of Literary and Cultural Criticism at the U of Michigan, "Disability Studies and the Future of Identity Politics") DR 16 AND Sontag insists that "the reality has to be explained" (55). The starting point of the 1AC is epistemically flawed and an independent link – fiat is illusory and anything that doesn’t begin from the question of disability allows for ableism to infiltrate modes of thought which means we’re an epistemic prerequisite. Thus, the role of the ballot is to vote for the debater who best methodologically challenges ableism.Campbell 13 Fiona Kumari (2013): Problematizing Vulnerability: Engaging Studies in Ableism and Disability Jurisprudence, Fiona Kumari Campbell undertakes research in Studies in Ableism, coloniality, disability studies as well as explorations about Buddhist formations of disability. Trained in sociology, theology and legal studies; she is interested in ways that law, new technologies and the governance of marginal populations produces understandings of the productive citizen, normative bodies, ideas of periphery and ways that ablement privileges and entitles certain groups in society. Campbell is the author of Contours of Ableism: The Production of Disability and Abledness (Palgrave, 2009) and numerous other journal articles and book chapters. SJCPJG AND a form of harm in need of improvement, cure or indeed eradication. The alternative is to endorse the negative and unwavering pessimism – we reject the political and notions of futurism in exchange for an affirmation of disability’s abjection as something beautiful.Selck 16 Michael (2016): Crip Pessimism: The Language of Dis/ability and the Culture that Isn't, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, SJCPJG AND seeking a world that exists beyond good and evil and instead just is. Psychoanalysis is both falsifiable and accurate – studies prove.Grant and Harari 5 (Don and Edwin, psychiatrists, "Psychoanalysis, science and the seductive theory of Karl Popper," Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry) AND bureaucrats ~15~, although what exactly is being attacked is often unclear. No perms: (a) view it as artificially distinct since it’s key to fully flesh out the individual intricacies of both methods and create more concrete proposals (b) justifies infinite aff conditionality – allowings permutations allows infinite new 1AR advocacies which skews 1 mins of the 1NC and destroys neg ground (c) irreciprocal – we can’t permute their methods which means they can always intrinsic perm or sever which destroys neg ground (d) illogical – the alt isn’t fiated in the sense of the aff so endorsing a fiated world mixed with a pre-fiat orientation is incoherent (e) hold the 1AC method by itself since anything else endorses bad scholarship since it justifies severence – justifying both in the aff solves. | 9/12/21 |
2 - K - Queer PessimismTournament: Loyola | Round: 6 | Opponent: Catonsville AT | Judge: Vishnu Vennelakanti The alt is unconditional, I can’t kick it.HedgeReasonability on 1AR shells – 1AR theory is super aff-biased because the 2AR gets to line-by-line every 2NR standard with new answers that never get responded to– reasonability checks 2AR sandbagging by preventing super abusive 1NCs while still giving the 2N a chance.DTA on 1AR shells - They can blow up a blippy 20 second shell to 3 min of the 2AR while I have to split my time and can’t preempt 2AR spin which necessitates judge intervention and means 1AR theory is irresolvable so you shouldn’t stake the round on it.RVIs on 1AR theory – 1AR being able to spend 20 seconds on a shell and still win forces the 2N to allocate at least 2:30 on the shell which means RVIs check back time skew – ows on quantifiability1NC ShellDesire from lack projects identity which we can never fully reach which urges the political to determine which identities are legitimate. Thus, the role of the ballot is to vote for the debater with the best method of traversing the fantasy.Edelman 04 (Lee Edelman, No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive, 2004, Duke University Press, p. 7-9) SJCPJG AND force of what insists outside or beyond, because foreclosed by, signification. Politics and futurism is built on the premise that any negation of the signifier of the child is essential in order to fulfill desire from lack which deems queerness out of the political – the impact is reproductive futurism which is a system of structural overkill that places queerness in a position of ontological exclusion. They don’t get to weigh case – if we win their starting point is violent, they don’t get to weigh their end point since we indict the process of how they got there.Edelman 2 (Lee Edelman, No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive, 2004, Duke University Press, p. 10-13) SJCPJG AND of social organization, collective reality, and, inevitably, life itself. Ignore statistics regarding material progress for queerness – they’re geared at hiding the truth of the situation which means only our ontology claim explains the reality of overkill.Stanley 11 (Eric Stanley, Near Life, Queer Death: Overkill and Ontological Capture, 2011, p. 5-6) SJCPJG AND of a body of a "man in a dress" discovered.15 The alternative is to embrace the death drive – a full affirmation of queer negativity in which we adopt political apostasy and embrace radical queer jouissance.baedan 12 baedan, 2012, "baedan," Journal of Queer Nihilism, The Anarchist Library, https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/baedan-baedan SJBE AND exploits us, but also against everything that produces us as we are. Psychoanalysis is both falsifiable and accurate.Grant and Harari ‘5 (Don and Edwin, psychiatrists, "Psychoanalysis, science and the seductive theory of Karl Popper," Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry ) sjbe, recut from Harvard BS AND bureaucrats ~15~, although what exactly is being attacked is often unclear. | 9/5/21 |
2 - K - UtilTournament: Jack Howe | Round: 4 | Opponent: Harvard-Westlake SW | Judge: Dylan Liu 2The safety of the space is prima facie – we don’t know who’s winning if people can’t engage. Anything that doesn’t immediately denounce atrocities excludes people who have and can experience them.Teehan Ryan Teehan ~NSD staffer and competitor from the Delbarton School~ – NSD Update comment on the student protests at the TOC in 2014. Massa AND to ask yourselves whether you can justify making debate unsafe for certain people. Utilitarian calculus fails to account for moral atrocities.Jeffrey Gold, Utilitarian and Deontological Approaches to Criminal Justice Ethics Massa AND we are always treating the victim as a means to our own ends. The alt is to vote neg – it’s as simple as not to vibe with oppression – as an educator it’s your job to dismiss racist, sexist, homophobic, and ableist discourse that kills the spirit of marginalized debaters. | 9/19/21 |
2 - ROB - Comparative WorldsTournament: Grapevine | Round: 5 | Opponent: West Des Moines Valley MM | Judge: Andrew Shaw Comparative WorldsUse comparative worlds-that means they need to defend the world of the aff1. Reciprocity- prevents infinite tricky NCs.2. Real world- ethical judgments are relevant only in terms of how they impact the world.3. Topic education- forcing them to disprove the plan requires research about the topic- only unique impact to topic rotation.4. Advocacy- forces them to defend an alternative vision of the world.5. Inclusion- our interp includes all methods of debate- they exclude Ks which prevents deconstruction of harmful mindsets or racist language- independent reason to reject. | 9/11/21 |
SEPTOCT - DA - AntitrustTournament: Grapevine | Round: 5 | Opponent: West Des Moines Valley MM | Judge: Andrew Shaw 2Bipartisan antitrust bills passing now but continued PC needed to pacify republicans.Perlman 9/3 ~Matthew; 9/3/21; "Interest Groups Back Big Tech Antitrust Bills In House," LAW360, https://www.law360.com/competition/articles/1418789/interest-groups-back-big-tech-antitrust-bills-in-house~~ Justin AND agree is already doing great harm to our democracy," the letter said. Aff requires negotiations that saps PC.Pooley 21 ~James; Former deputy director general of the United Nations’ World Intellectual Property Organization and a member of the Center for Intellectual Property Understanding; "Drawn-Out Negotiations Over Covid IP Will Blow Back on Biden," Barron’s; 5/26/21; https://www.barrons.com/articles/drawn-out-negotiations-over-covid-ip-will-blow-back-on-biden-51621973675~~ Justin AND helping export our surplus vaccine doses and vaccine ingredients to countries in need. Antitrust is key to the DIB – brink is now.Sitaraman 20 ~Ganesh; Vanderbilt University Law School; "The National Security Case for Breaking Up Big Tech," Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia; 3/12/20; https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract'id=3537870~~ brett Re-Cut Justin AND redirected via monopoly profits to the pockets of big tech executives and shareholders. That solves extinction through great power war.Marks 19 ~Michael; Former Senior Policy Advisor to the Under Secretary for Security Assistance, Science and Technology at the U.S. Department of State; "Strengthen US Industry To Counter National Security Challenges," American Military News; 10/10/19; https://americanmilitarynews.com/2019/10/strengthen-us-industry-to-counter-national-security-challenges/~~ Justin AND industry, therefore, will be critical to countering our national security challenges. | 9/11/21 |
SEPTOCT - DA - CannabisTournament: Grapevine | Round: 5 | Opponent: West Des Moines Valley MM | Judge: Andrew Shaw 1Maintaining IPRs in cannabis businesses is key to its progression and protects the industry.Sander 16 ~Jason is a versatile writer and marketer with twelve years of experience serving clients. He couples this expertise with a passion for cannabis businesses and the science of medical marijuana "Patenting Cannabis Strains – Good or Bad?" June 8, 2016 https://www.marijuanatimes.org/patenting-cannabis-strains-good-or-bad/~~ WHS MR AND legal and financial muscle to blow any small timer out of the water. Widespread cannabis cultivation solves climate change via carbon sequestrationRyan 17 (Bruce, Contributor @ Cannasystems, "Capturing Carbon," 10/14, https://cannasystems.ca/single-column/joomla-content/614-capturing-carbon) AND From the article "Vision of the Coming Cannabis Storm" by Bruce Ryan Warming causes extinction in mere decades – scientific consensus proves.Schultz 16 (Robert Schultz ~Retired Professor and Chair of Computer Information Systems at Woodbury University~ "Modern Technology and Human Extinction," http://proceedings.informingscience.org/InSITE2016/InSITE16p131-145Schultz2307.pdf) RW AND redirected via monopoly profits to the pockets of big tech executives and shareholders. | 9/11/21 |
SEPTOCT - DA - InnovationTournament: Jack Howe | Round: 5 | Opponent: Homestead SL | Judge: Neda Bahrani 1Climate Patents and Innovation high now and solving Warming but COVID waiver sets a dangerous precedent for appropriations - the mere threat is sufficient is enough to kill investment.Brand 5-26, Melissa. "Trips Ip Waiver Could Establish Dangerous Precedent for Climate Change and Other Biotech Sectors." IPWatchdog.com | Patents and Patent Law, 26 May 2021, www.ipwatchdog.com/2021/05/26/trips-ip-waiver-establish-dangerous-precedent-climate-change-biotech-sectors/id=133964/. sid AND is unlikely they will continue to invest at the current and required levels. Private sector innovation is key to solve climate change – short term politicking and priority shifts means government can’t solve alone.Henry 17, Simon. "Climate Change Cannot Be Solved by Governments Alone. How Can the Private Sector Help?" World Economic Forum, 21 Nov. 2017, www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/11/governments-alone-cannot-halt-climate-change-what-can-private-sector-do/. Programme Director, International Carbon Reduction and Offset Alliance (ICROA) sid AND to contribute to the solution to help secure the viability of their businesses. | 9/19/21 |
SEPTOCT - NC - KorsgaardTournament: Jack Howe | Round: 4 | Opponent: Harvard-Westlake SW | Judge: Dylan Liu 3Permissibility and presumption negate – ~a~ the resolution indicates the aff has to prove an obligation, and permissibility would deny the existence of an obligation ~b~ Statements are more often false than true because any part can be false. This means you negate if there is no offense because the resolution is probably false.Ethics must begin a priori:~1~ Uncertainty – our experiences are inaccessible to others which allows people to say they don’t experience the same, however a priori principles are universally applied to all agents.~2~ Bindingness – I can keep asking "why should I follow this" which results in skep since obligations are predicated on ignorantly accepting rules. Only reason solves since asking "why reason?" requires reason which concedes its authority and equally proves agency as constitutiveThat means we must universally will maxims— any non-universalizable norm justifies someone’s ability to impede on your ends.Thus, the standard is consistency with the categorical imperative.Prefer the standard: ~a~ freedom is the key to the process of justification of arguments. Willing that we should abide by their ethical theory presupposes that we own ourselves in the first place. Thus, it is logically incoherent to justify the neg arguments/standard without first willing that we can pursue ends free from others ~b~ Frameworks are topicality interps of the word ought so they should be theoretically justified. Prefer on resource disparities—a focus on evidence and statistics privileges debaters with the most preround prep which excludes lone-wolfs who lack huge evidence files. A debate under my framework can easily be won without any prep since huge evidence files aren’t required.1NC – Offense1~ Intellectual property is an inalienable personal right of economic usePozzo 6 Pozzo, Riccardo. "Immanuel Kant on Intellectual Property." Trans/Form/Ação, vol. 29, no. 2, 2006, pp. 11–18., doi:10.1590/s0101-31732006000200002. SJDA recut SJKS recut Cookie JX AND he was to make, as we say today, a free use. 2~ The aff violates the categorical imperative and is non-universalizable- governments have a binding obligation to protect creationsVan Dyke 18 Raymond Van Dyke, 7-17-2018, "The Categorical Imperative for Innovation and Patenting," IPWatchdog, https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/07/17/categorical-imperative-innovation-patenting/id=99178/ SJDA recut SJKS AND trade secret protection would become the mainstay for society with the heightened distrust. 3~ The aff encourages free riding- that treats people as ¬means to an end and takes advantage of their efforts which violates the principle of humanityVan Dyke 2 Raymond Van Dyke, 7-17-2018, "The Categorical Imperative for Innovation and Patenting," IPWatchdog, https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/07/17/categorical-imperative-innovation-patenting/id=99178/ SJDA recut SJKS AND theft of property, whether tangible or intangible, apart from legitimate exigencies. 4~ Unauthorized publication and usage of text is wrongful and infringes on inalienable moral rightsBarron ’11. ~Barron, Anne (2011) Kant, copyright and communicative freedom. Law and philosophy . pp. 1-48. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/37521/1/Kant'Copyright'and'Communicative'Freedom'28lsero29.pdf~~ NChu AND of a doctrine of moral rights has done little to allay these concerns. | 9/19/21 |
SEPTOCT - NC - Logical ConsequenceTournament: Jack Howe | Round: 4 | Opponent: Harvard-Westlake SW | Judge: Dylan Liu 1The aff burden is to prove that the resolutional statement is logical, and the reciprocal neg burden is to prove that the resolutional statement is illogical.Prefer:1. Text – Oxford Dictionary defines ought as "used to indicate something that is probable."https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ought Massa Ought is "used to express logical consequence" as defined by Merriam-Webster(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ought) Massa 2. Debatability – a) my interp means debates focus on empirics about squo trends rather than irresolvable abstract principles that’ve been argued for years b) Moral oughts cannot guide action.Gray, Grey, JW. "The Is/Ought Gap: How Do We Get "Ought" from "Is?"" Ethical Realism. N.p., 19 July 2011. Web. 28 Oct. 2015. Massa AND arsenic. If it is, we have some more explaining to do. 4. Neg definition choice – The aff should have defined ought in the 1ac as their value, by not doing so they have forfeited their right to read a new definition – kills 1NC strategy since I premised my engagement on a lack of your definition.~1~ Inherency – either a) the aff is non-inherent and you vote neg on presumption or b) it is and it isn’t logically going to happen. | 9/19/21 |
SEPTOCT - NC - Logical Consequence v2Tournament: Nano Nagle | Round: 1 | Opponent: Monta Vista RD | Judge: Christopher Perez 1The aff burden is to prove that the resolutional statement is logical, and the reciprocal neg burden is to prove that the resolutional statement is illogical.Prefer:1. Text – Oxford Dictionary defines ought as "used to indicate something that is probable."https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ought Massa Ought is "used to express logical consequence" as defined by Merriam-Webster(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ought) Massa 2. Debatability – a) my interp means debates focus on empirics about squo trends rather than irresolvable abstract principles that’ve been argued for years b) Moral oughts cannot guide action due to the is/ought fallacy – we cannot derive moral obligations from what happens in the real world3. Neg definition choice – The aff should have defined ought in the 1ac as their value, by not doing so they have forfeited their right to read a new definition – kills 1NC strategy since I premised my engagement on a lack of your definition.Negate: ~1~ Inherency – either a) the aff is non-inherent and you vote neg on presumption or b) it is and it isn’t logically going to happen.~2~ CX you conceded | 10/9/21 |
SEPTOCT - NC - Logical Consequence v3Tournament: Nano Nagle | Round: 6 | Opponent: Bergen County Academies AK | Judge: Quentin Clark 5The aff burden is to prove that the resolutional statement is logical, and the reciprocal neg burden is to prove that the resolutional statement is illogical.Prefer:1. Text – Oxford Dictionary defines ought as "used to indicate something that is probable."https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ought Massa Ought is "used to express logical consequence" as defined by Merriam-Webster(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ought) Massa 2. Debatability – a) my interp means debates focus on empirics about squo trends rather than irresolvable abstract principles that’ve been argued for years b) Moral oughts cannot guide action due to the is/ought fallacy – we cannot derive moral obligations from what happens in the real world3. Neg definition choice – The aff should have defined ought in the 1ac as their value, by not doing so they have forfeited their right to read a new definition – kills 1NC strategy since I premised my engagement on a lack of your definition.Negate: 4. Independently reject moral oughts – 5 warrants.Ronnie De 21 ~Ronnie De. . "Five reasons why moral philosophy is distracting and harmful". 2021-07-23. Aeon. https://aeon.co/essays/five-reasons-why-moral-philosophy-is-distracting-and-harmful. Accessed 10-1-2021~ Jia AND cultivated by a preoccupation with morality encourage self-righteousness and masochistic guilt. ~1~ Inherency – either a) the aff is non-inherent and you vote neg on presumption or b) it is and it isn’t logically going to happen.~4~ Proven by the fact that you advocate the plan, also you conceded in cx | 10/10/21 |
SEPTOCT - Theory - Spec MedicineTournament: Jack Howe | Round: 4 | Opponent: Harvard-Westlake SW | Judge: Dylan Liu 4Interpretation: affirmative debaters must delineate what intellectual property they reduce in a delineated line in the 1AC.Four types of IP that are vastly different.Ackerman 17 ~Peter; Founder and CEO, Innovation Asset Group, Inc; "The 4 Main Types of Intellectual Property and Related Costs," Decipher; 1/6/17; https://www.innovation-asset.com/blog/the-4-main-types-of-intellectual-property-and-related-costs~~ Justin AND weigh the competitive significance of your secrets against the cost of protecting them. Violation:Negate:1~ Shiftiness- they can redefine what intellectual properties the 1ac defends in the 1ar which decks strategy and allows them to wriggle out of negative positions which strips the neg of specific IP DAs, IP PICs, and case answers. They will always win on specificity weighing.CX can’t resolve this and is bad because A~ Not flowed B~ Skews 6 min of prep C~ They can lie and no way to check D~ Debaters can be shady.2~ Real World- policy makers will always specify what the object of change is. That outweighs since debate has no value without portable application. It also means zero solvency since the WTO, absent spec, can circumvent aff’s policy since they can say they didn’t know what was affected.This spec shell isn’t regressive- it literally determines what the affirmative implements and who it affectsGive me 30 speaks-anything else is completely arbitrary and encourages intervention | 9/19/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
9/10/21 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
9/11/21 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
9/11/21 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
9/12/21 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
9/18/21 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
9/19/21 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
9/19/21 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
9/5/21 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
9/6/21 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
9/6/21 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
10/9/21 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
10/9/21 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
10/10/21 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
| |
10/16/21 | 23jiad@elmbrookstudentsorg |
|